Buddha—A Cognitive-Behavioral Therapist?
“If we look deeply into such ways of life as Buddhism and Taoism, Vedanta and Yoga, we do not find either philosophy or religion as these are understood in the West. We find something more nearly resembling psychotherapy” – Alan Watts, British philosopher.
As startling as it may seem, this comment suggests a close relationship between Buddhism—a religion that features ideas that date from thousands of years ago—and psychology—a modern study of human behaviors and emotions. In particular, from a psychological standpoint, Buddhism resembles a form of cognitive-behavioral therapy—a treatment that integrates cognitive, behavioral, and emotional factors to help alleviate mental illnesses. For instance, Buddhism attributes the cause of human suffering to the lack of mind control and proposes mental and physical practices as solutions to the problem, which closely align with the common practice found in cognitive-behavioral therapy. In the study of the relationship between these two seemingly unrelated fields, an important factor to be considered is the roles of the Buddha in the teachings of Buddhism and the therapists in the practice of cognitive-behavioral therapy. As it turns out, although the Buddha and modern cognitive-behavioral therapists appear to have common viewpoints on the causes of, and the solutions to, human mental illnesses, the aims and scopes of their practice differ—while the Buddha aims to “rescue” humanity from suffering (Armstrong, 2001, p.97) and thus acts as a commissioner, cognitive-behavioral therapists aim to help clients overcome their current mental illnesses and act as doctors. This statement will be analyzed using Baird’s historical method, with evidence for suggested causes, solutions, and healing processes drawn from The Dhammapada, Karen Armstrong’s Buddha and the Encyclopedia of Psychology.
According to the Encyclopedia of Psychology, cognitive-behavioral therapy is “integrative, uniting theories of cognition and learning with treatment techniques derived from the cognitive and behavioral therapies” (Kazdin, 2000, p.135). Cognitive-behavioral therapists suggest that cognitive factors play a great role in individuals’ experiences—they posit that “individuals respond to cognitive representations of environmental events rather than the events themselves” (Kazdin, 2000, p.135). They also claim that such cognitive factors can be manipulated “as a path to induce behavioral and affective change” (Kazdin, 2000, p.135). During the treatment process, the therapists follow a set of guidelines that are grounded in theories and empirical evidence, and closely collaborate with their clients with the goal to help them recover from mental illnesses and improve their life quality (Kazdin, 2000, p.135). This goal is achieved via both cognitive techniques, such as coping skills training, and behavioral techniques, such as exposure to uncomfortable situations (Kazdin, 2000, p.136). For example, a client has social anxiety and refuses to go to parties, claiming that she is not welcomed by other party goers. Her cognitive-behavioral therapist might explain to her that it is not a reality that others do not welcome her—it is her thought instead. He might then identify her thoughts (self-talk) about social events, teach her strategies to modify her maladaptive thoughts, and expose her to similar situations (Kazdin, 2000, p.135), aiming to help her effectively cope with uncomfortable experiences. As shown in this example, cognitive behavior therapists not only seek to alter the patients’ cognition and mindset but also incorporate behavioral practices in the treatment to enhance their active coping abilities. This multidimensional approach is the most distinctive characteristic of cognitive-behavioral therapy and thus a crucial criterion for classifying a practice in this category.
Regarding the cause of mental illnesses, similar to cognitive-behavioral therapists, the Buddha posits that human suffering is rooted in their mental factors. In her biography of the Buddha, Karen Armstrong asserts that the Buddha teaches individuals “how to cope with the misery of life, transcend their weakness, and live in peace in the midst of this flawed world” (Armstrong, 2001, p. 11). It is noticeable that the Buddha suggests that people’s problems lie in their perception of reality. According to The Dhammapada, the Buddha views human beings as those with “quivering, wandering” minds (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p. 8), and suggests that:
“Preceded by perception are mental states,
For them is perception supreme,
From perception have they sprung.
If, with perception polluted, on speaks or acts
Thence suffering follows” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.3).
As seen in the verses, the Buddha states that how individuals perceive a situation depends on the attachment, desire, and feelings they associate with it. That is, human beings do not perceive things as they are, but as what they seem to be. Therefore, flawed mental states are the principal causes of human suffering. More specifically, if human beings “consider the non-essential as the essential, and see the essential as non-essential” and thus fail to “attain the essential” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.4), their suffering follows. For example, some people prioritize their sensual pleasures and desires over mindfulness and discipline. As a result, when their immediate satisfaction does not bring out true happiness, they become dissatisfied. If they prioritize discipline and become detached from earthly pleasures and desires, however, failure to achieve immediate satisfaction does not result in their disappointment. In addition to flawed perception, the Buddha also regards the “unsteady mind” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.8) as a source of human suffering—he asserts that those who do not control their minds cannot attain serenity. Consequentially, such lack of control does even more harm to him compared to “what a foe may do to a foe, or a hater to a hater” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.9). In other words, an uncontrolled mind is a human being’s worst enemy. In general, by identifying several flawed mental states as the causes of human suffering, the Buddha suggests that mental factors play an important role in human’s well-being.
