[prmnwoks]

Dear friends,

Is the original message of the Buddha now being obscured by new agey feelgood self-help talks, and by mergers with western psychology, which are all being promoted under the umbrella of "Buddhism"?

What are your thought about this... do you agree or disagree ?

[StitsVobsaith]

I neither strongly agree or disagree but tend to disagree.

For me, the original message of the Buddha is mind-related. In this aspect, I disagree. Psychology is also mind-related.

But the original message of the Buddha also included skilful means (i.e., skilful behaviours) for daily living, relationships, etc. Psychology may have an over emphasis on mind or introspection, so psychology may miss some of the Buddha's message here.

Buddha's path is threefold (sila, sati/samadhi, panna) whereas often the psychology path is two-fold (sati/samadhi, panna) .

Just my opinion.

[Reatclaplen]

I found this article:

Buddhism and Western Psychology

by Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche



"Buddhism and western psychology and western psychotherapy have a somewhat long history, which I am sure many of you are familiar with. It is in some respects an uneasy relationship because, on the one hand, many people actually believe Buddhism is a form of psychology. I am sure you have heard this before: ‘Buddhism is not a religion; it is more like a psychology.’

On the other hand, the very people also say Buddhism is not complete and that we need western psychology and psychotherapy because to follow Buddhism may cause us to develop all kinds of neuroses. They say Buddhism actually can cause us to become neurotic and we would then need to rush to a therapist. After visiting a Buddhist teacher or doing a ten-day intensive meditation course, your mind is stretched to the limit with all kinds of thoughts that were not there before doing the course. Many of the people who say those things also say while Buddhism and psychotherapy are sort of complimentary, we need western psychology.

One of the common arguments used to support of that idea is that Buddhism does not encourage individual development and freedom while western psychology does support them. However, we have to really think about these things carefully, because from what I understand, that is not true.

It is not true that western psychology promotes the idea of individual development, freedom and liberty while Buddhism is restricted by its belief in some kind of karmic determinism and things of that kind. Most of sociological thought and psychological theories of human nature—including Freudianism and all kinds of psychologies and psychotherapies—have their own idea of determinism."

continued :

ralegrinpoche.typepad.com/my_weblog/buddhism-and-western-psychology-traleg-kyabgon-rinpoche.html

[enfoires]

Buddha's path is threefold (sila, sati/samadhi, panna) whereas often the psychology path is two-fold (sati/samadhi, panna) .

I agree with this statement. I actually just heard the same thing in a teaching I was listening to recently, but it was in the context of Buddhism having some similar aspects to some non-Buddhist schools, especially in India. These schools also have methods of gaining Shamata, Samadhi, ect, but what can set Buddhism apart is that Buddhism has the aspect of "refuge" which can never be overlooked.

This can be important in terms of the OP as well. By refuge, I liked how one teacher put it, as he said taking "safe direction", knowing that The Buddha accomplished awakening, knowing it is also possible for us to do so, and knowing that these are the methods that can help us do the same.

This all seems to be missing in the "new-agey" stuff.

[dwestemesse]

I agree.

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.

[Vznvtthq]

I agree with most of what you say, Deshy. But I think that it is unfair to put all teachers in one basket in terms of how and what they teach. Then again I suppose it depends on who one is receiving their teachings from.

I think there are still many monks, and teachers that do talk about the core aspects, and the view that is necessary for us to have to be a true Dharma practitioner. I think that is a big part of one deciding weather or not that particular teacher is right for them or not. I'm sure all these other things have their positive benefits, but we are not trying to just make our "samsara" a little better or more comfortable are we? I personally prefer a teacher who can cut through these things and get right to the core of why we are practicing and help me to really develop renunciation and motivation to not get lost in all these other aspects. On the other hand, everyone has their own conditions and a skillful teacher will recognize this and teach accordingly.

To get back to the original post, I think this is also one of the fundamental differences between proper Buddhist view and those today who take "a little of this and a bit of that" and blend it all together under the name of "something new and unique", and proceed to put out best sellers and have many public talks and things like that. I'm sure it does help some people, but it is certainly not aligned with a proper view. As one great teacher put it, in Buddhism when one meditates without a proper view and a proper motivation then it is really just a kind of "relaxing". I think so many people get lost in all the rest of it and I still think that there are still many good Buddhist teachers who continue to remind us of this crucial point.

Mani

[michael247]

Buddha's path is threefold (sila, sati/samadhi, panna) whereas often the psychology path is two-fold (sati/samadhi, panna) .

Yes, I agree with this Element. But also I would add that psychology works with a very hard identification of a Self; the kind of self that is proved that can not be sustained through the practice of the teachings of the historical Buddha. I have seen how puzzling is for a psychologist to know that there is nothing as a solid and "true" self. The whole theoretical edifice collapses in front of their noses.

Psychology has another problem with how the teachings of the Buddha work. The word is renunciation: When you share with a western style therapist about how liberating are the teachings of the Buddha in terms of being free from craving, clinging and attachments they seem to have hard time understanding this aspect of the teachings.

Westerners (understanding it as a kind of mind) really love therapies and they tend to see what the historical Buddha taught in terms of that. The teachings of the historical Buddha are neither a religion nor a therapy. What the teachings are about is to be contemplatives.

