Atheist and Mahatma Gandhi

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

 

Atheist and Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

An atheist, he was an enemy of the State. It appears that he was behind the riot which broke out some time ago in one of the districts of Spain. He was accordingly court-martialed and ordered to be shot. The order was immediately carried out. This has created a stir among a large number of whites in Europe. They assert that Ferrer was not properly tried, that injustice was done to him. It had not been proved [they argue] that he had a hand in the riot. Meetings were held at several places to denounce the Spanish Government. Excitement ran so high among the people of Paris that it appeared as though there would be a big riot. One constable even lost his life. 1 Man is not born merely to eat, nor does he live merely for the sake of eating. He is born in order to know his Maker and he lives to this end. This cannot be done unless one keeps one’s body alive and the latter cannot exist without food. This is why food is a necessity. This is the ideal attitude and it will do for those who believe in God. But even the atheist will admit that one must eat with due regard to one’s health and with the object of keeping the body fit. 2

Some twenty years ago, this Mahatma’s sentiments sometimes appeared to be those of an atheist. He said once: “I don’t have Ranade’s faith. How I should like to have it!” Even at that time, however, I could see a religious bent of mind in his actions. It would not be wrong to say that his very doubt proceeded from such a bent of mind. He who lives in the manner of a sadhu, whose desires are simple, who is the image of truth, is full of humility, who represents the very essence of truth and has wholly renounced his ego, such a one is a holy soul, whether he knows it or not. Such a one was Mahatma Gokhale, as I could see from my twenty years’ acquaintance with him. 3 I gladly respond to the request to add my humble quota to the many appreciations that would be tendered to the Editor of New India on Mrs. Besant's birthday. It was in 1889 that I first paid my respects to Mrs. Besant when I was studying as a lad in London. I was privileged to do so by the courtesy of two English friends who were at the time ardent Theosophical students. She had only just joined the Theosophical Society there. Not much impression was created on my mind then. I really went not to have impressions but out of mere curiosity to see what this lady who was once an atheist looked like. My friends had told me that she was the best among the living women orators in the world, and that Madame Blavatsky was in great joy over this big "capture". But when, immediately after, I went to Queen's Hall, I went not to look at Mrs. Besant but to listen to her. And the words she uttered then as she rose to answer the charge of inconsistency have never faded from my memory. She said as she wound up her great speech which held her audience spell-bound that she would be quite satisfied to have the epitaph written on her tomb that she lived for truth and she died for truth. I had from my childhood an instinctive fascination for truth. The utter sincerity with which, I felt, she spoke these words captivated me and ever since I have followed her career with unabated interest and always with admiration for her boundless energy, her great organizing ability and her devotion to the work she might have made her own for the moment. I have sharp differences of opinion with her as to methods of work. I have also been hurt to feel at times that she has lost her robust independence of 1888 and her uncompromising search after and adherence to truth at all cost. But in the midst of all my doubts I have never wavered in my belief in her great devotion to India. It is no small gain for India to have her many gifts dedicated to her cause with a single-mindedness few of her natural-born sons and daughters can claim. I have no doubt that she has popularized Home Rule in a manner no other person has. May she be spared for many a long year to serve the country she has made her own. 4

Optimism indicates faith; only an atheist can be a pessimist. The optimist lives in fear of God, listens with humility to the inner voice, obeys its promptings and believes that God ordains everything for the best. 5 An atheist would take it in its gross meaning and would be tempted to indulge in physical pleasures. A devotee like Mira would find merriment only in devotion to God, in the path of service and in innocent joy. If there is God, worrying about Time is His concern. Why should we worry about it? Let us do what we have got to do with devotion to God. 6 Charles Bradlaugh described himself as an atheist no doubt but many a Christian declined to regard him as such. He recognized in Bradlaugh a greater kinship with himself than many a lip Christian. I had the privilege of attending the funeral of that good friend of India. I noticed several clergymen at the function. There were certainly several Mussalmans and many Hindus in the procession. They all believed in God. Bradlaugh’s denial of God was a denial of Him as He was known to Bradlaugh to have been described. His was an eloquent and indignant protest against the then current theology and the terrible contrast between precept and practice. 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.  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 touch. 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 that we mete out to our neighbours men and brutes. With Him ignorance is no excuse. And withal 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 Him 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 along 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 lute, and all would be well. 7

