Buddhist vs. Western Psychology: Mind, Self, and Interaction

Introduction

Psychologist Daniel Goleman sums up one of the central disparities between Buddhist and Western views of the mind. He states: "It seems that one of the biggest gaps that must be crossed between the Eastern and Western approaches to the mind is that the scientific method requires an objective third-person approach, whereas Buddhist practice is clearly a subjective first-person phenomenon" (Increasing Use of Buddhist Practices in Psychotherapy).

Goleman draws a clear distinction between scientific objectivity and Buddhist practice. In effect, this means that the Western model of mind and reality is grounded in the fundamental tenets of science. Western scientific thought is essentially dualistic and is built on the assumption that an ego or self exists as a separate, objective entity outside the mind. Buddhism, by contrast, is essentially non-dualistic and has maintained for centuries that self and mind are illusions — obstacles to the true knowledge of reality that is enlightenment. This is, of course, a radical simplification of the Buddhist stance, which also varies considerably from school to school.

Many Western psychologists and scientists do not fully appreciate this fundamental difference between the two views of reality. Western psychology still frequently misinterprets Buddhist philosophy of mind as a form of extreme subjectivism — as "a subjective first-person phenomenon." Buddhism in fact rejects the entire subjective-objective dichotomy that Goleman refers to as the "objective third-person debate."

The difference between East and West can therefore be located within this understanding of reality: the West frames experience through a subject-object dichotomy, while Eastern thought seeks to transcend that dichotomy entirely. This amounts to a profound and fundamental difference between the two perceptions of reality. Many psychologists, even after Jung's writings on Zen and Eastern philosophical thought, still perceive Buddhist philosophy through the lens of the Western subject-object division. For example, Goleman goes on to propose:

"… when it comes to exploring the mind in the framework of cognitive neuroscience, the maximal yield of data comes from integrating what a person experiences — the first person — with what the measurements show — the third person. The late Francisco Varela, with colleagues like Evan Thompson at York University, proposed an integration called 'Neuro-phenomenology,' which elegantly ties together first-person experience, a second person trained as an interlocutor, and the standard third person, such as fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging). Varela has a brief presentation of this method in my book Destructive Emotions. He points out the need for highly trained observers of the mind and proposes that seasoned meditation practitioners can play this role." (ibid)

This approach seems to overlook the distinction between the two systems of reality and the central characteristic of Buddhist philosophy and psychology of mind. One of the central contentions of this paper is that, within the framework of dualistic thought that underlies Western science and medicine, the Buddhist philosophy of mind cannot be adequately incorporated or even fully understood. However, there remain areas in which Western psychology has opened itself to the non-dualistic mode of thought found in Buddhist mind philosophy. In many instances, principles and techniques derived from Buddhist practice are gradually altering the dualistic mindset of Western psychologists and theorists.

It should be emphasized at the outset that the central disparity between Eastern and Western views of mind lies not only in their different approaches to mind, but in the very philosophical and theoretical concept of mind that informs these opposing views. The Western view centers on the idea of a permanent self, mind, and ego as both objective and subjective facts. The Buddhist view, on the other hand, holds that these aspects — and mind itself — are illusory, and that mind is ultimately an obstruction to enlightenment and an impediment to understanding reality. Western psychology, as part of the Western scientific enterprise, has been built around a belief in the reality of self, mind, and the individual personality; whereas Buddhists regard these three concepts as existent but illusory obstacles to true-mind. The difference between a dualistic and a non-dualistic perception is the crucial criterion that separates Western and Eastern psychology.

During the second half of the twentieth century, however, many theorists attempted to bridge the gap between East and West across numerous fields, including psychology. The advent of postmodern thought created a new awareness of the relativity and representational nature of Western scientific assumptions. Strict dualism and the subject-object dichotomy were questioned by scientists such as Heisenberg, and a growing realization emerged that non-dualistic views of reality could not be ignored in any serious questioning of the Western scientific ethos.

Buddhist Philosophy of Mind

In psychology, the work of Jung and others laid the foundations for Humanistic and Transpersonal psychology, which attempted to incorporate Buddhist principles and even therapeutic techniques. This paper will assess some of the central aspects of this vast and complex field.

The Buddhist approach to mind varies, sometimes considerably, from school to school and country to country. However, Buddhism in general rests on four central foundations that inform the Buddhist understanding of mind.

The first noble truth is that suffering is the central characteristic of human experience. The recognition of suffering serves as the point of departure for the exploration of all existence and the understanding of mind. The second noble truth explains the cause of this suffering, which Buddhism directly relates to mind — or perception, in Western psychological terms. This is the idea of mind as the basis of attachment. Attachment is central to the concept of suffering in Buddhism and is also one of the most important points of contact with modern psychological theories of the self. The essential point is that suffering is created by the perceptions and constructions of mind: "People's suffering is not created by the external world, but by people's own minds" (Goldstein, 1976).

According to the Buddhist understanding, psychological suffering and distress are created by desires and attachments to an external — and therefore illusory — world. More specifically, people suffer because of their desires and attachments: "Attachments are things that people cling to, things they feel they must have to be happy" (ibid). Crucially for Western psychology, one of the central forms of attachment in Buddhism is attachment to perceptions of self and ego: "People cling to their image of who they are, and expend great amounts of energy defending and bolstering that image" (ibid).

The third noble truth holds that attachment and suffering are not inevitable, and the fourth truth explains how release from attachment and suffering can be achieved. It is this final truth that relates most directly to the Buddhist understanding of mind, and it is also the area most strikingly at odds with Western thought.

Release from the confines of attachment is, very simply put, accomplished by removing attachments to the world through a clear understanding of how the mind creates attachment and illusion. As Goldstein explains, "gaining clear insight into the process by which attachments lead to suffering … leads attachments to fall away without struggle, because it leads people to understand the folly of desire and clinging" (1976). This understanding of mind and its creation of illusory attachments is the central aspect of the Buddhist view of mind-only.

These views lead to the concept of mindfulness, which has also entered Western psychological terminology in recent years. "Practicing mindfulness means paying attention at all times. By paying close attention to their thoughts, to external stimuli, and to their own behavior, people gradually gain the insight needed to be free from suffering" (McIntosh, 38–39). The relationship between mindfulness and attachment is also a concern found in contemporary social psychology, where attachment structures form a critical element in the social construction of the Western self. As McIntosh notes, "social psychological research on subjective well-being supports the assertion that people's desires consistently outpace their ability to satisfy their desires" (39).

A further issue relevant to Western psychology is the Buddhist view of existence as impermanent: "The nature of existence is that nothing is permanent. Therefore, even when people attain the object of their attachment, it is only a temporary situation, and people's attempts to maintain the object of their attachment are ultimately doomed to fail" (McIntosh, 40). There have been many psychological studies on the effects of attachment structures as a form of neurosis in the West (ibid).

Conclusion

The above references apply to only some of the attempts of Western psychology to come to terms with and incorporate Buddhist forms of understanding into the contemporary discussion of the mind. There are numerous other studies and research papers that see an increasingly important need to understand Buddhist concepts of mind in modern psychology. However, while there are different degrees and levels of integration and communication between East and West, the central difference has yet to be overcome. The Western world still confronts a reality it perceives in essentially dualistic terms, while Buddhism regards the world as purely a construct of mind — and therefore illusory in the final analysis. It is this basic difference between a dualistic and a non-dualistic mode of thought that remains the central dividing line between Western and Buddhist understandings of the mind.