Enlightened = Schizoid?

[Thomas Knierim]

Now that we have the Genius members on board, I would like to ask this question: Do you believe that sages, arahants, "enlightened beings" typically display behaviour characterised as schizoid by today's medicine? By schizoid I mean belonging into the family of schizoid conditions, i.e. schizoid, schizotypal, schizoaffective and related disorders (you can look up the official DSM-IV and ICD-10 definitions conveniently on www.mentalhealth.com).

What these conditions have in common are pervasive detachment from relationships, lack of interest in social interaction and pleasurable activities, heightened introspection/introversion, and in extreme cases fantasies and delusions (as in the case of schizophrenia, for example). On the surface these appear to be characteristics of “spiritual detachment”, hence the question.

The question has actually a more concrete background. Since David Quinn has been diagnosed with one of these conditions, and since he does not seem to mind to discuss it, I would like to direct this question particularly to him. However, since other members of the Genius forum have been diagnosed with similar conditions, and since the relationship between the masculine and the feminine is such a prominent issue on Genius, the problems of which are expounded at length, the question is directed at all.

The schizoid condition, rather harshly called “disease” by medicine is a condition marked by non-standard behaviour in view of social and romantic relationships. In particular, it is the inability to form and sustain these, or to see any value in them, the lack of interest in sex and pleasure. It is either accompanied by emotional flatness, or -in the case of schizophrenia/schizophreniform/schizoaffective- by extreme emotions.

Now, my questions are: Is schizoid behaviour absent in an “enlightened being”? Is the schizoid state of being an impediment to spiritual development? Are relationships necessary for spiritual development? Does an enlightened teacher need relationship skills for teaching? Isn't love to enlightenment what gravity is to the cosmological formula? The common sense answer to all of these questions would be yes, but obviously the views expressed over at Genius differ.

Cheers, Thomas

[spiritual_emergency]

I'll bite.

I speak from the position of having undergone an acute schizophrenic break -- at least, that's what my experience would be called in this culture and setting. Other cultures and settings have different names: kundalini awakening; shamanistic initiation; the dark night of the soul; mysticism; gnosticism; ego death; alchemy; etc. My break was preceded by multiple losses as accompanied by trauma -- this was what produced the ego collapse. Where my experience differs substantially from that of many others is that ... a.) I didn't go to the hospital. Why? Because I didn't know that what I was going through was considered to be psychosis. Whats more, anyone who might have taken me was either dead or too far away to do anything about it.

b.) I have made a full recovery without any hospitals, psychiatrists, formal therapy or medication. No clinician I've spoken with since then has any difficulty in recognizing "psychosis" but some of them do seem a bit baffled by my ability to recover without the holy grails of psychiatric care.
Because I wasn't aware of any other options it seemed that the only way out was through. I went into the experience. It lasted about six weeks. Yes -- it gets weird. Guides appeared. One of them served in the capacity of mentor and was my constant companion. I believe this individual best corresponds with the anima/animus, as identified by Jung. Jung refers to the anima/animus as "the soul image".



Anima: Jung distinguished four broad stages of the anima, analogous to levels of the Eros cult described in the late classical period. He personified them as Eve, Helen, Mary and Sophia.

In the first stage, Eve, the anima is indistinguishable from the personal mother. The man cannot function well without a close tie to a woman. In the second stage, personified in the historical figure of Helen of Troy, the anima is a collective and ideal sexual image ("All is dross that is not Helen"-Marlowe). The third stage, Mary, manifests in religious feelings and a capacity for lasting relationships. In the fourth stage, as Sophia (called Wisdom in the Bible), a man's anima functions as a guide to the inner life, mediating to consciousness the contents of the unconscious. She cooperates in the search for meaning and is the creative muse in an artist's life.*

Animus: Jung described four stages of animus development in a woman. He first appears in dreams and fantasy as the embodiment of physical power, an athlete, muscle man or thug. In the second stage, the animus provides her with initiative and the capacity for planned action. He is behind a woman's desire for independence and a career of her own. In the next [third] stage, the animus is the "word," often personified in dreams as a professor or clergyman. In the fourth stage, the animus is the incarnation of spiritual meaning. On this highest level, like the anima as Sophia, the animus mediates between a woman's conscious mind and the unconscious. In mythology this aspect of the animus appears as Hermes, messenger of the gods; in dreams he is a helpful guide.** [Source (http://www.psychceu.com/Jung/sharplexicon.html)]



The above is but part of the reason that I do not hold the opinion of QRS that we should distance ourselves from our personal darkness, from the "unconscious". If we wish to be conscious of it, we're going to have to get intimate with it.



... therefore, it is imperative, both for individual and for social progress, that we learn to acknowledge and integrate our anima or animus, our soul-image.

Your soul-image will lead your conscious ego safely into the unconscious and safely out again. When Theseus needed to penetrate the labyrinth in Crete in order to slay the monstrous Minotaur, the fair Ariadne, with her thread, enabled him to go in and find his way out again. If we follow Jung and translate this story into psychological terms, the labyrinth is a symbol of the unconscious, the monster is the frightening and threatening aspect of whatever in our unconscious has been neglected and has therefore 'gone wild'; the slaying of the monster means 'taming' that wild, unruly force and bringing it under conscious control. The 'slaying' can be accomplished, however, only by love (Ariadne - the feminine) - only by accepting the neglected thing, honouring it and welcoming it into our unconscious. [Source (http://www.mythsdreamssymbols.com/animaanimus.html)]



I've spent a number of years researching what it was that happened to me and why. During the course of that research I've spoken with a number of other "schizoprenics" and have occasionally been surprised by what emerges from "the far side of madness". I've come to expect certain themes and one of them happens to be grandiosity -- it's very difficult to not have a full frontal encounter with the numinous without benefit of ego barriers and not be affected by it. Typically, this falls away, especially once one realizes that the experience is -- although not exactly common, not exactly uncommon either. Spontaneous visionary states affect from .5 to 1% of the population in any given culture. In situations where the grandiosity persists, this seems to be a form of compensation for the shattering of the ego and the treatment of the same in this culture.

Others can influence one's self perceptions quite dramatically during this time. For example, if someone says, "You're sick! You need to go to the hospital! You're never going to recover without all these drugs!" ... guess what tends to happen? If someone says, "Relax, this has happened to a lot of people and they pulled through okay." ... guess what tends to happen? If someone says, "Wow! You must be a descended master or something!" ... guess what tends to happen?

There were some around me who told me that I was "enlightened now" and I'm glad I didn't know what that was supposed to mean. I had not been following any form of spiritual path previous to that experience. I do know what that label is supposed to mean now and I'm glad that I rejected it. It's confining. If you climb into that box you're going to find yourself twisting and turning, trying to fit the expectations of the role. Dump the box.

I define my own experience as one of "awakening". It's a process, not an end state. I'm very much aware of my humaness and yes -- I do have an ego. I continue to explore spiritual matters according to my own interests and also to educate others about the concept of spiritual emergency where I can.


[Edited to expand Jung's definitions of the anima and animus.]

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Is schizoid behaviour absent in an “enlightened being”?
Not necessarily. Some of the characteristics of an enlightened being may seem schizoid. You listed a few similarities: detachment from relationships, lack of interest in normal activities, and introspection. The similarities end with behaviour, though. An enlightened being would act based on intelligible reasons, and would have complete insight into his condition. Both in my experience, and from some choice words a psychiatrist told me once, the mentally ill lack insight. They do not know they are sick.

An enlightened being would know he is enlightened, and would be able to consider and then logically discount the possibility that he is ill.

Is the schizoid state of being an impediment to spiritual development?
Certainly. The mind is illogical and filled with false beliefs. Sentences are incoherent. They may suffer hallucinations.

However, the experience of mental illness, like a prolonged drug experience, can lead to questions after one is healthy. I, for one, did not develop my obsession with logic and clear thinking until after I recovered from the worst of my illness.

Are relationships necessary for spiritual development?
Without exception, every philosopher was inspired to seek truth because of a relationship. Either they gained respect for philosophy from a sage, or they were disgusted with the thoughtlessness around them. The heights of spiritual development, however, require prolonged solitude (like a monk sequestered in a cell). So, at the lowest level, relationships are necessary. Near the middle, it is necessary to discard them. Then, after that, relationships should be irrelevant: the other will be able to give no new insights to the perfect mind.

Does an enlightened teacher need relationship skills for teaching?
Yes, definitely. But some teachers have a very broad view of what a relationship skill is. Some think that it is good to change based on the student. Some act kindly to everyone. I know that, were I a fully enlightened teacher, I would be an ass. I think that people learn best on their own, when they are recovering from a wounded ego. It works in the same way that you only come up with the come-back two days after someone insults you. The best lessons I have ever taught were explained by the people that my listener went off to sulk to. Now, I may not get "credit" for the teaching, but the lesson was only fully appreciated because I was an *******.

Personally, I think I have excellent relationship skills. I say "I want this person to understand such-and-such", and I use whatever means necessary so that they understand my lesson -- even if it sacrifices their opinion of me.

