Are Spiritual Awakenings Actually Psychotic Episode's? - Page 5

Are Spiritual Awakenings Actually Psychotic Episode's?

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65
Thank Tree111Thanks

This is a discussion on Are Spiritual Awakenings Actually Psychotic Episode's? within the General Psychology forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Originally Posted by Veggie It was so random in itself too, and every element seemed to pertain to something that ...

  1. #41

    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie View Post
    It was so random in itself too, and every element seemed to pertain to something that had either just happened to me, was a belief of mine, something special to me, or a fear of mine that I had never taken the time to examine or acknowledge.
    That is something you hear more often. Fear, childhood fear, that comes up during a psychotic episode...and probably spiritual experiences as well (although one could also argue that everything is spiritual, but that would become a different discussion entirely). With hindsight I can identify a few fears I did not deal with in this life or others. Weird, huh.

    You asked about shadows - I felt connected to a trickster, shapeshifting energy, and while I can identify with that to an extent, I've tried to be more transparent.
    So that would be a shadow side of your personality I'd say. For me I was confronted with fears I put in my shadow but also a Messiah complex. I enjoy helping others, shadow side of that is believing you have to save them....

    I'm still not sure if I just read entirely too much into a coincidence that did in fact just happen on TV (if there's ego death, it's easier to identify with anything probably)
    If there is total ego death there is no sense of I. You, meaning your personality, is gone and therefore you can be anything and probably relate to anything since you are all of it. I felt connected with the ALL. In my native language I said that I was 'all-een' which in this context meant one with all (source/God etc.) In a weird way I experienced unity consciousness......but it wasn't much fun....
    Veggie thanked this post.

  2. #42

    Quote Originally Posted by yippy nr 2 View Post
    I felt connected with the ALL. In my native language I said that I was 'all-een' which in this context meant one with all (source/God etc.) In a weird way I experienced unity consciousness......but it wasn't much fun....
    I felt connected with the few. Many spiritual beliefs are based on eventual detachment (you can just release it all because we are all one!), but I've always wanted to shun that for attachment that I'm confident I have at least some control in (like, I'm not just going to let my cat outside and decide that faith will decide whether she gets hit by a car or not, I'm gonna take some personal action against that happening). I love my family and hope to god that I can continue our relationships into the (an) afterlife, if there is one. I'd felt a more pronounced version of the whole "unity conscious" thing before (ecstasy, shrooms), but it never felt like anything too far beyond my own understanding of the universe (I've always felt fairly "connected"). This did. WHAT IF. They are actually just talking to you from the future or another dimension right now? Or someone else is, but this is all still preserved, and continues to exist somewhere. This isn't "god" but certain individuals?

    One of my fears of the afterlife, since I've been like four, is a bunch of people just suspended in disconnected realities, reveling in the ecstasy of it all! But nothing ever happens, people stop genuinely connecting, and everything is ultimately boring as hell.

    I'm sorry if my thoughts are becoming more disjointed too.

    And very curious - do you relate in any way? I believe you're saying that you didn't find unity consciousness to be much fun?

  3. #43

    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie View Post
    I felt connected with the few. Many spiritual beliefs are based on eventual detachment (you can just release it all because we are all one!), but I've always wanted to shun that for attachment that I'm confident I have at least some control in (like, I'm not just going to let my cat outside and decide that faith will decide whether she gets hit by a car or not, I'm gonna take some personal action against that happening).
    That's how I feel about it too. As a consequence I never completely hand over control of my life to faith, the universe or whatnot.

    When it comes to detachment, even the Buddha did not preach complete detachment. He was an advocate of the middle way. He acknowledged that moderate attachment was very healthy and necesarry. How else would you care for others?

    I love my family and hope to god that I can continue our relationships into the (an) afterlife, if there is one. I'd felt a more pronounced version of the whole "unity conscious" thing before (ecstasy, shrooms), but it never felt like anything too far beyond my own understanding of the universe (I've always felt fairly "connected"). This did. WHAT IF. They are actually just talking to you from the future or another dimension right now? Or someone else is, but this is all still preserved, and continues to exist somewhere. This isn't "god" but certain individuals?

