Was Buddha the first psychologist?

[camerata]

Was the Buddha the first psychologist?

Psychology is the science of the mind. The psychologists say that human mind is the source of all thought and behavior. When we think about psychology, the first person recalled is usually Sigmund Freud or some other prominent Western psychologist who explained human behavior using a theory they believed. True enough, being the father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud’s work, or being the father of modern psychology Wilhelm Wundt’s work were largely responsible for the development of modern day psychology. Yet, were they really the first people to talk psychology?

In psychology, the psyche is the totality of the human mind, conscious and unconscious (Wikipedia). Freud discussed this model in the 1920 essay ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’ and this can be considered as the earliest examples where the concept of mind was spoken in a western context. Although we cannot observe the mind directly, everything we do, think, feel and say is determined by the functioning of the mind. It was not the modern day psychologists who first identified ‘the mind’. Almost two millennia before Freud spoke about psyche, the Buddha spoke of the human mind, identifying that all human behavior is under the responsibility of the mind.

Manopubbangama dhamma
manosettha manomaya
manasa ce padutthena
bhasati va karoti va
tato nam dukkhamanveti
cakkamva vahato padam.

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, dukkha follows him just as the wheel follows the hoof print of the ox that draws the cart (Dhammapada )
Buddha explained that the mind is the most dominant, and it is the cause of the other three mental phenomena, namely, Feeling (vedana), Perception (sanna) and Mental Formations or Mental Concomitants (sankhara).

Buddhism more closely resembles Western psychotherapy than any Western concept of religion.

Full story: The Nation

[VincentRJ]

Camerata,

Thanks for the link to the article from the Nation, However, I think you might have opened a can of worms.

2,500 years after the death of Gautama, we still don't fully understand the nature of consciousness or mind. A lot of Freud's theories are on shaky ground due to a lack of 'true' scientific verification.

However, I agree that the Buddha had some tremendous psychological insights. Unfortunately, psychology as a discipline is a 'soft' or 'fuzzy' science with associations of chaos and many unverifiable theories.

One of the best articles I've come across in relation to Buddhism, that delves into such complexity, is from Stanford university. Here's the link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/

and here's an extract defining the soteriological dimension, or salvational aspect of Buddhism. Anyone who can read the whole article and understand all the nuances deserves an award.

"In espousing the doctrine of not-self with its aggregated view of persons, the Buddha claims to be offering a solution to the problem of human suffering. Not only is the idea of a permanent self a conceptual fiction, but adopting such a view leads to grasping after notions such as ‘I,’ ‘me,’ and ‘mine’ with deleterious effects for our psychological well being: attachment to such a fictional ‘I’ is the root cause of a range of negative emotions, including selfishness, craving, hatred, conceit, and ill-will. These negative emotions, in turn, fuel the general feeling of unsatisfactoriness that pervades the unenlightened human condition, and ultimately are responsible for all the troubles that ordinarily afflict our world.

The not-self doctrine offers not merely an enlightened metaphysical perspective on the ultimate nature of things, but also an effective remedy for eradicating ignorance and achieving nirvāṇa, the summum bonum of the Buddhist path and the antithesis of cyclical existence (with the caveat that Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions generally place less emphasis on nirvāṇa, focusing instead on the enlightened and compassionate attitude of the Buddhist saint or ‘bodhisattva’)."

I am of course very impressed with some of the insights attributed to Buddha, which is why I'm contributing to this forum. At the same time, I have a skeptical nature and often fall back on the advice in the Kalama Sutta ,which I think is even more relevant to modern societies because of our diverse cultures which are often in conflict.

　

[TheFishman1]

You mean it wasn't Mosses

[camerata]

I think the point of the article is that the Buddha's techniques and theories about human behaviour have parallels in modern psychology and psychotherapy. It doesn't claim that either the ancient or modern techniques are "right" or "scientific." As we all know, the Buddha's techniques don't guarantee enlightenment, and psychiatry doesn't guarantee a cure for mental illness. They are both pseudo-sciences, at best. They work incredibly well for some, and seemingly not at all for others, perhaps depending on the individual's commitment, effort, personality, intelligence, or whatever.

