Liberation as the goal. But for what?
in Spirituality ·
Edward Flores4 said:I have to start by saying that, in my view, Carl Gustav Jung’s contribution to how we understand different cultures—specifically through his work on archetypal collective and personal unconsciousness—is easily one of the most massive achievements in the entire field of psychology and comparative mythology. It’s foundational stuff. And while he’s the heavyweight here, you really can't talk about this without bringing Joseph Campbell into the conversation. Campbell took everything Jung started and pushed comparative mythology into a whole new realm, even stepping in to refine or correct some of Jung’s ideas in ways that were honestly pretty vital for the field to move forward.
Now that we’ve finally cleared the air on that, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that when it comes to the supposed divide between the Easterner and the Westerner mindsets—I absolutely cannot get behind what Carl Gustav Jung was saying.
It’s funny how history repeats itself—even in the minds of geniuses. Take Carl Gustav Jung, for instance. Much like a lot of people do today, he ran headfirst into Hindu philosophy and that whole Eastern style of archetypal mythology, and he fell into a bit of a naive trap. He essentially assumed that Easterners were inherently more advanced than Westerners—that, as a collective, they were sitting at a higher "developmental level" psychologically speaking. He spent a good deal of time experimenting with their meditative techniques, too, but he ended up walking away with this somewhat skewed conclusion: that these practices were actually dangerous for Westerners. In his view, they just led to pure frustration because we seemingly lacked that specific "developmental level" that Easterners supposedly possessed. It was a classic case of looking through a lens that didn't quite account for the full picture.
In those circumstances, his perspective was only right to the extent that it would have been incredibly arrogant of him to assume his own struggle to master those techniques meant the methods themselves were flawed. He wasn't trying to undermine their credibility—mostly because the underlying cosmology actually makes a lot of sense—but rather, Carl Gustav Jung suggested that Americans just aren't quite "ready" for them yet. It’s like trying to run a marathon before you've even learned to walk; if we ignore that gap in readiness, we’re just setting ourselves up for failure. If you jump into it too soon, all you end up with is a massive amount of frustration from the sheer inability to control your mind the way those practices claim you should.
I think what Carl Gustav Jung missed back then was this fundamental point—these methods aren't actually "techniques" in the way we usually think of them. They aren't just tools you pick up and use to get a specific result. Instead, they’re more like a continuous dialogue. It reminds me of that line from William Blake: "The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." That’s really where the magic happens. These practices exist to force a confrontation with the reality that you simply cannot control your own mind. Once you hit that wall and realize how futile that struggle is, you start to see things differently. You begin to understand that "fate" isn't some external force crashing into your life from out of nowhere—it’s actually something we build for ourselves, brick by brick, through our own actions and patterns.
In other words, coming from that typical academic background we see in the West, Carl Gustav Jung wasn't exactly expecting to run into a completely different philosophy of "learning" once he encountered the traditions of the East. Where those Eastern perspectives really had the upper hand—and this is a subtle but massive distinction—was in their understanding that you can memorize every single doctrine and dogma in the book, yet still walk away with your old, biased way of seeing the world completely intact. It’s a bit like memorizing a cookbook without ever actually tasting the food; you have all the data, but zero actual nourishment. Because of that, he missed the chance to really question whether the techniques being offered were even valid, mostly because he was operating under the assumption that, just like back home in the States, education is always supposed to provide concrete, tangible answers. But the teachings from the East operate on a different wavelength entirely—they’re based, as William Blake would put it, "on the straight guidance of a fool."
If someone truly believes the world is flat, just send them out for a walk toward the edge—and make sure they stay in a perfectly straight line. Once they eventually loop right back to where they started, they’ll have to admit, at the very least, that the earth has a cylindrical shape. 🙂
Look, Carl Gustav Jung reached some incredible conclusions; he kicked open so many doors and handed us a toolkit that is still indispensable today. But even he tripped up occasionally—and honestly, we can't hold that against him. If he had claimed to be infallible, well, that would have just been pure arrogance on his part.
Quincy:Now, I can only speak for myself here. For me, life is something to celebrate. I try to soak up as much of it as possible, fully aware that it's fleeting and, from my perspective, ultimately quite nonsensical. Life is basically a "function" or a "characteristic" of the universe—a way for the cosmos to create the variety and complexity it clearly craves. In that sense, life is a disruption of equilibrium; while it lasts, it drives the dynamics of conflict, violence, fragmentation, and isolation. Life IS a problem, with a capital "P."
