Guest guest Posted March 29, 2000 Report Share Posted March 29, 2000 Hi Amanda, >Thank you Dharma for sharing the chapter and >examples of Kundalini psychosis from >Lee Sannella with us. >I have heard a lot about his book, but never >had a chance to read it, as it is an old one >and out of print. I don't think so... I bought one not too long ago. And I need to pick up a few more copies. But it has appeared with slightly varying titles. Just look for any book by him, and that should be it. >Yes, to me it is clear that the Kundalini >experience is equivalent with what psychiatry >terms psychosis and vice versa, Yikes!! NO!! I hope you meant to say "not equivalent." ) >psychosis is >not the same as a Kundalini experience. >It is interesting seeing a psychiatrist >wishing to define the differences in accordance >with his profession. Well, it's a pretty important thing for a psychiatrist to know! If he doesn't make the right diagnosis, he won't treat the patient in the right way. >On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:01:17 Dharma wrote: > >>In his chapter of case histories, he outlines her history and Kundalini >>symptoms, which were pronounced but not particularly unusual... many >>people have such symptoms. > > I suppose we have all seen it by ourselves. > >>>Thus she yielded to the tendency that Jung (1975) had warned against: that >>>of claiming this impersonal force as her own ego creation and, as a >>>result, of falling into the trap of ego inflation and false superiority. >>>She expected others to understand exactly what she was speaking about and >>>to accept her word unquestioningly, and she grew distrustful of anyone who >>>disagreed with her interpretations. > >I have >often wondered why the nondual perspective is >virtually unknown among Christianity, I don't know why you think this... Ijust saw Deepak Chopra on TV talking about his new book, _How to Know God_, and he talked about Jesus quite a bit... quoted him saying, "In that day you will know that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and I in you." >and >that in this tradition, even the old forms of >mysticism are also very much unknown. There's a long tradition of Christian mystics, beginning with Jesus and the disciples, Paul (he and Jesus were clearly initiates of one or more of the Mysteries of the Mediterranean world of their time), the early church (see Luke's account in _Acts_ of the first Pentecost, etc.), Augustine, Origen, Aquinas (yes, even though he's known for his great synthetic mind), Meister Eckhart, Jacob Boehme, the author of "The Cloud of Unknowing," St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Thomas Merton, Pere Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and so many others. >I have yet to see or read a > theological discusssion >of anything approaching a non dual perspective. If you want theological discussion, read Gibbons' _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ It's amazing how concerned the Christians have been with theological doctrine... thrones have been lost and battles waged in the streets over differing interpretations of the nature of Trinity. But Jesus was a Jew, and the Shema rings throughout the Bible: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE." For more on the non-dual, see any of those mentioned above. Here is Teilhard de Chardin: >Within a universe which is structurally convergent the only possible way >for one element to draw closer to other, neighbouring elements is by >condensing the cone: that is, by driving towards the point of convergence >the whole area of the world in which it is involved. In such a system it >is impossible to love one's neighbour without drawing close to God - and >vice versa for that matter. This we know well enough. But it is also >impossible - and this is less familiar to us - to love either God or our >neighbour without being obliged to help in the progress of the earthly >synthesis of spirit in its physical totality, -snip- > >Fold your wings, my soul, those wings you had spread wide to soar to the >terrestrial peaks where the light is most ardent: it is for you simply to >await the descent of the Fire - supposing it to be willing to take >possession of you. > If you would attract its power to yourself you must first loosen the >bonds of affection which still tie you to objects cherished too >exclusively for their own sake. The true union you ought to seek with >creatures that attract you is to be found not by going directly to them >but by converging with them on God sought in and through them. It is not >by making themselves more material, relying solely on physical contacts, >but by making themselves more spiritual in the embrace of God that things >draw closer to each other and, following their invincible natural bent, >end by becoming, all of them together, one. Therefore, my soul, be chaste. > And when you have thus refined your crude materiality you must >loosen yet further the fibres of your substance. In your excessive >self-love you are like a molecule closed in upon itself and incapable of >entering easily into any new grouping. God looks to you to be more open >and more pliant. If you are to enter into him you need to be freer and >more eager. Have done then with your