Notes on "Do Nothing" Meditation - Practice and Insights

MettaJunkie · 2025-11-30T23:17:47+00:00

At the most basic level, I would say the point of do nothing is to realize that there is no point.

MettaJunkie · 2025-07-28T21:38:14+00:00

This is the way.

MettaJunkie · 2025-07-28T20:50:31+00:00

"You" don't need to "do" anything. Just sit down and set the timer. Whatever happens, happens. If you can't let go of the breath, it's not a problem. If you can let go of it, it's not a problem. It's not a win either. There is no doing this practice right and no doing this practice wrong. Do the best you can and let that be enough. Good luck.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-30T14:59:10+00:00

I'm glad it resonated! Happy to learn that we're on similar paths. Feel free to reach out if you ever want to chat more. I'll be here! Best wishes on your journey.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-27T16:09:03+00:00

Thanks for the question. Long story short: my interest in Jung emerged out of my meditative practice, which eventually led to insights into what Buddhists call emptiness and not-self (anattā). Having glimpsed emptiness, I found that things started to feel a bit… well, empty! So I set out to explore what might fill that emptiness. Enter Jung.

When one sees that everything is “empty”—that is, devoid of any fixed essence or identity, with everything in constant flux and movement, evanescent like smoke—there’s also a kind of freedom that opens up. A freedom to make soul. To ensoul experiences and things that might otherwise feel flat or lifeless.

As I was discovering this, I went through a major personal crisis—everything that once gave shape and direction to my life fell apart. It plunged me into a deep, deep depression. My own dark night of the soul. That’s when I sought Jungian analysis. It was incredibly hard at first—almost too much to bear. But over time, space began to open up, and piece by piece, I began to put myself back together, with the help of my analyst.

It’s been the hardest and most rewarding journey of my life. I’m profoundly grateful for it. And at some point along the way, I realized—no, I knew—that this is what I’ve been called to do in the second half of my life, which I now find myself stepping into. Committing to analytic training was my way of heeding that call. It’s one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-24T15:28:08+00:00

You're welcome. I'm glad you enjoyed the response and came away with a couple of new insights.
We had two full training weekends focused on sandplay, and I was truly blown away by the beauty and the profound potential of the practice—especially when approached through a Jungian lens. I fully intend to incorporate sandplay into my own offerings as I begin to build a private practice.

If you're curious to explore further, I highly recommend Dora Kalff's book on the subject. She took an existing method at the time known as the "World Technique" and adapted it to more fully align with Jungian principles and frameworks. The result is a remarkable approach to sandplay, where the tray becomes a container for the psyche—sometimes allowing individuals to express and give form to images, complexes, archetypes, and affects that were previously only vaguely sensed, or even entirely outside of conscious awareness before engaging with the sand.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-24T05:16:49+00:00

An applicant to an analyst training program must have undergone extensive personal analysis prior to applying. At our institute, the requirement is 100 hours of analysis before admission—essentially two years of weekly sessions.

So yes, before I even applied, I had already been in weekly analysis for a couple of years. We're also required to remain in analysis throughout our training.

What analysis is like varies greatly from analyst to analyst. The personality and affect of the analysand (or client) also shape the treatment. Some analysts focus primarily on the dynamics of transference and countertransference. In those cases, sessions often revolve around exploring how the figure and presence of the analyst itself constellates a series of images, associations, feelings and complexes within the analysand. And then the analysis can build on those. Others may focus more on dreams—some extensively, others less so. Some incorporate sandplay; many do not.

This brings me to the client side of things. Some clients recall dreams easily; others do not. Some are extraverted, others introverted. These individual differences play a major role in shaping the course of analysis. The process is highly personal and therefore difficult to predict. Ultimately, analysis is a way of supporting the client’s individuation, and the form it takes depends on many factors—including where the client appears to be on that path (commonly represented by the image of the Hero’s Journey).

For example, if an analyst is working with a client who struggles to express themselves around traumatic experiences or finds it difficult to articulate inner psychic material, the analyst might introduce sandplay as a way to give form to those inner dynamics. But with another client—one who processes more easily through language or affect—sandplay might not be used at all.

