Does Spiritual Enlightenment mean Psychological Maturity?

[Marblehead]

hahahahahahaha......

 

boy do you get pleasure out of playing mind f*ck games.

 

Hehehe.

 

What can I say? I best be silent.

[Apech]

1. Realistic orientation

2. Acceptance of self, others, and the natural world

3. Spontaneity

4. Task orientation, rather than self-preooccupation

5. Sense of privacy

6. Independence

7. Vivid appreciativeness

8. Spirituality that is not necessarily religious in a formal sense.

9. Sense of identity with mankind

10. Feelings of intimacy with a few loved ones

11. Democratic values

12. Recognition of the difference between means and ends

13. Humor that is philosophical rather than hostile

14. Creativeness

15. Nonconformism

 

Just to go back to the original definition and the dreaded list. Does this equal psychological maturity? and is this the same as enlightenment?

 

I have two main problems with the list, one is the phrasing of some of the statements and what they mean seems to me highly subjective. For instance what does 'a few loved ones' mean ... could it be 100 people or just three or four (or in my case one person and two cats???) ... does this make me mature or not. The other is if I take up point 15 ... then I can demonstrate my maturity by not conforming to the rest of the list. This and more particularly his hierarchy of need thing have become like the ten commandments of management speak - a stick to beat us all with. I am sure this is not what he intended. But at practically every management training session I attended they were wheeled out as a kind of gospel truth ... if you disagreed then you were told you were wrong. Sometimes MAD and WRONG (Cat ).

 

My issue with the 'enlightenment' thing is that the term is used in different ways by different people. For instance in the west 'the age of enlightenment' is about scientific progress and nothing to do with spiritual states. I think that people here are refering to some kind of heightened spiritual state gained in deep meditation or other similar practice. Well in my view that is most definitely not enlightenment. Enlightenment to me is typified by the Sage who not only understands the Tao but acts in accordance with it.

[ShaktiMama]

Just to go back to the original definition and the dreaded list. Does this equal psychological maturity? and is this the same as enlightenment?

 

I have two main problems with the list, one is the phrasing of some of the statements and what they mean seems to me highly subjective. For instance what does 'a few loved ones' mean ... could it be 100 people or just three or four (or in my case one person and two cats???) ... does this make me mature or not. The other is if I take up point 15 ... then I can demonstrate my maturity by not conforming to the rest of the list. This and more particularly his hierarchy of need thing have become like the ten commandments of management speak - a stick to beat us all with. I am sure this is not what he intended. But at practically every management training session I attended they were wheeled out as a kind of gospel truth ... if you disagreed then you were told you were wrong. Sometimes MAD and WRONG (Cat ).

 

My issue with the 'enlightenment' thing is that the term is used in different ways by different people. For instance in the west 'the age of enlightenment' is about scientific progress and nothing to do with spiritual states. I think that people here are refering to some kind of heightened spiritual state gained in deep meditation or other similar practice. Well in my view that is most definitely not enlightenment. Enlightenment to me is typified by the Sage who not only understands the Tao but acts in accordance with it.

 

 

 

Apech, like I said I created the list to inspire discussion in a study group I lead online on Thursday nights. The ironic thing is we never discussed the list at all but other things last night although they all had a copy of the list for at least 12 hours.

 

I like you view of the Sage. I definately would agree with that one.

[ShaktiMama]

You first came here with an arrogant "I know" it all attitude.You could heal and teach everybody here.And now you start questioning your own path and even takes seminar with Jenny Lamb.In the end you seem to be just another spiritual nurse having problems with your own progress and then starting to doubt the different stages.

 

I am glad that you have observed that I am very human and still capable of growth and understanding. Over the last two years I have been through a lot. Most things I won't discuss here because it is personal but I will say that about over a year ago I was diagnosed with a severe learning disability. I feel like I have been reborn because it changed my own personal self orientation. Thats why I refer to myself as a broken plate. I still dont have enough to make an empty cup. Probably never will.

 

From day one of being on this list I have never claimed to know it all or that I have ever been questioning my own path. It is interesting how people create an absolute myth about me just from reading my words on this list.

