the abhidharma were extended by the Yogacara thinkers in order to explain the
experienced continuity of consciousness and the workings of karma.
Waldron has made a detailed comparison of the concept of the unconscious found
in depth psychology and the idea of the foundational consciousness (Waldron 1988).
He both identifies three significant similarities and identifies the specific differences
between the two concepts. Waldron’s study is a model of principled comparison. By
focusing on the classic period of Indian Yogacara (fourth to fifth centuries), his study
is limited enough to be able to draw meaningful conclusions. At least equally
importantly, he articulates his theoretical basis, i.e. the reason why making such a
comparison is meaningful. The point of the comparison for Waldron is that the
similarities between the two suggest that both the classic Yogacara thinkers and
analytical psychologists are working to explain fundamentally identical aspects of
human consciousness, or in Waldron’s terminology, they share a common
problematic.
In addition to understanding the contextual background, and providing a
theoretical basis for making a comparison, it is also necessary to establish that the
comparison is being made between two terms that are actually comparable. For
example, comparisons between Zen and Jung’s psychology, several of which exist in
the literature, in most cases serve no useful purpose because the two terms of the
comparison are not in fact comparable. Where Jung is one early twentieth-century
European psychologist, Zen is a major East Asian Buddhist tradition, extending from
early medieval China to contemporary New Jersey. Found in China, Korea, Japan,
and today in the West, in feudal and industrialized societies, in a variety of lineages
and sub-lineages that in their turn become lineages, Zen is a very diverse whole. Since
such a comparison can draw on all kinds of different sources to represent Zen, by
picking and choosing, the comparison can be constructed so as to demonstrate entirely
opposite conclusions: either Zen and Jung are saying the same thing, or they are
saying completely different things. As Ruegg has observed about similar comparisons
in the philosophic study of Buddhism, the majority of such studies prove ‘to be of
rather restricted heuristic value, and methodologically it often turns out to be more
problematical and constraining than illuminating’ (Ruegg 1995:154).
Interpreting Buddhism as psychotherapy and comparing the two systems of
thought require adequate attention to the social, cultural, and historical origins of
both Buddhism and psychology. If comparisons are made between truly comparable
items, and the purpose for making a comparison is explicit, then we can expect to
learn more about how the mind has been understood to work, and contribute to the
further development of both Buddhism and psychology.
Appropriating meditative practicesAlthough some authors see psychotherapy as a useful preliminary to meditative
practice, necessary for some individuals before they can begin ‘the true work,’ others
embrace a view of psychotherapy and meditation as simultaneously complementary
to one another. Epstein is one of those who views the relation as a complementary
174 LOCATING BUDDHISM, LOCATING PSYCHOLOGY