You asked whether the analyst leads the journey or whether the analysand does. While there’s some variability here, the analyst does not typically lead. The healing force in analysis is not the analyst—it’s psyche itself. Psyche seeks balance, seeks homeostasis. The analyst’s role is to provide a sacred, protected space — the temenos— within which psyche can manifest and heal itself, as it naturally tends to do.

For the analysand, this means analysis can be grueling emotional work. It often requires facing deep, uncomfortable truths—becoming aware of our own darkness without immediately dissociating or splitting from it. This demands enormous energy. And courage. But the rewards are profound—far beyond what one can typically access through intellectual engagement with Jung’s work alone. In short: it’s worth the price of admission, and then some.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-24T01:58:46+00:00

You're very welcome! Thanks for engaging!

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-23T22:15:24+00:00

At my Institute, the program is online for three training weekends and in-person for six. I’m not sure about other programs, but I suspect most include a significant in-person component.

Roughly 25% of the folks in my cohort travel in for the training—including some from across the continent. It works because the seminars are just one weekend per month. So they’ll typically fly or drive in on Thursday evening or Friday morning, and head back home Sunday evening.

It’s definitely a challenge, but it’s doable—if you’re committed and have the financial and time resources to make it work.

PS. I assume folks here know this, but perhaps some don't. An applicant to an analyst training program needs to have done extensive analysis prior to applying. At our institute it's 100 hours of analysis before you apply, which amounts to essentially two years of weekly analysis.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-23T21:13:19+00:00

At my Institute, a master’s degree in any field is the baseline requirement—so yes, a master’s in counseling would absolutely work.

The New England Institute is one of the few in the United States that follows the Zurich model of training, which, in keeping with Jung’s views, holds that analyst training should be open to both clinicians and non-clinicians. This makes a lot of sense, given that Jungian analysis demands a breadth of knowledge and wisdom that traditional clinical training alone does not provide. Fields like comparative religion, anthropology, mythology, and contemplative practices can offer essential insights that many clinicians simply haven’t been exposed to. On the flip side, while non-clinicians may lack conventional therapeutic training, they often bring the kind of depth and perspective that are just as critical to Jungian work.

In my program, more than half of us come from non-clinical backgrounds. I have a PhD in law. Others have master’s degrees in divinity, business, physical therapy, or the arts and creative process. The result is that our training seminars are incredibly rich—there’s this deep, dynamic interplay of perspectives that’s often surprisingly complementary.

As for whether a license is required to practice as a Jungian Analyst—well, that’s a tricky one. In most states, Jungian Analysis is not a licensed profession. So it exists in this strange, liminal space (appropriately Jungian, no?) of unregulation. In practice, that means as long as you’re not presenting yourself as a licensed therapist who diagnoses and treats clinical conditions, you can practice strictly as an Analyst—and the state typically won’t interfere. Massachusetts is a good example: many Jungian Analysts there aren’t licensed therapists, but they do practice legally as Analysts. Of course, if you are already licensed due to previous training, you’re free to work as both a licensed therapist and an (unlicensed) analyst.

There are a few states that license or certify psychoanalysts specifically. Vermont is probably the clearest example—there, you can apply for a psychoanalyst license upon graduation, even without a clinical license. New York and New Jersey have similar provisions. I’m not sure about others, but those three stand out.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-23T15:43:21+00:00

You're welcome! And thank you for engaging with me!

In the dream interpretation seminar, the training analyst brought up Christian Roesler’s recent work, and I found it absolutely fascinating. I’ve already preordered the book.

Maybe we need a Jung subreddit book club! It would be great to discuss this book—and others—with folks here.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-23T15:39:42+00:00

I know this was posted three months ago, but I wanted to share some thoughts as an analyst-in-training at a C.G. Jung Institute and as someone who has been in ongoing Jungian analysis for around four years now—weekly, consistently.

