Category Archives: Uncategorized

Existential-Humanistic Psychology and Buddhism

This blog was originally posted on October 23, 2013 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

Recently I returned from a trip to China where I was asked to speak at a conference entitled “Buddha from the Heart: Humanistic Psychology Maitreya Culture.” Maitreya Buddhism is a lesser-known school of Buddhist thought originating in China, particularly connected with Maitreya Buddha (i.e., future Buddha). The focus of the conference was on ways in which humanistic psychology and Buddhism, particularly Maitreya Buddhism, can help the people of China. It was an exciting opportunity to dialogue about convergences between existential-humanistic psychology and Buddhism, particularly related to how they each can positively impact the world.

Photo by Louis Hoffman, PhD

Context: Religion and Psychology

It is important to discuss this with a disclaimer. Neither the conference nor this blog are suggesting that existential-humanistic psychology is a Buddhist psychology. When talking about religions and psychology, it is important that we do not reduce one to the other. Also, while there may be a place for religious psychologies, I believe that it is vitally important that existential and humanistic psychology remain unattached to religion at the foundational level in order to work with clients from their own religious or spiritual framework instead of imposing our own.

At the same time, it is interesting that existential-humanistic psychology often appears to share a great deal with the spiritual and religious wisdom traditions. With Buddhism, there certainly are a number of interesting convergences.

Convergences

One important convergence is on suffering. Buddhism and existential-humanistic psychology view suffering as a given, not something that can easily be overcome or just coped with. Additionally, both recognize the value in suffering as well as other emotions that are uncomfortable. From Buddhist and existential-humanistic perspectives, our uncomfortable emotions and suffering are something for us to explore and learn from. There are even similarities in how individuals can learn from these emotions. It is important, however, not to reduce this into thinking that existential-humanistic psychology and Buddhism approach suffering the same way or are in complete agreement.

Within Buddhism, there is a spiritual end where the eventual goal is to escape the cycle of suffering. However, this is something that one strives for over a lifetime or many lifetimes. In existential-humanistic
psychology, the goal is to change one’s experience of suffering in order to transform the experience of suffering, increase one’s selfawareness, live more authentically in the face of suffering, and achieve personal growth.

Existential-humanistic psychology and Buddhism both value the experiential realms. First, experience is understood as a valid way of knowing. In much of psychology, there is a strong rational bias and often a distrust of emotion and subjective experience. While existential-humanistic psychology and Buddhism are not irrational or antiintellectual, they recognize that there is more than one valid way of knowing. Additionally, the growth and healing process is often understood as experiential in both existential-humanistic psychology and Buddhism. One limits their growth and healing if growth and health are confined to the cognitive level and do not incorporate an experiential component.

Both value mindful awareness. I have, at times, been frustrated with the mindfulness craze in psychology. It’s not that I do not value what it has to offer, but rather that I think it is a distortion to think of this as something new. Existential psychology and other depth psychologies long have advocated for approaches quite similar to mindfulness long before mindfulness entered the psychology lexicon. Additionally, I also have some concern that mindfulness, as it originated in Buddhism, is quite different than the mindfulness that is often integrated into psychology today, particularly in the West. Despite these challenges, both existential psychology and Buddhism believe there is a value in a nonjudgmental or inquisitive awareness of one’s cognitive, emotional, and bodily experiences.

Last, both Buddhism and existentialhumanistic psychology are growth oriented and recognize human potential. Although there are many variations across the different approaches to Buddhism, there is rather consistent growth-oriented focus in which individuals, through selfdevelopment,
attempt to continually grow and embrace their Buddha nature. Similarly, existential-humanistic
psychology advocates toward helping individuals achieve their potential rather than focusing solely on overcoming problems.

Conclusion

This post has just touched upon some of the convergences of existential-humanistic psychology and Buddhism. Each of these convergences could be fleshed out in much greater detail and others could be added. While there is much to learn from being in dialogue, it is also important to take seriously the differences, particularly as both seek different ends. When only the convergences are considered, then distortion and false agreement will ensue. Through dialogue, I am confident that both Buddhism and existential-humanistic psychology can grow and advance. For existential-humanistic psychology, in particular, I believe this can further advance the field’s emergent multicultural perspectives.