Isn't love to enlightenment what gravity is to the cosmological formula?
As far as love is an emotion, no. As far as love is directed at any particular person or thing, no. It is not important to have any emotion, or to be attached to anything to be able to be enlightened. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

However, gravity, being part of cosmology, must be a part of the cosmological formula. In the same way, love, being part of reality, must also be a part of enlightenment.

The common sense answer to all of these questions would be yes, but obviously the views expressed over at Genius differ.
Indeed. However, howevermuch I distrust the commonsense answer, I distrust the Genius answer just as much. It just happens that the "Genius" answers (whatever that means, we're quite a diverse bunch) tend to be supported better.

[MKFaizi]

I am no longer a Genius Forum member but I was a member for nearly nine years. I am depressive. I once thought that I was bipolar but I am not. I do not consider depression to be a mental disorder. I have not taken medication for depression for several months and I do not intend to start on it again. I took Zoloft for a while and it served a purpose but it is no longer effective and I have come to prefer being depressed rather than to medicate. I have full realization that so called depression can distort my thinking. That does not mean, however, that my thinking is always distorted. It does mean that I must be aware of the distortion when it occurs. This does not happen often.

I cannot understand why exactly Thomas chooses to highlight the so called mental illnesses of Genius members. From all that I have read here, there are a number of members here who have mental problems, even if they are controlled by whatever means.

Does depression automatically mean that someone is so incapacitated that he cannot be taken seriously? There was no psychology or psychiatry in the days of Buddha or Jesus so they were allowed to be as distorted as they could want with no interference.

Is it your intention, Thomas, to indicate that Genius is a mentally ill forum that has no merit?

If so, what is your motivation in so doing. Forgive me for being blunt but seems like a cheap shot. I know you have great respect for art. Are Van Gogh's paintings less beautiful because he suffered from what might be classified as bipolar or whatever illness now? It is supposed that Michaelangelo was bipolar. If so, are his paintings and sculptures less beautiful?

I am entirely at a loss to understand your motivation here. Kind of seems like a case of someone wanting to point and laugh derisively and I thought someone with such scholarly knowledge as yourself might be above that sort of behavior.

Faizi

[Trevor Salyzyn]

By the way, I am firmly of the belief that what s_e is describing is incredibly dangerous.

Recently, I had to give a history of my case to a social worker, and I was having difficulty remembering the details of my last episode. My mom had to fill in the blanks. I remember being convinced that if I went to sleep, all my insights would disappear and I would die. Those thoughts may have just been justifying an observation I'd had. I didn't sleep. First for days. Then for a week. Then for well over a month, and by this time I was constantly doped up with enough medication, as the doctor said, "to put an elephant to sleep."

Finally, they took me off everything, let my system clear for a few days, and then jammed a needle full of one of the prehistoric medications into my ass. I had stopped sleeping sometime in September, and I believe it was late October or early November when they finally got me to pass out. They decided that the diagnosis they'd given me four years earlier had been wrong: I was bipolar.

Anyway, a week or so later, they performed both a CT scan and MRI, and I saw a neurologist. My doctor concluded that with the amount of medications they used on me, and the amount of time I'd been sleepless, I'd probably suffered some damage (on top of already being bipolar). I have to have another MRI in a couple years to double-check.

A year and a half later, if I miss my evening medication, I still don't sleep. My thoughts speed up too much.

The short of it is this: I checked myself into the hospital when I noticed my sleeping problems (the only two things you can measure yourself as far as mental disorders goes is your sleeping and eating habits. Sudden changes are bad.) If I had been afraid of hospitals (as many people are), and bought into all the myth and bullshit that surrounds the common Hollywood conception of the mentally ill and hospitals, I may have died. I would have stayed awake until my heart gave out.

[spiritual_emergency]

I cannot understand why exactly Thomas chooses to highlight the so called mental illnesses of Genius members. From all that I have read here, there are a number of members here who have mental problems, even if they are controlled by whatever means.

It may well be that Thomas is intending to make a dig or it could be simply that the conversation is on the table so why not explore it? Somewhere out there in cyberland David has a personal profile in which he states he's been diagnosed with a personality disorder. Maybe it's schizoid; maybe it's narcissism; maybe it's something else. I don't know.

I think it's a valid and worthy topic if only because religions are based on the visionary states of their founders: Buddha wrestled with Mara; Christ had to deal with Satan; Moses had an indepth conversation with a burning bush; Rumi considered himself to be mad with love for God; it is believed that St. Theresa's religious raptures may have been epileptic fits. Epilepsy is a neurological disorder which affects the frontal lobes of the brain -- these same lobes seem to play a role in deep states of meditation.

It looks like a potentially meaty conversation to me, regardless of what David is or isn't. The same goes for members (past or present) of the Genius Forum.

[spiritual_emergency]

By the way, I am firmly of the belief that what s_e is describing is incredibly dangerous.

What I am describing is a personal experience. I'm not suggesting that anyone go out and get themselves traumatized to the extent that they produce a collapse of their ego and then wait for a guide to show up who will accompany them on a trip into the burning heart of God. There is no way possible for anyone to "follow" me, which is not to say that others have not had similar experiences. Is it painful? Yes. Is it difficult? Yes. Can it be terrifying? Yes. Is that any reason to halt it? Not necessarily. Visionary experiences have been common among every age of humanity. People managed without hospitals and anti-psychotics because they had no other choice.

If you find hospitals and medication to be helpful, it's because you do. I've spoken with plenty of individuals who felt medication and hospitals were helpful, and plenty more who didn't. In my case, it's a redundant point. What's done, is done.

See also:
When The Dream Becomes Real (http://www.global-vision.org/dream/dreamch1.html)
Visionary Experience & Culture (http://www.annebaring.com/anbar12_lect01_relevance.htm)
Shamanism (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/shaman.html)


[Edited for links.]

[David Quinn]

I have been variously diagnozed with schizoidal and schizotypal personality disorders on account that I take an extreme interest in wisdom. What this essentially means is that my personsality and values differ significantly from the norm. I don't suffer anxiety or depression or have any clinical symptoms. But my obsession with wisdom is apparent.

Thomas wrote:

Is schizoid behaviour absent in an “enlightened being”? Is the schizoid state of being an impediment to spiritual development?

Given the fact that we are living in an extremely deluded society, and given the fact that the enlightened sage has eliminated all of his delusions and effectively become sane, there would be no way for him to escape being lumbered with a "personality disorder". His wisdom, personality and values will always be too different from the norm.

To be frank, being considered "normal" or "functional" or "useful" or a "good citizen" in our deluded society is not an accomplishment. Rather, it is a sign of moral bankruptcy. If you don't have a personality disorder, then there is obviously something wrong with you.


Are relationships necessary for spiritual development? Does an enlightened teacher need relationship skills for teaching? Isn't love to enlightenment what gravity is to the cosmological formula? The common sense answer to all of these questions would be yes, but obviously the views expressed over at Genius differ.

Again, given how deluded our society is, "common sense" answers are of little worth. The "common sense" of the human race is extremely ignorant and limited in scope. It is, in effect, non-sense.

Most people are extremely attached to girlfriends, sex, love, family, gurus, etc, and they are going to throw themselves into relationships without giving it a second thought. However, if it is your goal to transcend all attachments and experience the freedom of the Infinite, then a fundamental conflict of interest with the very notion of relationship immediately arises.

-

[David Quinn]

There seems to be a problem with the server, Thomas. My last post to the Genius Forum thread is not showing up, even though the contents page is saying it is there.

-

[JamesH]

Now that we have the Genius members on board, I would like to ask this question: Do you believe that sages, arahants, "enlightened beings" typically display behaviour characterised as schizoid by today's medicine? By schizoid I mean …pervasive detachment from relationships, lack of interest in social interaction and pleasurable activities, heightened introspection/introversion, and in extreme cases fantasies and delusions (as in the case of schizophrenia, for example). On the surface these appear to be characteristics of “spiritual detachment”, hence the question.

Mighty fine questions, that you should be able to answer yourself.

No doubt I will answer differently than say David would because there is no false mysticism within me.

Basically the answer is yes, all those human actions are more likely to be present in an individual than not. The difference is how the individual values them - if they value such things in terms of herd memes, where conformity of others to your herd-developed game plan is the number one priority then of course this will unsettle the masses that have faith in human games of emotion – war, greed, ego for example, but also the need to distance themsleves from those thast oppose such things - hence automatic negative reactions to individuals .

As an aside, I’m a believer in zero net gain. All the technological advances we have made may be a net gain for the human species (how can one judge this?), but are not necessarily a net gain for individuals on average. I do not believe technology induces increased levels of happiness and contentment, that remain through one’s life. It will for some but for others it does not.

What you have done is automatically assume that all these descriptors of “madness” are negative. That is not the case. Certainly schizophrenia in people tied to the delusions that emotions cause have very difficult lives, and as such it is just to class such instances of schizophrenia as being negative, but really the form of schizophrenia/autism caused by a desire for reality and individualism, bought about by the lessening effect of animal emotions - which by default must be intrinsically harmless. It is mindless emotion that destroys, not living in reality, and this form of autism is not negative except where the herd acts to destroy such individualism.

[Thomas Knierim]

Wow, 10 lengthy replies in just a few hours. I'll try to address some of the points you made.