egoism and your fear of suffering. >Love others as you love yourself, that is to say admit them into yourself, >all of them, even those whom, if you were a pagan, you would exclude. >Accept pain. Take up your cross, my soul... >>snip< > >Henceforth we know enough - and it is already a great deal - to be able to >say that these onward gropings of life will succeed only in one condition: >that the whole endeavour shall have unity as its keynote. Of its very >nature the advance of the biological process demands this. Outside this >atmosphere of a union glimpsed and longed for, the most legitimate demands >are bound to lead to catastrophe: _snip_ > >Let us leave the surface and, without leaving the world, plunge into God. >There, and from there, in him and through him we shall hold all things and >have command of all things, we shall find again the essence and the >splendour of all the flowers, the lights, we have had to surrender here >and now in order to be faithful to life. Those beings whom here and now we >despair of ever reaching and influencing, they too will be there, united >together at that central point in their being which is at once the most >vulnerable, the most receptive and the most enriching. There, even the >least of our desires and our endeavours will be gathered and preserved, >and be able to evoke instantaneous vibration from the very heart of the >universe. > Let us then establish ourselves in the divine milieu. There, we >shall be within the inmost depths of souls and the greatest consistency of >matter. There, at the confluence of all the forms of beauty, we shall >discover the ultra-vital, ultra-perceptible, ultra-active point of the >universe; and, at the same time, we shall experience in the depths of our >own being the effortless deployment of the plenitude of all our powers of >action and of adoration. > For it is not merely that at that privileged point all the external >springs of the world are co-ordinated and harmonized: there is the >further, complementary marvel that the man who surrenders himself to the >divine milieu feels his own inward powers directed and enlarged by it with >a sureness which enables him effortlessly to avoid the all too numerous >reefs on which mystical quests have so often foundered. --------- >I have a hunch that the idea of performing >a mystical transsubstantiation and "become" >god sounds too much akin to "becoming like a god" in the ears of >Christians and hence >non dual and mystical teachings are discouraged. They are not discouraged, but it is true that the average Christian thinks of himself and God as two different things. We are unlikely to be told that we are not other than God and never have been. >As Frank touched upon in his recent post, >having an inner teacher does not suit >everybody's temperament and mentality, You must be referring to this: >regarding teachings and gurus, it's important to bear >in mind that virtually *any* path is appropriate >regarding the the unique temperament of the individual >in question. where, for example, j krishnamurthi's >idea that really no-one needs a guru outside one's >own Self within the Heart, needs to be respected and >understood for such individuals. this is also true >of someone like u.g. krishnamurthi's very radical >approach [being appropriate for certain other >personality types]. > >and this can be said about virtually any teacher >and teaching method. Frank refers to the idea that "no-one needs a guru outside one's own Self within the Heart," and says this is good for some people and not for others... some people do need external gurus. But Frank does not say that everyone does not _have_ "one's own Self within the Heart." We all do. >>Jung explained that when a person who has always conceived of God as >>something completely other and separate from himself comes to the >>realization, by one means or another, that God/the divine is not something >>separate from us, that the divine is within us, he then faces the >>internalization of the divine... and there's a danger in that. > >Yes, this feeling of internalization or feeling >of imminent internalization can be quite frightening if there is an >interpretation as an "other". The ego = self will scramble at any >and all parts of the personality that feels >as real, turning away from the threatening >obliteration and seek to amplify the parts of >the self that still feel real. Major denial, >one can say. You are speaking here of the "ego" as something analogous to "personality," but also something that can be obliterated. Jung was speaking of the ego as part of a man's make-up... no psychiatrist or psychoanalyst would want to obliterate a person's ego. I was using the word in the same way when I said there is danger "if a man is not able to break through the limitations of the ego and know himself as much more than that...." Picture a man who has already poked a hole through the limitations of the ego... who knows that he is much more than ego... he is spirit. There can be no inflation there... his "I" is boundless. But take a man who still thinks his ego... his sense of "I," which is probably identified with the personality... is all he is. Then stuff all the energy of the God archetype into that circumscribed ego... and