Buddhism and Psychotherapy

After beginning a writing project for the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice back in 2009 I'm pleased that I've now been published in the June 2011 edition!  It's a piece that aims to explore the relationship between meditation and psychotherapy, how they support each other as well as challenge each other.
 

Buddhism and Psychotherapy; an Integral dialogue

 

Abstract: Following from Roger Walsh's (2009) call to the Integral community to look at and address various potential pitfalls or blindspots in development I analyze an area Walsh mentioned repeatedly in his presentation, that of the relationship between spiritual and psychological inquiry within an Integral context. I draw from two prominent voices withn Psychotherapy and Buddhism, those of Mark Epstein and Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche respectively, in order to give a lived and experiential view of the fascinating relationship between these two vital disciplines. I conclude that the most useful frame I've found in order to hold this dialogue is Ken Wilber's appreciation of structure-stages, state-stages and shadow.

 

In 2005 I had the great fortune to meet and open an inquiry with Ken Wilber for the first time during a five-day Integral Life Practice seminar. Within this inquiry I attempted to articulate what was then an intuitive appreciation of the seeds of contemplative inquiry and what I later learned could be called 'spiritual bypassing' (Welwood 2002 and Masters 2010). Wilber provided me with an answer that pointed to three key elements in this inquiry, discerning between State-stages, Structure-stages and Shadow, as outlined in Wilber (2006). As I have provided a consideration with some degree of detail regarding the issues raised by an appreciation of Structure-stages of development in relation to Buddhism within other writing (Munn 2007) I will now analyze in detail the other two elements, those of State-stages and Shadow. Wilber also provided me with what Walsh (2009) would call a 'wisdom question,' pointing towards cultivating a "sensitivity" to tell where an avoidance was oriented towards, either the samsaric or nirvanic "side of the street," as well as places where contemplative wisdom was in the process of emerging. Cultivation of the "sensitivity" Wilber pointed toward is something I attempt to bring to life through the experiential nature of the material used throughout the article.

 

After reading the recommendation by Walsh (2009) to the Integral community towards fuller embodiment of wisdom through engaging, amongst other disciplines, contemplative and psychotherapeutic inquiry, I was inspired to formally engage in a written analysis of how the two separate and sometimes seemingly conflicting disciplines of Buddhism and Psychotherapy can be held cohesively. In my own case, and through observation of others, I have witnessed times when the views of psychotherapy and Buddhism have been conflated in either direction, leading to either stunting of contemplative development or spiritual bypassing, and times when the views have been held skilfully, leading to a discerning and nuanced method of working towards clarfying heart and mind. This article represents a partial expression of my ongoing journey towards a deeper intimacy with the seeming experiential disparity between what could be called the 'relative' and 'Absolute' dimensions of my humanity and the wisdom question pointed to by Wilber five years ago.

 

In order to engage the dialogue between psychotherapeutic and Buddhist views I first provide a frame for this article by citing the distinct approaches to this dialogue outlined by Mark Finn (in Safran, ed. 2003). I then focus in detail on Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche's (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005) unique presentation of the five skandhas, which can be used as a contemplative map and a vivid account of a Buddhist perspective on self formation. After detailing Trungpa Rinpoche's presentation I reference Wilber's (2000) refutation of one form of the five skandha 'no-self' view and demonstrate how the contemplative map presented by Trungpa Rinpoche can be contextualized within and enriching to Wilber's updated (2006) work.

 

In light of detailing a partial account of both Trungpa Rinpoche and Wilber's views on the 'self' I then clarify Mark Epstein's synthetic, or 'integrationist,' approach to the dialogue between Buddhism and Psychotherapy. I conclude that the views of Psychotherapy and Buddhism are best held as separate but relationally engaged endevours within an Integral view, large enough to include and distinguish both and enabling the practitioner to cultivate an ongoing sensitivity as to which means is most appropriate in the moment.

 

It is important to note that while this article argues for each discipline of Psychotherapy and Buddhism to stand as separate yet intimately related partners in an ongoing exchange towards clearer, more embodied and responsive self-understanding the article itself largely approaches this relationship from a Buddhist-oriented perspective. This is largely due to what I perceive as a 'post-idealized' phase in the West that once held Eastern contemplative traditions in unquestioningly high esteem and is now culturally experiencing somewhat of a teenage rebellion, the bookshelves and online forums being replete with psychological critiques of contemplative Masters or Traditions. I perceive this as a useful and maturing movement however one that often discounts or excludes a fuller meeting with deep contemplative endevour and so this article is aimed at redressing the exchange. In future writing I look forward to more fully exploring spiritual bypassing than space allows in this article.

 

The Couch or the Cushion?

