[PapsEdisa]

I think there are aspects of the historical Buddha's teaching that have been downplayed and obscured, although I would hardly blame the psychologists or the self-help arena for this. This process began quite a long time ago, long before the present interest in therapeutic applications of meditation and the New Age market. In an attempt to differentiate Buddhism from the Abrahamic religions as well as the more esoteric and seemingly-occult traditions that fall under the banner-head of "Hinduism", I think people (who, I can't really say, but it began at least in the 19th century) have attempted to gut Buddhism of its cosmology, mythology, and (most egregiously) the worldview in terms of which the Buddha couched his teachings.

I don't personally believe in many aspects of this worldview (literal rebirth and samsara), but the evidence I've seen points to them being an integral part of the historical Buddha's teaching and methodology, rather than extraneous interpolations picked up over the years. There is too much internal logic within the canon and well as a low probability that the Buddha's teaching was so completely unrepresentative of everything going on around him to be able to disregard these aspects.

Thus, we get things like this confounding review for a book in which the author (Rupert Gethin) simply presents what we can know of the teachings of early Buddhism -- a religion which, not surprisingly, has many similarities to other renunciant traditions of the Buddha's milieu. So, in this respect, I do think Buddhism, in its historical context, is not well-known, although, again, I would hardly blame the self-help crowd or psychologists.

If you take most Buddhist teachers and monks nowadays continuously talk about rebirth and morality not specifically the core message. In meditation retreats, the talks and guidance given rarely go further from general day-to-day morality, mental well-being and how to reduce stress etc. Buddhism has become a mode of self-actualization rather than self-liberation.

This is actually in keeping with the Buddha's teaching and the Buddha himself. The Buddha's instructions to laypeople were simple teachings on morality and virtuous living. If you read the suttas, you notice that he had little to no interest in teaching householders to become disillusioned with their worldly lives. In fact, he encouraged laypeople to be prosperous and give give generously. While there are exceptions with some householders said to have attained nibbana, he mostly addressed his most transformative teachings only to those initiated into the renunciant culture.

Why is this? Part of this was pragmatic. He needed to build up an entourage of rich and influential adherents. Thus, for example, we see him currying the favor of King Ajattasattu in the Samannaphala Sutta. In this sutta (like the Kalama Sutta), you see the Buddha being compared to rival philosophers. In this case, however, it was critically important because, if the Buddha could win the patronage of the King, he could count on the generosity of his subjects from wealthy landowners who could give the sangha a place to stay, to the humble farmer who could offer food. If everyone in the village became a renunciant, there would be no one to support the sangha.

Of course, the Buddha probably didn't need to worry about everyone giving up worldly life. Buddhism is an entire lifestyle. It has its roots in the wandering sramana culture of India. It entails a total sacrifice of one's previous identity and a commitment to a spiritual life: a "leaving home and becoming homeless." This is a tradition that still exists today in India. In places like Varanasi and Kurukshetra and Pushkar, and in temples throughout the Indian subcontinent, you will see ascetics. (Yes, the Buddha in the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta warns against the extreme of asceticism, but the sort of "asceticism" he was talking about is something unconscionable to most Westerners today.

Most of us are living relatively cushy lives that the Buddha would have regarded as luxurious and indulgent.) These are people whom most Westerners would have no interest in modeling their lives after, but they are as close as one can come to seeing the Buddha's entourage in flesh and blood in this day and age. As such, Buddhism in its entirety wasn't attractive to most Indians in the Buddha's own time, and it isn't an attractive option for most people today.

So, here we have a population that is not being served by the traditional manifestation of Buddhism: people who might benefit from some of the Buddha's mind-training system, but don't feel compelled to take up the life of a renunciant. Here is where the self-help appropriations of Buddhism and the psychotherapeutic applications of the Buddha's modalities come in. I actually disagree that the therapies are presented under the heading of "Buddhism."

In most cases, I've found they actually go out of their way to differentiate themselves from any religious tradition. As such, you'll find very little mentioned of the Buddha or Buddhism in, say, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy or Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or Dialectical Behavioral Therapy. Most will, of course, acknowledge where the meditation exercises and insights into the mind come from, as a matter of paying respect where it is due, but I haven't read anything to suggest they make any pretense about presenting "the Buddha's message."

In fact, I've actually been continually impressed with the acumen and insight that psychologists like Jack Kornfield and Jon Kabat-Zinn have in gleaning self-contained, user-friendly, and often elegant systems out of the somewhat disjointed, confusing, comprehensive, and intimidating cache of Buddhist meditative practices. I read The Mindful Way through Depression quite astonished at how the authors' meditation instructions were subtle, nuanced adaptations of things found in the suttas and commentaries.

The originals are systems of meditation that require a complete commitment and are couched in the language of renunciation. You just can't do what, say, Buddhaghosa outlines in the Visuddhimagga with a 1-hour or even 2-hour a day practice. Just the meditations on the brahmaviharas alone would require at least a few months of intensive daily practice in a retreat setting. For someone coming from a Western milieu, not interested in taking up the Buddhist lifestyle, the therapies offer some very effective tools without requiring that one undertake an entire lifestyle change or abandon any preexisting spiritual affiliation.