Does Spiritual Enlightenment mean Psychological Maturity?

[deci belle]

[三江源]

there is a thick psychic spiritual shield covering up the spiritual senses of the mundane person unless some UFOs/ETs/Higher beings lift the veils of these spiritual senses..

 

in the process of enlightenment, the main goal is to realize the true nature of the universe and in order to do that, one must cut through such thick psychic spiritual blindfolds..

 

the list of qualities in maslow's definition of maturity hardly applies when one is trying to reach enlightenment.. it is more appropriate as a guide on "how to become a normal member of society"..

 

if you are going to claim that maslow's definition is going to help you become enlightened, then you are very naive indeed..

 

however, i have heard some rumours that a lot of people who have lead normal boring lives according to Maslow's definitions of what is a normal member of society.. such normal members of society are having their spiritual senses opened up by ETs and other higher beings because they are needed in the current spiritual war right now..

 

such normal members of society are given a short-cut to realizing enlightenment because they are deemed "obedient" enough not to abuse their spiritual gifts for their own selfish ends..

 

so those true spiritual practitioners who realize that our entire 3D sense of reality is nothing but an illusion and who rejects the very notions that life is all only about sex, money and family...

 

those particular practitioners will have to go through the more arduous route of opening up one's spiritual senses on his own cos the ones in control think that such people who reject the world view are too immature and rebellious to handle such freebies ..

 

what a sad state of life we live in..

 

bodyoflight, thankyou for responding. I'm thinking you didnt actually read my first post on this thread...

[bodyoflight]

[Aaron]

Does spiritual enlightenment mean psychological maturity? I don't think so, but I think the question should go deeper than that. I think that we should also remember that psychological maturity is examined according to social and cultural mores, so equating the two means that one is actually asking if one who is spiritually enlightened is socially and culturally well adapted.

 

For me the answer is that it doesn't. At least not in the sense that spiritual enlightenment frees us from the constraints of the ego in a psychological and cultural sense. What I'm finding, especially in the last few days, is that spiritual enlightenment is very much defined by the individual. There is no real measuring stick, except the stick that measures it according to some religious or philosophical ideology. In that sense trying to pin down enlightenment is like trying to grab an oiled pig. Yes you might eventually grab it, but good luck holding on. It's slippery and it is constantly fighting you, either with someone else coming along that doesn't agree with an interpretation or simply because it does not seem to fit into some nicely defined niche.

 

I've talked about this elsewhere, the idea that enlightenment or spiritual knowledge and experience, does not ultimately free one from their psychological problems. Some would say a spiritual awakening can, but that isn't entirely true. A spiritual awakening can help you get to the root cause of the problem, but it doesn't remove it, it only can help someone manage it better, if they actually see it as a problem in the first place.

 

I think it is ultimately much more important to examine the self without using yardsticks such as psychology, philosophy, or religion, but rather examining the manifestations of one's own ego at their root. If one can do this, they can understand the nature of their ego and ultimately understand the original nature that resides within them. At that point they can address these issues, but again, they will not be gone, they will just be addressed.

 

The idea that a spiritual force can somehow remove character defects seems to me to be wishful thinking, a product of one who wishes to end suffering so much that they will place blind faith on a process that has no actual basis of proof.

 

Aaron

[bodyoflight]

Does spiritual enlightenment mean psychological maturity? I don't think so, but I think the question should go deeper than that. I think that we should also remember that psychological maturity is examined according to social and cultural mores, so equating the two means that one is actually asking if one who is spiritually enlightened is socially and culturally well adapted.

 

For me the answer is that it doesn't. At least not in the sense that spiritual enlightenment frees us from the constraints of the ego in a psychological and cultural sense. What I'm finding, especially in the last few days, is that spiritual enlightenment is very much defined by the individual. There is no real measuring stick, except the stick that measures it according to some religious or philosophical ideology. In that sense trying to pin down enlightenment is like trying to grab an oiled pig. Yes you might eventually grab it, but good luck holding on. It's slippery and it is constantly fighting you, either with someone else coming along that doesn't agree with an interpretation or simply because it does not seem to fit into some nicely defined niche.