Mark Finn (in Safran, ed. 2003) notes there are three prevalent approaches to the dialogue between Buddhism and Psychotherapy, the first approach being one of both 'sides' arguing that the other is regressive. The psychotherapeutic version Finn highlights of this is the psychotherapeutic 'side' presenting some form of Freud's belief that the oceanic feeling that can accompany some spiritual states is a womb-like regression. I would add the more subtle version of this perspective being an over-emphasizing of the 'problem' of spiritual bypassing as a reason to not engage in or to de-prioritize spiritual practice. Finn then notes the contemplative version of viewing the other 'side' as regressive is believing that engaging a psychotherapeutic injunction merely reinforces a narcisstic self-infatuation that only prolongs the suffering of duality. This is obviously not a very satisfactory relational dialogue and if this perspective were a couple they should certainly seek, dare I say it, some good quality therapy. While each 'side' within this framing of the dialogue has valid points it cannot be a tenable foundation on which to build this article due to it's proponents either/or stance but is worth mentioning in brief in order to highlight the limits of either view being taken as the Only Way, or as having access to the Only Truth.

 

The second mode of dialogue Finn notes is the scientific study of spirituality by transpersonal psychology, which has "rescued spirituality and religion from reductionistic contempt, ironically by studying meditation scientifically" (p.103).

 

The third approach, and "most fasionable," (p. 103) is the 'integrationist' perspective, the "most popular" (Safran 2003, p.1) proponent of which is Mark Epstein. For the purpose of this article Epstein's work provides an opportunity to explore in detail the relational exchange between the psychotherapeutic and contemplative injunctions that Walsh (2009) recommends the Integral community engage in. For me personally it offers an opportunity to explore another avenue into further understanding the "sensitivity" pointed towards by Wilber through the intimate engagement Epstein has detailed through his own, and his clients, engagement in the relationship of Buddhism and Psychotherapy. I therefore begin with Trungpa Rinpoche's unique presentation of the Buddhist view of self formation, so as to be used as a point of comparison later to Epstein's integration.

 

 

A Buddhist Understanding of Self

In order to outline what the buddhadharma means by an ‘I,’ ego, or self, a key Buddhist view, that of the five skandhas, will be summarized from multiple sources within the teachings of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). I am outlining the five skandha view due to Trungpa’s repeated use of the model when describing the self and to show how very different the self is understood by Buddhism as opposed to the Western psychological and philosophical context in which Buddhism now finds itself. It is important to note from the start however that Trungpa Rinpoche's presentation of the five skandhas is, as noted by Welwood (2002), "not the traditional formulation found in Abhidharma psychology, but grows out of a more Vajrayana-style interpretation" (p.294).

 

The five skandha model of ego outlines ego not as an intra-psychic entity but rather as an activity of awareness, which becomes progressively more limited and reactive through a process of contracting around a subjective and objective pole of experience. The five skandha model demonstrates how moment after moment a subjective and objective polarity generates the sense of an ‘I-in-here’ that needs to be defended against an unstable ‘world-out-there.’ This root anxiety gives rise to a subtle and pervasive dissatisfaction with one's life and often the pre-reflexive tendency to push away, grab on to or defensively numb against experience. This is very distinct from the description of Welwood's (2002, p. 36) summary of the Western Psychoanalytic presentation of 'ego' or 'self' as an organizing or synthesizing activity that we cannot directly experience but serves a "useful explanatory function" as to how individuals manage internal and external functioning and maintain a healthy and consistent self-image.

 

The First Skandha, Form

 

The first skandha, called Form, is presented by Trungpa Rinpoche as the basic separation, the root separation, whereby a very subtle sense of I-in-here and world-out-there takes root, giving flower to captivity and freedom, nirvana and samsara both. Here Trungpa Rinpoche outlines that freedom requires suffering and that suffering requires freedom in order to exist, in other words both samsara and nirvana are still dualities giving rise to each other and that the activity of awareness called Form is this root duality.

 

This basic separation of Form, the first skandha, is described as emerging from the basic ground, basic openness, basic spaciousness of one’s nature, which being prior to the root duality is free from it. The separative activity of Form is described as having three sub-stages; the Birth of Ignorance, the Ignorance Born Within, and Self-Observing Ignorance.

 

The Birth of Ignorance Substage

The Birth of Ignorance sub-stage is described by Trungpa Rinpoche as a grain of sand in the desert sticking its neck out and looking around, with the sense here not so much of anything more than an extremely subtle sense of otherness arising with this movement. It is very interesting to note that Trungpa mentions that noticing an Other with this very subtle mind in turn generates a self, that before an Other is noticed a self is not formed in relationship to that Other. The mistake that is said to be made is perceiving that there is in fact a fixed Other that exists as separate from basic space and in turn generating a self in relation to the misperception of the fundamental nature of the Other. This has huge ramifications for an intersubjective appreciation of identity and is a topic that I look forward to exploring in later writing.

