The intent of this section is to discover and explore some of the important foundations of Gandhian philosophy, primarily those that had a decisive impact on Mohandas K. Gandhi in the formation of his philosophy of non-violence and non-violent resistance to oppression. These primary foundations were the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, Jesus' Sermon on The Mount, Leo Tolstoy's writings on the gospels and non-violence, John Ruskin's Unto This Last and, to a lesser degree, Edwin Arnold's The Light Of Asia. Since Gandhi was a very complex intellectual and spiritual leader, many other sources also influenced him, and some of these will be mentioned or briefly discussed, but the majority of discussion in this section will be on the above-listed primary sources. While some general discussion of Gandhian philosophy as such will necessarily occur in this section, the next section of this thesis will present greater discussion of Gandhi's philosophy.
Before initiating discussion on the foundations of Gandhian philosophy, it must be noted that it is perhaps somewhat inaccurate to classify Gandhi's many diverse and flexible ideals as a "philosophy." The term "philosophy" in traditional usage of the term is generally considered to be a specific set of abstract principles that might be applied to general situations or to a specific situation. It might be more accurate to classify Gandhi's principles as a complex set of dynamic ideals that were flexible and changeable where even the principles themselves might necessarily change or be modified to fit certain specific situations. This can be thought of as process philosophy. About the only constant principle maintained in Gandhi's philosophical vision was his general belief that one must always seek Truth; that non-violence is better than violence; and that if non-violence proves impossible, then violence is better than cowardice. For this reason, when the term philosophy is used in this thesis, it should be considered as being used in the broadest sense possible, but with all of Gandhi's other ideals rooted in the foundations mentioned above. However, in the interest of conserving space and avoiding extended phraseology, the general term "philosophy" will be used throughout this thesis. There might even be some benefit in this approach. In view of the rapidly changing nature of the human condition in a changing world, it can be argued that this is perhaps a better conception of philosophy than a set of precisely-defined, restrictive abstract conceptions that the term has traditionally been understood to imply.
Mohandas K. Gandhi was born into the Bania caste in Porbandar, India on October 2, 1869. His formation and implementation of non-violent resistance, satyagraha, in India, affected the lives of all Indians during the twentieth century. It is safe to say that Gandhi's views and actions have also inspired and continue to inspire many other people around the world today.(1) For a short period of time, Mohandas K. Gandhi showed the world that large-scale social and political change could be wrought without the use of violent rebellion or revolution. Because of this, discovering how Gandhi formed his philosophy is of primary importance to those who would like to learn more about Gandhian ideals of non-violence and non-violent resistance.
In the eyes of some people, especially Westerners who still sometimes tend to view the East as exotic or mysterious, Mohandas K. Gandhi might appear to have been an Eastern spiritualist and mystic. This view is justifiable to a limited extent, because Mahatma Gandhi's philosophical views are sometimes difficult to categorize. Gandhi himself admitted that when he wrote he did not consider what he had said in previous writings, because he wanted to state the truth as he saw it at the moment. Except in relation to basic ideals, he did not absolutely and consistently follow a specific set of abstract principles and, in most writings, he seemed to consider the relativity of the human condition, even in relation to his ideals of non-violence. Because of this, he has sometimes been charged with inconsistency. A "Pro-Gandhian writer, C. Shukla, answers this charge by stating that consistency lies not in behaving in conformity with one's past conduct, but in the uniformity or harmony between thought, word and deed at any given moment."(2) Shukla's statement is essentially correct, because besides being a talented intellectual and a spiritual leader, Gandhi was a man who consistently attempted to maintain harmony between his evolving ideologies and his actions, which he also continually attempted to reexamine and refine during his lifetime.
It can be argued that Gandhi's course of action in relation to solving social problems is perhaps a more practical approach than some others' when people attempt to accommodate themselves to changing social situations. Quite often, social problem-solvers exhibit a lack of imagination because they attach themselves too closely to static principles of thought and to past traditions which allow the problem-solver little flexibility in the face of new discoveries about the nature of an evolving society and a changing world. Thus hindered, they attempt to define contemporary trends with outdated traditions. While traditions are certainly important in forming a basis for social thinking, adhering too closely to past traditions when searching for contemporary solutions sometimes imposes undesirable limitations on the mind of the problem-solver which can lead to repetition of past mistakes, social stagnation and a lack of reasonable progress.
Gandhi was a problem-solver who "consulted ancient and contemporary religious writings in order to get fresh ideas, and accepted suitable suggestions and ideas."(3) He often evaluated contemporary political and social ideas, especially democratic ideals, and applied them to his social thinking. It is safe to say that Gandhi remained remarkably flexible throughout his lifetime. Even though he was an idealist, it can be argued that his real strength was in the practical application of his ideals.
While some might consider Gandhi a utopian social thinker and spiritual leader, it will be discovered that he was just the opposite. Gandhi often called himself a practical idealist, and this description is essentially correct. He was a pragmatist who worked unceasingly in many diverse practical ways to improve the lives of his fellow Indians in order to free them from oppressive British colonial rule. He was willing to frequently change tactics or reverse a protest when things were not working out. Even though he disliked excessive materialism, he was willing to work with Indian mill owners and other wealthy or influential people in India and elsewhere to advance the economic well-being of his country and its people.(4) In his autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, he frequently mentions his contacts with people from around the world. As a result of his flexibility, many people and nations became supporters of Indian independence.
An overall examination of Gandhi's autobiography will show that he did not rely on a single decisive moment to bring about political and social change in India, but accomplished his goals by initiating many small and large dedicated actions over a period of many years. Understanding Gandhi requires that one realize that Gandhi's philosophy is a system of dynamic ideals that were continually evolving during his lifetime. In view of this, it seems somewhat contradictory that on a personal level Gandhi appears to have been a somewhat rigid and pious person.