I cannot refuse space to Mr. Nadkarni clever letter. I must, however, adhere to my opinion that neither Jainism nor Buddhism is atheistic. I present Mr. Nadkarni with these definitions of God: The sum total of Karma is God. That which impels man to do the right is God. The sum total of all that lives is God. That which makes man the mere plaything of fate is God. That which sustained Bradlaugh throughout all his trials was God. He is the Denial of the atheist. 8 An atheist might floor me in a debate. But my faith runs so very much faster than any reason that I can challenge the whole world and say, “God is; was and ever shall be.” But those who want to deny His existence are at liberty to do so. He is merciful, and compassionate. He is not an earthly king needing an army to make us accept His sway. He allows us freedom, and yet His compassion commands obedience to His will. But if anyone of us disdains to bow to His will, He says: ‘So be it. My sun will shine no less for these; my clouds will rain no less for these. I need not force thee to accept my sway.’ Of such a God let the ignorant dispute the existence. I am one of the millions of wise men who believe Him and am never tired of bowing to Him and singing His glory. 9 I confess it may be difficult to prove the necessity of restraint to an atheist or a materialist. But he who knows the perishable nature of flesh from the imperishable nature of the spirit instinctively knows that self-realization is impossible without self-discipline and self-restraint. The body may either be a play-ground of passion or a temple of self-realization. If it is the latter, there is no room there for libertinism. The spirit needs must curb the flesh every moment. 10

We have not yet fully discussed the premise on which the argument of the Gita is based. Yesterday we were discussing Arjuna’s plea that it is wrong to kill one’s kinsmen, not that it is wrong to kill at all. He was asked to forget the distinction of kinsmen and outsiders. The Hindu Shastras say that non-violence is the supreme dharma. The question, therefore, whether or not it is right to kill does not arise. Only an atheist would raise such a question. Arjuna has observed the disciplines of yama-niyama, among which ahimsa is placed first. But ahimsa is an ideal which it is impossible to realize to perfection. It may be possible to realize it in thought, but not in action. Shankaracharya has said that one seeking moksha should have far greater patience than one who would try to empty the sea, drop by drop, with a blade of grass. One must have equal patience for realizing the ideal of perfect non-violence. It is impossible in this body to follow ahimsa fully. That is why moksha is laid down as the supreme end of life. Violence is inescapable. While the eyes wink and nails have to be pared, violence in one form or another is unavoidable. Evil is inherent in action, the Gita says further on. Arjuna did not, therefore, raise the question of violence and non-violence. He simply raised the question of distinction between kinsmen and others, much in the same way that a fond mother would advance arguments favouring her child. 11

There is much disputation concerning the meaning of the verse which we took up for discussion yesterday, as will be evident to anyone who makes a deep study of the Gita. I however feel that you should follow the rule that I have followed. It does not matter if that seems like making a virtue of our weakness. We should not involve ourselves in disputations about the meaning of Shastras. Bishop Butler was a man of great learning, but he took a pledge never to enter in a religious controversy. An atheist happened to be on a visit [to England]. The Bishop could have argued with him. But he wrote to a friend saying that he would not enter into any discussion with the atheist. It was possible, he said, that he might not be able to answer an argument of the latter on the instant. It was also possible, he added, that his reasoning might have no effect on others, in which case he would produce on them a wrong impression. It was therefore better, he said, to remain quiet. The atheist was free to question any belief. Why enter into any argument, about the existence of God, which was self-evident?  I advised him to keep repeating Ramanama. What one does in this way never goes in vain. How would it have helped him if I had advised him to have a yajna performed? He would not have got a genuine priest to conduct the yajna. There would be many other difficulties. Nor would I advise him to go to Jagannath Puri 3 and make such and such an offering to such and such a deity. What if following my advice, he became an atheist? If, instead, he got smitten with love for Rama, he would be saved from a great fear. He suffers from a mental disease and should become free from attachments. He should constantly think on Rama. Doctors, too, advise us not to think of the disease from which we may be suffering. 12

