As we read in the Presentation of this website, the Democracy of the Future is the name of the model of political representation based on the principles of the social philosophy called Humanitarianism. This social philosophy has its is bases on the principles of the Perennial (or Esoteric) Philosophy and its great Universal Brotherhood Law.

As it is also explained in the Presentation, here we seek to present the Perennial Philosophy together with one of its religious derivations – the “New” Gospel of Interpretation – which is the denomination of the philosophical-religious message of Dr. Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland.

Besides this philosophical bases, Humanitarianism and the Democracy of the Future also have bases on experimental corroborations of modern science, mainly in the works of Philip E. Converse (The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics; The American Voter, etc.); C.B. Macpherson (The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, etc.) and Maurice Duverger (The Political Parties, etc.), as we can read in our websites and in the fundamental work on Humanitarianism and the Democracy of the Future, which is: What Is Wrong with Politics? Bases for a True Democracy.

Fundamental Principles of Humanitarianism

“As a doctrine, or as a socio-political philosophy, Humanitarianism is based on only five large and simple principles that, despite its apparent simplicity, encompass a whole metaphysical vision that, synthetically and allegorically, is supported by two master columns that are the motto of Humanitarianism: UNITY IN DIVERSITY. These two central aspects constitute the essence of the Universal Brotherhood Law which, applied to humanity, is the first and most important principle of Humanitarianism. As we will try to demonstrate in this work, this metaphysical perspective and these principles are of fundamental importance for the welfare of humanity. These five principles are:

1 – All human beings constitute an UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD (understood as a universal law of Nature, here applied to humanity as a whole);

2 – All human beings have the same origin and the same essential nature and, therefore, the SAME ESSENCIAL VALUE;

3 – Notwithstanding the original unity, and the same essential value, the human beings present DIFFERENT CAPACITIES;

4 – As a consequence of these first three principles, the rule that should guide the justice and the harmony which is possible among the human beings is the EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITIES, in order to better promote the development of the different levels and types of individual capacities;

5 – The ethical principle of ELITE RESPONSIBILITY, from which also depends the advent of the new social institutions.” (Arnaldo Sisson Filho. What Is Wrong with Politics? Bases for a True DemocracyChapter 1, Introduction)

The Universal Brotherhood As a Law: the Only Object

The principle or Law of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity actually encompasses the other four principles presented above. These additional principles are important because they specify the fundamental aspects of the great principle or Law of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity. Therefore, in reality, the sole objective of HUMANITARISM as a social movement, is the dissemination and the practical application of the principle or Law of the Brotherhood of all human beings, as long as it is properly understood.” (Arnaldo Sisson Filho. What Is Wrong with Politics? Bases for a True DemocracyChapter 1, Introduction)

This work above remains the best presentation of a synthesis of Humanitarianism and the Democracy of the Future. In its chapters the bases of the social philosophy of Humanitarianism are exposed, and one of its chapters has the title: The Democracy of the Future. While other more complete works are not written, this remains the fundamental work on Humanitarianism and Democracy of the Future.

In this section, we present, below, the chapter of this work that deals specifically with the Democracy of the Future. And, right after, we also bring the second part of the Sixth Chapter of the work A Roda e a Cruz: Uma Introdução ao Cristianismo Budista [The Wheel and the Cross: An Introduction to Buddhist Christianity (Arnaldo Sisson Filho, with Viviane Pereira)]. This second part of the Sixth Chapter is entitled “Religion and Sociopolitical Organization”. The work was written from the recording of interviews with journalist Viviane Pereira, and a complete copy of the book is on the Section “Other Related Works and Materials of the Anna Kingsford website. Except for this second part of the selected chapter, this book is still in the Portuguese language.

In addition to this synthetic presentation, in the following Section, we have added a collection of quotes related to Humanitarianism and the Democracy of the Future:

Chapter 8 of the book: What Is Wrong with Politics? Bases for a True Democracy


Requirements for a Competent Alternative Model

Democracy of the Future: Cascade or Inverted Tree Representation

Freedom Is Guaranteed

A Process with Equal Opportunities

The Harmony Between Functions and Capabilities

The Creation of the Necessary Power

An Example for the Nations Is Needed

Complementary Quotations

Requirements for a Competent Alternative Model

In the previous chapters we made it clear the failure of the currently dominant models and why they will never be able to ensure a just and competent social order, especially with regard to the problem of the huge wealth difference existing between rich and poor countries (where two thirds of the world’s population live). In other words, we seek to clarify that such models (which today are generally seen as successful examples to be followed) will never be able to solve the challenge of overcoming the situation of exclusion and extreme poverty of so many millions that we see today. Therefore, we have now reached the moment when we must point out at least some general guidelines as to what an alternative political model would look like, which at least had the chance to substantially change this scenario.

We have already seen that the premise, that is, the vision of human being and humanity that underlies this new model, must be that which shows humanity as a universal brotherhood, which implies the recognition of the essential unity of human beings, as well as of large differences in capabilities.

What, then, would be the main characteristics of a new model of political organization, which would meet the needs previously exposed for a just and competent process for the selection of government officials, as well as the need to provide these rulers with sufficient coercive power?

As we saw earlier, the essential requirements that must exist simultaneously for a competent process of choosing leaders are: 1) freedom; 2) equal opportunities (or conditions) in political disputes; and 3) a good match between responsibility (which is always linked to the degree of difficulty of the functions) and the characteristics of the different levels of consciousness of the population (of different levels of capability, or of conceptual grasp). With regard to the generation of the necessary coercive power by the system (so that the governors can regulate and harmonize the actions of big organizations), the necessary requirement is that the political model promotes a cohesive organization of the entire population.

In view, above all, of the characteristics of the different levels of consciousness of the population and of the simultaneous need for the freedom of choice to be preserved, as well as for the guarantee of equal opportunities in the political dispute, the first conclusion is that of the total unfeasibility of direct elections involving large populations.

It is a total unfeasibility because these large mass elections, while preserving freedom, always result in a preservation of a kind of freedom like “fox in the henhouse”. In other words, a freedom in which there is no equality of conditions in the political dispute, neither a harmony between the levels of conceptual grasp and the levels of responsibility in selection process. The consequence of this is a total surrender of the process (so fundamental and decisive) of the choices of the most responsible positions in the hands of the economic-financial power (pluto), and in the hands of demagogy. In fact, the current so-called democratic models centrally characterized by the elections of big populations (masses) are not true democracies, but plutodemagogicracies. A truly democratic system means the government of the people, by the people and to the people, while in the present forms of liberal democracies the government is of the people, by the people, but it never arrives to become to the people; the present forms of liberal democracies are always in favor of economic power and demagogy.