First of all thank you, especially to spritual emergency and Trevor, for describing your experiences. I appreciate your openness. I think that your stories demonstrate that there is something to the individual that can actually emerge strengthened from a period of mental crisis. Although this is not always possible or likely, because some cases of schizoid PD or schizophrenia are pervasive, it is definitely a possibility and therefore an inspiration. Spiritual emergency, I wonder if you did ever get diagnosed? Some forms, like schizophreniform PD, are episodic and people usually recover fully. I agree with you that the only way out of the crisis is through the crisis by facing the challenge. It requires acceptance, and in many cases (obviously not in yours) it also requires assistance. I also think it is good advise for everyone, whether considered mentallly healthy or not, to befriend his/her dark side, rather than running away from it.

MKFaizi: I cannot understand why exactly Thomas chooses to highlight the so called mental illnesses of Genius members.

Not highlighting. Questioning. For two reasons. First, because it is conspicuous. Estimations for the prevalence of mental conditions in the average population run between 10% and 15%, most of these being rather "light" conditions. The ratio is significantly higher on Genius. Second, I am interested in the relationship between mental conditions and the development of wisdom, or if you want, spiritual development. I think that wisdom is often -if not always- the product of suffering. A mental crisis is bound to cause suffering -at least in most cases- and is thus perhaps an opportunity for spiritual development; the proverbial silver lining. But it can also be a trap.

Finally, raw curiosity. I am facinated by the workings of the mind.

David: To be frank, being considered "normal" or "functional" or "useful" or a "good citizen" in our deluded society is not an accomplishment. Rather, it is a sign of moral bankruptcy.

Yes, someone said that being considered sane in an insane society is not a mark of sanity. I certainly agree with that. But this is a complex and tricky question. For example, there are people who after having outgrown their childish dependencies, establish a self image and identify with it, find a regular job, get married, and who are considered socially as well as emotionally balanced. These are your run-of-the-mill "adjusted" people.

Then there are people who are only ostensibly adjusted. They appear not to be at conflict with society, neither do they seem conformist. Often they are rugged individualists. They are unusually agile, honest, and passionate and display a high degree of integrity. Then there are people who are uneasy with and in society, particularly in their own surroundings. They are aggressively non-conformist, antisocial, perhaps even criminal, and they despise society.

What I want to say is that how well an individual "functions" or is ostensibly "adjusted" is generally a poor indicator of wisdom or inner development.

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

To be frank, being considered "normal" or "functional" or "useful" or a "good citizen" in our deluded society is not an accomplishment. Rather, it is a sign of moral bankruptcy. If you don't have a personality disorder, then there is obviously something wrong with you. David Quinn

This is a classic circular argument. Normal society is delusional, so you must be abnormal, to be normal.
However, the original normal state now becomes the abnormal, so which state is the disordered, which is the enlightened?
This fits in with what another QRSling wrote about breaking everything in sight, but once everything is broken is it not an even more ordered state? Instead of distinct, individual pieces of furniture, you now have an homogeneous mixture of broken pieces! Is this what you think enlightenment is, or ought to be? It seems to me your version of enlightenment is more like the Dark Ages, retrenchment from all accepted sociological values.

Most people are extremely attached to girlfriends, sex, love, family, gurus, etc, and they are going to throw themselves into relationships without giving it a second thought. However, if it is your goal to transcend all attachments and experience the freedom of the Infinite, then a fundamental conflict of interest with the very notion of relationship immediately arises. David Quinn

But, by your own admission you are obsessed with wisdom. How is it possible to transcend all attachments and be obsessed at the same time? I notice you did not say “obsessed with the attainment of wisdom”. You seem to be more obsessed with “being seen in the eyes of others as one who has obtained wisdom”, and that delusion paradoxically will prevent you from ever being wise.

[spiritual_emergency]

.

Although this is not always possible or likely, because some cases of schizoid PD or schizophrenia are pervasive, it is definitely a possibility and therefore an inspiration. Spiritual emergency, I wonder if you did ever get diagnosed? Some forms, like schizophreniform PD, are episodic and people usually recover fully. I agree with you that the only way out of the crisis is through the crisis by facing the challenge.

As noted, clinicians never have a problem recognizing that what I went through would be called psychosis. As to what kind of psychosis it was... stress was certainly a factor. In this respect, my experience might most closely resemble a brief psychotic break, except that it lasted longer than a brief psychotic break is supposed to last (according to the diagnostic criteria). There was a prodomal phase to my break that lasted several months as well as a very deep depression afterwards that lasted substantially longer. In those respects, my experience is closer to the criteria for classic schizophrenia, except I recovered. In this culture, schizophrenia is often presented as an incurable disorder but the west has an abysmal recovery rate. Other cultures, such as India, have a substantially higher rate of recovery -- up to 90% in spite of their lack of hospitalization and neuroleptic medication.

It requires acceptance, and in many cases (obviously not in yours) it also requires assistance.

Oh, I've had plenty of assistance -- what did you think those guides were for? I've also had a few remarkable human beings in my life who allowed me to lean on them very heavily during the recovery phase. Other people were an extremely important factor in my recovery. So too, was knowledge. For that, I had the internet. It brought some of the most brilliant and insightful minds in psychology and psychiatry right to my doorstep: John Weir Perry; Carl Jung; R.D. Laing; Stanislav Grof; Maureen Roberts; David Lukoff, and more. Overall, a recovery period of three to five years is probably reasonable. In my case, I was able to return to work after about 18 months. The bulk of my recovery was behind me after about three years. Nonetheless, it's still a process. I continue to learn from (and heal from) that experience on a daily basis.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The mental health profession is the only "medical" profession that determines disorders by sitting around a table and discussing how various "symptoms" group together and coming up with a name for that, and it is the only "medical" profession that diagnoses without looking at the body part related to the "disorder" (although a neurologist, Dr. Amen, is working on changing that through promoting the use of brain scans [SPECT imaging] to make an accurate assessment).

Some ways of thinking are more accepted by society than others. I was raised that no matter what the transgression (literally spilling milk, for example) would result in brutal punishment by my father. If I was not in complete hysterics while apologizing for my transgression, to my father I did not appear "sorry enough" so he would make me "sorry enough." After he got me hysterical enough that I was gasping for air, he would order me to quit crying, which was impossible, so I would be punished again for being disobedient. This manner of being raised resulted in a long-term difficulty with crying too easily. Seeking to eliminate unwanted emotions through logic has been the only really healpful tool for me.

I love all people, and I find that logical. It is only certain behaviors that I do not like, and those behaviors are not good for either the individual with those behaviors or for anyone else. If I did not love all people, I could not be as much help to anyone. I also find that the more love I carry inside me, the more motivated I am.

My mission in life is to help bring peace to this world. Few people ever really know why they were born, but I am clear about why I am here. My existential crisis is that I am not so sure that people really want peace. They want more peace when they are pained by violence or meanness, but people also seem to enjoy their conflicts. As I learned in my marriage (I'm now divorced), some people with a great deal of turmoil in their lives think they really want peace, but once placed in a peaceful situation, they get really annoyed with peace and become quite violent. I am still learning.

An online friend from another board years ago suggested that I might be an Indigo, and that some of the "symptoms" seemed to correlate with that. I got a couple of books on Indigo children, and I recognized myself (including some pretty peculiar things that I never mentioned to a mental health counselor nor to my online friend) and I recalled a few times in my life being stopped by strangers who would tell me I had a beautiful aura (how does one respond to that? At first I would just say thank you, but a couple of times I asked what color it was, and I was told it was blue).

As I said, my diagnosis is PTSD. I have had other diagnosis that are actually symptoms of PTSD that were so severe as to warrant a separate diagnosis. I find the diagnosis thing interesting, but it is not the whole answer for everyone. Medication is sometimes life-or-death necessary for some, but even with medication, thought processing and behavior management are required. Meds alone won't fix everything, meds only make the mental/behavioral aspect possible for those who otherwise would not be able to achieve their full potential. A reason I find diagnostics interesting is that it is a consideration of what is or is not functional or acceptable behavior. It does provide some food for thought about what we are doing or thinking, and an outline of what society does deem acceptable, which can be a handy resource for those who were raised so far out of societal norms that we were "unsocialized." The ability to function with society to some degree is mandatory for being able to help the world, and individuals are benefitted by a healthy society.
***************************
Edited for a clearer stucture.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

psyche/sky,
i never was hospitalized - i never was completely off the wall
I take that to mean you never needed round-the-clock care. People who've been ill know what this means, but when you say it like this you add to the negative bias people have toward hospitals designed to help the mentally unwell. My experience with hospitals has always been positive (except for boredom, and the occasional threat from a maniac). Mental hospitals are care facilities for people whose brains are not functioning properly, and work admirably in that respect. Nowadays, they are not designed to keep violent maniacs from the general population, although they often accept that role as well (but the violent madmen are separate from the general hospital population of benign lunatics).

i do not take medication - i told the doctor it is because i don't want to be homogenized - many others feel the same way - actually i am also not willing to damage my body
From what I understand, most people who don't take medications are ashamed of their illness. Or they don't see it as an illness, which is essentially the same thing.

