" May the New Year bring prosperity and happiness."
- M.K. Gandhi
Prayer Meeting,
December 24,1947.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
From the Pages of History
Gandhiji issued a call to the nation to observe 'Hartal' against the Rowlatt Act which was also known as Black Act, on April 6 1919.
BLACK SUNDAY
GREAT POPULAR DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE BLACK ACT
The following is the programme of the demonstrations which
have been arranged for Sunday next:
SUNDAY, 6TH APRIL, 1919
SEA BATH 7 A.M.—8 A.M. CHOWPATTY
PROCESSION 8.15—10 A.M.:
Chowpatty Sea Face Girgaum Back Road
Sandhurst Bridge C. P. Tank Road
Sandhurst Road Madhav Baug
3.30—LADIES’ MEETING,
CHINA BAUG,
Mrs. Jayakar Presiding.
Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, Mahatma Gandhi: Speakers,
6.30—MASS MEETING—FRENCH BRIDGE
* **
IF YOU VALUE YOUR FREEDOM, YOU WILL JOIN
The Bombay Chronicle, 4-4-1919
CWMG Vol 15:177
Monday, November 15, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Gandhi and Rumi
Here is a very interesting and significant article by Ramchandra Guha which was published in The Telegraph, Calcutta, dt 25 September 2010.
FAITH, CYNICAL AND SUBLIME
- How would Rumi and Gandhi have resolved the Ayodhya dispute?
POLITICS AND PLAY: Ramachandra guha
In the spring of 1907, the London publisher, John Murray, published a book on Persian mystics by one F. Hadland Davis. The book appeared in a series called “The Wisdom of the East”, whose editors desired their publications to be “ambassadors of good-will and understanding between East and West, the old world of Thought, and the new of Action”. Through the books in the series, it was hoped that the Western (and Christian) reader would acquire “a deeper knowledge of the great ideals and lofty philosophy of Oriental thought [which] may help to a revival of that true spirit of Charity which neither despises nor fears the nations of another creed and colour”.
One of the first readers of the book was an Easterner educated in the West, Mohandas K. Gandhi. Then based in Johannesburg, Gandhi may have acquired the book from a local store, or perhaps ordered it from London. At any rate, he was deeply impressed, writing about it in Indian Opinion, the journal he then edited. Of the mystics whom Hadland Davis had profiled, Gandhi was charmed most by Jalaluddin Rumi, who aspired to “a pure heart and love of God”. Gandhi quotes Rumi saying, when asked where one could find god, “I saw the Cross and also Christians, but I did not find God on the Cross. I went to find him in the temple, but in vain. I saw him neither in Herat nor in Kandahar. He could be found neither on the hill nor in the cave. At last, I looked into my heart and found Him there, only there and nowhere else.” Gandhi ended his review by saying that he would “like to recommend the book to everyone. It will be of profit to all, Hindus and Muslims alike”.
Gandhi’s meditation on Rumi was published in June, 1907. That November, the Gujarati New Year, Nutan Varsh, fell on the same day as the great Muslim festival, Eid. Gandhi used this coincidence to offer a brief homily on the significance of inter-faith understanding. “If the people of different religions grasp the real significance of their own religion,” he wrote, “they will never hate the people of any religion other than their own. As Jalaluddin Rumi has said or as Shri Krishna said to Arjun, there are many rivers, and they appear different from one another, but they all meet in the ocean.”
A hundred years ago, Jalaluddin Rumi was known only to the specialist, but because of the efforts of more recent translators and publicists this 13th-century mystic is — according to an article in a recent issue of the Times Literary Supplement — the most widely read poet in America today. As it happens, after those two occasions in 1907, Gandhi did not write about the Sufi mystic again. However, the lesson he took from Rumi he upheld and affirmed all his life.
Twenty-five years after his review of Hadland Davis’s Persian Mystics, Gandhi received an anguished letter from an English disciple named Verrier Elwin. A licensed priest of the Church of England, Elwin was threatened by his bishop with excommunication, because he refused to take the Gospel to the Gond tribals he then lived with. The priest had learnt from Gandhi that there were many paths to god; while he himself had chosen the one laid down by Christ, he would permit the tribals to follow the road of their ancestors. The bishop vehemently disagreed, saying that Jesus commanded his followers to make Christians of unbelievers.
Faced with expulsion from his Church, Elwin wrote to Gandhi for advice. The Mahatma asked him not to take to heart what the bishop had told him, since the message of Jesus was “in the main denied in the churches, whether Roman or English”. Even if he was thrown out of the Church of England, he could remain a Christian according to his own lights. For, as Gandhi consolingly told the confused young man, “Your pulpit is the whole earth. The blue sky is the roof of your own church.”
This last piece of advice is highly pertinent to the once very intense, then moribund, and now revived dispute in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya. For Jalaluddin Rumi and Mohandas K. Gandhi did not need structures of marble and stone to find god in. Nor should we. One can be good, godly and devout without ever entering a temple or mosque or church.
Twenty-four years have passed since the locks were opened in the makeshift shrine to Ram; 21 since L.K. Advani led a blood-soaked ‘rath yatra’; 18 since the Babri Masjid was brought down by a mob. In this time, a generation of Indians has come of age with no memories of the dispute that once polarized the country. Do we need to open the wounds again? When asked this question by a visiting journalist earlier this month, a student in Ayodhya answered by saying that he hoped that instead of a temple or a mosque, a hospital would come up on the disputed site.
Before and after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, various suggestions were offered on how to put an end to the controversy. A well-meaning Gandhian suggested a multi-faith centre. Another gave this idea more specificity; we should, he said, build a “Ram-Rahim Darwaza”, a large archway signifying openness and dialogue. The proposal of the young student is as noble as any other, and perhaps more practical. What could be more meaningful than a structure tending to the poor, the sick and the wounded in a place whose mythic and historic resonances once provoked riot and mass murder in the name of faith?
This week the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court was to decide who owned the title-suit to the site in Ayodhya. The court’s sitting has now been postponed; however, whatever its decision, the matter will surely be taken by one or other party to the Supreme Court. The arguments will drag on. The sangh parivar will insist that a grand Ram temple come up on the site. Muslim extremists will argue that the Babri Masjid must be rebuilt.
In my view, rather than leave the matter to the courts, the Central government should intervene decisively to end the dispute. Under the Land Acquisition Act, the State can acquire property from individuals and communities in the name of the “public purpose”. This act has been grossly abused in the recent past, to allow private companies to grab land owned by peasants and tribals. (The conflicts at Singur, Nandigram, Kashipur and Niyamgiri were all sparked by the misuse of this act.) Here now is a chance for the State to redeem itself and simultaneously to put an end to this religious — or shall we say pseudo-religious — controversy. Nothing would serve the “public purpose” better than if the government of India was to acquire the land being fought over in Ayodhya, clear it of intruders, and build a new, well-equipped and adequately staffed hospital for the residents of the town.
Mahatma Gandhi was the greatest Ram bhakt since Tulsidas; yet once he had reached adulthood, he never entered a Ram temple (or any other). Jalaluddin Rumi turned away — or was turned back — from the mosques in Herat and Kandahar. Both men knew that the path to god was independent of physical structures and self-appointed preachers. Had they been alive, I think Gandhi and Rumi would both have approved of a hospital being built at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
ramachandraguha@yahoo.in
FAITH, CYNICAL AND SUBLIME
- How would Rumi and Gandhi have resolved the Ayodhya dispute?
POLITICS AND PLAY: Ramachandra guha
In the spring of 1907, the London publisher, John Murray, published a book on Persian mystics by one F. Hadland Davis. The book appeared in a series called “The Wisdom of the East”, whose editors desired their publications to be “ambassadors of good-will and understanding between East and West, the old world of Thought, and the new of Action”. Through the books in the series, it was hoped that the Western (and Christian) reader would acquire “a deeper knowledge of the great ideals and lofty philosophy of Oriental thought [which] may help to a revival of that true spirit of Charity which neither despises nor fears the nations of another creed and colour”.