Democracy of the Future: Cascade or Inverted Tree Representation

At first sight, apparently, we find ourselves in a blind alley, that is, how to preserve freedom without direct elections by large populations (mass), together with equal opportunities in political-electoral disputes, and still maintaining harmony between levels of consciousness and levels of responsibility at different levels of political representation?

In reality, a little more reflection shows us that there is a consistent solution to this apparent paradox. It is a model that contemplates elections that are much less direct, and that ensures that these elections never imply processes of selection directly involving large masses, while preserving freedom and a strict proportionality between the various small, medium, and large electoral circumscriptions (districts).

Thus, this system would be based on small electoral districts (circumscriptions), such as small towns (villages), neighborhoods, small districts or small municipalities, preferably never exceeding a very human dimension, in which personal knowledge among individuals was not impossible or even very difficult to occur.

What number of people would we be approximately (roughly) referring to? This number may vary significantly in the case of rural or urban areas, since in urban areas of high population concentration the physical distances between a significant number of people are relatively small. In urban areas there may be large buildings, etc., and in these conditions of easier interpersonal communication, the number of voters in this first political-electoral circumscription could be significantly greater than in rural areas of great population dispersion, where people have much greater difficulties in establishing face-to-face contacts.

These differences of number of people at this first electoral level are of no great importance, since there will always be a rigorous proportionality between representatives and represented. If, for example, the coefficient is 50 to 1 at that first level, then, if there are 1,000 voters in a circumscription, there would be twenty (20) representatives of the first level. If another base district has only 200 voters, it will elect only four (4) representatives of the first level, and so on. The rigorous proportionality being an obvious requirement for equal opportunities.

The model of successive representations would gradually narrow like a pyramid, through the levels of Base Districts, Municipalities, Microregions, States (or Provinces), and from there to the National Congress, which would choose a cabinet with an executive chief, such as a Prime Minister in a parliamentary system. It should be noted, however, that this system resembles the traditional parliamentary system only at the top of the pyramid, the whole process of choice and selection being completely different from the direct suffrages of large populations, since the different electoral districts (circumscriptions) are articulated at various levels until it reaches the level of the National Congress.

If we consider the enormous advantages of this system in relation to the current ones, it becomes difficult to accept that such a system has not been seriously tried anywhere, as far as we have knowledge. Let us examine these advantages a little more in comparison with the present dominant systems: liberal democracies and marxist one party systems.

Freedom Is Guaranteed

In relation to marxist totalitarian regimes, the great advantage of this new model of participatory democracy is that freedom is absolutely preserved, whereas in so-called dictatorships of the proletariat, freedom is sacrificed. In this context, there is only equal opportunities for party members. In other words, there is no full freedom and, therefore, there is no equal opportunity in marxist totalitarian systems, while in the democracy of the future this essential requirement is preserved.

As for the other aspects, participatory democracy does not lose anything to the marxist model. Marxist systems have their strength in the balance between functions and capabilities and in the cohesive organization of a large part of the population. Now, these points are equally strong in the participatory democracy of the future, since it is similar in these particular aspect to the marxist models, being, in reality, superior to the marxist totalitarian systems, since these exclude many intelligent and capable people from the selection (electoral) process, only because they do not belong to the communist party or similar (as we can see, for example, in the model currently existing in continental China).

A Process with Equal Opportunities

What about, then, the comparison of the democracy of the future with the system that is hegemonic in the world today, which is called liberal democracy? The freedom that is the strong point of liberal democracies is also fully preserved in this participatory democracy of the future.

In some ways, in fact, there is even more freedom in this participatory democracy than in the current models of liberal democracies. First, because in democratic-liberal systems sometimes voting is mandatory, while in this participatory democracy of the future, voting is free. Second, because in liberal systems candidates generally must be affiliated with some party, while in the democracy of the future candidates may or may not be affiliated with any party, depending on their free choices. In liberal systems to be a candidate, the individual almost always depends on the choice of parties, but in this democracy of the future it depends only on his own decision. We see, therefore, that even under this aspect that is the strength of liberal democracies, this new model of democracy owes nothing to it.

As for all other aspects, this participatory democracy of the future is far superior to liberal systems. It guarantees immense equality of opportunity in electoral processes, while in liberal pseudo-democracies only the materially privileged, the communicators and those who have professions linked to mass communication, in addition to demagogues in general, are the ones who have a chance to be elected to the positions of greater responsibility.

The Harmony Between Functions and Capabilities

As for the adequacy between functions and capabilities, there is almost no need for comments, such are the advantages of the suggested model in relation to the mass suffrages of liberal systems.

In this participatory democracy of the future there is a gradual qualification of the voters, who are those who were elected at the level immediately below. At each level of representation, a qualification occurs naturally (as to the increase in conceptual levels, or levels of social awareness), as these are those who were freely chosen as the most qualified representatives to defend the interests of their respective area or electoral circumscription.

The comparison is almost ridiculous, but what would be the percentage of those who would elect representatives to the National Congress in this new model who would not even be able to say what a Constituent Assembly is? Certainly this percentage would be practically zero, that is, none of the representatives of this high level would be unaware of such an elementary issue! Compare this with the 70.5% who, as we saw earlier, in Rio Grande do Sul did not know how to answer this very basic question, but who composed the very electorate to choose the constituents in 1986! Would there be a need for other comparisons? Is there any doubt that in this participatory democracy of the future we would have an extraordinarily more qualified National Congress?

The Creation of the Necessary Power

Finally, also in terms of the ability to generate enough power in the hands of the freely chosen leaders, the model advocated here is far superior to liberal systems. The proposed model organizes the population in a much more cohesive way, not in a loose and atomized way as in liberal pseudo-democracies.

It is almost impossible to violently repress such a system. If, by chance, a military force prevented the National Congress from functioning, the entire population would remain politically organized, in a cascade (or inverted tree) of small assemblies, in most cases so small that they could meet in a large living room. How to suppress such an organization? It is an almost impossible mission.

All of this without mentioning the evident fact that perhaps the greatest political force in this participatory democracy of the future is the great, or at least much greater, qualification of its highest leaders (in comparison with those elected in the liberal pseudo-democracies), which would guarantee, only considering this aspect, a much greater popular support than that devoted to the current rulers.

