Buddhism as psychotherapy
In speaking of the psychotherapeutic aspect of Buddhism, it must be said that psychotherapy is not merely one aspect of original Buddhism. It would be more accurate to say that it was entirely a form of psychotherapy. The Buddha emphatically states in the Buddhist scripture, (Anguttara Nikaya), that it may be possible for a person to claim to have been free from physical disease even for a hundred years, but it is not possible for a person to claim to have been free from mental disease even for one day, except a perfected disciple (Arahat), or the Buddha himself. A critic may have doubts about this apparently ostentatious claim. Yet it is recognized by all Buddhist scholars that the ultimate aim of the Buddha, according to the early Buddhist scriptures, was to produce Arahats who were perfect in mental health. Arahatship was the culmination of the Original Buddhist Practice. If the Arahat is the only person with perfect mental health, the Buddha’s ultimate aim or target was nothing below “perfect mental health” for all human beings who are ready for it. This means that Buddhism is not merely another form of psychotherapy, but rather the “ultimate psychotherapy,” that brings about perfection in mental health. In fact, it has been said that while modern psychotherapy attempts to turn abnormal “suffering” to normal “unhappiness,” the Buddha has been turning normal “unhappiness” into supernormal “happiness,” by bringing people to “perfection in mental health,” where even temporary mental disturbances, like common worries and anxieties, come to an end. According to the Pali Nikaya teachings, which are considered to be the earliest sources of the teachings of the Buddha, the Buddha has been described as the “Unsurpassable-physician-and-surgeon” (anuttaro bhisakko sallakatto), and even as the "Unsurpassable-trainer-of-personality" (anuttaro purisa damma sarati). Expressed in modern terminology, these terms may be rendered as "the super psychiatrist" and "the super personality trainer."
The human predicament
With due respect for the above assertions, let us now enter into a more thorough and systematic examination of Buddhist concepts in relation to modern psychotherapeutic theory and practice, which would indeed help us verify the validity of these claims. Before we come to a systematic examination of Buddhist concepts, however, it is necessary to explain the human predicament in modern perspective.
Modern biology tells us that we are but organisms by birth. We are born with five main sense organs: the eye, the ear, the nose, tongue, and the body. We are living in an environment, which constantly stimulates our senses. There are several varieties of disturbances in the environment that stimulate the senses, and each sense organ is sensitive only to one kind of stimulus. One sense organ reacts to stimulation only in one specific way. For example, light affects only the eye, not the ear or the nose. Sound affects only the ear. Similarly, the other senses are specialized to be receptive only to one kind of stimulus. Light stimulating the eye results in seeing, and in the same manner, sounds stimulating the ear results in hearing; so does the nose smell, the tongue taste, and the body feel the touch. All the different sensory data received through the different senses, such as, light, sound, smells, tastes, and touch, are combined or synthesized in the brain, to construct a mental image with a meaning concerning what we perceive. This means, the world that we are aware of is a product of the reaction of the senses to stimulation, accompanied by the activity of the brain, which forms a mental image and gives meaning to it. In other words, the world that we are aware of is a creation of our own minds, and it is going on unconsciously all the time.
Our comprehension of the world is limited by our senses and our brain’s ability to reason out. The world that appears to be out there is not really what is found out there. It is only a picture produced in the brain, just as a camera does. The brain in addition gives a meaning to it. Modern psychologists as well as modern philosophers are aware of this fact. This means, the Creator of the world is our own mind, and each individual is living in his/her own “made up world.” Yet we communicate with one another through the medium of language, and compare our views with others and so build up a cultural world. Through exchange of ideas, we build up a view of the world common to our culture. This is why each culture has a different view of life, and a different way of doing things. When we meet a person from another culture we begin to see that person as somewhat strange, weird, or offbeat not only in appearance but also in thought, feelings, and behaviour.
It is very important to recognize this fact in the modern world, where there is so much international and intercultural communication. This is not merely a Buddhist dogma, but a fact recognized in modern anthropology, sociology, biology, psychology, and philosophy. Because it is an observable fact, it was also recognized by the Buddha. This realization does away with the common reference to solipsism. Buddhism is not based on dogmas or beliefs but on the observation of experience (sanditthiko) here and now (akaliko), which any one can verify for oneself (ehipassiko), in the crucible of one’s own experience (paccattaŋ veditabbo viññuhi). Modern scientists and psychologists seem to be only rediscovering what the Buddha discovered centuries ago. This is why Buddhism was a science rather than a religion at the beginning. It was not a physical science but a mental science or psychology. It was the science of happiness. Buddhism, however, is an introspective (openaiko) science, unlike the modern physical sciences that focus attention only on the external world that is visible and tangible. This is why it has similarities to Freudian introspective psychology.
