When Our Prayers Go Unanswered
BY MARYJANE OSA
The world is full of people who expect to have every point cleared up intellectually before they begin to live . . . who are in search of the book they never will find, namely, one which shall reveal every step of the way so that no thinking will thereafter be required.
–Horatio Dresser, 1917
A common belief In New Thought circles holds that thoughts have causative power, that wrong thinking is the source of difficulties, such as ill health, destructive relationships, or financial insecurity. Originating in spiritually-oriented milieux, these propositions infiltrated secular culture through the works of positive thinking proponents such as Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale. But the cultivation of positive thinking–reciting affirmations, constructing vision boards, turning off the news–does not always lead to positive life changes. Thus, critics can point to prayers not answered, cancer not eliminated, relationships not mended – as evidence that positive thinking doesn’t work. On the other hand, true success stories abound. Many, like Louise Hay, turned their lives around by practicing constructive mental techniques. So the argument over the efficacy of New Thought, especially its positive thinking variant, continues. Neither side hears what the other has to say.
This is not a new problem. In the early 20th century, influential participant-observer Horatio Dresser spoke to the controversy. While affirming the individual’s power to shape their experience through conscious mental awareness, he argued in The Handbook of the New Thought (1917) that popular writers often made this point “crudely and superficially.” Dresser perceived an “undue emphasis” on the power of thought that led believers to adopt a simplistic causality. They assumed that thoughts had great power to manifest in the world of form, and correct thoughts could lead to increased material prosperity or draw an appropriate love interest. Dresser pointed out that a single thought is negligible; it is the accumulation of thought–creating a state of mind–that is significant.
A student of Harvard philosopher William James, Dresser adopted an analytic and psychological perspective. He noted that thoughts exist on the mind’s surface; they connect to (sometimes-hidden) feelings and deep subconscious beliefs. The totality of these connections create a mental atmosphere which determines a person’s mood and their propensity for certain types of behavior. Focusing unduly upon the train of thoughts neglects other layers of the psyche that are involved in creating the individual’s perceptions and interpretation of their experience.
The oft-repeated proposition that “I create my own reality in the manner of my choosing” assumes that life is under a person’s direct control and “the human self is the decisive agent,” in Dresser’s words. The belief that thoughts create reality is founded on a superficial interpretation of metaphysical principles and relies on an incomplete model of causality in the real world. This belief in supreme human agency allows the ego to remain unchallenged and keeps it active in the personality. The ego continually raises doubts about the efficacy of spiritual practice, undermining a person’s commitment to change.
Dresser proposed an alternative to the radical human agency upon which positive thinking is premised. New Thought should present the self as “the instrument to be used, the responsive party.” Such a framework by-passes the ego and allows the true self to emerge. Dresser wrote that Spirit (or Source, God, Divine Presence) is Causality. The Divine is determinative, and the individual who seeks to manifest what is in their highest good is tasked with learning to be receptive to this good.
Humans are challenged with the need to face in two directions at once, according to Dresser. Looking outward at the world, the spiritually-committed must maintain an affirmative alertness, a curiosity towards life. Looking inward, they must cultivate receptivity, allowing Spirit to illuminate their path. Fear of the unknown is released, as trust in inner guidance grows.
Where does this take us? Dresser suggested a move toward a more highly developed conception of the self, one which assumes that “all spiritual life is a sharing of power with its Cause.” Rather than fixating on thoughts, Dresser argued for a fuller conceptualization of the spiritual mind, “the inmost region which lies open to the inflowing divine life.” And the dual-facing requirement of the human condition also provides a role for the intellect, for a person’s reasoning capacity and will.
Once stillness is achieved (through prayer, meditation, yoga, or petting your dog), spiritual perception (intuition, Divine guidance) can be received. At that point, a person has a significant choice: give in to habit? A habitual reaction will dismiss the perception in favor of maintaining a psychologically comfortable status quo. Or, change the habit? Accepting the validity of the inner perception and determining to act upon the new understanding creates an impetus for real self-development.
With this expanded view of the self, spiritual progress is simple: one translates inner guidance into conscious understanding, and then behaves in accordance with this higher cognition. Like the yogis, Dresser perceived union with the Divine as fulfilling the ultimate purpose of life. Using one’s inner guidance and acting upon its Truth is the road of progress.