One of the first readers of the book was an Easterner educated in the West, Mohandas K. Gandhi. Then based in Johannesburg, Gandhi may have acquired the book from a local store, or perhaps ordered it from London. At any rate, he was deeply impressed, writing about it in Indian Opinion, the journal he then edited. Of the mystics whom Hadland Davis had profiled, Gandhi was charmed most by Jalaluddin Rumi, who aspired to “a pure heart and love of God”. Gandhi quotes Rumi saying, when asked where one could find god, “I saw the Cross and also Christians, but I did not find God on the Cross. I went to find him in the temple, but in vain. I saw him neither in Herat nor in Kandahar. He could be found neither on the hill nor in the cave. At last, I looked into my heart and found Him there, only there and nowhere else.” Gandhi ended his review by saying that he would “like to recommend the book to everyone. It will be of profit to all, Hindus and Muslims alike”.
Gandhi’s meditation on Rumi was published in June, 1907. That November, the Gujarati New Year, Nutan Varsh, fell on the same day as the great Muslim festival, Eid. Gandhi used this coincidence to offer a brief homily on the significance of inter-faith understanding. “If the people of different religions grasp the real significance of their own religion,” he wrote, “they will never hate the people of any religion other than their own. As Jalaluddin Rumi has said or as Shri Krishna said to Arjun, there are many rivers, and they appear different from one another, but they all meet in the ocean.”
A hundred years ago, Jalaluddin Rumi was known only to the specialist, but because of the efforts of more recent translators and publicists this 13th-century mystic is — according to an article in a recent issue of the Times Literary Supplement — the most widely read poet in America today. As it happens, after those two occasions in 1907, Gandhi did not write about the Sufi mystic again. However, the lesson he took from Rumi he upheld and affirmed all his life.
Twenty-five years after his review of Hadland Davis’s Persian Mystics, Gandhi received an anguished letter from an English disciple named Verrier Elwin. A licensed priest of the Church of England, Elwin was threatened by his bishop with excommunication, because he refused to take the Gospel to the Gond tribals he then lived with. The priest had learnt from Gandhi that there were many paths to god; while he himself had chosen the one laid down by Christ, he would permit the tribals to follow the road of their ancestors. The bishop vehemently disagreed, saying that Jesus commanded his followers to make Christians of unbelievers.
Faced with expulsion from his Church, Elwin wrote to Gandhi for advice. The Mahatma asked him not to take to heart what the bishop had told him, since the message of Jesus was “in the main denied in the churches, whether Roman or English”. Even if he was thrown out of the Church of England, he could remain a Christian according to his own lights. For, as Gandhi consolingly told the confused young man, “Your pulpit is the whole earth. The blue sky is the roof of your own church.”
This last piece of advice is highly pertinent to the once very intense, then moribund, and now revived dispute in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya. For Jalaluddin Rumi and Mohandas K. Gandhi did not need structures of marble and stone to find god in. Nor should we. One can be good, godly and devout without ever entering a temple or mosque or church.
Twenty-four years have passed since the locks were opened in the makeshift shrine to Ram; 21 since L.K. Advani led a blood-soaked ‘rath yatra’; 18 since the Babri Masjid was brought down by a mob. In this time, a generation of Indians has come of age with no memories of the dispute that once polarized the country. Do we need to open the wounds again? When asked this question by a visiting journalist earlier this month, a student in Ayodhya answered by saying that he hoped that instead of a temple or a mosque, a hospital would come up on the disputed site.
Before and after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, various suggestions were offered on how to put an end to the controversy. A well-meaning Gandhian suggested a multi-faith centre. Another gave this idea more specificity; we should, he said, build a “Ram-Rahim Darwaza”, a large archway signifying openness and dialogue. The proposal of the young student is as noble as any other, and perhaps more practical. What could be more meaningful than a structure tending to the poor, the sick and the wounded in a place whose mythic and historic resonances once provoked riot and mass murder in the name of faith?
This week the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court was to decide who owned the title-suit to the site in Ayodhya. The court’s sitting has now been postponed; however, whatever its decision, the matter will surely be taken by one or other party to the Supreme Court. The arguments will drag on. The sangh parivar will insist that a grand Ram temple come up on the site. Muslim extremists will argue that the Babri Masjid must be rebuilt.
In my view, rather than leave the matter to the courts, the Central government should intervene decisively to end the dispute. Under the Land Acquisition Act, the State can acquire property from individuals and communities in the name of the “public purpose”. This act has been grossly abused in the recent past, to allow private companies to grab land owned by peasants and tribals. (The conflicts at Singur, Nandigram, Kashipur and Niyamgiri were all sparked by the misuse of this act.) Here now is a chance for the State to redeem itself and simultaneously to put an end to this religious — or shall we say pseudo-religious — controversy. Nothing would serve the “public purpose” better than if the government of India was to acquire the land being fought over in Ayodhya, clear it of intruders, and build a new, well-equipped and adequately staffed hospital for the residents of the town.
Mahatma Gandhi was the greatest Ram bhakt since Tulsidas; yet once he had reached adulthood, he never entered a Ram temple (or any other). Jalaluddin Rumi turned away — or was turned back — from the mosques in Herat and Kandahar. Both men knew that the path to god was independent of physical structures and self-appointed preachers. Had they been alive, I think Gandhi and Rumi would both have approved of a hospital being built at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
ramachandraguha@yahoo.in
Sunday, September 5, 2010
DISCOURSES
[The following are the two discourses sent by Gandhiji to members of his Ashram at Sabarmati, from Yerawada Jail]
[The following are the two discourses sent by Gandhiji to members of his Ashram at Sabarmati, from Yerawada Jail]
First Discourse
I run to my Mother Gita whenever I find myself in difficulties, and up to now she has never failed to comfort me. It is possible that those, who are getting comfort from the Gita, may get greater help, and see something altogether new, if they come to know the way in which I understand it from day to day.
I run to my Mother Gita whenever I find myself in difficulties, and up to now she has never failed to comfort me. It is possible that those, who are getting comfort from the Gita, may get greater help, and see something altogether new, if they come to know the way in which I understand it from day to day.
This day I feel like giving a summary of the twelfth chapter. It is Bhaktiyoga - realization of God through devotion. At the time of marriage we ask the bridal couple to learn this chapter by heart and meditate upon it, as one of the life sacrifices to be performed. Without devotion, action and knowledge are cold and dry, and may even become shackles. So, with the heart full of love, let us approach this meditation on the Gita.
Arjuna asks of the Lord: ?Which is the better of the two, the devotee who worships the Manifest or the one who worships the Unmanifest?? The Lord says in reply: ?Those who meditate on the Manifest in full faith, and lose themselves in me, those faithful ones are My devotees. But those who worship the Unmanifest, and who, in order to do so, restrain all their senses, look upon and serve all alike, regarding none as high or low, those also realize Me.?
So it cannot be affirmed that one is superior to the other. But it may be counted as impossible for an embodied being fully to comprehend and adore the Unmanifest. The unmanifest is attributeless, and is beyond the reach of human vision. Therefore all embodied beings, consciously or unconsciously, are devotees of the Manifest.
?So,? saith the Lord, ?let thy mind be merged in My Universal Body, which has form. Offer thy all at His feet. But if thou cannot do this, practise the restraint of the passions of thy mind. By observing yama and niyama with the help of pranayama, asana and other practices, bring the mind under control. If thou canst not do thus, then perform all thy works with this in mind: that whatever work thou undertakest, that thou dost for My sake.
Thus thy worldly infatuations and attachments will fade away, and gradually thou wilt become stainless and pure. The fountain of love will rise in thee. But if thou canst not do even this, then renounce the fruit of all thy actions; yearn no more after the fruits of thy work. Ever do that work which falls to thy lot. Man cannot be master over the fruits of his work. The fruit of work appears only after causes have combined to form it. Therefore be thou only the instrument. Do not regard as superior or inferior any of these four methods which I have shown unto thee. Whatever, in them, is suitable for thee, that make thou use of in thy practice of devotion.
?It seems that the path of hearing, meditating and comprehending, may be easier than the path of yama, niyama, pranayama and asana, to which I have referred; easier than that may be concentration and worship; and again easier than concentration may be renunciation of the fruits of works. The same method cannot be equally easy for every one; some may have to turn for help to all these methods. They are certainly intermixed or in any case thou wishest to be a devotee. Achieve that goal by whatever method thou canst.
