ACT - Self As Context
January 21, 2006 - 7:41pm — Kenneth Fung
Just wondering - while a lot of ACT is consistent with Zen Buddhism, does this aspect contradicts Zen Buddhism - striving towards the realization of no self?
User login
Upcoming Community Events
- Public Workshop: Quit Smoking - Raucherentwöhnung - Köln (Cologne/Germany) March 13th 2010(Event)(2 days)
- ACT with PTSD: A Naturally Occuring approach to Prolonged Exposure - Webinar(Event)(6 days)
- Introduction à la thérapie d'acceptation et d'engagement (Event)(8 days)
- Intermediate ACT Skills Training, London with Martin Brock(Event)(9 days)
- ACT by Numbers for Valued Living (Personal Growth and Development)(Event)(13 days)
- Iniziando l’ACT: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy workshop teorico-esperienziale per Clinici (Event)(15 days)
- Experiential Introduction to Acceptance and commitment Therapy with skills training, in London UK(Event)(16 days)
- Groupe : "Agir pour une vie pleine de sens : A ccepter, C hoisir et T enir le cap (ACT)" à Bruxelles (Belgique)(Event)(21 days)
- Kelly Wilson in Iowa City, Iowa April 9, 2010(Event)(29 days)
- Verdiepende vervolgcursus in Blooming te Bergen (NH)(Event)(29 days)
- ACT Toronto 2010: Introductory Experiential Workshop(Event)(30 days)
- Melbourne: Acceptance & Commitment Therapy: 1 Day Advanced Workshop(Event)(30 days)
- Mindfulness and Acceptance & Commitment Therapy with Kelly G. Wilson in Toronto(Event)(37 days)
- Public Workshop: Quit Smoking - Raucherentwöhnung - Köln (Cologne/Germany) (Event)(37 days)
- Acceptance & Commitment Therapy Skill Building and Case Conceptualization with Kelly G. Wilson in Durham, NC(Event)(50 days)
- Disarming Anxious Suffering Using Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: A 2-Day Workshop With John Forsyth(Event)(56 days)
- Vervolgcursus Acceptance and Commitment Therapy(Event)(56 days)
- ACBS Pre-Conference Workshops: Reno, Nevada, USA(Event)(100 days)
- ACBS World Conference VIII: Reno, Nevada, USA(Event)(101 days)
- Erste Winterthurer ACT-Tage(Event)(113 days)
- ACT Training with Kelly Wilson in Winterthur Switzerland(Event)(116 days)
- Kelly Wilson - Atelier Residentiel 3 jours 12, 13 & 14 Juillet 2010 Sainte Foy-Les-Lyon, France (tous niveaux)(Event)(123 days)
- Acceptance & Commitment Therapy (ACT) for Anxiety Relief A 5-Day Professional Training (with Forsyth & Eifert)(Event)(129 days)
- Introductiecursus ACT in conferentiehotel Blooming in Bergen (NH)(Event)(232 days)
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 46 guests online.
Tibetan Buddhism - Dzogchen
Jeffrey Hopkins' Tantric Distinction includes a good analysis of how Buddhism does not claim that nothing resembling a self exists whatsoever, but only that the self is not what we think it is.
Indeed, in the Dzogchen tradition (which I find curiously similar to Zen), while the mind or the true self resembles the sky, all mental phenomena are like the clouds on it: floating within it yet not spoiling it. Sounds literally like the same account of the self in the "chessboard" analogy.
Atilla Cidam
Franklin and Marshall College
Self as Context
Now that I am bit more familiar with ACT I wanted to follow up on this thread. Just for kicks, what "self-as-context" sounds most like in how I understand Buddhism would be one of the Five Aggregates. In Buddhism 'being' is made up of the Five Aggregates. The Five are: Form, Sensation, Perceptions, Mental Formations, and Consciousness. Consciousness is defined by Walpola Rahula in "What the Buddha Taught" as "awareness of the presence of an object" (p.25)
What differs from "self-as-context" is that in Buddhism, what we call "I" is merely the combination of these five, and "they are all constantly changing." (p.25) As I understand "self-as-context" it has been proposed as a stable, unchanging vantage point from which we observe our thoughts. Buddhism agrees that the five aggregates are not the same as our thoughts, well, actually 'Mental Formations' would be thoughts, I believe.
But the Buddha was the ultimate contextualist, claiming that there is nothing permanent and unchanging, as everything is made up entirely of all of the other elements in the universe, which are always changing.
