Reciprocal inhibition

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
Post Reply
Monsera
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:23 pm

Reciprocal inhibition

Post by Monsera »

Hi everyone,

I was reading jack engler’s passage on the ‘promises and perils of the spiritual path’ and found this rather odd depiction of buddhist psychology.

‘Traditional buddhist abhidhamma explains the process of spiritual growth in terms of what western psychology calls the principle of reciprocal inhibition: opposing wholesome and unwholesome mental factors cannot arise in the same state of consciousness. But reciprocal inhibition cannot explain or account for this mix of motivations and meanings that western students bring to and encounter in practice. This requires another principle of mental funnctioning that western psychology has called attention to and sees as central to mental and emotional life: the principle of multiple determination. This principle states that all action, all behavior, is determined by mulltiple motives, that we often have different and opposing reasons for doing what we do, some conscious, some unconscious: that we can be loving, for instance, and at the same time very angry, and our loving is a defense, a reaction formation against feelings. of anger that are too unacceptable or dangerous to feel. The principle of multiple determination also involves a recognition that some of our motives for a given action wiill be conscious, and others will be unconscious, outside conscious awareness but influencing volition, choice, affect, mood, and the meaning of our behaviour nonetheless. Multiple determination helps us to understand that our unconscious motives can be in conflict with our conscious ones or even in conflict with other unconscious motivations and meanings. Spiritual practice of whatever kind is not exempt from this law of multiple determination. It is noteworthy that Buddhist psychology, at least as formulated in the Abhidhamma, does not seem to have a theory of intrapsychic conflict and resistance in a psychodynamic sense’

This makes it appear as though budddhist psychology views lived experience as necessarily black or white. Would it not be more accurate to state that the degree to which a mental state is present there can not be an opposing mental state present? Of course this can be total but certainly does not have to be and often isn’t. An obvious example of reciprocal inhibition is used by one of his peers concerning relaxation and tension. One can be in a state of relaxation of differing degrees with corresponding degrees of tension and of course the act of meditation itself can change the degree to which these states are present.

It seems to me that at least partially, if not wholly this idea of a ‘multiple determination’ is born out of that potential misconception and also do not really see how much of what he is describing is all that different from a simple lack of awareness.
Jack19990101
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: Reciprocal inhibition

Post by Jack19990101 »

Re - 'unconscious motivation'
There is corresponding term in Dhamma circle - Tendency, aspiration, kamma propensity, innate interest, habit.

Re- 'mental state of love AND anger'
It is still one mental state, a state of confusion, doubt. It is unwholesome, fettered.

Re- 'multiple determination to action'
Mental state proceeds actions/speeches. We should not consider mental state can be multiple, instead, it is always just singular - mental state of suchness, a state of It Is so.
During state of no-clarity, it is a state of predominantly avijja.

If psychology admits there is unconscious motivation to actions, they should have concluded that action is not trust worthy at all, and beyond conscious control. Yet they seemly never did tell frankly to their patients so.
Post Reply