2.1.2. Ahim. sa¯

Gandhi transformed the practice and theory of *ahim. sa¯* in a decisive way. He turned the traditional negative and passive conception of it (non-injury) into a concept of active love by connecting *ahim. sa¯* with compassion and love as "a root and the tree which sprouts from it" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 40, pp. 191–92). *Ahim. sa¯* is not only a guideline for the individual, but a "rule of conduct for society" as well (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 77, p. 145). Parekh rightly noticed the strong influence of Tolstoy on Gandhi's new concept of *ahim. sa¯*, but criticised the latter for his defence of this concept as the real meaning of *ahim. sa¯* in Hindu scriptures and traditions (Parekh 1999, pp. 126–30). For Gandhi, however, this was a political and religious necessity. He wanted to unite all Hindus, regardless of caste and religion. His ideas about the equality of all religions concerned not only the so-called world religions, but also implied that even the diversity in popular Hinduism had to be accepted insofar as there were no harmful effects of the religious practices and rituals. Therefore, he needed a common ground and stated that he only renewed the old truth by presenting the real spirit of scripture and tradition. For himself, he claimed to be an orthodox, *Sanatani* Hindu, being well aware of the fact that following his own path meant, for many orthodox Hindus, a transgression of the boundaries of specific religious traditions (Mishra 2019, p. 74).

If nonviolence meant that active love was the practised form of *ahim. sa¯*, he defined the concept itself as uttermost selflessness, meaning complete freedom from the regard for one's own body. Underpinning this definition are Gandhi's thoughts about body, soul, and *moks.a*: "The sin of *himsa* consists ... in taking life fore the sake of one's perishable body" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 31, p. 545). The loss of the intertwining of this bodily aspect and the transference of the concept of *ahim. sa¯* was one of the concerns of Veena Howard, mentioned above. Gandhi's nonviolent resistance was unthinkable without his own personal detachment and asceticism. At the same time, Gandhi warned against principles above time and space. The ideal of total selflessness cannot be reached, because living means to destroy some life for the sustaining one's own body or protecting those for whom one is responsible. In extreme situations, killing might be *ahim. sa¯* (in case of one running amok) and not killing *him. sa¯* (in the case of failing a necessarily surgical intervention). There may be *yogis*, who are an exception in that they face the one who is running amok with conscious self-sacrifice. For ordinary, erring human beings, however, *him. sa¯* is unavoidable. Therefore, one has to strive for as little *him. sa¯* as possible. Each case should be considered very carefully, and all other means must be exhausted (Gandhi 1958– 1994, vol. 31, p. 546). Not only the cases Gandhi referred to, but also his own statements should be weighed carefully, depending on time, situation, and addressees. "I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the *rishis* and the saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law—to the strength of the spirit." (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 18, p. 133 = Young India 11.8.1920). These reflections on the "Doctrine of the Sword" mirror the drama of the *satyagraha* against the Rowlatt Act, the massacre by British General Dyer at Amritsar (April 1919), and the violence that followed. It is precisely in that context that Gandhi's

statement gains extra weight. The religion of nonviolence is never at stake; it is not only for extraordinary people, but with the strength of the spirit, all humans—common people—are involved. However, what can be called *him. sa¯* or *ahim. sa¯* can vary depending on time, place and situation.2

#### 2.1.3. Truth

"Truth is the sovereign principle," Gandhi wrote in the introduction of his autobiography, "the Absolute Truth, the Eternal Principal, that is God ... I worship God as Truth only" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 39, p. 4). Looking back at the end of his biography, he hoped that his efforts had brought "Faith in Truth and *ahimsa*", because "a perfect vision of Truth can only follow a complete realisation of *ahimsa*" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 39, p. 401). "Truth and non-violence are my God. They are the obverse and reverse of the same coin" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 72, p. 31, cf. vol. 22, pp. 209, 271).<sup>3</sup> After the coining of *satyagraha* as the better definition of the earlier used "passive resistance," Gandhi emphasised that *satyagraha* did not mean that success would be guaranteed. On the other hand, it could never bring defeat, because serving the Truth was the only way of doing His will (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 8, p. 61).<sup>4</sup> In his article "Triumph of Truth," he underlined these points using Gita 2:38: "With an even mind face happiness and unhappiness, gain and loss, victory and defeat, and so join battle, thou son of Prithu (Arjuna); thou shalt incur no sin thereby." Perseverance and the righteousness of the struggle are necessary.

