The Spirit of the New Age - Part 2
A Service by the Rev. James Dace
August 21, 2005

Back to: Part 1

OPENING:
(from Norman Cousins, late editor/publisher of The Saturday Review magazine)

I am a single cell in a body of billions of cells. The body is humankind. I glory in the miracle of self, but my individuality does not separate me from the oneness of humanity. My memory is personal and finite, but my substance is boundless and infinite. The portion of that substance that is mine was not devised, it was renewed and so long as the human bloodstream lives, it has life. Of this does my immortality consist.

I am a single cell. My needs are individual but they are not unique. I am interlocked with other human beings in the consequences of our actions, thoughts and feelings. I will work for human unity and human peace, for moral order in harmony with the order of the universe.  We are single cells in a body of (an infinite number) of cells; the body is (life).

MEDITATION: (by Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1838)

The world is not the product of manifold power but of one will, one mind, and that mind is everywhere active, in each ray of the star, in each wavelet of the pool; and whatever opposes that will is everywhere balked and baffled because things are made so and not otherwise. All things proceed out of the same spirit and all things conspire with it. The perception of this law of laws awakens in the mind a sentiment which we call the religious sentiment and which makes our highest happiness. By it, the universe is made safe and habitable.

INTRODUCTION:
Let me begin this second part of this series with a refresher for those who were here for the first part (or a very brief introduction to the whole subject for those who were not).  I talked of “The New Age ‘Movement’” with some ambivalence, for whatever it is, it is not a “movement” in the usual sense, the term “New Age” is so amorphous and over-used that it has become mostly meaningless, and (as you’ll see) there is little “new” in the “New Age”.

Still, something seems to be going on and, last Sunday, I looked at what that might be, its influence on us as individuals and on our world. For at the heart of New Age thinking is the belief that we all have the power to affect deep changes in our lives, personally and societally, along with a strong commitment to making those changes occur. This requires a “paradigm shift” in how we see, understand and explain reality, forcing us to rethink the nature of our minds, our bodies, our social problems, and our interconnectedness to the whole of existence. I talked about how such thinking being in alignment with causes like environmentalism and appropriate technologies, holistic health and humanistic psychology, civil rights and progressive politics, consumerism and organic nutrition, ethical purchasing and socially responsible investing, etc., all influenced by what we can term “New Age Thinking.” All of that is what the New Age is about; today, I’ll look at the why, some of the who, as well as the how.

The foundation of New Age thought rests on two not-at-all-new foundational beliefs: first, that the health of the individual and the health of the society are completely interrelated, that everything is connected to everything else, our personal well-being and the well-being of the world. (That first belief, with its emphasis on interconnectedness, is what I explored last time.)

The second foundational belief (our focus this morning) is this: the power of the mind to achieve such health--individually and collectively--is limitless. (It was Marcus Aurelius, the 2nd century Roman Stoic, who said: “Our life is what our thoughts make it.”) And it’s not just that the power of the mind to achieve health (using the term in its broadest sense) is limitless, it’s that all our minds are joined as part of the one Mind, and, when all minds are in harmony, great things can happen.

Let’s start with the mind-body connection which is not a new phenomenon at all: we are no longer surprised that we blush when we’re embarrassed, that a frightening thought can send our hearts racing, or a sudden piece of bad news can throw all our systems out of whack. Yet, only recently, have we learned that mental abstractions like “loneliness” or “sadness” can, also, have an impact on our bodies.

Since the late-1970s, we have witnessed an explosion of research findings suggesting that the mind and the body act on each other in often remarkable ways. It was then that a neuroscientist named Karen Bulloch traced direct neurological pathways between the brain and the immune system. Scientists have since concluded that the two are joined in an intricate ‘feedback loop’ by which each influences the other. Dr. Bulloch said that she once believed that the mind was in the brain and consciousness was in her head; now, however, she is convinced that there is a kind of shared consciousness between the mind and the body and, she says, it is sometimes difficult to know who’s in charge.

