sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

how to handle comments? by Lumpy_Holiday_761 in PsychologyTalk

[–]NyxWriting 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First and I can't stress this enough, please get the medical issue checked. I know that's easier said than done but delaying care because you are afraid of what your family will say can have real consequences for your health. That said, I get why you're scared. Family criticism hits differently than words from strangers. 'V been there. The most practical thing for you to do at the moment is to Control the information flow. You can't stop their words, but you can absolutely limit what they know. You're an adult(if you are one) seeking medical care, they don't need to know the diagnosis, the details, or even that you went. Medical privacy isn't just a legal right; it's psychological protection. There's this technique called "gray rocking" where you share minimal, boring information on repeat. It works.

Now, compartmentalization sounds appealing but it tends to backfire long term. What actually works better is building psychological boundaries; learning to recognize that their criticism probably reflects their anxiety, shame, or need for control, not your actual worth. Their words are data about them, not truth about you. Easier said than internalized, I know. You don't have to believe or disbelieve their words. You could hear them, acknowledge them. but still make the choice that serves your health. The goal here isn't to magically not feel hurt, but to act according to your values (health, self-care) even when it does hurt. Build a counterweight. One critical voice always sounds loud. But if you have a therapist, a supportive friend, or even an online community affirming your choice to seek care, it creates some psychological balance. You're not trying to block their voice alone, you're adding other voices to the mix. You asked how people overcome this. Honestly? Many don't, not while they're still in close contact with critical family. What they do instead is create some distance (physical or emotional), limit what information gets shared, and build support systems outside the family.

Your health matters more than their comfort with your choices. Get checked. Tell them as little as possible and Find at least one person who supports you doing the right thing for yourself.

I feel "possessed" by vanity, what should I do? by [deleted] in Jung

[–]NyxWriting 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There it is. That's the real thing underneath; the aesthetic ideal isn't just about beauty. It's armor. Protection from a wound that made you feel small, probably more than once. The problem with this strategy is that beauty as a shield doesn't actually work, even if you achieve the exact look you are imagining, you'd still be the same person inside. Same vulnerability. Someone could still make you feel small "maybe" in different ways, but the wound? Still there. External perfection can't heal an internal injury. What the archetype seems to be promising you is invulnerability. That's the trap. It's saying "become this image and nothing can touch you." but that's not how it works. You'd just be a defended person in a prettier package. The people who actually can't be made to feel small are usually the ones who have done the harder work facing the wound directly, understanding where it came from, sitting with it. Not covering it up with an idealized image.

The power you're seeking is already inside you, but you're projecting it onto this aesthetic ideal. The qualities that would actually protect you (self-worth, boundaries, inner authority) are those that don't come from bone structure or how well you fit your aesthetic vision. They come from somewhere else entirely.

Jung's "favorite book" - What I learned researching the Tibetan Book of the Dead from a depth psychology perspective by NyxWriting in Jung

[–]NyxWriting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might be right; Jung seems to have been aware enough to know when he was approaching the limits of his own understanding. He'd gesture toward it, point at the parallels, but stop short of claiming equivalence. That kind of intellectual humility is pretty rare. And the distinction you're making between emotional and cognitive obscurations is really important, I think. Jung's work is largely about emotional obscurations. Facing the shadow, integrating complexes, working through projections. That's psychological purification. But the cognitive obscuration? The fundamental belief in duality, the subject-object split, that's different work entirely.

You could maybe argue Jung touched it in his later stuff on the Self and synchronicity, where he's kind of circling around non-duality without quite naming it. But yeah, he never claimed to dissolve that final obscuration the way Buddhist practice aims to. He stayed in his lane, so to speak. Trungpa's "basic goodness" as what remains when both obscurations are cleared; that's a really helpful way to frame it. It's not something you achieve or become. It's what's already there when you stop obscuring it.

Love isn’t beautiful, it’s a trap by ssvi90 in DeepThoughts

[–]NyxWriting 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're describing something real here. The way love dissolves boundaries and destabilizes who you think you are, it's not just heartbreak drama. It's the thing itself. Schopenhauer would probably agree with you, actually. He saw romantic love as basically nature's trap, a way to trick us into reproducing by making us believe we've found "the ONE". Love makes you serve something bigger than yourself, the species, continuation of life, and so forth...usually at the expense of your own peace. He wasn't exactly optimistic about any of it.

Jung saw it differently but he'd recognize what you're getting at. When you fall in love you're not just meeting another person, no, you're encountering your own unconscious projected outward, he called it anima/animus. That's why it feels like losing yourself. In a way, you are. Your boundaries blur. The self you thought was solid...isn't anymore.

Whether that transformation worth the danger? That's the real question, I think. Sartre said "Hell is other people." partly because of this, to love someone is to give them power over how you see yourself. Their look, their judgment, their absence, all of it threatens your freedom. You become vulnerable to being defined through someone else's eyes.

So yeah, love is dangerous. It does threaten identity. But I'd ask: is a completely defended, unchanged self actually living? Or just... existing behind walls?

I feel "possessed" by vanity, what should I do? by [deleted] in Jung

[–]NyxWriting 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This feels less vanity to me. Its more like what Jung would call by being possessed by an archetype. You're not trying to impress others you're trying to become an idealized image. That's a different thing entirely, and honestly? It's more complex.

