I was blessed with the opportunity to visit Ramanasramam recently. It was the most profound experience I have ever had in my life. Just sitting in front of Bhagavan Sri Ramana's shrine, there was the complete stillness as if time had stopped. It was overwhelming. Though he is not present physically, I have no doubt that he is guiding seekers spiritually, all my questions have been answered with absolute clarity. I also believe that scientists and psychiatrists try to understand the reality of the mind whereas Sri Ramana says the mind is another thought and the first thought is the "I" thought through which we relate everything. Consciousness is simply playing out in different life forms and it is as it is. Our experience of it through our I thought makes us feel special and assume a separate identity and this is the fundamental issue. People fear that losing this identity means the end of their existence but it is quite the opposite even logically speaking as we would then be able to see ourselves in others and all things as being of one single conscious existence which is total freedom, love and fearlessness as we would then be having a universal identity and not just limited to one human body. Isn't that wonderful?
I've been a student of Ramana and Jung for several decades and believe that Jung avoided meeting Ramana because he understood what Ramana represented was a transcendence of the psyche Jung was so ardently intrigued with. Jung was so entranced and attached with the sphere of mythical experience (yogis might regard as the "astral"), and a meeting with Ramana would require him dropping all of that. I think this video affirmed this understanding.
Yes, your comment is exactly what I've been thinking these days. I study Jung's psychology but at the same time these spiritual gurus teaches us that all we gotta learn is to dis-identify with the body/mind. I'm very intrigued by it coz I don't know if that alone is enough to stop ppls suffering...
You can not escape from the sufferings as long as you are attached to this body. I said ATTACHED that means one has to go beyond body and mind. Funny thing is through mind only one can find the witness that is what is know thyself.🙏
Here I'm thinking why i born such late, why i couldn't meet the ancient soul Shri Ramana. And here a guy who knew very well still did not meet thinking Ramana be just another mystic. One glance from Ramana could have liberated you man. Intelligence causes barrier in surrender for sure.
When Baghvan (God) Ramana was in his deathbed, he consoled the thousands of people gathered by saying, "where can I go, I will be with you always." So, when you think of him, you are visiting him. To get even more palpable experience go to his ashram (unlike Jung) and sit in the hall where Baghvan used to sit - silently.
Sadhu Om once said that those of us who never met Ramana were saved from the delusion that Ramana was the body. Ramana is the self, your self. All you have to do to find Ramana is look within.
In his writing about his visit to India and meeting that holy man he met Jung must have given us one of the most beautiful descriptions of what makes a saint a Saint: “He has found a meaning in the rushing phantasmagoria of being, freedom in bondage, victory in defeat.”
Yes exactly and so absurd that the video speaker doesn't take that seriously and claim that "Jung secretly regretted anyways".. how do you know!? Who are you to claim such BS
@@ZenMasterGee Exactly what I thought. I had the opportunity to meet an artist who's work I admire, but didn't, as I heard stories of his bad behavior, and witnessed it at the event from a distance. I didn't want to soil my view of the art by knowing the downside of it's creator. Not saying Jung anticipated flaws with the guru. But perhaps for him the teachings were more important than the teacher, for any number of reasons, which he did explain in this essay. Totally understandable. Plus, Jung was an introvert. True introverts reading this will understand what I'm saying...the not always needing to meet the people, even if they are highly esteemed. They are just other people.
@@jfo3000 who cares anyway … they are both dead and buried or burnt? Offended on behalf of an ex corpse. Jung regretted that he didn’t have enough sex by the way.
Personally I think the reason why Jung didn't go and see Ramana is the fear that he will be totally overwhelmed. One of the things that a real enlightened man involuntarily does to those in his presence is to emanate silence. In that silence all karmic vasanas will get destroyed. It may seem strange but there is real fear in some people for this because when one's vasanas are destroyed, one loses one's personality. That is the death of the ego. For some that is what they really want. For others who are not quite ready, that can be a very frightening prospect indeed.
I read an article that hypothesized Jung avoided Ramana because his first mentor (Freud) rejected him and his ideas which led to his mental breakdown. Jung healed himself using his own theory. He would need to abandon his own technique and adopt Ramana as his new mentor and father figure which he was incapable of doing because of the trauma associated with his first mentor. Jung did delve into western mysticism and his last book investigated the alchemists. The book on his nightstand when he died was a book on zen by DT Suzuki. He kept the east at arms length by claiming the eastern teachings could not be grasped by the western mind.
@@michaelnice93 Seems like a sane approach and a sign of a degree of understanding. I reckon Osho once spooked about the deep integrity of one's original religious model being deeply ingrained in a human so that any significant work to yield substantial results in development should be grounded in it. Venturing away diminishing the chances of a breakthrough due to the basic incompatibility.
He did meet him. Not in person as everyone wanted him to do, he encountered him as that, what Maharshi really was, and that is not a person or a guru, so he met him in the spirit of India on a much deeper level than personhood could ever describe. Maybe he could not bring that experience into his own teaching, but maybe, that was'nt the way it should have been. Those, who believed he should have met him, they themselves have not understood or felt, what was represented in the form of Maharshi. They just saw in him a Person, a holy man, someone who had reached a certain state, they themselves wanted to reach......... their thoughts and suggestions came from the illusion of separation. If you really open up to the words of Carl Jung in his summary regarding his visit in India you can feel the holy spirit, that is represented in anyone, in everything, no matter, what you call it.
totally agree. By reading Jung's words, it is clear to me that he had a deep glimpsy into Oneness. He experienced "Ramana" everywhere and in any person. Probably after his meeting with the " little holy man" all was understood and there was no more need to be in the physical presence of Ramana because it was everywhere. The little holy man could have been carrying the flame of Ramana, as no more separation disciple/master.
I’m deeply grateful for both of them. Jung was incredibly spiritual while incorporating the worldly mind too. I’ve been using Ramana’s self inquiry for years. I love both of their hugely significant contributions to both myself and the world.
For a brilliant breakdown of the different types of consciousness see on utube Ramana Maharshi Be as You Are Chapter 12 Experience and Samadhi...Sahaja samadhi-the unified field of awareness or Born Again.When the ego is destroyed along with its karmas.
I think you've all got Carl Jung's sentiment on this issue incorrect. He's saying he didn't need to seek out the man because he found him in all things, as his dear friend Heinrich Zimmer had, though he was unable to ever visit India. For the mystical spirit of Ramana Maharshi is not limited to one man in a physical encounter, but is attainable and accessible to all, in all things. This video is misleading.
As Ramana once said... doubt was the last thing to overcome... While fascinated and caught up in the story, " thinking" your way out... is happening in the ever present pure silent awareness of the Self....
Ramana Maharshi was not a person or individual. He had no "I am the body" consciousness similar to ordinary human beings. The "person" that was witnessed by people who visited the ashram in Tiruvannamalai was merely an appearance of the ONE Existence, Consciousness, Bliss, similar to a mirage that we see as a body of water but in fact is only an appearance of it. It is impossible to understand the Reality of Ramana Maharshi, one can only experience It by becoming one with It. Can the human mind understand that Reality that powers it? It is possible to see everything except the eyes that enable one to see!
@@officialteb.spirituality Giving great meanings and make men big in life just makes you guys feel good!!! Typical men looking for heroes!!! One has to give right meaning and interpret right way and associate right things to men and women. For that matter I can make any women or man god like by giving fantastic meanings to their work and personality by adding big philosophical and religious words like you did to Ramana!!!! Just stop 🛑 exaggerating. He just died like ordinary man. Old age emaciated didn’t care his body. A lie become biggest truth if you give enormous meaning and give best interpretations and associate decorative lies and create links that are not true!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 enjoy
People need to understand the difference between the very intellect of our mind and the intelligence we call the life force, what drives the body and mind. In the West, they dealt more with the mind itself than with what created it, and by glorifying intellect, they stopped everything that happened before birth and after death. Unlike the West, Eastern Spiritual Teachers,especially India have prioritized precisely the energy that moves man and passes from one form to another, infinitely many times, that the mind cannot even comprehend such a thing because it is limited by time and space as opposed to the life force or energy itself.. Definitely in order to be able to get out of the frame of mind and body, one has to spiritually overcome everything that connects us to the ego or the current state of consciousness, which is really difficult. With regard, ROMANA from Croatia, Zagreb!!! 🌬️🌀🌌🙏🏻
Ok your comment intrigued me because you introduced me to something I’ve not heard about. You basically made this concept very easy to understand, for that I thank you.
" Carl Gustav Jung was in India. He went to see the Taj Mahal, he went to see Khajuraho, he went to see the temples of Konarak, but he did not go to see Ramana Maharshi. And wherever he went, he was again and again told that "You being one of the topmost psychoanalysts in the West, you should not miss this opportunity of meeting a eastern mystic who has come to his full flowering." He was in the South, within two hours distance he could have reached Ramana Maharshi. For three months he was in India, but he avoided. This cannot be just coincidence. And he himself felt that he needs to give some explanation, otherwise it will be felt that he has been avoiding. And naturally, he was a great intellectual and a great psychoanalyst -- he could find any excuse and any explanation and he found the explanation which is very dangerous. His explanation was back in *Zurich, he gave the statement that he did not go to see Ramana Maharshi because the ways of the East and the West are different and the eastern way is dangerous for the western man because he has developed differently, his tradition is different, his culture is different, his religion is different, his whole psychic development is different. It is dangerous to bring into this different psychology any method from the East because that is developed for a different kind of man, for a different kind of psychology -- that's why I did not go." But this is all rubbish because who was saying to you that you have to follow Ramana Maharshi, who was saying to you that you have to use his techniques, his methods? All that people were insisting was that you should at least see him. Just meeting him would not have destroyed your western psychology. And if it is so weak, so fragile, that just seeing the Ramana Maharshi it is going to be destroyed, then it is not worth -- it should be destroyed and sooner the better. Why waste time with such a weak thing? Ramana Maharshi is not afraid of you. When he was told that Carl Gustav Jung is here and he has been continuously told by every psychologist he is meeting in India that "It is useless to meet professors of psychoanalysis in India because they are simply repeating like parrots what you are producing in the West. It is better to go to see something unique and different so you have a certain comparison. Perhaps he may be coming." And Ramana was overjoyed. He said, "He is welcome. Whenever he wants to come, I am available." And this man is uneducated. He left his home when he was only seventeen. He is not an expert in anything. He is not a logician, he is not a philosopher and he is not afraid of one of the founders of psychoanalysis. He is happy to see him. But the psychoanalyst is a coward. To me this is not just an incident between Jung and Ramana; it is very symbolic, very significant. The western psychoanalysis is afraid because it is based on shifting sands, it has no foundation. So if you ask me, I cannot suggest you small changes here and there. I cannot tell you how you can renovate leaving the old structure intact -- just giving it a new paint, a new arrangement of furniture and things like that. No. The whole structure is from the foundation is wrong. The western psychology has to drop the ego and has to find the real self and that is possible only through meditation. And the East has done it for thousands of years. So it is not something new, it is not something unexplored, it is not something Quixotic. It is something for which centuries stand in support. And not a single meditator has gone mad, not a single meditator has committed suicide, not a single meditator has committed rape. It is not only expertise, intellectual understanding; it is a transformation of the man himself. The psychoanalyst has to be reminded of one of the Socratic sayings: physician, first heal thyself. The psychoanalyst himself is sick, utterly sick. He is not different from the patient. They are in the same boat. He is having the same nightmares, he is suffering from the same mental tensions, he is feeling the same meaninglessness and he is trying to help people who are having the same diseases. How he can be a authority? With what face he can emphasize to the patient that things can be different? His whole personality is not involved in his work. It is only his education. It is something like a man gets educated in the history of art, becomes a great historian about all the art that has happened in the world, but he cannot draw a straight line himself. Because that does not come in the history. That is not a point at all. His expertise is history. This is the situation with the psychoanalyst: he knows everything about the mind, but he does not know how to change it, he cannot change his own mind, because for every change you have to be separate from the thing you are going to change. And he is identified with the mind -- who is going to change whom? Meditation creates the gap. It takes you beyond and behind the mind, then you can change, because mind becomes an object to you. Then you are no more identified with the mind. Then you can rearrange or you can completely change and the mind cannot affect you at all. You are so far away, so above, that the mind cannot reach to you. The mind not reaching to you gives you a tremendous power. You can reach to the mind and you can change anything you want and the mind is for the first time helpless. And you can help your patients for meditation. Right now they are telling to their patients futile exercises of dream analysis. The patient comes twice a week or thrice a week for one hour, talks about all his dreams. And while he is talking about the dreams, sitting behind the couch, do you think the psychoanalyst is listening to him? Is he capable of listening? For that he will need a silent mind which he has not got. Perhaps he is dreaming himself, sitting behind"
You are speaking utter nonsense. Jung had nothing to learn from a mystic because he was one himself. Why would I travel all the way to pick something up if I already have it? There are many mystics. As I pointed out. I'm technically one. Except words are never really what is.
