陈寿文专栏

陈寿文专栏
chenshouwen.blog.tianya.cn
阅读·实修·转化

博客信息
博主:陈寿文 
博客登录
用户:
密码:
博客搜索
日志存档
统计信息
  • 访问:36155109 次
  • 日志: 1394篇
  • 评论: 5163 个
  • 留言: 76 个
  • 建站时间: 2006-2-22
博客成员
最近访客



文字炼金术,缓慢提纯,直到黑炭变成钻石。
心理治疗和禅修的治疗目标
<<上一篇 下一篇>>
作者:陈寿文 提交日期:2009-11-5 14:45:00 | 分类:读书 | 访问量:18416

心理治疗和禅修的治疗目标:自我呈现的发展阶段

【本文摘译自《Transformations of Consciousness》,1986,chapter 1】

⊙杰克.安格尔(Jack Engler)/ 著 ⊙李孟浩 / 译

作者简介

* 现任美国剑桥医院薛福精神科诊治中心的临床督导和哈佛医学院医学系的督导心理学家。他也是印度那烂陀佛学後研究机构的傅布莱会员,并曾在缅甸内观禅大师马哈希的传承下学习禅修,後任西方洞见禅修中心的指导员,专门教授内观禅。他也是超个人心理学杂志的编辑。


* 近年来,我尝试要想通一组有关自我感发展的临床议题。因为,有关这个夙称「自我」之心理结构的本性和地位的问题,一直从两方面来逼迫我展开思索。一方面,在我对精神分裂和边缘症患者的临床工作中,我发现他们深被自我主观感受的病理障碍所苦恼。我因此确信从存在中发展一持续性、认同性和进行性之感受,有很大的重要性。另一方面,在我教导佛教心理学和内观禅修(vippasana meditation)的经验中,也很明显地看出攀附个人的持续性和自我认同,会导致长期的不满和精神冲突。在我们生命中的每一刻,这个攀缘的心念让我们跟整个宇宙作对,而这个宇宙中任何事物其实只能持续一刹那,也就是说「事物」并不真实地存在,在这千分之一秒所构成的时间次序中,真正存在的只是事件而已。现在我们从心理物理学知道内在宇宙确是如此,我们的意象、思想、感受和感觉每刻都在变动不居。

当治疗师时,我尽一切努力帮助病人发展出内在的契合感、统一感和持续感,他们的悲剧往往就在於缺乏这种感受,才会有那么多毁灭性的结局。当禅修老师时,我也是尽一切努力帮学生看穿他们经验到的同一性和持续性知觉,其实是个幻觉,若照禅宗术语来说,就是了悟到无我。从这两种传统的心理学实习来看,我所辛苦搏斗的议题就在於自我感的重要性和其命运。我曾特别关心过个人禅修时带来的自我感,如何在禅修过程中消失,还有个人结束禅修时,又带走什么样的自我感。

我思索这个议题时,发觉到有一堆困难,特别是心理动态和佛教心理学的「自我」和「自身」等关键词,都在不同的文本脉络中使用,而且对於自我的发展和一个稳定的自身结构如何形成,都赋予不同的评价(对这些议题的相关讨论,可参见 Engler,1983a,此文侧重在精神分析面)。这两个术语很不幸地也在其传统文脉中失去定位,造成它们很有可能变成废话和口号。这让我们更难整理出关於自我心理结构的核心议题。比如说,「超越自我」常被提出来当做学生习禅的目标,但这对心理动态导向的治疗师却不具意义。就治疗师的立场而言,自我是个指称规约功能和统合功能的集体性术语,在这个脉络中,「超越自我」就意谓著要牺牲掉让我们人性化的机能--这个心理结构能让我们思考、计画、记忆、期望、组织、爱恋、自我反思、分辨幻觉和现实、对冲动和行为进行控制。所以,超越自我等於在指涉一种跟机械人或木偶一样的情境,很多损伤过自我能力的病人也是有这种退化或依赖的状况。从这个观点来看,去参加禅修的人实在是需要自我组织达到相当的成熟层次,方能观察到刹那生灭的身心过程,并发现那潜伏的恐惧、焦虑、羞辱、暴怒、沮丧、绝望、自我怀疑的情绪,甚至连出神状态都包含在内。因此,临床上而言,禅修应是增强自我,而比较不是超越自我。另一方面,自我心理学家总觉得从一切自我呈现中去除执著和消除认同的禅修目标,不是说绝不可能,就是有点怪异。但他们却能了解到要去修正或舍弃掉那些窒碍的、适应不良的或过度成长的自我呈现,以及能去断绝掉与客体的过度肥大或幼稚的联系,才能带来心理成长的原则。

在跟这些议题奋战的过程中,我已经发现只有「发展的模式」最适合用来解释临床资料和禅修资料,并且能让我们整合这两种观点,视其关系为互补的,而非竞争的。从这个研究取向来看,我选了「精神病理学的发展层谱概念」做为出发点,因为它即将在临床思维和实习中扮演一个重要角色。此概念的核心论题就是心理失调的病理发生过程会遵循一种发展性的年代次序,这一点可从心理动态-精神分析的研究(Mahler,1975;Masterson&Rinsley,1980)和发生-生物学的研究(Gottesmann&Schields,1972;Kety et al.,1968)中得到更多的例证。也就是说,人格组织和自我功能中不同病理质地的层次,都是从内向心灵发展(最重要的是客体关系的决定性方向)的不同阶段里的失败、阻滞和退化而来。不管末梢病源学是天生的脆弱(Stone,1980)、发展性的精神创伤或是两者的结合,这一点也都同样适用。

当我用禅修这个术语时,我所指涉的对象是佛教的内观或「洞见」禅,内观这个词表示它的目标是洞察出心灵运作的本性,而非意识状态的转变。虽然内观是由南传佛教的传统而来,它可说是禅修之定慧模式中慧见的纯粹形式(Goleman,1977)。修定是要把注意力长时间限定在单一的内在或外在对象上头,修慧则是要把注意力扩展到各种瞬间生起的心理或物理事件。修定会领我们在三摩地或专注的境界进展中,进入从感官输入撤离的过程,并有不断精良化的寂静感和福乐感。修慧则会领我们进入观察所有感官输入的过程,并看到一切现象都是无常、苦恼和非实体的。从佛教的观点来看,修定是暂时把冲动功能和高一级的知觉和理智功能压制下来,才能以免於冲突的运作功能,引发短暂的禅悦境界(注一)。但是,只有用修慧来带动精神结构的持久性转变,才能从一切苦中解脱出来(注二)(Nyanamoli,1976) 。

在现代来说,一般人都是用正念、无拣择的觉察或只是注意的训练,来描述内观禅。这种实修是「用念念分明的觉察力,照见知觉流中确实发生在我们身上的事物」(Nyanaponika,1973:30)。我们可用两个技术典范来界定只是注意,一为注意力部署的特定形式,一为处理情绪影响的特定方式。就认知上来说,注意是限定在对意识中刹那发生的思想、感受或感觉,做出精确的记录,却不进而加工改良。也就是说,禅修者只是记下思想、感受和感觉的起起落落的顺序而已。这就跟传统的心理治疗恰好相反,注意力都不放在它们的个别内容上。就情绪影响来说,这等於把所有的刺激都以平等心来注意,而不加以拣择或检查。这又再度跟传统的心理治疗恰好相反,注意力都要对所有知觉到的东西,保持免於任何反应的不动心状态。也就是说,禅修者尝试只是观照任何刺激情境,而不加以任何偏好、评论、判断、反省或解释。如果对这些刺激产生任何生理或心理反应的话,也是一样把它们记下来,然後纳为只是注意的对象。即使在注意中有什么差错发生,像分心、幻想、白日梦和内在对话等,禅修者一旦察觉,也是一样把它们纳为只是注意的对象。所以说,内观有三重的目标:认识个人的内在心理过程;开始有控制和修正它们的能力;最後能从幽暗和不受控制之心灵过程的制约中,得到解脱(Nyanaponika,1973)。

客体关系理论和佛教的自我议题

虽然佛教心理学和客体关系理论对自我发展的评价有所不同,可是令人讶异的是两者都以类似的方式来界定自我的本质。亦即,两者都认为从内在生活和外在现实的综合和适应过程中,会在作为「自身」之如是进行的存在感受里,产生一种个人持续感和同一感。客体关系理论把个人持续感和自身性解释为有关「自身」内在意象之逐渐分化的结果,以与客体的内化意象做出区别。而且,这些意象最後会凝结为一种混合的机制或自我的呈现(Jacobson,1964;Mahler,1975;Lichtenberg,1975;Kernberg,1976)。南传佛教的阿毘达心理学亦以类似的方式,把「我」感的出现解释为认同过程的最终产物,在此过程中会学到认取某些构成我感经验的五蕴(色蕴、受蕴、想蕴、行蕴、识蕴)(Narada,1975;Gunther,1974;Govinda,1974)。这个自身感就以「有身见(Sakkaya-ditthi,亦即个人信念)」来命名,正好精确地等同於客体关系理论的「自我呈现」。

所以,两种心理学都认为在时空流变的意识过程中,「自我」感并不是人格与生俱来的,亦非天生内在於我们的心理构成中,而是从我们的客体经验和互动类别中,逐渐发展演进而来。也就是说,「自身」是从我们对客体世界的经验中「建构」出来。这个我们这么当下认真当成「我」的「自身」,确实可以说是一个内在化的意象,一个混合过的呈现,而且这是由一种与我们有意味客体相遇後的选择性和想像性「回忆」所构成(Bruner,1964)。事实上,两种心理学都把自我看成是「每一瞬间都重新建构」的呈现物。虽然说是个呈现物,它可不是个固定的实体或图表的制定,而是分殊意象的时光流程。每个意象都代表一个当下经验中新的建构和新的综合(注三)。但是,两种心理学系统也都同意说我们平常不是如此经验到自我感的。一般我们说的自我感其实是一种时间的持续感和同一感,一种人际互动中的一致感,一种他人认定过的持续感和一致感,一种我们察知他人认定我就是如此的知觉(Erikson,1959)。

这两种心理学也同样把自我的命运当成核心的临床课题。从西元六世纪起,佛教的教义和实修就把无我原则和自我本性当成研究的核心。在精神分析思想的历史中,我们可说是比较後期才发现自我感的重要性。因为,早期的精神分析思想是被发展理论、冲动和神经症的治疗方式所占据,还想不到自我结构的重要性(Tolpin,1980)。从历史来看,对一不受伊底帕斯情结所苦病人的负面治疗结果(Freud,1937),最後引人发现了客体关系发展和病理学有两种差异分明的层次:(1)早期客体关系的失败,特别是就自我和他人的分化和自我一致感的整合而言;和(2)稍後为此已分化和整合过的自我,来与受压抑的冲突和伊底帕斯对象,进行防卫性的抗争(Fairbairn,1954;Guntrip,1961、1969;Winnicott,1965;Kernberg,1975、1976; Blanck&Blanck,1974、1979;Horner,1979)。罡利普(Guntrip)就曾指出这种发现「或许是本世纪对人格问题研究的重要发现」(1971:147)。近十年来,这个发现也引生了「发展性诊断层谱」的论题(Rinsley,1981),把各种临床症候群都看成是在发展的特定阶段中产生。这种对现在称为边缘情境和人格失调(居於精神病和精神官能症之间的运作层次)的新了解,事实上把现行的临床注意力聚焦在分隔化-个体化的过程,这过程发生在前伊底帕斯发展期,此阶段的主要课题是个别化、整合过、和与客体关联过的自我分化,分化的成败将是决定你循正常或异常进路来发展的主要因素。

