Video

Analysis is only usefulto the point where it leads you to just be,to the stillness,to true knowledge of who you are ...l Am .......

please link the source to that letter in the description

His argument doesn't actually sound convincing. If he had doubted Ramana Maharshi's uniqueness, he should have put his doubt to the test in the form of a personal encounter. To just doubt and use it as an excuse not to, feels more like a rationalisation. What was his resistance? Fear, his ego? His whole approach is way too intellectual. He could have cut the BS and just went to see for himself, and then come to a real life energetic perception of what Ramana was about. It's all head nonsense and ideas with Jung.

Comments are more resourceful tham video . Welcome to comments section

No God. No Religion. This is TRUTH ❤️👍. All religions are stories and are made up of imagination and nothing else. Nothing else. 150 million years ago dinosaurs 🦖🦕 lived here. Bacteria 🦠 to Human beings are because of evolution 🧬. Nothing else. Dr Carl Sagan and his videos and wickepedia. CZcams. Dr Richard Dawkins Sun 🔆🌞 and Earth 🌎🌍. SUNLIGHT IS EVERYTHING YOU NEED. SUNLIGHT AND EARTH 🌎🌍

Absolute bullshit. Bla, bla, bla to try and cover up his fear. Bad show. In the spiritual literature arrogance is mentioned as the biggest hurdle on the path.

It's not the same to read than to experience it, never understood why the obsession with the symbols instead of the experience.

Emotional Indians bombarding the comment section

Consciousness is fundamental Geometry Of ⭕️ = I = ♾ Dimensions Swami SriDattaDev SatChitAnanda

As you can clearly see, the root of all suffering is desire and the cure of suffering is fulfillment and the ultimate form of fulfillment is knowing that you are the Generator Organizer Destroyer Of ⭕️ = I = ♾ Desires I thus prescribe true spirituality of self realization for those who want to keep playing but not being effected by the never ending Game Of ⭕️ = I = ♾ Duality (Desire and Fulfill) Swami SriDattaDev SatChitAnanda

He would have been exposes.

FEAR.

they are here now the blue planet and a red comet with two tails behind it in the inner solar system by venus they are coming towards us now,

A master or Guru could only give orientation (show the way) , real enlighnment is a path from within.(inner worlds)

Meeting saints like Maharshi Ramana is through Grace of saints. It does not happen on its own.

Arrogant and frightned

@12.06 is pure speculation. I read the words with volume down. Some flowery expressions didnt sound like Carl Jung but the message given of not needing to meet the europeans label *Holy man* was in alignment with Carl Jungs theories.(I started using Carl Jungs work 30+ and now 3years living in and studying Bhakti yoga ... I have the ears and eyes to see what is being as so true about India and labelled Holy Men) Somehow this video is being used to smear Carl Jung. Use your discernment with this video. ✌🏽

I do not think that Jung were afraid of meet him, is only that they follow differents ways to reach the self, Ramana with meditation and silence and Jung incorporating the unconcius to the ego using other methods that requires for example active imagination and other tecniques that are the oposite of the emptiness of the mind, so even if he respects Ramans ( as we can read in Jungs writtings) they are following different paths to reach the self

Ego/body welfare , and its methods inherited/evolution/adaptation continue to develop a unique perspective/personality from its unique perseptions for self preservation. Understanding ,seeing ,feeling the energy that creates all , and is all ,will ignore personality. Kindness/oneness balances nature's indifference/polarization, and ego/bodily self preservation offers variables of form for God/Source to experience through interaction with its fellow formations.