[ShaktiMama]

I'm not saying here that I khow what enlightenment is but I do agree with your first phrase here. Love and security have their roots inside each of us. Nothing from the outside can ever totally fulfill this need.

 

(I'm letting others disagree with you here. Hehehe. I'm just not in a disagreeable mood right now.)

 

 

yes I agree but I have never sagreed that we should look for affirmation of worth, hope, safety, security, etc. outside of ourselves.I used to think that way but that was over 20 years ago.

 

I hope people don't think that is what I am saying or that is what Maslow is saying because that is antithetical to his model of psych wellness and health and antithetical to my own personal understanding of psychological and spiritual growth and wellness.

[ShaktiMama]

i am not weak enough to live my life according to the words of others including Maslow and Freud..

 

you are trying to define what is right or wrong according to the words of others notably Maslow and Freud..

 

i may be stating a lot of strong views in this forum but i don't even expect anyone to follow my views without improving on my views according to each individual circumstances..

 

you are blindly defining what's mature or not according to Maslow and Freud.. that makes you weak..

 

 

 

 

i am glad you dont and neither do I. It is odd that you have fixated on maslow and freud. Do they speak to you in some way? If you are judging me by what I put in the list...did you even notice there were about 20 other writers, philosophers, etc on that list but you choose only to bring up those two names. Why?

 

I dont think your views are strong at all , at least generally. They don't show much depth of understanding or little wisdom of a Sage who has lived a well lived life. Just my observation. I suppose I could say that makes you weak but how would I know? I have never met you in person. You have never even described what weak means to you. For all I know it means you think I cant lift a 60 kilo weight with both arms.

 

as I said about 3 or 4 times already... that list was meant to stimulate discussion in a Thursday night study group I lead. Last night we never discussed the list. We just put it on hold because we wanted to review other things first.

 

obviously the list is stimulating discussion .... well done...

[Marblehead]

yes I agree but I have never sagreed that we should look for affirmation of worth, hope, safety, security, etc. outside of ourselves.I used to think that way but that was over 20 years ago.

 

I hope people don't think that is what I am saying or that is what Maslow is saying because that is antithetical to his model of psych wellness and health and antithetical to my own personal understanding of psychological and spiritual growth and wellness.

 

 

Yeah. Any discussion of 'enlightenment' will be confusing because those of us who do have an opinion of what it is will have "our own" opinion and most likely it will vary from others' opinion.

 

Yes, some things we need in life can be found in the external world but many, if they are going to be long-lasting must be found within.

 

I like the term "self-actualization" and use it often. "Spiritual enlightenment" and "Psychological Maturity" are rather difficult to define let alone agree upon. Actually, I don't even speak about spiritual things that often because it is my understanding that spiritual matters are very personal and will vary widely between individuals.

 

I can't speak to what others believe you are presenting but I think this is an excellent topic for discussion (obvious from the number of posts to the thread) and a concept that many of us need to clarify for ourselves.

 

I think you are doing just fine with the thread and your responses to the various posts and comments. You had to use some base for you discussion and Maslow is just as good as any other. Actually, I think it is one of the better even though I think there are way too many criteria. I like to stick with the three basic needs (food, shelter & security) and then build on them depending on who I am speaking with.

 

I don't see you here pushing any agenda or your opinions on others but rather just sharing your understandings and asking others to share theirs.

 

So, in closing, keep up the good work.

[ShaktiMama]

i cannot make a full diagnosis without talking to him face to face..

 

he might be making a million us dollars a year but what has he lost in the process?..

 

if you can't see the connection between all god and beggar and millionaire.. then you can't see the true nature of the universe..

 

this little bit you wrote really speaks volumes to me about your world orientation and view of reality.

 

He did make a million dollars a year for a couple of years in his business. Then he lost it all and now he is back on the path again of starting all over. He has lost nothing but a million and gained much in awareness and realization. That is priceless.

 

I thought you were ridiculing the concept of ALL GOD a few posts ago and now you are championing it?

[Apech]

 

Apech, like I said I created the list to inspire discussion in a study group I lead online on Thursday nights. The ironic thing is we never discussed the list at all but other things last night although they all had a copy of the list for at least 12 hours.

 

I like you view of the Sage. I definately would agree with that one.