@@mikeydoes all these excuses why can't you people just be honest. Y'all be running from different perceptions rather than y'all own that y'all feel is right.
Psychology always starts with a person and examines what makes a person behave in a certain way in certain circumstances. The thoughts in a person's mind and the influences which causes these thoughts. In Ramana Maharishi's teachings, the "Person"= "I", this itself is a thought and when all thoughts cease to exist this "I" also ceases to exist by merging with the self or emptiness or whatever terminology one can use. So for psychology, the person was the Ground, upon which all the study was conducted upon. And with Ramana Maharishi, the person is just a stage build upon an another ground. Which they say as self or emptiness. This can't be examined unless one experiences. So no matter if one studies scriptures or Ramana Maharishi's teachings doesn't make the person a wise person than a psychologist, like many who are mocking Carl Jung here. Its just a memory or a vritti or knowledge. Realising it and living it every breathing moment is what makes the difference. Ones claiming they are spiritual and psychologists are not wise as their masters, this is just another ego trip and dopamine high one gets by showing that they are holier than others. Just stick with the teaching without worrying about validation from anyone around you. Got this video in suggestion and people mocking carl jung just pissed me off. As long as an "I" Exists, psychology is very much needed for everyone around to get a better understanding about their personality traits and the incidents happening to them. Jung is a phenomenon in psychology who decoded this in a rational way. People here mocking Jung may not rationally realised Jung's teachings or Experientially realised Bhagvan's teachings. This is not healthy.
What a man gives to the world as a concrete understanding of the universe and a solution to the problems of humanity is what makes the man famous. Spirituality by itself is meaningless if it doesn't water the realities of life.
@@officialteb.spirituality Jung knew what God was. You all are still doing Gurus and completely missed his point. I have figured out what you all are pretending you know. And let's be VERY clear that you haven't understood, at all what Jung is saying.
@OfficialTEB You take your mind as reality. Are you out looking for air while breathing? In the financial scene, you are the kinds that post about Warren Buffet and Bill Gates all day long, and concludes that a local entrepreneur who isn't listed by Forbes to be inferior. Jung on the contrary, helped build the bridge for the common men to their own paths.
For those interested: Peter Kingsley, a famous and too much neglected original scholar of the pre-socratic thinkers Parmenides, Empedocles and Zeno of Elea, wrote a two volume piece of work on Jungs 'mysticism' (Catafalque), certainly not from the perspective of oriental wisdom, but from Jung's own background and interest in historical phenomena like alchemy. Highly recommended.
Read Nietzche. He's all about the pre-Socratics. The problem with post-Socratics is they never talk about meaning. This is why modernists, like Freud hated and surpressed Heidegger.
There is a specific music artist who i consider to be my hero in life, who i had 2 chances to meet in person (was quite literally inches away from him) and decided not to each time. the first reason was because i respected him too much to bother him and he seemed rather tired and exhausted after performing all night, and the other reason was because i felt intimidated just by the thought to be in the presence of someone who i respected so much. i was just grateful i got to see his performance in person.
I am glad I never got a chance to meet my hero. He was a generation before my time and passed on to the other side by the time I was in my teens. But I see and feel him in a million places and sounds and images.
No. Jung has basically said: M. is a celeb in a culture of inequality which has put M. there cause M. repeated after the better culture of the West, simply translating it to the Indians while becoming more of a source of their inequality, without anything actually new, original or substantial. Jung was right.
I suggest those who cannot understand English to learn English. Begin by learning how to read. This will make you interesting and eliminate your insultations coming from your ignorance.
He had another path, and provided some beautiful tools and resources of self help and critical thinking. self identifications that overthinkers need to get out of the box of self.
There is no such thing as a "mistake" in going or not the "mahaguru", but a consideration comes out of my mind: "our Her Professor must always be in control and the only rooster in the chickencoop". This was his character and the reason why we now know his name, and his merits, after all.
OMG! THIS VIDEO IS INCREDIBLY PROFOUND, THE JUNGS ANSWER TO HIS FELLOW FRIEND CAUTH ME BY SURPRISE TOTALLY. A TRUE STATEMENT FROM THIS PROFOUND CONNOISSEUR OF THE HUMAN PSIQUE.
I don’t think Jung was afraid as some say here. Ramm Dass studied psychology. And he studied in India under a guru. When he came back he began to reaffirm his identity. When people asked about this conflict in philosophy he said, „It’s nice to reach enlightenment, it’s also nice to know your address.“ This is the paradox that Jung was writing about in his observation of the devotee he met. That man both experienced the holy and lived a life a duty to family and community. Jung was more interested in this Bodhisatva, this Indra, living in the mundane world with all its difficulties, than Maharishi himself.
Ram Dass had a guru. He was not "enlightened" an enlightened person doesn't go to a guru. But what this guy says is completely money. Anyone doubting Jung is just wrong.
Hey, can you perhaps share a (free) source of that info on Ramdass with me? I would very much like to know more about it, hear what Ramdass said about this as I am "struggling" with a similar situation. I'd be very grateful, thanks!🙏🏼😌
Good points. I do not think that at that stage of his life that Jung was fearful. He decided to follow where the spirit led him instead of an expected, predictable meeting of the sage of Tiruvannamalai. Indeed Ramana as Ramakrishna taught that they were merged with the Absolute and therefore could be contacted everywhere, not just in the locus of the physical vessel. Blessed Love.
@@frankhrbolich2282 you read Jung's books? There's no way. If you did read them then you missed all his points. In his passage he literally explains why he didn't need to meet him. It's obvious. Both are mystics. One didn't need to meet the other. Ramana didn't need to meet Jesus, Rumi, or the Buddha.
@@frankhrbolich2282 I went to a zoom lecture in L.A. Ram Dass gave from his residence in Maui in 2010.His aphasia from his stroke was so debilitating that he could barely string together sentences. This to me reflected an ego that needed affirmation.I spent my hard earned money to listen to gibberish.When I mentioned this to one of the staff members at the Taos New Mexico Neem Karoli Baba temple I was basically castigated. My my how some people need to force others not to critique their uppa Gurus,no matter the issue. BTW-Neem Karoli Baba has been my guru since 1998 & his grace has smoothe my path in many ways. Men with ego attachments like Ram Dass or Jung are still in need of feedback, if that is not forthcoming,they eventually turn into a Bagwan Shree Rajneesh-Swami Mutananda or Satya Sai baba,none of which had been seen in Samadhi=the EGO KILLER. See on utube Ramana Maharshi Be as You Are Chapter 12 Experience and Samadhi .
It is like a man who has a chance to meet a billionaire and ask him for financial advice, but he says "No thanks I can read the personal finance books in the library and watch personal finance videos on RUclips."
Jung knew what Ramana knew, he describes it in Liber Novus. Some passages are decidedly non-dualistic. What Jung calls The Star, Ramana calls the Atman. Jung did not meet Ramana for one primary reason, he did not want his scientific reputation tarnished, but Jung knew the limits of science and imagery. Jung did not publish Liber Novus until long after his death for the same reason, so his scientific work would become established, which he knew would be more beneficial to the masses than his own spiritual enlightenment.
On one level it certainly seems like rationalization the way the commentator describes it. There are other possibilities. Carl Jung might have believed that there was a Plan for his life, and that such a meeting would have disrupted that Plan? Perhaps he had unfinished work to perform in his lifetime? Maybe such a meeting would have so altered his path that his body of work would have been brushed aside by his Western audience and lost its usefulness to mankind? Perhaps such a meeting would have been a temptation to skip over steps in his own Atonement, and caused dissonance or disruption of some kind? I do not know.
@@karlk9316 Watts described Jung as a fully-integrated man. Maybe Jung just didn't feel the need. Perhaps he'd already crossed the river and left the raft on the bank. Either way, I thought his description of meeting the little holy man was gorgeous and likely a more powerful testament for those who hear it, since we're all more like the little holy man than we are like the lauded saint.
You all are very wrong and clueless to what Jung said. Jung and Ramana would agree. You are threatening Ramana as a guru..of you have a guru then you don't know. Jung didn't need a guru, he was one.
My feeling is that Carl Yung kept away, physically, from Remana Mahrishi, as he internally scared of a cathartic change in himself, which would have lead him to complete sainthood. It happened to the French monk, Henry Le Saux, who is later known as Swamy Abhishiktananda. And many others, which I only assume.
I always felt that those who become ‘ascetics’ can NOT truly understand Advaitin knowledge. Only a householder can. There are suggestions of this in so many Vedantic writings as well as Yoga Vasistha and Mahabharata. That is a true Jivanmuktin who lives in the world fully while knowing that there is more than this limited reality we observe. As in the story of Cudala, the king who becomes an ascetic is approaching the world in more maya and avidhya.
I think many don’t get Ramana’s life path. While he was no householder he was engaged with the world. He did not avoid responsibility he was swept up in a rapture for the divine before he had a chance to start a family and it dominated his attention. He always advocated for householders to not abandon their responsibilities. It just turned out the way it did for him because of Karma. He engaged with the world plenty, operating the kitchen, planning and supervising projects and of course acting as a spiritual teacher for thousands.
@@michaelnice93 Absolute correct. Sri Ramana insisted that whether you're a householder or take sannyasa (become a monk) you cannot easily "escape" your mind and gave practical guidance based on the advancement and temperament of all those who came to him.
Jung needed to find enlightenment in his own way. To visit an Indian holy man would've been like jumping to the last page of a book. He needed to read the whole book first, only then would he be ready to receive enlightenment, which would be as a result of his own unique journey. It was this very natural process he called individuation. Jung was not a man who put much faith in short-cuts !
In some ways Jung understood that the Real Sri Ramana Maharshi was not residing at Arunachala . Genuinely Enlightened Sages are not limited by time or space , that it is why it is still possible to feel His Living Presence here and now. 🙏🕉️🕊️
It is only through divine grace that one gets to meet a being like Ramana Maharishi. CJ probably wasn't destined for this Grace. My other guess is - Jung was too much under the spell of his mind and intuitively knew that his lifetime of intellectual work could shatter into pieces after meeting the Maharishi who was beyond mind. After watching this video, I am surprised to know that Carl Jung did not cultivate humility.
@@muralikrish7482 no it wasn't. You all better didn't listen to what Jung said or have no idea what he's talking about. He's saying the same thing a Ramana would.
@@frankhrbolich2282 I can't say I know much about CJ or the Maharishi for that matter. One was an explorer of human psyche and the other had crossed that frontier while still a teenager. One knew the absolute truth but the other kept up his lifelong research without ever finding it. I do not deny the great contribution that Jung has made to the pool of human knowledge. And I do not doubt his sincere desire to mitigate human suffering. However, I do believe that we give undue importance to our intellectual prowess and we have forgotten the fact that it has its limitations. "Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment." Rumi used to say. My comment (above) was/is purely based on what I have seen in this video. I may be wrong but I find Jung's remarks, despite his academic sophistication, on the Maharishi a tad condescending. And his poetic commentary on India seems like a borrowed echo from Zimmer and Hermann Hesse. He was on top of his game when he visited India and I feel he did not want to risk his worldwide celebrity status by meeting someone who could read his mind like an open book. I mean no disrespect to Carl Jung - this is just my humble observation.
