Psychospiritual Insights on Betrayal and Fidelity – reflection from Palm Sunday Gospel Readings

Psychospiritual Insights on Betrayal and Fidelity – reflection from Palm Sunday Gospel Readings

The Palm Sunday Gospel readings , Luke 19:28-40 (reading for the procession with palms) and Luke 22:14-23:56 (reading for Mass),  cover three betrayals: Judas’ betrayal leading to the arrest, trial and execution of Jesus , Peter’s three-fold denial of Jesus by denying his association with him to save himself, the people of Israel dissing and pushing Jesus to be executed shortly after praising him as their messianic king.  

All of these human phenomenon against Jesus offer important insights about our heart’s weakness, which allows us to defile a covenant.  Defilement of a covenant includes infidelity and any other forms of betrayal and cheating in relationships.  Adultery is certainly one of them.

I believe that these three betrayal issues depicted in the Palm Sunday Gospel readings reflect our reality of so many broken relationships and heartaches from infidelity.  

Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus to “sell” his master for 30 pieces of silver coins, Peter’s three-time denial of his association with Jesus to save his own neck, and the Jerusalem residents’ quick change of attitudes toward Jesus are projected to even today’s broken relationships, including adulteries and divorces. 

As a psychotherapist, as well as a pastoral counselor,  I treat individuals and couples, who are living in great psychospiritual pain as a result of their inabilities to practice fidelity and maintain relationships.  They are less resistant to, if not necessarily prone to,  temptations and gullibility.  

From a developmental psychopathology perspective, these psychological problems leading to painful relationship problems are indication of immature ego or an ego development problem.

In Judas’ case, he was tempted by material gain to betray Jesus.  As a result of this sinful behavior, Judas suffered a fatal consequence: committing suicide out of shame and guilt beyond recovery.  On the other hand, Peter also suffered from the heavy weight of guilt and slipped into a depressive condition with anger toward himself. But, luckily, Peter was able to recover from this painful consequence of his sin through reconciling with Jesus later on, as Jesus resurrected.  Peter’s recovery and new growth to become a man with unshakable faith in Jesus is one of many blessings that the Resurrection have brought.

Then, what about the people of Jerusalem, who once had thought of Jesus as the messianic king (i.e. Zechariah 9:9), waving palms to praise him, but turned into angry mob, shouting to crucify him?  What could have possibly led them to change their attitude to Jesus so quickly and so radically – from praise to angry hate? 

In my clinical opinion, as a mental health clinician, it is their weak conscience that easily let popular and powerful opinion to sway their view and act like “swing voters”.  The lack of strengths in their conscience made them quite gullible.  This problem is regarded as insufficient ego development, as well as immature faith development. 

In regard to the psychospiritual pain of a consequence of their condemnation of Jesus, the man, whom they once had thought to be the messianic king, to death, it is very difficult to assess and describe.  It is because their reaction to the death of Jesus, beating their breast (Luke 23:48), can be interpreted in multiple ways.  This behavior, as a consequence of their contribution to the killing of Jesus, could be their grief over the death of the man whom they once praised but quickly condemned. Or, it could be a sign of their remorse for taking a part of killing, especially realizing that the man whom they once thought as the messianic king was the divine man, reminded by the centurion, who pierced the body of Jesus. Or, their chest beating could be an indication of their continuing anger toward Jesus even he died. 

If the last possibility of meaning of their chest beating is the case, I suspect that this is what has been haunting the humanity throughout history.  Symbolically speaking, their unresolved anger and hate toward Jesus has been infecting the humanity with deception, betrayals and breaches of trust - even to a point of producing so many philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, to see the human nature as evil.  

To put this in the Jungian psychological concept of collective unconscious, all human sufferings, resulting from our own sinful thought and behaviors, can be projection of inescapable transgenerational consequences of behaviors like the humanity’s betrayal of Christ, symbolized with the condemnation of Jesus by the people of Jerusalem about 2,000 years ago.  Some of those who are more inclined to the Scriptures argue that it is due to continuing consequences of Cain murdering his brother, Abel, out of jealousy, while others assert that all our problems can be traced back to Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve. 

Now a curious question is – what could have possibly pushed the people of Jerusalem from believing Jesus as their messianic king to a man to be condemned so quickly? 

In order to understand this, the Gospel reading of Saturday before Palm Sunday must be consulted.

The Gospel reading for the Saturday is from John 11:45-56. This reading describes the pretext of the situation we reflect during Holy Week. 