Fear of Influence: Jung expressed concern that a direct meeting with Maharshi might lead to a significant influence on his own ideas and theories. He was aware of the profound impact that spiritual experiences could have on one's psyche and wanted to maintain his intellectual independence. Different Approaches: Jung had a more analytical and psychological approach to spirituality, focusing on the collective unconscious and archetypes. In contrast, Maharshi's teachings were more direct and experiential, centered on self-realization and the nature of consciousness. Jung may have felt that their different methodologies would create a disconnect. Cultural Context: Jung was also aware of the cultural and philosophical differences between Western psychology and Eastern spirituality. He may have believed that a meeting would not yield the insights he sought without a deeper understanding of Maharshi's context. Timing and Circumstances: Jung's busy schedule and personal commitments may have also played a role in his decision not to pursue the meeting.

it's matter of being objective to study and observe the 'holly man' not being subjective by meeting with the 'holly man' maybe this event drive by 'subconscious things'..

Jung wasn't ready to lose his mind at that point. He had an important role to fulfil, people depending on him and great books to compose.

Bhagavan Ramana dismissed psycho-analysis as a fruitless activity. He said the contents of the mind, whether conscious or subconscious, are nothing more than garbage. The whole garbage needs to be discarded in order to find the true self. Hence analysing the garbage is useless. Simply put, he pulled the rug from the under the feet of the likes of Jung. What else could one expect of a psychoanalyst here? Jung was right to have avoided Bhagavan. Otherwise, his analyst business would have to be closed down.

Jung was afraid that a meeting with Ramana would prove his unconscious theory to be conscious and the so called Shadow realm a delusion . He simply couldn't submit his intellect to the flame of truth for fear it would be burnt to a crisp.

Based on the way he wrote that letter and opposed to everything else he said, he probably feared that the experience of meeting Ramana Maharshi would instantly make him come to the realization that all his work was meaningless. Imagine Carl Jung having converted to Hinduism or Buddhism, we would have lived in a very different world. For the record, I'm a Christian European, not a Hinduist or Buddhist.

"The Guru is within" as Maharshi said. It seems that Jung understood it in his own way, explaining (in a very occidental/western way (how we love words!)) that Bhagavan was a representative of an eternal Truth, which is ever present in India's spirituality. Anyway, it's rather sad. Ramana's presence itself was enough for many to achieve the greatest insights, God knows what would happen if that meeting ever happened...

