Emotions, neurosis and the path

Hello,

I'd like to try to start a discussion about what, if anything Buddhism has to offer in terms of dealing with emotions/neurosis/psychological 'issues'. For a bit of context I recently had a bout of pretty major depression, and withdrew in a big way from interacting with people. I tried to note 'depressed' but it didn't seem to help, maybe I was not quick enough on it. It really got me thinking about the way I'm approaching things. While I may be (relatively) advanced as a meditator if I can't apply insights into my practical life what good are they really? It also seems relevant to the whole AF debate going on.

There seems to be a very strong tendency at the DhO and to a lesser extent here to split off pure 'insight' practice from dealing with emotions, and life issues, 'stuff'' as Daniel calls it, which though regarded as important is labelled as 'psychology', a worthwhile pursuit but something completely seperate from buddhist insight practice, and indeed buddhist practice in general.

I think this guy John Welwood outlines the position many people feel on the issue in the latest buddhist geeks podcast.
www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/bg-178-gro...up-versus-waking-up/

"..the meditative approach is to cut through to that essence, not to unpack the emotions, not to understand the emotions, not to work with the emotions and feel them more deeply and get to know yourself more deeply through connecting with your feelings'”it's not about that. It's about liberation".

However I wonder if this is really the case? It dosn't seem that straightforward to me.

(cont)

(cont)

Tibetan Buddhism does seem to very much deal with emotions, I have benefited from reading the likes of Pema Chodron, and Chogyam Trungpa . If anyone knows of any books/resources that really go into this aspect beyond the level for the general reader I would love to know about them.

From a conservative traditional angle I have a book from the Thai forest tradition that claims to have a system of mind training that will make you happy, peaceful, content and ideally you should do this before you start any of this insight business. (For those interested it's called mindfulness with breathing by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu.)

Frankly I have found Buddhist ideas to be a lot more helpful than anything western psychology had to offer. It could be that I'm accessing the wrong bits, my experience has been limited to CBT style that very crudely amounts to:

have thought that leads to emotional disturbance
challenge thought using logical discourse
replace with more rational thought
Keep repeating until your brain is rewired.

I've noticed there are a few people here involved in psychology as a profession, and I'd like to ask them what school of thought they work in. Because CBT appears to directly conflict with buddhist thought, you can't be mindfully aware of how thoughts come and go and learning to see them as empty, not you etc, and at the same time ruthlessly challenge irrational thinking. Trying to practice both at the same time is just a recipie for confusion, and I've never been able to resolve the issue. So what is the crazy meditator to do?
It seems to come down to either find a psychology that compliments rather than contradicts Buddhism, (what would that be?) or try to piece together useful bits from various buddhist traditions and ignore the people who say these things are seperate.

Thoughts?
(sorry for the length and rambling)

HI Nic!
Thanks for posting the Wellwood interview, I look forward to listening. As for books dealing with emotions in Tibetan Buddhism, I would humbly recommend "Spectrum of Ecstasy" by Ngak'pa Chogyam. It's a great overview of the basic paradigm in Tibetan Tantrism.
I like the Tibetan approach because there is an acknowledgement that within the five poisons there is latent wisdom, and far from being rejected they need only be seen clearly to reveal their wisdom-quality-- Buddhanature expressing as multi-faceted wisdom energies which we habitually experience through dualistic filters, and call "emotions".
In the most condensed versions of this system, concentration practice leads to the discovery of "empty cognizance", or nature of mind, in the context of sense-consciousness unfiltered by the mental-emotional consciousness. Insight practice clarifies this nature and extends the number of "cases" which it includes,such as the coarse mental-emotional processes. Experiencing mental-emotional content as non-dual with mind-nature reveals wisdom-qualities.
The foregoing is an ongoing process of training with no real end-limit. It is made possible by the timeless natural state, which is always effortlessly present, and which the training allows practitioners to appreciate more.

Also worth noting that western psych is in its infancy, but that there are approaches which involve a reliance on "innate resiliency", "innate well-being", and other pointers to inner resources which bare a striking resemblance to Buddhanature.
Rather than re-conditioning the individual's Karmic system, replacing undesired states with presumably desirable ones, these approaches rely on the discovery of innate resources of wisdom and clarity which are only obscured but not harmed by neurotic mental-emotional-behavioral patterns.
This discovery brings forth a space in which neurotic patterns can be seen non-judgementally, and through which new, more healthy patterns can be manifested.

