[INFJ] - is the hindu god krishna the ultimate....? | INFJ Forum

[INFJ] is the hindu god krishna the ultimate....?

chad

Regular Poster
Feb 4, 2015
77
100
547
MBTI
infp
is the hindu god krishna the ultimate infj?


i mean out of all the hindu gods lord krishna strikes me as a hard infj


why?
because if you read any of his books or stories, you would see his the ultimate form of love.
all the gopis(female cowherders) were madly in love with him, krishna was soft spoken, danced around playing the flute,talks pleasingly, was highly charismatic, one of those love type gurus


is he the ultimate infj?
 






Sorry, just being sort of silly. These are famous Krishna bands that play a type of music not often associated with peaceful teachings.
 
Last edited:
The examples you offered as evidence do seem more ESFP to me than INFJ, but that doesn't mean you cannot see Krishna as INFJ. If you offered the Bhagadvad Gita as evidence I would be more on board with your concept because the book does seem much more INFJ than a charismatic flute player. :) <3
 






Sorry, just being sort of silly. These are famous Krishna bands that play a type of music not often associated with peaceful teachings.

PS: Shelter is awesome
 
When Krishna's mother looked in his mouth, she saw the universe and herself. One could see that as symbolic for INFJs and the worlds they contain in their heads. But I believe that the story is meant to be more universal about the nature of reality, humans, gods, oneness, so considering it in the context of personality types is perhaps facetious. As is typing Jesus or any other religious figures that are supposed to transcend the limits of humanity and our personal pettiness.

She then saw in his mouth the whole eternal universe, and heaven, and the regions of the sky, and the orbit of the earth with its mountains, islands, and oceans; she saw the wind, and lightning, and the moon and stars, and the zodiac; and water and fire and air and space itself; she saw the vacillating senses, the mind, the elements, and the three strands of matter. She saw within the body of her son, in his gaping mouth, the whole universe in all its variety, with all the forms of life and time and nature and action and hopes, and her own village, and herself.


Bhagavata Burana


yashodakrishna.jpg
 
Fidicen said:
As is typing Jesus or any other religious figures that are supposed to transcend the limits of humanity and our personal pettiness.

For what it's worth, while I think this carries great wisdom, I can't resist foray into a subtlety: Jung originally coined the types with something that very much resembles a spirituality (the integration of the inferior and the dominant is his version of a kind of realization of the True Self involving transcendence of type, as many of you know).

I think that even the very so-called 'self-realized'/'enlightened' parties could, under some such interpretations, be seen to give expression to the same universal principle through the more specific types' pscyhologies, even if they're not deluded or whatever by an ego-identification to the type.
On the other hand, it seems perfectly reasonable that non-enlightened folk would still interpret the person (say X or Y incarnation in Hinduism) as a certain type, because on the surface they do seem to give expression to the more universal principle some way or another.

Anyway, ultimately I do think Jesus or Krishna or whoever is not supposed to actually be a type in the traditional sense of ego-identification.
 
Jung identified Christ as a symbol of the Self. The Shadow and Anima/Animus are experienced primarily as the inferior function in waking life save for some Red Book type experience where one interacts directly with them. MBTI is about the ego, except for the inferior function, which cannot be integrated, only tolerated and eventually accepted/co-operated with. The whole point is that the ego emerges from the Self, not vice-versa. You can't integrate the archetypes into the ego, they are transcendent and the ego is temporal.

No offence to the OP but this is why I can't deal with MBTI at all, I just like this forum. Maybe I need to actually read Myers-Briggs but I've read Jung and von Franz, and the idea of switching between introversion and extraversion goes against classical Jungian thought entirely and doesn't connect to his really groundbreaking work at all.
 
The whole point is that the ego emerges from the Self, not vice-versa. You can't integrate the archetypes into the ego, they are transcendent and the ego is temporal.