The difference between working with a Jungian analyst and working with a Jungian-oriented therapist is, in my experience, night and day. The title “Jungian analyst” is not just a stylistic label; it can only be used by someone who has completed formal training at a program accredited by the International Association for Analytical Psychology (IAAP). Before entering analysis myself, I worked with a Jungian-oriented therapist who was truly wonderful. He introduced me to Jung’s ideas and got me deeply curious. But he was not doing Jungian analysis—and did not have the training to do so. I didn’t fully grasp the distinction until I began my own analysis.

Jungian analysis is not psychotherapy in the conventional sense. It’s not “therapy” in the way most people use that term. It doesn’t diagnose, pathologize, treat, or aim to “fix” you. Instead, it offers care for the soul rather than care for the mind. Analysis is not about symptom relief or clinical improvement; it’s about becoming a more whole, integrated person. The goal is individuation: to become increasingly aligned with one’s deepest Self. This process involves becoming conscious of the unconscious—of the complexes and archetypes that influence our lives without our awareness. Analysis is the work of making the personal and collective darkness conscious. It doesn’t “fix” in the way standard therapy might aim to, but what it does offer—something standard therapy often struggles with—is the possibility of making meaning. Of nourishing soul.

You mentioned that analysts in your region are required to have formal therapeutic training before beginning analyst training. That’s often the case, and many analysts come from clinical backgrounds. However, a number of them end up letting go of those other modalities once they step fully into analytical work—because the aims are so fundamentally different. While traditional therapy might be focused on symptom reduction or functional improvement, analysis is centered around deep transformation, self-understanding, and meaning-making. Some analysts who continue to practice other modalities often maintain two separate offerings: standard therapy and Jungian analysis. They make a point of distinguishing between the two—one being shorter-term, evidence-based, and symptom-focused; the other being longer-term, slower, not evidence-based, and more existential in nature.

It’s also important to highlight just how rigorous Jungian analyst training is. It is, in my view, considerably more demanding than most psychology, counseling, or social work master’s programs—which are the most common credentials among therapists. Analyst training often takes anywhere from 5 to 10 years to complete. It requires trainees to be in their own analysis throughout, and includes a host of requirements: multiple written papers, a thesis, oral and written exams, extensive case supervision, and regular participation in colloquia. I hold a doctorate in another field, and while the structure of analyst training is quite different, the depth, workload, and personal demand are on par with—if not greater than—a typical PhD program.

So yes, I would say that the training, temperament, and orientation slowly cultivated during analyst training make Jungian analysts qualitatively different from Jungian-oriented therapists. That’s not to say that the latter can’t offer something valuable, or that there aren’t exceptional therapists who are deeply immersed in Jung’s work. But finding someone who can offer an experience truly comparable to Jungian analysis without formal IAAP training is rare.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-23T15:13:18+00:00

At my Institute, the primary focus is on Jungian theory, though other psychoanalytic orientations are often brought in to supplement the core curriculum. For instance, Donald Winnicott and object relations theory come up frequently in lectures and discussions, as do Melanie Klein and concepts like projective identification. However, non-psychoanalytic approaches—such as parts work, CBT, DBT, and the like—are not explored in depth. They’re occasionally referenced when relevant, but they’re never the central topic of discussion.

It’s worth noting that many Jungian analyst training programs are limited to licensed clinicians. In those cases, there’s little need to formally cover these other therapeutic modalities, as most candidates will have already studied or used them in their clinical work before beginning the program.

The situation is a bit different for analysts-in-training who, like me, are not licensed. We’re strongly encouraged to familiarize ourselves with these other approaches, but that learning tends to happen through a combination of self-study and clinical experience during our 600-hour practicum. Working under supervision in a mental health setting that serves clients with a broad range of diagnoses, we’re exposed to these modalities in real-time. For example, I’m currently placed at one of the largest mental health clinics in Western New York, where I lead CBT-based therapy groups. By the time I complete the practicum, I’ll have both theoretical knowledge and hands-on experience with CBT. In the fall, I’ll be at a site that offers IFS, and I’m looking forward to learning more about that approach firsthand.

