We begin with a piece about spiritual revival and what it means for a person to devote their life “so others may live.” Compassion serves as the foundation for this cause from which a love of humanity can spring forth from. The heart becomes hard in the absence of compassion and is often much less concerned with the sufferings of others.

Tushar Gandhi, Mohandas Gandhi’s great-grandson, honors his great-grandfather on his 150th birth anniversary in a thoughtful piece about his leadership style and continued emphasis on nonviolence. Mohandas Gandhi always encouraged compassion, tolerance, and love among his followers and their approach towards the oppressive British Raj. It could be argued that Gandhi’s approach could have been significantly different had he centered his movement around violence, anger, and ignorance instead of the Satyagraha movement of nonviolence and compassion.

Research by the late Japanese scientist Dr. Masaru Emoto has shown that positive or negative speech, emotions, thoughts, and energy can change the very molecular structure of Earth’s most important liquid: water. It was shown that compassionate speech caused water to form beautiful crystal, whereas hateful speech formed black, broken, and chaotic messes. The implications of this research are phenomenal considering water is the very essence of all life on our planet.

A call to action from Maisie Bennett draws attention to the fires that are still raging in the Amazon Rainforest, destroying the very lungs of our Earth that are integral for sustaining our shared ecosystem. Apathy and greed have taken hold and have seduced people into destroying our planet’s pristine natural beauty in order to claim more land for our own. We, as an international community, must bring forth our compassion and address this critical environmental crisis once and for all.

April Estes, a heroic mother and cancer survivor, shares her story in her piece “Praise the Lord, I’m Bald.” What she has been through is a reminder that challenges that come with cancer are not only about fighting it; “the real battle” is “learning to live again.” Raising awareness in this respect is important, for healing from cancer is not only a biological cure, but one that also needs psychological, social, and economic support in its aftermath.

She has conducted research on the psychology of meditation for over 25 years, including investigations on the effects of meditation on heart rate control, general well-being, spirituality, psoriasis and anxiety disorders. Her other (but related) line of research is investigating the role of spirituality in adjustment to serious medical illness. A recently published randomized intervention study documented benefits of a very brief physician-delivered spirituality intervention offered to cancer patients on quality of life, emotional well-being, and satisfaction with care. Current work is investigating how religious and spiritual resources, from the patient’s perspective, may help in adjusting to cancer. Matter&Beyond spoke with her on her research.

Matter&Beyond: Dr. Kristeller, you are doing research on the spirituality of cancer patients. You also developed an intervention technique called OASIS that could benefit the patients who are going through spiritual struggles. What was your starting point for this project?

The OASIS Project stands for Oncology Assisted Spirituality and Intervention Study. In this project, we were exploring how individuals draw on their spiritual and religious resources to deal with having a cancer diagnosis. The other question was how physicians perceived that aspect of their patients’ resources and whether they felt it was appropriate to bring it up in the medical environment. First we went out and actually asked physicians what they thought about the role of patients’ spirituality in dealing with cancer. We actually got back a very positive response. Substantial proportion of the physicians actually felt that it was helpful to their patients; it was something that was valuable to engage within the medical environment.

M&B: Were they able to address the spiritual dimensions of the patients?

What we found out was that they didn’t know how to do that. They were afraid if they brought it up, their patients might get upset with them and they’d be triggering off a reaction perhaps that would require so much time and effort on their part to explore with their patients that it just wasn’t practical. So when we found that out from the physicians we decided that we would systematically look at that from that patient’s side.

What we heard from patients was that they also wished to bring it up in the medical environment but they felt that the physicians wouldn’t want to and that they would bring it up if the physicians asked about it first, and the physicians were saying they’d talk about it if the patients brought it up first. So nobody was bringing it up.

So we moved this onto the next step. What if we taught the physicians a particular approach to bringing up this issue with their patients because we couldn’t sit down and teach the patients how to do it. We decided to take a risk and teach physicians how to bring this up to their patients in a very simple way. And we found a few very brave oncologists who were willing to work with us around this and we designed literally a 5-minute patient centered way of introducing this concept.

M&B: How did you design this approach and what were its characteristics?

