Best Of

@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.

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 (and old) 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 spiritual 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 domain of shamans and gods than that of psychologists with notepads and spectacles.

Both focus on the mind, and both are important tools, and can and do work well together...one just provides the means to delve a little deeper ...

Gay Watson's "The Dialogue Between Buddhism, Psychotherapy and the Mind Sciences" blends the two...

" Buddhism has always been concerned with feelings, emotions, sensations, and cognition. The Buddha points both to cognitive and emotional causes of suffering. The emotional cause is desire and its negative opposite, aversion. The cognitive cause is ignorance of the way things truly occur, or of three marks of existence: that all things are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and without essential self.

The noble eightfold path is, from this psychological viewpoint, an attempt to change patterns of thought and behavior. It is for this reason that the first element of the path is right understanding (sammā-diṭṭhi), which is how one's mind views the world. Under the wisdom (paññā) subdivision of the noble eightfold path, this worldview is intimately connected with the second element, right thought (sammā-saṅkappa), which concerns the patterns of thought and intention that controls one's actions. These elements can be seen at work, for example, in the opening verses of the Dhammapada: The noble eightfold path is also the fourth noble truth.

"All experience is preceded by mind/perception,
Led by mind,
Made by mind.
Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
And suffering follows
As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox!
All experience is preceded by mind/perception,
Led by mind,
Made by mind.
Speak or act with a peaceful mind,
And happiness follows
Like a never-departing shadow!"

Thus, by altering one's distorted worldview, bringing out "tranquil perception" in the place of "perception polluted", one is able to ease suffering. Watson points this out from a psychological standpoint:

Research has shown that repeated action, learning, and memory can actually change the nervous system physically, altering both synaptic strength and connections. Such changes may be brought about by cultivated change in emotion and action; they will, in turn, change subsequent experience !"

I definitely tie Buddhism and Psychology together…but that’s bec I consider myself secular and don’t really dabble on the spiritual side of the shore.