Articles: awakening enlightenment mental illness neurosis psychosis Ram Dass Sigmund Freud
by Duncan
18 comments
Insanity and Awakening
How do we know that people who declare themselves ‘enlightened’ or ‘awakened’ aren’t simply dupes of mental illness?
A common symptom of schizophrenia, for example, is the delusion that we are the messiah or ‘special’ in some other sense that enables us to see into reality in a way that others cannot. So, to draw the conclusion that those who regard themselves as ‘awakened’ may have lost their sanity seems understandable.
However, a person’s mental life is only an issue when expressed in a way that poses a problem to someone. I sit next to a guy at work who believes the world is only six thousand years old. This strikes me as bizarre, considering that his only evidence is the Bible, but it doesn’t pose a big enough problem to himself or anyone else to prompt an intervention. If he decided to stop washing because he knew the world was ending soon, however, then it would probably be a different story.
Mental illness is as mental illness does; it’s never a question only of ideas and individual experience, but always also a question of behaviour and degree. Experiencing awakening is one thing. Telling everyone and setting up a blog is another. Setting up a commercial organisation to teach others is another thing still. In each case there’s the same idea that one has awakened, but it’s the behaviour that results from the idea which calls down a diagnosis to the degree that it poses a problem to others.
In our culture harbouring wacky ideas isn’t a big deal, whereas acting on them or living according to them certainly can be. So too is waving them in other people’s faces. This is the boundary between being ‘eccentric’ and ‘insane’. Eccentricity is tolerable, but attempting to influence the lives of others is overstepping the mark.
My first point, then, is that only ideas which lead to problematic behaviour will be regarded by our culture as ‘ill’. In most cases, someone who experiences awakening will not manifest any untoward behaviour at all. Indeed, most feel happier than they were before and just get on with their lives. They are therefore functioning healthily.
However, the fact remains that messianic ideas feature in mental illness regardless of whether the sufferer acts on them. We still must deal with the question of whether believing oneself to have awakened, or to have gained a special insight into the nature of reality, is not in itself pathological.
The causes of mental illness is a hot topic that I don’t want to get entangled in. I propose to focus on the notion of illness instead. In all instances of disease what we see is rarely the cause itself but its symptoms in the organism. The symptoms of a disease are the attempt of the organism to heal. For instance, the mucus that runs down our nose when we have a cold is not the virus or the action of the virus, but the reaction of our body (inflammation of blood vessels) in its attempt to deal with the infection.
If mental illness is truly an illness, then the delusions of the mentally ill are symptoms. Regardless of what we suppose the cause of the illness (genetic, environmental, spiritual, etc.), the symptoms that arise in the body-mind are an attempt to cope with that cause. So if a runny nose helps combat a cold, what is the benefit to a mentally ill person of the delusion that they are the messiah?
There are two possibilities. We’ve left aside the question of exactly what is attacking or threatening to attack, but we’re presuming that because this is illness then it’s an agent of disease, and because this is mental illness then the ‘site’ of the attack is the mind or that which exerts an effect on the mind. In this event, a delusional idea can help in one of two ways: it can either change our sense of self, or it can change our sense of reality.
In other words, when something threatens our mental balance we can adapt to it by (1) making ourselves a different person from the one to whom the threat applies; or (2) reshaping reality in a way that implies there is no threat.
As an example, let’s say the attack is from a psychological source: a strong feeling of insecurity and inferiority. If I go down route 1, then I might develop psychosomatic illnesses that limit my range of activity. I become an ‘invalid’ who can no longer be expected to achieve the sort of things I formerly demanded of myself. So, by changing the sense of who I am through psychosomatic illness, I’ve side-stepped the threat.
A trip down route 2 would be very different. Here, I would simply re-write reality and insist that regardless of appearances I am the new messiah. Everything that happens in my world confirms this: the TV newsreader is talking about me; car registration plates in the street contain hidden kabbalistic messages proclaiming who I am in reality. Again, the threat is side-stepped, but this time by re-writing the external world in a way that ensures the spectre of psychological inferiority never arises.
