Pastoral Psychologist's View on Life of Vanity - Reflection of the 18th Sunday Readings

A gym rat, who has been a member of fancy sports gym for years – but still remains flubby. 

An anxious single, who has been a member of exclusive dating club in search for a future mate with a class – yet still lonely singe, despite many expensive dating and dating coaching sessions.

A self-help addict, who have been spending a lot of money to buy new self-help books, CDs, DVDs, and attending expensive self-improvement seminars – but feel unhappy. 

All their efforts and financial investments into gym, dating programs, self-help programs, self-improvement seminars are not getting them where they want to be.

What is a common denominator among these?

It’s a life without traction. It’s vanity – a  life in vain. A life without traction means a life that cannot generate meaning of life.

Vanity begets vanity. It goes like a vicious downward spiral, to put you in a quagmire leading to an existential crisis – if meaninglessness continues long enough.

The first reading for 18^th Sunday (Year C), Ecclesiastics 1:2; 2:21-23, describes a sentiment of life of vanity. 

Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth,
vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!

Here is one who has labored with wisdom and knowledge and skill,
and yet to another who has not labored over it,
he must leave property. 

This also is vanity and a great misfortune.
For what profit comes to man from all the toil and anxiety of heart
with which he has labored under the sun? 

All his days sorrow and grief are his occupation;
even at night his mind is not at rest. 

This also is vanity.

Qoheleth is the author of the Book of Ecclesiastics, which means “preacher” in Greek (Ἐκκλησιαστής, Ekklesiastes). Interestingly, its Hebrew equivalent is Qoheleth. Thus, the Book of Ecclesiastics also means the Book of Qoheleth – the Book of Preacher.  It belongs to the Hebrew wisdom literature in the Old Testament and examines what life is about.

As a psychotherapist, I use the Book of Ecclesiastics in helping my clients and patients address their existential issues – issues with meaning of life, even in non-pastoral settings.  In doing this, I usually guide them  to express their existential anxieties and frustrations as Qoheleth did in the Book of Ecclesiastics, because expressing our emotions and sentiments in narratives is healing (i.e., James W. Pennebarker (1997). Opening Up: The Healing Power of Expressing Emotions., & (2004). Writing to Heal; Erika H.  Meade (1995).  Tell it by Heart: Women and the Healing Power of Story).

Though people with existential problems often exhibit depressive clinical symptoms (i.e. Marja et al. (2002). Quality of Life in Brain Tumor Patients: The Relative Contributions of Depression, Fatigue, Emotional Distress, and Existential Issues. J. of Neuro-Oncology 57(1), 41-49), I find that using the Book of Ecclesiastics in the context of Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy approach is effective in improving their symptoms and resolving existential issues Logotherapy is found to be effective in treating depression (i.e., Close (2001). Logotherapy and Adult Major Depression: Psychotheological Dimensions in Diagnosing the Disorder, J of Religious Gerontology 11(3-4), 119-140). Thus, integrating meaning-focused narrative therapy approach and logotherapy is efficacious. 

With narrative therapy and logotherapy in mind, I would like to further explore the issues of existential issues in light of the scriptural readings from the 18^th Sunday of Year C and a relevant Buddhist concept. 

In Ecclesiastics 1:12-13a, the author, Qoheleth, tells the purpose of this book:

I, Qoheleth, was king over Israel in Jerusalem, and I applied my mind to search and investigate in wisdom all things that are done under the sun. 

Basically, Qoheleth tells that wisdom (human wisdom, as opposed to the divine wisdom) is meaningless.

Though I said to myself, “Behold, I have become great and stored up wisdom beyond all who were before me in Jerusalem, and my mind has broad experience of wisdom and knowledge”; yet when I applied my mind to know wisdom and knowledge, madness and folly, I learned that this also is a chase after wind. For in much wisdom there is much sorrow, and he who stores up knowledge stores up grief.   (Ecclesiastics 1:16-18)

Now, this segment from the Book of Ecclesiastics (1:16-18) is echoed in the Gospel reading for the 18^th Sunday Year C, Luke 12:13-21, in particular, the Parable of the Rich Fool (vv. 16-21).

“There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest.
He asked himself, ‘What shall I do,
for I do not have space to store my harvest?’
And he said, ‘This is what I shall do:
I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones.
There I shall store all my grain and other goods
and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you,
you have so many good things stored up for many years,
rest, eat, drink, be merry!”’But God said to him,
‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you;
and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’
Thus will it be for all who store up treasure for themselves
but are not rich in what matters to God.”

