Events are occurring all the time that challenge the wayfarer's ability to remain committed to the truth about personal responsibility and the greater purpose for adversity in our lives. The ready presence of the media allows us access to information on current events at any time of the day or night. Through this exposure, we come into contact with all manner of people and situations and are called upon to make our own judgments about such issues. In this section we comment on topical events and ideas and endeavor to present a perspective unlikely to be presented by the mainstream media, in a way that is relevant to those who seek more meaning in the things that occur in the world around us. Revenge is Mine (December 1997) The theme of seeking revenge is a common one in the news and entertainment media. So prevalent is this concept that revenge and the justification for it has become part of our culture. Attaining revenge however, can hurt the self much more than the transgressor. New Ageism (November 1997) Have some New Agers, through misplaced zeal, irreversibly destroyed the image of the New Age? Perhaps not yet, though it could be said that New Age fundamentalism tends to repel more than it attracts. Two Women (October 1997) The recent deaths of two influential women has focused the world's attention on a fascinating contrast in lifestyles. There is no doubt that Princess Diana's death has created a world wide response perhaps never seen before. Why? Secrets and Lies (September 1997) Honesty is something you can't get around - if you want a great life that is. This holds true for both the individual and on a macro scale, for countries. Tough Love (July 1997) A man wanted to keep the beautiful colored pages of an expensive book from being damaged so he Xeroxed it and put the book away in a cupboard. Revenge is Mine (December 1997) The theme of seeking revenge is a common one in the news and entertainment media. So prevalent is this concept that revenge and the justification for it has become part of our culture. Attaining revenge however, can hurt the self much more than the transgressor. “What does that say about justice? Does it say that you can fake a few tears and you are forgiven?...If only she would say, ‘I did this. I'm sorry.’ We could go on with forgiveness, without bitterness. Louise Woodward has denied us that option.” In several powerful statements the parents of baby Matthew Eappen commit themselves to a life of bitterness and the painful and enduring hell of unforgiving. The reality of who killed their son is far less relevant than the self imposed future in store for the couple implied by the remark which suggests that without a confession from Woodward, their lives will be scarred forever by the pain of their own unwillingness to forgive. Of course firstly, the notion of forgiveness is always dependent on a judgment of guilt. One cannot forgive unless one makes a judgment about who is to blame. Without blame there is nothing and no one to forgive. Secondly, the Eappens give power to Woodward over their own peace of mind, not only now, but in the years to come. Further implied by this situation, is that a proclamation of guilt can somehow heal those who are grieving. What is the likelihood, if Woodward were the killer and if she were to admit as much, that the grieving parents would find relief in the admission and forgive the crime? It’s always possible, but the strong suggestion is that with the kind of passion that presently exists to see ‘justice done’ an admission would only serve to ignite the couple’s rage and cause them further harm. What they would experience is less likely to be forgiveness but relief. Relief not derived from the ability to forgive but from the satisfaction gained by the acknowledgment and admission of Woodward’s guilt. It would seem that their bitterness is caused not by their loss, but by their judgment of Woodward to be guilty and consequently that a guilty offender will now, due to her release, avoid punishment. This call for punishment and the ability to free themselves from its engaging grip lies at the heart of the Eappen’s release from the burden of their own bitterness. A dilemma almost impossible to escape without a significant change in their understanding of their own plight. Perhaps one of the most far-reaching examples of the capacity to forgive comes from Nelson Mandela freed after years of imprisonment, later to invite his jailers to his presidential inauguration. People the world over as well as those in his own country hold tremendous respect for Mandela largely because of his powerful ability to ‘turn the other cheek’ and to do it with overwhelming sincerity. The power in Mandela’s example comes not from the fact that he made a gesture of forgiveness but more significantly that he has had no desire to seek revenge. His example is revered simply because it is understood by those he inspires that revenge is a dangerous and seductive temptation. The urge to hurt those who have hurt us can grow to obsessive proportions. Organizations in Britain have recognized a gap in the market and now cater for the vengeful tendencies of clients who seek their help in getting back at their enemies. These agencies who hire themselves out to carry out acts of revenge ranging from doggy-doo parcels to serious and violent criminal offending against a chosen victim are