What we have here is also an illustration of the difference between the two classical branches of mental illness: neurosis and psychosis. In neurosis, reality is left untouched, but the sense of self is re-written. The clinical picture is one of anxiety and misery. In psychosis the self is unhindered, but the space in which it attempts to run free is bought by re-organising reality. The clinical picture is delusion and a loss of boundaries and relationships. Just as in physical disease, symptoms of mental illness are attempts at healing but they are often not solutions. In fact, symptoms can frequently become problems in themselves. Often, it’s not really the disease that kills us but our symptoms.
The Freudian model of neurosis.
To return to our main question, the person who claims they have awakened could indeed be manifesting a neurotic or psychotic symptom. Yet the concept of awakening relates to the standard model of mental illness in a very intriguing way. The person who has awakened talks about their experience in a manner that suggests they have arrived at a new understanding of their identity by gaining an accurate perception of reality. If that were true then both self and reality would have undergone a change. So if this is a symptom, is it neurotic or psychotic – a change to the self, or a change to reality? Evidently it is both. Or maybe neither.
The Freudian model of psychosis.
The classical line between neurosis and psychosis (Freud, 1924), although still observed within the field of mental health today, in practice has proved difficult to draw. Psychiatry has since recognised numerous ‘borderline’ forms of mental disorder that do not sit easily within either psychosis or neurosis. (An example is the fairly recent discovery of ‘personality disorders’.)
This is only to be expected, since the division between neurosis and psychosis rests upon a supposed duality between reality and the self. Ask someone to define the self and you’ll often get an answer along the lines of ‘it’s that which perceives reality’, whereas common definitions of reality often evoke ‘that which continues the way it is when I’m not around’. Yet even logic dictates it cannot be as simple as this, because unless we suppose it somehow stands outside, then the self must be included in reality; and unless we suppose things would seem the same if we had no mind or body, then reality must be regarded as arising from the self.
If awakening doesn’t fit the standard models of mental illness it’s because it hits that model right in its weak spot. The person who has experienced awakening claims to have seen through precisely the dualism which separates reality and the self.
The difference between awakening and mental illness is summed up graphically in an account cited by Ken Wilber of the meeting between Baba Ram Dass and an institutionalised schizophrenic. Ram Dass says:
‘Do you think you’re Christ? the Christ in pure consciousness?’ He says, ‘Yes.’ I say, ‘Well, I think I am too.’ And he looks at me and he says, ‘No, you don’t understand.’ I say, ‘That’s why they lock you up, you see.’ (Wilber 1996: 178)
The ill person makes himself a messiah by preserving his sense of self at the cost of re-writing reality. Because the aim is to preserve the self then there is no room in his reality for more than one messiah. When Ram Dass says ‘I’m Christ too’ the ill person cannot admit this, because it would threaten the sense of identity he is fighting to preserve.
Although Ram Dass, by saying he thinks he too is Christ, appears on the surface as nutty as the guy he’s talking to, the crucial difference is that the world of the awakened person accommodates everyone as the Christ. The world of awakening is more expansive because the awakened person, by seeing through the duality of self and reality, has surrendered each to the other. The Christ is the one who recognises his or her true nature as inseparable from reality (‘I and the Father are one’ [John 10: 30]) and therefore the Christ is not limited to any individual – although many Christians might have something different to say about this, of course!
Some who claim to have experienced awakening are no doubt mentally ill, but in that case their ideas are symptoms. As we have seen, a symptom is an attempt by the organism to heal itself, which is often never completely effective, and so there will usually be other signs that alert us to the presence of disease. In the case cited above, the patient’s refusal to admit that anyone else was like him betrays the symptomatic nature of his ideas and had indeed led to his isolation and incarceration.
When we look closer at the nature of awakening and the models used to demarcate mental illness we see that the models rely on a dualism between reality and the self, whereas awakening claims to have undone precisely this duality. In the light of awakening, the model of mental illness itself appears mentally ill in its insistence on sustaining a duality that creates the phenomena it seeks to describe. Fundamentally, this is why Sigmund Freud was led to his famous quip that the aim of therapy is ‘replacing neurotic suffering with ordinary human misery’, because whilst there is a supposed separation between self and reality then suffering is inevitable. Contrast this with the Buddha’s bold promise of an end to suffering, when self and reality are surrendered into the other at the moment of awakening.
