Twardon.org  | A. Twardon & Associates | MINDTransActions  InterNETional | Postmodern Psychotherapy | Buddhist Psychology 

MIND is                 Home   |  Buddhist Clinic  |  Mental Health  |  Twardon.org New!

Summer 1999

We live in the century dominated by science and its applications - technology. In a few decades we will be able to effectively manipulate our genetic codes, and hence the life itself, will learn how to control and change, at will,  our states of mind through new advances in molecular neuropsychopharmacology, and will be able to immerse ourselves in computerized virtual realities of our choice, leaving more mundane chores to increasingly more efficacious and omnipresent artificial intelligence tools and robotic appliances. Instantaneous visual-audio global access to any information, person or place anywhere on Earth, via the next generations of the Internet, will be taken for granted. Biological computers and  ultramicrochip-enhanced biological implants will merge technology with brain functions, altering cognition, consciousness and the sense of individual identity. Post-modern (de)constructions of increasingly more complex multiple inter- and intra-personal worlds to live in, combined with gradual popularization and  mass acceptance of quantum physics as the best available description of the reality, will cause a fundamental change, a Copernican-like paradigmatic shift, in our understanding of what is the nature of  the Universe and our place in it.

Both psychology and Buddhism have been involved in this nascent  paradigm, somehow, and this new Millennium may be a good moment in time to comment on the nature of their dialogue with each other.  

Since I have begun to practice psychology and Buddhism,  quite a few years ago by now, I have had an opportunity to learn how Buddhist teachers and psychologists communicate with each other, and to observe some of the most common difficulties they encounter in that communication. Here are some of my thoughts about it.

In general, psychology can be thought of as being about understanding, explaining, predicting and changing behavior. Buddhism, on the other hand, fundamentally,  is concerned with liberation from ignorance and suffering. In spite of these obvious differences in their respectively self-defined subject matters, for the last 150 years or so, Buddhists and "western" psychologists have managed to interact on many levels and a great deal of mutual learning has been taking place. However, some of the communication problems seem to linger in the dialogue, as described below.              

I. Psychologists do not know Buddhism, Buddhists do not understand psychology: the "between-group" problem. 

Mainstream psychologists have only minimal understanding of Buddhism, which they typically perceive, often disparagingly and with a degree of mistrust, as an exotic, esoteric and alien religion or a New Age cult. In general, in most academic and training programs or at professional conferences, psychology of religion, occupies only a  peripheral place  relatively to its more hard-core experimental/cognitive or clinical counterparts. Buddhists terms (i.e. "meditation",  "enlightenment", "nirvana", "satori" etc.) are often used with no or little understanding of their actual meaning. Many psychologists and psychiatrists, even if  involved with Buddhism in some form, have only limited understanding of  differences between various schools (e.g. Mahayana vs. Theravada vs. Pure Land Buddhism, Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, etc.) or stages and/or  types of training. There are only a few  legitimately licensed psychologists (or psychiatrists) who have become authenticated Buddhist teachers. Even those, however, struggle with some of the difficulties listed below which often limits their ability to practice and teach both Buddhism and psychology. 

Correspondingly, even though Buddhism has developed  its own "psychology" (Abbhidharma), most Buddhist teachers have only rudimentary  understanding of  modern Western psychology and its epistemology and often, unknowingly, become entrapped  in the psycho-bubble of "pop psychology" culture. Psychological terms (i.e. "Unconscious", "self", "therapy", "psychoanalysis", "ego", etc) are used  indiscriminately, with little understanding of their intended meaning. Many authentic Buddhist teachers, in their sincere effort to communicate their insights to others, tend to "psychologize" their teachings, unaware that without proper training, they not only bastardize the original terms but also alienate more psychologically-minded audience. In addition, most of  the Buddhist teachers have very limited  knowledge or appreciation of the momentous  influence science, technology and post-modern developments in contemporary culture, art  and philosophy have had on our society, which alienates them from the zeitgeist of the new Millennium lived by so many of their students.

