P
Parikh1019
Guest
Mahatma Gandhi, Christian fundamentalism and Politics of conversion
PART I
Rajendra C.Parikh
• My association with Christians dates from 1889 and there was a time in my life when I sincerely considered Christianity as my religion…….. Although I admire much in Christianity, I am unable to identify myself with the orthodox Christianity. I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism, as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, and fills my whole being……
• The missionaries come to India thinking that they come to a land of heathen, of idolaters, of men who do not know God. My own experiences all over India have been on the contrary. An average Indian is as much a seeker after truth as the Christian missionaries are, possibly more so……….If I have read the Bible correctly, I know many men who have never known the name of Jesus Christ, men who have even rejected the official interpretations of Christianity, but would nevertheless, if Jesus came in our midst today in the flesh, be probably owned by him more than many of us. My position is that it does not matter what faith you practice, as long as the soul longs for truth………….
• “To be a good Hindu also meant that I would be a good Christian. There was no need for me to join your creed to be a believer in the beauty of the teachings of Jesus or try to follow His example,” Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi’s devoted followers have portrayed him as a saintly figure that rose above the pettiness of human nature and incorporated various religious ideologies in his daily life. Indeed, he succeeded- to a large extent- in bringing independence to India in a non-violent fashion without sacrificing his inherent saintliness. His open and broadmindedness has generated a deep devotion among his followers and at the same time it has created heated debates among various fundamentalists and self righteous people on either side of the divide who were/are obsessed with unique and/or unquestionably “only true” traditions and belief systems.
Mahatma Gandhi chose to concentrate on human goodness, service to humanity and attempted to bring about discussions about religious beliefs with frankness. He was not afraid to speak up his mind and has written extensively on many religious matters in a straightforward and forthright manner. He synthesized many ideas, distilled them, reflected upon them, and created his own views, which often incensed and infuriated fundamentalists in Hindu and Christian/Islamic divide in India and abroad. He viewed Hinduism as a multi dimensioned and multi faceted living and breathing tradition willing to absorb many differing theological principles and often interpreted the scriptures in a unique manner that reflected his own viewpoint. Repeatedly, he found himself in a difficult situation as he attempted to create alliance of bickering parties with different religious traditions. Fundamental Islamists often accused him of being a closet Hindu pretending to sound sincere and neutral in the political struggle. While Fundamentalists Hindus accused him of pandering to minority viewed him with deep suspicions. Open-minded vast majority of Indians recognized his sincerity and embraced his ideology but many extremists on either side, refused to yield to seek a common ground of understanding. Similarly, many fundamentalist Hindus claimed that he was infatuated with new testaments and Sermon on the Mount and accused him of polluting, corrupting and diluting the precepts of Hinduism. Many Christian fundamentalists accused him of inserting “eastern relativism” in dogmas of Christianity. Some of the Christian missionaries, recognizing of his extraordinary stature in India and around the globe, attempted to use his deep interest in Sermon on the Mount, for an ulterior motive of using him as a “tool” in mass conversion in India.
He refused to take scriptures on its face value from all religions and often challenged their dogmas and doctrines. He strongly objected concrete interpretations of various ancient writings and propagated a view that all the scriptures must be interpreted in an abstract manner. He strongly believed that concretization of scriptures lead to conflict between people of different traditions. He did not hesitate to take a stance that scriptures should be only honored with their metaphorical meanings and must be applied in the present context only. He was very assertive in declaring these views openly and defiantly which caused a great deal of controversy and consternation across the globe and India. He justified and rationalized his actions based on his own unique interpretations of religious scriptures often confounding followers and adversaries. He embraced divinity of Christ but rejected dogmatic interpretations of church. He accepted Christianity in essence but rejected “Churchianity” in a very vocal manner. Some broad-minded Christians accepted and understood his uniqueness but were unable reconcile his Hindu origin and made sincere efforts to convert him to see the “truth” as Christianity envisioned it. Gandhi’s “Dharma” was all-inclusive and did not contain either /or version but “this” as well as “that” version of theology. He did not believe in monopolistic and exclusivity doctrine of Christianity. He was always willing to embrace ‘good’ as he viewed in every tradition and did not see a need to convert to join a different group or reject his own heritage. It was indeed very difficult for many self- righteous groups in west because that would undermine their claims of uniqueness. His religion was a synthesis of all world religions and stated categorically that one need not change the religion of his own heritage to acknowledge goodness in other traditions.
I- Mahatma and Scriptures as historical Documents
As regards the historicity of Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi says, “I have never been interested in a historical Jesus. I should not care if it was proved by someone that the man called Jesus never lived, and that what was narrated in the Gospels was a figment of the writer’s imagination. For, the Sermon on the Mount would still be true to me.”
