27 | Empathy, Consciousness, Ultimate Reality, and the Buddha

Welcome to the Cow Behind the Barn: A podcast exploring humanity, the world, and the divine, as experienced and interpreted by an artist. I’m Kevin Caldwell, a co-finder of the Table Collective.

“A podcast exploring humanity, the world, and the divine…”

Woven into the podcast introduction is the map of everything I have covered over the past 26 Episodes.  Inspired by the question in Episode 2, “where and when did I begin,” I have looked at the cosmos and time, and consciousness. 

26 Episodes. One per week. Half a year.

Without rehashing everything I have covered in that process, I think it is good to open with a summary of how I have come to see things. And by the way, it is honest to say “I have come to see things” because I did not see things this way 26 weeks ago.

The podcast description says “exploring” and I have been. When you explore, you discover, and I have been. I remember saying in Episode one, while relating the experience of looking for toys with my granddaughter (and not finding them by the way), “it is amazing what you find when you don’t find what you are looking for.”

What have I found that I wasn’t necessarily looking for?

I have come to see everything related to place, and time, and consciousness, to where and when and I, as a dynamic and interwoven fabric made up of:

Entanglement:

With everything. The cosmos is our “where.”

Memory:

 With every time, all times. “Chronos,” past, present, and future, is our “when.” 

And,  

Empathy:

Is empathy the primary instrument of our interconnected existence? 

That third thread in the fabric is still as much a question as a conclusion. And here is the question in the way I expanded on it in the last Episode. It is a big one, and is worth repeating here:

As I thought more about this it came to me that empathy may be related in some way to my fourth dimension of consciousness, what I called multi-dimensional. Namely, the dimension in which a subject, such as myself, experiences what another subject, such as yourself, experiences as if it were my own subjective experience. That really is what empathy is describing, is it not? Now, my description of the multi-dimensional level of consciousness was intended to describe hypothetically a subject that possessed a type of consciousness in which there was such a level of entanglement with another subject, or subjects, that they experienced the experiences and awarenesses of that other subject not just empathetically, but I would say existentially, or even ontologically. They themselves experience the experiences of another subject in the first person as the (other) first person, not just “as if.” Empathy is still, in my way of thinking, an “as if,” but I am wondering now if this hints at something more, something suggestive of a consciousness that is more than a first-person singular. 

I don’t use the word “divine” there, but it is hiding in the questions. What I do name there is empathy. The questions are a way of narrowing my exploration to the question of whether empathy and ultimate reality are connected and how.  

Which brings me back to the podcast introduction. Every time I introduce the podcast I  say “exploring humanity, the world, and the divine.” Here and there over the course of the last weeks and months, every time I mention the divine, I add right away, “I am getting ahead of myself…we will get there…”

Well, now we are at the stage where “we will get there” has turned into “we are here.”

Now that I am here, I am asking about the divine in a way I could not have asked when I began. I am not asking a bunch of general questions about whether there is a divine being or not, and not exploring proofs. In some ways I am not really even comparing views to see which is right. For example, which religion or which philosophical theory has the right view of God. 

I am asking whether empathy might be a fundamental, even the fundamental element in the nature of everything. I am asking if empathy is somehow fundamental to whatever it is that is Ultimately Real, and for me that means asking whether empathy is intrinsic to the nature of the divine. 

In the words I used to frame the question in the prior Episode:

“Might empathy be a more fundamental ingredient of all consciousness than I had considered, including any big C Consciousness there may be? And as such, might empathy be a core ingredient, if not the core ingredient, in our quantum entanglement with everything else?”

If it is, then it affects not only the way we might see the divine, or ultimate reality. It also affects how we see our connection to others and to the cosmos.

This growing sense of things has impacted my creative process. I want to share a very recent artistic way of expressing this sense of connection in the form of my song, Soulcialism, which I subtitled, “A Contemplative Folk Mantra.”

I wrote it as one song composed in response to a question which I asked myself recently: what would the folk singers of the 1960’s song about in 2025? 

One thing I think we need to sing about is how to live in times like these with a compassionate mindfulness. In fact, an empathetic mindfulness, which does not only feel compassion for, but feels with, indeed, feels with others as if we were the other.

This refrain in the song is about a shared, collective way of seeing the world. At the heart of that for me is empathy. 

Here is the song, Soulcialism, A Contemplative Folk Mantra. 