As the time of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, which corresponds to Palm Sunday, marking the beginning of Holy Week,  drew near, the Sanhedrin decided to kill Jesus upon finding him in Jerusalem.  The Chief Priest of the year, Caiaphas, offered a plausible justification for this plot: conspiring the Roman colonial authority, Governor Pilate, and persuading the gullible people of Jerusalem,  to believe that killing Jesus would mean the peace of the Roman Empire and saving the Jewish people and their nation from the Romans.

Caiaphas said, “It is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish” (John 11:50), in rationalizing to conspire the Romans to execute Jesus as a dangerous man to the Roman Empire and to conspire his own people, the people of Jerusalem (Daughter of Zion) to believe that Jesus would have to die so that the Romans would not punish them.   The fearful thought that Caiaphas implanted the people of Jerusalem to turn them into angry mob is: If the Roman colonial authority is convinced that Jesus, a Jewish, is dangerous to the Roman Empire, then, it would be either Jesus would be condemned to die or all Jewish people and Jewish nation (though it was a Roman colonial province at that time) could perish by the hands of the Romans. 

The Sanhedrin long wanted to kill Jesus as his existence was threat to their religious authority. But, because they were under the Roman colonial rule, they did not have their own administrative sovereignty. Thus, they could not carry out an execution of their own criminal and heretic.  Such administrative tasks must be approved by and carried out by the Roman colonial authority. So, when the Pharisees tried to kill an adulterous woman in their attempt to trap Jesus (John 8:1-11, Gospel reading from the 5^th Sunday of Lent), they were actually in violation of the Roman law because only the Roman authority could carry out an execution – though such an execution was in the Jewish religious law (the Mosaic Law).

The Sanhedrin’s conspiracy to the Roman authority triggered their “national security” alarm and led to execute Jesus.  Their conspiracy to the people of Jerusalem threw them into intense fear of their own lives, because portraying Jesus as a threat to the Roman colonizers would anger the Roman authority to condemn them. This fear quickly prompted them to hate Jesus.  This shows how people can quickly change with fear-invoking conspiracy propaganda. 

It is really human weakness to compromise our promises and pledges of our loyalty and fidelity to someone with such fear-inducing factors.  Likewise, when their own lives are under threat, even faithful people have apostatized out of fear of losing their own lives.  The radical shift of attitudes and behaviors of the people of Jerusalem in Palm Sunday’s Gospel readings follows a similar psychological pattern of those who denounce their faith to avoid martyrdom.

This psychospiritual insight from the Gospel readings of Palm Sunday offers a blunt reminder that our weak heart is susceptible to greed, as in the case of Judah’s betrayal, and easily let fear clouds our promise of fidelity to and positive regard of a person, as seen in Peter and the people of Jerusalem. 

A psychospiritual remedy to this human problem is reconciliation as Peter did with Jesus upon the Resurrection.  Even a person we betrayed has already died, it is still reconcilable with this person and heal ourselves to become better persons, who are more resistant to temptation and fear. 

What is behind the kind of fear that leads to apostasy and betrayal is our narcissistic disposition.  In order to control our narcissistic tendency, we must regularly examine our own heart and soul through psychospiritual disciplines, such as the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. In fact, I find Buddhism spirituality, especially Zen Buddhism’s self-examining discipline to keep our ego in check, is also helpful to enhance the benefits of Christian spiritual discipline in overcoming influences of our narcissistic disposition, a root of our sinful actions. 

As we experience the climax of Paschal Mystery during Holy Week, let us, once again, inspect our own heart and soul, for hidden narcissistic tendency factors, through the aforementioned psychospiritual disciplines and resolve the problem through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in order to celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord.

平家物語と仏陀の涅槃

                                 平家物語と仏陀の涅槃

平家物語の冒頭は、

                                         祗園精舎の鐘の声、

                                         諸行無常の響きあり。

                                         娑羅双樹の花の色、

                                         盛者必衰の理をあらはす。

                                         おごれる人も久しからず、

                                         唯春の夜の夢のごとし。

                                         たけき者も遂にはほろびぬ、

                                         偏に風の前の塵に同じ。

もちろん、高校の古文でもお馴染みで、この冒頭はあまりにも有名で、よく琵琶法師が語るのが定番ですね。平家物語といえば、平清盛を中心とした平家一族の栄枯盛衰を描いたものだといえますが、この冒頭からもわかるように、平家の栄枯盛衰を娑羅双樹の花が咲き散っていくという諸行無常の念に投影しているかともいえます。　でも、仏教的に考えてみるとどうもそれだけじゃないような感じもします。

