Using A Holistic Approach to Therapy with Clients Experiencing Chronic Illness, Disability, and Mental Health Challenges

Prevalence of Chronic Illness/Disability in the United States

The presumption that “typical” abilities and wellness encompass the norm is a viewpoint that pervades United States policies, infrastructures, and societal expectations. The reality is that the majority of the US population grapples with chronic illnesses and disabilities, challenging the conventional definition of “normalcy.” While many associate illness with isolated incidents, dramatic and prolonged interruptions in otherwise regular lives — along with the prevalence of chronic conditions — indicates that illness is, in fact, more typical of the human experience than not.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and the Rand Corporation, over half of Americans (51.8%) contend with at least one chronic condition, whether physical or mental. Some estimates are that 42% of the population faces multiple chronic conditions. By comparison, according to the European Council of the EU, one in four, or 25% of European adults live with a chronic illness/disability. These statistics not only reveal the widespread impact of chronic illness but also emphasize the need to shift cultural perspectives surrounding health and ability. To be absolutely clear, in the United States, chronic conditions are the norm, not the exception. In his recent book “The Myth of the Normal,” Gabor Maté challenges prevailing notions of normalcy and underscores the ubiquity of trauma and illness within the diversity of human experiences. Exploring biopsychosocial aspects of chronic illness and disability, Maté exposes fundamentally unhealthy cultural constructs that shape our understanding of what it means to be “normal.” Moreover, in response to an unhealthy environment, Maté asserts that illness is a valid response. His work resonates deeply with my practice, as it highlights the importance of acknowledging the sequelae of trauma in the vast spectrum of human existence.  

As a Clinical Rehabilitation Counselor, my training encompasses both the medical and psychosocial aspects of chronic illness and disability. Moreover, my own personal journey as a cancer survivor and someone diagnosed with Crohn's disease enables me to meet clients from a perspective of lived experience. This experience underscores the importance I place on applying a comprehensive holistic approach to mental health in the context of chronic conditions many of my clients experience. My work in a small group practice specializing in supporting clients with trauma, chronic illness, and disability is a testament to the prevalence of such experiences.

Within my caseload, 95% of clients navigate the challenges of multiple chronic physical and mental conditions, often relying on state-subsidized insurance for healthcare. Among these individuals, approximately 60% identify as female, 25% as gender fluid or transgender, and 15% as male. Their narratives underscore the multifaceted nature of dependence and autonomy across various dimensions of life. From physical and financial to emotional and sexual realms, the complexities of living with chronic conditions influence every aspect of their existence.

For individuals grappling with chronic illness, the connection between past trauma and present health challenges cannot be overlooked. More often than not, these clients report elevated Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) scores, revealing a complex interplay between past trauma and present health challenges. My integrative approach encompassing trauma-informed care, empathy, empowerment, and holistic healing includes attention to my client’s experience of their body. Attention to physical sensations including interoception and proprioception, breath, movement, and reflex patterns, allows me to guide them towards a path of resilience, self-acceptance, and well-being. Recognizing the intricate threads that weave together past experiences, present struggles, and future aspirations creates a space where my clients feel heard and equipped to navigate the complexities of their health journey with resilience and clarity. 

Relationships and Chronic Illness/Disability

One of the prevailing challenges faced by individuals with whom I work who have chronic illness and disability shows up in power dynamics within close relationships. Dependence on a partner for various types of support including financial and logistical, coupled with chronic pain and the struggle to balance gratitude and self-worth, can erode an individual's sense of agency. For those grappling with conditions such as Crohn's disease, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, or rheumatoid arthritis, the unpredictability of their conditions makes planning for the future a daunting task. As a result, vacations, celebrations, and even daily routines are frequently disrupted. The demands of work often deplete their energy, leaving their partners to shoulder the responsibilities of managing a household and caring for children. The strain on intimacy and sexual relationships adds another layer of complexity.  

Partners of those with chronic illness and disability experience their own set of challenges, leading to feelings of frustration and helplessness. Their desire to provide support can transform into a sense of powerlessness as they navigate the complexities of medical interventions, lifestyle changes, and emotional well-being. The dynamic between partners can quickly shift from a place of caring support to caregiver exhaustion and burnout, a source of resentment that creates a cycle of mutual dissatisfaction.

In my therapeutic practice, it is not uncommon for clients to request involving their partners in sessions. Drawing from my unique perspective as someone who navigates a chronic illness while also being a partner to someone with health challenges, I provide insight that resonates with their experiences. This shared understanding fosters open dialogues that explore the intricacies of relationships within the context of chronic conditions.

One poignant example underscores the profound impact of childhood experiences on an individual's journey. A client shared a harrowing memory of their father monitoring their food intake during meals — threatening punishment if they exceeded a prescribed number of bites. This history of food-related trauma has woven itself into their present struggles with Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO), a condition marked by pain, diarrhea, gas, and bloating due to bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine. While the impulse to connect trauma to illness is compelling, the client's journey also involves a series of infections necessitating antibiotic treatment over time.

This client’s partner, in their well-intentioned efforts to support, inadvertently triggers their traumatic memories when attempting to manage the client’s food choices. The need for a restrictive diet as part of SIBO treatment further compounds their emotional turmoil, fostering feelings of deprivation and punishment as they strive to heal. Addressing this intricate interplay of trauma and health within the therapeutic space requires a delicate balance.

In a joint session involving both the client and their partner, I employed empathetic communication to navigate their complex dynamic. While acknowledging the partner’s genuine desire to provide assistance, I simultaneously asserted the client’s agency and authority over their own body and treatment. Employing the metaphor of the client as the “captain of their ship,” I emphasized that their body is their vessel, and they remain firmly in control. This approach is of paramount importance, particularly for individuals who already feel a sense of bodily discord and lack of control.

Additionally, it is helpful to recognize the partner’s role in the client’s healing journey. Acknowledging the partner’s commitment to honoring the client’s autonomy becomes an act of spiritual significance, aligning with their broader values. This dual recognition — empowering the client’s autonomy while honoring the partner’s supportive stance — fosters a therapeutic environment that not only addresses the physical aspects of chronic illness but also attends to the emotional, psychological, and relational dimensions.

In another case, my client grappled with chronic Lyme Disease within a relationship plagued with communication challenges, describing their partner as “unresponsive.” When they came for a family session whose purpose was to help them talk about the ramifications of her disease, I realized her partner was very likely on the spectrum. Though not his counselor, I was able to introduce both of them to this possibility, explain how this might be contributing to their difficulties, and help him connect with a counselor of his own.

Finances, Work, and Future Self in Chronic illness/Disability

For those clients navigating a chronic condition on their own, their lives are often precariously situated on what feels like the brink of financial ruin and collapse. With chronic pain or with an unpredictable condition exacerbated by stress, work is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it may confer some security, sense of accomplishment, and self worth. On the other hand, it may aggravate certain illnesses by contributing to stress and may prevent people from qualifying for federal or state aid.

Most of my clients with chronic illness have applied for disability and are on their second or third appeals. They hang in a limbo where making money can compromise what little chance they have. Barring paralysis or a progressive condition, their chances of receiving disability are slim to none. These clients often seek work they can do from home. They are unwilling to take on student loans because of the precarity of their health. Some earn a living from piecemealing several jobs.

Whenever possible, I try to coordinate care with vocational rehabilitation (VR) services offered by the state which helps people find and obtain work suitable to their strengths and limitations.  

In one case of a client with chronic depression and difficulties which led to him losing his job, I advocated for him to receive a neuropsychological evaluation. Both the client and I felt he was on the spectrum. This enabled him to receive help from VR for job placement and support. By helping him find work that made use of his strengths while limiting his interactions with people, his depression improved along with his self-esteem. Whether living with a chronic physical or mental condition, it is important to remember everyone has strengths as well as limitations.  

Moreover, chronic illness, disability, chronic pain, and trauma can profoundly alter one’s sense of self. As mentioned earlier, the challenges posed by unpredictable and intermittent conditions make it challenging for individuals to plan for their future. This absence of foresight can have far-reaching consequences, undermining clients’ ability to envision a future version of themselves — a capacity often taken for granted. This lack of future-oriented thinking leaves clients susceptible to a multitude of setbacks, affecting their physical, mental, reproductive, financial, and educational well-being.

The ability to manage finances is a skill, yet those who lack both financial resources and a sense of their future self tend to make choices that perpetuate their financial struggles, leading to increased poverty. I’ve come to understand that these clients find it difficult to delay immediate rewards for a future date. Without a clear vision of their existence in the next 5-10 years, they prioritize immediate gains, which is understandable.

A client who was in the foster care system and spent a period of time houseless in their teens worked in the food service industry. Though experienced, their lack of formal education meant they often worked under managers with a degree but less actual experience than they had. Frustration with poor management led to frequent job dissatisfaction. Chronic but unpredictable illness limited their ability to work more than 25 hours per week. This kept them stuck in tip-dependent but ultimately unsatisfying work. Their dissatisfaction influenced their feelings about work in general.

During a period of unemployment, I encouraged them to explore alternative options. It became clear that they had only the barest sense of how much money they actually needed to cover expenses. A critical therapeutic intervention involved helping them create a budget in order to more accurately assess the benefits of a job that offered no tips, but more hourly pay. Even at 25 hours/week, they stood to cover their costs better than with sporadic food service work.  

To arouse clients’ sense of possibility, I lean on existential humanistic and Buddhist psychological teachings. None of us knows when we are going to die. People with long-standing conditions, both physical and psychological, live long and productive lives. To come to terms with having a finite amount of time with no sense of how much time is left is an essential human challenge. My clients experience grief over unlived possibilities. These feelings must be acknowledged and included. One client whose career was interrupted by an ependymoma (a spinal tumor that recurred twice) has grappled not only with ensuing disability from the spinal tumor, but ways she never took her career seriously even before the onset of the disease. Often disease itself becomes a catalyst for deeper exploration and participation.

Wellness Culture, Community, and Chronic Illness/Disability

Our culture’s pervasive and inescapable preoccupation with fitness, appearance, and social status is another hurdle facing people with chronic illness or disability. Research has demonstrated the undeniable mental and physical benefits of engaging in exercise and community. But for those who struggle with chronic illness and disability, these arenas are often outside their reach. These clients find themselves frequently isolated by the exigencies of their illness.

Socializing requires energy, and in the face of household or work demands, friendships fall by the wayside. The COVID pandemic resulted in yet another barrier for people with chronic illness and disability who are at risk of more serious infections. For those with mobility issues, opportunities to exercise are limited. One client with Cerebral Palsy receives only 6-10 sessions of physical therapy per calendar year.

Part of providing holistic therapy is helping clients discover ways to include movement and connection in their daily routines. As an example I work with severa,l clients affected by Ehlers Danlos Syndrome (EDS). EDS is a genetic condition that affects collagen, our body’s connective tissue. It ranges from mild involvement that creates hypermobility in the joints, requiring avoidance of extreme movement practices, to so severe it can cause heart and other organ failures.  

I frequently incorporate QiGong movement exercises in sessions, or I provide clients with short videos to follow. QiGong, a 4,000-years-old mindfulness based movement practice used throughout Asia for health maintenance, healing, and longevity, has been shown to mitigate pain, lower cortisol levels, and improve self-efficacy perceptions. The movements are gentle enough to not strain the body, yet require focused attention. They can be performed standing, seated, or supine. 

For those clients who are housebound much of the time, the need for community is often met by online connections. One client maintains an active online presence and connects through advocacy and providing education about their condition. For a trans teen client attending online school however, face-to-face interactions with peers is missing and contributes to their feeling alone. Like many people his age, he’s reluctant to learn to drive, and though he has applied for many kinds of work, he’s not been able to find employment due to his age. These circumstances compound his isolation. Group therapy has sporadically met those needs, but isolation remains a significant issue for those with chronic illness.


***

In my personal and clinical experience, addressing the mental health needs of individuals with chronic illness and disability requires a holistic and empathetic approach. As a therapist, I have found it essential to challenge prevailing cultural norms, advocate for the acceptance of diverse abilities, and provide a safe space where clients can explore their unique journeys.

At the outset, chronic illness and trauma can feel like burdensome lead, weighing down the spirit and clouding our sense of self. The challenges posed by these experiences may appear insurmountable, the darkness can be overwhelming. Yet, it’s in the crucible of adversity that a profound alchemical process unfolds.

In essence, the alchemical journey of turning lead into gold mirrors the transformative power of the human spirit when faced with chronic illness and trauma. It reminds us that within the depths of our struggles lies the potential for profound growth, healing, and the emergence of our most radiant and precious selves. By fostering open conversations, cultivating self-advocacy, and nurturing supportive relationships, I, and hopefully fellow clinicians reading this, can empower their clients to embrace their identities and navigate the complexities of life with resilience and grace.   

McMindfulness: How Mindfulness Became the New Capitalist Spirituality

What Mindfulness Revolution?

Mindfulness is mainstream, endorsed by celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Goldie Hawn and Ruby Wax. While meditation coaches, monks and neuroscientists rub shoulders with CEOs at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the founders of this movement have grown evangelical. Prophesying that its hybrid of science and meditative discipline “has the potential to ignite a universal or global renaissance,” the inventor of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), Jon Kabat-Zinn, has bigger ambitions than conquering stress. Mindfulness, he proclaims, “may actually be the only promise the species and the planet have for making it through the next couple hundred years.”

So, what exactly is this magic panacea? In 2014, Time magazine put a youthful blonde woman on its cover, blissing out above the words: “The Mindful Revolution.” The accompanying feature described a signature scene from the standardized course teaching MBSR: eating a raisin very slowly indeed. “The ability to focus for a few minutes on a single raisin isn’t silly if the skills it requires are the keys to surviving and succeeding in the 21st century,” the author explained.

I am skeptical. Anything that offers success in our unjust society without trying to change it is not revolutionary — it just helps people cope. However, it could also be making things worse. Instead of encouraging radical action, it says the causes of suffering are disproportionately inside us, not in the political and economic frameworks that shape how we live. And yet mindfulness zealots believe that paying closer attention to the present moment without passing judgment has the revolutionary power to transform the whole world. It’s magical thinking on steroids.

Don’t get me wrong. There are certainly worthy dimensions to mindfulness practice. Tuning out mental rumination does help reduce stress, as well as chronic anxiety and many other maladies. Becoming more aware of automatic reactions can make people calmer and potentially kinder. Most of the promoters of mindfulness are nice, and having personally met many of them, including the leaders of the movement, I have no doubt that their hearts are in the right place. But that isn’t the issue here. The problem is the product they’re selling, and how it’s been packaged. Mindfulness is nothing more than basic concentration training. Although derived from Buddhism, it’s been stripped of the teachings on ethics that accompanied it, as well as the liberating aim of dissolving attachment to a false sense of self while enacting compassion for all other beings.

What remains is a tool of self-discipline, disguised as self-help. Instead of setting practitioners free, it helps them adjust to the very conditions that caused their problems. A truly revolutionary movement would seek to overturn this dysfunctional system, but mindfulness only serves to reinforce its destructive logic. The neoliberal order has imposed itself by stealth in the past few decades, widening inequality in pursuit of corporate wealth. People are expected to adapt to what this model demands of them. Stress has been pathologized and privatized, and the burden of managing it outsourced to individuals. Hence the peddlers of mindfulness step in to save the day.

But none of this means that mindfulness ought to be banned, or that anyone who finds it useful is deluded. Its proponents tend to cast critics who hold such views as malevolent cranks. Reducing suffering is a noble aim and it should be encouraged. But to do this effectively, teachers of mindfulness need to acknowledge that personal stress also has societal causes. By failing to address collective suffering, and systemic change that might remove it, they rob mindfulness of its real revolutionary potential, reducing it to something banal that keeps people focused on themselves. 

A Private Freedom

The fundamental message of the mindfulness movement is that the underlying cause of dissatisfaction and distress is in our heads. By failing to pay attention to what actually happens in each moment, we get lost in regrets about the past and fears for the future, which make us unhappy. The man often labeled the father of modern mindfulness, Jon Kabat-Zinn, calls this a “thinking disease.” Learning to focus turns down the volume on circular thought, so Kabat-Zinn’s diagnosis is that our “entire society is suffering from attention deficit disorder — big time.” Other sources of cultural malaise are not discussed. The only mention of the word “capitalist” in Kabat-Zinn’s book Coming to Our Senses: Healing Ourselves and the World Through Mindfulness occurs in an anecdote about a stressed investor who says: “We all suffer a kind of A.D.D.”

Mindfulness advocates, perhaps unwittingly, are providing support for the status quo. Rather than discussing how attention is monetized and manipulated by corporations such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple, they locate the crisis in our minds. It is not the nature of the capitalist system that is inherently problematic; rather, it is the failure of individuals to be mindful and resilient in a precarious and uncertain economy. Then they sell us solutions that make us contented mindful capitalists.

The political naiveté involved is stunning. The revolution being touted occurs not through protests and collective struggle but in the heads of atomized individuals. “It is not the revolution of the desperate or disenfranchised in society,” notes Chris Goto-Jones, a scholarly critic of the movement’s ideas, “but rather a ‘peaceful revolution’ being led by white, middle-class Americans.” The goals are unclear, beyond peace of mind in our own private worlds.

By practicing mindfulness, individual freedom is supposedly found within “pure awareness,” undistracted by external corrupting influences. All we need to do is to close our eyes and watch our breath. And that’s the crux of the supposed revolution: the world is slowly changed — one mindful individual at a time. This political philosophy is oddly reminiscent of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.” With the retreat to the private sphere, mindfulness becomes a religion of the self. The idea of a public sphere is being eroded, and any trickle-down effect of compassion is by chance. As a result, notes the political theorist Wendy Brown, “the body politic ceases to be a body, but is, rather, a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers.” 

Mindfulness, like positive psychology and the broader happiness industry, has depoliticized and privatized stress. If we are unhappy about being unemployed, losing our health insurance, and seeing our children incur massive debt through college loans, it is our responsibility to learn to be more mindful. Jon Kabat-Zinn assures us that “happiness is an inside job” that simply requires us to attend to the present moment mindfully and purposely without judgment. Another vocal promoter of meditative practice, the neuroscientist Richard Davidson, contends that “wellbeing is a skill” that can be trained, like working out one’s biceps at the gym. The so-called mindfulness revolution meekly accepts the dictates of the marketplace. Guided by a therapeutic ethos aimed at enhancing the mental and emotional resilience of individuals, it endorses neoliberal assumptions that everyone is free to choose their responses, manage negative emotions, and “flourish” through various modes of self-care. Framing what they offer in this way, most teachers of mindfulness rule out a curriculum that critically engages with causes of suffering in the structures of power and economic systems of capitalist society.

If this version of mindfulness had a mantra, its adherents would be chanting “I, me and mine.” As my colleague C.W. Huntington observes, the first question most Westerners ask when considering the practice is: “What is in it for me?” Mindfulness is sold and marketed as a vehicle for personal gain and gratification. Self-optimization is the name of the game. I want to reduce mystress. I want to enhance myconcentration. I want to improve my productivity and performance. One invests in mindfulness as one would invest in a stock hoping to receive a handsome dividend. Another fellow skeptic, David Forbes, sums this up in his book Mindfulness and Its Discontents:

Which self wants to be de-stressed and happy? Mine! The Mindfulness Industrial Complex wants to help you to be happy, promote your personal brand — and of course make and take some bucks (yours and mine) along the way. The simple premise is that by practicing mindfulness, by being more mindful, you will be happy, regardless of what thoughts and feelings you have, or your actions in the world. 

Of course, this is a reflection of capitalist norms, which distort many things in the modern world. However, the mindfulness movement actively embraces them, dismissing critics who ask if it really needs to be this way. 

The Commodification of Mindfulness

Mindfulness is such a well-known commodity that it has even been used by the fast-food giant KFC to sell chicken pot pies. Developed by a high-powered ad agency, KFC’s “Comfort Zone: A Pot Pie-Based Meditation System” uses a soothing voiceover and mystical images of a rotating Colonel Sanders sitting in the lotus posture with a pot pie head. The video “takes listeners on a journey,” says the narrator: “The Comfort Zone is a groundbreaking system of personal meditation, mindfulness and affirmation based on the incredible power of KFC’s signature pot pie.”

Mindfulness is now said to be a $4 billion industry, propped up by media hype and slick marketing by the movement’s elites. More than 100,000 books for sale on Amazon have a variant of “mindfulness” in their title, touting the benefits of Mindful Parenting, Mindful Eating, Mindful Teaching, Mindful Therapy, Mindful Leadership, Mindful Finance, a Mindful Nation, and Mindful Dog Owners, to name just a few. There is also The Mindfulness Coloring Book, a bestselling subgenre in itself. Besides books, there are workshops, online courses, glossy magazines, documentary films, smartphone apps, bells, cushions, bracelets, beauty products and other paraphernalia, as well as a lucrative and burgeoning conference circuit. Mindfulness programs have made their way into public schools, Wall Street and Silicon Valley corporations, law firms, and government agencies including the US military. Almost daily, the media cite scientific studies reporting the numerous health benefits of mindfulness and the transformative effects of this simple practice on the brain.

Branding mindfulness with the veneer of hard science is a surefire way to get public attention. A key selling and marketing point for mindfulness programs is that it has been proven that meditation “works” based on the “latest neuroscience.” But this is far from the case. As many prominent contemplative neuroscientists admit, the science of mindfulness and other forms of meditative practice is in its infancy and understanding of brain changes due to meditation has been characterized as trivial. “Public enthusiasm is outpacing scientific evidence,” says Brown University researcher Willoughby Britton. “People are finding support for what they believe rather than what the data is actually saying.” The guiding ethos of scientific research is to be disinterested and cautious, yet when studies are employed for advocacy, their trustworthiness becomes suspect. “Experimenter allegiance,” Britton worries, “can count for a larger effect than the treatment itself.” There is a great deal of momentum in the mindfulness movement to override the caution that is the hallmark of good science. Together, researchers seeking grant money, authors seeking book contracts, mindfulness instructors seeking clients, and workshop entrepreneurs seeking audiences have talked up an industry built on dubious claims of scientific legitimacy.

Another marketing hook is the distant connection to Buddhist teachings, from which mindfulness is excised. Modern pundits have no qualms about flaunting this link for its cultural cachet — capitalizing on the exoticness of Buddhism and the appeal of such icons as the Dalai Lama — while at the same time dismissing Buddhist religion as foreign “cultural baggage” that needs to be purged. Their talking points frequently claim that they offer “Buddhist meditation without the Buddhism,” or “the benefits of Buddhism without all the mumbo jumbo.” Leaving aside the insulting tone, to which most seem oblivious (although it’s the same as saying: “I really like secular Jews without all the Jewishness… you know, all the beliefs, rituals, institutions, and cultural heritage of Judaism — all that mumbo jumbo…”), they are stuck in a colonial mode of discourse. They lay claim to the authentic essence of Buddhism for branding prestige, while declaring that science now supersedes Buddhism, providing access to a universal understanding of mindfulness.

