Skip to content

Zen practice and the practice of Lacanian psychoanalysis

Raul Moncayo

May 8, 2018 DOI: 10.4324/9780429483189-9 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Theoretical or philosophical paper
Topics Buddhism
Key points Argues that psychoanalysis, especially in its Lacanian form, differs from priestly or pastoral care in requiring the analyst to renounce the ego-power granted through transference and the therapeutic alliance. The author proposes that this renunciation, distinct from sacrifice, parallels the ego-death described in Zen and mystical experience and entails a partial subjective destitution and letting-go of the social persona.

Abstract

Sigmund Freud conceived of psychoanalytic practice as different from that of priests and pastoral or educational counsellors. The deadly aspect of mystical experience destroys identity in the sense that it destroys the illusory or imaginary notion of ego. Zen practice is commonly referred to as leading to an ego-death. Psychoanalysis, and Lacanian psychoanalysis in particular, contains a very precise and fine distinction between sacrifice and renunciation. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the two elements of direction and power are correlated: for there to be a direction to the treatment, the analyst has to renounce the ego-power granted to him/her by the analysand’s transference and the therapeutic alliance between them. To let go of the social ego requires a form of subjective destitution, at least a partial retreat from social behaviours and conditions, and a letting-go of what Jung called the social mask or persona, our favourite ego-images and verbal platitudes.

Comparable studies

Other theoretical and historical papers on buddhism, most cited first.

Explore topics