就如我一开头所说,临床医学和禅修体系对於自我命运的观点似乎是全然相对反的。这就是整个问题的关键所在。从客体关系理论来看,最深层的精神病理学问题可以说是「自我感的缺乏」。因为,像幼儿自闭症、共生性和功能性精神病、边缘情境等最严重的临床症候群,正是在建立一致的、整合的自我(Kohut,1971、1977)或自我概念(Kernberg,1975、1976)之过程中,所发生的失败、滞碍和退化。虽然严重程度有很多不同层级,但这一切都代表了自身的失调(Goldberg,1980),没有能力去感觉真实、一致性或「存在的实然(in being)」等一切。

从佛教观点来看,最深层的精神病理学问题反而是「自我的呈现和自身性的感觉」。根据佛学者的诊断,苦恼的最深层根源在於保存自我的尝试,而这种尝试是徒然无效的和自我挫败的。所以,精神病理学的最严重形式就是「我执(attavadupadana,亦即对个人存在的攀缘)」(Nyanamoil,1976;Nyanatiloka,1972 )。

在对於严重失调的临床诊治中,最重要的治疗课题就是如何能够「再成长」出自身的基本感受(Guntrip,1969),或是如何分化出和整合出一稳定的、一致的和耐久的自我呈现(Kernberg,1976)。佛学者修行的治疗课题则是如何「看穿」自我的幻觉或建构,如是如何解构掉那些「建筑我们个人身份经验的本质性认同」(Jacobson,1964:xii)。所以,从佛学者的析来看,自我心理学所说的客体关系方向所达成的两个伟大的发展成就-身份和客体恒常性-正是心理苦恼的根源。

也因此对我来说,在转化过程中的自我命运变成一种实验性的个案,以观察这两种治疗目标是如表面上看来相互排斥?或从一个更宽广的角度来看,它们搞不好是相容的?的确,也有可能两者之一会是另一的前提条件?最後这点也是我後来达成的看法。简单来说,这个看法就是你必须先作为某人,才能什么人都不是。

我会朝这个方向走,是因为我有次幸运地无意中听到一段临床心理学家和亚洲禅修教师的精彩谈话,他们是在讨论两人对於厌食症患者的各自诊治方式,对我启发很大。这位禅修老师是第一次来到美国,对於处理心疾的心理治疗取向很感兴趣。临床心理师则在试图描述一位厌食女性的高困难个案,因为她非常难以治癒。这位老师很快就投入个案的情况,问了一大堆病情和诊治方面的问题。当心理学家结束後,我问这位老师为何对此那么感兴趣。他说自己在缅甸(Burma)的禅修中心,也碰到一位有相同问题的女性。此外,她也受苦於长期性的失眠。她要来学习禅修,可能是认为这会带给她一些舒解。我就问他有教她吗?令我惊讶的是他说「不」。在六个礼拜里,他只是让她每天来抱怨她老公、小孩、双亲和生活的种种不公。他几乎都是在听而已,也有跟她说一些话,不过他并没描述他所说为何。那么,她「疗程」的第一部分是经由人际关系的形式来导入。然後,他鼓励她去睡,她短时间内开始把一夜的睡眠时间由四小时拉长到十八小时。她於是找他说「我睡够了,我要来学习禅修。」

他的回答又令我再度惊讶,因为他说「不,别修内观,那有太多苦恼。」其实,她首先需要的是从心理烦燥中得到舒缓和平静,以得到一些幸福和喜悦。这样,她才能进而能够容忍那深层的洞见,因为她看到的将不只是个人史中的兴败荣枯,而是她整个身心状态都是在变动之中,并与苦恼有所关联。既然修定能令人专一、宁静和福乐,他便教她数息。她的睡眠时间渐渐便由十八小时缩短到两小时,因为这就够她睡饱了。在这时後,他才教她转修内观,开始叫她观察身心事件瞬间流动,以直接体会到它们的极端无常性、挫败性和无我性。她花了三个礼拜来将心打开,并证到初果。从此,她就再也没有失眠过了。这虽然不能算是一个临床个案的研究。可是,它也宣示了一种精神病理学有不同层次的原则,而这些病理层次的根源也植基於心理发展不同阶段中的扭曲、阻滞和失败,并且需要不同的诊治取向或不同型态的治疗方法。实际上,自我心理学家也不再以涵盖一切的意味来使用发展阶段,而是以不同的「发展方向」(Ana Freud,1963)来思考,因为在任何既定时刻的心灵组织都是由这些发展阶段之间的关系和心理功能来建构。在这些分殊的发展方向之中,我们有很好的理由来相信客体关系的方向,因为它可说是发展层次、心理健康、精神病理学和治疗潜能中最重要和最可靠的决定因素(Mahler,1975;Kern-berg,1976; Blanck&Blanck,19749;Horner,1979;Rinsley,1981)。

客体关系指的是有关於个人与人际对象之间互动经验的程序与品质,这个人际对象特别是指原始抚育者(primary caretaker)而言。而这些互动经验也会被内化为「自身」和「客体」的双重呈现,这些内心呈现都有情绪影响力,且会被烧录下「好」或「坏」的记忆痕迹。这些多样化的自身和客体呈现会逐渐凝聚成一份有关自身和客体的复杂图表。於是,这些呈现被当成为内向心灵结构的发展基础,也当然是自我感的发展基础。所以,我认为以客体关系为主的发展观点提供了一条线索,可以帮我们在治疗性干预的模式中,找出佛学和心理动态系统的定位,并解释它们的方法和目标为何有明显的冲突。

就让我从教学经验的观察中,举出被佛教仪规所吸引住的学生类型,和他们通常练习时常遵循的过程。

禅修的临床特徵
以内观体系的古典阶段来说,第一个特徵为「进展是相对地缓慢」。布朗医师(Daniel Brown)和我已在罗夏墨渍测验的研究(请见第六章)中,确认了这一点。在连续三个月密集内观修行的情况下,一大半三十岁新修团体的成员不管是在习後测验或教师评量等方面,都没什么大的改变(注释五)。後来,我在印度和缅甸的研究结果(Engler,1983b)也支持了这个发现,不过亚洲行人的进展速度比较快,可是他们花在避静环境中密集修行上的时间却比较少。大部分的人只花了一、两个礼拜的避静时间,就体验到初果(注释六)。然後,他们就在家居生活的平常作息之中继续修下去(注释七)。

第二个特徵是西方学生会变得固著在可说是「经验的精神动态层次(Brown
& Engler,1980)」上头。他们的修行逐渐被原始的思维程序和「非现实的经验(Maupin,1965)」所盘据,比如幻想、白日梦、沉醉曲、意象、过往记忆的自发性回想、冲突资料的解禁、不停想来想去和情绪动荡的实验都会增加(M. Sayadaw,1973;Walsh,1977、1978;Kornfield,1979;Kapleau)。

第三个特徵是「对老师发展出强烈的移情」。这些现象通常看起来是寇哈特所说的镜映或理想化的类型。一开始,在师生关系的脉络中,学生会有找一个能接受和肯定他的「回映」来源的需求。接下来,学生会有和涌出「理想化」力量和宁静感来源融合的需要(Kohut & Wolf,1978)(注释九)。有时候,我们会碰到另一种性质混乱的移情类型,完全被在全能感和贬抑感两极之间极端快速的摆荡所吞没。

我们要如何运用这些观察成果?它们又要如何解释呢?禅修老师通常把它们归因於学生心态的一些因素。一般来说,第一个因素是学生「缺乏能耐去发展足够的定力」。因为,在能足以密切观察身心过程,以修到内观禅的开悟目标之前,先达到某种心不动摇和专一注意的定力程度,其实是必要的。这种把注意力稳稳地固定在当下浮现的身心事件之上的能耐,是南传佛教领袖中尊贵的马哈希大师(1973)所强调的。以专业术语来说,这种能耐被称为「近行定(upacara-samadhi)」,因为它是进入内观禅诸阶段的前提(Vajiranana,1975)。

此外,老师也指出学生会有「变成沉浸在意识内容,而不继续观照意识过程的倾向」。也就是说,学生会全神贯注於个人的思想、意象、记忆、感觉等等东西,反而忘了要别管内容为何,只管一直观照所有身心事件的本质特徵:它们的无常性、它们无法满足最简便的欲望、它们缺乏持久的实体性、它们对也是刻刻变迁中之因缘条件的依赖性。当禅修者在早期修行阶段时,首次进入他内心那宽广、奇异、震惊中又令人兴奋和迷惑的经验世界中,就一定会产生这种黏著於意识内容的倾向。事实上,这种倾向可能和单纯主体开始探索其它低度觉识状态的情形,没有什么本质上的不同。这些状态有催眠、梦幻沉醉和自由联想。比如说,使用罗夏墨渍测验的话,就可看出催眠对象的原始程序思维有类似的增加倾向(Fromm,Oberlander & Gruenewald,1970),经历精神分析的患者也是一样(Rehyer,1969)。也许,对内在心理氛围的适应是任何意识之低觉识状态的一般风貌,而与禅修的「特殊性」(Tart,1975a)没什么关系。由於西方文化中「治疗学得到胜利」(Rieff,1966),也就有一种把治疗和禅修相混淆的倾向,并用分析心理内容的方式来取代纯粹观照的方式。在东西方所有修行传统中,这是一个典型的障碍。此外,某些文化因素也会助长这种黏著於意识内容的倾向。就跟一个文化的焦虑产生会在想像性参与的代价下,对於外在适应和现实范围施加不少压力(Hilgard,1970)。同样的,对於内在经验流的长期适应也许是必要的。所以,西方学生在「禅修」时,未必符合禅修的形式意义。有人最近问一位亚洲来访的内观禅老师这些学生做得如何时,他回答说:「许多西方学生不是在禅修,而是在治疗。他们无法深入正念之中。」

第三个因素是学生把禅修当成一个「孤立技巧的练习」,而不管许多其他重要的行为、动机、内向心灵和人际的因素,像正命、正业、正见和正念这些具治疗作用的文化脉络。这是因为禅修移植到西方时,已经从被佛教观点和价值渗透过的文化脉络中拔离出来,这些文化脉络其实是属於一个生活方式和整体性的训练系统。佛教训练或发展的八正道包括了正思维、正业、正命、正语、正精进,还有正念和正定。缅甸大师们也常常引用这些通向涅盘的正确途径。

但是,我身为一个临床训练师,却有不同的观察。我看到这些学生在身份感和自尊上头,有特殊的脆弱性和困扰。以最好的情形来说,这看起来是反映了认同形成的阶段性和适龄性的发展问题(Erikson,1950、1956)。 这一点特别适用於两种热衷佛教避静的团体。一种团体是青年期後期(later adolescence)和快入成年期前期(early adulthood)的人,另一种团体是刚入或已在更年期的人(Levinson,1978)。这两个团体的人把佛教修行当成一种捷径,好用来迅速解决他们生涯阶段所面临之必要的和恰当的发展课题。所以,他们常把佛教的无我教义,错误解释为我不需要为认同形成的课题来奋斗,或是我不需要努力去发现我是谁、我的能力是如何、我的需求是什么、我的责任是什么、我如何去跟他人来往和我应该或能够为我的人生做什么。也就是说,他们拿无我原则,来正当化他们对核心发展课题的幼稚性放弃。

