By Ben King-Hails Colorado College

Part 1: The Desire to Transform

Western philosophy touts rationality as the supreme method of both discovery and change. The scientific reflex that has resulted from this cultural belief impels us to break down problems into logical components before using our intellectual abilities to solve them. For many problems, this method yields fruit. As a result, our understanding of the material universe has vastly improved. However, when one applies the scientific method to the problem of psychological pain, the results are often lackluster, unactionable, or opaque.

This is because the problems of the unconscious, the source of psychological pain, cannotbe solved through reason alone. The language of the unconscious is not reason; the unconscious will not respond to the conscious mind’s requests to change.How then, can one change their unconscious and alleviate their psychological pain? Buddhist meditation and psychoanalysis are two of the most promising solutions.

Buddhism and psychoanalysis are unique methodsof alleviating suffering in that they require only faith to begin. These traditions assert that their practice will create meaningful, timely, observable change. Time and time again, these methods of transformation have indeed heralded change. The Buddhist and psychoanalytic methods of change, however, are vastly different. In this essay, we will examine the differences between the respective methods and end states of the practices of Buddhism and psychoanalysis. From this understanding, we will strive to uncover a unified understanding of the psyche which transforms, and identify which method of transformation is ultimately superior.

Part 2: The Self Which Suffers

In order to understand what self-transformation means, we must first understand how Bud- dhism and psychoanalysis con- ceive of that which transforms: the self.

As a psychoanalytic starting point, this essay will use John Riker’s Kohutian metapsychology. Within this theory, “the unconscious organizing struc- tures that are primarily responsible for producing action are
the id, character, self, and the social unconscious” (Riker 81). The id is that center of psycho- logical function which produces any “drive, desire, emotion, wish, or need that appears to have some kind of biological origin.” (81) The character is that which Plato and Aristotle sought to develop through the practice and cultivation of virtuous living. It is rationally cultivated, though eventually it becomes part of unconscious processes. The social unconscious is the part of us that holds the social blueprint of who we ‘should’ be. The id is natal, character is developed, and the social unconscious is imprinted.

The Kohutian self is, experientially, that which imbues our reality with exuberance and passion. Developmentally, it is that which needs motherly empathic mirroring, and stable idealized selfobjects (people that are psychologically experienced as part of oneself in their performance of a necessary function). When the self is damaged, it causes feelings of fragmented despair and seeks new selfobject relations to repair itself. According to Riker, experiences in which the self healthily takes psychological center stage, “are those that mobilize our deepest ambitions, ideals, idiosyncratic abilities, and spontaneous playfulness.” (86) For both Riker and Kohut, the self is the most fragile, yet the most important influence on conscious experience. People with healthy selves will experience a grounded sense of authenticity, a great ability to cope with hardship, and a deep and vital emotional life. People with damaged selves will experience fragmentation wherein they feel as though their psyche may disintegrate. To protect against these experiences, they will then develop defenses that serve to control experience in a life-limit- ing way. Finally, the self is never complete, it must always grow beyond itself.

With this metapsychological framework established, we can inquire into the cause of suffering, the prerequisite of self transformation. Because the id, character, self and social unconscious as the creators of psychological states, suffering must arise from them. Riker defines three primary psychological states which arise from these organizing structures: normalized experience, self experience, and pathologically limited experience. While everyday experiences arise from the social unconscious, self experience arises from a healthy self and pathologically limited experience arises from an injured self, which generally occurs through inadequate parenting or acute trauma. Phenomenologically, in normalized experience there is a kind of everyday flatness which encompasses the world. In self experience, the world is vital, open and full of opportunity. Pathologically limited experience is defined by a conscious or unconscious fear of disintegration. In such experience, defenses against disintegration render the experiencing person constricted and distressed. Insofar as pathologically limited experiences are the most painful, we will assume that most suffering can be understood as such. Thus, Self Psychology conceives of mental pain as that state caused by an injured self structure.