In a way, we’re guided by previous research on how physicians can talk to their patients about difficult topics. This is actually research that I had done previously in relation to other difficult topics like smoking and alcohol use. And what we did in those cases was we taught the physician a very neutral, gentle supportive way to introduce those issues with their patients and then we took a look at how we could use that with introducing the questions about spiritual resources. So a physician may say something like “Many patients draw on their spiritual or religious resources to deal with something like finding out they have cancer. As your physician I would like to hear more about whether that is true for you, it may or may not be, how do you feel about that?” And that very gentle open way of introducing it feels very comfortable to the physicians and it feels very comfortable to patients. And what we find again is most of the patients respond very positively to that.

M&B: What if the answer is no and they are not interested in talking about spirituality?

We also taught physicians that if the response they get back from a patient is something like “oh no, I’m not religious or I don’t want to talk about that,” how they should respond to that. They should say something like “really what I’m concerned about is how you’re dealing with this and I’d like to hear more about that. Is that ok?” And that shifts it just a little bit. But for about 90% of the patients, they really open up and they are responsive and they start to talk about it and if they are a little hesitant we then teach the physicians how to draw them out a little bit more. Very simply saying, “Tell me more about that. I’d like to hear more about that. Are there any problems you’re having around that? Who else can you talk to about this?” It’s very important. So being encouraging and thanking them for having the courage to share their feelings with the physician. Asking them a little bit more about how they draw on a sense of inner meaning and peace, because we’ve identified that in research as one of the key elements for moving to a different level of coping with cancer.

To our surprise this actually worked very, very well. What we found was that patients have appreciated it. Over 50% of them actually told us after the fact that they had found that conversation helpful to them in dealing better. And about a month after this very brief exploration, they actually said that they were feeling less depressed and they were coping better in comparison to patients from the very same physicians who didn’t get this, who just go their usual appointment. So we’ve been continuing to work on this line of research to deepen it and to expand it at this point.

M&B: You also discuss that a small number of patients are coping in a negative way with spirituality. How does it happen?

Our research and research from some other groups, for example Harold Koenig’s work at Duke, is systematically coming up with a pattern that shows that individuals who feel angry at God, who feel that they’re being punished by having cancer are not doing very well.

Most people feel that at some point. But what I’m talking about is a sort of enduring ongoing struggle around this. And what we find is individuals who are really caught in that struggle in fact are doing very poorly. They are more depressed, and their relationships are not going as well. We don’t have any evidence at this point to show that it actually affects the course of their disease. That would be a challenging kind of study to take on and we haven’t been able to do that. But certainly it’s affecting their inner struggle and their inner well-being. What we encourage physicians to do if they realize that one of their patients is struggling at that level is to encourage the individual to find somebody else to talk to, maybe a Chaplain for example from the medical environment. We really encourage them to look to that and to try to provide those resources and not take that on themselves.

M&B: Maybe it is difficult to estimate how the constant spiritual struggles affect recovery time, but maybe it is easier to estimate how it affects the quality of life.

The individuals caught up in that struggle have a poorer quality of life in general and the research again is pretty consistent in that. And of course it would be naïve to say that you just turn that off. If somebody is struggling in these deep personal issues, they deserve to be recognized and I think we have to assist the individual to find some way to talk to people in their own personal circle of friends, family, religious community about how to deal with them.

M&B: Regarding spiritual intervention, what is the general opinion of the medical community? Is there a growing interest?

I think we are just shedding some light on this. Given how positively the patients respond to even just 5 minutes, I think that there is a growing awareness that there can be a role for this. Within the care of the whole patient, when you shift into the perspective that the spiritual and religious resources people bring to a medical crisis are actually tremendously valuable, and the more they can bring those to the crisis the better they’re going to be doing then. I feel that that defines within the medical environment in a different way.

One of the issues that often physicians would bring up with us is “I don’t know if I have the same beliefs as my patient does” and “if I don’t have the same beliefs maybe it’s not appropriate to bring this up.” And one of the things we do in our training is to work with them around that. Saying you know it isn’t about the beliefs that you have and whether they match your patients. It’s about listening to your patient; it’s about hearing the underlying feelings and meaning that the patient has.

M&B: In terms of spiritual response to cancer, do you see people going through a spiritual transformation?

Let me give you a little bit of frame on that. We’re funded on the Spiritual Transformation Project. When you think of spiritual transformation you’re actually thinking about a real shift in people’s beliefs and people’s sense of themselves as a religious or spiritual person, their relationship to God, or their sense of relationship to God. We’ve compared our data to data that’s been collected on AIDS patients in Miami. Something like half of the AIDS patients communicated that spiritual transformation happened to them. We had 2 out of 100 cancer patients relate that level of change occurred.

