Voices of Humanity

LIVE YOUR LIFE WITH SPIRIT

by

George Wolfe

(Christmas, 2013)

There are many science-minded people who scoff at the word “spirit.” In our age when the human genome has been mapped, and genes can be spliced and altered, there is a tendency to look at humans as complex, genetically programmed organisms having little influence on individual motivation and destiny. A skeptical friend of mine even refers to words like “spirit” as mumbo jumbo. Well then, what about the “Spirit of Christmas?” Is that also mumbo jumbo?

While the concept of spirit may seem vague, indefinable and problematic to a scientist, to the artist it is a very tangible, experiential phenomenon. The Italian expression con spirito, (which means, with spirit), is a common marking in musical scores.

Spirit is the energy that animates and brings an artwork to life. It is what inspires, generates passion and makes possible an intense mental focus. Spirit also gives us clarity of mind and a determined will.

To my students at Ball State, I explain spirit as being comparable to the concept of “chi” in Chinese Taoist philosophy. While our outer physical strength fades as we grow old, chi is the inner strength that can actually grow stronger as one ages. It is chi that enables a person to see their way through the trials of life and acquire great social influence that can endure well beyond death.

An awakened spiritual energy instills within us a sense of wholeness and a higher, more inclusive awareness whereby we experience the ineffable and recognize the whole as greater than the sum of its parts. One becomes a visionary with a positive sense of purpose and the power to manifest one’s vision. The spirit is that force which enables us to exceed our expectations; to experience what psychologist Abraham Maslow called the “peak experience.” It is the spirit that distinguishes the creative self-modifying intelligence in humans from the programmed artificial intelligence of machines.

Some people say that inspired states of mind and peak experiences can be explained by random chance and biochemical changes in the body, but the fact is, they can’t entirely.

Anyone who has been deeply in love with someone or something knows that lasting love and commitment is more than hormones. Anyone who has had a peak experience, where they lifted an entire team or audience and performed well beyond expectations, knows that spirit is intimately connected with both individual and collective will power. It is focus and determination, mind over matter so to speak, made possible by a higher spirit within us, that makes these transforming experiences possible.

We see this often in the performing arts and athletics, and in social activists like Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King Jr. and Lech Wałęsa who mustered up the strength and courage to stand against injustice. And we can experience it this time of year if we let go of commercialism and allow ourselves to be inspired by the true meaning of Christmas.

Live your life with spirit. Let the spirit of Christmas lift you to new heights of forgiveness and generosity. Make room for the Divine Child within. The spirit is what makes life dynamic, meaningful, and inspiring to others. That is what grants us our measure of immortality.

George Wolfe is the Coordinator of Outreach Programs for the Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies. He also chairs the Muncie Interfaith Fellowship, is a trained mediator, and the author of The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future Without War.

Nelson Mandela a Master of “Soft Power”
by George Wolfe

I recently returned from New York City where I spoke and performed at a conference on Human Dignity at Columbia University. It was during the conference on Thursday afternoon that we heard of Mandela’s passing. Although his death was somewhat expected, I felt as though a great soul had just departed from the midst of our company.

That evening, New York flutist Chris Layer and I dedicated our improvisatory performance in Milbank Chapel to Nelson Mandela, creating an atmosphere that was lamenting yet peacefully reflective.

There are few people more qualified to speak about Nelson Mandela than the former ambassador to South Africa, James Joseph, who now teaches at Duke University. In 2004, while I was serving as director of the Ball State Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, and after hearing Ambassador Joseph lecture at Chautauqua Institution, I invited him to speak at Ball State University for the Martin Luther King Jr. annual lecture.

The title of the ambassador’s lecture was “What I learned from Nelson Mandela.” He explained that there are two kinds of power: “hard power and soft power.” Hard power makes use of coercion and intimidation, whereas soft power uses persuasion and understanding. According to Ambassador Joseph, Nelson Mandela was transforming as a leader because he was a master at using soft power.

In the 1950’s, Mandela was a passionate revolutionary who led armed protests against the human rights abuses of the apartheid government in South Africa. He was eventually arrested, convicted of treason against the apartheid government, and spent twenty-seven years in prison. Throughout the 1980s, domestic protests, increased international pressure, and economic sanctions convinced the white South African government to release Mandela, negotiate an end to apartheid, and hold free elections. In 1994, elections were finally held, and the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela emerged to lead the new South Africa.

