Difference between revisions of "Gandhi and Mahayana Buddhism: A Humanism of Nonviolence and Compassion"
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
− | by Nicholas F. Gier | + | by [[Nicholas F. Gier]] |
− | Professor of Philosophy | + | [[Professor]] of [[Philosophy]] |
− | Coordinator of Religious Studies | + | Coordinator of {{Wiki|Religious Studies}} |
Senior Fellow | Senior Fellow | ||
− | Martin Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution | + | Martin Institute for [[Peace]] Studies and Conflict Resolution |
− | University of Idaho | + | [[University of Idaho]] |
− | Moscow, Idaho 83844-3016 | + | {{Wiki|Moscow}}, Idaho 83844-3016 |
December 1, 1999 | December 1, 1999 | ||
− | GANDHI AND MAH¸Y¸NA BUDDHISM: A HUMANISM OF NONVIOLENCE AND COMPASSION | + | GANDHI AND MAH¸Y¸NA [[BUDDHISM]]: A HUMANISM OF NONVIOLENCE AND [[COMPASSION]] |
− | At Gandhi's call all India blossomed forth to new greatness, just as once | + | At Gandhi's call all [[India]] blossomed forth to new greatness, just as once |
− | before, in earlier times, when [the] Buddha proclaimed the truth of fellow | + | before, in earlier times, when [the] [[Buddha]] proclaimed the [[truth]] of fellow |
− | feeling and compassion among all living creatures. | + | [[feeling]] and [[compassion]] among all living creatures. |
− | --Rabindranath Tagore | + | --{{Wiki|Rabindranath Tagore}} |
− | [Gandhi is] the greatest Indian since Gautama Buddha and the greatest man | + | [{{Wiki|Gandhi}} is] the greatest [[Indian]] since [[Gautama Buddha]] and the greatest man |
− | since Jesus Christ. | + | since {{Wiki|Jesus Christ}}. |
--J. H. Holmes | --J. H. Holmes | ||
− | J. H. Holmes and D. S. Harrington The Enduring Greatness of Gandhi (Navajivan, 1982), p. | + | J. H. Holmes and D. S. Harrington The Enduring Greatness of {{Wiki|Gandhi}} (Navajivan, 1982), p. |
275. | 275. | ||
− | I felt I was in the presence of a noble soul . . . a true disciple of Lord Buddha | + | I felt I was in the presence of a [[noble]] [[soul]] . . . a true [[disciple]] of [[Lord Buddha]] |
− | and a true believer in peace and harmony among all men. | + | and a true believer in [[peace]] and [[harmony]] among all men. |
− | + | –[[The Dalai Lama]] | |
− | It was not until he reached England that Gandhi discovered the great religious | + | It was not until he reached [[England]] that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} discovered the great [[religious]] |
− | classics of his own Indian tradition. He first read the Bhagavad-g»t¹ in Sir Edwin Arnold's | + | classics of his [[own]] [[Indian tradition]]. He first read the Bhagavad-g»t¹ in Sir [[Edwin Arnold's]] |
− | translation, and he read with "even greater interest" Arnold's verse rendition of the Buddha's | + | translation, and he read with "even greater [[interest]]" Arnold's verse rendition of the [[Buddha's life]] and thought.1 [[Writing]] to a [[Burmese]] [[friend]] in 1919, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} said that "when in 1890 or |
− | life and thought.1 Writing to a Burmese friend in 1919, Gandhi said that "when in 1890 or | ||
− | 1891, I became acquainted with the teaching of the Buddha, my eyes were opened to the | + | 1891, I became acquainted with [[the teaching of the Buddha]], my [[eyes]] were opened to the |
− | limitless possibilities of nonviolence."2 Gandhi declared that he was proud of the accusation | + | [[limitless]] possibilities of nonviolence."2 {{Wiki|Gandhi}} declared that he was proud of the accusation |
− | (lodged by his own son) that he was a closet Buddhist, and he claimed that Buddhism was | + | (lodged by his [[own]] son) that he was a closet [[Buddhist]], and he claimed that [[Buddhism]] was |
− | to Hinduism as Protestantism was to Roman Catholicism "only in a much stronger light, in | + | to [[Hinduism]] as {{Wiki|Protestantism}} was to {{Wiki|Roman Catholicism}} "only in a much stronger {{Wiki|light}}, in |
− | a much greater degree."3 This comment represents a slight against Roman Catholicism, | + | a much greater degree."3 This comment represents a slight against {{Wiki|Roman Catholicism}}, |
− | which currently has the most compassionate and most understanding Christian mission in | + | which currently has the most [[compassionate]] and most [[understanding]] [[Christian]] [[mission]] in |
− | Asia; and it also reveals Gandhi's mistaken belief that Buddhism, along with Jainism, are | + | {{Wiki|Asia}}; and it also reveals Gandhi's mistaken [[belief]] that [[Buddhism]], along with [[Jainism]], are |
− | simply reform movements within Hinduism. | + | simply reform movements within [[Hinduism]]. |
− | Gandhi said that the Buddha was the greatest teacher of ahi÷s¹ and that the "Buddha | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} said that the [[Buddha]] was the greatest [[teacher]] of ahi÷s¹ and that the "[[Buddha]] |
− | taught us to defy appearances and trust in the final triumph of Truth and Love."4 When he | + | [[taught]] us to defy [[appearances]] and [[trust]] in the final {{Wiki|triumph}} of [[Truth]] and Love."4 When he |
− | speaks of "Gandhi's profound reinterpretation of Hindu values in the light of the message | + | speaks of "Gandhi's profound reinterpretation of [[Hindu]] values in the {{Wiki|light}} of the message |
− | of the Buddha,"5 Raghavan Iyer sees, more than any other Gandhi scholar I have read, the | + | of the Buddha,"5 Raghavan [[Iyer]] sees, more than any other {{Wiki|Gandhi}} [[scholar]] I have read, the |
− | full scope of the Buddha's influence on Gandhi. Observing that Gandhi establishes a middle | + | full scope of the [[Buddha's]] influence on {{Wiki|Gandhi}}. Observing that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} establishes a [[middle path]] between [[Jain]] {{Wiki|individualism}} and the Ved¹ntist dissolution of the {{Wiki|individual}}, Margaret |
− | path between Jain individualism and the Ved¹ntist dissolution of the individual, Margaret | + | [[Chatterjee]] maintains that Gandhi's position most closely resembles Mah¹y¹na Buddhism.6 |
− | Chatterjee maintains that Gandhi's position most closely resembles Mah¹y¹na Buddhism.6 | + | In my [[own]] work with Gandhi7 I have gone several steps beyond [[Iyer]] and [[Chatterjee]] to |
− | In my own work with Gandhi7 I have gone several steps beyond Iyer and Chatterjee to | + | propose that Gandhi's {{Wiki|principles}} of [[nonviolence]] can be best interpreted by extensive use of |
− | propose that Gandhi's principles of nonviolence can be best interpreted by extensive use of | + | [[Buddhist philosophy]]. |
− | Buddhist philosophy. | ||
− | In this paper I would like to cover several topics related to Gandhi and Buddhism. | + | In this paper I would like to cover several topics related to {{Wiki|Gandhi}} and [[Buddhism]]. |
First, I would like to address the problems regarding Gandhi's misconceptions about | First, I would like to address the problems regarding Gandhi's misconceptions about | ||
− | Buddhism. Second, I will explore parallels between Gandhi's philosophy and Mah¹y¹na | + | [[Buddhism]]. Second, I will explore parallels between Gandhi's [[philosophy]] and Mah¹y¹na |
− | Buddhism. The main focus will be a discussion of Gandhi's principle of self-suffering and | + | [[Buddhism]]. The main focus will be a [[discussion]] of Gandhi's [[principle]] of self-suffering and |
− | how it differs from the Bodhisattva ideal. Third, focusing on the thoroughly empirical | + | how it differs from the [[Bodhisattva ideal]]. Third, focusing on the thoroughly [[empirical]] |
− | method of Gandhi's experiments in truth, I will suggest a constructive comparison with the | + | method of Gandhi's experiments in [[truth]], I will suggest a constructive comparison with the |
− | Buddha's famous claim that "those who know causation know the Dharma." Fourth, I will | + | [[Buddha's]] famous claim that "those who know [[causation]] know the [[Dharma]]." Fourth, I will |
− | discuss the relationship between morality and beauty and show how this relates to a | + | discuss the relationship between [[morality]] and [[beauty]] and show how this relates to a |
− | Buddhist-Gandhian virtue ethics. In the last section I argue that commentators who | + | Buddhist-Gandhian [[virtue]] [[ethics]]. In the last section I argue that commentators who |
− | interpret Gandhi as a follower of Advaita Ved¹nta cannot do justice to his firm commitment | + | interpret {{Wiki|Gandhi}} as a follower of [[Wikipedia:Advaita Vedanta|Advaita]] Ved¹nta cannot do justice to his firm commitment |
− | to the individual and cannot make sense out of his political activism. With this preservation | + | to the {{Wiki|individual}} and cannot make [[sense]] out of his {{Wiki|political}} activism. With this preservation |
− | of individuality, it is possible to propose, as I do in the last section, a convergence of | + | of [[individuality]], it is possible to propose, as I do in the last section, a convergence of |
− | Gandhian and Buddhist humanism--a humanism of nonviolence and compassion. | + | [[Gandhian]] and [[Buddhist]] humanism--a {{Wiki|humanism}} of [[nonviolence]] and [[compassion]]. |
Line 84: | Line 82: | ||
− | During November, 1927, Gandhi was on tour in Sri Lanka, and he naturally had | + | During November, 1927, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} was on tour in [[Sri Lanka]], and he naturally had |
− | occasion to present his views on Buddhism. Gandhi maintained that the Buddha's extreme | + | occasion to {{Wiki|present}} his [[views]] on [[Buddhism]]. {{Wiki|Gandhi}} maintained that the [[Buddha's]] extreme |
− | austerities during the time before his enlightenment were done as penance for the sins of | + | austerities during the time before his [[enlightenment]] were done as penance for the [[sins]] of |
− | corrupt brahmin priests. Using the time-honored practice of tapasy¹,8 the Buddha, | + | corrupt [[brahmin]] {{Wiki|priests}}. Using the time-honored practice of tapasy¹,8 the [[Buddha]], |
− | according to Gandhi, had only one principal goal: to convince Hindus to give up animal | + | according to {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, had only one [[principal]] goal: to convince [[Hindus]] to give up [[animal sacrifice]]. With remarkable candor {{Wiki|Gandhi}} told his [[Buddhist]] audience that he was shocked |
− | sacrifice. With remarkable candor Gandhi told his Buddhist audience that he was shocked | + | that they could justify eating the flesh of [[animals]] that they themselves had not killed. He |
− | that they could justify eating the flesh of animals that they themselves had not killed. He | + | claimed that [[vegetarian]] [[Hindus]] were more consistent in their adherence to ahi÷s¹ and were |
− | claimed that vegetarian Hindus were more consistent in their adherence to ahi÷s¹ and were | + | thereby the true heirs of the [[Buddha's]] {{Wiki|gospel}} of [[nonviolence]]. Reminding them of the |
− | thereby the true heirs of the Buddha's gospel of nonviolence. Reminding them of the | ||
− | Buddha's principle of dependent origination, Gandhi told his audience that any meat eater | + | [[Buddha's]] [[principle]] of [[dependent origination]], {{Wiki|Gandhi}} told his audience that any meat eater |
− | is causally linked to the violence of the one who butchers the animal. His judgment against | + | is [[causally]] linked to the [[violence]] of the one who butchers the [[animal]]. His [[judgment]] against |
− | Burmese Buddhists in 1929 was equally harsh, and there he speculated that meat eating was | + | [[Burmese]] [[Buddhists]] in 1929 was equally harsh, and there he speculated that meat eating was |
− | the reason why Burma had a higher crime rate than India. | + | the [[reason]] why [[Burma]] had a higher [[crime]] rate than [[India]]. |
− | In his first speech in Sri Lanka Gandhi said that the Buddha only meant to reform | + | In his first {{Wiki|speech}} in [[Sri Lanka]] {{Wiki|Gandhi}} said that the [[Buddha]] only meant to reform |
− | Hinduism and not start a new religion of his own. It was his disciples, not the Buddha, who | + | [[Hinduism]] and not start a new [[religion]] of his [[own]]. It was his [[disciples]], not the [[Buddha]], who |
− | established a religion separate from Hinduism. According to Gandhi, the Buddha never | + | established a [[religion]] separate from [[Hinduism]]. According to {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, the [[Buddha]] never |
− | rejected Hinduism; rather, he "broadened its base. He gave it new life and a new | + | rejected [[Hinduism]]; rather, he "broadened its base. He gave it new [[life]] and a new |
− | intepretation." And most incredibly Gandhi claims that any element of Buddhism not | + | intepretation." And most incredibly {{Wiki|Gandhi}} claims that any [[element]] of [[Buddhism]] not |
− | assimilated by Hinduism "was not an essential part of the Buddha's life and teaching."9 | + | assimilated by [[Hinduism]] "was not an [[essential]] part of the [[Buddha's life]] and teaching."9 |
− | Unfortunately, Gandhi's effusive praise for Buddhism is rather back-handed, because he | + | Unfortunately, Gandhi's effusive praise for [[Buddhism]] is rather back-handed, because he |
− | unwittingly eliminates the separate identity that it rightly deserves: "It can be said that, in | + | unwittingly eliminates the separate [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]] that it rightly deserves: "It can be said that, in |
− | India at any rate, Hinduism and Buddhism were but one, and that even today the | + | [[India]] at any rate, [[Hinduism]] and [[Buddhism]] were but one, and that even today the |
− | fundamental principles of both are identical."10 | + | fundamental {{Wiki|principles}} of both are identical."10 |
− | Gandhi was not always a very good scholar, and his passionate belief in the basic | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} was not always a very good [[scholar]], and his [[passionate]] [[belief]] in the basic |
− | unity of all religions made him distort what we know to be the Buddha's intentions. There | + | {{Wiki|unity}} of all [[religions]] made him distort what we know to be the [[Buddha's]] {{Wiki|intentions}}. There |
− | is no question that Siddhartha Gautama envisioned a clean break with the Hindu tradition. | + | is no question that [[Siddhartha Gautama]] envisioned a clean break with the [[Hindu tradition]]. |
− | The Buddha preserved the time-honored techniques of yogic meditation, but his Middle Way | + | The [[Buddha]] preserved the time-honored [[techniques]] of [[yogic]] [[meditation]], but his [[Middle Way]] |
− | contained a strong critique of India's ascetic traditions. He also broke with orthodox Hindus | + | contained a strong critique of [[India's]] [[ascetic]] [[traditions]]. He also broke with [[orthodox]] [[Hindus]] |
− | on other major issues, such as the nature of reality and the self and its relationship to the | + | on other major issues, such as [[the nature of reality]] and the [[self]] and its relationship to the |
− | gods. In addition, the Buddha totally rejected the caste system, which Gandhi wanted to | + | [[gods]]. In addition, the [[Buddha]] totally rejected the [[caste]] system, which {{Wiki|Gandhi}} wanted to |
− | preserve in a revised form. My view is that Gandhi should have broken with his Hindu | + | preserve in a revised [[form]]. My view is that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} should have broken with his [[Hindu tradition]] on all of these points except for his [[views]] on the [[deity]]. Most importantly, we will |
− | tradition on all of these points except for his views on the deity. Most importantly, we will | + | find that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} often speaks of both the [[self]] and [[reality]] in dynamic and relational ways |
− | find that Gandhi often speaks of both the self and reality in dynamic and relational ways | + | that are [[Buddhist]] in their implication. |
− | that are Buddhist in their implication. | ||
− | Gandhi's persistence in believing that the Buddha was a theist is yet another instance | + | Gandhi's persistence in believing that the [[Buddha]] was a {{Wiki|theist}} is yet another instance |
− | in which his own religious views clouded his understanding. Gandhi's argument that "the | + | in which his [[own]] [[religious]] [[views]] clouded his [[understanding]]. Gandhi's argument that "the |
− | Law (dharma) was God Himself"11 is true only in Mah¹y¹na Buddhism, where the cosmic | + | Law ([[dharma]]) was [[God]] Himself"11 is true only in Mah¹y¹na [[Buddhism]], where the [[cosmic Buddha]] is called the dharmak¹ya, literally, the [[Body of the Law]]. The [[Buddha]] himself, |
− | Buddha is called the dharmak¹ya, literally, the Body of the Law. The Buddha himself, | + | however, did not claim any [[transcendental]] or [[cosmic]] [[nature]], and the [[deification]] of the |
− | however, did not claim any transcendental or cosmic nature, and the deification of the | + | [[Buddha]] came after his [[death]]. Furthermore, Gandhi's insistence on the [[Buddha's]] [[theism]] is |
− | Buddha came after his death. Furthermore, Gandhi's insistence on the Buddha's theism is | + | ironic given the fact that he constantly wavered between personal [[theism]] and an {{Wiki|impersonal}} |
− | ironic given the fact that he constantly wavered between personal theism and an impersonal | + | [[pantheism]], or even an {{Wiki|impersonal}} "truthism." After all, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} is most famous for his |
− | pantheism, or even an impersonal "truthism." After all, Gandhi is most famous for his | + | proposition that "[[Truth]] [not a supreme [[person]]] is [[God]]." In any case, the [[Buddha]] adopted |
− | proposition that "Truth [not a supreme person] is God." In any case, the Buddha adopted | + | the Jain-S¹÷khya-Yoga view of the relationship between [[humans]] and [[gods]]. This view is |
− | the Jain-S¹÷khya-Yoga view of the relationship between humans and gods. This view is | + | neither {{Wiki|theistic}} nor [[atheistic]]: the [[gods]] do indeed [[exist]], but they, like all other [[nonhuman beings]], have to have [[human]] [[incarnations]] in order to reach Nirv¹ªa. |
− | neither theistic nor atheistic: the gods do indeed exist, but they, like all other nonhuman | ||
− | beings, have to have human incarnations in order to reach Nirv¹ªa. | ||
− | To his credit Gandhi did have the correct view of Nirv¹ªa, and he is to be | + | To his credit {{Wiki|Gandhi}} did have the [[correct view]] of Nirv¹ªa, and he is to be |
− | commended for his clear understanding of it. He said that "Nirv¹ªa is utter extinction of all | + | commended for his [[clear understanding]] of it. He said that "Nirv¹ªa is utter [[extinction]] of all |
that is base in us, all that is vicious in us, all that is corrupt and corruptible in us. Nirv¹ªa | that is base in us, all that is vicious in us, all that is corrupt and corruptible in us. Nirv¹ªa | ||
− | is not like the black, dead peace of the grave, but the living peace, the living happiness of | + | is not like the black, [[dead]] [[peace]] of the grave, but the living [[peace]], the living [[happiness]] of |
− | [the] soul. . . ."12 This is a perfect response to perennial charges of Buddhist nihilism. | + | [the] [[soul]]. . . ."12 This is a {{Wiki|perfect}} response to [[perennial]] charges of [[Buddhist]] [[nihilism]]. |
6 | 6 | ||
− | Nirv¹ªa is, in a word, freedom--freedom not only from hate and greed, but freedom from | + | Nirv¹ªa is, in a [[word]], freedom--freedom not only from [[hate]] and [[greed]], but freedom from |
− | craving, the unquenchable desire for those things that we can never attain. One significant | + | [[craving]], the unquenchable [[desire]] for those things that we can never attain. One significant |
− | assumption of the Buddha's position is that ordinary desires, even for the Enlightened One, | + | assumption of the [[Buddha's]] position is that ordinary [[desires]], even for the [[Enlightened One]], |
− | are acceptable. This is the clearest mode of understanding the Buddha's Middle Way | + | are acceptable. This is the clearest mode of [[understanding]] the [[Buddha's]] [[Middle Way]] |