From a Western viewpoint, Gandhi might be classified as a nineteenth-century Victorian man. In some passages of his writings, he appears to hold conservative, self-determinist views that were popular throughout the British Empire and elsewhere during the nineteenth century. For example, during his organization of the mill workers' strike at Ahmedabad, he advised the striking workers to "never depend upon alms, but to remain firm no matter how long the strike continued, and to earn bread, during the strike, by any other honest labor."(5) In other ways, however, especially in relation to winning social justice for his fellow Indians, he was an open-minded, non-judgmental liberal. While he and his followers lived in their Ashram at Ahmedabad, an untouchable family was welcomed into the Ashram. Because of his acceptance of the untouchables, monetary support from many Hindus stopped, but Gandhi stood firm and threatened that he and his followers would move into the untouchables houses and earn their living with manual labor as untouchables themselves if necessary. In his quest to gain equality for untouchables, Gandhi also stood firm against Kasturbai, his wife, and other women of the Ashram in allowing untouchable friends to dine with his own family.(6)
In contrast to his liberalism, Gandhi's later sexual relationship with his wife appears to have been very puritanical and Victorian even though he discovered a Hindu spiritual basis for his restrictive views on his own sexuality. Part of his adhering to brahmacharya (Hindu celibacy) later in life might have been due, at least in-part, to some psychosexual guilt over his perceived teenage sexual excesses with his child bride Kasturbai, whom he married at age 13. In his autobiography, Gandhi explained that while his father, whom he greatly respected, lay dying, an uncle relieved him for a short while during the death watch. Gandhi, still a teenager, went to his room, awoke Kasturbai and was engaged in sex with her when the family servant came and informed him that his father had died. This created lasting guilt for Gandhi. In his autobiography, he explained:
The shame...was the shame of my carnal desire even at the critical hour of my father's death, which demanded wakeful service. It is a blot I have never been able to efface or forget, and I have always thought that, although my devotion to my parents knew no bounds and I would have given up anything for it, yet it was weighed and found unpardonably wanting because my mind was at the same moment in the grip of lust... It took me a long time to get free from the shackles of lust, and I had to pass through many ordeals before I overcame it.(7)
It will be noticed in the above statement that Gandhi's words in relation to his personal sexuality are written from a perspective that was popular among some British Victorian Christians during the latter part of the nineteenth century, a perspective that was also heavily emphasized in the writings of Russian writer Leo Tolstoy and others who felt that human sexual desire was sinful. We will note that Gandhi was probably influenced by his considerable exposure to Victorian Christian ideas more than he admitted or possibly even realized himself. Even though he remained a devoted Hindu, it could be argued that his personal thinking might have been somewhat tinted with British Christian Victorian ideals and Tolstoyan ideals in regard to the sinfulness of human desire. In addition to this, both Hindu and Buddhist teachings require that people should control their desires. Therefore, in regard to his perceived shortcomings, Gandhi had strong ideological foundations for his guilt and his somewhat rigid personal attitude toward his sexuality.
All of these very diverse ideas, including Gandhi's possible psychosexual guilt over his self-perceived personal failure during the death of his father, helped form some of the basic foundations of Gandhian philosophy. However, many other literary and intellectual sources also contributed heavily to the foundations of Gandhism.
Mahatma Gandhi's harmony with ahimsa (courageous non-violence) and satyagraha (non-violent resistance) evolved because of Gandhi's continued intellectual inquiry, his reasoning based on what he discovered from his studies, and from his continual search for a spiritual truth that would satisfy his uniquely pious nature. Gandhi integrated many of his practical life experiences, where he came face-to-face with injustice and oppression, into the pragmatic, utilitarian reasoning behind his non-violent philosophy, especially in what he called "my numerous experiments with truth."(8)His "experiments with truth," which were actually numerous attempts to apply non-violent methods to the action-oriented process of bringing about political and social change for Indians, were very important to him. In the introduction to his autobiography, Gandhi stated, "my life consists of nothing but those experiments"(9) and, as was discussed earlier, contributed heavily to the dynamic nature of his philosophy.
Gandhi's formal education as a barrister occurred in London, where he developed a good understanding of Western civilization and Christianity as well as some understanding of his own Eastern cultural and religious traditions. During his stay in London, Gandhi began reading about the world's religious leaders. This led him into the study of comparative religion. Attempting to be completely open-minded in his studies, Gandhi wrote, "and how could I help knowing something of atheism too?.. I read some book about it, the name of which I forget. It had no effect on me, for I had already crossed the Sahara of atheism."(10)
Although his father had read the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita to him as a child, near the end of his second year in England, Gandhi began seriously studying the Gita, the epic Hindu philosophical poem that would eventually become his primary spiritual and inspirational guide. He also studied Christianity and made many Christian friends who frequently attempted to convert him to Christianity. Christianity as a religion, however, did not attract his loyalty although he mentions that he was very much inspired by the New Testament gospels. Gandhi also mentioned that he studied Madam Blavatsky's Key to Theosophy, Edwin Arnold's The Light of Asia and Carlyle's Heros and Hero Worship.(11) In relation to his vocation as a lawyer, Gandhi studied English common law and Roman law, and mentions that upon his return to India, he read Mayne's Hindu Law. As a necessary part of his vocation, he also studied Snell's Equity, White and Tudor's Leading Cases, Edward's Real Property and Goodeve's Personal Property.(12) Gandhi passed his bar examinations on the 10th of June 1891 and enrolled in the High Court. On October 12, he sailed for India.(13)
Upon his return to India, Gandhi and his servant took up residence in Bombay with the intention of his practicing law there. However, when he stood to address the court in defense of his first case, he found himself too shy to speak and the case had to be turned over to another lawyer. With expenses mounting and no work, Gandhi decided to work for his brother in Rajkot where he drafted small claims cases for poor clients. Until that time, Gandhi appears to have been somewhat insulated from the realities of British colonial rule in India. His first real shock of facing the day-to-day realities of British rule in India occurred for Gandhi when he attempted to meet with an old English acquaintance who had recently become the Political Agent for Rajkot. When Gandhi went to the sahib's house and attempted to speak with him regarding a case, thesahib, who had once been on friendly terms with Gandhi, saw Gandhi as a young upstart and had his servant throw him bodily from the house. Gandhi was astonished at the arrogance of the man whom he had once regarded as a friendly Englishman and was taken aback by how the Englishman used his position of power in disregard of their friendship. He then understood how the English rulers of India viewed Indians, even educated people such as himself. In his impetuous anger and shame, Gandhi threatened to sue the sahib. Because of his threat, Gandhi's career in Rajkot was ruined because he would have to deal with the sahib frequently in the Rajkot court.(14) Gandhi considered it a blessing when he received an offer from a Moslem firm in South Africa to prepare the legal brief in a large case the firm had pending there. He accepted the position and moved his household to Africa.
