Much has been said about the relationship between Buddhism and Western psychotherapy. I argue that both the ends and the means of Buddhist practice far exceed the limitations of Western psychotherapy in its dominant forms. This claim is substantiated by examining the underlying views of human nature in the broader context of cosmic Nature, as these reflect the assumed nature of the therapeutic task. Special attention is given to the universal human encounter with death as the ultimate manifestation of dukkha. My conclusions may be summarized as follows: 1)Western psychotherapy, rooted in ancient Greek assumptions and represented by strains as diverse as Sigmund Freud and Abraham Maslow, essentially views human nature as internally weak and thus largely controlled by "objective" external forces. Consequently, it conceives of its task in terms of teaching patients to cope with existing conditions, that is, how to tread water in the samsaric sea. Its response to death, as expressed in Freud's later theory of the Death Instinct, is one of resignation as demanded by the scientifically validated fact of natural necessity.
2) One of the few variations on this therapeutic scheme, tending toward Buddhism in general and Zen in particular, is to be found in Viktor E. Frankl's Logotherapy. As revealed in Frankl's dimensional ontology, he is more sanguine about human prospects and our ability to achieve self-transcendence. Many parallels are to be found between logotherapeutic techniques and those of Zen, including glimmerings of enlightenmental insight into the key role of suffering. Yet, Frankl is never fully able to liberate either himself or Logotherapy from Samsāra, as reflected in his view of death as a necessary guarantor of life's meanings.
3)Only Zen is able to transcend both self (ego) and Samsāra, by means of the resources inherent in Original Nature. Its attitude of detachment toward death, without succumbing to denial, epitomizes its overarching efficacy. Much has been said about the relationship between Buddhism in general and Western psychotherapy. This is especially true in terms of various explorations of the "therapeutic" potential inherent in Zen Buddhism. In part, Buddhist tradition would seem to corroborate the comparison, as seen in the metaphor of Buddhism as a medicine or therapy dispensed by the enlightened physician,theBuddha,to cure our samsaric suffering.
Despite these apparent similarities, this discussion focuses on the need for caution in the pursuit of comparisons, for an uncritical association of Buddhism with existing forms of psychotherapy as practiced in the West carries the danger of reductionism, whereby both disciplines are compromised. When Buddhism is reduced to being nothing more than another form of psychotherapy, with Sakyamuni Buddha himself identified as a proto-therapist, a valuable resource is lost for the West. In being so regarded, Western thinkers need not delve deeply to reveal Buddhism's uniqueness, but remain content with superficial similarities. This leads to such absurdities as the assumption that psychedelic delic drugs can be a substitute for the self-discipline of meditational practice, in that they induce the same ecstatic state and represent a kind of expressway to enlightenment, or that meditation is primarily of interest as a means of stress reduction. Even those who more modestly suggest that drugs be used merely as a motivation for undertaking the arduous path of practice, by granting a glimpse of things to come, fail to heed Buddhism's fundamental precept against intoxicants.
In the following I argue that both the ends and the means of Buddhist practice far exceed the limitations of Western psychotherapy in its dominant forms. This claim is substantiated by examining the underlying views of human nature in the broader context of cosmic Nature, as these reflect the assumed nature of the therapeutic task. Special attention is given to the univer