I totally understand where he was coming from. He understood several basics or precepts first of all, that preclude the 'specialness' of meeting just such a mystic: 1.) Mystics find their 'enlightenment' by disavowing or almost completely detaching from reality itself, thusly enabling their insights only via 'defeat' - because one cannot scrutinize life at such a level and simultaneously participate in it. 2.) He understood that the mystic, of all his archetypes, is perhaps among the oldest prototypes of all humanity - especially since India was another cradle of civilization, especially in terms of religions since Hinduism is among the oldest recorded religions and caste systems around. 3.) He understood that the man might more easily be either a disappointment or merely 'an everyman of that type' than a particular prodigy of his field since it stretches out to time immemorial and is easily among the most taken-up castes of all time... 4.) He felt he had absorbed 'quite enough and then some' (to paraphrase a bit) of the energy of the impression or teachings left behind by this famous person moreso than seeing the representation himself might bequeath to him. 5.) He felt at least somewhat beholden to the expansion of his field, which might've withered on the vine if he had rededicated himself in the way suggested. 6.) Most importantly of all, I believe from his writings (admittedly knowing little of the details but only the gist of his works in his career...) that he caught a 'glimpse' as it were, in those moments spent in India, a glimpse into not only the patterned thinkings and doings/not-doings of the Holy Man archetype but in general into the interrelationship or interconnectedness of the Holy Man's soulful gesturings and society itself, a 'dance of the Avatar' if you will, throughout recorded history, now still stolidly echoed throughout India as its main bastion. The sacrifices and dedication involved - the impact of the soulfulness and intent - the role throughout history - and, having seen it for what it was without having once met the man - he knew he got what he needed, for his journeys and his role in history.
I think you'd have to be near insane to believe Jung wasn't aware of the deeper truth of the human spirit. The same way some people don't wake up totally to help others wake up, some people learn about aspects of the dream to help people wake up
Itihasa is NOT mythology. Mythology is what we believe currently in the West regarding the age of civilization and the importance of India in this context. Poor Jung, by overthinking everything, he missed out on the very most important moment of his life!
Rather disappointed in Jung for his "you've seen one; you've seen 'em all" approach to Bhagavan. Shaktipat notwithstanding, what a remarkable opportunities to be in the presence of an avatar - even if he believed it in reputation alone. David Godman's writing about Sri Ramana Maharshi is storied and illuminating. His channel and interview with Anthony Chene are both great. Namaste, all.
Most certainly Jung was eluding to the shallowness of grand Indian narrative of divinity and mysticism as well as hollowness of saintly personalities from India by referring to the greatness of common Indian man submerged in materiality and worldliness and still trying his level best to balance between spiritual, humane and practical- which is 1000 times greater than anyone like Vivekanand or Raman Maharshi or Krisnamurti in many ways who are lost to their spiritual juggling. In nutshell Jung was fully aware of the supernatural jugglery of Indian mystics. Also being a psychologist himself Jung was more into facing own demons head on rather than altogether forgetting or dissolving own self into void or advait.
He was already overwhelmed and overpowered by him when he visited the country. He saw him everywhere and in every person, objects or things! He experienced his omnipresence!
I am very happy this appeared on my feed. I am very much interested in jung but also convinced of nonduality. Anyhow it appears to me that discipline and a certain amount of belief is unavoidable to get 'it'.
The real reason Carl Jung avoided Ramana Maharshi is the same reason Jung wouldn't have met with Padre Pio or Sri Aurobindo: These men lived in a consciousness beyond the mere mental. Jung was afraid of going beyond the mind he so loved and the unconscious he loved to explore. Jung was afraid of experiencing something that made his prior understandings relatively meaningless. Fear. Fear that his "knowledge" would be shown "ignorance." Fear that his "wisdom" would be shown "foolishness." Fear that his stature would shrink and shrivel. Fear. There is an Indian parable of a sage instructing an aspirant to "go farther." That aspirant set out on his journey and every time he came across something wonderful and fulfilling, he remembered the sages advice to "go farther." So each time he didn't stop and settle for his achievement but "went farther," eventually becoming fully enlightened. Jung was not such an aspirant. He didn't want to "go farther." What he had already achieved gave him name and fame and wide respect. Jung had no intention of giving that up, so he feared meeting Ramana Maharshi in person. Fear.
Agreed. The limitations of Jung are obvious, seen from an Eastern perspective. He may be "enlightened" in a Western sense, but in an Eastern sense, he was clearly a "beginner". Not surprised Jung "didn't want to" meet the saint. Probably a good thing, since it likely would have 'shattered" him, and all his delusions about what he "thought" he knew.
So Jung didn't fear the unconscious @@KenjiSummers. I already said he loved to explore the unconscious. What he feared was experiencing something that made his mental conclusions obsolete. Confronting scary visions can strengthen the ego. The fact that Jung relished this doesn't mean he was "fearless." The fear of losing everything you base your self-identity and self-worth on is a completely different category and type of fear.
Just ordered a book "Apprenticed to a Himalayan Master " written by Sri M . A Muslim born man who in his early age went to Himalayas in search of Mystic and came back as a Yogi . India is full of mysticism and interesting stories for sure .
In India Jung did meet average spiritual teachers but the two greatest ones he purposely avoided. I have spent many seasons in India and Ramana Ashram and have also some background with Jung's work. A number of times friends that were not deeply willing to go for enlightenment would be very available to meet the second rate swami's but would beg off when I asked if they would like to come with me to meet the great ones. Jung's answer about the Maharshi sounds good but I know enough of what he said to not buy it. it seems really he just couldn't face the great ones.
PS Unless someone is a practicioner of a religious system they can not really know it. I have seen authentic gurus say things that were incorrect about other systems. Jung was a great doctor for mentally ill people and helpful to the rest of us but his comments about deep spirituality are not those of an experienced adept.
Ich habe dieses Buch, Hinrich Zimmer und Karl Jung kannten sich ja gut. Heinrich Zimmer, Der Weg zum Selbst. hat er ein Vorwort und die Begründung. er war nicht wie Ramesh S. Balsekar ein Familienvater. Ramanas Aufgabe war auch eine viel universellere. Immerhin, Carl Jung war selbst in Indien, nicht wie Hermann Hesse. Er nennt Ramana den leuchtetsten aller Guruarchetypen Indiens, ja, das mag stimmern. Aber es ist viel zu wenig. Denn er hat der Welt als erster Mensch überhaupt erklärt wo die Quelle allen Seins entsprichgt. An Ramana kommt man noch viel weniger vorbei als an C.G.Jung, ein Turgauer...ein Zürcher... ein Liebhaber des Taoismus, ein sehr interessanter Sexologen, aber kein Mystiker wie im Kern. Gandhi stand auch vor den Toren eines der grössten Mystikers der Neuzeit, aber er wollte sich nicht aufsaugen lassen, seine Politik zuende führen. Aber Jung hat tatsächlich eine Chance verpasst.
Des sous-titres français sont également disponibles. Veuillez cliquer sur le bouton "cc" dans la vidéo. Veuillez noter que les sous-titres sont générés par un logiciel d'intelligence artificielle et peuvent ne pas être exacts.
You are absolutely correct. He was worried that the scientific community will see him as unscientific and they will throw the baby out with the bath water. That would also ruin his career. Hence he always maintained distance though he knew what was right. That said, he did come out in open after his retirement.
We’ll, if anything Jung showed how our mind is a great tool but it can be a great hindrance if we want to go further towards self realization, a great example of what not to fear 🙏🏽 great Documentary, thank you 🙏🏽
This is insightful, sri ramana, on answering devotees who travelled from near and far to see him and know him, were asked, why come this far to know/understand what one could easily arrive at without any such efforts? Jung knew the real without having to follow his thoughts or thoughts of others directions or implications as to what real is or could be.
Yeah and felt he couldn't continue his way of being, call it his work or his research without dying.. e g loosing the ego.. e.g. becoming a sannyassin or a follower of Ramana.. in other words, let's face it scared like hell he was..
Sumeru.. I am with you! What is the harm in meeting him?…unless something bothering you about meeting him personally.. If you say, “I already know him” I call bs.. if you already know him, then you would surely want to meet him.. Oh well, Jung’s loss, his business..
@@SUMERUP c'est exactement ce que je pense. Une crainte de voir disparaître cet ego dont il avait un absolu besoin pour poursuivre sa carrière. Dommage!
i still didnt get why he didnt visit him and who exaclty the indian mystic was. the whole clip goes on and on about how great he was, but not about why and what he did and what was so great about him
Compassion is something we experience whether it comes from us or from beyond. It is necessary to life, health and sanity. But, we only know this because of honesty and freedom, which we find in living.
@@integralsun I saw it on one of his interviews....knowing and believing are two different things he split from Freud because of Freud's lack of spirituality.
Jung said he doesn't believe in God any more because he knows God. As Morpheous said to Neo, "there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path.
He was asked that question in his 1959 movie interview. To my recollection he only said, "I know, I know". All I took that to mean was that he was a man of knowing, not believing. Belief was not his way. That from research he knew the God Imago, the archetype, is clear. Answer to Job deconstructs Yaweh. But I was in my 20's....
Thanks for this. I would add that Jung's father made a powerful impression on him. His father was also a "holy man," but someone Jung considered to be an ultimately tragic figure. His father was intelligent and well-educated, but Jung saw his him as wasted potential and trapped in his profession of minister as a means to support the family. Losing faith would have threatened everyone's survival. Fear of that hung in the air, which had to be strange in a family populated by ministers, (and one of Jung's earliest memories was of being terrified by a Jesuit priest coming down the road, only because I think he had picked up on what that “other religion” meant to his Protestant father). Jung hated how deliberately limited his father's library was and felt it was a profound betrayal of the intellect for his father to eschew certain authors, just because they might raise questions or instill doubt. Later on, he was horrified when he realized his father lacked the sense of divine grace Jung had experienced himself. Not only was Jung's revelatory experience not in alignment with anything traditional, it had a real rebellious streak to it. All it required was for Jung to surrender to it (something his father, the ever-devout and disciplined figure that he was, could never do). I think that throughout his childhood, Jung wrestled with a feeling that may not have been entirely his own: the sense that religious symbols, in themselves, were empty; and tradition without revelation was meaningless. This might have been his father’s secret struggle more than his. Jung also grew up with "God is Dead" Nietzsche and later, his friend S. Freud went to great lengths to convert him to a certain way of thinking. He tried to impress Jung with how vitally important it was to dismiss all mysticism or paranormal experiences as nothing, and rely only on empiricism (in the form of sexualizing almost everything). Freud's determination to excise everything mysterious seemed like an obsession to Jung. I suspect that to Jung, both his father and Freud were different sides of the same coin. Both had had their own forms of the fear of losing faith and both had willfull blindness. This all happened with the background of a culture torn between God and science... During Jung’s childhood and college years, Europe was experiencing a deep questioning of religion, tradition, and spirituality. Who knows what the prospect of meeting Ramana Maharshi would have represented to Jung? But I suspect his thoughts may have turned back to his father, the first “holy man” in his life.
I think Jung undersood the symbol that man represented to all India, at the same time knowing that no man is all holy or all wisdom, and by meeting him, he would have to tell the truth: everyone has its shadow, no man can completly know himself and that is the way of life. There is always something more to uncover from our heritage. So much pain and sorrow buried deep in our genealogical tree. If that man inspired other people to know themselves and strive to be better, why should he expose him? Uncovering his humanity would take away his holiness from the eyes of people and with that, their hope. That is why he was happy meeting his disciple; in anonimity, without holy titles, that little man represented more truthfully his masters teachings, and that is what is wonderful. Seeing the Truth working in daily life.
Asserting that "everyone has a shadow" is just a metaphoric projection of Jung's possible schizophrenia onto others - and of course, a good excuse to carry on as he did with running a sex cult.
Because he could not see Truth in the face; it would have exposed his limitations. He could not translate theory into practice. But in reality that is what we all also do. We all talk about Truth. Instead, we should practice it.
Quite the opposite of your statement. Jung was actively practicing his theories through his patients. In fact, the only reason he reached for theories was because he saw them manifest through his practice. To simplify his words of not seeking out the man, I ask you this question; Do you have the desire to look at your own reflection in the mirror?
@@heavycurrent7462 until one has reached nirvikalpa samadhi one is still in the realm of theory. I’m pretty sure Ramana Maharishi had reached at least the state of sabikalpa samadhi, if not the ultimate nirvikalpa samadhi. Who wouldn’t want to meet a self-realized Master? I believe that Bhagwan Rajneesh discussed this in one of his discourses. It may have been in his book The Mustard Seed.