In Africa, Gandhi soon discovered racial prejudice against the many Indian immigrants who were becoming successful in small businesses there. The white Europeans originally intended that Indian immigrants come to Africa as indentured laborers under white European control and the Europeans became alarmed when more than a few Indians earned their freedom and proved themselves by becoming successful businessmen who were quickly amassing considerable wealth and property in Africa. To suppress Indian successes and Indian immigration to Africa, the white-controlled parliament passed a heavy indenturement tax on all indentured Indian immigrants which had to be paid yearly. The tax was intended to either drive Indian immigrants back home to India or to keep them in servitude to their European masters.(15) By 1894, Gandhi found himself deeply involved in the movement to protest the tax. He remarked, "I found myself absorbed in the service of the community, the reason behind it was my desire for self-realization. I felt that God could be realized only through service."(16) This service consisted of organizing a non-violent tax revolt among the Indians in Africa. The revolt was successful, and Gandhi's name immediately became known throughout India because he had forced change toward Indians by the European authorities in Africa. In contrast, however, to his non-violent resistance against the British authorities in Africa, he organized an ambulance corps of Indians and supported the British Empire during the Boer War and during the Zulu rebellion. He hoped this would earn respect for Indians as good citizens of the British Empire. Gandhi explained his thinking at that time in the following:
My loyalty to the British drove me to participation with the British in that war. I felt that, if I
demanded rights as a British citizen, it was also my duty, as such, to participate in the defence of
the British Empire. I held then that India could achieve her complete emancipation only within
and through the British Empire. So, I collected together as many comrades as possible, and with
very great difficulty got their services accepted as an ambulance corps.(17)
It can be seen that even though Gandhi had developed his philosophy of non-violent resistance to some degree by this time, he did not yet desire to challenge the British Empire.. While in Africa, Gandhi began studying Indian spiritual and philosophical traditions. He began to mature intellectually and remarked that "Christian friends had whetted my appetite for knowledge, which had become almost insatiable..."(18) He studied Narmadashanker's book, Dharma Vichar, Max Muller's India--What can it Teach Us?, a translation of the Upanishads, The Sayings of Zarathustra and Tolstoy's The Gospels in Brief, What to do?, and other writings by Tolstoy. In addition to these, he re-read Arnold's The Light of Asia.(19)
In relation to The Light of Asia, Gandhi told the story of a debate with a Christian friend. He explained, "Once we began to compare the life of Jesus with that of Buddha. 'Look at Gautama's compassion!'said I. 'It was not confined to mankind, it was extended to all living beings.' Does not one's heart overflow with love to think of the lamb joyously perched on his shoulders...? One fails to notice this love for all living beings in the life of Jesus."(20)
From Gandhi's comparison of the life of Jesus with the life of the Buddha, it is easy to see that he was much more comfortable with Eastern spirituality than with Christianity. While he did not discount the truth of Jesus' teachings or the value of Christianity, his pious, self-sacrificing nature appeared to be more attracted to the what Westerners might call the legalistic nature of Hinduism and Buddhism. In these religions, one earns salvation mainly through devotion, good works and purifying one's heart, although a great deal of Divine grace can also be found in the Eastern religions. Some sects of Hinduism allow salvation through devotion to an avatar such as Vishnu which enables salvation through a form of "grace." Also, Buddhism, with its idealized protection of even the most minute and stationary forms of life due to beliefs that humans are often incarnated or reincarnated as lesser life forms, apparently made more sense to Gandhi, the Hindu. Since Hinduism also contains similar beliefs in reincarnation and extends religious protection to many non-human living beings such as cows, Gandhi had considerable difficulty with the Christian concept of elevating human beings above other creatures and life-forms. It must also be admitted, to the detriment of Christians everywhere, that some self-determinist, evangelical Christians were, during Gandhi's time, taught to be the masters and subjugators of other life forms on earth and, in some instances, these views were extended to other human beings of different races and religious faiths. Perhaps European self-determinists' Christian views impressed Gandhi as being less compassionate and convinced him that the Eastern religions were more compassionate than Christianity. Also, arguably, for Easterners such as Gandhi, who have well-developed beliefs in reincarnation, the Christian concept of one earthly life and salvation through the grace of one incarnate Lord is a huge hurdle to overcome. In any case, Gandhi's Eastern belief in the sacredness of lower life forms was confirmed by his continued support of Indian cow protection. In his autobiography he bitterly complained that "the Champaran bullock is still made to work beyond his capacity, and the so-called Hindu still cruelly belabors the poor animal and disgraces his religion."(21) So, according to Gandhi's view, lesser creatures such as the bullock mentioned here, deserve to be protected by man rather than exploited. Considering this view and those mentioned in relation to reincarnation, it is rather easy to understand why Gandhi viewed Christianity as being less-compassionate and inclusive than the Eastern religions.
Though Gandhi discovered his main spiritual inspirations in Hinduism, his considerable exposure to Christianity and Western ideas cannot be discounted in the formation of his philosophy of non-violence or in his personal, spiritual or social views. It is safe to say that the other major Indian religions of Islam and Buddhism also influenced him at least to some degree. Gandhi had opinions on many things. The basis of his thinking and philosophy, however, is deeply rooted in the Hindu vision of the existence of God and Truth and, as was mentioned earlier, his main inspiration came from the Bhagavad-Gita which he continued studying in India and South Africa.
