Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

This article might be better placed in the Articles section, but I'm curious to see what others think. This Sunday, The New York Times Magazine included an long article called Enlightenment Therapy.

It's ostensibly a story about a Zen Master who started suffering from an entrenched fear of 'invisibility' and who eventually entered therapy to relieve him of his misery, but it covers the history of the relationships between Zen / enlightenment and psychology in the West. It starts:

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

I read that yesterday - thought it was very interesting.

It's easy for me to imagine that my relative disinterest and skepticism about the anti-ego schools and harnesses arises from the fact that I had what was for all practical purposes a disgustingly happy and free childhood.

The opposite of what the protagonist in this story experienced.

“Fear of invisibility” - what a curious state of mind. Did you understand that?

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

I think many people are afraid to be invisible. I too had such problems. Eventually I was disgusted of how fake most people live their lives. How sturdily set they are on
concepts and Idea's, not even their own. And live their lives by them, without regarding their validity upon their own lives.

Not a
self made image, of how you should be. (the Ego) But worse, an image
of how you should be.
If you ever want to drop a self image,
which is never who you really are. You will need to know how it has
gotten their. It will take time and effort to self explore.And these anti-Ego schools, most of
them modern and new-age aren't set to the Buddhist mindset anymore.
They forget cause and affect. Buddha dropped Ego, last…And not first.
This I think is a good example of my
point.

If you want to be without ego, don't.
Discover yourself, question your every thought. Use reason and
opinion/will to discover who you are, and take nothing for granted.
Amaze with your own silly actions every day. And eventually, when you
know who you are, you can start to be in peace with yourself.
Then at least you aren't fake. You are
yourself, you only quote yourself. And if you then drop the concept,
that your self, is just another self, and just subject to all those
other silly stupid and silly things you have gotten to understand in
the years before. You can but chuckle.


And basically just enjoy life horribly
well!

In my experience, and my more current
mindset. I try to discover how these mindset, and images of not only
people themselves. But also in general, their entire view of the
world are originated. A difficult process, where I can no longer just
take 'truth' for granted. :)

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

That's a fascinating article, Siona. I'm looking forward to crossposting it to another discussion group and seeing what people make of it there. Thank you!

Love,

Nicole

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

They forget cause and affect. Buddha dropped Ego, last…And not first.

Curious, Domus. I'd never really thought about this point, and it seems a tremendously important one. Also, I like how you wrote 'dropped'–it's a letting go, not a getting rid of or annihilation, and it sounds like a 'relaxing' rather than a fight.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

Domus >>> In … my more current mindset. I try to discover how … their entire view of the world are originated. A difficult process, where I can no longer just take 'truth' for granted. :)

Yes, me too.

“Truth”, when it's expressed as 'a string of words and set of ideas' that humans pass back and forth and write in books, is a tricky thing.

But humans, we soft biological organisms that live and die so quickly, that suffer and need and breed and ultimately invent all that “truth” stuff - we are fascinating and terrible at the same time.

—-

Anyway, when I hear about the problem of 'feelings of invisibility', I tend to think of my metaphor of “The Herd”.

“The Herd” is the mass of humans. It's from the mass of humans that we get most of those signals of “fitting in” or “not fitting in”, “good”, “bad”, “attractive”, “ugly”, and “needed” and “useless”.

All genetics really, the herd deciding who are the genetic popstars of the moment. Memetics and Genetics, the two great forces that shape the personal experience.

if you think the herd thinks you are invisible, it hurts and is terrifying.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

I like that metaphor. It really brings out the problem.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

“Fear of invisibility” - what a curious state of mind. Did you understand that?

I didn't grasp it exactly, but there's something in me that relates. I think that most of us have a deep need to feel seen; that is, to be witnessed, and accepted, as human beings. And I could easily imagine how being denied that (or even starting to worry about it) could be devastating. It sounded as though the patient in the tale had some deep sense, from his childhood, of that level of so-called benign neglect, and I imagine this must have been brutally painful.

