In today's world, we're constantly told to work on ourselves and set strong boundaries to improve our wellbeing. But what if the very idea of "self" is an illusion? While psychotherapy pushes us to explore and improve who we are, Buddhism suggests that our understanding of self might even be an illusion. This article explores the philosophical differences between these two approaches and asks whether blending them could lead to better sense of wellbeing.
Psychotherapy and Buddhist meditation practices often share similar objectives — gaining insight into the functioning of the human mind and alleviating the suffering caused by our thought patterns. However, despite these common goals, the philosophical foundations, ideals, and methodologies employed by these two schools of thought differ significantly.
One of the primary factors contributing to these differences is the underlying moral framework that guides each approach. Buddhism, as a spiritual tradition, is deeply rooted in a specific set of ethical principles and beliefs about the nature of reality, the self, and the path to liberation from suffering. On the other hand, psychotherapy, as a Western scientific discipline, is influenced by various theoretical frameworks, empirical research, and socio-cultural norms. While some forms of psychotherapy may incorporate elements of Eastern philosophy, the field as a whole is not bound by a single moral code and is predominantly influenced by neoliberal beliefs.
In Buddhist mindfulness practice, a key goal is to realize the illusory and impermanent nature of the self. According to a school of Buddhist thought, what we perceive as the self is actually a collection of five aggregates: physical form (rupa), sensation (vedana), perception (sanna), mental formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vinnana). These five aggregates interact continuously, creating the illusion of a coherent, enduring self, but there is no underlying, permanent essence beyond this dynamic interaction.
For humans, this illusion is significant because it gives meaning to our physical existence and motivates our actions. However, it also leads to suffering as we get trapped in an endless cycle of striving to fulfil the needs of the 'self,' since these needs constantly changing due to the impermanent nature of the self. According to Buddha, recognizing the illusory self can help one liberate themselves from this cycle of chasing and suffering. The goal of meditation is to objectively SEE the nature of these aggregates, moving beyond mere intellectual understanding, which can potentially free one from suffering.
Does this mean that, according to Buddhism, the answer is to stop engaging in life's pursuits and lead an ascetic life? While some choose this path, Buddhism proposes a middle way for people living in the world. More on the middle path later, but now let’s shift our focus to psychotherapy.
Psychotherapy takes different approach towards the conception of ‘self’. In Psychotherapy, self is seen as an concrete entity that ought to be unravelled and understood. In therapy, understanding and improving the self is often a primary goal. Different therapeutic approaches focus on various aspects of the self, such as exploring unconscious needs in psychoanalysis or achieving congruence between self-image and the ideal self in person-centered therapy
In Psychotherapy, the idea of ‘self’ is defined and distinct, contrasting with the illusory view of self found in Buddhist traditions. This difference is evident in ideas like personal boundaries, where one might fully protect themselves from psychological suffering caused by others through establishing strong boundaries. The notion of 'setting strong boundaries' is only plausible if the self can be theoretically contained, allowing for a clear separation between the self and others. In her article "Boundary Issues," Lily Scherlis insightfully explores the connection between the concept of boundaries and neoliberalism. She notes that the idea of boundaries gained popularity in the U.S. self-help industry in the early 1990s, coinciding with the rise of neoliberalism. Here's an excerpt from Lily's article:
Boundaries do this by teaching us to relate to other people as if they are the one thing social systems are most determined to protect: property. Most boundaries books of the ’90s unselfconsciously steal imagery from land ownership. As Cloud and Townsend put it, “just as homeowners set physical property lines around their land, we need to set mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual boundaries for our lives to help us distinguish what is our responsibility and what isn’t.” Or, to be blunt, “if I know where my yard begins and ends, I am free to do with it what I like.” Ownership is the cornerstone of boundary ethics, and the self is a particularly pesky thing to own, because its edges are invisible. “In the physical world, boundaries are easy to see,” Cloud and Townsend go on. “Fences, signs, walls, moats with alligators . . . they give the same message: THIS IS WHERE MY PROPERTY BEGINS . . . . In the spiritual world, boundaries are just as real, but often harder to see.” The ’90s fetish for the suburban lawn is everywhere: “Like any fence, boundaries require maintenance,” writes Anne Katherine. “Some people are like ivy. . . . It’s tiresome, but if we let these people stay in our lives, we must keep pruning them and throwing the behavior weeds out of our yards.”…
Psychotherapy’s connection with neoliberal and capitalistic ideas are not surprising given their parallel development. Freud developed psychoanalysis during the widespread expansion of capitalism. In the early 20th century, Freud even established free clinics to make psychoanalysis accessible to the working class, aiming to integrate mental health care with social justice. Since the mid-20th century, the rise of neoliberal capitalism has further shaped psychotherapy, emphasizing market-driven solutions and individual responsibility. This has influenced therapy's goals and methods, with consumeristic solutions often taking precedence due to their profitability. The rise of the self-care industry and retail therapies exemplifies this trend.