Carl Jung's response to meeting Ramana Maharshi made me think of this particular excerpt from The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker, which addresses a very similar phenomenon put forth by Soren Kierkegaard - " Outwardly he is completely a 'real man'. He is a university man, husband and father, an uncommonly competent civil functionary even, a respectable father, very gentle to his wife and carefulness itself with respect to his children. And a Christian? Well, yes, he is that too after a sort; however, he preferably avoids talking on the subject....He very seldom goes to church, because it seems to himthat most persons really don't know what they are talking about. He makes an exception in the case of one particular priest of whom he concedes that he knows what he is talking about, but he doesn't want to hear him for another reason, because he has a fear that this might lead him too far". "Too far" because he does not really want to push the problem ofhis uniqueness to any total confrontation.
I do not think that Jung were afraid of meet him, is only that they follow differents ways to reach the self, Ramana with meditation and silence and Jung incorporating the unconcius to the ego using other methods that requires for example active imagination and other tecniques that are the oposite of the emptiness of the mind, so even if he respects Ramans ( as we can read in Jungs writtings) they are following different paths to reach the self
Jung's words on this are a bunch of fluffy goofiness masking his immense neurotic phobia of the changes that might take place in himself if he were to meet an enlightened being. Because such an experience I think he feels intuitively might undercut his ego too close for comfort and so he avoided having such an experience as that it was deemed personally threatening. I don't believe Jung neglected to meet Romana Maharshi because he feared being disappointed but because he had this fear of losing part or all of the ego structure which he had built and cherished.
I understand that Jung also ran somewhat of a cult with groupies; had at least one mistress alongside his wife, etc. It's strange nobody in these comments questions the very trivial motive of base sexuality. What ego transcendence could we even talk then?
Click the "cc" button on the video. You will see the option for German language. But please note that the German translation is generated by an Artificial Intelligence software and the translation may not be accurate.
What a shame. He had a chance to see the Truth that he had been searching for all his life. Jung was a man with an enquiring mind. Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi could not and can not be defined. Knowingly Jung threw away the opportunity for Darshan with Bhagavan Maharshi. Incomprehensible. Perhaps it was related to Zimmer as he referred to Maharshi as being "the latest holy man" as if it were a flavor of the month or a fad.
Jung's basic aim was contrary to that of the Eastern mystic, who seeks to surrender the ego to the non-dual Oneness. Jung believed that only in holding onto and strengthening the ego can one Avoid being subsumed into and disintegrated by the Mass Mind, the vast Unconscious. Jung sought Individuation, rather than assimilation into the Whole.
Also Jung told that one must have strengthening the ego for the upcoming battle with the unconscious...because there will be a great war before the union of opposites...
To Jung, Ramana Maharshi's ego was dissolved into "The Sage" archetype of Collective Unconcious, thus meeting Ramana was unnecessary because Jung already know many cases like that. What interested Jung was the devoted man who both in touch with his "family duty" reality (ego) and spiritual life at the same time. Carl Jung's individuation process is about keeping the ego strong enough for a human consciousness not be annihilated by any archetype of the unconscious, including it's specific shadow. It's good to see your fair view in this topic full of hatred comments for Jung.
You clearly don't understand what individuation is. Yes, we are a collective whole. You clearly have never heard of the collective unconscious from Jung.. But every individual experiences things as an individual, as Ramana points to. Only you have the answers. If you go to Jung or Ramana you have admitted you're confused by doing so. We are already connected. Pretending that we need to say we are all connected/1 is for people who don't understand.
Yes, it may seem very contradictory that C Jung decided to not seek out Shri Ramana (or any other “Holy man”) while in India. My interpretation is that Jung was wise enough to understand what that would have meant for him. It is not unreasonable to think a very primal form of fear, the type of fear that arise from a deep questioning of self itself, arose in him? It should have! Believe me, the experience of India can be both the most inspiring and exhilarating experience for someone inclined towards the spiritual dimension. But it can also be the most frightful experience of all for someone that is really seeking out the true wisdom beyond the self. I believe C Jung knew this and decided not to take that next step in his development at that time. That is the most personal and private decision anyone can encounter and no one else can have any opinion about that. Only the truly free and enlightened being will understand this and such being would never ever dream of criticizing someone for being hesitant. If you decide to step into and commit to the wisdom realm of a genuine guru, then total abandonment is essential. I believe C Jung understood this and knew he was not yet ready for that, at that time. How many of us can honestly say that we are mature enough to step into such a relationship right now? To go beyond ego and all concepts is only possible when other avenues of inquiries have been exhausted. That’s when a true guru appears to us and we can commit to the complete destruction of our own personal construction.
Carl Jung wrote this essay as the introduction to a book about Ramana Maharshi by Heinrich Zimmer. Paragraph numbers are from Jung’s Collected Works: C.G. Jung, The Collected works, Volume Eleven, Psychology and Religion: West and East. Part V111, The Holy Men of India, Paragraph 950, 951, 952, 953.
I LOVE both these men but that's a lot of words & assumptions from Mr. Jung, it makes sense that something else was going on as u say. BTW, as a Tibetan Buddhist, I think our yidam practice is MOST similar to Jung than other practices in mysticism, as you use an 'archetypal deity' as your yidam & become the deity to transform your mind. The ultimate goals are different but they're pretty similar.
In my analysis, Jung was simply frightened for losing his entire mundane identity for which he was not ready as he still had to continue his work in the empirical world. I feel that he was in touch with Bhagwan telepathically. How is it possible that the Maharishi, who was omniscient, wasn't connected with Jung?
is it possible to have a french version of this video ? ( or just the text ). Est t'il possible d'avoir une version francaise de cette video ? (ou simplement le texte ) merci !
You can click on the "cc" button in the video and you will see the option to turn on the French translation. Please be aware that the translation is done by an artificial intelligence software and so it may not be very accurate. Vous pouvez cliquer sur le bouton "cc" dans la vidéo et vous verrez l'option d'activer la traduction française. Veuillez noter que la traduction est effectuée par un logiciel d'intelligence artificielle et qu'elle peut donc ne pas être très précise. 🙏🙏🙏
Purposely dodging Ramana Maharshi is like someone from the 1960's purposely avoiding going to see the Beatles. Ramana didn't even charge. People were able to walk into the mahsrshi's ashram and be with the guy. You didn't even need a ticket.
I saw a lot of people saying, Carlo Jung didn't go since he is scared. I want to share one true life story here: I was born in China in non religious family. When I was about 10, I have a little stone made Buddhism figure that I secretly worship when I pray although no one taught me. When I was a teenager and later a college student, I wore a necklace carried a Buddhist figure on my neck for years. One day, when I finally came to the US for graduate school, on the airplane when I left China, the necklace broke. I collected all the pieces and repaired and wear it again the first week in US, yet it broke again. I put this in a tin box and decided to fix it but it was just disappear mystically. All I want to see is that you don’t know what you don’t. For those who judged Jung to be scared or just intellectual rather wisdom, my suggestion is that, you meditate and find yourself in silence. West and East religious beliefs are different and they both hasve so much wisdom and origines that we don't know. But heart is sincere and thoughtful then you will find god. Regardless how many centuries it takes.
From a purely objective point of view, it’s entirely inappropriate to recount a matter of history with an obvious bias that has no basis in evidence. Nobody knows what Jung’s true feelings were after not meeting with this guru, and to assume as much is irresponsible as a content creator. If you have an opinion, make a separate video separate from content veiled in historical recounting. Furthermore, the video content as well as the commenters here seem to have an obvious air of competition, eastern devotee vs western. How ironic, though, to miss the point entirely is about as typical as can possibly be regarding the wake of holy men. Two great men who did two great things for humanity. I’m sure there’s a reason for the disconnect that is much more nuanced than what’s been stated here so far.
I have a strong feeling of misinterpretation here. Where do you get the information, that Jung felt regret about not having met him? I heard a very clear and strong transmission in his words about not projecting too much power on to a guru, when you can simply admire the Indian spirit without seeking anyone or anything, by being awake, which is an extremely potent wisdom right there.
An Excellent & Wonderful documentary....Thank you🙏
Thanks for watching! 🙏🙏🙏
There's more content on our channel. Do check it out.
@@officialteb.spirituality pi of
My comment because he was not interested marwalo apni
Mysticism begins where Intellectualism ends
I was blessed with the opportunity to visit Ramanasramam recently. It was the most profound experience I have ever had in my life. Just sitting in front of Bhagavan Sri Ramana's shrine, there was the complete stillness as if time had stopped. It was overwhelming. Though he is not present physically, I have no doubt that he is guiding seekers spiritually, all my questions have been answered with absolute clarity. I also believe that scientists and psychiatrists try to understand the reality of the mind whereas Sri Ramana says the mind is another thought and the first thought is the "I" thought through which we relate everything. Consciousness is simply playing out in different life forms and it is as it is. Our experience of it through our I thought makes us feel special and assume a separate identity and this is the fundamental issue. People fear that losing this identity means the end of their existence but it is quite the opposite even logically speaking as we would then be able to see ourselves in others and all things as being of one single conscious existence which is total freedom, love and fearlessness as we would then be having a universal identity and not just limited to one human body. Isn't that wonderful?
🫂🫂🫂❤️
I've been a student of Ramana and Jung for several decades and believe that Jung avoided meeting Ramana because he understood what Ramana represented was a transcendence of the psyche Jung was so ardently
intrigued with. Jung was so entranced and attached with the sphere of mythical experience (yogis might regard as the "astral"), and a meeting with Ramana would require him dropping all of that. I think this video affirmed this understanding.
@Maxim Kramer Really appreciate your valued comment here. Thanks a ton.
Yes certainly. He was, after all, a farm boy, first sparked by a local medium and at heart probably still startled by what he labeled supernatural.
It seems Jung was afraid of the fact that his whole edifice of his life would have crumbled.
Yes, your comment is exactly what I've been thinking these days. I study Jung's psychology but at the same time these spiritual gurus teaches us that all we gotta learn is to dis-identify with the body/mind. I'm very intrigued by it coz I don't know if that alone is enough to stop ppls suffering...
You can not escape from the sufferings as long as you are attached to this body. I said ATTACHED that means one has to go beyond body and mind. Funny thing is through mind only one can find the witness that is what is know thyself.🙏
Avoiding a bonafide Buddha is like a Beatles fan knowing John Lennon was in the cafe next door, and he wanted to meet you, but you stay away. Imagine!
Well said! 🙏❤🙏
Imagine... nice touch!
Here I'm thinking why i born such late, why i couldn't meet the ancient soul Shri Ramana. And here a guy who knew very well still did not meet thinking Ramana be just another mystic. One glance from Ramana could have liberated you man. Intelligence causes barrier in surrender for sure.
Well said! 🙏🙏🙏
When Baghvan (God) Ramana was in his deathbed, he consoled the thousands of people gathered by saying, "where can I go, I will be with you always." So, when you think of him, you are visiting him. To get even more palpable experience go to his ashram (unlike Jung) and sit in the hall where Baghvan used to sit - silently.
Sadhu Om once said that those of us who never met Ramana were saved from the delusion that Ramana was the body. Ramana is the self, your self. All you have to do to find Ramana is look within.
If Mr.Jung could have visited the Saint I feel that he would have remained silent throughout his rest of life
Like J D Salinger.
In his writing about his visit to India and meeting that holy man he met Jung must have given us one of the most beautiful descriptions of what makes a saint a Saint: “He has found a meaning in the rushing phantasmagoria of being, freedom in bondage, victory in defeat.”
Yes exactly and so absurd that the video speaker doesn't take that seriously and claim that "Jung secretly regretted anyways".. how do you know!? Who are you to claim such BS
@@ZenMasterGee Exactly what I thought.
I had the opportunity to meet an artist who's work I admire, but didn't, as I heard stories of his bad behavior, and witnessed it at the event from a distance. I didn't want to soil my view of the art by knowing the downside of it's creator.
Not saying Jung anticipated flaws with the guru. But perhaps for him the teachings were more important than the teacher, for any number of reasons, which he did explain in this essay. Totally understandable.
Plus, Jung was an introvert.
True introverts reading this will understand what I'm saying...the not always needing to meet the people, even if they are highly esteemed. They are just other people.
@@jfo3000 who cares anyway … they are both dead and buried or burnt? Offended on behalf of an ex corpse. Jung regretted that he didn’t have enough sex by the way.
Why exactly does that mean, Jung’s definition of a saint? It’s sounds profound but I can’t really understand the meaning of it
by calling him "selfabsorbed" and subsequently not meating him at all ?