"It's important to be humble," she assures me. But who is humble? Or who is there, to even want humility? People often shy away from attention because they are timid; unsure of their readiness for confrontation: Is that humility? Or is it more likely that they secretly desire more attention, for being (or merely seeming) self-effacing; again, not humility. 'The more we learn what humility is, the less we discover of it in ourselves.' (Madame Guyon) Now she says, "There's no center; no one at the center." YOU're at the center. There's no ego there. Awareness is chaperoning this mind-body vehicle. It's okay to value what is passing away and coming into being. Love yourself: you won't be here much longer. Your dramas, stories, narratives, are EPIC. Without them, there'd be nothing. You, alone, reflect the light of awareness! 💞 "This isn't real," she likes to insist. Who can say "real" or "unreal"? This is just the mind, playing with concepts. If there is nothing to compare with THIS, how can we characterize this as "real" or "unreal"? It just is, and one makes convenient use of words, to suit a momentary purpose, without craving continuity. Is it "already" *something*? Then why look back, going forward: I create, spontaneously, from the raw material which is behind me, which is "already" in my rearview. Everything is in front of me, just arriving; not already anything. Again, she makes clear, "There's no continuity,". It's all language, isn't it? We try to put it into words and get paradoxes. "There's no continuity" could just as easily be expressed: "There's no interruption," just the brain making connections - using whatever cultural assumptions are already in place. We have ideas of what this is supposed to look like. Told, "Look, here is a holy man," we decide if he fits the mold. But enlightenment could manifest in wildly diverse ways, according to the uniqueness of the human individual. Some people are naturally passive, prone to conformity, and will just be assimilated into the Blissful Borg. If you manifest crazy wisdom in a way which is not sterile, muted, self-negating, then they will dismiss you as a charlatan. Buddha sat under a tree, negating. Krishna flirted, danced, and played the flute, even as he encouraged Arjuna to affirm the war, for that was Arjuna's way. Jesus blessed his executioners and went like a lamb to the slaughter. Nietzsche realized an invincible "ego", hurled lighting bolts into history, and roused the human spirit from its nihilistic slumber; not without making waves. When his fuse burnt-down, and the bomb went off, he appeared to his culture as a largely-vegetative lunatic. Who today speaks of him as an enlightened one? He doesn't fit most people's idea of what that means; nor should he; but there are rare types, unashamed of their rarity, offensive (to many) in proclaiming it; who will recognize a brother magician in him; a pathbreaker of the highest order; and who will birth odd sayings, perhaps, like, "Only atheists believe in God." U.G. Krishnamurti, by enlightenment, became convinced that holiness is a charade, calling even Ramana Maharshi a conman. He found his own way out. Milarepa's teacher was merciless (or intuitively knew which student required such severity). It matters who becomes enlightened, and what cultural assumptions are present. We focus a lot on what appear to be universals, but the variations are all that's real. It's different for everyone. When it happens, you could think, "Wait. Really? That's all it is?" There's just no notion of reality as something other than what is appearing. After the direct experience, you begin to put the pieces together, but it's not like you downloaded anything new from some perfect source; you still just have whatever you had with you; the cultural and biological inheritance present in this mind-body vehicle. Only, now, there is a sense that you are present in God, or Self, and there is nowhere else to go, but where one is presently going; nothing to do but what one is presently doing. So there is more space, in which to reconstruct your models of being. Whatever you place attention on will play a part in your dream. You can play any game you want. The point is, there's only God, doing everything, so you have nothing to do. If you are being "foolish" (according to the standards of others), God is you being foolish. Reality cannot change. It is not under threat. And thou art that. Every particular thing passes away but, sooner or later, when the smoke clears, you find that you remain where you are, in the driver's seat, untouched. You never left. Reality has never not been reality. Where can it go? What are you afraid might happen to it? These are dead ends, like all thoughts. Distinctions are just smoke; there's only the one fire of reality. With nothing to do, you might as well be still, and surrender to the eldritch rhythms, drumming in the tensions of your flesh. All the fierce, the wild activity, which you imagine your real self escaping from. This is the immanent transfiguration of being. The decaying skin of an immortal serpent, on whose crown you ride. As for what happened to me, I literally dissociated from everything and "became" awareness; or the blank screen on which this all plays out. My body continued to stand and walk around the kitchen and prepared tea and sat down and sipped from it, etc. and the whole time "I" was not identified with it. The thoughts arose in this mind-body-mechanism, but "I" did not attach to them. The thoughts were trying to make sense of what was happening; trying to identify with this as an experience, but the thoughts were all evaporating before they could convince me of their reality, or tempt me to identify with their chatter. This went on for a while and, at some point, the thoughts arising had me pegged as the "higher self" or "guardian angel". Then, I was looking at "myself" with almost pity or compassion or indulgence, like a pet that was trusted to my care. I understood that this is all there is. Whatever is here is being itself, running its course. The appearance of a choice: I can remain detached or I can identify with the life of this Stephen character, and live-out the rest of *his* life, because it is going to play out, in any case; and because "God", "Energy", "Whatever" can only manifest through whatever is here. And since then, I have known that there is nothing else - besides what there is. ((You see? It is impossible to sensibly describe these sorts of things, let alone explain them, let alone prove them.)) Perhaps the core insight: What we see (or how we conceptualize and articulate what appears) depends on our cultural and biological inheritance, - even after the experience of illumination or enlightenment. "God", as in BEING itself, can only "use" what is present, already, in your own mind. It's like Mozart got dropped into a cave and all he has to play on are rocks and sticks. He's still Mozart, but if you ask to hear his Requiem, you may be less than impressed. Sartre wrote something about needing to break the bones in our brains, before we can think new thoughts. This was also something that followed upon my experience: It seemed, my mind was full of all these connections, like this ice crystal castle, - all these associations between ideas, you know, - and it completely shattered when this all happened. It shattered, yes, but, at the same time, it melted and pooled and everything was suddenly in the most immediate contact with everything else. In the next instant, it resurrected by itself. The same connections are present, only, now, I am aware of them in a more detached, nonliteral way. I use what is present in my head and am not confined by it. Be careful: You don't want to build a cage out of presuppositions in your mind, climb into it, and find yourself beholden. Always take what others have told you with a grain of salt, no matter how venerable their names. Buddhism wasn't always Buddhism; Stoicism wasn't always Stoicism; rather, real people contributed to the traditions, in real time; each from his/her, own, unique point of view, and each drawing, in part, on what others had told them; and thus the tradition developed into what we call it, today; just as it will continue to evolve and acquire new dimensions. “All concepts in which an entire process is semiotically concentrated elude definition; only that which has no history is definable.” - Nietzsche So it is, too, with you. A process in time cannot be defined. "It is written" only that you may contribute a verse. Nobody can tell you what you are here to tell the world.

