Gandhi's take on Jesus and orthodox Christianity

[metis]

I always take it when Acumen and others exclude non-Christians" from truly understanding Christianity that it's because our non-belief prevents us from truly understanding the experience of being Christian. If we don't believe in the divinity of Christ we can't share in the Christian experience and knowledge. We non-believers often can quote scriptures and discuss their intellectual meaning but we can't move beyond the intellectual to the deeper experience.

I hear ya.  Gotta go for now since my time has almost expired.  See ya tomorrow I hope.

[metis]

I've been busy on some other threads, but I thought I'd revisit this to throw out and explanation and a question.  The explanation first.

I think it was Acumen who mentioned that Gandhi did not recognize Jesus as the "Son of God", but actually he did but in a different way than what most Christians would feel comfortable with.  Most Hindu schools teach that God not only created all, but is found within all.  Therefore, Jesus and you and I can be considered "Sons (and Daughters) of God".  IOW, we were not just created by God but are actually God to a limited extent.  "Atman", which is often translated as "soul", is the word often used to denote this concept.  Therefore, Gandhi did see Jesus as a "Son of God" and stated as such.

So here's the question.  Do you think Gandhi might have a correct interpretation or not? 

 

[Beautiful_Dreamer]

I'm currently using a book on Gandhi's writings and excerps from his speaches for my morning meditation, and I came across a couple of interesting quotes that some may want to discuss.  Here they are:

What I would not have given to bow my head before the living image at the Vatican of Christ Crucified?  It was with a wretch that I could tear myself away from the living tragedy.  I saw there at once that nations, like individuals, could only be made through the agony of the cross and in no other way.  Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on others but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself.

I consider Western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ's Christianity.  I cannot conceive Jesus, if he was living in the flesh in our midst, approving of modern Christian organizations, public worship, or modern ministry.  If Christians would simply cling to the Sermon on the Mount, which was delivered not only to peaceful disciples but a groaning world, they would not go wrong, and they would find that no religion is false, and that if they act according to their lights and fear of God, they would not need to worry about organizations, forms of worship, and ministry.  The Pharisees had all that, but Jesus would have none of it, for they were using their office as a cloak for hypocrisy and worse.  Cooperation with the forces of Good and noncooperation with the forces of evil are the two things we need for a good and pure life, whether it is called Hindu, Muslem, or Christian

and...

Today I rebel against orthodox Christianity, as I am convinced that it has distorted the message of Jesus.  He was an Asiatic whose message was delivered through many media, and when it had the backing of the Roman emperor it became an imperialistic faith as it remains to this day.

and finally...

Christ came to this world to preach and spread the gospel of love and peace, but what his followers have brought about is tyranny and misery.  Christians, who were taught the maxim of "Love they neighbor as theyself," are divided amongst themselves

-- all quotes are from "Mohandas Gandhi: Essential Writings", compiled by John Dear, pages 78-80.

Opinions?

Thank you for, once again, reminding me why I love Ghandi! And how it often seems that non-Christians have more of an idea of how Christ taught and how the faith should be lived than Christians do...that is something we can see even on these forums.

I have long held a viewpoint that is considered un-orthodox by many Christians. I can't help but wonder if the same essence of Jesus, the same Spirit, isn't present in other faiths as well but called something else. I say this because of the people I have known over time whose actions and lives just *screamed* Jesus as we are taught about Him, but they claim to have another faith (or none). Even in myself and my own life, I remember that I was not raised a Christian, but I did have a sense of how things were and should be in terms of relationships with the world, with other people, etc. When I came to know some friends who told me about Jesus, it seemed as though that spirit, that life-force I knew all along, now had a name.

[Beautiful_Dreamer]

El,
Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. Yes, there were early depictions of crosses but not of Jesus dying in agony. If my memory serves, the first depiction of Jesus on the cross was in the 900's.

I hate depending on my frail memory. I'll make an attempt to get the article tomorrow. The article was clearer about the connection between this and a change in Christianity.

As for Ghandi, perhaps he was influenced by the fact that his country was colonized and oppressed by a Christian country so he is bound to have a different perspective.