It seems that a lamentation of Qoheleth over storing up wisdom and knowledge in Ecclesiastics 1:16-18 can become a lamentation for the rich fool in Luke 12:16-21. While Qoheleth became a “victim of his own success” in becoming rich with human wisdom and knowledge, the rich fool in Jesus’ parable became a “victim of his success” in amassing material wealth in the eyes of God. 

This is not that God in Jesus is discouraging us to gain wisdom, knowledge, and material wealth – unless we have a short-circuit brain to make such a myopic interpretation. We must be careful in interpreting Jesus’ words on the rich and the poor to make sure that we do not turn the teaching of Jesus on the rich and the poor as a socialist or communist teaching on equity-based equality. This is not to justify the envy of the poor toward the rich, either. 

Psychologically speaking, such a socialist-like or communist-like mentality with envy may be an indication of some sort of existential or identity problem, in relating to those who have more. 

What matters here is the way we handle our wisdom, knowledge and material wealth. Gaining these, by itself, is not a problem – just as money itself is not evil, though it can become a root of evil.

If wisdom, knowledge, and wealth become a reason of our anxiety and distress, as in the case of a man who had a problem with his brother about the family inheritance (Luke 11:13-15), it is a red flag that we are becoming or have already become a slave of wisdom, knowledge, and wealth. To put this in the Buddhist context, it is a sign of attachment, due to passion or kleshas – one of the Three Poisons in the Buddhism catechism (like deadly sins in Catholic catechism). 

Paul in the second reading offers a good advice, sounding as if making a good Buddhist advice. 

If you are raised with Christ, seek what is above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Think of what is above, not what is on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ your life appears, then you too will appear with him in glory. Put to death, then, the parts of you that are earthly; immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and the greed that is idolatry.  Stop lying to one another, since you have taken off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed, for knowledge, in the image of its creator.   (Colossians 3:1-10)

As Buddhist teaching encourages us to overcome passion, Paul inspires the Colossians to root out passion from their lives in order to live a Christ-centered life, making a shift from self-centered or ego-centered life. 

In the Buddhist context, Paul’s advice is understood with this:

The cause of human suffering is undoubtedly found in the thirsts of the physical body and in the illusions of worldly passion. If these thirsts and illusions are traced to their source, they are found to be rooted in the intense desires of physical instincts. Thus, desire, having a strong will-to-love as its basis, seeks that which it feels desirable, even if it is sometimes death. This is called the Truth of the Cause of Suffering (集諦、じったい). If desire, which lies at the root of all human passion, can be  removed, then passion die out and all human suffering will be ended. This is called the Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (滅諦、めったい).     

  

In Chapter One, Section one, on the Four Noble Truths, on Dharma, “The Teaching of Buddha”, Society for the Promotion of Buddhism, Tokyo, 1966, pp. 74-75)

What Paul teaches to the Colossians about becoming worthy for Christ’s salvation is what Buddhist teaches about the Truth of the Cessation of Suffering. 

Buddhism teaches that we must practice the Eightfold Noble Path: Right view, right thought, right speech, right behavior, right life style, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration – the Truth of the Noble Path to the Cessation of the Cause of Suffering.

Perhaps, Christians can take this Buddhist wisdom on the Truth of the Eightfold Noble Path toward the cessation of the cause of suffering in conjunction with the above teaching of Paul.

An ego-centered life makes us more prone to or vulnerable to becoming “victims of our own success”, falling into a gutter between what is good in God’s desire and what is good in ego’s desire. The latter, of course, is an illusion, both in Christian sense and Buddhist sense.  That is why Buddha’s teaching inspires us to transform ourselves into anatta (no ego) as atman (essential self, as in “loob” in Tagalog) to deliver ourselves from vicious cycle of suffering (cycle of reincarnation) to attain nirvana (eternal and ultimate peace). On the other hand, Christ’s teaching, here elaborated by Paul, encourages us to overcome earthly vices and illusionary concepts, such as immorality, impurity, passion (emotional states arising from insecure, heart and mind, which is not found in harmony with God),  and ego’s desires, in order to be converted into a person with a Christ-centered life.   

