They take all the problems to the mother and they forget the real father. That is male chauvinistic psychology. The whole psychology is created by man, just as all the religions are created by man. The woman is condemned by the religions, and she is condemned now by the psychologists. In fact the psychologist is slowly taking the place of the priest, because the priest is becoming out of date. Younger generations are no longer interested in the priest; they have seen five thousand years of human history, what these priests have done.
The younger generation is more interested in psychotherapy, in psychoanalysis, in other different methods of psychic exploration. The priest is no longer in the powerful position that he has always been.
So you will be surprised that all the priests in the world are now studying psychology, to become psychotherapists. It is going to become a necessary qualification for every bishop, every priest, to have some degree of psychology, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis – because they are aware that their power is slipping by and the psychologists are replacing them. He is becoming the new priest. But the trouble is, the new priest is also serving the old vested interest; he is not revolutionary.
Is not the proclivity toward psychology and psychiatry appointments, where people are trying to, as they state it, “find out about themselves” somewhat parallel to what you’re offering here?
No, because your psychologists, even the founders – Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, Adler, Assagioli – even they knew nothing about themselves, so what can they provide you to know yourself?
Jung had been to India. He went to see the Taj Mahal, he went to Calcutta, to Mumbai, and everywhere he was told, “You being a great psychologist, the place you should go first is to a man in South India, Maharishi Raman.” That man was conceived by the whole country as one who knows himself. “You should go there and see whether it is true or not. And if he knows himself, perhaps you can learn something from him; if he does not know, you can help him to know.”
But he would not go there, and in his diary he wrote, “I was afraid to go there, to face the eyes of a man who knows himself, because I don’t know myself.” He returned without going to Maharishi Raman. And when he was back he must have been feeling guilty, that this is not right. Going to see the ruins of palaces was worthless for a psychologist; he was not a historian. Going to see big cities, what was the point for him? He must have started feeling guilty, that everywhere he went, every friend he knew, all the professors in all the universities, in all the psychological departments, were pointing toward one man, and he did not go there.
Out of that guilt he started writing against Indian mysticism. He started saying that Westerners should remain aloof to the Eastern tradition of mysticism, because it is dangerous for the Western man. Western man’s development is different, Eastern man’s development is different, their psychologies are different. This he said for the first time after coming back from India.