How different would be the qualification of these leaders when compared to recent examples of Brazilian politics, where we see cases and more cases of corruption, incompetence, demagogy, generalized unpreparedness for the exercise of the highest positions, of the terrible example for the population who has a very low concept as to the character of politicians. This was demonstrated in data previously presented, but in view of its immense importance we will repeat here:

The table below, regarding the credibility of politicians, is very clear about the results of this process of selecting political leaders in the present forms of liberal democracies. These data are about the credibility deserved by those who should be the best that a nation has, as they occupy the positions of the greatest responsibility. The survey is by Ibope (institute) and was published in Zero Hora, (newspaper) on 08/09/87. Needless to say, the Brazilian situation in 2020 does not look any better, with so many corruption scandals in the nation’s highest offices! The question asked was as follows:

– “Do you agree or disagree with the statements below used to describe the actions of politicians? The tabulation presents percentages.


 Agree  Disagree Does not know/
did not answer
They are in politics only due to personal interests

80 %

17 %

3 %

They are concerned with the people well-being




Even the most honest end being corrupted




They do not act as they promised




They only defend who helped them to be elected




They enjoy too much benefits




They only remember voters before elections




This disheartening picture is already a clear statement about the incompetence, injustice and corruption that characterizes this system of selecting political leaders.”

An Example for Nations Is Needed

The country that first succeeds in adopting the model of political organization of this participatory democracy of the future will thus be serving the highest interests of its own people and will also be setting an example that will certainly help and inspire other countries. Especially those countries that are today poorer, generally subject to a neocolonialist dependency and with a past of centuries of colonial exploitation. This is because in this system there will be, in fact, a real chance for the necessary wisdom (intellectual and technical qualification, along with altruistic character) to reach the most powerful positions, and of the greatest responsibility.

In fact, this organizational change will only reach its truly democratic character (of the people, by the people and for the people), if it is preceded by a genuine great ideational reform at the level of the elites, that is, that part of the population possessing the minds of greater conceptual grasp. This aspect is not that easy to understand and, for this reason, it will be addressed in the set of quotations added at the end of this chapter, as well as in the texts that we will add, as annexes, to this book.

In view of the previous analysis, it seems unnecessary to further compare this model with those presently dominant worldwide. In all aspects analyzed, it is a much more efficient and fair model than the current ones, both in terms of the competence of the process of selecting the governors, and in terms of generating a much greater power in the hands of the leaders, so that they can regulate and harmonize the activities of the gigantic organizations. This is because, as we have seen, this new model, in addition to enabling much more qualified leaders to exercise their immense responsibilities, organizes the entire population of any society in a much more cohesive way.

Both the difference in the qualification of the governors, and in the organizational cohesion of the entire population, should substantially change the situation of conflicts and permanent injustices of all kinds that we have today. And this is something whose importance is difficult to exaggerate, especially for poor nations, which today have no hope, within the current models, whether liberal or marxist, of overcoming the vicious circle of extreme poverty and the so-called underdevelopment, in the same way that makes possible consistent solutions to the great problems that today afflict humanity as a whole, as in the concrete example previously chosen linked to the destruction of the natural environment.

In conclusion, there follows a set of quotations that aim to corroborate the ideational perspective presented in this work, above all to assist in understanding the decisive role of elites and their corresponding responsibility for the general well-being, not only of the human family (either organized in national societies,  or in the collectivity of the world as a whole), but of all life and the natural environment of the planet:


Politics Involves the Welfare of All and Demands the Best Heads With Desinterested Spirit

Politics, which involves the welfare and progress of all who constitute the State and affects other States, is a serious business which calls for the best heads with a disinterested spirit, and should not be a game of power played with the stakes of personal and group interests.” (N. Sri Ram. On the Watch Tower, p. 82; emphasis added)

Universal Brotherhood Is a Law in Nature, Not Only an Aspiration

Brotherhood, then, in its full meaning, is a law in nature. Stress has more than once been laid on this in our meetings, but not too much stress has thereon been laid. For it is the very object, the desire, of our work that brotherhood shall become practical in society, and it will never become practical until men understand that it is a law, and not only an aspiration. It is a common experience that when men have discovered a law of nature they no longer fight against it. They at once accomodate themselves to the new knowledge. They at once adapt themselves to the newly understood conditions, and in that very way we have preached brotherhood. And yet brotherhood is but so little known in our world.” (Annie Besant. The Spiritual Life, Vol. II, p. 160; emphasis added)

Out of these Differences Grows Up All the Possibilities of an Ordered Society

“That great principle [or Law] of Reincarnation must ever go hand in hand with the principle [or Law] of Brotherhood if Brotherhood is to be applied, if it is to be made a working principle of ordinary life. For it is out of these differences of age that grows up all the possibilities of an ordered and happy society amongst ourselves.” (Annie Besant. The Changing World, p. 80; emphasis added)

How to Find the Best, That Is the Problem: To Solve It We Must Realise the Hopelessness of the Present Systems of Government

The Ideal is that the best should rule; but how to find them, that is the problem. Every one of us who studies must try to solve this problem, and the suggestions I am here making may perhaps give some hints for the solving. But you will not try to solve it, until you realise the hopelessness of the present line of rulingor not rulingand accept the Ideal that the best should govern.” (Annie Besant. The Ideals of Theosophy, p. 30; emphasis added)

The Fetish of Mass Suffrage Without Any Qualification Whatsoever

Undoubtedly each man is competent in his own sphere, to say what he wants for his town or village and who will serve best it among those he knows. But when it comes to a question of deciding intricate issues of national and international import, it is but common sense that only those should exercise a vote who have some knowledge of what the issues are. Therefore it was that Dr. Annie Besant urged consistently, while she was concerned with these matters in Indian politics, that India should not, in shaping her Constitution, adhere to the fetish of mass suffrage without any qualification whatsoever. (…)

She did not think that the rule ‘one man, one vote’ was good for any country, at least of all did she favour it for India.” (N. Sri Ram. On the Watch Tower, p. 81; emphasis added)

There Has to Be Skill and Wisdom in Dealing with the Outer Differences

It is not enough to realize our underlying brotherhood, but there has to be skill and wisdom in dealing with the outer differences, the inequalities of development and circumstances.” (N. Sri Ram. Thoughts for Aspirants, 2nd Series, p. 122; emphasis added)

India Should Evolve a New Model of Democracy

“If India can evolve a form of democracy in which there is some chance for the needed wisdom to come to the top, she will thereby be serving the best interests of her own people, as well as setting an example that might help and inspire other peoples.” (N. Sri Ram. On the Watch Tower, p. 82; emphasis added)

Proposal of a System in Harmony with the Law of the Universal Brotherhood (Annie Besant, N. Sri Ram and Jai Prakash Narain)

“Some time ago Pandit Nehru, in one of his speeches, threw out rather vaguely the idea that some day, instead of the present manner of elections to the Indian Parliament, some system, less direct and more suited to conditions in India, might be considered.