The Bhagavad-Gita, or the Gita as it is called by many Hindus, is usually interpreted to mean "Song of the Lord" or "The Song Celestial." It is a part of the great Hindu epic, the Mahabharata which was written in the centuries between 400 BC and 400 AD. The Gita itself is a part of the epic that was composed around 100 AD.(22) The Gita is a magnificent philosophical poem in which the warrior Arjuna and the God, Vishnu, in the incarnation of Krishna, disguised as his charioteer, carry on a lengthy philosophical and spiritual dialogue. Krishna helps Arjuna resolve his personal spiritual conflict because of having to kill his kinsmen on the battlefield as they unscrupulously attempt to usurp his father's kingdom. In the first part of the poem, Arjuna is paralyzed with indecision at having to make war on his kinsmen toward whom he feels much affection and many obligations. As the poem begins, Arjuna, because of his lack of faith, cannot recognize Krishna's divine attributes, but as the philosophical dialogue progresses and Arjuna's doubts begin to disappear and his faith in the will of God increases, he begins to see Lord Krishna's terrible power and divinity unfold before his eyes. Due to Krishna's intervention, Arjuna discovers karmayoga, (action without desire) and is able to see clearly the sacrifices he must make in order for Truth to prevail. He goes forward into battle and kills his kinsmen, not because of selfish desire, but because it must be done to preserve Truth and justice. The poem teaches the believer that earthly life proceeds only according to God's will and that all things, even seemingly distasteful things, such as war, are a part of God's greater plan.(23)
As is seen in the story, much of the philosophical and spiritual discussion in the Gita concerns giving up selfish, earthly concerns, ordinary fears and rationalizations in favor of supporting God's Truth and justice. This Truth is revealed as the spiritual essence that controls the universe and all living beings. In the poem, Krishna is represented as an incarnation of Vishnu who only reveals himself to those who are willing to detach themselves from earthly desires and seek Truth. Renunciation of desire and control of passions, even his well-intentioned desire to preserve the lives of his misguided kinsmen, is shown to Arjuna as being the way to seek God's Truth. Once this Truth is discovered, Divine purposes become clear to the seeker and the believer is in harmony with God who, in Hindu belief, is both order and chaos, but with His own divine purposes which mankind must serve.
In the poem, Lord Krishna reveals that opposites exist within cosmic knowledge and that the evil that sometimes confounds mankind because of worldly desires, is really instrumental in achieving God's purposes. It is shown that to be in harmony with God's purposes, the seeker of Truth must give up attachments to earthly desires, even the earthly desire to continue physical life, and give himself or herself totally to serving Truth and God. In this way, freedom is attained and the person is not paralyzed by fear and will be able to go into action.(24) Thus, it can be seen that Gandhi's philosophical ideology that man should overcome fear and resist oppression had solid foundations in the spiritual philosophy of the Gita and all scripture.
Mahatma Gandhi had a unique gift for the synthesis of diverse, complex ideas, especially spiritual ideas, and this is one underlying strength of his philosophy. Rather than seeing differences in the nature of mankind, it can be asserted that he searched for commonalities between different people and their ideas. Gandhi's view was that God takes many forms and that different people envision God or spiritual Otherness in different ways, but that they are all seeking the same transcendent spiritual essence of God. In relation to this he explained:
Thus if I do not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then
convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability
could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not
understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying
that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and
the Koran?(25)
Gandhi had considerable basis for his egalitarian religious view. In the Hindu vision of God, the Hindu God can incarnate Himself in many forms as was seen earlier in the epic story of Krishna and Arjuna. Thus, in Gandhi's eyes, different people with their diverse ideologies and differing thought processes, might legitimately envision God in many different ways, and it was only natural for God to show Himself in different ways to different people. This view of God caused Gandhi to respect at least some aspects of many religious faiths other than his own and to hold them in nearly as high a regard as his own. He was often invited to speak in Islamic mosques, and his tolerant and respectful views on Islam enabled him to gain respect from Indian Moslems and from people who belonged to the other Indian religious faiths. In view of traditional animosities between Indian Hindus and Indian Moslems, this in itself was quite an accomplishment.
Even in the primarily Christian and Jewish West, it is safe to say that Mahatma Gandhi and his ideas are still regarded highly by many tolerant people. Mohandas K. Gandhi might be considered by some to be one of the twentieth century's more important universal spiritual men, a person who attempted to understand the deeper spiritual nature of mankind and to reconcile many of the differences and conflicts that people attempt to impose on themselves and each other in relation to their religious and philosophical viewpoints.
In consideration of what has been said thus far, it is safe to say that to understand the foundations of Gandhian philosophy, one must first understand that Mohandas K. Gandhi, above all other things, was a spiritual person. The basic essence of his philosophy is that human freedom can only be attained by serving God and Truth and, to Gandhi, the terms sometimes appear to be almost interchangeable. Although many religious sources influenced his spirituality, the basic foundations of his thinking are rooted in Hinduism. It was from the Hindu basis that Gandhi worked when he synthesized other religious and philosophical ideas into his thinking although it must be pointed out that, according to his own autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, he was first exposed to Western ideas, including Enlightenment-based reasoning and Christianity, before he later became a Hindu practitioner. This, perhaps, is what makes Gandhi so appealing to many Westerners. His Western education and essentially Western manner of articulating his thoughts made his Eastern religious and philosophical ideals more easily understood by many Westerners who might have otherwise discounted the value of his Eastern thinking, and especially its somewhat mystical, religious origins.
The verses of the second chapter of the Gita inspired him very much and he quoted them in his autobiography. He stated that these verses still "ring in my ears."(26)
If one
Ponders on objects of the sense, there springs
Attraction; from attraction grows desire,
Desire flames to fierce passion, passion breeds
Recklessness; then the memory--all betrayed--
Lets noble purpose go, and saps the mind,
Till purpose, mind, and man are all undone.(27)
Since he was a young man in his early twenties when these verses from the Gita made a lasting impression on him, it can be seen that ridding himself of passion became an early goal of Mahatma Gandhi, although he admits that he was unable to free himself from sexual passion until much later in his life. The point is, if he began to take a dispassionate view of earthly life in relation to attempting to abstain from indulging in ordinary pleasures at such an early age, it can be argued that he had already discovered his basis for becoming a spiritual leader and philosopher. If this is true, Gandhi's religious and intellectual views were already highly developed. They only needed the stimulus of further studies and life experiences before their development could be fully-realized.