 

Soulcialism (A Contemplative Folk Mantra) 

Mantra:

Everything belongs to everyone, 

And everyone belongs to everything

 

Verse

We vote for empty promises, we want power on our side 

Doing the right thing the wrong way, turns truth into lies

 

Mantra

Everything belongs to everyone, 

And everyone belongs to everything

 

Verse

There is a world that we all want to see, but to make that dream come true

Means letting go of everything, lay down all we’re clinging to, 

 

Mantra

Everything belongs to everyone, 

And everyone belongs to everything

 

Verse

We all breathe from the same sky, touch the same stars through our eyes

How long is it gonna take until we finally realize

 

Mantra

Everything belongs to everyone, 

And everyone belongs to everything

Everything belongs to everyone, 

And everyone belongs to everything

 

Now, typically, I approach every question through the lenses of physics, philosophy and religion. 

But this time I am changing course. While I certainly have physics and philosophy swirling in my mind as I ponder the question of reality and the divine, I am going to focus on the religious answers. Why this narrower focus?

Because I am asking a narrower question. 

 

No Physics?

I am asking if empathy might be a clue to understanding ultimate reality. Quantum physics and the theory of entanglement seems to suggest, to me at least, a way that physics describes the sort of “linkage” I understand empathy to create. Empathy is perhaps more of a way to describe our linkage or interconnection with everything in more psychological terms. Quantum entanglement is what has suggested to me that something like empathy may be in fact a fundamental building block of everything.

But physics itself can’t address or answer that. I have noted in previous Episodes the fact that physicists, when they address topics such as consciousness and mind, for example, seem to base their conclusions on something other than what physics alone can tell them.

They seem to rely on philosophy and religion, whether consciously or unconsciously.

 

No Philosophy?

Why am I not bringing in more input from the world of philosophy?

In so-called western philosophy and religion, philosophers and religious thinkers address questions which tend to mirror each other, or even actively engage with each other around the same issues. Theologians for example tend to use the same categories as philosophers in the west.

In the so-called eastern religions, one would be hard pressed to distinguish what is a religious versus a philosophical theory.

So, when talking about the divine and ultimate reality, if I focus on religion, I am indirectly also talking with philosophy.

But more importantly for me, given that my question is specifically about empathy and the nature of reality, the fact is that philosophy does not really address the question. Not in that way.

Which is not to say that philosophy doesn’t have anything to say about empathy.

Empathy is a complex topic in philosophy. Some see it as primarily grounded in ethics and as a source of moral motivation. Others emphasize its potential limitations, biases, even dangers. But I have not found any asking whether it is a fundamental ingredient in the makeup of the cosmos.

Religions do, albeit in their own unique ways. So, religion it is.

 

Religion, Reality, and the Divine

I will begin with a description of several “theisms” as a convenient way to frame an approach. From the Greek word for God, we get “Theos” and from Theos we get theism. Here is my list.

Atheism:

This is the theism that holds that nothing is divine. 

Pantheism: 

In some ways this is the opposite of atheism, as pantheism holds that everything is ultimately divine. 

Monotheism: 

The view that there is one supreme divine being, although there may be other supernatural beings, beings beyond what we can typically perceive. 

Polytheism:

This is the view that there are several or many gods, but no single supreme deity which is their source, or superior to them by nature. If there is a supreme deity among the gods, then we are really back to monotheism. 

And finally,

Panentheism: 

This is the view that everything is “in” the divine being. The relationship between the divine and everything else is profoundly interconnected unlike some forms of monotheism and polytheism, but unlike pantheism, not identical. 

For the rest of the Episode, I am going to explore a religious viewpoint about reality that some would say is a form of atheism. Yes, a religion that some would say is atheist. As we will see, that is not exactly accurate. Regardless, my questions will focus on what this particular religion says about empathy and reality.

  

Buddhism and Ultimate Reality

Mainstream Buddhism teaches there is no supreme, creator God. This does not mean there are no beings other than what we see in the so-called natural world, beings other than inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans. Some, indeed most Buddhist traditions acknowledge the existence of supernatural beings, which in other heritages might be understood as gods, or angels or spirits. However, in Buddhism, these beings are also part of the cycle of rebirth and are not considered eternal or all-powerful, nor are they beings to be sought for help and intervention. They too need enlightenment, they need to follow the path of liberation from the cycle of suffering, the path the Buddha discovered and taught. 

Because Buddhism denies a single supreme creator, it has been labeled by some as a type of atheism. It is closer to the truth to say Buddhism is “nontheist” rather than “a-theist.”