 

The Ignorance Born Within Substage

Following from this emerging otherness the Ignorance Born Within sub-stage arises. After the first movement of separation comes the sense that one’s very nature is separateness is established and therefore one feels the need to establish some territory and security, again in a very subtle sense.

 

The Self-Observing Substage

Lastly within the first skandha is the Self-Observing Ignorance, described as the birth of watching oneself, seeing oneself as a subtle object and therefore giving rise to an Other for the first time proper, here is the birth of “me” and “world,” or “me” and “the world I create based on my very subtle subjective projections.”

 

Two Meanings of 'Projection'

Here it is important to note briefly that when the word “projection” is used within Buddhism, traditionally what is referred to is the creation of an objective pole of experience based on a subjective pole of experience being established. Within a Western context the psychodynamic appreciation of “projection,” seeing something in another that one can’t accept in oneself, has not always been separated from the Buddhist meaning of projection within Buddhist communities. Buddhism specializes in addressing the first kind of projection, the projection of duality, and Western therapy in the second kind of projection, the projection of disowned intra-psychic material. This is one example of a conflation between contemplative and psychological views, leading to either spiritual bypassing or stunted contemplative horizons if one does not hold both types of projection and two distinct methods of working to resolve them.

 

Wanting a Dance Partner

This first skandha of Form is to separate out from basic space and form an ‘I’ in relationship to that space. Doing so one is trying to prove to oneself that space is real and objectifiable, and as such basic space starts to become solidified and turned into a personal security investment. From this activity we say things like “I am experiencing Big Mind,” which Trungpa describes as wanting a dance partner, wanting to dance with space rather than rest as space itself prior to relationship, prior to I-and-Other. The reason given for why we do this is that resting as basic space is too unstable for the self, which cannot freeze it and be secured by it.

 

At this point there is the sense that the momentum of bewilderment and confusion in response to the overwhelming nature of spaciousness and brilliance is starting to gain speed. Spaciousness is seen as unstable and threatening and so further measures need to be taken in order that the self is seen as real and one’s territory is seen as stable and enduring. The measure that is taken by this momentum of duality, of I-and-Other, is the second skandha, called Feeling.

 

The Second Skandha, Feeling

 

Feeling in this case means the motion towards very simply feeling-out the Other, of checking-out the world outside. The feeling described is not the feeling of emotional feelings, they arrive later in the skandic sequence, it is the feeling of the Other in the simple terms of assessment, with the Other being either positive, negative, or neutral in relationship to the self. By doing this the self, the I or ego, is making itself more real by gaining more detailed reference points to its own existence, at this point still in very simple ways.

 

The Third Skandha, Perception-Impulse

 

From this movement in the second skandha of feeling the Other in terms of attractive, repulsive or uninteresting qualities the third skandha arises, which is called Perception-Impulse. Perception-Impulse follows from the assessment of the Other as attractive, repulsive or uninteresting with the response toward the Other being one of either attraction, repulsion, or ignoring.

 

This third skandha is the birth place of the three root poisons, to use traditional language, of greed, anger and ignorance. Greed refers to moving towards that which will confirm the self and anger refers to wanting to destroy that which threatens the self. Here ignorance does not mean the basic ignorance shown in the first skandha, which is a more subtle ignoring of reality beyond suffering and freedom. Here ignorance is the simple ignoring of a particular Other, characteristic of Other, or field of Otherness based on its irrelevance to one’s momentum as a separate ‘I.’ Interestingly Buddhist teachers will sometimes manifest in ways neither threatening nor confirming to the self and in that offering of no feedback mirror the self’s empty nature.

 

To summarize, the third skandha of Perception refers to the receiving and processing of the information from the second skandic assessment of Other and Impulse refers to the reaction that is automatically generated based upon that information.

 

The Fourth Skandha, Concept

 

Even though this assessment of the outside is occurring and a reaction based on that assessment is taking place Trungpa outlines that this is still not enough to really cement our separateness. Though they are reactive, automatic tendencies there is a sense of the second and third skandhas still being quite fresh in some way, they are still very ‘in the moment,’ in the sense of remaining in contact with the Other and reporting back to the self semi-fresh findings on what the Other is. Therefore the activity of Concept begins to come into play as the fourth skandha in order to further freeze what has been felt into a security by running it by the headquarters of ego, which is conceptualization of direct experience.

 

The forth skandha of Concept comes in to place to further freeze solid what is found out by the activity of the second and third skandhas with a labeling of the information, a pigeonholing of experience as “good,” “bad,” “beautiful,” “ugly” and so on. In this way the freshness of experience can be further filtered and dulled by first having to go through a layer of pre-determined, pre-reflexive concepts about itself, rather than being seen directly, clearly and brightly.

