Do "proper" mystics have Schizoid personality "disorder"?

[Pariah]

Here is a definition of Schizoid personality disorder, according to the DSM-IV (the manual for diagnosing psychological disorders):

The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines schizoid personality disorder as:
A. A pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

1. neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
2. almost always chooses solitary activities
3. has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
4. takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
5. lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
6. appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
7. shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity

In many of the mystic traditions, many of these personality traits are considered ideals, rather than disorders.

1. Do you think the Schizoid personality is a disorder?

2. Do you think such personality traits are a part of many mystical paths? (considered helpful or ideals for "enlightenment" [whatever that may be]?)

 

[Random]

1. neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
2. almost always chooses solitary activities
3. has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
4. takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
5. lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
6. appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
7. shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity

In many of the mystic traditions, many of these personality traits are considered ideals, rather than disorders.

Indeed, I have them all.

1. Do you think the Schizoid personality is a disorder?

It is if it makes you do bad things. The psychiatric equivalent is rarely malevolent.

2. Do you think such personality traits are a part of many mystical paths? (considered helpful or ideals for "enlightenment" [whatever that may be]?)

Mysticism practiced correctly induces a certain type of psychosis. But again, this is not malevolent: it is a state of mind required to pierce the veils that cover everything in this world. You can go crazy, but that doesn't mean you will.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I feel ill-equipped to answer the first question but to the second question my answer is yes with this reservation: Although the description of schizoid personality disorder would seem to fit the behaviour of many mystics such behaviour is typical of only one half of the mystic's journey - the retreat. The other half is about returning and would also seem to fit. Compare: -

The Retreat
The Return

1. neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
1. forms close relationships involving deep intimacy with relative ease

2. almost always chooses solitary activities
2. chooses to integrate themselves within society to help others

3. has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
3. if still young enough to be accessible, may well enter into relationships that can be sexual

4. takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
4. takes pleasure in a wide variety of activities, even those most would find mundane and frustrating

5. lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
5. has many friends and confidants

6. appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
6. is responsive to others and has a strong empathic connection to their needs

7. shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity
7. shows emotional vitality, compassion and sensitivity

 

[YmirGF]

Outstanding Wamper! I hope you don't mind my additions... <evil grin>

The Retreat
The Return
Long after The Return

1. neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
1. forms close relationships involving deep intimacy with relative ease
1. Becomes slightly choosey about relationships to minimize distractions

2. almost always chooses solitary activities
2. chooses to integrate themselves within society to help others
2. As time is sensed as fleeting, alone time is balanced nicely with social activities they tend to revel in either and are easily amused.

3. has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
3. if still young enough to be accessible, may well enter into relationships that can be sexual
3. If not a doddering old fool, prefers sexual intimacy -- we're mystics, not freakin' saints, lol

4. takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
4. takes pleasure in a wide variety of activities, even those most would find mundane and frustrating
4. Literally can perform any task with complete satisfaction knowing each task could be their last.

5. lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
5. has many friends and confidants
5. retains a close circle of friends and confidants as well as a distinct penchant for branching out to total strangers

6. appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
6. is responsive to others and has a strong empathic connection to their needs
6. Learns to be pragmatic and responds however they see fit based on perceived need.

7. shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity
7. shows emotional vitality, compassion and sensitivity
7. Remains distinctly compassionate and sensitive but also realizes time is getting short, so sometimes deems aggressive behavior to be the best medicine.

Again, I really loved your comments Scarlett. They are so very true.

 

[Ozzie]

Here is a definition of Schizoid personality disorder, according to the DSM-IV (the manual for diagnosing psychological disorders):

The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines schizoid personality disorder as:
A. A pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

1. neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
2. almost always chooses solitary activities
3. has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
4. takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
5. lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
6. appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
7. shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity

In many of the mystic traditions, many of these personality traits are considered ideals, rather than disorders.

1. Do you think the Schizoid personality is a disorder?

2. Do you think such personality traits are a part of many mystical paths? (considered helpful or ideals for "enlightenment" [whatever that may be]?)