My part is simply to tell thee whom to count a true devotee. A devotee hates no one; bears no grudge against any one; befriends all creatures; is merciful to all. To accomplish this he eliminates all personal attachments; his ego is dissolved and he becomes as nothing; for him grief and happiness are one; he forgives those who trespass against himself, as he hungers for forgiveness from the world for his own faults; he dwells in contentment; he is firm in his good resolves; he surrenders to Me his mind, his intellect, his all.
He never causes in other beings trouble or fear, himself knowing no trouble or fear through others. My devotee is free from joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain. He has no desires, he is pure, skilful and wise. He has renounced all ambitious undertakings. He stands by his resolves, renouncing their good or bad fruit; he remains unconcerned. Such a one knows not enemies or friends, is beyond honour or disgrace.
?In peace and silence, contented with whatever may come his way, he lives inwardly as if alone, and always remains calm no matter what may be going on around him. One who lives in this manner, full of faith, he is My ?beloved devotee.?
Second Discourse
The Gita is a small portion of the Mahabharat. The Mahabharat is considered to be a historical work but, for us, both the Mahabharat and the Ramayan are not historical works, but religious works, or rather, if we call them histories, they are the histories of the soul. And it is not the description of what happened thousands of years ago, but it is the picture of what is going on in every human breast today. In both the Ramayan and the Mahabharat there is the description of the battle that is daily going on between the Gods and the Demons, between Ram and Ravan.
Second Discourse
The Gita is a small portion of the Mahabharat. The Mahabharat is considered to be a historical work but, for us, both the Mahabharat and the Ramayan are not historical works, but religious works, or rather, if we call them histories, they are the histories of the soul. And it is not the description of what happened thousands of years ago, but it is the picture of what is going on in every human breast today. In both the Ramayan and the Mahabharat there is the description of the battle that is daily going on between the Gods and the Demons, between Ram and Ravan.
The dialogue in the Gita between Shri Krishna and Arjun is one such description. Sanjay, before the blind Dhritarashtra, recites that dialogue. Gita means ?sung?. Here the word Upanishad is understood, so the complete meaning is, an ?Upanishad that is sung.? Upanishad means knowledge - instruction. Thus the Gita means the teachings of Shri Krishna to Arjun. We should read the Gita with the realization that the Inward Seer, Lord Krishna, is ever present in our breasts, and that, whenever we, becoming as Arjuna in his desire for knowledge, turn to Him, He is ever ready to shelter us. We are asleep, the Inward Seer is always awake. He is awaiting the wakening of desire for knowledge in us. We do not know how to ask. We are not even inclined to ask.
Therefore we daily contemplate a book like the Gita. We wish to create in ourselves a desire for religious knowledge - a desire to learn spiritual enquiry, while meditating on it. Whenever under stress we hasten to the Gita for relief and obtain consolation, it is at once for us a Teacher - a Mother. And we must have faith that with our head in her lap we shall always remain safe. The Gita shall unravel all our spiritual tangles. Those who will meditate on the Gita in this way will derive fresh joy and new meanings from it every day. There is not a single spiritual tangle which the Gita cannot unravel. It is a different thing, if, on account of our insufficient faith, we do not know how to read and understand it. We daily recite the Gita in order that our faith may continually increase and that we may be ever wakeful. I am giving here the substance of what meanings I have obtained, and am still obtaining, from such meditations of the Gita, for the help of the inmates of the Ashram.
When the Pandavs and the Kauravs, with their armies, stand on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, then Duryodhan, the leader of the Kauravs, describes to the teacher Drona the principal warriors of both sides. As both the armies prepare for the battle, their conches are blown, and Lord Shri Krishna, who is Arjuna?s charioteer, drives up their chariot between the two armies.
On seeing this Arjuna becomes agitated, and says to Shri Krishna: ?How can I fight these men? Had they been other persons I would have fought with them forthwith. But these are my people, mine own! Where is the difference between the Kauravs and the Pandavs? They are first cousins. We were brought up together. Drona can hardly be called the teacher of the Kauravas alone. It was he who taught us all the sciences. Bhishma is the head of our whole family. How can there be a fight with him?
True the Kauravas are murderous; they have done many evil deeds, many inequities; they have deprived the Pandavas of their land; they have insulted a great and faithful woman like Draupadi. All this is their fault indeed, but what good can come of killing them? They are without understanding. Why should I behave like them? I at least have some knowledge.
I can discriminate between good and evil; so I must know that to fight one?s relatives is sinful. What does it matter that they have swallowed up the family share of the Pandavas? Let them kill us. How can we raise our hands against them? Oh Krishna! I will not fight these relatives of mine.? So saying Arjuna collapses in his chariot.
In this way, the first chapter closes. It is called Arjun-vishada-yoga. Vishada means distress. We have to experience such distress as Arjun experienced. Knowledge cannot be obtained without spiritual anguish and thirst for knowledge. What good can religious discourses be to a man who does not feel in his mind even so much as a desire to know what is good and what is bad.
The battle-field of Kurukshetra is only by the way; the true Kurukshetra is our body. It is at once the Kurukshetra and Dharmakshetra. If we regard it as and make it, the abode of God, it is the Dharmakshetra. In this battlefield lies one battle or another always before us, and most of such battles arise out of the ideas, ?this is mine, this is thine.? Such battles arise out of the difference between ?my people and thy people?.
Hence the Lord will later on tell Arjun that the root of all irreligion is attachment and aversion. Believe a thing to be ?mine?, and attachment is created for it. Believe a thing to be ?not mine?, and aversion is created - enmity is created. The Gita and all the other religious books of the world proclaim to us that the difference between mine and thine should be forgotten. That is to say attachment and aversion should be relinquished. It is one thing to say this, and it is another thing to act according to it. The Gita teaches us to act according to it also.
Krishna & Geeta - Swamiji (SB)
Krishna and the Gita
[The following is a summary of a speech delivered by Gandhiji at Arsikere in Mysore State]
We do not know what Shri Krishna?s life means for us, we do not read the Gita, we make no attempt to teach it to our children. The Gita is such a transcendental book that men of every creed, age and clime may read it with respect, and find in it the principles of their respective religions. If we thought of Krishna on every Janmashtami day and read the Gita and resolved to follow its teachings, we should not be in our present sorry plight.
Shri Krishna served the people all his life; he was a real servant of the people. He could have led the hosts at Kurukshetra, but he preferred to be Arjuna?s charioteer. His whole life was one unbroken Gita of karma. He refused proud Duryodhana?s sweets and preferred humble Vidura?s spinach. As a child he was cowherd and we still know him by the name of Gopala. But we, his worshippers, have neglected and cow today, the Adi-Karnatakas, slaughter cows and eat beef, and our infants and invalids have to grow without cow?s milk.
Krishna knew no sleep or idleness. He kept sleepless vigil of the world, we his posterity have become indolent and forgotten the use of our hands. In the Bhagwadgita Lord Krishna has shown the path of bhakti - which means the path of karma. Lokmanya Tilak has shown the path of bhakti-which means the path of karma.
Lokmanya Tilak has shown that whether we desire to be bhaktas or jnanis, karma is the only way; but the karma should not be for self but for others. Action for one?s own self binds, action for the sake of others delivers from bondage. What can be the altruistic action which can be universally done, by Hindus, Mussulmans, Christians, by men, women and children? I have tried to demonstrate that spinning alone is that sacrificial act, for that alone can make us do something in God?s name, something for the poorest, something that can infuse activity in their idle limbs.
Lord Krishna has also taught that to be a true bhakta we should make no difference between a brahmana and a scavenger. If that is true, there can be no place for untouchability in Hinduism. If you are still hugging that superstition, you can cleanse yourself by getting rid of it on this the sacred day of Krishna?s birth. He who swears by the Gita may know no distinction between Hindu and Mussulman, for Lord Krishna has declared that he who adores God in a true spirit by whatsoever name adores Him. The path of bhakti, karma, love as expounded in the Gita, leaves no room for the despising of man by man.
Young India, 1-9-27
Young India, 1-9-27
THE MESSAGE OF THE A HOLLY BOOK - swami(SB)
THE MESSAGE OF THE GITA (Holy Book of the Hindus)
We present here Gandhiji?s message on the Bhagvad Gita in his own words.
We present here Gandhiji?s message on the Bhagvad Gita in his own words.
