Mondo Zen aka Hollow Bones

Hey Guys,

Been wanting to tell y'all about my recent experience with the Mondo Zen people - www.mondozen.org/

A couple weeks ago I sat a 6 day Sesshin in the hollow bones tradition. It was an interesting time! It's my first real interaction with any form of Zen so there were a lot of things to get used to, mostly that means getting used to the form. It was quite a difference from the much looser Spirit Rock retreats I'm used to. There's form for everything from how to enter the zendo to how to eat. It's a lot to get used to. Once I got over the initial shock, though, there's also a lot of wisdom and insight.

First of all, Mondo combines the more traditional meditation and koan work with shadow work and emotional integration which I think is pretty neat.

Second, the translations they created for the various mahayana and Zen sutras are easily accessible for a westerner like me and still, right on the money. You can check out their Sutra book here - www.mondozen.org/_literature_37314/Sutra_Book (sadly it's in the right order to print as a booklet, not good for easy reading). good examples to check out: You are this light (the opening for the morning service), their translation of the koan MU (pages 43, 44), Five training elements and their translation of the Bodhisatva vows (four awakened vows).

Third, the people attracted to this particular path seem to be dedicated, supportive and honestly caring. It was a good group of people to sit with. The teacher at this sesshin was Doshin who's the school's Dharma Heir. Doshin brings together the Rinzai fierceness and the Bodhisatva's compassion in a way I've not seen before.

Last, they have the mondo process which is an interactive process based on koan work that leads one to recognize clear awareness, establishes a connection with pure awareness and then brings it back into normal life. I got to go through the process with a friend after the retreat and found it very interesting and quite powerful. They have entire retreats dedicated to working through this process. You can find it in the manual - www.mondozen.org/_literature_104890/Mond...ng_Manual_April_2012

Overall, Mondo is probably the most integrated school of practice I've met so far and a really powerful way of bringing Zen to the west.

Eran.

Eran, thanks for posting this. I think I've heard of Mondo, but knew nothing of it until you posted this. I checked out their website briefly, but I might poke around a little bit more when I have time.

You sound pretty enthusiastic about the experience. You mentioned gaining some insight, too. If you can articulate it, feel free share your experience with us.

The "mondo process" sounds like it could be something along the lines of the "big mind" process, in terms of its goal. Does it involve dialog (perhaps Q&A) with the facilitator?

Hi Jackson,

You may have come across mondo around the Integral scene (they've got connection there and fit in quite comfortably with Wilber's vision) or on Buddhist Geeks, where they discussed Jun Po's autobiography a few months ago (Jun Po is the founder and has an interesting personal history).

I'm enthusiastic about the practice and teachings and I'm also bit conflicted about the Zen strictness. Mostly their dedication to sitting without moving and what sometimes seems to me like almost fetishizing pain. There are 84,000 doors to the dharma, surely not all of them are about sitting with intense pain?

It's probably a good time to try and consolidate my experience from the retreat, so thanks for asking! The main practice I followed was around sitting with the koan MU. They translate MU as Know/No and instruct students to sit with that, repeating Know on the in-breath, No on the out breath. Initially this is like using a meditation word (e.g. ajan Chah's Budho) but after a while this changes. For me, No started to become Know and this led me to wondering what is the difference? This led to a somewhat intellectual insight that everything is included in pure awareness even moments of contraction (i'm calling this insight intellectual because it didn't seem to stick for very long). I then just sat with Know. Opening up into greater and greater stillness (it's interesting to note that at least initially, this process seemed very similar to going through the 4 jhanas although absorption was not nearly as strong) until what I think they call samadhi - clear awareness, stillness and joy (open hearted causeless joy or love). At at least one point, I found great similarity between samadhi and high equanimity, which made for another interesting parallel between maps.

There were three states that seemed to stick around for a bit: one where anything that arises is easily recognized (after a decision to include it) and thereafter easily let go of, one where anything is just effortlessly recognized (no decision necessary) and let go of and last one where almost nothing arises in the mind apart from what comes in through the physical senses, very little or no self-reference, very little or no self-referencing thoughts, a slight sense of awe at the perfection of everything and a sense of timelessness. Mentally, I place them in a hierarchy with the 3rd one at the top. The closer they are to the bottom, the more often they appear and the longer they stay. The 3rd state was only around for a few minutes.