Personally I think the reason why Jung didn't go and see Ramana is the fear that he will be totally overwhelmed. One of the things that a real enlightened man involuntarily does to those in his presence is to emanate silence. In that silence all karmic vasanas will get destroyed. It may seem strange but there is real fear in some people for this because when one's vasanas are destroyed, one loses one's personality. That is the death of the ego. For some that is what they really want. For others who are not quite ready, that can be a very frightening prospect indeed.
You have perfectly explained it. Thank you.
🙏❤🙏
I read an article that hypothesized Jung avoided Ramana because his first mentor (Freud) rejected him and his ideas which led to his mental breakdown. Jung healed himself using his own theory. He would need to abandon his own technique and adopt Ramana as his new mentor and father figure which he was incapable of doing because of the trauma associated with his first mentor.
Jung did delve into western mysticism and his last book investigated the alchemists. The book on his nightstand when he died was a book on zen by DT Suzuki. He kept the east at arms length by claiming the eastern teachings could not be grasped by the western mind.
@@michaelnice93 Seems like a sane approach and a sign of a degree of understanding. I reckon Osho once spooked about the deep integrity of one's original religious model being deeply ingrained in a human so that any significant work to yield substantial results in development should be grounded in it. Venturing away diminishing the chances of a breakthrough due to the basic incompatibility.
That's very true, if one who is not ready goes through that they could commit suicide.
Osho was quite right about that. @@Szymon_So
Sri ramana must smile with love at this
🙏🙏🙏
So awesome. Many thanks and many blessings for such a beautiful, beautiful video. Aloha.
Thank you for watching the video and for your kind words! 🙏🙏🙏
everyone seems to be forgetting the question was who am I not who is ramana maharshi
This is true. 🙏🙏🙏
yesss
He did meet him. Not in person as everyone wanted him to do, he encountered him as that, what Maharshi really was, and that is not a person or a guru, so he met him in the spirit of India on a much deeper level than personhood could ever describe.
Maybe he could not bring that experience into his own teaching, but maybe, that was'nt the way it should have been. Those, who believed he should have met him, they themselves have not understood or felt, what was represented in the form of Maharshi. They just saw in him a Person, a holy man, someone who had reached a certain state, they themselves wanted to reach......... their thoughts and suggestions came from the illusion of separation.
If you really open up to the words of Carl Jung in his summary regarding his visit in India you can feel the holy spirit, that is represented in anyone, in everything, no matter, what you call it.
🙏🙏🙏
totally agree. By reading Jung's words, it is clear to me that he had a deep glimpsy into Oneness. He experienced "Ramana" everywhere and in any person. Probably after his meeting with the " little holy man" all was understood and there was no more need to be in the physical presence of Ramana because it was everywhere. The little holy man could have been carrying the flame of Ramana, as no more separation disciple/master.
Good points
Presance is presance is presance by any Otter name
I’m deeply grateful for both of them.
Jung was incredibly spiritual while incorporating the worldly mind too.
I’ve been using Ramana’s self inquiry for years.
I love both of their hugely significant contributions to both myself and the world.
The same self that is grateful and reckons there is time persistently enquires. Notice who is watching you navigate yourself? 😉
For a brilliant breakdown of the different types of consciousness see on utube Ramana Maharshi Be as You Are Chapter 12 Experience and Samadhi...Sahaja samadhi-the unified field of awareness or Born Again.When the ego is destroyed along with its karmas.
🙏🙏🙏
How can their work impacted you? And can you explain why you mean when you said Jung also incorporated the worldly mind?
@@tr7b410 I’ve listened many times ❣️🙏 it’s excellent indeed
I think you've all got Carl Jung's sentiment on this issue incorrect. He's saying he didn't need to seek out the man because he found him in all things, as his dear friend Heinrich Zimmer had, though he was unable to ever visit India. For the mystical spirit of Ramana Maharshi is not limited to one man in a physical encounter, but is attainable and accessible to all, in all things. This video is misleading.
yesss
As Ramana once said... doubt was the last thing to overcome... While fascinated and caught up in the story, " thinking" your way out... is happening in the ever present pure silent awareness of the Self....
🙏🙏🙏
!!!!! Wow! Thank you! Gives such a glimpse into the great intellectual of Jung!!
Ramana Maharshi was not a person or individual. He had no "I am the body" consciousness similar to ordinary human beings. The "person" that was witnessed by people who visited the ashram in Tiruvannamalai was merely an appearance of the ONE Existence, Consciousness, Bliss, similar to a mirage that we see as a body of water but in fact is only an appearance of it. It is impossible to understand the Reality of Ramana Maharshi, one can only experience It by becoming one with It. Can the human mind understand that Reality that powers it? It is possible to see everything except the eyes that enable one to see!
Beautifully explained!!! 🙏🙏🙏
You are correct..... 👍👍👍
@@officialteb.spirituality
Giving great meanings and make men big in life just makes you guys feel good!!! Typical men looking for heroes!!! One has to give right meaning and interpret right way and associate right things to men and women. For that matter I can make any women or man god like by giving fantastic meanings to their work and personality by adding big philosophical and religious words like you did to Ramana!!!! Just stop 🛑 exaggerating. He just died like ordinary man. Old age emaciated didn’t care his body.
A lie become biggest truth if you give enormous meaning and give best interpretations and associate decorative lies and create links that are not true!!!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 enjoy
Your talking shiite
Well articulated. When the mind tries to psychobabble its understanding of the powerful simplicity of Self, it fails miserably.
People need to understand the difference between the very intellect of our mind and the intelligence we call the life force, what drives the body and mind. In the West, they dealt more with the mind itself than with what created it, and by glorifying intellect, they stopped everything that happened before birth and after death. Unlike the West, Eastern Spiritual Teachers,especially India have prioritized precisely the energy that moves man and passes from one form to another, infinitely many times, that the mind cannot even comprehend such a thing because it is limited by time and space as opposed to the life force or energy itself.. Definitely in order to be able to get out of the frame of mind and body, one has to spiritually overcome everything that connects us to the ego or the current state of consciousness, which is really difficult. With regard, ROMANA from Croatia, Zagreb!!! 🌬️🌀🌌🙏🏻
Ok your comment intrigued me because you introduced me to something I’ve not heard about. You basically made this concept very easy to understand, for that I thank you.
That actually is a pretty smart comment.
@@frontsidegrinder6858 Thank you! 🙏🏻
" Carl Gustav Jung was in India. He went to see the Taj Mahal, he went to see Khajuraho, he went to see the temples of Konarak, but he did not go to see Ramana Maharshi. And wherever he went, he was again and again told that "You being one of the topmost psychoanalysts in the West, you should not miss this opportunity of meeting a eastern mystic who has come to his full flowering."
He was in the South, within two hours distance he could have reached Ramana Maharshi. For three months he was in India, but he avoided. This cannot be just coincidence. And he himself felt that he needs to give some explanation, otherwise it will be felt that he has been avoiding. And naturally, he was a great intellectual and a great psychoanalyst -- he could find any excuse and any explanation and he found the explanation which is very dangerous.
His explanation was back in *Zurich, he gave the statement that he did not go to see Ramana Maharshi because the ways of the East and the West are different and the eastern way is dangerous for the western man because he has developed differently, his tradition is different, his culture is different, his religion is different, his whole psychic development is different. It is dangerous to bring into this different psychology any method from the East because that is developed for a different kind of man, for a different kind of psychology -- that's why I did not go." But this is all rubbish because who was saying to you that you have to follow Ramana Maharshi, who was saying to you that you have to use his techniques, his methods?
All that people were insisting was that you should at least see him. Just meeting him would not have destroyed your western psychology. And if it is so weak, so fragile, that just seeing the Ramana Maharshi it is going to be destroyed, then it is not worth -- it should be destroyed and sooner the better. Why waste time with such a weak thing? Ramana Maharshi is not afraid of you.
When he was told that Carl Gustav Jung is here and he has been continuously told by every psychologist he is meeting in India that "It is useless to meet professors of psychoanalysis in India because they are simply repeating like parrots what you are producing in the West. It is better to go to see something unique and different so you have a certain comparison. Perhaps he may be coming." And Ramana was overjoyed. He said, "He is welcome. Whenever he wants to come, I am available."
And this man is uneducated. He left his home when he was only seventeen. He is not an expert in anything. He is not a logician, he is not a philosopher and he is not afraid of one of the founders of psychoanalysis. He is happy to see him. But the psychoanalyst is a coward.
To me this is not just an incident between Jung and Ramana; it is very symbolic, very significant. The western psychoanalysis is afraid because it is based on shifting sands, it has no foundation. So if you ask me, I cannot suggest you small changes here and there. I cannot tell you how you can renovate leaving the old structure intact -- just giving it a new paint, a new arrangement of furniture and things like that. No. The whole structure is from the foundation is wrong.
The western psychology has to drop the ego and has to find the real self and that is possible only through meditation. And the East has done it for thousands of years. So it is not something new, it is not something unexplored, it is not something Quixotic. It is something for which centuries stand in support. And not a single meditator has gone mad, not a single meditator has committed suicide, not a single meditator has committed rape. It is not only expertise, intellectual understanding; it is a transformation of the man himself.
The psychoanalyst has to be reminded of one of the Socratic sayings: physician, first heal thyself. The psychoanalyst himself is sick, utterly sick. He is not different from the patient. They are in the same boat. He is having the same nightmares, he is suffering from the same mental tensions, he is feeling the same meaninglessness and he is trying to help people who are having the same diseases. How he can be a authority? With what face he can emphasize to the patient that things can be different? His whole personality is not involved in his work. It is only his education.
It is something like a man gets educated in the history of art, becomes a great historian about all the art that has happened in the world, but he cannot draw a straight line himself. Because that does not come in the history. That is not a point at all. His expertise is history. This is the situation with the psychoanalyst: he knows everything about the mind, but he does not know how to change it, he cannot change his own mind, because for every change you have to be separate from the thing you are going to change. And he is identified with the mind -- who is going to change whom?
Meditation creates the gap. It takes you beyond and behind the mind, then you can change, because mind becomes an object to you. Then you are no more identified with the mind. Then you can rearrange or you can completely change and the mind cannot affect you at all. You are so far away, so above, that the mind cannot reach to you.
The mind not reaching to you gives you a tremendous power. You can reach to the mind and you can change anything you want and the mind is for the first time helpless. And you can help your patients for meditation.
Right now they are telling to their patients futile exercises of dream analysis. The patient comes twice a week or thrice a week for one hour, talks about all his dreams. And while he is talking about the dreams, sitting behind the couch, do you think the psychoanalyst is listening to him? Is he capable of listening? For that he will need a silent mind which he has not got. Perhaps he is dreaming himself, sitting behind"
Right on
@@learnleadlive yes!
You are speaking utter nonsense.
Jung had nothing to learn from a mystic because he was one himself.
Why would I travel all the way to pick something up if I already have it?
There are many mystics. As I pointed out. I'm technically one. Except words are never really what is.
@@mikeydoes all these excuses why can't you people just be honest. Y'all be running from different perceptions rather than y'all own that y'all feel is right.
Great explanation and beautifully said 🙏 cannot run from truth. Especially not forever.
Psychology always starts with a person and examines what makes a person behave in a certain way in certain circumstances. The thoughts in a person's mind and the influences which causes these thoughts.
In Ramana Maharishi's teachings, the "Person"= "I", this itself is a thought and when all thoughts cease to exist this "I" also ceases to exist by merging with the self or emptiness or whatever terminology one can use.
So for psychology, the person was the Ground, upon which all the study was conducted upon. And with Ramana Maharishi, the person is just a stage build upon an another ground. Which they say as self or emptiness.
This can't be examined unless one experiences. So no matter if one studies scriptures or Ramana Maharishi's teachings doesn't make the person a wise person than a psychologist, like many who are mocking Carl Jung here. Its just a memory or a vritti or knowledge.
Realising it and living it every breathing moment is what makes the difference. Ones claiming they are spiritual and psychologists are not wise as their masters, this is just another ego trip and dopamine high one gets by showing that they are holier than others.
Just stick with the teaching without worrying about validation from anyone around you. Got this video in suggestion and people mocking carl jung just pissed me off.
As long as an "I" Exists, psychology is very much needed for everyone around to get a better understanding about their personality traits and the incidents happening to them. Jung is a phenomenon in psychology who decoded this in a rational way.
People here mocking Jung may not rationally realised Jung's teachings or Experientially realised Bhagvan's teachings.
This is not healthy.
Wise words my friend.
It is not a competition between the two but seeing each in his own context.