1. Even in 1888-89, when I first became acquainted with the Gita, I felt that it was not a historical work, but that under the guise of physical warfare, it described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts of mankind, and that physical warfare was brought in merely to make the description of the internal duel more alluring. This preliminary intuition became more confirmed on a closer study of religion and the Gita.
A study of the Mahabharata as a historical work in the accepted sense. The Adiparva contains powerful evidence in support of my opinion. By ascribing to the chief actors superhuman or subhuman origins, the great Vyasa made short work of the history of kings and their peoples. The persons therein described may be historical, but the author of the Mahabharata has used them merely to drive home his religious theme.
2. The author of the Mahabharata has not established the necessity of physical warfare; on the contrary he has proved its futility. He has made the victors shed tears of sorrow and repentance, and has left them nothing but a legacy of miseries.
3. In this great work the Gita is the crown. Its second chapter, instead to teaching the rules of physical warfare, tells us how a perfected man is to be known. In the characteristics of the perfected man of the Gita, I do not see any to correspond to physical warfare. Its whole design is inconsistent with the rules of conduct governing the relations between warring parties.
4. Krishna of the Gita is perfection and right knowledge personified; but the picture is imaginary. That does not mean that Krishna, the adored Darling of his people, never lived. But perfection is imagined. The idea of a perfect incarnation is an aftergrowth.
5. In Hinduism, incarnation is ascribed to one who has performed some extraordinary service of mankind. All embodied life is in reality an incarnation of God, but it is not usual to consider every living being an incarnation. Future generations pay this homage to one who, in his own generation, has been extraordinarily religious in his conduct.
I can see nothing wrong in this procedure; it takes nothing from God?s greatness, and there is no violence done to Truth. There is an Urdu saying which means, ?Adam is not God but he is a spark of the Divine.? And therefore he who is the most religiously behaved has most of the divine spark in him. It is in accordance with this train of thought that Krishna enjoys, in Hinduism, the status of the most perfect incarnation.
6. This belief in incarnation is a testimony of man?s lofty spiritual ambition. Man is not at peace with himself till he has become like unto God. The endeavor to reach this state is the supreme, the only ambition worth having. And this is self-realization. This self-realization is the subject of the Gita, as it is of all scriptures. But its author surely did not write it to establish that doctrine. The object of the Gita appears to me to be that of showing the most excellent way to attain self-realization. That which is to be found, more or less clearly, spread out here and there in Hindu religious books, has been brought out in the clearest possible language in the Gita even at the risk of repetition.
7. That matchless remedy is renunciation of the fruits of action.
8. This is the centre round which the Gita is woven. This renunciation is the central sun, round which devotion, knowledge and the rest revolve like planets. The body has been likened to a prison. There must be action where there is body. Not one embodied being is exempted from labour. And yet all religions proclaim that it is possible for man, by treating the body as the temple of God, to attain freedom. Every action is tainted, be it ever so trivial.
How can the body be made the temple of God? In other words how can one be free from action, i.e. from the taint of sin? The Gita has answered the question in decisive language: ?By desireless action; by renouncing the fruits of action; by dedicating all activities to God, i.e. by surrendering oneself to Him body and soul.?
How can the body be made the temple of God? In other words how can one be free from action, i.e. from the taint of sin? The Gita has answered the question in decisive language: ?By desireless action; by renouncing the fruits of action; by dedicating all activities to God, i.e. by surrendering oneself to Him body and soul.?
9. But desirelessness or renunciation does not come for the mere talking about it. It is not attained by an intellectual feat. It is attainable only by a constant heartchurn. Right knowledge is necessary for attaining renunciation. Learned men possess a knowledge of a kind. They may recite the Vedas from memory, yet they may be steeped in self-indulgence. In order that knowledge may not run riot, the author of the Gita has insisted on devotion accompanying it and has given it the first place. Knowledge without devotion will be like a misfire. Therefore, says the Gita, ?Have devotion, and knowledge will follow.? This devotion is not mere lip-worship, it is a wresting with death. Hence the Gita?s assessment of the devotee?s qualities is similar to that of the sage?s.
10. Thus the devotion required by the Gita is no soft-hearted effusiveness. It certainly is not blind faith. The devotion of the Gita has the least to do with externals. A devotee may use, if he likes, rosaries, forehead marks, make offerings, but these things are no test of his devotion.
He is the devotee who is jealous of none, who is a fount of mercy, who is without egotism, who is selfless, who treats alike cold and heat, happiness and misery, who is ever forgiving, who is always content, whose resolutions are firm, who has dedicated mind and soul to God, who causes no dread, who is not afraid of others, who is free from exultation, sorrow and fear, who is pure, who is versed in action and yet remains unaffected by it, who renounces all fruit good or bad, who treats friend and foe alike, who is untouched by respect or disrespect, who is not puffed up by praise, who does not go under when people speak ill of him, who loves silence and solitude, who has a disciplined reason. Such devotion is inconsistent with the existence at the same time of strong attachments.
He is the devotee who is jealous of none, who is a fount of mercy, who is without egotism, who is selfless, who treats alike cold and heat, happiness and misery, who is ever forgiving, who is always content, whose resolutions are firm, who has dedicated mind and soul to God, who causes no dread, who is not afraid of others, who is free from exultation, sorrow and fear, who is pure, who is versed in action and yet remains unaffected by it, who renounces all fruit good or bad, who treats friend and foe alike, who is untouched by respect or disrespect, who is not puffed up by praise, who does not go under when people speak ill of him, who loves silence and solitude, who has a disciplined reason. Such devotion is inconsistent with the existence at the same time of strong attachments.
11. We thus see, that to be a real devotee is to realize oneself. Self-realization is not something apart. One rupee can purchase for us poison or nectar, but knowledge or devotion cannot buy us either salvation or bondage. These are not media of exchange. They are themselves the thing we want. In other words if the means and the end are not identical, they are almost so. The extreme of means is salvation. Salvation of the Gita is perfect peace.
12. But such knowledge and devotion, to be true, have to stand the test of renunciation of fruits of action. Mere knowledge of right and wrong will not make one fit for salvation. According to common notions, a mere learned man will pass as a pandit. He need not perform any service. He will regard it as bondage even to lift a little lota. Where one test of knowledge is non-liability for service, there is no room for such mundane work as the lifting of a lota.
13. Or take bhakti. The popular notion of bhakti is soft-heartedness, telling beads and the like and disdaining to do even a loving service, lest the telling of beads etc. might be interrupted. This bhakta therefore leaves the rosary only for eating, drinking and the like, never for grinding corn or nursing patients.
14. But the Gita says: ?No one has attained his goal without action. Even men like Janak attained salvation through action. If even I were lazily to cease working, the world would perish. How much more necessary then for the people at large to engage in action??
15. While on the one hand it is beyond dispute that all action binds, on the other hand it is equally true that all living beings have to do some work whether they will or not. Here all activity, whether mental or physical, is to be included in the term action. Then how is one to be free from the bondage of action, even though he may be acting? The manner in which the Gita has solved the problem is, to my knowledge, unique. The Gita says: ?Do your allotted work but renounce its fruit - be detached and work - have no desire for reward and work.?
15. While on the one hand it is beyond dispute that all action binds, on the other hand it is equally true that all living beings have to do some work whether they will or not. Here all activity, whether mental or physical, is to be included in the term action. Then how is one to be free from the bondage of action, even though he may be acting? The manner in which the Gita has solved the problem is, to my knowledge, unique. The Gita says: ?Do your allotted work but renounce its fruit - be detached and work - have no desire for reward and work.?
This is the unmistakable teaching of the Gita. He who gives up action, falls. He who gives up only the reward rises. But renunciation of fruit in no way means indifference to the result. In regard to every action one must know the result that is accepted to follow, the means thereto, and the capacity for it. He, who, being thus equipped, is without desire for the result, and is yet wholly engrossed in the due fulfilment of the task before him, is said to have renounced the fruits of his action.
16. Again, let no one consider renunciation to mean want of fruit for the renouncer. The Gita reading does not warrant such a meaning. Renunciation means absence of hankering after fruit. As a matter of fact, he who renounces reaps a thousand fold. The renunciation of the Gita is the acid test of faith. He who is ever brooding over result often loses nerve in the performance of his duty.
He becomes impatient and then gives vent to anger and begins to do unworthy things; he jumps from action to action, never remaining faithful to any. He who broods over results is like a man given to objects of senses; he is ever distracted, he says goodbye to all scruples, everything is right in his estimation and he therefore resorts to means fair and foul to attain his end.