People have a lot of hubris tho
 
Cornerstone said:
Maybe I need to actually read Myers-Briggs but I've read Jung and von Franz, and the idea of switching between introversion and extraversion goes against classical Jungian thought

I do agree strongly that that part is divergent from classical Jungian thought. That said, I think you probably already know one of the weakest links in Jung is the attitude of the auxiliary--as irritated as I was with the sloppy treatment of this issue in MBTI discussions, it's not like Jung does much better in the end. If one ultimately reads between the lines, the real reason Jung assumes the attitude of the auxiliary coincides with the attitude of the dominant is he sort of tacitly likes to treat the second function parallel to how he treats the first. It's common in Jung and von Franz to read that they refer to an aux-T type as a 'thinking type', just as they'd refer to a dominant intuitive as 'an intuitive type.'
(A pronounced case of this is where Jung seems to classify Nietzsche as an introverted thinking type -- to the unseasoned reader of Jung, this appears like he's calling him an introverted thinking dominant, but actually he's just being loose about kind of treating the auxiliary on parallel footing to the dominant.)


Probably my favorite case of this to point out is that Jung refers to the absolute sovereignty of the dom, and suggests that only one function can be considered conscious, yet shortly later, he referes to the dom-aux as the conscious functions. The reason he ascribes the same attitude to both is probably this -- that he loosely considers the aux conscious, even if very super strictly, it's not allowed to be, given that it can be differentiated only in so far as this does not conflict with the dom's aims.
 
I do agree strongly that that part is divergent from classical Jungian thought. That said, I think you probably already know one of the weakest links in Jung is the attitude of the auxiliary--as irritated as I was with the sloppy treatment of this issue in MBTI discussions, it's not like Jung does much better in the end. If one ultimately reads between the lines, the real reason Jung assumes the attitude of the auxiliary coincides with the attitude of the dominant is he sort of tacitly likes to treat the second function parallel to how he treats the first. It's common in Jung and von Franz to read that they refer to an aux-T type as a 'thinking type', just as they'd refer to a dominant intuitive as 'an intuitive type.'
(A pronounced case of this is where Jung seems to classify Nietzsche as an introverted thinking type -- to the unseasoned reader of Jung, this appears like he's calling him an introverted thinking dominant, but actually he's just being loose about kind of treating the auxiliary on parallel footing to the dominant.)


Probably my favorite case of this to point out is that Jung refers to the absolute sovereignty of the dom, and suggests that only one function can be considered conscious, yet shortly later, he referes to the dom-aux as the conscious functions. The reason he ascribes the same attitude to both is probably this -- that he loosely considers the aux conscious, even if very super strictly, it's not allowed to be, given that it can be differentiated only in so far as this does not conflict with the dom's aims.

Sticking with the Nietzsche example, if he was aux Ti, that would make him dom Ni or Si according to the classical model, right? Is it because the inferior is determined by the dominant function, being its opposite Ni --> Se/Si--->Ne for example, but that the aux and tertiary (Ti and Fi, in this case) could develop in either order?

I saw it as an issue of reliability, so the aux will be integrated in most people eventually, whilst the tertiary could remain pretty unreliable and the inferior always rogue (shadow).

The part about Nietzsche being a thinking type is still maybe an example of him being loose and inconsistent. Unless, it is that the primary function is so reliable that it almost becomes unconscious again, in an unconscious-competence way, so then the aux would be the most consciously used function during young-mid adulthood.

Primary - unconscious competence
Aux - conscious competence
Tertiary - conscious incompetence
Inferior - unconscious incompetence
 
I do agree strongly that that part is divergent from classical Jungian thought. That said, I think you probably already know one of the weakest links in Jung is the attitude of the auxiliary--as irritated as I was with the sloppy treatment of this issue in MBTI discussions, it's not like Jung does much better in the end. If one ultimately reads between the lines, the real reason Jung assumes the attitude of the auxiliary coincides with the attitude of the dominant is he sort of tacitly likes to treat the second function parallel to how he treats the first. It's common in Jung and von Franz to read that they refer to an aux-T type as a 'thinking type', just as they'd refer to a dominant intuitive as 'an intuitive type.'
(A pronounced case of this is where Jung seems to classify Nietzsche as an introverted thinking type -- to the unseasoned reader of Jung, this appears like he's calling him an introverted thinking dominant, but actually he's just being loose about kind of treating the auxiliary on parallel footing to the dominant.)


Probably my favorite case of this to point out is that Jung refers to the absolute sovereignty of the dom, and suggests that only one function can be considered conscious, yet shortly later, he referes to the dom-aux as the conscious functions. The reason he ascribes the same attitude to both is probably this -- that he loosely considers the aux conscious, even if very super strictly, it's not allowed to be, given that it can be differentiated only in so far as this does not conflict with the dom's aims.