Anyone using the DSM criteria for diagnosing someone would face presenting symptoms congruent with the criteria (by the time they received the person into their care). I do not want to diminish the criteria but contextualise them. If schism is part of "splitting reality" as I believe it is, the DSM criteria do not apply. Not the least because they are not likely to be presenting to a practioner employing these criteria, but because an individual experiencing these "criteria" in an experiential mode retains their sanity despite the preconceptions and is unlikely to present as schizoid.

 

[joyfulseeker]

This thread caught my attention since I am currently taking an abnormal psychology class. I have often asked myself what metaphysical issues may be involved in various psychiatric diagnoses. An example would be schizophrenics hearing voices. I believe that it is entirely possible that a schizophrenic person who hears voices is hearing real voices, voices of discarnate beings that find it entertaining to mess with people whose psychic filters aren't strong enough to keep them out.

When we discussed personality disorders in class recently I asked my professor a question similar to Pariah's first question. I asked why a person with the characteristics of Schizoid Personality Disorder would necessarily be considered "disordered" rather than simply "unusual." In typical professor-like fashion he referred back to an earlier lecture about "the three D's"--distress, disability, and deviance. (An individual only becomes diagnosable when the levels of distress, disability, and deviance become too high.) He also, very candidly, admitted that in the case of Schizoid and Schizotypal Personality Disorders it is often the distress of the families and not of the patient him/herself that leads the individual into diagnosis and treatment.

My own belief is that if society were more open to differences, more accepting of "deviance," and less fearful in general that there would be many fewer disorders in the DSM and many fewer people diagnosed. I also believe that if metaphysical ideas like past lives and astral plane entities were more widely understood and accepted that we would have much more powerful tools than just drugs and talk therapy to treat some of these conditions.

I love YmirGF and Scarlett's approach to this question with the Retreat/Return. I find your list both accurate and entertaining.

 

[Valjean]

No!
Schizoids are schizoids, not mystics. The awareness of mystics would correspond more to that of a full blown psychotic, not a simple, neurotic schizoid.

 

[danaustin77]

I am a 'full blown pychotic' - I have schizophrenia and I had a kind of experience I haven't been able to explain, and if anyone here can enlighten me I would appreciate it.

I would however like to hear from people who understand about the idea that mental illness is a behavioural condition and not an illness - my experience is posted under 'Mentallly ill or Religious Experience' in the Religious Debate thread.

I think surely my condition is medical and that mental health is not a qsudo-science? I have heard voices, seen film like hallucinations and also had altered states of mind, which medication took away, I was told by my doctor that I could have brain damage if I continued to have relapses, therefore I take it is important that I do stay on the medication.

What does intrigue me is why some people think mental illness is not a condition, I'd just like to learn more about that understanding, and also what exactly happened to me in my relapses, the 'pychotic episodes'.

Thank you.

 

[Alceste]

I would however like to hear from people who understand about the idea that mental illness is a behavioural condition and not an illness ...

What does intrigue me is why some people think mental illness is not a condition, I'd just like to learn more about that understanding, and also what exactly happened to me in my relapses, the 'pychotic episodes'.

Thank you.

I'm not in that group at all, but I do have my suspicions as to why so many people seem to have the impression that mental illness is not a physical condition... They don't understand it and it frightens them.

In a protestant society (ie a society founded on protestant ethics, even when the majority are no longer religious) we value hard work, optimism and conformity. We view these qualities as something that should be possible to maintain even in times of extreme illness, deprivation and distress.

Physical conditions which affect mood, behavior, work and socialization fly in the face of protestant ideals, as well as the Cartesian duality (also religious in origin) of splitting spirit and matter into two tidy, unrelated packages.

The threat of it is this: if the matter you are composed of can have such an impact on your behavior that your personality (ie. spirit) is completely changed, it calls into question whether there is any such thing as a spirit at all. So many people, rather than face that problematic and frightening (to them) suggestion, will opt to assume that the mentally ill are being attention-seeking, selfish, willful and difficult on purpose; that they are suffering from a spiritual rather than a physical illness; that if they would just act normal the "illness" would be cured.

IMO, we should stick with the views of biologists and psychoanalysts on this issue. The relationship between nutrition, exercise, hormonal fluctuations, brain chemistry and behavior is well understood in these sciences and more is learned every day.