 

I've talked about this elsewhere, the idea that enlightenment or spiritual knowledge and experience, does not ultimately free one from their psychological problems. Some would say a spiritual awakening can, but that isn't entirely true. A spiritual awakening can help you get to the root cause of the problem, but it doesn't remove it, it only can help someone manage it better, if they actually see it as a problem in the first place.

 

I think it is ultimately much more important to examine the self without using yardsticks such as psychology, philosophy, or religion, but rather examining the manifestations of one's own ego at their root. If one can do this, they can understand the nature of their ego and ultimately understand the original nature that resides within them. At that point they can address these issues, but again, they will not be gone, they will just be addressed.

 

The idea that a spiritual force can somehow remove character defects seems to me to be wishful thinking, a product of one who wishes to end suffering so much that they will place blind faith on a process that has no actual basis of proof.

 

Aaron

 

character defects are based on spiritual forces and they can only be removed by spiritual forces..

 

people's definitions of spiritual forces will vary according to their ... realizations..

 

processes which work for many thousands of people in the past constitute the only scientific proof needed..

 

if other people have benefited and progressed by following certain processes and paths, then means those particular processes or paths are valid enough..

Edited May 5, 2011 by bodyoflight

[wearydreamer]

Words mean what you want them to mean. So not sure about your idea of psychological maturity.

Popular choice of words for apparent psychological effects of 'Enlightenment' are bliss and serenity. And i concur.

[Aaron]

character defects are based on spiritual forces and they can only be removed by spiritual forces..

 

people's definitions of spiritual forces will vary according to their ... realizations..

 

processes which work for many thousands of people in the past constitute the only scientific proof needed..

 

if other people have benefited and progressed by following certain processes and paths, then means those particular processes or paths are valid enough..

 

Hello Bodyoflight,

 

I would only ask that you prove this to be true. Give me concrete evidence and I will agree, but so far all you seem to be doing is speculating and making esoteric comments that have no actual basis on fact. Elsewhere I've provided enough actual evidence (imo) to prove that there is no correlation between "enlightenment" and psychological maturity. It's this illusion that perpetrates much of the suffering. We define sins, instill people with guilt, and then direct them as to how to behave to be free of this suffering, whether in this life or next. The fact of the matter is that most people that set themselves up as gurus and teachers are also people that desire a degree of control over others. They choose to exert this control by making lofty claims and then directing people as to how those goals can be achieved. They are using their position to satisfy some deeper need that resides within their ego, a need that is not cleansed from spiritual awareness. In many cases these people use their position as a way to misdirect people. "I am a priest/monk/guru, obviously I'm not a child molester/con-man/sociopath."

 

The people I trust most to teach me a spiritual path are those that are not seeking monetary compensation, do not tell me what to do, but rather share their own experience, and whose practice is defined by a higher virtue, rather than morality and ideology.

 

Aaron

Edited May 5, 2011 by Twinner

[三江源]

(sorry Cat and Shakti ). I am vividly unappreciative of it.

 

good job you apologised, because generally speaking if someone doesnt appreciate what I appreciate, I just believe they are WRONG and probably MAD. In this case I will suspend judgment. For the time being.

[Encephalon]

[Otis]

Does spiritual enlightenment mean psychological maturity? I don't think so, but I think the question should go deeper than that. I think that we should also remember that psychological maturity is examined according to social and cultural mores, so equating the two means that one is actually asking if one who is spiritually enlightened is socially and culturally well adapted.