Some Buddhist responses make challenging points. To quote Bhikkhu Bodhi, an outspoken American monk, the power of meditative teachings might enslave us: “Absent a sharp social critique,” he warns, “Buddhist practices could easily be used to justify and stabilize the status quo, becoming a reinforcement of consumer capitalism.” While I could argue whether mindfulness is a Buddhist practice or not (spoiler alert: it’s not), that would only distract from what is really at stake.

As a management professor and a longstanding Buddhist practitioner, I felt a moral duty to start speaking out when large corporations with questionable ethics and dismal track records in corporate social responsibility began introducing mindfulness programs as a method of performance enhancement. In 2013, I published an article with David Loy in the Huffington Postthat called into question the efficacy, ethics and narrow interests of mindfulness programs. To our surprise, what we wrote went viral, perhaps helped by the title: “Beyond McMindfulness.”

The term “McMindfulness” was coined by Miles Neale, a Buddhist teacher and psychotherapist, who described “a feeding frenzy of spiritual practices that provide immediate nutrition but no long-term sustenance.” Although this label is apt, it has deeper connotations. The contemporary mindfulness fad is the entrepreneurial equal of McDonald’s. The founder of the latter, Ray Kroc, created the fast-food industry. Like the mindfulness maestro Jon Kabat-Zinn, a spiritual salesman on par with Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra, Kroc was a visionary. Very early on, when selling milkshakes, Kroc saw the franchising potential of a restaurant chain in San Bernadino, California. He made a deal to serve as the franchising agent for the McDonald brothers. Soon afterwards, he bought them out, and grew the chain into a global empire. Inspiration struck Kabat-Zinn after earning his doctorate in molecular biology at MIT. A dedicated meditator, he had a sudden vision in the midst of a retreat: he could adapt Buddhist teachings and practices to help hospital patients deal with physical pain, stress and anxiety. His masterstroke was the branding of mindfulness as a secular crypto-Buddhist spirituality.

Both Kroc and Kabat-Zinn had a remarkable capacity for opportunity recognition: the ability to perceive an untapped market need, create new openings for business, and perceive innovative ways of delivering products and services. Kroc saw his chance to provide busy Americans instant access to food that would be delivered consistently through automation, standardization and discipline. He recruited ambitious and driven franchise owners, sending them to his training course at “Hamburger University” in Elk Grove, Illinois. Franchisees would earn certificates in “Hamburgerology with a Minor in French Fries.” Kroc continued to expand the reach of McDonald’s by identifying new markets that would be drawn to fast food at bargain prices.

Similarly, Kabat-Zinn perceived the opportunity to give stressed-out Americans easy access to MBSR through a short eight-week mindfulness course for stress reduction that would be taught consistently using a standardized curriculum. MBSR teachers would gain certification by attending programs at Kabat-Zinn’s Center for Mindfulness in Worcester, Massachusetts. He continued to expand the reach of MBSR by identifying new markets such as corporations, schools, government and the military, and endorsing other forms of “mindfulness-based interventions” (MBIs). As entrepreneurs, both men took measures to ensure that their products would not vary in quality or content across franchises. Burgers and fries at McDonald’s are predictably the same whether one is eating them in Dubai or in Dubuque. Similarly, there is little variation in the content, structuring and curriculum of MBSR courses around the world.

Since the publication of “Beyond McMindfulness,” I have observed with great trepidation how mindfulness has been oversold and commodified, reduced to a technique for just about any instrumental purpose. It can give inner-city kids a calming time-out, or hedge fund traders a mental edge, or reduce the stress of military drone pilots. Void of a moral compass or ethical commitments, unmoored from a vision of the social good, the commodification of mindfulness keeps it anchored in the ethos of the market.

A Capitalist Spirituality

This has come about partly because proponents of mindfulness believe that the practice is apolitical, and so the avoidance of moral inquiry and the reluctance to consider a vision of the social good are intertwined. Laissez-faire mindfulness lets dominant systems decide such questions as “the good.” It is simply assumed that ethical behavior will arise “naturally” from practice and the teacher’s “embodiment” of soft-spoken niceness, or through the happenstance of inductive self-discovery. However, the claim that major ethical changes intrinsically follow from “paying attention to the present moment, non-judgmentally” is patently flawed. The emphasis on “nonjudgmental awareness” can just as easily disable one’s moral intelligence. It is unlikely that the Pentagon would invest in mindfulness if more mindful soldiers refused en masse to go to war. 

Mindfulness is the latest iteration of a capitalist spirituality whose lineage dates back to the privatization of religion in Western societies. This began a few hundred years ago as a way of reconciling faith with modern scientific knowledge. Private experience could not be measured by science, so religion was internalized. Important figures in this process include the nineteenth-century psychologist William James, who was instrumental in psychologizing religion, as well as Abraham Maslow, whose humanistic psychology provided the impetus for the New Age movement. In Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion, Jeremy Carrette and Richard King argue that Asian wisdom traditions have been subject to colonization and commodification since the eighteenth century, producing a highly individualistic spirituality, perfectly accommodated to dominant cultural values and requiring no substantive change in lifestyle. Such an individualistic spirituality is clearly linked with the neoliberal agenda of privatization, especially when masked by the ambiguous language used in mindfulness. Market forces are already exploiting the momentum of the mindfulness movement, reorienting its goals to a highly circumscribed individual realm.

Privatized mindfulness practice is easily coopted and confined to what Carrette and King describe as an “accommodationist” orientation that seeks to “pacify feelings of anxiety and disquiet at the individual level rather than seeking to challenge the social, political and economic inequalities that cause such distress.” However, a commitment to a privatized and psychologized mindfulness is political. It amounts to what Byung-Chul Han calls “psycho-politics,” in which contemporary capitalism seeks to harness the psyche as a productive force. Mindfulness-based interventions fulfill this purpose by therapeutically optimizing individuals to make them “mentally fit,” attentive and resilient so they may keep functioning within the system. Such capitulation seems like the farthest thing from a revolution and more like a quietist surrender. 

Mindfulness is positioned as a force that can help us cope with the noxious influences of capitalism. But because what it offers is so easily assimilated by the market, its potential for social and political transformation is neutered. Leaders in the mindfulness movement believe that capitalism and spirituality can be reconciled; they want to relieve the stress of individuals without having to look deeper and more broadly at its social, political and economic causes. 

Some might wonder what is wrong with offering mindfulness to corporate executives and the rest of society’s dominant 1%? Aren’t they entitled to the benefits of mindfulness like anyone else? The more relevant question is what sort of mindfulness is actually on offer. Corporate executives get the same product as anyone else, and what it provides is an expedient tool for assuaging stress without wisdom and insight about where it comes from. A truly revolutionary mindfulness would challenge the Western sense of entitlement to happiness irrespective of ethical conduct. However, mindfulness programs do not ask executives to examine how their managerial decisions and corporate policies have institutionalized greed, ill will and delusion, which Buddhist mindfulness seeks to eradicate. Instead, the practice is being sold to executives as a way to de-stress, improve productivity and focus, and bounce back from working eighty-hour weeks. They may well be “meditating,” but it works like taking an aspirin for a headache. Once the pain goes away, it is business as usual. Even if individuals become nicer people, the corporate agenda of maximizing profits does not change. Trickle-down mindfulness, like trickle-down economics, is a cover for the maintenance of power.

Mindfulness is hostage to the neoliberal mindset: it must be put to use, it must be proved that it “works,” it must deliver the desired results. This prevents it being offered as a tool of resistance, restricting it instead to a technique for “self-care.” It becomes a therapeutic solvent — a universal elixir— for dissolving the mental and emotional obstacles to better performance and increased efficiency. This logic pervades most institutions, from public services to large corporations, and the quest for resilience is driven by the dictum: “Adapt — or perish.” The result is an obsessive self-monitoring of inner states, inducing social myopia. Self-absorption trumps concerns about the outside world. As Byung-Chul Han observes, this reinvents the Puritan work ethic:

Endlessly working at self-improvement resembles the self-examination and self-monitoring of Protestantism, which represents a technology of subjectivation and domination in its own right. Now, instead of searching out sins, one hunts down negative thoughts. 

The marketing success of mindfulness often makes it seem seductively innocuous. Besides, it appears to be helpful, so why pick holes? Isn’t a little bit of mindfulness better than none? What’s wrong with an employee listening to a three-minute breathing practice on an app before a stressful meeting? On the surface, not much, but we should also think about the cost. If mindfulness just helps people cope with the toxic conditions that make them stressed in the first place, then perhaps we could aim a bit higher. Why should we allow a regime to usurp mindfulness for nefarious corporate purposes? Should we celebrate the fact that this perversion is helping people to “auto-exploit” themselves? This is the core of the problem. The internalization of focus for mindfulness practice also leads to other things being internalized, from corporate requirements to structures of dominance in society. Perhaps worst of all, this submissive position is framed as freedom. Indeed, mindfulness thrives on freedom doublespeak, celebrating self-centered “freedoms” while paying no attention to civic responsibility, or the cultivation of a collective mindfulness that finds genuine freedom within a cooperative and just society.

Of course, reductions in stress and increases in personal happiness and wellbeing are much easier to sell than seriously questioning causes of injustice, inequity and environmental devastation. The latter involves a challenge to the social order, while the former plays directly to its priorities, sharpening people’s focus, improving their performance at work and in exams, and even promising better sex lives. Pick up any issue of Mindful, a new mass-market magazine, and one finds a plethora of articles touting the practical and worldly benefits of mindfulness. This inevitably appeals to consumers who value spirituality as a way of enhancing their mental and physical health. Not only has mindfulness has been repackaged as a novel technique of psychotherapy, but its utility is commercially marketed as self-help. This branding reinforces the notion that spiritual practices are indeed an individual’s private concern. And once privatized, these practices are easily coopted for social, economic and political control.

As originally argued in “Beyond McMindfulness,” this is only the case because of how modern teachers frame the practice:
Decontextualizing mindfulness from its original liberative and transformative purpose, as well as its foundation in social ethics, amounts to a Faustian bargain. Rather than applying mindfulness as a means to awaken individuals and organizations from the unwholesome roots of greed, ill will and delusion, it is usually being refashioned into a banal, therapeutic, self-help technique that can actually reinforce those roots.

***

This book explores how that occurs, and what might be done about it. There is no need for mindfulness to be so complicit in social injustice. It can also be taught in ways that unwind that entanglement. This requires us to see what is actually happening and commit ourselves to trying to reduce collective suffering. The focus needs to shift from “me” to “we,” liberating mindfulness from neoliberal thinking.

To that end, the critique that I offer is uncompromising, intolerant of unfairness, selfishness, greed, and the delusions of empire. It seeks to bring to light the unmindful allegiances in the mindfulness movement that obscure the relationship between personal stress and social oppression. It provides a much-needed critical counterbalance to the celebratory and self-congratulatory presentation of mindfulness by its boosters. I seek to illuminate, and thereby bring to mind, a shadow side that has been buried under the hype and anti-intellectual sentiment of much of the mindfulness movement. This process combats the social amnesia that leads to mindful servants of neoliberalism. The true meaning of mindfulness is an act of re-membering, not only in terms of recalling and being attentively present to our situation, but also of putting our lives back together, collectively.

Copyright © 2019 by Ronald Purser. Used with permission of the publisher, Repeater Books, a Division of Watkins Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved. [Editor’s note: References for the cited material in this excerpt can be found in the above-referenced book].

Teaching Adolescents Mindfulness Using the Morita Therapy Concept

Life presents us with many challenges; successes, failures, negative and positive experiences, and everything in between. Usually, when challenges occur, teens try to manage them on their own. As a marriage and family therapist who believes that we all possess the ability to overcome these challenges, helping my young clients to navigate them is particularly rewarding.

I practice and teach mindfulness including the Morita concept, which is about seeing and experiencing things as they are–in Japanese this is referred to as “ARUGAMAMA,” to accept things as they are. I am aware that the only way for me to find out how things will turn out is to begin taking on a challenge despite how anxious I may feel about it.

Like what you are reading? For more stimulating stories, thought-provoking articles and new video announcements, sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Japanese psychiatrist, Masatake Morita stated that the reason why we may feel anxious or scared to take action is because we have a desire to do well. He framed this as “A desire for life.” If we can try not to be overly concerned about the outcome, we may not feel as hesitant to take on challenges. While the Morita concept teaches us to be mindful about our feelings, it does not ask us to forget what we set out to accomplish. We must realize that the process of achieving a goal often does not happen overnight and that the process may involve a series of mundane steps that we must constantly take. While we may not necessary to enjoy the process of meeting our goal, we must not forget there is important value in accomplishing what we set out to achieve.

I recently had several opportunities to discuss this topic with groups of Japanese high school students who were visiting the United States during the summer to learn how to mindfully take on a leadership role. I was asked by their program coordinator to present how I managed to live in the United States as a young Japanese woman and achieve success. I was also asked to share the same mindfulness techniques, including the Morita therapy concept, that I teach my clients when they face life's challenges.

During the discussion with these Japanese students, some realized that it is very natural to experience a spectrum of feelings as they go through life. They told me that they have more positive attitudes when taking small steps to achieve a goal rather than focusing on one big action. These students learned that life will continue regardless of how they felt in the process, and in fact, many of them already did take an action regardless of how they felt, in order to achieve their goals.

As part of my PowerPoint presentation, I discussed how my life was full of both failures and achievements. I was not aware of the Morita concept when I was a young student, so I gained the necessary life skills the hard way in order to persevere after failure. After my presentation, I asked these students to participate in a short activity to demonstrate how they could pull themselves together in a challenging situation that I created for them. As they struggled to figure out how to achieve their goals, they acknowledged their negative feelings, struggled, contemplated with their fellow students, came together to support each other and laughed when they were able to work through their challenges even though they did not feel empowered during the process. I was impressed with their ability to overcome how they were feeling by reminding themselves of their purpose. It was a powerful experience for me as well to witness the shift in their mindset and see how they were feeling at the end as well.

I thought it was ironic that my teaching of mindfulness, which is rooted in Japanese culture and specifically in Buddhist philosophy, to these young Japanese students was taking place in the United States. In other words, they came all the way to the United States to learn something from their own culture.

As they go through life, I sincerely hope these students remember the Morita concept when they face a challenge and can use it to help them in managing their response to their difficult feelings. After all, it is natural to feel bad when we must do something that we are not enthusiastic about, even though it is necessary in order to achieve a goal. Acknowledging all the feelings as they are, “ARUGAMAMA,” frees us from the need to fight them. We just must find a small action that we feel comfortable enough to take today, tomorrow and every day until we reach what we set out to accomplish.

For a small mindfulness activity suggestion, you may want to discuss the following with your teen clients:

  • Is it true that you must feel good in order to tackle our challenging or new tasks? Why?
  • Explore what your anxious feeling is trying to tell you? Why is it there?
  • Can you be worried about tomorrow and experience what’s present at the same time? How so?
  • How can you be mindful when you face challenges?
  • What is your goal or value in life and your current tasks? 

Teaching Clients to Meditate

A family sent their abrasive son to a monastery to learn a better path. When he came home to visit them after having been there his first year, they asked him what he learned. The son replied frustratingly, “All I learned to do was breathe.”

He returned to the monastery, and five years later, when his family asked him what he learned, he looked disheartened as he shrugged his shoulders and said, “All I learned to do was breathe.” He went away and returned again after ten years, and this time he seemed defeated as the same question was posed and he gave the same answer.

Then, many years had passed, and the young man now became a much older man, and at last, he reached enlightenment. When he was asked what he learned to become enlightened, he replied, “Finally, I learned to breathe.”

Our egos like to assure us that we “know.” “I know, I know,” we say, “I should meditate. I know it’s good for me….” But then we don’t. Talking about knowledge makes for interesting conversation, but practicing knowledge is wisdom. In 2018, we have enough evidence from the field of neuroscience to know that even five minutes of meditation a day for six weeks can create physiological changes in the brain. Meditation decreases activity in the default mode network (our constant inner chatter), it lowers blood pressure, and it helps our amygdalas send fewer false signals of danger that lead to anxiety, fear, and ultimately all-too-often, anger. In short, you know that daily meditation can significantly help you, so what’s stopping you from practicing it?

Many people tell me that they “don’t have the time,” and I certainly understand living a fast-paced life with a seemingly perpetually busy schedule; so I often tell people this: You might not have ten minutes a day, and maybe right now you’re convinced that you don’t even have five minutes to do it, but you cannot rationally come up with an reasonable excuse for not having two minutes to meditate a day. And people usually agree. I start people with two minutes a day, because 20,000 hours of clinical experience has taught me that when people start off with two minutes a day, two things happen: 1. They find that they can make the time, and 2. They eventually sit longer until it’s worth it to make five or ten minutes a priority in their everyday lives.

There are many different ways to meditate, but the most basic is to focus on your breath. I recommend people sit up, because I have seen evidence that sitting with a straight spine activates the reticular formation, which is the center of our brain’s ability to pay attention. Like the monk from the story above (and like mastering anything), learning to breathe takes effort, until it doesn’t. I teach people to sit up straight and to focus on their breath. I also recommend not trying to stop your thoughts, as trying to do so often becomes discouraging, since it’s not very realistic. Instead, I encourage people to become an observer of their thoughts—to watch their thoughts move by like watching a boat pass on a river. As the “boat carrying your thoughts” goes by, come back to your breath. A two-minute timer will likely go off sooner than you think. Eventually, so will with the five or ten minute one.

My experience has taught me that it’s foolish to wait until we’re anxious or angry to try to begin handling those tough emotions. Instead, if we can breathe with intentionality as often as possible throughout our day, as well as engage in actively having realistic self-talk, then our ability to handle things like anxiety and anger when they arise will become significantly better. You have all the tools you need to start meditating daily and practicing and role modeling the type of self-control and healthy habits for your clients that will help them see that you are living the example that you are presenting to them. After all, you already know how to breathe… or do you?

William Richards on Psychedelic-Assisted Psychotherapy and Mystical Experiences

Psychedelic Healing and Research

David Bullard: I’ve enjoyed our several conversations, Bill, heard several of your talks, seen you interact with students and colleagues, and have learned deeply from your recent book, Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experiences; it filled so many gaps for me in how we see consciousness and psychotherapy. Plus, this has all been augmented with your articles in tribute to Abraham Maslow and on psychedelic psychotherapy published online in September 2016 in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology.

But even more recently, the December 2016 issue of the Journal of Psychopharmacology published the results of your study at Johns Hopkins and of the similar research reported by the NYU team, showing very impressive results in the use of psilocybin for the treatment of people with cancer who were experiencing existential anxiety and depression. These two studies have been described as “the most rigorous controlled trials of psilocybin to date.” The issue also includes penetrating commentaries from ten notable psychiatrists and neurologists. As stated by the issue editor:

“All agree we are now in an exciting new phase of psychedelic psychopharmacology that needs to be encouraged not impeded.”

The re-emerging study of psychedelic research really hit home for many with the beautifully written article in The New Yorker by Michael Pollan, “The Trip Treatment,” giving a historical perspective on the resurgence of research and the therapeutic role of psychedelic medicines. I was astonished at how positive it was for such a mainstream publication. Pollan quoted you in it, concerning whether people get an illusory or “real” experience of mystical consciousness. Citing William James, you suggested “that we judge the mystical experience not by its veracity, which is unknowable, but by its fruits: does it turn someone’s life in a positive direction?”

Can you talk a bit about your research on psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy and the potential entheogens have to accelerate treatment and facilitate transcendental spiritual experiences?
William A. Richards: Well, I’ve been at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine doing research and clinical work for the past 17 years, but I started out in college intending to be a minister. I studied philosophy, psychology and sociology, then completed a first year of graduate studies at Yale Divinity School, followed by a year of studies in both theology and psychiatry at the University of Göttingen. There I naively volunteered to be a research subject and received a drug I had never heard about called psilocybin for the very first time, having heard that it might provide some insights into early childhood. That triggered an awesome and amazing transcendental experience that I wrote about in my recent book.

I then returned to the States, completed the degree at Yale, studied the psychology of religion with Walter Houston Clark at the Andover-Newton Theological School, and then became a research assistant to Abraham Maslow at Brandeis. After that, I accepted a job at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center doing psychotherapy research with a variety of psychedelics including LSD, DPT, MDA and psilocybin. To further that work I continued my graduate studies at Catholic University to obtain my doctorate and become licensed as a clinical psychologist.

In 2006 our team at Johns Hopkins published our first psilocybin study, utilizing normal volunteers who had no prior experience with psychedelic substances, and the results were impressive.
We found that 58% of the 36 volunteers rated the experience of the psilocybin session as among the five most personally meaningful experiences of their lives.
We found that 58% of the 36 volunteers rated the experience of the psilocybin session as among the five most personally meaningful experiences of their lives, and 67% rated it among the five most spiritually significant experiences of their lives, with 11% and 17%, respectively indicating that it was the single most meaningful experience, and the single most spiritually significant experience. A follow-up study, published in 2008, indicated that attitudinal and behavioral changes were sustained.


Most recently, our study with cancer patients showed psilocybin produced large and significant decreases in clinician-rated and self-rated measures of depression, anxiety or mood disturbance, and increases in measures of quality of life, life meaning, death acceptance, and optimism. These effects were sustained at 6 months. The study at NYU showed similarly robust results.

So what comes to mind is a growing awareness that this field may really become mainstream. In mid-October I was at a conference in Victoria, British Columbia, with 150 really bright, young mental health professionals and boy they are serious about what needs to be done practically to change the laws in Canada so therapists who are properly trained can use psilocybin and other entheogens in their practices. They’re not thinking 50 years from now, they’re thinking five years or sooner. And why not?

And then in early December in San Francisco, you observed the ceremony for 41 therapists and medical personnel who completed an exciting new eight-month training program, the “Certificate in Psychedelic-Assisted Therapies and Research,” directed by Janis Phelps at the California Institute for Integral Studies (CIIS), where I consult and teach as well.

The program is groundbreaking and so important, since multicenter, phase 3 clinical trials are about to be funded for the use of psychotherapy using psilocybin for end-of-life issues and with MDMA for PTSD. Research also continues with psychedelic substances for treatment-resistant depression, alcohol, cocaine, narcotic and nicotine addictions and social anxiety. The CIIS certificate program will provide wonderfully aware and trained personnel to participate as the guides in this important research, both in the US and in other countries.
DB: I greatly enjoyed witnessing the passion and dedication of the students and faculty at the graduation; it was a beautiful ceremony.
WA: One participant in the program, Dr. Robert Grant, is a physician and a full professor at UCSF who has pursued research with AIDS/HIV and, among other things, is very interested in AIDS survivor syndrome—people who aren’t dying from AIDS now but are often chronically depressed and living with the threat of death over their heads all the time if they don’t take their medication.

There are some very well established clinicians who decided to become students in that program in order to obtain this certificate in case it helps open doors to initiate or contribute to research down the road.
DB: You’ve used a wonderful metaphor of music to describe this profusion of recent events.
WA: Ah, yes! Well, when recently asked how I felt about psychedelic research and clinical work from my historical perspective, I replied, “Most of the time I have music going through my head—and right at the moment it’s the Prelude and ‘Liebestod’ or ‘love death’ from Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde.”