日本ではもう桜前線が北上しているさなかで、皆さんの心は桜の方に向いていることでしょう。そして、日本人はよく諸行無常の念を“もののあはれ”の心として美しく咲いてはすぐに散っていく桜の花に投影することで世界的にも知られています。しかし、仏教徒としての日本人の“もののあはれ”の心は平家物語の冒頭にもあるように、釈尊のクシナガラでの入滅の際の涅槃と深い関係のある娑羅双樹の花の変化にも見出しているといえましょう。

釈尊は心と体を疲弊させる苦行にはあまり意味がないことが分かり、下山し、尼連禅河（ナイランジャナー）で沐浴し、村の裕福な一族の娘であるスジャータがこしらえた甘い牛乳のおかゆのお布施によって回復する。それから、菩提樹の下にて瞑想にふけったが、その心を乱そうと悪魔の妖精による妨害に見舞われる。しかし、それを克服し、悟りをえる。つまり、大悟、成道し、仏陀となった。　７日間、その菩提樹の下で悟りの喜びを味わい、縁起、十二因縁（Twelve Nidanas）を悟る。その後、尼抱盧陀樹の下へ移り、７日間、そして、羅闍耶多那樹の下でさらに７日間解脱の喜びを味わった。その後、また尼抱盧陀樹の下に戻り、２８日間、自分の悟りを俗世の人々に伝え、共有するかどうか瞑想思索したが、人々は悟りを理解することはできないだろうから、伝えても意味がないと諦めた。しかし、バラモン教の最高神であるブラマー（Brahma、梵天、帝釈天ともいう）が出現し、釈尊に自分の悟りを世の人々に説くように３度も繰り返し請願された。これにより、釈尊はまず自分がかつて一緒に苦行していた五人の仲間に説くことからはじめ、自分の悟りの確かさをも十二因縁を通して実感する。

こうして、釈尊は法（Dharma）に目覚めた者、つまり、仏陀、としてインド北部広く悟りの教えを説いていき、弟子も増えてきた。そして、自分の悟りにある十二因縁に沿って、その最後にある老死を迎え、花が咲く娑羅双樹のもとで涅槃するのです。それを記念する日が旧暦の２月１５日と言われ、日本では３月１５日に釈尊の入滅を記念する涅槃会（悟りを開いた日を記念する成道会は真珠湾攻撃記念日と同じ１２月８日）に行うのです。

京都では涅槃会の行事において涅槃絵（別にしゃれじゃないですが）を公開し、そして、涅槃の際のお供え物である、花供御　（はなくご）があります。ところが、京都の人のユーモアというか、花供御を　”はなくそ”ともじり、“花供租あられ”がよく京都のお菓子屋で売っている。仏さんが死んだら、その鼻くそを食べる？なんていう面白い言い回し。ちょっと脱線しましたが。。。

本題に話を戻しますが、釈尊の人生の結末である涅槃との関連を考えれば、娑羅双樹の花には平家の栄枯盛衰を哀れんだものよりも、むしろ、釈尊の一生の盛衰を投影したものであるともいえます。

さて、釈尊が弟子達に囲まれ、クシナガラで入滅する際、８本の娑羅双樹の中で涅槃することを選ばれました。その理由は、娑羅双樹を通して仏の如来（Tathagata）の超自然的な効果を示す為であります。釈尊の最後のご説法が終わると同時に８本の娑羅双樹のうち、４本が即座に枯れ、残り４本が青々とし、白い花が咲き乱れ、鶴が舞うようであったと言われる。これが、釈尊（世尊）の肉体は涅槃に入りたまえど、説かれし仏法は構成に残りて栄える、という四枯四栄の言われである。つまり、四枯は釈尊の消えてゆく肉体を投影した枯れた四本の娑羅双樹を指し、四栄は仏陀となった釈尊の教え、仏法、が十二因縁を超越した永遠のものであることを、白い花を咲かせた残り４本の娑羅双樹に託したものだと言われています。

今は丁度彼岸の最中で、十二因縁、とりわけ、その中でも生と（老）死の一連性、一貫性をより感じる時でもあります。そして、煩悩を克服し、悟り、仏法に目覚めて、十二因縁を超越して、彼岸の浄土へと渡れ、ご先祖様との再会をもより強く望む時でもあります。  