如果以最糟的情形来说,这些个人身份感的脆弱和困扰是自身主体感的病理性困扰,寇哈特可能会把这称为「自身病理学」或「结构性缺陷病理学」(Kohut,1971、1977)。虽然在没有临床评估的情形下,这必须要小心一点。可是,我仍然怀疑有些学生是在接近自我组织的边缘性层级中运作。在这里,我是把「边缘性」这个命名的精神结构性意味,指涉那人格组织和功能的「层级」,而非指涉一人格类型或角色失调(注释十)。它代表了一种介於精神病和精神官能症之间的人格特徵失调群,这种失调是「稳稳地不稳定( stablyunstablr)」(Schmiedeberg,1974),在两种病症的连续体中具有症候性和发展性的转移特性。这类失调群共享一个核心症候学,有相似的客体关系,也有共通的病理发生学。很多研究者相信在早期客体关系发展的分隔-个体化过程中的扭曲和阻,就是失调群的发生根源。根据某重要学派的想法,边缘性人格组织的主要面貌便是「认同延伸(identity diffusion)」(Kernberg, 1976)。

既然边缘性人格组织中的整合已经失败了,内在化的客体关系就会采取所谓的「分裂的客体关系单元」(Masterson&Rinsley,1980)。也就是说,一个人的自我、他人和外在事件都会根据快乐原则,被当成「全好(all-good)」或「全坏(all-bad)」的东西。如果它们看来是令人满足的、能供应的,就是全好型;如果它们看来是很保留的、困扰的或剥夺人的,就是全坏型。所以,自我和他人的许多重要侧面就这样彼此主动解离开了,并由分裂化的原始防卫机制拆开,并让人产生一种各侧面都相对立或相冲突的态度。於是,这也导致了一种在相对立的自我状态和自身及客体世界经验之间,有相当令人混淆的替代作用:一下是神奇地有力量的、有益的和善良的;一下是令人困扰的、会吞没人的、震惊的和邪恶的。这种全好全坏式的知觉性二分对立会伴随著等级不同的「不完全自身客体分化(incomplete self-object differentiation )」。因此,这种介於自身和世界的流动性界限会让边缘性人格变得很脆弱,容易有人格解离和异化、自身和客体的化性退却(regressive refusions),或是在压力情境下有「心理异常诊断与统计手册第三版」所称的「暂时活跃性精神症」。如果压制失败的话,也一样会在人格各部分之间形成流动性的内在界限。由於,原始驱力、情绪影响、以及自身和客体的呈现已经有通往意识的现成管道,「内在」和「外在」就靠原始防卫机制来处置了,这些机制有否认、投射性认同、原始性理想化、尤其是分裂。

对於有自身病理症个体而言的佛教吸引力
以我的经验来说,佛教能对边缘性组织的个体产生一种特别的吸引力。这个吸引力有一部分,很明确地就在於无我原则的身上。因此,这有助於解释和合理化他们为什么缺乏自我整合的能力、以及他们的内在很虚无又没一个契合性自身的感觉,虽然这种合理化方式是有点不正当的。我想起一位加州大学修我佛教课的学生,他就是无法分清楚他自己的状态和开悟境界有何不同之处。由於他自认已经开悟,因此禅修是多余的。根据他自己的描述,它一直活在「毫无自我」的深奥状态里。可是,随著他对我的知觉在两极之间摆荡,我们的课程也就跟著激昂起来。在某堂课时,我俨然是位理想化的全知老师,会赏识他热情的深度、心智的原创性和洞见的压迫流。下一堂课时,我又被他愤怒地贬价,说我不同情他的苦难,就像其他人一样不了解他的独特贡献,根本对他没有帮助。他不是依附我,便是用一种不友善的优越感来不理睬我,表示他全然自足的样子。对於这些人格而言,无我观念和他们确实的自我概念之间有某种吻合性,就跟哈特曼所说在心灵和预期环境之间有个「前适应性的符合」一样。所以,他们也把不执著的教义,拿来合理化他们为何没有能耐去形成一个稳定、持续又满足的关系。

这种全知全能和贬低身价的交替情形,其实就是因为缺乏一个契合的和整合的自我,才会由影响著自身和客体呈现的分裂化过程中衍生出来。而且,全知全能 /贬低身价的性格防卫由於无法整合全好和全坏的主客呈现,可说是遍布於整个边缘症的系谱中。因此,这种性格防卫并不必然指涉自恋性的人格失调。在此,我们判定那些未经临床评估过的学生情况时,又要小心一点。不过,在我印象中,自恋性人格算是那些身处自我组织边缘层次之禅修者中颇大的次团体。对於这种人格结构的自恋类型和边缘范围而言,佛教有两个特殊的吸引力。第一个吸引力是开悟的观念,这被描绘为人格完美的顶点,去除了所有心理污染和结缚。也就是说,它代表了一种圆满的和坚强的自足性,这种驱除掉所有坏事物的完美境界可以说是一切自恋性挣扎所要达到的目标。对这类人来说,「完美」经常在潜意识中意指不患心理症状的自由,这样他们才能比其他人优越。第二个吸引力则在灵修老师身上,因为老师可充当他们自恋性转移的理想类型和反映对象。他们常会把老师当成很有权威和令人崇敬的尊贵人物,并乐於分沾一下老师的光环。事实上,那些转移关系的类型是很常发生的,这就强烈地暗示了禅修会吸引在自恋层次上运作的人格。

从临床观点来看,我逐渐相信可以替某些禅修学生所碰到的特定困难,找到一个从人格组织和自我功能层次来谈的新解释,而不必用古典所说的「业障 」,或是用文化情境的独特面貌来解释。所以,很吊诡的是说,禅修的自我舍离若非不可能的事,那么它之所以困难的原因正在於他们的自身病理、他们形成完整主客呈现时的结构性缺陷,和他们最後所欠缺的自我契合感和整合感。

我们要认识到很重要的一点,就是说自身病理学并不是由人格或性格类型来决定,也更少由症候群来决定。因为,几乎所有一般人认为的人格类型都可在人格「组织」的任何层次萌生:健全、神精神官能症、边缘症或精神病。即使是在精神官能症的结构中,也有更严重的病理性格类型-精神分裂、妄想症、童稚-会发生(Stone,1980)。史栋(Stone)也有建议说,从每一性格或人格类型的连续体来思考,会比只从最轻到最重的病理症候来排比,在临床上更为管用。他由此提出一个有希望成功的人格型态学的三次元模式,从人格类型、人格组织层次到建构性或发生性的装载。在临床精神医学来说,这种结构和性格之间的区分也是才开始明朗化起来,并代表一种诊断学了解上的突破。古代的禅修传统则是老把人格纳入考量,因为他们已替每种特定类型的人定作好特定的修行方式。印度教的四种瑜珈系统或许就是一个很好的古典案例,因为知识(jnan)瑜珈、虔诚(bhakti)瑜珈、业行(karma)瑜珈和胜王(raj)瑜珈就分别适用於知性的、虔敬的、行动的和实验的气质倾向(Vivekananda,1953)。但是,这些型态就跟西方早期精神医学的诊断范畴和分类系统一样,属於人格类型的特定类别,而不是人格组织的层次。因为,人格组织的层次跨越了性格、行为和气质。所以,如果佛教吸引了一票有边缘性或自恋性人格组织的学生,那么它对待人格的传统类型式思考,就不会让老师或学生去认识到边缘性或自恋性人格组织的存在。

从临床实务的最近几股潮流来看,这种佛教吸引力并不令人讶异。因为,

我们精神症状学的重点已从精神官能性失调和精神性失调,转移至临床上愈易碰到的边缘性失调和性格失调上头。既然精神治疗领域已碰到很多这样的人来求诊,所以我怀疑有更多人尝试求助於新所谓的「创新治疗法」,这种治疗法的作用就跟禅修一样吧!

人格组织的先决条件层次

对於自我功能和人格组织的层次,或是精神病理学的这片范围,佛教心理学并没什么好多说的。它不会从错谬的早期客体关系发展中,来用自我的结构性缺陷,对自身病理学来做详尽的解说。也就是说,佛教心理学从来没有用心经营一个西方意味下的发展心理学,因此它并没有儿童发展理论,也不像印度教一样编制出人类生命循环的概念。而且,它也没有一个精神病理学的发展观点,也就不会根据病源学,来把心理失调的不同层次沿著发展的连续体做一安置。反而,佛教心理学和实修所做的是「预设」一个发展的正常过程和一个健全的或「正常的」自我。也就是说,佛教的实修「假定」了一个客体关系发展已完成的人格组织层次,特别是自我的契合感和整合感。如果老师或学生都不了解这个正常自身性的前提,就会有一些很明显的危险。学生也许会误把空洞的主观感受,当成「空性(sunyata)」;可能也会把内在不契合和片断的感受,当成无我。老师也许会把针对不同人格层次而设计的技巧,不分青红皂白地叫学生练习,但是这些技巧对某些学生会有不同的效应出现。

就像心理动态的治疗法一样,内观禅也是一种「揭露性」的技巧( BLanck& Blanck,1974),并用了一些很像精神分析和相关系统所运用的技术程序。

1.「技术中立性」。注意要保持「单只是」的状态,要限定在只是记录所观察到的身心事件,却不加以反应(Nyanaponika,1973;Kornfield,1977;Goldstein,1976)。任何反应或进一步的运作都会被立即纳为只是注意的对象,而不加以压制或探索。

2.「去除督查」。任何一切的思想、感受和感觉都被允许去觉察,而不加以拣择或区分。这在某种程度来说当然是一种目标或结果,而非一种从最外围开始练习的技巧,就跟自由联想能力被说成是成功分析的结果一样,它是要学习的。这也就跟精神分析中自由联想的「基本规则」一样,不要强行设定任何督查原则。分析师虽然指出这种自由联想情境的优越独特性,但是这种分析也不如他们所想的那样特别,因为此类分析的「基本规则」也在很多禅修传统中运用了将近两千五百年之久。

3.「戒除享乐」。目标在於观察,而非希望、冲动、欲望和奋斗的满足。就跟精神分析一样,内观并不鼓励只是卸除情绪、不反应、情感净化或用动作来表达而已。两种实习都仰仗一种延迟满足的能力,以获得终极的洞察和深层的了解。

4.「自我的治疗性分裂」。禅修者所接受的指示就是要变成他自己经验的「见证人」。这就有赖於自我可同时作为经验之主体和客体的能力(Sterba,1934),用专业术语来说,就是要有向後退的能力,以客观地观察你当下所经验的事物。(注释十一)

这四个程序都预设了一定的自我能力,这些能力足以决定人格组织和自我功能的层次是正常或是精神官能症。对边缘性人格组织而言,这些对一般人是理所当然的能力不是很欠缺,就是已遭受严重损伤。因此,对於自身和他人呈现只能做到贫乏分化和微弱整合的个人而言,是不能够忍受揭露技巧的。

揭露和解释之所以对这些人无法奏效,是因为错误的自身客体分化,使得观察我不能对於观察物保持距离。对於原始防卫机制的依赖,如投射性认同在坏的主客意象之间投射与再内射的恶性循环,也让这些人无法分清楚幻想和现实,更会导致超然观察能力的严重损伤(Kernberg,1972)。这种分清楚真实和移情的能力很容易丧失,而且它是洞见治疗法的主要前提(Zetzel,1971)。有这些缺陷的个体,通常不能长时间容忍在移情反应中出现的痛苦情绪影响。戒除享乐和延後满足也变得无法容忍,因为相冲突的情绪影响和和冲动都很接近意识,想要被表达和动作化出来。既然,爱与恨、欲望和恐惧仍然是彼佌解离,这相对反的自我状态又没有彼此缓和对方苛待力量的影响作用,就会造成自我经常被无法应付的急迫性冲动和情绪影响所击溃的结局。这些人就是缺乏坚强的整合能力,才会让自由联想被原始程序思维所污染,而无法接受理性的检阅,并被原始的情绪影响和冲动所吞没。这种边缘性人格的退化是很难逆转的,跟为自我服务的控制性退化不一样,後者较能为有组织的人格所忍受(BLanck& Blanck,1979)。

