|
|
|
|
|
Was Gandhi a Hindu? rcb 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM Gandhian philosophy, as we know it, revolves around the teachings of Ahimsa (non-violence), Love, the abolition of the caste, sacrifice, and most importantly truth. Gandhi claimed that “Hinduism with its message of ahimsa” was “the most glorious religion in the world”What I would like a discussion on are the apparent inconsistencies with practical Hinduism and the values that Gandhi stood for. Just to spark your imagination let me make the following points. 1) Lord Krishna threw traditional morality out the window by explaining that “only the soul (atman) is immortal. Krishna argued that it is actually impossible to kill anyone, and therefore justified Arjuna's actions in the mass murder of his own relatives in the Mahabharata. 2) Hinduism clearly supports the caste system with its theory of karma, rebirth, and the division of society into classes.. 3) The entire story of Rama from shooting the apple, to bending the bow in order to marry sita, to finally killing Ravana, was all a show of might and violence, rather than that of humilty and sacrifice. 'Hai Ram' were the last words Gandhi said before he died.... |
 |
| Messages |
|
K.Thomas 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 1 of 30 ) Gandhi chose to call himself a hindu, even though he was quite clear that he identified with and was open to all faiths. He carried around a bible, and was well versed in the Koran. He once even referred to himself as a "true christian" as opposed to the nominal christians in the west. I disagree with you somwehat when you say Gandhi and Hindusism did not go hand in hand. What bapu did was pick and chose the best values from every religion, that is what is best.Every religion has its flaws, but all paths ultimately lead to God. |
|
n.swami 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 2 of 30 ) Dear RCB i assume from your topic of discussion that you are not Hindu. How much about hinduism do you know? I dont know of any place where Arjuna killed his own relatives in the mahabarata. infact in the bhagvat gita krishna is the one who speaks against non-violence. please check your facts on this. Also in Ram killing Ravana, that was killing the evil in the world,Ravana had been granted status by which he could not be killed by the gods but only man, thats why Rama came as an avatar to kill him. That hinduism supports the caste system that is changing. You please check your facts about Mahabharata and post the reply then please. |
|
Ak Aziz 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 3 of 30 ) Rcb -how do you say that Gandhi was a hindu? Gandhi was known for his tolerance and acceptance of all faiths. Infact it was a hindu that killed him in the end because they felt threatened. I agree that hinduism has inconsistencies with the values he stood for. You are absolutely correct in pointing this out. Hinduism does not advocate love or nonviolence or a non caste based society but the opposite. N.swami you check your facts, the mahabharata was a war no? what did you think it was> A peaceful negotiation between relatives?hahaha |
|
Tathagat 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 4 of 30 ) appa DeepO bhava ...ninety percent he was a Christian, nine percent he was a Jaina, one percent he was a Hindu and he was born a Hindu. What happened? In his life, three times he was just on the verge of being converted into Christianity. His wife just made such a fuss that he stopped. He said, "Okay, wait...." It was the wife who prevented him from becoming Christian. Many wives are doing great jobs! She would start beating her chest and crying, "We are Hindu, and what are you doing?" And she would make such a scene that neighbors would gather and they would say, "This is not good. She is right why are you becoming a Christian?" But he was influenced, and it is happening all over. You can see how Christianity is influencing because they serve the poor, every religion starts serving the poor. Otherwise they will not look so religious as the Christians. The Christians are taking care of the orphans, so Hindus have to open orphanages, otherwise their religion will look a little unconcerned about suffering people. So they open hospitals, which they have never done in the past. They have been in existence thousands of years before Christ and they have never made hospitals, they have never served the poor. They have told the poor, "You are suffering from your evil acts of the past life, so there is nothing to be done. You just finish it! Get cleared out." But Christianity has been a tremendous influence. It has poisoned almost the whole of humanity, made them sad and miserable. |
|
