A post by NellaLou at the blog Enlightenment Ward has an imposing title -- "FLM: Dr. Feel-good and the Medicalization of Buddhism (with bonus book review of How to Become a Buddha in 5 Weeks-ouch)." But it's a serious, insightful piece that is well worth reading.
Buddhism, says Nellalou, "is being dismantled whole-sale to serve the powerful purposes of the medical-psychiatric establishment. " There is Buddhism in the West that hasn't been dismantled yet, but I agree that's a real danger.
Nellalou's primary point is that in the West there is way too much line blurring between Buddhism as religion/spiritual path/dharma and Buddhist practices as a therapeutic tools. This is a point I've tried to make also, such as in this post on "Secular Mindfulness."
I'm fine with people borrowing aspects of Buddhist practice, such as meditation, and using them in the context of psychotherapy or even another religion. But Buddhism itself is not just good mental health hygiene, and its purposes go way beyond feeling better about ourselves.
For an example of why confusing Buddhism with psychology is a problem, see "Ups, downs, expectations, and attachements: What the Buddha missed" by Jeremy Sherman, Ph.D., at Psychology Today. The author, an evolutionary epistemologist, interprets the Buddha's enlightenment as merely psychological self-improvement. Calling this reading superficial gives it too much credit.
But might it be the case that psychological applications are a dharma gate, a place where dharma may be discovered? Here NellaLou quotes Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
The question here in the West is whether we will learn from the Chinese example and start using Buddhist ideas to question our dharma gate, to see exactly how far the similarities between the gate and the actual dharma go. If we don't, we run the danger of mistaking the gate for the dharma itself, and of never going through it to the other side.
In the forum, we're having a discussion on Buddhism and self-improvement as a motivation. Certainly a lot of us enter into practice because we're unhappy with ourselves and our lives, and we think there's something that needs to be fixed. So, a motivation for self-improvement can be a kind of entry point. But as long as that is your motivation, you haven't yet walked through the gate.
Just so, a lot of people enthusiastically promoting Buddhism for its personal benefits haven't yet walked through the gate. They've mistaken the gate for the dharma itself, and haven't yet gone through to the other side. That's a very apt way of describing it.
I've got more to say on NellaLou's post, which I will save for another time.
Thanks for this post. NellaLou’s post was too long for me to read immediately, so I really appreciate you pulling out these important points for the rest of us.
Thank you Barbara for the mention of my writing. You’ve gotten right to the point.
Soka Gakai International Buddhism does not confuse buddhism and psychology. The historical Shakyamuni Buddha’s final teaching or Lotus Sutra titled Nam-Myo-Ho-Renge-Kyo point is that all individuals have a Buddha nature and can manifest this nature with no intermediary or no need to be born of a certain lineage as some other Buddhist groups refer to as a requirement. Yes Buddhism and the Buddha nature is accessible to all. As a psychotherapist and Soka Gakai International Buddhist there is no mixing of Buddhism and psychology promoted by SGI, this is simply incorrect. The point is that individuals take 100% respons-ability in a process we call human revolution towards individual happiness and world peace. This is why we have been so successful in promoting peace and continue to in 192 countries around the world. We believe in active engagement through peaceful dialogue and mutual respect. This is why we are well-respected by most who understand what buddhism is whether they practice or not. Faith, practice and study are key.
Luisa — a friendly warning; I don’t tolerate “my school of Buddhism is better than yours” comments. There will be no proselytizing here. It’s very annoying.
Other schools of Buddhism also are struggling to keep dharma separate from “self-improvement.”
In fact, it was through seeing a therapist that I discovered Buddhism. She didn’t do this intentionally, but in recommending a book by Tara Brach and also reading Pema Chodron in an issue of Shambhala Sun, she pointed me to the path over two years ago.
I want to add to my previous post that Buddhism gives me what therapy could not, a practical, ongoing way to free myself – and others – from suffering.
Why not?
why don’t take seriously the Buddha’s title of “medicine doctor”? Buddha’s disciples (as reported in Pali Scriptures) were described as “happy, well being, satisfied”…
Why an assment on human mind should not comprise psychology as we know it now? and maybe enlarge our restricted horizons? And why entlingtment shoudl not be described in psycological categories?
IMHO, The claims about trascendence of buddhism ar dangerous: each “truth” we can derive from Dharma should be verified by experience, and science is based on controlled experience.
I agree with Sam Harris: we buddists need some radical criticism about the trascendetal assets of our tradition. When I did so, i discovered the jewell of Dharma in my life.
P.S. Forgive my english
I am not english mother toungue 
Luisa, why so defensive? We’ve had a good dialog going with some SGI members and although I am still suspicious (I’m Jodo Shinshu, Nicheren said bad things about us).
Please, let’s not return to knee jerk reactions.
BTW, ‘Nam’ or ‘Namo’ means to take refuge in, it is not part of the tiltle of the sutra. When you say ‘Nam Myoho Renge Kyo’ you are saying that you take refuge in the Lotus Sutra. ‘Myoho Renge Kyo’ is the Japanese version of the Chinese term for that sutra.
I must add that I have seen little evidence of anyone having any success at all at “promoting peace”, much less SGI. I would love to hear some examples of this.
Hi Stefano
You raise good points. I agree that much of the Dharma could very wel be termed ‘psychology’. However, the field of ‘Psychology’ has it’s own tenets that are not compatible with Dharma. We aim for liberation for one, Psychology aims for ‘normal’, Freud said the best he hoped for was to reduce crippling terror into everyday misery, something like that, I can’t find the exact quote.
We have the other aspect of psychology to deal with and that is the den of thieves that push things like “the Secret” and all of that ‘law of attraction’ crap. They often veer into dharma subjects and by doing so denigrate it. Check out the Huffington Post ‘Living’ section. Worse than thieves. In the case of James Arthur Ray they kill too.
Yes, there is this question of whether — from the perspective of Buddha Dharma — there is value in becoming a “well-adjusted” member of a basically imbalanced, delusional, samsaric society?
All kinds of absolute/relative gymnastics we could get into
My basic take on it, as of today, is that it’s useful to “fit in” just enough so that one’s relationships with others can remain basically friendly; avoiding the kind of dis-ease that may interfere with one’s Dharma practice.
Here is what I found…in seeking to learn basic meditation skills, I have found in my brief going to groups or retreats that psychologist hang out there… whether they teach of are just part of the group. It’s almost a place where they look for clients.