Beautiful words! 🙏🙏🙏
🙏
Beautifully depicted 😍
Absolutely right 🙏
"He had eaten the world." Damn, that's powerful. Get to flow state as often as you can and revel in this place.
Ramana noted that the last thing to go was doubt…Carl Jung, by his own admission was a doubter…he missed.
When I was Ramanashram the Master has been longtime dead but his presence was still there
🙏🙏🙏
Jung wasn't ready to lose his mind at that point. He had an important role to fulfil, people depending on him and great books to compose.
His name alone is beautiful
Shri Ramana Maharshi.
as is CARL JUNG
@@schesche69 yesir, and has done very great work.
All Jung had to say was he didn't feel like it. He didn't owe anyone an explanation. Especially, a long winded one like this one.
What a man gives to the world as a concrete understanding of the universe and a solution to the problems of humanity is what makes the man famous. Spirituality by itself is meaningless if it doesn't water the realities of life.
This may be the only time I've heard Jung bullshitting himself. He was simply afraid.
I agree
@@officialteb.spirituality ,,, afraid to not need his entire intellectual approach anymore, haha!
No, he knew the real. What's not lost, who searches?
@@officialteb.spirituality Jung knew what God was. You all are still doing Gurus and completely missed his point.
I have figured out what you all are pretending you know. And let's be VERY clear that you haven't understood, at all what Jung is saying.
@OfficialTEB
You take your mind as reality. Are you out looking for air while breathing? In the financial scene, you are the kinds that post about Warren Buffet and Bill Gates all day long, and concludes that a local entrepreneur who isn't listed by Forbes to be inferior. Jung on the contrary, helped build the bridge for the common men to their own paths.
For those interested: Peter Kingsley, a famous and too much neglected original scholar of the pre-socratic thinkers Parmenides, Empedocles and Zeno of Elea, wrote a two volume piece of work on Jungs 'mysticism' (Catafalque), certainly not from the perspective of oriental wisdom, but from Jung's own background and interest in historical phenomena like alchemy. Highly recommended.
Thank you for the wonderful recommendation. I am sure that a lot of us will check it out.
🙏🙏🙏
Read Nietzche. He's all about the pre-Socratics. The problem with post-Socratics is they never talk about meaning. This is why modernists, like Freud hated and surpressed Heidegger.
There is a specific music artist who i consider to be my hero in life, who i had 2 chances to meet in person (was quite literally inches away from him) and decided not to each time. the first reason was because i respected him too much to bother him and he seemed rather tired and exhausted after performing all night, and the other reason was because i felt intimidated just by the thought to be in the presence of someone who i respected so much. i was just grateful i got to see his performance in person.
🙏🙏🙏
I am glad I never got a chance to meet my hero.
He was a generation before my time and passed on to the other side
by the time I was in my teens.
But I see and feel him in a million places and sounds and images.
Why don't you tell us who he was.
Why don't you tell us who he was.
@@vikasponda7657 Amon Tobin
I think that was the longest answer I have ever heard for a simple question but then he did not really even answer the question lol!
The ‘answer’ was Jung’s fear
No. Jung has basically said: M. is a celeb in a culture of inequality which has put M. there cause M. repeated after the better culture of the West, simply translating it to the Indians while becoming more of a source of their inequality, without anything actually new, original or substantial. Jung was right.
I suggest those who cannot understand English to learn English. Begin by learning how to read. This will make you interesting and eliminate your insultations coming from your ignorance.
@@GEMSofGOD_com no, he was terribly wrong as so often!
He did.
He had another path, and provided some beautiful tools and resources of self help and critical thinking. self identifications that overthinkers need to get out of the box of self.
Two hours from Tiruvannamalai... Perhaps that was as close as he could get to Ramana Maharshi and himself: two hours.
very well expressed! thanks xabelesor!
There is no such thing as a "mistake" in going or not the "mahaguru", but a consideration comes out of my mind: "our Her Professor must always be in control and the only rooster in the chickencoop". This was his character and the reason why we now know his name, and his merits, after all.
OMG! THIS VIDEO IS INCREDIBLY PROFOUND, THE JUNGS ANSWER TO HIS FELLOW FRIEND CAUTH ME BY SURPRISE TOTALLY. A TRUE STATEMENT FROM THIS PROFOUND CONNOISSEUR OF THE HUMAN PSIQUE.
Exceptional....Lots of thanks...
🙏🙏🙏
I don’t think Jung was afraid as some say here.
Ramm Dass studied psychology. And he studied in India under a guru. When he came back he began to reaffirm his identity. When people asked about this conflict in philosophy he said, „It’s nice to reach enlightenment, it’s also nice to know your address.“
This is the paradox that Jung was writing about in his observation of the devotee he met. That man both experienced the holy and lived a life a duty to family and community. Jung was more interested in this Bodhisatva, this Indra, living in the mundane world with all its difficulties, than Maharishi himself.
Ram Dass had a guru. He was not "enlightened" an enlightened person doesn't go to a guru.
But what this guy says is completely money.
Anyone doubting Jung is just wrong.
Hey, can you perhaps share a (free) source of that info on Ramdass with me? I would very much like to know more about it, hear what Ramdass said about this as I am "struggling" with a similar situation.
I'd be very grateful, thanks!🙏🏼😌
Good points.
I do not think that at that stage of his life that Jung was fearful.
He decided to follow where the spirit led him instead of an expected, predictable meeting of the sage of Tiruvannamalai.
Indeed Ramana as Ramakrishna taught that they were merged with the Absolute and therefore could be contacted everywhere, not just in the locus of the physical
vessel.
Blessed Love.
@@frankhrbolich2282 you read Jung's books?
There's no way.
If you did read them then you missed all his points.
In his passage he literally explains why he didn't need to meet him. It's obvious. Both are mystics. One didn't need to meet the other.
Ramana didn't need to meet Jesus, Rumi, or the Buddha.
@@frankhrbolich2282 I went to a zoom lecture in L.A. Ram Dass gave from his residence in Maui in 2010.His aphasia from his stroke was so debilitating that he could barely string together sentences.
This to me reflected an ego that needed affirmation.I spent my hard earned money to listen to gibberish.When I mentioned this to one of the staff members at the Taos New Mexico Neem Karoli Baba temple I was basically castigated.
My my how some people need to force others not to critique their uppa Gurus,no matter the issue.
BTW-Neem Karoli Baba has been my guru since 1998 & his grace has smoothe my path in many ways.
Men with ego attachments like Ram Dass or Jung are still in need of feedback, if that is not forthcoming,they eventually turn into a Bagwan Shree Rajneesh-Swami Mutananda or Satya Sai baba,none of which had been seen in Samadhi=the EGO KILLER.
See on utube Ramana Maharshi Be as You Are Chapter 12 Experience and Samadhi .
It is like a man who has a chance to meet a billionaire and ask him for financial advice, but he says "No thanks I can read the personal finance books in the library and watch personal finance videos on RUclips."
Jung knew what Ramana knew, he describes it in Liber Novus. Some passages are decidedly non-dualistic. What Jung calls The Star, Ramana calls the Atman. Jung did not meet Ramana for one primary reason, he did not want his scientific reputation tarnished, but Jung knew the limits of science and imagery. Jung did not publish Liber Novus until long after his death for the same reason, so his scientific work would become established, which he knew would be more beneficial to the masses than his own spiritual enlightenment.
„he did not want his scientific reputation tarnished“-
hahah… exactly the words of enlightenment?
Thanks
🙏🙏🙏
To me, Jung's reasons for not meeting Ramana Maharshi come across as a massive rationalization.
On one level it certainly seems like rationalization the way the commentator describes it. There are other possibilities.
Carl Jung might have believed that there was a Plan for his life, and that such a meeting would have disrupted that Plan? Perhaps he had unfinished work to perform in his lifetime? Maybe such a meeting would have so altered his path that his body of work would have been brushed aside by his Western audience and lost its usefulness to mankind?
Perhaps such a meeting would have been a temptation to skip over steps in his own Atonement, and caused dissonance or disruption of some kind? I do not know.
@@karlk9316 Watts described Jung as a fully-integrated man. Maybe Jung just didn't feel the need. Perhaps he'd already crossed the river and left the raft on the bank. Either way, I thought his description of meeting the little holy man was gorgeous and likely a more powerful testament for those who hear it, since we're all more like the little holy man than we are like the lauded saint.
@@cecilcharlesofficial Thank you. Very well said.
Thank you for this great video ❤
Thank you for watching! ❤️
A lot of words to say "I guess I was scared"..
Unnecessarily so.
You all are very wrong and clueless to what Jung said.
Jung and Ramana would agree.
You are threatening Ramana as a guru..of you have a guru then you don't know.
Jung didn't need a guru, he was one.
@@mikeydoes gobble gobble gobbling. That's all you did here.
@@Godloveszaza What's wrong with gobbling? Maybe we should think why gobbling exists in the first place.
Scared... or busy with something other than a celeb in a country with the worst inequality?
@@sujanmukhopadhyay3163 yeah, gobbling exists when the connection between the brain and the mouth or the typing fingers is lost...
My feeling is that Carl Yung kept away, physically, from Remana Mahrishi, as he internally scared of a cathartic change in himself, which would have lead him to complete sainthood. It happened to the French monk, Henry Le Saux, who is later known as Swamy Abhishiktananda.
And many others, which I only assume.
🙏🙏🙏
I always felt that those who become ‘ascetics’ can NOT truly understand Advaitin knowledge. Only a householder can. There are suggestions of this in so many Vedantic writings as well as Yoga Vasistha and Mahabharata. That is a true Jivanmuktin who lives in the world fully while knowing that there is more than this limited reality we observe. As in the story of Cudala, the king who becomes an ascetic is approaching the world in more maya and avidhya.
That's why buddha taught the middle way
thats the essence of Hesse´s , Sidharta
I think many don’t get Ramana’s life path. While he was no householder he was engaged with the world. He did not avoid responsibility he was swept up in a rapture for the divine before he had a chance to start a family and it dominated his attention. He always advocated for householders to not abandon their responsibilities. It just turned out the way it did for him because of Karma. He engaged with the world plenty, operating the kitchen, planning and supervising projects and of course acting as a spiritual teacher for thousands.
@@michaelnice93 Absolute correct. Sri Ramana insisted that whether you're a householder or take sannyasa (become a monk) you cannot easily "escape" your mind and gave practical guidance based on the advancement and temperament of all those who came to him.
Jung needed to find enlightenment in his own way. To visit an Indian holy man would've been like jumping to the last page of a book. He needed to read the whole book first, only then would he be ready to receive enlightenment, which would be as a result of his own unique journey. It was this very natural process he called individuation. Jung was not a man who put much faith in short-cuts !
In some ways Jung understood that the Real Sri Ramana Maharshi was not residing at Arunachala . Genuinely Enlightened Sages are not limited by time or space , that it is why it is still possible to feel His Living Presence here and now. 🙏🕉️🕊️
True!
He knew that enlightened people don't exist. He was smart and not gullible.
exactly!
It is only through divine grace that one gets to meet a being like Ramana Maharishi. CJ probably wasn't destined for this Grace.
My other guess is - Jung was too much under the spell of his mind and intuitively knew that his lifetime of intellectual work could shatter into pieces after meeting the Maharishi who was beyond mind. After watching this video, I am surprised to know that Carl Jung did not cultivate humility.
Many saw Ramana and many dismissed him completely by divine grace.Some also robbed him by divine grace😉
Perfect response
@@muralikrish7482 no it wasn't. You all better didn't listen to what Jung said or have no idea what he's talking about. He's saying the same thing a Ramana would.
@frank…. Agree.
@@frankhrbolich2282 I can't say I know much about CJ or the Maharishi for that matter. One was an explorer of human psyche and the other had crossed that frontier while still a teenager. One knew the absolute truth but the other kept up his lifelong research without ever finding it. I do not deny the great contribution that Jung has made to the pool of human knowledge. And I do not doubt his sincere desire to mitigate human suffering. However, I do believe that we give undue importance to our intellectual prowess and we have forgotten the fact that it has its limitations. "Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment." Rumi used to say.
My comment (above) was/is purely based on what I have seen in this video. I may be wrong but I find Jung's remarks, despite his academic sophistication, on the Maharishi a tad condescending. And his poetic commentary on India seems like a borrowed echo from Zimmer and Hermann Hesse. He was on top of his game when he visited India and I feel he did not want to risk his worldwide celebrity status by meeting someone who could read his mind like an open book.