Does spiritual surrender negate individuality? Not at all. The authenticity and worthiness of each person is fundamental: “To adopt this attitude affirmatively, in the New Thought manner, is to bear in mind that each individual has a right to be, has a work to do” (emphasis mine-m.o.) Dresser’s injunction calls for individuality to be realized in relationship to wholeness–what today we call Oneness. Thus, New Thought is the opposite of what its critics caricatured as a philosophy of selfish wish fulfillment. The fullest realization of New Thought affirms each individual as “contributing their measure of service to the world, while all the time remembering that they are one among many, that we are ‘all members one of another’ through an Efficiency which realizes heavenly purposes for all.”
Maryjane Osa is a sociologist and author. She belongs to a number of New Thought groups and is committed to daily spiritual practice. You can visit her on Facebook at www.facebook.com/dr.maryjane.osa or at her websitewww.maryjaneosa.com.
Great and thanks. It is always helpful to compare and contrast where you are and where you started from.
Thanks, Tom
Thanks to Maryjane Osa for this article. It’s much needed and I hope it’s widely read. I also hope we start giving Dresser the attention he deserves.
We have to move beyond the simplistic idea that our thinking alone creates our reality. Many come to this movement (in one of its form or another) because something is missing in their lives. It’s presented as “cosmic ordering” (in one book title) and all you have to do is step up and make your wish known. So they do the affirmative prayers and spiritual mind treatments and recite the affirmations. Then they end up disappointed when it doesn’t work. God, after all, exists to give me what I want. Those wants usually falls into three categories – I want more money, I want more health or I want a babe.
It’s attractive because we human beings like simple answers. We don’t like complexity or the idea that somethings are beyond not just our understanding, but our human control.
All I have to do is think the right thoughts and recite the right affirmations and my dreams will come true. If I don’t succeed and I develop cancer or fall short in some other aspect of the human experience, then it must be my fault. I just didn’t do it right. “What is in their consciousness” that drew that that cancer or earthquake to them. (I’ve heard that multiple times from New Thought ministers and followers alike.)
Life – like God – operates on many different levels and we have to begin to grasp that idea if we’re to understand the true path to transformation.
Thanks you for moving the conversation forward, Randy. I think some confusion arises in our spiritual circles because people take seriously Holmes’ writing on “mental equivalents” (which he got from Troward, BTW), and so are consciously choosing thoughts that are oriented towards what they want. OTOH – all of us (pretty much) are meditators and core meditation instruction concerns letting go of thoughts, letting them pass through without getting attached. For me, Dresser’s writing help to square that circle.
This provocative article is definitely filled with a range of interesting points. My goal is to keep this comment under 500 words. Let’s see if I succeed.
The first paragraph’s declaration that, “Neither side hears what the other has to say” did prompt one of my eyebrows to raise. I felt a little sigh at reading such a sweeping statement. Yet, I couldn’t help but recall my own experience with fundamentalist thinkers.
Dresser’s observation about the crude and superficial point-making of some teachers of New Thought reminded me of what it is to be healed by an unhealed healer, to be taught a mental idea without feeling that flows from direct experience. That said, New Thought is hardly alone in being a spiritual field that contains such teachers.
However, by the end of the second paragraph my other eyebrow also raised when I read this. “Dresser pointed out that a single thought is negligible; it is the accumulation of thought–creating a state of mind–that is significant.” I do believe that an accumulation of thoughts to creating a state of mind is significant. But to say that a single thought is negligible reads as an assumption, perhaps one that belongs to thinkers that would be found in my previous paragraph.
From the third paragraph on my eyebrows returned to their customary relaxed posture. The idea that, “The ego continually raises doubts about the efficacy of spiritual practice, undermining a person’s commitment to change” is one I’ve personal experience with.
The suggestion that seeing the self as ‘instrument to be used, the responsive party’ in order to by-pass the ego and allow the true self to emerge is one that strikes me as conveying a mental idea without feeling. Consider then the following. “Looking outward at the world, the spiritually-committed must maintain an affirmative alertness, a curiosity towards life. Looking inward, they must cultivate receptivity, allowing Spirit to illuminate their path. Fear of the unknown is released, as trust in inner guidance grows.” I am left to wonder as to whether the time, Dresser, or both had any thoughts of loving-kindness, seeing everyone as the Divine in form, seeing all as equal, setting down judgement and practicing forgiveness. If the New Thought that was being taught at the time suggested that we, look out at the world with an affirmative awareness and a curiosity toward life, then is it any wonder that Dresser declared a single thought “negligible.”
That said, the assumption that ‘all spiritual life is a sharing of power with its Cause’ is a good one. Unchecked, this comment will exceed the length of the article. Thank you for food for contemplation.
Thanks for your response, Carmien. In this short piece, I could only present a couple of ideas from Dresser’s work – and obviously, I haven’t provided the full context. There may be other aspects that appeal to you more. You may want to take a look at his book, The Power of Silence.