Instead of beginning with the truth about what constitutes the self, Buddhism1 asserts four noble truths about experience: “that there is suffering, that it has a cause, that it can be suppressed, and that there is a way to accomplish this” (Sarvepalli and Moore 272). In order to create a substantive comparison to the psychoanalytic self, we must understand what it is that underlies this suffering. Buddhism, however, proposes that “there is nothing permanent in the empirical self.” (272) For the Buddha, the self is a composite of perception, feeling, volitional dispositions, intelligence, and form. It would seem that something must contain or give rise to these elements of the self which could be said to be the actual self - that which is unchanging about a person. However, because the Buddha is so fundamentally concerned with the “ethical remaking of man”, he believes that “meta-physical disputations would take us away from the task of individual change.” (272) It is for this reason that the Buddha “keeps silent on the nature of absolute reality, the self, and nirvana.” (272) While the Buddha himself does not elaborate further, from his theories of transformation we can extrapolate some basic principles about the self.

According to the Buddha, suffering is caused by “ignorance and selfish craving.” (272) Additionally, the Buddha asserts that “when we get rid of ignorance and its practical consequence of selfishness, we attain nirvana, which is described negatively as freedom from ignorance, selfish- ness, and suffering, and positively as the attainment of wisdom and compassion.” (272) Nirvana is achieved by cultivating concentration and equanimity through meditation, and transports one from a mental state of attachment to serene detachment. From the Buddha’s words, we can glean that there exists something within the mind that gives rise to “ignorance and selfish craving” that one can rid themself of. Implicit in the creation of the arduous and lengthy transformational method of meditation is the fact that one cannot simply consciously decide to be rid of ignorance and selfish craving. That is, there exists something within that does not respond to conscious logic. This structure for Buddhism, like psychoanalysis, is the unconscious mind - one upon which some modern theorists have expounded. In such contemporary Buddhist theory, “the imprints of past experiences exert a powerful influence on our emotional reactions and behavior in the present.” (Yates 113) While Buddhism and psychoanalysis are alike in this sense, for Buddhism, past experiences are not the primary cause of suffering. The primary causes of suffering are the ignorance and craving that arise from attachments- both to external objects and one’s idea of themself. Buddhism and psychoanalysis are similar in that their models of the self and suffering include both conscious and unconscious elements. However, it would be a mistake to say that their models of the self and suffering are the same. While they are similar in acknowledging the role of past experience on the unconscious, their ideas of who suffers and why are very different. For Buddhism, everybody suffers by virtue of being human. Inherent in existence is the pain of attachment and loss. Alternatively, psychoanalytic suffering is not necessarily experienced by everyone. For psychoanalysis, damaged self structure gives rise to suffering. Unlike the Buddhist cause of suffering, damage to the self happens, or doesn’t, to singular persons. Buddhist suffering is universal and similar, while psychoanalytic suffering is individual and unique.

Part 3: Methods of Transformation

In order to escape suffering, psychoanalysis and Buddhism propose distinct methods. Within the psychoanalytic method, an analysand (patient) visits an analyst (therapist), often multiple times per week for years. During 50-minute sessions, the analyst and the analysand work together to delve into the analysand’s experience of life, as colored by their unconscious. In a successful analysis, the analysand’s unconscious neuroses are ameliorated by healing their self as they work towards a state of enlivened, embodied living, named vitality. Within the Buddhist method, practitioners meditate for hours every day for years. During meditations, the meditator attempts to remain aware of and equanimous towards all sense data, including thoughts. In a successful practice of meditation, one's conscious and unconscious troubles give way to a state of impenetrable serenity named nirvana. Let us delve further into the differences between these two practices.

Intersubjective self psychology provides a clear explanation of the psychoanalytic curative process. In this theory, the “sustained experience of engagement of the patient’s leading edge with the therapist’s leading edge [causes] the development of new psychic structures.” (Hagman, George, et al. 50) What is meant by ‘engagement with the leading edge’ is engagement with one’s singular hopes and yearnings. While leading edge work causes the development of new psychic structures, “the transformation of existing, maladaptive self structures occurs via the interpretation of the trailing edge.” (48) By trailing edge, the authors are referring to those parts of the psyche which produce pathologically limited experience, and are associated with fear and dread. It is this working through of the leading and trailing edges that therapy heals, through changing old structures and creating new ones. For psychoanalysis, once one has healed the injuries to their self, and built new self structure, they can consciously pursue and achieve a state of vitality wherein they actively, passionately, and dynamically create a meaningful life. The pathologi- cally limited states which caused them to pursue therapy no longer plague one who has completed successful analysis, as the inju- ries to the self which gave rise to pathologically limited experience are healed.