References
Ken Wilber (1996). The Atman Project. Second edition. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.
Sigmund Freud (1924). ‘Neurosis and Psychosis’. In: The Pelican Freud Library, volume 10. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979.
Wow, nice material, Duncan. The elimination of duality is the key to some amazing things, even in western psychology. I have a teenage daughter who has what psychiatrists call clinical depression and I’ve witnessed her struggle with therapy and its sometimes odd way of denying the truth of certain…. well, critical matters. She and I have had some pretty freaking serious conversations about what she’s going through, about her therapy and why she sometimes doesn’t understand what the docs are telling her about “herself.” You just helped me get the “why” of some of those issues.
Thanks!
I’ve been thinking about this subject for awhile, and here are my few observations.
It seems that the cycles of insight seem to be very similar to bipolar disorder, as mentioned in many places. And certain things reek of schizophrenia, although I do think there is a difference.
I do think there is a difference between the enlightenment and mental disease for a couple of reasons.
- The social context which it is presented makes all the difference. Saying enlightenment is a positive thing, something one wants and is striving for, makes all the difference.
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2010/04/psychosis_podcast_an.html
- For one, the models that I’ve seen of bipolar disorder seem almost incomplete. They do not detail all the experiences I’ve had. The maps of insight seem far more accurate.
- The practice itself seems to makes a lot of difference as well, since it gives you a time and space to deal with these things and not let it completely dominate all aspects of your life (heh). While the symptoms are similar, the way of handling it is different.
This is not to deny that many of the symptoms exist.
- A&P -> mania
- DN -> Depression/anxiety
- Delusions of thought
Another interesting point is that it seems that the cycles have changed as the practice has gone on. Before I was a practioner, it seemed that they would dictate my actions and get me into trouble. Now however, I have become more functional, despite the sometimes increased intensity. Is there some latent biological tendencies which are then shaped by practice? Most likely.
Thank you, Duncan, for this very instructive article.
Very interesting post! Unluckly, my doubts surpass everything presented here. “Mental illness” is a very complicated topic by itself – and when we add it’s many relations with mystical experiences, extasis techs (shamanism), magick and englightenment, things turn into a real mess. I understand why you have avoided the “cause” problem – but I feel it wasn’t enough; as you incorporate the Freudian model, you have already chosen between certain causes (for an example: if you had chosen schizophrenia as a genetic/hereditary malformation of brain, the whole “defense from illness” stuff makes no sense).
In the Core Teachings of Buddha, Ingram says that a psychotic englightened person remains psychotic – he tries to bring englightenment outside the mind health/illness sphere. In your model, they seem to compete in the same sphere – if you’re into non-duality, you can’t remain psychotic/neurotic.
My personal understanding (still non-englightened) goes throught the reichian street, with a nitzschean turn afterwards – I think neurosis regards the living body-machine and it’s social/environmental constrictions, or, may I say, it has less of a relation with a “subject” and it’s symbols, and more with flows of “energy” in the body, and neuro-muscular blocks, and the resulting separation/alienation that incides on mind/body. I understand psychosis to be an extreme case of neurosis, and a way to avoid the repression, usually leading to self-destruction (catatonia). This ressonates with the Nitzschean understanding of the “despisers of the body”: that they despise the body because they have been unable to do what the body wants most (create beyond itself), so the body turns against itself and tries self-destruction.
Anyway, this places neurosis and psychosis right into the “karmic” sphere, relating to the genetic history of the life-flow (who coded us with this desire to live, and to create) and thus, theorically, you can get englightened and keep your muscular/energetic blocks untouched, insamuch you can still feel fondness and anger, because they’re genetically coded survival reactions.