 

The Fifth Skandha, Consciousness

 

From this place Trungpa (2002, p.128) notes that an amalgamation occurs whereby the “intuitive intelligence” of the second skandha, the “energy” of the third skandha, and the “intellectualization” of the fourth skandha combine to produce thoughts and emotions, which make up the fifth skandha, called Consciousness. When we sit down to meditate it is usually this layer of separateness that we encounter first, the general random thinking process and mood of ourselves, the most ‘gross,’ or obvious and solid manifestation of our I-in-here, or ego. It is from this place that Trungpa (2002) notes the Six Realms start to be projected and experienced as real, which will be addressed in relation to Mark Epstein's work below.

 

After having presented Trungpa's unique presentation of the formation of a self moment-after-moment it will now be useful to outline Wilber's (2000) critique of poorly employed or translated versions of 'no-self' as such views can easily lead to confusions in one's practice. Following this it will be shown how Wilber's (2000) summary of the skandhas can relate within his recent (2006) work to Trungpa's presentation of the skandhas outlined above.

 

'Self' or 'No-self'?

 

Wilber (2000) has offered a critique of poorly understood, applied, or translated teachings on the no-self view and seems to draw the conclusion that it would be best to do away with the term no-self altogether, recommending instead terms such as Great Self (Mahatman), I-I, or Emptiness. This could be seen as a valid assertion because as Traleg Rinpoche (2006) humorously said “when Buddhists speak of no-self, they don’t mean there’s no self!” Indeed, Traleg continues, if there was not a self there would be no need for marga, a path. Wilber rejects a 'no-self' view that posits the relative self's nature as false and that equates the Absolute nature of self to be 'no-self' as "wrong on all counts" (p.718) to the relative and Absolute nature of identity.

 

Wilber (2000) draws on the dialetical Madhyamika approach employed by Nargarjuna that expresses a recognition of Emptiness not as one view that can be argued against other views but rather as a perspective taken to de-throne any dualistic view from the position of Absolute Truth and thus leaves the practitioner resting in or as Emptiness itself. With such an approach one cannot argue that the Ultimate Truth of Emptiness equates with "no-self" as oppossed to "self" in relation to the fundamental nature of identity. Therfore, as far as the Absolute nature of self, Wilber argues, it is incorrect to use a dualistic notion such as 'no-self,' that is held over and against 'self' and is wrong as to the Absolute way of understanding the nature of self.

 

For Wilber the 'no-self' view fares no better when describing the relative nature of self also and again Nagarjuna's view is employed in order to note that describing a self apart from states and states apart from self is not tenable. Rather the self and it's states are mutually dependent and phenomenally real as appearance, but Ultimately unreal. Based on this view it is more desirable for Wilber (2000) to map contemplative progession as a movement from a relatively healthy and functional self towards it's release within Emptiness, rather than a move from a relative self to an Absolute conceptualized as 'no-self,' or, worse still, to attempt to create the relative self as a 'no-self1.'

 

Wilber (2000) has however critiqued the five skandha view and so it would be of use here to clarify Wilber's relationship to the five skandha view within an Integral Buddhism. Wilber (2000) critiques what Welwood (2002) notes as a "traditional" (p.294) five skandha view, which is intimately tied in with a perspective that posits the realtive self as unreal, or composed and therefore bound to decompose, but as being made up of elements called skandhas, which are seen to be real, or not composed and not subject to decompostion. Wilber places the skandhas in an evolutionary, vertical spectrum of structural development within the Upper Left quadrant whereby the skandhas unfold as “1) physical form 2) sensation 3) perception/impulse 4) emotion/image and 5) symbolic/conceptual consciousness” (p.726). Wilber references that for the Tantric Buddhist view the fifth skandha is then further subdivided into gross, subtle and very subtle levels, the latter Wilber often calling “causal.” From this perspective the meditative inquiry into the nature of self is to cultivate a precise and stable enough mind to see the formation of an illusory self out of further and further evolutionaryily primary structures of mind and recognize that none of these structures contain a final and solid 'self.' Wilber critiques this perspective as being atomistic, reductionistic and Romantic, the implication of this view being that Perfection resides prior to the formation of the bothersome 'self.' Aside from the notion of 'no-self' that Wilber rejects, Wilber highlights that the skandhic structures of mind transcend and include each other from the first to fifth skandha in developmental fashion and can be correlated with Western developmental theorists such as Piaget. This correlation lends cross-cultural validity to the accuracy of a developmental appreciation of the structures of mind as outlined by this version of the five skandha view.