spreading throughout Britain and around the world. Jilted lovers, jealous colleagues and abandoned spouses are paying varying sums to have their fantasies of revenge played out by willing third parties by proper business arrangement. Organizers of such agencies attest to the widespread nature of the desire for revenge and pride themselves on providing a quality service to their clients. For those who prefer to do things themselves, some organizations are now offering courses in Revenge Technique. Revenge is by no means new, nor is the idea of employing the services of a willing go between to implement some sort of hateful settling of a score. What does seem to be new however, is the unashamed marketing of such services and the willingness of ordinary people to respond. The disturbing fact about the proliferation of revenge as a saleable product is that revenge is essentially a destructive force. While it could be acknowledged that revenge can hurt others and certainly the effects of acting upon it can have damaging effects in the lives of other people, the most harm arises from the damage an individual inflicts on his or her own life by their continued investment in the nourishment of hatred. It is a common misnomer that we can select and determine the focuses of our hatred while keeping them separate from those whom we choose to make the focuses of our love. The absolute nature of love and therefore hatred proves otherwise. Feel hatred for one person and allow hatred to move through one’s life in a wave of destruction. Feel love for one person and allows its presence to inspire love in other areas. Those who truly love will not find it in their hearts to hate, even if the object of that love comes to harm at the hands of another. What few people realize is that in calling for revenge or justice, as it is more commonly referred to, in an effort to punish those who have hurt someone we love, we destroy that love by giving way to hatred and by our refusal to let go the justification to hate. Hatred in itself is not destructive, we can let it go. But if we continue to feed hatred and require the enactment of punishment in order to get relief from the force of our own unwillingness to forgive, we run the risk of damaging our opportunity to love. And when we destroy love in our lives, we remove much of the incentive for living at all. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 1999. All rights reserved. New Ageism (November 1997) Have some New Agers, through misplaced zeal, irreversibly destroyed the image of the New Age? Perhaps not yet, though it could be said that New Age fundamentalism tends to repel more than it attracts. Author Dan Millman ("The Way of the Peaceful Warrior") was asked by a reader if he was affiliated with the New Age. His response: "I really haven't the faintest idea what the New Age is. First of all, it's not really new; most of the shamanistic, positive-thinking, proto-Atlantean healing technologies, occult, extra-terrestrial, subliminal, affirmative this-and-that have ancient roots. Second, the "new age" differs from the warrior tradition in that the "new age" has no shadow; it is aggressively pacifistic, idealistic rather than realistic, hopeful to the point of denial." His comment in answer to the question, put to him by a reader of his FAQ section on his own web site (www.danmillman.com) makes a strong point about the nature of the New Age and identifies an underestimated requirement for the redefinition of this popular term. Such terms often start out applying to something specific but finish up being applied rather too broadly and without regard for the original vision or inspiration. Hence they can lose their meaning or even come to contradict what they were first intended to convey. Despite the fact that the term New Age is used widely, its interpretation is as varied as its proponents. Our research indicates that Oriental religion and European occult traditions had great impact on the intellectual elite of nineteenth century America, the country to witness the greatest growth in New Age interest from its earliest beginnings and perhaps considered to be its homeland. The second president John Adams (1767-1848) was well known for his fascination with Oriental thought and was a voracious reader of Eastern religious works. The leaders involved in the birth of the American Constitution were influenced by Masonic, Spiritualistic and Rosicrucian thought. The reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States proclaims "A New Order of the Age begins". Eight signatories of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons, including Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as were sixteen subsequent presidents. American writers and psychologists became deeply affected by Eastern thought and the study of the paranormal. Originally termed the Age of Aquarius to signify the new era of spiritual enfoldment as foretold in Astrology, the early seventies adopted the term New Age. It is uncertain whether any connection existed between the coining of the term and the periodical magazine of the same name founded by the Theosophist Englishman Alfred Orage and partly funded by George Bernard Shaw but the implication certainly exists. The journal became a forum for the views of progressive journalists and published the work of many writers who later became famous. As