それまでの煩悩の世界である此岸での諸行無常の中、もののあはれの念で、ただひたすら今という時を一生懸命四諦八正道に精進しながら生きているのです。

平家の栄枯盛衰を哀れんで詠った娑羅双樹の花は枯れてしまいました。それは、釈尊の涅槃の時、荼毘に付され消えていった命が消えた肉体のようなものです。もし、平清盛が仏法に悟り、欲を出さず、権力への執着といった煩悩を克服していれば、平家物語の冒頭だけでなく、その全体そのものがまったく違った話となっていたでしょう。

合掌

仲田昌史

Reflections of the scripture readings on 5th Sunday of Lent Year C

Reflections of the scripture readings on 5th Sunday of Lent  Year C

Remember the last Sunday’s (March 10, 2013) Gospel reading (Lk 15;1-3, 11-32) on how the older righteous brother had a hard time in welcoming his younger brother? And, how this made his father sad?  It was, in part, the older righteous brother’s inability to let go of his younger brother’s past.  Being unable to let go of such a past matter can make it impossible for us to forgive and move on forward.

This Sunday, the readings further teach us that letting go of the past is required for reconciliation, which is necessary for us to move forward anew, having our sins absorbed by God’s mercy.

So, what does it mean to “let go”?  Does it mean to completely forget about the past?

Not only clergies but also psychologists often say, “Let go!”. We also hear some psychologists tell, “Forgiving someone is not necessarily to forget what this person has done to you.”

This statement is simply distinguishing who the person is and what the person does or has done – indicating that what we do does not necessarily define who we are. This distinction is what Jesus applied to a woman who was accused of committing adultery in today’s Gospel reading (John 8:1-11) as he does not like sin but loves sinners.

Can we let go of the past without necessarily forgetting things from the past?

In the first reading (Is 43:16-21), as written in the lectionary, God said, “remember not the event of the past” (v. 18).  Does it mean that God is telling us to have complete amnesia about the events of the past?

If so, why has Jesus said, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”(Luke 22:19)?

This famous statement of Jesus during the Last Supper is known as “anamnesis” (reminiscence) in a fancy theological term in Greek.  If God had really wanted us to have “amnesia”, then, there would be no Eucharistic anamnesis! This would make it impossible to have Mass, because the Sacrament of Eucharist is the climax of Mass!  Thus, it is clear that God is not advocating amnesia here.

In fact, I find the wording in the lectionary is a bit confusing. So, this is what actually how worded in the New American Standard Version, “Do not call to mind the former things, or ponder things of the past”(Isaiah 43:18).  In the following verse, God continues to say, “Behold, I will do something new, now it will spring forth; Will you not be aware of it?”(v.19).

Now, it is clear to understand that God does not want us to waste our time and attention in thinking too much of the past events because it makes us less attentive to what God is doing for us now and how such God actions now will lead us forward.

In other words, God does not want us to dwell on the past because it prevents us from paying attention to here and now, making it difficult for us to move ahead into the future.

Perhaps, Buddhist teaching can help us better understand, meaning of vv. 18-19.

 As Buddhism considers “attachment”(more like an obsession) is a root of suffering (dukkha), we can understand this God message as “do  not get attached to (obsessed with) our past because we need to move beyond and transcend our past” by applying this Buddhist teaching.Being attached to or obsessed with the past means dwelling still on the past.

Our “attachment” to the past can block our vision from God’s works of the very present moment. God want us to pay our utmost attention to what He is doing right now in order for us to move into the better future, which is ultimately salvation.  This is also great psychological wisdom because being attached to or obsessed with our past can lock us in the vicious cycle of anxiety disorder.

This was exactly what the problem of the older righteous brother in the last Sunday’s Gospel reading (Lk 15;1-3, 11-32) was.  His pride to be righteous, unlike his sinful younger brother, kept his attention to the past of his brother’s sin, thus, disabling his vision to see who his brother has become upon returning, making it impossible for him to forgive and embrace his brother with open arms and open heart.  His own inability to let go – his own attachment to the past – led him suffer from the consequences of his own inabilities to forgive.

So, what does it mean to “let go”?  Does it mean to completely forget about the past? Can we let go of the past without necessarily forgetting things from the past?

We now know that we can let go of the past and move forward into the future by being more mindful of now while remembering the past, as Buddhist teaching says, as long as our memories of the past do not become an object of our attachment or obsession.  This understanding is very important to move onto today’s Second reading (Phil 3:8-14) and the Gospel reading (John 8:1-11).

