The spirit

[Thomas]

Inner work here means facing the shadow side of our selves, the part of us that we often tend to disconnect from.

OK, but it is a perilous undertaking.

And I do wonder whether this focus on the self is too often the cause of the kind of shame blame and self-loathing you speak of? Is there not the risk that 'exorcising one's demons' can actually be 'exercising one's (greater) demons'?

I do wonder whether all this introspection becomes an intellectual exercise?

It's all part of the cult of the person that's so prevalent in the west, isn't it? Maybe that's the point the Dalai Lama was trying to make, perhaps? I mean, what percentage of America is undergoing therapy? Is that a sign of a healthy culture?

I am talking specifically about facing the things about ourselves we would rather disown, or worse, place upon others.

Someone once said that the things we criticise in others are the things we carry in ourselves. Like 'set a thief to catch a thief', I suppose, whereas the 'good person' rarely sees the faults in others, because they don't have them in themselves and are thus blind to them?

It really is a given that to do this kind of work without a teacher or therapist is a sketchy proposition at best.

In the spiritual traditions it's a given that you're kidding yourself if you think you can do it alone.

I still have serious qualms with the damage that religious zealots place upon the shoulders of people. The fallout from this kind of stuff is what nightmares are made of.

In the West, yes ... elsewhere I'm sure other nightmares are more relevant. I'd rather not be a homosexual in Russia just now, or someone just trying to get through the day in Syria, or get my kids a drink of water in Africa ...

I'm not defending the faults of the past (nor present), but I think to lay the blame at the feet of 'religion' is a convenient over-simplification. There are zealots in all walks of life. National Socialism, anyone? Stalinist or Maoist communism? Pol Pot anti-intellectualism?

Or western technology-oriented consumerism? The nightmare there is that we just don't want to see where it's leading us.

It's a question of scale. I'm not playing down the faults and flaws of institutionalised religion, but to say it's the root of all the world's evil is now something of an outworn cliché. Secularism currently wears that crown. So we have to look to ourselves, and beyond our institutions, to see where the real flaws are.

The antiChrist will not manifest as a person, but as a bureaucracy ...

but you must understand that narcissism is really just unrequited self-love.

I do. The point is we love ourselves too much. And we've produced a culture that is dependent on narcissism, try taking that out of the cultural equation.

I have yet to see examples of how popular Christianity has any impact on removing the self-absorption and narcissism in our culture without being twisted into a way to judge and blame others.

I think that's more a reflection of popular culture operating under the guise of religion. When I look at the proliferation of denominations in the United States, 'popular Christianity' to me is primarily a commercial enterprise.

It has not gone unremarked that the same self-absorption and narcissism infecting popular Buddhism, for example. It's a cultural thing, not a religious thing.

When Christianity was declared the religion of the state by Constantine, it faced its biggest challenge since Our Lord wandered into the desert. The people of the day, understandably, saw it as a miracle and their deliverance.

But church and state is always a bad mix.

But at grass roots there are many good and worthy Christians doing good and worthy things, but like the widow and the publican in Luke, they go unnoticed.

In reference to the original question of this thread, the idea is forget oneself and get on with it, and let the Spirit do the rest ...

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I sort of disagree that introspection is a evil, but that might be because it's such a big part of me. I don't know where the line is for being self-centred according to the norm, but for me 'I' am an equally important part in my relationship to someone/something/anything. I am responsible for me, that I function well.

I've noticed a lot of people here talking about ignoring the self and live completely in service of other. This is completely alien to me, and I don't know what the reason could be but I know that it's only a matter of time before I simply break down. I guess that would make my personality a evil in the world, but completely natural to me.

I can see how introspection can lead to self-centredness and simply intellectual, all excess binds us. I personally don't put much weight into what I gleam in the depth of me, I simply question my actions and motives and accept that they aren't always what I would like them to be. There is no shame in being flawed. By simply listening in equal part to others and equal part to the self I believe I can bring something to every encounter.

I want to point out that I serve others when I think it is my time and place to do so, and if my life can save another then that would be a very good trade.

Bla bla bla, sorry I had a lot on my mind.

 

[wil]

I'm headed to a weekend retreat regarding our 'shadow' selves...should be interesting...

One of the funny things about kenosis is the occasional 'looking down the nose' the arrogance of those who say they are doing it against those they perceive as not working on it....some sort of oxymoron self defeating thang is going on....

but yeah, take this cup from me....or fill this cup through me....or allow me to hold this cup so others may drink...when have we not fed you....good stuff for contemplation and introspection...how we act toward our fellow travelers...whatever you have done to others (or not done) you have done to me..

