Psychology & Buddhism.pdf

152 Belinda Siew Luan Khong
through a profound appreciation of the oneness of everything. In this sense, all
three have much in common. There are two important albeit subtle differences.
These differences point to the ways that Buddhism can expand the scope of social
responsibility in daseinsanalysis.
The first difference relates to the role that Heidegger and Boss envisage for
human beings in the grand scheme of things. Both men place humankind at the
apex, as having the responsibility for other beings, and in the unique role of acting
as a clearing for Being. Although, this approach is evidently a step in the right
direction in reducing humankind’s tendency to impose their will upon nature and
the environment, it is still relatively anthropocentric and hierarchical. In this
respect, the Buddhist stance on social responsibility can make a significant
contribution.
Pivotal to the Buddha’s teaching is the parity between all sentient beings
(Gyatso, 1995). From this perspective, the human being is important, but only as
a link in the chain, and not as the most essential one. We can well imagine
Heidegger or Boss saying to a person, “You are important and you have responsibility
for other beings.” On the other hand, the Buddha would probably say to
the same person, “You and other beings are equally important, and your responsibility
is to ensure that your own actions do not engender negative consequences
for other beings.” The Heideggerian and daseinsanalytic approaches to social
responsibility have an element of a hierarchy of sentience which is absent from
the Buddhist perspective.
The other important difference lies in the emphasis that Buddhism places on
social responsibility as a continuum of personal responsibility. The Buddha
teaches that “protecting oneself, one protects others, protecting others, one protect
oneself” (Samyutta Nikaya V:148). So from a Buddhist perspective, responsibility
starts with the individual. Understanding the law of cause and effect,
interrelatedness, non-self and compassion, this sense of responsibility for oneself
is extended reflexively to all beings to whom we are inextricably connected
socially and ecologically. This intimate relationship between personal and social
responsibility appears to be absent from Heidegger’s and Boss’s approaches to
social responsibility. As I pointed out earlier, their promotion of social responsibility
is intended to reduce people’s technological attitude. In this sense, social
responsibility is regarded as an invaluable addendum to, rather than a spontaneous
extension of personal responsibility.
Foundation for the Psychology of Change
Both the daseinsanalytic and Buddhist expositions on the human concern
with impermanence and change complement each other in so far as they show
that this concern is a universal phenomenon. However there is a significant