🌟 What if both Jung and Buddha were right? Jung discovered the Self as the center of everything, while Buddha taught that no permanent self exists. Yet both paths led to freedom. Which perspective resonates more with your experience? Share your insights below - your unique view adds depth to this exploration. Let's learn from each other's journey. ✨ For deeper discussions: - What practices help you understand your true nature? - Has your view of "self" transformed over time? - How do you reconcile these seemingly opposite truths? Join our growing community of seekers and truth explorers! 🙏
I've come to believe that my Self is an illusion-- an illusion with incredible staying power. It's like the illusion of Free Will-- I can't help but think that I have it.
Jung was a social dictated sheep. Everyone was the harshest critics, and certain views could have you hanging from a tree. Jung was a governmental controlled. Was paid good money too.
I've always been attracted to the idea of no self. Western religion is so self involved, God looks like me, thinks like me, God has same polical party as me, I am going to live forever in paradise. The Abrahamic religions are a form of self worship because everyone projects themselves on to God and thinks they have it figured out. I like the idea of stripping the self down to the root, simplify life, letting go of what you can't control and be in the moment.
If you read the texts that abrahamic religions are based on, you’ll see the biggest issue is with the followers. Most self-proclaimed “Christians” for example, aren’t actually that well-versed in what the Bible actually teaches. When you write, “I like the idea of…”, there are many bible verses where Jesus and others are saying to do exactly what you liked. I don’t engage religion for the same reasons you don’t, but I love to read the Bible for myself. Don’t let the half-assed, politicized, self-serving opinions of mainstream Christians ruin the Bible for you. Jesus and the Buddha have a lot of ideas in common. Jesus and Krishna have a WHOLE lot of ideas in common(wink,wink to those who’ve studied this relationship). Looking closely at exactly what ideas were espoused by the fictional or nonfictional character known as Jesus…one could consider him a type of yogi…not very “western” at all.
I study Jungian psychology and i asked my mentor how does it come that jung talks about growing your ego and in buddhism they talk about letting go of the ego. And he said to me, you can't let go of something that you are not holding. So to integrate our unconscious and growing our ego gives us the opportunity to let go.
It is also a matter of time. The western concept of self-improvement, self-fulfilmant, individuation, are vital for the first two decades. any philosophy that undemines that, as for example 'Original Sin', should be actively taught against.
That is exactly the point. Bravo. It seems your mentor, if he could apply all the wisdom he gained from this understanding, would be someone worth listening to when it comes to the cessation of suffering.
Before i ever went down the rabbithole of Buddhist teachings or Jung's ideas of self, i had this sort of intrusive epiphane about existence while watching my son play. With ordinary bubbles. All made of the same soapy water solution. All filled with the same air. All created essentially the from the same parts and same source. But clearly each retaining an individuality. Each bubble is its OWN bubble. Being formed at different times, slightly different sizes, travelling and interacting in different ways through the duration of their existence. All return to the same materials when they cease to exist. A bit of soapy water residue disspated to the environment and the air that filled it returned to its shapeless form, never really gone at all. I think thats a metaphor for our existence as well. We are all simultaneously all the same, only made individual by our experiences and specific physical embodiment. But when you learn to see beyond just the parts that make you yourself and see the parts that make you connected to everything, you free yourself from being trapped in a shell of individual existence and tap into the thing that fills us all and always exists, shapeless. Now, listening to this, i wonder about this idea i had. If bubbles had sentience, how would they describe what gives them a sense of self? And would they become so attached to those ideas that they would reject the notion of being a part of something greater than themselves?
i had an experience with bubbles once while high and was mesmerized by how profound they seemed. I only get high on life and art now but I am often looking for ways to express the metaphors for existance in art. It is so much easier to see our inner connectedness when we think about fish in water or birds in flight. It is harder to see the connectedness with us up walking around in space. I am an artist and recentely have been drawing and painting birds and I think part of my affinity is because of how much more connected birds seem as they fly through space
As a former Christian and now a Theravada Buddhist practitioner for over 20 years; the very concept of a god is forign to me now. Most suffering comes from not being able to accept the way things are.
Truth is both are true. The only challenge as flowing between selflessness and the self we are called to be to respond to the needs of others Rigidity is the error The self is a role not an identity #lifeisart ⚡️❤️💜💙⚡️
Of course there is a self, your biology and physical experience through time makes your persona and personality unique. You decisions, how you talk, and how you conduct yourself is the self
That’s more what we call the ego, develops over time and creates the illusion of self. However the question you can ask is.. Who is experiencing all that? Where does smell go after the nose? What part can you say is the self? And lastly: when you were a day old, you had no physical experience, no thoughts, no decision. Was the 1 day old baby not yourself?
To equate self-individuation with 'enlightenent' is to ignore that western theories of sel-fulfilment or individuation really depend on affirming the ego-construction of an individual for their first two decades at minimum. Buddhism teaches the deconstruction of the mature ego ( ( seen as the integrated self ).
This is actually taught in Buddhism aswell, although I don’t remember the exact words of where to find them. The best example I have is how people travel to become munks and “find themselves”. Yet get told to first do something that’s worth giving up. People with no accomplishments can often be turned down because they can not understand what it is to give up what they have
Hello, I love your guys videos. They really are helping me on my spiritual journey. I just have one question, where do you find the background music for your RUclips videos, it's so relaxing.
A consciousness only ever experiences the thoughts and feelings (body sensations) that it's shown. We think we're a little person in our own heads, piloting ourselves around, but what would make that person go left or go right, or choose anything? Will. The feeling/thought in any given moment that says "I want to go this way, not that way." And you don't choose to have that thought. You can't choose any thought. You thinking "Now I'm gonna think about XYZ" is you already thinking about it. This sounds nuts but it's true. And that means you can't escape your conscience either: it's not up to you that you judge everything (including yourself) in some version of good/bad, nor that you're gonna be wrong sometimes (often) in your judgments, both unknowingly and knowingly. Your will is not up to you: it's not up to anyone (hence it's free). If you were to choose will, it would just be more will expressing itself, since will IS preference, IS choice. It's not up to you, not because eventually it COULD be up to you, but because it's never up to anyone, not even God. Again, because consciousness doesn't choose thought/will/preference. It never could, since choosing is expressing preference you don't decide. What if God could make anything happen with the snap of his fingers? (maybe He can, for the sake of the argument). What would He do? Whatever He wanted. But not what He didn't want. Thus God is 'limited' by his will. This is not to diminish God, this is to show that nothing can choose will: will is the Tao, the way, the course, the pattern that life does, in every moment. God 'the Father'... father = pattern (pater), and we are experiencing the 'forming / patterning' of God, which is existence. It's literally everything. Not in a woo woo way, but since atoms aren't actually atoms... they're not shells with protons, neutrons, electrons inside. There's no shell. It's just the buzzing protons, neutrons, electrons in their patterns. But even the protons, neutrons, electrons... they're not actually little spherical shells with stuff inside, either. They're JUST the patterns inside (quarks, mesons, energy waves), dancing around giving the appearance, when zoomed back a little, of some 'sub-atomic particle.' It finally hit me: there's no 'stuff' at the bottom at all. Aka, you never could get down to the bottom where something is finally made of 'stuff.' It's just smaller and smaller forms, which are made of smaller forms, but never matter. And thus it's space itself that is being formed. What? Imagine laying a napkin flat on a table. Now pinch the napkin in a spot so it sticks up like a nipple. The nipple you can see - it's a 'thing/object' of its own in your head, but it's really just bunched napkin. Reality is like this: space is the napkin, and where it's been bunched, energized, or something (the specifics don't matter so much tbh), then suddenly there's something doing a pattern (an atom, for ex), which is interactive, where there was just space before. I'm not saying atoms appear out of nowhere. I have no idea how they come into being. I'm saying that once they're here atoms ARE space. Everything is only space, bunched and visible and interactive. And thus everything is unity, and God. But completely out of your control. And thus not up to you that you have a conscience (you can't outwit your feelings, even when they're wrong), nor that you'll fail daily at things, nor up to you that you can or can't accept anything I've just written. You're playing out God's dream. Dreaming He's separate from Himself. Because will is free and unchosen, as it must always be (because no consciousness could ever choose what it's going to think next). So relax (though it's not up to you if you do). And maybe start putting your mind on all the muscle/tissue tension throughout your body: all the tension (anxiety) that builds from thinking "I have to choose what I'm going to do next and I don't exactly know what to do and I'm gonna die at the end of life." The tension (it's vague pain) somewhere in your body and every time you're nervous or scared, you'll feel those tissues clench, seize, and the vague pain that comes. This time (and forever, from now on) dare yourself to feel the pain: spend time holding your mind on the tension, while reminding yourself that it's not up to you what you do next. Never has been. Your whole life has been this way and you've gotten this far. So relax, if you can. Nothing is up to you. And so you can begin to trust (true faith). Trust that grows seeing something you've never seen before: nothing is up to anyone, and yet it all still means. We learn, but it's not up to us that we do. So tell yourself that, the truth, and see what happens. So, re: this video... the 'self' is unity (it's all bunched space/God and only ever could be). Including the fact that you're feeling yourself as a separate self in the moment. So do you exist as a separate self? The feeling of you does, and it's God having that feeling. But you're not in control. There are always consequences (they're not up to you either). It all still has meaning (you feel meaning, every single moment). So begone, nihilism. Meditate on truth: unity, no control. And watch who you become in the moments you remember: as the Tao says, "Kindhearted as a grandmother. Dignified as a king." Then you'll watch yourself be an asshole again just to remind you you're not in control :)
I agree with most of what you say, but I don’t have the same conclusion. What you explain as Will is what we consider the subconscious, we can’t directly change it, but with awareness the will changes. You can’t create will, but you can realize something that creates will. For example in addiction, a lot of people simply don’t want to quit, why would they? They don’t have a reason, hence not a will, to quit. And most that successfully quit so so because they become aware of what matters, and realize that the addiction is holding that back. That’s when they suddenly want to quit, it’s not a choice, it’s not willpower or strength, it’s a will. But ultimately (imo) a will isn’t what defines. It’s simply a product of what’s experienced
There is a lot of wisdom in this video but I still think there is a fundamental discordance between both views. I love a lot of Buddhist principles but always found issue with a sense of dismissal of things like the Self being 'illusory'. What I really love about Jung is that he grapples with such ephemeral and potentially unbounded concepts and gives them flesh. The Self is not illusory just like the chariot is not illusory when you can't find it in the sum of its parts. This is a strange aspect of experience / consciousness but I think it speaks of something central to the human condition, rather than something to be dismissed as a misapprehension. The Self is real. But it expands and challenges what people tend to think 'real' means. But the nature of one's relationship to that Self might be at the heart of their suffering, and I think that's all a feature rather than a bug of the Jungian perspective 🖤
Actually Buddhism doesn’t reject anything, including the Self. Instead it encourages us not to get attached to any idea at all, including choosing a side between the Self or no-Self. When the Brahmins asked Buddha if there is a Self (which was the central belief of the Brahmins) he didn’t answer. In other words, according to Buddhism, there is neither a Self nor a non-self. What we glean from this (especially in the Diamond Sutra) is that the Buddha taught that we should avoid clinging to any and all concepts. As soon as you choose a side - Self or no-Self - you are no longer in truth. This is the Middle Way.
