Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism Requires Maturity
anataman
Who needs a title?Where am I? Veteran
I am only now beginning to understand something about buddhism as religion, philosophy, dialogue and way of life, and it is this:
To understand the real freedom or liberation that buddhism provides requires a maturity of thought and action, and an undertaking that you take responsibility for your actions.
Now I am not going to leave this comment hanging in the air, but I would like to hear your thoughts regarding this statement. Do you agree or disagree with it? Don't be shy, after all you have your own permission and complete freedom to say what you want.
0
Comments
Thanks for the permission, not required.
Yes maturity is required. This is not agist or divisive, it is a simple realisation that we are ALWAYS immature. It is a question of degree.
What you say is exactly right. Responsibility for our thoughts and actions, who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters? Of course not. The butt stops here . . .
I agree but I also think that practice can teach you maturity. People say that I am lot calmer than I used to be since I have been meditating.
I am not sure that people CAN teach us maturity.
But what can happen is that people can model maturity for us.
We can otherwise confuse maturity for other things..mere age, or even cynicism.
In a Buddhist context those people I have met who are mature have given me something to aspire to.
Ah . . . but what IS maturity?
I'll take a shot at it, using examples of my lack of maturity. The ability to delay gratification, and the willingness to take 'the long view', past one's own lifespan if necessary. These two are hand in hand, and not only are they challenges for my impulsive nature, they are cultural challenges (global climate change? why, it's ferty fer degrees in January, what kind of shit is that?)
Knowing that all that glitters is not gold. Probably related inextricably to the first two, above.
Calmness, yes. Impulse control, definitely, back to paragraph one.
Learning that feelings and emotions are not 'marching orders'. Getting to the point one can have a 'feeling' and not act on it (or worry that I will).
These are just a few I can think of, but they seem fairly encompassing.
For me in particular, Buddha's message has given me faith in a long term picture that transcends my little life and transient little being. My angst prior to serious practice was that if all there was was this short pathetic life and this equally if not more pathetic individual existence . . .
I have been here nearly 10 years and I'd be hard put to define maturity vis-a-vis the type required to practise Buddhism.
The gamut of sentiments from all members has at times swung from the extraordinarily sensible, mature and profound to the recklessly juvenile idiotic and puerile.
And I include myself in this assessment.
It does take a certain maturity to truly appreciate the message of the Buddha. A maturity with a positive connotation, such as the ability to take responsibility for one's actions, as you rightly said. Or the acceptance that it is up to us to create our Heaven and Hell, as has been discussed lately in several threads. An openness in our perception that allows us to understand, if not always share, different points of view. An ability to rise above the limitations of our understanding to attain Right Understanding. Plenty of compassion to be patient with other people's and our own shortcomings. An acceptance that some days we'll totally screw it and others we'll make a good difference in someone else's life. Above all, a very positive mindset to tread patiently towards that kind of maturity.
There's a lot of mileage, suffering, laughing, and dialogue with the cushion involved in the process. It takes an eternal pupil attitude with an empty cup in the head to truly savour the benefits of Buddhism.
There are no shortcuts and we never stop learning. Some days are better than others.
But yes, a certain maturity is required, otherwise people turn Buddhism into whatever they want it to be except what it is.
i don't think so.
i think that every religion leads to maturity, if it is religion at the first place and if it is followed completely.
I don't think anyone has implied that only Buddhism requires maturity.
what i said was that Buddhism requires maturity is not the case, rather Buddhism and all other religions lead to maturity. so maturity is not the initial pre-requisite, rather it comes as a by-product in trying to achieve the end-goal of that religion, by practising that religion.
I don't agree. It takes a level of maturity to align one's self with a calling; how that person directs that maturity and develops it, will demonstrate the capability of that person to practise either immaturely or more maturely.
I know some people who would call themselves devout and serious but who show remarkable immaturity in how they manifest it.
Once more, we probably need to define maturity. And that might prove difficult.
I can give an example of someone I consider to be a model of maturity.
The late Ajahn Anando, former abbott of Chithurst.