n.swami 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 5 of 30 ) Tathagat, i cant understand what point you were trying to make. You said that Christianity is good, and they set up hospitals etc, but then at the end you say that Christianity is the one that has poisoned humanity and made everyone sad and miserable. Are you for or again the christians? Please clarify, and rcb i am waiting for your kind response |
|
asdesai 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 6 of 30 ) This is to Ak Aziz. How can you do hahaha. First think for your religion :) Which religion have terrorist in all over world. Think why???? And yes, mahabharata was a war but it was against terrorist like world is facing today. If you read Mahabharata then it's good( but I bet, you didn't). Then also read Gita. And then rethink what you have written. Don't take it personally:) Hahaha Ami |
|
rcb 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 7 of 30 ) Ami, With no offense intended, I would like to elaborate on a few basic principles that arise out of the Bhagvat gita and discrepancies with regard to ahimsa, etc -which can be insinuated from the Mahabharata. Like I said before Most religions themselves are essentially peaceful, and do not breed terrorists (like you suggested of muslims in your message), but fundamentalism, or hard line thought in any religion can be dangerous (i.e-the burning of Graham Staines by the Hindu's, Islamic Militant attacks, Jewish terror inflicted on the jews, the bloody Crusades in the name of Christ,etc....) :) |
|
Tathagat 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 8 of 30 ) appa DeepO bhava ...n.swami read tathagata's previous posts at "Is India a peaceloving... thread" and u will git the answer to ur query... |
|
asdesai 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 9 of 30 ) RCB, From my name you can see that I'm Hindu (Which I can't from your's posted name!!!) and I have two Muslim close friends. So, I'm not against any religion, as far as they leaves in their boundries. Which some people can't. When you talk about any religion you don't use words like 'hahaha'!!!! I know every religion need some changes, as most of them are made centurys ago. Like in muslims their religion leaders need to change a law for marriages and so on. I wonder why you didn't comment on Al Aziz message and why you didn't find 'hahaha' word offensive!!! |
|
rcb 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 10 of 30 ) Asdesai, I cant really tell that you are hindu from your name!! We have desai's in our family that are Christian. A name doesn't make someone hindu!! I'm sorry if you took offense to some of the messages posted here, however, free speech is about allowing people to post their opinions and perspectives (however offensive they may seem to another party) without discrimination. Its funny how the topic is deviating from what I intended it to be. My question was 'Was Gandhi a Hindu?' and was all he stood for (ahimsa, love, nonviolence, abolition of the caste system) in a direct clash with doctrines derived from Hinduism..... More on my perspective and some researched facts later, Ruth :) |
|
sivarasu 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 11 of 30 ) when somebody offends by his/her words it is again a matter of opinion of one regard to one discussed or told by one. inorder to arrive best pratical solution on these issues those kinds has to be counted and just count continue constructively further |
|
thetruth 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 12 of 30 ) Gandhi was a hindu . The so called prophet muahmmed was a hindu too ( of course he was a bad hindu ) |
|
sanju25 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 13 of 30 ) ya right thetruth even Jesus Christ was Hindu (of course a little better then Mohummad) |
|
sanju25 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 14 of 30 ) Who the Hell cares........ |
|
Eminem 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 15 of 30 ) Dear Sanju.. do you work as the chorus in an opera...or are you allowed to have your own views ???? On the interesting point that RCB has raised and which has been the crux of arguments I observe in another area (Arundathi Roy I defy you) between Lehar and Rav 666. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Gandhi, LIVED THE MESSAGE OF NON VIOLENCE AND THE MESSAGE OF JESUS CHRIST. His life was completely in synch with the message of Jesus , HE BORE THE FRUITS OF A JESUS ENCOUNTER, the message of love, forgiveness ,non violence, caring and the sine qua non of leadership i.e. Reaching out in loving service to the weakest. Jesus Christ had said that his followers would be known by their fruits they bear. Gandhi bore the same fruits that Jesus expected of his followers. It is no point arguing that certain religions respect Jesus, including Islam and Christianity. The question is do the followers of these religions bear the fruit Jesus said those who respect and obey him shall bear ? If they bear the fruit they could have been born into any religion BUT THEY ARE TRULY HIS FOLLOWERS i.e. CHRISTIANS. Morarji Desai used to often make the point that he was a Practising Christian. MORE SO WAS GANDHI...IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER HE WAS BORN A HINDU ! |