 

Ok I'll drop my obsession with not liking the list. Its not so important.

 

(I have to say I admire the way you are calmly dealing with a couple of attacks on here.)

 

I'm not sure how much the field of psychology has dropped the ideal of being well-adjusted. I saw a BBC programme a couple of years ago where they showed that most people suffer from most of the mental neuroses that doctors like to label at one time or another in their lives. Its normal and quite ok to be affected by life, stressed or whatever as long as it doesn't completely take over our personalities. In fact its part of being human and certainly the hallmark of 'ordinary mind'.

 

If we distinguish ordinary mind from eternal mind (that's my term for now - but I mean the true nature of consciousness itself) - then we go on a quest to discover this eternal mind and view it as a separate state. To get there we have to fight a lot of habitual tendencies and also do a lot of practice. Maybe we get close to it and experience the energy and bliss of that state - but its still separate from us - then perhaps we realise it ... but this is still not enlightenment. Then we work again to discover that that there is no essential difference between this eternal mind and our ordinary consciousness - this is when we are getting close to enlightenment I think.

 

The journey will involve a lot of states which are not what the psychologists would call balanced. We go temporarily crazy or desperate or lost for periods. But to achieve the final goal we have to integrate what we experience into our selves - and this is both spiritual and psychological maturity I think.

[fiveelementtao]

Personally, I have said for years that enlightenment is a cultural myth. Am I right? Don't know.

I would agree. I believe enlightenment to be a process rather than a destination.

 

I work with a lot of n00bs on the path. I have to start with the basics to start them questioning conventional wisdom.

 

Your line of questioning then makes sense. It certainly seems that younger seekers these days do tend to see enlightenment as some sort of end game that involves superhero powers rather than a balanced life... Thanks for the clarification.

[steve]

I dont think so.

 

I assert that psychological maturity is strongly conducive, though perhaps not absolutely essential, to spiritual enlightenment although spiritual enlightenment is not necessary for psychological maturity.

 

edit - given all of the preconceptions and biases associated with the word enlightenment, might it not be useful to use the words spiritual maturity rather than spiritual enlightenment? It's interesting how we tend to use the word enlightenment in the spiritual arena and most folks tend to associate it with an absolute or extreme attainment. An all or none phenomenon. And everyone is so uncertain about what it really means that most tread very gingerly around it.

 

Finding a definition to suit the majority of people is very elusive, so why do we feel so drawn to the word? Why continue to use it? Interestingly, there is no equivalent in the intellectual, psychological, scientific, sociological... realms. Is it because of the inherent ineffable aspect of the spiritual? Is it because we believe in it, that is we fervently hope that it is something that exists? If someone claims to be enlightened - oh my, what a feeding frenzy. How arrogant that sounds. Where does this hangup come from?

Edited May 6, 2011 by steve f

[manitou]

Just to go in a slightly different direction with, the word Enlightenment, just as a word, seems to connotate that we become enlightened OF something. Like our journey is lighter because we no longer have the baggage to carry around.

 

On the front cover of one of Castaneda's book, there is a man walking away from the viewer, not walking on a path but being a couple of feet above it, in the air. He was also radiant, perhaps a more traditional view of enlightenment. But it occurred to me one day, after seeing that cover many times, that he was hovering above the path because he was lighter.

 

Lighter? Enlightened? Enlightened of what?

 

Of structure of any religion?

Of illusion that time is one day after the other?

Of the illusion that we are separate?

 

Might be all three.

Edited May 6, 2011 by manitou

[Enishi]

Leaving aside the issue of superpowers for the moment (imo everyone has some level of skill with telepathy, chi control or conscious influence over their life circumstances, even if they don't utilize it), the impression I have gotten from various Buddhist writers and the traditional descriptions of Enlightenment in other systems is that it entails absolute wisdom and freedom from all forms of character defects. Therefore, by that description, it would seem to me that a fully enlightened individual would be utterly incapable of internally disagreeing with another fully enlightened individual on, say, politics or cultural issues.