For example, the Buddha asks Sati what he means by consciousness. Sati says, "It is that which expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here and there." The Buddha disagrees stating "there is no arising of consciousness without conditions." (p. 24) And goes on to explain that there is no Permanent Self, merely these five aggregates that are in constant flux depending entirely on what they are arising from at any given time.
So that is how I see the difference, which is certainly not a critique about which way of thinking is better.
Personally, I like to be reminded that I don't exist apart from the context that creates me from moment to moment because:
A) It reminds me that my apparent need for ego gratification is nonsense.
B) It reminds me that I am connected with the rest of the matter in the world at a very basic level, so treating anything poorly is treating "myself" poorly.
C) "My" perspective will change with time, so "I" might be wise to not be too emphatic about any particular point of view (will "I" learn this?)
D) What I think I am observing is quite often not quite what I think it is (I would dare to say almost always).
E) Just as actors will tell you, the character I am playing is created by the actions of those others who are around me: I am a small part of a large system, and the other parts matter a lot.
F) I don't need to protect the identity or image of this consciousness I have in this moment. "I" am just not that big of a deal. (And that's quite ok!)
Zen coherence
consistent...what is the bowl/context/frame that establishes consistency?
contradictory...what is the bowl/context/frame that establishes contadiction?
How does no self have values?
We may value consistency as scientists...surely Zen values contradictions and accepts them...this is not frustating...but reestablishes coherence non rationally
about barbers and tortoises
All this interesting thread remembers me the old greek dilemma: there is a town with only one barber who shaves the people who do not shave themselves at home... so, the question is: who will shave the barber? (if he shaves himself, he must not shave himself!!!)(anyway, the barber is shaved every morning)
Or Achille and the tortoise: we always can divide the distance between Achille and the tortoise by infinite; so Achille will never reach the tortoise (nevertheless, Achille reaches the animal).
So, what is de difference ACT / ZEN / ETC...?
From a "Korzybskian" point of view, the clue is the difference between WORDS an "REALITY": In the "context" (another good question: what is the difference I/CONTEXT?)in the context of WORDS the barber can not decide whether to shave or not to shave himself and Achille can not reach the tortoise; but in the context of "FACTS", the barber shaves himself every morning and Achille takes the tortoise efortless.
I think "ACT" "ZEN" "SELF" "CONTEXT" "MIND" "DEPRESSION", etc. belong to the word´s world while therapy belongs to reality and "therapy" is a broader reality than we imagine; it is not only what we think or say we do... You know the story about the teacher pleased with her method: to give a sweet for every correct answer until she discovered the pupil did not like sweets... but he liked his teacher pleased.
I strong agree with Ben Cooper´s remarks.
I think neither Zen valitades ACT nor ACT is a proof of Zen´s goodness.
Zen, ACT, etc. (in my opinion) are only limited maps lightly different of the "reality"
Best regards
Ramiro
No self
There are Zen teachers who know ACT - Fr. Ama Samy (a fairly well known Zen teacher in India) most notably. So far, I have not been told by these Zen experts that there is an inconsistency. Self as context is closer to "big mind" or "no self" as it is sometimes talked about. It is not self as object. It is "that without distinction" (everything - nothing) -- except with our science hats on, in which case it is a side effect of deictic frames.
Steven C. Hayes, University of Nevada
no self
Having just begun to read about ACT, I am finding an incredible resonance not only with my 12-step orientation, but also with the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh, my teacher. Embracing our suffering (powerlessness over addiction) we are able to look at our choices of actions that do or not keep us there.
His explanation of "no self" is simply "no separate self" following up on the Buddha's statement "This is, because That is." The sun, the rain, the trees, the air are all present in the paper. My self consists entirely of non-self elements, such as water, rice, tofu, and so on. Self exists, but only in the sense of being a small part of a greater whole.
Ego reducing, perspective enhancing, anxiety reducing. I sit here on my mat, and I realize that I don't need anything else for happiness. All of the conditions for my happiness exist right here.
Some of the Zen folks perpetuate the mystery, and hence their hierarchical power structure a bit much for my liking. My experience with Cocaine was enough of a Koan for me.
I will continue my reading of the ACT book to discover how this fits in with your teachings. I am quite excited by the synergy I am feeling, and love the RFT rationale for how our thinking gets in our way.