It will be of great interest to many people in the world as well as India that he declined to see the scriptures and its narratives as historical truths and said that in more than one way in different forums about Hinduism as well Christianity.
Some of these quotes make this fact abundantly clear.
“Whilst I believe that the principal books are inspired, they suffer from a process of double distillation. Firstly, they come through a human prophet, and then through the commentaries of interpreters. Nothing in them comes from God directly. Mathew may give one version of one text and John may give another. I cannot surrender my reason whilst I subscribe to Divine revelation. (Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi- Vol.64 p. 73- 75)
I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all begotten sons of God, but for each of us there may be different begotten son of God in a special sense. There is no miracle in the story of the multitude being fed on a handful of loaves. A magician can create that illusion. As for Jesus raising the dead to life, well, I doubt if the men he raised were dead. I do not deny that Jesus had certain psychic powers and he was undoubtedly filled with the love of humanity. But he brought to life not people who were dead but who were believed to be dead. The laws of Nature are changeless, unchangeable, and there are no miracles in the sense of infringement or interruption of Nature’s laws. But we limited beings fancy all kinds of things and impute our limitations to God. (Collected works of mahatma Gandhi -April 14, 1937, Discussion with a Missionary Vol.65 p.79-82).
One must also realize the fact that although he was proud of being a tolerant Hindu but he was equally adamant in rejecting historical claims and concrete interpretations in Hinduism and its scriptures as well.
“I call myself a Sanatani Hindu, because I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, and all that goes by the name of Hindu scripture, and therefore in avataras and rebirth; I believe in the varnashrama dharma in a sense, in my opinion strictly Vedic but not in its presently popular crude sense; I believe in the protection of cow … I do not disbelieve in murti puja”. (Young India: June 10, 1921).
“My Krsna is not the historical Krsna. I believe in the Krsna of my imagination as a perfect incarnation, spotless in every sense of the word, the inspirer of the Gita, and the inspirer of the lives of millions of human beings. But if it is proved to me ... that the Krsna of the Mahabharata actually did some of the acts attributed to Him, even at the risk of being banished from the Hindu fold, I should not hesitate to reject that Krsna as God incarnate.”
“Words have, like man himself, an evolution, and even a Vedic text must be rejected if it is repugnant to reason and contrary to experience.”
His ideas about all inclusiveness of belief system are amply revealed when wrote:
“...Hinduism is not an exclusive religion. In it, there is room for the worship of all the prophets in the world. It is not a missionary religion in the ordinary sense of the term. It has no doubt absorbed many tribes in its fold, but this absorption has been of an evolutionary, imperceptible character. Hinduism tells every one to worship God according to his own faith or Dharma and so it lives at peace with all the religions.”
II- Mahatma and Christian dogma
It is obvious to any one who studies Mahatma Gandhi that bedrock belief of fundamentalist Christianity, “Jesus was the only begotten son of father” was openly and unhesitatingly challenged by Mahatma Gandhi. He was not afraid of stating that resurrection is nothing but a figment of imagination of believers, hell bent on ascribing supernatural powers to their messiah. He was never disrespectful to Jesus Christ but never accepted all the dogmas Christianity. The concept of Virgin Mary never found a believer in Mahatma.
Mahatma Gandhi refused to believe ideology of “born sinners and atonement of Christ” as it defies common wisdom and stated on many occasions, “I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.” He went further in stating “Every one of us is a son of God and capable of doing what Jesus did, if we but endeavor to express the Divine in us.” The central element in the Christian faith is atonement and a claim that God sent his Son to “save” us was challenged by Gandhi when he said “Purity of character and salvation depend on purity of heart.”
It is a common knowledge that Christianity claims to be the infallible Word of God, the only God there is; it lays exclusive claims to universal truth. It presents Jesus Christ as humankind’s only way of salvation. Mahatma Gandhi flatly rejected all this self- serving claims outright and observed on many occasions that
• I regard all the great religions of the world as true for the one professing them.”
• All the great religions are fundamentally equal.
• All of us are sons of God. There is only one God but many paths to him
• God wills the salvation of all people in their respective faiths.
Mahatma flatly rejected the claims of Christianity in Bible that God has spoken, once and for all, and that all counter-claims must be weighed against the Bible. He never hesitated to counter those grandiose claims and went even one-step further in advancing a view that all scriptures must be rejected if it is against common wisdom.