Since then, Mr. Jai Prakash Narain (…) has more definitely proposed, in the place of the present form of Democracy in India, a system somewhat similar to that proposed by Dr. Annie Besant in the days of her agitation for Indias Freedom. She did not think that the rule one man, one vote’ was good for any country, andleast of all did she favour it for India. Therefore she outlined, in her The Commonwealth of India Bill [1925], a system which would be broad-based at the village (and corresponding town) level, with adult suffrage and a very large measure of autonomy, and then gradually taper like a pyramid through the District and State (or Province) levels, up to the Central Government. The franchise for the Councils at these higher levels was to be based on increasingly higher qualifications of service, experience, education, etc.

Her scheme, if it had been backed up by the other political leaders of the time, particularly by the Congress party, would have been acceptable to the people of India as a whole. The principle of a reasonable qualification for the vote and for membership of the Councils would have been firmly established. But her pleadings went in vain. Mr. Gandhi stood for mass suffrage, and that decided the question.

Mr. Jai Prakash Narain also envisages a strong and practically self-sufficient village base to consist of Village Councils, village meaning also a town, ward or borough, but indirect elections from these Councils to District Councils, from the latter to State or Provincial Legislatures, and from these to the Parliament of all India.

Mr. Jai Prakash Narains is as yet a lonely voice in the wilderness of the present political conditions in India. The description of them as a wilderness may seem an exaggeration but when one looks at the various sectional interests which are so clamant and the variety of councils on different matters to which it utterance is given, one cannot but feel the truth of Dr. Besants description of democracy in its present form as government by multi-headed ignorance.” (N. Sri Ram. On the Watch Tower, p. 86; emphasis added)

Participatory Democracy (or Democracy of the Future), in the Vision of Professor C.B. Macpherson

“Let me turn finally to the question of how a participatory democracy might be run if we did achieve the prerequisites. How participatory could it be, given that at any level beyond the neighbourhood it would have to be an indirect or representative system rather than face-do-face direct democracy?

If one looks at the question first in general terms, setting aside for the present both the weight of tradition and the actual circumstances that might prevail in any country when the prerequisites had been sufficiently met, the simplest model that could properly be called a participatory democracy would be a pyramidal system with direct democracy at the base and delegate democracy at every level above that. Thus one would start with direct democracy at the neighbourhood (…) – actual face-to-face discussion and decision by consensus or majority, and election of delegates who would make up a council at the next more inclusive level, say a city borough or a ward or township. (…)

So it would go on up to the top level, which would be a national council for matters of national concern, and local and regional councils for matters of less than national concern. At whatever level beyond the smallest primary one the final decisions on different matters were made, the issues would certainly have to be formulated by a committee of the council. (…)

This may seem a far cry from democratic control. But I think it is the best we can do. What is needed at every stage, to make the system democratic, is that the decision-makers and issue-formulators elected from below be held responsible to those below subject to re-election or even recall. (pp. 108-109) (…)

To sum up the discussion so far of the process of a pyramidal councils system as a model of participatory democracy, we may say that in the measure that the prerequisite conditions for transition to a participatory system had been achieved in any Western country, the most obvious impediments to a pyramidal councils scheme being genuinely democratic would not be present, and, therefore, a pyramidal system might work. (…)

It is much more likely that any such move will be made under the leadership of a popular front or a coalition of social-democratic and socialist parties. (…) The real question then is, whether there is some way of combining a pyramidal council structure with a competivie party system.

The combination of pyramidal direct/indirect democratic machinery with a continuing party system seems essential. Nothing but a pyramidal system will incorporate any direct democracy into a nation-wide structure of government, and some significant amount of direct democracy is required for anything that can be called participatory democracy. At the same time, competitive political parties must be assumed to be in existence, parties whose claims cannot, consistently with anything that could be called liberal democracy, be overridden.

Not only is the combination of pyramid and parties probably unavoidable: it may be positively desirable. (pp. 111-112) (…)

One question remains: can this model of participatory democracy be called a model of liberal democracy? I think it can. It is clearly not dictatorial or totalitarian. The guarantee of this is not the existence of alternative parties (…). The guarantee is rather in the presumption that no version of the model of participatory democracy could come into existence or remain in existence without a strong and widespread sense of the value of that liberal-democratic ethical principle (which is the heart of its main models): – the equal right of every man and woman to the full development and use of his or her capabilities. (…)

As long as there remained a strong sense of the high value of the equal right of self-development, the model of participatory democracy would be in the best tradition of liberal democracy. (C.B. Macpherson. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, pp. 108-115; emphasis added)

The Relation Between Religion and Social Organization

[Second part of the sixth chapter of the book A Roda e a Cruz: Uma Introdução ao Cristianismo Budista (The Wheel and the Cross: An Introduction to Buddhist Christianity)]

VIVIANE: What is the link between religion and the organization of society?

ARNALDO: Although today there is a tendency to consider religion and sociopolitical organization as relatively separate things, for a long time they were almost one and the same, walking together. This is because one decisively influences the other throughout history.

What we have today as the so-called Christianity, as I said, is this materialized and idolatrous interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. That interpretation is what is at the base of our cruel civilization model. Of course, we are not ignoring the Greco-Roman or Jewish tradition. However, these traditions were modified by a given dominant interpretation of Jesus’ teachings. This is what constitutes what the world calls Christianity. And it is this set that is at the base of Western civilization and its main institutions of sociopolitical organization.

With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, throughout the Middle Ages, it was monasteries and then the first universities that exerted this basic civilizing influence. Throughout this period, religion had an evidently dominant cultural role. Then, little by little, this domain was weakened, with all the transformations that marked the advent of the so-called Modern Age, until the Protestant Reforms took place, and what we call Modern Science began to develop. But the basis of thought still has its origins in this twisted religious tradition. In the Modern and Contemporary Age, the religious tradition was changing; now it is merged and, to a great extent, is in conflict and being overwhelmed by so-called scientific thinking.

In fact, it was precisely the materialization, the religious idolatry – be it so-called Catholic or so-called Protestant – that generated this type of science that is dominant today. One thing is the daughter of another. The basis, the matrix of this whole civilization remains that main religion of the West, which is what the world calls Christianity.

