Meditating for Mental Health? Modern Predicaments and Buddhist Responses in Republican China

Buddhist practitioners and psychotherapists both aim for health but disagree on what that means and how to achieve it. Some scholars argue the two are incompatible: psychotherapy adjusts people to society, while Buddhism seeks detachment from worldly life. Examining Buddhism in Republican China (1912–1949), this paper analyzes how Master Taixu and mental hygiene advocate Jin Sheng responded to emerging mental health concerns and global therapeutic techniques. They converged in framing mental illness as a fundamental cognitive obstruction, with meditation alone insufficient as a remedy.

Study at a glance

Abstract

This paper examines the discourse surrounding the relationship between meditation and psychological well-being from a historical perspective. While both Buddhist practitioners and psychotherapists aspire to a state of health, they appear to diverge on what this goal entails and how to achieve it. Influential voices such as Conze and Jung have argued that psychotherapy and Buddhist meditation are incompatible: psychotherapy helps individuals adjust to contemporary society, whereas Buddhism is ultimately designed for detachment from worldly life. At its core, this view rests on an ideological opposition between “tradition” and “modernity,” with the latter interpreted as an exceptional condition. Using Buddhism in Republican China (1912–1949) as a case study, this paper examines how Master Taixu (1890–1947) and the lesser-known mental hygiene advocate Jin Sheng (ca. 1900–?) responded to emerging mental health concerns and the global diffusion of related therapeutic techniques. Analyzing the modern predicament in which the Buddhism–mental health dialogue places them, this research argues their convergence in framing mental illness as a fundamental cognitive obstruction, with meditation alone insufficient as a remedy.