On behalf of Christ, Paul is expressing the need of conversion as a transformation of an ego-centered life into a Christ-centered life – attuning our true self (loob in Tagalog) with God in Christ, remembering imago Dei as our core identity (Genesis 1:27).  That is why Filipino Catholic theologian, Jose DeMesa, calls conversion as “pagbabalik-loob” (returning to our essential self).  What is anatta to Buddhists is what is a Christ-centered self to Christians is the direction of our “pagbabalik-loob” in order to prevent from suffering from existential problem of life of vanity (Ecclesiastics 1:2; 2:21-23) or to be like the rich fool (Luke 11:16-21).

Theologically, “pagbabalik-loob” to Christ-centered life, Christ-centered self by ridding us of all our attachment to earthly and ego matters and desires is not only to benefit from meaningful life (as opposed to a life of vanity) but to rejoice with parousia, as alluded in the above words of Paul. 

Unless we live a Christ-centered life, free from attachment to what earthy and ego desire, we may not be able to appear with Christ, when he appears.  In saying this, Paul is referring to Christ’s return and how it will affect us (Revelation 19 – 20). Whenever he returns, Christ will come to make ultimate cleansing not only the whole world but also – most importantly, to cleanse ourselves:

"My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.  (Revelation 7:14 , echoing the prophesy of Isaiah 1:18). 

*****

The way to keep us from putting wisdom, knowledge and wealth in wrong uses in the eyes of God is to maintain a Christ-centered life. To Christians, this is also the way to live a meaningful life, thus preventing us from turning our life into a life of vanity or a life of existential problems.  When our life drifts away from Christ, then, we slip back to an ego-centered life.  An ego-centered life will eventually cut ourselves from God in Christ and turn our life into an illusion or a life of God complex. Such a life may turn into a life of bipolar disorder – feeling extremely euphoric and overconfident when living a life like the rich fool before confronted by God and becoming depressed when the reality of a life of vanity kicks in like the rich fool upon God’s confrontation.  In Christian sense, the former state is a life of pleasure, arrogance, and power that many people can covet. But, sooner or later, we may begin to suffer from existential crisis, as reflected in the Book of Ecclesiastics. Not to mention, a way to heal from this is to return our true self in tune with God in Christ, as our “pagbabalik-loob” to put it in Jose DeMesa’s word. Psychologically, this process can be facilitated by clinical integration of narrative therapy and logotherapy.  Using the Book of Ecclesiastics and certain Psalms is effective with this. 

If you are blessed with wisdom, knowledge and wealth, you can enjoy these as God is pleased with all you have earned and have.

If you live a Christ-centered life and blessed with wisdom, knowledge and wealth, you are more likely to joyfully share them with those who benefit, thanking and praising God for not only the blessing of what you can share but also the blessing of joy over making others happy.

The rich fool should have realized that it was a time for him to share what he had with others when his old storage space became too small – rather than trying to expand the storage to pile up his assets more and more for himself. 

Psychologically, an ego-centered life, as characterized by the rich fool, is usually a sign of insecure ego or fragmented ego. Such ego must die, to put in Paul’s words from the second reading.

Jesus' Parable of the Good Samaritan (15th Sunday Year C) Discussed

The Paradigm of Jesus’ Teaching from the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the Paradigm of Social Science 

Through the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37), Jesus shows that his teaching does not fit in  the dominant paradigms of philosophy, social science (sociology) and behavioral science (psychology) about human behaviors.  The prevailing paradigm of social science is the social exchange theory, which is in line with rationalism, including the theory of justification, utilitarianism, logical structuralism, and Skinnerian behaviorism. 

Having studied sociology, psychology and theology, this aspect of Jesus always fascinates me. What Jesus teaches through the parable of the Good Samaritan certainly transcends a typical Western rational thinking process.  I can certainly imagine how Jesus would fiercely debate with some professors of philosophy, sociology and psychology about what motivates human behaviors. 

*****

Drawing upon my dual background in psychology and theology, I would like to discuss the parable of the Good Samaritan in light of some psychological views, followed by some theological discussions. 

Just as there are unconditional love and conditional love, kind behaviors can be sorted generally in two types:  acts of love motivated by altruistic compassion, and acts of love calculated with cost-benefit analysis. The former is more affect-driven, while the latter is more cognitive.  In my opinion, what the Good Samaritan exhibited is this kind. The altruistic action of love is more instinctive and even seems impulsive as it often comes with a sense of immediacy. On the other hand, the calculated action of kindness can be more rational and cognitive as it comes through some deliberations. 

