Psychology and the Initiate

The author, Richard N. Shulik, a Ph.D. candidate in psychology and human development at the University of Chicago, has received his M.A. in psychology at Harvard.

In the western world, and particularly in America, psychology is enjoying a growing popularity. Even though psychology is not in any way a Spiritual Path or a body of Spiritual Teaching, it is nonetheless an intellectual approach to self-understanding, self-exploration, and character-building. In this sense, psychology at least ‘overlaps’ with the teachings of the Great Masters, in terms of Their objectives, to some degree.

Since there is an overlap between the teachings of the Great Masters and the objectives of modern psychology, some interesting questions arise. Can the Spiritual Devotee benefit, in terms of self-understanding, from studying psychology? Should an initiate of a Master seek psychotherapy to help solve personal problems? These are some of the interesting questions which we will discuss here, from the standpoint of the teachings of Sant Kirpal Singh. In this discussion, we will find that psychology – as a western science – and the teachings of the Masters – as a universal, Spiritual Science – converge in many places, and diverge in many places. A review of these convergences and divergences can help us immensely.

In opening, we note that there are three major viewpoints of the human individual which prevail in modern psychology. Each of these viewpoints has two aspects: theory and practice. By theory, we refer to a large body of philosophical writings concerning the nature of man and the course of his development. By practice, we refer to the practice of psychotherapy, primarily, although psychology has many additional practical uses in education, industry, and other spheres. We are also limiting ourselves to the branch of western psychology which is devoted to the study of the human individual.¹

I. Three main Viewpoints in modern Western Psychology

The three major schools of thought at present are psychoanalysis, behaviourism, and humanistic psychology. Let us begin by describing each one briefly:

(a) Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis was the first theory of the human individual which gained widespread acceptance in the modern western world. It was developed through the work of Sigmund Freud and his closest pupils, mostly between the years 1890 and 1940.

The easiest way to describe psychoanalysis is to characterise it as a method of self-knowledge through introspection. Very few of us have a full grasp of the depth and breadth of our own mental processes – our motives, fantasies, and basic desires – according to psychoanalytic theory. Therefore, we can increase this self-understanding by carefully reviewing our earlier life experiences, under the guidance of a competent analyst who has, himself, completed the self-analysis process. The introspective program is long and involved, frequently difficult, prohibitively expensive, and sometimes fraught with dangers. In the light of these many pitfalls, the student must seek a highly competent analyst, and he must trust the analyst implicitly.

The trust which is required between analyst and client is very, very much like the kind of love and self-surrender which characterises the relationship between Master and His initiate. Erik Erikson, the modern spokesman for psychoanalysis, has remarked upon this similarity, and he describes western psychiatry, accordingly, as our own culture’s answer to the master-disciple relationship of the eastern cultures.²

Yet despite any such similarities, it should always be borne in mind that psychoanalysis is not at all a Spiritual Teaching, and that the psychiatrist can only help or hinder his client on the level of the mind or the intellect.

(b) Behaviourism

Behaviourism originated in the laboratory of the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov, who was mainly interested in the behaviour of animals. Yet, even in the 1890’s, Pavlov realised that the principles of conditioning and behavioural control, which he was uncovering, would have profound implications for human change and self-improvement. Accordingly, Pavlov’s American successors in behaviourism, John B. Watson, Clark Hull, and B.F. Skinner have all devoted increasing attention to the study of human behaviour, even though all of them have maintained animal laboratories. Within the last two decades a new behaviouristic approach to psychotherapy has also developed. and it is known as the ‘behaviour modification’ technique.

It has proved enormously successful for the treatment of limited, specific behaviour problems in human beings, such as speech disabilities – e.g. stuttering –, specific fears – phobias –, alcoholism and cigarette smoking, and the education of the retarded.³

The cardinal tenet of behaviourism is that our conduct is chiefly caused and shaped by the environment surrounding us – and by the ways in which we interact with this environment. The behaviourists agree with the 17^th century British philosophers who wrote that each human being enters into this life as a new ‘blank slate.’ It is only the hand of environment and experience which writes upon that slate. (The environment here refers not only to the physical surroundings but to other people as well – the social environment.) Accordingly. the best way to change a man for the better is to restructure his environment, or to change the ways in which he deals with his world.

The behaviourists dispute the psychoanalytic claim that a long apprenticeship of introspection is needed for self-improvement. Rather, they believe that self-improvement can be effected here and now, in the present, not in the past. Human beings respond to the rewards and the punishments, the love and the hatred, afforded by the physical and social environment. Give a man a supportive environment and he will develop into a whole being.

The behaviourists also lay great emphasis on the precise and rigorous analysis of our behaviours in quantitative or numerical terms. Many behaviourists believe that if we but know what we are doing, the knowledge itself will be sufficient to help us change. This seems to be in complete accord with the diaries for self-introspection which are provided by our Master, Who teaches that we must know how we are behaving, in terms of thought., word and deed, before we may begin to change and improve ourselves.