In their book, The Healing Brain, authors Robert Ornstein and David Sobel consider just what the brain is for, and conclude: “the brain’s first job is to keep us well and out of harm’s way.” Continuing, they write: “On some level, people possess within themselves the drug to cure every ill. People have to realize that they have power over their health, because the mind is what heals the body. Literally, your body is the outward manifestation of your mind.” Likewise, our would, our reality, our life is, also, the outward expression of our mind.

Where did such ideas come from? Well, from the same thinking that we’ve heard, already: last week, from a contemporary writer like the late Norman Cousins (“I am a single cell in a body of (billions) of cells. …The body is humankind”) and, this morning, from one of our own, Ralph Waldo Emerson, over 165 years ago ...and it goes back way beyond that. So, to begin looking at some of the who that have influenced such thinking (as well as been influenced by it), please look, below, to get a sense of context, a positioning of such thought on a spectrum of religious traditions, understanding that this is in no way intended to be absolute and inflexible; it’s simply a starting point for your beginning consideration.

PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES: 3
As much as anything, I’m using this spectrum to show where the bulk of New Age thought did not come from, although some ideas now termed “New Age” are compatible with any and all of these traditions. In particular, I want to de-emphasize the stereotypical notion that New Age thinking comes, essentially, from the first three of my categories: the Spiritualist tradition (or the occult, if you will), such as from the writings of Edgar Cayce or Jane Roberts; the Esoteric tradition, which would include Theosophy (founded by the intriguing Madame Blavatsky), the Rosicrucians, or today’s Scientology (the essence of Esoteric traditions being that certain key secrets were unveiled—but only to its founders); and, also, Eastern traditions, which emerged from the Hindu belief in the essential unity of all religions (and would include the likes of Vedanta and Transcendental Meditation).

Still, a case can be made that some of today’s New Age ideas and practices come from some of these traditions (or, at least, are strongly compatible with them). Likewise, there are some similarities to be found in the three traditions on the other end of the spectrum: the Positivist tradition, with its power of positive thinking preached by Norman Vincent Peale and, these days, Robert Schuller and Rick Warren; the Orthodox traditions (in which I haphazardly lump together mainline Christianity, mainline Islam, and Orthodox Judaism, all “orthodox” in that belief and practice are prescribed from a Higher Authority); and, finally, the Rational tradition, including Humanists, Ethical Culture, and us UUs.

Which brings our focus to the Harmonial tradition as the core of New Age belief, and while this came to fruit in the mid- to late-19th century, it didn’t emerge from a vacuum: consider Plato, whose realm of ideas is more real than the realm of matter; consider Emanuel Swedenborg, a fascinating 18th century person who made the universe religiously intelligible by showing the harmonial relationship between and within three existential realms (the celestial, the spiritual and the material) which correspond to the creator (or guide) for the celestial, cause for the spiritual, and effect for the material. As well, of course, there are the Transcendentalists like Emerson, firmly in the Harmonial tradition, asserting that one’s spiritual composure, physical health, and economic well-being all come from one’s mind being in harmony with the Universal Mind.

But, if there is one person we could say started this Harmonial tradition, it would be Phineas Parkhurst Quimby, a blacksmith’s son who became a Maine clockmaker and died in 1866. Quimby was fascinated with the power of the mind to heal, believing that “disease is a matter of mind’s mistaken beliefs and the cure lies in discovering the truth.” From this, he espoused three principles: “man is essentially a spiritual being; the common wisdom is God in man; and, the soul is in an immediate relationship with the divine Mind.” He became a healer, himself—likening his healing power with Jesus’—was the first to use terms like “Science of Health” and “Christian Science,” and he healed Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the religion called “Christian Science.”

Mary Baker Eddy was headstrong, immature, sickly all her life, married at least 3 times but always a loner, addicted to morphine at least twice, and an absolute dictator of her church which began in the 1880s (she died in 1910). She denounced Quimby’s ideas, denied he had ever healed her, and came to vigorously oppose medical science (something Quimby did not do). Her teachings, basically, were that “God is ALL, the ONLY Being, MIND; Man (the “Real Man,” not mortal man) is a divine reflection of God; and the so-called “objective” world of the senses is unreal, a mere “belief,” so matter and death (and sin, pain and disease) are all illusions.”