"Thoughts?"

Just an observation -- it strikes me that Buddhism and western psychology are aiming at two different targets. Buddhism, at least as I've experienced it, is an exploration of the nature of mind, aimed at awakening. There's not a diagnosis for specific pathologies being attempted but rather a wholesale investigation. Western psychology starts with a pathology and attempts a specific diagnosis and treatment, assuming all the while a certain model of the mind.

I've been to therapy many times and I have a close family member who is clinically depressed, so I have a reasonable familiarity with the approach western psychology takes. In my opinion there's a lot of value to it and to its approach, although like anything it has its limits and being aware of those is a good idea. I've personally benefitted a great amount from the holistic Buddhist approach but if I felt I was pathological in some way I'd still seek the help of a good psychiatrist.

As I've pursued therapy and treatment for the person who is close to me I've discovered that the preponderance of the psychiatrists and psychologists I talk to are either sympathetic to Buddhism or "mindfulness" therapy, or are actual practitioners. I've found whole new sangas in my area by talking to these doctors and therapists over the past year or two.

The best book on this topic that I have read is the Wellwood's book, "Toward a Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Psychotherapy, and the Path of Personal and Spiritual Transformation."

Ron Crouch will no doubt have a very good take on this topic, as will Jackson Wilshire.

So, part of the reason why noting "depression, depression, '¦" wasn't helping may have been due to not being able to truly see what was behind that depression. Depression is a symptom more than an illness. For example, if someone were to walk into an emergency room, bleeding profusely from the head, how helpful would it be for the doctors to take note of her symptoms and declare, "This patient is suffering from Bleeding Disorder!"? Not very helpful at all. Instead, they would quickly examine the patient, determine the hidden cause of the bleeding, and then work to fix the problem to stop the symptoms. Depression is like that. There are reasons why depression as a symptom arises, and it does little good to simply note "depressed".

As far as books go, I'm a pretty big Jack Kornfield fan. His book, "The Wise Heart: A Guide to the Universal Teachings of Buddhist Psychology," is one of my favorites on the topic.

Thanks for bringing up such an interesting and relevant topic. I hope you are doing well. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help.
~Jackson

As I am only just starting an MA in counseling psychology, my perspective is pretty limited. Ron, having recently finished up a Ph.D. (I think) is much more well versed and experienced in this topic.

There's a lot we can say about how Western and Eastern psychologies are similar and/or dissimilar. If I had to point out one important difference, it would be that Eastern (contemplative/meditative) traditions emphasize how to bring awareness to what is known in one's experience, and Western psychological traditions generally emphasize brining previously unknown/unconscious material to the foreground. Therefore, the two work beautifully together.

In my own experience working with a therapist, I saw how he was able to use dialogue as a way to make conscious those aspects of my personality that I was blind to. These aspects were usually some form of repressed or ignored emotions along with whatever story the mind associated with them. Without getting these issues out in the open, they can fuel habitual responses to certain situations that bring suffering (karma and fruit).

Once such material was out in the open, it was beyond helpful to have experience in mindfulness. Being able to sit with difficult emotions, thoughts, memories, and beliefs with the dignity of my Buddha nature really catalyzes the healing process.

(continued below)

Hi Jake, thanks for the book recommendation, it appears to be just what I'm looking for, the concept of 'using difficulties as the path' seems like a very useful one at the moment. You wrote;

"there are approaches which involve a reliance on "innate resiliency", "innate well-being" Can you be a bit more specific? I'm aware of mindfulness based CBT (though it seems much more like mindfulness than CBT from what I've read). Is that the kind of thing you mean? I ask because there may be useful approaches I am completely unaware of.

Chris and Jackson, thanks for the book recommendations they both sound good, keep them coming people I'm an avid reader!