There's a question for me regarding view. They (mondo zen, or specifically the teacher, Doshin) appear to be of the opinion that this is already it; there is nothing but pure awareness and there never was; all beings are born buddhas and all we need to do is get out of our way. I, OTOH, get stuck on the getting out of the way part. As long as I'm in my way, I cannot say that I'm awake. Pure awareness may be somewhere in the background but it seems like there's too much obscuring it for me to see. While I was in that 3rd state, I easily agreed with their view but now that it's gone, I'm not as sure. It's interesting to note that I'm also not so sure of my previous opinion that I need to _get_ enlightened before I _am_ enlightened.

The comparison with Big Mind is quite appropriate. Like Big Mind, Mondo has some basis in voice dialogs although they don't rely on it quite as extensively. It's an interactive process with a facilitator where the facilitator guides you through a series of koans. Most of those are centered around generating insight into pure awareness but they go beyond insight into creating a relationship with this awareness, learning how to "call to it" or reconnect to it (both are probably bad descriptions from the POV of pure awareness...). The last few koans are what they call emotional koans - a way to bring clear awareness and compassion into everyday situations, especially difficult and emotionally charged ones.

Thanks for providing more information, Eran. I think is all good stuff to work with, and I appreciate your being unwilling to buy into the View without questioning it. I always think it's a good idea to go into retreats or other teaching scenarios with your "eyes open"; that is, without losing your head. Surrendering to Reality is one thing; surrendering to a teacher can be another, and it's best done (if at all) with considerable caution.

Truthfully, I'm more interested in your process then theirs! But that's because we kind of know each other, and I don't know the Mondo folks.

Also, for the sake of disclosure, I'm not a big fan of Integral at the moment, nor many of the like-Integral movements. Something about it rubs me the wrong way. Could be the marketing. Could be the pronounced and robust enlightenment "stink" wafting from the shiny bald heads of so many of the affiliated teachers. Could be the way Wilber can't seem to dislodge himself from his perspective long enough to critique it honestly. Whatever it is, I also know that flowers can grow out of shit, so I can't write them off entirely.

I'm not saying mondo is "shit" by the way. I think you know what I mean in the above; if not, sorry! I'll try to explain myself better. In short, I think they provided a good venue for you to continue to explore your experience, and that I'm happy about

I know what you mean about the Integral movement. There's a lot about it I don't like and the marketing aspect is definitely a big turn off. OTOH integral practice, as in practice that includes spiritual, psychological, physical and cognitive practice is something I think is important and useful. I've seen the strong connection between spiritual and psychological practice and it was good to find a place where those two are combined while still maintaining the authenticity of both (as opposed to psychologized dharma or "nice" dharma). Adding an embodiment practice to that is something I've been wanting to do for quite a while and failing to do so on my own. After doing qi-gong twice daily at the retreat, it's looking like I'm able to carry that into my daily life, for which I'm grateful. So I definitely think there's an important aspect to this whole integral thing (Wilber or no Wilber). I'll probably write more about it at some point, once I figure out how to express it better. Right now it's some mishmash of Jung, Buddha, Mahayana Buddhism and various iterations of Integral (Gebser, Wilber and others)...

I'm not entirely convinced that this "nice dharma" thing is a problem... but perhaps that's another line of discussion. The Mondo thing sounds like it gave you some motivation and fresh engagement with your practice, eh? That's always good. Anything that brings up a fresh perspective, puzzling through what's true or not true, and engagement with what's going on is useful, I think. Cheers, Ona

Eran, I like the way you're approaching this. Yes, I agree that it's helpful for practice to touch one's whole life, and that includes body, cognition, emotions, neurochemistry, and perhaps the most important... relationships! I agree that there's some merit to Integral, but I like it better as a guiding orientation than as a movement. As you seemed to say in so many words, Wilber-Integral isn't the only Integral. This is really good to understand, I think.

If you're into developmental psychology, PLEASE read Robert Kegan's books. "The Evolving Self" is a favorite of mine. It's a bit dense, but it's amazing. Wilber is a big fan of Kegan, and uses a lot of his work throughout the Integral literature. You can buy a used copy pretty cheaply from Amazon.com. That's what I did

Ona Kiser wrote: I'm not entirely convinced that this "nice dharma" thing is a problem... but perhaps that's another line of discussion.