All the "advantages" I get from a manic episode end up directly causing the things I regret most when I stabilize. Good thing the nurses tend to have good heads on their shoulders (they've seen it all), so talking to them usually makes the most embarassing things not seem so bad. I know why someone would want to be manic all the time -- it feels so good -- but it's a deluded state.

Artistically, when manic I can think of a dozen words that rhyme with any other word in seconds, and can write rhythmic poetry (in any metric) almost as fast as I can write prose. The thing is, nobody likes the poetry. It sounds good, but content-wise it's crap. I remember writing 2 pages where I just listed the names of animals based on how they sounded. I thought it was great, but nobody else could extract any pleasure from it.

[spiritual_emergency]

.

i'll take 1% of that billion for this proposal and 1% in royalties

i am not kidding

I concede that I would feel most comfortable withdrawing my posts if a decision is made in that direction. I did not share what I shared for the sake of generating royalties.

[Michael]

yes i know they were obviously deluded to find any worth in me

psych, you and I got off on the wrong foot (you may recall). My fault for jumping to conclusions. You got v annoyed then. That's not a problem, I get annoyed myself.

But at the risk of annoying you again I have to totally disagree with you now. In almost all of your posts I have detected a huge sensitivety(something I hadn't recognised in our first exchange). You have wonderful feeling and understanding and intellect. I also see that you are artistic with a highly developed aesthetic.

I find you a very worthy person who has a very difficult burden.

That's my personal view from seeing what you have to say for yourself.

And, for what it's worth. I would like to share something with you.

As a young man I had huge guilt issues. I had a catharsis during which I heard someone say, 'Surrender, 'Alpha', I love you'. I felt vast relief. In a highly emotionally charged state I had to use public transport. On my way I felt, no, I saw, that we are loved, overwhelmingly, unequivically, non-judgementally. It is we who invest in loss and shame and guilt. On the bus I could look at people and see their suffering, their focus. One girl was ashamed of her buck teeth, one man was lost behind the burn scars on his face, a woman was possessed by her poverty . And I knew all they had to do was look up and see the love that was, is, theirs.

That's what I saw, psyche. You are worthy, as we all are. No, I'm not better. Still have issues. I can't look up and see, but I can remember what I saw. Hope this is of some worth to you even across this improbable meduim.

[Michael]

Given your interests, Thomas, I'm not surprised by this post. Have you ever played with a cat? Ever noticed how they so often play bite you just where the nerve ganglia are?

In fact I have speculated to myself just how you were analysing the rich material on the site - could make a very interesting thesis.

No, I'm not being anything but open. I think it is a very challenging question that you have posed.

Thing is, when you question any0ne's sanity you raise the issue of what is sanity. And I'm quite sure that you'll get no more concensus on that than you will on issues of the nature of perception, reality, consciousness, live, deity, empiricism etc.

I mean, George Bush is sane? Get a psychiatrist to diagnose Christ or any other mystic. Myself I have grave suspicions about anyone who considers themselves sane.

The reason I say that is that so many 'sane' people participate in insanity - superior moral judgement, economic deprivation, nationalistic and deistic fanaticism and so forth and so on. May be clinically sane, but it isn't sane by my judgement.

I realise that you have limited the subject matter to schiziod issues, but you have to admit that the issue extends far beyond that particular baillywick.

So, will someone please tell me what is sanity or failing that, what is enlightenment or failing that...

To offer an answer to one part of my question, at his best on this earth, God is a kindness extended from one of us to another. It's the best I can come up with.

[David Quinn]

Schrodinger wrote:

DQ: To be frank, being considered "normal" or "functional" or "useful" or a "good citizen" in our deluded society is not an accomplishment. Rather, it is a sign of moral bankruptcy. If you don't have a personality disorder, then there is obviously something wrong with you.

S: This is a classic circular argument. Normal society is delusional, so you must be abnormal, to be normal.

Well, I would prefer to say "to be sane". Being sane would only be considered "normal" in a sane soceity, and we are currently a long way from that.

Also, it should be stressed that simply being "abnormal" by current standards doesn't necessarily mean that one is sane. Most abnormal people are just as insane and delusional as normal people - it's just that their own particular brand of delusional insanity is different to the norm.

Sanity is only one form of abnormality, and a minor form at that.


However, the original normal state now becomes the abnormal, so which state is the disordered, which is the enlightened?

Anyone who has opened their mind to the Infinite and has eliminated all of their delusions is enlightened and sane.


This fits in with what another QRSling wrote about breaking everything in sight, but once everything is broken is it not an even more ordered state? Instead of distinct, individual pieces of furniture, you now have an homogeneous mixture of broken pieces! Is this what you think enlightenment is, or ought to be? It seems to me your version of enlightenment is more like the Dark Ages, retrenchment from all accepted sociological values.

It is important to break down the false boundaries between things, and to realize, for example, that nothing ever begins and ends. It is part and parcel of understanding the truth of existence. But this doesn't mean that everything gets converted into a homogoneous mixture. Everything in the world remains just as distinct as before - the only thing that changes is that one is no longer spellbound by the inherent existence of things.


DQ: Most people are extremely attached to girlfriends, sex, love, family, gurus, etc, and they are going to throw themselves into relationships without giving it a second thought. However, if it is your goal to transcend all attachments and experience the freedom of the Infinite, then a fundamental conflict of interest with the very notion of relationship immediately arises.

S: But, by your own admission you are obsessed with wisdom. How is it possible to transcend all attachments and be obsessed at the same time?

It's like setting a fire and allowing it to burn all the flammable material around. Once the flammable material is gone, the fire disappears of itself.


I notice you did not say “obsessed with the attainment of wisdom”. You seem to be more obsessed with “being seen in the eyes of others as one who has obtained wisdom”, and that delusion paradoxically will prevent you from ever being wise.

You can't hide the light that shines within you. It will continue to shine out, regardless of what you do.

-

[Thomas Knierim]

AlphaAurigae: Thing is, when you question any0ne's sanity you raise the issue of what is sanity.

Yes, precisely. That is part of the package. What society or certain individuals define as "insane" is not necessarily the same as the scientific/medical definition. Psychiatry is trying to understand conditions by classifying them using carefully chosen diagnostic criteria. Diagnosing mental conditions is notoriously difficult, because -as of now- science has only a partial understanding of the mind. In reality, there is much more to it than diagnostic criteria. Since each case is unique, mental conditions represent a particular state of being which must be viewed in the context of the individual's history.

Like all "diseases", mental conditions are highly karmic. They are a direct manifestation of karma. In fact, the word karma is often used to signify a certain state of being. Because human beings are a highly polymorphic species, there is an immense variety of states of beings, physically as well as mentally. Again, due to this enormous variability, it is difficult to delineate sanity and insanity exactly. For now let's just say that the boundaries are diffuse. There is, however, a consensus that a condition can be called "insane" if it is morbid, i.e. if it leads to disfunction, disability, physical disease, or death. But even that is debatable.

I am not so much interested in delineating and defining terms. I am not interested in how society and certain cultures perceive and respond to mental conditions. I already know that. What I am interested in, is making conclusions from particular states of being to what may be called karmic architecture. A defining feature of karmic architecture is character, for example, but it goes far beyond that; it includes all of a person's internal states (as opposed to external behaviour). Hence, the question about the relationship between the schizoid family of conditions and enlightenment.

If you want you can relate certain activites and interestests, such as philosophy, solitary activities, intellectual pursuits, to a certain MBTI typology, for example ISTJ (introverted-sensing-thinking-judging) and you can further relate typologies to "typical" conditions, ie. you can look at conditions with a high prevalence of a certain type. For example, you could look at the statistic occurrence of ISTJ individuals in the schizoid category. I know it sounds a bit abstract, but I think that relating typologies to conditions as well as typical activities/professions is very revealing. It is a worthy subject of study.

What is even more interesting is perhaps, how does the schizoid state of being fit into the spiritual path? What does it signify for the individual? What is its impact on self-development? Are schizoid states inevitable in the quest for enlightenment or are they merely a quirk?

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

I notice you did not say “obsessed with the attainment of wisdom”. You seem to be more obsessed with “being seen in the eyes of others as one who has obtained wisdom”, and that delusion paradoxically will prevent you from ever being wise. --Schrodinger.

You can't hide the light that shines within you. It will continue to shine out, regardless of what you do. --David Quinn.

Yes, that is exactly the point I am making! A truly enlightened person has a presence, an aura. This is immediately apparent to any and all who are fortunate enough be have any acquaintance with an enlightened person. The acquaintance need not be direct contact; just reading words on a computer screen is sufficient. Nothing you have written, nor your use of language strikes me as the work of an enlightened person. On the contrary, your ego is the only constant that is present in all of your writings, and even then only because you make direct reference to it.

In the words of Lord Chesterfield: “Be wiser than other people, if you can, but do not tell them”.

I would expand that by adding there is no need to tell them. If you feel that need, you are not yet wise.

[David Quinn]

Thomas wrote:

What is even more interesting is perhaps, how does the schizoid state of being fit into the spiritual path? What does it signify for the individual? What is its impact on self-development? Are schizoid states inevitable in the quest for enlightenment or are they merely a quirk?