M&B: Fifty percent compared to two percent. That is a huge difference. What is your explanation for that?

A couple of reasons I think, one is that even though cancer is a very frightening disease, it’s nowhere near as frightening as AIDS. The prognosis is much better in truth. The other is that the AIDS patients were really people who were struggling with their lives in general. Most of our cancer patients have really quite well-functioning lives. They’re already members of religious community. They don’t need a transformation. They just need to deepen or engage that religious support more fully or the spiritual side of themselves. So, one of the issues is that transformation isn’t necessary, it isn’t needed for this. Engagement though is what we’re talking about.

M&B: What are the fundamental difficulties in doing research on spirituality?

One of the things that is so challenging about this area is trying to measure, trying to capture very elusive concepts and do it in a way where we can systematically identify them, where we can frankly put some numbers to them. So we can compare individuals, so we can look at the effect, for example, of a stressful life event on something like spirituality. So, one of the other lines of work we’ve been doing here is to develop the framework for measuring what we call religious and spiritual engagement, and it’s very challenging to do that. Within Psychology, there’s a long tradition of trying to capture these psychological processes, something like depression or fear. And we have lots of different measuring tools.

M&B: Is there a widely accepted measure of spirituality and religious participation among the healthcare and medical research community?

When we started working in this area, what we discovered were a couple of hundred different scales to measure what people called religious and spiritual involvement. But most of them had been developed in very small groups of individuals, they hadn’t been put into a larger theoretical model and we knew there were probably not hundreds of different dimensions but we didn’t know whether there were 2 or 4 or 5 or 10 and one of the projects we’ve done here is to identify using a group of these measures that seem to capture different aspects of spiritual and religious involvement like belief, compassion, like sense of growing within oneself. As in mystical experiences, we’ve had several of these projects where we’ve given this set of measures actually over almost a couple of thousand people at this point.

Another dimension is interestingly their willingness to tolerate questions about their beliefs and their spiritual well being. Tolerating those questions seems to be a separate and important element that is linked into doing better, to growing more. Mystical experience is a separate dimension so someone who has a mystical experience may or may not be strong in their belief system. Having that may shift that strength but it’s somewhat separate.

We focused on several dimensions. One of the 5 or 6 dimensions is what we call spiritual struggle and that is a separate dimension and again people might be high or low on their strength of their beliefs. If that dimension is strong or high, you do see a lot of distress not only in that part of the person’s life but often in other areas of their life.

M&B: People often think that hope, love, and compassion are the indicators of spirituality. But you are giving other dimensions as toleration to questions or having a mystical experience etc. Do you choose them because they are easier to analyze?

That’s a very good question. It’s very important to include as a part of someone’s total spiritual well being their ability to feel compassion towards others; their ability to feel hope. One of the challenges now in this area is to understand those dimensions in and of themselves and I see them more as overlapping with spirituality rather than defining it. And I say that partly because there are many people who feel that they are not religious or spiritual perhaps, but they certainly have the ability to feel hope and they have the ability to be compassionate toward other people in their lives. From the perspective of Psychology, we don’t have the answers to this yet but we’re applying tools out of Psychology that we’ve used in other areas of understanding human emotions, personality, and patterns to try to apply them within this arena of understanding something as complex as religion and spirituality.

M&B: You are using tools from both religion and psychology. Are psychologists generally interested in spiritual experiences?

Well. William James who is considered one of the founders of Contemporary Psychology in the 1800s wrote the Varieties of Religious Experience. And he wrote that from a very sophisticated perspective where he said we really do need to look at some of the universal aspects of religious or spiritual experience. At the time he didn’t really have the tools to do that but he introduced the discourse around the value of doing that, the value of understanding those very human experiences from a psychological perspective. And it began with a respect for those experiences rather than discounting them. And I think that that is a very important distinction.

In contrast, when some of the thinking that came out of the Psychoanalytic Schools and particularly Freudian theory tended to pathologize those experiences considering them as an anomaly or like a sickness. In fact one of the differences between Freudian thinking and Jungian thinking was the discounting of those experiences as regressive and pathological. It is an aspect of human experience that could tremendously contribute to the best in human nature. And if understood and cultivated in appropriate ways, this could tremendously increase people’s ability to engage with their fellow human beings to act ethically.

We encountered Judaism at the local synagogue, Hinduism at a Vishnu temple in a nearby city, and Islam at a mosque in the suburbs. We could also have studied Buddhism, Sikhism, and two other branches of Hinduism since there was a meditation society, a Gurdwara, and Shirdi and Jain temples in the city, as well as five additional mosques. Religious pluralism surrounded us, but we knew nothing about it because religious dialogue was not an ordinary activity.