[nongai]

https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=K23TgO2JOL4&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtELfbEKqiIk%26feature%3Dshare

[sirineou]

Surely not the first

but certainly one of the first known to as at this time.

[Denim]

No he was not.

The Hindu religion predates Buddhism and has many ancient texts that deal with similar problems faced by the human minds. The bhagvad gotta is a good example ( excuse improvised spelling )

Nobody could possibly claim to be the first in almost anything dealing with human behavior although you could be the first to coin a term.

[sanuk711]

Wasn't he a Psychiatrist--not psychologist ?

Sigmund I mean not Buddha ........................................

[rethaier]

The approach of Siddhartha (The Buddha) was very different to Hindu ascetics because he found that none of their methods worked. What he developed certainly, IMHO, was a method of transforming the mind. On whether or not that is Psychology I will not venture a firm opinion though I do not believe that the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path, with suffering and compassion as pivot points, would be much help to a Psychotic. Having said that, in all deference to Dr Freud, a Psychologist is of no help to a Psychotic either.

Edited May 2, 2015 by rethaier

[Denim]

The approach of Siddhartha (The Buddha) was very different to Hindu ascetics because he found that none of their methods worked. What he developed certainly, IMHO, was a method of transforming the mind. On whether or not that is Psychology I will not venture a firm opinion though I do not believe that the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path, with suffering and compassion as pivot points, would be much help to a Psychotic. Having said that, in all deference to Dr Freud, a Psychologist is of no help to a Psychotic either.

The problem for us now is that in those former times they had no internet. Nor did they have any means of transmitting that knowledge or insight they had achieved through recorded speech or video. Therefore they had to attempt to convey this knowledge through either oral or written means. And it soon became clear z( as with the internet or a video )that whatever they said was interpreted in different ways by different people. And pretty soon schisms arose and not long after people often found themselves killing other people over a trivial point of the founders teaching. Fortunately there has not been too much blood letting on account of Buddhism as it is more of an instruction manual than an article of faith.

So...that the Buddha could not find what he was looking for in the Hindu religion does not mean that it was not there or had not been there at some time. Rather it wad more likely that he only came into the superficial face of it as embraced by the hoi paloi. Just as now if you go into a typical Thai monetary or Christian church all you are going to see or find are the material trappings of the religion represented. But that does not mean there is nothing in Buddhism or Christianity or the Hindu religion , it is just proof of the ancient axiom...' The higher the fewer , the more to suffer '

There is so much that is beyond the comprehension of the average Joe who often has a family to feed or attend that they have no time for deep study. Neither do they want it. They just want a quick fix for their anxieties and fears that will give them the fortitude to continue their own struggles and give them the hope and illusion that any small offering they make on account of their belief will rebound on them in some kind of merit that will ser them in good stead when they go to meet their maker.

Each to his own. I can find as much solace in a fake bottle of Thai scotch as they can by saying a prayer and burning an incense stick. To each is own...and as another great teacher said.....' Judge not that ye be not judged ' ......succinct and sublime.

[rethaier]

The approach of Siddhartha (The Buddha) was very different to Hindu ascetics because he found that none of their methods worked. What he developed certainly, IMHO, was a method of transforming the mind. On whether or not that is Psychology I will not venture a firm opinion though I do not believe that the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path, with suffering and compassion as pivot points, would be much help to a Psychotic. Having said that, in all deference to Dr Freud, a Psychologist is of no help to a Psychotic either.

The problem for us now is that in those former times they had no internet. Nor did they have any means of transmitting that knowledge or insight they had achieved through recorded speech or video. Therefore they had to attempt to convey this knowledge through either oral or written means. And it soon became clear z( as with the internet or a video )that whatever they said was interpreted in different ways by different people. And pretty soon schisms arose and not long after people often found themselves killing other people over a trivial point of the founders teaching. Fortunately there has not been too much blood letting on account of Buddhism as it is more of an instruction manual than an article of faith.