Yes, it is perhaps another discussion to be had, but it's still related.

By "nice," I think Eran might mean, "nicey-nice." That is, so nice that no views can be challenged. Everyone is always right, because really there is no truth that is truer than any other truth. I'm okay, you're okay. *GAG*

Of course, if that's not what Eran meant, I hope I am corrected.

I think it's more important to be kind and respectful than to be "nice." Nice has no backbone. Nice can be more like "idiot compassion," (or as you said on Twitter once, "enabling.") There's nothing wrong with being gentle and kind. Just the opposite. "Nice" just seems, I don't know, phony. Like trying to cover up a deeply felt sense of shameful badness with a shiny veneer of rainbows and glitter. It says, "I'll treat you in such a way that you will never become angry with me." That's how I see it, at least.

Yes, I see that that kind of "nice" covers manipulative, avoiding and enabling behaviors. But why ruin a perfectly nice (!) word by failing to simply say "enabling" or "manipulative"? Sometimes when people say "be nice!" they mean "pretend to be enjoying this so we don't have an interpersonal conflict with Aunt Matilda". But if I say Joe is a very nice guy, what I mean is that he's respectful, thoughtful, kind, and so on.

I sometimes feel that the reaction to "nice" type stuff which is an undercurrent in the "anti-nice" discussions is really about overvaluing conflict, harshness, rudeness, destruction, power, fear, and so on. I say this as someone who has participated in some practices that were not "nice" by any standards (scary, painful, bloody, power-oriented, etc.) and being quite aware of the kick that comes from feeling like I was better than other people because I had done things that would scare the shit out of them. "All those pathetic "nice" people trying to avoid the darkness, death, decay and gore of "real life" - how superficial! They are so out of touch with the hardcore realness of things!" Which was a pretty crappy attitude to have. It's like disdaining someone else because they don't have the guts to play rugby or go mountaineering. So when I sense THAT undercurrent in the "anti-nice" discussions, it makes me wary that the motive in the anti-niceness is just as full of shit as the motive behind the "nice" stuff that's being disdained.

Thoughts?

Jackson Wilshire wrote: If you're into developmental psychology, PLEASE read Robert Kegan's books. "The Evolving Self" is a favorite of mine. It's a bit dense, but it's amazing. Wilber is a big fan of Kegan, and uses a lot of his work throughout the Integral literature. You can buy a used copy pretty cheaply from Amazon.com. That's what I did

Thanks for the recommendation! I'm currently reading Transformations of Consciousness (Wilber, Engler and Brown). Wilber's first chapter is basically a summary of Mahler, Blanck & Blanck and Kernberg - it's good stuff! Not actually being a psychology student means I can get away with the cliff notes version of what is probably pretty obtuse stuff I'll try to find a similar summary of Kegan's work... maybe I'll get lucky.

Thank you for that distinction, Ona! What I'm getting from your post is that anti-nice can be just as problematic as nice

Jackson's description of the nicey-niceness is pretty much what I had in mind. I get to meet a lot of it in California (and I'm told Boulder, CO isn't much different). My main problem with "nice" culture is that it allows one to remain stuck in one place through not engaging with what's difficult, unpleasant, angry, grieving, etc. all the while (and this is the insidious part) maintaining the illusion that one's actually doing the Work. Enabling is exactly what it is.

My own reaction to this is to push against it. Either push against people who are doing it or against the part of myself that wants to do it but this is where I can get into anti-nice behavior. Sometimes what I need is rest and support. Sometimes I'm just not ready to tackle an issue head-on. I'm learning to recognize those times and to give myself more room to honestly rest without criticism. When done right, it can be just as healing as tackling my issues.

Overall, though, I'd say I'm very good at hiding and disengaging so finding a place the encourages wise engagement, supports it, gives tools for how to do it, etc. is good for me. I'm in the process of creating exactly those kind of containers in my life - ones that are driven by fierce compassion rather than "nice"ness. I think it's an important thing to have.

This is too symmetric not to share. From a review of Kegan's book "The Evolving Self" (emphasis my own):

"Conditions that facilitate growth include a favorable "holding environment" (a concept borrowed from the object-relations psychoanalyst Winicott, which refers to an __unconditionally accepting relationship__ that provides the individual with the security to dare to risk), __challenges that make the individual aware of the limitations__ in his or her organization and provide motivation to change, and the knowledge that there is always a safe haven to which the person can return should the new system fail or the risks and challenges be too great."