In Buddhism, the concept of our true nature exists even if we haven't realized it yet. This true nature is not a soul; hence, the emphasis on Anatta, which means the absence of a permanent self, because both body and mind are considered illusory. This true nature, which can be called "dharmakaya" or "atta," exists perfectly, never born or created, while the physical and mental aspects are Anatta.
Is mind illusory? Or is it beginningless and endless at some level? At what level discerning - like/not like/indifferent? Then another more analytical? And another ultimately empty and luminous ... ever present, just obscured? Maybe I'm just getting the idea of "mind" confused. In English, it is more related to Judeo-Christian history and scientific materialist thinking that the mind is the brain. Something continues, no? Some aspect of "consciousness" which is not illusory and yet not fixed. Help me out, please :)
i just asked chat gpt "imagine you are kg jung and buddha now discuss a topic you are most passionate about." so its exactly what it did :) makes you wonder.
Psychology simply relies too much on referencing the mind through thoughts, and largely ignores the experience of no-thought. This allows it to sound more rational, more amenable to a modern audience, whether or not it paints a complete picture.
1996 - I put down the mask that was never me, didn't know just who I was going to be, all I know for sure is: "I am not me." (I = the authentic individual, me - the persona) 2025 - After 30 years of uncovering the authentic "I" via musical improvisation and recording - then listening to the recording in an attempt to get a sense of the authentic I. It became clear that stylistic attributes in the song were merely persona. So the recordings progressed to be mostly archetypes with very very little or no style conveying them. The music bears a similarity to the post-rock genre but is not typical of it. At this juncture, age 72, my conclusion from this process of "getting out of the way" to record improvisation as a "mere messenger," just as Jackson Pollack threw paint, is this: "I am the ocean beneath the sea." I now identify with The Ocean beneath the sea. That's the I inside the me.
Is this a tautology? If you articulated archetypes, then observed them, of course you would conclude that you were an archetype at the nadir of your experience. You might want to try enlightenment instead of being the hammer that views reality as only nails. (However, the label you came up with is a magnificent metaphor for the nadir of your experience. So does this mean the wellspring of that Ocean beneath the sea is your Daimon?)
That fits. Is it a coincidence and/or correspondence that Jung thought a diamond was at the nadir of the Self because mandalas have them in the center? (diamond - daimon was the Roman/Latin spelling for the Greek's daemon, right?)
This is my first video to watch in your channel. As someone interested in both Jung and Buddha teachings and striving for the answers to the profound questions we all ask ourselves, I can say you did a great job in this video. Although, I would like it more if i in-text citations to your references were used. By experience and accidentally, I think I’ve found the technique which integrates both approaches. I’m interested to be in touch and learn more together.
Why are some people in the media saying that Jung was a charlatan. I don't think we can really understand Buddhism by intellectual means, Buddhism emphasises direct experience. The cultivation of mindfulness and concentration plus kindness, compassion and generosity are very important to the Buddhist path. I think cultivating mindfulness is key. The Buddhist definition of mindfulness is to be aware without judging, or pay close attention without judging. One Buddhist meditation practice is translated as mindfulness of breathing or paying attention to the breath
Agreed. maybe some people are still attached to an image of self that can re-birth in another body. This despite all training to detatch from ego and judgement of others.
Jung's work is incomplete, he didn't get past the emotional memory, So he does not know how to complete the Circle, And left everyone else wondering about the end game ,so to speak, thus open to being called a fake
Buddhism is ancient culture of India , we do not have any evidences of vedic period so we can say Buddhism and Jainism is the real culture of India and oldest
Your last section touched on the very concept of the Santa Dharma's very profound concept... " everything is Maya"..... The deepest truth is everything you see, feel, sense, taste, experience is Maya. Once you understand this, and the true goal of the Atman (Brahman) is to unite with the Parabrahman, then it becomes very clear to detach oneself (ego). But being here, being conscious, means do live.... meaning do your duty (karma) without expecting rewards and live as required by Dharma. As, I mentioned in the previous post, the west has no fundamental grasp of such concepts and attempts to simplify it, leads to untruths
When you've lived so long without anything then you become aware of freedom from material properties,but it is hard for those who have always had something to cling on to that they are scared of letting it go. Material versus immaterial.
Understanding the “Self” in Buddhism has always been subject to interpretation and debate. My view, after practicing and studying Buddhism for 15 years, is that the Buddhist core concept of “Non-Self” has two meanings: The first is the concept of detachment, where we let go of personal gratification and recognize we are part of a mass of humanity, and all in this struggle together, leading to the notion that helping each other is not only mutually beneficial, but psychologically liberating. The second meaning is the notion that the “Self” is ever changing, meaning not permanent, and as such, doesn’t exist. This is incorrect in my opinion. The reality is the ever changing self is essentially an expanding Self, consisting of the aggregate knowledge and wisdom developed over time, but is in fact a specific entity, albeit simply a collection of mental perceptions, right and wrong. This validates both views of Buddhism and jungian psychology.
I think the challenge here is taking the mission on defeating the shadow once this done ..the self shouldn't have so much identity & more clarity to discovery true nature of who or wat self is .
For me, I've always talked against the idea of "no-self", I think because i felt it's logical conclusion as negating, dogmatic, and profoundly uncompassionate. But this video has helped me understand that it's more about not tightly grasping one concept or the other (self vs. No self), but rather weaving between both. Self is both a particle and a wave, in that sense. And neither. I preferred western mysticism because I felt it recontextualized consciousness, ego, and self in relation to a transcendent principle, but the fluidity of no-self is also required for the individual's concepts, identity, and relationship to that transcendent principle to evolve fluidly and gracefully. Again, allowing for both is necessary. Nice video. AI voice was a little odd, but the i liked the content.
Just because something is ever-changing does not imply that it does not exist. A river is never still, always changing, and yet the river exists. The usefulness of the No-Self concept is, first, that one is not a rigid fixed entity like many believe, and second, that anything that is found or pictured in concept is not the true essential Self. This is the case because the Self cannot find the Self anymore than the eye can look upon itself directly, it can only behold a similitude of itself, such as in a mirror. All this does not imply that the Self does not exist, but only that it cannot be found in concept or form. Both Self and No Self terminology have their benefits and drawbacks, but that minor discrepancy pales in comparison to the general agreement between Buddha and Jung.
A "true essential Self" is precisely the opposite of anatta. The point is that the self is a convention, exactly as a river, so that's why it is pointless to search for a "true essence".
@jorgesanf If you follow that reasoning to its logical extent, you will arrive at: everything is a convention, therefore nothing is real, nothing exists. That is true in a certain context, but it is not applicable so long as form can be perceived and feelings felt. Wisdom is to reject the false sense of self, such as identification the with body or thoughts; but existence IS. Whether the inescapable, visceral sense of existence is labelled Self or something else is trivial, it still IS. This conversation is sufficient proof that no-thing is not the answer.
@jorgesanf Things have appearance. Though the appearance of the moon may change, it remains recognizable as the moon. This implies essence. The map and the territory are not the same thing. But from the map one can recognize the territory. This implies that both point to the same underlying Idea. That would be essence.
There still appears to be debates about whether the Buddha taught no self or no permanent self. My opinion is that the teaching is no permanent self, so the Buddha isn't saying there's no self but actually saying there's no permanent self. Which I think makes much more sense. Our body is in constant flux and definitely impermanent and our mind is constantly changing, thoughts come and go all the time, feelings change and states of mind change. There are multiple I' s. Could this be6tge reason why we want to do something but end up doing something else, because there's a struggle going on inside ourselves between the different I' s
we have multiple, competing desires, always. We want both stability AND adventure/surprise. And we'll take more of both, please. Except these two things, both of which are understandably desirable, are mutually exclusive. So there's always a part of us upset (to some degree, big or small) with the situation. Will (that which drives us) is never satisfied. Ever. So, accept this truth, and then figure out where the pain is (all thoughts create clenching in the body, somewhere - start looking for it). That clenching is actual muscle tissues that are tight and vaguely painful. Go put your mind on them. Behind the eyes, the throat, the sternum, the gut, the anus: they all clench and express our fear. And instead of feeling the pain of tension, we drive off on some quest to make it go away. Start feeling it always, as you do everything else.
No thought is good or bad when it arises. It takes a further thought or judgement of the initial thought to say it is good or bad. There is no thinker of thoughts, the thinker is just another thought. Whatever you are is prior to thought and after thought.
Personally after some internal reflection, what holds true for me in some essence so far is this. The body feels, The mind interprets, I observe. Feeling can be spontaneous, Misinterpretations are bound to happen and you will be blind if you're not cautious. I'm a bit doubtful in mysticism but i do find some truth or wisdom in hermetic teachings. "As above, so below." If I as an observer, i.e. the "soul", am watching the body in its experience, does the body break through aether and peer into me? In simple terms, where am i?