17. From the bitter experiences of desire for fruit the author of the Gita discovered the path of renunciation of fruit, and put it before the world in a most convincing manner. The common belief is that religion is always opposed to material good. ?One cannot act religiously in mercantile and such other matters. There is no place for religion in such pursuits; religion is only for attainment of salvation,? we hear many wordly-wise people say.
In my opinion the author of the Gita has dispelled this delusion. He has drawn no line of demarcation between salvation and worldly pursuits. On the contrary, he has shown that religion must rule even our worldly pursuits. I have felt that the Gita preaches us that what cannot be followed out in day-to-day practice cannot be called religion.
Thus, according to the Gita, all acts that are incapable of being performed without attachment are taboo. This golden rule saves mankind from many a pitfall. According to this interpretation, murder, lying dissoluteness and the like must be regarded as sinful and therefore taboo. Man?s life then becomes simple, and from that simpleness springs peace.
18. Thinking along these lines, I have felt that in trying to enforce in one?s life the central teaching of the Gita, one is bound to follow truth and ahimsa. When there is no desire for fruit, there is no temptation for untruth or ahimsa. Take any instance of untruth or violence, and it will be found that at its back was the desire to attain the cherished end. But it may be freely admitted that the Gita was not written to establish ahimsa. It was an accepted and primary duty even before the Gita age. The Gita had to deliver the message of renunciation of fruit. This is clearly brought out as early as the second chapter.
19. But if the Gita believed in ahimsa or it was included in desirelessness, why did the author take a warlike illustration? When the Gita was written, although people believed in ahimsa, wars were not only not taboo, but nobody observed the contradiction between them and ahimsa.
20. In assessing the implications of renunciation of fruit, we are not required to probe the mind of the author of the Gita as to his limitations of ahimsa and the like. Because a poet puts a particular truth before the world, it does not necessarily follow that he has known or worked out all its great consequences, or that having done so, he is able always to express them fully. In this perhaps lies the greatness of the poem and the poet. A poet?s meaning is limitless.
Like man, the meaning of great writings suffers evolution. On examining the history of languages, we notice that the meaning of important words has changed or expanded. This is true of the Gita. The author has himself extended the meanings of some of the current words. We are able to discover this even on a superficial examination. It is possible, that in the age prior to that of the Gita, offering of animals in sacrifice was permissible. But there is not a trace of it in the sacrifice in the Gita sense. In the Gita continuous concentration on God is the king of sacrifices.
The third chapter seems to show that sacrifice chiefly means body-labour for service. The third and the fourth chapters read together will give us other meanings for sacrifice but never animal-sacrifice. Similarly has the meaning of the word sannyas undergone, in the Gita, a transformation. The sannyas of the Gita will not tolerate complete cessation of all activity. The sannyasa of the Gita is all work and yet no work.
Thus the author of the Gita by extending meanings of words has taught us to imitate him. Let it be granted, that according to the letter of the Gita it is possible to say that warfare is consistent with renunciation of fruit. But after 40 years? unremitting endeavour fully to enforce the teaching of the Gita in my own life, I have, in all humility, felt that perfect renunciation is impossible without perfect observance of ahimsa in every shape and form.
21. The Gita is not an aphoristic work; it is a great religious poem. The deeper you dive into it, the richer the meanings you get. It being meant for the people at large, there is pleasing repetition. With every age the important words will carry new and expanding meanings. But its central teaching will never vary. The seeker is at liberty to extract from this treasure any meaning he likes so as to enable him to enforce in his life the central teaching.
22. Nor is the Gita a collection of Do?s and Don?ts. What is lawful for one may be unlawful for another. What may be permissible at one time, or in one place, may not be so at another time, and in another place. Desire for fruit is the only universal prohibition. Desirelessness is obligatory.
23. The Gita has sung the praises of knowledge, but it is beyond the mere intellect; it is essentially addressed to the heart and capable of being understood by the heart. Therefore the Gita is not for those who have no faith. The author makes Krishna say:
?Do not entrust this treasure to him who is without sacrifice, without devotion, without the desire for this teaching and who denies Me. On the other hand those who will give this precious treasure to My devotees will by the fact of this service assuredly reach Me. And those who, being free from malice, will with faith absorb this teaching, shall, having attained freedom, live where people of true merit go after death.
?Do not entrust this treasure to him who is without sacrifice, without devotion, without the desire for this teaching and who denies Me. On the other hand those who will give this precious treasure to My devotees will by the fact of this service assuredly reach Me. And those who, being free from malice, will with faith absorb this teaching, shall, having attained freedom, live where people of true merit go after death.
my faith - 7 Swami(SB)
| THE TRUE DEVOTEE Prayer is a confession of one’s unworthiness and weakness. God has a thousand names, or rather, He is Nameless. We worship or pray to Him by whichever name that pleases us. Some call Him Rama, some Krishna, others call Him Rahim, and yet other call Him God. All worship the same spirit, but as all foods do not agree with all, all names do not appeal to all. Each choses the name according to his associations, and He being the In-Dweller, All-Powerful and Omniscient knows our innermost feelings and responds to us according to our deserts. Worships or prayer, therefore, is not to be performed with the lips, but with the heart. And that is why it can be performed equally by the dumb and the stammerer, by the ignorant and the stupid. And the prayers of those whose tongues are nectared but whose hearts are full of poison are never heard. He, therefore, who would pray to God, must cleanse his heart. Rama was not only on the lips of Hanuman, He was enthroned in his heart. He gave Hanuman exhaustless strength. In His strength he lifted the mountain and crossed the ocean. |
| HOUSE OF GOD I do not regard the existence of a temple as a sin or superstition. Some form of common worship, and a common place of worship appear to be a human necessity. Whether the temples should contain images or not is a matter of temperament and taste. I do not regard a Hindu or a Roman Catholic place of worship containing images as necessarily bad or superstitious, and a mosque or a Protestant place of worship being good or free of superstition merely because of their exclusion of images. A symbol such as a cross or a book may easily become idolatrous, and therefore superstitions. And the worship of the image of Child Krishna or Virgin Mary may become ennobling and free of all superstition. It depends upon the attitude of the heart of the worshipper. Young India, 5-11-1925, p. 378 I know of no religion or sect that has done or is doing without its House of God, variously described as a temple, a mosque, a church, a synagogue or an agiari. Nor is it certain that any of the great reformers including Jesus destroyed or descarded temples altogether. All of them sought to banish corruption from temples as well as from society. Some of them, if not all, appear to have preached from temples. I have ceased to visit temples for years, but I do not regard myself on that account as a better person than before. My mother never missed going to the temple when she was in a fit state to go there. Probably her faith was far greater than mine, though I do not visit temples. There are millions whose faith is sustained through these temples, churches and mosques. They are not all blind followers of a superstition, nor are they fanatics. Superstition and fanaticism are not their monopoly. These vices have their root in our hearts and minds. ….To reject the necessity of temples is to reject the necessity of God, religion, and earthly existence. Harijan, 11-3-1933, p. 5 |
| INCARNATIONS OF GOD In Hinduism, incarnation is ascribed to one who has performed some extraordinary service of mankind. All embodied life is in reality an incarnation of God, but it is not usual to consider every living being an incarnation. Future generations pay this homage to one who in his own generation has been extraordinarily religious in his conduct. I can see nothing wrong in the procedure; it takes nothing from God’s greatness, and there is no violence done to truth. There is an Urdu saying which means ‘Adam is not God but he is a spark of the Divine.’ And therefore he who is the most religiously behaved has most of the divine spark in him. It is in accordance with this train of thought that Krishna enjoys, in Hinduism, the status of the most perfect incarnation. This belief in incarnation is a testimony of man’s lofty spiritual ambition. Man is not at peace with himself till he has become like unto God. The endeavour to reach this state is the supreme, the only ambition worth having. And this is self-realization. Young India, 6-8-1931, pp. 205-06 I have no knowledge that the Krishna of Mahabharat ever lived. My Krishna has nothing to do with any historical person. I would refuse to bow my head to the Krishna who would kill because his pride is hurt, or the Krishna whom the non-Hindus portray as a dissolute youth. I believe in Krishna of my imagination as a perfect incarnation, sportless in every sense of the word, the inspirer of the Gita and the inspirer of the lives of millions of human beings. But if it was proved to me that the Mahabharat is history in the same sense that modern historical books are, that every word of the Mahabharat actually did some of the acts attributed to him, even at the risk of being banished from the Hindu fold I should not hesitate to reject that Krishna as God incarnate. But to me the Mahabharat is a profoundly religious book, largely allegorical, in no way meant to be a historical record. It is the description of the eternal duel going on within ourselves, given so vividly as to make us thing for the time being that the deeds described therein were actually done by the human beings. Nor do I regard the Mahabharat as we have it now as a faultless copy of the original. On the contrary I consider that it has undergone many amendations. Young India, 1-10-1-25, p. 336 |