For Buddhism, through the process of meditation, one becomes less reactive and more equanimous to experience, including that of the mind. While meditative practices can differ, generally meditation involves sitting alone on a cushion and attempting to focus on a stimulus, usually the coming and going of the breath. While focusing on the breath, thoughts and emotions have the chance to arise. Buddhism asks the meditator not to “submerge” into these thoughts and emotions, but to acknowledge their existence and consequences non-judgmentally. Through the consistent practice of meditation, one can “overcome the psycho- logical root of their problems.” (Yates 115) From a psychoanalytic perspective, as we previously identified, the root of the problem would be an injured self. “Psychological root,” however, has a different meaning in the Buddhist tradition. What is meant by psychological root is simply the tendency to immediately react to the meaning made by the unconscious; meditation releases the meditator from their reactivity to conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions. Through consistent awareness, one becomes both “more attuned and less reactive” to their own mental life. (115)

Though this description of process does not satisfy the philosopher, as we do not have a coherent metaphysical understanding of the exact relation between unconscious processes, reactions, and awareness, Buddhism is radically focused on process as opposed to that which underlies it. For Buddhism, once one has overcome their reactiveness to their unconscious, and achieved a “purification of mind, they can realize the myth of separation and the unity of the universe.” (Yates 117) This is the state of nirvana, the end goal of meditation. In this end goal, suffering caused by attachment no longer exists, as one is no longer attached to themself or any external object.

Part 4: Functions of Transformation

While the psychoanalytic and Buddhist techniques of transformation are substantially different, they both lead to highly desirable, yet unique, end states. In the ideal psychoanalytic process the analysand and a trained analyst engage in an intimate relationship. Together, they work through the analysand's unconscious neuroses and attempt to strengthen the analysand's self structure. In the ideal Buddhist process, by engaging in mindfulness and meditation consistently, practitioners diminish the influence
of unconscious programs, rid themselves of desire and aversion, and achieve the state of nirvana. With the methods laid out, we can delve into the transforma- tive function of the methods: how the methods change the psyche. In order to identify functions of transformation, we will consider the differences and similarities between process and outcome in Buddhism and psychoanalysis.

While Buddhism and psychoanalysis have very different understandings of how to alleviate pain caused by the unconscious, both traditions emphasize the necessity of recognizing that the pain originates from oneself. Without this recognition, one will remain in a state of avoidance wherein the pain is not accepted but projected outwards onto the world. While it may seem like a simple realization, it is often difficult for individuals to accept this fact due to the longevity of their suffering. One may wonder, if I am the cause of this pain and I have had it for as long as I can remember, am I bound to experience it for the rest of my life? If so, is life worth living? However, to recognize it as one’s own is a prerequisite for undertaking any path towards healing. Seeing, understanding, and accepting oneself as one truly is, is the process of self empathy. Though self empathy ultimately plays very different roles in the processes of Buddhism and psychoanalysis, it is the function which allows the psyche to see itself as in pain.

Buddhist master Jon Kabat-Zinn extols the importance of the foundational attitudes of non- judging and acceptance to meditation. (Kabat-Zinn) These attitudes are part of the composition of the awareness necessary for meditation. For Buddhism, “if you do find yourself getting caught up in self-reproach, you’re just reacting from and reinforcing more unwholesome programming.” (Yates 116) In order to escape this cycle of chastising, one must be both non-judging and accept- ing. Taken together, non-judging and acceptance amount to self empathy whereby one accepts who they are without negative judgment. While for Buddhism, self-empathy is a byproduct of the mental meditative stance, it is a key component of the psychoanalytic cure.