Holds,
Pied Piper
I enjoyed this, Duncan. Your attempt to articulate some possible relationships between enlightenment and mental illness is intriguing. Though, I do believe it to be a bit over-simplified in parts; which is due in part to the fact that the Freudian, hydraulic model of the psyche doesn’t leave much room for complexities that, in my opinion, should not be overlooked.
The excerpt you included of Ram Dass’ encounter with the institutionalized “Jesus” man is telling. This man may or may not have had an experience of awakening, and I suppose we will never know. But if he had, his belief that he alone is Christ shows us how a legitimate awakening experience may be translated through an immature (perhaps very pre-mature) lens (or, self-concept). If one’s identity or worldview is arrested developmentally, any experience may be interpreted as belonging to the individual alone (pre-pre-rational). For others, it is for their respective family or group alone (pre-rational), to all human beings (rational), to all human and non-human beings (post-rational), etc, etc. We don’t usually expect a mature adult to see no farther than their own existence, and when they do we may call it mental illness. But this has a lot to do with the fact that this type of thinking is inappropriate for an adult. It would not be so inappropriate for a two year old, who would not be called mentally ill for being narcissistic.
So, what we consider to be mental illness in regards to awakening is not the awakening experience (or abiding awakening) itself, but rather, whether or not the experience is translated from a position that is developmentally appropriate for the individual expressing it… or maybe not. I certainly don’t know for sure. Food for thought, I guess.
Thanks for the comments, everyone! Good stuff… So, to defend my thesis…
@PiedPiper: The ‘genetic’ cause doesn’t necessarily invalidate the model in my view. In this case the disease would have a physical origin that is impacting on the mind. Unless you want to argue that the gene affected in schizophrenia is the gene for producing messianic delusions (or inhibiting them), then we could still be justified in regarding the delusion as a symptom – i.e. the organism’s defensive response to a disease. As for Doctor Ingram – if that’s what he says then I’d counter it with the question ‘how did the psychotic person get enlightened?’ There’s often a danger in assuming psychosis is some kind of insight. In my limited experience, psychosis is not a kind of spiritual practice or insight. The person with a psychosis relates to reality just like most people do (dualistically), only it’s a different sort of reality from most people. Awakening comes from insight into experience, not from re-shaping experience. I don’t see a reason why psychosis should prevent insight altogether, but the person with a psychosis seems to have the odds stacked against them.
@Jackson: Having actually read most of his works, I’m a big Freud fan! I don’t think there’s anything simplistic about the psychodynamic model. Freud doesn’t limit himself to this model in his work, but uses economic, structural and topographical models too. He was a far more flexible thinker than people give him credit… To be honest, I’m sceptical of the notion that awakening is independent of development. I think there is a correlation between awakening and intelligence, for example. Sorry, but I do! 
I can’t quite buy this idea that (beyond a certain point) someone is awakened but they ‘understand it wrongly’. The idea of Christ as the exclusive saviour and sole incarnation of God is largely a view promoted by the Christian religion that came afterwards, not by Christ himself. If someone declared they had awakened and now realised they were the exlusive incarnation of the messiah, I can’t see how that’s a misunderstanding of awakening – it’s clearly just not awakening! However, when Christ says ‘I and the Father are One’ I can see that this is indeed an example of what you called a ‘pre-rational’ understanding of awakening. What the guy says to Ram Dass in the anecdote, in my opinion, is just not awakening at all. Surely it’s not possible to get it that wrong?!
Hey Duncan,
No need to apologize for you opinions (although, I suppose your apology was somewhat tongue-in-cheek). I like what you have to say.
Once again, it all comes down to one’s definition of “awakening experience”. I certainly didn’t mean to say that the man in the Ram Dass story had achieved full developmental enlightenment (i.e. arahantship). Though, the idea that he may have had an experience of kensho, or at least an A&P event (which is sort of a false awakening or ‘pseudo-nirvana’, as you know) is quite plausible. Many people mistake minor attainments or initial experiences to be the big ‘E’ – including myself at one time or another (sad, but true).