Chris wrote
" it strikes me that Buddhism and western psychology are aiming at two different targets. Buddhism, at least as I've experienced it, is an exploration of the nature of mind, aimed at awakening. There's not a diagnosis for specific pathologies being attempted but rather a wholesale investigation. Western psychology starts with a pathology and attempts a specific diagnosis and treatment, assuming all the while a certain model of the mind."

Agreed, or as I've seen it put before, psychology aims to heal the self and create a healthy functioning ego wheras Buddhism ultimately aims at transcending the self altogether. The question for me is whether Buddhism over its vast history has also devised useful ways to create a healthy ego, ableit as a stepping stone or even a starting point to the real business of insight.. I think it has but there is just so much information, different traditions etc it can be hard to find that kind of stuff.

Could I ask what kind of therapy you have experience of? I get the feeling the model of mind they use would make a big difference to the whole approach and outcome. (I've been twice for to a CBT and the helpfulness has been.. limited to put it mildly. I'm not knocking the approach at all, it has helped me in the past but it dosn't seem like quite enough, or I'm just an awkward customer.)

"

There's a lot we can say about how Western and Eastern psychologies are similar and/or dissimilar. If I had to point out one important difference, it would be that Eastern (contemplative/meditative) traditions emphasize how to bring awareness to what is known in one's experience, and Western psychological traditions generally emphasize brining previously unknown/unconscious material to the foreground. Therefore, the two work beautifully together.

"

That's an interesting point, I hadn't thought about it in that way before. Hm I'll have to think on that a bit. To be perfectly honest I know exactly why I keep getting depressed and what it is a symptom of. It's the underlying problem I don't know how to deal with, or even talk about with anyone. Obviously I need to do something about it, I just don't quite know what.
Anyway this was never meant to be a thread about my personal issues so I'm going to leave it at that.
Thanks for your concern it means a lot.

"Could I ask what kind of therapy you have experience of? I get the feeling the model of mind they use would make a big difference to the whole approach and outcome. (I've been twice for to a CBT and the helpfulness has been.. limited to put it mildly. I'm not knocking the approach at all, it has helped me in the past but it dosn't seem like quite enough, or I'm just an awkward customer.)"

I think your question was directed at Chris, but I thought it might be helpful to share my experience as well.

First, I'm not a very big fan of CBT in general. It can be effective for treating some types of suffering, but many times it just frustrates people. It can be insulting to tell someone, "It's how you think, so just change it!" (that's a major oversimplification, but sometimes that's how it comes across.)

The therapy I've engaged in (as a client) has been more humanistic/existential in orientation. In this type of therapy, the therapist's primary job is to show the client what is called "unconditional positive regard." When someone feels respected for who they are, regardless of their deluded thinking or bad habits, they begin to open up. Insight (in the Western psychological sense) is more or less drawn out of the client by the safe, kind attention of the therapist, who is always on their side and wants what is best for them. Believe it or not, in many cases it works just as well as other forms of therapy; especially for symptoms like depression, which can largely be linked to existential issues when not caused directly by temporary events or dispensable environmental factors.

~Jackson

My opinion:

1. If one practices vipassana with the intent to focus on and deal with one's personal "pyschological issues" -- they will miss the boat, there will be no developmental insight.
2. If one practices vipassana as intended, with a continuous, objective and detailed awareness of changing phenomena -- there will be developmental insight, and, as a biproduct, there will be an improvement in one's personal pyschological issues. When there is better concentration, when one has an ability to put things into perspective -- life will just get better, it is unavoidable. Plus, if one is hightly movtivated toward developmental insight then one will also become hightly motivated to clean up their act and take care of their personal stuff because vipassana requires consistent, steady, strong concentration and you can't have that if your life is a mess.

What I wrote above, of course, does not address pathological, severe mental illnesses such as clinical depression, schizophrenia, bi-polor disorder, etc. These are medical conditions that require serious medical care and I don't see how buddhist meditation practices could help with those.

This topic has actually been on my mind a lot, lately, and there's one more thing I'd like to add...

I think we if would be beneficial to shy away from the extremes of presenting the Eastern meditative traditions as only being about transcendence and the Western psychological traditions being only about the ego. The depth and breadth of both traditions results in a considerable amount of overlap. And since a great deal of the Buddhist path is overcoming conceptual extremes, I think it's time for us to refrain from the unnecessary compartmentalization of these processes into divergent paths that address separate life issues, as if "Life, the Universe, and Everything" were somehow neatly organized in this way.