By the explicit reversal of "God is Truth" into "Truth is God," (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 48, pp. 404–5) Gandhi found an even clearer formula for intertwining religious inspiration and social and political struggle. In 1931, he explained to a Western public5 why he chose "Truth is God." He would not oppose seeing God as love, but love has so many meanings, which makes it multi-interpretable (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 48, p. 404). Gandhi stated that the variety of the interpretations of love did not apply to the concept of truth through the meaning of *ahim. sa¯* if seeking the truth occurred by listening to the inner voice, in a sense of humility, and by being bound to several vows as guiding principles for *satyagrahis.* The "diligent search after Truth/God" cannot be done without "the vows of speaking/thinking truth, *brahmacharya* (chastity), non-violence, poverty and non-possession" (Gandhi 1958– 1994, vol. 48, p. 406).6 On one side, the search for truth was constricted by the demands placed on *satyagrahis;* on the other side, the reversal of God = Truth to Truth = God and seeking truth as the highest aim in life might widen the circles of the participants in the social-political struggle<sup>7</sup> (Nauriya 2020, p. 103).

Seeking truth will always be unfinalised, according to Gandhi. Truth = God is the vantage point on the horizon where the parallel lines of *satyagraha* and *ahim. sa¯* converge.

#### 2.1.4. Living Faith

From his own religious background, Gandhi was familiar with the plurality of Godimages expressed by the "thousand names for God"<sup>8</sup> in Vaishnavism, and he found it confirmed in Islam9. His basic assumption, however, was that "God alone is and nothing else exists." Connected with the reversed Truth = God, he was able to use a colourful, figurative language: "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*, and all would be well" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 26, p. 225). Praise and the music of the lute are the vision, but only by "*doing* His will." Imagery is the language of faith.10 When Mirabehn stated that fear is the result of a lack of faith, Gandhi answered that the eradication of fear and senses will happen "only by seeing God face to face. When we meet Him, we will dance in the joy of His Presence and there will be neither fear of snakes nor of the death of dear ones. For there is no death and no snake-bites in His Presence. The fact is that the most living faith, too, falls short of the perfect" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 52, pp. 257–58). Only God is fearlessness (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 26, p. 225); humans have to live with fear and must face fear with trust and faith. Gandhi emphasised this eschatological seeing of God face to

face with two scriptural references: Mt 6:33: "But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well," together with Gita 2:59: "For an embodied man who does not eat, the sense objects fade away, except his taste for them; his taste, too, fades when he has seen the highest."<sup>11</sup> The New Testament and the Gita follow here a different path—"all things needed for daily life will be given to you" according to the Gospel, and the disappearance of senses, according to the Gita—but both have in common the striving for eschatological bliss: the Kingdom of God and seeing the Highest.

Because the faith-based search for truth enabled the use of religious language and bridged the gap between the religious and the secular, as well as between the diversity among religious groups, Gandhi defended in Congress his use of religious notions: "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" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 26, p. 224, cf. vol. 25, pp. 52–53).

The last criterion Gandhi mentioned in his Schlesin Letter was "a living faith in God." From Gandhi's own statements about his personal faith and the vast literature on this theme (Bilgrami 2011; Chatterjee 1983; Fischer 1997; Majmudar 2005; Mishra 2019; Nauriya 2020; Parekh 1989; Tidrick 2006), I refer to four exemplary statements that highlight the ups and downs of his religious life.