Spiritual people aren't really schizoid in any clinical sense. They don't possess the mental or emotional incapacities which characterize normal schizoid behaviour. Instead, they have consciously chosen to remove themselves from the lies of humanity and embrace the highest wisdom. This rejection of the normal lies of humanity is rightly regarded as a deviancy, but it isn't a clinical condition.

For example, although the spiritual person doesn't respond emotionally to the kinds of situations that normal people do, this is due to his spiritual development and the loftiness of his vision, rather than to any incapacity to experience emotion. In other words, he doesn't really have the symptom of "emotional flatness". Rather, he simply doesn't have any reason to become emotional.

-

[David Quinn]

schrodinger wrote:

A truly enlightened person has a presence, an aura. This is immediately apparent to any and all who are fortunate enough be have any acquaintance with an enlightened person. The acquaintance need not be direct contact; just reading words on a computer screen is sufficient. Nothing you have written, nor your use of language strikes me as the work of an enlightened person. On the contrary, your ego is the only constant that is present in all of your writings, and even then only because you make direct reference to it.

Socrates was mocked and put to death, Jesus constantly had stones thrown at him, Nietzsche was thought a madman, Kierkegaard was laughed at for being sickly and comical, Lao Tzu was a neglected figure in his society - these are all deeply-enlightened people whose enlightenment was hardly recognized by others.

Very few people can recognize real wisdom. You could plant a fully-enlightened Buddha in front of them and have him speak the truth in the clearest possible manner and still he would be ignored. People aren't looking for wisdom. What they want are authority figures to entertain them with mystical yarns and moral talk, and who will affirm their own ego fantasies.


On the contrary, your ego is the only constant that is present in all of your writings, and even then only because you make direct reference to it.

What's an example?


In the words of Lord Chesterfield: “Be wiser than other people, if you can, but do not tell them”.

I would expand that by adding there is no need to tell them. If you feel that need, you are not yet wise.

Again, I challenge you to go back and find an example of my telling people I am wise. It is something I never do. I'm afraid you have been misled by some of the more hysterical elements on this forum.

[spiritual_emergency]

What is even more interesting is perhaps, how does the schizoid state of being fit into the spiritual path? What does it signify for the individual? What is its impact on self-development? Are schizoid states inevitable in the quest for enlightenment or are they merely a quirk?

The above are questions I've asked myself, not merely as an exercise in speculation but because I had to. What did my experience mean? How was I to live my life afterward? Was I supposed to abandon my family and go find an ashram? Was I supposed to go save the world now? Was I "crazy" or had my experience been one of significant breakthrough as opposed to breakdown? Some of those questions were answered easily, others took time.

It's difficult to "come back down" from that kind of experience to a world where other people think the big goals in life are paying off their mortgage and getting their kids through college. It's difficult to get excited about washing the dishes or taking out the garbage after you've danced with "God". It's difficult to invest yourself in *this* world when you've experienced *another* world. It's difficult to find other people you can talk to about this kind of experience without them getting seriously weirded out or frightened. It's difficult to not get caught up in fantasies of grandiosity -- in the immediate aftermath of that experience I actually checked in the shower to see if my feet were being supported by enamel on iron or miracles on water, just in case. It was enamel on iron for me, folks.

I didn't leave my family and I'm grateful they didn't leave me either. I didn't join an ashram, but I did buy some books about Kali and Buddhism. I had two people I could talk to about my experience and that was enough. Eventually, I found others. Meanwhile, I did my dishes, took out my garbage, and surrounded myself with silence. I did go through a phase of intense withdrawal. I couldn't be around other people for a few reasons -- one was that I still had no ego boundaries. I'd pick up stuff. I also needed to heal and I needed to digest my experience. Somewhere in there, I came back down to earth. If I had been meant to stay in that other place, I'd have still been there. But *this* was where I was and when in Rome, you must do as the Romans do. It's a human experience.

Roughly five years later I consider my experience to have been both a breakdown and a breakthrough. A spiritual experience? Yes, very much so. A necessary part of a spiritual path? I don't know. I think there are a lot of ways to lose one's "ego". Even then, the ego comes back. As noted, I don't consider myself to be "enlightened" but I think I've held that state. I've felt the Heart of the Universe beat in my chest. Sometimes, I still can. Otherwise, I spend a lot of time talking to other "schizophrenics". Some of them I can't connect with -- our experiences are too different. Others, I can connect with and it's there that I can make a difference.


[Edited for links.]

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David wrote:
Very few people can recognize real wisdom.

I disagree. I believe people do recognize wisdom instinctivly. They also think they recognize wisdom somethimes when it isn't really there, but if we put true wisdom next to false wisdom, people will almost universally see which one is the true wisdom.

David wrote:
I challenge you to go back and find an example of my telling people I am wise.
I know that was not directly addressed to me, but I'll take a piece of that.

10/20/06, this thread:I have been variously diagnozed with schizoidal and schizotypal personality disorders on account that I take an extreme interest in wisdom. What this essentially means is that my personsality and values differ significantly from the norm. I don't suffer anxiety or depression or have any clinical symptoms. But my obsession with wisdom is apparent.

Thomas wrote:

Is schizoid behaviour absent in an “enlightened being”? Is the schizoid state of being an impediment to spiritual development?

Given the fact that we are living in an extremely deluded society, and given the fact that the enlightened sage has eliminated all of his delusions and effectively become sane, there would be no way for him to escape being lumbered with a "personality disorder". His wisdom, personality and values will always be too different from the norm.


Here, you have indirectly called yourself a sage. A sage is a wise person.

10/19/06, Genius Forum thread, this board:
Anyone who teaches others about enlightenment - whether it be a guru like the Dalai Lama or Ramakrishna, or someone like myself - is implicitly claiming that they are enlightened and therefore qualified to teach in this manner.

Granted you are claiming to be "enlightened" here rather than "wise" but wisdom is part of enlightenment, so the inferrence is there.

10/19/06, Genius Forum thread, this board:
(italics quoting Thomas)Second, the implication of enlightenment is logically incorrect, because even an unenlightened teacher can teach something about enlightenment. This is possible in the same way your geography teacher can teach you about Paris without ever having been to Paris.

It's possible, but not very effective. Such a person would be reliant on second-hand information in the form of books, photos, documentaries, other people's recollections, etc - none of which he can be sure is an accurate reflection of Paris. Indeed, he can't even be sure that Paris actually exists until he goes there and sees for himself. Until he does, he is invariably going to mislead people by his teaching.

As Jesus said, "If the blind follow the blind, both will fall into the pit".
Here, you are stating that only the enlightened can teach about enlightenment. Although this quote does not encompass that you teach enlightenment, the above quote does show where you say you teach enlightenment.

10/20/06, Genius Forum thread, this board:
What you're talking about here are altered states, not enlightenment. Altered states can certainly arrive unannounced, without our having to strive for them, but this is not the case with enlightenment. Enlightnment is the fruit of a long process of growth triggered by rational thought and sustained meditative focus upon the nature of Reality. One grows into enlightenment.

Here is an example of where you are teaching enlightenment. I could go on, but this seems like a good stopping place. I am pleased to see that you are participating in this experience of examining your level of enlightenment, and I hope it contributes to your growth into further enlightenment.

[schrodinger]

Socrates was mocked and put to death, Jesus constantly had stones thrown at him, Nietzsche was thought a madman, Kierkegaard was laughed at for being sickly and comical, Lao Tzu was a neglected figure in his society - these are all deeply-enlightened people whose enlightenment was hardly recognized by others. ---David Quinn---

Granted, Enlightened Ones are often misunderstood and persecuted during their lifetimes, only to be recognized and lionized long after they are dead. However, it can be argued that the persecution itself, is a form of recognition. Human nature being what it is, Jesus would probably be stoned again, should He make an appearance tomorrow in Vatican Square. You, on the other hand, are being neither persecuted (unless you consider my questioning a form of persecution) nor are you immediately recognized as an Enlightened One, not even by your rowdy bunch at Genius Forum, in my estimation. Furthermore, the uncivil display of certain members of the QRSlings has to reflect back on their mentor, which further erodes your claim to enlightenment. (Reap what you sow)

Again, I challenge you to go back and find an example of my telling people I am wise. It is something I never do. I'm afraid you have been misled by some of the more hysterical elements on this forum. ---David Quinn---

I didn’t have to look far:

Anyone who teaches others about enlightenment - whether it be a guru like the Dalai Lama or Ramakrishna, or someone like myself - is implicitly claiming that they are enlightened and therefore qualified to teach in this manner. --- David Quinn ---

Comparing yourself to the Dalai Lama and Ramakrishna, and implicitly claiming you are enlightened does not amount to telling people you are wise?

I am now going to cease my questioning, as I fully realize it is not my place to hold you to account for your belief. And it is apparent to me now that you actually do believe you are enlightened. That is a much different situation than simply debunking someone who is pretending. Perhaps it all began as a pretension then after you convinced a few people you ended up convincing yourself. One thing is clear; you obviously realize the value of an enlightened mind and at some point you were actively in the pursuit of one. I wonder why you stopped short of your goal and settled for less? You remind me of a mountain climber, who upon reaching the penultimate summit having planted your flag, refuse to accept that the real peak lies still further ahead.