A profound and beautiful rendering of how prayer works:
“With this expanded view of the self, spiritual progress is simple: one translates inner guidance into conscious understanding, and then behaves in accordance with this higher cognition”. It validates my long time thought of the work that goes on in Consciousness as the place of possibility and probability that reveals itself in its own way and time.
Thank you for your validation, Frank.
“The Divine is determinative, and the individual who seeks to manifest what is in their highest good is tasked to be receptive to this good.” Excellent statement but often the problem comes when the individual believe that he/she knows what that highest good actually is. Do we really, truly know what our highest good is — even if we pray for that to manifest in our lives? Probably not because of the “veil” behind which we live in this realm. Our highest good might be a diagnosis of cancer. Not exactly one’s definition of highest “good” since we humans have most likely already determined what is “good” and what is “not good” and have developed our attachments and aversions to what we “want” rather than what we need to progress along the spiritual path.
When we can embrace ALL as the path — ALL experience as our highest good and be receptive to this “good” without judgment based on our limited, veiled viewpoint — we have truly come to a realization that prayer never goes unanswered.
This reminds me of something that Louise Hay said: “When we pray for healing, our prayer is answered. But the healing may not be of the body.”
A few years ago, a dear friend was dying of cancer at a relatively young age. He had had a hard life – abandoned by parents, grew up in an orphanage. When he was 18, we informally adopted him into our family, so he was there for all our gatherings. He was there when my parents died. Anyway, I was praying up a storm for him. At some point, I stopped praying for the body and started praying for him to be healed, however he needed to heal. It wasn’t until after he made his transition that I understood what the healing was, how profound it was. A remarkable person who had touched many lives, he grew up deprived of love. His dying drew so many people to surround him with love, with care, with visits, gifts, messages. He was shown, indisputably, how much and how well he was loved by so many. And something utterly remarkable happened at his memorial, but that’s a story for another day.
So this is the whole dual aspect Dresser talks about: we need to be ready to “treat and move feet” but also– surrender to the Divine, with faith that the highest good is being served.
Thanks for articulating that Healing and Cure are not synonymous, as this is where many get caught up. Can I be open to the highest good.. not my idea of what it’s to look like. It’s an amazing place to be, allowing life to live itself through us.
A wonderful blog that needed to be written. Thank you.
“Like the yogis, Dresser perceived union with the Divine as fulfilling the ultimate purpose of life. Using one’s inner guidance and acting upon its Truth is the road of progress.” What a powerful perception!
My dismay with New Thought is its focus on manipulating “The Outer.” That distracts attention not only from The Inner, but from soul purpose. Every soul is visiting this plane for a reason. And while it’s possible that an immortal being would incarnate here to lead a “happy, healthy and prosperous life,” it’s highly doubtful that Earth is where it would expect to find it.
Soul also knows Earth’s other limitation: It is not immortal. The planet, everything and everybody here are temporary.
Even when we are taught that we are souls, as New Thought does, we are not taught to see Life (or life experiences) through the eyes of an immortal. What the physical eye judges to be “bad” could serve some “good” and evolutionary purpose to the soul: cleansing, healing, balancing, learning.
Like other philosophies, New Thought teaches us to regard the Divine as a vending machine. We learn to use affirmative prayer as our coin.
The problem is that sometimes our desires come down the chute–sometimes they don’t. When our desires do manifest, we regard it as proof that “God is good”–or that we’re favored over others. (The implication here is that God discriminates: healing some, helping some win the game or pass the exam, and allowing others to starve to death.)
And let’s not forget this common sense nugget: As souls, we’ve been thinking and praying since The Beginning. In that context, every thought emitted from our physical brains during this current visit to the planet–and every prayer we’ve prayed–would comprise less time than a blink of a physical eye.
How DOMINANT can any single thought be? Why do we believe “thoughts are things” or thoughts alone have the power to control the outer world or its inventory?
Ironically, by not thinking, we allow the ego self to successfully distracted us from the fulfillment of our soul’s purpose. We allow it to lure us from the inner path by filling our heads and hearts with the desire for material things. It tells us that material prosperity proves that we are leading a spiritual life (because, apparently, rich gangsters and corporate bandits are spiritual people). We choose to believe it.
Human beings use our brains to make conscious decisions to detour from Dresser’s “road of progress,” worship and “claim” the material and pray for more. It’s no surprise that most of us leave the planet as evolved as we were when we arrived. To me, that’s the ultimate unanswered prayer!