The dhamma and modern psychology

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by SteRo »

Bundokji wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:49 am
SteRo wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:16 pm
Bundokji wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:13 pm

Still ... Connections to other Paths section of them forum allows for making parallels. :popcorn:
:shrug: This forum section appeals to users to express their fabrications.
What you seem to overlook is that "Dependent origination" as an exclusively buddhist tenet cannot be proven/established independently from other doctrines. This forms the basis for comparing/contrasting tenets with other doctrines.
Buddhism is a doctrinal system and as such it exclusively has the tenet or theory of DO. What is there to be proven? You know another system of thought that advocates the tenet/theory of DO?
Bundokji wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:49 am If you disagree, then please explain how do you know that DO is an exclusively Buddhist tenet and has no universal applications to it?
There is no other system of thought that propounds the tenet/theory of DO.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Bundokji
Posts: 6481
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by Bundokji »

SteRo wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:42 pm
Bundokji wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:49 am
SteRo wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:16 pm

:shrug: This forum section appeals to users to express their fabrications.
What you seem to overlook is that "Dependent origination" as an exclusively buddhist tenet cannot be proven/established independently from other doctrines. This forms the basis for comparing/contrasting tenets with other doctrines.
Buddhism is a doctrinal system and as such it exclusively has the tenet or theory of DO. What is there to be proven? You know another system of thought that advocates the tenet/theory of DO?
Bundokji wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:49 am If you disagree, then please explain how do you know that DO is an exclusively Buddhist tenet and has no universal applications to it?
There is no other system of thought that propounds the tenet/theory of DO.
You see! You have nothing to contribute but assertions. If you do not know of any other system that utilizes the tenet/theory/notion of DO, that does not make it exclusively Buddhist tenet. This says more about the limitation of your knowledge than the real world, or possibly about your attachments to labels and fabrications. As if using the exact same label is the only determinate of exclusivity!

Using the same label, on the other hand, says little about how similar or different certain theories are. For example, the Buddhist teachings on kamma sounds similar to other doctrines such as Jainism or Hinduism, but the details can be different, and open to discussion through the Connection to Others Paths forum.

As such, dismissing any attempt to draw parallels based on the notion of exclusivity is moot and not logically sound. DO itself is open to different interpretations, and each interpretation can be said to be exclusive in a way. Had you focused on your understanding of DO, that would have made your contribution more of value in my opinion.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by SteRo »

Bundokji wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:14 am
SteRo wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:42 pm
Bundokji wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:49 am

What you seem to overlook is that "Dependent origination" as an exclusively buddhist tenet cannot be proven/established independently from other doctrines. This forms the basis for comparing/contrasting tenets with other doctrines.
Buddhism is a doctrinal system and as such it exclusively has the tenet or theory of DO. What is there to be proven? You know another system of thought that advocates the tenet/theory of DO?
Bundokji wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:49 am If you disagree, then please explain how do you know that DO is an exclusively Buddhist tenet and has no universal applications to it?
There is no other system of thought that propounds the tenet/theory of DO.
You see! You have nothing to contribute but assertions.
Why shouldn't I assert the opposite of what you are asserting? :shrug:
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Bundokji
Posts: 6481
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by Bundokji »

SteRo wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:19 pm
Bundokji wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:14 am Why shouldn't I assert the opposite of what you are asserting? :shrug:
I do not tell you what you should do and what you should not do. You had your reflections on what i posted, and i had mine on yours.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by SteRo »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:27 pm
SteRo wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:19 pm
Bundokji wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:14 am Why shouldn't I assert the opposite of what you are asserting? :shrug:
I do not tell you what you should do and what you should not do. You had your reflections on what i posted, and i had mine on yours.
Fine. Still DO theory is the invention of the founder of buddhism, Gautama, exclusively. And modern psychology does not have DO theory.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by Ceisiwr »

SteRo wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:30 pm
Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:27 pm
SteRo wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:19 pm

I do not tell you what you should do and what you should not do. You had your reflections on what i posted, and i had mine on yours.
Fine. Still DO theory is the invention of the founder of buddhism, Gautama, exclusively. And modern psychology does not have DO theory.
It’s not an invention.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by SteRo »