III- Mahatma and merits of Religions
Manisha Barua (Gandhi and Comparative Religion) correctly points out that “His mission was not only to humanize religion, but also to moralize it. Gandhi’s interpretation of Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity made his religion a federation of different religious faiths.”
This act is amply supported by many of these compiled quotes made over many decades of his public service.
• I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful search and study and discussion... that all religions were true... that I should hold others as dear as Hinduism.
• To me God is Truth and Love. God is Ethics and Morality. God is Fearlessness. God is essence of life and light and yet He is above and beyond all these. God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist. For in his boundlessness, God permits the atheist to live. He is the searcher of hearts. He is a personal God to those who need his personal presence. He is embodied to those who need his touch. He is the purest essence.... He is all things to all men. He is in us and yet above and beyond us.
• The chief value of Hinduism lies in holding the actual belief that all life is one i.e. all life coming from one universal source, call it Allah, God or Parameshwara.
• Is there one God for the Mussalmans and another for the Hindus, Parsis, and Christians? No, there is only one omnipresent God. He is named variously and we remember him by the name, which is most familiar to us.
• Today supposing I was deprived of the Gita and forgot all its contents but had a copy of the Sermon, I would derive the same joy from it as I do from the Gita.
• A rose does not need to preach. It simply spreads its fragrance. The fragrance is its own sermon. The fragrance of religion and spiritual life is much finer and much subtler than that of a rose.
• Do I wish that a Christian would become a Hindu? God forbid. Do I wish that a Hindu or Buddhist would become a Christian? God forbid ... the Christian is not to become a Hindu or a Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a Buddhist to become a Christian. But each must assimilate the spirit of the others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth.
This kind of broad-minded approach won plaudits and acquired admirers in west as a French philosopher Romain Roland often referred to him as “second Jesus Christ” but at the same time zealots in all religions attacked him as naïve, illogical and inconsistent. Greta Olsoe (commentary on a book by Robert Ellsburg – Gandhi on Christianity) writes “Gandhi’s beliefs represent a complete reinterpretation of the New Testament message and a redefinition of Christianity, and they mirror Gandhi’s own bias……….Sadly, the central message of the Bible, the Gospel is lost on Gandhi. He proposes the oldest counterfeit of all, self-salvation. Self salvation results from two misconceptions: an underestimation of God’s absolute holiness and an overestimation of mankind’s goodness”.
Continued in next part>>>>>>>>>>
PART I
Rajendra C.Parikh
• My association with Christians dates from 1889 and there was a time in my life when I sincerely considered Christianity as my religion…….. Although I admire much in Christianity, I am unable to identify myself with the orthodox Christianity. I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism, as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, and fills my whole being……
• The missionaries come to India thinking that they come to a land of heathen, of idolaters, of men who do not know God. My own experiences all over India have been on the contrary. An average Indian is as much a seeker after truth as the Christian missionaries are, possibly more so……….If I have read the Bible correctly, I know many men who have never known the name of Jesus Christ, men who have even rejected the official interpretations of Christianity, but would nevertheless, if Jesus came in our midst today in the flesh, be probably owned by him more than many of us. My position is that it does not matter what faith you practice, as long as the soul longs for truth………….
• “To be a good Hindu also meant that I would be a good Christian. There was no need for me to join your creed to be a believer in the beauty of the teachings of Jesus or try to follow His example,” Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi’s devoted followers have portrayed him as a saintly figure that rose above the pettiness of human nature and incorporated various religious ideologies in his daily life. Indeed, he succeeded- to a large extent- in bringing independence to India in a non-violent fashion without sacrificing his inherent saintliness. His open and broadmindedness has generated a deep devotion among his followers and at the same time it has created heated debates among various fundamentalists and self righteous people on either side of the divide who were/are obsessed with unique and/or unquestionably “only true” traditions and belief systems.
Mahatma Gandhi chose to concentrate on human goodness, service to humanity and attempted to bring about discussions about religious beliefs with frankness. He was not afraid to speak up his mind and has written extensively on many religious matters in a straightforward and forthright manner. He synthesized many ideas, distilled them, reflected upon them, and created his own views, which often incensed and infuriated fundamentalists in Hindu and Christian/Islamic divide in India and abroad. He viewed Hinduism as a multi dimensioned and multi faceted living and breathing tradition willing to absorb many differing theological principles and often interpreted the scriptures in a unique manner that reflected his own viewpoint. Repeatedly, he found himself in a difficult situation as he attempted to create alliance of bickering parties with different religious traditions. Fundamental Islamists often accused him of being a closet Hindu pretending to sound sincere and neutral in the political struggle. While Fundamentalists Hindus accused him of pandering to minority viewed him with deep suspicions. Open-minded vast majority of Indians recognized his sincerity and embraced his ideology but many extremists on either side, refused to yield to seek a common ground of understanding. Similarly, many fundamentalist Hindus claimed that he was infatuated with new testaments and Sermon on the Mount and accused him of polluting, corrupting and diluting the precepts of Hinduism. Many Christian fundamentalists accused him of inserting “eastern relativism” in dogmas of Christianity. Some of the Christian missionaries, recognizing of his extraordinary stature in India and around the globe, attempted to use his deep interest in Sermon on the Mount, for an ulterior motive of using him as a “tool” in mass conversion in India.
