would suggest that both Zen and psychoanalysis foster a particular kind of stance, a
special kind of relationship to data, to objects of experience, and—in general—a
special kind of orientation toward the ‘other.’ It is a stance that attempts to permit
the other to exist in its purity and autonomy. It attempts to permit the other ‘to be’
in its own right. This position eschews any attempt to influence the other, while it
promotes being in the moment with the other. This position, it should be noted, is
not dissimilar to that which is embodied in Heidegger’s notion of Dasein (Nishitani
1982) and that found in the writings of some of the early phenomenologists
(Merleau-Ponty 1962).
I am not alone in making such comparisons. Karen Horney, an early psychoanalyst,
feminist thinker, and theorist (who was initially sympathetic to classical Freudian
theory), became captivated by Zen ideas through her relationship with her friend, D.
T.Suzuki. Horney met Suzuki in the later years of her career—first being introduced
to him in the winter of 1950–51. Suzuki and Horney struck up a warm, although
short-lived, friendship that lasted until Horney’s death in 1952. During this brief
period, Horney learned much about Zen and immediately began to incorporate Zen
notions and principles into a series of lectures she presented through the American
Institute for Psychoanalysis. These lectures were offered in the Fall of 1952, following
Horney’s return from extended travels in Japan, and are included in her posthumous
Final Lectures (Horney 1987).
The similarities between Zen and psychoanalysis were immediately obvious to
Horney. For example, she admired the Zen quality of being ‘wholeheartedly in the
moment,’ and likened it to analytic neutrality. Horney espoused this phenomenon
both as a therapeutic goal for the patient—and as an essential dispositional stance of
the therapist (Westkott 1997:83). Horney often compared her advice for the therapist
with both Freud’s aforementioned instructions on ‘evenly hovering attention’ and
Zen sitting instructions (Horney 1987:21). From Horney’s Final Lectures:
That attention should be wholehearted may seem banal, trite, and self-evident.
Yet in the sense that I mean wholehearted attention, I think it rather difficult
to attain.... This is a faculty for which... [Zen practitioners]...have a much
deeper feeling than we do. Wholeheartedness of attention means being there
altogether in the service of the patient, yet with a kind of self-forgetfulness...
self-forget, but be there with all your feelings.... The best advice I can give is
that [we should let] everything come up, emerge, and at the proper time, be
observed.
(pp. 19–21)This passage shows that Horney adhered to a fairly strict interpretation of neutrality
—sticking close to what she believes Freud intended. But she also compared what
seasoned Zen practitioners seem to do with apparent ease (sitting wholeheartedly in
the moment) with that state of mind (stance) to which analytic therapists should
aspire—a neutral, non-judging, presenttense, fully attentive presence with the patient.
82 MELVIN E.MILLER