− | between extreme asceticism on the one hand and sensualism on the other. It is also a good | + | between extreme [[asceticism]] on the one hand and {{Wiki|sensualism}} on the other. It is also a good |
− | way to see Buddhism as a religious humanism accessible to all people. | + | way to see [[Buddhism]] as a [[religious]] {{Wiki|humanism}} accessible to all [[people]]. |
− | A Hungarian convert to Buddhism once asked Gandhi whether God could change | + | A [[Hungarian]] convert to [[Buddhism]] once asked {{Wiki|Gandhi}} whether [[God]] could change |
− | because of human prayer. Sensing that his questioner was not sympathetic to the idea of | + | because of [[human]] [[prayer]]. Sensing that his questioner was not sympathetic to the [[idea]] of |
− | petitionary prayer, Gandhi answered that God was of course immutable, so "I beg it of | + | petitionary [[prayer]], {{Wiki|Gandhi}} answered that [[God]] was of course immutable, so "I beg it of |
− | myself, of my Higher Self, the Real Self with which I have not yet achieved complete | + | myself, of my [[Higher Self]], the Real [[Self]] with which I have not yet achieved complete |
− | identification."13 This answer may well have satisfied the Buddhist interlocutor if he were | + | identification."13 This answer may well have satisfied the [[Buddhist]] interlocutor if he were |
− | a Mah¹y¹nist, but not so if she were Theravadin. The latter has a belief closer to the | + | a Mah¹y¹nist, but not so if she were [[Theravadin]]. The [[latter]] has a [[belief]] closer to the |
− | Buddha's own: that there is no Higher Self at all. It is clear that Gandhi is much more in line | + | [[Buddha's]] [[own]]: that there is no [[Higher Self]] at all. It is clear that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} is much more in line |
− | with the Mah¹y¹nists with regard to his concept of self. (There is good reason to believe | + | with the Mah¹y¹nists with regard to his {{Wiki|concept}} of [[self]]. (There is good [[reason]] to believe |
− | that the Mah¹y¹nist Higher Self is a philosophical import from Hinduism, although | + | that the Mah¹y¹nist [[Higher Self]] is a [[philosophical]] import from [[Hinduism]], although |
− | Mah¹y¹nist doctrines of ¶Ønyat¹ and total interrelatedness mean that this self is very | + | Mah¹y¹nist [[doctrines]] of ¶Ønyat¹ and total interrelatedness mean that this [[self]] is very |
− | different from the Hindu ¹tman.) This issue aside, it was never reported that the Buddha | + | different from the [[Hindu]] ¹tman.) This issue aside, it was never reported that the [[Buddha]] |
− | petitioned either a god (except in legends) or a Higher Self for any favor. So I am afraid | + | petitioned either a [[god]] (except in {{Wiki|legends}}) or a [[Higher Self]] for any favor. So I am afraid |
− | that Gandhi was wrong when he insisted that the Buddha "found illumination through | + | that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} was wrong when he insisted that the [[Buddha]] "found [[illumination]] through |
− | prayer and could not [have] possibly live[d] without it."14 | + | [[prayer]] and could not [have] possibly live[d] without it."14 |
− | Gandhi and Buddhists definitely find common ground if Gandhi really means that | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} and [[Buddhists]] definitely find common ground if {{Wiki|Gandhi}} really means that |
− | prayer is chanting or meditation, which is, in fact, what he suggests in his conversation with | + | [[prayer]] is [[chanting]] or [[meditation]], which is, in fact, what he suggests in his [[conversation]] with |
− | the Hungarian. "You may, therefore, describe it as a continual longing to lose oneself in the | + | the [[Hungarian]]. "You may, therefore, describe it as a continual longing to lose oneself in the |
− | Divinity which comprises all."15 In this regard it is instructive to note Gandhi's observation | + | [[Divinity]] which comprises all."15 In this regard it is instructive to note Gandhi's observation |
− | that a Japanese monk chanting at his Sevagram ashram was engaged in Buddhist prayer.16 | + | that a [[Japanese]] [[monk]] [[chanting]] at his Sevagram ashram was engaged in [[Buddhist]] prayer.16 |
− | Mahadev Dasei, Gandhi's faithful secretary, gives us more information about this person, | + | [[Mahadev]] Dasei, Gandhi's [[faithful]] secretary, gives us more [[information]] about this [[person]], |
− | who was obviously a follower of Nichiren Daishonin: | + | who was obviously a follower of [[Nichiren Daishonin]]: |
− | There is among us a Japanese monk who works like a horse and lives like a | + | There is among us a [[Japanese]] [[monk]] who works like a [[horse]] and [[lives]] like a |
− | hermit, doing all the hard chores of the ashram and going about merrily | + | [[hermit]], doing all the hard chores of the ashram and going about merrily |
− | beating his drum early every morning and evening, filling the air with his | + | beating his [[drum]] early every morning and evening, filling the [[air]] with his |
− | chanting of Om Namyo Hom Renge Kyom. . . . I do not believe there is one iota | + | [[chanting]] of Om Namyo Hom [[Renge]] Kyom. . . . I do not believe there is one iota |
− | of truth in the charge some people have levelled at him of being a . . . spy. | + | of [[truth]] in the charge some [[people]] have levelled at him of being a . . . spy. |
− | If he is a spy, spies must be the most amiable specimens of humanity and I | + | If he is a spy, spies must be the most amiable specimens of [[humanity]] and I |
− | should like to be one. To my mind he lives up to the gospel of ahi÷s¹ better | + | should like to be one. To my [[mind]] he [[lives]] up to the {{Wiki|gospel}} of ahi÷s¹ better |
− | than any one of us not excluding Gandhiji.17 | + | than any one of us not [[excluding]] Gandhiji.17 |
− | Unfortunately, the Japanese monk's practice of ahi÷s¹ did not stop the Indian police from | + | Unfortunately, the [[Japanese]] [[monk's]] practice of ahi÷s¹ did not stop the [[Indian]] police from |
arresting him and removing him from the ashram. | arresting him and removing him from the ashram. | ||
Line 189: | Line 183: | ||
− | A typical Gandhian response to the misdeeds of others was to shame them completely | + | A typical [[Gandhian]] response to the [[misdeeds]] of others was to [[shame]] them completely |
by doing their penance for them. This proved to be very effective not only against the | by doing their penance for them. This proved to be very effective not only against the | ||
− | British but with his own family and followers as well. It is most intriguing to see how | + | [[British]] but with his [[own]] [[family]] and followers as well. It is most intriguing to see how |
− | Gandhi has imposed his own principle of self-suffering on the life of the Buddha. Although | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} has imposed his [[own]] [[principle]] of self-suffering on the [[life of the Buddha]]. Although |
− | not used by the Buddha or his immediate disciples, civil protest through acts of self | + | not used by the [[Buddha]] or his immediate [[disciples]], civil protest through acts of [[self]] |
− | immolation has been common in ancient as well as modern Asia. (Buddhist monks burning | + | immolation has been common in [[ancient]] as well as {{Wiki|modern}} {{Wiki|Asia}}. ([[Buddhist monks]] burning |
− | themselves to death during the Vietnam War are the most recent examples.) Gandhi was | + | themselves to [[death]] during the [[Vietnam War]] are the most recent examples.) {{Wiki|Gandhi}} was |
− | of course aware of this tradition of self-immolation,18 but he still believed that his own | + | of course {{Wiki|aware}} of this [[tradition]] of self-immolation,18 but he still believed that his [[own]] |
− | particular adaptation of yogic tapas was new with him and that his practice of it had not yet | + | particular [[adaptation]] of [[yogic]] [[tapas]] was new with him and that his practice of it had not yet |
been perfected.19 Presumably he would have seen protests through self-immolation as still | been perfected.19 Presumably he would have seen protests through self-immolation as still | ||
− | too passive as compared to the engaged and dynamic nature of his own saty¹grahas. (The | + | too passive as compared to the engaged and dynamic [[nature]] of his [[own]] saty¹grahas. (The |
− | Vietnamese monks, as far as I can remember, were not actively engaged in dialogue with | + | [[Vietnamese]] [[monks]], as far as I can remember, were not actively engaged in {{Wiki|dialogue}} with |
− | the American officials.) Some commentators contend that there are instructive parallels | + | the [[American]] officials.) Some commentators contend that there are instructive parallels |
− | between Gandhi's self-suffering and the suffering of the Bodhisattva, and we shall assess this | + | between Gandhi's self-suffering and the [[suffering]] of the [[Bodhisattva]], and we shall assess this |
claim in the next section. | claim in the next section. | ||
− | If Gandhi does conceive of self-suffering as doing penance for others, then he has | + | If {{Wiki|Gandhi}} does [[conceive]] of self-suffering as doing penance for others, then he has |
− | gone far beyond the traditional view of tapas. Indeed, it may even be at odds with the law | + | gone far beyond the [[traditional]] view of [[tapas]]. Indeed, it may even be at odds with the [[law of karma]], which holds that [[karma]] is always {{Wiki|individual}} not collective. (This means that only |
− | of karma, which holds that karma is always individual not collective. (This means that only | + | the {{Wiki|individual}} [[person]] can work off her [[karmic debt]].) {{Wiki|Gandhi}} once observed that the |
− | the individual person can work off her karmic debt.) Gandhi once observed that the | + | "[[impurity]] of my associates is but the [[manifestation]] of the hidden wrong in me,"20 so this |
− | "impurity of my associates is but the manifestation of the hidden wrong in me,"20 so this | + | does appear to focus on [[individual karma]], but his position is still equivocal and problematic. |
− | does appear to focus on individual karma, but his position is still equivocal and problematic. | + | Margaret [[Chatterjee]] finds Gandhi's position very implausible, for, in the two cases she |
− | Margaret Chatterjee finds Gandhi's position very implausible, for, in the two cases she | + | mentions, it is very difficult to see any "strict causal line[s]" between the [[actions]] of others |
− | mentions, it is very difficult to see any "strict causal line[s]" between the actions of others | + | and any implication of [[guilt]] on Gandhi's part.21 |
− | and any implication of guilt on Gandhi's part.21 | ||
− | By seeing tapasy¹ as a process of self-purification rather than doing penance for other | + | By [[seeing]] tapasy¹ as a process of self-purification rather than doing penance for other |
− | people, one can make better sense of Gandhi's actions. In this light Gandhi would have said | + | [[people]], one can make better [[sense]] of Gandhi's [[actions]]. In this {{Wiki|light}} {{Wiki|Gandhi}} would have said |
− | that he could not demand perfection in others as long as he found imperfection in himself. | + | that he could not demand [[perfection]] in others as long as he found imperfection in himself. |
− | During his fast against the violence at Chauri Chaura in 1922, Gandhi announced that "I | + | During his fast against the [[violence]] at [[Chauri]] Chaura in 1922, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} announced that "I |
must undergo personal cleansing. I must become a fitter instrument able to register the | must undergo personal cleansing. I must become a fitter instrument able to register the | ||
− | slightest variation in the moral atmosphere about me."22 This interpretation is most | + | slightest variation in the [[moral]] {{Wiki|atmosphere}} about me."22 This [[interpretation]] is most |
− | consistent with his expanded concept of brahmacharya as self-c | + | consistent with his expanded {{Wiki|concept}} of [[brahmacharya]] as self-c |
− | ontrol in all actions and his | + | ontrol in all [[actions]] and his |
− | commitment to spiritual purity for himself and his followers. | + | commitment to [[spiritual]] [[purity]] for himself and his followers. |
− | The concept of collective karma might be made intelligible on the basis of an organic | + | The {{Wiki|concept}} of [[collective karma]] might be made intelligible on the basis of an organic |
− | analogy, one that Gandhi uses on several occasions. One might conceive of both and | + | analogy, one that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} uses on several occasions. One might [[conceive]] of both and |
− | universe as one living organism in which the parts are individual cells. The health of the | + | [[universe]] as one living {{Wiki|organism}} in which the parts are {{Wiki|individual}} {{Wiki|cells}}. The [[health]] of the |
− | organism depends on the harmonious interaction of the cells. One diseased cell will affect | + | {{Wiki|organism}} depends on the harmonious interaction of the {{Wiki|cells}}. One diseased cell will affect |
− | the whole being for the worse, just as the purification of one might start the healing of the | + | the whole being for the worse, just as the [[purification]] of one might start the [[healing]] of the |
− | body organism. This organic view of the cosmos is integral to contemporary "process" | + | [[body]] {{Wiki|organism}}. This organic view of the [[cosmos]] is integral to contemporary "process" |
− | theology, which has been aptly described in the following terms: | + | {{Wiki|theology}}, which has been aptly described in the following terms: |
− | Our cells are . . . localized units of feeling with some measure of autonomy. | + | Our {{Wiki|cells}} are . . . localized units of [[feeling]] with some measure of autonomy. |
− | We cannot willfully control their actions in most cases, and they cannot | + | We cannot willfully control their [[actions]] in most cases, and they cannot |
− | willfully control our actions. But the whole and the parts do interact and | + | willfully control our [[actions]]. But the whole and the parts do interact and |
− | influence one another. As the localized cells of my body are injured and | + | influence one another. As the localized {{Wiki|cells}} of my [[body]] are injured and |
− | suffer, I suffer, and I [also] enjoy their well-being. . . . We are all members of | + | [[suffer]], I [[suffer]], and I [also] enjoy their well-being. . . . We are all members of |
− | the body of God, autonomous parts of that divine whole in whom we live and | + | the [[body]] of [[God]], autonomous parts of that [[divine]] whole in whom we live and |
move and have our being.23 | move and have our being.23 | ||
− | Gandhi would have embraced this view enthusiastically, because of his total rejection of the | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} would have embraced this view enthusiastically, because of his total rejection of the |
− | social atomism of classical liberalism, in which individual selves, just like physical atoms, are | + | {{Wiki|social}} [[atomism]] of classical [[liberalism]], in which {{Wiki|individual}} selves, just like [[physical]] [[atoms]], are |
− | self-contained and self-sufficient autonomous agents. Like the physical atom the social atom | + | self-contained and self-sufficient autonomous agents. Like the [[physical]] {{Wiki|atom}} the {{Wiki|social}} {{Wiki|atom}} |
− | "bounces around in the empty space" of society, now just an abstract entity viewed as the | + | "bounces around in the [[empty space]]" of [[society]], now just an abstract [[entity]] viewed as the |
− | simple sum of its individual parts. Whereas the lines of personal responsibility are very | + | simple sum of its {{Wiki|individual}} parts. Whereas the lines of personal {{Wiki|responsibility}} are very |
− | clean in social atomism, they are considerably more diffuse in the organic view. The organic | + | clean in {{Wiki|social}} [[atomism]], they are considerably more diffuse in the organic view. The organic |
view allows us to see that we do indeed have collective obligations and duties in addition | view allows us to see that we do indeed have collective obligations and duties in addition | ||
− | to the individual ones of classical liberalism. This view could very well justify Gandhi's | + | to the {{Wiki|individual}} ones of classical [[liberalism]]. This view could very well justify Gandhi's |
insistence on doing penance for another's wrong doing. | insistence on doing penance for another's wrong doing. | ||
Line 255: | Line 248: | ||
− | A critic might say that the most significant difference between the Buddha and | + | A critic might say that the most significant difference between the [[Buddha]] and |
− | Gandhi was that the Buddha was a world-denying ascetic and that Gandhi was not. The | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} was that the [[Buddha]] was a world-denying [[ascetic]] and that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} was not. The |
following passage sums up this view very nicely: | following passage sums up this view very nicely: | ||
− | Outwardly it would be hard to conceive of two individuals more different. On | + | Outwardly it would be hard to [[conceive]] of two {{Wiki|individuals}} more different. On |
− | the one hand is the tranquil Buddha who walks serenely and calmly across the | + | the one hand is the [[tranquil]] [[Buddha]] who walks serenely and [[calmly]] across the |
− | pages of history, or traditionally sits peacefully on a louts with a gentle smile | + | pages of history, or [[traditionally]] sits peacefully on a louts with a gentle [[smile]] |
− | of infinitive compassion. . . . On the other hand is the Mah¹tma, speed and | + | of infinitive [[compassion]]. . . . On the other hand is the Mah¹tma, {{Wiki|speed}} and |
− | energy in every movement, laughing and sorrowing in his ceaseless endeavour | + | [[energy]] in every {{Wiki|movement}}, laughing and sorrowing in his ceaseless endeavour |
− | to help mankind with the problems of human life. . . .24 | + | to help mankind with the problems of [[Wikipedia:Human life|human life]]. . . .24 |
− | Gandhi must have heard similar comments, because he formulated this own firm response: | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} must have heard similar comments, because he formulated this [[own]] firm response: |
− | "The Buddha fearlessly carried the war into the adversary's camp and brought down on its | + | "The [[Buddha]] fearlessly carried the [[war]] into the adversary's camp and brought down on its |
− | knees an arrogant priesthood. [He was] for intensely direct action."25 Who is correct? The | + | knees an [[arrogant]] priesthood. [He was] for intensely direct action."25 Who is correct? The |
− | truth lies somewhere in between. Although he did frequently confront brahmin priests (the | + | [[truth]] lies somewhere in between. Although he did frequently confront [[brahmin]] {{Wiki|priests}} (the |
− | scriptures report that they were almost always converted), it can hardly be said that the | + | [[scriptures]] report that they were almost always converted), it can hardly be said that the |
− | Buddha destroyed the Vedic priesthood. (It of course continues to have great power even | + | [[Buddha]] destroyed the {{Wiki|Vedic}} priesthood. (It of course continues to have great power even |
− | today.) Furthermore, although Buddhism and Jainism can take much credit for the | + | today.) Furthermore, although [[Buddhism]] and [[Jainism]] can take much credit for the |
− | reduction of animal sacrifice, it still continues today as an integral part of goddess worship | + | reduction of [[animal sacrifice]], it still continues today as an integral part of [[goddess]] {{Wiki|worship}} |
− | in Northeast India and Nepal. And even Gandhi admits that because of India's own | + | in [[Northeast]] [[India]] and [[Nepal]]. And even {{Wiki|Gandhi}} admits that because of [[India's]] [[own]] |
− | weaknesses, the Buddha's, as well as the Jains', message of universal tolerance and | + | weaknesses, the [[Buddha's]], as well as the [[Jains]]', message of [[universal]] [[tolerance]] and |