Millman suggests, the New Age does indeed have its origins in ancient wisdom and in long established areas of philosophy, however, in the minds of people in general its meaning is most commonly considered to refer to an age of greater spiritual awareness and of a return to more peaceful ways of existing. The peace movement of the sixties may have had much to do with the pacifism Millman refers to, but its endorsement of peace continues to remain at the core of New Age philosophy. The drug culture of the same period may also be responsible for the connotations of bliss and of meditative states frequently implied by New Age enthusiasts. Notice however, that Dan Millman doesn't just say pacifism, he refers to the New Age movement as aggressively pacifistic, a much stronger term with more adamant overtones. And perhaps it is these extremities within the movement that contribute to much of the opposition that exist towards the movement itself. Millman also intimates that the clash between idealism and realism suggested by New Ageism is a drawback. And indeed much of the quarrel that conservatives have with New Age thinking is rooted in what could be perceived as the flakiness of many New Agers whose approach to life bears almost no resemblance to the conservative view of reality at all. And his last point illustrates further trouble for the image of the New Age. 'Hopeful to the point of denial'; again the New Age receives bad press. If the New Age is to actually prosper and prevail then it seems that a lot more people need to recognize the requirement for a change in their lives but perhaps more importantly, the New Age needs to clean up its act and elicit a more favorable perception of itself from the public at large. Many New Agers might well say that it is not the task of the movement to convince people, people have to convince themselves. And this is quite obviously true. However the attitude may also highlight a further and more subtle characteristic of the New Age movement that endangers its appeal. There is quite a prevalent element within the fold that regard themselves as superior to the average person and for whom the New Age is a way of singling themselves out and separating themselves from others. Almost in the way of religious fundamentalism, this attitude suggests, ever so subtly, that those who become a part of the new age will live in peace and harmony forever, while those who resist it are doomed to suffer. Sounds a lot like heaven and hell doesn't it? In sharp contrast to its original intentions the New Age itself is in danger of becoming a religion and instead of bringing people together, it threatens to drive people apart. The implication of criticism conveyed by many in the New Age field directed not only toward conservatives and non-New Agers, but indeed toward the world itself for the way it has become does not reflect the peaceable values the New Age purports to expound. In addition to this the prevalence of food related regimes, soya bean curd and meat substitutes etc continues to alienate the masses from New Age ideas. These difficulties do not stem from the basis of New Ageism itself as such, for much of its thread is sound and reasonable. What threatens the credibility of the New Age are the elements of opposition that exist within the movement to all kinds of established ways of living and a general tendency to recoil from these or criticize them. The generalized perception of a New Age type as a vegetarian, non-drinking, strangely dressed individual, reciting mantras, talking to spirit guides and generally not quite fitting into society is undeniably common. In the way that many religions do many New Agers chastise their opponents for living unsuitable lives. Linda McCartney, a well known advocate for vegetarianism, lashes out at public figures, farmers and just about anyone who has anything to do with the consumption of animal flesh. Others such as Swami Nostradamus Virato (not his real name) of the New Frontier (www.newfrontier.com) are also famous for their criticism of meat-eaters, although oddly, he is reported to have tasted human flesh while interviewing famous explorer and cannibal Douchant Gersi. His antagonistic views on the archaic and barbaric destruction of trees and uses of paper in the modern world, toilet paper apparently an exception, have failed to endear him to journalists and publishers alike. New Agers with strong environmentalist views once again contribute to the stereotype. And those who strongly resist the institutions of science and medicine are understandably resisted not only by scientists and doctors, but by a huge sector of the population who place their trust in the hands of such professionals. Just as one might ask, 'Is it possible to be a creationist without being a Christian?', one is prompted to wonder, 'Is there a place in the New Age for the individual who enjoys a good steak and a bottle of Burgundy who isn't averse to swallowing the odd aspirin or two? Is there room for the individual who just wants to get more out of life, without the ritualistic trappings of much of the New Age tradition? One would like to think so, but then could that individual then be considered to living in accordance with the New Age? Again we come back to the need to redefine New Ageism in order to encompass a broader range of individuals who are seeking enhancement in their