There remained, however, a serious risk of civil war among competing tribal groups. Rather than seek punishment and vengeance, Mandela chose the path of forgiveness and set an example no one who had suffered less than him could stand against. He used his persuasive influence to establish, along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

By forgiving those who had condemned him as a political prisoner, Mandela convinced South Africans to tell their stories of human rights abuses, and then move beyond hostilities to end division and suspicion. As he insisted in his inaugural address, “We must, therefore, act together as a united people, for national reconciliation, for nation building, for the birth of a new world.”

Mandela was a master at using soft power. His calm and persuasive leadership enabled his country to avoid a bloody civil war. South Africa had been reborn.

George Wolfe is the Coordinator of Outreach Programs for the Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies. He is also a trained mediator and the author of The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future Without War.

Peace is a Verb, not a Noun
by
George Wolfe

This past August I had a wonderful experience speaking to a high school history class at Burris Lab School in Muncie, Indiana. Their teacher, Karen Avery, is having her students read my book, The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future without War, and work through the study guide I prepared.

Her students were very well prepared for my “Meet the Author” visit. We had a meaningful discussion on many complex topics related to peace and nonviolence.

One point I always emphasize in my efforts to change people’s minds about nonviolence, is that peace is not a static state or condition. We must stop thinking dualistically about peace VS violence and instead, understand that building peace is an unfolding process. 

As I said to the students, “Peace should be thought of as a verb, not a noun.” Or as Mahatma Gandhi explained, peace is the path as well as the goal. This has been demonstrated over the past year by developments in the Middle East.

In March of 2013, concern was growing over Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during Obama’s visit to Jerusalem, urged President Obama to support military strikes against Iran to cripple its nuclear program. Additional pressure to do the same came from congressional Republicans. Wisely, Obama saw how U.S. military action would actually strengthen hard line Iranian politicians and provide justification for Iran to further its nuclear program for its own self-defense.

Obama also argued that the sanctions that had been set in place against Iran should be given a chance to work. And apparently they have, as indicated by the election of a moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, and his recent overtures to thaw U.S. – Iranian relations.

This past month, Russian President Vladimir Putin stole the title of peacemaker from President Obama after brokering an agreement for Syria to reveal the whereabouts of its chemical weapons. A resolution requiring Syria to surrender its chemical weapons stockpiles was passed unanimously by the United Nations Security Council.

Finally, thanks to the efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry, Israeli and Palestinian leaders are now sitting around the negotiating table.

Many people argue that it was the threat of military action that made these opportunities for avoiding war possible. This may be true, but that is the sad state of affairs when countries are co-existing in a state of negative peace. Amidst hostilities, negative peace is defined as the absence of war, whereas positive peace is a condition where two parties, be they individuals or nations, have developed a cooperative, collaborative relationship. The Untied States’ relationship with Iran and Syria over the past several decades has been one of negative peace. In such an estrangement, the only leverage either side has comes in the form of military threats. A similar condition exists between Israelis and Palestinians.

Compare this with the cooperative relationship that has been developing between the United States and China. Cultural and educational exchange, along with trade and economic investment, is making it increasingly difficult for the U.S. and China to wage war with each other. The loss of investment opportunities if a military conflict would break out, and the cost resulting from damage to high tech infrastructure would be staggering.

Cultural and economic cooperation has given both nations plenty of options they can use as bargaining chips to avert violent confrontation, as neither country wants to jeopardize the collaboration that is taking place on many levels. It even makes possible political intervention to avert war as occurred last year when Chinese leaders played a modest role in cooling tensions between North and South Korea.

The next “war” will likely be an economic one, with the United States the major casualty if it ever defaults on its debt.

Peace should be thought of as a verb, not a noun. It is the path as well as the goal. Keeping our fingers off the trigger while pursuing diplomacy and political activism gives the unfolding process of peace a change to work. Building positive peace culturally, educationally and economically is vital to creating a future without war.