The answer to the question of how psychoanalysis influences the psyche may lie in the most confusing, yet most important element of Kohut’s theory: empathy. Kohut gives a rare analy-sand-based description of analysis, stating that, “the heretofore isolated pathological sector of the personality establishes broad contact with the surrounding mature sectors so that the pre- analytic assets of the personality are strengthened and enriched.” (Kohut 33) Here, Kohut describes a process in which healthy parts of the personality accept a previously unaccepted pathological part. The result is a more whole psyche which does not disown an injured part of itself; a psyche that has empathized with itself.

Though self-empathy playsa very different role in the healing trajectories of psychoanalysis and Buddhism, for both traditions it performs the function of allowing the individual to see themselves as they are. While this may seem like a small alteration of the psyche, the switch from judgmentally relating to oneself to empathically relating to oneself has significant con- sequences. First, it allows for an honest evaluation of one’s psychological health, a prerequisite to taking action to change it. Secondly, when one relates
to oneself judgmentally, one will relate to the world judgmentally. By empathically accepting your- self as you are, you can accept others and the world as they are. For both Buddhism and psychoanalysis, self empathy allows one to embark on the journey of change by acknowledging and owning the burden of pain.

While Buddhism and psychoanalysis share self empathy as a part of the curative method, their subsequent methodologies are distinct. The two primary dissimilarities are in the owner- ship of psychological states, and the number of people involvedin the cure. I propose that these two fundamental divergences in method lead to the fundamental differences between nirvana and vitality.

While Buddhism and psychoanalysis share self empathy as a part of the curative method, their subsequent methodologies are distinct. The two primary dissimilarities are in the ownership of psychological states, and the number of people involvedin the cure. I propose that these two fundamental divergences in method lead to the fundamental differences between nirvana and vitality.

In the face of pain, both Bud- dhist and psychoanalytic instruc- tion is to remain with it. Psy- choanalysis asks the patient to delve deeply into their thoughts and feelings about the pain. Indeed, part of the psychoana- lytic process is taking conscious ownership of unconscious ma- terial. Alternatively, Buddhism asks the meditator to simply view such material the same way they would view a passing cloud - nothing more than a part of the sense data of experience. Bud- dhism promotes a similar pro- cess towards psychological states that are pleasurable. When expe- riencing meditative joy, instead of identifying with it, meditators are instructed to view it, again, as a passing cloud. Through non- identification with all psychologi- cal states, meditators alter their psyche towards a “deep purifi- cation of mind” in which their own emotions and thoughts are no more their own than the flap of a bird's wing or the flow of a nearby stream. (Yates 117) While nirvana is characterized by a merging of the self with the world (sometimes referred to as ‘stream entry’), psychoanalytically cured individuals see themselves as a distinct force differentiated from, yet dependent upon, the world. It is due to this merging with the world that those who have achieved nirvana present similar characteristics. In a sense, they have become the same thing. Those who have achieved vitality through successful psychoanaly- sis, on the other hand, identify deeply with their idiosyncratic experience of the world and are thus noticeably distinct. I believe that meditation’s depersonaliza- tion of psychological states caus- es the dissipation of the sense of self in nirvana while psychoanal- ysis’ ownership of psychological states causes the strengthening of a sense of self which characterizes vitality.

The other primary difference between the Buddhist and psychoanalytic paths to healing is the relational aspect. While psychoanalysis is undergone with another individual, meditation is usually practiced alone. Part of the psychoanalytic relationship is acting out one’s unconscious organizing structures within the therapeutic setting, a process called transference. Transfer- ence is defined as “the transfer of past experiences, beliefs, affects, and relational patterns onto the present, typically onto the person of the therapist.” (Hagman 25) In experiences of transference, “the real and true present is distorted by a past which looms too large to be shed.” (25) Psychoanalysis seeks to use the transference to understand, work with, and ul- timately shed that which “looms large”. Insofar as analysands are encouraged to act out their transference on the analyst, an act which would likely have detri- mental impacts if done in every- day life, the analysand is taught to express and embody their own thoughts and feelings, no matter how painful. As the analysand is healed and their emotional re- sponses are no longer overdeter- mined by injury, they will become able to work, love, and play with their full self. The Buddhist practitioner, on the other hand, has no one to relate to, so trans- ferences are not acted out. As such, Buddhist practitioners do not learn to express that which they experience in their interper- sonal relationships. Instead, the emotions that arise from their idiosyncratic neuroses become incorporated as another indis- tinct, unowned aspect of experi- ence. This leads to the difference in emotional embodiment be- tween persons who have achieved nirvana versus those who have achieved vitality. While those who have achieved nirvana present with a consistent detached seren- ity in interpersonal interactions, vital individuals relate to others dynamically, as they have learned to own and express their entire range of emotions.