In the Second Reading, Paul makes a very good example of transcending his terrible past as a zealous persecutor and becoming a driven missionary disciple of Christ.  In order for him to transform himself from “Old Paul” to “New Paul” , Paul explains that he had to let go of all things from his past (accepting loss of all things) in order to become a new person by gaining the most precious “prize”, Christ. 

Remember, on the Second Sunday of Lent, we read the Gospel narrative on Jesus’ transfiguration (Lk 9:28b-36)? And, the transfiguration of Jesus was not only to foretell the outcome of what God is doing right now but also to inspire us to transform ourselves.   Echoing this message of transformation, this Sunday’s readings teach us to detach ourselves from the past so that we can better see how God care us right now and transform ourselves to be a better disciples and ambassadors of Christ, as Paul has done for himself.

Today’s Gospel story certainly goes along with this teaching from the First Reading and the Second Reading about letting go of the past and reconcile.

In the Gospel story, a woman accused of committing adultery was being used to trap Jesus in the dilemma between the Law of Moses and the teaching of Jesus.  Of course, Jesus already knew how the Pharisees was twisting the Law of Moses in order to get Jesus in trouble.  The Law said that a trial of adultery case requires both a woman and a man involved in this sinful affair. But, only a woman was brought .   It was also a violation of the Roman Law for a Jew to execute another Jew. Of course, Jesus did not answer in a way to be trapped and to this mockery justice question.  That is why, just how cleverly he fended off devil’s tempting questions in the First Sunday of Lent Gospel reading (Lk 4:1-13), Jesus responded to the Pharisees in a way that they cannot further challenge him.

Upon clearing the sinful Pharisees off, Jesus approaches the woman and offers her an opportunity to repent and become a new person without sin.  To this woman, whose past could have put her to death, Jesus was the reason for her to be free from her sinful past and reconcile to be transformed.

What is transforming in you during this Lent?

What past of yours are you letting go and moving forward into Easter through reconciliation and lessons from the past?

森田療法の浪人生支援における応用のすすめ：かつての自分もそうであった不合格者への想いを込めて


春となり、気温が暖かくな り、花が咲き、若葉が萌え、生い茂ると、新しい命の息吹を感じ、すがすがしい気持ちで満たされます、と言いたいところですが、全ての人にとってそうではな りません。特に、日本では桃の花から桜の花への過渡期は、受験生にとっての運命の明暗の分岐点とも言える時であり、桜のつぼみの下、自分の受験番号や名前 を合格者発表掲示板に見つけられなかった人にとっては、“春”の実感は覚めてしまった夢のようなものでしょう。そして、“温かかった”その夢が覚めると、 春の夢にあった温かさも一瞬にして“冷めて”しまい、心には失望の穴が開いてしまいます。桜が咲いて暖かい“東風”が吹いていても、自分の心には、その穴 から冷たい“北風”が隙間風ように吹き込んで、しみいる痛みを感じます。

実は、私も大学受験のとき、こうした“寒い”春を３度も経験しま した。桜のつぼみは開花にむけて膨らむ一方でも、当時の私の希望は“つぼみ”の段階で不合格と知った時点で一気にしぼみ枯れてしまいました。そして、こう した経験が２度、３度重なると非常にいたたまれない気持ちになります。自分でも、あれほど落ちても、そして、心身的に落ち込んでも、よく“凍死”しなかっ たな～と不思議なくらいです。よほど脳みそが足りないのか、自律神経が図太いのか。。。こうした自分自身の失敗の経験をも踏まえ、メンタルヘルスの臨床 家、心理コンサルタントとして、大学受験で不合格という痛手を負った浪人生のメンタルヘルスについて考えてみたいと思います。

一生懸命勉 強し、合格する自信があった人ほど、こうした心の痛みはひとしおです。また、一流進学校出身の人や高校時代の成績が優秀な人もより強いショックを受けま す。なぜ、あんなに猛勉強したのに落ちたんだと、自責の念で自問し、失望の上に、自分の能力に対して懐疑的になり、自尊心に深い傷がついたり、イライラし た感情に苛まれることも少なくありません。

