Why would someone fully realized need therapy ?

FullCircle

Hi guys, so I was wondering... Has anyone seen Shinzen Young videos? I really like him (not totally familiar with all his vocab) - but I remember him saying in one video, how even after his realization(s)- he decided to see a therapist re some particular problem. So I'm sort of curious, how could a therapist (especially one who probably does not have experiential knowledge of realizations) help him? Why wouldnt someone fully realized be able to see thru an addiction or whatever problem? I used to think a full realization would solve all problems but now I don't think I believe that...
And also it sounds like a non-returner has pretty much no more sense desire- so that makes me think someone with an addiction (to whatever, food, smokes, alcohol) wouldnt have a full realization- yet even Nisargardatta continued to smoke..
??
any thoughts? Thanks!

Jeffrey

He might not have full realization.

genkaku

Just because someone walks through an opening in a wall, doesn't mean the wall ceases to exist.

And then there was the tale of the monk whose master certified his understanding... yes, he was enlightened. When the other monks heard the news, they gathered around to congratulate their friend. One of the monks asked, "Well, how is it. Are all your problems resolved?" And the lucky monk replied, "Nope -- same old problems."

FullCircle

>>>"Well, how is it. Are all your problems resolved?" And the lucky monk replied, "Nope -- same old problems." <<<

Well thats a trip! Sheesh I think I'm gonna give up trying!
It really is interesting though, that even though one can see deeply thru the illusion- it doesn't make it all go away...deeply habitual stuff can remain... funny.

genkaku

@FullCircle -- The door that says "entrance" on one side says "exit" on the other.

Songhill

I am not sure that Shinzen Young has taken the lion's roar (proclaimed he is a Buddha). All teachers I have met are generally all-too-human. They have their problems generally around sex and alcohol. I am not going to go into the details, but it's more important not to rely too much on one's teachers. From the Catuhpratisarana Sutra (The Four Reliances) the first reliance with regard to a worthy person is rely on the teaching (dharma) not the worthy person who is teaching. I realize this is difficult for westerners to do, but it has to be done. This avoids even having to judge a teacher like Shinzen Young. I am guessing that he is neither a Jack the Ripper nor a Buddha. Yep, stick with the teaching.

RebeccaS

I don't understand most of the things written here so I'm going to bypass it a little

I think it's cool he's in therapy. It shows that he recognizes he has a problem and that he's doing something about it. I have so much respect for people in therapy, in AA, anyone who has the humility to recognize they need help. Cool stuff.

But I do have to say he doesn't sound like he's fully enlightened/awakened/realized because I can't see someone who is like that needing it. I think enlightenment is full mental well being (how can you have psychological problems with no mind?). Has he said he's enlightened?

Jeffrey

Maybe he just does therapy because it is something to do. Like what if he got a back massage? Maybe an enlightened person doesn't need one, but going for one doesn't have any relationship to enlightenment. I would think he could share his Buddha positivity with the therapist; that's how I sometimes feel with mine, like I am just with him just acting out a dance of love/compassion.

Sabre

Don't know Shinzen Young, but I agree with @Songhill. Check your teachers against the suttas. Don't go the other way around, thinking the teacher is right and something in the suttas must be wrong. Basically the only one we 'need' to assume was enlightened was the Buddha, no need to place any special expectations on any other teachers. (and personally I especially don't do that for lay people - if they would have some realizations they'd try to ordain I think)

DaftChris

I'd say because he is still human...as far as we know.

charirama

Perhaps we are asking this question because we don't understand what it is to be "fully realized" but think that we do.

In our preconceived idea of realization we may not need therapy but until we are there we don't know what it entails.


That being said, I sometimes think that when people need therapy to be able to fit into society it is not because they are out of step with society but the other way around.

Cloud

If "fully realized" means "fully liberated/enlightened", then I don't see why such an individual would ever need any kind of mental therapy whatsoever. Who is to say they are fully liberated to begin with? Have they said this?

BhanteLucky

There was a sutta from the Pali Canon where the Buddha told a story about a female disciple who became a once-returner, and later something bad happened and she got depressed or just sad for some reason, and she stopped eating and wasted away and died.
This seems to me to say that even those well along the path to enlightenment can get depressed or need help.
But non-returners/Arahants are beyond all that I think, otherwise they wouldn't qualify as Arahants.