What lies beyond the story that I tell myself about who I am? Joyful exhuberance; freedom to be without anxiety and an ability to be an instrument that plays music upon the chords of my sinews and viscera. There is where I can see and be without criticism. This is where the Void is that marvellous near timeless space where chaos and order fractalize into beautiful complex forms that spring forth and dissolve. It is the place of life and death as complementary and not immissible opposite.. It is where the exhilation into becoming and the inhilation into no-thing-ness cohabit. It is the dimensionless point and the boundlessly infinite, and these also are not in contradiction. It is a place where beauty pulsates in waves, and all the voices of becoming and collapsing are singing harmoniously. Word cannot say it, though a poem can resonate the reader while erasing itself. It is the knowledge that behind the veil is a mirror and the mirror reflects itself in the mirror that gazes into it. This ecstasy is always accessible, and is also easily overwhelmed in our minds by the noise of daily life in the world. Anytime we want to pay attention and see it, it is there - always. (No striving or seeking is required.)
If no permanent Self exists, it doesn't mean that the Self👁doesn't😶🌫️exist🤔. It just means that it's not🫦permanent, however, it is changing to a greater🧘♀️Self, journeying towards the Original Supreme👑Consciencessness🧠, empty of the🎺former state 🎶of previous Form, Essence, & Mind.
Alchemy is the transmutation from one element into another...it was a fruitless endeavor that has the merit that it encouraged laying the foundations of chemistry. Alchemy must mean something else in the Jungian use, but that must be d e f i n e d before using it in a commentary.
Basically a NTP and NFJ philosophy. Buddha being INTP/ENTP with Blind or Demon function Fi. And Jung being INFJ responding with critical Fi. I’m pointing this out so you can understand without bias if you’re familiar with MBTI. I’ve found a lot of people’s philosophies are deeply tied with their respective views based on the patterns of their personality and this is a repeating theme across similar types towards certain topics.
Yes. But the irony here is that you are referring to the man who created the underpinnings of the whole MBYI system. Now try to classify Buddha in his own terms: (Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery . -The Buddha was never as terse as Lao Tsu. -Except for the 3 Noble Truths.)
@@dbuck1964 Yes. But the 4th is the Eightfold Path, which requires a fair amount of explanation, and is therefore not terse. Right... (I know, I know, I'm splitting hairs.)
What greater folly could there be in life, than to go through it insisting that a coin only has the face you saw when you discovered it because it never even occurred to you to turn it over? Apply this to your life.
the permanent self at this time stamp in the video 15:37 is it what you think it is. the teaching is literally telling the distinction of what you are and the material real world to who you are psychologically in your subconscious conscience sensitiveness depends on comprehensible capabilities understanding the interpretation of that data to comprehend it completely in the correct way to do that you have to be aware of things and consciously thinking about it or being trained to notice it earlier in the video they were talking about no like noticing movements identify things I want you study yourself and become familiar with the beast that we all are you'll be able to have a certain insight on things that will be brought to your attention from others that you are very familiar with yourself why don't you just come out and say instead of saying it all in a philosophize way like it's mysterious or something that's what people get all confused cuz they don't understand what the hell they're reading. the South within the human psyche is just a gathering information and ideas and how strongly you feel towards them training emotional value to them within that thought you don't actually feel that emotion it only exists within that thought. not in the real material realm at all but our physical form is what we are that's the real world that's what we have to accept because there's nothing we can do about it. to who we are psychologically like a person with good moral values we judge a person by the content of their character this way within the aspect of what they think and how they act to know whether or not they're a person that's going to go and write a bunch of babies or be a person that's going to jump in to the line of danger to save someone else and not lie being honorable person compared to a dishonorable person.these ideas are acceptable to everything even your own thought or just an image that changes the way you think about certain aspects of something that changes the value of how strongly you feel towards that something and that creates different emotional value for that something that you had a different one idea for in the first place and you can actually feel the change if you conscious enough to notice it seems like there's a space in between there between the thought even though it's the one thought. but I doubt most people are even capable of half the stuff they think they can do just putting it nicely. humans so much potential wasted.
Thought provoking discussion. What Buddha found was to end the suffering while living as a human being. Unfortunately the Buddhist texts have not been understood as per the pathway to end suffering because of the impact of the cociousness of the laymen those who recorded the Buddhist texts. The original Buddha language is Magadhi. You need to understand the Magadhi to get the correct meaning of Buddha words. The translations need to follow carefully. Just telling " no self" meaning less without the correct pathway of the Buddhist teaching. My understanding is "Maha Sathara Shathi Patthana" with Magadhi ( not totali the current Pali) is the pathway to end suffering.
Tantric Tibetan Buddhism is using ecstatic experience to reach Awareness/Nirvana. Sutra based Buddhism[still Mahayana]relies on self renunciation to attain Awareness/Nirvana. The two ways differ a lot●
Does one’s self even exist? It’s always changing (willfully or not) making it indescribable except for only a few moments. How can anything exist, when it’s never the same. It makes much more sense to not even look through such a scope at all. Unfortunately, western religions push against this realization at every opportunity. But this does make us more controllable as we focus solely on ourselves, self-interest or personas we’ve convinced ourselves are real.
An oak tree is very describable, even though it is constantly changing. Same for a rock or a human. I don't really see the problem, as long as our language allows for the fact that everything is constantly shifting. Even so, why do we need to speak of the self at all? Can't we simply be aware of 'self' without having to describe it? It's an ongoing debate inside my psyche.
Tibetan Mandalas are visual mnemonic devices for concepts taught for use in Tantric practice. The mandalas are made up of many geometric shapes but they are to be understood as spacial 3 D constructs[ Google 3D Mandalas]. The graphics shown on this chanel are not too close to Mandalas. [Please see the Kalachakra Mandala].
Self is an ego of karmic vision that appears to be a real entity, attachment to ego self lead us to samsaric birth. But beyond the illusion of ego self is no self which is the ultimate reality. If you want to escape the samsaric sufferings of birth and death you have to approach through understanding that self is not permanent things but illusion created by conditions ( five skandhas)
- Carl Jung measured Buddha in term of his limited knowledge. - Buddha taught in two terms, Reality(self) for non enlightened and True Oath(no self) for enlightened. - We are self when we are not attended Nirvana yet. - By Vipassana meditation (observe the truth) we will stop creating the new self and delete the old self one by one until we reach no self (Nirvana).
Reality is Self for those who approach it as Self. Reality is No- Self for those who approach it as No- Self. Whatever the approach, all that matters is the Reality.
Perhaps some peasants achieved enlightenment before the oligarch Buddha did, but they had no publicity, as a wealthy person would. I'm grateful we got the message in any event.
Buddha says there is no self whilst Carl Jung states that the self is the center of psychological wholeness. Without examining the self, you cannot find the center, and as you go deeper you realize that there is no self, its just a series of stories we allowed ourselves to believe. Ego is the the stories that we allowed ourselves to believe, and because we believed it, it became the truth, like the blinders that keeps a horse in check so that he can do the one thing that's profitable for the master; he runs, that is the truth for the horse. Unless he is somehow freed and is able to escape into the wild. But yet still, his old ways stop him from actually surviving. He would not know the laws that ACTUALLY governs his well being and this blindness will stop him from living out his true purpose. To run, but as a wild horse! (A reference to Plato's allegory of the cave...kinda)
But couldn't we say that EVERYTHING is just a series of stories we allowed ourselves to believe, including the Buddhist story? I'm just asking because it seems to me that Buddhists do not apply the same logic to Buddhism that they do to everything else.
@harryposner7584 Thats it, thars where awareness steps in, it is the inner eye that discerns what stories are your own and what are adopted out of conformity. Without that knowledge one is lost to the whims of thoughts and the emotions that arise out of those thoughts. I don't quite understand the latter part of your argument, about Buddhist not using the same logic....could you help me understand.
From the Selfishness of Western folks to the Selfless path of Eastern Buddhism there s an Astronomical Distance remaining...[Eastern painters most times do not sign their paintings...]
Psychology investigates the form (the 'created self) and attaches labels to that deemed 'abnormal' within that 'created self'. Buddhism is a step beyond.. in Self inquiring beyond all that is not real (the illusory self) is the Essence, the Awareness of Awareness.. this is ultimately all that Is. Pure Is-ness. 'That which is real, cannot be unreal. That which is unreal, doesn’t exist' - A Course in Miracles There is only one truth. The Form.. the created Self exists purely as a practical tool to navigate the man-made structures of societal civilizations we are functioning in. These are all purely concepts, governing 'rules'. All changeable, all malleable, never stable. The 'No Self' (that which remains unchanging, stable, whole, untouchable, eternally same... is no self. That no self-ness can be reached via Inner inquiring, letting go of all that is not, and residing in all that remains.. Is-ness.. the nothingness that is everything ❤
Lots of respect for Carl Jung. Good video. But.. Buddha said, you are beyond yourself. you cannot comprehend yourself. You are not what you think. You are in fragments. Science is saying the same. 5 skandhas are empty. Your self is empty without substance. Self or no self, it doesn't matter. We need to be free from suffering.
Combining both and finding the balance is my prospective. 😊😊😊 Omran said: between Good and Bad, there is something no one tell you. So, we are left with open doors to find that. To find that, there is no right or wrong method. What's resonating with one, is what he/she might follow to find it. Some people might need to be alone to find it and some others might need to find it through groups. The true is: why you think that you are wrong? Or why you think you are right? And so, why others? Happy New Year 2025 🎆🎆🎆, and welcome to Industrial Revolution 4.0, AI Era. 😊😊😊 InterGemm, the leading provider of CNC and Laser Equipment, is located in Charlotte, NC.
The Buddha never taught a "no-self" doctrine, so the debate is moot. Go read the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta for yourself. All phenomena are empty of Self because they are objects of awareness and by definition, cannot be the Self. This is the identical teaching you will find in the Upanishads. The point of meditation is to see this for yourself, that even your inner most thoughts and feeling are not you, because they have a life of their own and go on even when you are fixating your intention on the breath or silence. The Self is the knower which can never be known. It transcends the world of impermanence and suffering which is lowly and unfit for our true, divine nature. That was the Buddha's point. "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" - "Impermanent, venerable Sir." - "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" - "Painful, venerable Sir." - "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, FIT TO BE REGARDED thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? - "No, venerable sir."