The truth is that life is not always neatly organized into separate categories. My contention is that it would be wise to avoid the extremes of either (1) treating Eastern and Western paths/therapies as treating the exact same issues, or (2) treating them as though they treat completely separate issues. Removing that conceptual blockage, I think, will be more beneficial for all - client, therapist, and yogi alike.

This is no simple task. It calls for not only recognizing genuine similarities and differences of Eastern and Western approaches, but also for the removal of any personal or collective stigma against choosing to participate in both. When it comes down to it, they are both ways of addressing and healing suffering for ourselves and others. And that's the point, right?

~Jackson

I was also reflecting on this. Even started a thread with the intent of fielding feedback. I've been working with a therapist to expose and process psychological issue. I'm also reading Welwood's book right now. I tend to agree with telecaster in terms of how progress of insight influences our ability to "handle" or simply accept our psychological make up.

"
I think we if would be beneficial to shy away from the extremes of presenting the Eastern meditative traditions as only being about transcendence and the Western psychological traditions being only about the ego. The depth and breadth of both traditions results in a considerable amount of overlap. ...My contention is that it would be wise to avoid the extremes of either (1) treating Eastern and Western paths/therapies as treating the exact same issues, or (2) treating them as though they treat completely separate issues. Removing that conceptual blockage, I think, will be more beneficial for all - client, therapist, and yogi alike.

... When it comes down to it, they are both ways of addressing and healing suffering for ourselves and others. And that's the point, right?

~Jackson"

This is a great middle way orientation! Why foreclose on the many possibilities before our two civilizations have had more than a few decades to interact?

"This is a great middle way orientation! Why foreclose on the many possibilities before our two civilizations have had more than a few decades to interact?"

Well said, Jake. Thanks

"

"there are approaches which involve a reliance on "innate resiliency", "innate well-being" Can you be a bit more specific? "

Actually, I recently stumbled across something called 3-principles based psychology online. It's pretty interesting in this regard, and there's even some interesting emperical studies which seem to back up some of their claims.
But my understanding is that the relational atmosphere of the therapist-client interaction is more significant than any particular theory, and Jackson sums this relational component up very well in his post. This "unconditional positive regard" could even be thought of as a facet of Buddhanature, as could the "dignity" of the client's receptiveness to the new information.
Any patient-client relationship could be based on this mutual discovery of unconditioned awareness and its innate loving-kindness and compassion, wherein the therapist initially creates and holds that space for the client's suffering, until the client learns increasingly to discover and rely on that space within themselves. This is the point about innate resiliancy or innate well-being: that there is a version of "you" which is intrinsically well, and which is more stable and clear than the version of "you" which is depressed etc. Connecting the two is where I see a certain overlap between buddhanature schools of meditation and western psychotherapy.
My impression is that there was starting in the 60's a subculture within counseling psychology which moved away from "deficit-based" approaches (where the basic message is "there's something wrong with you that we need to fix") towards "positive" psychology, in which there is an attempt to help the client connect their suffering to innate resources of wellbeing and wholeness through non-judgemental awareness. Wellwood is a good example of this.

" But my understanding is that the relational atmosphere of the therapist-client interaction is more significant than any particular theory, and Jackson sums this relational component up very well in his post. This "unconditional positive regard" could even be thought of as a facet of Buddhanature, as could the "dignity" of the client's receptiveness to the new information."

Yes, I think so, too. Jack Kornfield points out in "The Wise Heart" that mindfulness has been a part of the Western psychological tradition at least since Freud (which he called "even hovering attention"). Only, the emphasis has up to this point been on the mindfulness of the therapist. The new trend, based on the Eastern traditions, is on the mindfulness of the client. The convergence of the two is a beautiful thing.

~Jackson

It's probably just me but I believe this is a subject area that benefits more from experience than from theory. Theory tends to get us into blind alleys and is that which sometimes causes us lay people to take untenable positions and then defend them vociferously. So, with that in mind:

"Could I ask what kind of therapy you have experience of?"