 

What I wonder is if there is indeed no final perfection, only a state wherein one is far more skilled adapting and maintaining balance. I suppose it would be useful as well to differentiate between an Awakening wherein on starts to see the nature of the self, and a "final" enlightened state that implies the aforementioned perfection.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Enishi

[manitou]

Leaving aside the issue of superpowers for the moment (imo everyone has some level of skill with telepathy, chi control or conscious influence over their life circumstances, even if they don't utilize it), the impression I have gotten from various Buddhist writers and the traditional descriptions of Enlightenment in other systems is that it entails absolute wisdom and freedom from all forms of character defects. Therefore, by that description, it would seem to me that a fully enlightened individual would be utterly incapable of internally disagreeing with another fully enlightened individual on, say, politics or cultural issues.

 

What I wonder is if there is indeed no final perfection, only a state wherein one is far more skilled adapting and maintaining balance. I suppose it would be useful as well to differentiate between an Awakening wherein on starts to see the nature of the self, and a "final" enlightened state that implies the aforementioned perfection.

 

Interesting.

[steve]

Just to go in a slightly different direction with, the word Enlightenment, just as a word, seems to connotate that we become enlightened OF something. Like our journey is lighter because we no longer have the baggage to carry around.

 

On the front cover of one of Castaneda's book, there is a man walking away from the viewer, not walking on a path but being a couple of feet above it, in the air. He was also radiant, perhaps a more traditional view of enlightenment. But it occurred to me one day, after seeing that cover many times, that he was hovering above the path because he was lighter.

 

Lighter? Enlightened? Enlightened of what?

 

Of structure of any religion?

Of illusion that time is one day after the other?

Of the illusion that we are separate?

 

Might be all three.

Cool perspective...

Perhaps enlightened of the need to continue seeking?

[Aaron]

I assert that psychological maturity is strongly conducive, though perhaps not absolutely essential, to spiritual enlightenment although spiritual enlightenment is not necessary for psychological maturity.

 

edit - given all of the preconceptions and biases associated with the word enlightenment, might it not be useful to use the words spiritual maturity rather than spiritual enlightenment? It's interesting how we tend to use the word enlightenment in the spiritual arena and most folks tend to associate it with an absolute or extreme attainment. An all or none phenomenon. And everyone is so uncertain about what it really means that most tread very gingerly around it.

 

Finding a definition to suit the majority of people is very elusive, so why do we feel so drawn to the word? Why continue to use it? Interestingly, there is no equivalent in the intellectual, psychological, scientific, sociological... realms. Is it because of the inherent ineffable aspect of the spiritual? Is it because we believe in it, that is we fervently hope that it is something that exists? If someone claims to be enlightened - oh my, what a feeding frenzy. How arrogant that sounds. Where does this hangup come from?

 

Hello Steve,

 

I think you make a great point. What are using as a definition of enlightenment?

 

For me enlightened simply means one has a thorough (not complete) knowledge of a topic. In that sense one could ask if having a thorough knowledge (and of course practice) of a specific philosophy means that have also become psychologically mature? I think you are right, that in most cases someone who has achieved this degree of awareness will be more psychologically mature than others, but I don't believe that it removes ones deeper character defects, as I mentioned elsewhere, it just allows one to be more aware and hopefully more capable of diminishing that defect.

 

Aaron

Edited May 6, 2011 by Twinner

[steve]

Hello Steve,

 

I think you make a great point. What are using as a definition of enlightenment?

 

For me enlightened simply means one has a thorough (not complete) knowledge of a topic. In that sense one could ask if having a thorough knowledge (and of course practice) of a specific philosophy means that have also become psychologically mature? I think you are right, that in most cases someone who has achieved this degree of awareness will be more psychologically mature than others, but I don't believe that it removes ones deeper character defects, as I mentioned elsewhere, it just allows one to be more aware and hopefully more capable of diminishing that defect.

 

Aaron

Hi Aaron,

When most people refer to enlightenment in the spiritual arena, I think it is something other than "thorough (not complete) knowledge" of the subject. They tend to refer to something very specific but escaping finite and communal definition.

Some state of being, a transcendent condition, and everyone has their own bias or desire as to what it means. I'll first say that I have no idea what it means. There are too many definitions and paradigms and desires and projections and so on...