Cloud

@JamestheGiant, So basically if you're over 50% enlightened you're okay, otherwise you might still have problems.

ThailandTom

This is a really good question IMO, enjoyed reading the replies, especially from genkaku.

PrairieGhost

Fully realised by definition means psychologically healthy. I don't know what else it could mean.

BhanteLucky

@PrairieGhost, there are quite a few different meanings to Enlightened or Fully Realised in different Buddhist traditions, and many of them do not involve good mental health particularly. I'll try to track down a link for you.
EDIT: Yeah, here it is... http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB Models of the Stages of Enlightenment?p_r_p_185834411_title=MCTB Models of the Stages of Enlightenment

Skip down to halfway through that page and there's a list of different models of Enlightenment. Or Elements of Enlightenment.
And on the following pages, he briefly explains 8 or 9 of the ones he thinks are most interesting/plausible.

PrairieGhost

JamestheGiant:

there are quite a few different meanings to Enlightened or Fully Realised in different Buddhist traditions

I think there is one actual meaning but lots of views. I think the basic end of suffering thing isn't really compatible with poor mental health.

I've read the Dharmaoverground models, but I don't see them as authoritative. Thanks for posting them though, it's a good time for me to revisit them.

Cinorjer

Thinking someone who has realized Buddha Nature must not ever need a professional therapist shows you might need to delve into the emptiness of the mind a bit. Would you have the same reaction if he said that he decided to go to the doctor because his back or his knees hurt? Of course not, because that's pain, and even realized Masters are human.

And when you examine yourself with a clear mind, you sometimes see mental wounds and problems that are best handled by someone else.

Anyone who claims he or she is enlightened and therefore perfect with no problems and no effort needed to handle stress is fooling themselves. That way lies danger. One famous Roshi was an obvious alcoholic and admitted drug user, but the people who surrounded and worshipped him excused it because "Hey, he's enlightened and perfect, so it's just crazy wisdom!"

PrairieGhost

Could psychiatric issues be generally connected with confusion about permanence and impermanence?

RebeccaS

PrairieGhost said:

Could psychiatric issues be generally connected with confusion about permanence and impermanence?

I doubt it. They're often to do with the brain itself rather than anything to do with mentation.

seeker242

I would say that Shinzen Young and Nisargardatta were not fully realized. Someone with any kind of addiction is, by definition, not fully realized. They might be 1/2 realized or 3/4 realized, but, by definition, not 100%. However, according to the lotus sutra (forgot which chapter) a person who has some understanding up to a certain level, can still make a very good teacher and teach the dharma correctly, even though they are not fully realized.

FullCircle said:

>>>"Well, how is it. Are all your problems resolved?" And the lucky monk replied, "Nope -- same old problems."

Deeply habitual stuff only remains to the degree in which you don't remove ignorance, greed, hate. If they are completely removed, then it all goes away. Since these are the only causes, it can't be any other way. When the causes are gone, the afflictions that are caused by them, are also gone. It would be impossible for something to stay when the cause of that something is gone. Saying otherwise is like saying a campfire can stay lit after you stop putting wood on it. After you stop putting wood on it, it is guaranteed to go out. For it to stay lit, that would be impossible! If it is still lit, then that is a guarantee that there is still some wood there.

Simply because someone is a teacher or has had their understanding "certified" does not necessarily mean that their fire is completely out. It could easily just mean that their fire is much smaller than that of ordinary people. Even still, a person with a small fire can still be a very good teacher to a person with a big fire.

IMO.

PrairieGhost

Hi RebeccaS

They're often to do with the brain itself rather than anything to do with mentation.

Are the brain and mental processes different?

Could meditation alter the physical brain, or rather could they relate to each other simultaneously?

RebeccaS

Well, if we look at someone suffering from a psychiatric illness we'll often see that the brain's physiology is different, and this difference in physiology is the illness. What we see as illness (for example the delusions prevalent in schizophrenia) is a symptom of that illness.

Studies on monks showed that the actual physical brain can be altered with meditation. To what degree, I don't know. Could meditiation cure illness? I believe that it's possible, but I don't think that someone suffering from illness should stop taking their meds and just meditate, they should continue with their prescribed healthcare plan and meditate alongside it.