Greg Rogers, Nova Southeastern University
Self - ACT and Zen
While I agree that self as context can be similar, or maybe even the same as “that without distinctions” I think that there is grounds for saying that there is a basic inconsistency between ACT and Zen.
My understanding is that Zen is at heart a mystical tradition (my idiosyncratic definition, this does not imply a criticism). Its ultimate object is to determine the nature of reality. Our nature. Basically that “form is emptiness and emptiness is form,” and that there is neither form nor emptiness.
From a Zen point of view the cutting off of conceptualized thought allows, and is necessary for the experience of . . . true nature.
I think that ACT, as radical mindfulness, being right here, right now, “just this,” is consistent with Zen. I believe that it is possible to take ACT that way, and down that track. However, generally, our aim as therapists is not to convince our clients that they don’t exist. Therapy takes place in a different context than Zen or other spiritual training, similar at times but different. The function of therapy is different. Fostering a sense of Observer self as a means of living a more satisfying and personally meaningful life is ACT consistent. I believe that it is Zen consistent primarily as a technique used towards the realization of no distinctions. (It would be good to have a Zen teachers view on all this though.)
Zen practice can have some pretty positive side effects, relaxation (sometimes), less emotional and cognitive reactivity, the breaking down of some rigid rule governed behaviour, and becoming more sensitive to environmental contingencies (behavioural flexibility). In therapy most of these are the goals.
Given the above, I think that there is a core inconsistency between Zen and ACT. My guess is that Zen wants the whole enchilada, nature, the universe, sitting at the computer and everything, and that ACT goes half way there (although I haven’t read all of the RFT book yet so I could be wrong). And, to the extent that both are about living your life and the loosening the holds of conceptualized thinking they are consistent.
Noting the differences is important though because seeing only the similarities we could make the mistake of throwing various “mindfulness” techniques drawn from Buddhist traditions at clients rather than engaging in carefully crafted defusion and self-as-context exercises within a coherent treatment plan based on a functional analysis.
Jim Hegarty
Self - ACT and other
Hi Jim,
That was an interesting post and highlights some of the issues I also have been thinking about recently. I posted somewhere earlier that I was curious as to whether introducing techniques from older traditions would facilitate an influx of the baggage that goes with those techniques. I’m pretty sure RFT/ACT are walking into this area with their eyes open, and with a sound philosophical and theoretical base. I do also wonder, however, whether some ‘guilt by association’ or combinatorial entailment also occurs, such as ACT = Mindfulness = Buddhism ergo ACT = Buddhism. Then there is scope for the wider frame to include ACT = Buddhism = Spiritual/New AGE/Alternative ergo ACT = Alternative/New Age etc. I am, of course, aware that Buddhism is far from new, but you take my point. It would just be a shame if through this process (not from the research agenda but by therapists misunderstanding RFT’s aims and objectives) that the potential of ACT/RFT is watered down and treated as another set of techniques one uses, as opposed to a sound theoretical, behavioural technology that is evolving through ongoing empirical research and practice.
Self-ACT and other
Yea. I remember your previous post and shared some of the same concerns. I agree with your comments regardng the potential difficulty of keeping a growing movement linked to a sound theoretical, behavioural technology. I think you said it much more clearly though.
ACT = Buddhism = ?
Hi Dave and Jim,
This ties in a lot with some of my current clinical experiences, especially when colleagues ask me about ACT…..’it’s like Buddhism isn’t it?!’ I usually say that it’s not NECESSARILY like that.
I like your RFT analysis of this but would argue that the frame of coordination described functions differently dependent on the learning history of the client or colleague you’re introducing to ACT. I have worked with some people who have an interest in meditation/Yoga/etc and here it has been really useful to emphasise the relations between mindfulness and ACT at an early stage. This has happened a lot when working with 20-40 year olds, possibly tying in with a quasi-spiritual zeitgeist. For these people it may be that the frame transforms the following stimulus functions: ACT = Mindfulness and Mindfulness = contemporary/interesting/hopeful/exciting therefore ACT = contemporary/interesting/hopeful/exciting.
In contrast, I have worked with other clients who are not so familiar with mindfulness based practices and or find the idea of these aversive. For these people, the frame of coordination between ACT and Mindfulness may transform stimulus functions such as New age/hippie/ placebo. In this case I’d probably try to create a different relational and functional context and initially emphasise different aspects of ACT, perhaps its scientific rigour.