He embodied many of the virtues which are lauded in Buddhism ( and this thread is in a forum called New Buddhist
)
He in particular was a model of equanimity upekkha. He treated everyone the same..with courtesy and kindness and good humour. He was never fazed even in the face of negativity and illness.
He had an uncanny way of putting his finger on the crux of the matter, and responding with complete appropriateness.
He was prepared to say outright that he had misunderstood a point or situation.
He made the person he was addressing or listening to feel valued.
He did not engage with them in order to make his own point and defend it.
He said what he actually thought, if invited to. He did not displace his emotions or duck giving clear feedback, but always with positive regard.
He was witty and amusing but never at the expense of others.
He was brave in the face of his final illness. He had been wounded in the Vietnam War and eventually the site of his wound became malignant and he died aged 48 ,showing to the end all the same humour and equanimity that had become his trademark.
He was above all warm and loving and deeply human.
If immature mean "undeveloped", then yes I would agree to:
That maturity, AKA development, is required.
Maturity is not always a given, and certainly not a requisite to practise Buddhism.
But I think what @anataman meant, was rather maturity to understand the freedom that Buddhism entails.
We all go through the whole spectrum that you have described in different threads on different days.
But the message of the Buddha can sound quite distorted over the cacophony of different voices and experiences.
Pema Chodron wrote a book entitled, "Start Where You Are". It's not "Start When You've Achieved A Level Of Maturity".
Back in the '70s, Ani Pema was working with her Guru, Chogyam Trungpa, to bring Buddhism to the west. The vast majority of their students were young. College age or even younger (Diana Mukpo was 16 when she became a Buddhist). They were young, impetuous and made a lot of silly mistakes in life as the young are wont to do. They weren't particularly mature, but they still grew up. They matured with the Dharma.
Maybe "maturity," whatever that is, is just the recognition that "immaturity," whatever that is, doesn't work.
>
One would presume that in order to appreciate such counsel, there would indeed be an adequate modicum of maturity already in place, or else one may not even bother to open the book at all...
I equate immaturity with selfishness and maturity with selflessness.
A sincere Buddhist practice is the journey from the former towards the latter.
One needs to be careful when saying to take responsibility for your life. Responsibility through an establishment of morality inevitably leads to guild and pain for it is impossible to met with many of these expectations. Responsibility must simply be the knowledge that I have the control unless I let circumstance define me. It must be the acknowledgement that I can choose my direction in will if not in reality. And it is allowing yourself to be aware and to acknowledge who you are in fault and blessings with acceptance.
You have the control ?
I don't think so.
You did not choose your birth, gender, genes, nationality..
If you had to breath consciously you would die as soon as you fell asleep..
Likewise with your digestion, cell replacement, and elimination.
We maintain the illusion of control...we cannot bear to contemplate the reality.
Maturity? Perhaps. It certainly takes interest and interest can arise from maturity, but not neccessarily.
Start Where You Are was the first book on Buddhism I read. I was in my late 40s at the time. It could be said that by virtue of age, I possessed a certain maturity and perhaps that led to my reading. Some would say it was karma.
To want to follow the path you first must realise the first noble truth, the truth of the unsatisfactoriness of life. For most of us that takes a few years of rushing around trying this and that and finding nothing satisfies. So maybe that is a sort of maturity.
I did not come to my conclusions through the guidance of Buddhism but in some aspects I recognized the truths within myself and provided my own name for them. The 'control of will' that I stated is not the control of circumstances but what you might recognize as freeing the true self from the false self. I recognize it as freeing the conciousness from the body. To me the active form of true self is will. The active form of consciousness is will. It is the thing that allows us to deny our desires and observe them and reshape them and define them. It is the observer.
Circumstance can define me that is the physical but it cannot define my true self unles I allow it.
Clearly your conclusions differ in important details from the Buddha's teaching.
>
>
That's a fat lot of help then, isn't it, when YOUR definition differs from our one. You can hardly expect us to know that, and we can only go by what we conventionally know to be the standard and accepted definition...
>
>
Oh for goodness' sake, that's not the discussion here. How have you leapt from maturity in practice to discussing true/false self?