Just because I'm original, doesn't mean I'm wrong. 👽 I stand on the peak - and do not cross over; when I reach my-self, I stop carving a-way: I am not impatient to be 'nobody'.

Tolstoy wrote the perfect companion to Jung in the Pilgrims

Carl cut to the chase. What a wonderful philosophy. He is so right.

Ramana Maharshi was definitely realized at the Spirit level. However, it is obvious that Maharshi knew nothing about psychology and this ignorance is reflected in his teaching. To achieve full enlightenment, one must heal and integrate their Soul or personal evolving essence (True Self) and integrate the personal evolving soul (what Sri Aurobindo called the Psychic Being) with the Universal Self or Spirit. Both must be realized, actualized, and integrated. You cannot skip over the Soul aspect. that is called the Spiritual Bypass and this how many Advaita Vedanta devotees define realization as "There is so self present", "there is no soul present" etc. These teachings are dead wrong and are partial at best. That is why Jung avoided Maharshi. Jung knew better.

Jung did not risk to find himself in front of an “understanding” of life and human psyche greater, infinitely greater, than everything he conceived in his life. His words are sophisticated and delicate but insincere. His ego was to large to face a man like Maharshi...

I think he was not prepared to that visit. But it is really weird if you go to see India's Spirit and not listen to the advice of locals who are actually very important part of that Spirit.

Think for yourself

Thank you for this great video ❤

Can't wait hope it's Wednesday

We have to be humble enough to handle the issue of ancientness(?)

In my analysis, Jung was simply frightened for losing his entire mundane identity for which he was not ready as he still had to continue his work in the empirical world. I feel that he was in touch with Bhagwan telepathically. How is it possible that the Maharishi, who was omniscient, wasn't connected with Jung?

Beautifully told say it forth and united we will stand together, thank you John

I think Philemon adviced Jung to not meet Maharshi. I mean, Jung had a deep reverence for his own spirit gut. After all, it was Philemon who was always helped Jung in his conscious life. Jung might have regretted not meeting the Indian mystic. But he also simultaneously doesn't want to betray his own spirit gut.

There is no such thing as a "mistake" in going or not the "mahaguru", but a consideration comes out of my mind: "our Her Professor must always be in control and the only rooster in the chickencoop". This was his character and the reason why we now know his name, and his merits, after all.

Regardless human choices, the real power is always domain of Divine Grace, whom She chooses she/he becomes Her own Self 🙏

All produced phenomena exists nominally. Inni'?

Gregg: thank you for teaching us, I can feel your love for humanity Amazing man I love you ❤️

Intellectual thinking is outside human thinking about development, intelligence is limited use it, still so many ideas of development is neglected because it may change the business value or change of it . There's human failure is dark

This is what Echart Tolle describes

This is one of his best videos

Is your PFP a phallic symbol? Ophite.

That gotta be the best attraction video ever!!