Jack, to see if I am reading correctly re depictions of crosses:

Did it seem to you that, while the death of Christ was acknowledged, the tack taken by the churches focused more on His *life*, His *teachings*? To be honest, that seems to me that that approach would be quite valuable. While His death is very important in our faith, His *life* would be just as important if not more. How else are we going to know what He stood for and why we should try to be like Him?

I have been in some churches who said they didn't have the image of Christ on the cross because, in their view, Christ was alive and they wanted to focus more on that.

[metis]

To me, if I ask what I think Jesus was trying to do, along with the question as to whether he elevated himself or did his followers more tend to do that after he was martyred, here's what I tend to come up with:

1.it seems to me that his most basic teaching was "love" (agape), which permeates the gospels and epistles, and which is compatible with the concept of the Messiah (the lion laying down with the lamb...).  This message is continually reoccurring in the gospels and, as I mentioned before, it cuts across all religions and cultures as a lesson that Jesus seems to feel is very important.  Matter of fact, I don't think Jesus had any intention of starting a new religion, which is probably why he appears to have said he came only for the Jews.  If one takes that literally, then gentiles do not belong in his movement.  However, I tend to think he may have changed his mind about that later since we do see him treating gentiles essentially as if they were Jewish.  It's hard for me to see the early church reaching out to gentiles as they did if Jesus taught that the apostles were to just keep the movement "Jewish".   

2.it says in the gospels that Jesus said he came to serve and not be served, seemingly implying that the focus should be on God and not him.  It appears that Jesus humbles himself quite frequently, and I tend to think that the glorification words about Jesus were probably added later.  Therefore, the question begs why he would humble himself at one point and then insist that he is the only way and glorify himself at another?  These concepts are quite inconsistant with each other so, to me, it appears that the latter was probably added later.   

[metis]

Another take on Jesus from Gandhi:

"Though I cannot claim to be Christian in the sectarian sense, the example of Jesus' suffering is a factor in the composition of my underlying faith in nonviolence which rules my actions, worldly and temporal.  And I know that there are hundreds of Christians who believe likewise.  Jesus lived and died in vain if he did not teach us to regulate the whole of life by the eternal Law of Love." -- Mohandas Gandhi: Essential Writings, selected by John Dear, p. 107.

I just want to mention that Jesus offering himself up to die without the use of violence or harshness towards his captures and prosecutors Gandhi considered to be the supreme example of nonviolent action.  IOW, Jesus did what he thought was right regardless of the consequences, and did so voluntarily, never advocating violence or revenge.

[Acumen]

2.it says in the gospels that Jesus said he came to serve and not be served, seemingly implying that the focus should be on God and not him.  It appears that Jesus humbles himself quite frequently, and I tend to think that the glorification words about Jesus were probably added later.  Therefore, the question begs why he would humble himself at one point and then insist that he is the only way and glorify himself at another?  These concepts are quite inconsistant with each other so, to me, it appears that the latter was probably added later.   

Matt 20:25-28

25 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.

26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,

27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—

28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve , and to give his life as a ransom for many." 


In the passage, Jesus emphasized the importance serving because the mother of James and John had appealed to Jesus requesting that her sons sit at his right and left hands in his kingdom.  And by doing so, she had not realized that entrance into Jesus' kingdom has a price.  Jesus turned to John and James and asked them if they could drink the same cup he was going to drink.  In other words, the good life wasn't just about being served, but serving others with sacrifice.  Jesus told them that such positions of privilege weren't his to give, but assured them they would drink of the same cup indicating the suffering they would endure for the gospel message.
   
Jesus had a job to do, and it did not require being served by others.  The purpose of the incarnation was living a perfect life and suffering death for the atonement of many.  This is the ultimate service.  By requesting to be served, the cart was placed before the horse.  It is only after Jesus had served mankind through his death and resurrection that he is now served by many as a consequence. 

[jacknky]

BD,
"Did it seem to you that, while the death of Christ was acknowledged, the tack taken by the churches focused more on His *life*, His *teachings*?"

Yes. I'm afraid that I've lost the article I was referring to but I believe you've nailed it. In the early churches Christ was portrayed out in nature as a shepherd. There was no violent imagry of Christ on the cross. I'm sorry I lost the article because it connected this shift to the way kings and countries united with the Church to make it a religious virtue to kill for Christ in the Crusades.