    One of my fears of the afterlife, since I've been like four, is a bunch of people just suspended in disconnected realities, reveling in the ecstasy of it all! But nothing ever happens, people stop genuinely connecting, and everything is ultimately boring as hell.
    I don't think our human minds are capable of understanding the 'afterlife' or higher dimensions. Stuff works completely different there. Also your consciousness is completely different, you might not feel the need to do anything but just exist and you will probably feel connected to everything already...so there won't be any need for connecting through means of conversation.



    And very curious - do you relate in any way? I believe you're saying that you didn't find unity consciousness to be much fun?
    Yeah because I did not know where 'I' was. I lost point of reference of myself. In this dimension you are used to being separate from others which makes losing that point of reference very scary. It can be blissfull if you are in mediation and are being guided by a shaman or priest I am sure, but for me it was just downright scary.
    AnneM thanked this post.

  4. #44

    I've tried to astral project but have had no success so far. I've had experiences where my arms lift up but that's about it.
    AnneM thanked this post.

  5. #45

    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie View Post
    I've come to something similar, in that meaning originates in the heart. But then what when... what it wants goes against what's been deemed morally objective? Are you operating from the illusory self if you deny yourself what the heart wants? Isn't identifying with "good" similar to identifying with "John" ultimately?

    Or are you saying that ultimately you think all of our hearts lead us down the same path and to the same experience of truth if we tap in and listen? Would that still be defined as morality though?

    Interested :) I was someone who cared a lot about moral objectivity and connectivity, so for me, I found freedom in realizing - hey. I really can just make moment to moment decisions without fear. Maybe I'm this archetype one day, this one the next, their morals differ, and... that's fine, depending on my aims and what I've deemed as their worth.
    Just my own opinion of course, but I would analyze this and suggest that the 'freedom' is an healthy thing, a realization of the power of choice, with chaos (desire) showing you the freedom side. But, to me it is overexpressed chaos when you say you can deny what I call healthy fear. As such and especially if this state were preferred as a pattern in a way that actually might suggest you were now leaned towards it as a preference perhaps BY the experience, then I would define your experience as essentially DAMAGING to your free will.

    That is to say healthy fear is healthy and NOT broken. Unhealthy is being quintessentially unable or unwilling to engage a balancing fear.

    This would contribute then to the overexpression of chaos, that being, any sense, incorrect, that morality was itself subjective or relative in truth as opposed to by choice. The point being, there is a right choice despite your 'freedom' in choosing wrongly. Exaltation in the exercise of 'freedom'/chaos, is quite often caused by DAMAGE to the chooser, and nonetheless immoral. I am sure you can locate any number of such scenarios as examples. Likewise, DAMAGE can cause one to overexpress either fear or anger. Personalities can be fundamentally shifted by DAMAGE.

    Desire based thinking and what I call desire based overexpression is immoral in the sense of its lopsided empowerment. All emotions are prone to this, but desire is the most deceptive as it seems life positive and future oriented (because it is) but that is NOT a guarantee of it's being moral, and in fact is a clear indication that balance has been somewhat abandoned.

    Of course it need not be as dire as damage. It can indeed be a new awareness of that flexibility of free will. If you become more aware of the truth, the vast power of choice, that is arguably BETTER, even if you eventually choose immoral paths, BUT ... only if it was an enabling change and not JUST ... DAMAGE ... if you follow. In such a case it would be more like a chiropractor 'adjusting' the bone/ligament firmness, such that more flexibility was obtained, and ostensibly NOT damage per say. What you do with that flexibility would not change either objective moral truth or your burden of choice, only your range of choices. The warning though is that those who experience newfound freedom often choose badly, especially at first, a victim of their own desire immorally expressed. They have to now earn new wisdom (for real) by suffering. As such the 'spiritual awakening' was not as much a change in wisdom as it was a change in awareness and flexibility only. That distinction actually DISQUALIFIES the experience as a typical 'spiritual awakening' in many colloquial senses, because earning wisdom during the process is embedded in the definition.
    Tezyes thanked this post.

  6. #46

    Quote Originally Posted by Eroticarmin View Post
    I've tried to astral project but have had no success so far. I've had experiences where my arms lift up but that's about it.
    Knowing that I am running the risk of sounding like your mom or dad, but....
    MemorableFoolishArawana-small.gif

    Like I said in another topic to someone else, don't vacate your body and leave it open for other energies. There are other ways too 'travel'.
    Eroticarmin and AnneM thanked this post.