Only in the Modern and Contemporary Ages, this influence became less explicit and more indirect, with the intermediation of secular thought. But still the dominant religion in the West is Christianity, what is called Christianity. Many call this the Judeo-Christian tradition – and in fact it is, both Jewish and Greco-Latin and Christian. And, if we are also talking about Jewish tradition and Greco-Latin tradition, we are talking about those traditions that influenced Judaism and Greco-Roman culture. We arrived then in the cultures of Mesopotamia and Old Egypt.

All of this is at the foundation of Western civilization, which is largely dominating the world, as it is so clear.

“THE Christian Faith is the direct heir of the old Roman faith. Rome was the heir of Greece, and Greece of Egypt, whence the Mosaic dispensation and Hebrew ritual sprang.
Egypt was but the focus of a light whose true fountain and centre was the Orient in general – Ex Oriente Lux. For the East, in every sense, geographically, astronomically, and spiritually, is ever the source of light.
But although originally derived from the East, the Church of our day and country is modelled immediately upon the Greco-Roman mythology, and draws thence all its rites, doctrines, ceremonies, sacraments, and festivals. (…)
Drawing its life-blood directly from the pagan faith of the old Occidental world, Christianity more nearly resembles its immediate father and mother than its remote ancestors, and will, therefore, be better expounded by reference to Greek and Roman sources than to their Brahminical and Vedic parallels.” (Anna Kingsford. The Credo of Christendom, pp. 94-95)

It was this Western civilization – with all these influences, plus modern secular scientific thought – that resulted in Liberalism and Marxism, which to this day are the main and dominant social philosophies and which, therefore, are the main matrices of models of sociopolitical organization.

These philosophies, materialistic and materialized, created a new “Ecclesiasticism”, which to some extent combats and dominates, as I said, religious Ecclesiasticism.

We know, unequivocally, that they are dominant because they are the ones who are shaping the institutions, the main institutions that organize the sociopolitical life of the main countries, that is, the countries that dominate most of the world. All of this, as I said, is based on this degeneration of the true Christian religion, which is fundamentally linked to Buddhism, as well as the teachings of Pythagoras.

Christianity as it stands today – dominated by the literalist idolatry of Ecclesiasticism – with the civilization model influenced by it, with the growing violence between humans and animals, with the destruction of important elements of the natural environment, is taking the world straight to the collision with the iceberg of environmental and social catastrophes, which may start with pandemics that, even according to scientific reports, may occur in the not-too-distant future.

We have come to this point because this false Christianity, with its Ecclesiasticism, literalism, superficiality and idolatry of the Holy Scriptures directly or indirectly generated, and continues to support, institutions unable to organize the world in a satisfactory, balanced and fair way.

So, there is an urgent need for a re-interpretation, a rescue of true Christianity, which, according to Dr. Anna Kingsford, is a continuation and makes up a unity, a harmonious whole, based on the sacred teachings that preceded it, especially, I repeat, with the genuine and correctly interpreted teachings of Gautama Buddha and Pythagoras.

Admitting this last statement as true, we will necessarily have to rescue, to restore the true religiosity of this united tradition, as all the possibilities of new institutions, of new instruments of sociopolitical organization that would allow us to avoid and overcome the approaching iceberg would depend on this restoration, if this is still possible; if it is possible, after so much cruelty, to avoid that collision.

But, even if this is no longer possible, we still have the duty and the need to prepare for the day after, the next day. Because everything will continue after the iceberg, and we have to work for much awaited better days, with or without collision with the iceberg. We have to, whether we like it or not, sow the good seeds for before, during and after, it doesn’t matter, the catastrophes, which today seem almost inevitable, sooner or later. But when prophets speak these things, who listens to them? And it is precisely this deafness that makes catastrophes so inevitable. Patience and prayer…

Again, and trying to summarize, to improve the foundations of Western civilization we need to improve the Christianity that is there. We need to rescue, we need to restore, as Kingsford and Maitland did, the true Christianity, which, according to these prophets, composes a totality with Buddhism and with the teachings of Pythagoras.

With this rescue we will be able to have a true vision of God, a true metaphical vision of the human being, of the spiritual path and of ethical values. And as we externalize this vision in our way of living, individually and collectively, it will become new social institutions: legal, political, educational, economic, and so on. From this, according to the prophets Kingsford and Maitland, “of the spiritual union in the one faith of Buddha and Christ, will be born the world’s coming redemption.” (Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland. The Perfect Way, p. 252; emphasis added)

VIVIANE: The East seems to have a tradition more linked to symbols than the West. We see, for example, Indian dance, which is all symbolic. Orientals apparently have this greater connection with religious symbolism. Does this greater contact with symbols make their understanding easier?

ARNALDO: I believe that most Eastern people, when they interpret symbols, do not do it well, including their own symbols. That’s why Eastern religion is as we see it. What happens is that they accept more – not that they understand more – because that’s part of their rigidly stratified culture.

I would like to point out that rigid stratification is different from simple, natural scaling. In human society, this rigid stratification is not beneficial, in the sense of imposing that the person who is here cannot reach any further, as occurs in the degenerated Indian castes. In this culture, whoever is of a caste must live and die in that caste.

This is a degeneration of a sacred principle, of a true law, and a law of the greatest importance, which is the teaching that gave rise to the castes, but which have been degenerated for so long. This social scaling is no longer understood as a reflection of the character, the evolutionary levels of the Souls, but, in the current degeneration, it is determined by the caste in which the person was born. In fact, the inner value, the character, must determine the scaling; it is from the inside out and ideally depends on the Soul’s maturity level. And not rigidly determined by the social grouping in which the human being was born.

I Ching: 10 – Lu (Conduct and the Level’s Differences)

Heaven above, the lake below:

The image of CONDUCT.

Thus the superior man discriminates between high and low,

And thus strengthens the minds of the people.

The sky and the lake show a difference in altitude inherent to the essence of the two, which, therefore, does not arouse envy.

So, among men, there are necessarily differences in level. It is impossible to achieve universal equality. However, what matters is that the differences in level in society are not arbitrary and unfair, because in that case envy and class struggle would inevitably follow.

If, on the contrary, the differences in external level correspond to differences in internal capacity, and the internal value is the criterion for determining the external hierarchy, tranquility will reign between men and society will find order.” (Richard Wilheim. I Ching: Book of Changes, p. 56; emphasis added)

This view is present in virtually all major religious traditions, although even within those traditions it has been corrupted in countless ways, such as the caste system of Hinduism, or the stratified order of Christianity-related feudalism, among so many other examples.