One doesn't negate the other, they can work together quite nicely (in my completely non professional opinion). Obviously only a doctor can really answer these questions, I'm just giving a very limited opinion.

poptart

Probably opening a can of worms here, but there are those who see psychiatry as a pseudo-science anyway. Many so-called symptoms of mental illness, eg delusions, obsessive behaviour, disturbed feelings, are manifestations of the very suffering we're trying to escape.

FullCircle

@JamestheGiant - thanks for that link! I needed that article:) I've been getting kind of hung up looking at only the Therevadan path lately- funny cause I recently read some of Daniel Ingrams stuff too but not that article- He makes sense!

and thanks Seeker242- I guess thats possible- but I sure thought Nisargadatta was really well known as being fully realized?!

lol my head is spinning, I think I'm ready to take a break from even thinking about enlightenment:)!

ThailandTom

It has been proven in multiple studies more recently about the power of the mind, it is only now that scientists are starting to realise that there is a lot more than simple thought processes going on up there. The mind has a vast impact on you and your surroundings, everything is mind. And yes I read the Dalai Lama said that scientists have seen that without actually moving or doing anything apart from meditate, one can change the physiology of the brain, I forget the term now but yea, he thinks there needs to be more research done on the subject, and so do I!

caz

No of course they wouldn't.

Cinorjer

PrairieGhost said:

Hi RebeccaS

They're often to do with the brain itself rather than anything to do with mentation.

Are the brain and mental processes different?

Could meditation alter the physical brain, or rather could they relate to each other simultaneously?

The brain is the "form" part of the skandhas. All skandhas work together and effect each other. Like the other skandhas, the brain is constantly changing in reaction to its environment and what the other skandhas are doing.

PrairieGhost

Cinorjer:

The brain is the "form" part of the skandhas.

Dependent origination doesn't mesh with a materialistic view, IMHO. Dependent origination is to me a narrative about experience that indicates the absence of self to the intellect when considered carefully. It's kind of a meme dissolving meme, or a thought dissolving thought, but it isn't an ontological explanation.

taiyaki

You have to look at Shinzen's map and what he defines as fully realized.

Also not all enlightenment is equal. There is a variety of places where people set up camp through actual practice and insight.

Taking Hinayana for example one has to eliminate all the fetters to become an arhat and that is done through renouncing. This is a completely different model then say Vajrayana, where the fetters are transformed.

Of course its not possible to map everything but there is a kind of general map to spiritual awakenings, insights, realizations, etc.

But here is something for you to ponder. Spirituality is not an escapism. One has to deal with all their shit. All of it.

Sile

From Commentary on Shantideva's “A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life”
Chapter 3: Adopting the Spirit of Awakening (Bodhicitta) - Part 3 of 4
by Ven. Thubten Chodron, 19 March 2008:

"Verse 18: May I be a lamp for those who seek light, a bed for those who seek rest, and may I be a servant for all beings who desire a servant.

This is the same kind of thought: “May I become whatever sentient beings need.” We may not have that ability now but after we become arya bodhisattvas, in other words
bodhisattvas who have realized the nature of reality directly, we will have the ability to
emanate many different kinds of forms and we can actually become these kinds of things
for the sentient beings who have the karma to receive them. If sentient beings don’t have
the karma to receive these things then bodhisattvas and Buddhas can’t manifest as them.

But for the sentient beings who have the karma to receive the aid they need, then very
often bodhisattvas can emanate different bodies as either people or even as inanimate
objects for the benefit of those sentient beings." (Chodron)

To me, that would mean that a Buddha absolutely could emanate as Shinzen Young or anyone/anything else. I would question an emanation that is declaring itself to be enlightened; on the other hand, maybe the purpose of that emanation is to encourage me to question it

I think this fact, that Buddhas can manifest as anyone, ends up being a reinforcement--almost a built-in requirement--to never get hung up on the personality or identity of any teacher, but rather judge that teacher by the teachings. In fact, the thought that "anyone could be the Buddha" almost forces you to do this. Because, in the end, we just don't know who that person is or isn't. It doesn't mean you have to stick around and learn from them if they don't sit well with you, but there's also little point in getting carried away with judging them.