Reproached for using the more informal appellative "Rama," instead of the official title "Shri Ramachandra Prabhu" for the Vishnu avatar, Gandhi answered with a nearly mystical explanation:

"I myself am a Vaishnava ... There was a time in my life when I knew Rama as Shri Ramachandra. But that time has now passed. Rama has now come into my home ... To me, an orphan without mother, father, brother, Rama is all in all. My mother, my father, my brother—He is everything to me. My life is His. In Him I live. I see Him in all women, and so regard every one of them as mother or sister. I see Him in all men and, therefore, look on everyone as father, brother or son according to his age ... Even now, although Rama is near, He is not near enough to me; ... He is mine now and I [am] His slave. Hence, I beg Vaishnavas not to force me to stay at some distance from Him. The love that must be supported by formal courtesy, does it deserve the name of love?". (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 24, pp. 196–97)

The intertwining of a living faith, as stated above, and the realisation of his political program may be illustrated with Gandhi's ultimate ideal of *Ramarajya*, the kingdom or the rule of Rama.12 Time and again Gandhi used this concept in connection with *swaraj*, "self-rule" (Gandhi 2009) as a condition for *Ramarajya*. He universalised *Ramarajya* by stating that for a Muslim audience, he would call it *Khudai Raj* and for a Christian audience, the Kingdom of God on Earth (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 85, p. 137). *Ramarajya* did not mean *Hindu Raj*, but Divine *Raj*, because Rama and Rahim (Allah, the Merciful) were one and the same deity for Gandhi (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 41, p. 374). Several times he added to the Kingdom of God "on earth," because both the biblical concept and the way Tolstoy (Tolstoy 1894) understood it differed from the concreteness of Gandhi's imagery of Rama rule. Rama rule meant for him an era of truth or the people's *raj* (democracy). In it, the ruler should be the protector; there should be pure air and water for everybody, as well as sufficient food, clothing, and equality in education (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 45, p. 328). Even the distinction between *Brahmin* and *Maharaja*, between *Brahmin* and *Banghi* (Dalit caste) would disappear when their usefulness to society, and not their descent, would be the criterion for judgment (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 64, p. 163).

His living faith and his experience of the nearness of Rama did not make Gandhi invulnerable. His faith and trust were on trial many times. Frustrated about the divisions in Congress and the tensions between Muslims and Hindus, Gandhi wrote in the same year, 1924, about Goethe's Faust and the famous scene of Gretchen (Margareth) at the spinning-wheel13:

"You may paraphrase them a little and the verses almost represent my condition. I seem to have lost my Love too and feel distracted. I feel the abiding presence of my Lover and yet he seems to be away from me. For he refuses to guide me and give clear-cut injunctions. On the contrary, like Krishna, the arch mischief-maker to the Gopis, he exasperates me by appearing, disappearing, and reappearing.". (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 25, p. 77)

Twenty-three years later, Gandhi's *satyagraha* and his mission of keeping Hindus and Muslims together as one nation in one state failed. It was the tragedy of reaching independence, but losing unity.<sup>14</sup> The partition between India and Pakistan on 14–15 August 1947 and the end of British rule led to an explosion of violence between Hindus and Muslims: massacres, migration waves, riots, and rapes. Gandhi spent the day of independence in fasting and prayer. He described his state not as depressed, but as helpless:

"Mine must be a state of complete resignation to the Divine Will ... All we can do is to make as near an approach to it as possible ... I invoke the aid of the all-embracing Power to take me away from this 'vale of tears' rather than make me a helpless witness of the butchery by man become savage, whether he dares to call himself a Muslim or a Hindu or what not. Yet I cry—'Not my will but Thine alone shall prevail'. If He wants me, He will keep me here on this earth yet awhile". (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 89, pp. 285–86; Luke 22:42)

There is still trust in divine guidance, and Gandhi is aware of the limits of his work. The questions of how and whether to live on he expressed with the strongest words he could find, quoting Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane before his imprisonment and execution.

Gandhi started his last and fifteenth fast on 13 January 1948, hoping to be so pure that he would be able to use the ultimate means of *satyagraha*, a fast until death. Because the "rot has set in in beloved India," he had taken this step

"with God as my supreme and sole counsellor ... I do so because I must. Hence I urge everybody dispassionately to examine the purpose and let me die, if I must, in peace, which I hope is ensured. Death for me would be a glorious deliverance rather than that I should be a helpless witness of the destruction of India, Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam. That destruction is certain if Pakistan does not ensure equality of status and security of life and property for all professing the various faiths of the world and if India copies her". (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 90, pp. 409–10; Prayer meeting 12 January 1948)

This last fast met with such a resonance that he was able to break it five days later. Two weeks later, on 30 January 1948, he was killed by the Hindu nationalist Nathuram Godse.