That's exactly what I trying to say: support and challenge are both necessary.

Here's another consideration. People who are attracted to non-challenging "comfort practices" (my current favorite way of describing such things) are NOT looking for a challenge. They are not ready to look at stuff, investigate, or whatever. That's not where they are in life and not what they are currently capable of doing. They may never go there. Why is that not perfectly okay? It might not be right for me, or you, or whoever, but if a specific individual is happy in their comfort zone, what's wrong with that? Of all the things a person can do in the world, having a pleasant, non-challenging, safe-feeling happy place to spend their free time that doesn't injure anyone - heck, I'd pay MORE people to do it.

I think there's a really normal and strong tendency (at least I've experienced it and I see others experience it) to figure out tools that help us with our own lives and then jump on the grandstand and rant that everyone should do the same thing... which is basically the missionary zeal, evangelical fervor... heck, it's the Tibetan monks shouting "waste not your life!" to wake the novices each morning.

Or...?
(just exploring the territory - feel free to disagree vigorously or whatever...)

I don't think anyone here is going on a rant telling everyone to do as they do... If I gave you that impression, I apologize, it was not what I was intending to convey. I'm speaking _mostly_ of my experience. Mostly because 1) my experience is affected by people around me and 2) I can't help but have opinions (mostly about how other people are doing it wrong). Still, I tend to present my opinions as opinions and remind myself and others that they are based in my own personal experience and therefore may not apply in the same way to others.

That aside, here's what I'm seeing happening: "nice" culture isn't supporting people in being happy, rather it is supporting people in hiding from their problems. This results in various forms of suffering: passive-aggressive behavior because clearly and openly (and compassionately) confronting others isn't "nice"; not dealing with long-term problems because every possible solution at least slightly hurts someone; not being able to make any progress on difficult topics like money, power, sex because some people may be made uncomfortable by the discussion; self-censorship and limiting options because someone might find them unpleasant (have you read Fahrenheit 451?); taking on the role of victim and expecting everyone else to fix the world for you and various other pathologies.

It's well and good to rest in one's comfort zone when one needs to, perhaps this person or that will never leave their comfort zone and even that's ok but when it becomes a cultural institution then it's a problem. There's a brilliant from Jung that's relevant: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” as long as we, as a culture, keep hiding from difficult issues we'll keep coming up against them and won't even know why. We can pretend there's no racism in west coast dharma culture but that doesn't change the fact that we have probably less than 10% minorities in our community, why is that? We can say that power and sex are bad and un-buddhist but that doesn't mean that there are no power structures, politics and repeated sexual scandals and abuse. We can ignore the fact that money is at the core of western culture but all that means is that we're not talking about wise ways to relate to money and definitely not talking about dharma organizations that raise millions of dollars for various projects. We're missing so much because it's not "nice" and we'd rather not be challenged but that's not the way forward it's the way to remain stuck.

Ona, I agree that there's nothing wrong with enjoying a nice life, with nice people, and nice, easy dharma. For those who have settled into this sort of thing, and are enjoying their life for the most part, there's no issue to deal with.

What I think happens sometimes, though, is that people will attempt to use nicey-nice dharma as a path of practice, hoping for results that it can't bring. It might be a good approach for growth in some circumstances, but in many others it clearly is not. Some people strive REALLY hard in their niceness, thinking that is they just stay positive enough, and treat everyone as though they are a Buddha, then everyone will treat them like they're a Buddha too. It can become a sort of repetition compulsion, which is unconscious to them. Very sad.

Anyway, I think it's always an issue of appropriateness.

What I find though, is that this often comes down to that old story about taking the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your neighbor's eye. Of course there are institutional problems of corruption, abuse, idiocy and so on. It's very easy to set these up as Big Bad Things in the world that are a focus of one's personal inner ranting and resentment. But I think it's far more useful to bring it way down to the personal level. .... (edited because I was being too damn wordy)

In other words, is the sangha you attend corrupted by this niceness? If so, do you express your disapproval openly or try to make a change? Are you upholding the kind of ethics and standards in your day to day life that you wish all these other strangers would uphold? Or is it just an abstract thing happening in other sanghas that you like to rant about? Or is the situation pushing your buttons because of your own personal issues/karma/etc and therefore a good lesson in figuring out why it bothers you so much?