watch it blow up like a huge balloon. Until it looks to him like this huge divine personality that he is is bigger and better than anyone else. >>When a person engages in meditation or other spiritual practices and the >>Kundalini begins to rise, if it is not raised to the higher centers, then >>there's going to be a LOT of energy stimulating the lower centers. > >Perhaps this fear effect I'm not talking about a "fear effect," necessarily. Stimulation of the lower chakras can stimulate anything and everything in the areas controlled by those chakras... including endocrine glands - adrenals, sex glands, etc. At solar plexus level the emotions get the stimulation. This is very real and extends to the physical. An example: one time I held a preliminary meeting for a new meditation class... to talk about it and give people a chance to decide if they wanted to join. Afterward a young woman came up to me and said she needed help, and she needed it before the class would meet for the first time. She had a job interview coming up very soon, and she just knew she would blow it... she always did. She would get so emotional and so nervous - "I am right now, just thinking about it," she said, putting her hand on her solar plexus as if it hurt - that she would be a bundle of nerves and would blow the interview. When I started to talk about getting more mental and not emotional, I found out she didn't have the slightest idea what I was talking about. It completely surprised her to hear that anyone could be unemotional even for a moment... she was sure she was always emotional. She couldn't imagine what it would be like _not_ to be emotional. So I said, "Okay, you know how this feels right here" - putting my hand on my solar plexus - when you're feeling very emotional?" "Yes," she said, putting her hand there again. "You feel the energy there?" I asked. "Yes," she said. I put my hand on my throat chakra and said, "Now put your hand here." And she did. "Now feel the energy there instead of down below." She said she could feel it. So I told her to practice that a LOT, and then do it again the last thing before going into the interview. The next time I saw her, she said she got the job! She did exactly what I told her to, and everything went fine! She wasn't too emotional, and she just spoke right out and talked about herself and answered questions... and got the job. She didn't join my class, of course... she already had what she wanted from it. >is not always due to >strong influences of the lower chakras or due to >poorly functioning higher chakras. Well, if the focus of energies is in the lower chakras, then the higher chakras are probably undeveloped and not functioning very well. Unless the person has worked with the higher chakras first and THEN come back to do detailed work with the lower chakras. That's the safer way. >Perhaps it also can be caused by a lack of >training and contemplation of the mind, >which is usually done in meditation. >Well, I guess, ppl with meditation experience >have also become victims of such psychosis. Yes, it's not as likely, but it can happen. Jungians speak of the "ego image." A person receiving lots of adulation and compliments might even form a new ego image. >> But even emphasis >>on heart chakra, if the person doesn't go beyond ego identification, can >>lead to an extreme emphasis on the mental... on the intellectual thinking >>mind... in often undesirable ways. > >Isn't the heart chakra also associated with >emotions ? I've never heard that it was >strongly associated with thinking before. Solar plexus is the astral/emotional plane (kama-manas)... heart chakra is the mental or manasic plane... throat chakra is the intuitional or buddhic plane. Heart chakra is the 4th, the center chakra between the ones below and the ones above. Note in DK's diagram of the planes, he places the soul body (or causal body or egoic body) high on the mental level. This is intermediate between spirit and personality. We sometimes speak of "heart-chakra love" to distinguish it from emotional or astral love. Heart-chakra love is group-oriented love. Group consciousness is here. And the Master in the Heart... part of our group awareness on inward levels. >>Needless to say, >>any already existing personality problems are >likely to be aggravated. > >This has been mentioned on the list previously. >I get a hunch the process in some individuals >works to strengthen the ego, increase the >self worth and the self confidence. Some people need that! )) >But at one point, there must be an increased >letting go, the thousand facets of the >personality must be seen as >essentially illusory. Or in Jungian terms, we see the personality as the _persona_, the mask that it essentially is, and we see ourselves as the one behind, the one who wears the mask. Eventually, there's a new center where we take up residence... it's on the border-line between conscious and unconscious. >From there, one can look in either direction. Jung calls this new center the Self and says the inner guide is an archetype of the Self. >>they should do. He may >>think he's God's messenger to the world... or a new divine incarnation... >>Hard to say when this becomes psychosis... > > Yes, it is. > >>Finally she accused me of not