George Wolfe is the Coordinator of Outreach Programs for the Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies. He is also a trained mediator, an ordained interfaith minister, and the author of The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future Without War.

By  George Wolfe,  the Coordinator of Outreach Programs for the Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies. He is also a trained mediator and the author of The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future Without War.

Peace education can be most concisely defined as “the study of conflict resolution through nonviolent means.” Here resolution includes reconciliation, which seeks not merely to resolve conflict but also to restore working relationships between conflicting parties. One can also define peace studies as “the investigation of how to minimize the influence of the law of unintended consequences.” Compare, for example, four formal methods for dealing with conflict, these being (1) mediation, (2) arbitration, (3) litigation, and (4) physical violence which, of course, includes war. During mediation, all the issues that are aired remain confidential. A facilitator sits with the parties in conflict and helps them articulate their differences so they clearly understand each other’s respective complaints. An effort is then made to find common ground on which to forge an agreement both parties can accept. When utilizing the second strategy, the conflicting parties go before an arbitrator who has the authority to impose a solution. While the solution may not be legally binding, the parties are usually in a subordinate position to the arbitrator who is often a boss or superior administrator.

Litigation involves settling the dispute through the legal system. Attorneys are hired or assigned to represent and speak for the persons in conflict, and a judge then imposes a ruling that can be legally enforced. The fourth strategy, physical violence or war, abandons all forms of negotiation and strives to force a solution on one’s adversary. During mediation, the parties in conflict have full control over the outcomes as mediation allows both parties to accept only what they can agree to. The risk for unintended consequences surfacing is very low. As one proceeds through the methods of arbitration and litigation, the risk of unintended consequences increases since an arbitrator or judge may impose a solution and not require agreement by the involved parties. The outcomes from violent confrontations are the most unpredictable, with war in particular being especially sloppy and disastrous. One of the unintended consequences of the preemptive U.S. invasion of Iraq has been the accelerated nuclear ambition of Iran and North Korea. The United States launched the second Iraq war believing Iraqi president Saddam Hussein possessed biological weapons of mass destruction.

This belief turned out to be false. Would the United States have invaded Iraq had Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them? Iranian and North Korean leaders believe the answer is no. Although Iran and North Korea have long had an interest in nuclear technology, America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 motivated both nations to accelerate their nuclear capabilities as a deterrent should the United States or Israel choose the pre-emptive option. And Iran’s motivation is further heightened by the suspicion that Israel, with the help of the US, already possesses nuclear weapons.

While generals and politicians often speak as if the outcomes of military operations are surgical and under their control, history teaches otherwise. The law of unintended consequences is given free rein when we choose the path of violence.

This article was published in The Star Press, Muncie, Indiana, on Nov. 15, 2011.

This article was originally published in The Star Press, Muncie, Indiana on January 9, 2012.

Welcome to 2012, the year of the apocalypse, or so it is for those who interpret the Mayan calendar to mean that December 21 will bring on the end of the world.  This prophecy is nothing new. Since the year 1800, there have been well over 100 predictions of Judgment Day. The difference is that since the 1970’s, politicians and religious leaders have increasingly used apocalyptic language, invoking images of Armageddon to stir up public support for a hard-line, militant political agenda as we move forward into the new millennium.  Such rhetoric greatly increases risk that the violent interpretation of apocalypse will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, even to the point of believing a nuclear exchange is inevitable. It is a belief rooted in an antiquated worldview that ignores reason and the discoveries of science.

Ironically, the linguistic derivation of the term apocalypse does not denote calamity or human-inflicted mass destruction; rather, “apocalypse” comes from the Greek word apokalyptein which means, “to uncover,” as if one were removing a veil. The prophet Isaiah uses the metaphors of veil and covering when he writes, “And the Lord will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations.”  (Isaiah 25:7). The apostle Paul also applies the veil metaphor when he describes the veil that lies over the minds of those who are bound by the Law of Moses (2nd Corinthians 3:14, 15). In addition, the veil metaphor is also found in the writings of the Sufi poet Rumi, and in Hinduism where it is associated with the concept of Maya or illusion (lit. “that which is not”). Maya is depicted as a veil that shrouds the soul.