In our ordinary language we say that God grants freedom to the atman, for we do not know how to express the idea in any other way. But can the atman ever merge in God except through its own power? It has all the attributes of God, and that is why it can merge in Him. As the atman is self-effulgent, so is God. A thing cannot merge in something else with unlike attributes. We are advised to take care and see that our atman does not destroy itself, for it is in the power of the atman to do so, though, of course, it cannot annihilate itself completely because it is imperishable. The man who says “I am an atheist” contradicts himself in that very statement. We cannot add a single moment to the life of this universe, and so also we can never succeed in destroying the atman.  While we live, there are two sides in us: the demoniac and the divine, the God-like and the Satanic. So long as this strife goes on, it is our duty to fight Satan and protect ourselves. In the war between gods and demons, it is the former who always win in the end. When the world is no more, God will laugh and ask where Satan was. The atman of the atheist acts as his enemy. The truth is that the atman of each of us does so, thanks to the evil of Kaliyuga. 13 

I would not mind even an atheist entering our temple, for I know that God can take care of Himself. Who is there in the world who can insult the God in the image? But the lady friend who was with me is a Buddhist and therefore a Hindu if she had no right to enter the temple, which else can have it? I have visited many places of pilgrimage and I have been pained to see hypocrisy and cupidity there. It is necessary first to purify the drunken and dissolute worshippers in charge of some of these temples. If the things continue as they are today, if we do not bestir ourselves and go through the necessary penance and cleansing and self-purification, I tell you that not even the 22 crores of Hindus can keep Hinduism alive. The Himalayas are spotlessly snow-white in virtue of the spotless glory of the countless sages who laid down their lives performing penance in their caves. Only such penance can save us and our religion from perdition today.  It was about this time that Bradlaugh died. He was buried in the Working Cemetery. I attended the funeral, as I believe every Indian residing in London did. A few clergymen also were present to do him the last honours. On our way back from the funeral we had to wait at the station for our train. A champion atheist from the crowd heckled one of these clergymen. ‘Well, Sir, you believe in the existence of God?’ ‘I do,’ said the good man in a low tone. ‘You also agree that the circumference of the Earth is 28,000 miles, don’t you?’ said the atheist with a smile of self-assurance. ‘Indeed.’ ‘Pray tell me then the size of your God and where he may be?’ ‘Well, if we but knew, He resides in the hearts of us both.’ ‘Now, now, don’t take me to be a child,’ said the champion with a triumphant look at us. The clergyman assumed a humble silence. This talk still further increased my prejudice against atheism. 14 

Whether by reason, or by instinct, or by superstition, man acknowledges some sort of relationship with the divine. The rankest agnostic or atheist does acknowledge the need of a moral principle, and associates something good with its observance and something bad with its non-observance. 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 at 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. 15

An atheist or a rationalist would describe the incident as mere accident. It was an accident, no doubt, but seeing God is also an accident. If we but understand the truth, we would see Him every day; otherwise our whole life would pass without our seeing Him. But I will not dwell further on this. I wanted to note this incident in the diary yesterday, but, in my preoccupation with other work I wrote in it only about the daily sacrificial work and forgot to note this. While writing about the merchant and Gopi, I remembered this holy experience and have shared it with you. I learnt much else, too, from it yesterday. God alone knows whether I shall be able to digest all that. I will now answer your question here. As we reflect deeper and remain peaceful, the meaning of ahimsa and truth becomes clearer. I even realize the supreme utility of these two. I believe we realize God in the degree to which we practise them. I am getting more convinced than ever in my view that seeing God except through truth and ahimsa is impossibility. How can members of a group practise ahimsa towards one another? They can do so by displaying generosity towards coworkers and their faults and everyone regarding his own faults with strictness. Anyone who observes the faults of others believes, whether he is conscious of the fact or not, that he does not have the same faults. This gives rise to pride. The true rule is that one should oneself observe all rules strictly and tolerate others who seem slack in observing them.