I am most certainly not enlightened, so I concede I can be wrong.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

schrodinger wrote:
it is apparent to me now that you actually do believe you are enlightened. That is a much different situation than simply debunking someone who is pretending. Perhaps it all began as a pretension then after you convinced a few people you ended up convincing yourself. One thing is clear; you obviously realize the value of an enlightened mind and at some point you were actively in the pursuit of one. I wonder why you stopped short of your goal and settled for less? You remind me of a mountain climber, who upon reaching the penultimate summit having planted your flag, refuse to accept that the real peak lies still further ahead.

David does have some good qualities. First of all, he opens himself to scrutiny - that takes some major bravery. He speaks the truth as he sees it - a rare quality. Even if what he thinks is true is different from what most people recognize as true, he says things as he sees them, which is truthfulness and therefore respectable. He usually seems reasonable and level-headed, with only a few quirks primarily around definitions. I also believe that fundamentally he is a very compassionate man, and when he says, does, or neglects something in such a way that he appears uncompassionate, it is merely a reflection that he is a flawed mortal like the rest of us and not a deity. To my understanding, he has not claimed to be a deity, only an enlightened human being. I still believe there are gradients of wisdom, and I believe David is still climbing to the next peak. I have no idea if David realizes that he is still climbing, but by being brave enough to speak the truth as he sees it and gather the spotlights of scrutiny, he is putting himself in a position to gain further enlightenment. I respect that.

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth wrote:

DQ: Very few people can recognize real wisdom.

EI: I disagree. I believe people do recognize wisdom instinctivly. They also think they recognize wisdom somethimes when it isn't really there, but if we put true wisdom next to false wisdom, people will almost universally see which one is the true wisdom.

If that was the case, then the world would be full of wise, enlightened people. But alas, there are virtually none.


DQ: I challenge you to go back and find an example of my telling people I am wise.

EI: I know that was not directly addressed to me, but I'll take a piece of that.

I have been variously diagnozed with schizoidal and schizotypal personality disorders on account that I take an extreme interest in wisdom. What this essentially means is that my personsality and values differ significantly from the norm. I don't suffer anxiety or depression or have any clinical symptoms. But my obsession with wisdom is apparent.

This is simply stating facts. It is unhealthy to deny facts.


Here, you have indirectly called yourself a sage. A sage is a wise person.

Anyone who speaks authoritatively about spiritual matters is indirectly calling himself a sage. That can't be helped. But this is a long way short of going around and simply announcing to people that I am a sage. It would never occur to me to do something like that.

The main point is, whether you are a two-bit guru with no wisdom at all, or a great enlightened being, the moment you begin to teach about enlightenment in an authoritative manner, you are effectively announcing to the world the belief that you are enlightened. This applies as much to someone pretending to be humble, like the Dalai Lama, as it does to someone more upfront like myself. It also applies to those on this forum who like to pontificate about what enlightenment is and what it isn't.


DQ: It's possible, but not very effective. Such a person would be reliant on second-hand information in the form of books, photos, documentaries, other people's recollections, etc - none of which he can be sure is an accurate reflection of Paris. Indeed, he can't even be sure that Paris actually exists until he goes there and sees for himself. Until he does, he is invariably going to mislead people by his teaching.

As Jesus said, "If the blind follow the blind, both will fall into the pit".

EI: Here, you are stating that only the enlightened can teach about enlightenment. Although this quote does not encompass that you teach enlightenment, the above quote does show where you say you teach enlightenment.

Again, this is simply stating facts. It is obvious that I am going around teaching people about enlightenment, and thus it is obvious that I consider myself enlightened. It is also obvious that only an enlightened person is qualified to teach enlightened properly. The unenlightened can certainly teach others about enlightenment if they want to, but they'll only end up confusing and misleading people by doing so.

This discussion is largely a waste of time, as it is based on false perceptions and paranoia. So much hot air is spent on this issue, and it's mainly because people can't handle open, direct speech and the absence of duplicity.

-

[David Quinn]

psyche wrote:

EI: I believe people do recognize wisdom instinctivly. They also think they recognize wisdom somethimes when it isn't really there, but if we put true wisdom next to false wisdom, people will almost universally see which one is the true wisdom

p: even a blind man can tell the difference between a fresh peach and one frozen or canned

This is a poor analogy. A more accurate one would involve, say, a million dollar note and a blank peice of paper. Or even better, a million dollar note and a lovely, soft, scented cloth. The blind man would instinctively go for the latter, not realizing the worth of the million dollar note.

This is how it is with wise teachings and ignorant people. Ignorant people generally look for things which will give their emotions an instant hit and provide their egos with security and meaning - and hence many of them love charismatic gurus who can entertain and reassure them. They don't see any worth in those dry, logical reasonings which can open up the mind to the Infinite.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David,

Your quote of my quote of you was incomplete and left out the paragraph including your words:
given the fact that the enlightened sage
thereby leaving your response to my response moot.

You also wrote:
the moment you begin to teach about enlightenment in an authoritative manner, you are effectively announcing to the world the belief that you are enlightened.
which effectively answered your own challenge:
I challenge you to go back and find an example of my telling people I am wise.

I take it from this quote:Anyone who speaks authoritatively about spiritual matters is indirectly calling himself a sage. That can't be helped. But this is a long way short of going around and simply announcing to people that I am a sage. It would never occur to me to do something like that.

that you consider that this discussion was with a bunch of people who thought you were so far "gone" as to wander around, calling out "I'm a sage! I'm a sage!" I venture to say that no one thought that (you would be locked away in a nice hospital if you did that for too long), so it appears that i am not alone in considering that indirectly calling yourself a sage is sufficiently applicable to this conversation.

It also applies to those on this forum who like to pontificate about what enlightenment is and what it isn't.


You have a point. But as sky/psyche pointed outare the rest of the posters not scrutinized and do they not speak the truth as they see it

David wrote:
it's mainly because people can't handle open, direct speech and the absence of duplicity.
You are missing the point. That is why we are going round and round with this. I think that it's lovely that so many people are trying so hard to help you grow and see the truth.

Are you capable of seeing a point of view that does not match your own, whether you agree with it or not? If you can, can you consider that it just might be you who has thefalse perceptions and paranoia?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

schrodinger, then eliza, then david,
You, on the other hand, are being neither persecuted (unless you consider my questioning a form of persecution) nor are you immediately recognized as an Enlightened One, not even by your rowdy bunch at Genius Forum, in my estimation. Furthermore, the uncivil display of certain members of the QRSlings has to reflect back on their mentor, which further erodes your claim to enlightenment. (Reap what you sow)
I know when my name is being called. David Quinn was neither my first mentor, nor is he my current one.

My attitudes reflect on a type of person who is drawn to the Genius forum, but not on the lessons learned there. I am uncivil. I believe insults are an effective teaching method for certain types of people. But I did not learn these things from David; another, more subversive philosopher convinced me of these things. Also, Genius forum is populated by a lot of people, not just "QRS": those three are simply the moderators. Whether these are the wisest and most influential members is debatable: they certainly do not post the most.

Back on topic, the biggest lesson I learned from David is to use simple phrases instead of big academic words (what I learned about enlightenment, I learned from other sources). If that reflects poorly on him, then I concede. People must talk about enlightenment academically to be believed.


eliza,
I still believe there are gradients of wisdom, and I believe David is still climbing to the next peak.
I have seen no evidence of David changing his beliefs in the 4 years I've read the Genius forum. He has been remarkably consistent. That, along with the simplicity of expression, is one of the most noticeable features of his philosophy. I have seen him state almost everything he's says here before. If you think he is changing, you simply have not seen him walk full circle around his philosophy yet.



David,
The main point is, whether you are a two-bit guru with no wisdom at all, or a great enlightened being, the moment you begin to teach about enlightenment in an authoritative manner, you are effectively announcing to the world the belief that you are enlightened. This applies as much to someone pretending to be humble, like the Dalai Lama, as it does to someone more upfront like myself. It also applies to those on this forum who like to pontificate about what enlightenment is and what it isn't.
I agree. As I believe myself enlightened, I talk about it. It's interesting that people are more willing to believe the words of someone who says he's not enlightened than someone who says that he is. Hence, I talk about it using analogies, as though I'm offering second-hand rumour, rather than first-hand knowledge. People agree more readily.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Tervor wrote:
I have seen no evidence of David changing his beliefs in the 4 years I've read the Genius forum. He has been remarkably consistent. That, along with the simplicity of expression, is one of the most noticeable features of his philosophy. I have seen him state almost everything he's says here before. If you think he is changing, you simply have not seen him walk full circle around his philosophy yet.


I agree that I've only been there under two months, which is why I qualified my assertation withby being brave enough to speak the truth as he sees it and gather the spotlights of scrutiny, he is putting himself in a position to gain further enlightenment.

He is putting himself in the position, so there is climbing going on IMO. I give you the point that I don't know if he is climbing on such loose gravel that he can't get anywhere, but he does seem to be doing the best he can.

Trevor, I do love everyone. Part of that love is recognizing the positive as well as dutifully pointing out the negative in as loving of a manner as I can. Almost all people are capable of growth, and it is only the lack of recognition of a need to grow that gets in most people's way.