II. Many psychologists do not understand psychology, many Buddhists do not know Buddhism: the "within-group" problem.

There are psychologists and psychologists, and there are Buddhists and Buddhists. As in any area of any expertise, there is a great variation of competence, within their respective groups, among psychologists and Buddhist teachers. As not every artist is Picasso nor every musician Bach, there are great, mediocre and unremarkable psychologists as well as Buddhist teachers. 

Many licensed psychologists have developed only very basic, practical skills necessary to get licensed and to practice the profession. They have no interest or the capacity to venture into more challenging territories. Others became experts in a narrow area, as the demands for specialization within psychology and psychiatry preclude devoting more time to other interests. Only a selected few  have actually explored the nuances of cognitive science of consciousness, psychoanalysis, (de)constructivism and philosophy of the mind which, in their totality, construct a level of understanding not only completely different from the mainstream psychology, but also surprisingly similar to the direct yet subtle and profound teaching of  more complex Madyamika or Yogacara systems of late Mahayana Buddhism ( i.e. Zen, Vajrayana, Tibetan Buddhism). 

Similarly, most of the Buddhist teachers have received mainly a narrow, sectarian training in only one tradition of Buddhism. Often, being the first generation of Western Buddhists, they, as their teachers did,  lack the vocabulary or the language necessary to articulate the teaching in a way acceptable to the Western mind. In a commendable yet somewhat  pressured effort to proselytize, quality is often compromised, and "teaching authorizations" are imparted based on the candidate's loyalty and devotion to the teacher (or an institution) rather than predicated on actual  realization / actualization. The limitations in handling the complexities and nuances of Buddhism as a whole, the Dharma, are particularly apparent among  the pre-Mahayana schools of early Buddhism. In spite of great moral virtue, because of the above limitations, the pre-Mahayana traditions have difficulties in connecting with more sophisticated, post-modern ideas in psychology and contemporary culture. Some of the Mahayana teachers, on the other hand, often lack the intellectual discipline or training necessary for a more rigorous and thorough  investigation of the human mind and psyche demanded by modern (cognitive) science and psychology.

As a result, because of the "within-group" and the "between-group" problems, the quality of the dialogue between Buddhism and psychology is often compromised by the lack of insight, knowledge or language necessary for successful  communication.

III.  Managing the differences

The table below illustrates different ways of how Buddhists and psychologists tend to cope with their differences:

IV. Levels of discourse

Buddhism and psychology have different relationship with each other at different level of discourse. In other words, their relation to each other depends on which of the following aspects of psychology and Buddhism is addressed: (1) philosophy / epistemology; (2) theory / concepts, (3) techniques / applications.

1. philosophy /epistemology

Philosophy of Buddhism and psychology pertains to their  self-defined fundamental place among all other human activities and concerns,  not only as of now, but also in the past and future. 

What is Buddhism? What is psychology? Is Buddhism a religion? A philosophy? A system of knowledge? A way to personal liberation from suffering? Is psychology science? A theory? A system of techniques for changing behavior? What, in general, is the relation between religion and science? Answers and definitions abound, depending on who is answering. There are many schools (versions) of Buddhism and there are many schools of psychology. Any meaningful attempt to compare them must include a decision as to which definition/schools/ versions of psychology and Buddhism are being compared with each other (see table below)   

Epistemology of Buddhism and psychology deals with the nature of each of them as a system of theoretical and practical knowledge, its content, structure, internal organization, basic hypothesis, assumptions, concepts, corollaries, inferences, practices, techniques etc. The table below lists some of the basic epistemological distinctions relevant for any prospective comparison.

2. Theory level deals with more specific approaches to psychology and Buddhism within each domain. As the table below indicates, there are several traditions and schools within psychology and Buddhism and only minimal degree of agreement between them. Again, any meaningful comparison of psychology and Buddhism needs to specify which particular schools /traditions are being compared.

3. The technique level of comparison pertains to actual activities taking place in psychology and Buddhism. Both traditions have developed numerous techniques and one of the approaches might be to look at each technique (e.g. meditation, liturgy, visualizations, etc.) from both perspectives to see how they are understood, both  within each discipline and by the other one.

Copyright © 1999 - 2010 by MIND is | New York City |  All Rights Reserved.  Last updated: Monday, February 18, 2008 05:35:10 PM