Thank you 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 for sharing your video. It is so inspiring and profound. No self is more resonated with my understanding. Ex, No Self (freedom)vs Self (suffering). I don’t cling to Self because I understand that my physical body or self is not mine at all. If it’s mine it should be under my command. This physical is impermanent absolutely. Therefore, should one clings to this impermanent universe? God is just nature. Buddhism is the Noble Truth of Democracy…
My interpretation of this is very simple. “It’s the same argument that of Atman Vs. Anatman”. Self Vs. No Self. When Buddhist say no self, it is that any idea we create of awareness will be false. “It is a state of being, awareness itself”. This cannot fit into any concept or idea - So no self. The face you were before your parents conceived you is beyond intellect. So we must give up false identities to see this. When Hindus and Jung says self they are also referring to that same place of the face you were before you were born. It is just labeled Self. Jung studied all aspects streaming forth from the conscious experience of man and the self as the awareness underneath it all. That underneath all this stuff lies awareness which is non of it. So in essence the Hindu and Jung Self is the same as Buddhist No-Self
Of course the Self is an illusion, but illusions can be powerful and very sticky. I see no contradiction here. Try to be kind to yourself & others. ✌ ❤
Each time a thought is identified with, this objectifying gives rise to a self. Here lies in the error. It is like pointing at a mirage and discussing the qualities of the water therein.
Descartes expressed the self as the one who thinks and is aware of thinking self. Many philosophers have sought to describe different aspects of the self such as Aristotle describing thinking also as the self. Plato describes the self as awareness of our experiences and the gravitational pulls towards good and bad. However, one can allude the causes of self is God if one looks beyond the internal self which Buddha and Jung describe. I can assert my personal opinion that the self is that which causes good rather than bad as theology asserts that good is from God and bad from the Devil. However, from a non-theological perspective I would say that the self is constructed by the mind. The issue withself-construction I would assert is it is bssed on opinion at the time and is not immune to change and thereby will change recognizing personal opinions as flawed it comes across. Self is the greater good one posseses which possession comes from God. Opposite of self is nothingness, while respecting Buddha who came from a wealthy family, permanency is what Buddha may have been searching for which in my opinion, may not have been able to find if permanency could not exist in things material. Existence are things material which can be studied while things immaterial are recognized through experience. Is the self an experience or a thing which is immaterial but cannot be experienced but yet studied?
so carl Jung’s idea is more focused on working on the self to Become a better self for the world and Buddha eliminates the self to be completely about inspiring the world at all times
Buddha was more right than Jung in my case. Jung would label myself as an introvert so perhaps I'd swing the other way if I were an extrovert. Obviously no egoic interpretation can be the ultimate truth but both Jung and Buddha point us towards the way. 🕉️☸️☯️🕊️🫶🏻🏴🙏🏻
I can’t deceive myself by saying that there is no self, using the self itself to make that claim. That is a philosophical theory not a fact that can be experienced. There were many things that the Buddha is said to have not commented on and this should definitely be one of those things not commented on. You can’t disprove a self no more than you can disprove the existence of a creator.
I think the Buddha actually taught there is no permanent self, which makes more sense. There still appears to be ongoing debate about this among some academics in the Buddhist Community. But I think it is possible to directly experience the impermenance of the self to actually realise it at a deeper level beyond thoughts or the intellect, to have direct experience of this
@ and on and on the wriggle goes. That’s why this conversation can go nowhere because it’s just words and concepts of theory. The reality is that the only self you can see and prove is the one typing the comments. You can only try and disprove your “self” in theory.
Jung did not “discover” a permanent self. It is an ancient belief from the vedas. The real debate is between Buddhist views of the self and that of vedic/hindu traditions. Jung has no lineage. He’s a modern western academic at best.
Thank you so much for this reminder. This idea of atma and anatma is thousands of years old. Santaana dharma, no? Rig Veda? Jung was a new comer, before him Schopenhauer willing to look beyond his culture ... Psychology - a baby. the Vedic rishis, experiential seers ... I grew in Winnipeg, Canada - the daughter of Scandanavians, no Sanskrit, no Citta realization culture, no ground of luminosity ... but i'm thirsty and want to reveal the experience of consciousness beyond "evidence based" scientific materialism. Cognition is not illumination ... it's a nice dance step, but there's more with Buddha, all the Buddhas and the bodhisattvas, yogis and yoginis. Let's go deeper in ...
its not really about who came first. Buddha and the Vedic rishis (seers) relied on direct experience of the mind through meditation, whereas Jung , although he was a genius, was working more through the intellect/conceptual thought. He did not have direct experience that can only come from practicing meditation . He is only looking at it philosophically, and therefore can’t be compared to someone like the Buddha in matters of the mind.
@nottrulyexistent Jung documents his own experiences extensively and insofar as all such experiences are ineffable we cannot make comparisons between any of them. Ranking them, as so many do, is pointless. The only purpose for doing so seems to be to assert superiority, again, as is all too common; from "India, teacher of all lands!" (Yogananda) to the myth of Jesus in India and others. If this is common to all humans, as Jung and the Buddha assert, then 'us (or them) first' is indeed missing the point.
All subjective disciplines of art, religion, philosophy, and everything else of subjective nature regimes a inexact fit to the self. They are not one size fits all, but they require one’s own interpretations.
Perhaps you all should understand the very essence of Vedanta. At the very end the wisest of the wise men who intellectually analyze the existence of every living being boils down to one simple truth, that the not so " intelligent person know". Have Bhakthi
19:59 the sound the phone ringing reminds, I am the awareness of existence, ☉ne, w/The Sun, I walk in power; reality bends around me- LatchPrime was here. Location is a myth. Everything is a Circle. Everything will be Okay, Thinking is Deciding I Love You, -LoL ;) ,
Accumulation of Tibetan manuscripts will not turn anyone into an expert in Tantric Tibetan Buddhism...but just a mere collector. Studying Sanskrit implies studying grammar, vocabulary and texts of increasing difficulty. Without serious effort one remains a dabbler at best. Where did Jung fit in? Did he just study the meaning of terms used in the Eastern texts?
you don't understand what they're saying better but they're teaching better take the biblical sense out of it. truthfully they're talking about enlightening oneself with the true knowledge of things the natural law & order of things not only around you but within yourself first and foremost. take any narrative out of it because you're on an adventure looking for you and you alone and you're only going to find you and you alone when you alone are looking for you alone with no other obstructions or corporations of distractions of any kind. you have to be 100% completely honest with yourself. if you lie to yourself or doubt yourself in your own questioning just once as a thing to try and cover it up well this is what I would say but this is what blah blah blah you can't do that you have to be honest to know yourself and if you can't do that you'll never know yourself you'll never know anything. the enlightenment comes with wisdom and realization of the events that have happened in your life for that you have experienced to have the knowledge in the first place.
yeah the delusion of oneself is where the first and foremost evil and that all of the evils drive from comes from in the first place and that is selfishness that's the eagle it creates selfishness I got to have I want I got to be better than this person I got to chip on my shoulder I got this ego I can't blah blah blah yeah you can never go that way you'll straight lose yourself right into the bottomless pit of never-ending sorrow
🌟 What if both Jung and Buddha were right?
Jung discovered the Self as the center of everything, while Buddha taught that no permanent self exists. Yet both paths led to freedom. Which perspective resonates more with your experience?
Share your insights below - your unique view adds depth to this exploration. Let's learn from each other's journey.
✨ For deeper discussions:
- What practices help you understand your true nature?
- Has your view of "self" transformed over time?
- How do you reconcile these seemingly opposite truths?
Join our growing community of seekers and truth explorers! 🙏
Schrodinger's Self. It does and doesn't exist
Buddha was born in Nepal.
2:50 Henry Cavill?
I've come to believe that my Self is an illusion-- an illusion with incredible staying power. It's like the illusion of Free Will-- I can't help but think that I have it.
Jung was a social dictated sheep.
Everyone was the harshest critics, and certain views could have you hanging from a tree.
Jung was a governmental controlled. Was paid good money too.
I've always been attracted to the idea of no self. Western religion is so self involved, God looks like me, thinks like me, God has same polical party as me, I am going to live forever in paradise. The Abrahamic religions are a form of self worship because everyone projects themselves on to God and thinks they have it figured out. I like the idea of stripping the self down to the root, simplify life, letting go of what you can't control and be in the moment.
Touché
Great comment 👍.
Perhaps it stems from your shortcoming of accepting your self ?
It's about knowing self in order to become self aware and not fall victim to the self@@lucasloucetios164
If you read the texts that abrahamic religions are based on, you’ll see the biggest issue is with the followers. Most self-proclaimed “Christians” for example, aren’t actually that well-versed in what the Bible actually teaches. When you write, “I like the idea of…”, there are many bible verses where Jesus and others are saying to do exactly what you liked. I don’t engage religion for the same reasons you don’t, but I love to read the Bible for myself. Don’t let the half-assed, politicized, self-serving opinions of mainstream Christians ruin the Bible for you. Jesus and the Buddha have a lot of ideas in common. Jesus and Krishna have a WHOLE lot of ideas in common(wink,wink to those who’ve studied this relationship). Looking closely at exactly what ideas were espoused by the fictional or nonfictional character known as Jesus…one could consider him a type of yogi…not very “western” at all.
I study Jungian psychology and i asked my mentor how does it come that jung talks about growing your ego and in buddhism they talk about letting go of the ego.
And he said to me, you can't let go of something that you are not holding.
So to integrate our unconscious and growing our ego gives us the opportunity to let go.
It is also a matter of time. The western concept of self-improvement, self-fulfilmant,
individuation, are vital for the first two decades. any philosophy that undemines that,
as for example 'Original Sin', should be actively taught against.
That is exactly the point. Bravo. It seems your mentor, if he could apply all the wisdom he gained from this understanding, would be someone worth listening to when it comes to the cessation of suffering.
I’m really impressed by how you explain Buddhist lessons in such an accessible and insightful way. Thank you
Before i ever went down the rabbithole of Buddhist teachings or Jung's ideas of self, i had this sort of intrusive epiphane about existence while watching my son play.
