I would have liked Vince to have asked / John to have anticipated the 'fake it until you make it' approach that someone in this thread mentions. Perhaps he would have agreed it is useful and effective to a point but limited in the sense that it is subject to our massive (infinite?) capacity for deluding ourselves, which is the thing that therapy can help us nail down and not 'let off the hook'.

Thanks again John & Vince.

I have seen people 'stuck' in the psychological work for 'years' and not getting very far ; one key trap of some psychological approaches is identification with 'our stuff;' which will keep you trapped and spinning on the wheel of psychological processing for many years – you have been warned

There are some excellent buddhist schools and practices which will many many people without the need for investing in expensive psychology practices; that have many techniques that will help you move through your neuroses.

The ACT (Steven Hayes et al) school is very good as Jean mentioned – it is founded on mindfulness practices, and is very helpful. However, I dsagree with Jon in that most people don't need to do one on one psychological work in the traditional clinical psychology setting. Finding a 'good' therapist is easier said than done, and the wrong therapist can create more harm than good !!

However, if you do decide to gol down that route – try and find one that also has a background in the Vajrayana / Tantric Buddhist practices – which deal with the emotional processing work that John refers to …

Not all Buddhist schools adopt the 'let go of your anger, sadness etc etc ..' nonsense …if your school does ; it may be worth considering a new school / lineage …

In conclusion, tread with great care in the psychological space ! From my experience – most people do better with the Vajrayana practices and having some contact with a good teacher.

The Kagyu school is very good, and as also mentioned Pema Chodron et al are very good. Another excellent reference is Tara Brach's book 'Radical Acceptance' – awesome stuff !

Be Well ..

I very much agree with you that we need to at least consider the questions you raise. We rarely if ever hear Buddhist teachers raising questions about whether or how the Asian ideal of enlightenment translates into a modern Western context. Maybe, for all we know, a home-grown American awakening might look different than it did in traditional Asia? And what are the unique issues we face today that might shape our Buddhist practice differently? Even if we cannot provide clear answers yet to these kinds of questions, this is a discussion worth having.

I look forward to witnessing the ways in which the Eastern and Western paths converge as a uniquely Western dharma continues to emerge.

Almost without exception, Buddhism historically colonized new countries and regions because the political leadership and/or economic elite of the new area found it expedient to support Buddhism. Monasteries were established and full-time ordained sangha were trained right from the start, and they became the heart of Buddhism in the new land.

As we know, this model of transmission has not been possible for the West. As a result, we have had fifty years of overwhelmingly layperson study in way that really is unprecedented. Although Buddhism has always had teachings aimed at laypeople and stories of laypeople gaining high realization, the truth is it was always something of an afterthought and marginal. And in addition, those few traditional laypeople who were serious practitioners were almost always embedded in Buddhist cultures, leading premodern lives very different from ours.

I agree that there are big areas of our lives that Buddhism doesn't address and isn't designed to address, but I think we need the full picture of why this is, and we need to ask ourselves if — after all– there is a very good reason Buddhism has been primarily monastic for 2,500 years beyond a difference in "cultural norms." The Asian teachers who have taught here have had good reason to soft-pedal the difficulties of adapting Buddhism to a context for which it wasn't designed (and Alan Watts, we now know, was a bit of a BS artist). And we, for our part, have been reluctant to admit to ourselves that we can’t have it all.

The question of what exactly Buddhism can reasonably offer modern laypeople is an interesting one. It may be that we need to modify our goals commensurate with the degree to which we've been obliged to modify our level of time commitment. Perhaps accepting our lives as laypeople must necessarily involve accepting more modest goals for our practices—goals that are still quite valid and worthy–along with a greater willingness to support those able to take the plunge 100%,

Not a popular idea, and not one that I’m convinced is correct, but one that should at least be considered.