lives but who are reluctant to toss out one religion simply in order to adopt another. The true spirit intended by the term can surely cater for such people. The problem being, that the New Age movement gone so far to promote itself, perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not, as its own stereotype, that many people are reluctant to have anything to do with it. And this of course jeopardizes the whole fundamental concept of the New Age, where the world as a whole will embrace a more open and allowing approach to living. People who are turning away from the New Age, but whose desire for enhancement has not been satisfied, are being left with few avenues to which they can turn. The New Age is not of course an organization itself but is implied by the sum of its individual components. Those who define themselves as people of the New Age have a responsibility to re-examine their own motives and behaviors with the spirit of the New Age in mind. Do you truly allow those whose lifestyles are not in accordance with your own? And can you truly acknowledge that their lifestyles are as equally significant as yours? Our task is not to change others or to presume that we know what is best for the world at large. To live honestly and to maintain an open heart to all people is the challenge put simply. If more of us did that, the world really would be a better place. But not because there's anything wrong with it now, simply because our perception of it would be irrevocably be changed. And after all, the world only exists because we perceive it to exist. Change the perception, change the world… Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 1999. All rights reserved. Two Women (October 1997) The recent deaths of two influential women has focused the world's attention on a fascinating contrast in lifestyles. There is no doubt that Princess Diana's death has created a world wide response perhaps never seen before. Why? A recent discussion about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and only days later, that of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, prompted an interesting remark from an acquaintance who was incredulous and cynical about the hype that had arisen from the tragic sequence of events in the Paris tunnel and how they compared with the death of one of the world’s living saints. ‘You’d think they would be more upset about Mother Teresa dying than Diana, she did far more to help the world’ was something of the nature of the comment. They, meaning millions of people all around the world, had responded to this death in record numbers. The thousands of bouquets left at various locations in Britain and at places of significance elsewhere, an astounding tribute to a woman most of them had never even met. Mother Teresa’s death was ironically overshadowed to a large degree (at least in the Western World) by the powerful public interest in the death of Diana, still the world’s favorite royal. The closeness of the two deaths drew inevitable comparison between two individuals who were each in their own unique way recognized for helping the less fortunate. Arguably the works of Mother Teresa may have been perceived by many as more practical and significant than those of the princess. Known as the ‘Saint of the Gutters’, the tiny Catholic nun of Albanian descent spent her life in the slums and ghettos of Calcutta and the world, inspiring many to live among the poor as she did. Diana however, had led a life of privilege growing up in a wealthy aristocratic family and later living the social life of modern British royalty. Despite this, it seems that the outpouring of emotion in response to the death of Diana, ‘the people’s princess’ suggests that more people related to her, a famed member of the upper class than they did to Mother Teresa whose life might have been closer in circumstance to the average person. Many of the comments drawn from the mourners clearly reflected her relevance to the lives of ordinary folk; “She was one of us,” was typical. Diana’s failings, made public by an intrusive media presence only served to endear her further to her adoring followers; they made her human. Mother Teresa on the other hand, while there is no doubt that many admired her works of charity in an intellectual sense, seemed to pale in comparison. Thousands attended the state funeral, held in a sports stadium to cater for the numbers and huge crowds jostled for a glimpse of her corpse as it was carried to the venue, but these were her people, people of her world and closer to her because of this. Tributes flowed from world leaders and church leaders alike, but despite all of this, her goodness and her selflessness in a sense only served to remove her from the average person and to set her apart from the masses. Her ability to inspire must have been limited by the fact that few would have felt that they could aspire to her deeds of kindness. In addition, her critics derided her for focusing on giving people a dignified death instead of trying to make them healthy and for preaching Catholicism’s opposition to abortion and contraception instead of helping India to cope with the problems of overpopulation. Conversely, Diana’s life, despite its wealth and privilege, exhibited much in the way of the man and woman in the street. She’d suffered the battle of eating disorders, a broken marriage, extra-marital