With ordinary bubbles.
All made of the same soapy water solution. All filled with the same air.
All created essentially the from the same parts and same source.
But clearly each retaining an individuality. Each bubble is its OWN bubble.
Being formed at different times, slightly different sizes, travelling and interacting in different ways through the duration of their existence.
All return to the same materials when they cease to exist. A bit of soapy water residue disspated to the environment and the air that filled it returned to its shapeless form, never really gone at all.
I think thats a metaphor for our existence as well.
We are all simultaneously all the same, only made individual by our experiences and specific physical embodiment.
But when you learn to see beyond just the parts that make you yourself and see the parts that make you connected to everything, you free yourself from being trapped in a shell of individual existence and tap into the thing that fills us all and always exists, shapeless.
Now, listening to this, i wonder about this idea i had.
If bubbles had sentience, how would they describe what gives them a sense of self? And would they become so attached to those ideas that they would reject the notion of being a part of something greater than themselves?
My friend also presented the bubble theory to me
@AsianburnsForlife 😲 I didn't know this was an idea that had a name.
This was just something that came to me while watching my kid play with bubbles.
I love this.
And I appreciate the depth of your perception.
Spectacular persepccion of the infinite thought of self. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
i had an experience with bubbles once while high and was mesmerized by how profound they seemed. I only get high on life and art now but I am often looking for ways to express the metaphors for existance in art. It is so much easier to see our inner connectedness when we think about fish in water or birds in flight. It is harder to see the connectedness with us up walking around in space. I am an artist and recentely have been drawing and painting birds and I think part of my affinity is because of how much more connected birds seem as they fly through space
As a former Christian and now a Theravada Buddhist practitioner for over 20 years; the very concept of a god is forign to me now. Most suffering comes from not being able to accept the way things are.
Yes, it's our miasma of thoughts and interpretations that obscures how things actually are.
Where would you suggest I go to start practicing Theravada Buddhism ?
@@tjnelson2143 ajahn amaro, go get it.
read book, what buddha taught, by walpola.
I have been holding my breath, waiting for this essay for decades. At last it’s come.❤
As a psychologist I’m rather Yung at heart, but found the truth in Buddhist teaching and Jhanna meditation. This a beautiful presentation indeed.
Truth is both are true.
The only challenge as flowing between selflessness and the self we are called to be to respond to the needs of others
Rigidity is the error
The self is a role not an identity
#lifeisart
⚡️❤️💜💙⚡️
You really triggered my ego misspelling Jung as a psychologist…
How do you misspell Jung as a psychologist??
Thanks!
Of course there is a self, your biology and physical experience through time makes your persona and personality unique. You decisions, how you talk, and how you conduct yourself is the self
That’s more what we call the ego, develops over time and creates the illusion of self. However the question you can ask is.. Who is experiencing all that? Where does smell go after the nose? What part can you say is the self?
And lastly: when you were a day old, you had no physical experience, no thoughts, no decision. Was the 1 day old baby not yourself?
There is no Self-Separate, but there is a Self-Unity.
O wonderfully done, thank you! I knew Jung resonated with Lao Tze and Upanishads but this is new information for me . . . Well done!!! Happy.
loved it❤
All of these philosophers are inspiring yet students of our great teacher, the Buddha
Buddhism is systemic.
Buddhism is used for controlling
Buddhism is just as bad as the other religions
To equate self-individuation with 'enlightenent' is to ignore that western theories of sel-fulfilment or individuation really depend on affirming the ego-construction of an individual for their first two decades at minimum.
Buddhism teaches the deconstruction of the mature ego ( ( seen as the integrated self ).
This is actually taught in Buddhism aswell, although I don’t remember the exact words of where to find them. The best example I have is how people travel to become munks and “find themselves”. Yet get told to first do something that’s worth giving up. People with no accomplishments can often be turned down because they can not understand what it is to give up what they have
Hello, I love your guys videos. They really are helping me on my spiritual journey. I just have one question, where do you find the background music for your RUclips videos, it's so relaxing.
A consciousness only ever experiences the thoughts and feelings (body sensations) that it's shown. We think we're a little person in our own heads, piloting ourselves around, but what would make that person go left or go right, or choose anything? Will. The feeling/thought in any given moment that says "I want to go this way, not that way." And you don't choose to have that thought. You can't choose any thought. You thinking "Now I'm gonna think about XYZ" is you already thinking about it.
This sounds nuts but it's true. And that means you can't escape your conscience either: it's not up to you that you judge everything (including yourself) in some version of good/bad, nor that you're gonna be wrong sometimes (often) in your judgments, both unknowingly and knowingly. Your will is not up to you: it's not up to anyone (hence it's free).
If you were to choose will, it would just be more will expressing itself, since will IS preference, IS choice. It's not up to you, not because eventually it COULD be up to you, but because it's never up to anyone, not even God. Again, because consciousness doesn't choose thought/will/preference. It never could, since choosing is expressing preference you don't decide.
What if God could make anything happen with the snap of his fingers? (maybe He can, for the sake of the argument). What would He do? Whatever He wanted. But not what He didn't want. Thus God is 'limited' by his will. This is not to diminish God, this is to show that nothing can choose will: will is the Tao, the way, the course, the pattern that life does, in every moment. God 'the Father'... father = pattern (pater), and we are experiencing the 'forming / patterning' of God, which is existence.
It's literally everything. Not in a woo woo way, but since atoms aren't actually atoms... they're not shells with protons, neutrons, electrons inside. There's no shell. It's just the buzzing protons, neutrons, electrons in their patterns.
But even the protons, neutrons, electrons... they're not actually little spherical shells with stuff inside, either. They're JUST the patterns inside (quarks, mesons, energy waves), dancing around giving the appearance, when zoomed back a little, of some 'sub-atomic particle.'
It finally hit me: there's no 'stuff' at the bottom at all. Aka, you never could get down to the bottom where something is finally made of 'stuff.' It's just smaller and smaller forms, which are made of smaller forms, but never matter.
And thus it's space itself that is being formed.
What?
Imagine laying a napkin flat on a table. Now pinch the napkin in a spot so it sticks up like a nipple. The nipple you can see - it's a 'thing/object' of its own in your head, but it's really just bunched napkin.
Reality is like this: space is the napkin, and where it's been bunched, energized, or something (the specifics don't matter so much tbh), then suddenly there's something doing a pattern (an atom, for ex), which is interactive, where there was just space before. I'm not saying atoms appear out of nowhere. I have no idea how they come into being. I'm saying that once they're here atoms ARE space. Everything is only space, bunched and visible and interactive. And thus everything is unity, and God.
But completely out of your control. And thus not up to you that you have a conscience (you can't outwit your feelings, even when they're wrong), nor that you'll fail daily at things, nor up to you that you can or can't accept anything I've just written. You're playing out God's dream. Dreaming He's separate from Himself. Because will is free and unchosen, as it must always be (because no consciousness could ever choose what it's going to think next).
So relax (though it's not up to you if you do). And maybe start putting your mind on all the muscle/tissue tension throughout your body: all the tension (anxiety) that builds from thinking "I have to choose what I'm going to do next and I don't exactly know what to do and I'm gonna die at the end of life." The tension (it's vague pain) somewhere in your body and every time you're nervous or scared, you'll feel those tissues clench, seize, and the vague pain that comes.
This time (and forever, from now on) dare yourself to feel the pain: spend time holding your mind on the tension, while reminding yourself that it's not up to you what you do next. Never has been. Your whole life has been this way and you've gotten this far. So relax, if you can. Nothing is up to you. And so you can begin to trust (true faith). Trust that grows seeing something you've never seen before: nothing is up to anyone, and yet it all still means. We learn, but it's not up to us that we do. So tell yourself that, the truth, and see what happens.
So, re: this video... the 'self' is unity (it's all bunched space/God and only ever could be). Including the fact that you're feeling yourself as a separate self in the moment. So do you exist as a separate self? The feeling of you does, and it's God having that feeling. But you're not in control. There are always consequences (they're not up to you either). It all still has meaning (you feel meaning, every single moment). So begone, nihilism. Meditate on truth: unity, no control.
And watch who you become in the moments you remember: as the Tao says, "Kindhearted as a grandmother. Dignified as a king." Then you'll watch yourself be an asshole again just to remind you you're not in control :)
The zen solution is to get out of your own way. those intentions
that emerge as thoughts and actions come from you, get with it.
I agree with most of what you say, but I don’t have the same conclusion. What you explain as Will is what we consider the subconscious, we can’t directly change it, but with awareness the will changes.
You can’t create will, but you can realize something that creates will. For example in addiction, a lot of people simply don’t want to quit, why would they? They don’t have a reason, hence not a will, to quit. And most that successfully quit so so because they become aware of what matters, and realize that the addiction is holding that back. That’s when they suddenly want to quit, it’s not a choice, it’s not willpower or strength, it’s a will. But ultimately (imo) a will isn’t what defines. It’s simply a product of what’s experienced
There is a lot of wisdom in this video but I still think there is a fundamental discordance between both views. I love a lot of Buddhist principles but always found issue with a sense of dismissal of things like the Self being 'illusory'.
What I really love about Jung is that he grapples with such ephemeral and potentially unbounded concepts and gives them flesh. The Self is not illusory just like the chariot is not illusory when you can't find it in the sum of its parts. This is a strange aspect of experience / consciousness but I think it speaks of something central to the human condition, rather than something to be dismissed as a misapprehension.
The Self is real. But it expands and challenges what people tend to think 'real' means. But the nature of one's relationship to that Self might be at the heart of their suffering, and I think that's all a feature rather than a bug of the Jungian perspective 🖤
Actually Buddhism doesn’t reject anything, including the Self. Instead it encourages us not to get attached to any idea at all, including choosing a side between the Self or no-Self. When the Brahmins asked Buddha if there is a Self (which was the central belief of the Brahmins) he didn’t answer. In other words, according to Buddhism, there is neither a Self nor a non-self. What we glean from this (especially in the Diamond Sutra) is that the Buddha taught that we should avoid clinging to any and all concepts. As soon as you choose a side - Self or no-Self - you are no longer in truth. This is the Middle Way.
