Cultivating Empathy as Part of Our Spiritual Practice

BY MARYJANE OSA

In “New Thought Dilemma,” Harv Bishop describes a premise underlying many of our teachings: the belief that “you create your own reality.” The logical inference is that each person is responsible for the circumstances of their lives—the good and the bad. Using this as a foundational belief leads to a further consequence: it nurtures a radical form of individualism within New Thought culture. As Mitch Horowitz has observed, a belief in individual responsibility and a desire for self-improvement is great—but it can lead to a “blissful indifference” regarding the fates of other people.

     

The proposition that thoughts have observable results has often been misunderstood. It is too complex a process to say that each person is solely responsible for the circumstances of their lives. The world is our joint creation. A sense of community and empathy combined with the importance of the individual is essential to a vital contemporary New Thought movement.   Many assume that thoughts are causative  through a simple cause-and-effect relationship. This widespread interpretation has been fodder for critics who charge that New Thought (and/or positive thinking) is an air-headed fantasy. These critics believe spiritual teachers are in business to make money by selling the simple idea that if people think hard enough, their dreams will come true. This is a bad faith argument rooted in a misconception. What Dr. Ernest Holmes, founder of Religious Science, calls “the creative process” is not a simple one, it is not direct, and the material “effect” or “result” can happen a very long time after its “cause” is initially sparked.

Individualism is essential to  the history of New Thought—from Emerson’s Self-Reliance to Louise Hay’s The Power is Within You. In the late nineteenth century, however, the movement’s individualism was tempered by community relationships, social impulses and affinities. New Thought adherents formed bookstores and publishing houses; they organized lectures, conferences, and institutes; and they published books and periodicals of all sorts. Graduates of Emma Curtis Hopkins’ Chicago seminary kept in contact as they fanned out across the country, creating New Thought denominations and other organizations. Sarah Jane Farmer ran an annual summer gathering in Maine that continued for decades. Under the tents at Greenacre, New Thought practitioners mingled with Hindus, Theosophists, Transcendentalists, Bahai’i, and even Harvard sociology professors!

The social connectivity that distinguished early New Thought was attenuated as individualism became more dominant. This mirrors a general trend of civic decline in American society, documented by political scientist Robert Putnam. What once were activities of private or civic life are now market-oriented functions. Spiritual teaching and practice are no exception: the marketing of spirituality to consumers expanded as real life spiritual communities contracted.

What inclines New Thought communities towards fragmentation? To revitalize the movement, it is necessary to confront organizational weakness. Thus, we ask: What beliefs contribute to the lack of coherence of our communities? Has New Thought overemphasized the personal to the detriment of our social structures? How has the movement been affected by the prevailing individualistic culture (a.k.a. “race consciousness”).  As co-creators, we are involved in interactions on many different levels. Thus, it is also appropriate to consider the impacts of New Thought ideas and institutions on Western culture.

Assertions regarding the effective power of thought have been part of New Thought since the mind-cure phase of the movement in the nineteenth century. Ideas evolve over time, as they are shaped by the unique challenges presented in different historical contexts. In the late twentieth century, spiritual thought leaders put forward an idea that has become a slogan: “you create your own reality.” Author Jane Roberts helped propel this formulation into the popular culture in the 1970s. Her “Seth material” influenced Louise Hay, Wayne Dyer, and Esther Hicks, among others.

Roberts dictated The Nature of Personal Reality (1970), speaking in trance as Seth. Seth explained: “Each thought has a result. . . . The same kind of thought, habitually repeated, will seem to have a more-or-less permanent effect.” This is a familiar idea to New Thought adherents. Seth’s message echoes early New Thought and is reflected in the writings of many twentieth century authors such as Holmes, Frances Scovil Shinn, and Emmet Fox. Seth’s ideas also take us beyond the simplistic to a new and bigger idea about how thought causation works. 

For Seth/Roberts, thoughts are one aspect of a general habit of mind that is multilayered and interactive. In fact, Seth critiques positive thinking books because they “do not take into consideration the habitual nature of negative feelings, aggressions or repressions. . .[they] do not explain how thoughts and emotions cause reality [or] take into consideration the multidimensional aspects of the self . . .”. In other words, a person’s mental outlook is determined not just by their conscious thoughts—but also by their repressed thoughts, associated feelings, and emotionally-charged memories (a.k.a. “triggers”). Once a person establishes mental habits, his thoughts travel along channels of his own creation. These may be open or constricted. Consequently, different individuals may perceive and experience the same conditions in radically different ways.

Seth/Roberts sees the self as a deep well of creativity. The true self transcends the limits of the physical body. It is the source of intuition, impulses and ideas that potentially moves a person towards the full expression of their uniqueness. But the intuitive flow can be blocked by incorrect beliefs, limiting ideas, and the ego’s erroneous assessments of situations. By placing attention on an individual’s power to “create your personal reality,” Seth points to the possibility of clearing psychological blockages.  

Seth, however, does not stop with the individual’s thoughts, conscious or unconscious. Even in this early book, Seth points to the connections between individual and collective experience: “You see and feel what you expect to see and feel. The world as you know it is a picture of your expectations. The world as the [human] race knows it is the materialization enmasse of your individual expectations…. The world is your joint creation.”