It’s very expressive, romantic, soaring music. And then, as the end of the Prelude approaches, it dies down and gets quieter and quieter. And then there's dead silence. I think there are just a couple plucks of strings, and more silence. And then the theme comes back, very softly at first, and it builds, and it builds, and it builds. And it gets bigger than it ever was in the beginning. It returns even more magnificently than before.

My response was to a question about the way the research has developed: when it started to expand in the 1960s, it was a theme with incredible promise for helping to relieve suffering, and then it became very quiet because of the 1970 legal prohibition and all, and now the research is coming back quite strongly. That music is a metaphor for where the research and the field have been and, following a dormant period of 22 years, where they are right now.
DB: And you’ve even created a playlist for psychedelic studies. It looks like a wonderful compilation to listen to, even without psilocybin!
WA: My son Brian and I had a delightful time putting it together. It is based on many years of experience with an impressive variety of people.
DB: Going back to the just-published psilocybin research: The results are extraordinary for any therapeutic intervention, let alone one that consists of just a few meetings pre and post, and one active psychedelic session with very vulnerable people.

The journal issue includes some excellent supportive commentary on your research that I found very helpful, such as one by Stanford psychiatrist David Spiegel, “Psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for dying cancer patients—aiding the final trip."
WA: We were very gratified by his and the other commentators’ contributions. It is certainly another milestone in demonstrating the gifts that these experiences facilitated by the skilled use of psychedelics can bring. Everyone involved in this work is dedicated and appreciates how profoundly meaningful these experiences can be for many people.
DB: Do you know how many centers they’re going to need for phase 3 clinical trials to build upon your psilocybin research? Definitions of phase 3 that I’ve seen range from 300 to 3,000 subjects.
WA: We don’t have those numbers yet. We expect to discuss this with colleagues at the FDA soon. But there are countless other research projects that can be done as more and more universities start coming on board. Hopkins may be the beginning, the Mecca, but things are happening far beyond Hopkins.
DB: Including at UC San Francisco; I know that Brian Anderson, MD, had a proposal recently funded to utilize psychedelics in a group therapy format for HIV/AIDS patients.
WA: We keep doing the best-designed research studies we can come up with and it’s spreading. All of a sudden it’s socially respectable to do psychedelic research again, when not long ago many people wouldn’t dare touch it for fear of ruining their careers. Now it’s becoming mainstream and being applied to different populations of patients including “well” people, for that matter. Bob Jesse, who helped to facilitate the initiation of psilocybin research at Johns Hopkins 17 years ago, talks about the use of entheogens in promoting “the betterment of well people.” It looks like these drugs really are fundamentally safe for most people when they’re used responsibly with good preparation and when skilled guidance is provided to facilitate the initial integration of the insights that occur during the period of drug action.

And since it can accelerate and deepen psychotherapy for many people, why should this not be a tool available to the profession? It’s a bit like asking, “Should we allow astronomers to use telescopes or microbiologists to use microscopes?” Well, for the mental health world and perhaps the religious world too, here’s an incredibly effective, powerful tool. And sure, we have to use it skillfully and wisely but why shouldn’t it be legally accessible?

Awe and Transcendence

DB: You go beyond the psychotherapeutic goal of symptom reduction and restoring someone to a culturally defined “normal” state of mental health. This therapy can increase the capacity for awe and a deeper sense of interpersonal connection, transcendence and feeling at home in the world.
WA:
Normal for some might be drinking beer and watching television. As human beings, it’s not necessarily all that wonderful to only aspire to that.
I suppose that was inevitable after studying with Maslow. He took me on as his research assistant when a dean at Brandeis got cold feet about accepting me as a graduate student with research interests in psychedelics. It was a great opportunity to learn from him. I remember him saying that the early stages of self-acceptance involve coming to terms with grief, guilt and anger, and relationships with parents and siblings and so on. And that’s important, of course.

But that’s kind of the kindergarten. And then you move to coming to terms with your capacity to love, your creativity, your tolerance of different ideas and perspectives on the world—the whole process of self-actualization rather than adjusting to whatever “normal” is. Normal for some might be drinking beer and watching television. As human beings, it’s not necessarily all that wonderful to only aspire to that.
DB: Maslow was even talking about transcending “self actualization.” These are pretty immense subjects to tackle in this brief interview, but you’ve written about Unitive Consciousness and about space and time in the book.
WA: I wrote about transcending time and space as part of the experience of mystical consciousness. It is always a tall order to capture the Divine in language. Immanuel Kant pondered the mysteries of time and space long and hard back in the eighteenth century. Many others, including Huston Smith, have written eloquently about this.

When in some sort of altered state that we describe as mystical or transcendental, what is perplexing is that people often claim not only that they were distracted or unaware of the passing of time, but that the state of consciousness they were experiencing was intuitively felt to be “outside of time.”

Many of our research subjects have reported such experiences, and I’ve explored it in the book over several chapters. These are all extremely exciting and vital topics to pursue.

Skeptics

DB: You’ve probably had plenty of experience in discussing these issues with skeptics and probably studied the ancient skeptics who classically have been attacked on their major thesis that knowledge is not possible—a rather self-refuting assertion!—but when anyone discusses or writes about mystical experiences, they might be seen as being on pretty thin ice by the more empirical rationalists among us. How do you answer these critiques?
WA: Well, I write extensively about this in the book, but in this discussion I can say that these experiences entail more than emotion—however exalted and elevated the feelings may be. Mystical experiences explored in both the literature of each world religion and in modern psychedelic research, are also claimed to include knowledge.

William James, the Harvard psychologist who published The Varieties of Religious Experience, described it as “beholding truth.” In contrast, Freud had trouble comprehending this aspect of mental functioning and called it “the oceanic feeling,” a term for mystical consciousness that had been coined by a French novelist, poet, and mystic, Romain Rolland.

Freud himself devalued the import of the experience and interpreted it as a memory of union with the mother’s breast before the individual self or ego developed. Yet even he acknowledged “there may be something else behind this, but for the present it is wrapped in obscurity.”

In spite of the apparent efficacy of some visionary and mystical experiences in psychotherapy, I also want to stress that there is also the potential efficacy of psychedelic substances in accelerating psychotherapy within the realm of the ego, often with dosage too low to provide access to mystical forms of consciousness. These experiences are important in their own right, though they may not be described as transcendental, religious or spiritual. In the 1960s a number of European therapists were using psychedelics to accelerate more conventional psychoanalytically-oriented therapy, often administering psychedelics on several occasions during each week of treatment.

Maslow was very interested in my psilocybin experience in Germany as a research subject, but he had a cardiac problem that kept him from pursuing this personally. As noted earlier, I wrote about my time with him in that recent issue of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology. It was a kind of tribute to him and a joy to write and recollect. I’m so grateful for the mentors and other people I’ve been able to know and work with: Huston Smith, Walter Houston Clark, Hanscarl Leuner, Charles Savage, Walter Pahnke, Stanislav Grof, and many others with whom I currently get to interact. Sadly, I just received word that Huston “fully woke up” this morning. I will miss him and find myself grieving—a rich combination of gratitude and sorrow. He was the last of my living mentors. Now we (and an increasingly robust community of other pioneers) are standing on the top of the mountain.
DB: I count 74 colleagues, friends and others who’ve inspired you in the “Acknowledgments” section of your book. So you have found a very meaningful life exploring these understandings with others.
WA: That’s why I can’t retire; it’s too much fun; it’s too meaningful; it’s joyful. And when I look back on my life, I think there were many times when I was wandering academically through sociology and psychology and music and philosophy and comparative religions. People probably looked at me and thought I was just one lost kid. Like, would I ever make a decision of what to commit to?
DB: Yeah, “why don’t you settle down?”
WA: When I look back on it, it was ideal training for becoming a psychedelic therapist or researcher, but I didn’t even know the word “psychedelic” back then. Music really wasn’t a detour at all; it was central to what I was doing. The study of comparative religions was central to it as was the study of depth psychology and it’s like I knew what I was doing unconsciously.

Psilocybin and Cancer

DB: Back to your point about the old worry that having clinical and research interests in psychedelic medicines could threaten one’s career: Ninety researchers and clinicians from UCSF, UC Berkeley, Stanford, and the California Institute for Integral Studies showed up to hear your talk about psychedelics a few months ago and also for another earlier discussion with Françoise Bourzat, a therapist who’s been doing this work for about 30 years. She takes people to Mexico outside of Oaxaca where she works with a Mazatec elder. She creates therapeutic support and integration for the people, and together with her Mazatec teacher, guides them through the ancient ritual of sacred mushrooms.

But for greater acceptance and legality, there will have to be empirical studies following up yours further validating their safety and efficacy.
WA: Yes. The results of our recent research show some profound effects from the use of psilocybin for a selected group of cancer patients who were experiencing existential anxiety. After several therapy sessions for them to become comfortable with the co-therapy team, they had one session with psilocybin in adequate dosage, followed up by some appointments devoted to the integration of whatever new perspectives they had acquired.
DB: Can you brief us on the research design of your group?
WA: Both Hopkins and NYU utilized double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover designs. At Hopkins the control substance was a very low, placebo-like, dose of psilocybin; at NYU nicotinic acid was administered.
DB: So, were there any particular new perspectives that were commonly attained and helpful across subjects?
WA: Though every person’s experience is unique, many reported new understandings of a religious or philosophical nature as well as helpful insights into their own lives and interpersonal relationships.
Those who encountered mystical forms of consciousness frequently claimed not only reductions in depression and anxiety, but also loss of the fear of death, coupled with increased openness and curiosity about life.
Those who encountered mystical forms of consciousness frequently claimed not only reductions in depression and anxiety, but also loss of the fear of death, coupled with increased openness and curiosity about life.

And there’s work going on in Europe to move towards the legal use of psychedelics, especially in palliative and hospice care. Very bright researchers were recently collaborating at the European Medicines Agency—it’s their equivalent of our FDA—working together to determine which data are needed in order to make a drug like psilocybin accessible. And what training do you need to enable therapists to use it safely and responsibly. They’re involved in very practical considerations. So, things are moving out there.
DB: Definitely. I met recently with a visiting Zen teacher, Vanya Palmers, who helped with a recent University of Zürich double-blind study where, on the 4th day of a 6-day retreat, participants who were long-term meditators got either psilocybin or placebo. Each subject had fMRI imaging before and after and completed follow-up questionnaires. Results haven’t been published yet but are bound to be fascinating.
WA: Here in the States, of course, Dr. Rick Doblin’s group MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) has since the mid 1980s been funding research and education in this area with the hope that some of these medicines, like MDMA, might be approved so that medical professionals could prescribe them as early as 2021.

Enhancing Psychotherapy

DB: Given the apparent effectiveness of a single or just a few of these entheogen sessions in a psychotherapeutic context, how do you see psychotherapy changing to utilize them?
WA: Basically I would say—with no apology—that psychotherapy is an art as well as a science and the being of the therapist is very important as well as the collection of techniques and procedures he or she has memorized and internalized. You can’t do psychotherapy to someone; it’s a process that unfolds in the context of a trust-filled, courageous, committed human relationship; that is, if you want to really accomplish something significant in terms of personality growth or development.

For the clinical use of these medicines, ideally we would have eight hours of preparation. That may be a little more than some people need and a little less than others. But, if in those eight hours you can’t establish an intuitive sense of interpersonal grounding and trust, then I wouldn’t give someone a psychedelic. There’s an intuitive judgement that there’s enough trust here and I’m committed enough to be with this person for the period of drug action whether I’m needed or not. But I can be in a mental space that is completely dedicated, completely accessible, and completely available to that person, especially during the onset for the intense period of drug action.

If the person’s anxious I’m here to provide support; if they just need freedom and privacy and respect I can provide that instead. I’ll make sure they don’t injure themselves physically if they’re off balance and they have to go to the bathroom or something—very practical things. I’ll provide the best supportive music and periods of silence now and then that may be indicated and just let it unfold. It requires evoking and providing the conditions in which the person’s own mind can manifest and heal itself.

And even if there are periods of anxiety or fear to navigate through, we welcome those as well. “In and through, in and through” is the mantra. If an inner dragon, boogeyman, or monster should reveal itself then we go right straight towards it as rapidly as possible and say, “Well, hello. Aren’t you big and scary! What can I learn from you?”

And so instead of running away and getting into panic and paranoia and confusion and even perhaps needing to go to a psychiatric emergency room, you look it straight in the eye and say, “Boy, you’re an ugly part of me but what are you made of?” And when you go towards it, inevitably there’s insight. As you know from psychotherapy in general, the monster turns into the alcoholic father in the middle of the night, or turns into the person who sexually abused you, or turns into some personification of your own guilt or unresolved grief or fears, or deep, dark sources of shame or whatever it is.

But when you go towards it there’s always healing, and insight, and resolution. And what you wanted to run from one moment you can laugh at minutes later. Like, “How could I ever have been afraid of that??!! That was only my drunk father in the middle of the night when I was a little boy,” or whatever it is.

What Devils Hate the Most is Being Embraced

DB: Well, it’s reassuring to know that voyagers like yourself who have been there with people going through it so many times can, with complete confidence and clarity, make that statement that you can face these demons.
WA: In some psychoanalytic circles there’s this tradition of being afraid of revealing too much too soon. Such that you have to precede very, very slowly and gingerly, four days a week, sometimes for seven years!

But I’m convinced these medicines can be used safely and effectively—having had these clinical research opportunities for decades now, working with several hundred different people—and hardly any of them have been so-called “hippies.” They’re just normal people: cancer patients, or alcoholics, or narcotic addicts, or depressed people, or anxious people, or they have personality disorders. Some have been mental health or religious professionals in an educational context. Generally, they’re people who never would have been interested in psychedelics if the opportunity to receive one hadn’t been offered as part of medical treatment, education or research. Some were eighty-year-olds from the inner city dying of cancer; not the hippie type—not the stereotype of the psychedelic user at all. And I have to say just about all these people have benefited.

I’ve come to believe that if there’s anything they’re not ready to deal with yet it won’t even come up, not even in a psychedelic session.

And if it comes into consciousness, to me that says they’re ready to deal with it—that this is an invitation and if it comes to you, greet it. It may be the uninvited guest but it’s the guest. And you meet it. I always say what devils hate most is being embraced. They’re like kids in Halloween masks—but then the game is up, and you realize the false front of the terror.

When you go towards the fear there’s growth and insight and resolution. But you need to be grounded in a good relationship with a therapist or someone you really trust, or in the depths of your mind perhaps if you’re spiritually developed enough. There’s this courage, there’s this intention to greet, to welcome, to embrace whatever comes into consciousness. And with that there’s a willingness to suffer.

It doesn’t have to be a “good trip,” you know, especially if “good” just means getting high and laughing and feeling that everything’s cool.
It doesn’t have to be a “good trip,” you know, especially if “good” just means getting high and laughing and feeling that everything’s cool. Personal growth is sometimes hard work, and spiritual development takes you through the dark night of the soul sometimes. But with that intention to welcome whatever comes into your field of consciousness and accept it, and wrestle with it, and go through it, people invariably emerge with a feeling of inner strength and confidence, and significantly decreased anxiety at the end of the day.
DB: One mentor of mine, the psychoanalyst and Control Mastery Theory co-developer Hal Sampson, would often say that you can reassure people who have articulated something like, “I’m so ashamed about x, y z, that I’ve never told anyone before,” that their being able to say it out loud to you absolutely means that it’s not as powerful as it was before they could even utter it.

But, you’re taking it a step beyond that by your reassurance that anything that comes up even in a psychedelic session—from your experience—is something that means it’s ready to be dealt with. That’s very useful.

I’m remembering a time with my son when he was 7 years old, and in response to his worrying, I said, “well, whatever goes on in your brain is never going to hurt anybody else and whatever you see or imagine…” He said, “What?? Say it again!” I said it again and he suddenly physically relaxed and went, “Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.”

It’s similar to when I hear you affirming that whatever can come up can be dealt with. And it helped me understand too how we’re used to thinking of traumatic memories coming up and then people being engulfed in them, what some colleagues call a “trauma suck,” but with psychedelics it’s a kaleidoscope, things are going to be shifting and changing.
WA: You triggered a wonderful memory with one of my own sons. On Halloween we were at an amusement park and in one of these rides where you get in a boat and you slowly move through this dimly lit river with dry ice where everything is setup to look spooky. And, as we were going around a curve, there was this girl in a witch’s costume, her back against the wall, just waiting for the moment to jump out and try to frighten us. And Brian must have been six years old and he just jumped up and scared the witch a split second before the witch did her thing. And the poor girl almost fell in the water. But that’s the principle, you know: “If you can scare the witch you’ve got it made!”
DB: There are some therapists and researchers who espouse “exposure and response prevention” and “prolonged exposure” in the treatment of trauma and anxiety. A friend of mine is involved in researching this for the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. But a couple of people I knew just couldn’t tolerate the protocol that they had and so they dropped out, but I have a new appreciation for it in a way by what you’re talking about—of going into it.

The key must be to make sure they have all the tools to make it safe enough—and I think that’s it—an experienced guide who knows it’s safe to go into these psychedelic shifts within consciousness.
WA: I agree. If the relationship is solid and the dosage is adequate so you can tap into what we call transpersonal realms of the mind, beyond the everyday self and at the border between the everyday self and transcendence. One thing we keep discovering, and it’s awesomely beautiful really, is that within the psyche there is wisdom about the way traumas or conflicts are presented to the ego for resolution.
Within the psyche there is wisdom about the way traumas or conflicts are presented to the ego for resolution.
It’s not that it’s just sitting there. But the very way it comes up and presents itself—when you interact with it—the way the mind depicts the process of resolution, it’s like a great novelist writing a very moving and effective story.

And we find these very creative resources within the human body but beyond the ego if you will, perhaps deep within our DNA somewhere. And if you go into the mind with courage, trust, openness, and interpersonal grounding, the experiences that emerge tend to be infinitely more effectively and more artistically designed than anything you could have planned in advance. If you think, “Oh, what this patient needs is to regress to age seven and address her relationship with her father,” you are being unnecessarily controlling and underestimating the resources within your patient. If you just go in with openness and trust, what emerges and what the person writes down after the drug wears off is awesomely effective for many and I suspect most people.

You don’t have to have a doctorate in English Literature, you know; it happens to very ordinary people. And the richness of the imagery and the storylines are very impressive.
DB: And I hear also what you’re saying about the importance of trust by both the person undergoing the experience and the facilitator or therapist, the trust that that’s there.
WA: We’re potentially saying,
“You may feel like you’re dying in this moment and go ahead, let yourself die; you’re going to be okay.”
“You may feel like you’re dying in this moment and go ahead, let yourself die; you’re going to be okay.” Or, “you may feel like you’re going crazy; that’s okay, go ahead, go crazy, we’re going to take good care of you; you’ll be okay.” That certainly takes a lot of trust because when you get into those deep states of consciousness they feel incredibly real, incredibly powerful.

Transpersonal Psychology

DB: But in everyday life we seldom if ever hear those very powerful, positive, loving, supportive messages that whatever occurs in our own psyche, we’ll be OK.
WA: Right. We’ve got to talk more about these transcendental or mystical states of consciousness. When they occur they seem to be the most powerful factor in attitudinal and behavioral change. They literally change the self-concept. They change who you think you are, who you feel other people are, what you feel the nature of reality is, what the nature of the world is, and your sense of values may shift. That’s powerful stuff, you know? And we’re not used to talking about that; we leave that for the theologians. There’s still this whole reticence in psychology to even acknowledge what we call “transpersonal psychology.” I like to think of “trans” as meaning both “above and beyond” but also “between.” There’s a vertical and horizontal dimension of transpersonal psychology, but they’re both there and they’re both incredibly powerful and important.
DB: That’s something you articulate in the book so well—the sense of oneness, wonder and connectedness. I’ve seen something similar in couples therapy—when they think they’re angry at the other person it’s kind of an illusion because they’ve helped to create the other person who’s there, who is reacting to them as they are reacting to the other. When they see what a system they are in the accusations and guilt can greatly diminish. Many Buddhist concepts come to mind in what you’re talking about also.

Jinpa Thupten, a scholar and the long-time English translator for His Holiness the Dalai Lama, wrote his first book for the general public last year. And when he thought about the numerous Tibetan Buddhist teachings that he had learned, he decided to write about compassion as his main topic. And to me that’s a major part of the whole experience of growing spiritually—developing self- and other- compassion—whether it’s therapy or through transcendental states or other psychedelic experiences or some combination. All of these things merge into self-compassion and compassion for others—and then awe and joy of just being alive.
WA: Yes, and after the great mystical experience, however you want to try to put that into words, you come back to earth and the memory needs to be integrated. You chop wood and carry water. And you try to see the divine in your boss, in your spouse, in your kids, and in the people you disagree with. It’s a lifelong process.
DB: We’ve touched on this a little bit before but I think this thing called “psychotherapy,” at moments joining and looking into all these other human lives, is a counterpoint to meditation that involves looking into your own consciousness and beyond. And I know we’re both grateful we’ve been able to do that. You and I are both celebrating our 40th year of private practice—another synchronicity I enjoyed finding out about, as well as your sense of humor.
WA: I sometimes think of how the Jews, Christians, and Muslims who tend to be excessively serious and somber could benefit from the Hindu appreciation for lila, known as divine playfulness.
DB: Anything you’d like to say more about lila? We could use some of that appreciation for life after this terribly difficult election season.
WA: I’m having trouble myself imagining it. I picture this great beast coming out of the ocean and ask how do we confront it and care for it, and love it, and tame it, and appreciate the energy in it, you know, and not just run in terror.
DB: So, you’re saying that, similar to seeing something terrifying during a psilocybin session, when you would encourage the person to, that great term, embrace the demon who hates to be hugged, we have to find a way to deal with our political realities.
WA:
How do you respectfully stay centered and go towards what we label as bad, evil, or unpredictable, or scary?
How do you respectfully stay centered and go towards what we label as bad, evil, or unpredictable, or scary? It’s a real challenge and an art, I think, and maybe what religions are all about.
DB: And your background in comparative religions and the psychology of religion really informs your writing about the psychotherapeutic experience; it really is the culmination of your whole life’s work.
WA: It is, yeah. The book kind of wrote itself really. Hardly any rewriting, it just kind of flowed out during one year and there it was. Also, I’m more aware that I have a different verbal vocabulary than my written vocabulary. Sometimes I write words that I never say and speak words I never write. It’s just interesting, you know; like another part of the brain is in charge.
DB: So now I’m wondering about your sense of the experience of successfully working with trauma through psychedelic-assisted therapy compared to how we understand either prolonged exposure and response prevention or EMDR and somatic approaches. Any thoughts you’ve got about what happens to a person with trauma when they are in the entheogenic state?
WA: I suspect whenever therapy works there’s stuff in common among these different approaches. It may be labeled differently and be conceptualized differently, but there’s something very important about the courage to confront in a grounded relationship without running away and without panicking and just seeing it for what it is.

