Let me explain what I mean by religion. It is not the
Hindu religion which I certainly prize above all other religions, but the
religion which transcends Hinduism, which changes one's very nature, which
binds one indissolubly to the truth within and which ever purifies. It is the
permanent element in human nature which counts no cost too great in order to
find full expression and which leaves the soul utterly restless until it has
found itself, known its Maker and appreciated the true correspondence between
the Maker and itself.[1]
By religion, I do not mean formal
religion, or customary religion, but that religion which underlies all
religions, which brings us face to face with our Maker. (MKG, p. 7)
My religion has no geographical limits. If I have a
living faith in it, it will transcend my love for India herself.[2]
Mine is not a religion of the
prison-house. It has room for the least among God's creation. But it is proof
against insolence, pride of race, religion or colour.[3]
There is undoubtedly a sense in which
the statement is true when I say that I hold my religion dearer than my country
and that, therefore, I am a Hindu first and nationalist after. I do not become
on that score a less nationalist than the best of them. I simply thereby imply
that the interests of my country are identical with those of my religion. Similarly
when I say that I prize my own salvation above everything else, above the
salvation of India, it does not mean that my personal salvation requires a
sacrifice of India's political or any other salvation. But it implies
necessarily that the two go together.[4]
This is the maxim of life which I have accepted,
namely, that no work done by any man, no matter how great he is, will really
prosper unless he has religious backing.[5]
I have abundant faith in my cause and
humanity. Indian humanity is no worse than any other; possibly it is better.
Indeed, the cause presumes faith in human nature. Dark though the path appears,
God will light it and guide my steps, if I have faith in His guidance and
humility enough to acknowledge my helplessness without that infallible
guidance.[6]
This may be considered to be quixotic,
but it is my firm faith that he who undertakes to do something in the name of
God, and in full faith in Him, even at the end of his days, does not work in
vain; and I am sure that the work I have undertaken is not mine, but is God's.[7]
That is dharma which is enjoined by the
holy books, followed by the sages, interpreted by the learned and which
appealed to the heart. The first three conditions must be fulfilled before the
fourth comes into operation. Thus one has no right to follow the precepts of an
ignorant man or a rascal even though they commend themselves to one. Rigorous
observance of harmlessness, non-enmity and renunciation are the first
requisites for a person to entitle him to lay down the law, i.e., dharma.[8]
Futility of Force
I have a deep conviction that no religion can be
sustained by brute force. On the contrary, those who take the sword always
perish by the sword.[9]
Religions, like nations, are being weighed in the
balance. That religion and that nation will be blotted out of the face of
earth, which pins its faith to injustice, untruth or violence.[10]
Morality
With me moral includes spiritual. …In my career as a
reformer, I have regarded everything from the moral standpoint. Whether I am
engaged in tackling a political question or a social or an economic one, the
moral side of it always obtrudes itself and it pervades my whole attitude. (H,
29-3-1935, p. 51)
There is no such thing as absolute morality for all
times. But there is a relative morality, which is absolute enough for imperfect
mortals that we are. Thus, it is absolutely immoral to drink spirituous liquors
except as medicine, in medicinal doses and under medical advice. Similarly, it
is absolutely wrong to see lustfully any woman other than one's wife. Both
these positions have been proved by cold reason. Counter-arguments have always
been advanced. They have been advanced against the very existence of God-the
Sum of all that Is. Faith that transcends reason is our only Rock of Ages. …My
faith has saved me and is still saving me from pitfalls. It has never betrayed
me. It has never been known to betray anyone.[11]
Diversity of Religion
In reality there are as many religions as there are
individuals. Religions are different roads converging upon the same point. What
does it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the same goal?
(ibid, p. 50)
I do not share the belief that there can or will be on
earth one religion. I am striving, therefore, to find a common factor and to
induce mutual tolerance.[12]
Basic Unity
The soul of religions is one, but it is encased in a
multitude of forms. The latter will persist to the end of time. Wise men will
ignore the outward crust and see the same soul living under a variety of
crusts.[13]
I believe that all the great religions of the world are true more or less. I
say 'more or less' because I believe that everything that the human hand
touches, by reason of the very fact that human beings are imperfect, becomes
imperfect. Perfection is the exclusive attribute of God and it is
indescribable, untranslatable. I do believe that it is possible for every human
being to become perfect even as God is perfect. It is necessary for us all to
aspire after perfection, but when that blessed state is attained, it becomes
indescribable, indefinable. And I therefore admit, in all humility, that even
the Vedas, the Koran and the Bible are imperfect word of God and, imperfect
beings that we are, swayed to and fro by a multitude of passions, it is
impossible for us even to understand this word of God in its fullness. (YI,
22-9-1927, p. 319)
I should love all the men-not only in India but in the
world-belonging to the different faiths, to become better people by contact
with one another, and if that happens, the world will be a much better place to
live in than it is today. I plead for the broadest toleration, and I am working
to that end. I ask people to examine every religion from the point of the
religionists themselves. I do not expect the India of my dream to develop one
religion, i.e., to be wholly Hindu, or wholly Christian, or wholly Mussalman,
but I want it to be wholly tolerant, with its religions working side by side
with one another.[14]
I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful
search and study and discussion with as many people as I could meet, that all
religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and that, whilst
I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism, from which it
logically follows that we should hold all as dear as our nearest kith and kin
and that we should make no distinction between them. (YI, 19-1-1928, p.22)
________________________________________
Belief in one God is the corner stone of all religions.