それまでいつもクラスでもトップで、進学校へ進み、さらに優秀な成績を維持してきた人で大学受 験の時点ではじめて挫折を体験すると、やはり、不合格という現実がとても不可解に思えます。この背景には、それまで自分の一生懸命な努力がいつも思い道理 に実を結び、自分、自分の能力に対する自信が強く、必然的に高いプライドを持っているということが考えられます。しかし、はじめて“実るはず”の努力が成 果をあげられなかった時、その現実を受け入れることは非常に難しくなります。プライドが失敗、挫折という現実を客観的、つまり、森田療法でいうように、あ るがままに受け入れることを拒もうとするからです。

いつもクラスのトップであったし、進学校で一生懸命勉強したんだから不合格なんてあり えない、進学校のクラスメートのように自分も志望校に合格するはずなんだ、という自信は、ある意味では”思い込み“だともいえます。この、自己、自分の能 力への自信からくる思い込みはプライドによる思い込みでもあり、事実を客観的に認識する能力を喪失させてしまいます。密教にある唯識心理学的にいえば、プ ライドとは煩悩の元とも言われる末那識のようなものであると考えられるでしょう。本当の自分、自分を取り巻く現実の認識を歪曲させてしまう作用がプライド なのです。　

プライドにより客観的な自分と自分が置かれている現実を客観的に認識し、それをあるがままに受け入れられないと、末那識の如く自分の認識をより主観的にするプライドがもたらす“こうあるべき”である自分と客観的な自分とのギャップの狭間でただただイライラするだけです。

こ のような状態に陥ってしまっては、なかなか次の年にむけての受験勉強に熱が入りません。それで、このイライラした状態に対して何かしようとしても、その努 力は空回りで、また更にイライラし、イライラの悪循環にはまり込んでしまい、更に時間と精神的エネルギーを無駄にしてしまい、それが、次のイライラを招く という繰り返しです。　

勿論、こうした空回りを防ぐには、まず、プライドが自分自身、自分の能力、自分の現実への認識をゆがめているということに気付き、これを改めることから始めなければなりません。

一 方、自分でも努力不足だったと感じていた人は不合格を知って失望していても、やっぱり努力が足りなかったからしかたがないと自分の現実をあるがままに受け 入れることができ、失望による心の痛みから、“よし、これをいい教訓として絶対来年は合格するぞ！”と自分に発破をかけ、早速、受験勉強にとりかかるで しょう。

ということは、やはり、臨床心理の観点からみれば、不合格だったという現実をいち早く受け入れた不合格者のほうが翌年の入試に対する合格 率が高いといえるでしょう。不合格であったという現実を受け入れるということは、うじうじ不合格であるはずなんて？と自問する時間と精神的エネルギーの浪 費を最小限に食い止める効果をもたらします。

勿論、戦略的に次の受験に向けて勉強していく上で、なぜ自分は今年（も）合格できなかったの だろうか？と検証することは大切です。しかし、こうした検証は自省であり、客観的に行うものです。表面上、同じように見えますが、このことは、感情的にた だただ自分がなぜ合格しなかったのかと問い詰めることとは違います。つまり、客観的に自分の失敗を分析し、自省検証することは、感情的な要素がなく、冷静 であることです。しかし、後者のケースでは、自分のプライドが客観性を打ち壊し、自省のように見せかけても、実は、ただ自分本位の主観的感情でぶつぶつ文 句言っているのと本質的に同じなのです。この違いを見分けることは、予備校などで進路指導カウンセラーをされている方々が不合格の痛手を経験した受験生を 支援する上で留意すべき大切なことだと思います。

さて、先ほど、プライドが客観性にとってマイナスであり、自省検証することを妨げることを指摘しました。では、ここでいうプライドについてもう少し考えてみましょう。

つ まり、ここでいうプライドは、自分が自分に対して抱く一種の主観的先入観なのです。自分を、無意識、故意、どちらであり、過大評価していることがこの毛色 の先入観の背景にあります。自分を過大評価する傾向は、自分にとって、やはり自分が“可愛い”というナルシシスト的な心理的作用が働いています。発達心理 学的にいえば、こうしたナルシシスト的な心理作用は、土居健郎がいう“健全でない甘え”によるもので、これを更に、John Bowlbyという英国の心理学者の理論から考えると、幼児期における母子間の愛着形成に何らかの問題があったからだと考えられます。だから、私のような メンタルヘルスの臨床家がこうした症例に取り組む時、必ず、その人の子供の頃の愛着形成過程と発達の道程を検証し、それと並行する“甘え”の成長における 問題点を明確にして、戦略的治療計画を練り、実践します。そして、プライドの陰ともいえる、不安、特に、自分に対する潜在意識的な不安、を暴きだし、これを徹底的に治療します。