And perhaps coupling the intention to trust and confront with some breathing exercises or eye movements or whatever may be helpful. But it would seem to me the main theme is this confidence that in this relationship we call therapy there’s nothing we can’t deal with. You’re not helpless and this can be meaningfully resolved, not just vanquished. And in the big picture the flow of experiences might even enrich your life in some way.
DB: I see the distinction you just made between vanquished versus meaningfully resolved. It’s close to the difference between symptom removal and this transpersonal and even mystical experience that you believe can be or should be a part of psychotherapy for some persons.
WA: That’s right. I mean, you can hide under the bed and you won’t see the tornado coming, but I’m not sure that that’s curative. And it goes deep philosophically. Suffering and tragedy has its place; it’s an integral part of living. The image of the dancing Shiva that’s both destroying and creating comes to mind.
Transformation is not just getting rid of pain but finding meaning in pain.
Transformation is not just getting rid of pain but finding meaning in pain. That’s heavy stuff but it’s profound and it’s intrinsic to being human the way I see it.
DB: Maybe the short version from the Buddha is: out of suffering comes wisdom and out of wisdom comes compassion for yourself and for others.
WA: That’s right.

Beyond Death Anxiety

DB: Another aspect of all of what we are discussing is the neurobiological studies of the brain with fMRI’s and other sophisticated scanning instruments. A 2014 study in London found that a dose of MDMA occasioned a drop in activity in the limbic system resulting in less fear. Other such exciting work found a quieting of the regions of the brain involved with the sense of self, especially the so-called “default mode network.” It is easy to be very curious about where all that is going. You’ve noted that correlation is not necessarily causation, and that the nature of consciousness still remains a tantalizing enigma.

Is there anything more right now that you think is helpful for the person who clearly has benefited from the depth of their insights, who feels that they have seen a more real reality and then have come back here? Anything you want to say about those experiences?
WA: Just how incredible are the therapeutic and spiritual outcomes for the diverse people who were terminally ill that I’ve given psychedelics to in our research. I recall people who considered themselves agnostics, or atheists, or Jewish or Christian, or those who never went to church or synagogue, or those who were piously there all the time. With all of them when they have this mystical type of experience there’s a change. Instead of fearing death they report something akin to curiosity about it. As in, “this is a new experience I’m going to have that everyone who’s ever been born has eventually had.”

The perceiver and the perceived somehow interact on a subatomic level and everything is perceived as energy and there’s this ultimate insight that we’re all ultimately the same.
Maybe it’ll be, as this one patient of mine expected, “just like a light bulb going out,” you know, or maybe I’ll encounter my ancestors and maybe I’ll visit hell, or purgatory, or heaven or all three. But there’s this kind of almost innocent openness replacing the anxiety. Essentially they say, “something’s going to happen and I wish I could come back and report, but it doesn’t work that way.” And beyond that is this intuitive conviction for those who encounter mystical types of consciousness that it’s not an issue of personal immortality—whether my little ego is going to continue to survive or not. Instead, an intuitive conviction is often expressed that there’s something incredibly magnificent and eternal and trustworthy that’s not going to go away.
DB: It’s so beyond the personal ego.
WA: Yes.
DB: “I don’t have to worry about my little self, there’s this fantastic, beautiful thing out all around us, in us, outside of us.”
WA: “…that is in control. I don’t have to be in control.”
DB: I recently was thinking that when I die, my own personal experiences of joy, awe, excitement will be gone but these human feelings will still be being experienced by others: by my children, and then by their children.” Excitement itself will still continue. It was very comforting.
WA: Yes, especially in Judaism, what we call social immortality is often emphasized: that whatever your contributions are, whatever you stand for in life, it flows on and continues in your children and your children’s children. It’s a beautiful thought, but it doesn’t rule out the energy of consciousness itself being indestructible.
DB: In the book you distinguish between internal and external unity—could you clarify it here?
WA: In the literature and the psychology of religion and in the study of mysticism scholars talk about two different ways to approach unitive consciousness. One, called “internal unity” entails going deeper and deeper through various dimensions of being until finally the ego vanishes, dies or dissolves, like the drop of rainwater in Hinduism that merges with the ocean of Brahman, and all of a sudden there’s awareness of this great oneness.

And then the other approach, called “external unity,” occurs in interaction with the world, often visually through the natural world, a kind of resonating with visual perception to this point where the best way I’ve been able to describe it is—which I think Alfred North Whitehead was trying to state—the perceiver and the perceived somehow interact on a subatomic level and everything is perceived as energy and there’s this ultimate insight that we’re all ultimately the same. There is a great oneness. It boils down to one approach occurring with closed eyes, if you will, and one occurring with open eyes.

But that the same person in the same culture can experience both approaches to unitive consciousness is what the new discovery is. And so this isn’t culturally bound or indicative of different nervous systems, but it appears to be different ways of approaching the same unitive experience. Whether or not it’s the same unity can be debated forever. How many different unities can there be? But, you know, intuitively it feels like it’s ultimate.

Is it the same galaxy or a different galaxy? It’s mighty big and impressive whatever it is.
DB: My own experience with LSD, a few months before hearing a talk by Timothy Leary in the late 1960s, and just before it was made illegal by Federal law, was a strong glimpse into the awareness that I was not just these identifications I carried around with me then: “21 years old,” “college senior,” “English major,” “Middle class,” “Ann Arborite,” “son,” “brother,” or even “male.” These labels all fell off like articles of clothing and what was left of me was pure energy or light—part of a bigger quantity of the Something. Trying to articulate that the next day in an English Literature seminar was not too successful and didn't generate much further class discussion at the time, as I recall!

The descriptions about your own psychedelic experiences and those of the research subjects you’ve heard from are helpful and clarifying in the book. They added a lot for me as a reader.
I also enjoyed the quote in your book from Thomas Roberts about the 500-year blizzard of words triggered by the invention of the printing press. You have written very “illuminatingly” about our limitations in describing and articulating deeper realities using words and concepts. My favorite bumper sticker is “Don't believe everything you think!”

But, back to using your words, can you comment on the impact of faith and religion in these psychedelic studies?
WA: In our first study at Hopkins, published in 2006, the double-blind study with Ritalin and psilocybin demonstrated that psilocybin really does do something; it’s not all suggestion and wishful thinking. For that study we selected people who were religiously inclined, i.e. they went to church or synagogue, or they belonged to a meditation group, sang in a church choir or something. But people who read that study sometimes think it’s only because they were religiously inclined that they had their spiritual experiences. Clearly we know from other studies that people who consider themselves total agnostics also have profound mystical experiences. Perhaps some may even find it easier to allow the occurrence of mystical experiences than those who have studied and practiced specific forms of religion or spirituality.

When there’s a radical openness and they’re not trying to prove anything, mystical and non-ordinary states of consciousness that are claimed to be beneficial seem more likely to occur. People who might have trouble during a psilocybin session would be either the self-defined atheist who wants to prove that there’s no ultimate meaning—
DB: —or the rigid fundamentalist?
WA: If he or she thought that there’s no way except finding Jesus through the Fourteenth Baptist church, he or she might have trouble. But anyone who’s open and willing to explore consciousness and collect new experiences is likely to encounter these really magnificent states.

Is It Safe?

DB: I wonder if you could again address here what is so well delineated in the book, about the issue of safety?
WA: Gladly. Both my book and the article that Matt Johnson, Roland Griffiths and I published really systematically address it comprehensively. Given the pure drug and the right dose with adequate preparation, the major psychedelics are fundamentally safe for most people. Physiologically they’re safe; psychologically you have to know something about how to navigate well in the internal worlds to benefit. And I make the parallel in my book with learning to ski. It helps to have a few lessons before you do it. And it’s pretty stupid to just throw the drug in your mouth and see what happens, or strap on skis for the first time and jump off the ski lift at a black diamond run.

But given preparation they really are safe for most people. They’re nontoxic and non addictive. They’re not for everyone. For example, persons with psychotic histories, genetic tendencies towards severe mental illness, brain tumors, acute cardiac or renal conditions or dependence on certain medications would incur greater risk and would be screened out of most current research projects with psychedelics. Some persons simply may not be interested in personal or spiritual development, or may prefer other modes of exploration.

Given the pure drug and the right dose with adequate preparation, the major psychedelics are fundamentally safe for most people.
In many studies researchers find that volunteers report little desire to repeat the psychedelic experiences in the near future, even though the therapeutic intervention may be highly valued. One cannot predict the specific phenomenology that’s going to occur, but if you respond to the opportunity of consciousness opening up in an interpersonally grounded style with an intention to accept whatever emerges and explore it, the probability of the experience being beneficial is high. It is not dangerous if it’s handled competently.

Also with psychedelic therapy we’re right up front with volunteers or patients by saying there may be episodes that are scary and painful. One may have to tumble through some grief, guilt, fear or transient somatic discomfort. One may encounter “the dark night of the soul” as part of the spiritual journey, but that’s all good, and it leads towards resolution and transcendence.
DB: In other words, you won’t get stuck in it like the endless dark night…it will turn into daylight.
WA: That’s right, because, whatever comes into consciousness—you can meet it; dive right into it like diving into a swimming pool, and we’re here with you and there’s nothing from which you need to run away. And as we talked about earlier: the principle is that if it arises in consciousness that means you’re ready to deal with it and we’re here with you; let’s meet it.
DB: So, does that imply that it’s necessary for a person who’s a therapist doing psychedelic-assisted therapy to have had the experience?
WA: You have to be comfortable with non-ordinary states of consciousness.
DB: Okay, and you can say that you get there—
WA: Whether with psychedelics or not—
DB: —for example with Stan Grof’s holotropic breathwork.
WA: Yes, or meditation, for some sensory isolation or flooding; then you’re not going to panic if the person expresses something that you might ordinarily label psychotic or fear that the person’s going to get out of control, because that fear can easily become contagious. So, the therapist has to stay centered. “I’m with you and there’s no demon we can’t look straight in the eye.”

“Whether we like it or not the time is coming when we have to put up with being unconditionally loved.”
In a section of my book titled “Movement into the Future,” I wrote that if we take mystical consciousness seriously and accept that it appears to be a potential state of awareness that ultimately awaits all of us, then eventually we may all have to accept that we are spiritual beings, that there is indeed something of god within us, and that “whether we like it or not the time is coming when we have to put up with being unconditionally loved.”

Cosmic Laughter

DB: Well, I’ll be happy to put up with that! And how much, in your experience, do people in these sessions or journeys get into periods of cosmic laughter?
WA: Quite commonly, you know. And it’s usually after approaching something that feels very heavy and onerous. All of a sudden the belly laugh comes out, and god laughs and the universe goes on.

And humor aside, I wish we could offer safe psychedelic journeys here in the United States, both for persons who may benefit from psychotherapeutic treatment and also for people interested in personal or professional development. I write about the centers for research and retreat that I envisage in the book. And I think that day is coming.
It’s ridiculous that people who want legally to receive psychedelics often have to go to South America and take ayahuasca with sometimes questionable entrepreneurs.
It’s ridiculous that people who want legally to receive psychedelics often have to go to South America and take ayahuasca with sometimes questionable entrepreneurs. That may work out well and it may not work out well. Sometimes there is minimal assistance in facilitating the integration of experiences and not much preparation or thought that goes into the construction of the group.

So why should you have to go to South America to have a legal experience, when we are in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Come on USA, get with it!
DB: We ought to have a Constitutional amendment. We have freedom of speech, why not freedom of consciousness?
WA: Many of us will vote for that!
DB: What would you say to people who are considering doing a journey like this because they have treatment resistant depression, or they have been feeling terribly stuck? You’ve said it many different times, but here is one more opportunity.
WA: It’s tricky because I don’t want to encourage people to break laws and there are dangers of ingesting substances with unknown purity and dosage.

I talk primarily in terms of fostering research, and someday the laws will change. Sometimes I go online to Amazon.com and I read some of the reviews that people have written of my book, and one of them is from a guy who claims to have used drugs and psychedelics in the past but never used them right, and since my book essentially taught him how to use them correctly and safely, he had a marvelous curative experience and he’s deeply thankful for learning how to use psychedelics wisely. And that wasn’t my intent in writing the book, you know, but if it makes for healthier sessions and less trips to the emergency room for the people who choose to use the drug illegally; I can’t regret that.
DB: That’s beautiful.
WA: But it certainly wasn’t my plan in writing the book. Yet, since there are an awful lot of people who are choosing to use psychedelics, if the book helps them learn how to do it safely and wisely, maybe that’s a constructive step.
DB: So as we wrap up this conversation, it might be fun to acknowledge some recent literal “big” news: Astrophysicists reported calculations last month indicating that the universe is from two to ten times as big as was previously thought: they now think there may be up to two trillion galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars!
WA: There are no limits to awe! But you can only open your mouth so wide, you know?
DB: And Tibetan Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman suggests that the metaphor of Indra’s Net points toward human consciousness being at least as vast as the universe, if not countless times greater. So it looks like there is still plenty of territory to explore

I want to thank you again for the complete pleasure of our conversations.
WA: Well, good being in the world with you. Enjoy and take care.
DB: Namaste.


*For a full list of all articles cited, please email david@drbullard.com.

Louis Cozolino on the Integration of Neuroscience into Psychotherapy—and its Limitations

Neuroscience or Neuro-psychobabble?

Sudhanva Rajagopal: Lou Cozolino, you are a psychologist and professor of psychology at Pepperdine University, where you were a teacher of mine. You’re a prolific writer and researcher on topics ranging from schizophrenia, child abuse, the long-term effects of stress, and, more recently, neuroscience in psychotherapy and the brain as a social organ.As a clinician in training, it seems like there is a lot of neuroscience talk out there in our field, and it gets used to legitimize anything from specific interventions to whole theoretical orientations. My first question to you is, for the clinician in training, how do you recommend that we see through the noise of all that to what is actually helpful in the room with a client? How does knowledge of neuroscience play out in the room and what is actually important for the clinician to know?

Louis Cozolino: There are two main realms where neuroscience can aid clinicians. One is case conceptualization and the other is for clients who aren’t really open to a psychotherapeutic framework or an emotional framework. For them a neuroscientific explanation or conceptualization of their problem is often something they can grasp while they can’t or won’t grasp other things.

People who learn a half a dozen words about neuroscience think they’re neuroscience literate.

But there’s so much psychobabble and neuro-psychobabble out there, and the thing is if you say something is the amygdala as opposed to saying it’s anxiety or fear-based, you haven’t really upgraded the quality of the discourse. You just substituted one word for another. So the risk is that people who learn a half a dozen words about neuroscience think they’re neuroscience literate.

Learning neuroscience takes dedication. It takes work to get beyond the cocktail level of conversation and clichés. It took me ten years to feel like I had any sense of what was going on and I studied it pretty intensively. So I think we all have to be careful, but even more importantly, just because you know some neuroscience doesn’t mean you know anything more than the therapist who doesn’t. It’s really about how you use that information to upgrade the quality of the work you’re doing.

SR: In your book, Why Therapy Works: Using Your Mind to Change Your Brain, you say that science in many ways is just another metaphor. Do you think there are dangers to people using neuroscience to legitimize their work?
LC: Well, sure. There’s a fellow, Daniel Amen, who does these SPECT scans of people and he’s been selling them for thousands of dollars for probably 20 years now. It’s hard to know whether any of his data has any meaning. All we know is he’s made a hell of a lot of money doing them. The danger is in selling things before you know that they have any legitimacy, so you have to watch out for snake oil salesmen just like you do when you’re buying carpets and used cars.
SR: So how do you recommend that someone like me goes about finding and learning about neuroscience in a way that’s helpful? How do I avoid the snake oil salesmen?
LC: It’s important to realize that knowing neuroscience doesn’t make you a good clinician—in fact it doesn’t make you any kind of clinician at all. So I would say for beginning therapists, it’s probably best not to pay too much attention to neuroscience.Learn a few things about it but focus on getting the best supervision you can in a recognized form of psychotherapy—psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral, family systems, etc. And avoid the passing fancy of all of the new therapies; every day there’s a new therapy with a new set of letters in front of it.

SR: Yeah there are so many different kinds of therapies these days.
LC: Try to learn something that isn’t just a fad, because the fads—I’ve watched hundreds of them come and go over my years. But if you cleave to psychodynamic training and cleave to cognitive behavioral, Gestalt, family systems training—those are the things that you can hang your hat on. Then you can learn the fads to add to your tool box. The fads are very sexy and they create the illusion of understanding because they’ve got fancy terms and nice workbooks and such, but really you’re not a thinker when you’re doing those things, you’re more of a mechanic.Now neuroscience is sort of like a sidecar to conceptualization, but you’ve got to remember the motorcycle is the real tried and true way of thinking about clients. You know, what is a particular problem? What is mental distress or mental illness? Where does it come from developmentally and what are the tried and true ways of approaching it and treating it?

Every Therapy is Embedded in Culture

SR: Speaking of tried and true ways of thinking, you say in your book, “Psychotherapy is not a modern invention, but a relationship-based learning environment grounded in the history of our social brains. Thus the roots of psychotherapy go back to mother-child bonding, attachment to family and friends, and the guidance of wise elders.” My question is, where do you think psychotherapy fits in to the context of healing traditions that have been around for millennia?
LC: Well, I think one thing that seems to be different over the last hundred years in psychotherapy is a kind of structured recognition of the fact that the therapist is imperfect and contributes in a lot of different ways to the problems. The tradition of wise elders was one of an authoritarian stance: This is the truth and I’ll take you on this journey with me to change you into my likeness. To whatever degree psychotherapy has evolved past that has to do with the self-analysis of the therapist and the recognition that whatever pathology exists in the relationship between client and therapist, some—hopefully not the majority, but some—pathology in the relationship comes from the therapist.That type of recognition is a step forward. There are probably some steps backward too. Often psychotherapy is ahistorical and acultural—or at least tries to be—but every therapy is embedded in culture. There is a kind of pretense about an objective scientific stance that is just a fantasy. So in some ways, wise elders in a tribal context with a long history are probably advantageous for some people as compared to psychotherapy.

SR: I was flipping through the index of your book and noticed the word “culture” appears exactly once, though you do talk about the wisdom of the ancients, about Buddhism and Confucianism and some of the Indian traditions. Seems to me that once we start relying on these kind of generalized, evolutionary, and biological forces as explanations for things, there’s a risk of painting people’s lived experience with a pretty broad brush. What’s your take on the importance of culture as it relates to neuroscience and psychotherapy?
LC: From an evolutionary perspective, a basic principle is biodiversity, and culture is too blunt an instrument to understand people because there are so many differences within culture. I think in terms of every individual being an experiment of nature. Every family is a culture in and of itself, and the more different someone’s cultural background is from mine, the more there is for me to learn. I think that culture needs to be interwoven into every sentence of every book, not just included in some special chapter of a book.
SR: From my point of view, many of these older cultural practices have been repackaged and rebranded as psychotherapy theories and techniques. The “mindfulness revolution” and transcendental meditation are based on ancient cultural traditions, but they are marketed as if they are especially effective because they are “new” and “evidence-based.” What is your stance on that?
LC: Having studied religion and philosophy and Sanskrit starting back when I was in college in the 70s, the self-awareness of meditation has been part my worldview since long before it became a cottage industry. But even back then there was the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the Beatles, and it was coming into the cultural context. Now people have figured out how to package it as a way to sell more therapy, which isn’t all bad, but runs the risk of becoming “the answer.”

I think we’re in a race between global destruction and global consciousness, so we’ll see who gets to the finish line first.

What I’ve been hoping for since I first discovered Buddhism in the 1960s, is that as the world gets smaller and as people from different cultures communicate more, the wisdom of the ancient Eastern philosophies will be interwoven with Western technology and we’ll come to some higher level synthesis of understanding and consciousness. I think we’re in a race between global destruction and global consciousness, so we’ll see who gets to the finish line first.

SR: Can you say more about that?
LC: Well, it’s a slow evolutionary process for the types of awareness that people four or five thousand years ago discovered in India and Tibet, in China, in Japan, to penetrate Western culture. The Western world view is so different—for so many people it’s almost impossible to conceptualize an internal world; everything is external. Everything is about creation, growth, and, in a more destructive sense, conquering and genocide.So there are forces of destruction—of each other and of the planet—on the one hand and then there are the forces of consciousness and wholeness and a sense of oneness of the species on the other. So will we understand that we’re all brothers and sisters on a spaceship before we destroy the spaceship?

“There only needs to be a piece of you that’s a psychologist”

SR: How can psychotherapy play a positive role in this race you’re talking about? Or psychotherapy as we know it in the Western world?
LC: Well, one of the problems with psychotherapy as I see it is that psychotherapists tend to be sort of passive—they retreat from the world of leadership and create very insulated relationships in their consulting rooms. But for the field of psychotherapy to have any impact, it has to be expressed politically and socially. The types of ideas and theories that we’ve researched and studied, like the importance of early child rearing, self-awareness, authoritarian personalities, positive psychology and so much else, need to become part of political discourse both to elevate it and also have an impact on how resources are distributed.

One of the problems with psychotherapy as I see it is that psychotherapists tend to be sort of passive—they retreat from the world of leadership and create very insulated relationships in their consulting rooms.

Evolution is a slow, meandering process. All you have to do is watch the Republican debates to see that. It reminds me of junior high school in the Bronx in New York where we used to engage in chop fights, which was all about humiliating the manhood of other guys just to get a one-up. It doesn’t make me optimistic about the evolution of consciousness, but we’ll see what happens.

SR: I want to move onto something you said in your preface that I liked a lot: “Like monks and soldiers, therapists of all denominations assume that God is on their side.” What do you think are the limitations of psychotherapy and where does it come up short against the human condition, cultural walls or seemingly immovable, systemic injustice? In other words, when do we have to admit that psychotherapy is just not helpful or effective?

LC: The risk with psychology and psychotherapy is that it can lean too much in the direction of helping people tolerate rather than fight against oppression. Self-awareness and self-compassion are crucial experiences and skills that we foster as psychotherapists, but there needs to be a balance there. You can’t become too much of a psychologist. There only needs to be a piece of you that’s a psychologist and there’s another piece of you that has to be willing to go out and fight for systemic change.

As I said before, psychologists tend to watch from the sidelines, and that’s why as a field it has relatively little impact. In fact, the profession gets a lot of bad press because there are plenty of famous psychologists who do staggeringly immoral and unethical things. They are the basis of the cartoon version of the therapist nodding their head and going, “uh huh.”

SR: You talk about psychology as being an essentially solitary profession. Are there people you can think of who aren’t standing on the sidelines?
LC: Psychologists you mean?
SR: Yeah, psychologists.
LC: No. Can you?
SR: Not off the top of my head.
LC: Psychologists are really good at telling other people they should do something. It’s sort of like life by proxy.
SR: Indeed.
LC: Another problem in psychotherapy is a lack of appreciation or respect for anger; anger is always something you’re supposed to manage. Or you’re supposed to learn how to behave appropriately in society, but that’s not always an appropriate response, especially if you’re a member of an oppressed group. It’s really important sometimes to go on picket lines and carry bricks and defend yourself and make a lot of noise.I very much respect the Black Lives Matter movement and I watch them in these Trump rallies, and they’re getting pushed around. It breaks my heart because it reminds me of a lot of bad memories from childhood during the Civil Rights Movement. And I’m sure you’ve seen pictures too of what happened in India with the British, of people being hosed and slaughtered. There’s a tendency in human behavior to objectify differences and we really need to fight against and not tolerate that. I’m hoping that, given that Trump is consolidating and activating the anger of people in this culture against immigrants and foreigners and God knows what else, that it also energizes the liberal base and brings out a new progressive movement as well.