The purpose in some schools of seeing the teacher as the Buddha, incidentally, has absolutely zero to do with that specific human being. It is simply a mental tool, for your own mind, to put it in a certain state.

There is no question that many or most of us gravitate towards such things as kindness, thoughtfulness, well-established lineage in which we have developed confidence, etc., and I think any teacher would say that whatever manifestation is most effective, is the one that would be chosen, so that tempts me to think that most Buddhas emanate into such teachers (as well as medicine, food--see Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche, http://bit.ly/SAMmT6)

But that doesn't mean that there is no role for things we see as "negative." I have known people who are very rough on the outside yet devoted themselves completely to saving the lives of others. Appearances are deceiving, and we never know what another being needs in a specific moment, and how it is best delivered to that specific being.

If someone totally turns you off, then definitely look for a different teacher, but there's no point in tearing them down, at least not without a lot of thought and careful analysis, when they may be benefitting someone else immensely.

The Four Noble Truths sound the same whether read by Mother Theresa or a cat burglar. If our emotions about the teacher interfere with our personal progress, it's totally justified to seek a different reader, but imho the difficulty lies mainly in our own minds, and a valid teaching remains valid either way.

I went to a funeral yesterday where the priest's delivery was just--lifeless and perfunctory, I guess, it seemed to me. Really, really off-putting at first. But during the eulogy, he concluded a phrase with "...as we learn to identify ourselves without her physical presence." I've just never heard it put that way before, and thought it was such a beautiful and true concept.

PrairieGhost

Sile:

To me, that would mean that a Buddha absolutely could emanate as Shinzen Young or anyone/anything else. I would question an emanation that is declaring itself to be enlightened; on the other hand, maybe the purpose of that emanation is to encourage me to question it

You've raised a very good point.

As I understand it, we are all fully enlightened Buddhas working for the good of all beings, whether we realise it or not.

When we judge someone else to be enlightened or unenlightened, or sane or crazy, we're not judging them, because they are Buddhas, we are only judging whether they know they are Buddhas. I would question whether that's particularly important for our own path i.e. whether a master has more to teach than a fool.

Cinorjer

PrairieGhost said:

Sile:

To me, that would mean that a Buddha absolutely could emanate as Shinzen Young or anyone/anything else. I would question an emanation that is declaring itself to be enlightened; on the other hand, maybe the purpose of that emanation is to encourage me to question it

You've raised a very good point.

As I understand it, we are all fully enlightened Buddhas working for the good of all beings, whether we realise it or not.

Or as my Grandmother, the first Enlightened being I ever met, liked to say: "Some people were put on this Earth to be a bad example to others."

FoibleFull

Problems do not go away. What goes away is our traditional way of handling them, and these methods are replaced by something that is lighter, more-alive, and freer. The freedom of suffering does not come from doing away with the circumstances, but from doing away with the suffering.

Even the Dalai Lama, who has been practicing Buddhism since he was a child (before that, if you believe he is a reincarnation) ... even he still has desires and preferences, etc.
The difference between him and me is that when he has a desire that he cannot meet, he laughs.
Ever notice how much that man giggles? Seems like a lot of the monks and tulkus I have met laugh often and easily. They carry a lightness and joy with them. And I watch the long-term dharma members in my Center change in that direction more and more with each passing year.

lobster

The Buddha got ill and died. We live in a real world and karma effects us, sometimes we have our karma, sometimes supermans.
The perfect master, the perfectly enlightened, the totally awake is still susceptible to kryptonite. I blame Lex Luthor.
Is it plain? Is it a bird? No it's a man in underpants flying by . . .

zenff

I suppose a rocket-scientist can burn his fingers on the barbeque and an advanced Buddhist practitioner can be a fool on some specific field in his life. If that’s the case it takes courage to seek help. There’s wisdom in acknowledging ones’ own limitations or weaknesses.

The trick in the question is “full realization”. The suggestion is that it’s possible to avoid all mental problems and errors. Not just most of them or the most important ones, but all of them. Or else it would be proof of the imperfection of ones’ realization.

That sets the bar quite high.
I’ll bow to anyone who’s roughly enlightened and allow him/her a mistake or two and some foolishness that isn’t too harmful.