>
>
Off topic. I have no idea what your point is, here....
Please do not assume the worst of me. I am only letting you know so that you may have patience with my miscommunication while I try to learn your definitions and how they relate to my understanding and how they fit within yours. It takes time and it takes failure to learn from.
Why do you refrain defining those differences. I can learn nothing from your conclusions. I need the evidence and understanding that lies within. It seems as if you only care enough to correct me but do not care enough to help to me understand, but perhaps you have other intentions or valid reasons for not bothering to explain....?
I am linking the ideas in a relational form.
Maturity > has responsibility > understanding self and accepting it > willing to change self for better
Accepting in this case is being that you do not deny the truth within and realize only what it is.
That's one way of doing it I suppose but it helps to at least outline your thought process and make others aware of how you get from A to B.
And not everyone will follow your line of thinking.
It depends on an individual's definition of Maturity, responsibility, and even 'self' let alone the understanding of it.
I am not so much ' refraining ' as pointing out that you have come up with your own conclusions which differ from those of the Buddha.
For example, you have used the phrase " real self " several times.
Now this is problematic immediately as the Buddha used the term anatta frequently..
'Atta' is self.... Anatta, which is a key term in Buddhism, means 'no self' as conventionally understood.
So Buddhism does not seek a 'real self '. It looks at why we think we have a self at all..
So it is difficult to reconcile your ideas with what the Buddha taught.
It may be that you need to do some basic reading, and then decide whether Buddhism makes sense to you.
@Grayman said:
>
>
As long as you remember that "the truth within" is only yours and no-one else's.
'what it is' is merely your perception and interpretation.
Yes I agree. It is not truth or false objectivley but a function in the system and we must accept the truth of what that function is within that system.
No, Both. You can't have the latter without the former.
Thank you. You have adquetly defined the key element of our differences and my misunderstanding. I appreciate your help in this. I have some reading to do and then perhaps I will have more questions to be put forth but that is another time and another thread.
You are welcome. Some aspects of Buddhism are counter-intuitive.
Most of we members have been there...
_/_
The defining line if subjective relativism and objectivism is a hard one to define. I see subjective views objectively existing seperarately in each individual but most do not see it that way. They use objectivism to define a single rule that is to held the same against all individuals which denies the validity of subjective relativism. I think we are on agreement on the value of subjective relativism unless I misunderstood what you where trying to correct about my statement.
...and back.:D
@Grayman I have no idea whether you have misunderstood me or not, to be honest....
if I understood what you were talking about I would reply.
I'm not comfortable with such expansive verbosity and I prefer to call a spade a ruddy shovel.
...What did you say...?!
I suppose it is not that important and it is difficult to discribe. It would be easier if I knew your concept of objectivism. People who believe in god, for example, believe that God provides moral objectivity. Others who do not believe in God see morality as being subjective, existing in each of seperarately and they see the objectivity of it as the existence of each moral belief being defined by each individual as a seperate entity. You could look up moral relativism if you did not understand. I am using that concept not just with morality but with the perceptions and understandings themselves.
I most certainly don't believe in God but neither do I see morality in purely subjective terms.
Morality is a social process and a personal one as well. We are conditioned and influenced into certain habits and views by our social environment. Morality is not so easily defined.
Um, Grayman has implied (intentionally or not) that internally he is somewhat asocial. Thus, he sees sociality as subjective, and all subjectivity as an either/or to objectivity. Pure objectivity can be seen as fact only.
He seems to be groping for a way to handle his own subjectivity and attempts at objectivity. Ok (and wise to do), but all definitions are socially made, @Grayman. That seems to be what federica is saying.
Social environments vary from family to family. Thus they are subjective. I myself am somewhat asocial, with a father who was internally asocial somewhat, so I can somewhat empathize with those who are so.
The danger that lurks in considering self thought as either subjective or objective purely, Grayman, is to try to be judge and jury of yourself because it leads to being judge and jury of others if carried too far. Forums, all forums, are wary of arrogance.
I have a mix of lots of vocabulary, but this place is not endowed with lots of folks that do have this.