Usually, when this deliberation, which is a rational as well as cognitive, takes place, a self-serving factor is weighed into the behavioral decision-making process.  Because of this cognitive and rational process, it has to make “sense” in light of self-serving interest, in order to decide to take actions. However, there is no cognitive and rational deliberation in the very kind of altruistic action that Jesus is encouraging to practice in his parable of the Good Samaritan. The altruistic action of the Good Samaritan rather seems as impulsive as “love at first sight” as he engaged in his compassionate action as immediately as he was “moved with compassion at the sight” (Luke 10:33). 

The more we deliberate, the more anxious we may become, delaying and even discouraging us from taking actions, as Morita Therapy’s clinical theory suggests.  Those who tend to make excuses often go through a significant amount of deliberation to come up with rationalization to justify their inactions or actions.  

Like cognitive behavioral therapy, Morita Therapy challenges the rationalization process, which is driven by self-serving ego, in order to ensure that a person’s ego defense mechanism does not negatively affect the behavioral decision-making process. 

The self-serving ego is what divides love conditional and unconditional.  Likewise, it is what differentiates calculated kind behaviors from altruistic behaviors. 

Think how the 15^th Sunday Gospel reading begins.

“There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test him and said, ‘Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’” (Luke 10:25). 

A scholar of the law indicates that his motive is to inherit eternal life.  This indicates that the scholar of the law’s motive of knowing and observing the law rather reflects his self-serving interest, besides he was obviously challenging Jesus. 

In response, Jesus simply asked the scholar of the law, what is in the law? 

Then, the scholar of the law answered, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself”(Luke 10:27), in reference to Leviticus 19:18(Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your own people. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.) and Deuteronomy 6:5 (Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with your whole heart, and with your whole being, and with your whole strength.).

Yes, the scholar of the law has just proved to Jesus how smart he is –demonstrating his excellent scholarship in the law, which is written in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. 

In response, Jesus said to the scholar, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live” (Luke 10:28), citing Leviticus 18:5, “Keep, then, my statutes and decrees, for the person who carries them out will find life - through them. I am the Lord.” By citing another law (Leviticus 18:5), Jesus reminded the scholar of the law that knowing the law is one thing but it is more important to put the law in practice. In this case, it is to love God with all our heart, all our being, all our strength and all our mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Problem of Minimalism Demonstrated by the Scholar of the Law

Now, the scholar of the law begins to reveal his ego more  by asking Jesus this question: 

“And who is my neighbor?”(Luke 10:29)

Why this question reflects the scholar’s ego? It is because such a question indicates the minimalist mentality – trying to limit the scope of who he has to love. In other words, the scholar seems to try to find the easiest way to inherit eternal life.  Now, you do not have to be a psychologist or sociologist to see how the scholar of the law in the Gospel narrative is exercising the rational calculation, as in the social exchange theory. 

Of course, Jesus must have been disappointed to hear such a “dumb question” -  “dumb question” in terms of the kind of theological wisdom that Jesus wants to teach, though such a question may be “brilliant” in typical sociology, psychology and philosophy classes.  In a way, the scholar’s question of “who is my neighbor?” to love to inherit eternal life is like a goofy college freshman asking his professor, “Excuse me, how many pages do I have to write to get an A on this paper?”  

So, to help the highly rational scholar of the law get” enlightened”, hoping to get the scholar’s heart opened up, Jesus begins to speak the parable of the Good Samaritan.  It is to show that the he cannot limit who the neighbor is – in order to inherit what he wants  - in order to truly keep the law that he knows so well.  Jesus is also teaching the scholar of the law that there is no “loop hole” in the laws of God to inherit eternal life.  This means that we must go beyond – transcend the rational paradigm, such as what the equity-based social exchange theory teaches and what the reward-and-punishment-based Skinnerian behaviorist theory teaches.

The Ego Problem of the Scholar of the Law from a Buddhist-Christian Perspective

It is obviously a phenomena of cognitive calculation, prompted by his self-serving ego,  that the scholar of the law asked Jesus,  “And who is my neighbor?”(Luke 10:29). Asking such a minimalist question is a psychological indication of narcissistic disposition in the scholar of the law, spilling his self-centered ego forces over the behavioral decision-making process for the important law (God’s commandment) of loving God and loving neighbor.

The scholar’s ego must be quite strong, given that he approached Jesus with his self-serving desire to inherit eternal life and showed his ego manifestation to minimizing his personal cost in doing good deeds of love for another person by trying to limit the scope of the objects of his acts. 

