Let me connect two traditions that have been very influential in relieving suffering: Buddhism and modern psychotherapy. I shall discuss them in terms of aim, effectiveness and approach. In doing so, I shall show what they share, and also point out where they differ.
The most significant way I shall connect the two is to show that the two traditions have far more agreements than most people think. In fact, they agree so much that I’ve conveniently drawn up a framework by which the two can learn from each other, and therefore improve each one’s own knowledge in the work of relieving suffering.
Aim and Effectiveness
While Buddhism and modern psychotherapy share the aim of relieving suffering, a key difference is the extent and permanency of that relief.
Sigmund Freud famously said that “The aim of psychoanalysis is to relieve people of their neurotic unhappiness so that they can be normally unhappy.” That was more than 100 years ago. Nowadays, psychotherapy does much better, in that it’s able to relieve people of lesser unhappiness. However, it still aims at achieving “normal unhappiness” or “ordinary suffering”. Once this is achieved, the job is considered done, the therapy ends. The effect of the therapy may sustain for a long time, but it’s not meant to be permanent, because modern psychotherapy does not remove the underlying tendencies to recreate suffering.
Buddhism has a far loftier aim: permanent freedom from all suffering, which means it aims to remove the underlying tendencies (anusaya). However, in reality, it mostly hasn’t been that successful. And I’m understating. The reality is even Buddhist teachers do seek psychotherapeutic help to achieve “normal unhappiness”.
Approach
What has been referred to as the “third wave” or “new wave” psychotherapy has been an exciting development in modern psychotherapy, bringing its effectiveness to heights it has never seen before. Modalities of this wave—including ACT, DBT and MBCT—share a new component called mindfulness. Prior to this, all well-regarded modalities already share cognitive and behavioural components. With the addition of mindfulness, adopted from Buddhism, modern psychotherapy now has all three components of Buddhist practice:
|
Cognitive |
≈ |
Paññā |
|
Behavioural |
≈ |
Sīla |
|
Mindfulness |
≈ |
Samādhi (composure/meditation) |
Granted, how these three are understood in each tradition still differ quite a bit, and it’s not just because they differ in their extent and permanency of relief from suffering. E.g., sīla in Buddhism is usually translated as “morality”, which makes it much narrower in meaning compared to “behaviour”. However, the basic meaning of this Pāli word is actually “behaviour”. This makes it the same—at least in meaning of the word—as the behavioural component of modern psychotherapy.
In the work of freeing ourselves from suffering, our change of behaviour needs to go beyond the realm of morality. The work is after all an endeavour for freedom, not a religious devotion. E.g., doing things for others can’t be considered immoral, but for people suffering from issues of submissiveness or self-sacrifice, they need to stop doing things for others when it’s actually sacrificing their own needs.
So, for sīla, just limiting ourselves to moral behaviour simply isn’t enough. We also need to stop (and sometimes start) doing certain things. All these come under behaviour.
Now let’s look at meditation. Modern psychotherapy in general appears to have mixed opinions about Buddhist meditation. While the “third wave” modalities have gone as far as making mindfulness a core component, the larger part of modern psychotherapy is wary about ‘meditation’ as a whole. Some speak of its “dark side”, and some even say it’s dangerous. Most often, it’s regarded as “spiritual bypassing’, a term introduced by John Welwood, a psychotherapist and Buddhist teacher.
While there seems to be a conflict somewhere here, actually there is none. Let me quote a highly respected Buddhist teacher, Ajahn Chah:
That which can be most harmful to the meditator is absorption samādhi (jhāna), the samādhi with deep, sustained calm. This samādhi brings great peace. Where there is peace, there is happiness. When there is happiness, attachment and clinging to that happiness arise. The meditator doesn’t want to contemplate anything else, he just wants to indulge in that pleasant feeling. When we have been practising for a long time we may become adept at entering this samādhi very quickly. As soon as we start to note our meditation object, the mind enters calm, and we don’t want to come out to investigate anything. We just get stuck on that happiness. This is a danger to one who is practising meditation. (From A Taste of Freedom)
Do you now see an agreement between the two traditions?
