Addressing Assumptions and Clarifying Conclusions in “Assumptions and Conclusions: Fundamental Distinctions Between Tibetan Buddhist and Western Approaches to Happiness”

The present article attempts to provide valuable theoretical nuance with regard to Buddhist conceptualizations of well-being and happiness, in response to the recent article, “Assumptions and Conclusions: Fundamental Distinctions Between Tibetan Buddhist and Western Approaches to Happiness,” by Cutz and colleagues. The recent upsurge in the theoretical and empirical professional literature with respect to mindfulness-based interventions certainly speaks to the importance of understanding the similarities and differences between Buddhist philosophical teachings and Western psychological theory and practice, including a nuanced conceptual understanding of terms such as “happiness” and “well-being.” As the target article’s effort at discriminating between Western and Eastern conceptualizations of happiness and well-being focused extensively on Western terminology and conceptualizations, the present paper’s clarification of these important distinctions will hopefully allow for greater accuracy when adopting historical Buddhist concepts into contemporary cognitive behavioral models of psychological service, and therefore, will hopefully enhance the professional literature base and allow us to better serve the clientele with whom we work.