|
rav666 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 16 of 30 ) Eminem, i'd like to know if you consider George W Bush as a 'practising' Christian. (It is public knowledge that he took oath in the name of the Holy Bible before assuming office) |
|
Eminem 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 17 of 30 ) Rav I do not believe that George bush is a practising Christian ,when you look at the innocent lives being lost in Afghanistan as a consequence of his decisions ! |
|
Eminem 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 18 of 30 ) Rav as have said in an earlier message. Being born a Christian (or taking an oath on the bible for that matter) does not make one a Christian. Jesus said that you will know those abiding in him by the fruit they bear. Those bearing the fruit are practising christians in that area of thier lives that they are bearing fruit. Gandhi bore fruit that Jesus spoke of in every area of his life. In this case, it does not matter that he was born a Hindu. He was a practising Christian. Apply the same logic to Dubya. He is certainly not a practising christian in the area of killing of innocent civilians. Whether this extends to every area of his life. I do not know as it is not an open book like the life of Gandhi or Luther King. |
|
rav666 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 19 of 30 ) Eminem, thx for agreeing with me on GW Bush. Just trying to understand this one - the software engineers in my company can produce code that's 99.5% defect-free, just like those from Infosys. But it still doesn't mean they belong to Infosys - they are my company's engineers. However, following your and RCB's logic, they should belong to Infosys. Pls help me explain this one. |
|
Eminem 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 20 of 30 ) Rav I did not know your view on Dubya ? Glad we agree. On your question. If the 99.5 % which is defect free IS THE SAME IN ALL ASPECTS. And the .5 % which is the tolerance for the defect WITNESSESS THE SAME DEFECTS IN ALL ASPECTS. As a person from a software company you will appreciate that the likelihood of both being original is very low. CLEARLY ONE HAS IMITATED THE OTHER. Your clients too will never respect they are different company products after going through the source codes and the system architecture. Would they ????? The question then is of proprietorship and authenticity! Who in your clients view is the likely proprietor? He will look at the suite of products. The date that each claimed to have been developed the product. All the more so when it comes to spirituality. The logic that all religions lead to God IS TRUE. Like your analogy however, THEY ARE NOT IDENTICAL IN THEIR ASPECTS AND IN THEIR DEFECTS. What I believe RCB is endeavoring to bring out..though Id rather let RCB speak. Is that the ASPECTS THAT GANDHI REFELECTED WERE NOT NECESSARILY A FULL MANIFIESTATION OF .THE ASPECTS OF THE RELIGION OF HIS BIRTHLIKE DUBYA.BIRTH THEN IS INCIDENTAL THE ASPECTS AND PRACTICES ARE THE SINE QUA NON !!!!!!! GANDHI WAS IN PRACTISE REFLECTING THE ASPECTS THAT JESUS TALKED AND LIVED. GANDHI WAS THE IMITATION OF CHRISTAND LUTHER KING WAS AN IMITIATION OF GANDHI !!!! since they were identical in aspectLuther king .in his imitation of Gandhiwas an imitation of Jesus.Dubya is not ! Hope am explaining the point. Pl feel free to share your views ! Would love to hear RCB's views in the matter |
|
rav666 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 21 of 30 ) Eminem, thx for replying. I didn't say that both set of engineers were developing the same code (in which case you can use the word 'imitation' or 'copying' etc.). I said both are equally competent in terms of providing quality code. I used the analogy to establish that just as quality is not the preserve of a single company - a value such as 'non-violence' can't be monopolised by a single religion. Maybe Gandhi followed Jesus - or he probably followed Buddha / Mahavira who lived much earlier and advocated non-violence. I can also cite examples of Hindu saints (who lived before the time of Jesus) who preached non-violence. I don't have much idea about Islam - probably there are examples to cite - one Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan in our