An Integrated Buddhist-Psychological Framework for Overcoming Dream-Related Suffering: Modern Psychology and the Śūraṅgama Sūtra

Abstract

This qualitative interdisciplinary study examines dream-related suffering (DRS) through contemporary psychological research and the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and develops the SAGE conceptual framework as a basis for future empirical investigation. The study has three objectives: (1) to examine the causes, psychological impacts, and contemporary psychological approaches to DRS; (2) to analyze teachings of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra relevant to the interpretation and transformation of distressing dream experiences; and (3) to synthesize both domains into an integrated conceptual framework. Data were drawn from psychological and sleep-medicine literature, textual analysis of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and related commentarial sources, and semi-structured interviews with six senior Mahāyāna monastic educators in Vietnam. The findings indicate that recurrent nightmares and related distress can be maintained by interactions among hyperarousal, waking stress, maladaptive appraisal, and avoidance. Contemporary approaches such as Imagery Rehearsal Therapy and cognitive-behavioral methods primarily target nightmare frequency, distress, sleep disruption, and daytime functioning. By contrast, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra is interpreted as addressing a broader soteriological problem: attachment to mind-generated appearances and misidentification of transient mental phenomena as ultimately real. The proposed SAGE framework organizes these perspectives into four stages—Stabilization, Analysis, Growth, and Enlightenment—moving from immediate regulation and appraisal toward behavioral cultivation and contemplative insight. The framework is conceptual rather than clinically validated and should not be considered a substitute for evidence-based assessment or treatment of nightmare disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or other psychiatric conditions. Its principal contribution is to clarify how psychological symptom-focused approaches and Mahāyāna contemplative perspectives can be placed in structured dialogue without treating them as theoretically equivalent.