I don't know. I think people underestimate sometimes how achingly cruel those childhood messages can turn out to be, not so much because that they were awful in the moment, but because of the psychological and emotional after-effects that come from years of not-knowing-how to get certain essential needs met.

But I'm getting off topic. ;)

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

Maybe noot. Using bill's herd metaphor. Would children be more subject to herding then parents? Or, do children remember herding in their childhood well and when they grow up reflect on it, with the value they give it today? (or something else)
When I was a child I was rarely to never part of the herd. I was always bullied etc.
But nowadays that doesn't show at all. And I do remember it.
Is it perhaps that in adulthood we reflect our youth, and approve or disprove it with our modern day standards?
Seem a lot like not-living-in-the-present.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

To get back to the central themes of the article, I think one of the ideas we can draw from it is that we have to stay aware that meditation, success in enlightenment practices, and “enlightenment” itself in its various forms may not be (I would say it definitely ISN'T) sufficient by itself for a modern practice.

“Enlightenment”, or the many sub-types of enlightenment experiences, doesn't by itself heal the psyche and produce the well rounded fully realized human.

I know, I know, sacriledge, right? By 'definition', enlightenment is perfection, right?

Except - even the simplest examination of the 'enlighteneds' is pretty much proof that the enlightenment experience can still leave one a jerk and a sociopath.

Sadly, psychotherapy is expensive, way too expensive for those of us who aren't yuppies employed by the corporations.

Still, there are ways to do for oneself much that one might have to pay $5-50k for to get from a professional shrink.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

I know, I know, sacriledge, right? By 'definition', enlightenment is perfection, right?

Oh, but through enlightened eyes, this whole bloody world is perfect in its isness. That doesn't mean it's not without pain and brutality and horror. Enlightenment isn't a cure for anything, and in the eyes of enlightenment, nothing needs to be cured. ;)

And speaking as a corporately-employed yuppie with a background in (transpersonal) psychotherapies, I'd say, frankly, that AA and similar support programs can be just as, if not more, effective when it comes to healing our psyches and souls. 

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

Siona>>> Enlightenment isn't a cure for anything, and in the eyes of enlightenment, nothing needs to be cured. ;)

Ahhhh, now, this is one of the “nuts”, one of the greatly curious puzzles that loom larger and larger the deeper one goes into the processes.

I think of it as the “do-nothing/do-something” problem.

Let's say you're enlightened. This question will tend to arise - should you do something, or do nothing?

It's really a fascinating puzzle.

Siona>>> And speaking as a corporately-employed yuppie with a background in (transpersonal) psychotherapies

Did you ever get a chance to do full-on psychiatry or psychotherapy?

I've had a few periods of doing 'the talking cure' with both psychiatrists and psychologists when I was younger, tho never for very longs. Certainly it can be useful if you can get it, tho a lot depends on the doctor.

Since I went self-employed I haven't had the money to do it, altho I have been able to educate myself pretty well as to the theory and practice, and studying and applying psychotherapy has been a big part of my personal process.

I do think that psychological self-study and enlightenment practices are natural partners, and think the time will come when doing one without the other will be seen as a bit backward.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

Let's say you're enlightened.

and, of course, only you can “say.”

But then, isn't this just another form of “the talking cure” but its only you talking yourself into a “cure” you've decided is what others have referred to as 'enlightenment'?

hmmm….

mikeS

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

mike S >>> its only you talking yourself into a “cure” you've decided is what others have referred to as 'enlightenment'?

To which I would say, “enlightenment” ain't a cure for anything.

But yes, one has to always be aware that 'enlightenment' is solipsistic nonsense, of absolutely no practical benefit. And that humans talk themselves into it.

The point of 'the talking cure' is to readapt the individual to social functioning - so in that sense it confers a benefit. “Enlightenment” does pretty much the opposite.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

I think that when you are enlightened, that should do something or do nothing. Isn't much of the matter anymore.
There is no 'should' Becuase you do not need to question.
The choose of action, what you are eventually going to do, is just something or nothing. And if there are no logical arguments, I'd say it is just choice. Perhaps make toy. (for all I care :P)

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

Domus >>>> There is no 'should' Becuase you do not need to question.

Sorry Domus - nice in theory - but thats not supported by the data.

Again, pointing at all the “enlighteneds” in the record or observable - we only know about them because they chose to do something, thus entering the record.

It's not like the record or realtime observables has any repeated examples of “enlighteneds” doing nothing, and people all point at them and say “hey cool look at that enlightened doing nothing, lets write about him.”.

We can get all sophist and say “the active ones aren't doing anything because there is noone there”, but thats verbal trickery, because there is demonstrably an organism walking about and doing something - to claim they are a special class of nonorganism is again verbal trickery, and arguably a bit infantile or more solipsistic nonsense on the part of the claimant.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

hence why I think true enlightenment is something only to strive to, and never to attain.
I think you have a point.
I mean, how on earth am I to overcome my bodily needs. When I am still alive?

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

hi all
my name is christine arpita - Nicole cross posted the article to another pod .  i really related to it… so i thought i would join in the fun here and respond briefly.

i don't think that enlightenment/kundalini experience etc etc  bypasses the necessary integration and maturation of a healthy relating ego.  i believe that even if one has significant “spiritual” experience , if there is still unconscious egoic tendancies that arise then those will still be part of the “soul stream”  - continuing to create conditions for personal and collective suffering.  dualism must be entirely integrated into non-dualism … one not “better” than another… for one is not separate from the other.

christine

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

arpita>>> don't think that enlightenment/kundalini experience etc etc  bypasses
the necessary integration and maturation of a healthy relating ego.

Yep. The funny thing, is that building that integrated and mature ego is actually the harder part. Ecstatic experiences were always pretty easy for me to get, at least.

But building an ego that is worthy to be given up is major hard work.

And our society makes it even harder - integrated and mature egos don't make for good easily influenced consumers, so much of modern culture seems designed to keep everyone in a state of permanent needy immaturity.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

But building an ego that is worthy to be given up is major hard work.

Interesting. so the ego's gonna invest in all that “major hard work” in building itself up, only to give it 'self' up at some point where it has interpreted itself as built up enough to be “given up”?

hmmm….sounds like a plan only an ego could devise.

mikeS

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

so the ego's gonna invest in all that “major hard work” in building itself up, only to give it 'self' up at some point where it has interpreted itself as built up enough to be “given up”?

I've used physical analogies before in the past; why not try one here? Let's say you're physically out of shape–you don't take care of your body, you smoke heavily, you live off processed snacks, you drink to excess, etc. To my mind, this self-abuse, or the neglect of your animal body, is comparable to having a damaged and baggage-laden emotional / psychological self. It's not just you that suffers as a result, it's those around you–both those who care about you and those who end up needing to support your failed health later on.

Of course enlightenment could mean that you no longer see this as a 'problem' (there's no you to do the seeing) but it's still, I think, an irresponsible approach. I feel some personal obligation (you may not) to take care of my 'stuff' so as to make life easier for others; having a healthy ego, thus, is just another compassionate bodhisattvic action. No? :)

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

Yes, the healthier the physical body/emotional body/ego-mindbody become the less discomfort and pain, the lighter, more “empty” (in buddhist meaning) it all becomes. I've heard it taught that one doesn't shed ego, kill it etc, but its more like you see through it. As wisdom grows one sees the emptiness of all forms. And health, well being and wisdom are intrinsicly the same.

This zen practitioner had intense anxiety, a state of un-wellness. He used his wisdom to seek wellness and further growth. Good for him. May his experience bring benefit to many.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

mike S >>> only to give it 'self' up at some point where it has interpreted itself as built up enough to be “given up”?

Well, we are kinda stuck here is a language limbo. It's all the subtext and context that trips us up.

I for instance do not believe that the the functions I call 'the ego' ever goes away before physical death. As an example, I point to all the enlighteneds, who are clearly just as full of ego as any other human.

(However, almost certainly what I mean by 'ego' isn't the same thing that most people here mean by 'ego'.)

Anyway, as I started to say - my models don't include anything like a permanent ego “giving away”. Instead, what happens is a kind of temporary suspension, a short term 'death before death'.

However, it's a bit complex to explain - because the language, especially the subtexts and contexts, are too limited and filled with noise.

And I'm a heretic and will never ever be no good. ;-)

And nothing stops anyone from seeking ego-loss if they want it. I say, go for it. But, if you talk afterwards, then obviously you still have an ego, so, there you go.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

mike S >>> hmmm….sounds like a plan only an ego could devise.

which raises the question - was there ever a plan not devised by an ego?

language conundrum. you may well think the “ego” is something very different from what i think the “ego” is. until the language conundrum is resolved nothing can be said that makes sense.

the great undefined ego debate - how many thousands of times have we done this already?

oh well, such is life.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

Hi folks.

Bill; I agree that building an ego worthy to be given up is hard work. Engler's famous dictum that you have to be a somebody before you can be a nobody. I think that's debatable; I know one or two soi-disant spiritual nobodies who haven't constructed a healthy ego…including a former version of myself. I like your salient use of the word 'worthy' here.

Regarding yr statement on culture, I was reminded of Robert Bly's assertion that we live in a sibling society and what we need are elders to look up to. Whilst this latter idea is debatable, for me there's something angsty in jumping out of the modernist crib and wandering around the big open space where there doesn't sem to be any final truth…best to hunker down into mediocrity and surf for salvation…that kind of self-infantalisation tends to keep the pesonality disorders alive…

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

i think the moment someone calls themself a master is a moment where you can see where ego has engaged.  or the moment that you call someone else master is also a point where ego has engaged.

most self proclaimed masters - are not…

but - a few are - but - at something fairly specific - a master in a martial art, a stellar athlete, a great thinker or mathematician, a clairvoyant …
but regardless - ego is not extinct … even in those labelled bodhisattva or “tulku” to use a tibetan term that describes people who have awareness after death and choose to return… i don't think their ego ” is given up” either.

what if we dropped the whole “give up the ego” and enlightenment thing and turned toward a different perspective of seeing ego simply as a fact of embodiment?  would that prevent us from running away from ourselves and our difficulties?  perhaps promoting a stronger sense of inter-responsibility?

i don't know - just thinking “outloud”.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

arpita>>> what if we dropped the whole “give up the ego” and enlightenment thing
and turned toward a different perspective of seeing ego simply as a
fact of embodiment?

Well, people have HUGE emotional investments in the various idea-and-language streams - and besides, this is all “art” and solipsism, so there's room for all kinds of explorations.

It's not really an either/or thing - the problem is all the religious and emotional emphasis on meme-competition.

We inherited this religious competition from all those humans before us, and really we are all still very new at this, so it's easy to fall back into meme competition. and get all stabby and right/wrong good/bad about everything.

i figure the proof is in the pudding, the results. DEMONSTRATE what your position is by behaviors and presentation, show off your art, and lets see what works, and admire each others creation.

Besides, for all we know, “give up the ego” will turn out to be the neatest stuff. It's just that we haven't figured out how to demonstrate it.

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

arpita: For some reason, I really, really like what you wrote about dropping the pursuit of ego abandonment in favor of something more positive. I think it goes with a certain favoring I have for other approaches of that variety; that is, I'd rather be for something than against it's opposite. Instead of struggling against the ego (which is horribly self-involved, anyway ;), why not focus on contributing and expanding one's sense of self and circle of compassion? It seems more fruitful all-round to me, and that way, even if you don't ultimately “succeed” at enlightenment, you've at least helped create a more compassionate world. :)

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

Indeed, stand for, much more compassionate than fighting something…kinda like denying the battle before it even starts…

that's akin to loving for the simple sake of loving… Why do it? cuz its love. Is there any other reason that matters?

~bless you all…really~

Re: Spiritual Bypass in the New York Times

I just stopped by to wish all well; and to our mothers, HAPPY MOTHERS' DAY!!!
PeAcE.