Since the Buddha regards the uncontrolled mind as the main reason for human suffering, he proposes mental discipline as a solution to the problem. In The Dhammapada, the Buddha asserts that:
“The sagacious one may tend the mind
Hard to be seen, extremely subtle,
Alighting wherever it wants,
The tended mind brings ease” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.9).
As demonstrated above, human beings need to look after their minds, just like a gardener needs to take care of his garden. When they have control over their minds, they have control over their life. The ability to control the mind allows human beings to become “impervious to the tensions and changes in the environment” (Armstrong, 2011, p. 58), thus protecting them from falling prey to “unskillful states” such as anger, envy and greed (Armstrong, 2001, p.143). In other words, if human beings neither assign meanings to what they currently experience nor involve their personal self in the surrounding events, they will not be affected by negative situations and dive into negative states. As they perceive things as they are, human beings become “island[s] that a flood does not overwhelm” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.6)—they achieve freedom from negativity and experience equanimity. For instance, most human beings know that “old age and death goad the life of living beings” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.25); however, only a few can accept this fact of life because they do not fully understand life as it is, as well as cannot detach from this world. However, as long as they perceive life as something that comes and goes, they will approach death with calmness instead of fear and mourning. The Buddha suggests that only with discipline and awareness can human beings attain true happiness. Indeed, he claims that “the one who is aware attain extensive ease” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.6) because that is the only way to stop earthly desires, which brings about human dissatisfaction and suffering.
Not only does the Buddha indicate the root of, and the solution to, human suffering, but he also offers a path that leads to the end of human suffering that incorporates both mental and behavioral practices. The teachings of the Buddha in The Dhammapada provide evidence supporting this point of view:
“By standing alert, by awareness,
By restraint and control too” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.6) and that
“He would counsel, instruct,
And restraint [one] from rude behavior.
To the good, he is pleasant,
To the bad, he is unpleasant” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p,16).
Even though the Buddha posits that mental discipline is the solution to human suffering, his proposed path to such discipline consists of both mental and behavioral factors. As seen in the verses, he instructs human beings to stay alert of the surrounding environment and of themselves, as well as to control their mental states because a healthy mind is the root of human well-being. In addition, he tells human beings to conduct appropriate behaviors towards themselves and others, such as to “restrain [one] from rude behavior” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.16). Throughout his teachings, the Buddha also provides specific instructions to guide human beings to a more flourishing life. For example, he states that human beings should not associate with “low persons, bad friends” but instead with “noble persons, worthy friends” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.16). More specifically, “bad friends” might be the ones who form many desires and are consumed by emotions, while “worthy friends” might be the ones who form detachment and have an even temper (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.19). Indeed, friends have a great influence on human beings—associating with the good ones allows their growth and fulfillment, while associating with the delinquent ones leads to their failure and dissatisfaction. Generally, the Buddha tells human beings to “avoid greed, hatred and delusion” and instead cultivate “benevolence, kindness, and generosity,” as well as try to “acquire a sound understanding of life” (Armstrong, 2011, p.149). To follow such teaching, human beings need more than simple mental reconstruction—they need to have make this into a lifestyle, constantly reminding themselves to think and act this way.
The Buddha delineates specific guidelines, which are drawn from his discovered path to Nibbana, for human beings to achieve a fulfilling life, and encourages them to follow the dhammas:
“And should one recite a hundred verses,
With words of no avail,
Better is one dhamma word,
Having heard which, one is pacified” (Carter & Palihawadana, 2008, p.20).