Bundokji wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:29 pm Many practitioners draw parallels between the teachings of the Buddha and modern psychology. There are many schools in both traditions, but the aspect i am interested in exploring are parallels between dependent origination, psychoanalysis, and knowledge of cycles.
I would not draw parallels because there are too many cases where buddhism can't provide help but psychotherapy can provide help for individuals. So there is reason to differentiate the religion of buddhism from psychotherapy and avoid illusory merge of both.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Bundokji
Posts: 6481
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by Bundokji »

SteRo wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:01 pm
Bundokji wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:29 pm Many practitioners draw parallels between the teachings of the Buddha and modern psychology. There are many schools in both traditions, but the aspect i am interested in exploring are parallels between dependent origination, psychoanalysis, and knowledge of cycles.
I would not draw parallels because there are too many cases where buddhism can't provide help but psychotherapy can provide help for individuals. So there is reason to differentiate the religion of buddhism from psychotherapy and avoid illusory merge of both.
Drawing parallels is not necessarily merging. From evolutionary perspective, religion can have therapeutic effects and as with modern psychotherapy, different individuals respond differently.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by form »

Without understanding how the mind works, by talking about dhamma from the textbooks and pali this and that, the person is only at theory stage from a book. Insights is a totally different ball game. When one has confidence, one will not be shaken.
Bundokji
Posts: 6481
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by Bundokji »

form wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:27 am Without understanding how the mind works, by talking about dhamma from the textbooks and pali this and that, the person is only at theory stage from a book. Insights is a totally different ball game. When one has confidence, one will not be shaken.
Yes, describing insight as totally different from how it is imagined to be before attaining it is not uncommon. Seeking freedom, fearlessness, or going beyond are universal themes that most humans aspire to. After all, what is it that makes the dhamma appealing before attaining insight except these promises? The idea of enlightenment or wisdom is not restricted/limited to a certain culture or system of thought.

More to your point about the mind and how it works, it reminds me of a section of UG's book "the mystique of enlightenment". In it, UG describes studying psychology at the university where he went to ask his professor "what is this mind that everyone is talking about"? the answer was that he is asking inconvenient questions, and if he wants to pass the exams, he needs to memorize what is written in the books when answering the exams.

In modern psychology, the interest in the mind is mainly to cure mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are often described as fetters or hindrances that needs to be removed for a fully functional human being, which is another possible parallel between the two systems. This brings us to the idea of delusion which is equally cross-cutting. There is an objective reality, or measure, where distinguishing delusions from reality is reliable. The authority of the teacher in Buddhism, or the scholar in modern psychology, is conveyed and confirmed through their abilities to describe ailments to the patient in a way that he would not be able to discover by himself without their guidance.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by form »

Bundokji wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:45 pm
form wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:27 am Without understanding how the mind works, by talking about dhamma from the textbooks and pali this and that, the person is only at theory stage from a book. Insights is a totally different ball game. When one has confidence, one will not be shaken.
Yes, describing insight as totally different from how it is imagined to be before attaining it is not uncommon. Seeking freedom, fearlessness, or going beyond are universal themes that most humans aspire to. After all, what is it that makes the dhamma appealing before attaining insight except these promises? The idea of enlightenment or wisdom is not restricted/limited to a certain culture or system of thought.

More to your point about the mind and how it works, it reminds me of a section of UG's book "the mystique of enlightenment". In it, UG describes studying psychology at the university where he went to ask his professor "what is this mind that everyone is talking about"? the answer was that he is asking inconvenient questions, and if he wants to pass the exams, he needs to memorize what is written in the books when answering the exams.

In modern psychology, the interest in the mind is mainly to cure mental illnesses. Mental illnesses are often described as fetters or hindrances that needs to be removed for a fully functional human being, which is another possible parallel between the two systems. This brings us to the idea of delusion which is equally cross-cutting. There is an objective reality, or measure, where distinguishing delusions from reality is reliable. The authority of the teacher in Buddhism, or the scholar in modern psychology, is conveyed and confirmed through their abilities to describe ailments to the patient in a way that he would not be able to discover by himself without their guidance.
I knew many things about five aggregates which I will not explain here because I do not think anyone will appreciate or understand. I suspect I will get many sutta quotations in reply and then then ended with some debates on pali words interpretation.