So...that the Buddha could not find what he was looking for in the Hindu religion does not mean that it was not there or had not been there at some time. Rather it wad more likely that he only came into the superficial face of it as embraced by the hoi paloi. Just as now if you go into a typical Thai monetary or Christian church all you are going to see or find are the material trappings of the religion represented. But that does not mean there is nothing in Buddhism or Christianity or the Hindu religion , it is just proof of the ancient axiom...' The higher the fewer , the more to suffer '

There is so much that is beyond the comprehension of the average Joe who often has a family to feed or attend that they have no time for deep study. Neither do they want it. They just want a quick fix for their anxieties and fears that will give them the fortitude to continue their own struggles and give them the hope and illusion that any small offering they make on account of their belief will rebound on them in some kind of merit that will ser them in good stead when they go to meet their maker.

Each to his own. I can find as much solace in a fake bottle of Thai scotch as they can by saying a prayer and burning an incense stick. To each is own...and as another great teacher said.....' Judge not that ye be not judged ' ......succinct and sublime.

Yes Buddhism has been modified and added to through the ages to where only a few true Buddhist practices still exist. In Thailand, watching the monks I see more Bahtism than Buddhism. The Buddha never taught anything that I am aware of about building merits for the afterlife and he certainly never spoke of a God so it is not really a religion. As you said, it is an instruction manual. However I dispute that you can gain from a bottle of whiskey what you can gain from following the true Buddhist teachings. By the way, Animism, black magic, incense sticks and evil spirits are not part of the Buddha's teachings either. As for the other great teacher, there is compelling evidence that he studied Buddhism. Certainly the 8 beatitudes and the 8 fold path have a lot in common.

[Denim]

The approach of Siddhartha (The Buddha) was very different to Hindu ascetics because he found that none of their methods worked. What he developed certainly, IMHO, was a method of transforming the mind. On whether or not that is Psychology I will not venture a firm opinion though I do not believe that the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path, with suffering and compassion as pivot points, would be much help to a Psychotic. Having said that, in all deference to Dr Freud, a Psychologist is of no help to a Psychotic either.

The problem for us now is that in those former times they had no internet. Nor did they have any means of transmitting that knowledge or insight they had achieved through recorded speech or video. Therefore they had to attempt to convey this knowledge through either oral or written means. And it soon became clear z( as with the internet or a video )that whatever they said was interpreted in different ways by different people. And pretty soon schisms arose and not long after people often found themselves killing other people over a trivial point of the founders teaching. Fortunately there has not been too much blood letting on account of Buddhism as it is more of an instruction manual than an article of faith.

So...that the Buddha could not find what he was looking for in the Hindu religion does not mean that it was not there or had not been there at some time. Rather it wad more likely that he only came into the superficial face of it as embraced by the hoi paloi. Just as now if you go into a typical Thai monetary or Christian church all you are going to see or find are the material trappings of the religion represented. But that does not mean there is nothing in Buddhism or Christianity or the Hindu religion , it is just proof of the ancient axiom...' The higher the fewer , the more to suffer '

There is so much that is beyond the comprehension of the average Joe who often has a family to feed or attend that they have no time for deep study. Neither do they want it. They just want a quick fix for their anxieties and fears that will give them the fortitude to continue their own struggles and give them the hope and illusion that any small offering they make on account of their belief will rebound on them in some kind of merit that will ser them in good stead when they go to meet their maker.

Each to his own. I can find as much solace in a fake bottle of Thai scotch as they can by saying a prayer and burning an incense stick. To each is own...and as another great teacher said.....' Judge not that ye be not judged ' ......succinct and sublime.

Yes Buddhism has been modified and added to through the ages to where only a few true Buddhist practices still exist. In Thailand, watching the monks I see more Bahtism than Buddhism. The Buddha never taught anything that I am aware of about building merits for the afterlife and he certainly never spoke of a God so it is not really a religion. As you said, it is an instruction manual. However I dispute that you can gain from a bottle of whiskey what you can gain from following the true Buddhist teachings. By the way, Animism, black magic, incense sticks and evil spirits are not part of the Buddha's teachings either. As for the other great teacher, there is compelling evidence that he studied Buddhism. Certainly the 8 beatitudes and the 8 fold path have a lot in common.