− | nonviolence failed miserably.26 Finally, Gandhi is making the Buddha more of a political | + | [[nonviolence]] failed miserably.26 Finally, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} is making the [[Buddha]] more of a {{Wiki|political}} |
− | activist than he ever was. Gandhi should take sole credit for his own brilliant synthesis of | + | activist than he ever was. {{Wiki|Gandhi}} should take sole credit for his [[own]] brilliant {{Wiki|synthesis}} of |
− | religion and political action. | + | [[religion]] and {{Wiki|political}} [[action]]. |
− | A growing scholarly consensus now recognizes that the Buddha was less ascetic and | + | A growing [[scholarly]] consensus now [[recognizes]] that the [[Buddha]] was less [[ascetic]] and |
− | less world-denying than his disciples and the early schools that followed him.27 For example, | + | less world-denying than his [[disciples]] and the [[early schools]] that followed him.27 For example, |
− | as opposed to most Indian philosophy, the Buddha recognized the body as a necessary | + | as opposed to most [[Indian philosophy]], the [[Buddha]] [[recognized]] the [[body]] as a necessary |
− | constituent of human identity, rather than something to be negated in the spiritual life.28 | + | constituent of [[human]] [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]], rather than something to be negated in the [[spiritual]] life.28 |
− | (Gandhi appears to join other traditions--Cartesian and as well as Jain and Vedantist--which | + | ({{Wiki|Gandhi}} appears to join other traditions--Cartesian and as well as [[Jain]] and Vedantist--which |
− | maintain that the body has nothing to do with true personal identity.) It was his disciples | + | maintain that the [[body]] has nothing to do with true personal [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]].) It was his [[disciples]] |
− | who kept asking for more behavioral restrictions, and this difference is summed aptly in the | + | who kept asking for more {{Wiki|behavioral}} restrictions, and this difference is summed aptly in the |
− | Buddha's observation that sometimes he ate a full bowl of food while his monks only ate | + | [[Buddha's]] observation that sometimes he ate a full [[bowl]] of [[food]] while his [[monks]] only ate |
− | only a half bowl.29 Despite Buddhism's somatic selfhood and a later doctrine of universal | + | only a half bowl.29 Despite [[Buddhism's]] somatic [[selfhood]] and a later [[doctrine]] of [[universal]] |
− | Buddha-essence, its strong ascetic traditions did not allow Buddhist practice to be as body | + | [[Buddha-essence]], its strong [[ascetic]] [[traditions]] did not allow [[Buddhist practice]] to be as [[body]] |
− | or world affirming as it could have been. The influence of Chinese naturalism (especially | + | or [[world]] [[affirming]] as it could have been. The influence of {{Wiki|Chinese}} [[naturalism]] (especially |
− | on Zen Buddhism) and the Buddhist-Christian dialogue have turned contemporary | + | on [[Zen Buddhism]]) and the Buddhist-Christian {{Wiki|dialogue}} have turned contemporary |
− | Buddhism much more in this direction. | + | [[Buddhism]] much more in this [[direction]]. |
− | The spiritual transformation of the entire world is the goal of most schools of | + | The [[spiritual]] [[transformation]] of the entire [[world]] is the goal of most schools of |
− | Mah¹y¹na Buddhism. As opposed to the ascetic ideal of early Buddhism, where the | + | Mah¹y¹na [[Buddhism]]. As opposed to the [[ascetic]] {{Wiki|ideal}} of [[early Buddhism]], where the |
− | emphasis was on personal liberation, the focus in Mah¹y¹na schools is on universal | + | {{Wiki|emphasis}} was on [[personal liberation]], the focus in Mah¹y¹na schools is on [[universal]] |
− | salvation. The vow of the Bodhisattva should be well known to those who know Buddhism: | + | {{Wiki|salvation}}. The [[vow]] of the [[Bodhisattva]] should be well known to those who know [[Buddhism]]: |
− | the Bodhisattva, even though she is free of karmic debt, vows not to enter Nirv¹ªa until all | + | the [[Bodhisattva]], even though she is free of [[karmic debt]], [[vows]] not to enter Nirv¹ªa until all |
− | sentient beings enter before her. (The Bodhisattva's extra sacrifice caused some perceptive | + | [[sentient beings]] enter before her. (The [[Bodhisattva's]] extra [[Wikipedia:sacrifice|sacrifice]] [[caused]] some perceptive |
− | Buddhists to ask whether that made Bodhisattvas superior to the Buddha himself, who of | + | [[Buddhists]] to ask whether that made [[Bodhisattvas]] {{Wiki|superior}} to the [[Buddha]] himself, who of |
− | course did not wait for the others.) The Bodhisattva ideal and the comprehensive range of | + | course did not wait for the others.) The [[Bodhisattva ideal]] and the comprehensive range of |
− | universal salvation makes it relevant to contemporary debates about animal rights and the | + | [[universal]] {{Wiki|salvation}} makes it relevant to contemporary [[debates]] about [[animal rights]] and the |
− | protection of the environment. | + | [[protection]] of the {{Wiki|environment}}. |
− | Gandhi constantly emphasized that his focus was universal this-worldly salvation and | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} constantly emphasized that his focus was [[universal]] this-worldly {{Wiki|salvation}} and |
− | not individual spiritual liberation: "I have no use for them [love and nonviolence] as a | + | not {{Wiki|individual}} [[spiritual liberation]]: "I have no use for them [[[love]] and [[nonviolence]]] as a |
− | means of individual liberation."30 As with Latin American liberation theology, Gandhi's | + | means of {{Wiki|individual}} liberation."30 As with {{Wiki|Latin}} [[American]] [[liberation]] {{Wiki|theology}}, Gandhi's |
− | soteriology maintained that God assumes a preferred option for the poor and the oppressed; | + | {{Wiki|soteriology}} maintained that [[God]] assumes a preferred option for the poor and the oppressed; |
− | indeed, Gandhi sometimes speaks of God existing in suffering humanity and not in Heaven: | + | indeed, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} sometimes speaks of [[God]] [[existing]] in [[suffering]] [[humanity]] and not in [[Heaven]]: |
− | "God is found more often in the lowliest of His creatures than in the high and mighty."31 | + | "[[God]] is found more often in the lowliest of His creatures than in the high and mighty."31 |
− | Does this, then, make Gandhi "the Bodhisattva of the twentieth century," as Ramjee Singh | + | Does this, then, make {{Wiki|Gandhi}} "the [[Bodhisattva]] of the twentieth century," as Ramjee Singh |
has so boldly suggested?32 The answer must be negative if we insist on early formulations | has so boldly suggested?32 The answer must be negative if we insist on early formulations | ||
− | of the Bodhisattva concept. Using the innovative idea of Nichiren Buddhism that all of us | + | of the [[Bodhisattva]] {{Wiki|concept}}. Using the innovative [[idea]] of [[Nichiren Buddhism]] that all of us |
− | become Bodhisattvas by virtue of our service to humanity, then Singh's claim is closer to the | + | become [[Bodhisattvas]] by [[virtue]] of our service to [[humanity]], then Singh's claim is closer to the |
mark. | mark. | ||
On the face of it Gandhi's self-suffering does appear to be similar to ˜¹ntideva's view | On the face of it Gandhi's self-suffering does appear to be similar to ˜¹ntideva's view | ||
− | of the Passion of the Bodhisattva: | + | of the [[Passion]] of the [[Bodhisattva]]: |
− | By my own self all the mass of others' pain has been assumed: . . . I have the | + | By my [[own]] [[self]] all the {{Wiki|mass}} of others' [[pain]] has been assumed: . . . I have the |
− | courage in all misfortunes belonging to all worlds to experience every abode | + | [[courage]] in all misfortunes belonging to all [[worlds]] to [[experience]] every abode |
− | of pain . . . . I resolve to abide in each single state of misfortune through | + | of [[pain]] . . . . I resolve to abide in each single [[state]] of misfortune through |
− | numberless future ages. . . . for the salvation of all creatures. . . . I for the | + | numberless {{Wiki|future}} ages. . . . for the {{Wiki|salvation}} of all creatures. . . . I for the |
− | good of all creatures would experience all the mass of pain and unhappiness | + | good of all creatures would [[experience]] all the {{Wiki|mass}} of [[pain]] and [[unhappiness]] |
− | in. . . my own body. . . .33 | + | in. . . my [[own]] [[body]]. . . .33 |
− | Gandhi does claim to have suffered--his fasts were long and many--for the good of all | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} does claim to have suffered--his fasts were long and many--for the good of all |
− | (sarvodaya); and he did declare that in his next life he wanted to be reborn an | + | ([[sarvodaya]]); and he did declare that in his next [[life]] he wanted to be [[reborn]] an |
− | untouchable;34 but this still does not constitute anything like the soteriology that we find in | + | untouchable;34 but this still does not constitute anything like the {{Wiki|soteriology}} that we find in |
− | Buddhism and Christianity. Gandhi obviously did not claim to have taken away the sins of | + | [[Buddhism]] and [[Christianity]]. {{Wiki|Gandhi}} obviously did not claim to have taken away the [[sins]] of |
− | the world as Buddhist and Christians claim their saviors do. | + | the [[world]] as [[Buddhist]] and [[Christians]] claim their saviors do. |
− | Following his idea of penance as self-purification, Gandhi may be more like the | + | Following his [[idea]] of penance as self-purification, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} may be more like the |
− | Bodhisattva, who, although sinless, nonetheless "think[s] of [him]self as a sinner [and] of | + | [[Bodhisattva]], who, although sinless, nonetheless "think[s] of [him][[self]] as a sinner [and] of |
− | others as oceans of virtue"?35 But just as we cannot believe Gandhi guilty of the crises for | + | others as oceans of virtue"?35 But just as we cannot believe {{Wiki|Gandhi}} guilty of the crises for |
which he fasted, we certainly cannot believe, nor of course could he, that he was sinless. | which he fasted, we certainly cannot believe, nor of course could he, that he was sinless. | ||
− | Not even his most ardent followers have claimed that Gandhi had the redemptive powers | + | Not even his most ardent followers have claimed that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} had the redemptive [[powers]] |
− | of a savior. Revealing his strong Vaishnava background, Gandhi once declared that he | + | of a savior. Revealing his strong [[Vaishnava]] background, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} once declared that he |
− | wanted to tear open his heart for the poor just as the monkey god Hanuman did to show his | + | wanted to tear open his [[heart]] for the poor just as the monkey [[god]] [[Hanuman]] did to show his |
− | devotion to R¹ma, but he said that he did not have the power to perfect such absolute | + | [[devotion]] to R¹ma, but he said that he did not have the power to {{Wiki|perfect}} such [[absolute]] |
− | loyalty.36 Finally, it must be observed that Gandhi practiced self-suffering in order to change | + | loyalty.36 Finally, it must be observed that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} practiced self-suffering in order to change |
− | other people's behavior, whereas the Passion of Christ and the Bodhisattva is conceived of | + | other people's {{Wiki|behavior}}, whereas the [[Passion]] of {{Wiki|Christ}} and the [[Bodhisattva]] is [[conceived]] of |
− | as totally unconditional, expecting nothing in return for their grace and compassion. Gandhi | + | as totally unconditional, expecting nothing in return for their grace and [[compassion]]. {{Wiki|Gandhi}} |
− | realized the danger in making his self-suffering conditional on the actions of others: it might | + | [[realized]] the [[danger]] in making his self-suffering [[conditional]] on the [[actions]] of others: it might |
− | very well violate the principle that he had learned so well from the Bhagavadg»t¹, viz., we | + | very well violate the [[principle]] that he had learned so well from the Bhagavadg»t¹, viz., we |
must not act with regard to the fruit of our actions.37 | must not act with regard to the fruit of our actions.37 | ||
− | We must again place all aspects of Gandhian religion in its proper political context. | + | We must again place all aspects of [[Gandhian]] [[religion]] in its proper {{Wiki|political}} context. |
− | (The more appropriate comparison would be Gandhi and Emperor A¶oka, who through | + | (The more appropriate comparison would be {{Wiki|Gandhi}} and [[Emperor]] A¶oka, who through |
− | political means attempted to establish a nonviolent society in 3rd Century BCE India.) | + | {{Wiki|political}} means attempted to establish a nonviolent [[society]] in 3rd Century BCE [[India]].) |
− | Gandhi called his fasting a "fiery weapon" and that we must fight the "fire" of violence with | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} called his [[fasting]] a "fiery weapon" and that we must fight the "[[fire]]" of [[violence]] with |
− | the "fire" of our own self-sacrifice.38 Others have described Gandhi's self-suffering as a form | + | the "[[fire]]" of our [[own]] self-sacrifice.38 Others have described Gandhi's self-suffering as a [[form]] |
− | of moral and political ju-jitsu or a "psychological depth charge."39 "It was," as Madan | + | of [[moral]] and {{Wiki|political}} ju-jitsu or a "[[psychological]] depth charge."39 "It was," as Madan |
− | Gandhi says, "a potent weapon to convert the evil doer, i.e., to make him conscious of the | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} says, "a potent weapon to convert the [[evil]] doer, i.e., to make him [[conscious]] of the |
− | spiritual kinship with the victim."40 It was, as I said above, an effective means to shame | + | [[spiritual]] kinship with the victim."40 It was, as I said above, an effective means to [[shame]] |
Gandhi's opponents into mending their ways. Joan Bondurant describes it as the | Gandhi's opponents into mending their ways. Joan Bondurant describes it as the | ||
− | "willingness to suffer in oneself to win the respect of an opponent."41 On Gandhi's side it had | + | "willingness to [[suffer]] in oneself to win the [[respect]] of an opponent."41 On Gandhi's side it had |
− | the effect of establishing his absolute seriousness, sincerity, and fearlessness. For those | + | the effect of establishing his [[absolute]] seriousness, sincerity, and [[fearlessness]]. For those |
− | close to him--especially his wife and his sons--it was a test of love--"tough love" as it is now | + | close to him--especially his wife and his sons--it was a test of love--"tough [[love]]" as it is now |
− | called. "The only way love punishes," as Gandhi once said, "is by [self]-suffering."42 (The | + | called. "The only way [[love]] punishes," as {{Wiki|Gandhi}} once said, "is by [[[self]]]-suffering."42 (The |
coercive effect of Gandhi's fasts has been widely discussed and accepted by many | coercive effect of Gandhi's fasts has been widely discussed and accepted by many | ||
− | scholars.)43 We are now quite far away from the Suffering Servants of Christianity and | + | scholars.)43 We are now quite far away from the [[Suffering]] Servants of [[Christianity]] and |
− | Mah¹y¹na Buddhism. | + | Mah¹y¹na [[Buddhism]]. |
Line 376: | Line 369: | ||
− | The Buddha's famous statement "a person who sees causation, sees the Dharma"44 | + | The [[Buddha's]] famous statement "a [[person]] who sees [[causation]], sees the Dharma"44 |
− | implies that people know how to act, not because of abstract rules or absolutes, but because | + | implies that [[people]] know how to act, not because of abstract {{Wiki|rules}} or absolutes, but because |
− | of their past and immediate circumstances. Those who are mindful of who they are and | + | of their {{Wiki|past}} and immediate circumstances. Those who are [[mindful]] of who they are and |
− | how they relate to themselves and others will know what to do. The "mirror of Dharma" | + | how they relate to themselves and others will know what to do. The "[[mirror]] of [[Dharma]]" |
should not be seen as a common one that we all look into together, as some Mahy¹n¹ | should not be seen as a common one that we all look into together, as some Mahy¹n¹ | ||
− | schools believe, but it is actually a myriad of mirrors reflecting individual histories. | + | schools believe, but it is actually a {{Wiki|myriad}} of mirrors {{Wiki|reflecting}} {{Wiki|individual}} histories. |
− | Maintaining the essential link between fact and value, just as Greek virtue ethics did, the | + | Maintaining the [[essential]] link between fact and value, just as {{Wiki|Greek}} [[virtue]] [[ethics]] did, the |
− | Buddha holds that the truth about our causal relations dictates the good that we ought to | + | [[Buddha]] holds that the [[truth]] about our causal relations dictates the good that we ought to |
− | do. As David J. Kalupahana states: "Thus, for the Buddha, truth values are not | + | do. As David J. [[Kalupahana]] states: "Thus, for the [[Buddha]], [[truth]] values are not |
− | distinguishable from moral values or ethical values; both are values that participate in | + | distinguishable from [[moral]] values or [[ethical]] values; both are values that participate in |
− | nature."45 I believe that we can find this same ethical naturalism in Gandhi's experiments | + | nature."45 I believe that we can find this same [[ethical]] [[naturalism]] in Gandhi's experiments |
− | in truth, which, because their purpose was always directed to how we should live, were | + | in [[truth]], which, because their {{Wiki|purpose}} was always directed to how we should live, were |
− | essentially experiments in Dharma. | + | [[essentially]] experiments in [[Dharma]]. |
− | The Buddha's Middle Way is a distinctively personal mean between extremes, much | + | The [[Buddha's]] [[Middle Way]] is a distinctively personal mean between extremes, much |
− | like Aristotle's relative mean. Aristotle defined a moral virtue as "a state of character | + | like [[Aristotle's]] [[relative]] mean. {{Wiki|Aristotle}} defined a [[moral]] [[virtue]] as "a [[state]] of [[character]] |
− | concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined | + | concerned with choice, {{Wiki|lying}} in a mean, i.e. the mean [[relative]] to us, this being determined |
− | by [practical reason]. . . ."46 For example, Aristotle thought it was always wrong to eat too | + | by [{{Wiki|practical}} [[reason]]]. . . ."46 For example, {{Wiki|Aristotle}} [[thought]] it was always wrong to eat too |
− | much, but each person will find his/her own relative mean between eating too much and | + | much, but each [[person]] will find his/her [[own]] [[relative]] mean between eating too much and |
− | eating too little. A virtue ethics of moderation is still normative, because the principal | + | eating too little. A [[virtue]] [[ethics]] of moderation is still normative, because the [[principal]] |
− | determinants in finding a workable mean for eating are objective not subjective. If people | + | determinants in finding a workable mean for eating are [[objective]] not [[subjective]]. If [[people]] |
− | ignore these objective factors--e.g., body size, metabolism, and other physiological factors- | + | ignore these [[objective]] factors--e.g., [[body]] size, [[metabolism]], and other [[physiological]] factors- |
− | then their bodies, sooner or later, will tell them that they are out of their respective means. | + | then their [[bodies]], sooner or later, will tell them that they are out of their respective means. |
− | If this analysis is correct, then the traditional translation of the moral imperatives of | + | If this analysis is correct, then the [[traditional]] translation of the [[moral]] imperatives of |
− | the Buddha's eight-fold path may be misleading. Translating the Sanskrit stem samyag- that | + | the [[Buddha's]] [[eight-fold path]] may be misleading. Translating the [[Sanskrit]] stem [[samyag]]- that |
− | appears in each of the words as the "right" thing to do makes them sound like eight | + | appears in each of the words as the "right" thing to do makes them [[sound]] like [[eight commands]] of [[duty]] [[ethics]]. Instead of eight [[universal]] {{Wiki|rules}} for living, they should be seen as |