The interlink between modern psychology with Buddhism will be the unconscious theory together with conditioning as well as the essentials of effective communication. These three areas have lots of things in common for both subjects.

Suffering and the ways out of suffering is about an answer to a philosophical question. This too is a common subject in psychology.

The thing about Buddhism is about reality. Face the reality. It is not about romantic fantasies from reading the nikaya but about facing your own psyche to free yourself. The things repressed in the mind, face them and let go of them.
Bundokji
Posts: 6481
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by Bundokji »

form wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:15 pm I knew many things about five aggregates which I will not explain here because I do not think anyone will appreciate or understand. I suspect I will get many sutta quotations in reply and then then ended with some debates on pali words interpretation.

The interlink between modern psychology with Buddhism will be the unconscious theory together with conditioning as well as the essentials of effective communication. These three areas have lots of things in common for both subjects.

Suffering and the ways out of suffering is about an answer to a philosophical question. This too is a common subject in psychology.

The thing about Buddhism is about reality. Face the reality. It is not about romantic fantasies from reading the nikaya but about facing your own psyche to free yourself. The things repressed in the mind, face them and let go of them.
Thank you for your input :anjali: . It triggers few thoughts:

1- The theory of the unconscious seems to be linked to the ambiguity of existence, where things can hold more than one meaning, and where the truer meaning is evasive and subject to endless debate. This is where effective communication and contextualizing become necessary. I am not sure about conditioning though as it tries to explain away ambiguity instead of acknowledging it.

2- It is not a coincidence that in most universities, philosophy and psychology belong to the same faculty and are suitable to be taken as double major. The link between the two stems from the common perception that there are deeper levels of reality that are to be explored or discovered. In the context of psychology, the deeper levels are of the psyche or the mind, while in philosophy, it is the love of wisdom and the notion of "things as they really are". Both seem to aim to transcend the limits of the lay user: For example, you can use knowledge to manage your activities, or you can use a watch to tell you the time, or you can use the concept of existence to convey and construct meaning, but to ask what is knowledge, time or existence is to be landed with genuine philosophical questions.

3- What it means to facing the reality is not less ambiguous, which is linked to the notions of fear and heroism: which would be more courageous? to accept the world as you came to know it or to seek changing it? what would be more heroic, to acknowledge your fear of death as useful, or to try to eliminate it? Is finding faults in the world is a product of our wisdom, or of our deepest fears and inability to accept the world as it is?

The relationship between heroism and the fear of death is equally interesting and relevant to Buddhist practices such as the contemplation of death and the bodhisattva idea in Mahayana Buddhism. Possible parallels between the two can be found in Ernest Becker's work on the denial of death.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
sunnat
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:08 am

Post by sunnat »

As far as I know, Dr. Arthur Janov (The Primal Scream) himself didn't claim his therapy uncovered birth and prebirth, conception and preconception traumas. Nevertheless a number of therapists and patients do. There seems to be a clear cause and effect chain. Not as refined as DO but it is there in either case. A number of decades ago I looked through a thick folio sized paper back which compared a number of therapies and the meditations the Buddha taught. Of them all, the one that compared favourably was Primal Therapy. From memory: in Primal therapy there is feeling followed by conditioned response that serves to preserve ignorance of the reality of what Dr. Janov called Pain with a capital P. The therapy is to face the pain without reacting with supression and thus become free of its underlying cause.
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by form »

Bundokji wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:48 pm
form wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:15 pm I knew many things about five aggregates which I will not explain here because I do not think anyone will appreciate or understand. I suspect I will get many sutta quotations in reply and then then ended with some debates on pali words interpretation.

The interlink between modern psychology with Buddhism will be the unconscious theory together with conditioning as well as the essentials of effective communication. These three areas have lots of things in common for both subjects.

Suffering and the ways out of suffering is about an answer to a philosophical question. This too is a common subject in psychology.