Since taking students on such interfaith field visits was not common practice at the time, it stirred a mix of reactions. Many students approached the project with eager curiosity; they were rainbow optimists, following an arc of hope and expecting good at its end. Other students were reluctant, apprehensive, and afraid of the unknown; they armed themselves with intellectual rocks of protection for their worldview. Some parents even called my office to express their concern about the nature and purpose of such study for their children. Could curiosity weaken their child’s faith, the parents wondered. Even though religious pluralism has been a reality throughout human history, and is certainly an element of our societies today, for many people, then as now, it has remained a distant reality, remote from the routines of daily life. When the opportunity for an interreligious encounter is offered, it can evoke both curiosity and fear. As human beings we are equipped to wonder about and seek the new or unknown, but we are also endowed with a certain caution about, even fear, of what is different. Both of these reactions have characterized the debate about religious dialogue today, often to the irritation of one another, as students have encountered in classes. But both of these approaches have something important to share and should be heard.

Enthusiasts for religious dialogue bring a desire for mutual enrichment and learning, and a confidence that coming to know one another better will bring benefits for all. The rock-wielding cautious fear that interreligious dialogue is a dangerous and misguided endeavor brings a deep sense of what is treasured and unique in our own traditions that must not be lost or sacrificed to the inevitable encounter. In listening to the concerns and hopes raised by both voices, it can become clearer what interreligious dialogue is not and also what it is intended to be; caution and enthusiasm together can shape encounters among various believers that are fruitful and inspirational.

The mirror of dialogue A frequent concern raised about dialogue is that it will be a disguised effort at proselytizing for conversions to one faith or another. This is certainly not the intention of genuine interreligious dialogue, and this approach should not be brought to the table of dialogue. Faithful and committed believers of a religious tradition are asked to respect the faithful believers of other religious traditions who share a similar devotion and joy in their commitments.

The holy Qur’an states, ‘O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.’ (49:13) The Roman Catholic Church also exhorts her members that ‘through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions…they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among them.’ (Nostra Aetate, 2)

Of course, believers engaged in dialogue will explain with great enthusiasm the faith that they hold dear, but the primary goal of interreligious dialogue is simply to listen to and come to know others. Far from converting believers away from their faith, interreligious experiences usually deepen original commitments. It has been suggested that ‘those who know only one, know none.’ In comprehending another faith, we come to a far deeper understanding and appreciation of our own belief. In our reflection in the Other, we come to see ourselves anew.

In my own experience over the years, leading dozens of classes on field visits to various houses of worship, I observe similar outcomes each time. Though the fear of parents that their children might be lured into a conversion by a persuasive speaker would seem to have even more ground today, since students often have very little religious knowledge when entering the classroom, the common response of students is not conversion to a new tradition but rather a renewed interest in the faith traditions of their own families. Even when students have been raised by their parents to make their own choice, as if a faith tradition were simply a matter of consumer preference in the marketplace, I have found that they want to ‘come home.’ If home does not provide much religious substance, to find spiritual roots students are more likely to turn to their grandparents than to convert simply because of exposure to a new tradition.

Not the baking method Sometimes the cautious question if interreligious dialogue is aiming to bring religions together in a way that creates a new and improved religion, a combination of the ‘best of all,’ so to speak. The technical term for this is syncretism, but it is also (derisively) known as the ‘baking method’—take a little of this and a little of that and a little more of something else and bake it into a new tasty religion for all to follow. This approach, too, is certainly not an element of genuine interreligious dialogue but rather is an attitude born in the individualism of consumer culture—finding something that suits my taste. True interreligious dialogue takes places among faithful and committed believers of established religious traditions who intend to remain that way. It is not a casual comparison of recipes, but a sincere effort to know one another as we are.

Again, in my own field visit experience with classes, it is precisely when faced with the devotion of a believing community at worship that students are inspired to look at their own tradition to see what they have missed. The prayer practice of Islam has led students to discover the Angelus and the Liturgy of the Hours in the Catholic tradition, or the practice of daily scripture devotion in other Christian traditions. This is not syncretism, but rather interfaith inspiration that strengthens.