It can be argued that the above verses from the Gita were probably also instrumental in the development of Gandhi's later theory that human fear is a main cause and enabler of human oppression. If people allow their emotions to control their thinking, when oppressors coerce or intimidate them with threats or with actual violence, their passions become aroused and they either react with violence or give way to their fears. Since viewing events with a dispassionate mind removes one from being adversely affected by fear, oppressors soon discover that they have little control over the mind of the dispassionate person. This argument supports much Eastern philosophy and theology where the goal of the person is to control or negate the desires of the willful self in order to reach what is seen as a higher level of transcendent spirituality. The Buddha, Gautama, taught a similar dispassionate view of life which is intended to free one from fear. Since Gandhi was fond of Edwin Arnold's The Light of Asia, having mentioned reading it twice,(28) it can be said that basic Buddhist doctrine also had some affect on the formation of Gandhian philosophy.
The Light of Asia is Edwin Arnold's beautiful poem on the life and teachings of Gautama, the Buddha of "this age." The poem is composed from the perspective of a devout Buddhist and tells the story of The Buddha's life from birth to death. Its main theme is one of renunciation. In the poem, Gautama teaches his followers the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path which lead one to Buddahood, enlightenment and finally to Nirvana, that state of unspeakable bliss or Great Silence, which relieves the soul from its continuous wheel-like cycle of births, sufferings and deaths. According to Gautama, the overall way to enlightenment is renunciation of all desire and complete conquest of self, which means giving up all attachments to desires and earthly life while at the same time, out of pure love in one's being, showing only kindness, gentleness and mercy to all living creatures and toward all life. In Gautama's teaching, human desire is the cause of all sorrow and suffering. Part of Gautama's teaching of the second Noble Truth, according to Arnold, is as follows:
The Second Truth is Sorrow's Cause. What grief
Springs of itself and springs not of Desire?
Senses and things perceived mingle and light
Passion's quick spark of fire:
So flameth Trishna, lust and thirst of things.
Eager ye cleave to shadows, dote on dreams;
A false Self in the midst ye plant, and make
A world around which seems;
Blind to the height beyond, deaf to sound
Of sweet air breathed from far past Indra's sky;
Dumb to the summons of the true life kept
For him who false puts by.
So grows the strife and lust which make earth's war,
So grieve poor cheated hearts and flow salt tears;
So wax the passions, envies, angers, hates;
So years chase blood-stained years.(29)
We have noted that Gandhi came to view human desire, especially in relation to sexual lust and materialism, as leading causes of disharmony between people. There is little doubt that the teachings of Gautama, according to Arnold as depicted in The Light of Asia, confirmed Gandhi's view. Since Buddhism is related to Hinduism, Gautama's teachings probably meshed nicely with Gandhi's Hindu beliefs in many areas. However, as far as renunciation was concerned, Gandhi discovered that Western religions and philosophies also contained similar beliefs.
In relation to the above, Gandhi's early experiences with Christianity and the later writings of Leo Tolstoy confirmed what Gandhi had discovered in the Gita and The Light of Asia. It was while he was still in England that Gandhi came in close contact with Christianity. In Manchester, he met a vegetarian Christian friend who enjoined him to read the Bible. On the Bible, Gandhi wrote:
I began reading it, but I could not possibly read through the Old Testament. I read the book of Genesis, and the chapters that followed invariably sent me to sleep...I plodded through the books with much difficulty and without the least interest or understanding. I disliked reading the book of Numbers.
But the New Testament produced a different impression, especially the Sermon on the Mount
which went straight to my heart. I compared it with the Gita. The verses, "But I say unto you,
that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also. And if any man take away thy coat let him have thy cloak too," delighted me beyond
measure and put me in mind of Shamal Bhatt's "For a bowl of water, give a goodly meal" etc. My
young mind tried to unify the teaching of the Gita, the Light of Asia and the Sermon on the
Mount. That renunciation was the highest form of religion appealed to me greatly.(30)
The last sentence of the above quotation is of considerable importance in understanding Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy of non-violence. While various ascetic practices of self-denial are present in the Eastern religions, and especially in Hinduism and Buddhism, Jesus's Sermon on the Mount appeared to have been the influence that sparked the development of Gandhi's form of self denial and sacrifice. Jesus was very specific and practical in the way he explained the ideal of renunciation--that the believer should refuse to repay violence with violence and should go even further by treating evil oppressors with kindness and love. Gandhi undoubtedly knew that Jesus's words were once supported with real actions by a living being because Jesus went willingly to the cross and died cruelly at the hands of oppressors without mental reservations or physical resistance. While in the throes of physical death, Jesus asked God to forgive his oppressors.
Even though Gandhi did not accept the Christian belief of salvation through grace, he apparently saw the great importance of Jesus's message of renunciation of violence as a valid spiritual and philosophical idea. In his autobiography, however, the reader learns that Gandhi disliked the arrogance of some Christians he met during his travels. He confirms this in a negative way in the following:
According to Christianity, only human beings had souls, and not other living beings, for whom
death meant complete extinction; while I held a contrary belief. I could accept Jesus as a martyr,
an embodiment of sacrifice, and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born. His
death on the Cross was a great example to the world, but that there was any mysterious or
miraculous virtue in it my heart could not accept. The pious lives of Christians did not give me
anything that the lives of men of other faiths failed to give. I had seen in other lives just the same
reformation that I had heard of among Christians.(31)
While Gandhi did not accept the transcendent spiritual salvation through Christ's death and could not accept Christ's resurrection and ascension, he certainly had some understanding of the practical power of Christ's message and actions since Christianity had spread throughout the ancient Roman Empire and had eventually overcome the older, more violent Roman social order.
Many of the later writings of Leo Tolstoy are based on Christ's message of love. Even though Gandhi did not accept Christian salvation, he found Tolstoy's interpretations of Christ's gospels and the law of love compelling.