Indian history was referred to as 'Frontier Gandhi'. It would be unjust to the respective religions to claim that all these people were 'Christians'. And, it's a futile excercise as well. Reminds me of Saint Kabir's life (Kabir - born Muslim, raised by a Hindu family, became a spiritual force with followers from both the religions) Wasting a lifetime of his teachings, his followers were quarrelling over whether his dead body should be buried (as is done in Islamic tradition) or cremated (as per Hindu tradition). I dunno what happened really, but the 'Amar Chitra katha' comics where I read this story says that his body miraculously transformed into flowers so that the Hindus and Muslims could equally divide his remnants. (sounds like a 'cock & bull' story to me right now :-)) Let's not worry about Gandhi's religion - let's stand up and be counted as one of the few who are still left to respect him. |
|
Eminem 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 22 of 30 ) Dear RAVAppreciate your views. Agree with quite a bit of it. The point that I am making is that the sum total of common attributes are what make an imitation. THE MORE COMMON THE ATTRIBUTES THE CLOSER THE IMITATION. Let us take the essence of what Gandhi stood for and the attributes which made him worthy of great respect AND COMPARE THEM WITH JESUS. He stood for non-violence. (Jesus stood for the same). He stood for the weaker sections and the oppressed sections and their rights. (Jesus stood for the same) He stood for the outcasts of society AND LIVED WITH THEM(Jesus stood for the same AND LIVED ALIKE) He stood for a change of heart (the concept of trusteeship in business) (Jesus stood for the same Metanoia or change of heart was enough to move the biggest man made hurdles) He stood for forgiveness (Jesus stood for the same) He opposed Vengeance (Jesus stood for the same) He believed that the ends never justified the means (Jesus stood for the same both the means and the end were important) He stood for Justice (Jesus stood for the same) He stood for service (Jesus stood for the same loving service) He stood for Purity in his Personal life (Jesus stood for the same) He was an ascetic ( Jesus was the same). He was humble (Jesus was humble to death on a cross) GANDHI MADE NO BONES OF THE FACT THAT HE ADMIRED AND DREW HIS INSPIRATION FROM JESUS. HE WAS MORE THAN AN ADMIRER. GANDHI WAS AN IMITATION OF CHRIST!!!!!! SOMETHING THAT HE NEVER HESITATED TO ACKNOWLEDGE! You could probably be right. Gandhi may have drawn attributes from different sources. One may never know the truth. THE FACT IS THAT OF THE PEOPLE LIVING AND DEAD HE WAS QUITE CHRISTLIKE. HENCE, WE WAS PRACTISING WHAT JESUS SET OUT AS NECESSARY TO BE HIS DISCIPLES. WHETHER THE SAME WAS PICKED UP ENTIRELY FROM JESUS OR FROM VARIOUS SOURCES IS NOT ENTIRELY THE POINT. THE PERSONA OF GANDHI AT THE END OF THE DAY WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT JESUS SET OUT AS THE FRUITS OF A PRACTISING CHRISITIAN AND A DISCIPLE. INCIDENCE OF BIRTH AND OATHS TAKEN ARE NOT VERY RELEVANT FOR DETERMINING A CHRISTIANOR. FOR THAT MATTER . THE SOURCE OF THEIR INSPIRATION FOR CERTAIN OF THEIR ATTRIBUTE IS NOT ALWAYS IMPORTANT. IF THEY ARE BEARING THE RIGHT KIND OF FRUIT, THEY ARE ABIDING IN THE VINE THAT IS JESUS. IN MY VIEW GANDHI WAS AN IMITATION OF CHRIST |
|
saumya22 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 23 of 30 ) you people ,this was a discussion was started to make an analysis of how gandhi took different good things and ideas from different(in actuality are not very different) religions and practiced them to the fullest,insted it has turned out to be a communal,ignorant ,idiotic people fighting over which religion is the best and in fact bringing out hatred. you religon should be ashamed of you. kthomas i agree with you . ak aziz ,you dont know any thing about islam ,so leave alone hinduism have u evr read any of the hindu scripture,they are too big for ignorant,hateful person like u. for that matter islam was born out of violence and continues to propagat violence.but it has good things to teach everybody. religion is not popular bcos of the number of people follwing it,but with how much dedication and faith you have in it.each one of has to realise that. gandhi was a true follower of all th reigions. incidamtally i hace read koran,some gita and bible. and above all tolerance and humanity is the biggest religion. no wonder there was only one gandhi!!!!!! live and love :-) |
|