But can we disagree? Two other objections I have heard raised about dialogue seem to be from opposite sides of the same coin. First, some fear that participants from other traditions will judge our beliefs or practices and condemn them unfairly because they are based in a different set of values or cultural apprehension. The second worry is that as we listen to others we may hear some things with which we profoundly disagree but, prevented from expressing this by the ‘etiquette’ of dialogue, be reduced to tacitly supporting relativism. I believe the question raised by both objections is essentially the same—where is Truth to be found and how do we act upon it? Can we truly listen to one another without discovering all the places we disagree? And what then do we do with that disagreement?

In response to these foundational questions, two points must be kept in mind. One is that each of us has the human obligation to sincerely seek for Truth, for the objective reality at the heart of the universe. This will necessarily entail that we must make judgments for ourselves in regard to various Truth claims. However, it is important to be clear that the basic purpose of interreligious dialogue is simply coming to know and understand those varied claims made by religious traditions; we are not expecting to reach agreement on them in regard to religious doctrine or practice.

The second point clarifies this further. In coming to know one another we may find real and significant differences in the lived moral consequences of our beliefs and practices. It is very important to remember that we do not grapple with these differences in interreligious dialogue. Rather, the proper sphere for that work is in political debate. In a multicultural democracy we engage one another in political discussion, convincing one another of the value and efficacy of our moral vision and why it should prevail in law. It is at the table of interreligious dialogue that we come to understand one another, but it is at the table of political discourse that we try to persuade one another, not for a religious conversion to our Truth claims, but for a moral consensus regarding lived values. The conversation at each table is better because of the work of the other.

Wisdom of the heart With these cautions and clarifications in mind, we are better able to hear the enthusiasts in explaining the benefits of dialogue. At center is the inspiration that dialogue can renew our own spirituality. I certainly see this result in the classroom. Most parents have encountered a stage in their adolescent children’s development when they listen to advice with greater openness if it comes from someone other than their parents. Interreligious experience is a similar inspiration, and not just to questioning teens, but to developed believers as well. Hearing others share their deepest convictions about the Divine can renew the vigor of our own quest for holiness. Often in dialogue our hearts meet before our heads agree and we find that it is in the wisdom of the heart that God’s presence is made known. Understanding one another and how very much our traditions hold in common can bring mutual enrichment on local and global levels as well. Citizens in society are better equipped to live in peace and work for justice when they have had interreligious encounters to share and learn about one another. Prejudice is exposed and broken. In the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, I received several email messages from former students who expressed their gratitude for the field visits they had made to mosques in earlier years. Having met Muslims as prayerful, welcoming human beings was helping them, at that difficult national moment, to share with others that Islam is not a religion of terrorism and all Muslims were not responsible for, nor rejoiced in, the events of that tragedy. They were able to be voices of peace in the midst of great national confusion.

Sustained encounters When it is possible for interreligious dialogue to become a sustained encounter among individuals or groups, over time it can begin to reshape those who participate in profound and beautiful ways. Though most of my students are only able to have one or two field experiences during their study, I am privileged to be on every trip, returning year after year and building friendships with the generous believers who host our visits. The encounters have gradually ceased to be between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ learning about their ways and teaching them our ways. Instead, as we have continued to listen and share, we find ourselves becoming a ‘we’ in our common humanity, a commonality that honors, and yet also transcends the differences of culture and faith, of geography and economics. I am deeply grateful to my dialogue partners for the depth and strength they have added to my own faith journey.

Religious pluralism is a reality; it surrounds us and permeates the culture. But interreligious dialogue is a choice. Burying our heads in the sand and throwing rocks when we come up for air will not change anyone’s heart, including our own. Instead we can choose to move toward a mind of greater perception, a heart of greater love, a world of greater peace, by accepting the invitation to know one another, carefully and respectfully crossing the arc of dialogue into mutual understanding.

Frances M. Leap is associate professor of religious studies at Seton Hill University in Greensburg, Pennsylvania.

Establishing peace between people of different religions, backgrounds, and nationalities has always been a primary concern of civilized nations. Such a goal cannot be achieved overnight, of course, for it requires that all people become aware of the need for understanding and appreciating various religions and cultures through peaceful dialogue. The Fountain attaches great importance to such values, and strives to bring our readers’ articles that embrace this concept. To ensure a peaceful and productive future for everyone, it is vital that all societies incorporate and abide by these values.

In this issue, we present two articles that discuss this goal. The first article emphasizes the importance of interfaith dialogue and shows how misunderstanding other people’s religions actually veils many common beliefs and practices. Only dialogue can bring about a mutual understanding and appreciation of differences.