And finally, to consider that if you speak up about something in the context where it's relevant it may be the example that helps others see that it can be safe to do so, and that they can do it too. There's nothing stupider than a group where everyone wishes someone else would be the first to say they all hate the stupidity. What's to lose?

I'm not implying "you" = Eran, btw! I think this is just a general pattern of human behavior and am using "you" in a generic sense. Me included.

ETA: the question here is how does one distinguish between a honest commitment to changing some problem, versus being attached to the problem in a way that's more about giving our ego something to gloat about, worry about, etc.?

For the most part, I just try to stay away from communities like that and create my own small enclaves that do reflect my values and my commitment to growth. Speaking out is difficult for me and so I'd often rather leave than speak my mind but sometimes it gets to the point where I choose to speak and then I try to say more or less what I said above. Being more comfortable with asserting myself is part of what I'm working on these days so this may well change in the future.

I don't see myself working on large scale change. It just isn't my thing. Most of my work is internal and the rest focuses on close friends or small groups of people I care about. This is why I started out speaking here on my own experience and on what works for me. Some of what I find troubling in these communities is likely a projection of things I don't like in myself. So I continue working on myself. It's where I have the most impact, anyway. Perhaps in a few years I'll be more interested in larger groups until then, it's mostly just a personal rant.

Just wanted to chime in and say I like the way you two (Ona and Eran) are going about this discussion. It seems to me that both of you are really making an effort to think through the issues, within a shared context of concern for others and yourselves. And this is the larger issue on the table, is it not?

I always like it when a discussions about the things certain people or groups might be doing unskillfully, are attended to so skillfully by the participants. It's as though you're answering not just in word, but also in action.

Kudos.

Eran wrote: That's exactly what I trying to say: support and challenge are both necessary.

I try not to speak of things as "universals" that often, but the fact that lasting, genuine growth requires both unconditional support and appropriate challenges (as one psychologist puts it, one's "leading edge") seems universal to me.

This goes beyond the teacher student relationship. Of course, it starts in one's infancy. The relationship between a child and her primary care giver(s) sets the stage for patterns of relationships throughout the rest of their life. That's not to say these things can't be altered, because they can. It just takes a LOT of work.

And then there's the idea that jhana, a kind of stable holding environment, is a very good base for investigating the nature of experience. When we feel supported by concentration, the truths of impermanence and not-self don't throw us off balance. If it's too much for us, we can breath in and out deeply, and regain our center. There's nothing wrong with this. Eventually, we become confident in unborn awareness, rather than fabricated states, and things change once again. We become even more fearless, because we learn to rely on emptiness.

I could go on and on about this...

Another thing that comes to mind are the so called "wrathful" or "crazy wisdom" teachers/lamas/masters. Traditionally, monks or other spiritual seekers went through a long period of preliminary practices, which helped them gain confidence in their path, and also to gain some sense of concentration and calm (and also a sense that merit has been accumulated, and an emptying of self-cherishing). If one has gone through this sort of training, than a wrathful lama (which doesn't always entail a mean, angry, hurtful, or insulting teacher. Just one who turns up the heat/intensity, so to speak) would be less likely to throw them off their center in a way that cause them to completely break down or lose awareness. In other words, there's less likely to be trauma.

When I hear of teachers (both Western and Eastern) who just jump right into the "crazy wisdom" role and treat their students like shit from the start, as if in an all out war on their "egos", I feel sick to my stomach. They've missed the point entirely. I doubt anyone ever awakened through a truly abusive, traumatic relationship.

Chris Marti wrote: A brief chiming in comment and suggestion:

The terms "nice" and "not-nice" to me presume value judgments that do not apply other than as mental constructs. Maybe I'm full of crap but the word "appropriate" has always resonated with me as a way to describe how one might respond to another human being. This other word might help take the personal judgment coloring out of the conversation. "Appropriate" responses, at least to me, are those that are given with respect and compassion but that are not sugar coated or truth-avoiding. Just a suggestion... from the peanut gallery.

You're right: if the discussion were about whether certain kinds of Buddhist teaching/practice are appropriate for (specific) people, it would be a whole nother level of discussion. The very use of the word "nice" in the anti-nice commentaries (on Twitter for example, at times) does seem to have less (though some) to do with appropriateness than it could.