SR: Absolutely, but this idea of psychologists carrying bricks and taking up arms seems really at odds to me with this image we have of psychologists as dispassionate observers, people who are sitting in their therapy chairs saying, “uh huh.”My interests lie in political action as well and I do remember, at least from my dad’s generation and my grandfather’s generation, thinking about British rule and the independence movement in India and the idea of people really taking a stand. But that doesn’t seem like something psychologists really do. Even in the room with a client, we’re not taught to take a stance on things, you know?

LC: In fact it’s the opposite. Everything that we believe is interpreted as countertransference and non-neutral. It creates a real rift in people. It’s hard to imagine that a lot of younger psychologists with any sort of a political drive would be attracted to psychology. It will continue to attract people who want to stay on the sidelines in the world or avoid the conflict.
SR: How is that going to change?
LC: In truth I don’t know. In the 60s we had something called community psychology, which was very radical at the time and which still exists, but it’s not prominent at all anymore. One of the main focuses of community psychology was to identify those people in the community or in the tribe that other people went to for assistance—people like hairdressers and bartenders and cab drivers. These are the people that folks in trouble tended to talk to, so community psychology emphasized educating people in the community that were sort of hubs of interaction. The field has gotten so much more insular since then.

Transitioning From a Beta to an Alpha

SR: I want to go back to something you said about anger that intrigued me. I’m just thinking back to discussions and supervision I’ve had in training, and whenever anger comes up, you’re told there’s something “behind” the anger. You know, there’s shame behind the anger, or sadness behind the anger. How do you feel about anger as just a primary kind of emotion? And do you think it has value both for the therapist and for the client?
LC: If you’re going to become empowered, if you’re going to transition from a beta to an alpha in your life, you really need to be able to get back in touch with your anger because it can be very propulsive, very helpful in life. It evolved along with caretaking and nurturing because it’s not just necessary to feed and nurture babies, but to protect them.Anger is the only left-hemisphere emotion that we consider negative, but anger is a social emotion, unlike rage. It can be engaging, relational, constructive. In order to combat the social programming that leads to shame, we have to get at least somewhat angry—at both the voices in our head and out in the world that shame us, disempower us, keep us from speaking up.

When I think of somebody like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., I think of the courage it took to walk into angry crowds. It’s so moving to me and such a powerful act. We can’t just be passive about these voices in our head and in society. We have to get angry because our anger and our assertiveness and our power are all interconnected. If you give up your anger, you give up your power.

SR: Agreed. Tell me a little bit about your idea of the social synapse.
LC: The more I studied different physiologies, social psychologies, organisms, the more I realized that there is a very complex highway of information that connects us via pupil dilation and facial expression and body posture and tone of voice, and probably a hundred things that we haven’t even discovered yet.What we’re doing in psychotherapy, and in any relationship where we’re trying to be soothing and supportive and nurturant, is connecting across the synapse between you and someone else. You’re trying to create a synergy between the two of you and have an effect on their internal biochemistry that enhances their physical health, their brain development, their learning. If you’ve ever been with a really good teacher, you know that in part because you feel a lot smarter because you’re connecting with someone who’s stimulating your brain to work better. If you’re with a bad teacher, you feel dumber, and you get pissed off and angry. And there are not a lot of good teachers out there so you’ve got to cleave to the good ones.

But also there’s a different chemistry between different people. Someone who’s a good teacher for one person may not be a good one for another. Same thing with therapists. Every therapeutic relationship creates a new organism—a dyadic field— and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. The chemistry part we often don’t have any control over.

SR: Going back to the brain and neuroscience, where do you think we are in right now in the field and where are we headed?
LC: Well, we’re all over the place in brain science, but there is a great deal of focus right now on genetics. In other words, looking at the relationship between experience and interactions and how the molecular level of the brain gets constructed and changes over time in relation to the others and the environment. I think that the translation of parenting and relationships in psychotherapy into actual protein synthesis and brain building is an incredibly complicated but very important paradigm shift that is going to be playing out probably over the next century at least as we uncover those things.Another shift in neuroscience is getting past the phrenology of looking at individual brain regions related to specific tasks and starting to look at these new technologies that measure brain connectivity. In other words, how do different areas connect to regulate each other and synergize? The next step will be figuring out how two or more brains interact and stimulate each other.

I don’t know where the technology to research that is going to come from but I think it’s on the horizon. We’ve got to get beyond thinking about brains as individual organs and think about how they weave into relational matrices so we can understand human connection and have a scientific view for the types of things that Buddhists and Hindu meditators and Tibetan scholars have been thinking about for the last several thousand years or so.

Why Does Neuroscience Matter?

SR: How would you explain to an existential psychotherapist why these advances in technology and in brain science are at all important to what they do?
LC: I don’t know if they are important to what they do. I don’t think neuroscience is more important than Buddhism—it’s basically just another narrative.
SR: Interesting.
LC: It’s just another way of looking at things. Think about when you’re at a museum looking at an exhibit and you’re walking around it trying to experience it and appreciate it from a number of different angles.That’s pretty much what reality is. We walk around it and we have these different ways of thinking about it and explaining it that are partially satisfying and partially unsatisfying. Buddhism is incredibly satisfying a lot of the time and very unsatisfying some of the time. So when you get bored with one way of looking, you want to look at something in a different way. For me it’s interesting to combine and integrate different perspectives but I don’t think that you have to subjugate one to the other.

In the 1950s Carl Rogers was talking about how to create a healing relationship. Fast forward 65 years and now neuroscience is discovering pretty much what Rogers was talking about. Am I better off talking about it from that perspective than listening to Carl Rogers? I don’t know. But it makes me appreciate what Rogers says even more and in a deeper way when I can see it from this scientific perspective.

SR: That makes sense.
LC: If Buddha were alive, he’d say, “Of course,” right? “There’s 5,000 research studies you did, but all you needed to do was read the Sutra and you would have figured it out.”But I think it’s interesting to just keep learning about life from as many points of view as possible. When have your read enough novels?

Each novel you read is a new way of capturing the universe, and they’re entertaining and stimulating and make you feel human. I feel the same way about the sciences, which is why I love reading E.O. Wilson’s work on ants, because I learn a lot about humans by reading about ants. So many things we do are very ant-like. Plus, ants are interesting.

Nobody Has the Answer

SR: Ants are very interesting. That’s a great way to look at it and I completely agree. Moving away from neuroscience for a moment, I’m curious about how your clinical work has changed over the years.
LC: It’s changed constantly. When I started as a student of pastoral counseling at the Harvard Divinity School, Carl Rogers was one of my teachers, so my first real training was Rogerian. The reason I got interested in counseling in the first place was reading Fritz Perls’ Gestalt Therapy. Then when I ended up at UCLA I realized you have to learn cognitive behavioral therapy whether you like it or not. So I was trained in that. I did a couple of years at a family therapy institute in Westwood in L.A. My supervisors were psychodynamic and my therapist at the time was a Jungian, and then I had a couple of other therapists who were psychodynamic and Gestalt.I was working with people who had been severely traumatized as kids, so I got interested in neuroscience through a study of memory, trying to figure out what the heck was going with the memories of people who’d suffered severe trauma.

Since then, my heart is more in the object relations world, I think mostly because it matches my personality and the type of relationships I like to create with people. But I’ve woven in neuroscience, attachment theory, a bit of EMDR, some meditation and self-awareness exercises. It’s a hodgepodge of all the different things that I’ve learned, but I don’t really feel like I’ve got a hammer and everybody who comes in is a nail. It’s more like I’ve got a toolbox of 30 or 40 years of things that I’ve been collecting and I try to figure out how to match as best I can to the needs and the interests of the client.

SR: Is there a certain population or certain pathologies that you’ve been working with more lately or that you’re more interested in?
LC: Not really. My practice is pretty general and I like to keep it that way. I don’t really like to see the same problem over and over again. I always think of psychotherapy as kind of like a collaborative research project. People come in and we work together to figure out what’s going on—how did it arise? Is there any hope of making it better? I really like having problems I haven’t dealt with before.
SR: What do you wish you’d known as a beginning clinician?
LC: When I started, I was looking for an answer and I wanted to know who had the answer. So

I tried to become a disciple of one person or another person. It took me quite a while to realize nobody has the answer. Everybody has a little piece of it.

And what I’ve got to do is just learn the best I can and then sacrifice and move on. This is a very ancient Rig Veda philosophy—every day you wake up, you sacrifice the day before, you move on, you create a new reality.

Had I understood this, I would have spent a lot less time worrying about finding the truth and being acceptable to whatever godhead I happened to run into at the moment. I think idolatry is the problem. Idolatry and objectification.

SR: It’s hard to avoid being exposed to that as a student. At least in my experience, in every new class you’re exposed to something people think is the answer, the best way to look at things.
LC: In my experience, the degree to which someone is enthusiastic and adamant about having “the answer” usually reflects the degree of insecurity they have and their lack of ability to tolerate their own ignorance. If we’ve learned anything, especially when it comes to diversity, it’s that we have to embrace our ignorance and be curious as opposed to leading with certainty.Jacob Bronowski was a physicist who died about 20 years ago, but he did this wonderful documentary about visiting Auschwitz, where his whole family was slaughtered. He waded into the mud behind the crematory and grabbed a handful of mud, realizing that his ancestors were part of this soil, and said, “This is what happens when we’re certain.”

Certainty leads to ideological beliefs that supersede humanity. At a less dramatic level, we get so enamored with our philosophies and our therapeutic beliefs that we miss our clients because we’re so convinced that we’ve got to convince them we’re right about the things we believe should be true.

SR: So last question here; where do you think the field as a whole is going?
LC: Well, I don’t think mental distress is going anywhere. I think that more and more people are going to be having psychological problems as society and civilization become increasingly crazy. No matter how many therapists the schools pump out, the world is creating plenty of suffering, so there will always be a need for therapy.And though there will always be therapists trying to create revolutionary new therapies with great acronyms, I think that the tried and true methods will remain strong and stay strong because they’re tapping into fundamental constructs in human experience—the need to connect with other people, to be able to leverage our thinking to modify our brains, to ask questions about ultimate meaning and existence.

Where the field is going to have to upgrade its sophistication and quality is in the areas of like pharmacology, epigenetics, psychoneuroimmunology, diet. All of the actual mechanisms that create and sustain our brains will have to become part of the dialogue about how we help people sustain and maintain health. This might just be my Eastern philosophy bias, but we’ll probably be moving in the direction of more holistic, integrated thinking and treatment—not just combining East and West, but integrating scientific discoveries into our case conceptualizations and treatments.

Finally, I hope that psychology becomes more integrated with education. I have a book series that I’m editing for W.W. Norton which is on the social neuroscience of education, and we’re pushing to have psychologists, neurologists, neuroscientists and educators communicate more so that the things we’re learning can be integrated into each field.

SR: Well that seems like a great place to end. Thank you so much for taking the time to share a bit about your work and your life with the readers of psychotherapy.net.
LC: It was a pleasure, thank you.

Whiteness Matters: Exploring White Privilege, Color Blindness and Racism in Psychotherapy

White Therapist as Racial Subject

Our profession is concerned with multicultural competence (I assume readers of this article are as well). Despite that, our canons of psychological theory remain euro-centric, yet are largely assumed to be universal; our assessment and diagnostic systems are biased in the same vein, while they are used as guideposts in courts of law, prison, schools, and medical venues; research largely makes assumptions of universality without qualification that population samples are overwhelmingly white; and our delivery of services, even the “culture” of psychotherapy itself, remains white-centric. Whiteness as the only representation of humanness is in the “air,” so to speak, of Western psychology, something many writers, researchers, and psychotherapists of color have written upon (see end of article for resources), and a few white authors have noted as well, Dr. Gina deArth1 among them.

In my experiences speaking and writing about racial identity and racism as a white person in general, it has most often been challenging creating dialogues with other white people. My experience is not an unusual one. More often than not, when racial identity and racism are discussed among white folks, we primarily focus upon the racial identity and racism outside of ourselves (in others, in institutions, in systems, in history, and so on) while also claiming an individual absolution from racism—well, I’m not racist. The two are contradictory and deny the socialization we have all experienced in the wider community of the United States if not in our families.

No white person can reasonably claim that they do not participate in and are not shaped by racial subjectivity and racism, yet this is one of the more common claims that arise in conversations between white folks. Nadia Bolz-Weber, author of Accidental Saints, and an anything-but-conventional white Lutheran pastor, expresses well how white folks are seduced to hide the influence white supremacy has had on us, and the impossibility of escaping the reality of being formed by that supremacy: “Like so many of us, I was born on 3rd base and told I’d hit a home run . . . the fact is, just because I don’t like racism or agree with it, that doesn’t mean it’s not still part of my makeup.”

There is not enough investigated, discussed, and written in psychology about the racial subjectivity of whiteness, that is, the varied lived experience including experience of privileges and participation in racism on levels varying from the personal to the institutional, as well as the meanings of being white. I am interested in exploring conversations about racial subjectivity and racism. I consider this a lifetime kind of practice, albeit an uncomfortable and certainly imperfect one. Engaging in an ongoing investigation into my lived experience of whiteness both on individual and relational levels is a vital part of being an ally to people of color, and to being a better therapist to all of my clients, akin to how my personal psychotherapy enhances my work with clients generally.

Stating that, past exchanges with white colleagues and friends come to mind—all emotionally charged, sometimes emotionally injurious on all sides, anything but calm. I know how vulnerable and even incendiary talking about white racial subjectivity and racism usually is, how many defenses arise, and how it can be so difficult. I brace myself already for the “review” feedback to this article, for example. I think white folks need more practice in these discussions, including myself.

As a white person, accounting for one’s own racial identity and racism, talking about the larger system of racism bestowing power and privilege, is typically a conversation stopper among white people. Attributing the suspended conversations among white folks to racism is certainly a part of the stagnation (at least in some cases) but does not entirely flesh out the sophisticated psychological dynamics in ways that can loosen up the tightness that chokes off genuine exchange. The obstacles to creating open dialogue seem to be about several factors, among them: white guilt; protecting privilege; the nature of trauma (racism and acts related to it) evoking blaming and shaming; the lack of practice white people have in talking productively to one another about racism; desires to maintain an all-good self; the lack of white racial identity development and awareness; and the significant discomfort of sitting with the realities of and felt gratitude for the enormous privilege and protection light skin brings in our daily lives.

Though white folks today may claim they did nothing to “deserve” this power and privilege, the acknowledgement alone does not give white folks a pass on critically examining our lack of curiosity regarding the lived experiences of whiteness and racism. Curiosity about these facets of our selves is one antidote to unconscious whiteness. My desire in this article is to begin pondering how the conversations about white racial identity, racism, and psychotherapy gets hijacked among white clinicians, and to explore ways I have found (imperfectly) helpful in continuing the conversation. While conversation is not enough in and of itself, it is integral to greater awareness and action.

All Good or All Bad

We cannot get away from messages that being white is not only a universal representation of human experience and authority, but also an idealized one. Even if our white family of origin was anti-racist, larger society and systems socialize us otherwise. Psychologically, this is akin to being raised in an environment where caretakers delight simply in our existence; our attachment is secure while getting bathed in that unconditional love. This becomes our baseline normative experience of relationship and expectations of other people. We know how a childhood environment like that contributes to self-perception in permeating ways that are unconscious and influence life course. White folks have been bathed in unconditional acceptance and idealization for white skin; we have to work to become conscious of how this has shaped our expectations of how we move, interact, and think in the world.

White folks interested in what I am writing about understand that it is good to be anti-racist, and bad to be racist. It’s good to be aware. No white person I know wants to be bad. An entirely individualistic focus on racism, however, essentializes the discussion and understanding of racism, it occludes exploration of white racial identity, and it raises defenses exponentially. While of course there are individual acts of racism, they are occurring within an inherently racist milieu whereby all white people are benefitting, regardless of individual actions. For example, as a profession we do not integrate in every aspect of clinical education—from intellectual inquiry to clinical training—multiple and multicultural points of view on what is pathological, diagnostic, healing, and so on. Other points of view taught in one-off multicultural competency courses are just that—other.

Talking about and thinking about white racial identity and racism as a binary good-bad is a way to ignore the complicated and uncomfortable parts. The African American scholar and filmmaker Omowale Akintunde writes: “Racism is a systemic, societal, institutional, omnipresent, and epistemologically embedded phenomenon that pervades every vestige of our reality. For most whites, however, racism is like murder: the concept exists, but someone has to commit it in order for it to happen.” Racism is not simply individual action, nor is combatting it simply about courses in multicultural competency.

In talking with my white peers as well as in my own self-reflections, the feeling of power due to racial identity is rarely consciously felt. Yet if we wait until we personally feel the social power of whiteness to validate the reality of it, nothing changes. Even if we are white and members of other oppressed groups of people on individual and societal levels such as being working-class, disabled, immigrant, or queer-identified, we may not have social power in the arena of economics, physical ability, native citizenship, or gender and sexual orientation identifications, however we nevertheless carry the robust social power of whiteness. There are studies upon studies validating the power of whiteness, let alone anecdotal evidence.

That it is difficult for white folks to talk with one another about racism or something racist that occurred in the moment (a microaggression, for example) is reflective of the positive reinforcement that silence among white people on the topic receives. The silence on racism is balanced only by the silence of white racial identity. Silence keeps the status quo; it also keeps everyone “comfortable,” and keeps white people connected to one another in “likable” fashion. When one white person breaks the barrier of silence, often he or she is shamed, ostracized, or defensively attacked by other white people. We are ejected from the group, placed in a binary of something like being disruptive, arrogant, myopic, or mean while the remaining silent members rest in being well-mannered (and defended). The white person who speaks up among white folks about racism often becomes the recipient of disavowed racism from other white people, something that has been observed in clinical encounters where white therapists disavowing their racism (and other unwanted characteristics) project them onto their clients of color.

Using Mindfulness to Notice Patterns of Prejudice

An example may help elucidate, and I will give one that begins on the individual level and then includes a group level. If I walk down the street in the evening and see a black man standing at the corner wearing a hoodie with his hands in his pockets and low-slung (sag) jeans, I might wonder about my safety—if even for a split second. That I wonder less, if at all, if it were a white man is not benign—nor is it an egregious act of violence. It is prejudiced, however, and shaped by racist socialization on a level outside of my family of origin. When I catch myself in such a moment of thinking, I don’t spiral into a guilt trip or any other self-critical trip, but rather note the manifold ways racism is part of me even though my parents did not raise me as a racist, and even though I participate in white ally-anti-racism activities, and even though I continue to educate myself about racism and have done so since I was in high school. The practice alone of mindfulness regarding racism makes it easier for me to see its ubiquity, and to talk about it as well since a mindfulness practice is also a practice of non-judgment.

My experience is that some white folks deny this kind of racism, which is impossible given socialization. When I attended a meeting of white therapists focused on racism and our profession, one of the therapists wondered if it would be a good idea for us to out ourselves to one another about racist thoughts and acts in order to reduce shame, build awareness, and enhance conversation.

The room of about 30 white therapists fell silent. After some time of silence, I spoke about a similar kind of story to the one in the example above and reflected that using mindfulness as a vehicle to uncovering racism, to me, is essential to deepening learning about racism and practicing unlearning racism on an individual level. No one else in the room spoke including the person who brought up the idea in the first place. After even more silence, the topic was changed to how “difficult” it is that the larger professional organization of which this group was a part had not considered ever focusing on racism and psychotherapy like “we” were doing, and the remainder of the meeting was a discussion focused on how the organization should change. Racism was located suddenly outside of the group of we white therapists.

DiAngelo describes similar patterns of interactions among whites such that the person breaking silence receives response from other whites ranging from attack to being ignored, and the group shifts focus to racism occurring outside of the group. It is so risky, so emotionally charged, and perhaps even threatening for white people to talk with one another about racism. Even as well intentioned as this group of therapists were, as a group we were not ready to really engage with one another around our racism.

Color blindness and the Costs of Unexamined Whiteness

“If we hold the perspective of colorblindness, it falls to us as individuals to make it on merit, on individual characteristics versus larger forces.” This means that folks who are unemployed and poor are so due to character rather than systems of oppression and the after-effects of transgenerational trauma that are set within those oppressive systems. If subscribing to colorblindness, psychologically we might consider that symptoms of paranoia, depression, and anxiety are universal and not influenced by living in a racist society, nor adaptive and normative, rather than pathological. While intellectually I think most white therapists would understand these concepts, applying them experientially is another matter.

If we are colorblind, we cannot examine both the privileges and the costs of our whiteness. We are literally blinded. Some white folks do not want to be “lumped in” with the white group, and I certainly can identify times when I feel the same, yet as it has been widely noted, regardless of our personal desires regarding white affiliation, we are not granted privileges as individuals but because of the lack of melanin in our skin. The white sociologist Dr. Amanda Lewis reflects that while examining whiteness can be challenging (because whites generally do not understand themselves as being a part of a white group), nevertheless it is vital to explore not only because of the aforementioned, but also because whiteness shapes sociological and psychological imagination.

In writing about whiteness in the psychological imagination, African American psychologist Dr. Jonathan Mathias Lassiter suggests costs of whiteness to white people; heightened defensiveness, emptiness, meaninglessness, disconnection, and loneliness are among them. I can feel all of these to greater or lesser extent along some kind of continuum when I begin to examine how white identity manifests in me moment to moment, and specifically when I am experiencing some privilege, aware of this, and at the same time feel conflicted about it. I find this is primarily a self-focused reflection, and seems wrapped up with the lack of interdependency whiteness rests upon. The maintenance of privileged whiteness requires subjugated “others,” even when we are unaware or unconscious of this. Recognizing the costs of unconscious whiteness is not an exercise of victimhood undermining racism people of color experience; it is a practice of noticing how socialization of privilege also cuts us off from greater meaning, connection, and openness.

Guilt, Shame and Blame

An African American client of mine once remarked on my shoes, more specifically how I maintained them (which is inattentively to say the least), and how if she would do the same thing with her footwear white people would interpret her poor care of her shoes as an example of laziness, as fulfilling stereotypes of African Americans. Immediately I heated up, and thoughts jumped in my head arguing with her point of view—wasn’t she exaggerating?—and then feeling horribly guilty and ashamed that I was thinking these thoughts about my client with whom I have worked and built strong attachment over years of treatment. Initially, I named the racism she was talking about and only because, I think, of our long-term therapy relationship did I feel courageous enough to share with her my internal process, feelings, and how I had to “check” myself before I spoke. It was not the first time the client and I had talked of racism and how it plays out in our relationship, and I know it will not be the last. Coming clean with my client dissipated the guilt and shame I was feeling—as well as the blame toward my client. The conversation also brought us closer together. As she remarked, she always feels she can trust me more when I take a chance in being so honest.

