本文從探索正念減壓療法（MBSR）的發展經驗開始，原意從中獲得可供借鏡的發展策略和知能，做為未來推動以漢傳禪法為基礎的心理治療模式的參考。出乎預期地，由文獻及訪談中看到MBSR 或所謂「正念療法」，在認識論層次尚未取得科學社群內的共識，以致存在著諸多疑慮或限制。究竟MBSR 是宗教活動還是心理治療？這個命題可以回歸到更早的源頭，即從科學哲學史的角度來看，心理學發展源自研究「人」的知識，在科學革命前有著關於靈性的論述、宗教和哲學等知識典範，約莫十九世紀心理學轉向實證主義靠攏，雖然有效地取得科學社群的認同，卻也在二十世紀後半重啟對靈性及宗教經驗的關注。這個過程，反映了宗教與心理學間典範轉移的歷程一直持續騷動著。而此間動力為何？是心理治療的發展限制？或是回應不同時代需求之必然？以MBSR 的發展經驗為例， 研究者由文獻及訪談中觀察到一些動力，包括了對這門以佛教為基礎的新興心理治療有著矛盾情感，即樂見佛教能發展出一種入世的助人模式而廣為民眾所接受，同時卻也基於佛教信仰而對於將佛教觀念置入科技理性模式下的心理治療典範感到不安；更進一步地，這個不安相當接近於孔恩的不可共量性（incommensurability），認為佛教與心理治療處於不同的知識典範，即便講述著相近似的名詞、概念，其意涵終究是不同的，直接引用或簡化佛法，在佛教徒眼中是存疑的；最後，我們想望未來的發展，佛教與心理治療間典範轉移的歷程該怎樣走，使彼此能相互學習、尋找交集甚或創造，而非僅流於機會主義式的一個方便借用，研究者身為一為佛教徒的心理治療工作者，試圖提出一些省思與建議。

This paper will explore the development and experience of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). My intention was to employ the strategies and knowledge from MBSR to facilitate Chinese Chan Buddhist meditation-based psychotherapy in the future. To my surprise, the literature and interview reviews reveal that scientific circle has not reached a consensus on MBSR in epistemological level. Therefore, there are concerns or limitations in the field. Is MBSR a religious activity or psychotherapy? This proposition can be traced back to a much earlier origin. From the perspective of history of philosophy of science, psychology originated from the research of human beings, such as the discourse of spirituality, and paradigms on religion and philosophy before the revolution of science. However after the 19th Century, psychology started to be inclined to positivism. This inclination acquired recognition from the scientific community efficiently, and entailed attention to spiritual and religious experiences again in later half of the 20th Century. This reflects the constant shifting paradigm between religion and psychology. However, where does the shift got its momentum? Is it the limitation to development in psychology, or an inevitable reaction to different time and era? There are some momentum observed in the case studies including the ambiguity felt by the new group of psychotherapists who based their practice on Buddhism. These psychotherapists are on the one hand happy to see that Buddhism unfolds an altruistic model that is well-received by the general public. On the other hand, out of their own religious belief, they felt uneasy toward the psychotherapy paradigm which is a technological and rational model infused with Buddhism. Furthermore, this unsettlement is very close to the incommensurability proposed by Kuhn. These psychotherapists think that Buddhism and psychotherapy are different paradigms. Even the two fields employ similar terminologies and concepts, the ultimate meanings are different after all. Direct application or to simplify Buddhism by the psychotherapists are questionable approaches in the eyes of Buddhists. In conclusion, as a Buddhist psychotherapist, I wish the above reflection and suggestions will shed some light on the future development of paradigm shift between Buddhism and psychotherapy. Hopefully, rather than an opportunistic appropriation, this paradigm shift will be a constructive one that the two fields can learn from each other.