Psychology & Buddhism.pdf

228 Kathleen H. Dockett and Doris North-Schulte
The Christian saying “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
likewise describes how this recognition works. Since each person is “the other”
to all other persons, accepting and upholding the principle of true self would
mean realizing and acknowledging the error and futility of hating one’s self and
others based solely on the superficial differences of ethnicity, culture, “race,” or
religion. This principle would be a major step in enabling individuals to transcend
all differences of the temporary, transient self. This integrative principle would be
a necessary step in learning to appreciate the diversity and dignity of all life.
In Mahayana Buddhism there are three “evils” of the mind under which
other negative attributes can be designated. These three evils or delusions of the
mind are: greed, anger, and ignorance. Under the heading of ignorance falls the
symptom of apathy or the Christian “sin” of sloth. In psychology, a major symptom
of sloth or apathy or acedia is the lack of feeling about self and others. This
lack of feeling is accentuated by a lack of knowledge or ignorance of the true self.
Apathy is also void of all compassion and any feeling of obligations to self and
others (Montagu & Matson, 1984) thus allowing for the destruction of self and
others.
Buddhists believe that ethnic conflicts will not disappear by instituting laws
to forbid them. They will cease when each individual becomes aware of his or her
true self and the shared Buddha nature of all humankind. Mahayana Buddhism
also negates a fixed identity, based on the principle of the consistency of life and
death. As Takamura (2000) states in his analysis of Buddhist values and conflict
resolution: “Buddhism takes a very flexible view of identity” (p. 23). Each individual
life is a multilayered, constantly evolving scheme of identity and selfdefinition.
For example, one maybe an African American (a category of identity
that did not exist when in my teen years), a woman, a wife, a daughter, a psychologist,
and a Nichiren Buddhist. The significance of each of these layers of
identity (or social roles) varies depending upon the setting and the specific individuals
with whom one interacts. Buddhism acknowledges the great diversity of
identity within each individual. Our identities, like all phenomena, are in a constant
state of flux from moment to moment, from setting to setting, from birth to
death, and from lifetime to lifetime throughout eternity.
Takamura (2000) continues:
What we experience as personality, or identity, are in fact profoundly engraved tendencies
or patterns of behavior. The technical term is karma. But this is not fixed or
immutable. Likewise, what we know as national character or culture is the sum
or accrual of these individual tendencies, reinforced through a shared history.
But again, these group identities are not fixed, eternal, or unchanging. They are
relative, contingent, and evolving.
And they are undergirded by our most fundamental identity – that is, our genuine
humanity. The technical term is Buddha nature, which might be described as our
inherent capacity to sense our oneness with the entirety of being. (p. 23)