I cannot say that I would take that risk with all my clients of color, most likely due to aspects of my defensive process. Invulnerability is integral to unexamined white identity, and to racism. The wish to remain seen and felt in a “good,” well intentioned way, in a liberal way, in a way that is understood as conscientious, is brittle when we are not willing to also be seen as speaking or acting in a privileged or racist way—or defending and refusing to examine these reflections of self when called upon to do so. This kind of invulnerability, however, cements guilt, shame, and blame in place.

In her article describing psychotherapy with an African American client, Melanie Suchet, a white South African émigré and psychoanalyst in New York City, describes how white guilt, shame, and blame gets in the way of productive therapy with her African American client. As therapists, what is most vulnerable in us with any particular client is frequently where we falter in the process. The faltering can be productive if we can use it, process it and understand it. In terms of white clinicians, our socialized racism and lack of white racial identity development, the vulnerabilities of white guilt, shame, and blame related to privilege, power, and other facets of racism are played out in particular ways with clients of color, and numerous articles, including Suchet’s work, highlight these.

It seems to me that the trifecta of guilt, shame, and blame is also silently played out with white clients and white peers, sometimes voiced with disavowal. Among white folks, what we do with shame, blame, and guilt makes a difference. We may freeze, disengage, become enraged, or use the guilt or shame as defenses too, all allowing us to leave the conversation of racism and white racial identity behind. DiAngelo notes how discussions around racism among whites evoke common responses like anger, withdrawal, freezing, cognitive dissonance, and argumentation—in other words, quite a bit of defensiveness. She calls this white fragility. White fragility is an intimate companion of invulnerability, both inherently defensive, and both soaked in the trio of guilt, shame, and blame.

Continuing Education in Talking about Racism

In mental health professional meetings, I find it curious that white clinicians may not be interested in enrolling in anti-racism seminars such as the one I attended, nor to even take advantage of learning materials. “Some white psychotherapists have explicitly said that this kind of training is irrelevant to psychotherapy, or not concerned enough with emotional safety (of whites), and generally not necessary for therapists who are trained to listen deeply with empathy.”

Recently, a professional organization of which I am a part offered an excellent day-long seminar regarding the psychological pain of people of color. I find these kinds of workshops more or less well attended by white therapists, but they are limited in that they continue to focus on people of color as “the other”—which is more comfortable. It would be so useful for the multicultural competence, let alone for further growth among white clinicians, if we engaged in experiential (not intellectual) seminars on anti-racism such as those offered by StirFry Seminars and Consulting near where I live (I don’t work for them by the way, but offer them up as an example as I have participated in trainings there). I could see from that baseline kind of education, white therapists might develop additional seminars for further training such as countertransference racism, guilt, and shame; how to develop awareness of racism within us and how this impacts the therapeutic relationship, and so forth. If our conversations among all of us about racism are to deepen and widen, if our awareness is to expand outside the binaries of good and bad, continuing education about racism is necessary.

Uncovering White Racial Identity

Of course these stages are not abandoned once we pass through them, or at least that is not my experience. The nature of privilege is that we have a choice to not engage experientially and affectively the work of anti-racism in whatever ways we are able to do so. Our privilege as white folks is that we can dip in and out of this work, and we can choose what aspects in which we want to participate. I know that I dip in and out of the work myself, evidence of privilege and how the stages of identity development are not linear. I do this at times even while intending to further my awareness practices. I am still able to “break away” by choice, and sometimes I do. Inhabiting a sophisticated white racial identity, to me at least, is not a static state; I do not know how it could be as the nature of privilege is constant, whereas awareness tends to vacillate. I think of white racial development as a practice for this reason, and one that involves further dialogue with other white therapists, and ongoing education along the same lines.

Emotional Home

Living and practicing as a white psychologist I grapple with these questions: Have I recognized my privilege today? How have I used my privilege today, and to what do I attribute the privilege received? Psychologically, how do I hold the trauma of current and historical racism without defensively deflecting it? How do I practice daily recognition and understanding of microaggressions in which I participate? How does racism impact my clients and me, regardless of racial identity? How do my favorite psychological theories and practices possess an assumed universality of humanity when actually they are only about one group of human beings? How does my white subjectivity influence and shape my work in general?

There are no clean, clear, sure-fire answers for these ongoing questions of mine. It does seem to me, however, that psychological thinking around dynamics of defense, racial identity development, and trauma (racial, transgenerational, and otherwise), are all useful to such a vast, permeating, and incendiary topic as racism and white racial development. It would be fitting for all of us practicing in this profession of helping humanity to lend our energy to ongoing personal exploration, wider discussion, writing, and speaking publicly about these topics. It is vulnerable, yes, but within the vulnerability as we all well know is the seed of growth.

References

1. Dr. Gina deArth's works can be found here.

2. Dr. Monica Wiliams' blog, "Culturally Speaking" can be read here

Further Reading

Fox, Prilleltensky, and Austin (Eds). (2009). Critical Psychology: An Introduction. California: Sage.

Mesquita, B., Feldman Barrett, L., and Smith, E. (2010). The mind in context. New York: Guilford.

Nelson, J.C., Adams, G., & Salter, P.S. (2013). The Marley Hypothesis: Racism Denial reflects ignorance of history. Psychological Science, 24, 213-218

Phillips, N., Adams, G., & Salter, P. (2015). Beyond adaptation: decolonizing approaches to coping with oppression. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3 (1), pp. 365-387.

Salter, P. & Adams, G. (2013). Toward a critical race psychology. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 7(11), pp. 781-793.

Photo by Gerry Lauzon, some rights reserved.

What Remains: The Aftermath of Patient Suicide

Note: Clinical material in this article is taken across various venues and years of treatments. Identities are disguised to protect confidentiality. References used in writing this article, as well as resources for clinicians, can be found at the bottom of this page.

Silent Mourners

The memory is quite clear: several years ago, early one morning checking my voicemail, two messages in I came upon a message from my patient, Jill. The message was date-stamped the evening before. She said she would miss today’s session due to a need to find new housing; she thanked me for our work thus far (as she frequently did, sometimes out of social politeness or her fears of abandonment, other times out of sincere heartfelt gratitude, something we frequently explored). This time her gratitude sounded heartfelt in tone. Her message also left me perplexed, as we had not talked of housing, and I saved it. Another message, left moments before I checked my voicemail, was from Jill’s psychiatrist, Brian, asking me to give him a call when I got in the office. Brian and I spoke frequently of Jill, her ongoing medical decline at a relatively young age, and her persistent depression and posttraumatic stress. We followed her carefully, exchanged perspectives, and possessed mutual respect for one another’s clinical skills.

I called him immediately. “Are you in your office?” he asked, his voice ominous.

“Yes,” I replied, feeling my stomach tightening.

“Are you aware of the events related to Jill?”

“No,” my heart now pounded from my chest into my throat.

“Jill killed herself by handgun . . . “

I do not remember what he said next, just that he was still talking. I gasped, crying, while simultaneously attempting to hide my upset.

“Margaret, there was nothing, nothing you could have done to prevent this,” Brian continued, his voice clear and emphatic, speaking from his decades of experience, his knowledge of Jill, and his knowledge of our work together.

We talked for some time, and I could feel myself wanting to hang up the phone and be alone, but Brian insistently kept me on the line, wisely, for forty-five minutes. That was enough time for both of us to begin feeling the immensity of Jill’s death, and to begin the longer process of inquiry and reflection into her suicide and its after-effects. It was a process that would continue for a few months between us, and for more than a year for me.

Clinicians who lose patients to suicide are sometimes referred to as “silent mourners.” Some describe this kind of grief as disenfranchised. For me, I think of this grief as a kind of lived experience that catapults you into another environment which is foreign and therefore scary; a kind of grief that is uniquely solitary to bear and therefore devoid of larger community to bear it with you; a kind of grief that is intensely intertwined with shame; and a traumatic grief that possesses all the hallmarks of interpersonal trauma, whose impacts often continue reverberating long after the initial shattering experience has occurred. All of these facets and more underscore the particular experience of clinicians grieving suicide loss.

The differences are rather key in understanding how to be with our selves and also how to respond to colleagues who experience this kind of loss personally or professionally. My hope in writing this article is to buoy understanding, widen the circles of support for clinicians who have experienced suicide loss, and to offer some guideposts along the way of grieving. This topic and these aims are one of my life-long passions in my career. I have had the unfortunate experience of surviving two siblings’ suicides, the sudden death of a third sibling that suggested passive suicide, and the deaths of both parents from organic causes that were informed by these traumatic losses. My terrain of grief and traumatic loss was quite familiar to me by the time I met Jill, having traversed its intricacies in feeling, thought, and body using psychotherapy, meditation, long-distance hiking, body work, and writing, for many years. My experience served me well in working with Jill while she was alive, as well as holding what remained after her death. I was and am, after all, a wounded healer, meeting her suffering in life and in death.

Our Privileged Intimacy, Our Private Mourning

By its very nature, psychotherapy is a privileged space. The therapeutic relationship is characterized by a unique emotional intimacy with each patient. As therapists we are honored by our patients’ presence, the trust that is hard won, and the growing capacities through the course of psychotherapy we witness. We accompany and guide, inquire and curiously explore in a most particular way with each patient. With each patient, a slightly different relationship forms. We are slightly different therapists with each patient we encounter.

The extent to which we as therapists may deny the singular relationship with and presence of our patients in our lives contributes to the complications of grieving their departure in any form—from treatment termination to physical death. In her article, “Necessary and unnecessary losses: the analyst’s mourning” (2000) Sandra Buechler reflects that, because our work asks us to cultivate objectivity, and objectivity is often (over) emphasized in the work (and in training), it becomes a norm without critical thinking or reflection. This clinical cultural norm may also encourage a sense that we can (or should, perhaps) simply “move-on” when a patient departs. A therapist’s stance of distance may additionally complicate the grieving picture, especially in the case of loss by suicide. That stance may feed defenses of denial, encourage guilt, and amplify feelings of shame.

The great Jungian, James Hillman, stated that the suicide of patients is a “wrenching agony of therapeutic practice.” It is also a reality of practice that we fantasize will not touch us, despite the statistics. Depending upon the research reviewed, approximately fifty per cent of psychiatrists and thirty per cent of psychologists experience patient suicide. The statistics are incomplete and varied, often reflective of response rates to inquiry. Further, we do not, to my knowledge, have statistics on the numbers of mental health professionals who have experienced suicide loss within their personal circles of close family-friend relations, but it is fair to consider the percentages may be slightly higher if these were included.

For clinicians, suicide challenges every value we place in the therapeutic endeavor. It can raise fears of litigation, cloud clinical decision-making, and spark feelings of professional isolation. Suicide of a patient can challenge personal and professional identities, career trajectory, and sense of professional security. In its wake, patient suicide can leave posttraumatic stress symptoms behind as well as complicated grief. Interestingly, in my work with therapists who have experienced suicide loss of family or other close relations, they experience similar dilemmas. The sense that as a clinician he or she did not serve their family member or friend well, the questioning of clinical acumen, the guilt of feeling as though he or she should have done something to be of help and more, are common. As clinicians, suicide loss in any arena of our lives is experienced through the lens of our clinical knowledge, expertise, and experience.

There is little personal discussion on how therapists weather such a loss. Lay survivors of suicide are in an unknown country, inhabiting a strange landscape. Therapists surviving the suicide of a patient are in a similar land and yet there are important differences: there is no institutionalized ritual, no community of mourners, no one, really, who knew the patient as the clinician knew the patient. There is no one who witnessed first-hand (as best anyone can) the relationship between a certain patient and a certain therapist, yet the specific dyadic relationship is never to be experienced again. It is never to be remembered by anyone else but the therapist. In specific ways, we are the only one who holds our patient in mind. Even in the case of Jill, Brian held one particular relationship with her, and I another. Although Jill sometimes spoke of us to one another, the bulk of our memories of her are solitary, and the texture of our relationship with her singular.

Therapists are usually left alone with what remains in the aftermath of patient suicide. These remnants include all that was unsaid, unprocessed within the therapeutic relationship—both the regrets of what was not named and processed that are possibly linked to the suicide, and certainly all that had no chance to be felt and spoken of together that more time would have provided. Additionally, all that the therapist retains of his or her patient remains inside the therapist’s memory.

Further, who the therapist was with this particular patient is lost. This leaves open the question of who we are as therapist now. The process of mourning for therapist-survivors asks that we delve into the question of who we are now that our patient has left in this self-destructive way. And who are we, as therapist, the one here to facilitate healing—to engender life, if we have that kind of perspective—in the face of chosen death?

It can be alluring as the therapist-survivor for all these reasons to move far from the confusing thicket of feelings left by patient suicide. The cultural context and identity as therapist can encourage this moving away from honest reflection and processing too. Yet as we know with our patients, moving away from the real experience of the here and now can lead to a dulling of living, a numbing. In our work, moving away from our feelings can feed psychotherapeutic cynicism, burnout, and depression. It can also lead to problematic clinical decision-making and ethical lapses in judgment.

Our willingness to open, receive, and make contact with our patients within the therapeutic work is an offering toward healing—if we choose to risk it. From a relational perspective, certainly, our willingness in these ways is a vital vehicle in the process of transformation found within the therapeutic endeavor. Upon the suicide of a patient, it is tempting to shut down in response to profound relational loss and loss of the therapeutic framework upon which we rely.

Being with Groundlessness

“The dead leave us starving with mouths full of love,” the poet Anne Michaels writes. Jill left me starving and full. Her message to me left me full. The timing of her departure left me starving, questioning. She left me loving her, yes, but also left me with a myriad of other feelings including meaninglessness, impotence, frustration, and raw sadness. I was, because of my life experiences, immediately aware that I needed to take seriously the particular kind of loss I was experiencing—the loss of an incomplete, torn-apart relationship, the loss of who Jill was to me, a loss of clinical voice, and the loss of who I was as a psychotherapist with Jill.

There is ineffability—an unspoken quality— in this kind of traumatic loss. Psychoanalyst Ghislaine Boulanger distinguishes between child and adult onset trauma, noting how core self experience and self-in-relation experiences are undermined. Adult onset trauma shatters illusions of omnipotent control, ever-shaking the normative expectation of personal agency and healthful denial of omnipresent mortality. The suicide of a patient shatters illusions of therapist omnipotence, shaking expectations of potential positive influence upon patients, and calls into question core identity as well as identity-in-relationship to other patients and colleagues.

Western psychology rests within a worldview of personal agency. It is a worldview imbued with Euro-American, individualistic, educated, and moneyed values—all of which are crushed in the face of adult onset trauma. It is the very nature of this kind of traumatic loss that it rocks our assumptive world as therapists: questioning whether our endeavors are life giving, whether our efforts possess meaning and influence; and whether our chosen profession is worthwhile.

There was Todd, a patient-therapist in my practice who came to me after his long-term patient completed suicide. Todd had fifteen years of clinical experience and before that eight as a university professor. He was well versed in suicide prevention and intervention. “After his patient’s death, he refused to ever work with a patient again who even mentioned suicidal feeling states; he would refer them.” His stance is maintained to this day, six years later. His way of coping is not unusual among therapist-patients in my practice or across the profession. Whenever I present a paper on this topic, I hear stories of mental health professionals at all levels responding similarly. So understandably haunted, they desire to avoid any chance of experiencing a suicide loss again; some believe they can no longer objectively assess risk; and others feel traumatized, unable to clinically engage with a patient experiencing suicidal ideation or self-harm.

There are some other common coping approaches among therapist-survivors. They include all the ways we may become vigilant in our practice: taking numerous, even if repetitive, trainings on ethics and suicide prevention; developing a rigid stance in responding to patients expressing suicidal thoughts or intent; and intervening in overly-conservative ways that communicate anxiety to the patient rather than clinical engagement. In her essay for the collection, The Therapist in Mourning: From the Faraway Nearby (2013), Catherine Anderson describes these kinds of responses as part of the working through process with “a desperate need to understand what had happened and a magical wish to protect [oneself] against any future vulnerability.”

Another common response is to avoid examining clinical missed opportunities and errors, to defend against the pain, shame, and perhaps guilt that are simmering. Gina, a patient-clinician of mine, experienced a patient suicide after two sessions. When the patient did not show to the third session, Gina called. Subsequently, the patient’s father contacted Gina. He told her his son killed himself the day after the second session. It was excruciating for Gina to slowly begin to examine her state of mind during the sessions. She came to realize that she was, due to many factors, defending against making genuine a connection with this patient, and was more distant than usual. Her past clinical experience told her that when she has that kind of response, she hesitates exploring avenues that would be productive, and that she overlooks what later, when less defensive, was there all along. That was her missed opportunity. Of course, there is no telling if Gina had been less defended if that would have made a difference—given her a vital piece of clinical information that she could capitalize upon to then help the patient. It was crucially important, however, to Gina’s healing process to bring into consciousness what she already actually knew about herself in her brief work with the patient.

The ground of my being was continually moving beneath me after Jill’s suicide. Because of my life history and my working with it in therapeutic ways, I knew my footing could be regained, but I questioned when that would happen. I returned to writings that reminded me about how vulnerable groundlessness really is and how inevitable it is as well. Pema Chodron, in When Things Fall Apart, writes:

“[T]hings don’t really get solved. They come together and they fall apart. Then they come together again and fall apart again. It's just like that. The healing comes from letting there be room for all of this to happen: room for grief, for relief, for misery, for joy."

Her perspective, for me, reflects what I believe and practice in my private and professional life, but can easily forget in times of great tumult. It is a kind of perspective that provides me refuge.

I knew from my history that if I refused to directly experience what was present within me I would only harden my heart. Cutting myself off by armoring my heart would negatively impact my relationships with other patients, let alone the relationships in my personal circle and my relationship to life itself.

The practice of mindfulness meditation is one way I engage my direct experience, and it had been a practice of mine for many years before I began my clinical work. I returned to intensive practice after sustaining the many family deaths in quick succession aforementioned; I spent a month on a silent meditation retreat as well. The amount of silence offered was an integral experience for my body, heart, and mind to begin having room to feel through those traumatic losses. With Jill’s death, I returned to steady meditation practice again, in order to create room inside myself for the range of feelings I was experiencing. It sounds, perhaps, so simple, so easy, and yet it is not. Silently meditating twice daily confronted me with every vulnerability, every feeling, body sensation, and thought I possessed. Profound shame, futility, anger, banality, and sorrow as well as heartache and headache were some of the many storms I weathered sitting quietly on my meditation cushion. Yet it was the silence and the generous observing accompaniment to myself that were central in my finding footing again.

Ritual as Scaffolding

James Hillman suggests that in the face of patient suicide the clinician go into the context of the death—not to stay on the surface. His advice speaks to delving into our interior world, and grieving, but also something more. He suggests lending all of our knowledge of our patient to the endeavor as well, exploring as thoroughly as possible nuances of our patient’s suicide.

With Jill, intuitively I knew I needed rituals as a frame in my quest to deeply understand her suicide to the best of my abilities, as well as to mourn her death and all of the losses accompanying it. One ritual that was obvious was the therapy itself. There are the set days and times of sessions; the usual pattern of entering and exiting sessions with some of their inevitable variability; the parameters of the relationship.

Keenly aware of how groundless I felt, I longed for grounding in the ritual of my sessions with Jill. “I could not fathom scheduling another patient in Jill’s session times. I realized what I wanted was to keep my appointment with Jill. So I did just that: I kept my appointments with Jill for one year.” Sometimes I went to a meditation space near my office for the appointment; sometimes I was in a natural setting. Other times, I spent it in my office. Wherever I chose to spend the sessions, I also was with Jill. Sometimes reading a book of poetry that evoked Jill, or intentionally recollecting parts of sessions.

By the second week of appointments with Jill, I began writing during the time. I used poetry as a companion. Sometimes I wrote to Jill, sometimes extemporaneously to the Reader with a capital R. An excerpt follows of one of my writings:

I reviewed notes on Jill I came across; process notes. Notes when Brian spoke with me several weeks ago. There is much that remains unsolved in my heart. And it’s in my heart, especially, that time takes its own rhythm, a time that doesn’t match up with the clocks and the calendars.

It’s sorrow or poignancy, both, being touched by Jill—I’m feeling right now. Knowing I’m not alone, really, in such an experience ultimately—like anyone grieving anything how universal and connected to the everyday human experience this actually is. Paradoxically how alone and singular I feel. Alien among colleagues who have not experienced such a violent loss. A lone mourner.

Jill suffered in body and mind, physical and emotional pain. Her physicality used to be a route to survival as a child and a young adult. Her physicality was already failing her. The grief she felt was so layered and frequently linked to all the losses felt trans-generationally across her family history. And even this doesn’t say all she felt and lived with.

I can and do write circles of theory or case formulation but that is not what I’m desiring here. I feel almost desperate to continue delving into this process with her in this kind of way, unsure of where it is leading.

Strange, I guess, to feel the shock, still, that she is dead. I just know the only way to move with this, through this, to be with it all, is to do what I’m doing. Let it come in words or feelings. Let it come through me, in silence.

Of course, the questions remaining in the aftermath of suicide usually cannot be fully answered, but answering all the questions is not the point of such a process. If there is an aim, it is the recognition that the clinician continues in relationship without her (or his) partner in the dyad. Feeling and thinking alongside that recognition is the heart of the process. Psychologist Robert Gaines would call this the stitching together of continuity our relationship to the dead. Finding a relational home once again. Finding one’s clinical and human voice again.

Other rituals also occurred to me related to mourning, whether a formal memorial or an informal honoring, as well as creating continuity. By the end of the second week of appointments with the spirit of Jill, I realized I needed two additional things: to visit where she died, and to create some kind of memorial. There was no funeral service for Jill; she had no family or close community. Something of our process together needed representation. Something of her treasured symbols shared with me needed representation. And something of our relationship needed representation too.

Brian drew me a virtual map in verbal description as to where she died. Over the next four appointments with the spirit of Jill, I developed a memorial. A colleague accompanied me on the day that I set, and we drove to the place close to where Brian described. We walked the remainder of the way. Although Jill chose a place where she surely would be discovered, it was not an overly exposed public place. When I got there, I wept. I wept not because of her death in that moment but because of the purposefulness of the place. I recognized it, immediately, based on our work together. Based on what Jill shared with me. I could see how Jill, with her particular perspective, felt beauty in this place. The place fit into the story of her life, the story she shared with me. The story we made sense of together. The place symbolized what she would frequently discuss and feel, the existentials of existence, and the evolution of her life.

The ritual included flowers, some writing I read to commemorate Jill, and a prayer combined with poetry I put together to reflect our relationship. My colleague and I sat in silence afterward, listening to the sounds around us. I felt close to Jill in the moment. Through the scaffolding of this ritual, as well as the ritual of appointments with her, I began to understand some meanings in her death, and I regained my voice once again.

Jill genuinely affected me—her life as well as her death. Destruction, and particularly self-destruction, surrounded her in the history of her life yet she developed into a highly deliberate, aesthetically-minded, symbolically-attuned woman who struggled with looming thoughts that dragged her into familiar mire she was accustomed to escaping by vigorously and creatively using her body, no longer available to her. Her suicide was equally aesthetically minded—if you forgive the stretch of the word in this context but rather feel into the contour of its meaning. I noticed this in numerous ways from the evidence she left behind, the chosen place of her death, the timing of her death, to her message left for me.