Very interesting! Thank you 🙏🏼
Om Mani Padme Hum 💛
Profound. Powerful. This echoes things I have felt without having the language to describe it, even to myself.
Beautifully done, thank you 🙏🏻
A wonderful essay. I know that there’s a wise wise person behind all this. ❤
Will share my thoughts in detail
There is NO SELF. We are NO ONE. There is NO ONE.
In Buddhism, the concept of our true nature exists even if we haven't realized it yet. This true nature is not a soul; hence, the emphasis on Anatta, which means the absence of a permanent self, because both body and mind are considered illusory. This true nature, which can be called "dharmakaya" or "atta," exists perfectly, never born or created, while the physical and mental aspects are Anatta.
Is mind illusory? Or is it beginningless and endless at some level? At what level discerning - like/not like/indifferent? Then another more analytical? And another ultimately empty and luminous ... ever present, just obscured? Maybe I'm just getting the idea of "mind" confused. In English, it is more related to Judeo-Christian history and scientific materialist thinking that the mind is the brain. Something continues, no? Some aspect of "consciousness" which is not illusory and yet not fixed. Help me out, please :)
i just asked chat gpt "imagine you are kg jung and buddha now discuss a topic you are most passionate about." so its exactly what it did :) makes you wonder.
Psychology simply relies too much on referencing the mind through thoughts, and largely ignores the experience of no-thought. This allows it to sound more rational, more amenable to a modern audience, whether or not it paints a complete picture.
we have to create a self then be willing to throw it away. One is helpful for for coming up, the other is for coming down, like a mountain
1996 - I put down the mask that was never me, didn't know just who I was going to be, all I know for sure is: "I am not me." (I = the authentic individual, me - the persona) 2025 - After 30 years of uncovering the authentic "I" via musical improvisation and recording - then listening to the recording in an attempt to get a sense of the authentic I. It became clear that stylistic attributes in the song were merely persona. So the recordings progressed to be mostly archetypes with very very little or no style conveying them.
The music bears a similarity to the post-rock genre but is not typical of it. At this juncture, age 72, my conclusion from this process of "getting out of the way" to record improvisation as a "mere messenger," just as Jackson Pollack threw paint, is this: "I am the ocean beneath the sea." I now identify with The Ocean beneath the sea. That's the I inside the me.
Dude, didn't Dr. Jung say that identifying with an archetype leads to inflation, and maybe even as far as insanity?
Is this a tautology? If you articulated archetypes, then observed them, of course you would conclude that you were an archetype at the nadir of your experience.
You might want to try enlightenment instead of being the hammer that views reality as only nails. (However, the label you came up with is a magnificent metaphor for the nadir of your experience. So does this mean the wellspring of that Ocean beneath the sea is your Daimon?)
That fits. Is it a coincidence and/or correspondence that Jung thought a diamond was at the nadir of the Self because mandalas have them in the center? (diamond - daimon was the Roman/Latin spelling for the Greek's daemon, right?)
This is my first video to watch in your channel. As someone interested in both Jung and Buddha teachings and striving for the answers to the profound questions we all ask ourselves, I can say you did a great job in this video. Although, I would like it more if i in-text citations to your references were used.
By experience and accidentally, I think I’ve found the technique which integrates both approaches. I’m interested to be in touch and learn more together.
Why are some people in the media saying that Jung was a charlatan. I don't think we can really understand Buddhism by intellectual means, Buddhism emphasises direct experience. The cultivation of mindfulness and concentration plus kindness, compassion and generosity are very important to the Buddhist path. I think cultivating mindfulness is key. The Buddhist definition of mindfulness is to be aware without judging, or pay close attention without judging. One Buddhist meditation practice is translated as mindfulness of breathing or paying attention to the breath
Agreed. maybe some people are still attached to an image of self that can re-birth
in another body. This despite all training to detatch from ego and judgement of others.
Jung's work is incomplete, he didn't get past the emotional memory,
So he does not know how to complete the Circle,
And left everyone else wondering about the end game ,so to speak, thus open to being called a fake
Blessed be the One who finds the Self, which is neither self or no self, or could be said to be Wholeness when 2 become 1. 🙏
Buddhism is ancient culture of India , we do not have any evidences of vedic period so we can say Buddhism and Jainism is the real culture of India and oldest
🧘🏾♀️🧘🏼♂️🧘🏿.. non-dualism .. balance.. impermanence.. middle-way ..non-judgement ..🧘🏿🧘🏼♂️🧘🏾♀️
Your last section touched on the very concept of the Santa Dharma's very profound concept... " everything is Maya"..... The deepest truth is everything you see, feel, sense, taste, experience is Maya. Once you understand this, and the true goal of the Atman (Brahman) is to unite with the Parabrahman, then it becomes very clear to detach oneself (ego). But being here, being conscious, means do live.... meaning do your duty (karma) without expecting rewards and live as required by Dharma. As, I mentioned in the previous post, the west has no fundamental grasp of such concepts and attempts to simplify it, leads to untruths
One of the best self help page
That was impressive
The way you brought seemingly opposite views into one
Very insightful
I really enjoyed that
Man. This is so cool because I've always thought this would be a great topic 😊
When you've lived so long without anything then you become aware of freedom from material properties,but it is hard for those who have always had something to cling on to that they are scared of letting it go. Material versus immaterial.
Buddha and Indian sages have known the human minds in such a depth which we can't fathom,
Real Gold Nuggets of Enquiry here, very nuanced views. 💯 👄☺️
I think we should learn to imagine slowly
Understanding the “Self” in Buddhism has always been subject to interpretation and debate. My view, after practicing and studying Buddhism for 15 years, is that the Buddhist core concept of “Non-Self” has two meanings: The first is the concept of detachment, where we let go of personal gratification and recognize we are part of a mass of humanity, and all in this struggle together, leading to the notion that helping each other is not only mutually beneficial, but psychologically liberating. The second meaning is the notion that the “Self” is ever changing, meaning not permanent, and as such, doesn’t exist. This is incorrect in my opinion. The reality is the ever changing self is essentially an expanding Self, consisting of the aggregate knowledge and wisdom developed over time, but is in fact a specific entity, albeit simply a collection of mental perceptions, right and wrong. This validates both views of Buddhism and jungian psychology.
🧘🏾♀️🧘🏼♂️🧘🏿..yes > non-clinging ..🧘🏿🧘🏼♂️🧘🏾♀️
🕉️.. and, it's an ongoing PRACTICE ..🕉️
It doesn't validate buddhism because you are reifying the self
@@jorgesanf Buddhism doesn’t require “validation”; it stands on its own merits. Perhaps you don’t understand the practice.
I meant that your position is not compatible with buddhism.
Well done!
I think the challenge here is taking the mission on defeating the shadow once this done ..the self shouldn't have so much identity & more clarity to discovery true nature of who or wat self is .
For me, I've always talked against the idea of "no-self", I think because i felt it's logical conclusion as negating, dogmatic, and profoundly uncompassionate. But this video has helped me understand that it's more about not tightly grasping one concept or the other (self vs. No self), but rather weaving between both. Self is both a particle and a wave, in that sense. And neither.
I preferred western mysticism because I felt it recontextualized consciousness, ego, and self in relation to a transcendent principle, but the fluidity of no-self is also required for the individual's concepts, identity, and relationship to that transcendent principle to evolve fluidly and gracefully. Again, allowing for both is necessary.
Nice video. AI voice was a little odd, but the i liked the content.
Just because something is ever-changing does not imply that it does not exist. A river is never still, always changing, and yet the river exists. The usefulness of the No-Self concept is, first, that one is not a rigid fixed entity like many believe, and second, that anything that is found or pictured in concept is not the true essential Self. This is the case because the Self cannot find the Self anymore than the eye can look upon itself directly, it can only behold a similitude of itself, such as in a mirror. All this does not imply that the Self does not exist, but only that it cannot be found in concept or form. Both Self and No Self terminology have their benefits and drawbacks, but that minor discrepancy pales in comparison to the general agreement between Buddha and Jung.
A "true essential Self" is precisely the opposite of anatta. The point is that the self is a convention, exactly as a river, so that's why it is pointless to search for a "true essence".
@jorgesanf If you follow that reasoning to its logical extent, you will arrive at: everything is a convention, therefore nothing is real, nothing exists. That is true in a certain context, but it is not applicable so long as form can be perceived and feelings felt. Wisdom is to reject the false sense of self, such as identification the with body or thoughts; but existence IS. Whether the inescapable, visceral sense of existence is labelled Self or something else is trivial, it still IS. This conversation is sufficient proof that no-thing is not the answer.
@JustOneWillingSoul nope, following the reasoning you get to nothing has essence
@jorgesanf Things have appearance. Though the appearance of the moon may change, it remains recognizable as the moon. This implies essence. The map and the territory are not the same thing. But from the map one can recognize the territory. This implies that both point to the same underlying Idea. That would be essence.
There still appears to be debates about whether the Buddha taught no self or no permanent self. My opinion is that the teaching is no permanent self, so the Buddha isn't saying there's no self but actually saying there's no permanent self. Which I think makes much more sense. Our body is in constant flux and definitely impermanent and our mind is constantly changing, thoughts come and go all the time, feelings change and states of mind change. There are multiple I' s. Could this be6tge reason why we want to do something but end up doing something else, because there's a struggle going on inside ourselves between the different I' s
Why most of our thoughts are stuck on suffering if it’s only a painful thought? Why are we created like this?
we have multiple, competing desires, always. We want both stability AND adventure/surprise. And we'll take more of both, please. Except these two things, both of which are understandably desirable, are mutually exclusive. So there's always a part of us upset (to some degree, big or small) with the situation. Will (that which drives us) is never satisfied. Ever.
So, accept this truth, and then figure out where the pain is (all thoughts create clenching in the body, somewhere - start looking for it). That clenching is actual muscle tissues that are tight and vaguely painful. Go put your mind on them. Behind the eyes, the throat, the sternum, the gut, the anus: they all clench and express our fear. And instead of feeling the pain of tension, we drive off on some quest to make it go away. Start feeling it always, as you do everything else.