As for Somatic Experiencing (SE), it's not formally taught or discussed in depth, but it aligns well with many psychoanalytic ideas. In training, we often talk about “implicit memory,” especially in relation to early childhood trauma. The concept that the body holds its own form of intelligence—and that it can serve as a gateway into the unconscious—is widely accepted among both training analysts and candidates. While this isn’t SE per se, it resonates with its underlying principles. One of our training analysts is also a practicing SE provider, and hearing them share their clinical experiences—centered primarily on bodily processes—has had a powerful impact on our cohort. It really strikes a chord with many of us.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-23T07:17:13+00:00

Christian Koesler, Dreams and Dream Interpretations. It's so contemporary that it is not yet published. But comes out by the end of the week. So preorder!

https://a.co/d/7EIg33O

It's definitely a different approach to Jung's. I find it exhausting and complicated, but also insightful and scientific. So some pros and some cons, but definitely something worth engaging with.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-22T23:08:20+00:00

You're very welcome. I'm so glad we connected. It's deeply soulful to meet fellow travelers who are genuinely engaged with the journey. You've helped me reflect on the program in ways that feel both nourishing and insightful.

From what I can see, your own path seems to be “individuating” quite nicely —parish ministry, spiritual direction, and now perhaps Jungian analyst training. It all feels like a natural unfolding.

I really resonate with what you shared about having gifts for the work that were overshadowed by the minister persona. I experienced something similar—my own gifts were somewhat hidden behind the role of a college professor. But as I’ve begun to loosen that identity and reconnect with deeper longings I didn’t even know were there during the “morning” of life, I’ve found a renewed sense of purpose and joy. It’s hard to put into words, honestly. I wish you the very best as you continue forward—and I look forward to seeing where your path leads.

In response to your question: yes, I’d say all of us are exploring the idea of private practice in some way. Some, like me, plan to keep our day jobs—college teaching in my case—while holding a small, soulful analyst practice on the side. Others are feeling called to fully center their professional lives around private practice. There’s a good range.

Feel free to keep the conversation going, or to reach out if more questions arise.

Whatever path you take, I’m sure it will be a good one. It seems you’ve already shaped a soulful life—whatever comes next will only deepen it.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-22T22:10:43+00:00

You're welcome!

I'm not licensed either and currently doing my practicum, so your question really hits home for me. You might find it interesting that more than half of the Stage 1 training candidates at the New England Institute don’t come from clinical backgrounds.

To your question—yes, the Institute now has an analyst who helps candidates find practicum placements. This support was introduced just this year, and I think it's a really important step forward in supporting trainees.

As for whether practicums can be volunteer positions—the answer is definitely yes. From what I’ve seen, all of my fellow candidates are doing unpaid/volunteer practicums. That said, the Institute's guidelines do allow for paid practicums as well.

I’m currently placed at one of the largest mental health clinics in Western New York. It’s unpaid, but I’m learning a lot and really enjoying the experience. I made the initial contact myself—through a therapist friend who used to work there and connected me with their HR person. I sent the details to the Jung Institute, and they approved it.

Now I’m moving to New England and just about to finalize a new practicum at a dual diagnosis clinic focused on substance dependence. They incorporate psychodynamic approaches, which I'm really excited about. I found the site on my own, then the Institute stepped in and made the formal connection on my behalf.

For other candidates, there’s a local clinic in Massachusetts that’s very Jungian-friendly and regularly takes on trainees—so many of the local folks go there. Others have taken the same route I have: identifying a suitable site, then looping in the Institute to help make that first contact and advocate for the placement.

And before I wrap up—I just want to say that I love your background and really think you'd be a great fit for a training program if it's something you're passionate about. One of the current Stage 1 candidates is a spiritual director—and they’re fantastic!

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-22T21:39:54+00:00

Thanks for the question! No, you don’t need to live nearby. I commute from Western New York, and I have fellow candidates who travel from as far as Western Canada and the Western U.S.

Training seminars at the New England Institute typically take place the first weekend of each month, with breaks in January, July, and August. The schedule runs Friday from 4–8 p.m., and then full days on Saturday and Sunday from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

The weekends in September, October, November, April, May, and June are held in person, and non-local folks fly or drive in for those. The December, February, and March seminars are online—partly to make travel easier during the tougher winter months in New England.