I believe one of my strengths is my continuos recognition of areas where I could improve, and continual recognition that I might not see an area where I should improve. None of us is perfect, and only narcisists think they are perfect.

David, do you think you are perfect?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

DQ: Very few people can recognize real wisdom.

EI: I disagree. I believe people do recognize wisdom instinctivly. They also think they recognize wisdom somethimes when it isn't really there, but if we put true wisdom next to false wisdom, people will almost universally see which one is the true wisdom.

DQ: If that was the case, then the world would be full of wise, enlightened people. But alas, there are virtually none.

That's because there isn't much wisdom being dispensed, true wisdom or false wisdom. Mostly it's just drivel.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

eliza,
That's because there isn't much wisdom being dispensed, true wisdom or false wisdom. Mostly it's just drivel.
False wisdom comes under many names. Disney cartoons teach "family values", not "the wisdom of the ages". Opinion sections of newspapers offer "advice", not "truthful, well-founded beliefs to keep our bodies and minds healthy and fresh for meditation and deep thought". Advertisements offer "catchy slogans", not "profound insight into the nature of reality".

These are forms of false wisdom that permeate our culture. And, it's also drivel.

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth,

DQ: Very few people can recognize real wisdom.

EI: I disagree. I believe people do recognize wisdom instinctivly. They also think they recognize wisdom somethimes when it isn't really there, but if we put true wisdom next to false wisdom, people will almost universally see which one is the true wisdom.

DQ: If that was the case, then the world would be full of wise, enlightened people. But alas, there are virtually none.

EI: That's because there isn't much wisdom being dispensed, true wisdom or false wisdom. Mostly it's just drivel.

But according to your line of thinking, as soon as some true wisdom appeared in the world (however many thousands of years ago), people would have immediately recognized it and done something with it. This, in turn, would have created even more wisdom in the world, and so on and so forth, and the whole thing would have snow-balled along until we have a world today filled to the brim with enlightened sages.

-

[David Quinn]

psyche wrote:

there is no nor ever has been a million dollar bank note

the current highest denomination is a mere $100

so therefore the soft cloth such as a chasmere scarf by hermes could easily be worth more

so much for poor analogies

I was thinking of the movie, The Million Pound Note, when I wrote that.

But if you like, we can replace the million dollar note with a cheque for a million dollars.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

But according to your line of thinking, as soon as some true wisdom appeared in the world (however many thousands of years ago), people would have immediately recognized it and done something with it. This, in turn, would have created even more wisdom in the world, and so on and so forth, and the whole thing would have snow-balled along until we have a world today filled to the brim with enlightened sages.


That's a future possibility, but it did not happen in the past because wisdom was never really mass-spread. People saw the power of true wisdom and immediately polluted it with greed They greedily wanted to keep the wisdom for themselves as a power tool/power trip, and because they only saw the wisdom rather than truly possessed it, they never realized that the full power of wisdom that they saw only exists when shared fully and truthfully. As a result, the wisdom got diluted down after not traveling far from the Master.

To see wisdom and to possess it are two different things.

[spiritual_emergency]

.

Elizabeth, I wanted to circle back around to something you'd said earlier in this thread that captured my attention...

My mission in life is to help bring peace to this world. Few people ever really know why they were born, but I am clear about why I am here. My existential crisis is that I am not so sure that people really want peace. They want more peace when they are pained by violence or meanness, but people also seem to enjoy their conflicts. As I learned in my marriage (I'm now divorced), some people with a great deal of turmoil in their lives think they really want peace, but once placed in a peaceful situation, they get really annoyed with peace and become quite violent. I am still learning.

Like you, I've also noticed that people seem to enjoy peace for a period of time, but they inevitably find themselves drawn back into various forms of conflict. I've wondered if this is because conflict offers tremendous opportunities for growth. Look at what has come out of this "conflict" we had with the doctrines of QRS as but one example.

Meantime, like you, I've thought about Peace a lot and wondered if there was any way to really achieve it in this world. I've wondered too, what would a world of "peace" look like? Would it mean an absence of war? Is that what "peace" is? I had one individual suggest to me that peace might only come if humanity was wiped off the face of the earth. He might be right. After all, the rocks and trees and crashing surf all seem to co-exist without argument but we humans have been fighting for centuries. Would any of us want peace enough that we would be willing to wipe out all of humanity for it? It almost seems that way sometimes, but I'm guessing that most of us want humanity to stick around for a while longer.

One thought that has occurred to me is that even if there is never another war on this planet, there will still be suffering. There will still be hunger, disease, pain, loss, death. How can there be any peace if we're starving, or sick, or grieving? It seems that one means of acheiving peace would be to simply not care about anything. If we don't love anyone, we're not going to have to go through the pain of losing them. If we don't value life, we're not going to care if we're starving or dying. Yet, we have bodies and we need to eat; it's going to hurt if we don't have food. We have parents and siblings and spouses and children; it's going to hurt if we lose them. We have a body that feels both pleasure and pain; a hug feels good, a slap hurts.

I'm still figuring out all my own answers but it seems to me that achieving peace might mean making peace with pleasure and pain. It will mean not resisting pain when it comes, not grasping for pleasure, and learning to let go of either once it's moved through the landscape of our lives. For those of us who choose to feel it, we're all going to get some pleasure and pain whether it comes in the form of war or intoxicating bliss. This, I think, is what detachment is all about. Maybe it's what the rocks, trees, and pounding surf figured out a long time ago. Just take it in, whatever it is, and then let it go. That's the breath of peace.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

There is a difference between a peaceful existence and a banal existence. There would still be pains, such as the loss of loved ones. There may or may not be disease as we shift our resources into improving lives rather than to efforts of war. There are enough resources on this planet for everyone if we could only get the balance right, so hunger is an unnecessary pain. People do not mean to overeat nor do they like the results of overeating, and the pain of hunger for those who have overeaten is at least as bad as the pain of hunger of those who don't have enough to eat. Of those whose pain is from not having enough to feed their children, that is unnecessary. Overpopulation would not be a problem either if only those who really wanted children for the right reasons had children, rather than just because they thought that was what they were supposed to do, or even worse because they get a bigger welfare check if they have more children.

There may be a time and a place to let out aggressions (some people get into S & M, some people like to wrestle, some people like some vicious debates) and that could be okay as long as it didn’t really hurt anybody and didn’t interfere with real progress. It’s when politicians cease doing their job of helping the societies that elected them because they’d rather have a verbal brawl that they’re only in to win rather than see whole problem and thoughtfully and open-mindedly consider workable solutions.

War is not good, and it doesn’t achieve the results the instigators want (and both sides invariably believe the other side started it). What’s the idea behind war anyway? Kill off as many people as it takes to make the leader do what the other leader wants? If the problem is that one leader thinks the other leader is cold-hearted and unreasonable and he really is those things, is he going to care how many of “his” people that the other leader has his people kill off? And it’s “okay” to kill soldiers, but not okay to send in an assassin to kill off the leader of the other nation? Who made up these rules? If the leaders could be in as much personal risk, would they be so willing to go to war rather than work out the differences? It isn’t okay to kill anybody unless it is totally unavoidable, and people seem to have a funny idea about what “unavoidable” means. All war, or any other kind of serious violence does is stir up hatred and anger, and waste resources that could be going to make the whole world a better place for everyone.

Okay, sometimes a mentally unwell person has risen to power. The obvious answer is to have gotten the unwellness recognized and taken care of before things got that far. If all people were mentally healthier, Hitler would never have gassed one person. People would have recognized that there was something wrong, and at the very least, not gone along with it. Of course it takes guts to do the right thing when your job is on the line – few can currently do that even when it is a very low-stakes job. Getting everybody okay (healthy mentally, physically, and spiritually) will reflect throughout society – even in the leaders.

So what is one country to do when another country really is being led by a madman, and the results are intolerable? Show the people around the leaders what the madness is, and let them take care of it. If the people ask for help, then come in and remove the problem. Otherwise, people don’t like invaders coming in and trying to take over even if they are only trying to “keep the peace.” Peace can’t be kept at gunpoint.

Peace = freedom + responsibility.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

s_e - thank you for your question. I've been needing to update the front page for worldpeaceonline.net (http://worldpeaceonline.net) for awhile now, and that answer seemed as good as anything for a new front page.