The premise of the co-creation of our reality also appears in writings of Abraham/Hicks. For example, in Esther Hick’s best-selling Ask and It Is Given, Abraham explains how personal intention works in partnership with Source to manifest that which is wanted. The Seth material emphasizes this but also paints a more nuanced picture. Seth points out that humans simultaneously co-create with each other. Considering both aspects raises intriguing questions: How do we understand co-creation? And our part in it? How can we demonstrate Oneness and inclusivity if we concentrate on personal development and dismiss others whose lives are not going well? On the other hand, how can we work to effect positive change on an interpersonal, community, and society level without developing our inner resources? To unpack these complexities, an approach that acknowledges our interconnections is useful.

Phenomenology, a school of philosophy that examines human interaction, suggests interesting ways for us to think about the “I-We” problem. Phenomenologists agree that each person experiences the world from the point of view of their expectations and beliefs, but they open the conceptual lens wider. These thinkers view individual consciousness as “entangled in the stream of consciousness of the community.” Phenomenology examines how collectivity is implicated in individuality.

Attributing meaning to experience is not a process that is completed within the confines of an individual mind. Meanings are discovered through interacting with others. For example, through interaction with her parents, a child will learn what is considered “good” and “bad” behavior; and through observing her parents interacting with other siblings, she may come to see that these judgments are applied differently to boys than they are to girls. Such understandings will form core beliefs in the child. The grown child may come to question these beliefs, but they are not changed solely through an internal process. New, more sustaining, beliefs that better serve the individual are worked out in interaction with others. This could involve discussions with a close friend, a prayer partner, or a spiritual counselor. Or it could involve moving into a new environment where an individual sees alternative beliefs modeled in the lives of others offering what Holmes called a new “mental equivalent.”

Phenomenologist Joona Taipale writes, “Life—one’s own life as well as the life of others—is like a melody, a whole whose parts do not emerge in isolation.” The music of our lives comprises notes, chords, and tempos produced in ensemble. Each person is a virtuoso responsible for a single part; she is the maestro who creatively interprets how the part is played.  The joy of life—what our spiritual teachers are getting at—is to realize that we always have the power to reinterpret the life-music that we are creating. We live in a social world and we make up stories to explain the world to ourselves.  If we apply a different interpretive filter to change the story, our expectations and behaviors will also change.

Is our sense of having a separate, individual consciousness an illusion? Could it be possible to enjoin and experience the consciousness of others? A pioneer in the field of phenomenology, Edith Stein (later, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross) thought deeply about these questions. She theorized the possibility of a transpersonal, inter-subjective “we-consciousness.”

Edith Stein’s On the Problem of Empathy (1917), analyzes the experience of empathy from a phenomenological perspective. Stein explains that, in our normal “I-consciousness,” we view reality subjectively. Our experience is based on a limited set of sense perceptions and the cultural meanings that we use to interpret a situation. (“I” construct “my story.”) Stein posits that the I-consciousness can be transcended through the practice of empathy. She argues that the essence of empathetically shared feelings—like grief, joy, excitement—is a conscious awareness and appreciation of the other’s experience. The interior world of another person is opened through the act of empathy.

For Stein, the empathetic experiencing of another’s pain or joy helps us to better understand our individualized self. Not only that—empathy potentially activates in us values that may be latent in our character. Stein further argues that, through empathy, we may ultimately enter a “religious consciousness” in which we can share a portion of another’s spiritual life. In short, empathy forms a bridge between individuals; it creates a platform of intersubjectivity. Empathy enables each person to transcend their singular experience.

Such concerns are not merely theoretical. A good illustration of how empathy can build bridges is seen in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (Parkland, Florida) students’ efforts to advocate for gun safety. A phenomenological analysis of the Parkland school shooting would consider three “moments.” The first moment is a collective experience of shock and terror felt by the students and teachers who faced the gunman. The conditions of being hunted, hiding, and rescued are experienced jointly. Bonds that may not have existed before  (or were latent) are forged through these experiences.

The second moment arrives with the participation of the broader community. Family, friends, and alumnae express their feelings of loss and grief by creating impromptu memorials and attending formal funerals. The community awakens to a new reality; new solutions become possible.

The promise of empathy is activated in the third moment. Stoneman Douglas students realize that their first-hand experience of gun violence—an unusual circumstance for these suburban teens—is something faced daily by less-advantaged students. Parkland teens empathize with their stressed-out urban counterparts who live in neighborhoods where gun violence is common. Based on their new understanding, Stoneman Douglas students reach out to marginalized students, giving them a prominent role in the March for Our Lives in Washington, DC.

“A world that works for everyone” is a valuable goal. This vision resonates with the ideas of Oneness, forgiveness, and compassion that are the core of our spiritual movement. But without the experiences of empathy, our stated values remain abstractions. So, let us cultivate empathy as an important part of our spiritual practice. We may thus resolve the latent tension between a concern for personal growth and a belief in the unity of all life. As Holmes put it: “There is only one Life. That life is God’s Life. That Life is Perfect. That Life is my Life now.”

 

Maryjane Osa is a sociologist, author and educator. 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 website www.maryjaneosa.com.