 

For me the answer is that it doesn't. At least not in the sense that spiritual enlightenment frees us from the constraints of the ego in a psychological and cultural sense. What I'm finding, especially in the last few days, is that spiritual enlightenment is very much defined by the individual. There is no real measuring stick, except the stick that measures it according to some religious or philosophical ideology. In that sense trying to pin down enlightenment is like trying to grab an oiled pig. Yes you might eventually grab it, but good luck holding on. It's slippery and it is constantly fighting you, either with someone else coming along that doesn't agree with an interpretation or simply because it does not seem to fit into some nicely defined niche.

 

I've talked about this elsewhere, the idea that enlightenment or spiritual knowledge and experience, does not ultimately free one from their psychological problems. Some would say a spiritual awakening can, but that isn't entirely true. A spiritual awakening can help you get to the root cause of the problem, but it doesn't remove it, it only can help someone manage it better, if they actually see it as a problem in the first place.

 

I think it is ultimately much more important to examine the self without using yardsticks such as psychology, philosophy, or religion, but rather examining the manifestations of one's own ego at their root. If one can do this, they can understand the nature of their ego and ultimately understand the original nature that resides within them. At that point they can address these issues, but again, they will not be gone, they will just be addressed.

 

The idea that a spiritual force can somehow remove character defects seems to me to be wishful thinking, a product of one who wishes to end suffering so much that they will place blind faith on a process that has no actual basis of proof.

 

Aaron

Excellent!

[Otis]

(double post)

Edited May 5, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

[Encephalon]

Yay! Blasto's back (and tellin' it like it is)!

 

Mucho Gassho!

[Sloppy Zhang]

My concept of enlightenment is that universal realization that you get which lets you get liberated and all that good stuff.

 

Vague, yes. Sure it exists, no.

 

But I find it hard to believe that someone who can escape the bounds of this universe with their realization can be so psychologically, socially, energetically, etc crippled.

 

I don't know if enlightenment or transcendence actually exists.

 

But I do not think that advanced energetic cultivation is enlightenment.

 

I do not think some physical process is enlightenment.

 

I do not think some mental process is enlightenment.

 

I do not think it is anything remotely understandable in those terms.

 

However, that is not to say that I don't think those things aren't good to do for yourself.

[Encephalon]

I am certain of one thing; I am grossly unqualified to hazard a guess. In the body of literature of the last 50 years that constitutes the "east/west dialogue," the main point of entry for Buddhism (the most psychological of the world's wisdom traditions)into Western culture has been psychology, especially psychotherapy. (I think that must be a quote from David Loy, if I'm not mistaken.)

 

Even the dialogue between Western religious thought and psychology has long since revealed a deep consonance between the two --

 

"We need to realize that psychology leads us sooner or later to religious experience, while religion can only be brought home to the individual through essential psychologtical facts." MICHAEL FORDHAM

 

To try and extricate one from the other is not something I could do successfully, but it seems plain enough that the task of eliminating our egocentricity is prerequisite for both enlightenment and psychological maturity, and by egocentricity I mean not only its belligerent manner but in the insidious patterns of depression, weak ego strength, low self-esteem, despondency, hatred turned inward, and any of the thousand hybrid sociopathologies that our culture is currently suffering with.

 

I've met people who can describe brilliant socioeconomic theories replete with mechanisms for social justice and global sustainability... and they can't figure out how to pay the rent. They sound enlightened, but...

[Otis]

Personally, I still see enlightenment (as attainment) as a huge red herring. I see no usefulness, whatsoever, in that concept, but plenty of traps.

 

Even maturity is really just a reflection of my biases: the "mature" person is the one who appears the way I think a mature person should.

 

The word maturation literally means: a process of growing. So one person who has overcome debilitating personal trauma may have undergone incredible maturation, and still not appear the way the concept of "mature" implies. Whereas someone else may have learned to put on an incredible show of appearing to be mature, without having to ever really face adversity.

 

That's why (on another thread), I insist that there is no actual hierarchy of growth or awakening. Because everyone starts from a different place, and everyone has different things to wake up from. Nor will my first awakening be the same as yours, because my context is completely different.

 

The important thing, IMO, is to grow, not to be right.

