more seriously one takes this ‘trivial’ affair, however, the more apparent it becomes
that it is inseparably related to many things that at first appeared to have nothing to
do with it. This fundamental fact of human life which psychotherapists have known
on the basis of their experiences is certainly the point of encounter between
psychotherapy and religion.
As a matter of course, a person in need of help is not so much concerned with the
distinction between religion and psychotherapy as with the resolution of problems.
Problems treated in psychotherapy are sexuality, the will to power, insecurity,
loneliness, aggression, identity, self-realization, and so on. But they manifest
themselves as a complex, and turn out to be universal in that they concern anyone
independent of any religion or ideology. Many psychotherapists find that traditional
religions still underestimate complexes while being, albeit unconsciously, preoccupied
with them. The task of any religion today consists in the rediscovery of its self-identity
between the two extremes of traditionalism and modernism. To take the problems
discussed in psychotherapeutic sessions more seriously, in my opinion, would enable
a religion to more adequately meet the need of our age, and only then would it deserve
to be truly called a world religion. Furthermore, following Marcel, it is an essential
function of religion to transform a problem into a mystery (Marcel 1940).
The dialogue and collaboration between psychotherapy and religion is not an easy
task but needs to be accomplished. We already have an abundance of literature about
it, but ‘religion’ there means in most cases Christianity. Nevertheless, the review of
the relevant works, particularly of the three models of psychology and religion
proposed by Peter Homans (1968) gives us a framework of reference for evaluation
of the existing literature on Buddhism and psychotherapy.
The first model, according to Homans, is associated with the phrase ‘psychology
of religion’, represented by William James. In this model, religion is the object of
psychological investigation, deprived of its inherent teachings. The second is the
pastoral psychology model, in which psychodynamic insight into personality
development takes the place of the conversion experience as the focal point in the
first model. The third, the theology-psychology model provides a careful and
sophisticated interpretive integration of the proper place as well as the limits of
psychology in the theological enterprise, and is exhibited by Freud and Tillich. Most
works on the relationship between Buddhism and psychotherapy seem to correspond
either to the first or to the third model. There are only very few considered to belong
to the second.
It is noteworthy that among the many sects of Buddhism, Zen is the preferred
object of study for psychology. It understands Zen, without any recourse to its
self-understanding, only as an interesting psycho-physiological phenomenon, an
artificially caused psychopathology, an effective training for psychophysical
adjustment and so on. This is especially true of a series of so-called scientific studies
of Zen performed in Japan from the late 1950s on, which I recently reviewed
(Muramoto 1984). On the contrary, the attempts at psychological interpretations of
Zen Buddhism by some Western psychologists (such as Jung 1939; Fromm 1960)
are to be more appreciated because of their keen awareness of the spiritual crisis which
26 SHOJI MURAMOTO