Best Of

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy is based on Buddhist meditation practices and is used by some therapists..It's been around for a while now...

The concept of mindfulness, central to MBCT, is derived from Buddhist meditation. Mindfulness involves paying attention to the present moment non-judgmentally, a principle found in practices such as Vipassana and Zen meditation.
MBCT incorporates meditation techniques like body scans, mindful breathing, and mindful movement, which are adapted from traditional Buddhist practices.
Both MBCT and Buddhist meditation emphasise awareness, acceptance, and the idea of observing thoughts and feelings without attachment or judgment.

@Jeroen said:
Yes, and CBTs frequent reliance on exposure is also not always appropriate.

Its likely all about wisdom and knowing what and when to push. I'm a believer in exposure therapy, it needs to be in titrated doses appropriate to the individual though. If you just throw someone in the deep end of the pool you're at least as likely, if not more, to only traumatized them further. When we don't confront problems and fears that signals to the brain that they are indeed something to fear and exacerbates the problem.

But she thinks of a psychologist as a ‘talking therapist’ who can help her sort out her issues, so she persists.

Talk really only is surface level. We have to be able to take the message and integrate it on a psychic and emotional level to let it change us at a deeper level. That takes a more contemplative and meditative approach.

I come to psychology from having first delved extensively in spirituality. To me its more of an addition to spiritual work. I imagine for those who enter psychology first, without that spiritual foundation, they'll hold it in higher esteem and trust than it probably deserves. In comparison to spiritual traditions its still young and learning what works and what doesn't.

I just suspect they are subject to the same frustration as my local doctor, who sometimes complains that she never gets to cure anyone.

Doctors can really only fix broken things, they can't really cure anyone. The best they can do is offer guidance or a pill to relieve symptoms. I don't know if this is a modern thing or a western thing, but it seems we've come to rely too much on others to cure us rather than taking responsibility for our own health.

@how said:
Psychology can soften much of suffering's cause but ultimately remains hobbled by attachments to its processes.

As an expert-by-experience I spent some time working with people with mental health difficulties, and I have to say I have yet to come across someone who is genuinely helped by a psychologist. Most of todays psychologists try and solve every clients problems with a course of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which is the one therapy they have which is actually proven to be somewhat effective. Unfortunately it is not always applicable.

The expert-by-experience approach starts with a home visit and a shared cup of tea, an exchange of stories about problems past and present, and then the offering of helpful tips and approaches. Central is the idea of resilience, that the person who has the problem will be most motivated to work through solutions, will have to buy into those solutions and will be putting in the effort.

@Jeroen said:
Hmmm. Hmm hm. I think quite a lot could be written about this, but although there are definitely some areas of overlap such as in transpersonal psychology I would say they are largely separate. Psychology has large areas dedicated to the dysfunction of mind, in for example clinical psychology, and areas like developmental psychology which don’t really fit into a spiritual worldview.

I think the person who most clearly hinted at the connection between the two was Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs. A lot of psychology is aimed at the mind in the lower levels of that hierarchy, where people are concerned with survival or the social paradigms. Spirituality is the very peak, the highest level of realisation in the hierarchy.

So while they exist on the same spectrum, and to a certain extent influence each other, the understanding of one is not necessary for a good knowledge of the other. Large religions such as Christianity and Islam which account for the majority of the world population have no interest in psychology. However leading alternative figures such as Osho and Jiddu Krishnamurti are interested in the boundary line, there were a lot of psychologists and psychotherapists who came to the Osho commune early on in the 1970’s to work with him and do experimental groups.

As @how pointed out, both disciplines are concerned with suffering and helping those who suffer. You see that in psychotherapy as well as in books such as Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now which is basically a self-help manual for transcending suffering modalities of mind.

Spirituality goes into metaphysics and esoteric realms which psychology doesn’t really partake of, it has for example a view of the collective unconscious which includes astral realms where people can journey, which is more the realm of shamans and gods than that of psychologists with notepads and spectacles.

That makes sense to me. I feel like psychology barely has an inkling at the depths and states a human mind can experience. The psychologist I follow most closely and have shared here Scott Barry Kaufman is a humanistic, positive psychologist. He really likes Maslow and has written an in depth book on him and his work. His focus is on creativity, integration and transcendence. He's written a book on transcendence which I think is a sort of tip toe into the depth of the spiritual world.

“The concept of self-actualization and the transcendent values, which include justice, beauty, meaningfulness, and wholeness, provide a blueprint for a better world. This very well-written volume not only captures Maslow’s work but infuses it with the spirit of inspiration. This book is a major advance in psychology.”
—Aaron T. Beck, M.D., professor emeritus of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania

“As a pioneer of humanistic psychology, Maslow is frequently referenced but rarely un­derstood. Scott Barry Kaufman is here to change that. He does a first-rate job restoring the classic pyramid based on Maslow’s own revisions and updating self-actualization in light of contemporary science.”
—Adam Grant, New York Times–bestselling author of Originals and Give and Take, and host of the WorkLife podcast

“In this book Kaufman studies the legacy of Abraham Maslow’s life’s work in humanistic psychology and expands on this with his own insights and studies. The book gives us a path to self-actualization, to becoming the best person we can possibly become. In the process we discover we do this connected to others and all reality.”
—Sharon Salzberg, author of Lovingkindness and Real Happiness

https://scottbarrykaufman.com/books/transcend/

I've visited this question in the past, but in the end failed to discover any utility in making the distinction. The two are sufficiently interconnected that I have thus far found no reason to separate them - doing so only opens yet another distracting can of worms. I rarely use either term.