内观作为一个洞见导向的治疗法而言(Dewald,1979),对在这些层次有病理运作的学生来说,是有很严重的危险。对这些学生来讲,所有强烈性或没有结构的治疗法都是很可观的危险(Zetzel,1971),很可能会让他们已经脆弱和敏感的自我觉受更加破碎。

内观的「基本规则」既然是觉察所有思想、感受和感觉,而不加以拣择或区别,就会在精神内部有产生类似未结构化情境的效果,并让这一类的学生陷入他难以应付的内在世界。那么,不但他脆弱的自我边界会更加模糊不清,主客呈现也会无法分化。若要管制好原始驱力和情绪的汹涌波浪的话,就只有更加仰仗划分好坏的否认和分裂机制。这些学生在修行时,就会在这一极的大愤怒、空虚和沮丧状态,与另一极的大安乐、福佑或是伪造一自我超越性融合的假神秘感状态之间摆荡。这些摆荡会进而弱化自我,并变为抗拒整合冲突经验的强化根据。某些学生的自恋病理症会引发他们形成反映式或理想化的移情,因为他们有理想化的原始需要,和把自己及他人交替视为全能和没价值的原始需要。当老师拒绝符合他们的期望时,他们就不会再经验到满足的关系,负向的移情反应便会出现,而有威胁著要退化的样子(Kernberg,1972)。

每一位老师都碰过这种情形,而且多少都会有点楞住,不知道它的起源为何。当人际关系还没达到客体恒常性的层级时,就无法把同样的对象当成同时是好坏兼具、令人困扰而又满足,每一个负面的主客经验便是对於自我结构和稳定性的威胁,并进而会弱化个人与生理上和情绪上依赖对象保持关系的能力,即使他们经验到剥夺感或处罚感。禅修老师并不把注意力放在师生关系的移情面向,因为修行中带领对治过程的不是一般心理治疗中的关系。可是,这就要付出一些代价了。我们可以从梅宁哲基金会的心理治疗研究计划中,反复观察到当治疗师想要躲避潜在的负向移情关系时,就会造成一种长期性的表层治疗关系。个案虽然表达了他们的问题,却严格地把疗程与对治疗师的移情分隔开来。(这或许可以解释禅修避静中有时候会碰到的现象,那就是感官满足的延常性迷醉【这个字眼的意味没那么强】,与禅修原先拥护的行为和价值有所差异。对某些人而言,这是「疗程外」的表达形式,而不是压抑的冲动和欲望重新复活,以及爆炸性的释放。)他们对治疗师假装服从的结果便是治疗的僵局,没有改变,只有把治疗一直拖下去。在边缘症情形下,原本要设计来看穿自我幻象的禅修方式,甚至会糟到有助於自身病理症的发生。还好的是,我猜禅修那严峻的先决条件会让那些学生不容易持续他们的训练下去。以某种范围来说,这表示自我拣择和自我防卫的机制已经内建好了。

自我结构的不同处指出了治疗目标和技术也要有所不同。在边缘症情况下的治疗目标是要建立结构,不是揭露压抑:催化那整合矛盾的主客意象和情绪的过程,以建立自我的契合感和稳定感,以便能在面对失望、困扰和失落时,与客体仍可保持坚定的关系。既然这些人格的发展性缺陷,最好是从早期一对一关系中所建立的自我功能和结构来了解,最好的治疗可能就是透过一种崭新的两人关系,这是过去他们在早期发展危机时所没能完成的(Zetel,1971),而不是透过一种像禅修一般的心灵内省活动。如果仅只是观察矛盾的自我状态,能否有助於整合自身、客体和情绪的解离面,是值得存疑的。甚至在这种情形下的自我观察是否可能,也是可存疑的。真正需要的是把移情关系中所发生的分裂开来的客体关系单元,好好做一个面对和解释性的揭露(Rinsley,1977)。禅修则是设计来应付不同的问题型态和自我结构的不同层次。

从我的观察来看,为了要练习像内观那样的「揭露」技术,并完成修行的结构转变性目标,首先去获得一个契合的和整合的自我,在发展过程上是必要的。因为,这种自我已和他人分化开来,并有某种程度的自主性。如果没建立这种自我,就会有一连串的病理後果。事实上,若没这种自我,就会形成最严重的临床症候群。在早期依附和联结的失败,会导致孤僻的和精神失常的人格结构(Bowlby,1969),以及前共生的精神症(Mahler,1968)。在自我分化上头的失败,则会导致精神分裂和精神病症候(Mahler,1968)。在自身和客体整合上的失败,则会导致边缘情况和人格失调(Mahler,1975;Kernberg,1975;Horner,1979; Masterson&Rinsley,1980;Masterson,1972)。这一切都是强烈苦恼的状态,可是禅修在此不是一有效或可行的疗法。内观禅并没处理过这个范围的精神病理学,也不是为它们而设计,甚至可能在意涵上相冲突。虽然,有些前行和专注训练有时凑巧能帮助长期性紧张状态的缓降,以及引生一个更大的内在控制场所。

客体关系发展和精神病理学的范围扩展

除了自我的契合感和整合感这个发展上的必要性外,我们还是可以问说这样的自身结构是否代表了客体观系发展的完成,或是治疗过程的最终可能结果。当然,认同形成的过程可以说是永未完成的。马荷(Mahler)她把分隔-个体化次阶段的结果,描述为「一路往客体恒常性走」。布劳斯(Peter Blos)(1967)也提到青春期有「第二次个体化的过程」。艾瑞克森(Erikson)(1950)则描摹了一辈子的认同之旅。不过,大部分人的全面性内向心灵结构的凝结,都是在伊底帕斯末尾时发生的,那时期压抑性障碍或多或少都稳稳建立好了。所以,认同就变得愈来愈具拣选性(Kernberg,1976)。而与个人自我感有不一致和自我振奋不良(ego-dystonic)的东西就都被压抑了,虽然这对自我契合的维持是个很根本的过程。但正是由於这种压抑,人格组织的层次中才会出现一种新型态的精神病理学:精神官能症。所以,问题核心已不在於缺乏自我的分化和整合,而在於自我和本能愿望之间的冲突。这些本能愿望通常并不为新凝结的自我所接受,所以不是被压抑,就是被抗拒。这种自我结构中「质地上的差异」(BLanck& Blanck,1974)和由此造成的病理学型态,都需要有治疗取向上有质地不同的型态。在这个层次上,治疗课题便不是建立内向心灵的结构,而是整合自我的不同压抑侧面,去「重新与意识自我统合那些内容......藉由压抑而从意识撤离开来」(Fenichel,1945:570)(注释十二)。

可是根据佛教心理学的立场来看,在这个人格组织的层次中,可以看到人类苦恼有个更深的层次。这类苦恼可说是建立了另一种「精神病理学的结构性层次」,这与前两种病理学有质地上的不同,也没被当代西方精神医学的发展性诊断层谱所含括。很显然的一点是只有在认同和客体恒常性已达成後,它才能进入大家的视野,并在治疗上被宣称。

假定我的能耐很多,可以技术中立或「单只是」注意,可以无拣择地觉察,可以戒除享乐,也可以自我观察。更进一步假定我没有沉浸在内在世界的内容中,也没有停下来分析或解释它。再假定我能持续训练我的注意力,只观察每一刹那浮现的身心事件流,而无偏好或反应。最後,假定我能长时段地绝对稳固住注意力,而无任何分心之举。那我能对自我和客体的本性有更多的发现吗?

内观禅的阶段
第一个发现可以说是如南传佛教禅修文献所提的「驱除常见包装的幻觉」。我作为一个独立观察者的感受消逝了。我是一个固定的、持续的观察点,一下子把不同客体看这看那的感受,也被驱除了。就跟视域速视器的闪光融合现象一样,分殊而又不连续的意象以超过正常知觉可分辨的速度闪动时,就会产生一个「客体」的幻觉,在我观察或经验背後的独立观察者或经验者感受,也显示为知觉幻象的结果,因为我不能知觉到事件的微观层次。当我的注意力已经训练得很精良,又没有二次性的反应和刺激的加工处理,所有刹那间的一切看来都是身心事件和对此事件的觉察而已。在每一个刹那,仅只有名(nama)和色(rupa)的过程。每一个都个别地和同时地在觉识的刹那中生起。在它们所归属的这些刹那事件背後或旁边,发现不到一个持久的或实体性的存有、观察者、经验者或经纪人。
              S=自身     
              O=客体  
左列所假设的关系,被发现为实际上是右列的关系。也就是说,先前以视域速视器姿态来融合在正常知觉中的个人「架构」,可以产生一个显然很坚实和固定的「自身」或「客体」的意象(注释十三)。在此层次上唯一可观察到的实在,便是身心事件流自身而已,没有观察者的觉识,只有观察的个别刹那而已(注释十四)。

一旦注意力在知觉的这个层次上稳定後,对於主客呈现的潜在本性就当然能有更为精良的洞察。我观察到一个自身呈现是如何在每一刹那与客体的互动中建构出来(注释十五),并只作为如此互动的结果。以及相反地来看,一个客体是如何不在其自身(不管那意谓什么),而总是相关於我的观察状态。我看到先前的原因是如何运作,而能限定每一刹那的主客呈现,以及每一刹那如何限定下一刹那。我以这种方式开始感受到一点,严格来说那就是「没有呈现的经常性最後成品,只有呈现的持续过程。」我发现到实际上并没有持久的实体或配置,只有瞬间性的建构在发生而已(注释十六)。  

当我愈来愈熟练无反应的和无间断的观察时,我接著观察到意识流破裂为一系列时空不连续的殊异事件。每一身心事件看来都有一个绝对的起源,短暂的持续,和绝对的结束。每一事件只在前一事件消逝後才生起,呈现和实在的建构於是被发现是一种「不连续的过程」。以资讯处理理论的术语来说,禅修者所实际经验到的是模式化认知之前知觉的时间性质,那时刺激还没被建构成一日常经验中可认知到的知觉(Brown,1977)。他可说是经验到刺激形成的原始包装,这在注意到之前就与其它进来的刺激背景相隔离出来,而为一有绝对真实持续过的主角单元。他可分别出个人的「心理瞬间」,那有许多同等强度又同时抵达的刺激,聚集成相同的能量包装。他在此修行阶段的现象学经验-某事件只在前一事件完全止息後才发生,反映了前注意统合层次上的事实(Neisser,1967),那就是刺激在一时间上分殊且不连续的风格上,经过程序安排和隔离。从这个观点来看,禅修者所做的正是「後转-反转-呈现过程的关键阶段」,这些阶段可在对刺激形成的长期复杂加工後,产生一个别的自身和客体的呈现。

当你经验到这个完全瞬间性的「生灭,就可对一切事件的基进无常性(anicca)有深奥的了解。不只是我不再知觉到任何持久的「客体」,连思考、感受、知觉和感觉的过程也生灭不已,没有一个容器存在。

在这个不连续的知觉变迁经验中,像坚固的身躯、持久的知觉对象、内在呈现或固定观察点等术语,都是难以保有的。我开始了解到无一处有任何内在的持久性,我也察觉到身心、外在客体和内在呈现的无我性(anatta)。不只是任何事物都在随时变异当中,而且是没有变异中的「事物」有存在可言(注释十七)。