 

[Paladin]

Thomas,

I think perhaps we both are painting with too big a brush. You must understand that I am not unsympathetic to your views, and I think our past conversations would bear that out, but I think we have vastly different views of psychology. The psychologist Jack Engler one said that "you have to be somebody before you are nobody". As a psychologist and teacher of Buddhist meditation, he often opines that students in the west tend to use meditation as a therapy tool, rather than its contextual and traditional use. Engler, and others understood that problems with ego organization inhibited growth.

Understanding the problems that ensue from developmental deficiencies can take a lot of study, but the end result of a person who has difficulties in this area can range from mild neurotic behavior or difficulty with reality testing, to the extreme as in the case of the Newtown shooter. Yes, there are narcissistic people out there who eschew religious discipline out of laziness and a desire to remain "covered", but remember how narcissism develops. Normally it is a developmental problem dating back to early childhood experiences.

This is a psychodynamic view, but there is a huge consensus in the literature over its veracity. The narcissist creates a false persona in lieu of normal ego development and must constantly maintain it in perfect form. The irony here is that while many lay people think narcissism is focusing too much on the self, it is the exact opposite. Narcissists cannot self-introspect, they eschew the practice with a vengeance. It is the false persona that is constantly kept up, maintained and worshiped as they seek approval and admiration like an addict seeks his drug. If, through therapy, one can strip away the layers of this false self, then the spiritual growth that blossoms from a healthy sense of self can begin. Otherwise, even the best religion has to offer is of no use.

 

[Thomas]

I sort of disagree that introspection is a evil

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that at all. It's necessary. Perhaps I'm over-focussing on the 'self' aspect. Remember I was raised a Catholic, taught that we are being watched all the time! . Perhaps it's that in me that's saying "Gimme a break, here!"

In fact, I suppose my dialogue is with a certain Christian mindset. Too much emphasis on sin, and what can result but shame and self-loathing? Not enough honest introspection, and you can end up with wilful ignorance or a Uriah Heep type of pseudo-humility.

But the most effective homilies 'accentuate the positive', as the song goes, and I've seen such in the pew and outside of it. It's very refreshing, in many ways.

I suppose my model would be the meeting of Our Lord and the woman taken in adultery: "Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more." (John 8:10-11). That's about as much inner work as He did.

She, of course, is faced with a different prospect, and she will have to do a lot of introspection...

... but for me 'I' am an equally important part in my relationship to someone/something/anything. I am responsible for me, that I function well.

Agreed.

I've noticed a lot of people here talking about ignoring the self and live completely in service of other. This is completely alien to me, and I don't know what the reason could be but I know that it's only a matter of time before I simply break down. I guess that would make my personality a evil in the world, but completely natural to me.

I think you're being too hard on yourself. I don't accept that altruism is never pure, but there is a line where self-effacement becomes nihilism.

I can see how introspection can lead to self-centredness and simply intellectual, all excess binds us. I personally don't put much weight into what I gleam in the depth of me, I simply question my actions and motives and accept that they aren't always what I would like them to be. There is no shame in being flawed. By simply listening in equal part to others and equal part to the self I believe I can bring something to every encounter.

I think that sums the position up very nicely.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

very good, Thomas, I can see a lot of you in what you write, lots that I like.

 

[Thomas]

I think perhaps we both are painting with too big a brush.

Well I know I am ... apologies for that.

You must understand that I am not unsympathetic to your views, and I think our past conversations would bear that out, but I think we have vastly different views of psychology.

I am far from unsympathetic to yourself, nor to psychology (about which I know very little, and certainly not enough to offer useful criticism).

I probably over-reacted to what I read as a general 'Christianity is a bad thing' which, from our previous discussions, is an unfair reading.

... Jack Engler ... often opines that students in the west tend to use meditation as a therapy tool, rather than its contextual and traditional use.

I agree! I've said the same often, about yoga. I think that's the case with everything, but then again, that points to the debilitating effects of relativism, materialism and consumerism.

BTW, I've just scanned an interview with Engler at tricycle and I found myself saying yes to it. So I'll look some more ... the idea that 'psychic phenomena' is just transient stuff, and no real mark of anything, is exactly what I'm trying to get at. It's Denys Turner's argument (The Darkness of God) that today we pursue 'it' or 'bliss' or 'enlightenment' or 'beatitude' as an experiential goal, where in reality it's nothing of the sort ... and too often it's just commodified religion reduced to psychodynamic technique and nothing to do with 'spirituality' at all.

I suppose I'm echoing Engler's point that 'Enlightenment' is not the goal.

My concern about 'inner work' is when it becomes a modern-day esoterism or gnosis, and the assumption that it's a higher path that only a few may tread ... the older I get, the closer I find myself championing 'everyman', the widow and the publican of Christian Scripture — and I'm sure Buddhism has its equivalents.

If, through therapy, one can strip away the layers of this false self, then the spiritual growth that blossoms from a healthy sense of self can begin. Otherwise, even the best religion has to offer is of no use.