~ Louis Hoffman

Review of Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche

Thus Spoke Zarathustra may be Nietzsche’s most important and brilliant piece of writing, and Walter Kaufmann’s translation, with its insight translation notes, may be the most significant version. Though the overarching theme of this book is fairly evident, there is a tremendous amount of confusion not only about the book, but even its central theme. In concise terms, the thesis of this book is that people must overcome themselves. Nietzsche speaks of this in terms of the overman, which is often translated as superman.

The traditional translation of superman, according to Kaufmann, may account for much of the confusion. Superman, in Western thought, easily becomes imbued with super powers or godlike qualities; however, this was not Nietzsche’s intent. The overman is less about super qualities and more about the courage to face himself or herself. The overman is willing to take responsibility for his or her life while creatively engaging the world. Included in this engagement is the willingness to not accept the values of one’s world, culture, and even religion; instead, the overman critically examines these worldviews while creating their own values.

With the concept of overcoming oneself, Nietzsche takes on one of his most controversial and misunderstood topics: religion. It is clear that Nietzsche is not religious and to attempt to reconcile him as a man of faith would significantly misrepresent his thought. However, Nietzsche is neither pro-religion nor as much an enemy as he is often portrayed. The main concern Nietzsche has with religion is blind faith and conformity. This type of religion, Nietzsche is adamantly opposed to. However, a religion in which the individual has struggled to attain is not seen as dangerous.

Two important quotes may help understand Nietzsche’s view of God:

“Alas, my brothers, this god whom I created was man-made and madness, like all gods! Man he was, and only a poor specimen of man and ego: out of my own ashes and fire this ghost came to me, and, verily, it did not come to me from beyond. What happened, my brothers? I overcame myself, the sufferer; I carried my own ashes to the mountains; I invented a brighter flame for myself.” (p. 31)

“In their hostilities they shall become inventors of images and ghosts, and with their images and ghosts they shall yet fight the highest fight against one another. Good and evil, and rich and poor, and high and low, and all the names of values – arms shall they be and clattering signs that life must overcome itself again and again.” (p. 101)

The first quote demonstrates some bitterness toward religion, though it does not rule out the possibility of healthy religiosity. Nietzsche’s position is not that different from Freud (1927/1961), and quite possibly contributed to Freud’s perspective. Essentially, Nietzsche viewed God as a projection of our wishes (will-fulfillment) and our pathology; not a metaphysical reality. Because of this, God’s characteristics are dependent upon the individual and the culture. This helps to explain Nietzsche’s controversial claim that “God is dead.” Frequently, this is interpreted as a metaphysical statement; however, this was not the nature of Nietzsche’s claim. Instead, Nietzsche was stating that the cultural and individual understanding or creation of God is dead. It is a critique of culture and individuals, not God.

A review of Thus Zarathustra Spoke would not be complete without some notes on the literary style. If nothing else, the literary style of this book demonstrates Nietzsche’s brilliance. He utilized a tremendous understanding of religious literature which he often mocked through his style of writing. A person familiar with the Bible will quickly recognize his frequent indirect references to Biblical ideas, stories, and quotes. It is through these that Nietzsche shows his wit and command of literary style. It is also where Nietzsche likely offends and drives away many of his readers. This is unfortunate. Even if one does not agree with Nietzsche’s appraisals of religion, or care for his clever mocking; there is still important messages in this book for the religious and the non-religious.

To the religious, Nietzsche challenges people to become more than sheep. However, it is clear that he believes most people chose to be sheep: “No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse” (p. 18). If one chooses to be religious, they should know what that choice entails! One should take the time to learn if it what they truly believe or if it is what they seek to achieve security escaping the fears and anxieties of life. Escapist religion is dangerous religion; however, religion achieved through struggle and genuine belief may be a responsible choice.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Added 2004; Never been updated.

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.