私自身の臨床経験では、ナルシシスト的、病理的な甘えの症候でもある、自己不安、つまり、自分への自身の欠如、を影から操っている不安を退治する効率的な方法は、やはり森田療法を応用することです。

森 田療法は唯実主義をとり、屁理屈や主観的感情論にいちいち付き合いながら貴重な心理療法、カウンセリングの時間を無駄にせず、やや単刀直入的に問題の核心 に客観的に挑みます。つまり、客観的事実のみ扱うということです。だから、森田療法を導入すると、患者様が屁理屈をこねようとしたり、自己中心的自己過大 評価的な感情論に走ろうとすると、ビシっとそれを指摘し、患者様が自分で自分の事実、自分を取り巻く事実を認識できるようにコーチします。これは、ある意 味では、カナダのBritish Columbia大学のIshiyama先生の指摘にもある森田療法の認知療法的な要素でもあります。

そ して、森田療法では、不安への挑戦を主としますから、事実認識ができると、客観的事実の中の自分と、プライドなどで歪められた主観的な感情論の自分との乖 離が見えるようになり、この乖離が潜在意識的な自己中心的（ナルシシスト的）な病理的な甘えと反応し、自己に対する潜在意識的な不安の存在が認識できま す。

ここからは、自己に対する不安がどのように、人間誰でも生来持ち合わせている自己保存本能的な心理、つまり、森田療法でいう“生の欲望”が反 応しあい、自分を潜在意識的に過大評価し、客観的評価する、あるいは、あるがままに受け入れる能力の邪魔となっていることを突き止めます。そして、客観的 自己検証自省の能力機能が自己不安による自己過大評価による感情的作用により妨げられていることを証明し、一歩一歩、屁理屈や感情論を排除しながら改正し ていきます。こうした治療の効果は、客観的自省的自己検証効果でもあり、患者様のその後の行動の変化とそれが自分にどう影響するかを調べることでわかりま す。

こうしたことから、森田療法の応用は浪人生がプライドに盲目的なならないで、唯実的に自分と自分の現実をあるがままに、つまり、客観 的に、見つめ、受け入れながら、自分の目標達成に向けてより戦略的な行動計画をたてることができ、遂行していける為の支援に活用できるわけです。

森田療法の二大柱は“あるがままに生きる”ことと、“目的本位に生きる”ことです。
“あ るがまま”に生きるというのは、様々で刻々変化する感情に逆らったり、自分の思い道理に操作しようとせず、その時その時、あるがままに受け入れ（この場 合、今年入試に失敗したことは非常に悔しいけど、いまさらぶつぶつ言ったってどうしようもない、とうじうじしないこと）、自分の人生の目的（この場合、次 の年の受験では合格を勝ち取ること）からひと時も目をそらさないということです。いちいち、感情の流れに抵抗しようとしたり、それを自分の思うように操作 しようとすると、こうした感情とのやり取りに時間と精神的エネルギーを浪費してしまい、自分が志望校合格という目的に向かってひと時も無駄にせずに今やる べきことからおろそかになってしまうわけです。

勿論、あるがままに生き、かつ、目的本位に生きる、つまり、自分が不合格になったことへの 感情的な要素にいつまでも振り回されず、また、こうした感情を操作することに時間と精神的エネルギーを浪費せずにこうした失望の感情をあるがままに受け入 れた上で、合格という目的に向かってただひたすら必要なことをする努力をすればいいのです。“本当に悔しいから、来年は絶対に合格を勝ち取るぞ！”という ように。その為には、自分は進学校に行ってたからとか、いつもクラスのトップだったからとかいったプライドに捉われることの元となるような自分本位な感 情的やりとりに時間と精神的エネルギーを浪費し、イライラの悪循環に陥らないことです。

森田療法を活用し、あるがままに、かつ、目的本位に努力すれば、必ず、暖かい本当の春が来ます。

浪人生の、森田療法を活かした戦略的、効率的な健闘を切に願う次第です。

仲田昌史

Gospel Reflection for  Fourth Sunday of Lent  Year C 　　

As one of many things I do is to coordinate a religious education program of my Catholic parish, I regularly write for its Sunday bulletin on the scripture readings to help my students and their parents better appreciate Sunday readings.

Though my actual bulletin article is much shorter for the sake of space, this is a kind of thing I write..