This is not kindness but strict justice. Do we really know what effort is made by a person in observing a rule even as slackly as he does? If our seeming strictness in observing rules comes naturally to us, what is the value of that strictness? Is it any cause for wonder if a man like Bhima can lift a weight of four pounds with the utmost ease? A girl, however, might slip down while trying to lift one pound; what would we think of that Bhima if he laughed at her then? Really speaking, the effort of that girl to lift one pound is of much greater value than Bhima’s lifting the weight of four pounds. If Bhima had not lifted that weight, somebody else as strong would have lifted it; but by her effort to lift one pound that girl taught the world a lesson in doing one’s duty and earned God’s grace. Our dharma therefore does not lie in criticizing others and thereby committing violence; it lies in becoming more vigilant ourselves. If a strong bullock is yoked with one seemingly or really weak, the former’s duty is to do more work and make up for the deficiency of the latter. The driver goads it to labour harder. If the strong bullock does not do the work expected of it, it is looked upon as a shirker; it is selfish and has no pity on the other one. Let us never be shirkers. Let us always do our duty. God will judge us and our co-workers. He can see into the hearts of all. We scarcely can see into our own. We easily learn this if we strive sincerely to cultivate ahimsa. 16

When I was quite young I did go through a period of complete disbelief, I was an atheist in fact. This was when I was about fourteen. Since then, however, I have always believed in God. 17 The denial of God is injurious in the same way as denial of us. That is to say, to deny God is like committing suicide. The fact remains that it is one thing to believe in God and quite another to realize God emotionally and act accordingly. Truly, no one in the world is an atheist; atheism is merely a pose. 18 A poor man is one who has not a drop of true love. And a rich man is one who has enough love to encompass an insect as well as a mad elephant. The atheist does not recognize the all-pervasive spirit present beyond his own physical self. The believer sees everywhere nothing but the spirit. 19

The assertion that God himself is truth has a drawback that it implies some further qualities possessed by God. That God has many names, a thousand, is quite true. But remembering God as the possessor of many names is fraught with the possibility of a diminution in the significance of the entity to which we wish to offer total surrender. But all other attributes fade away when we proclaim that Truth alone is God; only the idea of truth remains in mind and this is more prevalent in monism. Atheism has no place here as even an atheist accepts existence which is a development of sat. Here truth does not imply merely truthfulness of speech; its meaning here is unity of thought, word and deed and yet more. Whatever is in reality here, what existed in the past and will remain in the future is the substance, truth, Parameshwar and nothing but that. 20

You are a pessimist and an atheist. I am a great optimist and a devotee of God. I, therefore, see no possibility of our agreeing about anything. Both of us, therefore, should go our different ways and learn in the school of experience. He who survives will know the truth a little. 21 They exaggerate the reformers’ claim out of all proportion, and then to describe me as Buddha is to damn the cause in advance, for orthodoxy believes Buddha to have been an atheist denying the authority of the Vedas, varnashrama and everything. They take pride in the fact that Shankar arose to drive out Buddhism and they will naturally want to drive me out if I am anything like the Buddha of their imagination. The latest statement of Ranga Iyer therefore increases my fear of advocacy. 22 