My Faith -7 Swami(SB)
| VISITATIONS OF GOD This earthly existence of ours is more brittle than the glass bangles that ladies wear. You can keep glass bangles for thousands of years if you treasure them in a chest and let them remain untouched. But this earthly existence is so fickle that it may be wiped out in the twinkling of an eye. Therefore, whilst we have yet breathing time, let us get rid of the distinctions of high and low, purify our hearts and be ready to face our Maker when an earthquake or some natural calamity or death in the ordinary course overtakes us. Harijan, 2-2-1934, p.5 I share the belief with the whole world - civilized and uncivilized - that calamities (such as the Bihar earthquake of 1934) come to mankind as chastisement for their sins. When that conviction comes from the heart, people pray, repent and purify themselves….I have but a limited knowledge of His purpose. Such calamities are not a mere caprice of the Deity or Nature. They obey fixed laws as surely as the planets move in obedience to laws governing their movement. Only we do not know the laws governing these events and, therefore, call them calamities or disturbances. Harijan, 2-2-1934, p.1 There is a divine purpose behind every physical calamity. That perfected science will one day be able to tell us beforehand when earthquakes will one day be able to tell us beforehand when earthquakes will occur, as it tells us today of eclipses, is quite possible. It will be another triumph of the human mind. But such triumphs even indefinitely multiplied can bring about no purification of self without which nothing is of any value. Harijan, 8-6-1935, p.132. |
| PATHWAYS TO GOD Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads, so long as we reach the same goal? In reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals. Hind Swaraj, (1946), pp. 36, 35 All faiths are a gift of God, but partake of human imperfection, as they pass through the medium of himanity. God-given religion is beyond all speech. Imperfect men put it into such language as they can command, and their words are interpreted by other men equally imperfect. Whose interpretation must be held to be the right one? Every one is right from his own standpoint, but it is not impossible that every one is wrong. Hence the necessity for tolerance, which does not mean indifference towards one’s own faith, but a more intelligent and purer love for it. Tolerance gives us spiritual insight, which is as far from fanaticism as the north pole is from the south. True knowledge of religion breaks down the barriers between faith and faith and gives rise to tolerance. Cultivation of tolerance for other faiths will import to us a truer understanding of our own. Young India, (Bulletin), 2-10-1930, p. 2 For me the different religions are beautiful flowers from the same garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree. Therefore they are equally true, though being received and interpreted through human instruments equally imperfect. Harijan, 30-1-1937, p. 407 |
| SERVICE OF GOD I cannot imagine nobler or more national than that for, say, one hour in the day, we should all do the labour that the poor must do, and thus identify ourselves with them and through them with all mankind. I cannot imagine better worship of God than that in His name I should labour for the poor even as they do. Young India, 20-10-1921, p.329 Religion is service of the helpless. God manifests Himself to us in the form of the helpless and the stricken. Young India, 14-8-1924, p. 267 Daridranarayana is one of the millions of names by which humanity known God who is unnameable, and unfathomable by human understanding, and it menans of God of the poor, God appearing in the hearts of the poor. Young India, 4-4-99 And no one can see God face to face who has aught of the I in him. He must become a cypher if he would see God. Who shall dare say in this storm-tossed universe, ‘I have won’? God triumphs in us, never, we. Young India, 25-6-1925, p. 223 |
my faith - 6 Swami(SB)
| OICE OF GOD Having made a ceaseless effort to attain self-purification, I have developed some little capacity to hear correctly and clearly the ‘still small Voice within’. The Epic Fast, (1933), p. 34 My claim, to hear the voice of God is no new claim. Unfortunately there is no way that I know of proving the claim except through results. God will not be God if He allowed Himself to be an object of proof by His creatures. But He does give His willing slave the power to pass through the fieriest of ordeals. I have been a willing slave to this most exacting Master for more than half a century. His voice has been increasingly audible as years have rolled by. He has saved me often against myself and left me not a vestige of independence. The greater the surrender to Him, the greater has been my joy. Harijan, 6-5-1933, p.4 For me the Voice of God, of Conscience, of Truth or the Inner Voice or ‘the still small Voice’ mean one and the same thing. I saw no form. I have never tried, for I have always believed God to be without form. But what I did hear was like a Voice from afar and yet quite near. It was as unmistakable as some human voice definitely speaking to me, and irresistible. I was not dreaming at the time I heard the Voice. The hearing of the Voice was preceded by a terrific struggle within me. Suddenly the Voice came upon me. I listened, made certain that it was the Voice, and the struggle ceased. I was calm. The determination was made accordingly, the date and the hour of the fast were fixed. Joy came over me. This was between 11 and 12 midnigh. I felt refreshed and began to write the note about it which the reader must have seen. Could I give any further evidence that it was truly the Voice that I heard and that it was not an echo of my own heated imagination? I have no further evidence to convince the sceptic. He is free to say that it was all self-delusion or hallucination. It may well have been so. I can offer no proof to the contrary. But I can say this - that not the unanimous verdict of whole world against me could shake me from the belief that what I heard was the true Voice of God. But some think that God Himself is a creation of our own imagination. If that view holds good, then nothing is real, everything is of our own imagination. Even so, whilst my imagination dominates me, I can only act under its spell. Realest things are only relatively so. For me the Voice was more real than my own existence. It has never failed me, and for that matter, any one else. And every one who wills can hear the Voice. It is within every one. But like everything else, it requires previous and definite preparation. Harijan, 8-7-1933, p.4 |
| LAWS OF GOD God’s laws are eternal and unalterable and not separable form God Himself. It is an indispensable condition of His very perfection. Young India, 24-11-1927, p. 393 God Himself has reserved no right of revision of His own laws nor is there any need for Him for any such revision. He is all-powerful, all-knowing. He knows at the same time and without any effort the past, the present and the future. He has therefore nothing to reconsider, nothing to revise, nothing to alter and nothing to amend. Young India, 25-11-1926, 415 |
| GOD AND EVIL In a strictly scientific sense God is at the bottom of both good and evil. He directs the assassin’s dagger no less than the surgeon’s knife. But all that good and evil are, for human purpose, from each other distinct and incompatible, being symbolical of light and darkness, God and Satan. Harijan, 20-2-1937, p.9 I do not regard God as a person. Truth for me is God, and God’s Law and God not different things or facts, in the sense that an earthly king and his law are different. Because God is an Idea, Law Himself. Therefore, it is impossible to conceive God as breaking the Law. He, therefore, does not rule out actions and withdraw Himself. When we way He rules our actions, we are simply using human language and we try to limit Him. Otherwise He and His Law abide everywhere and govern everything. Therefore, I do not think that He answers in every detail every request of ours, but there is no doubt that He rules our action, and I literally believe that not a blade of grass grows or moves without His will. The free will we enjoy is less than that of a passenger on a crowded deck. “Do you feel a sense of freedom in your communion with God?” I do. I do not feel cramped as I would on a boat full of passengers. Although I know that my freedom is less than that of a passenger, I appreciate that freedom as I have imbided through and through the central teaching of the Gita that man is the maker of his own destiny in the sense that he has freedom of choice as to the manner in which he uses that freedom. But he is no controller of results. The moment he thinks he is, he comes to grief. Harijan, 23-3-1940, p.55 |
my faith 5 swami(SB)
| FAITH AND REASON Seeing God face to face is to feel that He is enthroned in our hearts even as a child feels a mother’s affection without needing any demonstration. Does a child reason out the existence of a mother’s love? Can he prove it to others? He triumphantly declares, ‘It is.’ So must it be with the existence of God. He defies reason. But He is experienced. Let us not reject the experience of Tulasidas, chaitanya, Ramadas and a host of other spiritual teachers even as we do not reject that of mundane teachers. It is faith that steers us through stormy seas, faith that moves mountains and faith that jumps across the ocean. That faith is nothing but a living, wide-awake consciousness of God within. He who has achieved that faith wants nothing. Bodily diseased, he is spiritually healthy; physically pure, he rolls in spiritual riches. |