He refused to take scriptures on its face value from all religions and often challenged their dogmas and doctrines. He strongly objected concrete interpretations of various ancient writings and propagated a view that all the scriptures must be interpreted in an abstract manner. He strongly believed that concretization of scriptures lead to conflict between people of different traditions. He did not hesitate to take a stance that scriptures should be only honored with their metaphorical meanings and must be applied in the present context only. He was very assertive in declaring these views openly and defiantly which caused a great deal of controversy and consternation across the globe and India. He justified and rationalized his actions based on his own unique interpretations of religious scriptures often confounding followers and adversaries. He embraced divinity of Christ but rejected dogmatic interpretations of church. He accepted Christianity in essence but rejected “Churchianity” in a very vocal manner. Some broad-minded Christians accepted and understood his uniqueness but were unable reconcile his Hindu origin and made sincere efforts to convert him to see the “truth” as Christianity envisioned it. Gandhi’s “Dharma” was all-inclusive and did not contain either /or version but “this” as well as “that” version of theology. He did not believe in monopolistic and exclusivity doctrine of Christianity. He was always willing to embrace ‘good’ as he viewed in every tradition and did not see a need to convert to join a different group or reject his own heritage. It was indeed very difficult for many self- righteous groups in west because that would undermine their claims of uniqueness. His religion was a synthesis of all world religions and stated categorically that one need not change the religion of his own heritage to acknowledge goodness in other traditions.
I- Mahatma and Scriptures as historical Documents
As regards the historicity of Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi says, “I have never been interested in a historical Jesus. I should not care if it was proved by someone that the man called Jesus never lived, and that what was narrated in the Gospels was a figment of the writer’s imagination. For, the Sermon on the Mount would still be true to me.”
It will be of great interest to many people in the world as well as India that he declined to see the scriptures and its narratives as historical truths and said that in more than one way in different forums about Hinduism as well Christianity.
Some of these quotes make this fact abundantly clear.
“Whilst I believe that the principal books are inspired, they suffer from a process of double distillation. Firstly, they come through a human prophet, and then through the commentaries of interpreters. Nothing in them comes from God directly. Mathew may give one version of one text and John may give another. I cannot surrender my reason whilst I subscribe to Divine revelation. (Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi- Vol.64 p. 73- 75)
I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all begotten sons of God, but for each of us there may be different begotten son of God in a special sense. There is no miracle in the story of the multitude being fed on a handful of loaves. A magician can create that illusion. As for Jesus raising the dead to life, well, I doubt if the men he raised were dead. I do not deny that Jesus had certain psychic powers and he was undoubtedly filled with the love of humanity. But he brought to life not people who were dead but who were believed to be dead. The laws of Nature are changeless, unchangeable, and there are no miracles in the sense of infringement or interruption of Nature’s laws. But we limited beings fancy all kinds of things and impute our limitations to God. (Collected works of mahatma Gandhi -April 14, 1937, Discussion with a Missionary Vol.65 p.79-82).
One must also realize the fact that although he was proud of being a tolerant Hindu but he was equally adamant in rejecting historical claims and concrete interpretations in Hinduism and its scriptures as well.
“I call myself a Sanatani Hindu, because I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, and all that goes by the name of Hindu scripture, and therefore in avataras and rebirth; I believe in the varnashrama dharma in a sense, in my opinion strictly Vedic but not in its presently popular crude sense; I believe in the protection of cow … I do not disbelieve in murti puja”. (Young India: June 10, 1921).
“My Krsna is not the historical Krsna. I believe in the Krsna of my imagination as a perfect incarnation, spotless in every sense of the word, the inspirer of the Gita, and the inspirer of the lives of millions of human beings. But if it is proved to me ... that the Krsna of the Mahabharata actually did some of the acts attributed to Him, even at the risk of being banished from the Hindu fold, I should not hesitate to reject that Krsna as God incarnate.”