By the early-1900s, Quimby-ites and those disaffected with (and even excommunicated by) Mary Baker Eddy, began a “New Thought” movement, founding their own churches: Augusta Stetson in New York City; Annie Bill and her Church of the Divine Science; Emma Curtis Hopkins’ Divine Science movement in Chicago and Denver; Ernest Holmes and his brother’s Religious Science in Los Angeles; and Charles & Myrtle Fillmore with their Unity School of Christianity in Kansas City.

In 1917, the New Thought Alliance of congregations published a set of Affirmations, which (except for its gender-exclusive language) would be right at home here: “We affirm the freedom of each soul as to choice and as to belief. We affirm the Good...Man is made in the image of the Good, and evil and pain are but tests and correctives that appear when our thought does not reflect the full glory of this image. We affirm health. We affirm the ‘divine supply,’ that within us are unused resources of energy and power.”

Moving forward to today, we come to A Course in Miracles. As I’m sure many of you know, this is a self-teaching program for re-training the mind, shifting our perceptions, re-minding us who and what we truly are ... a classic New Age source. Said to have been revealed in the early 1970s through automatic writing to Dr. Helen Schuckman, edited with Dr. Bill Thetford, both clinical psychologists on the faculty of Columbia University Medical School, they, first, kept it to themselves, not at all comfortable with what they had. With Christian language and symbolism, it originally was in 3 volumes with over 1,000 pages, but it’s now in one volume. I will be using it as a guide for a bit more of the why (the philosophical principles that support the New Age) as well as for the how (the ethical principles and practices that sustain it.)

ETHICAL PRACTICES:
At the risk of offending any devotees of A Course in Miracles, allow me to do a quick and shallow summary of its premises. First of all, A Course in Miracles aims to have us learn to see ourselves and our world differently, creating that new paradigm, a new way for us to be in the world. It addresses questions like: “Why are we so often in conflict with life?” (the conflict of our ego vs. the Spirit) and “What can we do to overcome that conflict?” (how can we attain peace of mind?).

Its basic premises are threefold: 1) We are what we believe; 2) What we experience is our state of mind projected outward onto the world (in other words, if we are in a state of well-being, then all is well with the world; but, if our mind is full of fear and doubts, then our experienced reality will be scary and confusing...and, as a profound aside, it teaches that we are never upset for the reasons we think); and, 3) We have a choice as to what we will experience because we have a choice as to what our state of mind will be.

These three premises lead to certain prescriptions: 1) Our goal in life is peace of mind (so we may have a peaceful world); 2) Our function in life is forgiveness (creating unity and harmony); and, 3) Our guide in life is our inner-voice (connecting us to the One Universal Mind).

So the focus is on individual transformation, not transcendence, emphasizing the mind as the means, the Way, to attain salvation (which is peace of mind). It goes like this: before the act of Creation was the Idea (John’s gospel put it: “In the beginning was the Word (logos=meaning)...”); and all creation, all creatures come from this Idea, this awakened Cosmic Consciousness (“...and the Word became flesh and dwelled amongst us, ” said John—which Christian theologians have interpreted as just one being among us but could, as well, mean that “the Word became flesh in us all); as manifestations of this Idea, this Mind, our own individual minds can tune-in to It—and we can thus live harmoniously—if we choose to.

So, that is the why, the supporting philosophy, beneath New Age thinking. What about how that vision is sustained; what are the ethical values of the New Age? Let’s go back to Emerson: “The world is not the product of manifold power but of one will, one mind (one Idea, if you will), and that mind is everywhere active… and whatever opposes that (whatever conflicts with that mind) is everywhere balked and baffled because things are made so and not otherwise. All things proceed out of the same Spirit and all things conspire with it (we are each and all joined together in this consciousness). This awakens in the mind a sentiment which we call the religious sentiment...which makes our highest happiness (which gives us peace of mind).”