 

If the traditional view of the five skandhas runs along a vertical column with the Upper Left quadrant, the Vajrayana-style presentation of the five skandhas given by Trungpa Rinpoche details a structure-state process that runs horizontally across the Wilber-Combs Matrix, as presented in Wilber's (2006) more recent work. Using this experiential contemplative map we can see the process of self formation detailed by Trungpa Rinpoche can be included and enriching of an Integral appreciation of identity. When framed this way it is clear to see that even though Wilber (2000) largely rejected the traditional skandha view, while reatining it's developmental elements, there is room for the presentation made by Trungpa Rinpoche within Wilber (2006) as a state-stage model of working with the duality of the self.

 

Here it is also important to make a theoretical clarification because so far the integration presented has a clash or schism within it, which is that the traiditional skandha view is seen as vertical structure-stages of development with an increase in awareness or cognizance from the first skandha, the least cognizant structure of mind, to the fifth skandha, the most cognizant skandic structure. The detail provided by Trungpa Rinpoche of the skandhas however would seem to run counter to this, which is to say that it appears the fifth skandha is the least cognizant and the first, or even awareness prior to the formation of the first skandha, is the most cognizant. How can these two perspectives co-exist? It is very useful to note that there appears to be a difference in emphasis between each view presented of the skandhas. The skandha perspective presented by Wilber (2000) is detailing a developmental model of mind following a vertical column within the Upper Left quadrant and therefore presents a self that forms and develops along a spectrum and if this momentum is continued can then mature in transpersonal stages of growth. The presentation made by Trungpa Rinpoche however is detailing not a structural developmental model but a state-stage appreciation of how the emptiness of the self is defended against by identifying with more or less gross appreciations of self and therefore charts our Involutionary momentum and a path of working to undo this momentum.

 

Trungpa Rinpoche (2003) however does not reject the necissity of healthy self formation in terms of developmental structure-stages of growth. In response to a question about the implications of babies and children developing egos2 Trungpa Rinpoche emphasizes the importance of education, the importance of ego development being part of the educational process and that ego development is a "natural proces" (p.473). Indeed he said that the aim is not try and give children, who are in the process of developing a self, a " very sneaky Buddhist style" education so that they won't develop an ego, nor that this is a desirable thing to do, that one needs to learn how to say "no and yes3" (p.473). Placing the vertical, developmental, structure-stage view of the skandhas alongside the state-stage presentation of the skandhas within the Wilber-Combs Matrix is one way of including both healthy self-formation and contemplative undoing of the identification with these structures within one cohesive view. In this way a basic frame is given to honour both healthy psychological growth and contemplative training without falling into the extremes of spiritual bypassing or stunting of contemplative development.

 

So far half of the presenttation has already been made in the dialogue between Buddhism and Psychotherapy insofar as the sophisticated work of Trungpa Rinpoche has been presented and contextualized within an Integral framework in order that an experientially rich and direct map of state-stage development can be related with in terms of one's own contemplative practice and understanding of 'self.' It has been shown that the 'self' from a Buddhist perspective has been shown to be problematic when taken to mean narcissistic self-referencing activity, which does not exclude a healthy, functional and coherent understanding and embodiment of one's self. What has so far only been alluded to is that one can cultivate either appreciation of the self in more-or-less independent fasion from the other, as articulated humorously by David Deida (2005). I believe it is in part due to this recognition that the unique Psychospiritual approach of the West has developed. My inquiry below will highlight some of the ways psychotherapeutic and Buddhist views can become conflated by analyzing the work of Mark Epstein, so that both Buddhism and Psychotherapy can stand as separate yet intimately engaged partners in their, and our, growth and unfolding journey.

 

A Synthesis of Buddhism and Psychotherapy?

 

 

Epstein’s (1996, 2007) work presents an intricate and experientially vivid account of psychoanalytic psychotherapy from a Buddhist perspective, Buddhist practice from a psychoanalytic perspective and highlights pitfalls in spiritual practice through an appreciation of dynamic intra-psychic structures or patterns. Epstein articulates how people with yearnings towards greater understanding of the contemplative depths of their selves and inevitable unresolved patterns gained through life and development can work with a full range of their being in a skillful and nuanced way, without falling into either a monological dogmatism or mere eclecticism.

 

The presentation Epstein makes often distinguishes between the goals of psychoanalytic work and a meditative endeavor with such statements as

“Whatever their similarities, meditation and psychotherapy are not the same. The identical person, engaged in either pursuit, will have vastly different experiences. Psychoanalytic psychotherapy tends to lead to experiences that reenact earlier and more formative emotional relationships so that the person’s history can be, in effect, reconstructed. Buddhist meditation tends to intensify certain ego functions so that the sense of self is at once magnified and deconstructed.4” (p. 131)

However Epstein’s repeated characterization of Buddhism as a “psychology” and seeing Buddhism from a Psychoanalytic perspective and Psychoanalysis from a Buddhist perspective often seems to lead to somewhat of a confusing merging or conflation of these two distinct schools of thought and ways of living.