Now, I understand how some Buddhists (reading the above quote) may squirm in their seats, asking Ajahn Chah said what? Yes, he said that, though in Thai and probably translated by a western disciple.
The fact is there are Buddhists, including Ajahn Chah, who regard absorption practice to be harmful. And generally modern psychotherapists agree. When they regard ‘meditation’ as harmful, this is what they are referring to.
Now let’s go to the last one: wisdom. When it comes to wisdom, Buddhism often speaks of high ideals, such as becoming enlightened. However, for the most part, it lacks wisdom in dealing with common psychological suffering, such as inferiority complex and depression. This kind of suffering is what people are most desiring freedom from, and that modern psychotherapy in general deals with far better.
Take for example someone who was sexually abused as a child, and has become constantly wary of men, thinking that none of them can be trusted. Do we tell her that it's just wrong perception, and that she just needs to know it as it is, and the mind will let go of the perception? I don’t want to say that it has 0% chance of working, but I do think that the chance is as close to 0% as we can possibly get. It takes wisdom to systematically guide her to reassess her perception, so that she can see how it’s not true. Seeing that is a kind of wisdom, which then naturally brings about the letting go. This is done as part of the cognitive component of modern psychotherapy.
Some years ago, I noticed modern psychotherapy adopting another thing from Buddhism, that is telling patients to regard feelings as just feelings, and thoughts as just thoughts. This is part of right view, which is part of the wisdom component of Buddhism.
Learning From Each Other
To improve, we should learn from each other. To find out everything on our own is unintelligent and ineffective. Buddhists learn from Buddhists. Therapists learn from therapists. Psychotherapy has learned from Buddhism, most significantly mindfulness. So, why not Buddhism learn from psychotherapy too?
Some Buddhists may say, “They learn from us because we know better.” This claim is worth looking into, especially the “we” part. Who do we mean by “we”?
When we say “Buddhism”, we’re being general. There are many kinds of Buddhisms, in fact, as many as there are Buddhists, since every Buddhist understands and practises Buddhism differently. It’s the same as every psychotherapist understands and practises psychotherapy differently. When two Buddhists categorically disagree, which happens a lot, one of them must be wrong, if not both. So, again, Who do we mean by “we”?
We Buddhists need to admit that we don’t have the Buddha’s understanding, we don’t have full understanding of the Dhamma. We need to admit that some of what the Buddha taught is lost in history. I dare say some circles of Buddhists even have serious misunderstanding of what the Buddha taught.
We’re lucky enough that Buddhism still has much of what the Buddha taught—my rough estimate: about 80%—plus stuff that he didn’t teach. Without going into details of that, how do we as Buddhists decide which is which?
For me, we should go by principles of the universal Dhamma. Remember: The Dhamma is not the same as Buddhism. How then do we know what’s “Dhamma”? To put it simply, practising the Dhamma ends suffering. So, does our understanding and practice help us to end suffering?
If yes, then for our own good we should live engaging in them. If no, then for our own good we should abandon them. And if an approach found in modern psychotherapy can solve a suffering that our current approach cannot, then why not learn from them? After all, if it does end suffering, it must be going by principles of the Dhamma.
Remember: We take refuge in the Dhamma, not in Buddhism. And we take refuge for the sake of freedom, not for religious devotion. If an approach does end suffering, it must be going by principles of the Dhamma. And so, to that, we take refuge.
The table shown earlier is actually a basic framework with which each tradition can learn from each other. We can compare, fill the gaps, reconsider parts that don’t seem to work well.
Let me end by saying this: Much can be done to improve by being willing to learn from each other. With that, we can all improve on the effectiveness of our work for freedom. So, why not?
Writer's profile: https://justpaste.it/kumara