Then, Mr. Ranga Iyer, in his enthusiasm and blind affection for me, has been betrayed into an unfortunate analogy. I do not consider myself in any way fit to be compared with the Buddha. I regard myself as a very common man a poor worker, liable to all the errors mankind is prone to make. I am merely a humble truth-seeker. But the analogy is unfortunate for another reason also. Sanatanists would say that the Buddha was an atheist, and that he did not accept the authority of the Vedas and did not believe in their divinity not that as a matter of fact he was an atheist or did not believe in the Vedas. But, what he really was not pertinent to our point. Therefore, if I am also considered an atheist or non-believer in the divinity of the Vedas, I am certainly out of court, as a reformer asking Hindus to reject modern untouchability as being wholly against Hindu Shastras regarded as a whole. 23 The third question is a particularly difficult one. The underlying idea behind the question is that Harijans are wholly in the power of others and living in fear. If this is the case the only advice that may be given is that they should seek police help. Dr. Ambedkar told me that the police, coming as they do from caste Hindu communities, often do not help, which is likely to be true. Under the circumstances all that one could say is that where the police are hostile or apathetic, where no one from among the caste Hindus is ready to help, and where the Harijans themselves have not generated enough strength in themselves, the only thing possible is for the Harijans to have patience. The only consolation which can be offered is that for every individual and society a time comes when no alternative is left but to be patient. Otherwise man would become an atheist and forget God. Therefore, where there is no non-violent recourse possible the Harijans should pray to Hari. 24

It is a good omen to me and to my cause and service of Harijans that such a big rush of people has come for me. I believe that they really want to drive out this curse of untouchability from the Hindu society. All are equal in the eyes of God and they have equal right to use public wells, schools and temples. The present movement is directed towards self-purification and one should not think oneself high or low in one’s estimation. The form in which untouchability is practised in India is to be found in no other country and it does not find support in the code of Manu. I am not an atheist. I have fifty years of experience and have not observed such distinction. 25 To be an atheist till one comes to have faith in God is as reasonable as one’s trying to cremate the body of a man who has entered samadhi, assuming him dead till one can be sure that he is alive. If bhavana and shraddha can be distinguished from each other, one benefits by joining the prayer with a sincere heart even in the absence of bhavana, in order to acquire shraddha. If we are living among primitive people, instead of propagating our religion we should propagate the religion of morality. As and when the doors of their hearts open, they may choose whichever religion they like. We shall have given them general information about all the religions. 26

If Gokulbhai were not to give me the news of the passing of your life companion, then who else would? He is one of your many admirers. Where is the need for offering condolence to you? I had been hearing about your illness. I did not know anything about Sushilabehn. Truly God tests his devotees. You have passed through many ordeals. You have to pass all the tests. To those whom God tests He seems to give strength to bear suffering. Your faith in God will make even an atheist a believer. 27 I am afraid I would. Such a man is worthy of my reverence; but such a one would himself say he is not a satyagrahi of my definition. But I may be doing an injustice to his memory. I never had the privilege of meeting him. He might have had a living faith in an indefinable, self-acting Power whilst he declared himself an atheist. 28 

There is only one way. The true servant of God can convert the atheist by means of his own purity and good conduct. It can never be done by argument. Innumerable books have been written to prove the existence of God, and if argument could have prevailed, there would not be a single atheist in the world today. But the opposite is the case. In spite of all the literature on the subject, atheism is on the increase. Often, however, the man who calls himself an atheist is not one in reality; and the converse also is equally true. Atheists sometimes say, “If you are believers, then we are unbelievers.” And they have a right to say so, far self-styled believers are often not so in reality. Many worship God because it is the fashion to do so or in order to deceive the world. How can such persons have any influence on atheists? Therefore let the believer realize and have the faith that, if he is true to God, his neighbours will instinctively not be atheists. Do not let him be troubled about the whole world. Let us remember that atheists exist by the sufferance of God. How truly has it been said that those who worship God in name only are not believers but those who do His will! 29

Atheism is a denial of self. No one has succeeded in its propagation. Such success as you have attained is due to your sincere work among the people round you. I am sorry I cannot invite you to come here. I have no time to spare for talks. 30 Everyone who wants to live a true life has to face difficulties in life, some of which appear insurmountable. At that time it is faith in God, that is, Truth alone that will sustain you. The fellow-feeling which makes you feel miserable because of your brother’s misery is godliness. You may call yourself an atheist, but so long as you feel akin with mankind you accept God in practice. I remember of clergymen who ca