Buddha’s entire focus was on attentiveness to what “is,” and especially on what can be known by mindful, attentive, honest appraisal of things as they actually are. Questions about the reality of the divine are questions about something that is unknowable by the sort of observation we just described. Whether or not there is a divine being is like other questions which Buddha placed in the category of things not to be concerned with, since one can’t know they answers with certainty through observation and thus, the questions cannot serve us in getting free from the cycle of suffering caused by attachment (indeed ideas of the divine can be expressions of attachment in their own right, when we get stuck on certain ways of seeing things).

But my question is not so much about what Buddha thinks of God or the divine, but rather, what does Buddha say about empathy and its connection to what is ultimately real. 

 

Buddha, Reality, and Empathy

As just mentioned, Buddha’s experience of enlightenment was rooted in meditation aimed at seeing everything exactly as it is, including oneself. 

Buddha’s path involves what is real, what is really real, I want to say. The Real.

And what is that?

One way to get at an answer to that is to look at how the aims of Buddhist meditation are described. And one of the main descriptions of those aims takes the form of the 4 Brahmaviharas, or divine abidings:

Compassion: metta

Empathy: karuna

Sympathetic Joy: mudita

Equanimity: Upekkha

These four are one way to describe the aim of the entire dhamma or teaching of the Buddha. They describe the result of being free from delusion and from false expressions of the self. Meaning they describe what is real, things as they are when all the false forms and expressions are removed. It is a way of describing, then, the Real.

 

Compassion/Metta

'Loving kindness' is another common translation, along with benevolence, friendliness, and well-wishing. I mentally add “tenderness” myself when I use this in meditation. From this constellation we can sense something of what metta is. Compassion comes as close to any single word, if we have to select one.

Metta is not about trying to 'like' everyone, or feel nice things. It's about trying to relate to everyone, including the people we really don't like, with an attitude of kindness. 

Even if someone in a given moment is acting in a very mean, indeed even evil way, we can make the choice to respond with kindness. This does not mean excusing such actions or ignoring them. It can apply even if such actions need to be stopped. But our responses need not be undertaken without a corresponding cruelty or vindictiveness. Compassion in correction is also possible. 

For the Buddha, compassion is one element of Ultimate Reality.

 

Empathy/Karuna

At the heart of this attitude is the recognition that suffering is a universal human experience. You suffer, I suffer, everyone and everything suffers. Compassion means feeling tenderness towards another. But empathy is what enables us to put ourselves in another’s place and feel what they feel. To feel with, feel “as if” I am you.

This is not 'pity’ or feeling sorry for someone. We can feel pity at a distance. And we can feel pity or feel sorry for someone with a subtle judgmental attitude. However karuna, empathy, is the recognition that suffering is not just yours or mine, it is ours.

For the Buddha, empathy is one element of Ultimate Reality

 

Sympathetic Joy/Mudita

Mudita is extremely difficult to find a single equivalent word for. It can be described as taking pleasure in the pleasure of others; joy in the joy of others; joy in the successes of others. Thus, it is sympathetic.

And it is sympathetic joy because it focuses on the positive things, the good things, that others experience. 

And “what others experience” is the key here. If compassion is what causes us to feel tender towards the suffering of others, and if empathy is what enables us to feel the pain of others as if it is truly our pain, then sympathetic joy, or mudita, is what enables us to feel the joys of others as if they are ours.

In that sense, I see it as a form of empathy, in the end. It is the heart's almost instinctive reaction on seeing that someone else is experiencing goodness and joy and without envy or jealousy allowing ourselves to rejoice just as if it were happening to us.

For the Buddha, sympathetic Joy is one element of Ultimate Reality.

 

Equanimity/Upekkha

Equanimity is sometimes translated as “indifference.” That makes it sounds as if the goal is to not care about what happens. But that is not what Buddha was getting at. Indifference to suffering and joy would in fact eliminate the first three of the Brahmaviharas.

What does it mean, then?

If I learn to see things as they are, and if I cultivate the ability to accept what I see, good and bad, without denial and without a desire to only experience the good or to only keep the difficult and painful at bay, that is equanimity. Equanimity is, at the core, an acceptance of things as they are.  

Rather than being the opposite of compassion or empathy or sympathetic joy, equanimity can enable us to experience true versions of those. For example, a disinterested compassion is a compassion fully freed from all self-interest.  The same for empathy and for sympathetic joy.

Equanimity also enables us to fully accept others as they are, whether we like them or not. Equanimity enables us to accept ourselves as we are, whether we like ourselves or not. Which means that in addition to enabling compassion and empathy and sympathetic joy free from self-interest, equanimity also enables those qualities to be expressed with total honesty: facing things as they are.

