YEAH! É por isso que naquele episódio Pulp Fiction-Thomas Crown-Thunderbolt & Lightfoot Greg constatou ser melhor que Don Drapper.
E sim aquela piscina não é suficientemente funda para a altura que Greg pulou, mas como diria Wilson, não importa como e sim porque ele fez.
A further appeal of Buddhism lay in its emphasis on experience. Christianity, in its traditional orthodox mode, has emphasised reliance on the authority of the Church and of scripture, and ultimately on faith in the saving power of Christ. Buddhism, by contrast, teaches a path which, in the final analysis, one must find and tread for oneself. True, there is the element of faith in the Buddha’s teachings, but it is a matter, not of following these teachings slavishly, but of trying them out, as it were, for oneself. What makes emancipation from suffering possible, then, is not the saving power of another, not the acceptance of doctrine nor the pursuit of metaphysical speculation, not ritual observance, but rather the direct experience of the individual seeker. For this reason Buddhism has sometimes been designated, perhaps misleadingly, a form of empiricism, even a science. Jung recognised in this a clear parallel to his own approach. He frequently claimed that his own psychological work was based on ‘empirical’ facts, on direct personal experience, rather than on theory. Likewise the tendency of the psyche towards self-realisation and individuation constituted for Jung a form of gnosis, a direct experience of the inner world of the archetypes and an inner pathway of self-discovery.
Jung drew attention, however, to one important difference between the two ways of selfhealing. While acknowledging and identifying with the Buddhist path towards enlightenment, and recognising in this a direct parallel with his own concept of individuation, he emphasised the fact that Buddhism held out the possibility of complete emancipation and enlightenment – a goal which he himself deemed to be impossible. Moacanin notes that ‘Unlike Buddha, Jung does not perceive the possibility of an end to suffering. In his view happiness and suffering represent another pair of opposites, indispensable to life, and one cannot exist without the other’. Jung wrote that
Man has to cope with the problem of suffering. The Oriental wants to get rid of suffering by casting it off. Western man tries to suppress suffering with drugs. But suffering has to be overcome, and the only way to overcome it is to endure it.
If nirvana means a state of illumination or bliss in which an individual is finally released from suffering, death, and all earthly bonds, an emancipation from the wheel of all arising, subsisting, changing and passing away, then for Jung this is a condition irreconcilable with the condition of being human. Just as he rejected the possibility of a state in which the conscious self is totally absorbed into the all-embracing oneness of Brahman, so too he could make no sense of a condition in which the dynamic interplay of psychic principles was superseded by a condition of complete and final psychic equilibrium. Life, according to Jung, is essentially a dialectical movement to-and-fro between opposites and has no final resolution, no Hegelian Absolute in which all opposites are reconciled. While it is true that the psyche aims towards the state of perfect equilibrium, it remains a boundary condition, not a realisable state: ‘Complete redemption from the sufferings of this world is and must remain an illusion’
Jung and Eastern thought: a dialogue with the Orient (John James Clarke)