No thought is good or bad when it arises. It takes a further thought or judgement of the initial thought to say it is good or bad. There is no thinker of thoughts, the thinker is just another thought. Whatever you are is prior to thought and after thought.
I actually think it was Aldous Huxley who said "Buddhism is the cleanest, most sensible and most direct of all religions"
Personally after some internal reflection, what holds true for me in some essence so far is this. The body feels, The mind interprets, I observe. Feeling can be spontaneous, Misinterpretations are bound to happen and you will be blind if you're not cautious. I'm a bit doubtful in mysticism but i do find some truth or wisdom in hermetic teachings. "As above, so below." If I as an observer, i.e. the "soul", am watching the body in its experience, does the body break through aether and peer into me? In simple terms, where am i?
Thank you, excellent 👌you asked interesting questions. But 🤔 Aren't my answers just mental construction? How do I know?
What lies beyond the story that I tell myself about who I am?
Joyful exhuberance; freedom to be without anxiety and an ability to be an instrument that plays music upon the chords of my sinews and viscera. There is where I can see and be without criticism. This is where the Void is that marvellous near timeless space where chaos and order fractalize into beautiful complex forms that spring forth and dissolve. It is the place of life and death as complementary and not immissible opposite.. It is where the exhilation into becoming and the inhilation into no-thing-ness cohabit. It is the dimensionless point and the boundlessly infinite, and these also are not in contradiction. It is a place where beauty pulsates in waves, and all the voices of becoming and collapsing are singing harmoniously. Word cannot say it, though a poem can resonate the reader while erasing itself. It is the knowledge that behind the veil is a mirror and the mirror reflects itself in the mirror that gazes into it. This ecstasy is always accessible, and is also easily overwhelmed in our minds by the noise of daily life in the world. Anytime we want to pay attention and see it, it is there - always. (No striving or seeking is required.)
If no permanent Self exists, it doesn't mean that the Self👁doesn't😶🌫️exist🤔. It just means that it's not🫦permanent, however, it is changing to a greater🧘♀️Self, journeying towards the Original Supreme👑Consciencessness🧠, empty of the🎺former state 🎶of previous Form, Essence, & Mind.
Alchemy is the transmutation from one element into another...it was a fruitless endeavor that has the merit that it encouraged laying the foundations of chemistry. Alchemy must mean something else in the Jungian use, but that must be d e f i n e d before using it in a commentary.
ما الذي يتحدث عنه العالمان احيانا بعيد عن ما هو واقع من خطاب الناس لبعضهم او تفاعلهم مع الفنون والرسومات
على كل حال …🧞
15:50 I just had a thought, so is that the human condition, the impermanence of our self?
Impermanent yes, 'Panda Rei', everything changes. and don't imagine the image
we have of ourself will continue in some form elsewhere...
🕉️..do what WORKS FOR YOU ..(at this moment,) ..🕉️
Kudos for giving credit to Schopenhaur who can fairly be said to have influenced
Freud, Jung, and Wittgenstein. He is worth reading first.
Basically a NTP and NFJ philosophy.
Buddha being INTP/ENTP with Blind or Demon function Fi.
And Jung being INFJ responding with critical Fi.
I’m pointing this out so you can understand without bias if you’re familiar with MBTI.
I’ve found a lot of people’s philosophies are deeply tied with their respective views based on the patterns of their personality and this is a repeating theme across similar types towards certain topics.
Yes. But the irony here is that you are referring to the man who created the underpinnings of the whole MBYI system.
Now try to classify Buddha in his own terms:
(Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery
.
-The Buddha was never as terse as Lao Tsu. -Except for the 3 Noble Truths.)
@@JimTempleman um, 4, there are 4 noble truths. 🙄🤦🏼♂️🤣💁🏼♂️
@@dbuck1964 Yes. But the 4th is the Eightfold Path, which requires a fair amount of explanation, and is therefore not terse. Right...
(I know, I know, I'm splitting hairs.)
@@JimTempleman 😂got ya!😂
What greater folly could there be in life, than to go through it insisting that a coin only has the face you saw when you discovered it because it never even occurred to you to turn it over?
Apply this to your life.
the permanent self at this time stamp in the video 15:37 is it what you think it is. the teaching is literally telling the distinction of what you are and the material real world to who you are psychologically in your subconscious conscience sensitiveness depends on comprehensible capabilities understanding the interpretation of that data to comprehend it completely in the correct way to do that you have to be aware of things and consciously thinking about it or being trained to notice it earlier in the video they were talking about no like noticing movements identify things I want you study yourself and become familiar with the beast that we all are you'll be able to have a certain insight on things that will be brought to your attention from others that you are very familiar with yourself why don't you just come out and say instead of saying it all in a philosophize way like it's mysterious or something that's what people get all confused cuz they don't understand what the hell they're reading. the South within the human psyche is just a gathering information and ideas and how strongly you feel towards them training emotional value to them within that thought you don't actually feel that emotion it only exists within that thought. not in the real material realm at all but our physical form is what we are that's the real world that's what we have to accept because there's nothing we can do about it. to who we are psychologically like a person with good moral values we judge a person by the content of their character this way within the aspect of what they think and how they act to know whether or not they're a person that's going to go and write a bunch of babies or be a person that's going to jump in to the line of danger to save someone else and not lie being honorable person compared to a dishonorable person.these ideas are acceptable to everything even your own thought or just an image that changes the way you think about certain aspects of something that changes the value of how strongly you feel towards that something and that creates different emotional value for that something that you had a different one idea for in the first place and you can actually feel the change if you conscious enough to notice it seems like there's a space in between there between the thought even though it's the one thought. but I doubt most people are even capable of half the stuff they think they can do just putting it nicely. humans so much potential wasted.
Thought provoking discussion. What Buddha found was to end the suffering while living as a human being. Unfortunately the Buddhist texts have not been understood as per the pathway to end suffering because of the impact of the cociousness of the laymen those who recorded the Buddhist texts. The original Buddha language is Magadhi. You need to understand the Magadhi to get the correct meaning of Buddha words. The translations need to follow carefully. Just telling " no self" meaning less without the correct pathway of the Buddhist teaching. My understanding is "Maha Sathara Shathi Patthana" with Magadhi ( not totali the current Pali) is the pathway to end suffering.
What is the painting at the 6:15-7:05 mark.
And actually the two painting after them are quite taking too.
Tantric Tibetan Buddhism is using ecstatic experience to reach Awareness/Nirvana. Sutra based Buddhism[still Mahayana]relies on self renunciation to attain Awareness/Nirvana. The two ways differ a lot●
It's true because monotheism is designed for mass control, not mass enlightenment, Buddhism is the same message, just less cryptic.
Veil after veil will be lifted. Veil after veil remains, no? Self is just another illusion of the human condition as is No-Self.
Does one’s self even exist? It’s always changing (willfully or not) making it indescribable except for only a few moments. How can anything exist, when it’s never the same. It makes much more sense to not even look through such a scope at all.
Unfortunately, western religions push against this realization at every opportunity. But this does make us more controllable as we focus solely on ourselves, self-interest or personas we’ve convinced ourselves are real.
An oak tree is very describable, even though it is constantly changing. Same for a rock or a human. I don't really see the problem, as long as our language allows for the fact that everything is constantly shifting. Even so, why do we need to speak of the self at all? Can't we simply be aware of 'self' without having to describe it? It's an ongoing debate inside my psyche.
Tibetan Mandalas are visual mnemonic devices for concepts taught for use in Tantric practice. The mandalas are made up of many geometric shapes but they are to be understood as spacial 3 D constructs[ Google 3D Mandalas]. The graphics shown on this chanel are not too close to Mandalas. [Please see the Kalachakra Mandala].
Self is an ego of karmic vision that appears to be a real entity, attachment to ego self lead us to samsaric birth. But beyond the illusion of ego self is no self which is the ultimate reality. If you want to escape the samsaric sufferings of birth and death you have to approach through understanding that self is not permanent things but illusion created by conditions ( five skandhas)
- Carl Jung measured Buddha in term of his limited knowledge.
- Buddha taught in two terms, Reality(self) for non enlightened and True Oath(no self) for enlightened.
- We are self when we are not attended Nirvana yet.
- By Vipassana meditation (observe the truth) we will stop creating the new self and delete the old self one by one until we reach no self (Nirvana).
Reality is Self for those who approach it as Self. Reality is No- Self for those who approach it as No- Self. Whatever the approach, all that matters is the Reality.
Buddha was a Persian prince non Indian!
4:38 » Fact is not correct, He Died In 483, How he might attained wisdom at 35, He was almost 78 at the time, you've mentioned.
Perhaps some peasants achieved enlightenment before the oligarch Buddha did, but they had no publicity, as a wealthy person would. I'm grateful we got the message in any event.
Buddha says there is no self whilst Carl Jung states that the self is the center of psychological wholeness.
Without examining the self, you cannot find the center, and as you go deeper you realize that there is no self, its just a series of stories we allowed ourselves to believe. Ego is the the stories that we allowed ourselves to believe, and because we believed it, it became the truth, like the blinders that keeps a horse in check so that he can do the one thing that's profitable for the master; he runs, that is the truth for the horse. Unless he is somehow freed and is able to escape into the wild. But yet still, his old ways stop him from actually surviving. He would not know the laws that ACTUALLY governs his well being and this blindness will stop him from living out his true purpose. To run, but as a wild horse!
(A reference to Plato's allegory of the cave...kinda)
But couldn't we say that EVERYTHING is just a series of stories we allowed ourselves to believe, including the Buddhist story? I'm just asking because it seems to me that Buddhists do not apply the same logic to Buddhism that they do to everything else.
@harryposner7584 Thats it, thars where awareness steps in, it is the inner eye that discerns what stories are your own and what are adopted out of conformity. Without that knowledge one is lost to the whims of thoughts and the emotions that arise out of those thoughts.
I don't quite understand the latter part of your argument, about Buddhist not using the same logic....could you help me understand.
From the Selfishness of Western folks to the Selfless path of Eastern Buddhism there s an Astronomical Distance remaining...[Eastern painters most times do not sign their paintings...]
A selfless self is optimal in these 3D physical realms and the no self is more of a spiritual insight or mental perspectives.