In the eyes of Buddhist teaching, the kleshas(煩悩) of the scholar of the law is quite powerful, as his attachment (obsession) to his self-serving interest (manifestation of his ego) is so strong.  Because of his strong kleshas, his focus is himself and his own benefits, rather than God and another person, which God in Christ can be theologically projected or manifested – though his manas-vijnana (末那識) in his mind create an illusion that he is holy enough to serve God through God’s commandment of loving God. 

See how kleshas and manas-vijnana can hijack our understanding and practice of God’s commandment (law) of loving God and our neighbor.

To apply Buddhist’s important teaching in the Jesus’ teaching in the 15^th Sunday’s Gospel narrative (Luke 10:25-37), his own klesha, his attachment (obsession) to inheriting eternal life (his self-serving ego phenomena)  and his minimalist rational calculation in reducing the cost on himself actually keep himself from what he desire: inheriting eternal life.  Just as Jesus teaches the importance of self-denial to become his disciple and inherit eternal life (i.e. Luke 9:23 from the Gospel reading of the 12^th Sunday ),  Shakamuni Buddha teaches anatta (no ego) to attain the ultimate freedom from suffering called the state of nirvana (i.e. Three Marks of Existence doctrine,  the Tathagatagarbha sutra),  which may be compared to a benefit of inheriting eternal life.

Act of Kindness with Conditional Love vs. Act of Kindness with Unconditional Love

Though everyone talks about unconditional love, like saying, “Oh, baby, I will love you unconditionally!”, and expresses their desire for unconditional love, it seems that many of them do not really understand that unconditional love is not about rationalism. It is not something we can understand and practice in light of what the scholar of the law exhibits in the Gospel narrative.  Ironically, the more we slip into the quagmire of the rationalism, including the social exchange theory and the Skinnerian reward-and-punishment behaviorism,  the farer we deviate from real unconditional love.  

When our self-serving ego kicks into our rationalism, then, this makes a dangerous “psychological cocktail” of illusion.  This psychological problem is like the problem of manas-vijnana (末那識) in Buddhist’s yogacara (唯識) psychological concept. 

Whether it is due to our rational calculation for the minimum requirement on the scale of self-preservation (ego motive) or due to manas-vijnana,  many people struggle with a gap between conditional love, which is an outcome of rational calculation, and unconditional love, which has no such calculation.

Most people often exhibit behaviors  of conditional love upon calculating the benefits of the acts over the costs out of the ego-driven self-serving concerns (self-preserving interest).  This cost-benefit calculation is a cognitive decision-making process to most people, because of manifestation of the self-preservation, even narcissistic disposition. 

This psychological process reflects Skinner’s behavior theory of operant conditioning: behaviors are shaped with conditions of reward and punishment. In this simplified behavioristic Skinnerian theory, not only humans but also all animal behaviors are motivated to seek reward and to avoid punishment. Namely, this is a carrot-and-stick theory.

In Sigmund Freud’s view, human behaviors are shaped in order to seek pleasure and to avoid pain. But, those who challenged such a Freudian view argued that human behaviors are motivated and influenced by non-tangible factors, such as meaning of life, as Viktor Frankl did.

One cautionary factor about rationalism like the Skinnerian behaviorist theory and Freudian theory is an inherent and inevitable problem of reductionism.  Rationalistic view tends to over simplify rather complex phenomenon, thus committing errors of oversimplification, resulting from  things like the “Occam’s Razor” and  the “Law of Parsimony” . Both of these reductionistic concepts in science are a form of minimalism. Thus, the law  scholar’s  question of “And who is my neighbor?” reflects reductionism as in “Occam’s Razor” and the  “Law of Parsimony”.

Examining the Good Samaritan and the Victim in light of Social Psychology (Baston) and Neurology (Siegel)

Perhaps, if your primary motive of “loving our neighbor”  is to inherit eternal life – or I should say, if we are obsessed with inheriting eternal life, then, chances are, our “loving” behaviors would be rather conditional and not like what the Good Samaritan exhibited. 