The root meaning of apocalypse signals not war and catastrophe but a sudden collective awakening, symbolized in the Gospel of Matthew by the “lightning” that “comes from the east and shines as far as the west” (Matt. 24:27). It is more akin to what in philosophy is called a paradigm shift, which is a significant and relatively sudden change in the way Humanity defines itself and its relationship with the universe.

Such a paradigm shift actually began early in the Twentieth Century. Einstein’s theory of relativity, Hubble’s discovery that the universe is expanding, quantum field theory, and DNA evidence demonstrating that humans evolved from a common ancestor, are all discoveries that are forcing us to redefine ourselves as a human race.

We can also redefine how we deal with international conflict.  Armageddon need not be our fate or our destiny. Exploitation and the depletion of our natural resources can be replaced with sustainability.  God may have provided individual salvation, but our survival as a human species is up to us. Let us make 2012 a year of interfaith cooperation and understanding rather than a year of religious and cultural conflict.

George Wolfe is the Coordinator of Outreach Programs for the Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies. He is also a trained mediator and the author of The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future Without War.

By Dr George Wolfe

No matter what form of government people are living under, political posturing by national leaders and the quest to stay in power creates one of the biggest obstacles to peace-building. When their country is threatened or attacked, there is the tendency for politicians to talk tough, over-react, or respond disproportionately. The maxim “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was originally intended to temper revenge so that injustice can be responded to in a way that is proportional to the initial hostile infraction. Unfortunately, an act of retaliation tends to exceed the damage caused by the original aggressor, resulting in escalation, rather than a cessation, of the conflict. Hence came Mahatma Gandhi’s famous retort: “An eye for an eye winds up making the whole world blind”.

Political pressures make it difficult for leaders to seek reconciliation for fear they may appear weak, and the escalation of violence merely adds to the history of hostility that widens the gulf between nations or peoples in conflict. For these reasons, peace-building efforts generally have more lasting success when they originate on the grassroots level. Over time, grassroots movements change the political landscape. New generations step into leadership roles with a less tarnished view of history, and politicians emerge that are able to entertain reforms.

One can see how this played out in the United States as the civil rights movement changed attitudes in America toward racism and segregation. In the former Soviet Union, it was the younger generation that produced a leader like Mikhail Gorbachev who brought a new vision to Russia in the late 1980s. With the emergence of the Green Movement in Iran, it is likely we will see the liberalization of Iranian politics if the West allows time for economic sanctions to work and younger leaders in Iran gradually enter into positions of influence. As Senator John McCain has astutely observed, “The birth of the Green Movement . . . should convince us that Iran will have a democratic future. That future may be delayed for a while, but it will not be denied.”

In Israel, there are significant efforts that exemplify grassroots peace-building and which show long-term promise. One is the Nazareth Academic Institute (NAI) located in Nazareth, Galilee, in Israel. Affiliated with Mar Elias College, the program brings together Israeli and Palestinian students from diverse religious backgrounds. In addition, parents have come together to establish several Arab-Jewish bilingual elementary schools in Israel with each classroom presided over by an Arab and an Israeli teacher.

Afghanistan has also been a stage for peace-building through education. A consortium of schools that include Indiana University has instituted a teacher education program to improve the educational system in Afghanistan. There is also a multi-faith, philanthropic organization in Muncie known as Awaken that has built a school and a women’s medical clinic in Afghanistan. These facilities are now rendering services in a remote Afghan village.

In addition, Dr. Lindsey Blom, Assistant Professor of Sport & Exercise Psychology at Ball State University, in conjunction with Dr. Larry Gerstein and the Ball State Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, recently received funding from the US Department of State. Their project uses soccer as a means of teaching conflict resolution skills to Muslim and Christian coaches and students in the country of Jordan.

These grassroots efforts illustrate how we can build cooperative relationships and provide medical, educational, and employment opportunities as our means of overcoming hatred. Military solutions leave in their wake repressed hostilities; strategies of peace-building and reconciliation entice people to embrace positive alternatives to violence.

George Wolfe is the Coordinator of Outreach Programs for the Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies. He is also a trained mediator and the author of The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future Without War.

This article was published in The Star Press, Muncie, Indiana, on February 4, 2012.