| REALIZATION OF GOD I believe it to be possible for every human being to attain that blessed and indescribable sinless state in which he feels within himself the presence of God to the exclusion of everything else. For me Truth is the sovereign principle, which includes numerous other principles. This Truth is not only truthfulness in word, but truthfulness in thought also, and not only the relative truth of our conception, but the Absolute Truth, the Eternal Principle, that is god. There are innumerable definitions of God, because His manifestations are innumerable. They overwhelm me with wonder and awe and for a moment stun me. But I worship God as Truth only. I have not yet found Him, but I am seeking after Him. I am prepared to sacrifice the things dearest to me in pursuit of this quest. Even if the sacrifice demanded be my very life, I hope I may be prepared to give it. But as long as I have not realized this Absolute Truth, so long must I hold by the relative truth as I have conceived it. That relative truth must, meanwhile, be my beacon, my shield and buckler. Though this path is straight and narrow and sharp as the razor’s edge, for me it has been the quickest and easiest. Even my Himalayan blunders have seemed trifling to me because I have kept strictly to this path. For the path has saved me from coming to grief, and I have gone forward according to my light. Often in my progress I have had faint glimpses of the Absolute Truth, God, and daily the conviction is growing upon me that He alone is real and all else is unreal. Autobiography, (1948), p.6 |
| PRAYERS OF GOD I believe that prayer is the very soul and essence of religion, and therefore prayer must be the very core of the life of man, for no man can live without religion….Bradlaugh, whose atheism is well known, always insisted on proclaiming his innermost conviction. He had to suffer a lot for thus speaking the truth, but he delighted in it and said that truth is its own reward. Not that he was quite insensible to the joy resulting from the observance of truth. This joy however is not all worldly, but springs out of communion with the divine. That is why I have said that even a man who disowns religion cannot and does not live without religion. I have talked of the necessity for prayer, and therethrough I have dealt with the essence of prayer. We are born to serve our fellowmen, and we cannot properly do so unless we are wide awake. There is an eternal struggle raging in man’s breast between the powers of darkness and of light, and he who has not the sheet-anchor of prayer of rely upon will be a victim to the powers of darkness. The man of prayer will be at peace with himself and with the whole world, the man who goes about the affairs of the world without a prayerful heart will be miserable and will make the world also miserable. Apart therefore from its bearing on man’s condition after death, prayer has incalculable value for man in this world of the living. Prayer is the only means of bringing about orderliness and peace and repose in our daily acts. Take care of the vital thing and other things will take care of themselves. Rectify one angle of a square, and the other angles will be automatically right. Young India, 23-1-1930, pp. 25-26 |
my faith - 4 Swami(SB)
THE LAW OF TRUTH
Generally speaking, observation of the law of Truth is understood merely to mean that we must speak the truth. But we in the Ashram should understand the word Satya or Truth in a much wider sense. There should be Truth in thought, Truth in speech, and Truth in action. To the man who has realized this Truth in its fullness, nothing else remains to be known, because all knowledge is necessarily included in it. What is not included in it is not Truth, and so not true knowledge; and there can be no inward peace without true knowledge. If we once learn how to apply this never-failing test of Truth, we will at once be able to find out what is worth doing, what is worth seeing, what is worth reading.
Generally speaking, observation of the law of Truth is understood merely to mean that we must speak the truth. But we in the Ashram should understand the word Satya or Truth in a much wider sense. There should be Truth in thought, Truth in speech, and Truth in action. To the man who has realized this Truth in its fullness, nothing else remains to be known, because all knowledge is necessarily included in it. What is not included in it is not Truth, and so not true knowledge; and there can be no inward peace without true knowledge. If we once learn how to apply this never-failing test of Truth, we will at once be able to find out what is worth doing, what is worth seeing, what is worth reading.
AHIMSA-UNSEEN POWER OF GOD
Scientists tells us that without the presence of the cohesive force amongst the atoms that comprise this globe of ours, it would crumble to pieces and we cease to exist; and even as there is cohesive force in blind matter, so must there be in all things animate and the name for that cohesive force among animate beings is Love. We notice it between father and son, between brother and sister, friend and friend. But we have to learn to use that force among all that lives, and in the use of it consists our knowledge of God. Where there is love there is life; hatred leads to destruction.
I have found that life persists in the midst of destruction and, therefore, there must be a higher law than that of destruction. Only under that law would a well-ordered society be intelligible and life worth living. And if that is the law of life, we have to work it out in daily life. Wherever there are jars, wherever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love-in this crude manner I have worked it out in my life.
I have found that life persists in the midst of destruction and, therefore, there must be a higher law than that of destruction. Only under that law would a well-ordered society be intelligible and life worth living. And if that is the law of life, we have to work it out in daily life. Wherever there are jars, wherever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love-in this crude manner I have worked it out in my life.
That does not mean that all my difficulties are solved. Only I have found that this law of love has answered, as the law of destruction has never done. The more I work at this law, the more I feel the delight in life, the delight in the scheme of this universe. It gives me a peace and a meaning of the mysteries of nature that I have no power to describe.
My Faith 3 - swami(SB)
NATURE OF GOD
To me God is Truth and Love; God is ethics and morality; god is fearlessness. God is the source of Light and Life and yet He is above and beyond all these. God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist. For in His boundless love God permits the atheist to live. He is the searcher of hearts. He transcends speech and reason. He knows us and our hearts better than we do ourselves. He does not take us at our word for He knows that we often do not mean it, some knowingly and others unknowingly.
He is a personal god to those who need His personal presence. He is embodied to those who need His tough. He is the purest essence. He simply is to those who have faith. He is all things to all men. He is in us and yet above and beyond us. One may banish the word ‘God’ from the Congress but one has no power to banish the Thing itself. What is a solemn affirmation, if it is not the same thing as in the name of God? And surely conscience is but a poor and laborious paraphrase of the simple combination of three letters called God.
To me God is Truth and Love; God is ethics and morality; god is fearlessness. God is the source of Light and Life and yet He is above and beyond all these. God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist. For in His boundless love God permits the atheist to live. He is the searcher of hearts. He transcends speech and reason. He knows us and our hearts better than we do ourselves. He does not take us at our word for He knows that we often do not mean it, some knowingly and others unknowingly.
He is a personal god to those who need His personal presence. He is embodied to those who need His tough. He is the purest essence. He simply is to those who have faith. He is all things to all men. He is in us and yet above and beyond us. One may banish the word ‘God’ from the Congress but one has no power to banish the Thing itself. What is a solemn affirmation, if it is not the same thing as in the name of God? And surely conscience is but a poor and laborious paraphrase of the simple combination of three letters called God.
He cannot cease to be because hideous immoralities or inhuman brutalities are committed in His name. He is long suffering. He is patient but He is also terrible. He is the most exacting personage in the world and the world to come. He metes out the same measure to us as we mete out to our neighbours - men and brutes. With Him ignorance is no excuse. And with all He is ever forgiving for He always gives us the chance to repent.
He is the greatest democrat the world knows, for He leaves us ‘unfettered’ to make our own choice between evil and good. He is the greatest tyrant ever known, for He often dashes the cup from our lips and under cover of free will leaves us a margin so wholly inadequate as to provide only mirth for Himself at our expense. Therefore it is that Hinduism calls it all His sport - Lila, or calls it all an illusion - Maya. We are not. He alone is. And if we will be, we must eternally sing His praise and do His will. Let us dance to the tune of His bansi - flute, and all would be well.
TRUTH IS GOD
I claim to be a votary of truth from my childhood. It was the most natural thing to me. My prayerful search gave me the revealing maxim ‘Truth is God’, instead of the usual one ‘God is Truth’. That maxim enables me to see God face to face as it were. I feel Him pervade every fibre of my being.Harijan, 9-8-1942, p. 264
In my early youth I was taught to repeat what in Hindu scriptures are known as one thousand names of God. But these one thousand names of God were by no means exhaustive. We believe - and I think it is the truth - that God has as many names as there are creatures and, therefore, we also say that God is nameless and since god has many forms, we also consider Him formless, and since He speaks to us through many tongues we consider Him to be speechless and so on.