But again we emphasise that the Master’s teachings are spiritual in nature whereas the behaviourists, as psychologists, do not operate at the Spiritual Level.

c) Humanistic Psychology

Humanistic Psychology is the youngest branch of western psychology, as it has grown popular within the last fifteen or twenty years. Although it, too, is not a Spiritual Teaching, nonetheless - among the three schools of thought – it is the one which strives to come close to a Spiritual Doctrine. Fifty years ago, Freud’s pupil, Alfred Adler, protested that psychoanalysis and other doctrines of psychology were not sufficiently loving or compassionate, and accordingly Adler called for the creation of a school of humanistic psychology. Adler’s plea was long ignored, but finally during the 1950’s, two psychologists – Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers – began to make popular their ‘psychology of love.’

Maslow pointed out that traditional psychology – psychoanalysis and behaviourism – frequently base their view of mankind upon the cure of mental illness. In that the traditional psychologists have dealt chiefly with the mentally ill, their view of mankind is distorted. Maslow then claimed that there was a great need to study the mentally healthy – the most robust members of our race – at their best moments in life. Carl Rogers developed a school of psychotherapy based upon the new philosophy of Love and health as well. Rogers taught that it was not sufficient to take the patient in psychotherapy for the purpose of curing his mental illnesses. Rather, one should try to discover with the patient new reasons for living, optimism, enthusiasm, and the ability to love others selflessly.

Again, the humanistic psychologists fall short of Spirituality, but their teachings recall many of the Master’s own teachings. Sant Kirpal Singh has advised us many times that it is good to study the lives of great men. This seems to be the same advice that Maslow is giving to his fellow psychologists, when he urges them to study the lives of the most healthy, robust men – and when he asks them to base their psychology upon such study.

Master also wishes us to learn to love selflessly; and accordingly, Dr Maslow makes the painstaking distinction between selfless love and selfish ‘love’ – attachment – in his own writings.⁴

Master lays great emphasis upon humility; similarly, Carl Rogers lays tremendous emphasis upon humility. Rogers writes that the humanistic psychotherapist must never regard himself as the superior to the patient in therapy. No matter how unfortunate the patient may he, the therapist must regard himself as being equal to – or even lower than – the patient.⁵

Despite the loving and wonderful temperament of humanistic psychology, it is not a program for spiritual self-development, and the humanistic psychologist works mainly at the level of mind and emotions.

Now that we have provided a thumbnail sketch of the three major viewpoints in human psychology, we can consider some further questions.⁶

II. What about Psychotherapy?

Some initiates have sometimes wondered whether they should seek psychotherapy for the purpose of resolving some mental or psychological problem in their lives. Others, who have strongly felt the need for some kind of counselling or therapy, have wondered what type of therapist, or what school of psychotherapy, would serve them the best. Now we are interested in discussing the question, ‘Should an initiate or a Spiritual Devotee go for psychotherapy?’

This question is a delicate one, and there are no blunt, simple answers possible. If one asks oneself such a question, the best recourse may be to seek the Master’s advice or the advice of one of His representatives or group leaders.

However, we should remember that the Master Himself has pointed out that a careful following of His basic teachings will, in and of itself, resolve many mental and emotional problems. Does the initiate feel that he is in need of counsellling? Before he asks himself this question, he ought to first ask himself: Am I putting in sufficient time for accurate meditation? Am I carefully keeping the diary for self-introspection? Do I understand the Master’s teachings about the good life – sadachar –, and am I following those teachings? If he can answer ‘yes’ to all – or even to most – of these questions, then he is probably well beyond the need for counselling or psychotherapy. He may also find it more profitable – both in terms of time and in terms of finance – to concentrate his efforts upon the Master’s teachings, the diaries, and the meditation, as opposed to concentrating upon psychotherapy.

Nevertheless, there are legitimate problems which may be resolved in therapy, and the objective opinion of an outside observer may shed light upon a difficulty. If an initiate decides that he should seek a counsellor after all, he should bear the following facts in mind. First, the counsellor does not serve as a Master or as a Spiritual Guide. Second, it is best if a counsellor or a therapist might be found who is sympathetic and open to the teachings of the Masters. If the counsellor may be a humble and spiritual man, so much the better. Third, the personal integrity and fine qualities of the counsellor are far more important than the school of thought or the kind of psychotherapy with which he is associated.

But we must reiterate that the initiate who lives up to the teachings of his Master will succeed in surrendering all of his difficulties and problems to his Master – including the need for psychotherapy. For the initiate who has truly accepted the teachings of his Master, meditation is far, far superior to the best of psychotherapies. We have already seen, in fact, that the teachings of the Master combine the best of the wisdom of the three major schools of psychology in a remarkably wonderful way. Master bids us to learn introspection – as in psychoanalysis; Master bids us to keep a careful recording of the way in which we interact with the environment – through the diary sheet – as in behaviourism; and lastly, Master bids us to become loving and selfless, and to study the lives of great men – as in humanistic psychology. Most of all, Master reveals to us the True Inner Nature of the God that is within us – and this is something that no psychology can accomplish!