 

Therapy or Meditation? A case study

 

One example of the blending Epstein (1996) offers is a case study of a man, “the veteran of six years of psychotherapy,” (p.168) attending a meditation retreat and eventually coming to feel an intense psychosomatic tightness in his diaphragm. On painfully and repeatedly attending to the breath for extended periods of time in meditation practice the man came to a cathartic experience whereby he sobbed for hours. This experience helped the practitioner to release the psychosomatic tension he had been holding in his diaphragm since the age of five whereby, he came to remember, he had hidden in a closet and stuffed socks into his mouth to avoid his abusive father hearing him crying. This, Epstein notes, is a good example of how paying close attention to the body, as is done in meditation, helps deepen self-understanding in a way that this particular man’s six years of psychoanalysis did not.

 

It would however seem that the meditative injunction is not designed for such purposes, nor seemingly is very interested in these kinds of results per se, as shown by the following from Dainin Katagiri Roshi (1988, p.25)

“Some Zen teachers tell us how useful it is for us to do zazen. But zazen is useless. At an international yoga conference in Chicago some time ago, I was asked to talk about Zen life, so I explained Zen life and zazen. In yoga meditation, meditation must be used physically, mentally, psychologically. But I said just the opposite: zazen is useless. No one was interested. But remember this, in the one place where no one is interested, there is something you have to be interested in, and that is life and death.”

As can be seen from Katagiri’s statement a cathartic experience is not particularly interesting from his point of view, zazen is not to be used "physically, mentally, psychologically" in order to gain particular therapeutic releases. The reason being that the resolution of suffering, from a Buddhist perspective, is much more to do with one's contraction around one's self, rather than particular unresolved emotions within one's self. However from a therapeutic perspective experiences of cathartic release around childhood trauma can be important turning-points. The best course of action for this man would seem to have been to be engaged in deeply embodied and viscerally real therapeutic work, rather than therapeutic work that consistently missed such somatically held tension. In this way the therapeutic release and integration of a painful, traumatic and unresolved childhood experience could have been held and worked with using specific, relevant tools and in relationship with a therapist. Had this have taken place the meditative injunction could have been further freed for the practitioner to continue looking into the nature of the self, relatively unburdened by such unresolved childhood trauma.

 

My own experience with working with powerful and enduring emotions within Buddhist retreats lasting periods of months, is that meditation will help me to stay closely with, yet hold spaciously, intense emotional experiences. This kind of practice in my experience does not necessarily lead to catharsis, nor is it particularly interested in catharsis, but rather leads to being in contact with, yet not centralized around and focused on, my personal self. However an embodied and energetically responsive therapeutic work likely does lead to a useful catharsis in my own case, helping to break up the energetic and somatic blockage that has occurred and reducing the likelihood of attentional fixation occuring during meditation and the post-meditation experience5.

 

While I have argued that meditation may not be the most efficient use of one's time if one is moved to seek therapeutic release what about the other side of the coin? Does psychoanalytic inquiry lead to realease of the deeper aspects of self-fixation that the Buddhist path outlines? This seems to be a recurrent theme within Epstein's work, ranging from his own work with different 'realms' of experience, described below, to bringing a Buddhist light to bear on Winnicott's 'false self' or the "mental permanence of the I" from Lacan. To what extent is the use of psychoanalytic work in uncovering a root sense of separate self, our deep sense of narcissism? I will analyze Epstein's work with the Buddhist 'Six Realms' map in order to clarify this.

 

The Six Realms from a Buddhist and Psychoanalytic perspective

 

There is a map within Buddhist thought called the Six Realms, which was noted earlier from Trungpa Rinpoche's presentation as the culmination of identifying with the skandhic process. The Six Realms are traditionally understood as part of the overall Buddhist cosmology concerning death and reincarnation and traditional teachers such as Gampopa (1998) list the Six Realms as ontologically existing realms that a being will move through according to the result of their actions and mental cultivation in a very literal manner. Gampopa also lists sub-realms within realms, for example within the Hell Realm there is the Greater Howling Hell, the lesser Howling Hell, which is distinct from the Heating Hell and Intense Heating Hell, which all differ from the Constant Suffering Hell. Epstein (1996) provides an interesting psychoanalytic account of the Hungry Ghost, Hell and Animal realms, with some unique insights relevant for Western practitioners. I will now focus on Epstein’s working with the Hungry Ghost experience in order to gain more clarity on the relationship between therapeutic and contemplative modes.