Tolstoy was much older than Gandhi, but around 1910, the two corresponded on the subject of non-violence. From the tone of their correspondence, it can be speculated that Tolstoy might have served as a friend and possibly as somewhat of a mentor to the younger Gandhi in relation to ideas of non-violent resistance. When Gandhi was forming his plans for a non-violent resistance movement in India, Tolstoy was already exhorting and promoting a well-developed theory of non-violent resistance that he hoped might be applied to the impending revolution that was brewing in Russia. The Russian Revolution of 1906 and Tolstoy's heated writings on the violence and extreme governmental oppression of the Russian people which resulted from this failed attempt might have influenced Gandhi's thinking about future political strategies. The violence, upheavals and civil war that followed the Russian Revolution of 1917 could have also furthered Gandhi's thinking on non-violence, especially since Gandhi studied Tolstoy's writings and apparently thought his ideas were credible.
It can be speculated that Tolstoy's pious, highly-moral, spiritual nature probably complemented Gandhi's own similar spiritual nature. A reading of works by both men indicates that both possessed exceptional piety and devotion to spiritual matters. Like Gandhi, Tolstoy had also developed his ideas over a lifetime and had once served for four years as a Russian soldier during the Crimean War where he came to abhor the often senseless violence of human warfare. After he was recognized for such great novels as War and Peace and Anna Karenina, he became interested in the New Testament gospels and interpreted them in relation to his visions of non-violent resistance to oppression. Many of his later writings, essays and correspondence were on the subjects of non-violence and Christ's love.
Around 1890, revolutionary ideas were forming in Russia and Tolstoy hoped that the old Tsarist order might be overturned without an extremely violent revolution. Many of his writings on non-violence were intended to promote that goal. While still in London, as English friends attempted to convert him to Christianity, Gandhi was given several books by Mr. Coates, one of his Christian friends. One was Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. Gandhi explained,
Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You overwhelmed me. It left an abiding impression on
me. Before the independent thinking, profound morality, and truthfulness of this book, all the
books given to me by Mr. Coats seemed to pale into insignificance.(32)
Later in his autobiography, Gandhi explained that he "made an extensive study of Tolstoy's books. The Gospels in Brief, What To Do? and other books made a deep impression on me. I began to realize more and more the infinite possibilities of universal love."(33) In 1910, Gandhi and Tolstoy shared intimate correspondence on the subject of non-violence and spirituality. In a letter dated September 7, 1910, just before his death, Tolstoy wrote to Gandhi:
I received your journal and was pleased to learn all contained therein concerning the passive resisters. And I felt like telling you all the thoughts which that reading called up in me.
The longer I live and especially now, when I vividly feel the nearness of death, I want to tell
others what I feel so particularly clearly and what to my mind is of great importance--namely, that
which is called passive resistance, but which is in reality nothing else than the teaching of love,
uncorrupted by false interpretations. That love--i.e. the striving for the union of human souls and
the activity derived from this striving--is the highest and only law of human life, and in the depth
of his soul every human being (as we most clearly see in children) feels and knows this; he knows
this until he is entangled by the false teachings of the world. This law was proclaimed by all--the
Indian as by the Chinese, Hebrew, Greek and Roman sages of the world. I think this law was
most clearly expressed by Christ, who plainly said that 'in this only is all the law and the
prophets.'(34)
This law that Tolstoy was extolling to Gandhi was the law of love or the teaching recognized by many world religions and philosophies that people should not do violence to their fellow man. Tolstoy did extensive research and writing on the law of love. In 1908, he completed an important essay entitled The Law of Violence: The Law of Love. In this essay, Tolstoy gave Gandhi and others a very pragmatic and reasonable basis for applying Christ's and other teachings of non-violence and love to revolutionary movements. In a particularly fiery passage against government oppression and revolutionary oppression as it was occurring in Russia at that particular time, he wrote:
For remember that all of these people you strangle with cords and shoot beside graves ready dug
for living men, have fathers, brothers, wives, sisters, friends, and fellow thinkers; and if these
executions deliver you from those who are buried in the grave, these same executions give birth,
not only among those near to them, but even among strangers, to twice as many foes, twice as
embittered as those you have murdered and buried in the ground.(35)
Tolstoy was very clearly explaining that violence breeds violence and that violence multiplies itself, particularly in relation to government oppression or in relation to revolutionary movements. If it is reasonably considered that when those governments and other movements which depend on violence to sustain themselves continue to wreak violence and oppression on their opponents, then this multiplication of violence logically requires that violent oppressors expend more and more resources on the implementation of more and more violence to contain their enemies. In the end, if the perpetuation of violence continues, the oppressor will become exhausted and enemies will be many. Therefore, according to the law of love and Tolstoy's clarification of how violence perpetuates itself, and according to reason, violence defeats itself in the end.
Gandhi understood that India had few military resources and little wealth which would enable it to withstand repeated violent assaults from the powerful British Empire. Therefore, angering the British Empire by imposing wholesale violent rebellion and death on the British rulers was not seen by Gandhi as a viable option in the struggle for India's independence. It is safe to say that Tolstoy was particularly influential in Gandhi's formation of his philosophy of non-violent resistance and its practical application. In addition to this, even though Tolstoy was a devout Christian, he also based his theories of non-violence on other world religions. In regard to the law of love being a universal phenomenon, he wrote:
The ground for refusals [to commit violence against one's fellow man] is one and the same--most natural, inevitable and indisputable; it is an acknowledgment of the necessity of obeying the religious law rather than the State law, when these conflict. The State law, in its demand of military service: that is of readiness to slay at the will of others, cannot but be contrary to all the religious-moral law, which is always founded on love of one's neighbor, like all religious teachings, not only Christian, but also Mohammedan, Buddhist, Brahminist, and Confucian.
The strictest definition of the law of love, excluding any kind of exception, which Christ expressed
1900 years ago, is in our time, recognized by the most morally sensitive people of all religions,
and this no longer as a result of following Christ, but by their own direct cognition of its truth.(36)
In the above passage, Tolstoy recognized that almost all major religions teach the law of love and that even enlightened human reason supports it. It will be noted that Gandhi expressed these same sentiments in much the same way in a previous passage. Since Gandhi considered himself a confidant of Tolstoy, it must be considered that Tolstoy directly influenced Gandhi at least to some degree in the formation of his non-violent philosophy.