Part 5: The Implications

But even if we understand the differences between the Buddhist and psychoanalytic methods and outcomes we might still be won- dering which one we should pur- sue - which one is superior. While both methods have the potential to eliminate suffering, the peo- ple who emerge from the distinct transformations are very differ- ent. While Buddhists can achieve a state of passive, blissful, seren- ity, those who have undergone successful psychoanalysis can achieve a state of active, passion- ate, vitality. While one may strive to achieve both, I believe that the ends of the paths, nirvana and vitality, exclude each other. The meditative serenity that comes from disowning one’s primacy excludes self affirming vitality.

Throughout this essay I have referred to “a” state of vitality, and “the” state of nirvana be- cause vitality comes in many different shapes and forms, while nirvana looks similar for those who achieve it. These states reflect the Buddhist and psycho- analytic views of psychological pain. While Buddhism sees all people as plagued by the same problems of attachment and aversion, psychoanalysis sees every individual’s pain as unique and distinct. A proponent of psy- choanalysis could argue that in its exploration of personal experi- ence, psychoanalysis allows for more personalized treatment. In response, however, a Buddhist could make the claim that the Buddhist conception of suffering both underlies the psychoana- lytic conception of suffering, and as such meditation has a greater healing capacity. Insofar as nir- vana and vitality are exclusive, and the answer to this question is firmly planted within the expe- riences of such states, to know the truth is impossible.

Be that as it may, by viewing aversion and attachment as primary to emotional experience, and subsequently “healing” by removing aversion and attach- ment to everything, including one’s idiosyncratic emotions, one becomes less oneself. The psy- choanalytic cure seeks to make us more our individual selves by resolving that which makes us disown ourselves, while Bud- dhism seeks to thwart our very belief in owning and disowning. I propose that it is better to em- brace yourself and live a par- ticular, unique and creative life than to retreat from yourself into unaffected serenity. However, in- sofar as I have acknowledged my inability to know the truth, I am stating my idiosyncratic prefer- ence, not a philosophical truth. By choosing either of the two paths, you assert your freedom to strive towards as fulfilling a life as possible. To choose neither and retreat into disguised suf- fering is to forsake the chance of living a more full life. Ultimately, the only wrong path is not choos- ing a path at all.

Citations:

Hagman, George, et al. Intersubjective Self Psychology. Routledge, 2019.

Kabat-Zinn, Jon. “Attitudinal Foundations of Mindfulness.” Master- Class, MasterClass, 27 May 2021, https://www.masterclass.com/ classes/jon-kabat-zinn-teaches-mindfulness-and-meditation/chap- ters/attitudinal-foundations-of-mindfulness.

Kohut, Heinz. The Restoration of the Self. University of Chicago Press, 2009.

Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli, and Charles A. Moore. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. Princeton University Press, 1989.

Riker, John. Why It Is Good to Be Good. Jason Aronson, 2010. Yates, John. The Mind Illuminated. Atria, 2019.

"The way that I take up philosophy is that I think about it as a way of living thoughtfully through some of the hardest aspects of life. Through tragedy and death and you know relationships, breakups—everything.

I think that philosophy can inform these moments of crisis, and so the reason that I approach philosophy in an autobio- graphical mode is because I want to show that it is possible to allow the love of wisdom to guide your particular actions.

Now the question is: would you do something differently in life such that it would make you a different type of person? Most of my sickest, despicable moments have made me who I am today. And, I am trying to come to terms with that fact, and coming to terms fully with that fact would mean that I would not change anything—which seems to be a sort of af- firmation of eternal recurrence. But I will say that I do see some of the mistakes that I made—including intellectual- izing life—as getting me to where I am now, which seems at least for the time being a more well adjusted being. A more well adjusted human being, hopefully."

-John Kaag, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Umass Lowell