It is interesting to note at this point that the modern school of psychology known as Behaviourism holds that, to be scientific, one has to imitate the physical sciences. Behavioural psychologists have focused only on the external objective experience, and rejected introspection as unscientific. They define psychology as “the study of human behaviour,” and avoid the study of mental processes, which are subjective and therefore regarded as unverifiable. The behaviourists recognize the transformation of behaviour that results when the thoughts are changed. It is true that one cannot observe another person’s inner experience. Yet, one can observe another person’s change of behaviour and make an inference by comparison with one’s own experience. For example, if a person A is pinched by a person B, B cannot feel the pain, but B can know whether it hurts A, by observing A's behaviour. This is how we read another’s thoughts. This is also how a mother reads a baby’s thoughts.
The difficulty about introspection was that subjective mental processes could not be observed objectively, and are therefore they were not supposed to be verifiable. This is not a problem to the Buddhist because the Buddhist is not concerned with observing other peoples minds but observing one’s own. Buddhism is not a search for knowledge for the sake of knowledge. It is an effort to solve a problem in one’s own mind. As the structure and function of the body is the same in every human being, the structure and function of the mind is similar. If one understands one’s own mind, one understands other’s minds also. This fact makes it possible for a doctor to help a patient, whether the ailment is physical or mental.
According to the Buddha, it is possible to observe the subjective mental process objectively, by first removing the emotional obstacles to observation. It can also be verified by another by testing it in the crucible of one’s own experience. If you tell me that a fruit tastes good, I can verify it only by tasting the fruit myself. The fruit may be an objective experience but the taste is a subjective experience. I cannot observe another’s sight, sound, smell, taste, feel of touch, or thought, but I can observe mine. This is how a scientist verifies another’s experience. If I see bacteria under the microscope, you can verify it by looking at it yourself. If I here the tune of a song, you can verify it by listening to it yourself. If I smell a perfume, you can verify it by smelling it yourself. If I feel the warmth of a cup of tea, you can verify it by feeling it yourself. This is how the scientists perform experiments. If we cannot trust our subjective experience, we will not be able to perform any scientific experiment.
Some psychologists, however, have realized that psychology has to be the study of the mind or mental processes, and that we cannot know about the mind by looking only at the body and its behaviour. Thus the school of Cognitive Psychology has come into being. Modern scientists dealing with quantum physics have begun to realize that the physical world that they attempt to discover is actually a mental construct. There are many books written on this subject by scientists as well as philosophers. Since modern physicists began to realize that the external world is only a product of perception and conception, objectivity has become a misnomer and a myth. In fact, there is no “out” to look at, other than what “seems to be.” All that we experience is subjective.
This is why the Buddha called the objective experience, nama-rupa, which means, mental image and its identity, and the subjective experience was called, viññana, which means, the process of perception. The Buddha also saw that there is no “person” who perceives, or a “thing” that is being perceived, but only the “process of perception” and the “product” of the process, which is also subjective. This means, the subjective experience, which is the “seer,” and the objective experience, which is what is “seen,” are both mental constructs and not real entities that “exist” in real time and real space. Even space and time are mental constructs. This is the meaning of suññata or the “emptiness” of experience, which Mahayana Buddhists commonly refer to. This subjectivity of all experience is nether idealism nor solipsism because the Buddha did not believe in “existence,” either subjective or objective. There are no existing “entities” but only activities that begin and end, with change in between. Without understanding this basic premise on which the teaching of the Buddha stands, we cannot understand the problem we are about to discuss.
The aim of the Buddha was not to formulate theories, but to solve the problem of human suffering, by each individual examining one’s own experience, rather than examining other’s experience. The result was the disappearance of unhappiness, which can be observed by oneself as well as by others. The systematic technique of the Buddha for the observation of one’s own experience was called satipatthana (systematic introspection). Sigmund Freud’s method of psychoanalysis through free association is also a method of introspection, where the patient is helped by the analyst, to observe one’s own mind. This explains why some of the findings of Freud are almost what the Buddha had pointed to many centuries earlier.