The Buddha believes that the path to Nibbana is “a path of great antiquity” and “an ancient trial” (Armstrong, 2001, p.82). That is, he does not create or invent such path; instead, he discovers it. The Buddha posits that as he can achieve Nibbana via this ancient path, other human beings can achieve similar supreme happiness should they follow the path. According to the Buddha, “the path was written into the very structure of existence” (Armstrong, 2001, p.83). That is, the path to supreme happiness is to perceive things as they are. He delivers this very path via his dhammas, and suggests that as long as people follow the dhammas, they will be “pacified” and enlightened. However, the Buddha cautions human beings against blindly swallow his teachings. He is always a critical student who refuses to “take anything on trust” (Armstrong, 2001, p.47); rather, he needs evidence to be convinced. For example, when the Buddha was a student of Alara Kalama, he quickly mastered the “essentials,” but he was not convinced of the teachings. Unlike the other students who believes that they would “realize” such teachings someday, he questioned his teacher because he was not “entering the doctrine” and “dwelling in it” (Armstrong, 2001, p.46). It can be inferred from this story that the Buddha advises against accepting teachings as faith or truth because he posits that only via constant questioning and “testing” the teachings (Armstrong, 2001, p.47) that one can fully understand and “dwelling in” them, and thus, attain supreme happiness.
As presented above, the Buddha and cognitive-behavioral therapists share many common ideas of the cause of, and the solution to, human suffering, as well as the “treatment” process. First, they consider the mind, or cognitive factors, as the root of humans’ ill-being. Specifically, they posit that human beings suffer because they assign (inaccurate) meanings to situations, while they should perceive things as they are instead. In addition, Buddhist teachings about discipline of the mind overlap with the viewpoint championed by modern cognitive-behavioral therapists—that is, to attain a wholesome life, human beings need to have a healthy, appropriate mindset. The Buddha and cognitive-behavioral therapists also propose similar paths to healing. In particular, they both introduce mental and behavioral techniques to help clients to alleviate their suffering, as well as to function optimally in different situations throughout their lifetime. For instance, the Buddha instructs his students to avoid negative mental states such as anger (Armstrong, 2001, p.143) and forbids them to engage in “unhelpful” activities such as intoxication (Armstrong, 2001, p.70); similarly, cognitive-behavioral therapists advise their clients to think positively and encourage them to restraint from maladaptive behavior such as drinking (Kazdin, 2000, p.136). Another similarity between the Buddha and cognitive-behavioral therapists is that they champion adhering to provided guidelines and teachings and emphasize the role of empirical examination in practice. For example, the Buddha instructs his students to follow, but also constantly test, the dhammas; similarly, cognitive-behavioral therapists suggest the clients to adhere to the guidelines, but also encourage them to evaluate the treatment’s effectiveness because the standard treatment might not suit all clients.
However, it would be premature to conclude that Buddha is a cognitive-behavioral therapist because they noticeably differ in the flexibility of their “guidelines,” and more importantly, in the aim and scope of their practice. Firstly, in cognitive-behavioral therapy, as a result of clients’ evaluation, modifications of the guidelines can be made. In contrast, no modifications of the dhammas can be made—the dhammas must be followed exactly (Armstrong, 2001, p.104). This possibly reflects the difference in the belief of the Buddha and that of cognitive-behavioral therapist: while the former might believe that there is only one path to heal, the latter believe that there exist multiple paths. Another prominent difference between the Buddha and a cognitive-behavioral therapist is the aim and scope of their practice. More specifically, the Buddha aims to “rescue” humanity from eternal suffering (Armstrong, 2001, p.97), while cognitive-behavioral therapists aim to help people overcome their current mental illness. As a consequence, the Buddha acts as a commissioner, while cognitive-behavioral therapists act as doctors. As a commissioner, the Buddha goes on long journeys to help as many achieve Nibbana as possible via his dhammas, which are “[diagnoses] of the problem of life and [prescriptions] for cure” (Armstrong, 2001, p.104). Therefore, he has many disciples; for instance, he has 120,000 lay followers when in Rajagaha (Armstrong, 2001, p.128). In contrast, as a doctor, a cognitive-behavioral therapist frequently meets with her client one-on-one to help the client overcome his illnesses and function optimally in his daily life (Kazdin, 2000, p.135). In order to best serve the clients, she only have a few of them simultaneously. In addition, Buddhist practice and cognitive behavior therapy also differ in their length: it takes years for the Buddha’s students to practice (it is suggested the Buddha himself spends six years to achieve enlightenment (Armstrong, 2001, p.85)), while clients in cognitive-behavioral therapy “rarely exceed 7 or 8 months [of treatment]” (Kazdin, 2000, p.135).
In conclusion, despite the shared similarities in their attributed causes of, as well as their proposed paths and solutions to end human suffering, the Buddha’s aim and scope of practice significantly differ from those of cognitive-behavioral therapists. Specifically, Buddhism is a way of life, while cognitive-behavioral therapy is a temporary treatment; therefore, it would be premature to regard the Buddha as an early version of modern cognitive-behavioral therapists. Nevertheless, an investigation of the figure of the Buddha from a psychological perspective might propose interesting relationships between the longstanding Buddhism and the modern study of human behaviors and emotions.