[occurrini]

On the other hand, the very people also say Buddhism is not complete and that we need western psychology and psychotherapy because to follow Buddhism may cause us to develop all kinds of neuroses. They say Buddhism actually can cause us to become neurotic and we would then need to rush to a therapist.

Well, I think that the teachings of the historical Buddha are not for any type of person. To understand the Four Noble Truths it is needed a kind of special courage and a sense of renunciation hard to practice in a culture where consumption and self are closely related and one depends on the other. To break with this can generate serious existential conflicts. This is where the importance of a good teacher and a very supportive sangha are really needed and that the temper of the person fits well in the chose tradition.

Many of the people who say those things also say while Buddhism and psychotherapy are sort of complimentary, we need western psychology.

Maybe there is people that are needed of some sort of psychology support while his or her conflicts are soften a little so to let the teachings of the historical Buddha can come to an understanding. It is the same case as those people needed of some kind of medication so to treat mild depression because some imbalance in their brain. But this do not mean there is a kind of complementarity because sooner or later there will be a point where the direction of the western therapy and the teachings of the historical Buddha will go in opposite directions. The teachings of the historical Buddha demand a lifestyle that often quarrels with the guidelines of western therapies that are based on a mistaken notion of the Self.

Again, the teachings of the historical Buddha are not for everybody. Therapists and seekers for them can see in Buddhism therapies as former Christians tend to see christianism in some Buddhisms but this can not happen when one goes directly to the teachings of the historical Buddha and then happens that this teachings do not fit with everybody. To get into them needs time and a special disposition toward their practice.

[Pelefaifs]

One of the common arguments used to support of that idea is that Buddhism does not encourage individual development and freedom while western psychology does support them

This is wrong. A carefull reading of the teachings of the historical Buddha encourages individual development even when we practice with a Sangha. There is no way to develop the same skills in group. Everyone has its own time and conditions so to practice and understandings. But this individual development has nothing to do with the sense of "selfness" that can be found in western therapies or selfishness found in some of them.

[kertUtire]

By refuge, I liked how one teacher put it, as he said taking "safe direction",

It is a good way to understand "refuge". It is different as the "refuge" given in many religions as if we were hopless people given mostly through the christian traditions.

[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.

[CarmenSanches]

"the Buddha's message."

Thanks Glow, a very insightfull post. The Buddha message is given with amazing clarity through out the suttas that compound the Four Noble Truths. When you devote your life style to this you can see with that same clarity that the wide range of therapeutic options given by best sellers gurus around the world do not offer anything really radical so to be free from ignorance, hate and delusion but just a kind of cheap existential aspirins so to keep going in the eternal wheel of samsara.

[Vipvlad]

But I think that it is unfair to put all teachers in one basket

most Buddhist teachers and monks nowadays And the "most" include the most I have encountered.

[maxfieldj1]

I neither strongly agree or disagree but tend to disagree.

For me, the original message of the Buddha is mind-related. In this aspect, I disagree. Psychology is also mind-related.

But the original message of the Buddha also included skilful means (i.e., skilful behaviours) for daily living, relationships, etc. Psychology may have an over emphasis on mind or introspection, so psychology may miss some of the Buddha's message here.

Buddha's path is threefold (sila, sati/samadhi, panna) whereas often the psychology path is two-fold (sati/samadhi, panna) .

Just my opinion.

Element's post here covers my understanding and expresses my general sentiment regarding the relationship and interaction between Buddhist practices and western psychological therapies. Unlike Deshy's experience I have not found this emphasis in the talks and instructions and have come to see that instruction on concepts such as rebirth and morality in my chosen tradition are a way of getting us to the core concepts.

Just a quick visit from me today, leaving for a retreat today ... great to read the discussions and happy new year to everyone, warm wishes to all xx xx

[jamisi]

happy new year to everyone, warm wishes to all xx xx

Thanks Andy, same wishes for you!

[Swidemaiskikemu]

Unlike Deshy's experience I have not found this emphasis in the talks and instructions and have come to see that instruction on concepts such as rebirth and morality in my chosen tradition are a way of getting us to the core concepts.

Well, to be frank I have been well instructed from monks and teachers of the thai forst tradition. Cross referencing with the suttas I don't find any conflicts. Everything else I have listened to so far, and I have listened to a lot comming from a Buddhist Asian country, have been delusive and misleading.

[Faungarne]

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.

So when we have suffering, we can look into the higher teachings.

The psychologists are also doing this and adapting them to laypeople as they see fit.

[CathBraunn]

So when we have suffering, we can look into the higher teachings

How can you look into higher teachings when you are repeatedly taught mundane dhamma and you continue to seek peace from them

[Wrasialat]

So when we have suffering, we can look into the higher teachings.

...or when we awake to the "knowledge of suffering" because some people seems not to know that they are suffering because of many means to be away from being aware of it.

Is this correct Element?

[truck]

How can you look into higher teachings when you are repeatedly taught mundane dhamma and you continue to seek peace from them

Hi Deshy

All I can say is, in my opinion, it depends on the individual. If the mundane teachings prove to be insufficient, unsuitable or unsatisfactory for the individual, they will search for something else. There is sufficient Nibbana Dhamma for the searcher to find.

With metta