Empathy: A Conversation

December 11, 2003

Shakta 1: You are many people rolled into one. All the archetypes –

except the villain. Though once or twice u must have been that too.

Shakta2: Yes indeed. It's important to remember that, other than in

the movies, villains are rarely pure evil. They might be heroes on

the wrong side of history; or misguided idealists. Or simply those

who have – whether permanently or temporarily – lost the ability to

feel EMPATHY. That's the real divide.

S1: What is?

S2: I really believe that the missing element in so many people –

whether you're speaking of Saddam Hussain or George W Bush;

terrorists for any and all causes; in fact, all back through the

Rogue's Gallery of history. What they're missing, to one degree or

another, is EMPATHY.

S1: Okay?

S2: I've been thinking about the idea of empathy. What do you think:

The presence of empathy is the source of all happiness; the absence

of empathy is the source of all that we call evil. At least that is

the hypothesis I'm working with now.

S1: [Long pause] You know, I agree. In fact, I recognized it only

when u said it.

S2: Your agreement is encouraging to say the least! But it really

does seems to apply to everything so far! Even the great epics.

S1: Yes, that is so. What is the one possession Mahisha lacks?

Empathy. What is the quality that Devi represents in spades?

Empathy. It's the essence all the great teachings: all the heroes of

Hinduism; and Gandhi's teaching, or Buddha's, or Christ's.

S2: Not to over-simplify ... but I think that this formula cuts very

close to the heart of things. Empathy: its presence is the source of

all happiness; its absence is the source of all that we call evil.

S1: Yes, and of course there are shades and shades of lack of

empathy. Or the same person will have empathy in some circumstances

and no empathy at other. Or there maybe empathy, but at different

levels.

S2: How about this; a dictionary definition: "Empathy is the

imaginative projection of one's own consciousness into another

being." ... Is that not also a valid definition of SriVidya?

S1: It is indeed.

S2: But let's continue with the longer definition: "Rather than

perceiving something as outside and separate from yourself (which is

duality), empathy is the ability of being that which is perceived,

and becoming that which is beheld. It is the unification of object

and subject. So that when you talk to someone, in essence, only two

parts of the greater Self are talking, and of course they are both

equal. Empathy is not limited to only people, but can be a way of

life. It can be a way of interaction with and reception of, the

world."

S1: Hmmm … "it can be a way of interaction with and reception of,

the world." That gets you thinking, doesn't it?

S2: Interesting, eh? Empathy as a continuum from the mundane to the

sublime.

S1: Damned interesting. In fact, I now know how to put some concepts

in SriVidya into understandable "Westernese"!

S2: Well as I say, it's still just a hypothesis - we just keep

applying it to different situations until it's either proven or

disproven. Which – by the way – I think is very similar to how you

have described the function of the Tantras.

S1: Yes I agree. But I have understood.

S2: Okay. Now here's a final spinning–out of the empathy

idea: "Empathy is the skill of active listening – of approaching an

interaction with an open mind. It is the understanding that

regardless of a person's appearance, personality, or history, there

exists a common thread." That describes something of the dynamic of

our conversations, wouldn't you say?!

S1: Yes it does, m'Lord! [Laughs]

December 15, 2003

Hello-

This is quite an insight. In my readings the psychopath or the

sociopath have no sense of real empathy. The best can appear to have

empathy but really don't. The ones that I have met - con men

mostly - they have no concept that the other person is real so it

doesn't matter who or how they hurt the other person. They are

really quite odd and the best of them never get detected by the way.

One of the problems with a lot of the New Age stuff was the idea that

reality was absolutely ones own's creation. I think the term is

called solipism. Nothing outside of their skin exists or matters.

I know that they would disagree with this but it is true for many of

them. I like the idea that empathy is something that exists beyond

the duality. It certainly explains a lot of the problems that I

have had with being too empathic. :-) This separation between self

and world has created a lot of hurt and pain in this world.

Yes, I like the idea that lack of empathy drives many of these

people.

Thank you for sharing.

Eric

================================================================

>

> S2: How about this; a dictionary definition: "Empathy is the

> imaginative projection of one's own consciousness into another

> being." ... Is that not also a valid definition of SriVidya?

>

> S1: It is indeed.

>

> S2: But let's continue with the longer definition: "Rather than

> perceiving something as outside and separate from yourself (which

is

> duality), empathy is the ability of being that which is perceived,

> and becoming that which is beheld. It is the unification of object

> and subject. So that when you talk to someone, in essence, only two

> parts of the greater Self are talking, and of course they are both

> equal. Empathy is not limited to only people, but can be a way of

> life. It can be a way of interaction with and reception of, the

> world."

>

> S1: Hmmm … "it can be a way of interaction with and reception of,

> the world." That gets you thinking, doesn't it?

>

> S2: Interesting, eh? Empathy as a continuum from the mundane to the

> sublime.

December 16, 2003

"S2: How about this; a dictionary definition: "Empathy is the