Ah grasshopper.........what I said could be found in a bottle of whisky was solace.....not any kind of wisdom or insight that would help you in sober moments.

A man gows to a church or temple and performs rituals the esoteric meaning of which he might be totally unaware...... But he leaves feeling a bit better. I might sit on the balcony with a bottle of whisky which will tend to relax and mellow me out so that when the sun turns crimson red and slowly drops below the mountain ridge in the distance, I never ceased to be in awe of it or convinced of a divine hand in the making of creation. I would feel this way anyway.....the sauce just enhances the feeling.

Of course it is a shame that this is so ....... But it is so.

[wotsdermatter]

May I, as a Clinical Psychologist, retired, suggest you read Boring's History of Psychology. There are earlier references than Buddha being the first psychologist - but then you never specified which field of psychology. My first international presentation was at Carlton University, Ottawa and was about Wundt. He is classed as the father of modern psychology because he established a lab in Experimental Psychology and used frogs for his experiments. Freud was not a psychologist but started out as a neurologist in Vienna. He started working with females friends of his wife as they reported, to her, as having many problems, especially related to sexual matters. Most psychologists and even psychiatrists, use or recognise any of his so called "theories" as none of his observations can be replicated or verified. (As an aside, there are many reports from his patients that he fell asleep while they were in "therapy" and they knew that because his cigar would be seen rolling on the floor.) Much of his publications were based on his reading Greek and Egyptian texts, especially myths, such as stories about Narcissus, etc. Also, he was developed psychoanalysis, and many of his followers, including Jung, from Switzerland, left and went there own way as they saw the many flaws in psychoanalysis.

So, the battle for the mind goes on. We will never come to understand it, nor overcome problems related to it.

[MAJIC]

At best Buddhas contribution to Psychology would have been basic, there have been many great Psychologists in the last 2500 years! that have gone into the subject in great detail,with out belittling Buddhas contribution,it may have been a small beginning?

[nongai]

All Psychologists and Psychiatrists since have been groping blindly in the dark compared to the Buddha.

He knew everything about whatever he turned his mind upon, but only taught "a handful of leaves, compared to all the leaves in the forest" of his full knowledge.

[nongai]

To what extent can we compare modern psychology with the analysis provided in the Abhidhamma? Modern psychology, limited as it is, comes within the scope of Abhidhamma in so far as it deals with the mind---with thoughts, thought processes, and mental states. The difference lies in the fact that Abhidhamma does not accept the concept of a psyche or a soul.

The analysis of the nature of the mind given in the Abhidhamma is not available through any other source.. Even modern psychologists are very much in the dark with regards to subjects like mental impulses or mental beats (Javana Citta) as discussed in the Abhidhamma. Dr. Graham Howe, an eminent Harley Street psychologist, wrote in his book, the Invisible Anatomy:

'In the course of their work many psychologists have found, as the pioneer work of C. G. Jung has shown, that we are near to [the] Buddha. To read a little Buddhism is to realize that the Buddhists knew two thousand five hundred years ago far more about our modern problems of psychology than they have yet been given credit for. They studied these problems long ago, and found the answers too. We are now rediscovering the Ancient Wisdom of the East.'

quoted from.... Dr K Sri Dhammananda - What Buddhists Believe

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Bhante_Dhammananda_What_Buddhists_Believe.htm

[Fookhaht]

Not hardly a "first." An overblown claim hidden in the leading question.

Try reading Proverbs. Chock-full of psychological insight. Pre-dating Buddha by 300 years.

Next.

[umbanda]

I like Psychology very much, and was involved with it during all my life, but never studied Buddhism in that way...until moving to Thailand. I asked a Thai friends why the psychologist profession it is not very popular here. He responded telling me that most Thai people looking for counseling talks with monks. Some Thai monks becomes very well known because its counseling skills, and writings.