 

For my own purposes, if I use that term, (and I avoid it strenuously), I am generally referring to a state in which the personal, individual "I" comes into direct, sustained, experiential contact with it's true nature. In plainer terms, perhaps, God lifting her veil and recognizing herself for who she truly is. God is another word I used to avoid and be uncomfortable with because of so many associations and biases, but what the hell? If we're talking enlightenment, why not throw in the G-word for F's sake?

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron,

When most people refer to enlightenment in the spiritual arena, I think it is something other than "thorough (not complete) knowledge" of the subject. They tend to refer to something very specific but escaping finite and communal definition.

Some state of being, a transcendent condition, and everyone has their own bias or desire as to what it means. I'll first say that I have no idea what it means. There are too many definitions and paradigms and desires and projections and so on...

 

For my own purposes, if I use that term, (and I avoid it strenuously), I am generally referring to a state in which the personal, individual "I" comes into direct, sustained, experiential contact with it's true nature. In plainer terms, perhaps, God lifting her veil and recognizing herself for who she truly is. God is another word I used to avoid and be uncomfortable with because of so many associations and biases, but what the hell? If we're talking enlightenment, why not throw in the G-word for F's sake?

 

Hello Steve,

 

I understand. In the last few days I've become reticent to define it as well. It seems like, as you've stated, people have these concrete ideas and if you propose something different they can oftentimes take it as an affront to their belief systems. I'm beginning to wonder if enlightenment exists as well, at least whether or not we can transcend the individual "I" and actually become "God". I think that for me it's that we become aware that we are "God", but the bodies that we reside within and the mind residing within the body are infinitely tied to this world and hence, unable to fully comprehend the "God" that we truly are. I think we can come close though.

 

Aaron

[Friend]

Edited November 16, 2011 by Friend

[ShaktiMama]

[Friend]

Edited November 16, 2011 by Friend

[ShaktiMama]

oh my....just to stir the pot some more...

In the earliest accounts, Buddha achieved enlightenment by gaining the three types of knowledge: complete knowledge of all his own past lives, of the karma and rebirths of all others, and the Four Noble Truths. Later accounts explain that, with enlightenment, he achieved omniscience.

 

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/teachers/lineage_masters/life_shakyamuni_buddha.html

 

Omniscience. That's a new one for me that I have never heard of omniscience as a quality of enlightenment. So...hmmmm...does that mean then there are qualities or levels of enlightenment.

 

aaagh

 

*pulling her feet up underneath her, with her book and her kittehs, pondering upon the couch*

[Apech]

oh my....just to stir the pot some more...

In the earliest accounts, Buddha achieved enlightenment by gaining the three types of knowledge: complete knowledge of all his own past lives, of the karma and rebirths of all others, and the Four Noble Truths. Later accounts explain that, with enlightenment, he achieved omniscience.

 

http://www.berzinarc...uni_buddha.html

 

Omniscience. That's a new one for me that I have never heard of omniscience as a quality of enlightenment. So...hmmmm...does that mean then there are qualities or levels of enlightenment.

 

aaagh

 

*pulling her feet up underneath her, with her book and her kittehs, pondering upon the couch*

 

I think omniscience here is being used in a specific way to mean being able to see through to the reality behind all things. Specifically being able to see the emptiness of all forms. It is not omniscience in the sense of knowing everything such as who won the superbowl in 1976 or what is the capital of Estonia or whatever.

[Marblehead]

Specifically being able to see the emptiness of all forms.

 

You stop that!!! Hehehe. There is fullness in all forms!

 

The Manifest is just as real as is the Mystery.

[ShaktiMama]

I think omniscience here is being used in a specific way to mean being able to see through to the reality behind all things. Specifically being able to see the emptiness of all forms. It is not omniscience in the sense of knowing everything such as who won the superbowl in 1976 or what is the capital of Estonia or whatever.

 

there was a period of of time when my kundalini was coursing through my body that I had momentary periods of omniscience:

 

I could see every being in the universe, and hear their thoughts all at once and understood what they were thinking. Now that was an awesome siddhi. No, it was very temporary and sporadic.

 

did that mean I was enlightened? probably, mostly like not because I was so poor then that I would have desires of picking winning lottery numbers during this time.

 

my physical needs for food and shelter were certainly more at the forefront then that working for a lofty spiritual attainment.