We may just have to agree to disagree on Freud His contribution to they study of psychology and and practice of psychoanalysis cannot be downplayed. But, like the work of all pioneers of emerging disciplines, his ideas were later clarified and expanded upon in ways that I believe vastly improved them. Just my opinion.
Thanks for the reply.
~Jackson
You ask how a psychotic person could become enlightened, which brings to mind another question: if mental illness does in fact come from a biological cause (and studies of the grey and white matter in the brains of people with schizophrenia suggests that it does), would it be possible for a person who sometimes experiences psychosis to become enlightened? (I’m not talking about spontaneously, but rather through insight meditation and the like.)
“As for Doctor Ingram – if that’s what he says then I’d counter it with the question ‘how did the psychotic person get enlightened?’ There’s often a danger in assuming psychosis is some kind of insight. In my limited experience, psychosis is not a kind of spiritual practice or insight”
Duncan, I’m speaking about a guy that was on anti-psychosis medication and praticed insight until he made a head (and, according to Ingram, kept consuming antipsychotics). My questioning was not about how psychosis resembles insight, but how can one be both chronically psychotic and still make a head, if psychosis is based on a dual structuration of experience that is unfolded to non-duality.
Hi PP – Okay, I’ll try it in different (hopefully better) words… A psychotic person experiences enlightenment by attaining insight, same as anyone. Psychotic symptoms may continue to arise, but are seen through, same as sensations of self may continue to arise, but are seen through. Awakening is not a safeguard against mental illness, but it is a safeguard against relating dualistically to the symptoms of mental illness. In my opinion, the symptoms of psychosis are not a subversion of duality, because they are related to as extrinsically ‘real’. But by developing insight they can be seen through, although this does not necessarily prevent their arising. And when I say ‘seen through’ this does not preclude reacting to or acting on them either! Karmic, as you say… I’m not sure what we’re disagreeing on, apart from the dualistic model of mental illness, which I hoped I showed in the article is inadequate anyway, albeit useful…
@Pied Piper & @Duncan: I would add that the person mentioned by Daniel Ingram in MCTB was only suffering from chronic depression. He was basically taking antidepressors and anxiolytic drugs. Interestingly, enlightenment cured him.
Hi Dunc!
Now it’s clearer for me. I think the problem with our discussion is my limited expressive capacity when using english – sorry about that! (: For an example, I’m not trying to argue that psychosis is some kind of insight, or that it’s someway non-dual. I was curious about wether an psychotic person could make a head, through the usual means, and what is the impact of englightenment on psychosis/neurosis.
This statement of yours makes it a lot clearer:
“Psychotic symptoms may continue to arise, but are seen through(…) And when I say ’seen through’ this does not preclude reacting to or acting on them either!”
Now, let’s see – the mentally ill person will try to protect herself from the causes of illness by projecting ego into reality, OR, by infunding Id into ego. Both are sctructured dualitstically (id x ego or ego x reality).
Seeing throught this duality would not render the “defense mechanism” useless? Would not it lead to exposal of the original causes of the disease?
Ok, left untouched by the englightened person this dualistic karma envolved in psychosis/neurosis will just go on by it’s own; but – as he now is seeing from a non-dual perspective – can’t he break with the original dual structuration of the symptons, thus facing directly the cause, whatever it may be?
@Alex – So peraphs I’m mistaken – I remember Ingram talking about psychosis, or at least about anti-psychotic medication. Anyway, Ingram spends a lot of time triyng to disconect mental health/illness from englightenment. I understand that this is necessary to clear the enormous confusion between meditation and therapy and the “swallowing in content” problem. But I’ve been left with the feeling that the lines are a lot more blurred in real life. Seeing from a non-dual perspective has cured this guy from depression – how far can this go? Can making a head eventually cure psychosis too (depending on it’s causes)?
Thank you guys! Holds,
PP
Hi Pied,
As far as I know, Daniel Ingram was talking about his dharma-brother Kenneth Folk (the anonymous musician who introduced Daniel to Vipassana). You might be interested to hear him tell his story on the following BuddhistGeeks Podcast:
“…So, that was 2004, and this is 2010, so, about six years ago this [enlightenment] happened. I’ve never had occasion to doubt that. That particular circuit was completed in that moment. And, interestingly enough, my depression went away. I was able to stop taking my antidepressants and my anti-anxiety medicine, and I haven’t had any trouble sleeping since then.”