It is at this point that one must begin to question to some extent Gandhi's claim that the Eastern religions formed the major basis of his philosophy of non-violence and non-violent resistance. In doing so, it must be kept clearly in mind that Gandhi was attempting to influence Indians who were Hindu, Moslem, Buddhist and of other Eastern religious faiths and philosophies. He probably gave Christianity and Tolstoy as much credit as he possibly could while still retaining his credibility as an Eastern spiritual and political leader. In his often delicate relationship with Indian Moslems, it might have been problematic for him to attribute a substantial portion of his philosophy of non-violent resistance to Christianity and to Tolstoy's clarification of the Christian gospels. In relation to questioning the amount of Tolstoy's influence on Gandhi, however, the questioner must be very careful not to imply that Gandhi was a closet Christian. He was definitely a devout Hindu and a person of Eastern spirituality until his death, but Gandhi himself recognized that Tolstoy and Christianity had at least some important influence on him in the formation of his philosophy, and possibly more than Gandhi himself acknowledged to other Indians or revealed in his autobiography.
One other major literary influence is noted by Gandhi as being very influential in the formation of his philosophy. This is John Ruskin's Unto This Last which is a naturalist social critique of how wealth and influence are often misused by the few to oppress the masses of ordinary people and how nineteenth-century capitalist economic theories worked against the betterment of living conditions and common morality for most people, including the wealthy.
In the preface of Unto This Last, which was first published in 1860, John Ruskin explains that he desires social reform that will enable people to live honorable, respectable lives. He believed that young people should be educated in "habits of gentleness and justice; and the calling by which [they are] to live."(37) He advocated training schools and education for all. In addition to this, he encouraged universal employment at just wages for those who were able to work. This included finding jobs and providing training for the underemployed. He believed that the elderly and disabled should be treated with dignity regardless of their stations in life and that homes and food should be provided for them. Ruskin was sensitive to the abuses of commoners by the British capitalist system and he wrote passionately on the subject.(38)
Ruskin disputed nineteenth-century theories of economics which assumed that people were and should naturally be antagonistic to each other because of their economic interests. He explained, "disputant after disputant vainly strives to show that the interests of the masters are not antagonistic to those of the men: none of the pleaders ever seeming to remember that it does not absolutely or always follow that the persons must be antagonistic because their interests are."(39)In this, Ruskin's thinking deviated from accepted economic and social theories of the time, because, according to him, economic and social theory of the time assumed that labor was always at odds with capital and that it was in the interest of capital to keep wages low and workers at odds with their masters. He explained that such simple theories were untrue in relation to the nature of the human condition and human motivation. Where the relationship of masters and workers is concerned, Ruskin explained:
It is always in the interest of both that the work should be rightly done and a just price obtained
for it; but in the division of the profits, the gain of the one may or may not be the loss of the other.
It is not in the master's interest to pay wages so low as to leave the men sickly and depressed, nor
the workman's interest to be paid high wages if the smallness of the master's profit hinders him
from enlarging his business, or in conducting it in a safe and liberal way.(40)
Ruskin went even further in his theory that good relations between master and servants benefit both parties. By this, Ruskin meant justice between people. He further explained, "I have said balances of justice, meaning, in the term justice, to include affection--such affection as one man owes to another. All right relations between master and operative, and all their best interests ultimately depend on these."(41)
An overall reading of Gandhi's autobiography confirms that he adhered to Ruskin's principle that even if people often have different antagonistic goals and interests, they need not become enemies and should work amicably for solutions to their problems. In many cases, when Gandhi negotiated with the British, he did so in an honest, respectful and truthful manner. He worked to arrive at acceptable and just settlements that allowed both parties to retain their self-respect. He even disavowed hatred toward his opponents and attempted to show kindness and love toward them. Because of this, even though they bitterly opposed Gandhi on ideological principles, many of his opponents genuinely respected him as a person and as a negotiator and he was able to gain concessions because of this respect. If this concept is related to previously-discussed spiritual ideals of dispassionate, non-violent actions, it can be seen that Ruskin's non-antagonistic ideals for human relationships complemented Gandhi's spirituality.
In the second essay of Unto This Last, Ruskin wrote very critically about the veins of wealth as was understood by nineteenth-century capitalism. He explained:
What is really desired [in obtaining wealth] under the name of riches is, essentially, power over men; in its simplest sense, the power of obtaining for our own advantage the labor of servant, tradesman, and artist; in wider sense, authority of directing large masses of the nation to various ends (good, trivial, or hurtful, according to the mind of the rich person). And this power of wealth of course is greater or less in direct proportion to the poverty of the men over whom it is exercised, and in inverse proportion to the number of persons who are as rich as ourselves [because of relative purchasing power in terms of the wealth possessed by all concerned]... So that as above stated, the art of becoming "rich" in the common sense, is not absolutely nor finally the art of accumulating much money for ourselves, but also of contriving that our neighbors shall have less. In accurate terms, it is "the art of establishing the maximum inequality in our own favor."(42)
This form of capitalism led to many abuses of labor during the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century, because some wealthy masters carried this principle to extreme limits. Much poverty in India and elsewhere during this time was due to this economic principle. Ruskin felt that this ideology was wrong. This was what he called mercantile economy as opposed to political economy. Ruskin explained:
The art of making yourself rich, in the ordinary mercantile economist's sense, is therefore equally and necessarily the art of keeping your neighbor poor... I wish the reader clearly and deeply to understand the difference between the two economies, to which the terms "Political" and "Mercantile" might not unadvisedly be attached.
Political economy (the economy of a State, or of citizens) consists simply in the production, preservation, and distribution, at the fittest time and place, of useful or pleasurable things. The farmer who cuts his hay at the right time; the shipwright who drives his bolts home in sound wood...the housewife who takes care of her furniture in the parlour, and guards against waste in the kitchen... are all political economists: adding continually to the riches and well-being of the nation to which they belong.
But the mercantile economy, the economy of "merces" or of "pay" signifies the accumulation, in the hands of individuals...claim upon or power over, the labor of others; every such claim implying precisely as much poverty or debt on one side, as it implies riches or right on the other.
