**1. Introduction**

Veena Howard's complaint that many studies tend to compartmentalise Gandhi's life and work by describing him as either an excellent politician, a nonviolent revolutionary, or a spiritual leader (Howard 2007, pp. 380, 394) is still relevant today. In recent years, however, even the more detailed Gandhi studies increasingly show a broader picture. On the chronological level, the decades-long failure to integrate the "African" and "Indian" Gandhi has opened new perspectives (Hofmeyr 2014; Guha 2013, 2019). In comparative studies, the weighing of possibilities and limitations of Gandhi's legacy and those of scholars from other traditions have proven fruitful for current issues concerning violence and political change (Du Toit and Vosloo 2021; Meir 2021a, 2021b; Palaver 2020, 2021). Nevertheless, the most controversial link between Howard's compartments is that of the relation between religion and politics or between faith and nonviolence. The often-used private (religion)/public (politics) or spiritual/temporal distinction is not sufficient. The search for the predominant factor in Gandhi's characterization as a hybrid thinker between East and West has admittedly resulted in the highlighting of important aspects (Parekh 1989; Parel 2006, 2009), but this question is still open to debate (Gray and Hughes 2015).

**Citation:** Noort, Ed. 2022. Gandhi's Use of Scriptures: A Hermeneutic of Nonviolence against Letters That Kill. *Religions* 13: 153. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/rel13020153

Academic Editor: Aje Carlbom

Received: 30 December 2021 Accepted: 1 February 2022 Published: 10 February 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

There is a need for approaches that do not frame Gandhi in advance, thereby strengthening the above-mentioned compartmentalisation.

These discussions underlie this paper's focus on Gandhi's use of religious scriptures, that is, his hermeneutics reading authoritative texts. Although this scriptural use is a relatively minor part in the literature on his life and work, authoritative texts play a major role in defining religious identity in *bonam* and in *malem partem*. In most religions, they function as "'Holy Writ', as sacred books, as spoken word, in public ritual, in devotional and spiritual life" (Graham 2005, pp. 8197–200). They serve to bring legitimation, continuation, and actualisation. However, their use as instruments for determining the validity of beliefs tends to produce a dark side of othering, drawing boundaries, and excluding people even within their own group-tied belief systems. This Janus-head-like character of scriptural use makes the focus on Gandhi's hermeneutics a magnifying glass for illuminating Cox's conclusion that Gandhi's "formation of religious identity is part of the formation of the ethico-political identity—and vice versa" (Cox 2010, p. 18). Religion is understood here as a process, not as an object separated from time and place, and references to scriptures will be made by considering together their origins and reception histories, which demands a contextual reading. This contextual reading means that the real question is not whether Gandhi's allegorical reading of the Gita is "right," but *why and in which situation* Gandhi preferred the allegorical meaning rather than the literal or historical one.

#### **2. Reading Scriptures**

Although "Gandhi did not set out to evolve a philosophy of life or formulate a system of beliefs or ideals" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 1, p. V), he used the scriptures of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the writings of Plato, Goethe, Bunyan and others in several ways. In the biblical examples (Emilsen 2001; Smith-Christopher 1993), Daniel can be paired with Socrates; Jesus can be compared not only with Tolstoy, but also with the Oxford martyrs Cranmer and Latimer, when English readers were addressed; in the Indian context, Harischandra, Prahlad, and Mirabai, among others, came together. Gandhi advocated a Hinduism that is "no narrow creed," but that embraces the inspirations of Zoroaster, Moses, Christ, Mohammed, Nanak, and others. This colourful bunch of names reveals, in the first place, that Gandhi communicated very carefully with his audience or readers. He adjusted his views and examples, in many cases, according to situation, time, and place.

At the root of Gandhi's use of scriptures is his basic idea that "all religions [are] not only true, but equal." In his discussion with the American missionary Keithahn, he refined this thesis. Comparing religions by negative points does not make sense, because it is easy to ridicule another religion: "They are equally true and equally imperfect." All the prophets are equal; therefore, Moses (Law) and Jesus (Gospel) have to be held equal. For handling the scriptures, this means that "if you read the Koran, you must read it with the eye of the Muslim; if you read the Bible, you must read it with the eye of the Christian, if you read the Gita, you must read it with the eye of a Hindu" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 64, p. 420). When asked which helpful readings were part of his spiritual life, Gandhi mentioned the Qur'an, the New Testament, Tulsidas' *Ramayana*, and the "pure religious discourse" of the Gita, which describes the progress of the pilgrim soul towards the Supreme Goal.

Scriptures served Gandhi as comforts in extreme situations, as examples for *satyagraha*, as a mirror for believers to be reminded of the true nature of their own religion, and as references to a universal truth behind the current religions.

The aim of the study of scriptures should to put them into practice. What Gandhi formulated in his discourses on the Gita also applied de facto for all authoritative religious texts. According to Gandhi, "We should understand the meaning of the words of the Gita not merely to satisfy our curiosity but with the aim of putting its teaching into practice ... We should leave alone what we cannot put into practice. It is a misuse of our intellectual energy and a waste of time to go on reading what we cannot put into practice" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 32, pp. 227–28).

In a letter to his secretary, Sonja Schlesin (Paxton 2006), Gandhi formulated a methodical approach for interpretation and stated his aversion to reading scriptures literally:

"In reading all religious works, I have learnt one thing. Never to take them literally, but understand the drift and catch the drift also by means of what is to me an infallible canon of interpretation, and reject those which cannot stand the test of Truth and Ahimsa. I know that even in spite of this canon of interpretation difficulties do arise; but they are solved if one has patience and if one has a living faith in God". (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 33, p. 355)

Gandhi's criteria, his "infallible canon of interpretation," aimed at revealing the spirit of and behind the text and included truth, *ahim. sa¯*, and a living faith. In the hermeneutical hierarchy, however, reason came first: "I cannot let a scriptural text supersede my reason" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 64, p. 75).