“Words have, like man himself, an evolution, and even a Vedic text must be rejected if it is repugnant to reason and contrary to experience.”
His ideas about all inclusiveness of belief system are amply revealed when wrote:
“...Hinduism is not an exclusive religion. In it, there is room for the worship of all the prophets in the world. It is not a missionary religion in the ordinary sense of the term. It has no doubt absorbed many tribes in its fold, but this absorption has been of an evolutionary, imperceptible character. Hinduism tells every one to worship God according to his own faith or Dharma and so it lives at peace with all the religions.”
II- Mahatma and Christian dogma
It is obvious to any one who studies Mahatma Gandhi that bedrock belief of fundamentalist Christianity, “Jesus was the only begotten son of father” was openly and unhesitatingly challenged by Mahatma Gandhi. He was not afraid of stating that resurrection is nothing but a figment of imagination of believers, hell bent on ascribing supernatural powers to their messiah. He was never disrespectful to Jesus Christ but never accepted all the dogmas Christianity. The concept of Virgin Mary never found a believer in Mahatma.
Mahatma Gandhi refused to believe ideology of “born sinners and atonement of Christ” as it defies common wisdom and stated on many occasions, “I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself, or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.” He went further in stating “Every one of us is a son of God and capable of doing what Jesus did, if we but endeavor to express the Divine in us.” The central element in the Christian faith is atonement and a claim that God sent his Son to “save” us was challenged by Gandhi when he said “Purity of character and salvation depend on purity of heart.”
It is a common knowledge that Christianity claims to be the infallible Word of God, the only God there is; it lays exclusive claims to universal truth. It presents Jesus Christ as humankind’s only way of salvation. Mahatma Gandhi flatly rejected all this self- serving claims outright and observed on many occasions that
• I regard all the great religions of the world as true for the one professing them.”
• All the great religions are fundamentally equal.
• All of us are sons of God. There is only one God but many paths to him
• God wills the salvation of all people in their respective faiths.
Mahatma flatly rejected the claims of Christianity in Bible that God has spoken, once and for all, and that all counter-claims must be weighed against the Bible. He never hesitated to counter those grandiose claims and went even one-step further in advancing a view that all scriptures must be rejected if it is against common wisdom.
III- Mahatma and merits of Religions
Manisha Barua (Gandhi and Comparative Religion) correctly points out that “His mission was not only to humanize religion, but also to moralize it. Gandhi’s interpretation of Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity made his religion a federation of different religious faiths.”
This act is amply supported by many of these compiled quotes made over many decades of his public service.
• I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful search and study and discussion... that all religions were true... that I should hold others as dear as Hinduism.
• To me God is Truth and Love. God is Ethics and Morality. God is Fearlessness. God is essence of life and light and yet He is above and beyond all these. God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist. For in his boundlessness, God permits the atheist to live. He is the searcher of hearts. He is a personal God to those who need his personal presence. He is embodied to those who need his touch. He is the purest essence.... He is all things to all men. He is in us and yet above and beyond us.
• The chief value of Hinduism lies in holding the actual belief that all life is one i.e. all life coming from one universal source, call it Allah, God or Parameshwara.
• Is there one God for the Mussalmans and another for the Hindus, Parsis, and Christians? No, there is only one omnipresent God. He is named variously and we remember him by the name, which is most familiar to us.
• Today supposing I was deprived of the Gita and forgot all its contents but had a copy of the Sermon, I would derive the same joy from it as I do from the Gita.
• A rose does not need to preach. It simply spreads its fragrance. The fragrance is its own sermon. The fragrance of religion and spiritual life is much finer and much subtler than that of a rose.
• Do I wish that a Christian would become a Hindu? God forbid. Do I wish that a Hindu or Buddhist would become a Christian? God forbid ... the Christian is not to become a Hindu or a Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a Buddhist to become a Christian. But each must assimilate the spirit of the others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth.
This kind of broad-minded approach won plaudits and acquired admirers in west as a French philosopher Romain Roland often referred to him as “second Jesus Christ” but at the same time zealots in all religions attacked him as naïve, illogical and inconsistent. Greta Olsoe (commentary on a book by Robert Ellsburg – Gandhi on Christianity) writes “Gandhi’s beliefs represent a complete reinterpretation of the New Testament message and a redefinition of Christianity, and they mirror Gandhi’s own bias……….Sadly, the central message of the Bible, the Gospel is lost on Gandhi. He proposes the oldest counterfeit of all, self-salvation. Self salvation results from two misconceptions: an underestimation of God’s absolute holiness and an overestimation of mankind’s goodness”.
Continued in next part>>>>>>>>>>
