Psychology & Buddhism.pdf

30 C. Peter Bankart, Kathleen H. Dockett, and G. Rita Dudley-Grant
emerged out of clinical psychology as a social change movement within the mental
health field. Its emphases have some interesting parallels to those of engaged
Buddhism: leaving the clinics and going out into the community; collaborating
with the people as equals to solve the social problems of the masses; emphasizing
prevention through individual competency building, empowerment, and
ecological interventions; community capacity building; and reforming policy to
protect the welfare of human society. These parallels are further discussed in
Dockett’s chapter on community empowerment in this book. On the question of
whether scientists should be involved in public policy, Reiff (1971) took the position,
common among members of the Critical Psychology movement, that all
scientific activity is a political statement, either for or against the status quo (see
Fox & Prilleltensky, 1997). Thus the question is not whether one should be
involved but rather to be conscious of one’s involvement and the values that
involvement supports. The same may apply in the case of religion but the jury is
still out on that point. Jason and Moritsugu address the issue of values to guide
our interventions in a later chapter in this volume.
Zen Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is a form of Mahayana Buddhism introduced
into Japan from China in the 12th Century BCE. The earliest traces of Buddhism
in China trace to around the year 50 CE, brought there by traders who were practicing
Buddhists. As Buddhism spread through China in the first two centuries
of the current era it was influenced by both Confucianism, with its emphasis on
filial piety, duty, and harmonious social relationships, and Taoism. Taoism was a
religious and philosophical tradition that encouraged meditation, contemplation,
alchemy, and spiritual immortality. Perhaps more profoundly, however, Chinese
Buddhism encountered two distinctly Chinese philosophical traditions: a deep
and pervasive humanism and down to earth pragmatism (Chan, 1967a). Chinese
humanism resisted seeing the Buddha as a god or a divine; instead he was viewed
as a man of extraordinary and wonderful moral achievements. What was
enshrined about the Buddha was that he was a man of supreme virtue; indeed
Chinese Buddhist temples were called jen-tz’u, “temples of goodness.”
Chinese humanism didn’t depict the Buddha as sitting on a heavenly throne;
instead it shows him sitting in a bamboo grove, carrying a baby, or holding a fish
basket (Chan, 1967a). Moreover what the Chinese valued in the life of the
Buddha was the Buddha’s dedication to the human world, the world of responsibilities,
relationships, and duty. As Chan (1967a) pointed out, the Chinese
Buddha was also a very good Confucian.
Chinese pragmatism is seen most clearly in the practices that emerged in the
centuries following the Buddha’s death. Chinese Buddhists focused on a doctrine
that held that human beings were responsible for their own salvation, and as Chan
wrote, “What is more interesting, salvation is to be achieved here and now.