How far can this go? I don’t know. We don’t have much clinical studies on the subject. If Haquan is still around, it might be interesting to get the opinion of a psychiatrist.
Best,
Alex
Hi Duncan, thank you immensely for your post and also to the contribution of everyone. In regards to the topic im a psycotic patient, in Jan. 2009 i was diagnose with psycosis which made me go completely out of tourch with reality.
I thought i was Jesus and was so convinced that i could rule the world and put things in its right place as everyone is gifted with a talent.
When i look back now to Jan. 2009, i could remember everything i said and did for four days before i was taking to the psychiatry hospital for treatment, at a point i wanted to see the prime minister of Britian, because all i was thinking about at that time was about the worlds problems as a whole and couldn’t understand why the world’s at it present state after the credit crunch.
To be honest, i didn’t have a clue about Awakening, i ask lots of questions though about how same human like myself build and do extraordinary things, while i was only struggling to have daily bread without no positive thinking in place.
Well im proud to say that the knowledge i have acquired from my illness up till date is absolutely amazing, im taking a day at a time and there’s no doubt in my mind that im heading towards enlightenment as im better off than i was before my mental illness.
I believe that psycosis differs as i asked lots of questions from fellow patients in the hospital, everybody thinks differently as everything and human itself are different in millions of ways.
When i talk to friends now, they dont have a clue of my points about life, as i could only talk about reality instead of fantasy that we were used to.
Duncan i can answer any of your questions about psycosis and the world anytime you want. Im not the best in English language, im quite simple at it, i believe that if people can leave big grammar alone and apply simplicity in English language, the internet and the world would be a better place with lots of understanding.
Thanks once again for your article
Michael C.
this begs the question, what about the person who actually IS the new maitreya, or incarnation of christ (if there really is even such a thing)? how would they deal with that, thinking they’re deluded when they actually have some specific mission to fulfill?
bags not me!
it’s kind of funny to imagine, in a sad way. it would be confusing…
(pratchett and gaiman explored the theme in ‘good omens’.)
How can you be certain the concept of enlightenment is about inclusion of everyone/everything. Something just doesn’t seem right here. If you are to be correct then it would mean you have at least experienced various degrees of enlightenment yourself firsthand. Knowledge and experience are two completely different things. Enlightenment has nothing to do with theory or thinking. It doesn’t even base itself on logic. It is all about -not- knowing! You know, you should learn to let go of that tendency of the mind. Then you will not know, and become more enlightened. When you identify yourself with ‘knowing’ this matter you attempt to create your own reason to justify. When you are nothing, something will reveal to you its presence, and you are being known. You don’t know anything anymore, you are being known to yourself, that is your true self.
Hi erdnog -
I see your point, but I don’t believe we can express enlightenment in terms of not knowing. Various reasons:
* Enlightenment is the overcoming of ignorance, yes? So your definition would then beg the question of the difference between the not-knowing of enlightenment and the not-knowing of ignorance.
* If enlightenment were not-knowing and knowing were not enlightenment, then enlightenment would always be dependent upon not-knowing. It would therefore be conditioned and defined by something – by not-knowing. For that reason, enlightenment *must* include both knowing and not-knowing, otherwise we are applying a dualistic boundary to it.
* How is identifying with not-knowing substantially any different from identifying with knowing?
The Absolute is big enough to contain all my theoretical musings, plus yours and everyone else’s. Having an empty mind is not enlightenment; and the revelation of the Absolute that you seem to be describing can be evident even when the mind is busy. Otherwise – as I mentioned above – we are confusing enlightenment with a particular state, which is always dependent upon our personal actions and attitude.
Indeed, as you say, to be correct I would have had to have experienced various degrees of enlightenment myself first-hand. Well, I believe I am correct and that I have. Mental, eh? 
This may be the best thing you’ve ever written Dunc.