having faith in her. She said, >>"Everyone else believes, why can't you believe?" >> >>I >>thought I was going to give you the details, but now I feel that it >>wouldn't serve any purpose... > >I'm very sorry to hear about your friend. >I don't think you should feel guilty for not >being able to do more, No, I don't feel guilty. She wouldn't listen to anyone. >when not even the >doctors in the beginning >managed to discern whether this was >a psychosis or not. Well, in the beginning it _wasn't_ psychosis. Psychosis isn't something you can catch, and then you're going to go crazy. It's just a word; "psychotic" means more or less what we mean by "crazy." But you can have schizophrenic problems or manic-depressive problems without being psychotic. >> I found out that people who are worried about being >>crazy probably aren't... it usually means they're changing and growing... >>and change can be scary. The people who are really psychotic probably >>don't know it. > >I for one hope so. Seems it's usually so. When my friend asked if I thought she was crazy, she wasn't. When she was crazy, she was sure she wasn't. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2000 Report Share Posted March 30, 2000 Hi Dharma, Again, thank you very much for the tips on Lee Sannella's book that it is still in print. I'll most certainly try and look for his book on the net now. On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:21:06 Dharma wrote: some idiot jnani yogini wrote: >>Yes, to me it is clear that the Kundalini >>experience is equivalent with what psychiatry >>terms psychosis and vice versa, > >Yikes!! NO!! I hope you meant to say "not equivalent." ) Yes, I did. I wrote that 6 am in the morning and was obviously not thinking straight. I seem to remember I deleted a not in there, thinking: well, that is not supposed to be in there, it makes it all sound completely wrong. LOL ! Looks like I deleted the wrong not. >I don't know why you think this... Ijust saw Deepak Chopra on TV talking >about his new book, _How to Know God_, and he talked about Jesus quite a >bit... quoted him saying, "In that day you will know that I am in the >Father, and the Father in me, and I in you." Well, that one must be easy. Not many ppl know who Deepak Chopra are here. Theological discussions, and I do stay on the watch for any talks on Christian mysticism at the theological institute here, but there so far (6 months) hasn't been a single one. Instead dicsussions on Christian theology here circles around whether young cpls should be allowed to move in together before marriage or not, or whether gay ppl should be allowed to work as ministers and what the Bible said about these matters. As you probably can understand, this minimizes at least my interest in participating in or even caring about these discussions. Traditionally, Christianity here has been very puritan and dogmatic. At Easter you're not even allowed to go to the cinema as it is considered a sin and hence all cinemas are closed during the holiday. >There's a long tradition of Christian mystics, beginning with Jesus and the >disciples, Paul (he and Jesus were clearly initiates of one or more of the >Mysteries of the Mediterranean world of their time) >Aquinas (yes, even though he's known for his great synthetic mind) I had no idea Aquinas could be counted as a mystic. I only vaguely remember some of his thoughts from Philosophy 101 at uni. And seeing his relic box at a church in Toulouse and having at first difficulties finding the box. >If you want theological discussion, read Gibbons' _Decline and Fall of the >Roman Empire_ It's amazing how concerned the Christians have been with >theological doctrine... thrones have been lost and battles waged in the >streets over differing interpretations of the nature of Trinity. Oh god, I do very well believe that. Strangely enough, I was standing with a copy of that book in my hand a few weeks ago, faintly considering byuing it, but then I thought the better of it. >But Jesus >was a Jew, and the Shema rings throughout the Bible: "Hear O Israel, the >Lord our God is ONE." Exactly, lots of little details that conveniently have been overlooked. >Teilhard de Chardin: > >>There, even the >>least of our desires and our endeavours will be gathered and preserved, >>and be able to evoke instantaneous vibration from the very heart of the >>universe. I am quite convinced not, Teilhard was / is a genuine Christian mystic. Thank you very much for sending the beautiful and very well written quotes from Teilhard. I am very fascinated by you saying he was a an anthropologist and palaentologist. Palaentologists I think tend to be of the rather sceptical type, since they work with evolutionary philosophy. >others... some people do need external gurus. But Frank does not say that >everyone does not _have_ "one's own Self within the Heart." We all do. That's a good reminder for all of us. >You are speaking here of the "ego" as something analogous to "personality," >but also something that can be obliterated. Jung was speaking of the ego >as part of a man's make-up... no psychiatrist or psychoanalyst would want >to obliterate a person's ego. No, no psychiatrist or psycholanalyst would want that to happen as there may be some dangers in