I mean no disrespect to Carl Jung - this is just my humble observation.
I totally understand where he was coming from. He understood several basics or precepts first of all, that preclude the 'specialness' of meeting just such a mystic:
1.) Mystics find their 'enlightenment' by disavowing or almost completely detaching from reality itself, thusly enabling their insights only via 'defeat' - because one cannot scrutinize life at such a level and simultaneously participate in it.
2.) He understood that the mystic, of all his archetypes, is perhaps among the oldest prototypes of all humanity - especially since India was another cradle of civilization, especially in terms of religions since Hinduism is among the oldest recorded religions and caste systems around.
3.) He understood that the man might more easily be either a disappointment or merely 'an everyman of that type' than a particular prodigy of his field since it stretches out to time immemorial and is easily among the most taken-up castes of all time...
4.) He felt he had absorbed 'quite enough and then some' (to paraphrase a bit) of the energy of the impression or teachings left behind by this famous person moreso than seeing the representation himself might bequeath to him.
5.) He felt at least somewhat beholden to the expansion of his field, which might've withered on the vine if he had rededicated himself in the way suggested.
6.) Most importantly of all, I believe from his writings (admittedly knowing little of the details but only the gist of his works in his career...) that he caught a 'glimpse' as it were, in those moments spent in India, a glimpse into not only the patterned thinkings and doings/not-doings of the Holy Man archetype but in general into the interrelationship or interconnectedness of the Holy Man's soulful gesturings and society itself, a 'dance of the Avatar' if you will, throughout recorded history, now still stolidly echoed throughout India as its main bastion. The sacrifices and dedication involved - the impact of the soulfulness and intent - the role throughout history - and, having seen it for what it was without having once met the man - he knew he got what he needed, for his journeys and his role in history.
Nicely written
This was undoubtedly a mistake on Jung’s part. He most certainly should have visited Maharshi.
He was most likely afraid of the ultimate revelation that is beyond mind altogether.
No. Cope.
Oh no. Everything is ruined now what are we gonna do
What does Jung know anyway?
I think you'd have to be near insane to believe Jung wasn't aware of the deeper truth of the human spirit. The same way some people don't wake up totally to help others wake up, some people learn about aspects of the dream to help people wake up
Itihasa is NOT mythology. Mythology is what we believe currently in the West regarding the age of civilization and the importance of India in this context. Poor Jung, by overthinking everything, he missed out on the very most important moment of his life!
🙏🙏🙏
Great search to include this wonderful message Sir
Rather disappointed in Jung for his "you've seen one; you've seen 'em all" approach to Bhagavan. Shaktipat notwithstanding, what a remarkable opportunities to be in the presence of an avatar - even if he believed it in reputation alone.
David Godman's writing about Sri Ramana Maharshi is storied and illuminating. His channel and interview with Anthony Chene are both great. Namaste, all.
🙏🙏🙏
Most certainly Jung was eluding to the shallowness of grand Indian narrative of divinity and mysticism as well as hollowness of saintly personalities from India by referring to the greatness of common Indian man submerged in materiality and worldliness and still trying his level best to balance between spiritual, humane and practical- which is 1000 times greater than anyone like Vivekanand or Raman Maharshi or Krisnamurti in many ways who are lost to their spiritual juggling. In nutshell Jung was fully aware of the supernatural jugglery of Indian mystics. Also being a psychologist himself Jung was more into facing own demons head on rather than altogether forgetting or dissolving own self into void or advait.
He was already overwhelmed and overpowered by him when he visited the country. He saw him everywhere and in every person, objects or things! He experienced his omnipresence!
Yes. You clearly don't know what archetypes are despite saying you've read Jung.
@@mikeydoes How so?
@@mikeydoes
You cling too much. Relax. Mr. Jung didn’t hire you to be his butthurt apologist.
@@mikeydoes My comment is solely based on this particular video. Kindly don't assume things.
@@myfunvideos5676 I read your post wrong. I thought you were like every other person trashing Jung.
it feels to me like the author of the video didnt understand what jung meant in his letter...
Jung knows that his image will collapse when he meets Ramana Maharshi
I am very happy this appeared on my feed. I am very much interested in jung but also convinced of nonduality. Anyhow it appears to me that discipline and a certain amount of belief is unavoidable to get 'it'.
The real reason Carl Jung avoided Ramana Maharshi is the same reason Jung wouldn't have met with Padre Pio or Sri Aurobindo: These men lived in a consciousness beyond the mere mental.
Jung was afraid of going beyond the mind he so loved and the unconscious he loved to explore.
Jung was afraid of experiencing something that made his prior understandings relatively meaningless.
Fear.
Fear that his "knowledge" would be shown "ignorance."
Fear that his "wisdom" would be shown "foolishness."
Fear that his stature would shrink and shrivel.
Fear.
There is an Indian parable of a sage instructing an aspirant to "go farther."
That aspirant set out on his journey and every time he came across something wonderful and fulfilling, he remembered the sages advice to "go farther."
So each time he didn't stop and settle for his achievement but "went farther," eventually becoming fully enlightened.
Jung was not such an aspirant.
He didn't want to "go farther."
What he had already achieved gave him name and fame and wide respect.
Jung had no intention of giving that up, so he feared meeting Ramana Maharshi in person.
Fear.
Agreed. The limitations of Jung are obvious, seen from an Eastern perspective. He may be "enlightened" in a Western sense, but in an Eastern sense, he was clearly a "beginner". Not surprised Jung "didn't want to" meet the saint. Probably a good thing, since it likely would have 'shattered" him, and all his delusions about what he "thought" he knew.
Nah lol have you read Jung’s Red Book?
So Jung didn't fear the unconscious @@KenjiSummers.
I already said he loved to explore the unconscious.
What he feared was experiencing something that made his mental conclusions obsolete.
Confronting scary visions can strengthen the ego.
The fact that Jung relished this doesn't mean he was "fearless."
The fear of losing everything you base your self-identity and self-worth on is a completely different category and type of fear.
Nailed it !
Nevertheless... A worthy fear to fall to. Very glad not to be notable or important. It would be hard to give up.
Thank you 🙏🏿 for posting this
🙏🙏🙏
Just ordered a book "Apprenticed to a Himalayan Master " written by Sri M . A Muslim born man who in his early age went to Himalayas in search of Mystic and came back as a Yogi . India is full of mysticism and interesting stories for sure .
This is your intrigue which has connected you to something blissful...may you be guided to the highest.
M is also a fraud like most Indian gurus. Jiddu krishnamurti is genuine , rest are frauds.
What I recall reading is that he tried, but was only able to meet with one of Ramana Maharshi's disciples. I think the title has it backwards.
Absolutely spot on.. I know Osho talked about him in much the same way.. though more ironacally..
In India Jung did meet average spiritual teachers but the two greatest ones he purposely avoided. I have spent many seasons in India and Ramana Ashram and have also some background with Jung's work.
A number of times friends that were not deeply willing to go for enlightenment would be very available to meet the second rate swami's but would beg off when I asked if they would like to come with me to meet the great ones. Jung's answer about the Maharshi sounds good but I know enough of what he said to not buy it. it seems really he just couldn't face the great ones.
PS Unless someone is a practicioner of a religious system they can not really know it. I have seen authentic gurus say things that were incorrect about other systems. Jung was a great doctor for mentally ill people and helpful to the rest of us but his comments about deep spirituality are not those of an experienced adept.
Well explained. 🙏🙏🙏
Ich habe dieses Buch, Hinrich Zimmer und Karl Jung kannten sich ja gut. Heinrich Zimmer, Der Weg zum Selbst. hat er ein Vorwort und die Begründung. er war nicht wie Ramesh S. Balsekar ein Familienvater. Ramanas Aufgabe war auch eine viel universellere. Immerhin, Carl Jung war selbst in Indien, nicht wie Hermann Hesse. Er nennt Ramana den leuchtetsten aller Guruarchetypen Indiens, ja, das mag stimmern. Aber es ist viel zu wenig. Denn er hat der Welt als erster Mensch überhaupt erklärt wo die Quelle allen Seins entsprichgt. An Ramana kommt man noch viel weniger vorbei als an C.G.Jung, ein Turgauer...ein Zürcher... ein Liebhaber des Taoismus, ein sehr interessanter Sexologen, aber kein Mystiker wie im Kern. Gandhi stand auch vor den Toren eines der grössten Mystikers der Neuzeit, aber er wollte sich nicht aufsaugen lassen, seine Politik zuende führen. Aber Jung hat tatsächlich eine Chance verpasst.
Le titre en Français ,la voix et le sous titrage en Anglais ?
Des sous-titres français sont également disponibles. Veuillez cliquer sur le bouton "cc" dans la vidéo. Veuillez noter que les sous-titres sont générés par un logiciel d'intelligence artificielle et peuvent ne pas être exacts.
You are absolutely correct. He was worried that the scientific community will see him as unscientific and they will throw the baby out with the bath water. That would also ruin his career. Hence he always maintained distance though he knew what was right. That said, he did come out in open after his retirement.
I don't agree. Jung was a man of immens integrity. His reasons are clearly explained.
no
Many of Jung’s ideas were already received as unscientific and he was aware of it
We’ll, if anything Jung showed how our mind is a great tool but it can be a great hindrance if we want to go further towards self realization, a great example of what not to fear 🙏🏽 great Documentary, thank you 🙏🏽
This is insightful, sri ramana, on answering devotees who travelled from near and far to see him and know him, were asked, why come this far to know/understand what one could easily arrive at without any such efforts? Jung knew the real without having to follow his thoughts or thoughts of others directions or implications as to what real is or could be.
Yeah and felt he couldn't continue his way of being, call it his work or his research without dying.. e g loosing the ego.. e.g. becoming a sannyassin or a follower of Ramana.. in other words, let's face it scared like hell he was..
Sumeru.. I am with you! What is the harm in meeting him?…unless something bothering you about meeting him personally.. If you say, “I already know him” I call bs.. if you already know him, then you would surely want to meet him.. Oh well, Jung’s loss, his business..
@@SUMERUP c'est exactement ce que je pense. Une crainte de voir disparaître cet ego dont il avait un absolu besoin pour poursuivre sa carrière. Dommage!
@@SUMERUP no, he just chose to live his Dharma.
He realized he came here to be Jung and not Ramana.
@@jedlimen123 No. He just realized he had to fulfill his own Dharma
He came here to be Jung and not Ramana.
i still didnt get why he didnt visit him and who exaclty the indian mystic was. the whole clip goes on and on about how great he was, but not about why and what he did and what was so great about him
I'm sorry , but at what point did Yung regret this meeting ? I actually heard (which u read) him say the opposite.
Please point this out. Thank u
Compassion is something we experience whether it comes from us or from beyond. It is necessary to life, health and sanity. But, we only know this because of honesty and freedom, which we find in living.
🙏🙏🙏
When Jung was asked if he believed in God, he said, 'I know God'
I thought he was a professed agnostic?
@@integralsun I saw it on one of his interviews....knowing and believing are two different things he split from Freud because of Freud's lack of spirituality.
Did he say, “I, no god” ? May have been miswritten. You could replay the audio, but to no real benefit. It happens.
Jung said he doesn't believe in God any more because he knows God. As Morpheous said to Neo, "there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path.
He was asked that question in his 1959 movie interview. To my recollection he only said, "I know, I know". All I took that to mean was that he was a man of knowing, not believing. Belief was not his way. That from research he knew the God Imago, the archetype, is clear. Answer to Job deconstructs Yaweh. But I was in my 20's....
well rendered
🙏🙏🙏
Thanks for this. I would add that Jung's father made a powerful impression on him. His father was also a "holy man," but someone Jung considered to be an ultimately tragic figure. His father was intelligent and well-educated, but Jung saw his him as wasted potential and trapped in his profession of minister as a means to support the family. Losing faith would have threatened everyone's survival. Fear of that hung in the air, which had to be strange in a family populated by ministers, (and one of Jung's earliest memories was of being terrified by a Jesuit priest coming down the road, only because I think he had picked up on what that “other religion” meant to his Protestant father).
Jung hated how deliberately limited his father's library was and felt it was a profound betrayal of the intellect for his father to eschew certain authors, just because they might raise questions or instill doubt.