affairs, people all over the world had seen her making her way to the gym, collecting her sons from school and racing barefoot against other parents at school sports days. Diana provided ordinary people with an example that they could relate to and in doing so, made herself accessible as an inspiration to millions. To question the merits of this kind of inspiration is to miss the point about the nature of inspiration and how it might influence the actions of those who are awakened by it. It is perhaps misguided anyway to compare the virtue of either woman, for both had (and still do) enormous impact on the world at large and did so for much of their lives. However, if we were to consider whose death would have more profound influence on people, Diana would almost certainly come out in front. There are some who might argue that Diana’s beauty and charm were the reasons for her popularity and without doubt this would be true in quite a number of cases, once again the comments of so many bearing out that her beauty had some standing in how people regarded her. Nevertheless, her courage and charity were just as significantly admired; her willingness to touch AIDS and Leprosy patients when the average person still remained fearful of these diseases. Her forays among the sick and dying were memorable examples of a woman of courage and compassion. But the important point here is not so much why someone inspires but the fact that they inspire at all. And if that inspiration can be deemed to be positive and if that inspiration encourages people to live more compassionately then surely the inspiration has merit above any reasons for the origins of it. Would Mother Teresa have been more popular if she had been a leggy blond with sparkling eyes and a winning smile? We’ll never know, but the fact that she was a nun and lived the life of a nun automatically sets her apart from the majority of the world’s population in terms of whether or not people can see a chance for themselves in her example. Perhaps most ironically, for all the huge numbers she affected throughout her years in the public eye, Diana has inspired many more people in death than she ever could have hoped to in life. Millions have already been raised for special charity funds set up in her memory and in record time and people who never took much notice of her in the news prior to her death have found themselves profoundly moved by the circumstances of it and have become devoted admirers. In a sense, her fondest desires were answered on that uncertain evening in Paris. A sincere ambition to help others, an honest desire to captivate the people of the world and to turn their awareness to her causes and a tragic car accident have firmly confirmed her place in history as the ‘Queen of people’s hearts’. Only time well tell as to how much this inspiration affects the lives of those who have been inspired and thus, how much her death translates into practical benefits for those she was trying to help. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 1999. All rights reserved. Secrets and Lies (September 1997) Honesty is something you can't get around - if you want a great life that is. This holds true for both the individual and on a macro scale, for countries. Recently, journalist Maciej Zaremba exposed decades of governmental population control that began in Sweden in 1935, peaked in 1946 and ended in 1976. More than 60,000 women were forcefully sterilized to rid Swedish society of inferior racial types and to encourage Aryan features. Many were poor, had learning difficulties or were not of common Nordic blood stock. Women as young as 17 were convinced to sign consent papers and sent to hospitals to have their reproductive organs removed. One victim, a 72 year old recalled how she had been judged to be mentally subnormal and educationally inferior because she could not see the blackboard in class, the result of poor eyesight and no glasses. "You are not very bright, you can't have children" was the justification. The outrage that has stemmed from the event has drawn comparison with Nazi Germany and ethnic cleansing. Perhaps the most shocking fact is that the sterilization's were written into law and many women now claiming compensation are therefore not eligible for payment. The fact that this sort of practise could have gone on in the world, in light of World War II and the Holocaust, and gone unnoticed for so long, has shaken many long held views about Sweden as champion of human rights, even shocking Swedes themselves, who were unaware of the policy. Denmark, who started their sterilization program six years before that of Sweden is about to painfully confront its own past as a government investigation has recently begun. The process of recognizing truth is often a complex and painful one and whether for a nation or an individual, its exposure is not only a necessity for advancement but an absolute requirement for peace; individual peace of mind and peace on a grand scale. The Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto marked the 52nd anniversary of the end of the Second World War by apologizing to the Japanese and Asian victims of Japanese militarism. Mr Hashimoto said that it is important to look back at the past in order to "build a permanent peace and avoid incurring the disaster and terror of war." As part of a growing trend, other world leaders have also made their apologies for various atrocities committed in recent history. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission is presently undergoing it's toughest test yet as the murderers of Chris Hani, the man once widely tipped as a potential successor to Nelson Mandela, appeal for amnesty. The desire for change, peace and reconciliation, versus the advocates for the status quo, those who wish to reclaim the Old South Africa, is set to create upheaval and turmoil as a nation struggles to come to terms with its history and its future. Issues of truth and of freedom are being tackled all over the world, as governments are moving toward reconciling the mistakes of the past. And in order to appease these follies people are beginning to recognize that only one avenue exists for resolution - the honest confrontation of the truth. Progress will always be frustrated in the presence of secrets the magnitude of the Swedish sterilization scandal. But the insidious and damaging nature of untruth does not confine itself to global scandals or affect whole nations. The individual is equally susceptible to the ravages of dishonesty and must endure similar upheavals in the endeavor to reconcile and to move forward. The conflicts faced by those who must confront the difficult consequences of secrecy pale in comparison to the unseen effects of such secrets prior to the revelation of them. In one's efforts to hide the truth the individual makes potentially harmful compromises that can have serious implications on their own quality of life. From time to time, stories emerge of perpetrators of crime having given themselves up after years of escaping detection, in search of relief of the terrible stress of living with a guilty secret. Better to live in prison in full admission of the truth than to endure the burdensome hell of secrecy. The example may be extreme but people all over the world continue to live in the shadow of things that must be kept hidden at all costs, effectively destroying their potential for quality relationships and for peace of mind. A Canterbury study recently reported in the New Zealand Medical Journal that 35% of women smoked in early pregnancy and 27% in late pregnancy, but only 19% admitted the early pregnancy smoking and 16% admitted smoking later in the term. Researchers tested routine antenatal blood samples from pregnant women over a period of six months. Anonymous testing of ante natal blood was more likely to be an accurate depiction of maternal smoking because of the problem of denial, particularly by women who were trying to give up. Not only do they risk the health of their babies, according to medical researchers, but the stress of guilt suffered by the women is likely to be as equally harmful. Throughout the course of life, we are all confronted with the dilemma of making decisions that could result in pain and conflict, particularly when these decisions require the confrontation of potentially unpleasant truths. The inner conflicts that can result however, from the avoidance of truth and even more serious, from active attempts to keep secrets, are much more grave in their implications for the individual and for the people of a nation. While the process of truth has its hardships, the demands of secrecy are undoubtedly more exhaustive and ultimately more debilitating. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 1999. All rights reserved. Tough Love (July 1997) A man wanted to keep the beautiful colored pages of an expensive book from being damaged so he Xeroxed it and put the book away in a cupboard. He never handled the original and the copy wasn’t colorful or glossy, but the book remained in mint condition for the rest of his days. A woman wanted to save herself the trouble of replacing the batteries in her remote control so she took them out. Even though as a result of this, she was forced to leap up and down to change the channels, she didn’t have to buy batteries any more. A man who lived near a golf course wanted to prevent his windows from being smashed by wayward balls so he boarded up the windows. Despite the fact that he couldn’t see the sun unless he went outside the house, he was never troubled by breaking glass again. A boy wanted to keep his favorite pair of shoes clean so he kept them in a plastic bag on a shelf in his room. Although he had to walk gingerly across the roughly graveled roads on his way to school in his bare feet, the shoes lasted for years. A man was afraid of being targeted by thieves so he spent all of his money and resorted to life on the streets. Despite the fact that he lived in squalor, he slept peacefully at night, comfortable in the knowledge that he no longer had anything worth stealing. A girl was afraid of swimming in the sea in case she was bitten by a shark so she stayed at home and had a shower instead. A man wanted to keep his car from rusting so he kept the vehicle in a garage and only drove it on fine days. A millionaire acquired a priceless old master and locked it in a safe. His wife bought a diamond necklace and wore a faked copy. A bishop went out to meet his parishioners locked inside a bulletproof glass case. A man wanted to protect his children from life in a troubled world so he cut their throats and killed himself. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 2002. All rights reserved.