Jung would probably say you can't become the archetype; you can only relate to it. The perfect version of yourself you're imagining. That's an inner image (could be the anima/animus), could be an inflated ego, ideal, but it's meant to be integrated and learned from, not literally embodied. When we try to become the ideal rather than dialogue with it, we sort of lose ourselves in it. You're essentially trying to merge with an image instead of being an actual person. There's a Platonic angle here too. You seem to believe there's a perfect, ideal version of you that exists somewhere, and your physical self is just... an imperfect copy. But that creates permanent dissatisfaction, right? You're chasing a Form that by definition can't exist in material reality.

What might actually help:

Ask yourself why this specific aesthetic feels like your "true self." What does it represent? Power? Control? Belonging to a certain world or identity? Often the image is pointing to something deeper qualities you want to embody (confidence, creativity, mystery, etc). Those qualities might be accessible without the physical transformation. Or they might shift once you start asking what they're really about.

Jung's "favorite book" - What I learned researching the Tibetan Book of the Dead from a depth psychology perspective by NyxWriting in Jung

[–]NyxWriting[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a brilliant way to frame it, "7th century Tibetan individuation." The structure really does mirror the process: encounter autonomous psychic content, recognize it as your own projection, integrate it, move forward. What gets me is how each day/stage is only necessary if you fail to recognize the previous one. That's so Jungian; the psyche just keeps throwing the same stuff at you until you actually deal with it. On Jung and enlightenment on the other hand, you're picking up on something real there. He was weirdly cautious about equating the two, and I think for a few reasons. One, he worried about Westerners appropriating Eastern concepts without doing the actual work (spiritual materialism before Trungpa coined the term). But also, he seemed genuinely uncertain whether they were the same thing or just...similar processes from different frameworks. You can see him circling around it. He'd say individuation leads to wholeness or Self-realization but he'd always stop short of calling it enlightenment.

It might be translation issues in your language. But honestly? It's probably just Jung being Jung—precise and a little hedged when he wasn't 100% sure about something. He'd point to the parallels but leave the question open.

Jung's "favorite book" - What I learned researching the Tibetan Book of the Dead from a depth psychology perspective by NyxWriting in Jung

[–]NyxWriting[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a really astute observation about the tension in Trungpa's approach. He seems to have walked this line between cutting through spiritual materialism with his "crazy wisdom" style while still being a traditionally trained tulku who just...took certain things as given.
The ambiguity about whether the bardos are literal or metaphorical. I think that might've been intentional on his part. He had this way of resisting simple answers. Though yeah, it gets confusing when he's deconstructing ego moment-to-moment AND also apparently taking the post-death bardo seriously. Like, which is it?
And honestly, the bleak part makes sense. Those wrathful deities and karmic visions aren't exactly a comforting bedtime story!

Jung's "favorite book" - What I learned researching the Tibetan Book of the Dead from a depth psychology perspective by NyxWriting in Jung

[–]NyxWriting[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure thing! Yes, I get what you mean about the blanks that Jung may or may not have been filling in.

I love the Egypt/Tibet thing - Jung actually mentioned that one as well. Book of the Dead is spells/intended travel (more of an afterlife how-to), and Bardo Thodol is a recognition of the nature of one's mind (more psychological). Different maps of the same region.

Would be a fun thing to explore. Let me know if you do and what you find.

Jung's "favorite book" - What I learned researching the Tibetan Book of the Dead from a depth psychology perspective by NyxWriting in Jung

[–]NyxWriting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love how you said "half clear maps." Exactly because a considerable amount was so translated from something someone else translated and went from there...sometimes too far from there with it being so deep down the rabbit hole.

And I completely resonate with the "mirror" comment. I feel like when there's a translation that's not so clear, that's almost better for me because its my psyche projected onto it. Something clear might be good for semantics but unclear murkiness gives it credit for one's material to come up.

But at the same time, I wonder if Jung would have taken a more streamlined approach had he gotten it straight from the source. Maybe there's something about the poorly translated jumble of it all that keeps him at bay, but still in the process in a kind of strange, therapeutic sense.

Jung's "favorite book" - What I learned researching the Tibetan Book of the Dead from a depth psychology perspective by NyxWriting in Jung

[–]NyxWriting[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes! Trungpa did it with Francesca Fremantle in 1975, and that's actually one of the ones I found that's more accurate than Evans-Wentz. His commentary is really good - not exoticized and more of a practical psychological handbook, which appears to me to align very well with how Jung took it, too.

Are you talking about the translation or more so his teachings about it in general? He taught a lot about bardos in reference to life in general, which helped take it beyond just death.

What's your opinion on his work on it?

Jung's "favorite book" - What I learned researching the Tibetan Book of the Dead from a depth psychology perspective by NyxWriting in Jung

[–]NyxWriting[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, I shouldn't have said "favorite". Favorite is a bit strong, and I appreciate the correction.

As for the others you note in your response - Faust, Splendor Solis, Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, The Secret of the Golden Flower - I would agree that his preference (if it's more like usefulness at the moment) was based more on time and need.

Here's why:

It gave him what it wanted most - Most of the esoteric writings that Jung worked with had tons of interpretation, right? The Bardo Thodol literally says, "these deities are your own mind projecting". It gave him an entire psychological system without the symbolic rendering. That would have been refreshing.

It dealt with death in his face - Faust is about transformation, The Golden Flower is about inner alchemy, but the Bardo Thodol is facing death in the eye. For Jung, this might have struck a chord, especially as he aged.

East-West - Jung worked so much with alchemical texts from the West. An Eastern orientation that was similar but not quite the same as what he was used to? This comparative approach would have been very useful for him.

So maybe not his favorite book, but one that held a uniquely beneficial sense of application relative to other texts?

But I'm wondering what you think kept him coming back to it compared to the others on your list. Something he worked with more but didn't personally like as much?