With regards to the question of whether mystics are schizoid, I'd say no. The mystical variation on "detachment" is nothing like the psychological disorder of being unable to form attachments. It's about learning to let go of the things we are attached to, so the illusion of possessing something that is gone doesn't cause us to suffer unnecessarily.

The mystical path is often very emotional (at least mine is). The stability / neutrality mystics speak of comes from being able to allow emotions to arise without obstruction and let them go without clinging. The state of "emptiness" is not empty like the inside of a sealed light bulb, stagnant and permanent - it's empty like a cup, continually being emptied and refilled. A mystic identifies with the cup rather than the contents.

 

[Somkid]

I wouldn't venture to say however from my own personal experience the people that I have met that practised (or said they did) any kind of mysticism never seemed quite normal.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
find the topic has been well covered by my enlightened friends.
Just want to add that enlightenment is all about merging and being prceived as a seperate individual by behavioural patterns would mean that there lies a gap in the merging process.
Besides ALL Psychiatirist are studying the behaviour which is MIND related and Mystics are studying Existence which is possible when the MIND is still. The study of the Mystics goes beyond the Mind and Psychiatirist to understand or pass any judgement.
Love & rgds

 

[3.14]

The Retreat
The Return
Long after The Return

1. neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
1. forms close relationships involving deep intimacy with relative ease
1. Becomes slightly choosey about relationships to minimize distractions

2. almost "always" chooses solitary activities
2. chooses to integrate themselves within society to help others
2. As time is sensed as fleeting, alone time is balanced nicely with social activities they tend to revel in either and are easily amused.

3. has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
3. if still young enough to be accessible, may well enter into relationships that can be sexual
3. If not a doddering old fool, prefers sexual intimacy -- we're mystics, not freakin' saints, lol

4. takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
4. takes pleasure in a wide variety of activities, even those most would find mundane and frustrating
4. Literally can perform any task with complete satisfaction knowing each task could be their last.

5. lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
5. has many friends and confidants
5. retains a close circle of friends and confidants as well as a distinct penchant for branching out to total strangers

6. appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
6. is responsive to others and has a strong empathic connection to their needs
6. Learns to be pragmatic and responds however they see fit based on perceived need.

7. shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity
7. shows emotional vitality, compassion and sensitivity
7. Remains distinctly compassionate and sensitive but also realizes time is getting short, so sometimes deems aggressive behavior to be the best medicine.

the ones underlined are my traits,

no problem with those

 

[zenzero]

Friend YmirGF,
Cannot claim Retreating, Returing or long after as they do show a time factor specially your last line where you state about TIME being short deems your behaviour aggressive to similar effect.
To mystics TIME remains frozen as each moment remains as it is; then how can it be short unless you are looking at TIMe as past & Future which is against the Mystics concept of Time being only in the Present.
This is not to undermine your understanding in any respect but only to understand the concept of time better in its proper context.
Love & rgds

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is a 20 minute video about a woman scientist who had a stroke affecting her left brain hemisphere and has recovered sufficiently to describe her initial 'in' and 'out of' body experiences.

" It was as though my consciousness had shifted away from my consciousness of
personality to where a mysterious person was having this experience," she said.
She also couldn't define the boundaries of where her body ended and the things around her began. The molecules of her arm blended with the molecules in the wall. It made her feel enormous and expansive and connected to all of the energy around her, which gave her a sense of peace.
"Imagine what it would feel like to lose thirty-seven years of emotional baggage," she said.

It is quite an amazing story but more importantly, it may throw some light on some of the anomalous states of consciousness experienced by mystics, bi-polar, and other so called mental disorders.

YouTube - How it feels to have a stroke

 

[Daedelus]

I do think there are similarities between mystics and schizoids. There are some potential differences, too. Some mystical experiences or practices can cause a person to develope compassion and a desire to be more involved in life.

 

[zenzero]

FRiend Daedelus,
Welcome to RF.
Firstly to talk about schizoids as a behavioral pattern?
When at the university, personally felt that am not a normal person. Therefore visited a the psychiatry department of the medical college of the university that was studying.
The young doctor asked me as to who said that *You are not noram*, I replied that *None, just a personal feeling*. His reply, * Can anyone including us doctors say, What a is normal scale of behavior? When there is no scale developed to measure normal then how can one state any deviation from normal?