− | commands of duty ethics. Instead of eight universal rules for living, they should be seen as | + | [[virtues]], i.e., dispositions to act in certain ways under certain [[conditions]] and personal |
− | virtues, i.e., dispositions to act in certain ways under certain conditions and personal | + | circumstances. (Samyagajiva, [[right livelihood]], is particularly unintelligible on the [[absolutist]] |
− | circumstances. (Samyagajiva, right livelihood, is particularly unintelligible on the absolutist | + | reading.) The translation of [[samyag]]- more appropriate to [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|pragmatism}} would be |
− | reading.) The translation of samyag- more appropriate to Buddhist pragmatism would be | ||
"suitable" or "fitting," but "right" could remain as long as we understand it to be "right for | "suitable" or "fitting," but "right" could remain as long as we understand it to be "right for | ||
− | you." It is only fitting, for example, that a warrior eat more and more often than a monk, | + | you." It is only fitting, for example, that a [[warrior]] eat more and more often than a [[monk]], |
− | or it is only appropriate that the warrior express courage in a different way than the | + | or it is only appropriate that the [[warrior]] express [[courage]] in a different way than the |
− | nonwarrior does. Both are equally virtuous, because they have personally chosen the virtues | + | nonwarrior does. Both are equally [[virtuous]], because they have personally chosen the [[virtues]] |
− | as means, means relative to them. | + | as means, means [[relative]] to them. |
17 | 17 | ||
− | Gandhi's controversial experiments with brahmacharya is an instructive example of | + | Gandhi's controversial experiments with [[brahmacharya]] is an instructive example of |
− | how Gandhi put aside traditional rules and found his own way, dictated solely by his own | + | how {{Wiki|Gandhi}} put aside [[traditional]] {{Wiki|rules}} and found his [[own]] way, dictated solely by his [[own]] |
− | ideas, his own dispositions, and his very unique way of purifying himself of sexual desire. | + | [[ideas]], his [[own]] dispositions, and his very unique way of purifying himself of [[sexual desire]]. |
He made it perfectly clear to his followers that no one should imitate the quasi-Tantric | He made it perfectly clear to his followers that no one should imitate the quasi-Tantric | ||
− | methods he used. He found his own personal mean between the excess of sexual | + | [[methods]] he used. He found his [[own]] personal mean between the excess of {{Wiki|sexual}} |
− | indulgence and the deficient of complete withdrawal from women. (He thought yogis who | + | {{Wiki|indulgence}} and the deficient of complete withdrawal from women. (He [[thought]] [[yogis]] who |
− | did so were cowards.) Sleeping with his grandniece was right for him, and Manu Gandhi | + | did so were cowards.) [[Sleeping]] with his grandniece was right for him, and [[Manu]] {{Wiki|Gandhi}} |
− | claimed that it was as innocent as sleeping with her mother, whom Gandhi had replaced. | + | claimed that it was as innocent as [[sleeping]] with her mother, whom {{Wiki|Gandhi}} had replaced. |
− | Gandhi found his own truth in direct experience; there is no evidence that he appealed to | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} found his [[own]] [[truth]] in direct [[experience]]; there is no {{Wiki|evidence}} that he appealed to |
− | any transcendent principle or rule. In fact, he affirmed quite the opposite: "There are some | + | any [[transcendent]] [[principle]] or {{Wiki|rule}}. In fact, he [[affirmed]] quite the opposite: "There are some |
things which are known only to oneself and one's Maker. These are clearly | things which are known only to oneself and one's Maker. These are clearly | ||
− | incommunicable. The experiments I am about to relate are not such."48 He goes on to stress | + | incommunicable. The experiments I am about to relate are not such."48 He goes on to [[stress]] |
− | the scientific nature of these experiments and how their results open for all to verify. | + | the [[scientific]] [[nature]] of these experiments and how their results open for all to verify. |
− | Gandhi’s sleeping area was open for anyone to see, and those who did found Manu and him | + | Gandhi’s [[sleeping]] area was open for anyone to see, and those who did found [[Manu]] and him |
− | sleeping peacefully and innocently. | + | [[sleeping]] peacefully and innocently. |
− | GANDHI AND THE BUDDHA: THE AESTHETICS OF VIRTUE | + | GANDHI AND THE [[BUDDHA]]: THE AESTHETICS OF [[VIRTUE]] |
− | Most Euro-American philosophy has unfortunately severed the time-honored | + | Most Euro-American [[philosophy]] has unfortunately severed the time-honored |
− | connections between truth, goodness, and beauty. Agreeing with his Greek contemporaries, | + | connections between [[truth]], [[goodness]], and [[beauty]]. Agreeing with his {{Wiki|Greek}} contemporaries, |
− | the Buddha established an essential link between goodness and truth on the one hand and | + | the [[Buddha]] established an [[essential]] link between [[goodness]] and [[truth]] on the one hand and |
− | evil and untruth on the other.49 Of all the contemporary forms of Mah¹y¹na Buddhism it | + | [[evil]] and untruth on the other.49 Of all the contemporary [[forms]] of Mah¹y¹na [[Buddhism]] it |
− | is the Soka Gakkai that is most aware of the aesthetic dimension of being moral. Even | + | is the [[Soka Gakkai]] that is most {{Wiki|aware}} of the {{Wiki|aesthetic}} [[dimension]] of being [[moral]]. Even |
− | though its founder Tsunesaburo Makiguchi substituted benefit for truth in his trinity of | + | though its founder [[Tsunesaburo Makiguchi]] substituted [[benefit]] for [[truth]] in his {{Wiki|trinity}} of |
− | benefit, goodness, and beauty, he still agreed with the Greeks that beautiful deeds are | + | [[benefit]], [[goodness]], and [[beauty]], he still agreed with the [[Greeks]] that beautiful [[deeds]] are |
performed by beautiful souls.50 | performed by beautiful souls.50 | ||
− | Gandhi makes the same connections between truth and goodness and untruth and | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} makes the same connections between [[truth]] and [[goodness]] and untruth and |
− | evil. The identity of reality and truth is also clear in his adoption of the intimately related | + | [[evil]]. The [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]] of [[reality]] and [[truth]] is also clear in his adoption of the intimately related |
− | ideas of sat and satya. Gandhi is following Hindu philosophy very closely in his | + | [[ideas]] of sat and [[satya]]. {{Wiki|Gandhi}} is following {{Wiki|Hindu philosophy}} very closely in his |
− | identification of God, Truth, and Goodness. Realizing the aesthetic dimension, Gandhi | + | identification of [[God]], [[Truth]], and [[Goodness]]. [[Realizing]] the {{Wiki|aesthetic}} [[dimension]], {{Wiki|Gandhi}} |
− | states that "all truths, not merely true ideas, but truthful faces, truthful pictures or songs are | + | states that "all [[truths]], not merely true [[ideas]], but truthful faces, truthful pictures or songs are |
− | highly beautfiul. People generally fail to see beauty in truth. . . ."51 He also observes that | + | highly beautfiul. [[People]] generally fail to see [[beauty]] in [[truth]]. . . ."51 He also observes that |
− | although they say that Socrates was not a handsome man, "to my mind he was beautiful | + | although they say that {{Wiki|Socrates}} was not a handsome man, "to my [[mind]] he was beautiful |
− | because all his life was a striving after Truth. . . ."52 Some would say that Gandhi was not | + | because all his [[life]] was a striving after [[Truth]]. . . ."52 Some would say that {{Wiki|Gandhi}} was not |
− | a handsome man either, but one commentator observed that "there was a rare spiritual | + | a handsome man either, but one commentator observed that "there was a rare [[spiritual]] |
− | beauty that shone in his face."53 | + | [[beauty]] that shone in his face."53 |
− | Interestingly enough, Gandhi seems to agree with Makiguchi on the value of benefit | + | Interestingly enough, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} seems to agree with Makiguchi on the value of [[benefit]] |
and utility: "Whatever is useful to starving millions is beautiful in my mind."54 Although | and utility: "Whatever is useful to starving millions is beautiful in my mind."54 Although | ||
− | rejecting the philosophy of utilitarianism, Gandhi does acknowledge the ultimate value of | + | rejecting the [[philosophy]] of utilitarianism, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} does [[acknowledge]] the [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] value of |
− | the well-being of all people, a value he called sarvodaya. This is not a hedonic calculation | + | the well-being of all [[people]], a value he called [[sarvodaya]]. This is not a {{Wiki|hedonic}} calculation |
− | but a moral and spiritual calculation based on the needs of the lowest statra of society. One | + | but a [[moral]] and [[spiritual]] calculation based on the needs of the lowest statra of [[society]]. One |
− | might call this a "spiritual consequentialism," and Gandhi's ethical calculus is seen most | + | might call this a "[[spiritual]] [[consequentialism]]," and Gandhi's [[ethical]] calculus is seen most |
− | clearly in his defense of mercy killing: "After calm and clear judgment to kill or cause pain | + | clearly in his defense of [[mercy killing]]: "After [[calm]] and clear [[judgment]] to kill or [[cause]] [[pain]] |
− | to a living being with a view to its spiritual or physical benefit from a pure, selfless intent | + | to a [[living being]] with a view to its [[spiritual]] or [[physical]] [[benefit]] from a [[pure]], [[selfless]] intent |
− | may be the purest form of ahi÷s¹."55 One of the most striking examples of spiritual | + | may be the purest [[form]] of ahi÷s¹."55 One of the most striking examples of [[spiritual]] |
− | conseqentialism in one school of Mah¹y¹na Buddhism is the provision that Bodhisattvas may | + | conseqentialism in one school of Mah¹y¹na [[Buddhism]] is the provision that [[Bodhisattvas]] may |
kill persons who will, if not stopped, murder others in the future.56 At least two good | kill persons who will, if not stopped, murder others in the future.56 At least two good | ||
− | consequences result from such action: Bodhisattvas accrue merit that they then can | + | {{Wiki|consequences}} result from such [[action]]: [[Bodhisattvas]] accrue [[merit]] that they then can |
− | bequeath to others, and the would-be murderers are saved from the horrors of Hell. Many | + | bequeath to others, and the would-be murderers are saved from the horrors of [[Hell]]. Many |
− | Hindus and Jains would object strongly to the pragmatism and contextualism of both | + | [[Hindus]] and [[Jains]] would [[object]] strongly to the {{Wiki|pragmatism}} and contextualism of both |
− | Gandhian and Buddhist ethics, but it is precisely these aspects that make both of them | + | [[Gandhian]] and [[Buddhist ethics]], but it is precisely these aspects that make both of them |
− | revelant for contemporary ethical discussions. | + | revelant for contemporary [[ethical]] discussions. |
− | Returning to the relationship of morality and aesthetics and drawing on the tradition | + | Returning to the relationship of [[morality]] and aesthetics and drawing on the [[tradition]] |
− | of Greek virtue ethics, one could define ethics as the art of making the soul great and noble. | + | of {{Wiki|Greek}} [[virtue]] [[ethics]], one could define [[ethics]] as the [[art]] of making the [[soul]] great and [[noble]]. |
− | (Here the meaning of art would be the idea of creating a unique individual piece rather than | + | (Here the meaning of [[art]] would be the [[idea]] of creating a unique {{Wiki|individual}} piece rather than |
− | making copies from a mould as in craft art.) It was Confucius who conceived of moral | + | making copies from a mould as in craft [[art]].) It was [[Confucius]] who [[conceived]] of [[moral]] |
− | development as similar to the manufacture of a precious stone.57 At birth we are like uncut | + | [[development]] as similar to the [[manufacture]] of a [[precious]] stone.57 At [[birth]] we are like uncut |
− | gems, and we have an obligation to carve and polish our potential in the most unique and | + | [[gems]], and we have an {{Wiki|obligation}} to carve and {{Wiki|polish}} our potential in the most unique and |
− | beautiful ways possible. Gandhi appears to agree with this view: "Purity of life is the highest | + | beautiful ways possible. {{Wiki|Gandhi}} appears to agree with this view: "[[Purity]] of [[life]] is the [[highest]] |
− | and truest art";58 and "Life must immensely excel all the parts put together. To me the | + | and truest art";58 and "[[Life]] must immensely excel all the parts put together. To me the |
− | greatest artist is surely he who lives the finest life."59 | + | greatest artist is surely he who [[lives]] the finest life."59 |
− | If are to speak of a Gandhian or a Buddhist virtue ethics, at least two major | + | If are to speak of a [[Gandhian]] or a [[Buddhist]] [[virtue]] [[ethics]], at least two major |
− | differences must be noted vis-à-vis the Greek tradition. First, for both Gandhi and the | + | differences must be noted vis-à-vis the {{Wiki|Greek}} [[tradition]]. First, for both {{Wiki|Gandhi}} and the |
− | Buddha pride is a vice, so the humble soul is to be preferred over Aristotle's "great soul" | + | [[Buddha]] [[pride]] is a vice, so the [[humble]] [[soul]] is to be preferred over [[Aristotle's]] "great [[soul]]" |
− | (megalopsychia). (Aristotle's megalopsychia may even be too close to megalomania for the | + | (megalopsychia). ([[Aristotle's]] megalopsychia may even be too close to megalomania for the |
− | comfort of most contemporary persons.) Second, neither Gandhi nor the Buddha would | + | {{Wiki|comfort}} of most contemporary persons.) Second, neither {{Wiki|Gandhi}} nor the [[Buddha]] would |
− | have accepted Aristotle's elitism. For Aristotle only a certain class of people (free-born | + | have accepted [[Aristotle's]] elitism. For {{Wiki|Aristotle}} only a certain class of [[people]] (free-born |
− | Greek males, to be exact) could establish the virtues and attain the good life. In stark | + | {{Wiki|Greek}} {{Wiki|males}}, to be exact) could establish the [[virtues]] and attain the good [[life]]. In stark |
− | contrast, the Dharmak¹ya and Gandhi's village republic contain all people, including the | + | contrast, the Dharmak¹ya and Gandhi's village {{Wiki|republic}} contain all [[people]], [[including]] the |
− | poor, the outcast, people of color, and women. | + | poor, the outcast, [[people]] of {{Wiki|color}}, and women. |
− | In Hind Swaraj Gandhi says that "the Gujarati equivalent for civilization means 'good | + | In Hind [[Swaraj]] {{Wiki|Gandhi}} says that "the [[Gujarati]] {{Wiki|equivalent}} for {{Wiki|civilization}} means 'good |
− | conduct,'"60 so one could say that his ethical program is to replace Vedic and Pur¹ªic ritual | + | conduct,'"60 so one could say that his [[ethical]] program is to replace {{Wiki|Vedic}} and Pur¹ªic [[ritual]] |
− | with the traditional virtues of courage, justice, and compassion. Gandhi does speak of | + | with the [[traditional]] [[virtues]] of [[courage]], justice, and [[compassion]]. {{Wiki|Gandhi}} does speak of |
− | nonviolence as a virtue, and both the Buddha and Gandhi, as I have argued elsewhere,61 | + | [[nonviolence]] as a [[virtue]], and both the [[Buddha]] and {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, as I have argued elsewhere,61 |
− | conceive of non-violence as an enabling virtue to the higher virtues of love and compassion. | + | [[conceive]] of [[non-violence]] as an enabling [[virtue]] to the higher [[virtues]] of [[love]] and [[compassion]]. |
Line 502: | Line 494: | ||
− | It is common to interpret Gandhi in terms of Ved¹ntist philosophy, especially Advaita | + | It is common to interpret {{Wiki|Gandhi}} in terms of Ved¹ntist [[philosophy]], especially [[Wikipedia:Advaita Vedanta|Advaita]] |
− | Ved¹nta, the most dominant school. Gandhi's several references to a qualityless absolute | + | Ved¹nta, the most dominant school. Gandhi's several references to a qualityless [[absolute]] |
− | and two equivocal affirmations of the principle of advaita offer some support for this view.62 | + | and two equivocal affirmations of the [[principle]] of [[advaita]] offer some support for this view.62 |
− | The Advaitin interpretation offers a solution to the basic puzzle about Gandhi's self | + | The [[Advaitin]] [[interpretation]] offers a {{Wiki|solution}} to the basic puzzle about Gandhi's [[self]] |
− | suffering, which I have mentioned above. The principle of nondualism allows Gandhi to see | + | [[suffering]], which I have mentioned above. The [[principle]] of [[nondualism]] allows {{Wiki|Gandhi}} to see |
− | the sin of the other as his own sin, because in reality there is no distinction between him and | + | the [[sin]] of the other as his [[own]] [[sin]], because in [[reality]] there is no {{Wiki|distinction}} between him and |
others, between the "I" and the "Thou." | others, between the "I" and the "Thou." | ||
− | The best evidence for the Advaitin solution is the following passage: | + | The best {{Wiki|evidence}} for the [[Advaitin]] {{Wiki|solution}} is the following passage: |
− | I believe in [the] absolute oneness of God and therefore also of humanity. | + | I believe in [the] [[absolute]] [[oneness]] of [[God]] and therefore also of [[humanity]]. |
− | What though we have many bodies? We have but one soul. The rays of the | + | What though we have many [[bodies]]? We have but one [[soul]]. The rays of the |
− | sun are many through refraction. But they have the same source. I cannot | + | {{Wiki|sun}} are many through refraction. But they have the same source. I cannot |
− | detach myself from the wickedest soul (nor may I be denied identity with the | + | detach myself from the wickedest [[soul]] (nor may I be denied [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]] with the |
− | most virtuous). . . . I must involve in my experience the whole of my kind.63 | + | most [[virtuous]]). . . . I must involve in my [[experience]] the whole of my kind.63 |
− | I maintain that we must qualify the implications of this passage both in terms of its moral | + | I maintain that we must qualify the implications of this passage both in terms of its [[moral]] |
− | implications and in terms of a coherent interpretation of Gandhi's philosophy. The Advaitin | + | implications and in terms of a coherent [[interpretation]] of Gandhi's [[philosophy]]. The [[Advaitin]] |
− | solution completely undermines the basic moral implications of the law of karma. Instead | + | {{Wiki|solution}} completely undermines the basic [[moral]] implications of the [[law of karma]]. Instead |
− | of the Advaitin model of total undifferentiated unity, I suggest that this passage be | + | of the [[Advaitin]] model of total undifferentiated {{Wiki|unity}}, I suggest that this passage be |
interpreted in terms of the organic analogy mentioned above. Organic holism has the | interpreted in terms of the organic analogy mentioned above. Organic holism has the | ||
− | distinct advantage over absolute monism in that it maintains the reality of the individual (on | + | {{Wiki|distinct}} advantage over [[absolute]] {{Wiki|monism}} in that it maintains the [[reality]] of the {{Wiki|individual}} (on |
the analogue of the integral living cell) while at the some time making collective | the analogue of the integral living cell) while at the some time making collective | ||
responsibilty intelligible as well. In a previous article I have reformulated Gandhi's | responsibilty intelligible as well. In a previous article I have reformulated Gandhi's | ||
− | refraction analogy so that it gives the equal weight to the unity and individuality that we | + | refraction analogy so that it gives the {{Wiki|equal}} {{Wiki|weight}} to the {{Wiki|unity}} and [[individuality]] that we |
