of controlling the body is a precondition of, and per-
haps entails, a particular state of mind.
For the tradition, even for those branches that give
the body an explicit central role, the mind is para-
mount; and yet, paradoxically, the goal of Buddhist
meditation is often presented as an experience of no-
mind. Something about the presumed psychological
makeup of the meditator is lost, erased, or shown to
be an error or an illusion. Hence the theme of “ex-
tinction” or “cessation” that is so common to many
theories of meditation. One attains a serene and clear
awareness of a state that may be legitimately described
as “mindless.” Yet, different Buddhist traditions un-
derstand the “mindless” in different ways—from a lit-
eral absence of thought (P. J. Griffiths) to various
notions of freedom from speech in speech (as in the
Chan and Tantric traditions). And even in the latter
traditions there is much room for variation, from the
early Chan notion that the arising of a single thought
generates a world of conceptual constructs and confu-
sion to the acceptance of a higher form of discrimina-
tion that gains new value after one awakens to
nonduality—as in the Yogacara’s five buddha-jñanas or
in the MAHAMUDRAstage of noncultivation (sgom med).
However, these studies have not looked at a num-
ber of potential sources for disconfirming evidence or
falsification. For instance, it is not clear that they have
considered the significance of failure to progress in
meditation (who succeeds and when) or cases of psy-
chological distress or physical illness due to meditation
(phenomena that are amply documented in Buddhist
literature), or the significance of differences among ex-
pert meditators regarding the meaning and content of
the experiences that correspond to the brain measure-
ments and readings. In fact, it is not at all clear that
even expert meditators agree on the significance of var-
ious states of mental concentration or samadhi (Sharf
1995 and 1998). One may argue that the psychologi-
cal significance or goals of meditation point to using
body and mind to re-create a new self; one assumes a
specific bodily and mental posture, persisting in it un-
til the mind is serene and focused, or one focuses the
mind on what appears at first to be the self, in order
to dissolve misconceptions about the self, including the
misconception of imagining that who we are is iden-
tical to this self whom we hold so dear. But this sum-
mary of traditional understandings raises a number of
questions regarding the significance of neuropsycho-
logical and physiological studies of meditation. First,
where in these studies do we find any evidence about
self and conceptions of the self? Second, the tradition
itself is not in complete agreement as to what it is that
remains or comes to light once the delusions of self are
removed.
Furthermore, the neurological focus still needs to
explain what to the Buddhist is paramount: Transfor-
mations of mind and self have significant ethical and
soteriological implications. Such implications include
a vast and complex path theory explaining how one
becomes a buddha, and, for instance, acquires the three
modes of wisdom described above. These expectations
cannot be dismissed or demythologized by assuming
an objective cerebral or psychological referent.Buddhism and scientific psychology
As a corollary to the above, one returns to the ques-
tion of what in Buddhism may be considered parallel
to Western ideas about how one heals intrapersonal
and interpersonal distress—and to the related question
of whether or not there is a Buddhist tradition similar
to Western clinical psychology and psychiatry. Despite
the existence of medical traditions in Buddhist coun-
tries (T. Clifford), little was done until recent times to
create a dialogue between medicine and Buddhist prac-
tice, let alone a systematic study of mental diseases and
the Buddhist goal of relieving all “dis-ease.” There are
multiple cultural and institutional reasons for this ap-
parent lack, including the fact that the very notion of
mental disease is a relatively recent Western creation.
Nonetheless, some Buddhist practices and systems of
belief may be considered parallel to Western tech-
niques for healing through the modification of thought
and behavior, and conversely, Western specialists have
adapted Buddhist ideas with greater or lesser open ac-
knowledgment of their depth.
Historically, one should mention the Swiss psychi-
atrist Carl G. Jung (1875–1961) as the pioneer. De-
spite certain ambivalence about “the Orient” (Gómez
1995), Jung borrowed generously, especially in his
analysis of “mandala symbolism,” which combined
traditional Buddhist and Hindu understandings
about the significance of the MANDALAwith keen clin-
ical observations.
In recent times we have seen the development of
biofeedback and behavioral techniques that involve
ideas of self-monitoring (Rokke and Rehm) and
mindful reassessment of experience (Smyth), and of
relaxation as a natural response to specific stimuli
(Benson and Klipper), techniques that echo, explicitly
or implicitly, Buddhist serenity and MINDFULNESS
techniques (de Silva 1984, 1985, and 1986). These ef-PSYCHOLOGY