VIVIANE: It seems difficult for human beings, with the knowledge they have, in the way they see the world, to make this distinction, to determine the external, social level, starting from the internal, of the character of individuals.

ARNALDO: It is really difficult, but its importance is decisive if we want a just social order with chances of overcoming the immense problems that are there, as the possibility of a good choice of leaders depends on that, without which there is no possibility of a harmonious social order.

In Humanitarianism, the system we have proposed, called Participatory Democracy of the Future, is logically derived from a reasonable Buddhist-Christian philosophical and religious basis, that is, catholic (in the sense of universal), we solve this problem of excessive stratification, or excessive egalitarianism, by accepting a scale without rigidity, showing that they can be freely defined levels, through elections, as, to some extent, the Russian soviets did – only in a more satisfactory, more dignified way, more coherent with human dignity, because there was no freedom there and our proposal is based on freedom. Not in a false absolute freedom, not in the freedom of the “fox in the chicken coop” type, but in the freedom associated with fraternity, which implies a harmonious scaling of freedom and responsibility, in a proportional and pertinent way.

How is this possible, that is, to create a harmonic order, without ignoring the existence of staggering and without excessive egalitarianism? Giving people freedom to choose their representatives, only in small social groups, from small populations, or from a micro-district basis. In this way, people can get to know each other in person and a first college of representatives is created with freedom, equality of opportunity and adequacy between capacities and levels of responsibility.

In this way, these first micro-district representatives will choose their municipal representatives (small municipalities); these representatives from the small municipalities will choose the representatives from the micro-regions; from there, those from regions (or states) are similarly chosen, thus arriving at the National Assemblies and, in the future, even a World Government.

In such a system, you first adjust to the Soul maturity framework, building a tier, but not despotically. People choose freely, within different staggered levels. Among other crucial factors, this is the only way to preserve equality of opportunity, as much as possible, in our world of so many limitations.

VIVIANE: Who determines who is at what level?

ARNALDO: The population itself, the individuals themselves, by freely choosing their representatives, at each level of social scale, as we briefly describe.

VIVIANE: Do people themselves qualify?

ARNALDO: Of course, there will be electoral rules relevant to this new model for choosing representatives. What is decisive is to understand the fundamental importance of small human groups and the absurdity of the choices of large human masses.

When a small social group freely chooses its representatives – for example, representatives of a small micro-district, where individuals can get to know each other in person without much difficulty – it chooses the people it considers most capable of representing it, to represent their needs, and to select higher representatives, etc.

When working with a large electoral population, with many thousands or even millions, it becomes immoral, it is unfair and incompetent, because equality of opportunity disappears, among other problems. Injustice is installed within the social order. Harmony is no longer achieved between the internal level of maturity and the external level in social ladder. From there it’s just conflict, corruption, violence, bad examples, bad decisions. There is no longer a possible solution, the conflict inevitably ensues, as in the quoted passage from the ancient I Ching. Just look at our society, at our country. Or to the world.

VIVIANE: To elect this type of representative, the group chooses between “x” people who declared themselves capable of such a role. But this individual declaration does not prevent someone not able to be a candidate and elected, even without being able. Do you think that the human being has the capacity to make this scale?

ARNALDO: It certainly has this capacity, as long as there is justice, that is, freedom and equality of opportunity in the process of choice. That’s why it’s human, that’s why freedom of choice is a fundamental value. Humanitarianism, as the root of the word itself indicates, is an affirmation of trust in the human. True humanity is divinely inspired, for it was made in the image and likeness of God.

Humanitarianism is concerned, before any other question of sociopolitical organization, with offering a correct and fair process for choosing representatives. Yes, humanity has this capacity, I repeat, as long as the process is fair, that is, as long as freedom, equality of opportunity and the adequacy between levels of capacity and levels of choice or social responsibility are preserved.

The gradient of consciousness is something like a pyramid. And at the top of humanity are souls very close to divinity, truth and love. And that top is also part of the human family. Thus, as the very old I Ching already said – which is considered to be perhaps the oldest known book – the question is the harmony between external power and internal capacities.

The heart of the political problem, the first problem in order of importance, is how to choose the representatives well, and the solution of this crucial problem, as Humanitarianism explains, as the ancient I Ching also explained, among so many other divinely inspired Scriptures, it necessarily depends on the existence of a dignified step that does not offend the divine dignity of the human being. A true religion must inspire the solution of this first and most important political problem. For on that the collective well-being depends vitally.

The second main political problem is how to endow these representatives with sufficient power to make and sustain the necessary decisions. We may have a good ruler and he may not have the necessary power in his hands. Or to have someone with a lot of power who is a despot, who is not a good ruler. The main objective, the first and most important question of sociopolitical organization is, as we said, to choose our representatives well. And, after that, to endow these representatives, chosen with justice and competence, with the necessary power to support their decisions.

VIVIANE: How to do this?

ARNALDO: We have already said that the first step is to guarantee freedom. Without freedom people look and rightly question themselves: “Who chose this?” Freedom is essential. Even a child needs to be given a good deal of freedom – but it cannot be absolute freedom. This seems to be the crux of the whole question of sociopolitical organization: freedom must be adapted to one’s level of consciousness. And this is impossible without decent and fair grades, levels or echelons. Without that, everything else is corrupted, there is no possible solution.

Secondly, as has also been said, we need to have equal opportunities. Without equal opportunities, it is as if in an exam one candidate received feedback from the answers and the others did not. If there is no equality of opportunity, the process is flawed, it is unfair, it is corrupt and corrupting, as in the case of our sociopolitical system based on the mistaken principles of Liberalism, or those systems based on Marxism.

And last but not least, there has to be a match between the level of choice and the level of understanding of that population. For example: in 1993 there was a plebiscite to choose between presidential and parliamentary systems of government. At that time, half of the Brazilian electoral population could not distinguish between one and the other. So, it makes no sense to make use of a decision process of this type, even more so with mandatory voting.

The people were not able to decide directly on that macro-social issue. But he was and is prepared to know, in his small community, who can represent him to defend his interests in his neighborhood, or micro-district. The entire life of the sociopolitical organization, necessarily, must start there, in a natural way, adapted to the levels of conscience, in a dignified, fair and competent way.

If not, you can prepare the “lifeboat”, as the collision with the “iceberg” will be inevitable. It is “simple, sweet and logical”, as in the phrase attributed to Gautama Buddha. But our elites, our brothers of greater intellectual power, seem to prefer, so to speak, injustice, cruelty and delusion. This happens, as we have seen, because their minds are dominated by Ecclesiasticisms, whether the so-called religious ecclesiasticism or the so-called scientific “ecclesiasticism”.