I claim to be a votary of truth from my childhood. It was the most natural thing to me. My prayerful search gave me the revealing maxim ‘Truth is God’, instead of the usual one ‘God is Truth’. That maxim enables me to see God face to face as it were. I feel Him pervade every fibre of my being.Harijan, 9-8-1942, p. 264
In my early youth I was taught to repeat what in Hindu scriptures are known as one thousand names of God. But these one thousand names of God were by no means exhaustive. We believe - and I think it is the truth - that God has as many names as there are creatures and, therefore, we also say that God is nameless and since god has many forms, we also consider Him formless, and since He speaks to us through many tongues we consider Him to be speechless and so on.
And so when I came to study Islam I found that Islam too had many names for God. I would say with those who say God is Love, God is Love. But deep down in me I used to say that though God may be Love, God is Truth, above all. If it is possible for the human tongue to give the fullest description of God, I have come to the conclusion that for myself, God is Truth. But two years ago I went a step further and said that Truth is God.
You will see the fine distinction between the two statements, viz., that God is Truth and Truth is God. And I came to that conclusion after a continuous and relentless search after Truth which began nearly fifty years ago. I then found that the nearest approach to Truth was through love. But I also found that love has many meanings in the English language at least and that human love in the sense of passion could become a degrading thing also.
I found too that love in the sense of Ahimsa had only a limited number of votaries in the world. But I never found a double meaning in connection with truth and even atheists had not demurred to the necessity or power of truth. But in their passion for discovering truth, the atheists have not hesitated to deny the very existence of God- from their own point of view rightly.
My Faith -2 Swami(SB)
REALITY OF GOD
The word Satya (Truth) is derived from Sat, which means ?being'. Nothing is or exists in reality except Truth. That is why Sat or Truth is perhaps the most important name of god. In fact it is more correct to say that Truth is God, than to say that God is Truth. But as we cannot do without a ruler or a general, such names of God as ?King of kings' or ?The Almighty' are and will remain generally current. On deeper thinking, however, it will be realized, that Sat or Satya is the only correct and fully significant name for God.
And where there is Truth, there also is knowledge which is true. Where there is no Truth, there can be no true knowledge. That is why the word ?Chit' or Knowledge is associated with the name of God. And where there is true Knowledge, there is always Bliss (Ananda). Their sorrow has no place. And even as Truth is eternal, so is the Bliss derived from it. Hence we know God as Sat-Chit-Ananda, one who combines in Himself Truth, Knowledge and Bliss.
Devotion to this Truth is the sole justification for our existence. All our activities should be centered in Truth. Truth should be the very breath of our life. When once this stage in the pilgrim's progress is reached, all other rules of correct living will come without effort, and obedience to them will be instinctive. But without Truth it is impossible to observe any principles or rules in life.
The word Satya (Truth) is derived from Sat, which means ?being'. Nothing is or exists in reality except Truth. That is why Sat or Truth is perhaps the most important name of god. In fact it is more correct to say that Truth is God, than to say that God is Truth. But as we cannot do without a ruler or a general, such names of God as ?King of kings' or ?The Almighty' are and will remain generally current. On deeper thinking, however, it will be realized, that Sat or Satya is the only correct and fully significant name for God.
And where there is Truth, there also is knowledge which is true. Where there is no Truth, there can be no true knowledge. That is why the word ?Chit' or Knowledge is associated with the name of God. And where there is true Knowledge, there is always Bliss (Ananda). Their sorrow has no place. And even as Truth is eternal, so is the Bliss derived from it. Hence we know God as Sat-Chit-Ananda, one who combines in Himself Truth, Knowledge and Bliss.
Devotion to this Truth is the sole justification for our existence. All our activities should be centered in Truth. Truth should be the very breath of our life. When once this stage in the pilgrim's progress is reached, all other rules of correct living will come without effort, and obedience to them will be instinctive. But without Truth it is impossible to observe any principles or rules in life.
My Faith - Swami(SB)
MEANING OF GOD
There is an indefinable mysterious Power that pervades everything. I feel it, though I do not see it. It is this unseen Power which make itself felt and yet defies all proof, because it is so unlike all that I perceive through my sense. It transcends the sense.
But it is possible to reason out the existence of God to a limited extent. Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why, and how he rules. And yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules. In my tour last year in Mysore I met many poor villagers and I found upon inquiry that they did not know who ruled Mysore. They simply said some god ruled it. If the knowledge of these poor people was so limited about their ruler , who am infinitely lesser than God, than they than their ruler, need not be surprised if I did not realize the presence of God, the King of kings.
But it is possible to reason out the existence of God to a limited extent. Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why, and how he rules. And yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules. In my tour last year in Mysore I met many poor villagers and I found upon inquiry that they did not know who ruled Mysore. They simply said some god ruled it. If the knowledge of these poor people was so limited about their ruler , who am infinitely lesser than God, than they than their ruler, need not be surprised if I did not realize the presence of God, the King of kings.
Nevertheless I do feel as the poor villagers felt about Mysore that there is orderliness in the universe, there is an unalterable Law governing every thing and every being that exists or lives. It is not a blind law; for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being, and thanks to the marvelous researches of Sir J. C. Bose, it can now be proved that even matter is life.
That Law then which governs all life is God. Law and the Lawgiver are one. I may not deny the Law or the Lawgiver, because I know so little about It or Him. Even as my denial or ignorance of the existence of an earthly power power will avail me nothing, so will not my denial of God and His Law liberate me from its operation; whereas humble and mute acceptance of divine authority makes life's journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier.
I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around me is ever changing, ever dying, there is underlying all that change a living power that is changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves and re-creates. That informing power or spirit is God. And since nothing else I see merely through the senses can or will persist, He alone is.
I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around me is ever changing, ever dying, there is underlying all that change a living power that is changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves and re-creates. That informing power or spirit is God. And since nothing else I see merely through the senses can or will persist, He alone is.
Sudampur | ||
| ||
This house was purchased by Mahatmaji?s great grandfather Shri Harjivan Raidas Gandhi from a lady belonging to Porbandar in the Vikrarn Savant 1883 (1777 a.d.), that is some two hundred years back. Gandhiji?s grandfather, Shri Uttamchand Gandhi, added one more storey and it became a two storeyed building. In course of time, changes took place in the structure as the necessity arose but at the time of Gandhiji?s birth this house had already become a three storeyed building. Between the birth place and the open space, there is a verandah under which some three hundred-years-old water tank is found. This tank is nearly fifteen feet deep, twenty feet long and ten feet broad. There is a provision of storing in it the clean rain water falling directly from the terrace. This way a year round arrangement is made for sweet water for the purpose of drinking, cooking, etc. in the city which is right on the sea shore (where generally, there is a shortage of sweet water). In the right side of the small room into which the door of the tank opens there is a small room which was Putlimea?s kitchen. This old and large house is pukka (sturdy) structure made of the famous Porbandar-white-stone. The wood used in durable and valuable. Also the carving on the wood is beautiful. The carved ventilators of stone is a beautiful piece pf ancient art.
spot of birth and above the spot there is a tricolour oil painted picture of Mahatmaji in which he is seen spinning on a wheel. 
On the opposite wall there is an impressive picture of Gandjiji?s father Shri Karamchand Gandhi and an imaginary picture of his mother Mataji Putlimaa. In those days it was against the tradition to keep pictures of ladies, so the painter has drawn the picture of Putlimaa out of thinking, observing and hearing about her. Inside the room of the birth there is another room. Gandhiji?s grandmother Laxmimma lived in it. She passed her time in this room singing devotional songs and worshipping according to the Vaishnav (the oath of Lord Vishnu) cult.
At the age of seven Gandhiji went to Rajkot with his father for further study but mother Putlimaa stayed behind in Porbandar. After the death of Laxmimaa Candhiji?s father called his family to Rajkot and from then on he became a Rajkot resident.
At the little age of twelve Gandhiji married Kasturbaa. A small pandal was set up in the open space, right in front of the birth place. In those days the space was not floored but was kept neat and clean, well clayed and regularly swept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)