I went to therapy for anxiety related issues some years ago and the therapy was very conversational, digging specifically into those thoughts, feelings and behaviours that tended to cause the problem. Another member of my family is being treated for clinical depression. I don't witness most of those sessions so I can't speak to them with any accuracy. I can say, however, that the psychiatrist involved has suggested mindfulness therapy (for the patient, not the therapist) in addition to whatever else is being done. (I don't think I've been in a therapist's office recently that hasn't had at least one book on a bookshelf somewhere with one of two words on the spine - "mindfulness" and "Buddhist.") Anyway, as a practical matter I'm all for doing or using whatever works. When people are in pain they need relief. When they are in danger they need relief.

So I have experience with western psychology and Buddhism/meditation practice. A discussion about their similarities and differences is frought with the potential to oversimplify, just like I did in my first comment. On the other hand, this comparison can get ridiculously complicated, hard to follow and impractical. So I plan to stick with the "what works" idea knowing that there are things both do that the other doesn't but that they're both trying to help.

That's my take on it this afternoon, anyway, as I just got back from the therapist and a pretty serious discussion of what the frick we need to do next.

BTW - I'm really torn over the idea that Buddhism is about "transcending the self." See, we all have a self, even after awakening. After awakening we have a better idea of just what that self is, but it's still there. And I don't think Buddhism works if there isn't a self there in the first place anyway, and a healthy self at that. So maybe one really helpful function that wetsern psychology can perform is to get folks to a place where Buddhist practices work better, more effectively, and on a healthy practitioner.

Just a thought.

cmarti,

I'm guessing that the psychotherapy could mainly be considered a part of the sila component of buddhist development. Especially if issues are preventing a person from developing concentration.

"cmarti,

I'm guessing that the psychotherapy could mainly be considered a part of the sila component of buddhist development. Especially if issues are preventing a person from developing concentration."

That's a good way to look at it, mumuwu. Many people have some frightening experiences when they begin meditating, which is due to issues of unresolved traumas and repressed emotions that tend to bubble up to the surface as the mind and body relax. For that reason, I think it's great that so many Western dharma teachers are also trained psychotherapists. If they can help people address such issues, and they may finally be able to get some good insight practice underway.

wonderful and timely discussion all!
The fact is, it's on we young folks and those who come along next to work this out over historic periods of time. Meanwhile, we will "do what works", as you say Chris-- if we're lucky enough to be exposed to it and wise enough to know it. May it be so for all beings.

I wonder if some of the virtues cultivated by meditation could be as helpful to someone trying to achieve a functional ego as they are for someone aiming beyond a healthy ego? Just from my own limited experience, not sure if I would have found a way to hold a steady job or maintain relationships, for example, if I hadn't learned to keep up a daily meditation practice.

"if one is hightly movtivated toward developmental insight then one will also become hightly motivated to clean up their act and take care of their personal stuff because vipassana requires consistent, steady, strong concentration and you can't have that if your life is a mess.

"

Hello Telecaster,

Firstly I completely agree that when you are doing vipassana you should just do the practice and not sit there thinking about your issues, that will certainly get you nowhere with insight and probably won't be too helpful with the issues either. I think the problem in a lot of western buddhist centers is most people don't really know what they are doing or why they are doing it, after all if you don't believe enlightenment is possible for you and think of it as some far off unattainable mythic idea, what can you hope to get from doing vipassana? A bit of self improvement maybe. But its like trying to use a hairbrush to clean your teeth, its the wrong tool for the job. (sorry stupid analogy).

Your second point actually gets to the heart of the issues I've been having, I am highly motivated towards developmental insight and yet my life is a mess in many ways, better than it used to be but still.. It is quite possible up to a point to practice insight very effectively by compartmentalising 'meditation' from 'life' but theres a point where it needs to become moment to moment awareness in everyday life as much as humanly possible and then suddenly unresolved issues do become a massive roadblock. I think thats where I am now and I need to deal with it, just trying to find the best way of going about it.

I don't have any experience of schizophrenia or bi-polor disorder so I couldn't comment on whether buddhist practice would help to any degree, it seems that medication and high level care work best for people with these conditions.