精神病理学的不同层次
在这一点上,我们可以看到「精神病理学中一个全然不同的层次」。首先在这个知觉层次上来说,行为的一般情绪的和动机的基础被经验为有病理发生的性质,且是大苦恼的根源所在。这在观察觉醒状态里一般反应趋势的苦恼效应中,就特别明显。任何情绪反应都被体验为阻滞事件流动的超级苦恼和悟导的效果,不管它们是最简单地和看来是天生的吸引和排斥、喜欢和厌恶、趋乐和避苦、取这和舍那等反应皆是如此看待,而不必管它们的特定目标和对象。现在看来,这些执取这抛弃那的欲望都是想要否认和抗拒变异过程的无谓尝试。其次来讲,任何想要座标化持久性主客呈现,或以偏好来认此为「我」、拒斥(精神病、边缘症)彼和压抑(精神官能症、正常)彼为「非我」的举动,也是同样被体验为想要干扰、毁弃和改变主客呈现是瞬间建构流的无谓尝试。

根据古典精神分析的後设心理学来看,精神生活最原始和持久的法则是快乐原则:把快乐极大化和痛苦极小化的欲望。而从最近的客体关系理论来看,更基本的法则是客体关联性的原则。两者都被看成是我们的建构性禀赋的一部分。然而,从禅修观点来看,对於满足感受和自身性的努力追求虽然是心理生活的基础,并包含了认同和客体恒常性的阶段,但却是「阻滞的下一个潜在点」和苦恼的根源。这两种追求的努力在佛教的诊断范畴来说,算是「贪(tanha)」。佛教心理学也把它们画分在同一个秩序中。例如,「欲贪(kama-tanha)」是对感官满足的「渴求」,包含了贪乐(sukhakama)和厌苦(dukkha-patikkula)(注释十八)。「有爱(Bhava-tanha)」则是描述对存在和变成的「渴求」。这指涉了存续生命和自我,以逃避死亡的欲望。它的某一形式是自我保存和自我恒存,另一形式则为再生的欲望,还有一形式为不死的欲望,以及一形式为持续分化和新经验的欲望。「非有爱」则是对虚无断灭的「渴求」。这个词语也是指涉了某些动机的范围:结束生命和变化的欲望;对惰性和静止状态的欲望;不分化、躲开和退化的欲望。最後这两者构成了费尔邦(Fairbairn)(1952)所说的客体追求倾向的两个侧面:(a)对自我和其与客体关系持续性的欲望;和(b)自我从客体关系和客体世界中防卫性的撤离。正是这些奋斗性的追求,现在反被体会成心灵苦恼的立即原因。

但是,根据禅修经验来看,「这些奋斗性的追求不是天生的」。「欲望」的先决条件是情绪影响的另一侧面-「受(vedana)」。佛教心理学去除掉情绪影响两种成份之间的联结方式,是精神分析理论和当代情绪理论还没如此做的方式:(1)伴随每一客体经验的纯然自发的苦乐感受(注释十九);(2)对感受反应或动作化的趋避倾向。当代动机研究的经验发现和情绪现象学也证实了这种区分(Arnold,1970a、1970b;Young,1969;Pribram,1970;Schachter,1970;Leeper,1970)。一般来说,快乐 / 痛苦的经验会导致趋乐避苦的「行动趋势」(Arnold,1970b)。这个程序通常被当成有驱力的特质,在精神分析理论中就被说成是天生的、自动的、自发的、自然的,就好比是超出意愿控制之外的自主性神经系统的反应程序(注释二十)。相反地,受训过的禅修观察显示出情绪影响的动机成份(亦即对苦乐经验有效用的趋势,是所有精神驱力状态的根源;如 Kernberg,1976)是一个「意愿性」的活动,并大致可自我规约(注释二十一)。去除苦乐经验(vedana)和对这些核心状态之情绪倾向有效用的趋势(tanha)这两者之间的联结,是禅修训练的支撑点。它把先前被制约的反应,还给意愿控制手上,并介绍了延後(满足)这个重要原则。

那么,我们要用什么来解释快乐原则(趋乐避苦的冲动倾向)的运作和客体追求的行为呢?特别是说,假如把这些当成自我规约下的自我功能,而不是本能性冲动时。根据佛教的分析,快乐原则具支配地位的原因在於错谬的实相试验(faulty reality testing)。欲望(tanha)是被「无明(avijja)」所制约。就跟欲望一样,无明也是指涉了一种自我功能:实相试验的能力。一般的实相试验不只是错谬而已,还是建立在一个特殊的错觉型态上头,而颠倒(vipallasa)了事物的真实秩序。我们错把无常当成恒常,错把恼害当成乐受,也错把无我当成有我。也就是说,由於错谬的实相试验,我们所察觉到的主客经验,正好是它们如实之道的颠倒观。在这个意味下,佛教禅修的关键性诊断问题就跟西方的临床实务一样:实相试验是完满无缺的吗?临床上来说,这个判准是把正常和精神官能症,与精神病划分开来(Kernberg,1977)。但以禅修观点来看,正常和异常情形在实相试验中都是有缺陷的。所以,佛教心理学把自我运作的正常状态描述为「错乱(ummattaka)」,并赋予这个词跟临床用法一样的技术意义:幻觉系统的建立,或有关自身、他人和物质世界的非事实性知觉天地。禅修要对表象世界进行实相试验,临床精神医学则是以常识态度把这表象世界视为理所当然。

心理失调的三种层次

虽然佛教心理学不是发展性的,不过阿毘达磨心理学的古典诊断典范看来,似乎也暗示了它确实由客体关系经验的不同层次中,分别出三个不同的苦恼层次。(1)「苦苦(Dukkha-dukkha)」发生在稳定的自我结构和完整的客体关系上,相当於冲动和禁令之间的神经质冲突,也相当於弗洛依德所说的「一般人的不幸福」,以换取神经质苦恼的解决。(2)「变易苦(Dukkha-vipa-rinama)」相当於边缘症情况和功能性精神病,核心问题是自我持续感的困扰、冲动和情绪影响的波动状态、矛盾又解离的自我状态、缺乏稳定的自我结构和缺乏与客体世界的经常性关系。这是一个比认同形成和客体恒常性还早发生的人格组织层次,因此变易是对脆弱自我的最深和最普遍的威胁。(3)「行苦(Samkhara-dukkha)」是西方精神医学所碰到的病理学上全新的范畴,而且是很普遍的。在这个层次上,客体追求被看成是病理发生的和矛盾的,就跟一般发展理论所说的一样。这种把自身和客体在时空境界中定位出一经常性和持续性的尝试(Lichtenberg,1975),就显得是一个值得治疗的问题了。在客体关系发展中全都很重要的方向上,有两个伟大的成就-认同和客体恒常性,现在也被看成是一固著点或阻滞点。就跟早期的妄想和沮丧的部分客体位置一样(M. Klein,1946;Fairbairn,1952),自我的契合感和整合感也被看成是一种「为了要被超越而赢取来的发展位置(Guntrip,1969:118f)」。从这个观点看来,我们认为是「正常」的其实是一阻滞的发展状态。甚至,它可被看成是一种病理情境,其基础在於错谬的实相试验、对驱力的不当中立化、缺乏控制冲动的能力和对自身和客体世界的不完全整合。

禅修的治疗领域

这个人格组织和精神病理学的层次,正是内观禅所特别提出的。佛教精神病理学和诊断看起来是宣称、预设和部分提出前两种苦恼。可是佛教作为一种治疗系统的话,它的主要和适当关怀是第三种行苦。我相信很多混淆之所以会发生,是因为佛学者、精神动态心理学或现行的研究典范都不太了解这个层次。对同一问题领域的处理而言,这两个系统最糟就是被看成是相互竞争,最好则是可相互替代的治疗模式。举例来说,有个趋势是把这两种疗程和成果相对立,彼此排斥到只能选择其中一个的地步:心理治疗或禅修,自我契合感的达成或扬弃。临床精神医学把禅修看成是让磨损的自我边界,进入神经质去除分化状态的请帖。佛教心理学则批评说「自我」这个论题就指出它如何会导致苦恼发生,而心理治疗也只会永续强化这虚妄的自我概念,并使开悟更加困难。当然,这两个系统也有被看成是模糊互补的,但是不清楚它们相关的方法、目标、结果和寻求疗法的问题有何不同之处。所以,才会在心理治疗里,有所谓的禅修的「附属性」用途(Naranjo,1971;Assagioli,1971;Luthe,1970;Carrington & Ephron,1975)。事实上,不管是住院病人或门诊病人的精神治疗组合中,已经把所有主要禅修传统的技术,作一完整的采用或适应的利用,并有很多成功的报导。

就跟精神分析一样,内观禅是种干预性设计,好来「让自身和客体关系发展,再次从相关的阻滞点上开始移动」(Loewald,1960;Fleming,1972)。

而精神分析中,「与自身-客体联结的败坏层次相隔离」(Calef,1972)的过程,是由一种经过控制的部分回返所引发,主要是回返至知觉、概念化、感觉和行为的更基本方式。而这也算是在人际关系的移情中所发生的退化现象。可是,在内观禅古典阶段的「回返」,却不是以移情的形式发生。因为,它不是对过去内在化客体关系阶段的重温,而是一种「对於每一瞬间呈现过程各阶段的操控性再循迹」。往前看,禅修者是在观察知觉-认知-情绪的通路,自身、客体和整个客体关系的世界(这是我们一般所知的唯一世界)就是在这条通路上建构起来,也算是快乐原则运作和客体追求的结果。往後看,禅修者是在观察「自身」和「客体」解构为原始成份、过程或事件的过程。内观禅「倒转了世界显现的方式」(Eliade,1966)(注释二十二)。

客体关系发展的全层谱模式

但是,你必须要先作为某人,才可什么人都不是。这个人格发展的议题不是自我「或」无我,而是自我「和」无我。自我感和洞察它持续性和实体性的终极虚妄性这两者,都是必要的成就。圣徒性和完全的心理安乐都有包含这两者,但是须放在客体关系发展不同阶段中「时期适当性的发展程序」。若要经由「虚无化自我」这个伪装的灵修尝试,来跳过认同形成和客体恒常性的发展课题,就会带来致命性和病理性的结果。有很多被禅修吸引的学生就是这样子,甚至某些老师也尝试这样做。

我认为「包含全发展层谱的发展心理学」是我们所需要的,可是却被临床和禅修观点所忽略。从临床观点来看,佛教心理学缺乏这个。它很少提到人格组织的早期阶段,和处理失败时所带来的苦恼型态。当我们不了解这点时,就会有一些危险。在精神分析的古典时期,自身失调还没受到适当的了解,疗程的先决条件和限制也不能清楚认识到。所以,这些相类似的治疗失败(包含「冗长的」疗程)就会把老师和学生弄得更糊涂、更困扰和更伤悲。

一般的西方心理学和特殊的精神分析理论也没提到发展层谱的另一端。他们对成熟和健康的定义也没超过心理社会性的认同、客体恒常性、客体关系的成熟、对冲动和防卫较适应且少冲突的安排这些范围之外。

根据现行的临床思维,治疗并不以旧的 Kraepelinian 医药模式来诊断疾病,而是把脱轨的、阻滞的和扭曲的发展过程重新制定过。内观也提出说发展过程不能阻滞在认同和客体恒常性的层次上,而要往更终极的自身和实相观点迈进。佛教心理学其实没有用「禅修」这个词,而是用「修习(bhavana)」

(Vajiranana,1975)。这些修行可以用来「促进客体关系发展的持续」。对马荷和其他客体关系理论家而言,分隔-个体化的过程是「永未完成的;它只能变成一直是再活化中;生命循环的新时期可见证到还在运作中的最早期过程的繁衍」(1972:333)。可是,假如「自身」和「客体」都是客体关系发展某阶段或某层次的功能,甚至以更含括性的观点来说,没有客体的失落值得哀悼,也没有自我可哀悼它们。如果所有的自身-客体联结最後都会「败坏」,那么不仅客体发展连心理苦恼也到达终点了(Engler,1983b)。

结论

不管如何,那是我现在所达成的结论。我希望佛教徒、西方和其他种族的临床实务的精神医学系统,可以在我们文化中首次相熟习,并得出一个更完整的人类发展的全层谱模式,以及修补它们脆弱处的治疗性干预。从弗洛依德的性心理阶段理论经艾瑞克森的生命循环理论到马荷的客体关系理论,算是精神分析思想的推动力和灵感。佛教思想中也有部分隐而未显的推动力。这个传统强调变成某人的重要性,另一传统则强调变成无一人的重要性。我作为两个传统的心理学家了解到自我感和无我感都是必要的,可实现乐观的心理安乐,也就是弗洛依德所说的「理想性虚构」,以及实现佛陀所教导的「苦的止息」。

#日志日期:2009-11-5 星期四(Thursday) 晴 送小红花 推荐指数:复制链接 举报

评论人:陈寿文 | 评论日期:2009-11-9 16:22

The 1001 Forms of Self-Grasping

or ...
Do You Really Have to be Somebody Before You Can be Nobody?