Is your compassionate behavior motivated by your desire “inheriting the eternal life”(Luke 10:25, 18:18; Matthew 19:16; Mark 10:17) or for “inheriting the Kingdom of God”(1 Corinthians 6:10) or “getting name written in the Book of Life”(Revelation 20:15)? Then, it can be explained with social exchange theory, which assumes that altruistic behavior is rather a myth human prosocial behaviors are motivated by some kinds of self-gain, overweighing costs.   However, Daniel Batson’s “empathy-altruism hypothesis” argues, otherwise.  Baston, in his “empathy-altruism hypothesis” asserts that you are more likely to reach out and help someone in need, even though you have nothing to gain from helping, if you have empathy toward the person, because empathy makes you believe that delivering the person from his or her suffering is the most important matter.  In other words, in Baston’s view, the locus of your thought is not you or your ego but on the welfare of another person. Thus, in Baston’s view, empathy is not just standing in another person’s shoe and feeling this person’s suffering but finding it the priority to relieve another person from his or her suffering, regardless of the cost on yourself to engage in such a behavior.

Baston, a social psychologist, asserts that not every helping behaviors are motivated for self-gains because some people act with genuine empathic concern, which is an others-oriented emotions, rather than self-centered emotions. The Good Samaritan in Jesus’ parable, highlighting the commandment of loving God and neighbor wholesomely (Luke 10:25-37) echoes Baston’s  “empathy-altruism hypothesis .  Its main component, empathic concern, can be neurologically explained with Daniel Siegel’s  concept of the neuro-circuit from the mirror neuron to the superior cortex, in connection with the subcortex limbic system, the brain stem and the somatic (visceral) response, through the insular cortex.  

It is also important to note that Siegel’s neurological concept is rooted in the developmental psychology of the mother-child attachment and attunement.  Thus, in order to neurologically understand Baston’s “empathy-altruism hypothesis”, we must first be aware of how the mother-infant attachment and attunement can affect a person’s mirror neuron, insular and other neurological factors, involving in empathy and empathy-driven altruistic behaviors. In fact, a mother, who can provide a nurturing environment for her baby to form attachment, is selfless and puts her baby’s welfare ahead of hers. Thus, a baby who can form a healthy attachment with such an empathic and altruistic mother can attune himself or herself to his or her mother’s empathic and altruistic nature. This is a possible developmental psychological explanation as to how a person can become as empathic and altruistic as the Good Samaritan. 

The Baston’s view of empathy itself is altruistic, alluding to that this is the very empathy that the Good Samaritan had toward a man left beaten and half-dead. 

Christological Consideration of the Good Samaritan and the Victim in light of Dual Psychological Projection

There is a psychological projection of Christ as the compassionate healer who immediately responds to a person of suffering to relieve his or her suffering onto the Good Samaritan.  This is evident in consulting the original Greek text of the Gospels.  

The very Greek word to characterize the compassion of Jesus, as appeared in  Matthew 9:36, 14:14, 20: 34, and Luke 7:13, is “splagchnizomai” (σπλαγχνίζομαι).  In fact, the same Greek word is being used to characterize the compassion of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:33.  It is also interesting to notice that the same Greek word of compassion is being used to characterize the merciful father of the prodigal son in Luke 15:20, as this merciful father can be understood as a psychological projection of the God the Father and His mercy. 

There is another psychological projection of Jesus as the least among us (Matthew 25:34-40). Jesus is projecting himself both to the Good Samaritan and to the victim of injustice in the parable, reflecting the Jesus’ Christological dual identity:  Christ as a victor, as well as, Christ as a victim (Paschal victim). This dual psychological projection of Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan is a very important Christological concept to be noted. 

By being like the Good Samaritan, as Jesus command, we become deeply in touch with Christ. At the same time, we also become more drawn to Christ by exercising Baston’s “empathy-altruism hypothesis”, empathically imagining what it would be like to be left beaten, half-dead and alone – like the rejected corner stone ( Luke 20:17, Psalm 118;22, Acts 4:11  ).  To put it in light of Siegel’s neurological concept of empathy, we must viscerally feel the suffering of Christ the victim in order to fully appreciate the parable of the Good Samaritan, as your mirror neuron, insular cortex, limbic system and brain stem are all fully activated. 

It is also very interesting to note that the Greek word for compassion, splagchnizomai” (σπλαγχνίζομαι), which is being used to characterize both Jesus and the Good Samaritan, literally means “to have the bowels moved and yearn”.   Feeling empathy and becoming compassionate is a figurative understanding of having the guts feeling in response to a psychophysiological recognition of another’s person’s suffering – in the Greek understanding.  Interestingly, such a Greek view of compassion, based on , splagchnizomai” (σπλαγχνίζομαι), echoes Siegel’s neurological theory of empathy. 