find in Gandhi's writings.64 | find in Gandhi's writings.64 | ||
− | The problems of consistently maintaining an Advaitin Gandhi manifest themselves | + | The problems of consistently maintaining an [[Advaitin]] {{Wiki|Gandhi}} [[manifest]] themselves |
− | most clearly in Bhikhu Parekh's otherwise excellent book on Gandhi's political philosophy.65 | + | most clearly in [[Bhikhu]] Parekh's otherwise {{Wiki|excellent}} [[book]] on Gandhi's {{Wiki|political}} philosophy.65 |
− | After summarizing basic Indian philosophy he claims that Gandhi, just like ˜a¡kara, | + | After summarizing basic [[Indian philosophy]] he claims that {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, just like ˜a¡kara, |
− | envisioned a two-tiered religion of a personal theism focusing on ˜iva, Vi¬ªu, Dev» and an | + | envisioned a two-tiered [[religion]] of a personal [[theism]] focusing on ˜iva, Vi¬ªu, Dev» and an |
− | impersonal monism of ¸tman-Brahman. People in the second tier would recognize the | + | {{Wiki|impersonal}} {{Wiki|monism}} of ¸tman-Brahman. [[People]] in the second tier would [[recognize]] the |
− | illusion of individual self and consciousness, would eventually put the phenomenal world | + | [[illusion]] of [[individual self]] and [[consciousness]], would eventually put the [[phenomenal world]] |
− | behind them, and would move from the worship of individual deities to experience the total | + | behind them, and would move from the {{Wiki|worship}} of {{Wiki|individual}} [[deities]] to [[experience]] the total |
− | unity of ¸tman-Brahman. Gandhi must object already at this point, because he wavered | + | {{Wiki|unity}} of ¸tman-Brahman. {{Wiki|Gandhi}} must [[object]] already at this point, because he wavered |
− | between personal theism and impersonal monism and never claimed that one was superior | + | between personal [[theism]] and {{Wiki|impersonal}} {{Wiki|monism}} and never claimed that one was {{Wiki|superior}} |
to the other. | to the other. | ||
− | More problems arise with Parekh's interpretation, especially with regard to Gandhi's | + | More problems arise with Parekh's [[interpretation]], especially with regard to Gandhi's |
− | political activism and the dynamic and engaged individualism that such a view requires. | + | {{Wiki|political}} activism and the dynamic and engaged {{Wiki|individualism}} that such a view requires. |
− | There is indeed a tension in Gandhi between the ascetic and mystic Gandhi, who, as Parekh | + | There is indeed a tension in {{Wiki|Gandhi}} between the [[ascetic]] and [[mystic]] {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, who, as Parekh |
− | shows, has difficulty justifying, from an Advaitin standpoint, the feeling of, let alone need | + | shows, has difficulty justifying, from an [[Advaitin]] standpoint, the [[feeling]] of, let alone need |
− | for love; and the activist Gandhi, who is committed to moral autonomy, love, compassion, | + | for [[love]]; and the activist {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, who is committed to [[moral]] autonomy, [[love]], [[compassion]], |
− | and justice. But nowhere in Gandhi's voluminous works does he indicate that the individual | + | and justice. But nowhere in Gandhi's voluminous works does he indicate that the [[individual self]] is an [[illusion]]. ([[Chatterjee]] puts the point bluntly: "{{Wiki|Gandhi}} had no truck with the m¹y¹ |
− | self is an illusion. (Chatterjee puts the point bluntly: "Gandhi had no truck with the m¹y¹ | + | doctrine.")66 Gandhi's [[thoughts]] range from the self's complete autonomy, where he has come |
− | doctrine.")66 Gandhi's thoughts range from the self's complete autonomy, where he has come | + | under the powerful [[influences]] he admits the Euro-American [[tradition]] had on him, to a |
− | under the powerful influences he admits the Euro-American tradition had on him, to a | + | relational, {{Wiki|social}} [[self]] that has an organic [[relation]] with [[society]] and the [[cosmos]] as a whole. |
− | relational, social self that has an organic relation with society and the cosmos as a whole. | + | Parekh cannot support both an [[Advaitin]] {{Wiki|Gandhi}} and the {{Wiki|Gandhi}} who exhorts {{Wiki|individuals}} to |
− | Parekh cannot support both an Advaitin Gandhi and the Gandhi who exhorts individuals to | + | conform to their [[own]] historical-cultural truths.67 For the [[Advaitin]] there can be no [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] |
− | conform to their own historical-cultural truths.67 For the Advaitin there can be no ultimate | + | value in such [[truths]]. |
− | value in such truths. | ||
− | There is sufficient evidence to call Gandhi a pantheist, but many commentators are | + | There is sufficient {{Wiki|evidence}} to call {{Wiki|Gandhi}} a pantheist, but many commentators are |
− | not careful enough to distinguish between pantheism, where the cosmos and its parts are | + | not careful enough to distinguish between [[pantheism]], where the [[cosmos]] and its parts are |
− | both real and divine, and the Advaitin position where only ¸tman-Brahman is real. John | + | both real and [[divine]], and the [[Advaitin]] position where only ¸tman-Brahman is real. John |
− | White has suggested,68 echoing medieval Jain arguments, that there is a basic inconsistency | + | White has suggested,68 echoing {{Wiki|medieval}} [[Jain]] arguments, that there is a basic inconsistency |
− | in Advaita Ved¹nta, because from the standpoint of the unliberated souls both ¸tman | + | in [[Wikipedia:Advaita Vedanta|Advaita]] Ved¹nta, because from the standpoint of the unliberated [[souls]] both ¸tman |
− | Brahman and the phenomenal world exists, albeit the latter only in a derivative and | + | [[Brahman]] and the [[phenomenal world]] [[exists]], albeit the [[latter]] only in a derivative and |
− | temporal mode, whereas from that standpoint of the liberated souls the world does not | + | {{Wiki|temporal}} mode, whereas from that standpoint of the {{Wiki|liberated}} [[souls]] the [[world]] does not |
− | exist. The Advaitin is not even consistently nondualistic, because, until all humans are | + | [[exist]]. The [[Advaitin]] is not even consistently [[nondualistic]], because, until all [[humans]] are |
− | liberated, the Advaitin position is, as White calls it, a "transcendental dualism," a dualism | + | {{Wiki|liberated}}, the [[Advaitin]] position is, as White calls it, a "[[transcendental]] [[dualism]]," a [[dualism]] |
− | of divine reality and derivative phenomena roughly equivalent to Christian theology. The | + | of [[divine reality]] and derivative [[phenomena]] roughly {{Wiki|equivalent}} to [[Christian]] {{Wiki|theology}}. The |
− | principal difference is that God creates the world in Christianity whereas it is the creation | + | [[principal]] difference is that [[God]] creates the [[world]] in [[Christianity]] whereas it is the creation |
− | of ignorance in Advaita Ved¹nta. | + | of [[ignorance]] in [[Wikipedia:Advaita Vedanta|Advaita]] Ved¹nta. |
− | In addition to his affirmation of the individual, Gandhi also explicitly connects "the | + | In addition to his [[affirmation]] of the {{Wiki|individual}}, {{Wiki|Gandhi}} also explicitly connects "the |
− | capacity of nonviolence" with a rejection of "the theory of the permanent inelasticity of | + | capacity of [[nonviolence]]" with a rejection of "the {{Wiki|theory}} of the [[permanent]] inelasticity of |
− | human nature."69 If this statement is interpreted metaphysically, Gandhi seems to have | + | [[human]] nature."69 If this statement is interpreted [[Wikipedia:Metaphysics|metaphysically]], {{Wiki|Gandhi}} seems to have |
− | joined the Buddha in his critique of the ¹tman of the Upani¬ads and all other Indian views | + | joined the [[Buddha]] in his critique of the ¹tman of the Upani¬ads and all other [[Indian]] [[views]] |
− | of an eternal, immutable self. Although Mah¹y¹na Buddhists reinstate an eternal soul, in | + | of an eternal, immutable [[self]]. Although Mah¹y¹na [[Buddhists]] reinstate an eternal [[soul]], in |
− | most schools this self, like early Buddhist views, still enters into relations and is responsive | + | most schools this [[self]], like early [[Buddhist]] [[views]], still enters into relations and is responsive |
− | to change. Mah¹y¹na Buddhists tend to be more supportive of real diversity within unity, | + | to change. Mah¹y¹na [[Buddhists]] tend to be more supportive of real diversity within {{Wiki|unity}}, |
− | and especially helpful is the Mah¹y¹nists' suggestion that nonduality be expressed as "two | + | and especially helpful is the Mah¹y¹nists' suggestion that [[nonduality]] be expressed as "two |
but not two" so as to avoid the implication of the total nondifferentiation that we find in | but not two" so as to avoid the implication of the total nondifferentiation that we find in | ||
− | Advaita Ved¹nta.70 Thich Nhat Hanh has his own playful way of phrasing this profound | + | [[Wikipedia:Advaita Vedanta|Advaita]] Ved¹nta.70 [[Thich Nhat Hanh]] has his [[own]] playful way of phrasing this profound |
− | point: "Non-duality means 'not two,' but 'not two' also means 'not one.' That is why we say | + | point: "[[Non-duality]] means 'not two,' but 'not two' also means 'not one.' That is why we say |
− | 'non-dual' instead of 'one.'"71 Zen Buddhists as well as many other Mah¹y¹nists also reject | + | '[[non-dual]]' instead of 'one.'"71 [[Zen Buddhists]] as well as many other Mah¹y¹nists also reject |
− | the mind-body dualism that even infects some of Gandhi's writings. These observations | + | the mind-body [[dualism]] that even infects some of Gandhi's writings. These observations |
− | 1. M. K. Gandhi, The Story of my Experiments with Truth, trans. Madadev Dasei | + | 1. M. K. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, The Story of my Experiments with [[Truth]], trans. Madadev Dasei |
(Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1927), chap. 20. | (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1927), chap. 20. | ||
− | 2. Quoted in Raghavan Iyer, The Moral the Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi (Oxford: | + | 2. Quoted in Raghavan [[Iyer]], The [[Moral]] the {{Wiki|Political}} [[Thought]] of [[Mahatma Gandhi]] ([[Oxford]]: |
− | allow us to see the possibility of both a Buddhist naturalism as well as a Buddhist | + | allow us to see the possibility of both a [[Buddhist]] [[naturalism]] as well as a [[Buddhist]] |
− | humanism, i.e., a view that affirms both the reality of nature and individual personal | + | {{Wiki|humanism}}, i.e., a view that affirms both the [[reality]] of [[nature]] and {{Wiki|individual}} personal |
identity.72 | identity.72 | ||
− | Daisaku Ikeda, the philosophical leader of the Soka Gakkei, paraphrases the medieval | + | {{Wiki|Daisaku Ikeda}}, the [[philosophical]] leader of the [[Soka]] Gakkei, [[Wikipedia:paraphrase|paraphrases]] the {{Wiki|medieval}} |
− | monk Nichiren Daishonin as saying: "The Buddha is an ordinary human being; ordinary | + | [[monk]] [[Nichiren Daishonin]] as saying: "The [[Buddha]] is an ordinary [[human being]]; ordinary |
− | human beings are the Buddha."73 There are two interpretations of the second phrase | + | [[human beings]] are the Buddha."73 There are two interpretations of the second [[phrase]] |
− | depending upon whether one follows early Buddhist texts or embraces later Mah¹y¹nist | + | depending upon whether one follows early [[Buddhist texts]] or embraces later Mah¹y¹nist |
− | views. From the standpoint of early Buddhism to say that we are all Buddhas simply means | + | [[views]]. From the standpoint of [[early Buddhism]] to say that we are all [[Buddhas]] simply means |
− | that all of us have the potential to understand the Four Noble Truths and to overcome | + | that all of us have the potential to understand the [[Four Noble Truths]] and to overcome |
− | craving in our lives. The Mah¹y¹nist interpretation would be that we all possess a Buddha | + | [[craving]] in our [[lives]]. The Mah¹y¹nist [[interpretation]] would be that we all possess a [[Buddha nature]] [[Wikipedia:Metaphysics|metaphysically]] {{Wiki|equivalent}} to the Dharmak¹ya, the [[cosmic]] "[[body]]" of the [[Buddha]]. |
− | nature metaphysically equivalent to the Dharmak¹ya, the cosmic "body" of the Buddha. | + | Given his commitment to a general Ved¹ntist {{Wiki|concept}} of [[soul]], {{Wiki|Gandhi}} would have felt very |
− | Given his commitment to a general Ved¹ntist concept of soul, Gandhi would have felt very | ||
comfortable with the Mah¹y¹nist position, particularly since it respects diversity within | comfortable with the Mah¹y¹nist position, particularly since it respects diversity within | ||
− | unity and supports a dynamic and engaged concept of self. I therefore conclude that | + | {{Wiki|unity}} and supports a dynamic and engaged {{Wiki|concept}} of [[self]]. I therefore conclude that |
− | Buddhist humanism--a humanism of nonviolence and compassion--may be the very best way | + | [[Buddhist]] humanism--a {{Wiki|humanism}} of [[nonviolence]] and compassion--may be the very best way |
− | to take Gandhi's philosophy into the 21st Century. | + | to take Gandhi's [[philosophy]] into the 21st Century. |
Line 610: | Line 600: | ||
− | Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 226. In 1929 Gandhi told an audience in Mandalay | + | [[Oxford University Press]], 1973), p. 226. In 1929 {{Wiki|Gandhi}} told an audience in [[Mandalay]] |
− | that they should use Buddhism to "explore the limitless possibilities of nonviolence" (The | + | that they should use [[Buddhism]] to "explore the [[limitless]] possibilities of [[nonviolence]]" (The |
− | Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi [New Delhi: Government of India Publications | + | Collected Works of [[Mahatma Gandhi]] [{{Wiki|New Delhi}}: {{Wiki|Government of India}} Publications |
− | Division, 1959], vol. 40, p. 159). | + | [[Division]], 1959], vol. 40, p. 159). |
<poem> | <poem> | ||
− | 3. Gandhi, Speech at a Public Meeting in Rangoon (March 8, 1929); The Collected | + | 3. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, {{Wiki|Speech}} at a Public Meeting in [[Rangoon]] (March 8, 1929); The Collected |
− | Works, vol. 40, p. 104. The comment about his son is in a speech that he gave in Sri | + | Works, vol. 40, p. 104. The comment about his son is in a {{Wiki|speech}} that he gave in [[Sri Lanka]]. See Young [[India]] 9 (November 24, 1927), p. 392. |
− | Lanka. See Young India 9 (November 24, 1927), p. 392. | ||
− | 4. Gandhi, Collected Works, vol. 40, p. 160; speech at a Buddha Jayanti meeting in | + | 4. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Collected Works, vol. 40, p. 160; {{Wiki|speech}} at a [[Buddha Jayanti]] meeting in |
− | Bombay on May 18, 1924 in The Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 86. | + | {{Wiki|Bombay}} on May 18, 1924 in The Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 86. |
− | 5. Iyer, op. cit., p. 49. Margaret Chatterjee claims that one of Gandhi's prayers has | + | 5. [[Iyer]], op. cit., p. 49. Margaret [[Chatterjee]] claims that one of Gandhi's [[prayers]] has |
− | Buddhist overtones: "The goal of the devotee is seen as the relief of suffering humanity, | + | [[Buddhist]] overtones: "The goal of the [[devotee]] is seen as the relief of [[suffering]] [[humanity]], |
− | not as personal release from bondage. The mood expressed is much closer to the | + | not as personal [[release]] from bondage. The [[mood]] expressed is much closer to the |
− | Bodhisattva than to the arhat ideal" (Gandhi's Religious Thought [Notre Dame, IN: Notre | + | [[Bodhisattva]] than to the [[arhat]] {{Wiki|ideal}}" (Gandhi's [[Religious]] [[Thought]] [Notre Dame, IN: Notre |
− | Dame University Press, 1983], p. 27). | + | Dame {{Wiki|University}} Press, 1983], p. 27). |
− | 6. Chatterjee, op. cit., pp. 43, 105. | + | 6. [[Chatterjee]], op. cit., pp. 43, 105. |
− | 7. See my "Gandhi, Ahi÷s¹, and the Self," | + | 7. See my "{{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Ahi÷s¹, and the [[Self]]," |
− | Gandhi Marg 15:1 (April-June, 1993), pp. 24 | + | {{Wiki|Gandhi}} Marg 15:1 (April-June, 1993), pp. 24 |
− | 38; "The Virtue of Non-Violence: A Buddhist Perspective," Seikyo Times (February, | + | 38; "The [[Virtue]] of Non-Violence: A [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|Perspective}}," Seikyo Times (February, |
− | 1994), pp. 28-36; and "Ahi÷s¹, the Self, and Postmodernism," International Philosophical | + | 1994), pp. 28-36; and "Ahi÷s¹, the [[Self]], and Postmodernism," International [[Philosophical]] |
Quarterly 35:1 (March, 1995), pp. 71-86. | Quarterly 35:1 (March, 1995), pp. 71-86. | ||
− | 8. Gandhi, Speech at a Public Meeting in Toungo (Sri Lanka); Collected Works, vol. 40, | + | 8. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, {{Wiki|Speech}} at a Public Meeting in Toungo ([[Sri Lanka]]); Collected Works, vol. 40, |
p. 161. | p. 161. | ||
− | 9. Gandhi, Young India 9 (November 24, 1927), p. 392. | + | 9. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Young [[India]] 9 (November 24, 1927), p. 392. |
26 | 26 | ||
− | 10. Gandhi, Hindu Dharma (New Delhi: Vision Books, 1987), p. 34. | + | 10. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, [[Hindu]] [[Dharma]] ({{Wiki|New Delhi}}: [[Vision]] [[Books]], 1987), p. 34. |
− | 11. Gandhi, Young India 9 (November 24, 1927), p. 392. | + | 11. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Young [[India]] 9 (November 24, 1927), p. 392. |
12. Ibid., p. 393. | 12. Ibid., p. 393. | ||
− | 13. Gandhi, Harijan 7 (August 19, 1939), p. 237. I have supplied a capital "S" on each | + | 13. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, [[Harijan]] 7 (August 19, 1939), p. 237. I have supplied a capital "S" on each |
of the original "selves." | of the original "selves." | ||
− | 14. Gandhi, The Essence of Hinduism (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1987), p. 176. | + | 14. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, The [[Essence]] of [[Hinduism]] (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1987), p. 176. |
− | 15. Gandhi, Harijan 7 (August 19, 1939), p. 237; Harijan 12 (February 15, 1948), p. | + | 15. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, [[Harijan]] 7 (August 19, 1939), p. 237; [[Harijan]] 12 (February 15, 1948), p. |
34. | 34. | ||
− | 16. Gandhi, Harijan 11 (August 17, 1947), p. 281. | + | 16. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, [[Harijan]] 11 (August 17, 1947), p. 281. |
− | 17. Madadev Desai, "At Sevagram" in D. G. Tendulkar, et al., eds. Gandhiji: His Life and | + | 17. Madadev Desai, "At Sevagram" in D. G. Tendulkar, et al., eds. Gandhiji: His [[Life]] and |
− | Work (Bombay: Karnatak, 1944), pp. 204-5. Contemporary followers of Nichiren use | + | Work ({{Wiki|Bombay}}: Karnatak, 1944), pp. 204-5. Contemporary followers of [[Nichiren]] use |
− | the mantra Nam myoho renge kyo, instead of what stands in this text. | + | the [[mantra]] [[Nam myoho renge kyo]], instead of what stands in this text. |
− | 18. See Harijan 8 (September 8, 1940), p. 277, where there is a long discussion of | + | 18. See [[Harijan]] 8 (September 8, 1940), p. 277, where there is a long [[discussion]] of |
tapasy¹. | tapasy¹. | ||
− | 19. See Chatterjee, op. cit., p. 83. | + | 19. See [[Chatterjee]], op. cit., p. 83. |
− | 20. Gandhi, The Bombay Chronicle (April 8, 1929); quoted in Chouduri, op. cit., p. 23. | + | 20. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, The {{Wiki|Bombay}} Chronicle (April 8, 1929); quoted in Chouduri, op. cit., p. 23. |
− | 21. Chatterjee, op. cit., p. 25. | + | 21. [[Chatterjee]], op. cit., p. 25. |
− | 22. Gandhi, Young India 4 (February 16, 1922), p. 103. Also see S. K. Saxena, "The | + | 22. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Young [[India]] 4 (February 16, 1922), p. 103. Also see S. K. Saxena, "The |
− | Fabric of Self-Suffering: A Study in Gandhi" in Suffering: Indian Perspectives, ed. Kapil N. | + | Fabric of Self-Suffering: A Study in {{Wiki|Gandhi}}" in [[Suffering]]: [[Indian]] Perspectives, ed. Kapil N. |
− | Tiwari, ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1986), p. 232. | + | Tiwari, ed. ([[Delhi]]: Motilal Banarsidas, 1986), p. 232. |