*******************
edited for link

[Fool Zero]

Thomas, back on Page 1 (Oct 20 2006, 02:53 PM) you wrote: Then there are people who are only ostensibly adjusted. They appear not to be at conflict with society, neither do they seem conformist. Often they are rugged individualists. They are unusually agile, honest, and passionate and display a high degree of integrity.
I was wondering if you'd considered any of what Abraham Maslow says about "self-actualizing people" (Motivation and Personality (http://www.amazon.com/Motivation-Personality-Abraham-Harold-Maslow/dp/0060419873), Chapter 12.) Here's a brief excerpt I found online (http://faculty.vassar.edu/lenevare/2006/soci283/maslow1.htm):

Self-actualizing people are not well adjusted (in the naive sense of approval of and identification with the culture). They get along with the culture in various ways, but of all of them it maybe said that in a certain profound and meaningful sense they resist enculturation and maintain a certain inner detachment from the culture in which they are immersed.
He goes on to say:
4. For these and other reasons they may be called autonomous, i.e., ruled by the laws of their own character rather than by the rules of society. It is in this sense that they are not only or merely Americans but also to a greater degree than others, members at large of the human species.
For anyone who's missed it, that chapter especially is well worth a read. Used copies are still available online (http://www.addall.com/SuperRare/submitRare.cgi?author=maslow&title=motivation+personality&keyword=&isbn=&order=TITLE&ordering=ASC&dispCurr=USD&binding=Any+Binding&min=&max=&timeout=20&match=Y&store=Abebooks&store=AbebooksDE&store=AbebooksFR&store=AbebooksUK&store=Alibris&store=Amazon&store=AmazonUK&store=AmazonDE&store=AmazonFR&store=Antiqbook&store=Biblio&store=Bibliophile&store=Bibliopoly&store=Booksandcollectibles&store=Half&store=ILAB&store=Maremagnum&store=Powells&store=Strandbooks&store=ZVAB), many (but not all) at fancy prices.

[Thomas Knierim]

I was wondering if you'd considered any of what Abraham Maslow says about "self-actualizing people"

Yes, I did. The description I provided was meant to illustrate traits of an self-actualised individual, according to humanistic psychology. Maslow's work describes it in its clearest form.

The self-actualising individual is the eternal and most profound ideal in Western literature from Gilgamesh to Hemingway. It is the hero who defines himself by actions which are consequences of superior mental qualities. The "typical" hero from Greece to modern times is the individual who self-actualises in some spectacular manner. Conspicuously, Western literature and philosophy rarely ventures beyond this level of realisation, while Eastern literature practically always does.

Again conspicuously, Maslow has depicted self-actualisation as the tip of the pyramid, suggesting that's where it ends. But does it?

You might suspect (rightly) that I disagree with Maslow.

Cheers, Thomas

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Thomas wrote:
Again conspicuously, Maslow has depicted self-actualisation as the tip of the pyramid, suggesting that's where it ends. But does it?

You might suspect (rightly) that I disagree with Maslow.


So do you think there is a greater pinnacle of achievement tha self-actualization, do you believe that people climb up and down the pyramid, or something else?

[spiritual_emergency]

Thomas: Again conspicuously, Maslow has depicted self-actualisation as the tip of the pyramid, suggesting that's where it ends. But does it?

You might suspect (rightly) that I disagree with Maslow.

Like Elizabeth, I'm hopeful you'll clarify where you disagree. I don't wish to argue the point with you -- I'm merely interested in your perspective.

It should be borne in mind that Maslow's model was an early one that has since been built on by others. In this regard, it seems to qualify as an early transpersonal model. A criticial characteristic is it was the only one produced by studying "healthy" people as opposed to those who'd been deemed "unhealthy" (at that time). As I understand it, Maslow later added the following to his basic model: The need to know and understand (cognitive needs); the need for aesthetic beauty; and lastly, transcendence -- a stage beyond self actualization.



"I should say that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology to be transitional, a preparation for a still 'higher' Fourth Psychology, transhuman, centered in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness, identity, self-actualization and the like.''

Abraham Maslow (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being, Second edition, -- pages iii-iv.



For those who are so inclined, you can read more here: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs)

Of course Maslow's model of psychological growth is but one of many -- very many! One model I've increasingly been drawn to over the past few years is that of Clare Graves: Colors of Thinking (http://www.spiraldynamics.org/Graves/colors.htm). Those who are familiar with Spiral Dynamics will recognize its earlier roots in Graves' work.

[bito]

Again conspicuously, Maslow has depicted self-actualisation as the tip of the pyramid, suggesting that's where it ends. But does it?
You might suspect (rightly) that I disagree with Maslow.

As do I. Beyond self-actualization is self-inquiry .... "what is the nature of self?"

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

On Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, under self-actualization, copied from the link provided by SE:
They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.

"World" in psycho-babble-talk means "everything that is perceived by an individual, as it is perceived by the individual." So to me, self-actualization includes a comprehension of Ultimate Reality, and living in accordance with It.

[Thomas Knierim]

So do you think there is a greater pinnacle of achievement tha self-actualization, do you believe that people climb up and down the pyramid, or something else?

Uh sorry, I thought this was obvious in a thread about enlightenment. Of course, enlightenment itself is above self-actualisation, but so are other spiritual "goals" such as development of compassion and wisdom, transcendence, God-union, kensho, satori, awakening, and so on.

The question is: what is really there beyond Maslow's summit? Can science penetrate it?

It is an area that was never really investigated by psychology and philosophy. Only recent transpersonal psychology (which deals with individuals considered healthy as s_e mentioned) took an interest in it.

Cheers, Thomas

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Thomas wrote:
Uh sorry, I thought this was obvious in a thread about enlightenment. Of course, enlightenment itself is above self-actualisation

Obviously this was a language/definition clarification, as I had considered enlightenment et. al. as part of self-actualization.

[Fool Zero]

Thomas: Maslow has depicted self-actualisation as the tip of the pyramid, suggesting that's where it ends. But does it?
I'd say no, that's nowhere near where it ends -- if it even ends. I don't know that that's necessarily where Maslow thought it ended, either.

He accomplished a lot, even as far as he went, and I'm inclined to forgive him for not pushing farther. His work was actually quite radical for his time and judged far too "airy-fairy" by many in his field. Those, after all, were the days when academic psychology might still occasionally come under siege from the behaviorists for its departures from strict scientific rigor.

I confess, nowadays when I'm in a used-book store and looking for interesting psychologically-oriented reading, I'm much more likely to turn toward the "self help" shelves than toward "psychology" per se.

[Fool Zero]

Shucks, I seem to have started writing a bit too soon. Let me continue, then:

Thomas:Of course, enlightenment itself is above self-actualisation, but so are other spiritual "goals" such as development of compassion and wisdom, transcendence, God-union, kensho, satori, awakening, and so on.

Elizabeth Isabelle:...I had considered enlightenment et. al. as part of self-actualization.

It seems to me to depend on what viewpoint you take. The way I picture it, from ground level there's this mountain or pyramid called self-actualization that disappears into the clouds. Higher up, where's it's sunny with a spectacular view of peaks sticking out of a sea of clouds, it's rumored that the folks below don't call it Mount Transcendence (or whatever its name is up there). That other stuff (compassion and wisdom, transcendence, God-union...) is what you might encounter on your way up.

Warning: that's just how I picture it. The last time I talked to God, she told me she pictures it entirely differently. ;)

[CSwriter1]

I am reminded to yoga and the reason for taking steps in our development starting with Hatha yoga and working up through the heart and finally mind. We are easily deluded and need to take care to prevent that.

Personally, I am no longer interested in enlightment. If it happens it happens. But I like the Virtues Project and Beyond War. Both give me an opportunity to contribute something good to the world, and both require I find my own peace. I think when we get older it is easier to be content with peace. When I was young I really needed the flaming ball of God to speak to me, or some awesome awareness that would make me better then human. :lol: Now I am content with much less. Just to connect with another is good enough. I am getting more concerned with heart than mind.

[JamesH]

The only thing that could be above self-actualisation is some form of being that has more than one point of dualism of consciousness, ie a god.

I do not believe any such beings could possibly exist. Consciousness requires a single centralised awareness.

[spiritual_emergency]

I came across the following in my wanderings tonight and thought I'd drag it into the conversation.

Schizoid Character
Not only defenses, but many kinds of structures develop in defensive ways. Some ego structures actually develop specifically for defense, for example, those which constitute the schizoid character. In attempting to avoid dealing with very painful object relations, the child defends by isolating himself from his felt experience in general. This defensive detachment isolates him not only from his emotions, but also from his essential presence, characterized by vivid affects and qualities of aliveness. If he were in touch with the essential presence, he would lose his capacity to isolate himself from his emotions, because the presence would open him to his present experience, whatever its content. This disconnection from the essential core makes the schizoid character narcissistic on some level. (The Point of Existence, pg 187)



The truth is that the sense of separateness of ego is a schizoid phenomenon, but it is usually experienced in a mild form. The ego boundaries are a manifestation of the schizoid sector of the personality, of which no ego is devoid. The schizoid experience becomes intense and more manifest, and therefore more visible, when this separateness is challenged. The separateness of ego individuality is the outward, usually acceptable, manifestation of ego’s schizoid characteristics. The markedly schizoid character is basically a personality crystallized around this sector of the ego. In the process of essential realization, the issue of ego boundaries is resolved by dealing with the schizoid sector in one's personality, among other things. It is one of the most painful to deal with, but not necessarily the most subtle. (The Pearl Beyond Price, pg 398)

Source: Schizoid Character (http://www.ahalmaas.com/glossary/s/schizoid_character.htm)

[Steven Coyle]

s_e,

This hit home.

Thanks for posting it.

(I experienced it today.)

:)

[steven7]

Hi,
This is Steven. I like this site given interesting topic. Find the latest news about Depression, Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia. Discuss Mood Disorders topics with members of the Health Community.

==========================
steven7
visit
Manic Depression News and Discussion Forum (http://www.manicdepression.us.com)