it indeed. Yet seeing that the ego / personality is not equivalent with the I, that it is not owned by the body or the individual, is at least a fact for me. >is all he is. Then stuff all >the energy of the God archetype into that circumscribed ego... and watch >it blow up like a huge balloon. Until it looks to him like this huge >divine personality that he is is bigger and better than anyone else. What a scary image that makes. What could pop that balloon I wonder. The power of one's own discernment ? >She didn't join my class, of course... she already had what she wanted from it. Well, no wonder. Thank you very much for sharing that story with us. It does show the power of the mind and what a persuasive teacher can do. >functioning very well. Unless the >person has worked with the higher chakras first and THEN come back to do >detailed work with the lower chakras. That's the safer way. Gloria Joy also mentions this on her web pages. Yes, I agree with you, tackling the lower chakras after the higher is a good choice, if one can choose to do that. >image." A person receiving lots of adulation and compliments might even >form a new ego image. No wonder. The adulations become believable. I think this may very well happen with ppl who become very famous. Must be difficult not to let adulation from others become something to bask in, though. >Heart chakra is the 4th, the center chakra between the ones below and the >ones above. Note in DK's diagram of the planes, he places the soul body >(or causal body or egoic body) high on the mental level. This is >intermediate between spirit and personality. We sometimes speak of >"heart-chakra love" to distinguish it from emotional or astral love. >Heart-chakra love is group-oriented love. Group consciousness is here. Oh, I had forgotten that. You have mentioned it some time previously, but for some reason I had forgotten. Thanks for explaining. >Eventually, there's a new center where we take up >residence... it's on the border-line between conscious and unconscious. >From there, one can look in either direction. Jung calls this new center >the Self and says the inner guide is an archetype of the Self. About the border line b/n conscious and unconscious, did Jung think of the shared unconscious ? Yes, I also do think the inner guide is an archetype of the higher self. >Seems it's usually so. When my friend asked if I thought she was crazy, >she wasn't. When she was crazy, she was sure she wasn't. That's a reminder ! Thank you for reminding me of a lot of things. And for pointing out that little conceptual / typing blooper of mine. Love, Amanda. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2000 Report Share Posted April 7, 2000 In a message dated 4/7/00 9:03:39 PM, fisher1 writes: >>>is all he is. Then stuff all >>>the energy of the God archetype into that circumscribed ego... and watch >>>it blow up like a huge balloon. Until it looks to him like this huge >>>divine personality that he is is bigger and better than anyone else. >> >> What a scary image that makes. >>What could pop that balloon I wonder. >>The power of one's own discernment ? > >I don't know, his thinking mind might be all blown out of whack too. Maybe >sometimes it takes life events that force him to realize that he isn't what >he thought. Maybe Mike can tell us how he approaches that kind of >problem... but I wonder if that person would even go to a psychiatrist... >I wonder if a psychiatrist ever sees people like that unless they go round >the bend and are committed. I've seen several people who were having problems because they thought they were God or Jesus. Typically, the patients were either committed or persuaded to go into the hospital by concerned family members. I also have a friend who thought he was the reincarnation of Jesus (during a raging amphetamine-induced psychosis), but this went away several days after he stopped using drugs (but this is another story altogether . My general response to someone saying that they are God is, "Cool; what makes you think so?" I generally get told stories of manifesting supernatural powers or communicating with "angels" (some of which may be psychotic, but much of which is likely real). I've found that if people are convinced that they are the *only* God then this is more likely than not resulting directly from their mental illness, whereas if a person thinks that he/she is God -- but everyone else is too -- then the chances are increased that the person is not really psychotic but instead dealing with some different issues (perhaps related to the God archetype mentioned by Dharma). In the first (psychotic) case I have generally been able to treat the psychosis ("burst the bubble") with antipsychotic medication. In the several "everyone is God" instances I have seen (where a patient presents with this being one of his/her *concerns*) I try to validate the reality of the feeling and refer the patient to a spiritual practitioner that can help the patient understand, accept, and "use" this newfound knowledge. I have seen at least one patient use his power of discernment to "think his way out of" the belief that he was God (realizing that it was grandiose and related to his manic depression). It was kinda difficult for me not to