An interview with Jack Engler
by Andrew Cohen

Jack Engler is one of the pioneers of transpersonal theory, a relatively new way of thinking about human development in which Western psychological theory meets Eastern enlightenment philosophy. He is a practicing psychotherapist who also teaches Theravada Buddhist "mindfulness" meditation and Buddhist psychology. He is also the man who made the by-now famous declaration: "You have to be somebody before you can be nobody." His statement has become a catchphrase in much of the Western Buddhist world and almost a commandment among transpersonal psychologists and theorists. Because enlightenment is traditionally understood to be about the death of the ego, I wanted to ask this psychologist who is deeply steeped in Buddhist practice and philosophy what he meant when he originally made that statement back in 1981.

Engler's journey on the contemplative path began at age sixteen, when he read The Seven Storey Mountain, Thomas Merton's autobiography. This initiated a long and winding adventure that took him from the University of Notre Dame to Benedictine and Trappist monasteries in Europe to Thomas Merton's monastery in Kentucky. After Merton's strong discouragement of Engler's inclination toward the monastic life, he pursued novitiate training with the intention of becoming a university chaplain and professor and continued further academic study in England and Germany, where he got a degree in theology. He then went to Oxford to get a doctorate in biblical studies. Reaching an impasse in his personal, intellectual and academic quest, he experienced what he called a "personal crisis—a personal and spiritual dead end." He returned to America in 1969, became a social activist and then began teaching religious studies. He eventually made a decision to "start graduate work all over again" in psychology and religion at the University of Chicago, where he got his M.A. and Ph.D. He came to the end of his search when, one day, he entered the Vivekananda Vedanta Society bookstore in Chicago. Driving by the small bookshop and knowing nothing about Vedanta, he said, "Something prompted me to just jam on my brakes and go inside." In the back of the store he found a copy of The Heart of Buddhist Meditation by Nyanaponika Thera. "I got about thirty pages into it," he said, "and I knew that I had found what I had been looking for all my life. It was instantaneous." For his doctoral dissertation, he devised a research project that would take him to India to study Buddhist psychology and practice meditation. While there he spent time studying at the Nalanda Institute and did extensive research with practitioners from the Calcutta Buddhist community, many of whom he described as having reached "at least the first stage of enlightenment." The data he compiled from this research was groundbreaking, endeavoring to "establish cross-cultural validation of the psychological changes at each major stage" of Buddhist meditation practice. Upon his return to America, his aspirations changed, and he decided that rather than remain in academia, he would go into clinical practice because, he said, "I had finally seen not only my own suffering but everybody else's. India just profoundly changed me that way."

Is it true, as transpersonal therapists like Jack Engler advocate, that Buddhist meditation and Western psychotherapy work together to liberate the different levels of self that make up a human being? Is it true that "personal issues" need to be addressed in a more personal, therapeutic framework, whereas the deeper and more profound dimensions of letting go occur on the meditation cushion? Is it true that enlightenment experiences usually do not liberate the self from the effects of childhood trauma or attachment to the personal and fundamental narcissistic tendencies? Are the transpersonal therapists correct when they assert that there is no fundamental contradiction between a psychology that endeavors to heal the ego and a spiritual teaching that encourages us to abandon it?

I looked forward to meeting the man who said that "you have to be somebody before you can be nobody" because for a long time I have wondered if that statement was really true. Was it really true that you have to be somebody before you can be nobody?—that one needs, as the transpersonal therapists say, to have a strong ego, a strong sense of self, before one would have the kind of confidence necessary to take that mysterious leap into the unknown? From my own experience as a spiritual teacher, I have found without exception that if enlightenment is the context and the goal of the spiritual quest, then allowing any room whatsoever for the endless needs, pains, anxieties and frustrations of the narcissistic ego always has only one outcome: giving air, water and food to that which, in the spiritual experience, is recognized to be completely unreal. I was curious to know why the transpersonal therapists never seemed to see things as that black-and-white. Indeed, Engler's declaration has become so widely accepted as a truism in most spiritual circles these days that I wondered whether his words were being used by some teachers, students and therapists alike at times to avoid the potentially overwhelming implications of having to step beyond the ego entirely in order to experience directly what enlightenment is all about. But first, I needed to ask him what his definition of ego is from his perspective as a psychotherapist as well as his perspective as a proponent of Buddhist enlightenment teachings.

interview

Andrew Cohen: How would you define the word "ego" in your role as a psychologist? And how would you define the word "ego" in your role as a teacher of Buddhist psychology and meditation?

Jack Engler: In the psychoanalytic tradition, ego has a very positive connotation. It's a collective designation for a whole set of very important psychological functions. Functions from thinking to feeling to reality testing—a whole set of capacities that are essential to human life. And very often people have deficits in these different areas of functioning. In therapy, one thing you're trying to do is develop what's traditionally called "ego strength." As a psychologist, part of my effort is to help people develop capacities that may be underdeveloped or may have been derailed earlier in development or may have been compromised by subsequent trauma. So ego, in this sense, is a positive thing. That's the way I think of it in psychology.

But a lot of people who come to me for therapy don't think of ego that way. They think of ego in a spiritual context, where it's a bad thing. But talking about ego in a spiritual context, to me, is even more problematic. It gets talked about almost like it's an alternate personality within me that is bad; it gets reified as some part of me that I have to battle with, that I have to transcend. I think spiritual language reinforces a lot of dualistic thinking when we talk about ego that way—unless we're really careful in how we define it. Now instead of "self versus other" it's "self versus ego." And so the struggle just continues in another guise.

If you ask me what I think ego is in a spiritual sense, I guess I would say it's our attempt to grasp ourselves. It's the myriad forms of self-grasping that are doomed to endless frustration and disappointment. I think that's the root of what ego is, and everything else follows from this, whether it's preoccupation with self-image or whether it's attempts at self-aggrandizement or whether it's experiencing self as separate and over/against others. The c


评论人:陈寿文 | 评论日期:2009-11-9 16:23

If you ask me what I think ego is in a spiritual sense, I guess I would say it's our attempt to grasp ourselves. It's the myriad forms of self-grasping that are doomed to endless frustration and disappointment. I think that's the root of what ego is, and everything else follows from this, whether it's preoccupation with self-image or whether it's attempts at self-aggrandizement or whether it's experiencing self as separate and over/against others. The core of it seems to be this attempt to grasp the self and fix it. Or fixate it, that's a better word. And where does the self-grasping come from? I think it mostly comes out of fear, out of this core, chronic, anxious sense that we don't exist in the way we think we do.

AC: In our research for this issue, we've basically boiled it down to two very rough definitions of ego. In the first definition, the psychological definition, it's really neutral in nature, not positive or negative: ego as the self-organizing principle.

JE: Well, to me, that's positive. Because we need a certain amount of self-organization.

AC: Okay. So we could say that ego in this sense is positive and would be the self-organizing principle that obviously has to be in fairly good working order if one is going to be able to do any serious spiritual practice. And just to put it in a simple way, the other definition of ego is negative, which we're roughly calling "narcissism."

JE: Mark Epstein used that term, too, in his book Thoughts without a Thinker. I hesitate to call it narcissism unless you distinguish between narcissism in a clinical psychological context and narcissism as it's understood at the deeper spiritual level because they're not exactly the same. I don't want to reduce what I think is the very deepest level of spiritual insight to a narcissistic personality disorder.

AC: Yes, it's much bigger than that.

JE: There is a core narcissism that is much more universal and much deeper, which underlies all personality structure. So if we're talking about narcissism in that sense, then I would agree with your definition.

AC: So from the spiritual perspective, we could say that that would be, in essence, what the ego is. Whether it's termed "ego" or the so-called obstacle to enlightenment.

JE: Well, yes, but as I said, I think of it more as self-grasping. To me, self-grasping is a more dynamic, experiential way to describe it. And you can see that in working with people and asking them to observe the moment-to-moment workings of their mind. You can help them identify all the thousand and one forms of the attempt to grasp the self.

AC: Could you define the different aims and goals of psychotherapy and Buddhist meditation with regard to the ego?

JE: I don't see them as inherently different. I just think they work at different levels of mind, at different levels of experience. But the goal is still freedom from suffering, freedom from our inner blocks, freedom from those stuck places where we try to grasp at ourselves or where we become so afraid that we turn back in some way and contract around whatever it is we're trying to protect. In that sense the goal is the same. The path is also very similar. It's what we do when we sit down on a cushion or we look into our teacher's eyes: We're trying to see a clearer reflection of ourselves and face whatever it is that's unfaceable. In therapy it's the same thing: It's meeting a person where they are and then helping them go where they don't necessarily want to go—to see particularly the ways in which they may be contributing to their own suffering, and asking them to look at that. So in principle I don't see a difference. It's just a different level of experience that they're working on. The goal and the method in the broader sense are very similar, very complementary. And I think they're not even linear. But I used to think they were linear—that you do one and then you do the other.

AC: You are well-known for your statement, "You have to be somebody before you can be nobody."

JE: Yes, well, I don't see it as quite that linear or exclusive anymore.

AC: Then could you please explain what you originally meant?

JE: In a general way, I would still stand by it—that you have to be somebody before you can be nobody, although it's a provocative way of putting it. What I had in mind when making that statement was that if you are going to go to the depths of Buddhist mindfulness practice, which I was talking about, it requires certain psychological capacities, what in the psychoanalytic tradition would be called certain basic "ego strengths." And those ego strengths form around some stable sense of who you are, some stable sense of identity. And I still believe that's true.

AC: The essence of the statement "You have to be somebody before you can be nobody" seems to be that unless one has developed a healthy sense of self-confidence and unless one has a fairly stable sense of oneself, you're saying that it's going to be difficult for that individual to begin to practice mindfulness meditation in the kind of way that's actually going to be able to liberate them.

JE: No, just about anyone can do basic mindfulness practice and derive some benefit from it, unless they're in some kind of acute mental state in which thoughts and feelings are just too disorganized and too chaotic—because then asking a person to look inward and be aware moment to moment of their thoughts and feelings would simply be too overwhelming, it would become a regressive or fragmenting experience. But short of those kinds of states, I believe anyone can benefit from basic mindfulness practice. So I wasn't addressing basic practice then. I was really talking about going to the depths of practice, particularly those experiences of enlightenment that the Vipassana tradition talks about. What those higher stages of practice require is considerable ego strengths. For instance, a basic ego strength is the capacity to tolerate aversive feelings and emotions without becoming undone by them—what in psychology is called "affect tolerance." That's what I had in mind, that kind of thing.