I was acutely aware in working with Jill of my family standing with me, for they are there, always, in the background of my mind and heart, like a luminous shawl. How the experience of their tragic, violent, and sorrowful deaths created, initially, a nuclear-sized crater within me that since healed—and continues to evolve in healing—with scarred but incredibly strong layers. Layers of capacity and depth for ambiguity, curiosity, and love in the face of enormous challenge, rejection, and destruction. I never revealed to Jill my personal history, yet I felt it was these very experiences and my working with them, through them, that enabled me to meet Jill in the dark and light of her psyche without collapsing. All of these details and their meaning that I came to understand over time enabled me to continue to serve fully in my life in all ways professionally and personally with openness.

Relational Home for One Another

Clinician-survivors come in contact with the real attachment felt for the person who died in the process of mourning. Regardless of theoretical orientation or therapeutic stance, there was (and is) a relationship. The basis of the relationship is connection, care, and likely love. Therapists may have difficulty admitting they love their patients; some secretly do so with shame as if caring were untoward. When working in my practice with therapists mourning a suicide, moving through the shame of caring to the healing and human quality of caring is vital.

Clinician-survivors ask me to be their therapist initially because they find my contact information from the American Association of Suicidology’s website. There, among numerous resources, is a link to resources for clinician-survivors. Clinicians who contact me often gingerly express their desire for support, understandably fearing an amplification of shame they already are carrying. Shame demolishes a person’s sense of self. Shame isolates and evicts us from our relational home.

Some studies have explored the ubiquitousness with which clinician-survivors are met with judgment and shaming from colleagues. It has been found that clinicians who have not experienced a suicide loss professionally or personally are more likely to assume that there must have been something the treating clinician had done wrong. One way to understand this is to consider the nature of trauma. People involved in the traumatic event, either directly or indirectly (hearing of it, etc.), hold parts of the experience and defend against the emotional enormity of it. Blame, shame, grandiosity, omnipotence, and guilt are often convoluted in the mix. Unbearable feelings are projected or disavowed. Most of us “know” this, but when we are in the midst of it ourselves we can forget.

Before I entered my contact information on the clinician-survivor network, I carefully considered this act—a public acknowledgment of an aspect of my history. Before I agreed to write this article, which is drawn from a public presentation I gave to two different professional organizations, I considered how my history in print felt quite different than speaking it. I sensed the risk I felt in both instances. For me the risk is primarily located in relationship to colleagues unfamiliar with suicide loss. My feeling of risk among the professional community is not singular—it is cited repeatedly as a way that therapists feel shame for their grief in relation to patients generally, and most especially the shame felt when a patient completes suicide.

Coming out, so to speak, on the website and in this article are acts of advocacy for other therapists in a direct way, and ultimately also, I believe, advocacy for patients. Coming out in these ways are antidotes to shame as well, although revealing oneself carries with it a chance of being judged or shamed. Hiding when feeling shame, after all, is a protective solution to those risks—albeit risks that are generalized. Two anecdotes may elucidate.

When a psychologist-colleague found out that I publicly acknowledged my identity as a suicide survivor, he questioned me. He wondered if I were exposing something that “should” be hidden. His sense of hiding was initially justified by the importance of neutral stance and limited self-disclosure. With further exploration between us, however, my colleague came to realize that he felt anxious and even dissociated when hearing about my experiences. His shaming reaction toward me was a coping mechanism for his anxieties.

Another colleague responded quite differently to finding out about my public acknowledgment as a suicide survivor. Her response: There but before the grace of God go I. She too felt anxious hearing my experience, but she remained in communion with me. She shared her anxiety and her wishful fantasy that she would never experience this kind of trauma. Through our discussion, we created a relational home for one another.

In therapy, we create, with our patients, a relational home. While this home is focused on the patient’s needs, it is irrevocably the particular home we live in with our patient. That home continues to live inside of the therapist-survivor after the patient dies. In Trauma and Human Existence: Autobiographical, Psychoanalytic, and Philosophical Reflections (2007), Robert Stolorow writes, “The mangling and the darkness can be enduringly borne, not in solitude, but in relational contexts of deep emotional attunement and understanding.” The loss of a patient or a loved one by suicide is unfathomable, though we know it happens. It is nothing short of a cataclysmic trauma, one that is enormous to digest. The impact of it on clinicians has been compared to the traumatic loss of a parent. It is a leveling experience for it takes us out of our protected role as therapist and throws us into the most humble, bare experience of our own humanity.

Brian, the psychiatrist, only learned of my family history after Jill’s death. He wondered, “Perhaps there is some unconscious way Jill knew you could make meaning of and bear her death.” It is curious whatever Jill may have implicitly known of me—but ultimately that is something I will never know. Importantly, it was not lost on me, her therapist, the relevance of the place she chose to die. What it meant to her, what she communicated to me in her final message, and what she communicated in her choice of place. It was not lost on me, her therapist, the layered meanings in the timing of death. The curious exploration of these among other unspoken aspects of our work together was what I gave voice to in my year of kept appointments. A year of rediscovering meaning. A year of regaining clarity, ground, and clinical voice. A year of examining the soul of the process between us, and what lived on within me.

***

Following is a list of readings and resources for clinicians and clinician-survivors who wish to learn more about, and seek support for, the grief of losing a client to suicide.

The clinician-survivor network of the American Association of Suicidiology provides consultation, resources, support, and education to mental health professionals in the aftermath of suicide loss, personally and/or professionally. The website includes nationwide clinicians available as resources, as well as an extensive bibliography.

Anderson, C. (2013). "When what we have to offer isn’t enough" in Malawista, K. and Adelmari, A., Eds. The therapist in mourning: from the faraway nearby. New York: Columbia University.

Boulanger, G. (2002). Wounded by Reality: understanding and treating adult onset trauma. New Jersey: Analytic Press.

Buechler, S. (2000). "Necessary and unnecessary losses: the analyst’s mourning." Contemporary Psychoanalysis 36: 77-90.

Chodron, P. (2000). When things fall apart: heart advice for difficult times. Boston: Shambhala Publications.

DeYoung, P., (2015). Understanding and treating chronic shame: a relational/neurobiological approach. New York: Routledge.

Gaines, R. (1997). "Detachment and continuity: the two tasks of mourning." Contemporary Psychoanalysis 33(4): 549-571.

Hillman, J. (1997). Suicide and the soul. Connecticut: Spring Publications.

Michaels, A. (1997). Memoriam in The Weight of Oranges / Miner’s Pond. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

Plakun, E. & Tillman, J. (2005). "Responding to clinicians after loss of a patient to suicide." Retrieved December 2013 from http://www.austenriggs.org.

Stolorow, R. (2011). "Portkeys, eternal recurrence, and the phenomenology of traumatic temporality." International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 6:433-436.

Stolorow, R. (2007). Trauma and human existence: autobiographical, psychoanalytic, and philosophical reflections. New York: Routledge.

Tillman, J. (2006). "When a patient commits suicide: an empirical study of psychoanalytic clinicians." The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 87(1), 159-177.

 

Ronald Siegel on Integrating Mindfulness into Psychotherapy

Mindfulness is an Attitude Toward Experience

Deb Kory: Ronald Siegel, you’re an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School, a longtime student and teacher of mindfulness meditation, on the faculty of the Institute for Psychotherapy and Meditation and in private practice as a psychotherapist. You’ve done a great deal of work in bringing mindfulness to chronic pain patients and co-wrote a book called Back Sense: A Revolutionary Approach to Halting the Cycle of Chronic Back Pain as well as one for therapists, Sitting Together: Essential Skills for Mindfulness-based Psychotherapy. Most exciting of all—for us at least—you are the star of a new video we produced and are releasing this month called Integrating Mindfulness into Counseling and Psychotherapy, which features you doing mindfulness-based psychotherapy with real clients. In it, you go into great detail about the theory and practice of mindfulness-based psychotherapy, and also do four different therapy sessions with clients each presenting different issues. For our readers who haven’t yet had a chance to watch it, let’s start with the basics: What is mindfulness?
Ronald D. Siegel:
Mindfulness is an attitude toward experience—approaching any moment of our lives with both awareness and acceptance.
Mindfulness is an attitude toward experience—approaching any moment of our lives with both awareness and acceptance. Many people mistake mindfulness for mindfulness meditation, which is actually an umbrella term for many different practices that are designed to cultivate mindfulness, some of which involve following an object of awareness, like the breath, others of which involve things like loving kindness practice or equanimity practices. Those are practices designed to cultivate mindfulness, but mindfulness itself is an attitude toward moment-to-moment experience.
DK: Is it possible to practice mindfulness without having some experience with meditation?
RS: Absolutely. We all have moments in which we’re mindful, in which our minds and bodies show up for an experience. In fact, you might take a minute just now, while reading this, to think of a meaningful moment you’ve had. People will often say, the birth of a child or a graduation or getting married or a particular sunset or a conversation with a friend—all of those moments are essentially moments in which our attention is in the present. We’re accepting of what’s happening and we’re not lost in fantasies of the past that we call memories, nor fantasies of the future. We’re actually present.

We have many moments of this kind of mindful presence in the course of our lives, it’s just that once we start to be attentive to various states of consciousness, we notice that they’re the exception, rather than the rule. They’re relatively rare. So we do mindfulness practices to cultivate more of these moments in our lives.
DK: A sunset or being with a loved one—those are positive experiences. Do we tend to be more mindful in positive moments?
RS: I think instinctually we are, because when we’re experiencing painful moments, we recoil from them. We try to change them or get them to stop, and it takes some practice to open to unpleasant experiences as well. That is a central part of mindfulness practices, particularly in the therapeutic arena, where we understand one aspect of psychopathology as a tendency to resist experience, to try to make it stop.
DK: You are considered a mindfulness expert of sorts and you’re also a psychologist. Have you always brought mindfulness into your psychotherapy practice?
RS: Well, I’d like to challenge that designation first. I’m certainly not a poster child for the practice, given my experience with my own unruly mind. However, I first started practicing mindfulness back in high school, so I have been at it for some time and the principles associated with mindfulness have always infused my psychotherapy practice. In fact, when I learned more conventional psychotherapeutic techniques like cognitive behavior therapy, psychodynamic techniques, systems techniques, humanistic psychological techniques, it was always against the backdrop of Buddhist psychology, which is really the ground out of which mindfulness practices grew.

Our Relentless Tendency Toward "Selfing"

DK: How do therapists actually bring mindfulness into therapy?
RS:
Experienced psychotherapists are perfectly capable of having a full session, making reflective comments, insightful interpretations, all while planning a 12-course meal and having our attention quite divided.
Mindfulness can infuse psychotherapy on many different levels. It can infuse psychotherapy simply on the level of the practicing psychotherapist—what happens to us as the tool or instrument of treatment when we start practicing ourselves. For example, we start to actually show up in the room more fully. Experienced psychotherapists are perfectly capable of having a full session, making reflective comments, insightful interpretations, all while planning a 12-course meal and having our attention quite divided.
DK: Shhhh, that’s supposed to be a secret!
RS: Yeah, don’t tell people outside of the field! But the more we practice mindfulness, the more we’re able to be present. The other thing that happens is our capacity to be with and bear difficult emotions increases a great deal as we take up these practices. As therapists, we tend to hear about painful matters all day long, and sometimes it feels like too much, so we start to shut down our feelings; that can get in the way of being present. Mindfulness practices can help us to remain open in a fresh way to those painful feelings.

At the next level, there’s what we might call mindfulness-informed psychotherapy, which involves gaining insights into how the mind creates suffering for itself—through our own mindfulness practice and through the experience of longtime practitioners. As we gain some of those insights, we start to see certain patterns of mind that begin to inform our models of psychotherapy. For example, our relentless tendency toward “selfing”— creating narratives in our minds, starring me. These narratives are often quite distorted and create a tremendous amount of tension and suffering as we try to hold on to one self image and abort another.

As we see this through our own mindfulness practice, we start to notice that our clients or patients seem to be struggling with the same thing and we can help them with that by drawing upon our own insights and practices. Similarly, noticing the tendency to resist experience and how that multiplies difficulty. In psychotherapy, regardless of what sort of treatment we’re doing, we try to help people move toward, rather than away from, painful experience. To be more present, rather than to be lost in the thought stream involving narratives about the past and the future. That’s a mindfulness-informed psychotherapy.

Finally, there’s the option that comes out of our own experience of doing meditation and realizing that it helps us be more present, clear, have greater affect tolerance, more perspective, and more wisdom in on our lives, as well as more compassion for others. We think, “Hmm, maybe this could help my clients or patients to do this same. Perhaps I’ll teach it to some of them.” I should underscore that it’s about teaching it to some of them and having a map or an understanding of what sort of people might respond well to which sorts of mindfulness practices, at what stages in treatment or stages in life development. It’s not a one-size-fits-all practice.

When Mindfulness is Contraindicated

DK: Isn’t it actually contraindicated for some people?
RS: It’s absolutely contraindicated for many people. For example, for folks who have a lot of unresolved trauma, meaning they’ve experienced painful events in their lives that were too difficult to fully let into awareness at the time, so some aspect of them has been blocked. Maybe it’s the narrative historical memory of the event that’s blocked, maybe it’s the affect associated with the experience that’s blocked, but in some way, the experience has been disavowed. Folks like that, if they start doing certain mindfulness practices, such as spending time following the breath, tend to become quite overwhelmed with the rush of previously blocked material that comes into awareness.

The most problematic adverse effect is due to “derepression,” or the rushing into awareness of things which defensively have been held out of awareness.
A colleague of mine at Brown University named Willoughby Britain is doing a large study on the adverse effects of mindfulness practices, and the most problematic adverse effect is due to what she calls “derepression,” which is this rushing into awareness of things which defensively have been held out of awareness up until the start of mindfulness practices. So, much as we wouldn’t in psychotherapy start talking about material in a vivid way that someone’s not ready to talk about, we don’t want to start doing mindfulness practices that might be premature for various people.
DK: Is Britton against using mindfulness at all in psychotherapy?
RS: No, she’s a mindfulness practitioner herself, a research psychologist who is very enthusiastic about these things and is trying to map this territory. What many meditation teachers know from observation is that these adverse effects are much more likely when somebody attends an intensive silent retreat over the course of many days. But I’ve lead countless groups of psychotherapists through mindfulness practices that are as short as 20-30 minutes and it’s not unusual for one or two members of the group to become overwhelmed by the experience, either by the emotions that comes up or by bodily sensations that they tend to keep out of awareness with constant activity and entertainment. Many, many people are vulnerable to reconnecting with split-off contents.
DK: Let’s say someone comes in to see you for psychotherapy and they haven’t done much psychotherapy and they seem somewhat fragile in this way. How might you work with them?
RS: What’s interesting is there are many mindfulness practices that actually help to create a sense of safety, that create a sense of holding, as Winnicott would say. There are mindfulness practices that are akin to guided imagery or have aspects that feel like hypnosis, and if they’re done in the context of a trusting therapeutic relationship, bring the safety of the therapeutic alliance into the experience of the mindfulness practice.

There are also practices that ground us in the safe aspects of moment-to-moment experience. Walking meditation, where we’re feeling the sensations of the feet touching the ground, or listening meditation, where we’re listening to the sounds of nature or the ambient sounds in the city. Or nature meditation, where we’re looking at clouds and trees and sky. Those objects, since they tend to be safe for most people and bring our awareness away from the core of the body—away from where we tend to identify emotion as happening and toward a safe outer environment—can be very stabilizing. In fact, many of those practices are conventionally in trauma treatment called “grounding” practices because they create safety.

A Transtheoretical Mechanism

DK: It seems to me like everybody in our profession is talking about mindfulness these days. And approaches that I would assume are kind of strange bedfellows—CBT and mindfulness, psychoanalysis and mindfulness—are being paired together. If you go to Psychology Today and look at the profiles of psychotherapists, mindfulness is now a little bullet-point you can select as an orientation. I often wonder if most practitioners actually know what they’re talking about when they claim to work within a mindfulness framework. Like, are they saying that because they’ve been to a one-day meditation retreat or are they actually genuinely skilled in this approach?
RS: Well, I think it’s the same as with any psychotherapeutic model, theory or treatment system—people have very variable levels of understanding of what they’re doing. There are some people who have a great deal of wisdom, compassion and knowledge, who are saying that they’re doing mindfulness-oriented treatments, and there are other people who have a much more cursory exposure to it and may not have much depth of personal experience, but are intrigued by the idea or see it as a useful concept to identify with because other people may be interested in it and looking for a therapist who has some expertise.

But I do think that the field is still in its infancy in terms of really understanding the psychological, as well as the neurobiological, effects of these practices.
The field is still in its infancy in terms of really understanding the psychological, as well as the neurobiological, effects of these practices.
It’s quite a complex field, with many different practices, each one affecting the mind, the brain and the body in different ways and in different ways for different individuals. So while we can make some generalizations and have some guidelines, I think clinicians are best served to see it as very complex.

To the other point that you made about various forms of treatment being incongruent with mindfulness, I actually don’t think most are. I think of mindfulness as a transtheoretical mechanism that is operating in virtually any effective psychotherapy, because virtually any effective psychotherapy is going to help people step out of irrational, unhelpful cognitive patterns. Virtually any effective psychotherapy is going to help people connect with, feel and embrace an increasingly wide range of emotions. Virtually any psychotherapy is going to try to help people to engage more fully moment-to-moment in their lives. Since these are cardinal features of mindfulness practice, you can see them as being helpful in virtually any form of treatment.
DK: So you don’t see it as its own model or approach, but more an attitude and set of practices that are brought into all approaches.
RS: Very much so. While we might choose to actually teach a mindfulness practice to a given client or a patient in a given psychotherapy, that could be done within the context of a cognitive behavioral treatment, a systemic treatment, a humanistic treatment, a psychodynamic treatment and many others as well.

When graduate students come to me and say, “I want to get trained as a mindfulness therapist. Where should I go to school? What kind of training should I have?” I tend to implore them, “Please don’t get trained as a mindfulness therapist. Please get trained as a therapist, first and foremost. Have some understanding of the complexities of the human mind and body, some understanding of the myriad forms of psychopathology that we can get stuck in, a good introspective understanding of your own issues and conflicts and how they get in the way of relating to other people, and get supervision from people who’ve been working with troubled folks for a long time; once you develop that foundation, then integrate mindfulness practices into psychotherapy.”
When graduate students come to me and say, “I want to get trained as a mindfulness therapist. Where should I go to school? What kind of training should I have?” I tend to implore them, “Please don’t get trained as a mindfulness therapist.”


Of course it’s very valuable all along in your training to be doing your own mindfulness practice, to maybe even have a meditation teacher that you turn to for advice. Extremely useful. But if I had a friend who was struggling psychologically and I had the choice of either sending them to a brilliant mindfulness practitioner with very limited clinical training or a reasonably good clinician with reasonably good training as a clinician, but who’d never heard of mindfulness, I would send that person to the clinician in a heartbeat.

We Are Hardwired for Misery

DK: That’s an interesting point. I live in the Bay Area, and there are a lot of people who are really into Buddhism and mindfulness practices, who kind of eschew psychotherapy for more spiritual practices of meditation and yoga. But at the same time, I know that the Buddhist teachers around here are often imploring people to get therapy, to not do the “spiritual bypass” thing and avoid the work of getting into the muck of our psyches and how they impact our relationships and lives.
RS: Yes, absolutely. Jack Kornfield, who teaches at Spirit Rock in the Bay Area and has written many books on the subject of integrating psychology and Buddhism, recently wrote an article about highly experienced mindfulness meditation teachers, Buddhist teachers, who needed to go into psychotherapy. Ultimately, it’s not that one is better than the other—they are both pathways toward sanity. There are so many pathways to insanity that we actually need a variety of tools to work toward sanity.

I would argue that our natural evolutionarily determined predilection is to be quite nuts and quite miserable.
I would argue that our natural evolutionarily determined predilection is to be quite nuts and quite miserable. As Rick Hanson, who wrote Buddha’s Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love & Wisdom, puts it, “Our brains are like velcro for bad experiences and teflon for good ones.” It’s a total setup for human misery, not to mention the hardwired tendency toward self-preservation that makes us concerned with how we rank compared to the other primates in our troop, which results in endless self-esteem concerns.

We are hardwired for misery. It is a good thing that we have both Western psychotherapeutic techniques that can help us untangle our narratives and get in touch with our feelings and do that in a healing, interpersonal context, and also have access to mindfulness and compassion practices that can help us transcend our personal story to see existential reality, to face the reality of change and death, to face the reality of sickness and old age, and develop sanity through those practices as well.
DK: As mindfulness practices are becoming more mainstream in the psychotherapy community and the medical community, it’s also becoming more secularized. People might go to their primary care physician and be prescribed a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) class for high blood pressure, and never even hear the word “Buddhism.” Is there a downside to that?
RS: Let me talk about the upside first and then the downside. The Dalai Lama was talking to a group of clinicians and researchers at Emory University about depression, and toward the end of the conference, I remember being quite moved when he said, “If you folks discover that some elements of Buddhist meditation practices are useful for alleviating depression, I really have only one request for you: please, please don’t tell people that it comes from Buddhism. My tradition is about alleviating suffering, and if you tell people that these are Buddhist practices, you’re going to miss huge numbers of people whose suffering could be alleviated. Don’t get hung up on that. Express this in whatever form is going to be useful in alleviating suffering.”

So my inclination is to tailor our psychotherapy practices to the cultural background, needs, and proclivities of whoever we’re working with. There’s no need to present mindfulness in a way that is going to be alienating. Not only do you not need to mention Buddhism, you don’t need to mention meditation. These practices can be presented simply as attentional control training. When we train our attention differently, we have very different psychological experiences and it helps us both gain insight and cut through all sorts of forms of suffering.

The first rule of psychotherapy is to meet the client or patient where he or she is, and this should not be forced upon people as some alien cultural system, and nor should people be forced to consider the implications of these practices for developing wisdom and compassion if all they’re hoping for at the moment is a little bit less anxiety. That may come later down the road, but we can help them with that anxiety first.

That being said, there are potentials to these practices that are very deep, very wide, and very rich. If a clinician learns mindfulness-based stress reduction and sees these practices primarily as a tool for helping people to relax, they will miss some of the depth and some of the breadth of what these practices can offer. I think it’s useful for clinicians to practice with some intensity themselves, so they can see personally how transformative these practices can be, in a way that goes far, far beyond any benefits that come from relaxation training. It can be very useful for clinicians to learn about Buddhist psychology. It is a very profound and helpful way to understand the mind and how we get caught in suffering.
DK: I think that there’s a lot of mystery and mystification around what mindfulness is, and one of the great things about this new video with you we’re releasing is that we get to see you doing meditation with clients, and modulating it to the specific needs of each client. In real life you don’t do meditation with everyone, but this gives psychotherapists a chance to see what it looks like to bring it into a session.