Later on, he was horrified when he realized his father lacked the sense of divine grace Jung had experienced himself. Not only was Jung's revelatory experience not in alignment with anything traditional, it had a real rebellious streak to it. All it required was for Jung to surrender to it (something his father, the ever-devout and disciplined figure that he was, could never do). I think that throughout his childhood, Jung wrestled with a feeling that may not have been entirely his own: the sense that religious symbols, in themselves, were empty; and tradition without revelation was meaningless. This might have been his father’s secret struggle more than his.
Jung also grew up with "God is Dead" Nietzsche and later, his friend S. Freud went to great lengths to convert him to a certain way of thinking. He tried to impress Jung with how vitally important it was to dismiss all mysticism or paranormal experiences as nothing, and rely only on empiricism (in the form of sexualizing almost everything). Freud's determination to excise everything mysterious seemed like an obsession to Jung.
I suspect that to Jung, both his father and Freud were different sides of the same coin. Both had had their own forms of the fear of losing faith and both had willfull blindness. This all happened with the background of a culture torn between God and science... During Jung’s childhood and college years, Europe was experiencing a deep questioning of religion, tradition, and spirituality. Who knows what the prospect of meeting Ramana Maharshi would have represented to Jung? But I suspect his thoughts may have turned back to his father, the first “holy man” in his life.
Thank you for the additional information.
🙏🙏🙏
@@officialteb.spirituality Aw, you're quite welcome!
🙏🏻✨🙏🏻✨🙏🏻✨
I think Jung undersood the symbol that man represented to all India, at the same time knowing that no man is all holy or all wisdom, and by meeting him, he would have to tell the truth: everyone has its shadow, no man can completly know himself and that is the way of life. There is always something more to uncover from our heritage. So much pain and sorrow buried deep in our genealogical tree. If that man inspired other people to know themselves and strive to be better, why should he expose him? Uncovering his humanity would take away his holiness from the eyes of people and with that, their hope. That is why he was happy meeting his disciple; in anonimity, without holy titles, that little man represented more truthfully his masters teachings, and that is what is wonderful. Seeing the Truth working in daily life.
Good points
Asserting that "everyone has a shadow" is just a metaphoric projection of Jung's possible schizophrenia onto others - and of course, a good excuse to carry on as he did with running a sex cult.
Because he could not see Truth in the face; it would have exposed his limitations. He could not translate theory into practice. But in reality that is what we all also do. We all talk about Truth. Instead, we should practice it.
Quite the opposite of your statement. Jung was actively practicing his theories through his patients. In fact, the only reason he reached for theories was because he saw them manifest through his practice. To simplify his words of not seeking out the man, I ask you this question; Do you have the desire to look at your own reflection in the mirror?
@@heavycurrent7462 until one has reached nirvikalpa samadhi one is still in the realm of theory. I’m pretty sure Ramana Maharishi had reached at least the state of sabikalpa samadhi, if not the ultimate nirvikalpa samadhi. Who wouldn’t want to meet a self-realized Master? I believe that Bhagwan Rajneesh discussed this in one of his discourses. It may have been in his book The Mustard Seed.
His explanation reveals that Sri Ramana Maharshi is at his mere centre and one should try a life time to reach the center of what can I say the Atma
Carl Jung's response to meeting Ramana Maharshi made me think of this particular excerpt from The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker, which addresses a very similar phenomenon put forth by Soren Kierkegaard - " Outwardly he is completely a 'real man'. He is a university man, husband and father, an uncommonly competent civil functionary even, a respectable father, very gentle to his wife and carefulness itself with respect to his children. And a Christian? Well, yes, he is that too after a sort; however, he preferably avoids talking on the subject....He very seldom goes to church, because it seems to himthat most persons really don't know what they are talking about. He makes an exception in the case of one particular priest of whom he concedes that he knows what he is talking about, but he doesn't want to hear him for another reason, because he has a fear that this might lead him too far". "Too far" because he does not really want to push the problem ofhis uniqueness to any total confrontation.
🙏🙏🙏
I do not think that Jung were afraid of meet him, is only that they follow differents ways to reach the self, Ramana with meditation and silence and Jung incorporating the unconcius to the ego using other methods that requires for example active imagination and other tecniques that are the oposite of the emptiness of the mind, so even if he respects Ramans ( as we can read in Jungs writtings) they are following different paths to reach the self
Jung's words on this are a bunch of fluffy goofiness masking his immense neurotic phobia of the changes that might take place in himself if he were to meet an enlightened being. Because such an experience I think he feels intuitively might undercut his ego too close for comfort and so he avoided having such an experience as that it was deemed personally threatening. I don't believe Jung neglected to meet Romana Maharshi because he feared being disappointed but because he had this fear of losing part or all of the ego structure which he had built and cherished.
Well said! 🙏❤🙏
I understand that Jung also ran somewhat of a cult with groupies; had at least one mistress alongside his wife, etc. It's strange nobody in these comments questions the very trivial motive of base sexuality. What ego transcendence could we even talk then?
Jung knew that the biggest ego is to destroy all ego, and the non duality of ego and egoless. He didn’t visit the “Holy” man because he knew that
An enlightened being doesn't exist.
It's a myth created by men.
Don't be so gullible.
Brothers; Is there a german translation of this Excellent ... documentary? I would by very thankful..
Click the "cc" button on the video. You will see the option for German language. But please note that the German translation is generated by an Artificial Intelligence software and the translation may not be accurate.
@@officialteb.spirituality Danke!
@@slawomirwendt9094 🙏🙏🙏
What a shame. He had a chance to see the Truth that he had been searching for all his life. Jung was a man with an enquiring mind. Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi could not and can not be defined. Knowingly Jung threw away the opportunity for Darshan with Bhagavan Maharshi. Incomprehensible. Perhaps it was related to Zimmer as he referred to Maharshi as being "the latest holy man" as if it were a flavor of the month or a fad.
Well - he was doing what was best for him… Everybody has its own way ❤
Jung's basic aim was contrary to that of the Eastern mystic, who seeks to surrender the ego to the non-dual Oneness. Jung believed that only in holding onto and strengthening the ego can one Avoid being subsumed into and disintegrated by the Mass Mind, the vast Unconscious. Jung sought Individuation, rather than assimilation into the Whole.
👍✅
That is correct. It is mentioned later in the video.
🙏🙏🙏
Also Jung told that one must have strengthening the ego for the upcoming battle with the unconscious...because there will be a great war before the union of opposites...
To Jung, Ramana Maharshi's ego was dissolved into "The Sage" archetype of Collective Unconcious, thus meeting Ramana was unnecessary because Jung already know many cases like that. What interested Jung was the devoted man who both in touch with his "family duty" reality (ego) and spiritual life at the same
time.
Carl Jung's individuation process is about keeping the ego strong enough for a human consciousness not be annihilated by any archetype of the unconscious, including it's specific shadow.
It's good to see your fair view in this topic full of hatred comments for Jung.
You clearly don't understand what individuation is.
Yes, we are a collective whole. You clearly have never heard of the collective unconscious from Jung.. But every individual experiences things as an individual, as Ramana points to. Only you have the answers. If you go to Jung or Ramana you have admitted you're confused by doing so.
We are already connected. Pretending that we need to say we are all connected/1 is for people who don't understand.
The transparency stage of Nirvana(nakedness) is everywhere in Samanam India
🙏🙏🙏
Yes, it may seem very contradictory that C Jung decided to not seek out Shri Ramana (or any other “Holy man”) while in India. My interpretation is that Jung was wise enough to understand what that would have meant for him. It is not unreasonable to think a very primal form of fear, the type of fear that arise from a deep questioning of self itself, arose in him? It should have! Believe me, the experience of India can be both the most inspiring and exhilarating experience for someone inclined towards the spiritual dimension. But it can also be the most frightful experience of all for someone that is really seeking out the true wisdom beyond the self. I believe C Jung knew this and decided not to take that next step in his development at that time. That is the most personal and private decision anyone can encounter and no one else can have any opinion about that. Only the truly free and enlightened being will understand this and such being would never ever dream of criticizing someone for being hesitant. If you decide to step into and commit to the wisdom realm of a genuine guru, then total abandonment is essential. I believe C Jung understood this and knew he was not yet ready for that, at that time. How many of us can honestly say that we are mature enough to step into such a relationship right now? To go beyond ego and all concepts is only possible when other avenues of inquiries have been exhausted. That’s when a true guru appears to us and we can commit to the complete destruction of our own personal construction.
Does anyone know where this passage from Jung is from? It’s stunning
Carl Jung wrote this essay as the introduction to a book about Ramana Maharshi by Heinrich Zimmer.
Paragraph numbers are from Jung’s Collected Works: C.G. Jung, The Collected works, Volume Eleven, Psychology and Religion: West and East. Part V111, The Holy Men of India, Paragraph 950, 951, 952, 953.
Very insightful.
🙏🙏🙏
Is all about divine timing 🙏🙏🙏 only when one is ready to meet.
🙏🙏🙏
So the millions of people who met him were more spiritually evolved than Jung?
@@theliamofella yes! The souls that are evolving in every birth will have that pull , Carl doesn't have.
I LOVE both these men but that's a lot of words & assumptions from Mr. Jung, it makes sense that something else was going on as u say. BTW, as a Tibetan Buddhist, I think our yidam practice is MOST similar to Jung than other practices in mysticism, as you use an 'archetypal deity' as your yidam & become the deity to transform your mind. The ultimate goals are different but they're pretty similar.
🙏🙏🙏
In my analysis, Jung was simply frightened for losing his entire mundane identity for which he was not ready as he still had to continue his work in the empirical world. I feel that he was in touch with Bhagwan telepathically. How is it possible that the Maharishi, who was omniscient, wasn't connected with Jung?
Thanks for watching! ❤️
is it possible to have a french version of this video ? ( or just the text ). Est t'il possible d'avoir une version francaise de cette video ? (ou simplement le texte ) merci !
You can click on the "cc" button in the video and you will see the option to turn on the French translation. Please be aware that the translation is done by an artificial intelligence software and so it may not be very accurate.
Vous pouvez cliquer sur le bouton "cc" dans la vidéo et vous verrez l'option d'activer la traduction française. Veuillez noter que la traduction est effectuée par un logiciel d'intelligence artificielle et qu'elle peut donc ne pas être très précise.
🙏🙏🙏
Purposely dodging Ramana Maharshi is like someone from the 1960's purposely avoiding going to see the Beatles. Ramana didn't even charge. People were able to walk into the mahsrshi's ashram and be with the guy. You didn't even need a ticket.
This is true. 🙏❤🙏
They even give you free food and lodging - to this day. Need to reserve ahead though.
Carl cut to the chase. What a wonderful philosophy. He is so right.
As they choose, each person serves and saves mankind in their own way
What if mankind is in no real danger?
I saw a lot of people saying, Carlo Jung didn't go since he is scared. I want to share one true life story here: I was born in China in non religious family. When I was about 10, I have a little stone made Buddhism figure that I secretly worship when I pray although no one taught me. When I was a teenager and later a college student, I wore a necklace carried a Buddhist figure on my neck for years. One day, when I finally came to the US for graduate school, on the airplane when I left China, the necklace broke. I collected all the pieces and repaired and wear it again the first week in US, yet it broke again. I put this in a tin box and decided to fix it but it was just disappear mystically. All I want to see is that you don’t know what you don’t. For those who judged Jung to be scared or just intellectual rather wisdom, my suggestion is that, you meditate and find yourself in silence. West and East religious beliefs are different and they both hasve so much wisdom and origines that we don't know. But heart is sincere and thoughtful then you will find god. Regardless how many centuries it takes.
From a purely objective point of view, it’s entirely inappropriate to recount a matter of history with an obvious bias that has no basis in evidence. Nobody knows what Jung’s true feelings were after not meeting with this guru, and to assume as much is irresponsible as a content creator. If you have an opinion, make a separate video separate from content veiled in historical recounting.
Furthermore, the video content as well as the commenters here seem to have an obvious air of competition, eastern devotee vs western. How ironic, though, to miss the point entirely is about as typical as can possibly be regarding the wake of holy men.
Two great men who did two great things for humanity. I’m sure there’s a reason for the disconnect that is much more nuanced than what’s been stated here so far.
I have a strong feeling of misinterpretation here. Where do you get the information, that Jung felt regret about not having met him? I heard a very clear and strong transmission in his words about not projecting too much power on to a guru, when you can simply admire the Indian spirit without seeking anyone or anything, by being awake, which is an extremely potent wisdom right there.