Jackson Wilshire wrote: Just wanted to chime in and say I like the way you two (Ona and Eran) are going about this discussion. It seems to me that both of you are really making an effort to think through the issues, within a shared context of concern for others and yourselves. And this is the larger issue on the table, is it not?

I always like it when a discussions about the things certain people or groups might be doing unskillfully, are attended to so skillfully by the participants. It's as though you're answering not just in word, but also in action.

Kudos.

Didn't this forum used to offer karma points or something? Gimme some.

Jackson Wilshire wrote: This goes beyond the teacher student relationship. Of course, it starts in one's infancy. The relationship between a child and her primary care giver(s) sets the stage for patterns of r
Another thing that comes to mind are the so called "wrathful" or "crazy wisdom" teachers/lamas/masters. Traditionally, monks or other spiritual seekers went through a long period of preliminary practices, which helped them gain confidence in their path, and also to gain some sense of concentration and calm (and also a sense that merit has been accumulated, and an emptying of self-cherishing). If one has gone through this sort of training, than a wrathful lama (which doesn't always entail a mean, angry, hurtful, or insulting teacher. Just one who turns up the heat/intensity, so to speak) would be less likely to throw them off their center in a way that cause them to completely break down or lose awareness. In other words, there's less likely to be trauma.

When I hear of teachers (both Western and Eastern) who just jump right into the "crazy wisdom" role and treat their students like shit from the start, as if in an all out war on their "egos", I feel sick to my stomach. They've missed the point entirely. I doubt anyone ever awakened through a truly abusive, traumatic relationship.

That's a great point, Jackson! Cultural differences and differences in modes of practice (as in monk vs. lay person) or levels of experience are all very important. Reminds me of a few important points from Transformation of Consciousness:

1. Concentration practices can be supportive for the Ego. Build up Ego strength that is necessary for Insight practice. (perhaps this is why most dharma groups around here teach a pretty basic mindful awareness practice that doesn't seem to be geared much towards insight)

2. meditators must be able to experience the seemingly regressive effects of meditation (both early on difficulties and through Dark Night periods) without falling back on unhealthy defense mechanism.

3. This one is actually from Roger Walsh: we live in a very different culture from Tibet or Burma and our Ego wounds are different. It makes sense that some practices that work over there, don't really work over here. More than that, they can, in some cases, be harmful.

CORRECTION: When I said Roger Walsh, I meant John Welwood!

Eran wrote: That's a great point, Jackson! Cultural differences and differences in modes of practice (as in monk vs. lay person) or levels of experience are all very important. Reminds me of a few important points from Transformation of Consciousness:

1. Concentration practices can be supportive for the Ego. Build up Ego strength that is necessary for Insight practice. (perhaps this is why most dharma groups around here teach a pretty basic mindful awareness practice that doesn't seem to be geared much towards insight)

2. meditators must be able to experience the seemingly regressive effects of meditation (both early on difficulties and through Dark Night periods) without falling back on unhealthy defense mechanism.

3. This one is actually from Roger Walsh: we live in a very different culture from Tibet or Burma and our Ego wounds are different. It makes sense that some practices that work over there, don't really work over here. More than that, they can, in some cases, be harmful.

A resounding YES to all three points

Not everyone agrees that the modern Western consciousness is all that different from that of Eastern cultures. I think this idea is valid, though, because I've learned a bit about how it can happen. Specifically, language is based on relational frames (or, more technically, acts of framing relationally), so the meaning-making networks we inherit from our cultures are as different as their respective languages. One needs only to look at the tendency for the English language to focus on nouns as stable "things", whereas the Chinese language allows for nouns to be more like processes. The classic example is Alan Watts' humorous illusion trick: Make a fist. Then, open your hand. Whoa, where did the fist go! It just vanished! "Fist" is an activity more than a thing, but our language doesn't always promote the easy recognition of this fact.

Of course there are similarities, and considerable overlap. But the structure of the Western ego is not quite the same as for those out of which many or most of the insight traditions arose. That's why I'm not totally against some sort of "psychologizing" of the dharma, so long as it doesn't end as a "dharmatizing" of psychology. The latter isn't a terrible thing, but it's a poor substitute if one wants to arrive at the realizations and positive effects of Buddhadharma.

I hope that makes sense :-/