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.
Are Buddhists introverts?
lobster
Crusty Veteran
According to this psychologist Buddhism is best suited to the 1 in 4 of us who are introverted ...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-buddha-was-introvert/201311/the-buddha-was-introvert
Is meditation unsuitable for extroverts?
1
Comments
I've come across a few people over the years that I reckon would struggle on a weekend silent retreat.
In fact I think they'd struggle on a ten minute silent retreat!
They just need it more.
But it does raise the question of whether particular styles of practice are more suitable for different personality types. Perhaps inward-looking types would benefit from more outward-looking practice?
To use @how term 'path entry points':
For introverts sitting quietly in Buddha like hermit statusque form is reasonably easy, what about our more outgoing dharmaists?
Are they best served by engaged Buddhism?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetsugen_Bernard_Glassman
Introvert Buddhists should be forced to run public classes and go door-knocking to spread the Dharma, it would be good for them.
Extrovert Buddhists should be forced to take a vow of silence.
"Introvert" and "extrovert" don't impress me much. What does impress me is that anyone might feel a sense of dissatisfaction or lack of peace in their lives. If this is, in fact, a more sensible focus point, then it strikes me that a little 'introverted' reflection is necessary. It's the only way I can figure that makes practical sense: If "my life" is the problem, then running around asking someone or something else to fix it can get pretty old -- and prove pretty ineffective -- pretty quickly.
In this sense, so-called altruism simply doesn't work. It can be diverting and it can be socially-applause-worthy, but if the question is "does it nourish an honest peace?" I think the answer is no, however strong the desire to be hoodwinked may be.
I'm not suggesting anyone withdraw into some smug, self-serving cave in the mental Himalayas. I am suggesting that if there is a problem -- any problem -- the first thing anyone with a lick of sense does is to slow down and examine the constituent aspects of that problem. For Buddhists, the upshot may be something called the Eightfold Path. For others, it may just be a series of reminders about the bits of dog shit on anyone's sidewalk... don't step in it.
I just can't see any way around what others may blithely label as "introversion."
Just noodling.
Well this one sure as hell ain't!!
Some are introverts and some are extroverts and some, well we'll just have to figure that one out when we get there.
It would appear there may be just a little bias in that report. Not necessarily conscious, but assumptions made both about the persons and the practice.
Seems that saying you are suited for Buddhism if you are introverted and not so if not is akin to saying mammals can swim if they have fins but not if they don't.
Tell that to Mark Spitz. Tell that to the Aussies. Won't pass muster.
Peace to all
I found out about highly sensitive people (which I think I am) about a year ago. Many of the traits which are attributed to introverts are actually signs of being a highly sensitive person, of which 30% are actually extroverts.
I feel the idea of 'highly sensitive' also has value. Psychology can be a 'path entry point', offering contemporary language and insight into our being and nature.
The question is one of application. What do we extrovert insensitives, or other parts of our being, do to deal with life the universe and everything?
Do we apply a medicine patch if required? Develop a program of self knowledge and unfoldment? Give up? Chant to Santa Claws Buddha? Go inward? Adopt a Bodhisattva? Revert to Catholicism? Remain ignorant? Get on with our lives? Ask Mr Cushion?
I LIKE that lotus!
@lobster's a real extrovert when it comes to meditation cushions
Guess just smile an prove zm wrong.
I used to be like that. I couldn't keep still or keep my mouth shut outside of the AFL stadium
But I found that the more I persevered with it, the more calm I became and the easier I found it to turn my thoughts and concentration inwards.
_ / \ _
Interesting and obvious what @dhammachick says. The path turns us inward. Those more outgoing are turned inward. Those naturally inclined to introspection perhaps have an easier time of it. Perhaps not.
Dharma is a journey inward, part of which becomes expressed outwardly ...
Love these labels.
Put a label on a person and that really hits the mark, don't it?
Psychological profiling is notoriously slippery.
For example, the same person can display wildly different profiles when tested at different times.
Mood, environment, coffee intake, can all affect results.
Hence, "introvert" and "extrovert" are labels to be used with extreme caution.
So in answer to the original question: sometimes.
Nonetheless, the spiritually minded do not relegate fellow human beings to categories.
"Judge not, lest ye be judged." (Label not lest ye be labelled with the same sort of cursory judgement.)
Agghhhh
The same author also wrote another article on which he claims there is no such thing as introverts and extroverts, that we are all a mixture of influences, patterns and energies.
Carl Jung had alteady said there are no pure introvert and extrovert types.
I agree different practices agree better with introverts, while extroverts benefit from practising others, which does not mean they are not cut for the Buddhist path.
After all, if extroverts' besetting sin seems to be their ease for becoming easily distracted by outer stimulation, in the words of the author, introverts are too much in their heads.
Which means that their monkey mind is always on.
I don't think the Buddha was an introvert, at least not a pure type, even if his practice was an inward path.
He led a Sangha, preached publicly to the masses, was always in touch with people, especially influential people, and his presence radiated self-assurance and charisma.
Not to mention he changed the course of history with his philosophy.
An introvert would have been scared to death in his situation.
Good points guys.
I would suggest the persona is fluid, neuroplastic and ultimately empty of qualities. The important thing might be for us dharma types for want of a label, to embrace change.
Many of us mentioning no-names apart from my own, may be holding to a nature, persona type, personality or other encrustation.
... and now back to the unmasking...
Are you conflating introversion with a lack of confidence? I think that's very questionable.
The introvert/extrovert scale is more to do with orientation, inward or outward looking. Meditation is usually inward looking of course.
No, not with lack of confidence, but with comfort mingling with large crowds and adressing them.
Everything is questionable for you, @SpinyNorman, anyway.
No it isn't, I just disagree with what people say sometimes, including you. It is a discussion forum after all. I'm sure you can cope!
You don't discuss. You correct. There'a a difference.
Hey you two, get a room......
He started...
And you are obligated to continue.......?
No.... I just had a boring morning and apparently so did he...
Here is the weird thing. I am quite an introvert. Even holiday celebrations with family members i love and get along with get to be too much after a while. I despise public speaking and use to sweat just asking questions in my college classes.
But. I have no problem talking in front of groups, small or large, when it is a topic I am passionate about and feel confident in my level of knowledge and understanding. I find sharing stuff in that way is more empowering and less draining. It is less of a required social interaction and more of a leadership role, which for me is quite different. It is the forced small talk, the hugs by strangers, the constant noise of the hum of a dozen different conversations going on at one time...it is the bombardment of stimulation that bothers me in crowd situations. But when you are a speaker, in most situations, those things are not going on because people are focused on you. Oddly, I also despite being the center of attention. Yet speaking on particular subjects doesn't bother me at all.
I guess what I am really getting at is, it is the unnecessary stuff that is bothersome. The stuff with no true substance, no important. Just talking for the sake of talking and participating in traditions just because they exist and with no meaning behind it. I want things I do and say to have meaning, and thus when those topics have meaning to me, talking about them in front of groups is a meaningful expression rather than trite conversations.
For me, being an introvert has more to do with what is going on inside me, all the time, and when I am in forced social situations, it takes away from that process. Yes, it is an opportunity to learn and practice, and balance is a must. When something important to me is able to be shared, it still nurtures that inner part of myself, that inward looking personality. Whereas I am not nurtured or nourished at all by the other types of interactions.