 

Epstein describes Western childhood as largely being characterized as one of not receiving enough attention from the often over-worked, over-stressed and isolated parenting unit that is the nuclear family. The only way the child can make sense of this is by believing in an internal fault, an internal sense of lack, within themselves, rather than as present within the environment. This sense of lack persists, unresolved, into adulthood and thereby greets the beginning Western meditator as an internal hole that cannot be filled. This lack, which Epstein (p.173) terms the basic fault, seems, within Epstein’s presentation, to be at the core of the Hungry Ghost experience for Western practitioners, with it's roots in unresolved psychodynamic material.

 

Epstein notes as a case study of a woman named Tara who compulsively started and quickly ended sexual relationships with men, simultaneously yearning for affection and at the same time quickly coming to reject, undermine and loose interest in men that she had begun to connect with. It was only until Tara could contact her pain at the lack of affection her mother had shown towards her during her formative years that she could start to welcome in what genuine intimacy was present from others, without the child-like, unconscious drive that this intimacy be perfect and fulfilling in a complete or idealized manner. Through this work Tara was able to overcome the simultaneous painful hungering for and rejection of something that was nourishing for her that is so characteristic of the Hungry Ghost realm. Tara was also able to re-engage with a meditation practice that had previously appeared too frightening due to the strength of her unresolved wounding. This account by Epstein does away with the pre-Modern, mythological literalism found in writings of such traditional masters as Gampopa (1998) and provides an often needed supportive adjunct to meditation practice. It does not however give the Buddhist contemplative account of the experience of the Hungry Ghost Realm but rather a psychoanalytic, historical explanation of them6.

 

Trungpa (2005) offers somewhat more of a confrontational articulation of the contemplative experience of being a Hungry Ghost not based on unresolved childhood wounding but instead based on a state-stage appreciation of identity, noted above as the result of identifying with the skandhas. In Trungpa’s example the restless nature of an ‘I’ defending against its own true nature is directly given, to the extent of being shocking. His description is as follows:

“Fundamentally, you feel poor. You are unable to keep up the pretense of being what you would like to be. Whatever you have is used as proof of the validity of your pride, but it is never enough, there is always some sense of inadequacy. . . . Anything that appears in your life you regard as something to consume. If you see a beautiful autumn leaf falling, you regard it as your prey. You take it home or photograph it or paint a picture of it or write in your memoirs how beautiful it was. . . . You are constantly hungering for new entertainment--spiritual, intellectual, sensual, and so on. . . . Whenever you feel hunger, you open up your notebook or scrapbook or a book of satisfying ideas. . . . It is painful to be suspended in unfulfilled desire, continually searching for satisfaction. But even if you achieve your goal then there is the frustration of becoming stuffed. . . . Whether you satisfy a desire or suspend yourself in desire and continue to struggle, in either case you are inviting frustration.” (p. 47-49)

Rather than being the experience of repressed material returning as a symptom, as it is for Epstein, the identification as a Hungry Ghost for Trungpa (2005) is articulated as an “entertainment” (p.48) or distraction away from one’s fundamental insecurity, or non-fixated, non-dualistic nature. Whether or not that distraction is pleasurable or painful from a relative point of view is somewhat besides the point. The point here for Trungpa is duality being used as a distraction from one’s non-dualistic nature, that non-dualistic nature being deeply threatening to the self identified with the skandhic process. It is also a universal phenomenon, not particular to Westerners due to particular culturally supported parenting practices and based largely on a current activity of awareness rather than personal historical content. The assertion made by Epstein that Psychoanalysis can uncover the same type or level of narcissism that Buddhism aims at is therefore questionable.

 

As can be seen the descriptions of being a Hungry Ghost given by Epstein and Trungpa are very different and this highlights the way in which the therapeutic mode and the contemplative mindset can be distinguished in a clearer fashion than Epstein’s presentation seems to. The Buddhist presentation again and again returns to suffering as the result of self-contraction, the Western Psychotherapeutic perspective returns again and again to structures, experiences and psychic dynamism within the self. It is only now -- after having laid a contemplative foundation inclusive of a healthy sense of self as defined by Western Psychology and having shown the limitations of a 'synthetic' approach that does not fully make these discernments -- that I can summarize Wilber's original response to my inquiry, the "sensitivity" to recognize and work with state-stages, structure-stages and shadow, which will be outlined below.

 

State-Stages and Shadow

 

Through using the contemplative map of the five skandha presentation by Trungpa Rinpoche outlined above it is possible to 'check-in' with oneself as to what state-stage one is currently identified with, how far 'right' one is on the Wilber-Combs lattice, and therefore to see to what extent one is avoiding the 'nirvanic side of the street.' Through 'checking-in' with the therapeutic accounts provided within this writing, which point largely towards changing something within the separate self sense as oppossed to one's relationship to the separate self sense, one can refine one's sense of if an avoidance is arising on the 'samsaric side of the street.' Both are bound to arise, both cause suffering to one's self and to others and both often tend to require a more experienced guide that is able to navigate the new and as yet unseen territory of one's own unfolding, the journey towards embodied wisdom that Walsh (2009) recommends. It is in this way that this article has given flesh to the Integral injunction of being cognizant of and working with the awareness of state-stages and shadow as separate yet intimately linked terms, rich with life and meaning, reflecting a discovery of our ever-deepening awareness, integrity and heart as human beings.