− | 23. Rem B. Edwards, Reason and Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, | + | 23. Rem B. Edwards, [[Reason]] and [[Religion]] ([[New York]]: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, |
1972), p. 211. | 1972), p. 211. | ||
27 | 27 | ||
− | 24. Quoted in K. P. Karunakaran, Gandhi--Interpretations (New Delhi: Gitanjali | + | 24. Quoted in K. P. Karunakaran, Gandhi--Interpretations ({{Wiki|New Delhi}}: Gitanjali |
Publishing House, 1985), p. 17. | Publishing House, 1985), p. 17. | ||
− | 25. Quoted in Dorothy Hogg, The Moral Challenge of Gandhi (Allahabad: Kitah Mahal, | + | 25. Quoted in Dorothy Hogg, The [[Moral]] Challenge of {{Wiki|Gandhi}} ([[Allahabad]]: Kitah Mahal, |
− | 1946), p. 19. Also quoted in Madan G. Gandhi, "[The] Metaphysical Basis of Gandhian | + | 1946), p. 19. Also quoted in Madan G. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, "[The] [[Metaphysical]] Basis of [[Gandhian]] |
− | Thought," p. 210. | + | [[Thought]]," p. 210. |
− | 26. Gandhi, Collected Works, vol. 14, p. 475. Gandhi specifically criticizes ˜a¡kara for | + | 26. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Collected Works, vol. 14, p. 475. {{Wiki|Gandhi}} specifically criticizes ˜a¡kara for |
− | using "unspeakable cruelty in banishing Buddhism out of India" (ibid.). | + | using "unspeakable [[cruelty]] in banishing [[Buddhism]] out of [[India]]" (ibid.). |
− | 27. The leading scholar here is David J. Kalupahana. See his Buddhist Philosophy: A | + | 27. The leading [[scholar]] here is David J. [[Kalupahana]]. See his [[Buddhist Philosophy]]: A |
− | Historical Analysis (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1976); and A History of | + | Historical Analysis ([[Honolulu]]: {{Wiki|University of Hawaii Press}}, 1976); and A History of |
− | Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities (Honolulu: University of Hawaii | + | [[Buddhist Philosophy]]: Continuities and Discontinuities ([[Honolulu]]: {{Wiki|University of Hawaii Press}}, 1992). |
− | Press, 1992). | ||
− | 28. See Peter Harvey, "The Mind-Body Relationship in Pali Buddhism: A Philosophical | + | 28. See [[Peter Harvey]], "The Mind-Body Relationship in [[Pali]] [[Buddhism]]: A [[Philosophical]] |
− | Investigation," Asian Philosophy 3:1 (1993). Daisaku Ikeda, a contemporary follower of | + | [[Investigation]]," {{Wiki|Asian}} [[Philosophy]] 3:1 (1993). {{Wiki|Daisaku Ikeda}}, a contemporary follower of |
− | Nichiren Daishonin, has one of the most positive views of the body in Mah¹y¹na | + | [[Nichiren Daishonin]], has one of the most positive [[views]] of the [[body]] in Mah¹y¹na |
− | Buddhism. See his Unlocking the Mysteries of Birth and Death: Buddhism in the | + | [[Buddhism]]. See his Unlocking the Mysteries of [[Birth]] and [[Death]]: [[Buddhism]] in the |
− | Contemporary World (London: MacDonald, 1988), pp. 141-42. | + | Contemporary [[World]] ([[London]]: MacDonald, 1988), pp. 141-42. |
− | 29. The Majjhima-Nik¹ya II, 6; The Middle Length Sayings, trans. I. B. Horner (London: | + | 29. The Majjhima-Nik¹ya II, 6; The [[Middle Length Sayings]], trans. I. B. Horner ([[London]]: |
Luzac & Co., 1970), vol. 2, p. 207. | Luzac & Co., 1970), vol. 2, p. 207. | ||
− | 30. Amrita Bazar Patrika, June 30, 1944. | + | 30. [[Amrita]] Bazar Patrika, June 30, 1944. |
− | 31. Quoted in Nair Pyarelal, Mah¹tma Gandhi, The Last Phase (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, | + | 31. Quoted in Nair Pyarelal, Mah¹tma {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, The Last Phase (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, |
− | 1958), vol. 2, p. 143. See also Gandhi, Young India 9 (November 24, 1927), pp. 90, 93; | + | 1958), vol. 2, p. 143. See also {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Young [[India]] 9 (November 24, 1927), pp. 90, 93; |
− | Harijan 4 (August 29, 1936), p. 226. | + | [[Harijan]] 4 (August 29, 1936), p. 226. |
28 | 28 | ||
− | 32. Ramjee Singh, "Gandhi and the Bodhisattva Ideal" in New Dimensions and Perspectives | + | 32. Ramjee Singh, "{{Wiki|Gandhi}} and the [[Bodhisattva Ideal]]" in New Dimensions and Perspectives |
in Gandhism, p. 471. | in Gandhism, p. 471. | ||
− | 33. ˜¹ntideva, ˜ik¬¹ Samuccaya, trans. Cecil Bendall and W. H. D. Rouse (Delhi: Motilal | + | 33. ˜¹ntideva, ˜ik¬¹ [[Samuccaya]], trans. Cecil Bendall and W. H. D. Rouse ([[Delhi]]: {{Wiki|Motilal Banarsidass}}, 1971), pp. 256-257. |
− | Banarsidass, 1971), pp. 256-257. | + | 34. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Young [[India]] 3 (May 4, 1921), p. 144 . |
− | 34. Gandhi, Young India 3 (May 4, 1921), p. 144 . | + | 35. ˜¹ntideva, Bodhicary¹vat¹ra, excerpted in The Teachings of the [[Compassionate]] |
− | 35. ˜¹ntideva, Bodhicary¹vat¹ra, excerpted in The Teachings of the Compassionate | + | [[Buddha]], ed. E. A. Burtt ([[New York]]: {{Wiki|Mentor}} [[Books]], 1966), p. 140. |
− | Buddha, ed. E. A. Burtt (New York: Mentor Books, 1966), p. 140. | + | 36. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Young [[India]] 9 (March 24, 1927), p. 93. |
− | 36. Gandhi, Young India 9 (March 24, 1927), p. 93. | + | 37. See {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, [[Harijan]] 8 (October 13, 1940), p. 322. |
− | 37. See Gandhi, Harijan 8 (October 13, 1940), p. 322. | + | 38. Ibid.; [[Harijan]] 8 (September 8, 1940), p. 277. |
− | 38. Ibid.; Harijan 8 (September 8, 1940), p. 277. | ||
39. Chouduri, op. cit., p. 87. | 39. Chouduri, op. cit., p. 87. | ||
− | 40. Madan Gandhi, op. cit., p. 211. | + | 40. Madan {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, op. cit., p. 211. |
− | 41. Joan Bondurant, The Conquest of Violence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, | + | 41. Joan Bondurant, The Conquest of [[Violence]] ([[Princeton]], NJ: [[Princeton University Press]], |
new rev. ed., 1988), p. 114. | new rev. ed., 1988), p. 114. | ||
− | 42. Gandhi, Young India 4 (February 16, 1922), p. 103. | + | 42. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Young [[India]] 4 (February 16, 1922), p. 103. |
− | 43. E. Stanley Jones, Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation (London: Hodder & Stoughton, | + | 43. E. Stanley Jones, [[Mahatma Gandhi]]: An Interpretation ([[London]]: Hodder & Stoughton, |
1948), p. 143. | 1948), p. 143. | ||
− | 44. Majjhima-nik¹ya I.190-1, quoted in David J. Kalupahana, Buddhist Philosophy: A | + | 44. Majjhima-nik¹ya I.190-1, quoted in David J. [[Kalupahana]], [[Buddhist Philosophy]]: A |
Historical Analysis, p. 64. | Historical Analysis, p. 64. | ||
− | 45. Kalupahana, Buddhist Philosophy . . . , p. 63. | + | 45. [[Kalupahana]], [[Buddhist Philosophy]] . . . , p. 63. |
− | 46. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1106b36 (W. D. Ross, trans.). | + | 46. {{Wiki|Aristotle}}, Nicomachean [[Ethics]] 1106b36 (W. D. Ross, trans.). |
− | 48. Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, trans. M. Desai (Ahmedabad: | + | 48. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, The Story of My Experiments with [[Truth]], trans. M. Desai (Ahmedabad: |
29 | 29 | ||
Navajivan, 2nd ed., 1959), p. xiv. | Navajivan, 2nd ed., 1959), p. xiv. | ||
− | 49. See Kalupahana, Buddhist Philosophy, p. 63. | + | 49. See [[Kalupahana]], [[Buddhist Philosophy]], p. 63. |
− | 50. Dayle M. Bethel, ed., Education for Creative Living: Ideas and Proposals of | + | 50. Dayle M. Bethel, ed., [[Education]] for Creative Living: [[Ideas]] and Proposals of |
− | Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, trans. Alfred Birnbaum (Ames: Iowa State University Press, | + | [[Tsunesaburo Makiguchi]], trans. Alfred Birnbaum (Ames: Iowa [[State]] {{Wiki|University}} Press, |
1989), pp. 75, 82. | 1989), pp. 75, 82. | ||
− | 51. Gandhi, Young India 6 (November 13, 1924), p. 377. | + | 51. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Young [[India]] 6 (November 13, 1924), p. 377. |
52. Ibid. | 52. Ibid. | ||
− | 53. M. Kirti Singh, [The] Philosophical Import of Gandhism (Delhi: South Asia | + | 53. M. [[Kirti]] Singh, [The] [[Philosophical]] Import of Gandhism ([[Delhi]]: {{Wiki|South Asia}} |
Publications, 1994), p. 136n3. | Publications, 1994), p. 136n3. | ||
− | 54. Gandhi, Young India 6 (November 20, 1924), p. 386. | + | 54. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Young [[India]] 6 (November 20, 1924), p. 386. |
− | 55. Gandhi, Collected Works, vol. 37, p. 313. | + | 55. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Collected Works, vol. 37, p. 313. |
− | 56. See Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism (London: Routledge, 1989), p. 145. | + | 56. See [[Paul Williams]], [[Mahayana Buddhism]] ([[London]]: Routledge, 1989), p. 145. |
− | 57. See my article "The Dancing Ru: A Confucian Aesthetics of Virtue," Philosophy East | + | 57. See my article "The [[Dancing]] [[Ru]]: A [[Wikipedia:Confucianism|Confucian]] {{Wiki|Aesthetics}} of [[Virtue]]," [[Philosophy East and West]] 51:3 (July, 2001). |
− | and West 51:3 (July, 2001). | + | 58. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, [[Harijan]] 8 (February 19, 1938), p.10. |
− | 58. Gandhi, Harijan 8 (February 19, 1938), p.10. | + | 59. Quoted in M. [[Kirti]] Singh, op. cit., p. 135. |
− | 59. Quoted in M. Kirti Singh, op. cit., p. 135. | + | 60. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Hind [[Swaraj]] ([[Madras]]: [[Ganesh]] & Co., 4th ed., 1921), chap. 13. |
− | 60. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Madras: Ganesh & Co., 4th ed., 1921), chap. 13. | + | 61. See my "The [[Virtue]] of Non-Violence: A [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|Perspective}}," Seikyo Times |
− | 61. See my "The Virtue of Non-Violence: A Buddhist Perspective," Seikyo Times | ||
(February, 1994), passim. | (February, 1994), passim. | ||
− | 62. "God, ourselves and all objects in the universe are in essence one reality. Even God | + | 62. "[[God]], ourselves and all [[objects]] in the [[universe]] are in [[essence]] one [[reality]]. Even [[God]] |
vanishes and we have only neti, neti" (Collected Works, vol. 32, p. 218). By also | vanishes and we have only neti, neti" (Collected Works, vol. 32, p. 218). By also | ||
− | affirming dvaita (i.e., dualism), Gandhi is being more than equivocal. See his speech at | + | [[affirming]] [[Wikipedia:dvaita|dvaita]] (i.e., [[dualism]]), {{Wiki|Gandhi}} is being more than equivocal. See his {{Wiki|speech}} at |
30 | 30 | ||
− | Tanjore on September 16, 1927 in Collected Works, vol. 35, p. 1. Also feeling "one with | + | [[Tanjore]] on September 16, 1927 in Collected Works, vol. 35, p. 1. Also [[feeling]] "one with |
− | God" is "the principle of advaita" is not its technical meaning in ˜a¡kara. See letter to | + | [[God]]" is "the [[principle]] of [[advaita]]" is not its technical meaning in ˜a¡kara. See [[letter]] to |
− | Chi. Maganlal (May 18, 1918) in Iyer, The Moral and Political Writings (London: Oxford | + | Chi. Maganlal (May 18, 1918) in [[Iyer]], The [[Moral]] and {{Wiki|Political}} Writings ([[London]]: [[Oxford University Press]], 1986), vol. 2, p. 290. Gandhi's statement that "the sum total of [[life]] is |
− | University Press, 1986), vol. 2, p. 290. Gandhi's statement that "the sum total of life is | + | [[God]]" ([[Harijan]] 12 [February 15, 1948], p. 33) is definitely not the [[Advaitin]] position. |
− | God" (Harijan 12 [February 15, 1948], p. 33) is definitely not the Advaitin position. | + | 63. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Young [[India]] 6 (September 25, 1924), p. 313; cf. his comments on the {{Wiki|unity}} |
− | 63. Gandhi, Young India 6 (September 25, 1924), p. 313; cf. his comments on the unity | + | of [[life]] in Young [[India]] 4 (February 16, 1922), p. 104. S. K. Saxena's [[insightful]] [[discussion]] |
− | of life in Young India 4 (February 16, 1922), p. 104. S. K. Saxena's insightful discussion | + | (op. cit.) of Gandhi's self-suffering also assumes the [[Advaitin]] position. |
− | (op. cit.) of Gandhi's self-suffering also assumes the Advaitin position. | + | 64. See my "{{Wiki|Gandhi}}, Ahi÷s¹, and the [[Self]]," p. 30-31. For a fuller [[discussion]] see my |
− | 64. See my "Gandhi, Ahi÷s¹, and the Self," p. 30-31. For a fuller discussion see my | + | [[Spiritual]] Titanism: [[Indian]], {{Wiki|Chinese}}, and [[Western]] Perspectives ([[Albany]], NY: SUNY Press, |
− | Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, and Western Perspectives (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, | ||
2000), pp. 51-52. | 2000), pp. 51-52. | ||
− | 65. Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi's Political Philosophy (London: Macmillan, 1989), pp. 92-100. | + | 65. [[Bhikhu]] Parekh, Gandhi's {{Wiki|Political}} [[Philosophy]] ([[London]]: Macmillan, 1989), pp. 92-100. |
− | 66. Chatterjee, op. cit., p. 134. In Gandhi "we are not called to a higher state of | + | 66. [[Chatterjee]], op. cit., p. 134. In {{Wiki|Gandhi}} "we are not called to a [[higher state of consciousness]] where the mesh of m¹y¹ will disappear" (p. 104). |
− | consciousness where the mesh of m¹y¹ will disappear" (p. 104). | ||
67. Parekh, op. cit., p. 94. | 67. Parekh, op. cit., p. 94. | ||
− | 68. John D. White, "God and the World from the Viewpoint of Advaita Ved¹nta: A | + | 68. John D. White, "[[God]] and the [[World]] from the Viewpoint of [[Wikipedia:Advaita Vedanta|Advaita]] Ved¹nta: A |
− | Critical Assessment," International Philosophical Quarterly 30:2 (June, 1981), pp. 185 | + | Critical Assessment," International [[Philosophical]] Quarterly 30:2 (June, 1981), pp. 185 |
193. | 193. | ||
− | 69. Gandhi, Harijan 9 (June 7, 1942), p. 177. Gandhi is not consistent on this idea of a | + | 69. {{Wiki|Gandhi}}, [[Harijan]] 9 (June 7, 1942), p. 177. {{Wiki|Gandhi}} is not consistent on this [[idea]] of a |
− | mutable self, as he refers to an immutable self and an immutable God several times | + | [[mutable]] [[self]], as he refers to an immutable [[self]] and an immutable [[God]] several times |
− | (Harijan 7 [August 19, 1939], p. 237; excerpted in Truth is God, p. 43). As I have | + | ([[Harijan]] 7 [August 19, 1939], p. 237; excerpted in [[Truth]] is [[God]], p. 43). As I have |
31 | 31 | ||
already noted in note 61, Gandhi's continual references to becoming as well as being | already noted in note 61, Gandhi's continual references to becoming as well as being | ||
− | show a basic process orientation in his thought. | + | show a basic process orientation in his [[thought]]. |
− | 70. See Daisaku Ikeda, Buddhism: The First Millenium, p. 140. | + | 70. See {{Wiki|Daisaku Ikeda}}, [[Buddhism]]: The First Millenium, p. 140. |
− | 71. Thich Nhat Hanh, Being Peace (Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1987), p. 39. | + | 71. [[Thich Nhat Hanh]], Being [[Peace]] ([[Berkeley]], CA: Parallax Press, 1987), p. 39. |
− | 72. For more on Buddhism and humanism see my Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, | + | 72. For more on [[Buddhism]] and {{Wiki|humanism}} see my [[Spiritual]] Titanism: [[Indian]], {{Wiki|Chinese}}, |
− | and Western Perspectives (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2000), pp. 158-161. | + | and [[Western]] Perspectives ([[Albany]], NY: SUNY Press, 2000), pp. 158-161. |
− | 73. The Soka Gakkai's World Tribune (June 6, 1994), p. 3. | + | 73. The [[Soka Gakkai's]] [[World]] Tribune (June 6, 1994), p. 3. |
</poem> | </poem> | ||
Latest revision as of 21:33, 1 February 2020
Coordinator of Religious Studies
Senior Fellow
Martin Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
Moscow, Idaho 83844-3016
December 1, 1999
GANDHI AND MAH¸Y¸NA BUDDHISM: A HUMANISM OF NONVIOLENCE AND COMPASSION
At Gandhi's call all India blossomed forth to new greatness, just as once before, in earlier times, when [the] Buddha proclaimed the truth of fellow feeling and compassion among all living creatures. --Rabindranath Tagore [[[Wikipedia:Gandhi|Gandhi]] is] the greatest Indian since Gautama Buddha and the greatest man since Jesus Christ.
--J. H. Holmes J. H. Holmes and D. S. Harrington The Enduring Greatness of Gandhi (Navajivan, 1982), p. 275.
I felt I was in the presence of a noble soul . . . a true disciple of Lord Buddha and a true believer in peace and harmony among all men. –The Dalai Lama
It was not until he reached England that Gandhi discovered the great religious classics of his own Indian tradition. He first read the Bhagavad-g»t¹ in Sir Edwin Arnold's translation, and he read with "even greater interest" Arnold's verse rendition of the Buddha's life and thought.1 Writing to a Burmese friend in 1919, Gandhi said that "when in 1890 or
1891, I became acquainted with the teaching of the Buddha, my eyes were opened to the
limitless possibilities of nonviolence."2 Gandhi declared that he was proud of the accusation
(lodged by his own son) that he was a closet Buddhist, and he claimed that Buddhism was
to Hinduism as Protestantism was to Roman Catholicism "only in a much stronger light, in
a much greater degree."3 This comment represents a slight against Roman Catholicism,
which currently has the most compassionate and most understanding Christian mission in
Asia; and it also reveals Gandhi's mistaken belief that Buddhism, along with Jainism, are
simply reform movements within Hinduism.
Gandhi said that the Buddha was the greatest teacher of ahi÷s¹ and that the "Buddha taught us to defy appearances and trust in the final triumph of Truth and Love."4 When he speaks of "Gandhi's profound reinterpretation of Hindu values in the light of the message of the Buddha,"5 Raghavan Iyer sees, more than any other Gandhi scholar I have read, the full scope of the Buddha's influence on Gandhi. Observing that Gandhi establishes a middle path between Jain individualism and the Ved¹ntist dissolution of the individual, Margaret Chatterjee maintains that Gandhi's position most closely resembles Mah¹y¹na Buddhism.6 In my own work with Gandhi7 I have gone several steps beyond Iyer and Chatterjee to propose that Gandhi's principles of nonviolence can be best interpreted by extensive use of Buddhist philosophy.
In this paper I would like to cover several topics related to Gandhi and Buddhism. First, I would like to address the problems regarding Gandhi's misconceptions about Buddhism. Second, I will explore parallels between Gandhi's philosophy and Mah¹y¹na
Buddhism. The main focus will be a discussion of Gandhi's principle of self-suffering and
how it differs from the Bodhisattva ideal. Third, focusing on the thoroughly empirical
method of Gandhi's experiments in truth, I will suggest a constructive comparison with the
Buddha's famous claim that "those who know causation know the Dharma." Fourth, I will
discuss the relationship between morality and beauty and show how this relates to a
Buddhist-Gandhian virtue ethics. In the last section I argue that commentators who
interpret Gandhi as a follower of Advaita Ved¹nta cannot do justice to his firm commitment
to the individual and cannot make sense out of his political activism. With this preservation
of individuality, it is possible to propose, as I do in the last section, a convergence of
Gandhian and Buddhist humanism--a humanism of nonviolence and compassion.
GANDHI'S MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT BUDDHISM
During November, 1927, Gandhi was on tour in Sri Lanka, and he naturally had occasion to present his views on Buddhism. Gandhi maintained that the Buddha's extreme austerities during the time before his enlightenment were done as penance for the sins of corrupt brahmin priests. Using the time-honored practice of tapasy¹,8 the Buddha, according to Gandhi, had only one principal goal: to convince Hindus to give up animal sacrifice. With remarkable candor Gandhi told his Buddhist audience that he was shocked that they could justify eating the flesh of animals that they themselves had not killed. He claimed that vegetarian Hindus were more consistent in their adherence to ahi÷s¹ and were thereby the true heirs of the Buddha's gospel of nonviolence. Reminding them of the
Buddha's principle of dependent origination, Gandhi told his audience that any meat eater
is causally linked to the violence of the one who butchers the animal. His judgment against
Burmese Buddhists in 1929 was equally harsh, and there he speculated that meat eating was
the reason why Burma had a higher crime rate than India.