Hello. I just wanted in interject a few thoughts here. I there is so much that seems inconsistent and contradictory with MBTI. It places a lot of emphasis on the auxiliary function, which really skews descriptions to active, extroverted types. True introverts probably do not want to engage much with the outside world. It is almost like MBTI tries to nudge people in a certain direction. It can be thought of as a somewhat inspirational typology. It may work better for ambiverts and extroverts, but not introverts.

I think it makes the most sense to go by your dominant function in determining a type. Everyone has a blind spot, you just have to find what that actually is. With dominant intuitives it is the sensing. The person's weak relationship with the world of sensation should be obvious. You should be able to observe it, the person is probably highly aware of their weakness in sensation. MBTI sort of fails the individual because it says a bit too much, or predicts what a person with Ni, for example, should be like; they are either Te or Fe auxiliary users. In actuality, the thinking and feeling are quite close together, or at least much closer than intuition and sensing.

However, one has to be careful, because even what appears to be most observable, isn't necessarily the case. Making decisions based on intuition is different than making them based on feeling or thinking. It is comes across as more subdued or less defined because it includes thinking and feeling in its decision making process, hence mitigating the effects compared to solely thinking or feeling types.
 
I'm going to read more about Krishna. My brother studied Religion at Uni and I've only barely touched on Hinduism and Krishna with him.

In terms of religous figures, I think the ultimate INFJ for me is Jesus (PBUH). I learnt a lot about love from reading about him and what he said, especially from the Sermon on the Mount. I remember reading that as a kid and it made me cry.
 
Cornerstone said:
Sticking with the Nietzsche example, if he was aux Ti, that would make him dom Ni or Si according to the classical model, right? Is it because the inferior is determined by the dominant function, being its opposite Ni --> Se/Si--->Ne for example, but that the aux and tertiary (Ti and Fi, in this case) could develop in either order?

Yeah; just to ensure I made myself clear, I don't think Jung would really entertain a developed aux-Te for a Ni-dom (I think it's exactly as you said, it's much more likely to say Ni+Ti) -- while he was 'loose' in the theoretical underpinnings in explaining exactly how conscious and what nature of consciousness the aux has (we can guess all sorts of things, like maybe due to its service of the dom in a complementary way, the differentiation of the T-principle is compatible with that of the N-principle to high enough a degree to render it mostly-conscious...that's my best guess based on reading Jung, but again, these aren't things he fully/completely tells us the way he is clear about some other things).

The point I made was simply that the FACT Jung would say Ti-aux seems based on a relatively loose and practical choice. In general, to have an introverted function be developed is precisely to say the function is conscious and is deployed in the conscious attitude (in this case introversion). However, there's ambiguity as to the consciousness of the auxiliary -- that's where he tends to have it sort of both ways. But in practice he regards it as conscious, it seems,and hence the Ni+Ti Nietzsche example.

Nietzsche's type is covered in Ch. III and Ch. X -- his introverted intuitive dom is covered in the former, and the Ti is alluded to (regarding his 'aphoristic writings'), and in Ch. X, in contrasting Cuvier and Nietzsche and Darwin and Kant (regarding the former as a more pronounced contrast between an introverted and extraverted thinking type), he again tells us Nietzsche's thinking is introverted and, as von Franz is also prone to do, allude to the aux-T person as a thinking type.




Anyway, this is all why, despite spending some years being very skeptical of diverging at all, after really dissecting Jung, I'm more open to people playing with what the aux does -- it seems Jung only thought of the aux's attitude as in sync with the dominant's on the basis of a practical decision, not based on absolute consistency with his founding principles. Going by the only-one-absolutely-sovereign view, I think there's more room on what the attitude of the auxiliary really is -- in such models, the auxiliary's attitude isn't really tied to the attitude of ego-consciousness (only the dom is), and all the 8 function-attitudes might develop attitudes according to more non-central roles than that of the ego. Beebe takes this one direction, by saying the other function-attitudes play roles according to certain archetypes.... I think the idea is interesting, though where I'm most skeptical is the archetypes he chooses seem to be kind of overly specific and random, and derived from observation of his own dreams (it's possible other complexes influence other function-attitudes).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornerstone