Real Life with Ryuei

Hi, Michael - this is an interesting arena for discussion - the relationship between mental illness and faith. St. Theresa of Avila was prone to levitating - to the point where some ofthe nuns allegedly had to sit on her to keep her from drifting upwards. How would she be diagnosed today? Going to a more sensitive nerve,isn't it possible that our own founder, the great sage Nichiren may have had some mental health issues? Who knows how many saints, sages and seers might have been pulled from the path of mysticism by a little well-prescribed medication?

On a more practical note, though - I have a family member who has been diagnosed as a schizophrenic (not multiple personality disorder - people constantly confuse the two for some reason.) He very sanely took up with the Mormon church because that church does not allow drinking and drug usage. He recognized the danger to himself of that kind of conduct, (i.e., "self medication"), which we all know contributes massively to the homeless mentally ill problem in the cities. He takes his medications, though, and ths makes a huge difference. Now he is a Mormon elder and as happy as a clam - better adjusted than a lot of Buddhists I know!

I have noticed, however, a tendency on the part of some leaders (organization unnamed) who don't have children themselves to play out their frustrated parental instincts by infantalizing the individuals under their religious leadership. That can get kind of irritating when you're epected to "protect" competent adults from books and so forth. But I don't think that's a personality disorder, I just think that's a lack of perspective, and maybe the infantalized individuals in question not asserting themselves.

Well, Michael, thanks for another interesting blog. Best regards, Byrd in LA

Hi Byrd,
William James wrote "The Varieties of Religious Experience" precisely to differentiate authentic religious insight and liberation from mere mental illness, delusion, and hysteria. Even though it was written around 100 years ago it is still a classic and still relevant.

I do think that people can make their predilictions work for them. And they can overcome them as well. And some religious groups do help as in your family members case.

Note that when I say "religious groups" I am not referring to particular organizations, though certain tendencies can be organization wide. What I mean are groups of individuals who work face to face. So these can be sub-groups within a larger group. The larger group and the sub-groups may share the same tendencies but not always. There are no monoliths. So for instance for some strange reason I had very positive experiences in the Catholic Church and with most of the Catholic clergy that I knew (and I have had any really bad experiences for that matter). But on the whole I see the Catholic Church as an institution as hopelessly corrupt and dehumanizing and squandering its rich heritage.

So the crucial thing is whether the people you hook up with on the face to face level are helping to alleviate and overcome mental illness and disorders or if they are exacerbating the problem and even exploiting illness, dysfunction and disorders (as may have been the case with Moussaoui if he is indeed a paranoid schizophrenic).

But in general at this stage in my life I have become wary and I don't always assume that virtue is virtue - it may just be a personality disorder or even a more severe mental illness. The converse, though, may also be true. Selfless compassion in a world where greed, anger, and ignorance are the norm may also seem crazy.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Rev. Ryuei -

As an interesting side note, I just ran across this tidbit of a Fresh Aire interview.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5346062

The man's book is about what he found after his son was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. It is titled:
"Crazy: A Father's Search through America's Mental Health Madness". One conclusion mentioned is that jails and prisons have become our new asylums, since we don't have those anymore.

Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett

test

Very interesting post, Ryuei. I was actually thinking about mental health and religion myself last night after I watched several episodes of a reality series titled “God or the Girl” about a group of young men discerning if they are called to a life of a celibate Roman Catholic priest or to the married life. The young men are not the epitome of mental health. One young man has been trying to decide on the priesthood for 10 years. He admits that he has difficulty with decisions as he becomes overwhelmed making a choice from a large restaurant menu. Another one demonstrated his Jesus action figure skateboarding unsuccessfully. But even more surprising was the dysfunctional behavior of the advisors for these guys. Friends, family, group leaders, and priests blatantly manipulating these young men into doing things against their better judgment. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the show is actually quite interesting.

I myself have been treated repeatedly for depression and I’m also prone to compulsive behavior and panic attacks. I think that “mental” folks are often drawn to religion. But I’m not so sure it’s an awful thing. Sure, you have to navigate around the crazies if you’re shopping for a religion, but perhaps being a little crazy does in fact allow you to experience a level of spirituality not available to your more well adjusted neighbors. Kind of like crazy suicidal artists and musicians. You can medicate them and analyze them and teach them to function effectively in society, but you risk cutting off their insight and passion. I mean repeating the same phrase (any phrase) over and over and over and over….who is that going to appeal to? Let’s embrace our obsessive compulsive behavior. We can all bring a little crazy to the table.
VW

When I saw this I decided you had spotted and were about to expose me. Phew! That was not moi. I am a nut of a different species.

r

Hi again,Michael - I went home last night thinking about this issue - religion and mental health - and realized that we hadn't touched on the biggest religion/mental health issue on the world's plate today, the "Left Behind"/rapture/tribulation people! Let's face it, millions of Americans are actually looking forward to a thermonuclear war because that means that Jesus is coming back - millions of people praying for war every day and they VOTE!!! Millions of people proud of the fact that they drive around in full belief that their vehicles could be driverless at any moment! Now that's a widespread mental illness, and it sells a lot of books! What do you think, Michael, is there any threatment? I didn't write about it initially because I try to suppress it from my conscious mind as much as possible.

ACK!!

Byrd in LA

Questions: Is religion, like substance abuse, a form of self-medication used by neurotcs? (Freud thought so, but he was not the first or the only one)

Are fundamentalism, pentecostalism, and other extreme religious beliefs and practices essentially forms of mental illness?

Once we begin to apply rational analysis to deconstruct religious doctrine, where do we stop? If we do find a "reasonable" position, is it anything more than an arbitrary and irrational excercise of preference, if we stop short of complete skepticism?

Good questions Harry,
Again, I think we should look to William James' Varieties of Religious Experience as a good starting point to differentiate dysfunction from more wholesome transformations. However, as Valerie points out - it is not always easy to differentiate. Sometimes qualities that are dysfunctional in many senses may have a positive value when used or applied in other ways. But this all requires some kind of sane, wholesome, discernment - and what is the objective criteria for that?

Here is where I go to people like Kohberg, Fowler and others who have proposed stages of moral and even religious development. I will be posting stuff on that soon I hope. Also, I defer to the late Jesuit philospher Bernard Lonergan who spent his life investigating "insight." Lonergan wanted to know "how do we know what we know?" One of the things he taught was that authentic objectivity is only achieved through authentic subjectivity. We have to apprehend ourselves in the act of knowing - and thus all the biases and limits of our perspective as well as when things come together and reveal a broader horizon. Dogen talked about this in his essay Genjo Koan when he said that "there are those who are deluded about awakening, and those who are awakened to delusion." I find all these useful starting points for an investigation into how to discern dysfunction from genuine insight and authentic actualization of insightful living.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

arry,

Most of my practice consists of trying to cultivate my better self-mind-heart. I think that is what is traditionally called "Samatha" -- I do not have a good English term.

I think the other part, "Insight" might best involve skepticism but not cynicism. The latter is IMO, negative superstition.

Put another way, maybe one should have faith but not fanaticism and superstition. IMO, the true detached skeptic should be open to the unexpected with no preconception.

robin

Thanks for the reply Ryuei. Just a quick note: William James had many philosophical detractors (see for example Bertrand Russell's scathing critique) and pragmatism in general, though it seems to resurface in slightly different form every few decades, has never gained much philosophical currency.

To me this has always led back to an attempt at understanding the function of religious metaphor and symbol. No religion I know of can stand its ground against a thorough rational deconstruction, but the irony is that the more highly symbolic expressions of religion are the more compelling in the age of reason, hence the appeal of religious "conservatism" of all stripes in our time.

Rationalists find this phenomenon confounding, but they are missing the main points because they are "thinking in the wrong language." Paul Ricouer's work is a difficult but rewarding study in this area.

My wife reminds me not to love or hate anything that can't return the sentiment. It is a clear indication that we are projecting. (I swear chocolate cake follows me around like a puppy dog!)

You could include these personality characteristics in any type of group catagory - from Charlie Manson's band of creeps to the Federal Government. I don't think this is exclusive or intrinsic to religion or religious organizations.

Do we hate people with mental disorders? I hate violence, something I associate with mental disorders, especially when that violence is not in someone's self-defense. Is it ever necessary or good or even neutral? Nansen did kill the poor cat. What did you have for lunch today, could it have ever run away from you? Is violence against life occuring now within your body? Is that a mental disorder? (Enough of this!)

Something I love about "Buddhism" as a thing is its nature will discomboobulate attempts to organize it. (Thank you, Gautama.) When it does become well organized it becomes suspect in its actions and future. Herding cats comes to mind, but you CAN herd cats with when you know the trick: cat food.

Hi Kent,
Good points.

About Buddhism not being well organized though I have a different view of that. We are just finishing reading the Vinaya or monastic rules and procedures part of the Pali Canon for the San Francisco Sutra Salon and the impression I get is that if even half or a quarter of those rules and procedures can be traced back to the lifetime of the Buddha (and all of them are attributed to him, and their connection to the Buddha is as or even more solid than that of the sutras - particularly the Mahayana sutras) then the Sangha was extremely well organized indeed. There is a big however, however.

However, the Budda in the Pali Canon did not (Chinese claims to the contrary) appoint a successor or set up a system of Zen Masters or lamas or tulkus or gurus or anything like that. In fact, the various Sanghas in each local area were fairly autonomous. Also, there was no organizational system for the laity who could learn the Dharma and apply it to their lives as they saw fit. The monks and nuns were not to have any authority over them, but rather lived on the suffrance of the laity. Also, the Buddha did tell Ananda that all the minor rules could be changed or dropped, though the early Sangha (for very sound reasons I think) decided to leave things as they were. Unfortunately what made sense for a local Sangha in that time, no longer makes sense for a worldwide Buddhist monastic order in the modern world. Also, the Dharma does tend to deconstruct itself (as per the parable of the raft, and the teaching of emptiness) so that the Dharma itself does not become an object of clinging. So that also undercuts dogmatism and authoritarianism. So there is quite a bit of openness in Buddhism, but at the same time the Buddha did institute the monastic Sangha complete with a detailed set of rules and procedures so that it could act as a stable base exemplifying the Dharma in the world. As the Buddha said in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, after his passing the the Dharma and the monastic Discipline should become the teacher.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Boy Mike, you really stepped in it this time. Religion and Sanity? Wasn't it Marx who thought religion was the "Opiate" of the people? Isn't it the Lotus Sutra that tells the story of the insane children taking the colorful, odorous and tasty medicine?

I'm sure you've noticed the fact that medicine in the wrong dose is poison? The children self-medicate and they get sick. They follow bad doctors [ignorant or deluded teachers of religion] and they get sicker. Eventually some doctor figures out a "medicine" that won't make them sick. Upaya is about becoming wise enough to mix one's own medicine and when and what to give folks when they are ill. For the skeptical we talk about psychology and healing. For the credulous, attached to provisional Buddhism, we talk about "true master/disciple" and the Dharma. For those attached to Western religion we should talk about the "Law" even "Gods Law."

When oneness with "God" (or heaven) is law and Enlightenment to law we have a Skillfulness that can be the right mix for these people. Sufis for Moslems, Kaballah for Jews, Gnosticism or "Enlightenment" for Christians. As they get more advanced we talk about other things. Then we rise into the aery realms of comprehensive understanding. As messengers all we have to do is find the right language to convince them that their Daddy is dead and they'd better grow up.