But I do not foresee a time when there would be only one religion on earth in
practice. In theory, since there is one God, there can be only one religion.
But in practice, no two persons I have known have had the same identical conception
of God. Therefore, there will, perhaps, always be different religions answering
to different temperaments and climatic conditions. (H, 2-2-1934, p. 8)
________________________________________
I believe in the fundamental truth of all great
religions of the world. I believe that they are all God-given, and I believe
that they were necessary for the people to whom these religions were revealed.
And I believe that, if only we could all of us read the scriptures of the
different faiths from the standpoint of the followers of those faiths, we
should find that they were at the bottom all one and were all helpful to one
another. (H, 16-12-1934, p. 5-6)
Religions are not for separating men from one another.
They are meant to bind them. (H, 8-6-1940, p. 157)
The Scriptures
For me the Vedas are divine and unwritten. 'The letter
killeth.' It is the spirit that giveth the light. And the spirit of the Vedas
is purity, truth, innocence, chastity, humility, simplicity, forgiveness,
godliness, and all that makes a man or woman noble and brave.[15]
I do not believe in the exclusive divinity of the
Vedas. I believe the Bible, the Koran and Zend Avesta to be as much divinely
inspired as the Vedas. My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to
accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired.....I decline to be
bound by an interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to
reason or moral sense.[16]
I am not a literalist. Therefore, I try to understand
the spirit of the various scriptures of the world. I apply the test of Truth
and ahimsa laid down by these very scriptures for interpretation. I reject what
is inconsistent with that test, and appropriate all that is consistent with it.
(YI, 27-8-1925, p. 293)
I have not been able to see any difference between the
Sermon on the Mount and the Bhagavad Gita. What the Sermon describes in a
graphic manner, the Bhagavad Gita reduces to a scientific formula. It may not
be a scientific book in the accepted sense of the term, but it has argued out
the law of love-the law of abandon, as I would call it-in a scientific manner.
The Sermon on the Mount gives the same law in wonderful language. The New
Testament gave me comfort and boundless joy, as it came after the repulsion
that parts of the Old had given me. Today, supposing I was deprived of the Gita
and forgot all its contents but had a copy of the Sermon, I should derive the
same joy from it as I do from the Gita.[17]
There is one thing in me and that is that I love to see
the bright side of things and not the seamy side, and so I can derive comfort
and inspiration from any great book of any great religion. I may not be able to
reproduce a single verse from the Gita or the New Testament; a Hindu child or
Christian child may be able to repeat the verses better; but those clever
children cannot deprive me of the assimilation that is in me today of the
spirit of the two books. (ibid)
One's experience, therefore, must be the final guide.
The written word undoubtedly helps, but even that has to be interpreted, and
when there are conflicting interpretations, the seeker is the final arbiter.[18]
I believe I have no superstition in me. Truth is not
truth merely because it is ancient. Nor is it necessarily to be regarded with
suspicion because it is ancient. There are some fundamentals of life, which may
not be lightly given up because they are difficult of enforcement in one's
life.[19]
Religious Instruction
If India is not to declare spiritual bankruptcy,
religious instruction of its youth must be held to be at least as necessary as
secular instruction. It is true that knowledge of religious books is no
equivalent of that of religion. But if we cannot have religion, we must be
satisfied with providing our boys and girls with what is next best. And whether
there is such instruction given in the schools or not, grown-up students must
cultivate the art of self-help about matters religious as about others. They
may start their own class just as they have their debating, and now, spinners'
clubs.[20]
I do not believe that the State can concern itself or cope with religious
education. I believe that religious education must be the sole concern of
religious associations. Do not mix up religion and ethics. I believe that
fundamental ethics is common to all religions. Teaching of fundamental ethics
is undoubtedly a function of the State. By religion I have not in mind
fundamental ethics but what goes by the name of denominationalism. We have
suffered enough from State-aided religion and a State Church. A society or a
group, which depends partly or wholly on State aid for the existence of its
religion, does not deserve, or, better still, does not have any religion worth
the name.[21]
A curriculum of religious instruction should include a
study of the tenets of faiths other than one's own. For this purpose the
students should be trained to cultivate the habit of understanding and
appreciating the doctrines of various great religions of the world in a spirit
of reverence and broad-minded tolerance.[22]
--- By M. K. Gandhi
[1] (YI,
12-5-1920, p. 2)
[2] (YI,
11-8-1920, p. 4)
[3] (YI,
1-6-1921, p. 171)
[4] (YI,
23-2-1922, p. 123)
[5] (SW,
pp. 377-8)
[6] (YI,
27-11-1924, p. 391)
[7] (H,
1-3-1935, p. 24)
[8] (H,
17-11-1946, p. 397)
[9] (H,
9-3-1934, p. 29)
[10] (H,
12-9-1936, p. 247)
[11] (H,
23-12-1939, p. 387)
[12] (YI,
31-7-1924, p. 254)
[13] (YI,
25-9-1924, p. 318)
[14] (YI,
22-12-1927, p. 425)
[15] (YI,
19-1-1921, p. 22)
[16] (YI,
6-10-1921, p. 317)
[17] (YI,
22-12-1927, p. 426)
[18] (H,
22-12-1933, p. 3)
[19] (H,
14-3-1936, p. 36)
[20] (YI,
25-8-1927, p. 272)
[21] (H,
23-3-1947, p. 76)
[22] (YI,
6-12-1928, p406)