  7. #47

    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie View Post
    I've come to something similar, in that meaning originates in the heart. But then what when... what it wants goes against what's been deemed morally objective? Are you operating from the illusory self if you deny yourself what the heart wants? Isn't identifying with "good" similar to identifying with "John" ultimately?

    Or are you saying that ultimately you think all of our hearts lead us down the same path and to the same experience of truth if we tap in and listen? Would that still be defined as morality though?

    Interested :) I was someone who cared a lot about moral objectivity and connectivity, so for me, I found freedom in realizing - hey. I really can just make moment to moment decisions without fear. Maybe I'm this archetype one day, this one the next, their morals differ, and... that's fine, depending on my aims and what I've deemed as their worth.
    I want to start off by saying that Iím not an expert on thistopic. I know some information on it but itís a mix of what Iíve learnedthrough reading, communicating with people, and my personal experience. I alsolike to keep my views on subjects tentative, I donít like to hold onto ideastoo tightly, other than my belief in morality. You have raised a lot of goodquestions.

    I find the concept of the heart fascinating, but it is hardto grasp what it means. What is the heart in your opinion, and what do you meanby meaning originates in the heart; I think I know what you mean but I want tohear your opinion on both of these questions to make sure we are on the samepage. Furthermore, what is meaning? Is it just a feeling, a connection, or isit something else?

    To answer the question, what if what your heart wants goesagainst what is moral I would need to know what you mean by the heart and to begiven an example of the heart wanting what is immoral. Based on what I know, Iwould say that if your heart wants something that goes against what is moral,then you shouldnít listen to your heart. Your question also raised the questionof whether the heart can be fallible. It makes sense, in my opinion that it canbecause in the human body pretty much everything can go wrong in some people.

    If your living based on what your heart wants, then youhavenít gotten rid of the illusory self. You still have desires, so yes if youdeny yourself what the heart wants then you could be operating from theillusory self. I believe once you have reached enlightenment completely you donítuse your heart to make decisions; or perhaps if you do, then you combine itwith reason and donít let yourself be completely ruled by the heart, which Ithink might be similar to someone being high in the feeling function and low inthinking function. Being enlightened is like being a detached observer of theworld. If you are acting based on what your heart says, then you are no longeran observer but are a participant in the world. It makes me wonder whatBuddhists, and other groups that seek enlightenment, think of the heart.

    As for whether identifying with the good is similar toidentifying with oneself, that depends on how one defines the self. Also, itdepends on if the self is synonymous with the good, in other words if peopleísessence is good and moral, which some people believe. You would also have todefine what the good is.

    I think that our hearts can lead people down different paths.Iím currently playing with the idea, after reading something, that peopleíshearts can lead them to find the same truth, but through different experiencesbased on their different personalities. Everyoneís journey is different. Ithink that we all would experience the same truth, but seen from a differentperspectives and perhaps grasped at different levels of depths.

    In what sense, and to what depth, were you interested inconnectivity and in moral objectivity? Iím not sure if it is a good idea forone to change their archetype, morality, and decision making style back andforth day to day, or even at all. How do you even do that? Itís best for thebody and mind to have stability. Also, in my opinion, decision making shouldnítbe an effortless non stressful thing. You should think about the decisions thatyou make in life carefully.

  8. #48

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazuma Ikezawa View Post
    @Convex

    Also, the part of my explanation of mystical experiences where I mention that the mystical experience might support in some interpretations nihilism, is part of the reason why I believe in nihilism and also believe in morality. We were discussing that in the thread about how to be a happy nihilist. It's like your mind(thinking function)thinks and says that it's all subjective and meaningless, but your heart(feeling function) feels and says that there is morality. I combined them so I believe in nihilism, but I also believe in morality. I might even be convinced that morality is objective.
    This text in context of enneagram (type 4) describes the enlightened (or enlightening) as well as desintegrating quality, or attitude towards 'emptiness', which is very much at the core of this type's behavioral perspective (also in how it relates to meaning or (emotional) significance)

    When you speak of illusory self, it implies emptiness of self and perhaps your 'happy nihilism' relates to a positive appraisal of that emptiness of self? (or things in general). In any case you could see it as a spectrum of positive and negative experience and appraisal of emptiness, and this might be useful for differentiation.

    http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/page13.html#FOUR
    Dalien, Kazuma Ikezawa and NewBeginning thanked this post.