rcb 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 24 of 30 ) Hi! Yes, I started this discussion, and have to admit it went a little off course! Like someone correctly pointed out, the purpose of starting this thread was not to generate any sense of competition or "hate" as he called it -but merely to bring up points in favour of, or opposed to -the fact that Gandhi (in his essense) was a hindu -that is to say -that he stood for everything that hinduism stood, and stands for. My point was that Gandhi was well known for three main things (his abolition of the caste, Non violence, and his quest for true truth). Does Hinduism really embrace each of these aspects that Gandhi so fanatically followed, or oppose them? The reason for asking the Question "was Gandhi a Hindu" then -is because in Gandhi's own words -he chose to call himself predominantly a Hindu (that is -he said "i chose to take the name of God as Rama" -and even though he was tolerant of all other religions, Hinduism was the one religion he "appeared" to have the most respect for.Was it possible that he called himself a Hindu (when much of what he stood for was so clearly against the hindu cause) out of fear of what the Hindu's at the time would do to him. Of course in the end it was an enraged Hindu fanatic that gunned him down.........something to think about for anyone who might be interested in this particular topic....more later, |
|
Tathagat 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 25 of 30 ) appa DeepO bhava :), Gaandhi was as fucked up about religion... as most baboons are... lol... ...Not only is Christianity going out of existence, all religions as such are already out of date. They are living a posthumous life. Whatever they have been teaching to humanity has been found criminal. Their God is a fiction, a lie. They all have been telling people to be truthful, and they are teaching lies about heaven and hell and God. They have made the whole of humanity hypocrite. The misery that you see all over the earth is created by your religions. Once you make a man feel guilty he cannot enjoy life, he cannot rejoice in existence. You have cut his roots, the very roots that nourish your joy, your blissfulness. All the religions have been against humanity. They are bound to go into extinction. The sooner they disappear from the earth the better. Man needs to sing with the birds, to dance with the trees. Man needs to rise to the heights of a Gautam Buddha. The religions have not been helping any evolution of consciousness; on the contrary they are the greatest obstacles. Religion has become a business in the hands of the priests. And certainly an authentic religiousness has nothing to do with business. It has something to do with your blossoming, it has something to do with your initiation into eternity, into truth, into beauty, into good. Religiousness has no way to make humanity spiritually slave -- but that's what religions have done. Everybody is enslaved, oppressed, exploited, and everybody is being poisoned by the religions, forced to be unnatural. And the moment you force somebody to be unnatural you are committing the greatest crime against existence. All the religions, God-oriented or not God-oriented, have been teaching man to renounce life. They are anti-life, they are against everything that can make you a whole person. Not only physically, not only psychologically, but spiritually too. They have been cutting you into pieces, and they have been trying for centuries, insistently, to enforce the idea of renouncement. This is not a right approach to existence. The moment you start renouncing, you start shrinking. Rather than growing, rather than becoming vaster and infinite, you start shrinking into yourself. You lose all interest in existence, in love, because you are told to torture yourself. Renunciation from the world is another name for self-torture. And a man who is torturing himself how can you expect him to dance? How can you expect him to be ecstatic? He is committing a slow suicide. |
|
Tathagat 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 26 of 30 ) appa DeepO bhava God-oriented religions, and not God-oriented religions -- both are going to disappear. Religion is an individual matter; it has nothing to do with collectivity. It is not a social phenomenon, it is very private, absolutely private, your innermost affair. Even love is not that much private, because at least two persons are involved in it. In meditation, nobody is involved only you are. It is absolutely individualistic. Never belong to any organization, never belong to any holy scriptures, churches, temples. Never belong to any monastery. This whole existence is available for you rejoice in it, celebrate in it. No religion teaches celebration; they teach celibacy! tathagat is absolutely against celibacy and all for celebration. ...bring a new approach towards life which the past humanity has missed a new freedom, a new sky to open your wings. All religions have been cutting your wings, putting you into cages and making you believe that this is all that life is. There was a reason for them to do this. Unless you take away people's individuality and destroy their wings and their freedom and cut their roots of nourishment, you cannot enslave them. It is impossible to create armies and wars; it is impossible to make millions of people suffer in poverty they would have revolted long ago. But religions are keeping them subdued by the fear of God, by the fear of punishment in hell, and by the greed that if you follow their commandments you will be rewarded immensely. |