One of the main things I was responding to, though, when I wrote that article was something I had seen in myself and was seeing in a lot of people I was working with, which was an attempt to use meditation practice to do an "end run" around normal tasks of human development.

AC: What do you mean by "end run"?

JE: Thinking that spiritual practice alone can substitute for normal psychological development; that somehow by going deep in practice and getting enlightened, that's going to solve all the nagging neurotic problems that have continued to plague one. So, "You have to be somebody before you can be nobody" was also meant as a cautionary statement to pay attention to all basic tasks, not just spiritual ones.

AC: You felt that people were trying to avoid facing certain parts of themselves by focusing their attention exclusively on enlightenment and spiritual practice?

JE: That's right. So the intent of my statement was to address that issue. But then, in that article, I tried to elaborate it further in terms of a linear developmental model. I wouldn't do that in the same way today because now I think our spiritual life and our psychological life are much more interwoven. I think the statement still has value in the way I originally meant it, but I would take it out of this tight psychological model of human development where we first have to develop a sense of self and then we will be able to see through the illusion of self.

AC: So in other words, development doesn't have an absolute or rigid structure. You're saying now that the strengthening of the ego in the positive sense—as this organizing principle—and


评论人:陈寿文 | 评论日期:2009-11-9 16:24

AC: So in other words, development doesn't have an absolute or rigid structure. You're saying now that the strengthening of the ego in the positive sense—as this organizing principle—and the questioning of its ultimate validity could occur simultaneously?

JE: People who are doing a lot of spiritual practice and who don't have much experience with therapy think that therapy somehow inevitably strengthens self-grasping or ego. But my experience with therapy, when it's successful and done well, is that it does just the opposite. It doesn't bring you to the point of seeing through the inherent illusion of seeing yourself as a separate entity, and it doesn't bring you to the kind of total freedom that spiritual practice promises. That's clear. And it doesn't pretend to. But if it's done well and it's successful, I think it really does relativize the way you hold yourself. You don't hold yourself so tightly and you're not so wedded to concepts of who you are. It begins to loosen up all your fixed ideas of self and in that way can contribute to growth in spiritual practice also. So I don't see one as tightening the ego and the other as loosening it. I see them both working in the same direction. And I see it much more as an interweaving of personal work and spiritual work. It's just that therapy doesn't take it to the depth that spiritual practice does.

AC: Could you please explain what you mean when you say that our evolution, for lack of a better word, is a combination of personal and spiritual work? What do you mean by one, and what do you mean by the other?

JE: Well, personal work has to do with our own individual life history, our own individual narrative, and whatever unfinished business we're carrying from that. It has to do with personality and social functioning, relationship issues, work issues. These issues come up in Buddhist mindfulness practice—and probably from time to time in all practices. The different traditions work with them in different ways, and some don't work with them at all. Zen doesn't, for instance. And that's fine for the goals that Zen sets itself. The ultimate spiritual goals don't have to do so much with personality and personal functioning. They have to do with liberation from all those deep-rooted causes of suffering in the mind—in all of our minds. These universal causes of self-generated suffering—fear, greed, anger, self-deception, shame, doubt—get filtered and expressed through personality and personal history, but they exert an influence at a level prior to their elaboration in individual behavior. They are universal; they're not unique to any one particular individual.

But facing universal issues means facing personal and particular issues. As I've understood it in my own work and as I've seen it in clients who come to me for therapy as well as students in the meditation hall, it basically means, in the simplest possible way, facing whatever we haven't been able to face. Spiritual practice demands that we do that in one way, and personal work and therapy demand we do it in another. To the extent that anything hasn't been faced, it's going to continue to plague us and cause problems for ourselves and others.

AC: Absolutely.

JE: So, in a general way, that's how I understand the interweaving of personal and spiritual work. It's continuing to uncover the blocks, the resistances, the ways in which we cause suffering to ourselves and others.

AC: In my own teaching work over the years, I've found that when one courageously looks into what enlightenment promises, one discovers an absolute perspective. And after that discovery, one either sees oneself as the one who was wounded and traumatized, or one recognizes oneself to be that which was never wounded or traumatized by anything. I've seen people leap from the perspective of the ego to one beyond the ego. One in which they discover a completely different relationship to their own experience. This new, liberated perspective may indeed include the awareness or memory of trauma, narcissism, fear, doubt, etcetera, but now, because they have discovered a completely different way of relating to their fundamental sense of self, their relationship to the ego and all of its baggage will be transformed.

You say that psychotherapy and Buddhist meditation practice often work hand in hand and that they work with different parts of the self. But I've noticed that when we allow ourselves to identify in any fundamental way with being the one who suffered, who was traumatized and who therefore needs to be healed, it inevitably has a profound effect on the way we relate to the very real and maybe continuing effects of whatever that trauma may have been. If, from the context of enlightenment, we have recognized the ultimate insubstantiality of the ego or personal self—that from an absolute perspective it does not exist—not just intellectually but deeply through our own experience, our relationship to whatever may be the continuing karmic consequences of our personal history is going to be very different than if we are convinced we are exclusively that separate self.

I wonder if psychotherapy and meditation practice really do work hand in hand to heal and liberate our humanity in the way that many transpersonal therapists say they do. I mean, theoretically they do, but because the context of the inquiry in psychotherapy is always relative, by definition—which means giving significance to the woes of the ego or personal self—I often wonder if, without an absolute context as the bottom line, psychotherapy could ever have anything to do with what liberation has always been about.

JE: I'm not talking theory. I'm talking about what I've seen in people. I've seen both kinds of effort work together, both in teaching spiritual practice and in doing therapy. I think what you say is true—a fundamental shift does occur in the way one relates to one's experience through spiritual practice. But it feels a little more complex to me. I would say both the personal identifications and the nonidentification with experience are quite real. I both am and am not that person. It's not that from this perspective I am and from that perspective I am not. Both are true: I both am and am not. I remember a conference in New York with His Holiness the Dalai Lama where someone started to raise a question about these two levels of reality, the relative and the absolute. They prefaced their remark with a comment about the relative level, saying, "Of course, I know that this ultimately isn't real . . . " His Holiness interrupted them right away and said, "Stop. It's very real. And if you deny its reality, you will create much suffering for yourself."

AC: That's definitely true, but I'm not talking about denying anything that's true. I'm talking specifically about our ultimate identity and what the effects are of that discovery on our relationship to our personal history.

JE: Let's take the case of trauma. Some very traumatic events happened—sexual abuse, let's say—and had very real consequences that deserve our compassion and our understanding. All of that was true. Did it happen to me? In some ultimate sense, no, of course not. But then, nothing does insofar as that "me" doesn't exist absolutely and independently. If what you're asking is: Does that shift in perspective substitute for therapy or does it shift the relationship to experience enough so that other kinds of therapeutic work become unnecessary? Well, I've never seen that.

AC: Okay. But my whole point is that the absolute or liberated perspective provides a completely different context in which to view and have a relationship with every aspect of our humanity.

JE: You see, a lot of the Indian practitioners I met when I was doing research in Calcutta had suffered extreme trauma in their lives, just like many Western st


评论人:陈寿文 | 评论日期:2009-11-9 16:25

JE: You see, a lot of the Indian practitioners I met when I was doing research in Calcutta had suffered extreme trauma in their lives, just like many Western students. Really bad stuff. And some of them had reached pretty deep levels of enlightenment. No one claimed or presented themselves as having completed the path, but they had attained fairly deep levels. But it was clear that even with the shift occurring that you described, there was still a lot of personal suffering in their lives that they were going through and that had not been addressed—and was not getting addressed. And we see that in a lot of Western students and Western teachers. They've had their kensho experiences, their enlightenment experiences, and they're going down like flies. They're still misbehaving, sometimes outrageously so. They're still engaging in a lot of misconduct around—what else?—money, sex and power. So there's still a lot of personal work to be done. The only alternative position I think you can take is: Do more practice! Get more deeply enlightened. Go to the end of the path, and then none of this will ultimately be a problem for you. Well, I suppose that's a defensible position. In principle that's what should happen. I've just never seen it. Maybe I just don't know people who've gone to the end of the path. There ain't too many of them around.

AC: That's true.

JE: Even in the case of very deeply enlightened teachers, there is a lot of meshuganah [crazy] stuff that they can be involved in.

AC: I know. And that creates a lot of doubt about the possibility of any kind of transformation that can express an attainment or stabilization in a perspective that is absolute.

JE: I guess the only thing you can say is that, short of full and complete freedom, there's personal work to do. And you either do it or you don't.

AC: You said earlier that in the deeper levels of spiritual practice and experience, there is a transcendence or a letting go that occurs on a deeper level than that of the personality. It's a level that you said was universal.

JE: Right.

AC: So don't you think we could say that ideally, from a certain point of view, if that letting go was occurring on the deeper or more universal layers of being, automatically there would be a liberation from the compulsive fixation on the personal—because in that experience of deeper letting go, there would be a simultaneous recognition of the ultimate unreality and emptiness of the personal fixation and all the suffering that it creates?

JE: Again, it just doesn't seem to work that way. If you look at what the Theravada Buddhist tradition, for instance, claims happens when one has gone to the end, then yes, what it describes as the final outcome of spiritual practice is that all forms of self-generated suffering end, including personal suffering. But one of the things I've always found very credible in the Theravada tradition is that you don't get full freedom all at once. It comes by stages or increments. There are four different experiences of enlightenment. And the earliest stages are still compatible with a lot of personal meshugas [craziness] and ways in which we can still create problems for ourselves and others. So the ground shifts, and the relationship to self and to experience shifts. But it doesn't shift completely and all at once.

In these four experiences of enlightenment, the path to each is basically the same, but what's different are the "fetters" or the samyojanas that are extinguished in each enlightenment experience. These fetters are the root sources of inner suffering, and a different set of fetters is extinguished in each one of the four enlightenment experiences—extinguished irreversibly, permanently, according to the testimony of practitioners. No therapist, incidentally, would ever claim changes in therapy are irreversible! The progression in extinguishing these fetters fascinates me as a psychologist. The first set of fetters that are extinguished are basically cognitive in nature—what a cognitive psychologist would call "maladaptive cognitions" or "core beliefs." In extinguishing these misguided beliefs about who we are, our basic understanding and perspective changes. But simply extinguishing basic beliefs and assumptions doesn't automatically shift the underlying motivations, impulses and emotions that can still drive us to act in ways that create suffering. Cognitively, we may relate to our experience differently, yet we can continue to act in the same neurotic ways. Not to the same extent, perhaps, but basically we can still find ourselves acting in unskillful ways that create a lot of problems. The second set of fetters reaches deeper into the psyche, into the affective or motivational bases of behavior. Motivations, impulses and affects are much more difficult to shift than cognitions and beliefs. The last set of fetters is extinguished at the fourth and final stage of enlightenment. The core of this group is called mana or "conceit." This is a remnant of the tendency to compare self with others—the root of narcissism. The last fetters really have to do with rooting out the final residues of narcissistic attachment to self from the mind. And that's more difficult to shift than the affective or motivational bases of behavior.