Psychology investigates the form (the 'created self) and attaches labels to that deemed 'abnormal' within that 'created self'. Buddhism is a step beyond.. in Self inquiring beyond all that is not real (the illusory self) is the Essence, the Awareness of Awareness.. this is ultimately all that Is.
Pure Is-ness.
'That which is real, cannot be unreal.
That which is unreal, doesn’t exist' - A Course in Miracles
There is only one truth.
The Form.. the created Self exists purely as a practical tool to navigate the man-made structures of societal civilizations we are functioning in. These are all purely concepts, governing 'rules'. All changeable, all malleable, never stable.
The 'No Self' (that which remains unchanging, stable, whole, untouchable, eternally same... is no self.
That no self-ness can be reached via Inner inquiring, letting go of all that is not, and residing in all that remains.. Is-ness.. the nothingness that is everything ❤
Lots of respect for Carl Jung. Good video. But.. Buddha said, you are beyond yourself. you cannot comprehend yourself. You are not what you think. You are in fragments. Science is saying the same. 5 skandhas are empty. Your self is empty without substance. Self or no self, it doesn't matter. We need to be free from suffering.
Combining both and finding the balance is my prospective. 😊😊😊
Omran said: between Good and Bad, there is something no one tell you. So, we are left with open doors to find that. To find that, there is no right or wrong method. What's resonating with one, is what he/she might follow to find it.
Some people might need to be alone to find it and some others might need to find it through groups. The true is: why you think that you are wrong? Or why you think you are right? And so, why others?
Happy New Year 2025 🎆🎆🎆, and welcome to Industrial Revolution 4.0, AI Era. 😊😊😊
InterGemm, the leading provider of CNC and Laser Equipment, is located in Charlotte, NC.
The Buddha never taught a "no-self" doctrine, so the debate is moot. Go read the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta for yourself. All phenomena are empty of Self because they are objects of awareness and by definition, cannot be the Self. This is the identical teaching you will find in the Upanishads. The point of meditation is to see this for yourself, that even your inner most thoughts and feeling are not you, because they have a life of their own and go on even when you are fixating your intention on the breath or silence. The Self is the knower which can never be known. It transcends the world of impermanence and suffering which is lowly and unfit for our true, divine nature. That was the Buddha's point.
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" - "Impermanent, venerable Sir." - "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" - "Painful, venerable Sir." - "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, FIT TO BE REGARDED thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? - "No, venerable sir."
Thank you 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 for sharing your video. It is so inspiring and profound. No self is more resonated with my understanding. Ex, No Self (freedom)vs Self (suffering). I don’t cling to Self because I understand that my physical body or self is not mine at all. If it’s mine it should be under my command. This physical is impermanent absolutely. Therefore, should one clings to this impermanent universe? God is just nature. Buddhism is the Noble Truth of Democracy…
My interpretation of this is very simple. “It’s the same argument that of Atman Vs. Anatman”. Self Vs. No Self.
When Buddhist say no self, it is that any idea we create of awareness will be false. “It is a state of being, awareness itself”. This cannot fit into any concept or idea - So no self. The face you were before your parents conceived you is beyond intellect. So we must give up false identities to see this.
When Hindus and Jung says self they are also referring to that same place of the face you were before you were born. It is just labeled Self.
Jung studied all aspects streaming forth from the conscious experience of man and the self as the awareness underneath it all. That underneath all this stuff lies awareness which is non of it.
So in essence the Hindu and Jung Self is the same as Buddhist No-Self
This is wrong
@ I disagree with you entirely. Offer new insights and Provide new evidence to educate us!
Will you see me in the next video?! Sounds cosmically psychic!
Of course the Self is an illusion, but illusions can be powerful and very sticky. I see no contradiction here.
Try to be kind to yourself & others.
✌ ❤
Each time a thought is identified with, this objectifying gives rise to a self. Here lies in the error. It is like pointing at a mirage and discussing the qualities of the water therein.
Descartes expressed the self as the one who thinks and is aware of thinking self. Many philosophers have sought to describe different aspects of the self such as Aristotle describing thinking also as the self.
Plato describes the self as awareness of our experiences and the gravitational pulls towards good and bad. However, one can allude the causes of self is God if one looks beyond the internal self which Buddha and Jung describe.
I can assert my personal opinion that the self is that which causes good rather than bad as theology asserts that good is from God and bad from the Devil.
However, from a non-theological perspective I would say that the self is constructed by the mind.
The issue withself-construction I would assert is it is bssed on opinion at the time and is not immune to change and thereby will change recognizing personal opinions as flawed it comes across.
Self is the greater good one posseses which possession comes from God.
Opposite of self is nothingness, while respecting Buddha who came from a wealthy family, permanency is what Buddha may have been searching for which in my opinion, may not have been able to find if permanency could not exist in things material.
Existence are things material which can be studied while things immaterial are recognized through experience. Is the self an experience or a thing which is immaterial but cannot be experienced but yet studied?
so carl Jung’s idea is more focused on working on the self to Become a better self for the world and Buddha eliminates the self to be completely about inspiring the world at all times
Buddha was more right than Jung in my case. Jung would label myself as an introvert so perhaps I'd swing the other way if I were an extrovert. Obviously no egoic interpretation can be the ultimate truth but both Jung and Buddha point us towards the way. 🕉️☸️☯️🕊️🫶🏻🏴🙏🏻
I can’t deceive myself by saying that there is no self, using the self itself to make that claim. That is a philosophical theory not a fact that can be experienced. There were many things that the Buddha is said to have not commented on and this should definitely be one of those things not commented on. You can’t disprove a self no more than you can disprove the existence of a creator.
It can be experienced indeed. And the burden of proof is on the self existing.
I think the Buddha actually taught there is no permanent self, which makes more sense. There still appears to be ongoing debate about this among some academics in the Buddhist Community. But I think it is possible to directly experience the impermenance of the self to actually realise it at a deeper level beyond thoughts or the intellect, to have direct experience of this
@ and the self existing says that the self exist.
Show me that self, I can only see a comment
@ and on and on the wriggle goes. That’s why this conversation can go nowhere because it’s just words and concepts of theory. The reality is that the only self you can see and prove is the one typing the comments. You can only try and disprove your “self” in theory.
Jung did not “discover” a permanent self. It is an ancient belief from the vedas. The real debate is between Buddhist views of the self and that of vedic/hindu traditions. Jung has no lineage. He’s a modern western academic at best.
Thank you so much for this reminder. This idea of atma and anatma is thousands of years old. Santaana dharma, no? Rig Veda? Jung was a new comer, before him Schopenhauer willing to look beyond his culture ... Psychology - a baby. the Vedic rishis, experiential seers ... I grew in Winnipeg, Canada - the daughter of Scandanavians, no Sanskrit, no Citta realization culture, no ground of luminosity ... but i'm thirsty and want to reveal the experience of consciousness beyond "evidence based" scientific materialism. Cognition is not illumination ... it's a nice dance step, but there's more with Buddha, all the Buddhas and the bodhisattvas, yogis and yoginis.
Let's go deeper in ...
It seems both of you identify with 'who came first'. Kind of missing the point, don't you think?
its not really about who came first. Buddha and the Vedic rishis (seers) relied on direct experience of the mind through meditation, whereas Jung , although he was a genius, was working more through the intellect/conceptual thought. He did not have direct experience that can only come from practicing meditation . He is only looking at it philosophically, and therefore can’t be compared to someone like the Buddha in matters of the mind.
@nottrulyexistent Jung documents his own experiences extensively and insofar as all such experiences are ineffable we cannot make comparisons between any of them. Ranking them, as so many do, is pointless. The only purpose for doing so seems to be to assert superiority, again, as is all too common; from "India, teacher of all lands!" (Yogananda) to the myth of Jesus in India and others. If this is common to all humans, as Jung and the Buddha assert, then 'us (or them) first' is indeed missing the point.
All subjective disciplines of art, religion, philosophy, and everything else of subjective nature regimes a inexact fit to the self. They are not one size fits all, but they require one’s own interpretations.
Perhaps you all should understand the very essence of Vedanta. At the very end the wisest of the wise men who intellectually analyze the existence of every living being boils down to one simple truth, that the not so " intelligent person know". Have Bhakthi
19:59 the sound the phone ringing reminds,
I am the awareness of existence,
☉ne, w/The Sun,
I walk in power;
reality bends around me-
LatchPrime was here.
Location is a myth.
Everything is a Circle.
Everything will be Okay,
Thinking is Deciding
I Love You,
-LoL
;)
,
Accumulation of Tibetan manuscripts will not turn anyone into an expert in Tantric Tibetan Buddhism...but just a mere collector. Studying Sanskrit implies studying grammar, vocabulary and texts of increasing difficulty. Without serious effort one remains a dabbler at best. Where did Jung fit in? Did he just study the meaning of terms used in the Eastern texts?
Inclusion of subtitling is distracting...subtitles should remain the viewer s option.
Isn't that " The Buddha " ?
Fill up(west) vs Empty(East)
you don't understand what they're saying better but they're teaching better take the biblical sense out of it. truthfully they're talking about enlightening oneself with the true knowledge of things the natural law & order of things not only around you but within yourself first and foremost. take any narrative out of it because you're on an adventure looking for you and you alone and you're only going to find you and you alone when you alone are looking for you alone with no other obstructions or corporations of distractions of any kind. you have to be 100% completely honest with yourself. if you lie to yourself or doubt yourself in your own questioning just once as a thing to try and cover it up well this is what I would say but this is what blah blah blah you can't do that you have to be honest to know yourself and if you can't do that you'll never know yourself you'll never know anything. the enlightenment comes with wisdom and realization of the events that have happened in your life for that you have experienced to have the knowledge in the first place.
yeah the delusion of oneself is where the first and foremost evil and that all of the evils drive from comes from in the first place and that is selfishness that's the eagle it creates selfishness I got to have I want I got to be better than this person I got to chip on my shoulder I got this ego I can't blah blah blah yeah you can never go that way you'll straight lose yourself right into the bottomless pit of never-ending sorrow
Studying Buddhism takes a long fe time