  9. #49

    Quote Originally Posted by mimesis View Post
    This text in context of enneagram (type 4) describes the enlightened (or enlightening) as well as desintegrating quality, or attitude towards 'emptiness', which is very much at the core of this type's behavioral perspective (also in how it relates to meaning or (emotional) significance)

    When you speak of illusory self, it implies emptiness of self and perhaps your 'happy nihilism' relates to a positive appraisal of that emptiness of self? (or things in general). In any case you could see it as a spectrum of positive and negative experience and appraisal of emptiness, and this might be useful for differentiation.

    Nine Qualities of the 'Enlightened' Being (Parts 1 through 3): the Enneagram, by John Fudjack
    Sorry for this late response, I'm notoriously bad at remembering to respond to posts on this site and I procrastinate a lot.

    I relate to several things that article says. I also thinkthat I’m an enneagram 4, but sometimes I get typed as an enneagram 5. When itmentions pure awareness, it makes me think of pure consciousness where one hasno thoughts, only the senses and experience. For example, when looking at cloudsin this state one loses the sense of self and almost becomes the clouds; it’skind of like an out of body experience. The idea of unborn mind reminds me ofhow when people are born and start to have memories, like around 2 or 3, theirmind has no concepts of things, no opinions about the world, and no knowledgeor ideas. They see the world in its pure state. Also I can relate to the ideathat being is no thing, and is like a crystal mirror that reflects everything.It makes me think of how the idea that life has no meaning is almost synonymouswith the idea that life has infinite subjective meaning. This is what I mean bymy idea of happy nihilism.


    I haven’t thought much about emptiness in terms of the self,more in terms of the outside world and knowledge of things. I guess that theoutside world and knowledge is equally foreign and empty as the self; do youthink so? In fact, one of the reasons I came to this website is to learn aboutmyself, but now I will start to think of the concept of the emptiness of theself, but regardless of the empty self, personality traits allow people topredict and understand so they are meaningful in that sense. Do you knowanything about the idea of the emptiness of the self? Does it mean that people’sdifferent personalities are empty and illusory, and if so in what sense? Ithink I know what this means but I want to hear you opinion on it. Also why doesthe illusory self imply emptiness of self? Finally what do you mean in yourlast sentence?
    mimesis thanked this post.

  10. #50

    Well I might have a go,
    Iíve spent a bit of time comparing traumatic spiritual awakening to my own traumatic conscious awakening. Most people seem to have a protective barrier around their perception of reality that can allow them to convince themselves that the world is less harsh than reality. This carries an adaptive advantage by reducing stress and tolerating unpleasant group dynamics. Evolution wise, its much better to be part of a poor group than to be alone in the wild. In my case I went from a state of living hell, a husk of a human with almost no perception, to a state of full perception(within mostly our dimension), where I saw unlimited potential within myself, from Christ to Antichrist so to speak, while being in extreme emotional pain and terrified of falling back into my hell. Being an Enneagram 5, with no trust in the teaching of humans, my only option was to search for understanding, which to be honest is starting to resemble a fairly complete picture compared to the jumble of pieces I started with.

    Spiritual awakening has many parallels from what I have seen. Awakening of the mind is simply a matter of increased perception about the nature of the universe. The barriers that stop us from perceiving need to be broken down, and sometimes that process is traumatic. Destruction of part of oneself can also destroy the barriers to perception. If it is traumatic, and you have no one to guide and reassure you, then for all intensive purposes you may as well have a psychosis. Once you understand what it is that your going through, its much easier to deal with the pain. Nowadays, If I fall into a dark emotional place, not only am I not afraid, but I actually use the calmness of the depressive void to have great insight into the workings of the world. It basically suppresses my normal conscious functions, allowing Ni to come to the fore. Its from this that I have been able to figure out enlightenment ect.
    mimesis, Eroticarmin and AnneM thanked this post.


Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] Being called 'crazy' 'psychotic' 'sensitive'
    By Dreamer in forum INFP Forum - The Idealists
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 08-11-2014, 01:55 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-30-2012, 09:34 PM
  3. Nurofen Plus warning over mix-up of painkillers and anti-psychotic drugs
    By skycloud86 in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-27-2011, 03:36 AM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-21-2011, 05:27 PM
  5. [INFP] deemed psychotic
    By ada in forum INFP Forum - The Idealists
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-16-2011, 08:17 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:30 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0