It does not, therefore, necessarily involve an addition to the actual property, or well-being of the state in which it exists.(43)
Ruskin went on to explain that when there is too much accumulation of wealth in the hands of too few at the expense of many people, the political economy of the nation suffers, with many people living in misery and the prosperity of the nation falling into a state of decline and decay. Ruskin seemed to feel, however, that capitalism could be allowed to operate justly according to people's individual talents and classes if such operations were conducted in a fair and harmonious manner that allowed all people to prosper to a limited extent which would add greatly to the overall happiness and wealth of the nation.(44)
Ruskin's ideas were particularly applicable to India during the latter half of the nineteenth-century and in the early part of the twentieth-century. In India, the British rulers lived in luxury while they transported their profits from Indian resources and labor to England where the ruling classes lived in unjust luxury. In some areas of India, famines ensued because people were only allowed to produce certain crops or no crops at all so that prices could be held artificially high for certain products in England. Even in England, the lower classes were kept in conditions of poverty so that their labors could be cheaply bought, as occurred in the English textile industry. The end result was that both poor Indians and poor English suffered to enable the relatively few wealthy British to continue living in undue conspicuous luxury with much property and many servants at their disposal.
It must have been quite a shock for the young, idealistic Gandhi to study Ruskin. As was quoted earlier, Gandhi admitted that while he was a young man he viewed himself as a citizen of the British Empire and hoped to someday earn status as a full citizen of the Empire. However, later, in 1922, when he was tried and sentenced to six years in prison for spreading "disaffection" toward the British Empire, he demonstrated that he had seen and thoroughly understood the British capitalism that Ruskin had criticized in Unto This Last. In a powerful address to the court, Gandhi stated:
Little do town dwellers know how the semi-starved masses of India are slowly sinking into lifelessness. Little do they [Indian administrators] know that their miserable comfort represents the brokerage they get for the work they do for the foreign exploiter, that the profits and the brokerage are sucked from the masses. Little do they realize that the Government established by law in British India is carried on for this exploitation of the masses. No sophistry, no jugglery in figures can explain away the evidence that the skeletons in many villages present to the naked eye. I have no doubt whatsoever that both England and the town dwellers of India will have to answer, if there is a God above, for this crime against humanity which perhaps is unequaled in history.(45)
In this excerpt, Gandhi demonstrated that he thoroughly understood the British game plan, and that no stage show of British benevolence toward India would pacify Gandhi or India's masses. Ruskin's predictions in relation to uncontrolled oppressive capitalism were coming true as far as Gandhi was concerned, and the seeds that overly-greedy British capitalists had sown in India were about to produce a bitter harvest for the British Empire. In further consideration of Ruskin, in relation to Gandhi and in relation to non-violent resistance, it becomes increasingly clear what Gandhi had in mind with his non-violent resistance movement. India's masses were already suffering terribly because of British oppression and because the wealthy few in Britain and India were, in essence, hoarding India's wealth and were not reinvesting it in the country. Ruskin said, "an accumulation of wealth in the form of real property is of little use to its owner, unless he has commercial power over labor."(46) According to Ruskin, when the wealthy cannot command labor and cannot purchase the services of labor, their conspicuous wealth becomes essentially worthless because their purchasing power has declined and their goods and money are unwanted. No matter how great their fortunes, this leaves them in a relatively helpless position, sitting on what would, in different times, be considered fortunes, but unable to do anything with their property, their holdings deteriorating because of a shortage of labor and because they find themselves unable to maintain those holdings. In this discovery, they also discover that unless wealth is used to promote the prosperity of all, it is essentially worthless.(47)
Ruskin explained the above concept in Essay II of UntoThis Last and it gave Gandhi a major key in the formation of his philosophy and as a basis for his actions. He realized that he did not need to create a violent revolution in order to defeat the British administrators and capitalists who held the wealth of India. He only had to convince India's masses of already-impoverished citizens not to cooperate with the British or their administrators. Further, he had little to lose and India had little to lose economically because the British capitalists were draining India's resources and were giving little back. Any concessions India won from the British would be an improvement, but the greatest concession India might win would be Indian Independence. However his movement turned out, with the exception of bitter, violent rebellion and civil war with an accompanying large loss of life, India would gain because its resources would remain in India. According to Ruskin's political economic theory, all labor accomplished inside a nation, if its production is kept inside the nation, ultimately contributes to the overall wealth of the nation. According to this, India could not help but gain from disenfranchising the British capitalists who were robbing India of her resources and labors.
Gandhi's major difficulty lay in how to convince the diverse masses of India to muster the courage
to face down the British and their dependent Indian administrators and convince them that it was
not profitable for them to remain in India. With his deep spiritual nature and background, Gandhi
understood the power of spiritual faith. As was mentioned earlier, the Bhagavad-Gita, the epic
Hindu poem, teaches one to divorce himself or herself from material posessions and ordinary
affections and to go forward courageously in conquest of justice and Truth since human life exists
only by the will of God and for God's purposes. Jesus's example taught that repaying violence
with non-violence gives the believer tremendous spiritual power over oppressors, the kind of
power that had already brought down the violent Roman Empire. Tolstoy used
enlightenment-based reasoning combined with Christ's spiritual teachings to form a sound logical
basis against violence and in relation to the Biblical gospels. Hinduism and Buddhism both teach
that one must divorce himself or herself from the fearful and materialistic self in order to obtain
harmony, enlightenment and freedom of spirit. The Qu'ran also teaches forgiveness, courage and
faith in God's will and purposes as the only worthwhile pursuit for the believer. Gandhi, with his
considerable knowledge of spiritual matters and motivations, understood that human spirituality
could be employed by the masses of India to give them the courage to non-violently confront the
British oppressors and that John Ruskin's econmomic theories could be used to India's advantage
if the masses of India could devalue British wealth by refusing to serve the British and by
boycotting their products. Building a philosophy that could be understood by all Indians and
implementing an effective course of action was the monumental challenge that Gandhi faced, and
it was from the basic foundations discussed in this section that Gandhi formed his philosophy and
moved forward to challenge the British in order to gain Indian independence.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.