|
saumya22 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 27 of 30 ) first of all ruth ,gandhi called himself a hindu bcos he believed in it 100% as he did in all the othr religions. racism ,discrimintion ,aparthied was made by humans not god,or christ or christianity(bcos it was practisd most by christinas). when he said ,i choose to call my god rama.he meant god is one ,and he has different names given human beings,it doesn't matter what he is called ,wther it is rama,jesus,allah or any other funny name. and that is what bhagawad gita says,acording to it the one who can feel god ,without calling names and all the other idols is the last stage of reaching salvation or moksha, having names and idols are all the first steps to reaching god,and very human(bcos we are weak),this are meant to help us reach towards salvation or god. gandhi was a true hindu ,he followed it 100%,unlike others who cannot follow any religion 100% and hinduism never taught caste and all other things a you claim,its humans who have created .it is ignorant,power crazy humans who do that. racism ,discrimintion ,aparthied was made by humans not god,or christ or christianity(bcos it was practisd most by christinas).do u say christ propagated racism? gandhi could achieve what other hindus are trying to do ,achive the true meaning of god .it is ignorant humans like us who still ask questions "was gandhi a hindu or a chritian or whatever" bhagawad gita says one who does eveil things has lesser caste"caste is not by birth but by actions. get your facts right ok anyway religion is very persoanal thing. soe religions propagate it,publicize it, and do all sorts of things,creating mir eproblems than propagating goodness and god. |
|
saumya22 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 28 of 30 ) tahagat i agree with u to some extent, but u seem like an athiest and please don't use bad words,a person with good communication as u shouln't do it religion is ver personal and private,people (especially christians ,by using cheap tactics to convert people are insulting it) the churches,temples .mosques are misusing it bye |
|
Rohit 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 29 of 30 ) Sorry U seem to be misguided. 1. Krishna did not persuade Arjuna to commit mass murder. He did not throw morality out the window. The soul doesn't die but he individual identity of the person dying is gone. 2. Caste system was at it's roots a division of labor necessary for a society to function. propagated in society over 5000 years ago so I wish people would GET OVER it and stop comparing to the Bill of Rights. 3. Life of Rama was about good vs evil and taught that when there is no other way - to fight. U seem to be making intentional inflammatory comments from an ignorant point ov view. Non-violence was more peaceful and less bloodshed then direct fighting and IT WORKED against the British.. IF it hadn't I have NO DOUBT that the next course of action would have been armed rebellion. |
|
rcb 10/11/2001 6:30:42 PM ( 30 of 30 ) Rohit, Thankyou for your response on that. Maybe I worded it incorrectly, but Krishna certainly did convince Arjuna that the murder of his relatives (in that specific case) was morally permittable......It is very clear in the Mahabharata, and of course the entire war between the two warring rivals was a result of Krishna's guidance. Secondly, I agree when you say that it was taught that when there is no other alternative -resort to violence. Gandhi however believed what the Bible taught -When there is NO other alternative, still -turn the other cheek........Gandhi quite firmly believed that Violence would never be an alternative, and that was a Biblical principal....Do you see? That was the point I was making. I certainly didn't intend any offense. Again in the case of the caste system, you are correct in saying it did in a sense allow for a society to be run....my point again though, was that GANDHI, fought against that society (and its castes) and wanted equality,,which hinduism (and the culture and society it bred -if you like) at the time, would not allow.....I did appreciate your response though, and look forward to reading anything else you have to say. :)Ruth |
bravenet.com