Further, many conceptual underpinnings of psychotherapy are rooted in academic psychology research done by western scholars. This has led to criticism that academic scholarship is disproportionately focused on WEIRD societies—Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic. This inadvertently perpetuates biases such as treating individualism as the norm rather than one of many ways to live. On the other hand, psychology research have also been heavily criticized for its replication crisis and reductionism.
The replication crisis and reductionism in psychology research are interlinked as reductionism oversimplifies complexity of human experiences into simplistic theories without adequately taking the culture and context into account. For instance, attachment theory is widely used to explain the behavioural patterns of adults in relationships. The obsession with attachment theory by mental health and dating influencers on social media evident through the countless number of reels is the testament for its pervasiveness. Despite its holy grail status in the popular cultural discourse, the veracity of the theory has been questioned by academics for a long time for various reasons, the lack of cross-cultural validity being one of them.
Given its neoliberal nature, the modern wellness industry, including psychotherapy, places too much responsibility on individuals for their well-being, reflecting the ideals of our market-based economy. The wellness industry perpetuates the illusion that individuals have full control over their well-being, needing only the right boundaries and strategies tailored to them. It rolls on the idea that wellness individually can be bought in the form of therapy, courses, products, retreats, and trips. Further, this perspective promotes a selfish approach to life. Leading one to believe that no one else cares about their well-being and that they alone are responsible for themselves. Consequently, this mindset discourages them from being available for others.
Despite my reservations about psychotherapy, I believe it holds great potential for improving societal well-being. Psychotherapy offers valuable tools for gaining a deeper understanding of our inner world. While mindfulness meditation shares a similar goal, it may not be effective for everyone. Engaging in radically honest conversations with a therapist can provide clarity in our thoughts, much like mindfulness. I think combining psychotherapy with Buddhist ideals could foster a just and sustainable wellbeing in individuals.
Buddhist philosophy emphasize the interconnectedness of ‘our individual selves’ with the world and its vast expansiveness. It acknowledges that our well-being is deeply intertwined with the well-being of those around us. Recognizing our interconnectedness, both spatially and temporally, can lead to greater self-compassion. It helps us see that our mistakes and shortcomings are not solely our own responsibility but rather the result of the complex nature of our existence. This understanding encourages us to care for each other, as by doing so, we ultimately care for ourselves. However, it is important to recognize that the Buddhist concept of self or non-self can be overwhelming, which is why Buddhism offers aphorisms such as the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path as practical and moral frameworks for taking the middle path in life treading between attachment and aversion.
Understanding ourselves is important because it helps us see how connected we are and how much we influence each other and the world. Psychotherapy can help us build this awareness. Buddhism teaches that while our individual selves might be an illusion, our interconnectedness is real. Our well-being depends on each other, so it becomes a moral duty to care for others. Taking care of ourselves means taking care of others, and vice versa.
Written by Deepak Varuvel Dennison