(From Dogen [1200–53], in Kasulis 1981:70–1)S.Suzuki (1970), a direct spiritual descendant of Dogen, echoes this point when he
invites students to ‘forget about all your preconceived ideas’ (p. 110) and ‘see and
feel things as they are without any effort’ (p. 128). Kasulis (1981) elaborates further
on zazen and the phenomenon of ‘experiencing things as they are’ as he discusses the
incontrovertible importance of arriving at (returning to) a pre-reflective state of
awareness:
What we experience prereflectively is screened out by the presuppositions of
our reflectively constructed worldview. Experience therefore turns against its
own drive toward unification, simplicity, and directness; it lives an internal lie.
The reflective experience cuts itself off from its prereflective roots.
This internal conflict can be suddenly resolved...when one comes face to
face with the actual nature of prereflective experience. Zazen is the primary
way of doing this...
(p. 101, emphasis added)The similarities existing between Freud’s stance on neutrality and the attitude—the
state of mind—of one engaged in zazen are strikingly similar. What are we to make
of this?
Zen and psychoanalysis: contrast and integrationI humbly suggest that these two disciplines foster similar kinds of awareness—up to
a point. That is, what an in-depth analysis induces in patients (and in analysts) is not
markedly different from that which occurs in meditation. Moreover, I propose that
these ‘awarenesses of prereflective experience’ and the calmness and wholeness which
result (Suzuki 1970: 128), arise through similar kinds of ‘neutrality.’ Neutrality is
essential to both disciplines. Now once I say this, I realize that I could be inviting
some degree of controversy with proponents of both the Zen and psychoanalytic
camps.
I can imagine those in the Zen camp retorting with ‘No way, how can you propose
that Freud—the avowed anti-religious theorist and atheist (and his cohorts)—are up
to something similar to what we do.’ Likewise, I can hear the Freudians countering
with something like: ‘We are undeniably different; we are offering a mode of healing
neurosis—not a path to enlightenment and certainly not a religious path.’
I also get into a little bit of trouble with myself, with my own theoretical position
and hard-won analytic tenets, as I proffer this view. Can these seemingly different
perspectives, with ostensibly disparate technologies and goals, ever be truly reconciled?
I think they can be. I propose they can, in large measure, be integrated and synthesized.
Most assuredly they can be reconciled with respect to the complex issues of neutrality,
‘evenly hovering attention,’ being in the moment in this pre-reflective state, sitting
without thinking. With regard to this state of non-judging, accepting awareness, I
ZEN AND PSYCHOTHERAPY 81