It is much easier, logical and fair to be able to choose in a small community who are the individuals who have the capacity to better represent the necessities of our small district. If even that is not possible, much less will it be possible to decide on much broader issues. It’s so obvious and logical. It is, of course, a much better process for choosing representatives than those which are today present in the world. And maybe it’s the best we can do in our time.

Returning to a religious image, we can read in the Book of Job that: “In the elderly is wisdom, and in the breadth of days the understanding”. In other words, wisdom is with the “older ones” – with those who have greater “age”, and thus greater capacity of the Soul. (Job, 12:12) Of course, it is an allegory to those of greater inner maturity, or of the Soul, and not to the mere chronological age of the body, as we can read in the Book of Wisdom: “Venerable old age is not longevity, nor is measured by the number of years; the gray hairs of man are intelligence, and old age an immaculate life”. (Wisdom, 4:8-9)

But this can only be judged in a dignified, fair and competent way by the community if there is the necessary freedom and the necessary equality of opportunity. Other than that, where can we find dignity and justice? And without dignity and justice, we can forget about harmony and peace. In the Bible, among other passages, this is also implicit in the teaching of the Perennial Philosophy contained in the passage that says: “Seek therefore, first, his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” (Matthew, 6:33) Of course, this phrase has many levels of meaning, but it also applies to the fundamental conditions of social organization, the political organization of societies and, therefore, of a fair process of how to choose the leaders.

In this process, I repeat, it is important to consider that the electoral college needs to be small – if it is large, the money, goods and material power, the electoral machine, the mass communication, and their private material gains will always speak louder.

The electoral college must not harm the justice of equal opportunities and must be adapted to the level of conscience of the people, that is, the problems and issues to be examined and decided must not go beyond the scope of the level of understanding or the scope of the consciences of that electoral college. And this cannot be achieved outside of small and gradually scaled electoral colleges, where this adequacy can be maintained, along with freedom and equality of opportunity. Apart from that, that is, without justice, we can forget about social harmony.

If I may, I will repeat, because it is so important, this point that, in practice, each of the colleges of representatives will choose the representatives of the higher level – all political life starting, of course, at the most basic level, at the level of what we can call electoral micro-districts.

All the levels (grades or echelons) of the political electoral system start with a micro-district, such as a set of blocks in a city, where individuals can get to know each other in person without electoral machines and such perversions. From there, it goes to the level of a small municipality, from there it goes to the level that does not exist in our country (Brazil), but is extremely important for public administration, which is the micro-regional level. In other words, the base, the levels at the base of the pyramid of sociopolitical echelons are the micro-districts, small municipalities, and micro-regions.

In economically more advanced countries, there is this political-administrative level after the municipality, which is called, in the case of the USA, county. An intermediate political-administrative level between the municipality and the states. In France, just to cite another example, between the municipality and the country there are départements – and the size of France is not very different from the size of the brazilian state of São Paulo, for example.

This entire process naturally qualifies the representatives and creates a system that is logical, fair, that does not mortally harm equality of opportunity, and that follows the levels that are inherent to the differences in the ages of human Souls. As we have already said, it is a sine qua non condition for justice that there is equality of opportunity in the choice of representatives – equality of opportunity in electoral disputes.

There is another extremely important complementary aspect – which many do not clearly understand – which is the consideration of this system in relation to the power of the large corporations that dominate the world today, as they dominate the main countries of the world.

This power of large corporations is simply overwhelming today. If we examine, for example, the Gross Domestic Product, the GDPs of the 100 largest countries and compare it with the Product generated by the largest economic corporations, we will see that there are many corporations in the world with Products greater than many of these countries, which would appear in this list of the 100 larger. This, of course, means enormous power to influence, especially in such an unfair system that privileges money and electoral machines.

In this system, of the so-called liberal “democracies” of today, the large corporations have an enormous power, and the National State becomes an organization at the mercy of these large corporations. The countries, that is, the National State organizations, nowadays, cannot balance and regulate the power of those big corporations, which of course defend private interests, not public ones, not the well-being of all the population.

The system proposed by Humanitarianism has the property of organizing the entire population in a way that, for example, can hardly be repressed. As the system stands today, if military corporations supported by large private economic organizations want to intervene with coups d’etat, there is no defense against it, as has been seen in so many examples.

The population is poorly organized, fragmented, loose, as the distance from the electoral colleges is immense. There is a huge gap between the people and the national representatives, not to mention the quality of the leaders. In other words, in addition to choosing the representatives very poorly, which is its biggest flaw and weakness, this system, by leaving the population so distant from the representatives, generates a weakness in relation, above all, to the large corporations.

In the system proposed here, there is no such emptiness, this vacuum. The assemblies are small, they can practically meet in a room; the representatives and the represented are always close and, thus, a social cohesion is created, a sociopolitical force that is capable of confronting, balancing and regulating the power of large corporations.

Again, it’s so simple and logical. At least we should understand that if this system proposed by Humanitarianism is not capable of selecting competent leaders, and of generating vigor, sufficient political force to regulate the power of large corporations, much less will the current unfair, incompetent and weak system be able to do that.

VIVIANE: The way you draw the picture, we see that the reigning policy is that of economic power. You believe that in the current system it is difficult for the people to defend themselves, for the rulers to defend themselves. Couldn’t I somehow adapt this situation?

ARNALDO: The way countries are organized today, the world has no possibility of avoiding great catastrophes, of overcoming the immorality and violence in which we live. The great world problems do not have consistent solutions and the rulers are servants of the great corporations. The world today is, I have said, like a Titanic, proud of its undeniable scientific and technical advances, yet heading steadily towards the iceberg of catastrophes, and we don’t even have the organizational tools to prevent it. This is the situation in the world today.

In this proposed system, which is the logical derivation of all these philosophical-religious principles, there is an outline of a social instrument, of social institutions capable of generating consistent solutions to major problems.

I don’t know if we will be able to prevent the outcome of great catastrophes, because human beings often need to hit rock bottom and then seek their regeneration. The fact, however, is that today there is no consistent solution to the big problems, and the clear trend is that these will increase, until we reach catastrophic situations.

Thus, we need to improve, rescue the true philosophical-religious basis, because this religious basis that prevails today is greatly corrupted by idolatry and the materialism of Ecclesiasticisms, whether religious properly or so-called scientific.