If this uncreated, unborn, infinite, and free void is indeed the only true reality, there's probably a reason why its surface gave rise to this illusion of "me" and "the world." Whether it’s a cosmic game or just the inherent nature of that reality—creating diverse forms out of mist and foam only to dissolve them with a single breath—why wouldn't that very form be the greatest treasure of all? Why devalue it, or feel this urge to destroy it and melt it back into the nothingness?
Why isn't existence celebrated simply because it manifests in some form? Instead, we tend to view it as mere "suffering" or a "punishment," acting as if the ultimate goal for every conscious being is to unravel back into non-existence.
But because I understand what that "function" actually is, I manage to embrace whatever comes my way with equal enthusiasm... whether it's pain or pleasure. That enthusiasm comes from the simple fact that, sooner or later, I'll return to a state of "equality," and my specific little bubble of consciousness—with all its built-up frustrations, memories, hopes, and philosophies—will finally be released from that pressure.
In a way... this IS a dream that will one day end, and all of this is just a temporary illusion—but while the dream is happening, it is my one and only reality.
Anyway... trying to read ancient texts without a deep understanding of the specific culture and cosmology of the era they were written in usually leads to some pretty massive misinterpretations.
Besides, you shouldn't take even verified, world-class authorities like Carl Gustav Jung for granted. Everyone misses the mark somewhere. Whenever I read a book and can't find at least one point where I disagree with the author, I KNOW I haven't actually grasped what they were really trying to say.
It's the same with me—if you can't find at least one thing to disagree with me on, it means you didn't really understand me. Because I definitely get things wrong sometimes, and I'd actually prefer if people pointed those flaws out. 🙂
Regarding the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Jung isn't actually discussing a divide between Eastern and Western minds, but rather different methods of exploring the psyche. The mind is fundamentally the same for everyone—it is layered. People in the East simply don't place as much emphasis on the things Americans focus on, such as the subconscious or the collective unconscious, because they view all of that as Maya, just as much as our material existence and individual ego. Jung is merely pointing out that, according to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the process works in reverse at the moment of death: the mind encounters "pure consciousness" or "non-consciousness." If one fails to let go at that moment, they begin to sink back into Maya—first confronting the deepest layers of the human psyche before slowly ascending toward rebirth, physical existence, and individual consciousness. The Tibetan Book of the Dead essentially provides a highly detailed map of the human psyche, moving from the deepest depths to the surface. 🙂
However, it is important to remember that this book explains what happens spontaneously after death. I believe Jung is simply emphasizing that attempting to consciously trigger this reverse process can be extremely dangerous. In an attempt to dive into the deeper layers of the mind hoping to reach the "source," a person might become trapped in mental states they cannot handle, potentially leading to psychosis or schizophrenia. Eastern traditions don't dig through the contents of the mind in that manner; instead, they discard the mind as Maya and focus immediately on the highest state—pure spirit, pure consciousness, emptiness, or non-existence. This is precisely what the Tibetan Book of the Dead advises throughout: turning attention toward non-existence, practicing meditation, or praying to a supreme Deity—regardless of whatever sensations, sights, or sounds are being experienced in that moment.
placidharbor7 said:Well, I'd argue that absurdity is just like a "rotten tooth"—you've got to pull it out! Once that's gone, you aren't left with some vague "love for death," but rather Death itself: pure, raw, and unadulterated. An enlightened being—someone who has truly transcended the ego—would essentially exist within the Bardo described in Tibetan texts. In that heavy, swirling mist, they don't cry out for some sort of "liberation"; instead, they ache for finality. The absolute end of both body and mind, leaving nothing behind, not even a memory—that is the only true "nirvana."
There’s actually a hidden riddle in the Nazarene's teaching that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor in spirit." Honestly, isn't it true that religions preaching "ecstasy," "liberation," or "eternity" are just fundamentally childish?
And so we arrive back at what I mentioned in my opening post: either existence with all its infinite contents, or the total annihilation of everything. Why should the latter be considered the ultimate spiritual goal?