Thee second article focuses on the two largest religions today: Islam and Christianity. Interesting facts are brought forward about Islam’s respect for Christianity, and how the respect was implemented from the days of Prophet Muhammad and on into the Ottoman era. For instance, after Jerusalem was conquered during the Caliphate of Umar, all people, regardless of race and religion, were guaranteed their rights to life, property, and religion, as well as the rights to pray and keep their churches and synagogues.

As The Fountoin always strives to keep our readers up-to-date on current issues and developments in various fields of technology and science, we present an article on the energy market’s current situation and short-term future trends, as well as one on the increasing computerization of motorized transport.

On the more spiritual side, one article sheds light on our pursuit of and path to happiness and perfection. We have been created perfectly; we have all the faculties and senses we need. But are all of our amazing capabilities meant to be used here alone? After all, we are here only for a while and then enter the grave. According to the author, our eternal life starts at that point. While we are in this world, we are supposed to prepare ourselves our eternal life by using our senses, intellect, and feelings, not to mention worshipping God, to realize our full potential and achieve all kinds of perfection. The author describes and shares two analogies to explain his views.

Thank you to all of our readers who participated in our Writing Competition 2000! The deadline for writing submittals has passed, and we look forward to announcing the winners in our October 2000 issue. Keep an eye out to see if you’re one of them!

Please keep sending or e-mailing your comments. We eagerly await your input on each issue and value your opinions. Always feel free to send in general feedback and requests for topics or questions that you would like answered. Remember this is your magazine. It’s up to you to shape it the way you would lik to, and it’s up to us to implement your ideas and suggestions.

We hope to hear from you soon!

Enjoy your magazine!

Among the most visible characteristics of this age, we see that right is consistently sacrificed for the sake of might, selfish interests replace all other considerations, racial discrimination has a pre-eminent role in determining social attitudes and relations, and force (in one form or another) is resorted to as the single means to resolve national and international differences. Power must have its due place in the scheme of things, but if we see it as the single or most effective means of solving problems, we will have to explain why we, as human beings, are endowed with such faculties as reason and compassion. All the social revolutions and military movements of the past which were not based on belief, knowledge, moral values and sound reasoning failed to endure much beyond the lifetimes of their leaders.

When used to serve the cause of right and sound reasoning, power may do some good on the way to resolving problems. However, power has always been a means of destruction when subject to the rule of ambition and greed, of coarse feelings and coarse ideas. It is the madness of disposing and increasing power that drove Alexander to military ventures in Asia, which brought the genius of Napoleon to ruin, and most recently made Hitler the most accursed of the human race. Despite these lessons, right and intelligence remain under the dominion of power in the world.

Behind the chaotic whirl of damnable ideas and events in the world, there lies the abuse of power, the over-rating of its usefulness, so that human values, reasonableness and respect for right have been replaced by the resort to force. And it would seem that the chaos is set to continue until the few who dispose great power are submitted to the cause of right. Only then will the many, freed from the chaos and confusion, see the world and events taking place in it clearly without any bartier before them.

For oppressed peoples to survive in a world where only the mighty have the right to live, it is essential that they free themselves from the clutches of the minority who wield power, and bring that power under the dominion of right.

While learning lessons from the past, we should know how to prepare a desirable future for ourselves. In order to have hope for the future and not to sink deeper into a darker whirl of new, greater confusions, we need altruistic souls who live not for themselves but for others, who prefer others’ happiness to their own. Only those willing and able to sacrifice themselves for the well-being of humanity as a whole can save mankind from today’s chaos and confusions.

When the light-diffusing ideas, united with love and altruism, are shared by the majority of mankind, the ‘storms’ blowing world-wide will stop and the pains and sufferings come to an end. When the ideas of the heroes of love and altruism, combined with just discipline and balanced freedom, are a determining factor in the power balance of the world, world-wide social crises and massive problems arising from international relations will be solved one by one and the balance between joy and sorrow and happiness and misfortune reestablished.

Humanity expect from us – from the believers – great efforts to move mankind towards the realization of world peace and harmony. Every attempt, every effort, made to attain this goal, every movement to support right and truth, is a most blessed step taken toward God. Every step taken in that direction, however small it is, will play a part in the new, expected reform world-wide. Such steps may be thought of as drops, fallen into our present, from the blue ocean of the future. In that future, mankind will enjoy true happiness. We live now upon the dream of that blessed time to come.