[metis]

And what I am stating are the facts, and the facts are that from the moment of Christ's resurrection, the Cross and His sacrifice has always been the center of the Christian life.  Any other opinion to the contrary is simply not founded on any fact.

Read some of the early Church Fathers of the 1st and 2nd centuries, starting with St. Ignatius, who practically begged to be martyred, like Christ, he died somewhere before or after 100 AD.

And the earliest non-biblical reference to the early Churches is the Didache and it stresses Baptism and the Eucharist, both Sacraments are based in the death and resurrection of Christ accomplished on the cross.

Yes, I have read them, and I don't disagree with the fact that they said as such.  But we have to remember that all of them were writing long after Jesus was martyred, and we can ascertain even by just reading the gospels alone that their view of Jesus was really an evolution.  So, we should not for one minute believe that this evolution suddenly stopped after Jesus died.

After Gandhi was martyred, as similar process started with some of his followers declaring him to be an incarnation of God.  Fortunately, however, Gandhi wrote and spoke very often as being a mere mortal, so the movement was short lived.  Deifying people and objects is hardly unknown in religious history, and I think that this likely occurred again when Jesus was martyred.  However, the most important thing to me is that, no matter whether one deifies Jesus or not, the message of compassion and justice just jumps out at us when we read the gospels.  And this message was not really a new one since Jesus also mentions about the idea that people should have listened to and obeyed the prophets. 

I know you see Jesus as the literal "only son of God", but a great many others, including myself, don't.  However, the last thing I would do is to attempt to tell you that you can't have such a belief.  What you believe is what you believe, and that's certainly OK with me.     

[metis]

I don't agree with your premise that Ignatius and the Didache happen long after the death of Christ, it wasn't centuries, it was a couple of decades...

I gotta be very brief. 

Decades was certainly plenty enough time to see the effect of deifying Jesus if it did occur.

To come after the fact and tell those people that they have not interpreted there own books right is funny to me, I don't see this happening in Buddhism or any other religion...just Christianity. 

It happens with them as well.  First of all, Buddhists do not believe in scriptural inerrancy with their own scriptures.  Secondly, the vast majority of Jews do not accept the issue of inerrancy with Torah.  And with Judaism, we use a commentary system whereas people can throw in their interpretations without the fear of having their opinions deleted to establish conformity, and this has been going on for around 2500 years.  You should be aware of this: two Jews equals three opinions on just about everything. 

[jacknky]

"First of all, Buddhists do not believe in scriptural inerrancy with their own scriptures."

Also, it's my understanding that the Buddha made no claims to divinity or supernatural poers. he was simply a man who had discovered a path to reduce or eliminate suffering and he taught that path, not a set of beliefs. Still, some succeeded in deifying the Buddha as we can still see today.

[Acumen]

he was simply a man who had discovered a path to reduce or eliminate suffering and he taught that path, not a set of beliefs. Still, some succeeded in deifying the Buddha as we can still see today.

You mean he was simply a man who "claimed" to have discovered a path to reduce or eliminate suffering?

[metis]

I just don't agree, and I don't see any other reason why non believers would want to change who Jesus was except for the simple fact of contradicting the claims of believers....so to me it's just self serving and convenient, not based on any serious scholarship or proof.

The fact of the matter is that it is also some Christian theologians who also question the supposed divinity of Jesus, such as Crossan and Spong and even the Jesus Seminar people, none of which I've never been terribly fond of btw.  If one accepts the concept that Jesus was God, this has to be done on the level of faith and not some sort of overwhelming convincing evidence.  And yes, there's that nasty word "evidence" again-- I'm afraid it just cannot be avoided.

Again, to repeat, I do not know if Jesus was divine in any way, nor do I not conclude that he cannot be. 

[jacknky]

"You mean he was simply a man who "claimed" to have discovered a path to reduce or eliminate suffering?"