So, this study on schizoid 9is only a study which is trying to categorise human behavior and so bear nothing much to rack this still mind on.

Do find some of my friends who are adding fuel to fire by going deeper into research of the MIND when it is the very MIND which needs to be STILLED for all mystics to be a mystic.
Love & rgds

 

[Metempsychosis]

Mysticism is mastering the MIND.Psychosis is becoming a slave of mind.If anyone practiced mysticism without a guidance ,it can be dangerous.That is not the problem with the science.If u go to space without a spacesuit and get screwed ,thats not a problem with the space.

I have already said, that psycho people and mystics are in the same river ,but one sinks and the other swims.

Now before questioning mystics.I question the materialist..

Do u know anything higher than SEX???????
Is sex not NECROPHILIA?

Why dont dig up the dead bodies and start having sex?They have all the organs....

Really do u like BODY?or do u like LIFE?

First,ur science does not even answer simple paranormal phenomena.If can ur science cant answer these things, then dont question the mystics.If u cannot see the sun at night ,that does not mean sun is not there.

As i always said,psycho people and mystics are in the same river,one sinks and other swims.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Friends,
find the topic has been well covered by my enlightened friends.
Just want to add that enlightenment is all about merging and being prceived as a seperate individual by behavioural patterns would mean that there lies a gap in the merging process.
Besides ALL Psychiatirist are studying the behaviour which is MIND related and Mystics are studying Existence which is possible when the MIND is still. The study of the Mystics goes beyond the Mind and Psychiatirist to understand or pass any judgement.
Love & rgds

True !!!

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I would like to respond to all the above comments due to the difficulty and misunderstanding that modern society's understanding of the nature of mystic experience. If it is a real experience it changes you to the core. I am not a Buddha or a Jivamukti (free while in the body) so as Sankara says only an enlightened master can be truly understand an enlightened master. So my views is just guess work.
I eat, lived around, slept in the same house (at times) and studied at her feet for 7 years. I have seen how she handled stressful situations with others. She never any idea our cared how many people were going to show up for dinner. 5 or 50 see never seemed to care. She would then cook for every one. I have also see her sick and being around people who were just blowing it. She got up at 4 am and did sadhana till 10 am. She told me at one point this was only for the example of others. (I believe she was always in samadhi.) This is amazing due to the fact dinner was at around 10pm and it took her to at least 11:30 many nights to clean up the mess of the 5 course meal (at minimum) she would serve her children. She never took a break or needed one. Life was just bliss for her.

I used to believe that at times she got mad at others. Then over time it became clear it was all an act. One minute she could be mad at some one because they were gossiping about someone else. Next moment she was as happy as could be. Her behavior was only to teach her "Children"
One day we were out side and a mouse ran under her saree. She started to scream and jumped up on a table with a single jump (amazing do to the fact she was in her late 60 s) she then started to hop up and down on the table like a cartoon character. Yelling mouse! mouse!. She then yelled at me why aren't you helping your poor old Mother. I said because I don't believe you are scared of a mouse. She step off the table and said you have found me out. Then talked about all creatures are God.

Life was just a big play ground to her she was our "Mother" but we were also her playmates.

I have also spent time with others who were very far along the path. They had many of the same behavioral characteristics as my "Mother" (Guru) none are as full of love.

 

[no-body]

What does intrigue me is why some people think mental illness is not a condition, I'd just like to learn more about that understanding, and also what exactly happened to me in my relapses, the 'pychotic episodes'.

Thank you.

The simple answer is it's ignorance and a lack of empathy.

People fail to realize that the DSM is a guidebook not a bible, psychiatry/ology is more of an art form than it is a true science, you might have to go through many therapist to find out what's really wrong with you since so many mental disorders share similar traits.

In America at least it also comes down to "I've gone through anxiety/depression/whatever you should be able to pull yourself out by your own bootstraps too without any help"

I don't think Mystics exhibit schizo traits but they do seem mad to "normal" people because they are going outside the norm and living in the now. Where I disagree with mystical people is in that mental disorders are extremes of "normal" being trapped in mind patterns or whatever, some of it is totally chemical and you need to take medication, no amount of praying/meditation/crystals/whatever is going to make you better.