I think a lot of people are kind of scared to do it and I know that when I first started doing it in my therapy sessions—and I only do it occasionally—I was actually surprised at how profound an experience it was for people and that it had the capacity to stir up some really intense memories. It’s a powerful tool that we have to learn how to use. Can you say a little bit about how you modulate and decide to use meditation in therapy sessions?
RS: First I’d like to pick up on one thing you said.
Many people in our society are involved in states of distraction all day long. Google says we check our cell phone on average 125 times a day.
Many people in our society are involved in states of distraction all day long. Google says we check our cell phone on average 125 times a day. We spend hours watching television. We spend a lot of time chatting with friends. There’s nothing with that—all of these things can have wholesome aspects to them and can make for a rich and interesting life, but for many of us, they keep us from really noticing what’s happening in our minds and in our hearts in each moment. They help to insulate us from the hundreds of micro-traumas that most of us experience just going through the day. The little disappointments, the “I wonder what she meant by that,” the “I didn’t do that as skillfully as I would have,” or “I haven’t quite achieved what I wanted in my life.” Endless, endless reflections, each of which has a bit of pain in it and each of which we want to distract ourselves from with various forms of entertainment and engagement. When people start taking up these practices, all of the pain of those micro-traumas start to come into awareness, and they can indeed be unsettling. Of course they also offer the opportunity to integrate all of that, which is a wonderful potential. So I think we have to be very judicious about it.

My main criteria for whether to actually teach mindfulness practice in a session are twofold; one is, what’s the person’s cultural background and how weird are they going to think it is to choose an object of attention and bring attention to that and return to that object when the mind wanders? Because for some people, it’s like, “forget it, man, that’s not me.”
DK: Yeah, on of the clients in the video, Julia, is a bit like that.
RS: For folks like that, I’m going to be very judicious about it, but one can bring mindfulness into psychotherapy in many, many ways that don’t involve teaching meditation. I already spoke about the shift in our attitude and our capacity for presence as psychotherapists that occurs, as well as the shifts in our models for psychopathology and for what might help people out of psychopathology that might come from our own practice.

Let’s say we’re sitting with somebody and it’s clear that some feeling got triggered. The conventional way to respond to that in therapy is, “What are you feeling now?” A slightly different way to ask the question might be, “what did you notice happening in the body and the mind right now?” That little shift in phrasing starts to shift the conversation from the normal narrative about “my life starring me,” to an observational stance—to what the CBT folks would call “metacognitive awareness,” or what the analysts would call “observing ego.”

To begin to watch and to identify a little bit with awareness itself, rather than the contents of the process. Of course it might be skillful or it might be unskillful in any given moment. For one person at one moment, what they need is to feel your empathic connection to them and saying, “What were you feeling at that moment?” might feel more empathically connected. But for somebody else, they might need to develop some of this observing ego or metacognitive awareness, and if we’re phrasing it in a slightly more objective way, it might serve that purpose. That begins to develop a little bit of mindfulness, even though we’re not doing anything that looks like meditation.

The second criterion I use is, “What’s their capacity to be with their experience?” If they have very little capacity to be with their experience, I want to start with very small doses and very non-threatening contents. If they have more capacity to be with their experience, we can dive into larger doses and get at whatever arises in consciousness right now. It really depends on the person.

Lighten Up

DK: You mentioned CBT and metacognition and it seems like a lot of what’s happening in mindfulness interventions is “noticing.” In CBT, I tend to think of it more as not just noticing, but blocking or counteracting thoughts. Is there also a methodology within mindfulness training where you’re being more directive with the material that comes up in the brain, or is that off limits?
RS: That’s a very interesting question. Let me correct one thing. There’s noticing, and there’s also feeling in a wholehearted way. I think one mistake people make is they assume that this is a very cognitive kind of endeavor and that’s only one part of it. The other part is really opening to what’s happening on a heart level, in terms of really feeling feelings, as well as noticing what’s happening in the interpersonal field and our relationships and connecting in an alive and juicy way to experience. So I just want to mention that first.

Secondly, CBT folks have described it as the third wave of behavior therapy. The first wave was Skinner on one hand and Pavlov and Watson on the other hand. Operant and classical conditioning and working with modifying behavior. Then came the very important insight that human beings, unlike other laboratory animals, think a lot and our thoughts have tremendous impact on both our emotions and on our behavior. So maybe what we should be doing is using behavioral principles, learning theory, to modify thoughts.

The third wave is coming from a different direction:
What if we start to see all thought as essentially fluid, suspect, unreliable, and based on emotion?
What if we start to see all thought as essentially fluid, suspect, unreliable, and based on emotion? These acceptance and mindfulness-based approaches are all about lightening up in relation to thought, rather than trying to get rid of the bad and hold onto the good.

In my experience, that can be quite powerful, but it takes a while. It’s a much more subtle and in some ways sophisticated way to work with the mind than just replacing maladaptive irrational thoughts with adaptive rational ones. After all, one person’s adaptive, rational thought, is another person’s insanity. We all may agree about our zip code and whether it’s raining at the moment, but as soon as we get into more complex matters, humans differ a great deal and I think we’d do better to have a more relativistic approach toward different thoughts.
DK: So the third wave basically posits that we are all insane.
RS: Yes, we’re all insane. This is a little bit of a bold summary, but my impression of the last 15 or 20 years of advances in cognitive science is basically the realization that all the processes that we’ve thought of as rational are irrational, that bias, desire, cultural proclivity, those kinds of factors are really what determine how and what we think. The idea that we are rational organisms analyzing data for positive goals—yeah, occasionally, but that’s not mostly how we tick. So if we can lighten up generally in our approach to thinking, I think that’s quite helpful.
DK: That is a perfect place to end. Thank you so much for sharing the insights of your otherwise unruly mind.
RS: It’s been a pleasure.

Thupten Jinpa on Fearless Compassion

A Fearless Heart

David Bullard: I am so pleased and honored to meet you and to have this opportunity to talk a little bit. I’m also looking forward to seeing you when you come out to the Bay Area next month on your book tour for A Fearless Heart: How the Courage to Be Compassionate Can Transform Our Lives and for some talks and workshops. I just read the book and I couldn’t put it down. It’s fantastic. And to prepare for this interview and to learn more about your work, I also bought and am reading your first book based on your Cambridge PhD dissertation, Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy (2002).
Thupten Jinpa: Oh yeah, that was a heavy-duty undertaking.
DB: Heavy duty reading, too! It will require further slow reading! But the new book is very accessible. I even feel calmness in talking with a revered and accomplished person like you right now because of all the compassion I felt from the book for all of us.
TJ: That’s great.
DB: Those first 100 pages impact the reader at the intellectual level, because of the all of the research, and all you bring to bear from Western science. But you integrate feelings so well with stories from your own life, many wonderful quotations, and the suggested meditation activities from the compassion training you helped develop at Stanford. It’s going to help many, many people.
TJ: Thank you. That was the motivation for writing it.
DB: How did you decide to make compassion the central point of your work in this book?
TJ: As someone who grew up with refugee parents in a refugee community, the impact of compassion was real on a day-to-day basis. The schools that we went to, the clothes that we received all were donated from around the world.
From a very early age I knew that almost everything for the development of our refugee community was made possible thanks to other people’s generosity.
From a very early age I knew that almost everything for the development of our refugee community was made possible thanks to other people’s generosity. I think that probably was a very important fact in my life.

The second thing is, because of being brought up in a traditional Tibetan society, compassion is probably the highest spiritual value and is very present in the religious and spiritual consciousness of the Tibetan people. Starting from the Tibetan symbol of the Dalai Lama being a kind of manifestation of the Buddha of compassion….being an embodiment of compassion. Then there is the everyday mantra that we recite, “Om mani padme om,” being a symbol of compassion. So compassion is very, very present in the everyday religious and spiritual life of a Tibetan person.

Also the work that I continue to do for His Holiness is very much around compassion. Because if there is one thing that His Holiness promotes everywhere, in addition to peace, it’s compassion. The bottom line of his message, wherever he travels, is really about compassion. I’ve done a lot of that service for him, which is a service to the promotion of compassion.
DB: Both in what you lived by experiencing it as refugees, and in the whole teaching that’s infused your culture for thousands of years.
TJ: Yes, exactly. I remember when I was growing up and I was in a boarding school, and once in a while the school would arrange for some of us children whose parents were working on road constructions in the local Simla area to be driven there for a couple of days. My parents were moving from camp to camp in these tents as the roads were progressing, and every morning, I remember waking up in a tent full of smoke and steam from Tibetan tea being made, and my mother chanting the Four Immeasurables prayer: “May all beings be free of suffering and its causes.” These are things that I grew up with. Of course, as a kid, you know, words are words— they may not mean much. But the sound of these prayers and these lines were deeply imprinted in me.
DB: I understand what you mean by, “words are words” for children, but I have to share with you, a friend has a wonderful granddaughter who, when she was three-and-a-half or four years old, said, “Loving people is so much fun!” Which I think also could have been one of the chapter titles of your book!
TJ: That's so!
DB: You have such wonderful quotes beginning each chapter of the book, pairing up East and West: A Tibetan saying with one by W.H. Auden, the First Panchen Lama and Charles Darwin, Gandhi and Aristotle, and even a quote by Tsongkhapa with (revealing Canada as your adopted home!) one by the writer Alice Munroe.

Your first chapter “The Best Kept Secret of Happiness: Compassion” is introduced by a comment attributed to the Buddha: “What is that one thing, which when you possess, you have all the other virtues? It’s compassion.” This is paired with Jean Jacques Rousseau “What wisdom can you find that is greater than kindness?” These are beautifully chosen. And you also point out that when we are being compassionate and being kind, the paradox is it helps us all feel better.
TJ: Definitely.
Compassion and empathy—and an instinct for these—are very natural, and they are a deeply ingrained part of our psyche.
We are living in a very scientific age, and science carries a kind of weight at the societal level. But despite all of this, if we look at our own personal experience, on a day-to-day level if we try to remember when we were most happy, when we felt most full and complete, most of the time we will find that this was in the context of some kind of healthy relationship—something where we felt deeply connected; something where we felt deeply open and free in our interaction with someone. These are all expressions of compassion. One of the key points I try to argue in this book is that compassion and empathy—and an instinct for these—are very natural, and they are a deeply ingrained part of our psyche. We can make the choice to live as much as possible from that place, and if we are able to do that, then at the end of the day, we ourselves stand to gain more. It does sound kind of paradoxical. It’s almost like using a self-interest logic to advocate compassion.
DB: But you point out it’s more of a side effect than a motivation.
TJ: Exactly.

Compassion Cultivation Training

DB: I’m remembering when reading the book that I was not at all surprised to see that you are friends with Paul Gilbert, PhD, from the University at Derby, UK, who came last year to speak with us at UCSF and Stanford. The first thing he said to us was, “You know, your brain is a mess.” He waited, and then he said, “Because it’s hard-wired for fight or flight. Anger or fear. And you have to cultivate self-compassion,” which is what your book is all about—cultivating self-compassion and compassion for others, and understanding why it’s so important; but also how to do it. Which brings me to my next question. Can you tell us about the Compassion Cultivation Training (CCT) at The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education (CCARE) program at Stanford.”
TJ: My work at Stanford gave me an opportunity to really bring a much more systematic structure to what can be brought consciously into a secular environment. I took inspiration from the amazing success of the mindfulness movement, where a group of people—individually and later collectively—decided to look into the Buddhist contemplative sources to see what are the specific types of contemplative practices that can be brought out of the traditional context into the wider world, for the benefit of helping people. The focus was on overcoming problems and suffering, promoting a greater sense of well-being. Along with that came science and research. Ordinary people and secular-minded people can begin to look at these things and see if they work for them.

I thought that we could do something similar with compassion. One of the powers of mindfulness is it teaches us the skills to disengage. When we over-identify with our problems and thoughts, and start to believe the contents of thoughts as reality, mindfulness practice shows us that we can actually disengage and observe what’s occurring in us so that we don’t get swept away by the story we’re telling about ourselves.
DB: You’ve probably seen the bumper sticker that says, “Don’t believe everything you think.”
TJ: No, I haven’t seen it. That’s funny! And true!
DB: You’ve got several research articles, with Kelly McGonigal and others, showing that the compassion training decreased fear of compassion and increased self-compassion. How do you conceptualize compassion itself?
TJ: We’ve identified four components: An awareness of suffering which is cognitive; an affective sympathetic concern related to being emotionally moved by suffering; a wish to see the relief of that suffering, which is an intention; and a responsiveness or readiness to help relieve that suffering—a motivational component.

Our most recent article in the Journal of Positive Psychology, “A wandering mind is a less caring mind: Daily experience sampling during compassion meditation training,” found decreased mind wandering to neutral topics and increased caring behaviors for oneself and others.

We are also collaborating with psychologist and neuroscientist, Dr. Brian Knutson, researching the neural correlates of components of compassion in Buddhist adepts and novices. Together with many other researchers, there is quite a range of activities at CCARE deepening and broadening our awareness of the benefits of compassion and how best to cultivate it in people.

And the beauty I see is that, in a sense, compassion training is the next chapter in this very interesting cultural phenomenon. What compassion brings is, to use vernacular language, the “wet stuff”—our emotion and experience. And also, compassion is part of our motivation system: empathy, a sense of love and connection. Compassion plays a powerful role, if we allow it, as part of our motivation system.

Compassion also has an important role in shaping our intention. If we can bring conscious cultivation of compassion to help us shape our intention, we bring a more enlightened content to our motivation and intention. When combined with mindfulness, then it can create something that can lead to real personal transformation.

Those were the kinds of ideas behind the Stanford program, and then I sat down to develop an eight-week training and sought the help of some other colleagues to refine it. We developed the program in such a way that it does not rely entirely on quiet, formal sitting practices alone.
DB: Beyond meditation alone, or “just” being present….
TJ: We have interactive exercises. Many of them are dyadic. But also, there’s psychological education that allows people to observe, based upon their own experience, how attitudes and thoughts shape the way we experience the world, and how that affects how we behave, and that has a kind of a loop-back effect. So we come to recognize that there’s a complex dynamic relationship between our perception of the world, what we bring to the world, and how we experience the world.

And then, of course, we have one of the central elements—the contemplative practice—which includes a series of guided meditations. We also have what we call informal practices, taken from the Tibetan mind-training teachings, where the instruction is, “Whatever you may encounter, bring them right now into your practice.” It’s a beautiful line in the mind-training practice.

Throughout the eight week course, whatever specific topic we are focusing on, we advise the course participants to use that particular week to try to see if they can find, in their everyday life, moments when they can actually use their experience as an informal practice.

We were surprised when we started the compassion cultivation work that we couldn’t start with the traditional Buddhist compassion meditations, because the first step is based on an understanding that self-care and self-compassion are instinctual. But we found that many of our Western students needed additional help to learn to have self-compassion; they couldn’t start with this as step one!

Perhaps a Tibetan quote from my book illustrates this: “Envy toward the above, competitiveness toward the equal, and contempt toward the lower.” These often lie at the root of dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

DB: I’ve heard people ask, “What if you’re mindful and present, and you’re feeling really bad about yourself and your situation?” That’s why you’re bringing it to this next level, so that when you are mindful, you can be mindful with compassion for yourself and others, even if you’re suffering with painful thoughts, situations, feelings or attitudes.
TJ: Exactly. Yes. For example, I don’t have any expertise in parenting—other than having parented my own two daughters. And having lived most of my life as a monk, I probably would be the last person to claim such expertise! But on the other hand, I do believe that one of the key dimensions of compassion is a sense of connectedness, which is the active ingredient of a relationship. Increasingly, modern research on happiness is pointing out that one of the major sources of happiness for ordinary folks like us is our intimate relationships, the important relationships in our lives.

Compassion and loving-kindness are very social emotions; they are sentiments and states of mind. My hope is that therapists like yourself will look into compassion training as a resource to incorporate into your own practice, so that you can better help people who are in difficult relationships, where something has broken down in the line of communication and in their relationship dynamic. If both sides are able to somehow return to their base, to what connected them in the first place, which is where there’s a genuine recognition of each other as individuals, but also there is a shared kind of affinity and identification with each other. It’s here that compassion training, and greater awareness of feelings and thoughts about compassion really have some resources to offer.

Attachment and Non-Attachment

DB: I’m eager to understand more from your book about how to integrate that with my own work with couples, for example. You have sections on why we fear compassion, breaking through resistance to compassion, turning intention into motivation, the benefits of focused awareness, “escaping the prison of excessive self-involvement,” expanding our circle of concern, how compassion makes us healthy and strong, and the way to a more compassionate world.

So let me ask about the question of non-attachment, which is such an important concept in Buddhism. In the Western sense, for child-rearing and marital and relationship issues, we talk about secure attachment. I have some ideas about the differences between the two and how they are actually compatible, even though on the surface they sound like they’re not. Can you share any thoughts on that particular point?
TJ: I think it’s a very important question.
Quite often, people get the wrong impression about Buddhist teachings on non-attachment and equanimity…. and think that compassion and equanimity from a Buddhist perspective means that we shouldn’t be favoring our own children.
Quite often, people get the wrong impression about Buddhist teachings on non-attachment, and also about equanimity. I have consciously avoided over-emphasizing the equanimity step in this compassion training, which is the first step in the Tibetan tradition, in which you view three different people, and then you even out your emotional reaction to all of them, and then build on that.

Sometimes people take the wrong message out of this and think that compassion and equanimity from a Buddhist perspective means that we shouldn’t be favoring our own children—that we shouldn’t love them more than a stranger’s kids. I don’t think that’s the correct interpretation.

Instead the message is that you should train your mind and heart to a point where you would be able to love the stranger’s children as much as you love your own. But sometimes the message is taken in the opposite direction, as a sort of a license to disregard your responsibility as parents.

Similarly with attachment, what the Buddhist teachings are asking is actually quite subtle. It’s asking us to have the kind of passion and the dedication that normally comes with attachment, and engagement, and focus and commitment, without that stickiness that generally comes with self-referential thinking. You know, “I care for this person because this person is my spouse.” Attachment, in the Buddhist sense, has that self-referential component. But trying to convey that in the English word “attachment” is very complicated. So, that’s why in this book I try to avoid even getting into that kind of confusion.
DB: One thing I get from the book, but also get from the experience of being with many people in couples therapy who are working on forgiveness and trying to reconnect, is the idea that you can take another person’s feelings seriously… but you don’t have to take their feelings personally.
TJ: That’s right. And that would be one way to reconcile the nonattachment versus secure attachment issue. To not be attached to the part of their feelings that you would react to as if you were being blamed, but at the same time to be attached in a caring way.

The Secular Approach

DB: Your book is very secular. Could you say something about what secular means to you? Particularly for people who assume Buddhism is a religion.
TJ: The way I use the word secular is how His Holiness the Dalai Lama uses it. It’s meant to be a perspective that is inclusive of all possible perspectives, including religious ones. In a sense, it’s a perspective grounded on a certain understanding of human nature and human condition that does not presuppose a particular religious orientation. So, for example, to bring in the Buddhist idea of successive lives would be to bring a very specific cultural perspective—but we don’t need to reference such beliefs. When we talk about compassion and its role in our life, and how it’s part of our innate nature, none of this requires subscribing to, nor is it contradictory with, a belief in rebirth, or in believing in some form of theistic understanding of the evolution of human life. That is the beauty of secular language. It’s a much more, I suppose, basic language—a basic way of talking about these things. Because in the end, regardless of all the differences of culture and language and religion, when it comes to everyday human experience and the human condition, we’re all the same, you know?

We are happy when someone loves us. We feel angry when someone threatens us. We are afraid when we are confronted with a danger. And we are sad when we experience loss. At this basic level, there’s nothing to differentiate us.
We are happy when someone loves us. We feel angry when someone threatens us. We are afraid when we are confronted with a danger. And we are sad when we experience loss. At this basic level, there’s nothing to differentiate us. It’s just the reality of the human condition. There must be a perspective and way of talking about the human experience that can address our condition at that fundamental level, and that’s the kind of language I was striving for.
DB: So let me come back to a fundamental issue with resistance to compassion. At dinner recently, one friend asked, “How can you be compassionate when you’re really angry at somebody?” And I said, “Well, maybe that’s why Jinpa titled the book A Fearless Heart.
TJ: Yes.

Compassion is Not Compliance

DB: Our anger is one of the resistances to being compassionate. We have difficulty being compassionate if we’re angry. One mistake we make is to think that compassion and compliance are one and the same. “If I really understand how upset you are, I’ll have to do what you want so you won’t be upset.”

But if we think of how we deal with a child who’s really upset—“I don’t want to go to bed. You’re a jerk, Daddy, for making me go to bed!” I can be compassionate and say, “I know, it’s really hard to be young sometimes… you see the grownups are staying up later and you think you’ll be missing out. Name-calling is not OK, but I know you don’t want to go to bed now. It’s really hard, but… you’re going to bed now!”
TJ: Yeah, exactly. That’s true. I love the way you put it. Compassion and compliance are not the same things. And there is confusion about this for a lot of people. Somehow, when they think of compassion, they think of “giving in” and just letting the other person do what he or she wants. That’s not really what compassion is all about. Compassion is being in a position, or being in a state of mind that understands the other person’s situation—not from your own perspective, but from the perspective of the other person—but at the same time, being able to bear in mind what is the best thing for you to do in that situation to help that other person. That may require firmness sometimes.
DB: And we also often live in an illusion or “paradigm of blame,” as if it’s a zero-sum game. So that, if we’re not blaming the other, we’re afraid the blame will come back at us and make it our own fault. The Buddhist ideas of dependent origination have something to say about that
TJ: I also think that one of the interesting things about Western culture is that—and maybe it has something with the Judeo-Christian heritage—justice is a very powerful concept, as is accountability for something that has happened. When you have accountability needs, you want someone to be responsible. When something has happened, someone has to be responsible. And if no one is responsible, then you feel something’s quite wrong.

There’s almost a terror that everything’s going to fall apart. And this is where, even in a personal relationship, you want to blame someone, or you want to take the blame upon yourself. Because it’s very difficult for a lot of people to try to understand, “Well, actually we are both responsible. And also there were certain things which are beyond our control.” That kind of nuanced approach, for a lot of people, is like explaining it away. It’s almost like not doing justice to the actual problem, and not taking it seriously. And this is one area where I think in the West, we do need to work a bit harder.

"I've Never Met a Stranger"

DB: I appreciate so much the gift of this time together and remember what you were saying earlier: The Dalai Lama’s comment that he has never met a stranger…
TJ: Yes…
DB: I think that the readers of this interview, as I now do, will feel that we have met you. So, I deeply thank you for this opportunity.
TJ: Thank you very much, David, and I look forward to seeing you in May in San Francisco.

NOTE: For information about A Fearless Heart book tour please see sacredstream.org or find him on Facebook.

**This interview was completed just a few days before the devastating earthquake which took thousands of lives in Nepal and also caused death and injuries in Tibet and India (where Jinpa was at the time the earthquake struck). If so moved, he recommends any donations can be sent to one of the below organizations.

The American Red Cross

UNHCR (UN refugee agency)