Months later I did a 10 days meditation retreat at the Doi Suthep Temple in Chiang Mai, specially dedicated to foreigners, and with an English speaker monk. Part of the routine was to meet him, in one on one meeting, every day, to share the experience, and a group meeting later.

Initially I was not reading well his comments, not finding relations with the group concerns, but after few meetings I understood that he was really doing a group "therapy", and that was very effective in my case. I can tell. He is a brilliant Psychologist.

I become a Buddhist later, and learned to meditate. Unfortunately, I do not speak Thai, and I can not take advantage of the many meetings and meditation retreats I had with monks, after reading its translated wonderful books.

[VincentRJ]

So, the battle for the mind goes on. We will never come to understand it, nor overcome problems related to it.

Wotsdermatter,

When I fist saw your name, my mind tricked me into thinking it was Wordsmatter.

I attempted to overcome such problems you refer to by describing the mind as an illusion, in the thread on Cosmogony here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/808984-cosmogony/page-2

But that idea didn't go down well with some folks.

In the final analysis we all struggle to make sense of our life and circumstances, using whatever concepts we've acquired as we progress through life.

I've got no training in Psychology or Psychiatry, but I have read one or two books on Freud and Jung out of general interest.

What I think is puzzling about Buddhism for many Westerners, is an apparent negativity about life, as implied in the concept and the goal of escaping from Samsara, the material world, and the cycle of death and rebirth.

Taken to its logical conclusion, such a precept or goal would lead to the self-extinction of the human race, if everyone became a true Buddhist.

How does one deal with this problem? Can it be explained in Freudian terms? For example, in Freudian psychology the mind, or psyche, is divided into three main categories, the Id, the Ego and the Superego.

The Id is the 'dark' side of the personality, containing all the basic, instinctual drives, wants and desires we were born with, including the very significant sexual drive essential for the propagation of our species.

However, what might be relevant to explain Buddhism, is Freud's later inclusion of a 'death instinct' into the Id. This death instinct, or death drive, is often described as an Instinct of Destruction directed against the external world through aggression.

Now it's true that Buddhism doesn't promote aggression and violence. However, according to Freud, the ego moderates and organizes these chaotic primordial drives of the Id, in accordance with the morality and ethical principles that reside in the Superego.

If I were to attempt to understand Buddhism in Freudian terms (at my very basic level of understanding, of course), I would imagine that there is a Buddhist flavour of Superego, containing the precepts and teachings of the Buddhist Dhamma, as understood through individual interpretation, and a practical, hard-nosed Ego which attempts to tame the Id.

When Buddhists claim that the Ego is an illusion, perhaps they really mean that the Id is an illusion. It's the Ego in conjunction with the Superego that does all the claiming and all the teaching, and tries to modify and control those basic drives of the Id.

If those basic drives of the Id can be divided into two prominent drives, the sexual instinct and the death instinct, then is it possible, I ask myself, that Buddhist psychology has not entirely eliminated the 'death drive' but has tamed and modified it so that it has a more benign and universal effect, eventually resulting in the gradual extinction of the human race at best (or at worst, depending on your outlook)?

Alternatively, one could imagine that some of these Buddhist precepts express a very profound understanding that all species on our planet are subject to a 'natural' process of extinction. Most of the species that have existed at some time in the past are now extinct, through changing environments, catastrophic geological events, and failure to adapt through normal evolutionary processes.

We like to think as humans that we are so clever that extinction could never happen to us, but perhaps it could. Perhaps the Buddha understood this, which is why part of the Buddhist teaching is that nothing is permanent, which must include the human race.

Hope this doesn't sound like so much gobbledegook.

[techboy]

Wadda bunch of pseudointellectual yuck. And the answer is most certainly not. Buddha was just well published.

[VincentRJ]

Wadda bunch of pseudointellectual yuck. And the answer is most certainly not. Buddha was just well published.

Are you aware that Buddha and his teachings had a significant following for around 400 years before anything was published? Don't you think that this fact is an indication that the Buddha was not just well published?

[rockyysdt]

Wadda bunch of pseudointellectual yuck. And the answer is most certainly not. Buddha was just well published.