In his first speech in Sri Lanka Gandhi said that the Buddha only meant to reform Hinduism and not start a new religion of his own. It was his disciples, not the Buddha, who established a religion separate from Hinduism. According to Gandhi, the Buddha never rejected Hinduism; rather, he "broadened its base. He gave it new life and a new intepretation." And most incredibly Gandhi claims that any element of Buddhism not assimilated by Hinduism "was not an essential part of the Buddha's life and teaching."9 Unfortunately, Gandhi's effusive praise for Buddhism is rather back-handed, because he unwittingly eliminates the separate identity that it rightly deserves: "It can be said that, in India at any rate, Hinduism and Buddhism were but one, and that even today the fundamental principles of both are identical."10
Gandhi was not always a very good scholar, and his passionate belief in the basic unity of all religions made him distort what we know to be the Buddha's intentions. There is no question that Siddhartha Gautama envisioned a clean break with the Hindu tradition. The Buddha preserved the time-honored techniques of yogic meditation, but his Middle Way contained a strong critique of India's ascetic traditions. He also broke with orthodox Hindus on other major issues, such as the nature of reality and the self and its relationship to the gods. In addition, the Buddha totally rejected the caste system, which Gandhi wanted to
preserve in a revised form. My view is that Gandhi should have broken with his Hindu tradition on all of these points except for his views on the deity. Most importantly, we will
find that Gandhi often speaks of both the self and reality in dynamic and relational ways
that are Buddhist in their implication.
Gandhi's persistence in believing that the Buddha was a theist is yet another instance in which his own religious views clouded his understanding. Gandhi's argument that "the Law (dharma) was God Himself"11 is true only in Mah¹y¹na Buddhism, where the cosmic Buddha is called the dharmak¹ya, literally, the Body of the Law. The Buddha himself, however, did not claim any transcendental or cosmic nature, and the deification of the Buddha came after his death. Furthermore, Gandhi's insistence on the Buddha's theism is ironic given the fact that he constantly wavered between personal theism and an impersonal pantheism, or even an impersonal "truthism." After all, Gandhi is most famous for his proposition that "Truth [not a supreme person] is God." In any case, the Buddha adopted the Jain-S¹÷khya-Yoga view of the relationship between humans and gods. This view is neither theistic nor atheistic: the gods do indeed exist, but they, like all other nonhuman beings, have to have human incarnations in order to reach Nirv¹ªa.
To his credit Gandhi did have the correct view of Nirv¹ªa, and he is to be commended for his clear understanding of it. He said that "Nirv¹ªa is utter extinction of all that is base in us, all that is vicious in us, all that is corrupt and corruptible in us. Nirv¹ªa is not like the black, dead peace of the grave, but the living peace, the living happiness of [the] soul. . . ."12 This is a perfect response to perennial charges of Buddhist nihilism. 6 Nirv¹ªa is, in a word, freedom--freedom not only from hate and greed, but freedom from craving, the unquenchable desire for those things that we can never attain. One significant assumption of the Buddha's position is that ordinary desires, even for the Enlightened One, are acceptable. This is the clearest mode of understanding the Buddha's Middle Way between extreme asceticism on the one hand and sensualism on the other. It is also a good way to see Buddhism as a religious humanism accessible to all people. A Hungarian convert to Buddhism once asked Gandhi whether God could change
because of human prayer. Sensing that his questioner was not sympathetic to the idea of petitionary prayer, Gandhi answered that God was of course immutable, so "I beg it of myself, of my Higher Self, the Real Self with which I have not yet achieved complete identification."13 This answer may well have satisfied the Buddhist interlocutor if he were a Mah¹y¹nist, but not so if she were Theravadin. The latter has a belief closer to the Buddha's own: that there is no Higher Self at all. It is clear that Gandhi is much more in line with the Mah¹y¹nists with regard to his concept of self. (There is good reason to believe that the Mah¹y¹nist Higher Self is a philosophical import from Hinduism, although Mah¹y¹nist doctrines of ¶Ønyat¹ and total interrelatedness mean that this self is very different from the Hindu ¹tman.) This issue aside, it was never reported that the Buddha petitioned either a god (except in legends) or a Higher Self for any favor. So I am afraid that Gandhi was wrong when he insisted that the Buddha "found illumination through prayer and could not [have] possibly live[d] without it."14 Gandhi and Buddhists definitely find common ground if Gandhi really means that
prayer is chanting or meditation, which is, in fact, what he suggests in his conversation with the Hungarian. "You may, therefore, describe it as a continual longing to lose oneself in the Divinity which comprises all."15 In this regard it is instructive to note Gandhi's observation that a Japanese monk chanting at his Sevagram ashram was engaged in Buddhist prayer.16 Mahadev Dasei, Gandhi's faithful secretary, gives us more information about this person, who was obviously a follower of Nichiren Daishonin:
There is among us a Japanese monk who works like a horse and lives like a hermit, doing all the hard chores of the ashram and going about merrily beating his drum early every morning and evening, filling the air with his chanting of Om Namyo Hom Renge Kyom. . . . I do not believe there is one iota of truth in the charge some people have levelled at him of being a . . . spy. If he is a spy, spies must be the most amiable specimens of humanity and I should like to be one. To my mind he lives up to the gospel of ahi÷s¹ better than any one of us not excluding Gandhiji.17 Unfortunately, the Japanese monk's practice of ahi÷s¹ did not stop the Indian police from arresting him and removing him from the ashram.
GANDHI, SELF-SUFFERING, AND THE BUDDHA
A typical Gandhian response to the misdeeds of others was to shame them completely by doing their penance for them. This proved to be very effective not only against the British but with his own family and followers as well. It is most intriguing to see how
Gandhi has imposed his own principle of self-suffering on the life of the Buddha. Although not used by the Buddha or his immediate disciples, civil protest through acts of self immolation has been common in ancient as well as modern Asia. (Buddhist monks burning themselves to death during the Vietnam War are the most recent examples.) Gandhi was of course aware of this tradition of self-immolation,18 but he still believed that his own particular adaptation of yogic tapas was new with him and that his practice of it had not yet been perfected.19 Presumably he would have seen protests through self-immolation as still too passive as compared to the engaged and dynamic nature of his own saty¹grahas. (The Vietnamese monks, as far as I can remember, were not actively engaged in dialogue with the American officials.) Some commentators contend that there are instructive parallels between Gandhi's self-suffering and the suffering of the Bodhisattva, and we shall assess this claim in the next section.
If Gandhi does conceive of self-suffering as doing penance for others, then he has gone far beyond the traditional view of tapas. Indeed, it may even be at odds with the law of karma, which holds that karma is always individual not collective. (This means that only the individual person can work off her karmic debt.) Gandhi once observed that the "impurity of my associates is but the manifestation of the hidden wrong in me,"20 so this does appear to focus on individual karma, but his position is still equivocal and problematic. Margaret Chatterjee finds Gandhi's position very implausible, for, in the two cases she mentions, it is very difficult to see any "strict causal line[s]" between the actions of others and any implication of guilt on Gandhi's part.21
By seeing tapasy¹ as a process of self-purification rather than doing penance for other people, one can make better sense of Gandhi's actions. In this light Gandhi would have said that he could not demand perfection in others as long as he found imperfection in himself. During his fast against the violence at Chauri Chaura in 1922, Gandhi announced that "I must undergo personal cleansing. I must become a fitter instrument able to register the slightest variation in the moral atmosphere about me."22 This interpretation is most consistent with his expanded concept of brahmacharya as self-c ontrol in all actions and his
commitment to spiritual purity for himself and his followers. The concept of collective karma might be made intelligible on the basis of an organic analogy, one that Gandhi uses on several occasions. One might conceive of both and universe as one living organism in which the parts are individual cells. The health of the organism depends on the harmonious interaction of the cells. One diseased cell will affect the whole being for the worse, just as the purification of one might start the healing of the body organism. This organic view of the cosmos is integral to contemporary "process" theology, which has been aptly described in the following terms: Our cells are . . . localized units of feeling with some measure of autonomy. We cannot willfully control their actions in most cases, and they cannot willfully control our actions. But the whole and the parts do interact and influence one another. As the localized cells of my body are injured and suffer, I suffer, and I [also] enjoy their well-being. . . . We are all members of the body of God, autonomous parts of that divine whole in whom we live and
move and have our being.23 Gandhi would have embraced this view enthusiastically, because of his total rejection of the social atomism of classical liberalism, in which individual selves, just like physical atoms, are self-contained and self-sufficient autonomous agents. Like the physical atom the social atom "bounces around in the empty space" of society, now just an abstract entity viewed as the simple sum of its individual parts. Whereas the lines of personal responsibility are very clean in social atomism, they are considerably more diffuse in the organic view. The organic view allows us to see that we do indeed have collective obligations and duties in addition to the individual ones of classical liberalism. This view could very well justify Gandhi's insistence on doing penance for another's wrong doing.
GANDHI AND THE BODHISATTVA IDEAL
A critic might say that the most significant difference between the Buddha and Gandhi was that the Buddha was a world-denying ascetic and that Gandhi was not. The following passage sums up this view very nicely:
Outwardly it would be hard to conceive of two individuals more different. On the one hand is the tranquil Buddha who walks serenely and calmly across the pages of history, or traditionally sits peacefully on a louts with a gentle smile of infinitive compassion. . . . On the other hand is the Mah¹tma, speed and energy in every movement, laughing and sorrowing in his ceaseless endeavour to help mankind with the problems of human life. . . .24
Gandhi must have heard similar comments, because he formulated this own firm response: "The Buddha fearlessly carried the war into the adversary's camp and brought down on its knees an arrogant priesthood. [He was] for intensely direct action."25 Who is correct? The truth lies somewhere in between. Although he did frequently confront brahmin priests (the scriptures report that they were almost always converted), it can hardly be said that the Buddha destroyed the Vedic priesthood. (It of course continues to have great power even today.) Furthermore, although Buddhism and Jainism can take much credit for the
reduction of animal sacrifice, it still continues today as an integral part of goddess worship
in Northeast India and Nepal. And even Gandhi admits that because of India's own
weaknesses, the Buddha's, as well as the Jains', message of universal tolerance and
nonviolence failed miserably.26 Finally, Gandhi is making the Buddha more of a political
activist than he ever was. Gandhi should take sole credit for his own brilliant synthesis of
religion and political action.
A growing scholarly consensus now recognizes that the Buddha was less ascetic and less world-denying than his disciples and the early schools that followed him.27 For example, as opposed to most Indian philosophy, the Buddha recognized the body as a necessary constituent of human identity, rather than something to be negated in the spiritual life.28 (Gandhi appears to join other traditions--Cartesian and as well as Jain and Vedantist--which maintain that the body has nothing to do with true personal identity.) It was his disciples who kept asking for more behavioral restrictions, and this difference is summed aptly in the Buddha's observation that sometimes he ate a full bowl of food while his monks only ate
only a half bowl.29 Despite Buddhism's somatic selfhood and a later doctrine of universal Buddha-essence, its strong ascetic traditions did not allow Buddhist practice to be as body or world affirming as it could have been. The influence of Chinese naturalism (especially on Zen Buddhism) and the Buddhist-Christian dialogue have turned contemporary Buddhism much more in this direction.
The spiritual transformation of the entire world is the goal of most schools of Mah¹y¹na Buddhism. As opposed to the ascetic ideal of early Buddhism, where the emphasis was on personal liberation, the focus in Mah¹y¹na schools is on universal salvation. The vow of the Bodhisattva should be well known to those who know Buddhism: the Bodhisattva, even though she is free of karmic debt, vows not to enter Nirv¹ªa until all sentient beings enter before her. (The Bodhisattva's extra sacrifice caused some perceptive Buddhists to ask whether that made Bodhisattvas superior to the Buddha himself, who of course did not wait for the others.) The Bodhisattva ideal and the comprehensive range of universal salvation makes it relevant to contemporary debates about animal rights and the protection of the environment.
Gandhi constantly emphasized that his focus was universal this-worldly salvation and
not individual spiritual liberation: "I have no use for them [[[love]] and nonviolence] as a
means of individual liberation."30 As with Latin American liberation theology, Gandhi's
soteriology maintained that God assumes a preferred option for the poor and the oppressed;
indeed, Gandhi sometimes speaks of God existing in suffering humanity and not in Heaven:
"God is found more often in the lowliest of His creatures than in the high and mighty."31
Does this, then, make Gandhi "the Bodhisattva of the twentieth century," as Ramjee Singh has so boldly suggested?32 The answer must be negative if we insist on early formulations of the Bodhisattva concept. Using the innovative idea of Nichiren Buddhism that all of us become Bodhisattvas by virtue of our service to humanity, then Singh's claim is closer to the mark.
On the face of it Gandhi's self-suffering does appear to be similar to ˜¹ntideva's view of the Passion of the Bodhisattva:
By my own self all the mass of others' pain has been assumed: . . . I have the courage in all misfortunes belonging to all worlds to experience every abode of pain . . . . I resolve to abide in each single state of misfortune through numberless future ages. . . . for the salvation of all creatures. . . . I for the good of all creatures would experience all the mass of pain and unhappiness in. . . my own body. . . .33
Gandhi does claim to have suffered--his fasts were long and many--for the good of all (sarvodaya); and he did declare that in his next life he wanted to be reborn an untouchable;34 but this still does not constitute anything like the soteriology that we find in Buddhism and Christianity. Gandhi obviously did not claim to have taken away the sins of the world as Buddhist and Christians claim their saviors do.
Following his idea of penance as self-purification, Gandhi may be more like the Bodhisattva, who, although sinless, nonetheless "think[s] of [him]self as a sinner [and] of others as oceans of virtue"?35 But just as we cannot believe Gandhi guilty of the crises for
which he fasted, we certainly cannot believe, nor of course could he, that he was sinless. Not even his most ardent followers have claimed that Gandhi had the redemptive powers of a savior. Revealing his strong Vaishnava background, Gandhi once declared that he wanted to tear open his heart for the poor just as the monkey god Hanuman did to show his devotion to R¹ma, but he said that he did not have the power to perfect such absolute loyalty.36 Finally, it must be observed that Gandhi practiced self-suffering in order to change other people's behavior, whereas the Passion of Christ and the Bodhisattva is conceived of as totally unconditional, expecting nothing in return for their grace and compassion. Gandhi realized the danger in making his self-suffering conditional on the actions of others: it might very well violate the principle that he had learned so well from the Bhagavadg»t¹, viz., we must not act with regard to the fruit of our actions.37
We must again place all aspects of Gandhian religion in its proper political context. (The more appropriate comparison would be Gandhi and Emperor A¶oka, who through political means attempted to establish a nonviolent society in 3rd Century BCE India.) Gandhi called his fasting a "fiery weapon" and that we must fight the "fire" of violence with the "fire" of our own self-sacrifice.38 Others have described Gandhi's self-suffering as a form of moral and political ju-jitsu or a "psychological depth charge."39 "It was," as Madan Gandhi says, "a potent weapon to convert the evil doer, i.e., to make him conscious of the spiritual kinship with the victim."40 It was, as I said above, an effective means to shame Gandhi's opponents into mending their ways. Joan Bondurant describes it as the "willingness to suffer in oneself to win the respect of an opponent."41 On Gandhi's side it had
the effect of establishing his absolute seriousness, sincerity, and fearlessness. For those close to him--especially his wife and his sons--it was a test of love--"tough love" as it is now called. "The only way love punishes," as Gandhi once said, "is by [[[self]]]-suffering."42 (The coercive effect of Gandhi's fasts has been widely discussed and accepted by many scholars.)43 We are now quite far away from the Suffering Servants of Christianity and Mah¹y¹na Buddhism.
GANDHIAN AND BUDDHIST EXPERIMENTS IN TRUTH
The Buddha's famous statement "a person who sees causation, sees the Dharma"44 implies that people know how to act, not because of abstract rules or absolutes, but because of their past and immediate circumstances. Those who are mindful of who they are and how they relate to themselves and others will know what to do. The "mirror of Dharma" should not be seen as a common one that we all look into together, as some Mahy¹n¹ schools believe, but it is actually a myriad of mirrors reflecting individual histories. Maintaining the essential link between fact and value, just as Greek virtue ethics did, the Buddha holds that the truth about our causal relations dictates the good that we ought to do. As David J. Kalupahana states: "Thus, for the Buddha, truth values are not distinguishable from moral values or ethical values; both are values that participate in nature."45 I believe that we can find this same ethical naturalism in Gandhi's experiments in truth, which, because their purpose was always directed to how we should live, were essentially experiments in Dharma.
The Buddha's Middle Way is a distinctively personal mean between extremes, much like Aristotle's relative mean. Aristotle defined a moral virtue as "a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by [[[Wikipedia:practical|practical]] reason]. . . ."46 For example, Aristotle thought it was always wrong to eat too much, but each person will find his/her own relative mean between eating too much and eating too little. A virtue ethics of moderation is still normative, because the principal determinants in finding a workable mean for eating are objective not subjective. If people ignore these objective factors--e.g., body size, metabolism, and other physiological factors- then their bodies, sooner or later, will tell them that they are out of their respective means.
If this analysis is correct, then the traditional translation of the moral imperatives of
the Buddha's eight-fold path may be misleading. Translating the Sanskrit stem samyag- that
appears in each of the words as the "right" thing to do makes them sound like eight commands of duty ethics. Instead of eight universal rules for living, they should be seen as
virtues, i.e., dispositions to act in certain ways under certain conditions and personal
circumstances. (Samyagajiva, right livelihood, is particularly unintelligible on the absolutist
reading.) The translation of samyag- more appropriate to Buddhist pragmatism would be
"suitable" or "fitting," but "right" could remain as long as we understand it to be "right for
you." It is only fitting, for example, that a warrior eat more and more often than a monk,
or it is only appropriate that the warrior express courage in a different way than the
nonwarrior does. Both are equally virtuous, because they have personally chosen the virtues
as means, means relative to them.
17
Gandhi's controversial experiments with brahmacharya is an instructive example of
how Gandhi put aside traditional rules and found his own way, dictated solely by his own
ideas, his own dispositions, and his very unique way of purifying himself of sexual desire.
