Abstract
In this article, I respond to commentaries by Morgan (2016) and Schacht (2016) regarding my presentation of the cases of Beth and Amy (Samlin, 2016). Addressing the dialectic raised between Morgan’s (2016) support for and Schacht’s (2016) skepticism towards the integration of Time-Limited Dynamic Psychotherapy (TLDP) and the Aversion/Attachment Model of Client Suffering (A/AMCS, I organize my response into three broad sections. First, I provide context as to the type of Buddhist tradition from which the A/AMCS draws. In this section, I also address the current debate in Mindfulness-Based Interventions literature regarding the use of explicit vs. implicit Buddhism in treatment. Second, I address issues related to the technical and conceptual integration of the A/AMCS into TLDP. Finally, I re-examine the outcomes of Beth’s and Amy’s cases from the pragmatic standpoint and offer additional thoughts regarding the differing outcomes of the two cases.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
