[Vision2020] Two Mahatmas: Gandhi and the Buddha

[nickgier at roadrunner.com]

Every year at this time I write a column on Gandhi in honor of his birthday on Oct. 2.  This year is his 141st.  The full version is attached as a PDF file.

The piece is adapted from Chapter Four of my book "The Virtue of Non-Violence: from Gautama to Gandhi," selections of which can be read at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/vnv.htm  BookPeople may still have copies of it and I personally sell at cost for $20.

Happy Birthday to a Great Soul (Mah-atma),

Nick


TWO MAHATMAS: GANDHI AND THE BUDDHA

Gandhi is the greatest Indian since Gautama Buddha 
and the greatest man since Jesus Christ.

—J. H. Holmes

I felt I was in the presence of a noble soul, a true disciple of Lord Buddha 
and a true believer in peace and harmony among all men.

—The Dalai Lama on meeting Gandhi

On the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi’s 141st birthday on October 2, I would like to discuss his relationship to Buddhism. Writing to a Burmese friend in 1919, Gandhi said that "when I became acquainted with the teaching of the Buddha, my eyes were opened to the limitless possibilities of nonviolence."

Gandhi had a very clear understanding of the Buddhist concept of Nirvana: "Nirvana is utter extinction of all that is base in us, all that is vicious in us, all that is corrupt and corruptible in us. Nirvana is not like the black, dead peace of the grave, but the living peace, the living happiness of the soul."   

This is a perfect response to perennial charges of Buddhist nihilism. Nirvana is, in a word, freedom – freedom not only from hate and greed, but freedom from craving, the unquenchable desire for those things that we can never attain. The Buddha made it clear that ordinary desires for food, shelter and sexual relations (except for monks and nuns) are acceptable.  

The goal of Buddhist ethics is to follow the Middle Way between austere asceticism, which the Buddha himself gave up after being misled by Hindu yogis, and unbridled sensuality at the other extreme. The Buddha believed that anyone, with the right concentration and discipline, could find her or his own Middle Way, and that this is a form of religious humanism accessible to all people.

Some might say that the most significant difference between the Buddha and Gandhi was that the former was a world-denying ascetic and that the latter was a political activist with a strong spiritual bent. Gandhi disagreed with this view: "The Buddha fearlessly carried the war into the adversary's camp and brought down on its knees an arrogant priesthood. The Buddha was for intensely direct action."  

Who is correct? The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between. Although he did frequently confront Hindu priests, it can hardly be said that the Buddha destroyed the Hindu priesthood. It of course continues to have great power even today.

Even Gandhi admits that because of India's own weaknesses, the Buddha's message of tolerance and nonviolence fell short even in the land of his birth. Gandhi is also making the Buddha more of a political activist than he ever was. Gandhi alone should take credit for his own brilliant synthesis of religion and political action. 

The spiritual transformation of the entire world is the goal of most schools of Mahayana Buddhism. As opposed to the ascetic ideal of early Buddhism, where the emphasis was on personal liberation, the focus in Mahayana schools is on universal salvation.

The vow of the Bodhisattva should be well known to those who know Buddhism: the Bodhisattva, even though she is free of karmic debt, vows not to enter Nirvana until all sentient beings enter before her. The Bodhisattva ideal and the comprehensive range of universal salvation makes it relevant to contemporary debates about animal rights and the protection of the environment.

Gandhi constantly emphasized that his focus was universal this-worldly salvation and not individual spiritual liberation: "I have no use for love and nonviolence as a means of individual liberation." As with Latin American liberation theology, Gandhi's theology maintained that God assumes a preferred option for the poor and the oppressed; indeed, Gandhi sometimes speaks of God existing in suffering humanity and not in Heaven: "God is found more often in the lowliest of His creatures than in the high and mighty." 

Does this, then, make Gandhi "the Bodhisattva of the twentieth century," as Ramjee Singh has so boldly suggested? The answer of course is "No" for several reasons. Through his long and many fasts Gandhi did suffer greatly for the good of his countrymen. He also declared that in his next life he wanted to be reborn among India’s lowest social classes – the so called “untouchables”. 

But this does not constitute the complete doctrine of salvation that we find in Buddhism and Christianity. Gandhi obviously did not claim to have taken away the sins of the world as Buddhist and Christians claim their saviors do.
Not even his most ardent followers have claimed that Gandhi had the redemptive powers of a savior. It must also be observed that Gandhi practiced self-suffering in order to change other people's behavior, whereas the Passion of Christ and the Bodhisattva is conceived of as totally unconditional, expecting nothing in return for their grace and compassion. 

I believe that Buddhist humanism – a humanism of nonviolence and compassion – may be the very best way to take Gandhi's philosophy into the 21st century.
     
Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years.  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GandhiBuddha.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 32207 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100929/1b30b874/attachment-0001.pdf