My question is as follows: The above description is what I think is possible and what I try to do but how can I better inform the way I do it.
Cheers,
Nick
transformation of ACT stimulus function
hi nick
I've had similar expereiences to those you describe with professonal and trainee peers in particular.
As I have a reputation for being somewat of a behaviourist on my training course, the very fact that I propose ACT as useful, transforms it from an unknown entity to something aversive, old-fashioned, stimulus response etc depending on how behaviourism functions in the learning history of my peers. This is also true if I talk about ACT in terms of contemporary clinical behaviour analysis.
However, I have found that if I mention the minfulness componenent, the stimulus functions are transformed again in very different ways. For some it seems to allow it to be more accessible and understandable to them, but in a spiritual rather than a scientific way. For others as you point out the whole minduflness thing may make it aversive.
So I think what you are doing makes sense and reflects some very good use of functional analytic and ACT principles themselves, in terms of workability and of function over topography. Presenting ACT and its core process in one or two limited ways may function in very different ways for different people and transform the stimulus functions of the therapy space, depending on the ideographic reinforcement history of our clients. Therefore the more we understand about our clients and how ACT process work the better able we are to present ACT or mindfulness in such a way that ACT=mindfulness= "someting relevant/something good etc" therefore ACT = good. This probably requires flexibility on our part, but with ACT flexibility is the name of the game after all.
So I agree with the analysis provided by yourself, dave and others and do try to do something similar myself. How to better inform the way you do it. I dont really know, it sounds like you have a pretty good handle on it already.
Aidan
reply to no self
Interesting and HUGE question that would probably take a few tomes to answer adequately--and certainly not by me! I think there are a couple of points to keep in mind: Firstly, there is no explicit effort from those on the ACT side to ensure or even encourage consistency b/n the two (Buddhism & ACT). To the degree that there is consistency, well, I will let someone else try to explain that--except to say that we should not be surprised that, when two different paths "work," they converge and ought to converge, at points. Secondly, let's not get too hung up on the word "self" as it can refer to so many different things. My own take on this is that, in Zen, the "self" that there becomes "none of" in "no self" is more akin to the verbally constructed self (self-as-content) than the "observer self" or self-as-context (of course, a true Zen instructor would probably pounce all over the language and dichotomies of that last sentence, or at least cringe as much as I do as an ACT therapist!) Nonetheless, in most Buddhist lineages, even in the descriptions of enlightened folks who have realized "no self," there seems to remain a consistent point of view from which they speak ("self" in at least some senses of the word). They do not suddenly become unable to speak "I-You" or become confused about their relations to others, though they realize that these dinstinctions are not solid. I have recently been re-reading (for the nth time) the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying and, while reading accounts of the "sky-like nature of mind" behind the clouds of obscurations, felt like there just might be room to think of that as "self-as-context," though in a manner that I have yet to experience!
Well, I don't know if all those words help, but there they are.
Joel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joel Guarna, Ph.D.
Licensed Clinical Psychologist
Chestnut Hill Counseling Assoc.
16 Fifth Street
Dover, NH 03820
603-749-4462 x23
jguarna@chcanh.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No self, no contradictions
An interesting answer to the question of interpreting "no self" is provided in "Buddhist Practice on Western Ground" (Shambala, 2004), a non-technical book by psychotherapist and long-time Buddhist teacher Harvey B. Aronson.
Aronson believes that Western students of Buddhism may run into two difficulties here. The first is purely one of translation from Pali or secondary Buddhist tongues into English, and leads to the mistaken notion that "no self" implies the absence of an empirical or psychological self. In fact this isn't what's meant at all.
The second difficulty arises from the first: if you sincerely believe that you need to expunge your psychological self or ego as part of becoming liberated, you may rationalize and thereby exacerbate the avoidance of difficult emotions and thoughts. Aronson says that this in fact happened to him when he was younger, and that only after his personal issues reached the point of crisis did he realize he needed to supplement his meditative studies with Western-style therapy.
I am not much of a Buddhist and moreover I'm a complete monglot - but so many books for Westeners have been published in recent years that this particular misunderstanding about "no self" seems easy to resolve with a little reading. Zen masters writing in English seem quite pragmatic about self and no-self. Also compelling is the Dali Lami's "Essence of the Heart Sutra," for a simple but not simplistic explanation of form and emptiness.
----------------------------------
Randy Burgess
Writer, editor, book doctor
www.makeyourbookbetter.com
----------------------------------