The same progression happens in therapy. Cognitions, beliefs, perspectives change first. Core drives, motivations and impulses are much harder to change. Hardest of all to change is narcissistic investment in the self. So when you say that ideally the realization of emptiness should free one from personal neurotic problems, I don't think it's that simple. I think the shifts take place in stages. What the tradition describes and what we've learned in therapy are exactly the same progression. That shift doesn't take place all at once.

I was reading something the other day in Philip Kapleau Roshi's book Zen Dawn in the West. A student asks him a similar question about kensho, and Kapleau replies, "Kensho doesn't eliminate character. If anything, kensho makes character failings more obvious." He's talking about his own experience and his experience with his students. But he's also talking about the first experience of kensho. The Zen tradition has always said there can be little kensho and great kensho. The opening can be small or it can be large, but it's still just a first glimpse of enlightenment. My teacher, Anagarika Munindra, used to call it "a little bit of enlightenment." That first glimpse doesn't shift everything.

AC: My last question is: Do you think that the Buddha would have been a better teacher if he had undergone psychotherapy and had Western psychotherapeutic training?

JE: Oh, how to answer that? The answer is no. The Buddha did both spiritual and personal work for eons, if you believe the stories. So what we see in this one lifetime is just a teeny tip of the iceberg of what went into his realization. And how much you want to conclude from that is risky. But he wasn't addressing directly the kind of problems that people bring into therapy. People would bring those kinds of problems to him occasionally, their different kinds of unhappiness. But the level on which he addressed them was very different than the level on which a therapist would address them.

AC: But my question is, do you think the Buddha would have been a better teacher if he'd undergone psychotherapy and had Western therapeutic training? Transpersonal theory suggests that the Eastern enlightenment teachings presume a certain level of psychological health and development or ego strength as a prerequisite for spiritual practice, and that the Eastern teachings don't really have any knowledge or understanding about the earlier stages of childhood and ego development. The criticism is that the Eastern teachings alone are insu


评论人:陈寿文 | 评论日期:2009-11-9 16:26


AC: But my question is, do you think the Buddha would have been a better teacher if he'd undergone psychotherapy and had Western therapeutic training? Transpersonal theory suggests that the Eastern enlightenment teachings presume a certain level of psychological health and development or ego strength as a prerequisite for spiritual practice, and that the Eastern teachings don't really have any knowledge or understanding about the earlier stages of childhood and ego development. The criticism is that the Eastern teachings alone are insufficient to address many of the emotional and psychological needs that a lot of people have because they are simply not taken into account. So if this is true, we could say that obviously in the Buddhist teaching, this dimension of ego or self-development isn't really addressed. Are you saying that in spite of that, you feel that the Buddha wouldn't have been a better teacher, that there was nothing missing from his teaching?

JE: If the Buddha had been born in Brooklyn, like all enlightened teachers these days, it would seem to be a prerequisite. If he had been born in Brooklyn, then I would say that if he had some experience of psychotherapy, it would probably help him to teach Western students! But he was a man of his time and his culture, and that wasn't necessary. Those personal issues were handled by other roles in the society—whether it was shamans or rainmakers or midwives or whoever. It wasn't that there was no one around to address them.

But the Buddha himself had no need for psychotherapy. Not everybody needs psychotherapy. God help us!


评论人:陈寿文 | 评论日期:2009-11-10 15:12

静坐是心理治疗吗?

秋扬·创巴仁波切演讲

欢迎诸位女士和先生们。今晚我们要讨论的是心理治疗与静坐之间的关系。静坐是心理治疗吗?我们以为在物质可以进步的同时,精神境界也应该相对提升才对,但那纯粹只是个幻想而已。因为事实上,当我们在科技高度进步的同时,却有心灵提升上的问题。事情的发展看起来就是如此,所以禅修和心理治疗的观念在今天便成为急待讨论的议点。

禅修能像心理治疗或高科技一样在我们的社会中占着同等重要的地位么吗?这里的问题我们不是要把它拿来和科技或心理治疗做比较。但或许我们今天的讲题很容易让人产生混肴,因为一旦你用一个疑问句,或像“禅修是心理治疗吗?”等的句子时,便会自动涉及两者优劣的评价问题,好象他们是互相有比较性的东西。所以我们这里要讨论的不是这两者之中何者较有价值,例如。何者较昂贵,或何者可以产生最直接的效果等。我们所要探讨的是社会的一般情况,也就是全民的心理。

美国和西方国家由于科学的进步,人们便急于追求更高层次的科技和一系列机械式的精神活动,那就是我所说的心灵物质化。或许我们学会了一些瑜珈招式而使心跳缓慢下来,或许我们不需要手撑着,便能倒立四、五个钟头,或许我们学会了摒住呼吸而让身体漂浮在空中,像直升机一样。然而我担心当这些招数被加入我们精神活动时,我们所在乎的变成只是一些小技巧的收集而已,而非实相的亲身体验。所以从这个观点来看,禅修不应该被认为是另外一种小技巧而已,它是一种修行,一种真正的修行。

在这里我们有必要讨论“修行”的意义——何谓修行?修行或训练是某种能让我们放下的投入或趣向。但我并不是说放下便意味着变得轻浮或严肃,而是其中确实真有某些事物可让我们学习放下的。这种修行主要是要斩除我们一切期待的念头,以及自己对一切问题先入为主的主观答案和想法。所以放下主要在断除成见。当我们谈到断除成见时,听起来好象不错。我们想要断除主观意识的想法听起来相当棒,但同时断除成见也代表断除我们的期望、痛苦和享乐。断除成见很可能会给我们带来极大的厌烦、而非愉悦。所以实际上整件事情听起来并不那么引人、有趣,或特别令人感到鼓舞。

禅修主要是需要某些牺牲、某些坦诚。这种牺牲是必要的,而且绝对需要亲身去体验。通常我们会为了培养善德而做某些牺牲,或许我们会愿为人类而受苦。但这些所谓的牺牲,对不起,都是些胡说八道。传统佛教所认为的牺牲是指完全没有目的的牺牲。这真是骇人听闻,它是否意味着我们将沦为奴隶?不,除非我们将自己变为奴隶,否则我们是不可能成为奴隶的。毫无目的的牺牲听起来吓人,但却英勇而伟大;它令人无法想象,但却非常美好。

当你不认为任何一种形式的心理治疗能帮助你远离痛苦,让你觉得终究会受到保护免于伤害;或者当你不认为心理治疗能让你有能力,运用某些方法来逃避现实时,这种无目的的牺牲就可能发生。禅修是一种牺牲,它没有技巧、没有方法,不需使用手套、钳子、或锥子。你必须运用你赤裸的双手、双足和头去和全部的事物相应。

现实和回报的观念可能会造成问题。基本上,根本就没有所谓的现实或回报,我们并不想从此生中得到什么,而这也是为什么自由的观念非常重要的原因。自由——没有任何期待,没有任何要求的自由,它无法被收买或出卖。自由没有便宜和昂贵可说,它就是这样自然产生的。自由是有在完全没有任何参考点之下,才可能逐渐开展,而这也是为什么它被称为自由的原因,因为它是完全没有条件的。

如果在心灵的旅程,或任何心灵的修行中有任何心理治疗的观念加入的话,它就变成有条件的东西了。那么,你或许会接着问:“我们要如何才能将自己的才华、耐心、修行和一切都变成我们心灵旅程的一部分?”其实,那个特别的心灵之旅,那些独特的才华和那些渐进固定的过程也必须是无条件、完全自由的表现才行。如果没有自由,完全的自由,那么你的问题就没有答案,而心灵提升也就完全没有希望了。

所以鼓吹自由的观念,维护自由本来的面目,不被各种事物污染是我们英勇的职责,也是我们生命的目的,毫无妥协的余地。就如同在战校或严格保守的训练所讨论到的诚实和实在一样。如果我们对诚实和实在的观念毫不在乎,那么在谈判自由的观念时,就会变得非常随便。假设我们发现自己死了,会怎样?我们会不会被救醒?不,不论发生什么,我们都应不改初衷,忠于无条件的自由。为了维护自由,我们必须保持挺直的姿势。在佛教的传统里,禅修是非常简单、不弯曲而且直接了当的。基本上,当你上座准备禅修时,会有一种得意感。禅坐时你什么都不做,你只是坐着,配合你的呼吸。你只是坐着,让所有的思绪活起来,从其藏的主观成见中走出来。让思绪走出来,让修行自行开展,而这可是和心理治疗大大的不同。

心理治疗需要证言和许多佐证,例如“三年前或三个月前的那次禅修让我得救了。现在我可以打坐,我自己可以做得很好。我是一个好将军,我是一个好跑堂,我是一个好邮差。我发现最近我在卖迪森商业大道工作时,我的智慧越来越高了”等,或其他任何诸如此类的话。(学生哄堂大笑)

禅修绝非心理治疗的原因在于,它一点都不需要任何佐证或证言。当你开始要求证言时,那就是一种缺陷。你觉得你需要证据——某人在禅修,他做得还不错,因此你也可以练习禅修。这是心理治疗的方法。事实上禅修是一种个人体验。你并不是因为需要依赖他人而感觉孤独;更正确的说,你自己就可以辨别,因此孤独和寂寞不再是大问题。事实上,你开始感觉一种孤独的喜悦。孤独本身不需要佐证和证言的。你不需要心理治疗,你需要的只是你的生命。从这点看来,禅修又多了一个范畴。那是一种坦然和不再需要依赖的感觉——你自己就可以办到。基本上而言,你是在对你自己本身下功夫。一切全靠你自己,它同时也是你自己的作为。当我们开始谈到孤独的原则时,独立、自由的想法变得非常有力、非常有意思,而且非常富有创意。我们不问现实的本质,不问对我们会有什么好坏可言;我们只是依据自己的空间,以及对自由和孤独的体验开始来做抉择。你自己知道自己是孤独寂寞的;你知道除了自己之外没有别人可以依靠,即使是现象界也帮不了忙。当然也因为那种孤寂,所以你有能力去帮助他人。因为你觉得这么寂寞、这么孤单。除了你自己之外,人类、你的朋友、你的爱人、你的父母、亲戚都得成为你生命的一部分,因为在这同时,他们也是孤独的展现。

只要我们能放开自己,让自己自由,并且常训练自己,便会产生极大的宽阔感。因此明白的来说,禅修并非心理治疗;它超越心理治疗,因为心理治疗仅局限于在某个相对参考的区域内,而禅修则是一个整体的体验。你甚至无法说它是什么,然而它却又涵盖了一切。它含括了生活中的一切——家庭的、情感的、经济的、社会的和任何的一切东西。

从上述观点来看,无条件的自由观念就是禅修的观念,因此自由不可以被说成是心理治疗。如果我们认为自己是心理治疗,那就麻烦了,因为我们原本就应该是从这一片混乱中出离的。所以如果心理治疗的根本意义被认为是自由,或自由的根本意义被认为是心理治疗的话,那么你就是在欺骗自己,或者有人在欺骗你。它就像有人说:“我告诉你,从今以后你自由了。”然后迟些再告诉你:“我对你说的话只是一种心理治疗法。”你会觉得完全被欺骗了。从那时起,你不再自由,因为心理疗法的方式纯粹只是想鼓舞你,让你开心而已。你的生活将更混乱,而且你将更毫不迟疑的卷入困惑迷乱之中。

因此,如果我们说禅修就是心理治疗的话,那么对人类的共同智慧和觉知将造成极大的伤害。但如果我们说禅修不是心理治疗的话,那么我们便能在了解无条件的自由观念上做出贡献。自由本身并非心理治疗,它是一种开放的潜能的展现。




登录 | 新人注册>>
输入您的评论:(不支持HTML标签)


验证码
本文所属博客:陈寿文专栏
引用地址:


© 天涯社区