Carl Jung wasn't enlightened.
The first chapter in his Book on Dreams perfectly describes someone who lacks enlightenment.
Debate.
Posted Nov 24, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC
117
Enlightenment is a fleeting moment. Not a continual state of being.
8
disagree.
1
There you have it. The matter is settled.
7
Beautiful debate :)
6
so you cease existing after your fleeting moment ? I would reverse his comment.
1
Enlightenment is the only form of existence?
5
Depends on what you mean by “you”
4
People using descriptors like "enlightened" for themselves are typically the least enlightened people.
It's a state desired when you seek out answers both exoteric and esoteric. It's a tool, not a personality trait. That's purely ego speaking.
You'll hear it a lot in psychedelic settings where rather than doing the actual work after a profound experience the person will continually take psychedelics chasing the feeling of "being enlightened". They return from their trip telling everyone how enlightened they are. It completely misses the mark and is often how guru's and cults are cultivated.
1
a man with desires can not call himself enlightened -Buddha
1
Neither are you. Debate.
6
vicious circle. but good point. 🤔
1
Give a definition of "enlightenment".
4
No, You. Debate
4
What in the world has this sub turned into?
3
The same degenerate, loathsome hellscape as the rest of the world. This is what happens when you kill God. His negative aspect is allowed to reign supreme.
4
No, it’s me. I joined Reddit yesterday.
3
The hubris of anyone who claims to know what "enlightenment" is.
1
matter settled, thanks for participating 🙂
1
No, Jung wasn't enlightened, he just had deeper practical and spiritual understanding on people, their constructs and metaphysical world than probably anyone at least at his time or before him, which is what's relevant to his life and his purpose.
Further, no one is "enlightened," it's just a process, for whatever purposes.
Anyone who'd think or say they're de facto enlightened would have an ego attachment to that identity and would have/will shut all non-enlightenment into their shadow (so much for non-attachment and true enlightenment, then), or are selling something like spiritual authority.
And anyone who calls someone else enlightened is either fooled or below them, so who are they to say.
Enlightenment is the end of progress, the end of change, and I don't believe in that.
1
What about it describes a "lack" of enlightenment? Learn how to start a debate.
OP what is your definition of enlightenment. Maybe important to clarify.
besides all of it particularly the part where he says he cannot see himself in a tree or an animal because he is a man, this is the exact identifier to enlightenment.
First of all, that is a very specific take on enlightenment. I understand the background it comes from (nondual realization). But you are overlooking an infinite array of other forms of enlightenment. Anyway, this is not relevant to the sub. You've basically come in here with your own arbitrary, off-topic yardstick and are measuring something against it that nobody else cares about.
Secondly, that book was written in the 20's. He died in 1955, and was a full blown Gnostic by then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os3RscGfkhE
I came here for criticism. A good a good view calling enlightenment an array , but I'd rather call it a box you open that gets bigger the longer you look into it, Pandora's box if you will. Thank you for the video I'll give it a listen.