#### **3. A Key for the Interpretation of Scriptures (2 Cor 3:6)**

#### *3.1. Gandhi and 2 Cor 3:6*

Gandhi argued that scriptures never have a directly divine origin. The principal books might be inspired, but they "suffer from a double distillation," because they were "transmitted by a human prophet" and needed to bridge the distance between then and now with the help of commentaries and various interpreters. Such a time gap and the hands and voices that transmitted, (re)wrote, and remembered the texts might cause abuse and misunderstandings. The idea of Holy Writ as directly inspired by the deity and therefore, authoritative and beyond reproach, had to be denied, according to Gandhi. In the background of his arguments may be the distinction between *sruti ´* ("what is heard") as the most holy parts of sacred literature, and the less-revered *smr.ti* ("what is remembered") scriptures in Hindu traditions, but Gandhi underlined his argument with a quote from the New Testament: "And above all, 'the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life'" (2 Cor 3:6).15 This became his leading principle for the interpretation of scriptures and traditions. Though

Gandhi "did not like [everything in...] Paul's letters," the principle of the killing letter and the life-giving spirit functioned as a basic mantra for his exegesis (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 64, p. 75). Gandhi repeated this principle in debates when he was challenged by others using scriptural arguments.

One of these situations was in discussing the role of Jesus with Christian missionaries. Gandhi understood Jesus as one of the greatest teachers of the world, but denied his exclusivity. He stated that Jesus "no doubt, said: 'I am the way,'('and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me' (John 14:6)), but he also said: 'The letter killeth,'" and Gandhi added: "These things are to be taken figuratively and not literally" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 40, p. 315). Two points are remarkable here. The killing letter and the life-giving spirit were understood as a discrepancy between a literal and a figurative reading. Secondly, Gandhi ascribed the quote from 2 Cor 3:6 to the viva voce of Jesus and not to Paul.

Asked whether his civil disobedience was not going against Mt 22:21: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," Gandhi paraphrased the text by demonstrating that the Pharisees already possessed the "coins for taxes," used the benefits of Roman rule, and therefore practised what they formulated now as a question. His own assumption was that Jesus "would not have hesitated to defy the might of emperors had he found it necessary." With a clear warning against the trap of literalism, Gandhi referred to 2 Cor 3:6 and to the message of a whole book instead of one single verse (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 43, pp. 131–32).

The killing letter and the life-giving spirit from the New Testament were not limited to the debates between Gandhi and Christians. He used this principle to defend a decision of Congress that called untouchability a sin against the arguments that untouchability belonged to Hinduism: " ... untouchability is not a sanction of religion, it is a device of Satan. The devil has always quoted scriptures. But scriptures cannot transcend reason and truth. They are intended to purify reason and illuminate truth ... 'the letter killeth.' It is the spirit that giveth the light" (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 19, p. 243). According to Gandhi, scriptures have a subordinate function in purifying the possibilities and limits of reason and illuminating truth, limiting the first and helping the latter to shine brighter. Again, he brought up the case of the single sentence against the message of the whole. Notions of the Vedas, such as purity, truth, innocence, chastity, humility, simplicity, forgiveness, and godliness, are instruments to overcome the letter that kills. These notions, not a literal reading of a single verse or commandment, shaped the spirit of the Vedas. A literal reading may be ignored with the help of leading principles.

No golden rule above time and space may be derived from this. In several cases, Gandhi defended a literal reading, e.g., of the Sermon on the Mount. For literal readings, he argued that the golden rule from Mt 7:12: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets" should be the criterion (Gandhi 1958–1994, vol. 19, p. 243).

In the context of the explicit quoting of 2 Cor 3:6, Gandhi equalised the killing letter and the life-giving spirit with literal and figurative readings. In other cases, he contrasted the supposed meaning of a whole book or the central thoughts of a textual corpus against the one-sided meaning of a single sentence or expression.