say, "But wait a minute.... you really are God... or at least a *part* of God." but I did keep myself from saying this. I do think, however, that I used it as an opportunity to encourage him to look into his spiritual beliefs, and especially to keep looking inside himself to find his own truth. I hope this answers the question (I've been babbling for so long I kinda forgot what I even wanted to say). Oh well... sometimes I feel like the monkey given an infinite amount of time to randomly type out Shakespeare, but who can only produce Barry Manilow songs instead (whatever the heck that means! ;-) Have a peaceful weekend, all- Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2000 Report Share Posted April 8, 2000 Dharma writes: >Well, this may suprise you, but I don't have a problem with someone >thinking he was Jesus if it doesn't affect the rest of his life in any >unfortunate way... if he's a more or less normal, functioning person. > My understanding is that the soul/spirit is a great power and quite capable >of putting down more than one incarnation at the same objective time. And >since growing up healthy and strong in this world can be so difficult, >I think that if I wanted to be sure to be in incarnation at a certain time >and maybe in an approximate area, I would put down maybe half a dozen >bodies and hope that at least one of those people might make it to the >point where I could fully incarnate there. If this really does happen, >then there might be a lot of people with memories of the life or Jesus >or Gautama, etc. No, Dharma, it doesn't suprise me a bit. I fully concur that someone who believes that he/she has been Jesus or Gautama in a past life may actually be tapping into true "memories" of a past incarnation. However, when people get to the point where hospitalization is necessary to prevent harm to themselves or others due to these beliefs, it seems to me the case that the problem is more often due to serious psychiatric illness (e.g., schizophrenia or bipolar illness). However, who am I to really say what is causing someone's problems? I will just continue to do my best trying to keep patients and the community safe. However, this discussion has certainly gotten the ole hamster running on the wheel in my head, leading me back to meditate on that prime directive of medicine, "first of all, do no harm." Namaste- Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2000 Report Share Posted April 8, 2000 UnbrknCh8n wrote: > Oh well... sometimes I feel like the > monkey given an infinite amount of time to randomly type out Shakespeare, > but who can only produce Barry Manilow songs instead (whatever the heck > that means! ;-) > > Have a peaceful weekend, all- > > Mike > Mike, if I recall, lot of Barry Manilow's songs had a grandiose ring to them. When I was in college, my friends said he had a "Jesus complex" because he sang, "I am music and I write the songs ...............I write the song that make the young girls cry, I write the songs that make middle aged women cook me pie, and I write the songs that make poor old women sigh, and want to die in my arms.............................I write the songs, I write the songs...." Does anyone remember Barry. I liked him and thought he had a good voice. He is still around and doing well I think and probably singing to sell out crowds. I am music and I write the songs. Love Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2000 Report Share Posted April 8, 2000 >>Mike: >> Oh well... sometimes I feel like the >> monkey given an infinite amount of time to randomly type out Shakespeare, >> but who can only produce Barry Manilow songs instead (whatever the heck >> that means! ;-) >> >Harsha: >Mike, if I recall, lot of Barry Manilow's songs had a grandiose ring to >them. When I was in college, my friends said he had a "Jesus complex" >because he sang, "I am music and I write the songs ...............I write >the song that make the young girls cry, I write the songs that make middle >aged women cook me pie, and I write the songs that make poor old women >sigh, and want to die in my arms.............................I write the >songs, I write the songs...." > >Does anyone remember Barry. I liked him and thought he had a good voice. >He is still around and doing well I think and probably singing to sell out >crowds. > >I am music and I write the songs. Yes! I don't listen to popular music much, but I always liked him... and I LOVE that song!! Joseph Campbell says that in our age of creating our own myths, many seers who in another age would have been priests or shamans or yogis are now poets and writers and musicians. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2000 Report Share Posted April 8, 2000 Hi Mike, >I've seen several people who were having problems because they thought they >were God or Jesus. Typically, the patients were either committed or >persuaded to go into the hospital by concerned family members. Well, this may suprise you, but I don't have a problem with someone thinking he was Jesus if it doesn't affect the rest of his life in any unfortunate way... if he's a more or less normal, functioning person. My understanding is that the soul/spirit is a great power and quite capable of putting down more than one incarnation at the same objective time. And since growing up healthy and strong in this world can be so difficult, I think that if I wanted to be sure to be in incarnation at a certain time and maybe in an approximate area, I would put down maybe half a dozen bodies and hope that at least one of those people might make it to the point where I could fully incarnate there. If this really does happen, then there might be a lot of people with memories of the life or Jesus or Gautama, etc. I was once in a kind of sensitivity training course, and one night we were told to pair off, and then each couple was to tell each other something they had never told anyone else. My partner was a young man who told me that he really thought he had been Jesus and it worried him very much. I explained my thinking about it... yes, he might have been, and there were probably other people walking around with memories of that same life. He said that made sense to him, and he thanked me... said he had a great feeling of relief... that it was wonderful to think that he wasn't the only one, that he didn't have some terrible responsibility that he would never be able to fulfill. Another time I was present when two people, a man and a woman, met for the first time and felt a great affinity... felt that they were the same soul, the same being. They talked for quite a while, and I heard them agreeing that yes, they knew who they were, and I heard the name of Jesus mentioned. They were both powerful, charismatic people, and the two of them together were quite an experience... the others present just sat and watched and listened. So far as I know, they didn't meet again, but just went on with their own lives. And then there was a man in our community - I didn't meet him, just heard about him - who was generally thought to be a little "off"... harmless, but kinda nuts. He wandered around a lot, I heard, and would stop and talk to people on the street or in their yards. He said he was Jesus... and he didn't seem to understand why people didn't acclaim him and follow after him or something. >I also have a friend who thought he was the reincarnation of Jesus (during a >raging amphetamine-induced psychosis), but this went away several days >after he stopped using drugs (but this is another story altogether Does it happen often that amphetamines cause psychosis? >My general response to someone saying that they are God is, "Cool; what >makes you think so?" I generally get told stories of manifesting >supernatural powers or communicating with "angels" (some of which may >be psychotic, but much of which is likely real). > >I've found that if people are convinced that they are the *only* God then >this is more likely than not resulting directly from their mental illness, >whereas if a person thinks that he/she is God -- but everyone else is too -- >then the chances are increased that the person is not really psychotic but >instead dealing with some different issues (perhaps related to the God >archetype mentioned by Dharma). Yes! That's why I told my friend that I wasn't worried about anything she might think about herself as long as she didn't think she was the ONLY one. >In the first (psychotic) case I have generally been able to treat the >psychosis ("burst the bubble") with antipsychotic medication. In the >several "everyone is God" instances I have seen (where a patient presents >with this being one of his/her *concerns*) I try to validate the reality of >the feeling and refer the patient to a spiritual practitioner that can help >the >patient understand, accept, and "use" this newfound knowledge. That's wonderful... I hope people in your community know about you... sometimes someone is looking for just that kind of help. I knew two women whose higher "hearing" suddenly opened spontaneously and they began to hear voices... with no preparation, no background in these things. They told their families, and the families took them to psychiatrists. In the first case, they got the wrong psychiatrist... he had a reputation for using shock treatment on everyone, but they didn't know it. He threw the woman right into the hospital and ordered 100 shock treatments... and nothing she said to anyone made any difference, she was in for the whole 100. I think her crown chakra must have been opening, and the shock treatments did a lot of damage. Even years later, though she was healthy psychologically and spiritually, she was always frail physically since the treatments. She was part of a close spiritual group that I belonged to in the '70s, and she said that when she was first hearing all those voices, one of them kept saying, "Armageddon! Find your group!" She realized later that that was good advice, but it didn't mean anything to her at the time. In the second case, the family found a psychiatrist who knew about spiritual things. He saw the woman for a while and then sent her to an afternoon meditation group... the first woman was a member. >I have seen at least one patient use his power of discernment to "think his >way out of" the belief that he was God (realizing that it was grandiose and >related to his manic depression). It was kinda difficult for me not to say, >"But wait a minute.... you really are God... or at least a *part* of God." >but I >did keep myself from saying this. You didn't just say, "I'm God too!"