 

The article, as mentioned at the start has focused largely on the Buddhist perspective and has used the Buddhist perspective as it's main perspectival anchor. The image I have had in my mind while allowing this writing to come together is that of both Buddhism and Psychotherapy being intimately related partners, partners that live with each other and that smell each other. The feeling I have of their relationship is, to repeat myself, is one of deep mutual respect and passionate engagement that gives both partners room to fully express, be challenged by and be supported by the other. The image I have held of approaches that conflate these two perspectives is a co-dependent relationship, draining both of their vitality, unique gifts and leaving the dialogue somewhat middling. The image I have had of those views which hold these two perspective too far apart is one of an estranged relationship with both partners passing 'like ships in the night' and the image of those views which outrightly reject each other as two people, perhaps with some familiarity between them, who can't acknowledge how badly they want each other, their desire for full meeting transmuted into a self-defeating hostility.

 

It is my aspiration to write further on this, from this, or as this, dialogue and to switch the focus, coming to further address the ways in which we 'hide out' in the more or less subtle forms of spiritual bypassing. Unfortunately due to space this has not been possible. I can however point towards Mark Epstein's work as a useful account for those interested in both meditation and psychotherapy. More particularly I can point towards the work of Robert Augustus Masters as an example of an embodied, direct and responsive Psychospiritual approach, as well as the work of John Welwood. It is my sincere hope that we all continue to mature through a grounded clarity towards our deeper Being.

 

References

Deida, David (2005) Function, Flow and Glow. Integral Naked, www.integralnaked.com

 

Epstein, Mark (1996) Thoughts Without a Thinker; psychotherapy from a Buddhist perspective. Basic Books, New York

 

Gampopa (1998) The Jewel Ornament of Liberation; the wish-fulfilling gem of the noble teachings. Snow Lion, Ithica, New York

 

Katagiri, Dainin (1988) Returning to Silence; Zen practice in daily life. Shambhala, Boston

 

Masters, Robert Augustus (2010) Spiritual Bypassing; when spirituality disconnects us from what really matters. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley

 

Munn, R. (2007) Beyond No-self--An AQAL Appreciation of Identity: My Communication With a Zen Teacher. http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/285?page=8&return=archive

 

Traleg, Kyabgon Rinpoche and Wilber, Ken (2006) Spirituality in the Modern World: A dialogue with Ken Wilber and Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche. Universal Quest Studios.

 

Safran, Jeremy, D. (2003) Psychoanalysis and Buddhism; an unfolding dialogue. Wisdom Publications, Boston

 

Trungpa, Chögyam Rinpoche (2002) Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. Shambhala, Boston

 

Trungpa, Chögyam Rinpoche (2003) The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa; volume two. Shambhala, Boston

 

Trungpa, Chögyam Rinpoche (2004) The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa; volume eight. Shambhala, Boston

 

Trungpa, Chögyam Rinpoche (2005) The Myth of Freedom; and the way of meditation. Shambhala, Boston

 

Walsh, Roger (2009) The State of the Integral Enterprise; part I: currant status and potential traps. AQAL: The Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 4(3), 1-12

 

Welwood, John (2002) Towards a Psychology of Awakening. Shambhala, Boston

 

Wilber, Ken (2000) Sex, Ecology, Spirituality; the spirit of evolution. Shambhala, Boston

 

Wilber, Ken (2006) Integral Spirituality; a startling new role for religion in the Modern and Postmodern world. Integral Books, London

 

 

RICHARD MUNN holds a 1st Class BA (Hons.) in Criminology and Psychology with Coventry University, Humanistic and Gestalt Counseling training with The Gestalt Center in London and Post-Graduate study of Integral Theory with John F. Kennedy University in California. He has been published several times on Ken Wilber's blog, in various national sources regarding Martial Arts and in a self-development book by BAFTA winning writer Geoff Thompson. He has been a practicing Buddhist for eight years, first within a Sri Lankan Theravadin lineage, followed by the Soto Zen lineage of Suzuki Roshi and finally with the Kagyu lineage of Trungpa Rinpoche, having now spent over 1 year engaging retreat practice. His interests reside in embodied meditation, martial arts and inter-subjectivity.

 

Keywords: Skandhas, psychoanalysis, self/no-self, spiritual bypassing, Wilber-Combs Matrix