Are you aware that Buddha and his teachings had a significant following for around 400 years before anything was published? Don't you think that this fact is an indication that the Buddha was not just well published?

It's interesting view.

Level of popularity based on being well published.

I suppose in successful marketing one needs both a reasonable product and a distribution method, either first hand/word of mouth as in the case of the first 400 years or via the written form.

[elviajero]

Wadda bunch of pseudointellectual yuck. And the answer is most certainly not. Buddha was just well published.

Are you aware that Buddha and his teachings had a significant following for around 400 years before anything was published? Don't you think that this fact is an indication that the Buddha was not just well published?

A following of frightened, illiterate peasants willing, wanting and needing to believe teachings based on nth-hand accounts that were eventually scribed and promoted by people whose intention is questionable and almost certainly self serving.

Of course if accounts of Buddha's teachings are accurate he, allegedly, warns us against following his own teachings; “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” Gautama Buddha.

OP - Even if one considered Buddha a psychologist, as there are no written records from human prehistory, so it's impossible to know.

Edited May 4, 2015 by elviajero

[Brucenkhamen]

I don't know if he was the first Psychologist.

This article mentions Buddhism along with other ancient teachings in it's history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology and the Buddha did draw on other teachings that were around at his time. However I'm not aware of other teachings ancient teachings that break down and describe the characteristics of mental processes and the causal relationships between mental phenomena the way the early Buddhist texts do.

The article also says "It is an academic discipline and an applied science", the Buddhas teaching is a practical method of gaining freedom from mental suffering and not really academic, so maybe we could say he was the first Psychotherapist.

Here are a couple of articles showing how Buddhism has impacted modern Psychology;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(psychology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_psychology

[VincentRJ]

Wadda bunch of pseudointellectual yuck. And the answer is most certainly not. Buddha was just well published.

Are you aware that Buddha and his teachings had a significant following for around 400 years before anything was published? Don't you think that this fact is an indication that the Buddha was not just well published?

Of course if accounts of Buddha's teachings are accurate he, allegedly, warns us against following his own teachings;

...which is a slightly misleading introduction to the Kalama Sutta. I would modify that that statement along the lines....he allegedly warns us against following any teachings, whether his own or that of others, uncritically and unthinkingly. Those last two words are the main point, and I think it is the teachings like this, which are a part of the Buddhist scriptures, which resonate with our modern understanding of the scientific method and make Buddhism attractive to many non-religious Westerners.

I myself was rather amazed when I first came across the Kalama Sutta, because one tends to associate most religions with dogmatism, blind faith and an uncritical subservience to an invisible authority. Critical thinking is usually not encouraged in religions.

[sabaijai]

https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=K23TgO2JOL4&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtELfbEKqiIk%26feature%3Dshare

Brilliant dhamma talk, esp 11:41 - 14:36, as regards this discussion. Thanks for the link.

As someone else in this thread pointed out, there were philosophers within the Brahmanist tradition in South Asia who proposed theories of the mind.

But the history of psychology in western terms is often traced back to the Archaic period of ancient Greece, particularly the Socratic schools, which were relatively contemporaneous with the presumed time of the historical Gautama.

Some theorists have suggested that trade between Greece, India and China included an exchange of ideas as well as commodities. If noodles could travel that far, why not ideas about the mind, helping to build some sort of mutual critical mass, intellectually speaking? No way to know for sure.

Aside: Following the premise that the era produced a unique blossoming of eastern and western thought, novelist Gore Vidal publish a wonderful piece of epic historical fiction called Creation in 1981 (republished in 2002 with the addition of four previously deleted chapters) wherein, as described in Wiki:

The story follows the adventures of a fictional "Cyrus Spitama", an Achaemenid Persian diplomat of the 6th-5th century BCE who travels the known world comparing the political and religious beliefs of various empires of the time. Over the course of his life, he meets many influential philosophical figures of his time, including Zoroaster, Socrates, the Buddha, Mahavira, Lao Tsu, and Confucius.

One of my favorites.