This article was published in The Star Press, Muncie, Indiana, on March 16, 2012.

On Sunday evening March 4th, a remarkable interfaith event took place in Muncie at the Unitarian Universalist Church. Members of Temple Beth El and the Islamic Center of Muncie came together to sponsor an interfaith carry-in dinner. In attendance were also people from several other congregations in Muncie, including the First Presbyterian Church, Friends Memorial Church, the Unitarian Universal Church, and members of the local Hindu and Baha’i communities. Over 100 people took part. This is an encouraging sign that interfaith awareness, sensitivity and respect for the diversity of religious groups in our community are growing and becoming more established.

In 1992, after returning from my first trip to India, I got together with several people at Hazelwood Christian Church. We decided it was time to start an interfaith fellowship and the Muncie Interfaith Fellowship was born. We began holding occasional interfaith dialog meetings at the International House on the Ball State University Campus.

In September of 2001, Rev. Thomas Perchlik, who then was the minister at the Unitarian Universal Church in Muncie, approached me with the idea of increasing the fellowship’s activities. The tragic events of 9/11 made the time right for expanding our efforts. The result was monthly interfaith dialog meetings, fund-raising in support for the food pantry held at the Friends Memorial Church in downtown Muncie, and occasional community interfaith carry-in dinners. This past September, the fellowship sponsored an interfaith dinner that featured Rev. Nathan Wilson from Shelbyville speaking on “Welcoming the Stranger in a Time of Immigration Reform.”

In 2006, the Muncie Interfaith Fellowship became a cooperation circle in the United Religions Initiative, an international organization dedicated to promoting interfaith understanding. In addition, Thomas Perchlik and I created an interfaith radio show, funded by Muncie’s Unitarian Universalist Church, which ran for two years on station WERK.

About four years ago, Bibi Bahrami and Anne Eliades were inspired to bring together people from Temple Beth El and the Muncie Islamic Center. They began holding annual interfaith dinners, with the one on March 4th being the fourth such event. Most recently, a local Muncie chapter of a statewide organization known as Hoosier Interfaith Power and Light was formed to focus on environmental issues and explore a faith response to climate change.

This relatively sudden growth in interfaith interest recognizes the common values, concerns and underlying beliefs our religions share. Each of the great religions, for example, embrace some form of the Golden Rule; each associate light with God, divinity or wisdom. Each emphasizes forgiveness and has some form of penitential season; each encourages a form of reflective prayer or meditation, and each calls upon its followers to share their wealth to help people in need.

Together, we must recognize that religious tolerance in our community is not enough. For when tolerance breaks down we are left only with intolerance. We must move beyond tolerance into the realm of appreciation. For each of the world’s religions have contributed to what I call “the collective wisdom of humanity,” and it is our duty as citizens in an increasingly pluralistic society to appreciate the contribution each religion has made to this collective wisdom. While we have our differences, there is more that unites us than divides us.

Religion has been the source of much conflict in the world. At the same time, inclusive visionary leaders representing the great religions have worked together to promote nonviolence, expose injustice, and provide humanitarian relief around the world and in our community. Successful interfaith peace-building events such as this recent gathering at the Unitarian Universalist church are a welcome sign of growing spiritual health in the Muncie community.

George Wolfe is the Coordinator of Outreach Programs for the Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies. He is also a trained mediator and the author of The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future Without War.

Global Warming and the Tragedy of Commons by  George Wolfe

The verdict is in. For the United States, the summer of 2012 was among the hottest yet, in particular the month of July which broke the record set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl. Global warming is real, and whether it is caused by natural climate cycles or human industrialization is beside the point. Conserving resources and caring for our rare planetary home is vital if humanity wishes to avoid environmental catastrophe and the inevitable violent conflicts that will result as nations compete for increasingly scarce resources.

Reversing the trends toward exploitation and runaway consumption requires everyone to develop a sense of collective ownership of the environment, the atmosphere, and the resources on which we all depend. This need for a sense of collective ownership, however, seems counter to capitalist individualism and self-centered protectionism. It is a problem of the human condition illustrated by a model known as the tragedy of commons. When people share a common resource, there is a tendency to exploit that resource to the extent that it becomes unusable. Individuals tend to seek personal gain and, in the process, find themselves engaging in actions that place everyone in jeopardy.