We must have this kind of psychosomatic empathic response to fully appreciate this parable, in light of Baston’s “empathy-altruism hypothesis” and Siegel’s mirror neuron and insular concept of empathy. In fact, because empathy is visceral by its nature, as Siegel argues, it mobilizes our bodies to take compassionate action toward another person in suffering.

Connecting Frankl’s psychology of meaningfulness and Baston’s “empathy-altruism hypothesis”

Daniel Baston’s argument for empathy and altruism echoes Viktor Frankl’s view on meaningfulness, which helps us sustain our life during crises.  

When Frankl was consulted by suicidal inmates during his time in Nazi concentration camps, he gently directed their self-centered attention to greater factors outside their ego spheres, such as life itself, as well as their beloved family members.  When their attention gradually shifted from themselves to these factors, they were no longer suicidal as they regained meaning of life.  

When a suicidal inmate said that his life is hopeless, thus, it became meaningless, because his life in concentration camp offers him nothing, to rationalize his plan to commit suicide, Frankl asked him what he thinks his life is expecting him, rather than asking what he expects from his life.  To another suicidal inmates, Frankl asked what he think his beloved daughter in America is hoping for him, while waiting for him and reunification. 

The clinical paradigm of Viktor Frankl to help suicidal inmates regain meaning of life by shifting their attentional focus from ego to another person or things greater than self.  This is what mindfulness is about, as addressed in Morita Therapy, a Japanese psychotherapy with Zen Buddhism bearings, Buddhist spirituality and Daniel Baston’s “empathy-altruism hypothesis”. 

In Baston’s view, we must be mindful of what is outside our own self-sphere in order to be empathic.  And, this mindfulness toward another person and his or her needs in suffering  - empathy – reflects the introspective mindfulness of our own needs.  When our mindfulness toward another person and self synchronize, then, helping another person through an altruistic action brings profound meaningfulness and immeasurable joy as a human. 

Ignatian Spirituality, Buddhism, and the Good Samaritan

In linking empathy to meaningfulness, one important thing is synchronized mindfulness – the external mindfulness and the internal mindfulness. 

Just as Siegel’s view on empathy  connects both perception and imagination of another person (external stimuli) and the perceiver’s visceral response through the limbic system, brain stem and somatic physiology, the mindfulness toward another person and the mindfulness toward our own deep heart’s desire must be in synchronized harmony to be truly as compassionate as altruistic.  This is the psychophysiological and psychospiritual bottom line of acting with unconditional love, as exemplified by the Good Samaritan. 

Speaking of importance of the mindfulness of our own heart’s desire, this is best understood through the Ignatian Spirituality (the spirituality of St. Ignatius of Loyola) and Buddhist spirituality.

St. Ignatius of Loyola’s prayer, Prayer of Generotity, asks God to teach us not to count the cost (of helping) but to become more willing to give (to help altruistically). 

Lord Jesus, teach me to be generous;
teach me to serve you as you deserve,
to give and not to count the cost,
to fight and not to heed the wounds,
to toil and not to seek for rest,
to labor and not to seek reward,
except that of knowing that I do your will.
Amen.

The gist of the Good Samaritan’s altruistic behavior and the St. Ignatius’ Prayer of Generosity echoes the spirit of Buddhism, the concept of anatta (anatman), the selflessness to become one with all things in the universe. 

The Buddhist teaching of anatta helps us better appreciate what enabled the Good Samaritan to be so altruistic, helping the half-dead abandoned man in spite of the heavy cost on himself. The farer we are from anatta , the more attached (clinging to) we are to our own ego’s self-centered desires (self-serving passions, narcissistic disposition). Then,  our attachment makes it very difficult for us to translate our empathy into our altruistic behaviors because the attachment prompts us to perform mental calculation of minimalism (as in “Occam’s Razor”, the Law of Parsimony). 

When St. Ignatius said the Prayer of Generosity, he must have been facing a spiritual tag of war deep inside his heart between his deep heart’s desire to be altruistic like Christ, who is projected in the Good Samaritan, and the ego temptation of minimalistic self-serving.  Citing Ignatius’ Prayer of Generosity is a powerful way to overcome the ego temptation toward self-serving interests so that we can move more toward genuine compassion, unconditional love, expressed in our altruistic actions, as a manifestation of our spiritual journey toward anatta.