The current state of the religions does not allow for the advent of just institutions and consequent consistent solutions; they are idolaters and have materialized the sacred symbols. They take a phrase like that of Jesus “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John, 14:6) and personalize it, saying that that being who lived in Palestine is the only way, the only truth and the only true life. They don’t understand that these teachings are about much larger issues. They do not understand, as St. Paul said, that “the letter kills” (Corinthians, 3:6) – it kills first spiritually, then physically, because it generates institutions that lead to death like those that dominate and shape the world of our days. We are, in short, heading towards major crises, due to the fact that we are sowing pain, violence and destruction. And there is no chance, within the current framework, of avoiding these consequences.

The world is dominated today by large corporations and they fight each other for private gains. When the situation becomes difficult, they form an alliance: it is the law of profit, of the strongest, it is the law of the jungle. And who can fight it today? Nobody.

These organizations are the strongest on the planet. That is why it is essential that we create the conditions for the birth of decent, fair, dignified and competent social institutions, which can discipline the macro-agents that currently dominate, and with the dominant value of private material gains. We need new institutions that reflect and defend the values ​​of the well-being of humanity collectively considered, that is, humanitarian institutions, because that word – humanitarianism – means that, concern with the well-being of all, even in the dictionary.

VIVIANE: You talk about equal opportunities and the need to take into account the Souls’ maturity level. How is this differentiation made?

ARNALDO: The inability of the world today to do this, which is not such a complicated thing after all, rests on misinterpretations, on the misinterpretations of its symbols and religious and philosophical allegories.

The matrix, the basis of our main problems is precisely this lack of correct interpretations of these main symbols and allegories. This difficulty exists because we don’t see humanity as it really is.

We do not perceive the human family with its different levels of maturity of Souls, as in Jacob’s ladder dream allegory. We do not perceive, in short, neither the diversity of capacities nor the underlying Divine Unity. And without that there are no consistent solutions possible.

It’s so simple, but perhaps to see this simplicity clearly requires a certain depth, a certain elevation in vision. Therefore, with no such elevation of vision, as it is the case today, we have the dominance of idolatrous or materialistic ecclesiasticisms. It seems that few manage to understand the decisive importance of these simple and fundamental aspects, such as those that are represented in Jacob’s dream, that is: “Unity in Diversity”.

Jacob’s Dream

Now Jacob went out from Beersheba and went toward Haran. So he came to a certain place and stayed there all night, because the sun had set. And he took one of the stones of that place and put it at his head, and he lay down in that place to sleep.

Then he dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it; above the ladder was the Lord.” (Genesis, 28:10-13; emphasis added)

Another example, among many others, of this fundamental decisive simplicity is in that parable, already mentioned here, of the master who was going to travel, called his servants and gave each one talents (money, resources, power etc.), to each one, says the parable, according to his abilities (capacities, maturity etc.). (Matthew, 25:14-29) When he returned, he charged each one according to his Soul conquests, according to his capacities.

We do not see clearly, in the symbols of religions, this differentiation, these differences, with the necessary underlying Unity. Ecclesiasticisms, whether religious or scientific, has so far been victorious in the struggle against the prophets, as they were at that time against Christ Jesus. They have been victorious thus far, though, it seems, their dark days are drawing to a close.

To this day, however, materialism has been dominant. And in religion the dominance has been of the literal and idolatrous misrepresentation of sacred symbols, and in its sermons it has given the same false advice to everyone as in the dominant materialist egalitarianism.

In Greek mythology we have the story of Procrustes, which illustrates this same aspect. He received pilgrims in his inn and after feeding them, he invited them to sleep in a bed, where only those who were exactly the same length could lay down. Those smaller than the bed of Procrustes were stretched out by the legs and arms; the larger ones had the ends cut to be the same size. This is a very good representation of the dominant ideas in our current moment of civilization. We see this behavior reproduced in religions, science, politics and education, which demand the same ability from people. It’s as cruel as it is real.

The awareness of this differentiation begins with the correct interpretation of philosophical-religious symbols. For true religion is the connection with the High, with the Center, with the Buddha and the Christ in us, or, if you like, it is the connection with the High and the Deep, which is the same as God.

The basis of Buddhist teaching, at least within Buddhist Christianity – since it should clearly deal with Karma and Reincarnation, which are the two columns that explain the different levels of maturity of Souls – should fulfill this fundamental purpose, as to interpretation of sacred symbols in this tradition, which is both Buddhist and Christian. Christendom, as we have seen, needs to restore its original true form, which is of the greatest relevance, since it is the religion at the base of Western civilization, which today dominates the world, for better or for worse.

VIVIANE: Are Karma and Reincarnation the answer to this unknown, the differentiation of the levels of Souls?

ARNALDO: Exactly. This is the foundation of true Christianity, Christianity that is united in the same stream with Buddhism. That he can thus correctly interpret the Sermon on the Mount, the allegories of Genesis, the Prophets, the New Testament, the Letters and the Revelation. It takes the foundation of Buddhism to understand the language of the prophets, from Genesis to Revelation. Without the philosophical foundation of Buddhism, it is not possible to satisfactorily understand the Christian Scriptures. And without this complement of Christianity, this tradition is incomplete. It lacks, above all, the teachings about the Mysteries and Initiations, which are like bridges that unite, in a reasonable and logical way, the final stages of the evolution of Souls, until the conscious fusion with the Divine Reality, or, with the Kingdom of God. For these reasons, we begin this work with a quote from the prophets who were Dr. Kingsford and Maitland, a quote that tells us, in its simplicity, that: Of the spiritual union in the one faith of Buddha and Christ, will be born the world’s coming redemption.” (The Perfect Way, p. 252; emphasis added)

VIVIANE: Without that complement, everything is very literal.

ARNALDO: And if it stays literal, as Saint Paul teaches, “the letter kills”.

VIVIANE: Do you think globalization makes it easier for people to understand this Buddhist-Christian connection? A while ago it seems that it was more difficult.

ARNALDO: As an instrument, as a tool, globalization must make it easier. Things are not by chance – everything has its moment. But I’m not saying, like the materialists, that because of globalization understanding can happen. Globalization is generating means, instruments, tools, so to speak. And like any tool, it can either help or hinder.

The more powerful the tool, the more dangerous it is. And as globalization is a process that is generating very powerful tools – it can either help a lot or hurt a lot. Isn’t that what we can observe in our day?” [Arnaldo Sisson Filho; with Viviane Pereira. Second part of the sixth chapter of the book A Roda e a Cruz: Uma Introdução ao Cristianismo Budista (The Wheel and the Cross: An Introduction to Buddhist Christianity), pp. 217-239]