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 15th 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 15th 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 12th
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.