Grayman, look up monkey mind on the web. Some buddhists take the idea that this realm is of monkeys in essence, because man came from monkey like creatures here in past time. Buddha left this aspect alone, basicly, though some folks seem to have seen that he implied that monkeys have monkey minds and cannot think for themselves in a truely objective fashion. If you want to see how another intellectual who is becoming Buddhist and is not a guru reconciles this, message me directly here. I can offer some intellectual insight, personal, rahter than purely evidenve based.
Now this is the type of' mature' discussion I was hoping to see. I had no idea how it would play out, and for once it did not degenerate (despite the chance it was given) but remained focussed; many thanks to all those who have participated, I have learned much from the preceding dialogue, it may have seemed to open up many cans of worms, but the point is this: Providing you are open and honest with yourself and others in interaction, and can admit you are wrong, then the dialogue has meaning for you and others. Maturity reveals itself in this way. It cannot always be 'verbally' described.
Merci Beaucoup!
^ This. Morality can't just be an individual enterprise, because morality is social in nature. Morality forms where the rubber hits the road, where individuals have to interact with each other in societies.
Moral relativism doesn't mean each person has their own sense of morality (which is true in itself), but rather that any moral sentiment is as good as (no better than) another. That's nuts! A moral relativist wouldn't be able to say that cannibalism was wrong if another society practiced cannibalism; they'd have no way to say anything was "right" or "wrong" because they've given up any ability to judge. (So in practice there actually are very few, if any, moral relativists.)
Most people cite "reasons" for why they think something is right or wrong, which is not moral relativism. While the reasons could include "God said so", they're more likely based on shared human interests, needs and goals. Even the "God said so" camp can change their minds, if their humanity outweighs their need to adhere strictly to scripture. Slavery was both legal and moral in America hundreds of years ago, which is biblically correct, but we overcame our inhumanity (secular and religious alike).
Moral objectivism is easy, because you can just say "God said so" and not worry about it. The practical application of morality to everyday life is, as @federica states, "not so easily defined". It's messy, it's sometimes hard, but the easy way isn't always the right one. Our real problems seem to arise when we're trying to figure out if there are things that are always right or always wrong for all humans everywhere, and that's something we'll be working on for countless centuries into the future (I'm sure).
Morality is relative to harming or not harming. So if you cause harm that is immoral.
Not necessarily. You may be overly narrow in your view of what 'morality' is. It is quite moral to even celebrate human imperfection and the wide range of human experience that leads to such imperfection.
That's a good start in terms of overall attitude toward personal responsibility. Responsibility is a massively complex concept, so complex it usually is a life long effort to flesh it out. I believe the Buddha NAILED personal responsibility in his teachings par none (only because I am not near as familiar with Jesus or other teachers' teachings).
I'd modify your first sentence by saying ". . . that I have CHOICE unless I CHOOSE to let circumstance define me."
We don't have near the control we fantasize we have where we'd like to have control, and have enormous control where we'd rather not have control. OK, that's my life anyway
Again, be willing to consider your view of morality, right and wrong, etc, as being a bit on the narrow side. "Fault", especially, is not so black and white. Be willing to see your conclusions might be incomplete. That's another way of saying what many Zen masters say, "Stay in beginner's mind".
What we want to control is controlling us...
Interjection - there is no controlling force; you are liberated, so what is controlling 'you'
A person in the forum repeatedly mentions the verb "control." He wants to control, he is in control...
My thought is that what this person so much wants to control is in fact controlling him. Or that his illusion of control is controlling him.
Understood @dharmamom...
I will create another thread to discuss the refrinement of morals. Where it is applicable and why it helps simplify life. I will also include a history so you can understand where I am comming from. I dont want to do it here because it moves really far away from the current topic. My stament was rather vague and sounded rather absolute and rejecting of all moral aspects. I want to state it more accurately to what I practice and I see myself very resolute in my moral view while holding some to principles for the sake and comfort of others and the progression of society.
Now to say that Buddhism requires morality would be a cool subject to discuss as well... My opinion is that - it doesn't just require it, it invokes it - but let's not go there now eh!