Such exploitive behavior led to the environmental problems on Tangier Island. In the early 1960s, it was discovered that watermen on the Chesapeake Bay, who were living on Tangier Island, were overfishing the waters. Environmental scientists, affiliated with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), began asking that limits be placed on the number of crabs and oysters harvested. Such limits would insure the seafood population would be sustained. The tendency of the watermen, however, was to pollute the bay and exploit the common resource to benefit their own livelihood—a practice which, if not restrained, would negatively impact the success of the fishery.

We now have a comparable problem with respect to the earth’s atmosphere and the emission of greenhouse gases by industrialized countries. Individuals, corporations, and nations must reduce the amount of pollutants they are releasing into the earth’s atmosphere, which is the common resource. Unfortunately, humanity’s record when it comes to exercising such restraint is not good; hence the expression “tragedy of commons.”

An important factor in avoiding the tragedy of commons appears to be the sense of ownership. People tend to preserve and care for the resource they own and have authority over. The problem with air pollution is that people do not see themselves as owning the earth’s atmosphere. Is it possible for human beings to care for the earth’s atmosphere and its resources as if it belonged to them? Can we instill in people a sense of collective ownership toward the environment and toward our planet as a living system?

The concept of shared ownership may fly in the face of economic motivations in a capitalist system. Nevertheless, a religious covenant adopted by the Chesapeake Bay watermen in 1997 resulted in a community effort that improved relations between the watermen and environmental scientists. It also helped insure that limits would be observed on the yearly harvest of crabs. What was needed was a sense of moral obligation, and on Tangier Island, a community covenant provided the moral anchor to counter the environmental exploitation predicted by the tragedy of commons.

The effects of global warming could be devastating. Our ability to apply religion and ethics as a moral anchor to counter environmental exploitation predicted by the tragedy of commons may well determine whether our civilization can continue to flourish.

George Wolfe is the Coordinator of Outreach Programs for the Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies. He is also a trained mediator and the author of The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future Without War.

Guidelines for Interfaith Dialog
and
Towards an Interfaith Theology . . .

Rev. Dr. George Wolfe,
Muncie Interfaith Fellowship
Coordinator of Outreach Programs
BSU Center for Peace and Conflict Studies
Contributing Writer, United Religions Initiative
Author of The Spiritual Power of Nonviolence: Interfaith Understanding for a Future Without War

Guidelines for Interfaith Dialog

1. Speak in terms of what you believe in, not what you do not believe in;
2. Understand that Faith is not blind acceptance; rather it means to trust. We have faith in “that in which we place our trust.” Faith is also compatible with reason in that it is through reason and experience that we determine what we can trust or have faith in.
3. Respect the spiritual experience of everyone. Their journey is as meaningful to them as yours has been to you.

Examples of core values that are shared among the great world religions:

• All of the great religions embrace some form of the Golden Rule;
• Each associate light with God, divinity or wisdom, and darkness with ignorance;
• Each emphasizes forgiveness and has some form of penitential season;
• Each encourages a form of reflective interior prayer or meditation;
• Each teaches that a person should disengage the ego and act from a level free from self-centered interests;
• And each religion calls upon its followers to share their wealth to help people in need.

Examples of the great religions equating God with light:

• From the Christian tradition: “God is Light, in whom there is no darkness at all.” (1st John 1:5)
• From the Islamic tradition: “God is the light of the heavens and the earth.” (Qur’an 24:35)
• From the Jewish tradition: “The Lord is my light and my salvation.” (Psalm 27:1)
• From the Sikh tradition: “God, being Truth, is the one light of all.” (Adi Granth)
• From the Hindu tradition: “…the world of Brahman is light itself.” (Chandogya Upanishad)

Examples of the great religions making reference to a person’s higher spiritual altruisitic nature:

• From the Jewish tradition: Humans are created in God’s image
• From the Hindu tradition: Everyone has the spark or light of divinity within them
• From the Christian tradition: Humans are called to discover and follow their inner light,
• From the Buddhist tradition: Everyone has Buddha nature