? )))))) >I do think, however, that I used it as an >opportunity to encourage him to look into his spiritual beliefs, and >especially to keep looking inside himself to find his own truth. The advice of the Buddha... >I hope this answers the question (I've been babbling for so long I kinda >forgot what I even wanted to say). Oh well... sometimes I feel like the >monkey given an infinite amount of time to randomly type out Shakespeare, >but who can only produce Barry Manilow songs instead (whatever the heck >that means! ;-) Babbling from you is always welcome. ) Seriously, it's very helpful. It's so good to have a psychiatrist here with us. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2000 Report Share Posted April 8, 2000 Hi Mike, >No, Dharma, it doesn't suprise me a bit. I fully concur that someone who >believes that he/she has been Jesus or Gautama in a past life may actually >be tapping into true "memories" of a past incarnation. However, when people >get to the point where hospitalization is necessary to prevent harm to >themselves or others due to these beliefs, it seems to me the case that the >problem is more often due to serious psychiatric illness (e.g., schizophrenia >or bipolar illness). Yes, I think so. Although sometimes I have wondered... what if both could be so? >However, who am I to really say what is causing someone's problems? I will >just continue to do my best trying to keep patients and the community safe. >However, this discussion has certainly gotten the ole hamster running on the >wheel in my head, leading me back to meditate on that prime directive of >medicine, "first of all, do no harm." Also one of the "prime directives" of Raja Yoga... ahimsa, harmlessness. You've reminded me of a book written by Kurt Vonnegut's son after he recovered from schizophrenic psychosis. He was hospitalized for three years, and he said that it looked to him like many patients would recover after about three years... and that the hospitalizations and medications were mostly ways of taking care of them until they healed. When someone in my family had a problem, we went looking for a psychiatrist, but I remembered that book... and sometimes I felt like we were just buying more time. The doctor who helped the most was the one who had experience with using medications. The first two ended up telling him that although he'd had problems in his life, he'd handled them very well, and there was just no reason to feel that way. Which was no help at all... because he DID feel that way. The third doctor put him on medication, which helped immediately, and then went on talking with him. I've also been impressed with the Transactional Analysis people. They have some very useful models and concepts, and they seem to be able to help people with present problems without going through past histories, just going after past stuff where it really seems necessary. I don't know if it helps with all kinds of problems, though... I just saw a couple of therapy groups with people who had come willingly. Sorry to hear about your family's problems... I'll be thinking of you. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2000 Report Share Posted April 8, 2000 Dharma writes: >You've reminded me of a book written by Kurt Vonnegut's son after he >recovered from schizophrenic psychosis. He was hospitalized for three >years, and he said that it looked to him like many patients would recover >after about three years... and that the hospitalizations and medications >were mostly ways of taking care of them until they healed. Sounds like an interesting book. I've had my fair share of patients who really hadn't responded to any of the medications I'd prescribed (for example, to treat severe depression) but then start getting better on the umteenth medication. I suspect that in many of these cases their recovery had nothing to do with the medication but was instead due to their body/spirit healing itself (I also recommend both traditional and nontraditional treatments to be used concurrently with pharmacotherapy). One of my struggles has been to not take it personally when one of my patients doesn't get better (or worse, kills him or herself). Of course, it is just my occasionally out of control ego which allows me to think that I have the power or ability to determine who among the patients who find their way to me gets better. Life is so much more pleasant for me when I absolve myself of that responsibility ("take off my God suit" as a friend of mine says) and just do what I can, while realizing that I am but a small, self-centered cog in something much larger than I can understand at this time. >Sorry to hear about your family's problems... I'll be thinking of you. Thanks for your thoughts. Most of my family members are ill at this time, but only one of them is serious (an uncle in L.A. likely dying from AIDS). But life is as it is supposed to be, and my acceptance levels are running pretty high. Nevertheless, I wish that there were a little less pain in my life (I am still awfully attached to the idea of avoiding pain, but my awareness of this tendency is growing). Be peaceful- Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.