From this, there are three ethical principles: first, unity (all creatures are joined by common creation, all minds are joined, there is no such thing as separation, no space/time differentiation, so the ends and the means are always the same); the second principle is abundance (since there is no separation, there is no scarcity, no limitations, because our mind is joined to the infinite Mind; if our minds can conceive it and we fully believe it, we will achieve it). The third ethical principle is responsibility, and because this is so controversial, let’s take it slowly: since our world is a reflection of our thoughts--since life doesn’t happen to us but comes from us--there is no such thing as “chance,” there are no coincidences, there are no victims; in some way, we contribute to all our circumstances; in some way, we ask for all that happens to us...but this is not about assigning blame or shame or, even, regret; it is about taking responsibility to ask ourselves how we may have contributed to our situation so we may learn from that. All of life is a lesson to be learned and bettered; thus, our purpose in life is to give meaning to Life...that is our responsibility.

We give meaning to life by how we practice life: because we have a choice as to what our state of mind will be, we have a choice as to how we will act, what our practices will be...therefore: choose love (rather than fear for, in truth, there is nothing to fear); choose healing (rather than attack, understanding there is only unity, not separateness, that everything is joined, so love thy neighbor as thyself because thy neighbor is thyself); choose giving; choose acceptance; choose gratitude; and, choose forgiveness. Forgiveness comes as we choose to let go of the past, not by turning the other cheek, not even by striving to atone or by condoning injustices, but by refusing to condemn...to choose love rather than attack, withdrawal, or in other ways keeping separate.

If we choose fear, we choose scarcity and separateness; if we choose love, we choose unity and abundance...recognizing we are each joined to all, we then share with all; recognizing we have all we need right now, what more can there be than all? If we choose fear, we are dissatisfied because we need to get something; if we choose love, we are grateful for the all that we already have...trying to get something leads to conflict; giving leads to peace of mind, to health, to healing; we are healed--we have health, peace of mind--by putting our energies into giving.

Thus, life’s paradoxes. Giving and receiving are the same thing and always occur together: we only give what we want to receive, we only receive what we truly give; all I give is given to myself, so the only way I can receive love is to give love. Likewise, teaching and learning are the same thing and always occur together; loving and living are the same thing and occur together when we choose love (otherwise, choosing fear, it is fearing and dying that are the same and occur together). Finally, local and global are the same: there is no separation, we are all joined (there is no there there; there is no them here).

So, how do we change the world? Not by attacking, not by separating and dividing, not by getting and taking from other persons or other life forms, not even by condemning all that does not conform with our opinions of how the world ought to be. We change the world by extending our love into the world (by extending our true selves into the world); we achieve our goal of peace by being peaceful, ourselves.

In his book, Original Self, Thomas Moore (author of Care of the Soul) writes: “...in a profound way the solution to our community problems, which we call social conflict, lies not in better understanding and better programs, but in the depth and sublimity of our own thoughts and affections, in deeper living and holier values.”

In truth, we cannot change the world ... but we can change our minds, and as we change our minds, we change ourselves, and as we change ourselves, our world changes; healing the world begins with healing ourselves.

It all begins with the vision we choose, and Life supports us in whatever that vision is: if we focus on meanness and hatred and violence, we will have meanness, hatred and violence, because, our mind, Believing is Seeing. Those who believe in the principles of the New Age vision and values can begin to see that “paradigm shift” where we and our world appear differently: sort of like seeing that we are not nowhere” but now and here; we are not “alone” but all one.

I close with this from the Introduction to A Course in Miracles:

This is a Course in Miracles. (This is a Course on Life.) It is a required course. Only the time you take it is voluntary. Free-will does not mean that you can establish the curriculum. It means only that you can elect what you want to take at a given time.

This course does not aim at teaching the meaning of love, for that is beyond what can be taught. It does aim, however, at removing the blocks to the awareness of love’s presence, which is your natural inheritance. The opposite of love is fear, but what is all-encompassing can have no opposite.

This course can, therefore, be summed up very simply in this way:
Nothing real can be threatened; nothing unreal exists. (repeat)
Herein lies the peace of God (herein lies peace of Mind).

CLOSING:
I closed last week with a quote from a surprising, unlikely “New Age” source: a statement from a Socially Responsible Investment firm about its mutual fund. To close this week, I have two quotes: first, something from another investment company using a much more familiar source, Henry David Thoreau: “Go confidently in the direction of your dream. Live your imagination;” and then, to sum up everything I’ve said these past two weeks, there is this from Marcel Proust: “The real purpose of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.”