Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

DIMENSIONS OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY IN MAHĀYĀNA-BUDDHISM AND RELATIONAL PSYCHOANALYSIS

2010; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 11; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/14639941003791584

1476-7953

Gerald Virtbauer,

Psychoanalysis and Social Critique

Abstract Buddhism has become one of the main dialogue partners for different psychotherapeutic approaches. As a psychological ethical system, it offers structural elements that are compatible with psychotherapeutic theory and practice. A main concept in Mahāyāna-Buddhism and postmodern psychoanalysis is intersubjectivity. In relational psychoanalysis the individual is analysed within a matrix of relationships that turn out to be the central power in her/his psychological development. By realising why one has become the present individual and how personal development is connected with relationships, the freedom to choose and create a life that is independent from inner restrictions should be strengthened. In Mahāyāna-Buddhism, intersubjectivity is the result of an understanding of all phenomena as being in interdependent connection. Human beings are a collection of different phenomena and in constant interchange with everything else. Personal happiness and freedom from suffering depends on how this interchange can be realised in experience. The article focuses on the philosophical psychological fundaments in both approaches and emphasises clarification of to what the term 'intersubjectivity' exactly refers. This clarification is essential for the current dialogues, as well as further perspectives in this interdisciplinary field. Notes 1. The term 'phenomenon' in connection with Buddhism refers to Sanskrit dharma. Dharmas, used in this context, mean the individual components, which constitute in their wholeness the empirically perceivable world of humans. 'Some of these elements (dharmas) are external to the perceiver and others are internal psychological processes and traits of character. It is in this context that the Madhyamaka school denied the substantial reality of dharmas, claiming that all phenomena were "empty" (śūnya) of any substantial reality' (Keown 2004 Keown, D. 2004. A dictionary of Buddhism, Contributors S. Hodge, C. Jones, and P. Tinti Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar], 74). Regarding the psychological significance of this term in the Madhyamaka school, see below. 2. The following, psychological explanations of the human Self should be qualified by considering that explanations with words in all approaches in Mahāyāna, and especially in Zen, are limited in how they can express the experience that underlies the scriptures; and from a hermeneutical perspective within psychology and psychotherapy it is exactly this experience that is most interesting. In Zen, this is uttered with four characteristics—a teaching outside of scriptures, not based on words and directly pointing to the human mind, which should lead to a realisation of the own nature and Buddhahood (kyōge betsuden, furyū monji, jikishi jinshin, kenshō jōbutsu; see Welter 2000 Welter, A. 2000. "Mahākāśyapa's smile. Silent transmission and the Kung-an (Kōan) Tradition". In The Kōan. Texts and contexts in Zen Buddhism, Edited by: Heine, S. and Wright, D. S. 75–109. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]). Buddhist insight always points to an individual wordless experience and written conceptions of this experience are mainly aids, which do not include the whole spectrum of the experience (see Virtbauer 2008a Virtbauer, G. 2008a. Psychologie im Erkenntnishorizont des Mahāyāna-Buddhismus. Interdependenz und Intersubjektivität im Beziehungserleben, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]). 3. Indra is a god from indo-aryan, vedic origins (the head of the vedic pantheon), who plays an essential role in Buddhist cosmology. 4. The name of this Mahāyāna-Buddhist stream (Madhyamaka) refers to a main question from a psychological perspective. One the one hand, Buddhism denies the existence of a Self as an inner human core or an eternal soul, but on the other hand also nihilistic thinking that would not go along with the Buddhist cause-and-effect-principle (the karma teaching). In the middle way, philosophy is done between these two extremes. 5. The descriptions, which are given here, refer to these patients.