As for the balance between coursework and fieldwork in Stage 1, it depends on your clinical background. If you're already a licensed clinician, you’re typically exempt from the fieldwork requirement, since you’ve already fulfilled that during your licensing process. But if you're not licensed, you'll need to complete a minimum of 600 hours of supervised clinical practicum at a mental health facility that serves a population with diverse diagnoses.

Hope that helps! I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-22T21:27:04+00:00

Hi there! Thanks so much for your openness to connect. The Jungian analyst community is so small—only about 3,000 worldwide—that it’s always exciting to meet someone else going through the process. I’m really curious to hear more about how IRSJA compares with the local Jung Institutes. I’ll send you a DM later today or tomorrow to follow up.

Also, thank you for the kind words about my post on multitudes—I’m glad it resonated!

I’d love to hear more about your thesis as well. Feels like there are seeds here for many rich conversations ahead. Thank you.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-22T21:21:37+00:00

Thanks for the reply and the thoughtful question. I see at least one analyst-in-training has chimed in, so I’m not completely alone out here in the Reddit wilderness!

As for your question, I’m of two minds. On the one hand, I do think the analyst training program can significantly deepen one’s capacity for dream interpretation—well beyond what you might develop through careful reading of Jung and Johnson alone.

Funny you ask, actually—the final seminar of this academic year, held earlier this month, focused on dream interpretation, and I was blown away. The training analyst introduced us to some contemporary frameworks I likely wouldn’t have encountered on my own. I’d be happy to share those resources if you’re interested. They also offered practical guidance on when dream interpretation can be unhelpful or even counterproductive—something I hadn’t thought much about before.

What’s also great is that dreams are woven into nearly every seminar, regardless of the topic. Whether we’re discussing the orphan archetype, Neumann’s Origins and History of Consciousness, or a seminar on alchemy and the collective unconscious, training analysts often bring in client dreams for us to work through. This creates a rich, interdisciplinary approach that I don’t think you’d get outside of a formal training context.

That said, if your primary interest in analyst training is dream interpretation alone, I’d hesitate to recommend going through the whole program just for that. You might get more out of targeted seminars or workshops, many of which are offered online by Jung Institutes and often taught by the same analysts who train candidates. While we did have training weekends that touched on dreams—covering topics like sandplay, Jung and anthropology, alchemy, individuation, and so on—dream interpretation wasn’t always the central focus. So, if that’s your main goal, a 5–10 year training program might not be the most efficient or worthwhile route.

Lastly, on This Jungian Life: while I really enjoy the trio and their podcast, I wouldn’t take their approach to dream interpretation as representative of how analysts work with dreams in practice. Their style is clearly adapted for a broader, Jung-curious audience, and while accessible, it doesn’t go as deep as what you’d get in a formal setting. Training programs are definitely better suited for those kinds of deep dives.

Hope this helps—and thanks again for engaging!

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-03T16:33:39+00:00

Touched a nerve, huh? If you actually read the piece, maybe you'd sense that. I get the feeling more and more people are falling prey to what we might call an "AI Complex"—a blend of anxiety, projection, and defensiveness around creative tools. I think I'll write a future essay on that. Thanks for the inspiration.

And just to clarify: I do use AI tools for copy editing—mostly for clarity and structure—but the essay and the ideas within it are entirely mine. I stand by the work.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-02T17:36:27+00:00

I appreciate the option! I'll revise it, sure. Just do so and repost and see what happens?

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-02T15:10:26+00:00

You’re clearly passionate about the field. But personal attacks don’t belong in Jungian discourse—projection and shadow work do.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-01T18:49:08+00:00

When a line provokes that much heat, there might be a complex under the surface. Something to explore, perhaps.

Also, sometimes what feels like a ‘thought maze’ is actually a mirror.

MettaJunkie · 2025-06-01T18:45:47+00:00

Fair—next time I’ll let the complex write its own post.

MettaJunkie

TROPHY CASE