We have come beyond the half-point of this year’s Lenten journey!  Just this week, next week and the Holy Week to make it to Easter! We are getting closer and closer to Jerusalem, where Jesus died and resurrected, as we follow closely the life of Jesus, Paschal Mystery.

Let’s review how we come this far.

On the first Sunday of Lent, the Gospel (Lk 4:1-13) theme was fending off temptations, in spired by Jesus’ victories over temptations at the end of his 40-day fasting in the desert. On the second Sunday (Lk 6:28b-36) , the theme was to transform ourselves from sinfulness to purity and holiness, inspired by Jesus’ transfiguration.  The third Sunday’s (Lk 13:1-9) theme was not to overly anxious about punitive consequences of our sins but rather to work hard on our need of penance so that we would not be like a barren fig tree, which symbolizes a person who failed to repent during God’s “grace period”.

This Sunday, we reflect the importance of reconciliation and forgiveness through the parable of a prodigal son, following last Sunday’s theme of God’s mercy and our need of repenting  so that we won’t end up like a barren fig tree in the last Sunday’s Gospel reading.

In today’s Gospel (Lk 15:1-3, 11-32), Jesus addresses the parable (vv. 11-32) to both sinners, such as tax collectors, and the self-righteous, such as Pharisees and Scribes.  Thus, there is a reflection of a contrast between these two types of audiences for Jesus’ parable on a contrast between the prodigal son and his righteous older brother.

The prodigal son, younger brother, came to his senses as his suffering from sin became unbearable. This was a turning point for him to return to his father, whom he sinned against. Yet, his father received this returning son, who once offended him, with open arm and joy, believing that he has repented.

Through this forgiving father, Jesus describes God’s mercy, which is also addressed in Exodus episode of delivering suffering Israelites from Egypt, as well as in giving a barren fig tree a “grace period” to become fruitful.  The prodigal son is about us, the sinners, who are to repent.

From this parable’s view, repenting means turning back from sin to God’s mercy – to seek His forgiveness.  This is what “metanoia” really means – turning our heart - though the Greek word,“metanoia”, is often simply understood as “conversion”. In terms of “metanoia”, a Filipino theologian, Jose DeMesa, explains with this Tagalog word, “pagbabalik-loob”, which literally means, returning to innermost self.

The prodigal son, amidst his unbearable suffering, came to “senses” (v.17).  This means that he realized his need for “metanoia” or “pagbalik-loob”.  Upon this “enlightenment”(coming to senses) as Buddhist would describe, the prodigal son was on his “pagbabalik” (returning) to “loob”(his deeper self – who really he is) as he returns to his father for mercy.  Thus,  our true self, “loob”, is where we are together with forgiving God, who is represented by the father of the prodigal son. To put this further in Tagalog theological view, “loob”(our deeper sense of self) is our “pakikipagkapwa” (connected in harmony ) with God, upon reconciliation, which demands “pagbabalik-diyos”(returning to God) as our way of “pagbabalik-loob”.

The parable also leaves us in an impression that it can be more problematic if we are like the older righteous brother, who cannot accept and forgive his younger brother. The older son is a reflection of the self-righteous, such as Pharisees and Scribes, who complain rather than listening to Jesus.
Because of his inability to accept and forgive his younger brother as his father did, the elder righteous son found himself outside the celebration his father was hosting for his younger brother. This means that our own inabilities to reconcile can keep us outside the circle of joy that merciful God brings in reconciliation.

Have you found yourself in mounting frustration and misery of your life because you feel your righteousness has never been rewarded? If so, you may have felt angry at God for not responding positively to your rightful conducts. This is the kind of problem that the older son experienced as his own self-righteousness rejected his father’s invitation to celebrate his younger brother’s return. The older son’s sense of righteousness proved to be rather hypocritical because it made him jealous, angry , judgemental and unforgiving. As these are elements of sinfulness, ironically, the older brother’s righteousness had turned out to be a source of his sinfulness.  This is also what Buddhism teaches as one of Three Poisons (a lack of mindfulness/ignorance, anger, and greed).

Paul, in today’s second reading (2 Cor 5:17-21), calls us to be ambassadors of Christ. Because Christ is the reconciliation between us and God, being ambassadors of Christ means that we are to be ambassadors of reconciliation between the world and God.  But, to be agents of reconciliation, our faith cannot be preoccupied with doing “right” things, as the older brother in the Gospel parable was. Rather, it is to remain grateful for God’s mercy, from which God reconcile with us, so that we can serve as ambassadors of reconciliation with one another and with God.