This is where the religiously-inclined hackles tend to rise ... because it seems to assume that without therapy, religion is a hopeless endeavour, or am I reading you wrong again?

 

[Paladin]

Thomas,

This is where the religiously-inclined hackles tend to rise ... because it seems to assume that without therapy, religion is a hopeless endeavor, or am I reading you wrong again?

Well, I wouldn't universalize it like that, it wouldn't be correct to conclude that therapy is always a prerequisite, it is a tool to be used when the situation calls for it. As a matter of fact, I feel it is critical to include spirituality in the counseling process depending on the culture of the client. I see a therapist that has helped me sort out the leftovers from being raised in an abusive environment, something that usually doesn't come up in a religious context. I've practiced religious disciplines for many years and they help me greatly, but they cannot do what therapy does,and conversely, therapy cannot accomplish what religion can do. Epstein, in Thoughts Without a Thinker, goes into this at some length. There are inner wounds that cannot be healed without therapy, just as one must see a medical doctor rather than use faith to cure a disease. This is not intended to replace religion, or be a substitute for it, and many people would be able to overcome anxiety and depression by getting involved in service, and becoming engaged in the group activities churches provide, like community service, or other ways of serving. Part of the problem is the isolation many people suffer from in an individualistic culture such as ours. This is where I feel religion can shine.

 

[wil]

hmmm.....religion as therapeutic....for what ails you, or for what the world imposes?

never quite put it in those terms...but I can clearly see that.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, Well, I wouldn't universalize it like that, it wouldn't be correct to conclude that therapy is always a prerequisite, it is a tool to be used when the situation calls for it.

Ah, thank you for clearing that up for me.

Part of the problem is the isolation many people suffer from in an individualistic culture such as ours.

Indeed. It's curious that in the last couple of weeks I've had a couple of conversations with people who profess not faith nor any particular belief in a God or what-have-you, but lament the loss of the sense of community that traditionally focussed on the parish church.

Not saying here the church is the cure as such. I tend to think (perhaps naively) that in agrarian cultures man saw and sensed himself as part of the scheme of things, even when nature turned against him (and she is and ever was a harsh mistress) ... but industrialisation, urbanisation, and now virtualism removes man from nature, throws him back on himself and heightens the sense of isolation.

(I'm banging the drum for McGilchrists' The Master and His Emissary here!)

Let me be a prophet of doom! Let me say that the virtual worlds in which we find escape and solace are not Edens of our own creation, but mark another stage in our trajectory of exile ...

... which makes it tougher for us, and more work for you! (and vice versa!)

 

[Paladin]

Thomas,
If it weren't for the distance that using an online format entails, I would share with you more about my own journey through religion and eventual therapy, as I think self-disclosure would more precisely convey my thoughts and feelings. I have a never ending admiration and often stand in awe of the spiritual traditions. I think also that the tools of science, in this case psychology, judiciously applied, greatly enhance the overall experience of one's religious practice. I'm often struck by the similarities in effective therapies to religious practice, and personally, my own practice combines the things I learned in therapy with a continuing enjoyment of what you call "self-emptying". My greatest joy, at this stage of my life (53) is the ability to let go of control, and with a healthier sense of self, it is much easier to see just how little "self" there is to what I think of as "me". Does that make any sense?

 

[radarmark]

Indeed. It's curious that in the last couple of weeks I've had a couple of conversations with people who profess not faith nor any particular belief in a God or what-have-you, but lament the loss of the sense of community that traditionally focussed on the parish church.

Not saying here the church is the cure as such. I tend to think (perhaps naively) that in agrarian cultures man saw and sensed himself as part of the scheme of things, even when nature turned against him (and she is and ever was a harsh mistress) ... but industrialisation, urbanisation, and now virtualism removes man from nature, throws him back on himself and heightens the sense of isolation.

Indeed. The loss of community, a sense of awe, and a d!vine connextion is perhaps the hallmark of Modernism. The isolation (perhaps best characterized in Rosenzweig) is the problem to be overcome. Parish church? It works. Native gatherings? They do too. Quaker meetings? Them also.

(I'm banging the drum for McGilchrists' The Master and His Emissary here!)

Let me be a prophet of doom! Let me say that the virtual worlds in which we find escape and solace are not Edens of our own creation, but mark another stage in our trajectory of exile ...

... which makes it tougher for us, and more work for you! (and vice versa!)

McGilchrist has his problems (I find he uses proofs, then ignortes them). But his thesis is quite logical (I just do not like his proofs).
Carson, Midgley, and Grayling in their reviews have a similar problem. But, I think it is just that the subject is so new that a lot of data has not been gathered.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Paladin —
Yes, that all makes a lot of sense, I've got a better picture of where you are now, and I tend to agree with you, more than you might suppose.