Again, equanimity frees us to actually see ourselves as we are. And see others as they are.

So, while it can seem like developing equanimity might turn us into emotionless robots, in fact equanimity turns out to be key to the other three Brahmaviharas.

For the Buddha, equanimity is one element of Ultimate Reality.

 

Empathy and Reality

The 4 Brahmaviharas point to the nature of ultimate reality in Buddha’s way of seeing.

So, while there is no divinity in the Buddha’s view, as we have seen Ultimate Reality can be described as: 

Compassion 

Empathy

Sympathetic Joy

 And…

Equanimity

 

There is another element to this I need to bring up, because all of the above might be seen as merely an individual thing: I cultivate the four qualities,

And yes, through practices like meditation and cultivating mindfulness, and more, we can come to experience these elements of Reality in our own being, but that is possible because they are Real, Ultimate Reality, what really is.  And that means we do not experience these in merely individualistic terms but as qualities that not only reflect reality, but also help contribute to influencing a collective mental state, shared ways of seeing, shared emotions, and shared experiences, creating a sort of unified field of experience, in which our individual experiences and minds and consciousnesses are all shaped by the collective landscape of humanity, and ultimately, the cosmos. And as we cultivate these qualities, we contribute to shaping that landscape too.

 

A Personal Reflection

Which brings me to a concluding reflection. Not an artistic offering, strictly speaking, but a reflective and to a certain extent imaginative way of engaging.

I will read from my journal…

“…sitting in the growing light of morning I heard the awakening of birdsong…a jay’s bark, the tittering of sparrows, the cooing of a distant dove…music set to the ebb and flow of the drone of cars out on Verdugo and Noriega, cars carrying inhabitants on their way to the early work shifts that are the energy of Bakersfield life…and in that moment came this question:

Would this be enough?

If I were alone -my relationships in life circumscribed down into a circle of one, me, alone- my purpose in life circumscribed in a circle of simply and only being this me, here, with no influence, nothing to produce or provide, no goals to achieve, no others to lead or to affect…the world proceeding all around me busy and full of purpose oblivious to a man in a room hearing the birdsong in the slowly growing light…

Then the thought came…if that isn’t enough, to simply hear the birdsong…then every goal or achievement, all my pursuits and plans and purposes would end up tainted with the smoke of a consuming fire, the burning craving for significance, the need to matter, to achieve but also have it seen and applauded…if NOT content with the sound of a bird on the wings of a morning, then life would be defined by something other than my simply being alive, and aware, and awake.

In some ways I am asking myself if I really believe what I said in Episode 1 of the CBTB podcast: ‘if no one is listening…if no one ever listens…does it matter…is it worth doing…does it have any value.’

And I think today I could replace each “it” in that sentence with an “I”.

‘…if no one is listening…if no one ever listens…do I matter…am I worth something, anything…do I have any value?’

Did I create this for its own sake…do I do anything for its own sake? Live life for its own sake?

Am I myself simply for the sake of being this self as fully as I can possibly be…be this self.

This exposes my question of where and when did I begin at the level of its very root, its most profoundly existential dimension…

I have been struck by the metaphysical dimensions buried inside the “where and when did I begin” question.

And I have explored those for the previous 25 Episodes in my podcast…

Now I am at the real thing…knocking on the real door

What is the question behind the question: where and when did I begin ....”

If Reality is Compassion, Empathy, Sympathetic Joy, and Equanimity then that is my Reality too, in the sense that it is my true being, true nature, even if I am not living in keeping with that. And I am invited by the Buddha, then, to become more myself.

 

Conclusions?

Yes, this is nontheistic, for the Buddha. However, I ask myself, “Aren’t those four things really in some sense “personal?” Perhaps they are not descriptive, for the Buddha, of a singular, individualistic divine being. But they do seem descriptive in the Buddha’s thinking of what I will name here, in my own words not his, as “the collective-interconnected Real.” 

And as such the Real has personal qualities,

I am asking whether, from those four qualities in Buddhist thinking, empathy in particular might be the most fundamental “ingredient” in consciousness, both small c and big C.

It seems that the Brahmaviharas present us with three interwoven qualities, difficult to extract from each other: compassion, empathy, sympathetic joy. Empathy seems to play a crucial role in relationship with the other two. At the very least, it certainly factors as one important element in Ultimate Reality, and the nature of consciousness for the Buddha. 

Buddhism then has provided some significant input for my question about empathy and the nature of what is really real.

What about other religious heritages?

I will explore that more….next time….