III. Pitfalls of modern Psychology

We have reviewed, in this paper, the ways in which Master’s teachings agree with some of the teachings of modern western psychology. Now in closing we will touch briefly upon some of the points of disagreement. It is important that we review these points of disagreement, so that we may spare ourselves the confusion of influences that might lead us astray in our Spiritual Journey homeward.

We have noted that the psychological theories of today are not Spiritual Teachings. We may also note that some of the greatest psychologists of our time are open opponents of Spirituality. They are wise and intelligent men, but they are also misguided in that they construe Spirituality as time-wasting nonsense or superstition. Sigmund Freud, perhaps the most influential psychologist in western history, was an outspoken enemy of religion and Spirituality in his own lifetime.⁷ He equated religion with childish impulses and the superstitions of primitive tribal cultures. Similarly, B.F. Skinner, who is perhaps the most influential psychologist now alive, claims that Spirituality is the enemy of science and the hallmark of backward and primitive thinking. Like Freud, Skinner tries to reduce Spirituality to something of a superstition.⁸ These men, who were remarkable for their clarity of thinking on the level of mind and intellect, adopted rigid and closed-minded stances on the subject of Spirituality, which they ultimately failed to understand. Sant Kirpal Singh’s teaching is a Spiritual Science and is not the enemy of modern science, nor is it childish superstition.⁹

Modern psychology also opposes itself to the good life – sadachar – as given out by Kirpal Singh and all Great Masters. The Masters have taught that ‘chastity is life, and sexuality is death.’ Modern psychology, nonetheless, tries to teach us that ‘chastity is repression, and sexuality is life.’ The disagreement between the two is basic and fundamental. We can appreciate the difference in viewpoint if we but remember that psychology is not a Spiritual Teaching and that its orientation is chiefly ‘this-worldly’ as opposed to ‘otherworldly.’ Let the initiates of the Great Master please be very careful about this point. Outstanding spokesmen in the psychoanalytic, behaviouristic and humanistic schools of psychology are among the exponents of sexuality. They speak sincerely, but from a level of vision which is not that of the Great Masters.¹⁰

There are, of course, further pitfalls in modern psychology. Some psychologists have become outstanding advocates of the drug movement, and others have confounded drug experiences with authentic spiritual experiences.

The Master wants us to view any science and any teaching with an open, loving, and objective spirit. This also applies to modern psychology; but we must maintain a spirit of caution and detachment. Psychological theory and practice both have their proper function and their proper place, but – most of all – let us remember that they are not on the same level as Master’s Spiritual Teachings .¹¹

_______________

Footnotes: 1) Modern psychology is a burgeoning science with many branches, some of which do not relate directly to the study of the human individual. For example, social psychology concentrates on the behaviour of people in groups; animal behaviourism seeks to draw inferences about human functioning from the experimental study of animals; physiological psychology takes the viewpoint that man is chiefly a biological organism. Readers interested in surveying the scope of the field may consult a good introductory textbook in psychology, such as the one published by the magazine ‘Psychology Today.’ 2) For brief outlines of psychoanalytic theory, see Sigmund Freud, ‘An Outline of Psychoanalysis’ (James Strachy, trans), New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1949; Erik Erikson, ‘Childhood and Society,’ New York: Norton, 1950. 3) For a review of ‘behaviour modification,’ see Leonard Ullmann and Leonard Krasner, Editors, ‘Case Studies in Behaviour Modification,’ New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966. 4) Abraham Maslow, ‘Toward a Psychology of Being,’ New York: Van Nostrand, 1968. 5) Carl Rogers, ‘On Becoming a Person,’ Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961. 6) Of course, there ore other viewpoints and schools of thought which we have not included. Some of them have enjoyed great popularity. However, most every one of them may be classified under the three schools of thought that we have already reviewed, or else they are combinations or variations of these schools. 7) See Sigmund Freud’s only article about religion and spirituality, which was given the revealing title, ‘The Future of an Illusion.’ London: Hogarth, 1927. 8) B.F. Skinner, ‘Beyond Freedom and Dignity,’ New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1971. 9) Of course, we should be careful to note that there are outstanding psychologists who have not been enemies, but who have been friends, of spirituality. Two outstanding examples are Erik Erikson (cited above) and Carl Jung, who was a student of religions. 10) See Jon Engel’s article, ‘The Case for Chastity. Part II,’ Sat Sandesh, May 1972. The article considers the psychological argument against chastity and gives evidence to show that that argument is wrong. 11) The reader who is interested in psychology should also read ‘The Psychology of the Masters,’ by Dr George Arnsby Jones, Sat Sandesh, August 1969.