You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
At first glance, the differences between Zen and psychoanalysis seem to far outweigh any possible similarities. Zen is a spiritual system for attaining enlightenment; psychoanalysis is a method for treating psychopathology. To reach enlightenment, Zen advocates the dissolution and transcendence of self; to cure psychopathology, psychoanalysis attempts to fortify the cohesion and continuity of self. Whereas Zen speaks of the need to negate all desires and all forms of self centeredness, psychoanalytic self psychology maintains that ambitions, ideals, and the grandiose/exhibitionistic components of the self play a crucial role in the development of psychological well-being.
Despite the differences, in the past there have been many psychoanalytic theorists who have taken a special interest in this Eastern discipline — particularly Jung, Fromm, and Horney. Many have approached the topic in a broad way from the perspective of humanistic psychoanalysis, or, when more rigorously orthodox, have attempted interpretations of Zen meditation experiences specifically in terms of the drive and structural models. These interpretations, although internally consistent and true to the spirit of classical theory, often seemed stretched, forced, or off the mark.
Although contemporary psychoanalytic theories may at first appear incompatible with Zen, these approaches — especially self psychology — actually draw the evolution of psychoanalytic theory closer to this ancient practice than was possible within the context of the drive and structural principles of traditional theory. When Kohut (1977) made his revolutionary and controversial progression from self psychology in its “narrow” sense to its “broader” sense, he