The thing about Buddhism is about reality. Face the reality. It is not about romantic fantasies from reading the nikaya but about facing your own psyche to free yourself. The things repressed in the mind, face them and let go of them.
Thank you for your input :anjali: . It triggers few thoughts:

1- The theory of the unconscious seems to be linked to the ambiguity of existence, where things can hold more than one meaning, and where the truer meaning is evasive and subject to endless debate. This is where effective communication and contextualizing become necessary. I am not sure about conditioning though as it tries to explain away ambiguity instead of acknowledging it.

2- It is not a coincidence that in most universities, philosophy and psychology belong to the same faculty and are suitable to be taken as double major. The link between the two stems from the common perception that there are deeper levels of reality that are to be explored or discovered. In the context of psychology, the deeper levels are of the psyche or the mind, while in philosophy, it is the love of wisdom and the notion of "things as they really are". Both seem to aim to transcend the limits of the lay user: For example, you can use knowledge to manage your activities, or you can use a watch to tell you the time, or you can use the concept of existence to convey and construct meaning, but to ask what is knowledge, time or existence is to be landed with genuine philosophical questions.

3- What it means to facing the reality is not less ambiguous, which is linked to the notions of fear and heroism: which would be more courageous? to accept the world as you came to know it or to seek changing it? what would be more heroic, to acknowledge your fear of death as useful, or to try to eliminate it? Is finding faults in the world is a product of our wisdom, or of our deepest fears and inability to accept the world as it is?

The relationship between heroism and the fear of death is equally interesting and relevant to Buddhist practices such as the contemplation of death and the bodhisattva idea in Mahayana Buddhism. Possible parallels between the two can be found in Ernest Becker's work on the denial of death.
Unconscious is stubborn, it cannot be controlled. In Buddhism, it is described as if it cannot be controlled, it cannot be taken as a self (aka permanent self, permanent happiness). In modern psychology, whenever our mind is in conflict, the unconscious (emotions) will always prevail. In Buddhism, feeling is viewed as the predominant factor that dictate our thinking. In psychology conditioning theory, feeling and a scattered mind (the worldly state) can be demonstrated by by ring a bell and letting a dog eat a piece meat. After a few times, when you just ring a bell, without the meat, the dog will be salivating. The same thing as advertising associate sex with what they are selling.
Bundokji
Posts: 6481
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: The dhamma and modern psychology

Post by Bundokji »

form wrote: Wed Aug 11, 2021 7:13 am Unconscious is stubborn, it cannot be controlled. In Buddhism, it is described as if it cannot be controlled, it cannot be taken as a self (aka permanent self, permanent happiness). In modern psychology, whenever our mind is in conflict, the unconscious (emotions) will always prevail. In Buddhism, feeling is viewed as the predominant factor that dictate our thinking. In psychology conditioning theory, feeling and a scattered mind (the worldly state) can be demonstrated by by ring a bell and letting a dog eat a piece meat. After a few times, when you just ring a bell, without the meat, the dog will be salivating. The same thing as advertising associate sex with what they are selling.
As far as i know, psychoanalysts describe the unconscious to be truly unconscious, but can be known through analysis and inferences (hence they are dubbed psychoanalysts). I am not sure if Buddhism teaches the idea of divided consciousness, even though it introduces six types of consciousness representing the sense media.

Here where the two systems might take different routes. In Buddhism, self view is a delusion to be transcended. Transcending it is described as awakening. Analysis is the first stage of gaining insight and to be discarded in favor of more direct knowledge at deeper stages, so in a way, even if there is an unconscious, it is accessible to skilled meditators. Another alternative would be that believing in the unconscious is a manifestation of the deluded state. It is usually said that Arahants do not dream.

In psychoanalysis, which focuses on curing patients, strengthening the rational ego can be the way forward (as per Freud). The ego in Buddhism has a bad reputation. Some psychoanalysts argue for integration between the conscious and the unconscious such as Jung, which seems closer to Mahayana Buddhism and tantra.

In relation to conditioning, modern psychoanalysis is mostly associated with Darwinism and the evolutionary view of the brain/mind. In Buddhism, i am not sure if conditioning is that relevant or important (a beginning of ignorance is not evident).
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Post Reply