 

[Aerist]

The spirit is pure whole body consciousness. There is a white light spirit and a black light spirit. The black light spirit is sexual consciousness. The white light spirit is intellect. Anyone have any insights into this topic?

This quote says more about the personality and culture of the writer than anything/everything else.

While each of us have broadly different background and conceptions of the issue, for me at least, I have problems with someone saying "this way and this way only".

just so.

I understand the sentiment, though I have no data that validates it. It has been my experience that most people eschew honest introspection and baulk at having to do the deep inner work necessary for spiritual and psychological well-being.

Both baulk at it and develop pseudospiritual paths that try and find a way around it. IMO the first step has to be a freeing from the constraints of the personality, the personality with it's so-called dark side is a limit on what can be experienced, and we are after removing limits.

OK, but it is a perilous undertaking.

And I do wonder whether this focus on the self is too often the cause of the kind of shame blame and self-loathing you speak of? Is there not the risk that 'exorcising one's demons' can actually be 'exercising one's (greater) demons'?

I do wonder whether all this introspection becomes an intellectual exercise?

It's all part of the cult of the person that's so prevalent in the west, isn't it? Maybe that's the point the Dalai Lama was trying to make, perhaps? I mean, what percentage of America is undergoing therapy? Is that a sign of a healthy culture?

Don't baulk. It's holding you back.

 

[radarmark]

Aerist... very clear and succinct post!

 

[Thomas]

Don't baulk. It's holding you back.

I'm not 'baulking', I was raising issues with certain assumptions in 'pop' psychology. Paladin has addressed those issues and has given me some useful pointers, but really psychology as such is not my thing.

 

[Thomas]

IMO the first step has to be a freeing from the constraints of the personality, the personality with it's so-called dark side is a limit on what can be experienced, and we are after removing limits.

Well, that really depends on what you mean by 'personality', because definitions vary widely.

 

[Aerist]

I'm not 'baulking', I was raising issues with certain assumptions in 'pop' psychology. Paladin has addressed those issues and has given me some useful pointers, but really psychology as such is not my thing.

Well, that really depends on what you mean by 'personality', because definitions vary widely.

Psychology does not have to become your thing. YOUR psychology, as a westerner, does have to become your thing. The Western path is to purify the personality to allow it to become, in the words of the Western magical tradtion, Excalibur in the hands of King Arthur. The main problem with that is that the personality is expected to do the work on itself, and it isn't keen. In fact I would go so far as to say that our personalities are the main barrier to spiritual realisation. So, an in depth knowledge of our own psychology is a big advantage in workiing out how it might be purified, while minimising getting in it's own way.

Defining "personality" is a really good question. I am not, personally ;D , going to attempt to define it. Instead, here is a pretty comprehensive definition from my favourite spiritual system of development:
Guides to Enlightenment

 

[radarmark]

Interesting thesis, Aerist. My western psychology determines that I must accept a magical path?

I believe this merely forces what Thomas sees as "psychology" into some even more obscure and difficult to discuss realm called "magic".

"Personality" is usually discussed as a complex nexus of attitudes, traits, emotions, and behavior some single individual manifests. The applicability of psychology (as a "Western Science") seems pretty obvious. How does magic apply to this common definition?

 

[Thomas]

Psychology does not have to become your thing. YOUR psychology, as a westerner, does have to become your thing.

I don't know why you would think it a necessity, it patently doesn't. But then it depends on your 'system'.

The Western path is to purify the personality to allow it to become, in the words of the Western magical tradtion, Excalibur in the hands of King Arthur.

Which western magical tradition?

The main problem with that is that the personality is expected to do the work on itself, and it isn't keen.

It depends, as I said, on how you define 'personality'. In the Western metaphysical tradition, 'personality' does not refer to the individual ego, nor even the individual as such, but to but to the transcendent and permanent principle of which the individual is a transient and contingent manifestation.

More recently, the term 'personality' has become confused by various commentaries who seem to deploy traditional terminology with precious little understanding of the proper lexical context. The website you reference seems to do just that.

The short answer is the ego is the master of deception when it comes to self-delusion. So the idea that 'one can do it oneself' is patently ridiculous.

In fact I would go so far as to say that our personalities are the main barrier to spiritual realisation.

Assuming you're using 'personality' and 'ego' as interchangeable terms, I might agree, but then that also depends on what you mean by 'spiritual realisation'.

Id you're talking 'spirit', which I would read as one's individual psychic capacity, then the ego can be the principle operator, the 'will to power' that drives one forward.

So, an in depth knowledge of our own psychology is a big advantage in working out how it might be purified, while minimising getting in it's own way.

But 'you' can't do that on 'you'. Such work should only be done under the guidance of another.

And, I would suggest, advising those who you don't know to 'go for it' is unwise, indeed it's reckless.