He made it perfectly clear to his followers that no one should imitate the quasi-Tantric
methods he used. He found his own personal mean between the excess of sexual
indulgence and the deficient of complete withdrawal from women. (He thought yogis who did so were cowards.) Sleeping with his grandniece was right for him, and Manu Gandhi claimed that it was as innocent as sleeping with her mother, whom Gandhi had replaced. Gandhi found his own truth in direct experience; there is no evidence that he appealed to any transcendent principle or rule. In fact, he affirmed quite the opposite: "There are some things which are known only to oneself and one's Maker. These are clearly incommunicable. The experiments I am about to relate are not such."48 He goes on to stress the scientific nature of these experiments and how their results open for all to verify. Gandhi’s sleeping area was open for anyone to see, and those who did found Manu and him sleeping peacefully and innocently. GANDHI AND THE BUDDHA: THE AESTHETICS OF VIRTUE Most Euro-American philosophy has unfortunately severed the time-honored connections between truth, goodness, and beauty. Agreeing with his Greek contemporaries, the Buddha established an essential link between goodness and truth on the one hand and evil and untruth on the other.49 Of all the contemporary forms of Mah¹y¹na Buddhism it
is the Soka Gakkai that is most aware of the aesthetic dimension of being moral. Even though its founder Tsunesaburo Makiguchi substituted benefit for truth in his trinity of benefit, goodness, and beauty, he still agreed with the Greeks that beautiful deeds are performed by beautiful souls.50
Gandhi makes the same connections between truth and goodness and untruth and evil. The identity of reality and truth is also clear in his adoption of the intimately related ideas of sat and satya. Gandhi is following Hindu philosophy very closely in his identification of God, Truth, and Goodness. Realizing the aesthetic dimension, Gandhi states that "all truths, not merely true ideas, but truthful faces, truthful pictures or songs are highly beautfiul. People generally fail to see beauty in truth. . . ."51 He also observes that although they say that Socrates was not a handsome man, "to my mind he was beautiful because all his life was a striving after Truth. . . ."52 Some would say that Gandhi was not a handsome man either, but one commentator observed that "there was a rare spiritual beauty that shone in his face."53
Interestingly enough, Gandhi seems to agree with Makiguchi on the value of benefit
and utility: "Whatever is useful to starving millions is beautiful in my mind."54 Although
rejecting the philosophy of utilitarianism, Gandhi does acknowledge the ultimate value of
the well-being of all people, a value he called sarvodaya. This is not a hedonic calculation
but a moral and spiritual calculation based on the needs of the lowest statra of society. One
might call this a "spiritual consequentialism," and Gandhi's ethical calculus is seen most
clearly in his defense of mercy killing: "After calm and clear judgment to kill or cause pain
to a living being with a view to its spiritual or physical benefit from a pure, selfless intent may be the purest form of ahi÷s¹."55 One of the most striking examples of spiritual conseqentialism in one school of Mah¹y¹na Buddhism is the provision that Bodhisattvas may kill persons who will, if not stopped, murder others in the future.56 At least two good consequences result from such action: Bodhisattvas accrue merit that they then can bequeath to others, and the would-be murderers are saved from the horrors of Hell. Many Hindus and Jains would object strongly to the pragmatism and contextualism of both Gandhian and Buddhist ethics, but it is precisely these aspects that make both of them revelant for contemporary ethical discussions.
Returning to the relationship of morality and aesthetics and drawing on the tradition of Greek virtue ethics, one could define ethics as the art of making the soul great and noble. (Here the meaning of art would be the idea of creating a unique individual piece rather than making copies from a mould as in craft art.) It was Confucius who conceived of moral development as similar to the manufacture of a precious stone.57 At birth we are like uncut gems, and we have an obligation to carve and polish our potential in the most unique and beautiful ways possible. Gandhi appears to agree with this view: "Purity of life is the highest and truest art";58 and "Life must immensely excel all the parts put together. To me the greatest artist is surely he who lives the finest life."59 If are to speak of a Gandhian or a Buddhist virtue ethics, at least two major differences must be noted vis-à-vis the Greek tradition. First, for both Gandhi and the Buddha pride is a vice, so the humble soul is to be preferred over Aristotle's "great soul"
(megalopsychia). (Aristotle's megalopsychia may even be too close to megalomania for the comfort of most contemporary persons.) Second, neither Gandhi nor the Buddha would have accepted Aristotle's elitism. For Aristotle only a certain class of people (free-born Greek males, to be exact) could establish the virtues and attain the good life. In stark contrast, the Dharmak¹ya and Gandhi's village republic contain all people, including the poor, the outcast, people of color, and women.
In Hind Swaraj Gandhi says that "the Gujarati equivalent for civilization means 'good
conduct,'"60 so one could say that his ethical program is to replace Vedic and Pur¹ªic ritual
with the traditional virtues of courage, justice, and compassion. Gandhi does speak of
nonviolence as a virtue, and both the Buddha and Gandhi, as I have argued elsewhere,61
conceive of non-violence as an enabling virtue to the higher virtues of love and compassion.
UNITY IN DIVERSITY: GANDHIAN AND BUDDHIST HUMANISM
It is common to interpret Gandhi in terms of Ved¹ntist philosophy, especially Advaita Ved¹nta, the most dominant school. Gandhi's several references to a qualityless absolute and two equivocal affirmations of the principle of advaita offer some support for this view.62 The Advaitin interpretation offers a solution to the basic puzzle about Gandhi's self suffering, which I have mentioned above. The principle of nondualism allows Gandhi to see the sin of the other as his own sin, because in reality there is no distinction between him and others, between the "I" and the "Thou." The best evidence for the Advaitin solution is the following passage:
I believe in [the] absolute oneness of God and therefore also of humanity. What though we have many bodies? We have but one soul. The rays of the sun are many through refraction. But they have the same source. I cannot detach myself from the wickedest soul (nor may I be denied identity with the most virtuous). . . . I must involve in my experience the whole of my kind.63
I maintain that we must qualify the implications of this passage both in terms of its moral implications and in terms of a coherent interpretation of Gandhi's philosophy. The Advaitin solution completely undermines the basic moral implications of the law of karma. Instead of the Advaitin model of total undifferentiated unity, I suggest that this passage be interpreted in terms of the organic analogy mentioned above. Organic holism has the distinct advantage over absolute monism in that it maintains the reality of the individual (on the analogue of the integral living cell) while at the some time making collective responsibilty intelligible as well. In a previous article I have reformulated Gandhi's refraction analogy so that it gives the equal weight to the unity and individuality that we find in Gandhi's writings.64
The problems of consistently maintaining an Advaitin Gandhi manifest themselves
most clearly in Bhikhu Parekh's otherwise excellent book on Gandhi's political philosophy.65
After summarizing basic Indian philosophy he claims that Gandhi, just like ˜a¡kara,
envisioned a two-tiered religion of a personal theism focusing on ˜iva, Vi¬ªu, Dev» and an
impersonal monism of ¸tman-Brahman. People in the second tier would recognize the
illusion of individual self and consciousness, would eventually put the phenomenal world
behind them, and would move from the worship of individual deities to experience the total unity of ¸tman-Brahman. Gandhi must object already at this point, because he wavered between personal theism and impersonal monism and never claimed that one was superior to the other.
More problems arise with Parekh's interpretation, especially with regard to Gandhi's political activism and the dynamic and engaged individualism that such a view requires. There is indeed a tension in Gandhi between the ascetic and mystic Gandhi, who, as Parekh shows, has difficulty justifying, from an Advaitin standpoint, the feeling of, let alone need for love; and the activist Gandhi, who is committed to moral autonomy, love, compassion, and justice. But nowhere in Gandhi's voluminous works does he indicate that the individual self is an illusion. (Chatterjee puts the point bluntly: "Gandhi had no truck with the m¹y¹ doctrine.")66 Gandhi's thoughts range from the self's complete autonomy, where he has come under the powerful influences he admits the Euro-American tradition had on him, to a relational, social self that has an organic relation with society and the cosmos as a whole. Parekh cannot support both an Advaitin Gandhi and the Gandhi who exhorts individuals to conform to their own historical-cultural truths.67 For the Advaitin there can be no ultimate value in such truths.
There is sufficient evidence to call Gandhi a pantheist, but many commentators are not careful enough to distinguish between pantheism, where the cosmos and its parts are both real and divine, and the Advaitin position where only ¸tman-Brahman is real. John White has suggested,68 echoing medieval Jain arguments, that there is a basic inconsistency
in Advaita Ved¹nta, because from the standpoint of the unliberated souls both ¸tman Brahman and the phenomenal world exists, albeit the latter only in a derivative and temporal mode, whereas from that standpoint of the liberated souls the world does not exist. The Advaitin is not even consistently nondualistic, because, until all humans are liberated, the Advaitin position is, as White calls it, a "transcendental dualism," a dualism of divine reality and derivative phenomena roughly equivalent to Christian theology. The principal difference is that God creates the world in Christianity whereas it is the creation of ignorance in Advaita Ved¹nta.
In addition to his affirmation of the individual, Gandhi also explicitly connects "the capacity of nonviolence" with a rejection of "the theory of the permanent inelasticity of human nature."69 If this statement is interpreted metaphysically, Gandhi seems to have joined the Buddha in his critique of the ¹tman of the Upani¬ads and all other Indian views of an eternal, immutable self. Although Mah¹y¹na Buddhists reinstate an eternal soul, in most schools this self, like early Buddhist views, still enters into relations and is responsive to change. Mah¹y¹na Buddhists tend to be more supportive of real diversity within unity, and especially helpful is the Mah¹y¹nists' suggestion that nonduality be expressed as "two but not two" so as to avoid the implication of the total nondifferentiation that we find in Advaita Ved¹nta.70 Thich Nhat Hanh has his own playful way of phrasing this profound point: "Non-duality means 'not two,' but 'not two' also means 'not one.' That is why we say 'non-dual' instead of 'one.'"71 Zen Buddhists as well as many other Mah¹y¹nists also reject the mind-body dualism that even infects some of Gandhi's writings. These observations
1. M. K. Gandhi, The Story of my Experiments with Truth, trans. Madadev Dasei (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1927), chap. 20.
2. Quoted in Raghavan Iyer, The Moral the Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi (Oxford: allow us to see the possibility of both a Buddhist naturalism as well as a Buddhist humanism, i.e., a view that affirms both the reality of nature and individual personal identity.72
Daisaku Ikeda, the philosophical leader of the Soka Gakkei, paraphrases the medieval monk Nichiren Daishonin as saying: "The Buddha is an ordinary human being; ordinary human beings are the Buddha."73 There are two interpretations of the second phrase depending upon whether one follows early Buddhist texts or embraces later Mah¹y¹nist views. From the standpoint of early Buddhism to say that we are all Buddhas simply means that all of us have the potential to understand the Four Noble Truths and to overcome craving in our lives. The Mah¹y¹nist interpretation would be that we all possess a Buddha nature metaphysically equivalent to the Dharmak¹ya, the cosmic "body" of the Buddha. Given his commitment to a general Ved¹ntist concept of soul, Gandhi would have felt very comfortable with the Mah¹y¹nist position, particularly since it respects diversity within unity and supports a dynamic and engaged concept of self. I therefore conclude that Buddhist humanism--a humanism of nonviolence and compassion--may be the very best way to take Gandhi's philosophy into the 21st Century.
ENDNOTES
Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 226. In 1929 Gandhi told an audience in Mandalay that they should use Buddhism to "explore the limitless possibilities of nonviolence" (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi [[[Wikipedia:New Delhi|New Delhi]]: Government of India Publications Division, 1959], vol. 40, p. 159).
3. Gandhi, Speech at a Public Meeting in Rangoon (March 8, 1929); The Collected
Works, vol. 40, p. 104. The comment about his son is in a speech that he gave in Sri Lanka. See Young India 9 (November 24, 1927), p. 392.
4. Gandhi, Collected Works, vol. 40, p. 160; speech at a Buddha Jayanti meeting in
Bombay on May 18, 1924 in The Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 86.
5. Iyer, op. cit., p. 49. Margaret Chatterjee claims that one of Gandhi's prayers has
Buddhist overtones: "The goal of the devotee is seen as the relief of suffering humanity,
not as personal release from bondage. The mood expressed is much closer to the
Bodhisattva than to the arhat ideal" (Gandhi's Religious Thought [Notre Dame, IN: Notre
Dame University Press, 1983], p. 27).
6. Chatterjee, op. cit., pp. 43, 105.
7. See my "Gandhi, Ahi÷s¹, and the Self,"
Gandhi Marg 15:1 (April-June, 1993), pp. 24
38; "The Virtue of Non-Violence: A Buddhist Perspective," Seikyo Times (February,
1994), pp. 28-36; and "Ahi÷s¹, the Self, and Postmodernism," International Philosophical
Quarterly 35:1 (March, 1995), pp. 71-86.
8. Gandhi, Speech at a Public Meeting in Toungo (Sri Lanka); Collected Works, vol. 40,
p. 161.
9. Gandhi, Young India 9 (November 24, 1927), p. 392.
26
10. Gandhi, Hindu Dharma (New Delhi: Vision Books, 1987), p. 34.
11. Gandhi, Young India 9 (November 24, 1927), p. 392.
12. Ibid., p. 393.
13. Gandhi, Harijan 7 (August 19, 1939), p. 237. I have supplied a capital "S" on each
of the original "selves."
14. Gandhi, The Essence of Hinduism (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1987), p. 176.
15. Gandhi, Harijan 7 (August 19, 1939), p. 237; Harijan 12 (February 15, 1948), p.
34.
16. Gandhi, Harijan 11 (August 17, 1947), p. 281.
17. Madadev Desai, "At Sevagram" in D. G. Tendulkar, et al., eds. Gandhiji: His Life and
Work (Bombay: Karnatak, 1944), pp. 204-5. Contemporary followers of Nichiren use
the mantra Nam myoho renge kyo, instead of what stands in this text.
18. See Harijan 8 (September 8, 1940), p. 277, where there is a long discussion of
tapasy¹.
19. See Chatterjee, op. cit., p. 83.
20. Gandhi, The Bombay Chronicle (April 8, 1929); quoted in Chouduri, op. cit., p. 23.
21. Chatterjee, op. cit., p. 25.
22. Gandhi, Young India 4 (February 16, 1922), p. 103. Also see S. K. Saxena, "The
Fabric of Self-Suffering: A Study in Gandhi" in Suffering: Indian Perspectives, ed. Kapil N.
Tiwari, ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1986), p. 232.
23. Rem B. Edwards, Reason and Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich,
1972), p. 211.
27
24. Quoted in K. P. Karunakaran, Gandhi--Interpretations (New Delhi: Gitanjali
Publishing House, 1985), p. 17.
25. Quoted in Dorothy Hogg, The Moral Challenge of Gandhi (Allahabad: Kitah Mahal,
1946), p. 19. Also quoted in Madan G. Gandhi, "[The] Metaphysical Basis of Gandhian
Thought," p. 210.
26. Gandhi, Collected Works, vol. 14, p. 475. Gandhi specifically criticizes ˜a¡kara for
using "unspeakable cruelty in banishing Buddhism out of India" (ibid.).
27. The leading scholar here is David J. Kalupahana. See his Buddhist Philosophy: A
Historical Analysis (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1976); and A History of
Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1992).
28. See Peter Harvey, "The Mind-Body Relationship in Pali Buddhism: A Philosophical
Investigation," Asian Philosophy 3:1 (1993). Daisaku Ikeda, a contemporary follower of
Nichiren Daishonin, has one of the most positive views of the body in Mah¹y¹na
Buddhism. See his Unlocking the Mysteries of Birth and Death: Buddhism in the
Contemporary World (London: MacDonald, 1988), pp. 141-42.
29. The Majjhima-Nik¹ya II, 6; The Middle Length Sayings, trans. I. B. Horner (London:
Luzac & Co., 1970), vol. 2, p. 207.
30. Amrita Bazar Patrika, June 30, 1944.
31. Quoted in Nair Pyarelal, Mah¹tma Gandhi, The Last Phase (Ahmedabad: Navajivan,
1958), vol. 2, p. 143. See also Gandhi, Young India 9 (November 24, 1927), pp. 90, 93;
Harijan 4 (August 29, 1936), p. 226.
28
32. Ramjee Singh, "Gandhi and the Bodhisattva Ideal" in New Dimensions and Perspectives
in Gandhism, p. 471.
33. ˜¹ntideva, ˜ik¬¹ Samuccaya, trans. Cecil Bendall and W. H. D. Rouse (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971), pp. 256-257.
34. Gandhi, Young India 3 (May 4, 1921), p. 144 .
35. ˜¹ntideva, Bodhicary¹vat¹ra, excerpted in The Teachings of the Compassionate
Buddha, ed. E. A. Burtt (New York: Mentor Books, 1966), p. 140.
36. Gandhi, Young India 9 (March 24, 1927), p. 93.
37. See Gandhi, Harijan 8 (October 13, 1940), p. 322.
38. Ibid.; Harijan 8 (September 8, 1940), p. 277.
39. Chouduri, op. cit., p. 87.
40. Madan Gandhi, op. cit., p. 211.
41. Joan Bondurant, The Conquest of Violence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
new rev. ed., 1988), p. 114.
42. Gandhi, Young India 4 (February 16, 1922), p. 103.
43. E. Stanley Jones, Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation (London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1948), p. 143.
44. Majjhima-nik¹ya I.190-1, quoted in David J. Kalupahana, Buddhist Philosophy: A
Historical Analysis, p. 64.
45. Kalupahana, Buddhist Philosophy . . . , p. 63.
46. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1106b36 (W. D. Ross, trans.).
48. Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, trans. M. Desai (Ahmedabad:
29
Navajivan, 2nd ed., 1959), p. xiv.
49. See Kalupahana, Buddhist Philosophy, p. 63.
50. Dayle M. Bethel, ed., Education for Creative Living: Ideas and Proposals of
Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, trans. Alfred Birnbaum (Ames: Iowa State University Press,
1989), pp. 75, 82.
51. Gandhi, Young India 6 (November 13, 1924), p. 377.
52. Ibid.
53. M. Kirti Singh, [The] Philosophical Import of Gandhism (Delhi: South Asia
Publications, 1994), p. 136n3.
54. Gandhi, Young India 6 (November 20, 1924), p. 386.
55. Gandhi, Collected Works, vol. 37, p. 313.
56. See Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism (London: Routledge, 1989), p. 145.
57. See my article "The Dancing Ru: A Confucian Aesthetics of Virtue," Philosophy East and West 51:3 (July, 2001).
58. Gandhi, Harijan 8 (February 19, 1938), p.10.
59. Quoted in M. Kirti Singh, op. cit., p. 135.
60. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Madras: Ganesh & Co., 4th ed., 1921), chap. 13.
61. See my "The Virtue of Non-Violence: A Buddhist Perspective," Seikyo Times
(February, 1994), passim.
62. "God, ourselves and all objects in the universe are in essence one reality. Even God
vanishes and we have only neti, neti" (Collected Works, vol. 32, p. 218). By also
affirming dvaita (i.e., dualism), Gandhi is being more than equivocal. See his speech at
30
Tanjore on September 16, 1927 in Collected Works, vol. 35, p. 1. Also feeling "one with
God" is "the principle of advaita" is not its technical meaning in ˜a¡kara. See letter to
Chi. Maganlal (May 18, 1918) in Iyer, The Moral and Political Writings (London: Oxford University Press, 1986), vol. 2, p. 290. Gandhi's statement that "the sum total of life is
God" (Harijan 12 [February 15, 1948], p. 33) is definitely not the Advaitin position.
63. Gandhi, Young India 6 (September 25, 1924), p. 313; cf. his comments on the unity
of life in Young India 4 (February 16, 1922), p. 104. S. K. Saxena's insightful discussion
(op. cit.) of Gandhi's self-suffering also assumes the Advaitin position.
64. See my "Gandhi, Ahi÷s¹, and the Self," p. 30-31. For a fuller discussion see my
Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, and Western Perspectives (Albany, NY: SUNY Press,
2000), pp. 51-52.
65. Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi's Political Philosophy (London: Macmillan, 1989), pp. 92-100.
66. Chatterjee, op. cit., p. 134. In Gandhi "we are not called to a higher state of consciousness where the mesh of m¹y¹ will disappear" (p. 104).
67. Parekh, op. cit., p. 94.
68. John D. White, "God and the World from the Viewpoint of Advaita Ved¹nta: A
Critical Assessment," International Philosophical Quarterly 30:2 (June, 1981), pp. 185
193.
69. Gandhi, Harijan 9 (June 7, 1942), p. 177. Gandhi is not consistent on this idea of a
mutable self, as he refers to an immutable self and an immutable God several times
(Harijan 7 [August 19, 1939], p. 237; excerpted in Truth is God, p. 43). As I have
31
already noted in note 61, Gandhi's continual references to becoming as well as being
show a basic process orientation in his thought.
70. See Daisaku Ikeda, Buddhism: The First Millenium, p. 140.
71. Thich Nhat Hanh, Being Peace (Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1987), p. 39.
72. For more on Buddhism and humanism see my Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese,
and Western Perspectives (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2000), pp. 158-161.
73. The Soka Gakkai's World Tribune (June 6, 1994), p. 3.