[ShaktiMama]

[ShaktiMama]

define psychological maturity?

 

the major problem with humanity is that they think everyone must fit in with the group-think or the rebel would be cast out..

 

a spiritually enlightened person doesn't care two hoots about whether others think of him as being psychologically mature in the 3D lower dimensional sense of reality..

 

however, a spiritually unenlightened person whose human ego hasn't been transcended yet would worry about being "psychologically mature"

 

being psychologically mature is very different from psychologically stable..

 

what you are refering to i think is the state of being psychologically stable which has a major influence on the enlightenment process rather than the concept of maturity which differs according to the group, society or country which you belong in

 

that is maslow's definition of psychological maturity. I find it very good.

 

I think spiritually enlightened people do care. Everyone wants to be loved.In fact, according to Maslow, if our love and security needs are not met it is impossible to attain self actualization or what the East might categorizes as enlightenment.

 

no I am referring to psychological maturity which, according to Maslow, 1% of the population are. That is far different than stable. I know what the medical definition of psych stable would entail. "Not a danger to self and others." that leaves a lot of room for crazy and instability.

[ShaktiMama]

the tao that can be explained is not the tao..

 

as it is your concept of enlightenment is pretty immature..

 

so it can't be known intellectually is what you are saying...true?

 

so then it can be felt if not known? Can I experience the tao but I have not a shred of an idea how I can tell you about it?

 

define immaturity.... what do you base that on?

[ShaktiMama]

i concur on everything except point 3...

 

those "masters" have not mastered their human ego yet..

 

the ego was a term coined by Sigmund Freud. There is no scientific proof for the ego but we all talk about it like it is proved and a done deal.

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/oxherd1.htm

 

this to me is a better story of what we are talking about.

[Marblehead]

 

If you enjoy them enough, you won't feel the need to go back to them.

 

This need to re-experience childhood, in my view, is a sign that something was left pending, in that time, some particular knot wasn't properly untied...

 

I feel human experience should feel the same to an old man, don't you think? Say, 'I had the best of everything, for good and for bad, let's move on! What's next?'

 

edit darn 'spells'

 

Valid consideration, I think. But then, I don't agree. Hehehe.

 

Childhood should have been a period of time of a carefree life. All our needs were attended to by our parents. The Sage who lets his/her child out to play is reliving those days, not with the parents providing but rather under the attendance of Tao. All our needs are attended to because we follow the path of Tao.

 

To go back to a time of carefree living is a beautiful thing to be able to do. Afterall, life isn't all that serious so that we have to spend all out time being "grown-up".

 

Oh, sure, we do need to not linger in the past. That is a given. We live for today. But yet we can enjoy today just as much as we enjoyed those day of carefree living. Yes, we must do the work the boss expects of us. But we can make that work fun. Kinda' like that saying, find the work that you would enjoy doing as a hobby and you will never have to work a day in your life.

 

Old man? Ha!!! The only old men (and women) I know are the ones who refuse to be a child anymore. And then they die. I am going to go out fighting - just like a kid on a playgorund.

[Enishi]

IMO the two are separate. As others mentioned, one of the two (psychological maturity) is also culturally relative.

 

I've found that if you research the opinions of those who are said to be enlightened, they still have differing views in regards to things like politics.

 

Even if enlightenment makes it easier for you to work through and let go of core beliefs, I think that one will always have some of them. Even if those beliefs are relative, they are necessary to an extent to function in the physical world. One should just admit to themselves that they never were and never will be right or completely rational about everything and try to make do the best they can.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Enishi

[Marblehead]

Nothing is gained by enlightenment. ...

 

I like that.

[ShaktiMama]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, good start. Perhaps another thread for this when you have time?

 

 

yes...lord willing and the creek don't rise.

[ShaktiMama]

An immature enlightened master? Sounds pretty childish...

 

 

i suppose there is a difference between child like and childish...I know which quality of those two I would like a teacher to have.