The difference is that, in my understanding, the Buddha invited us to try the path and reject it if it did reduce our suffering. he specifically advised us not to blindly accept the path because he told us to but rather only if it conforms to our reason and experience. BTW, he also enjoined us not to blindly accept any teachings simply because they are in a Holy Book or taught by a "great" person. Rather we are to test those teachings as well with our reason and experience. The Buddha taught us to be lights unto ourselves. Of course, he gave us all kinds of meditation and contemplative practices to help us hone our ability to experience and reason.

The Buddha also taught, in my understanding, that it is a waste of time to try and figure out the nature of the gods since that question is unknowable. He gave the analogy (parable) of our being as though we had been struck by an arrow. That arrow is our suffering. In this analogy instead of seeking a doctor to fix our wound of suffering we're seeking to find how tall the archer is, what color hair he has and what town he is from. There is no way to answer those questions but we can learn to deal with the issue of suffering, which is such a part of the human condition.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

[jacknky]

"What's suffering, and how do you know that all suffering is bad?"

Do you not suffer? If so, what do you think it is?

[jacknky]

I believe in absolutes, just not supernatural absolutes. I think, for example, that we all suffer. That's an absolute.

I also didn't say all suffering is "bad". I congratulate you for discerning some differences in different forms of suffering. Certainly suffering is a great teacher.

[metis]

Jacknky, both of your posts were right on target based on my understanding.  "Suffering" must be looked at in relative terms.  When I did my homework as a child in order to learn a profession instead of being outside playing ball sometimes with my friends, was that "suffering"?  In a way, it was because I'd rather be outside playing, but in another respect it wasn't since I knew that this would help me out more in the long run.

"Suffering", as you well understand, is a state of mind.  If I dwelled on the fact that I couldn't play ball sometimes, that truly could be "suffering" that could depress me in some way.  But if I focused in on the idea that this is just a step that hopefully will lead me towards a better end, then I really wouldn't be "suffering". 

So, iow, we have to differentiate the stimulus that may make us suffer from what our mind does with the stimulus, and it's the latter that will determine if we actually "suffer" or not.     

[Acumen]

The Buddha also taught, in my understanding, that it is a waste of time to try and figure out the nature of the gods since that question is unknowable. He gave the analogy (parable) of our being as though we had been struck by an arrow. That arrow is our suffering. In this analogy instead of seeking a doctor to fix our wound of suffering we're seeking to find how tall the archer is, what color hair he has and what town he is from. There is no way to answer those questions but we can learn to deal with the issue of suffering, which is such a part of the human condition.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

It makes a lot of sense if the doctor's only function is healing.  But our divine doctor/creator provides us with more than just healing, but with a purpose-driven life.  He provides us with a system of right and wrong.  And in order to understand this moral system properly, we need to understand who God is and why we were created.

[metis]

But our divine doctor/creator provides us with more than just healing, but with a purpose-driven life.  He provides us with a system of right and wrong.  And in order to understand this moral system properly, we need to understand who God is and why we were created.

The purpose of one's life is not established by a deity, even if one or more exist, but by each of us.  If you ask a person what their purpose in life is, you're so often going to get a variety of responses.  So, why does there supposedly have to be a deity in order to establish purpose?  Why does there have to be a deity in order to treat people with compassion and fairness?  What prevents anyone from establishing their own priorities in life?  How can we somehow dictate what someone else's purpose must or should be?     

[metis]

Because that creates chaos and chaos is not good for society.  Non-theists have the luxury of living in a world that still believes in moral absolutes.  It's easy to say, that "we don't need" something when we are currently benefiting from it.  If the world ever got to the point where most people didn't believe in moral absolutes then it would get real ugly real fast.

The reality is that there may not be any "moral absolutes" beyond mere existance and what our genes as a species tend to dictate.  For just about every religious teaching in one religion, one may find the opposite in another religion.  What is "murder", for example, is defined by each society.  If we began to offer human sacrifices here in the States, that would be "murder", but that was not the case in ancient Mayan society.

What would happen if a society were to be totally without religion?  I don't know, simply because we've never actually experienced that situation.  The Marxists tried, were unsuccessful, but they in essence held up Karl Marx's philosophies as if they were "gospel". 

The Dalai Lama has been asked, since Buddhists do not believe in a creator-god, what then establishes morality for Buddhists?  His response has been that this is one of the very first lessons we learn in life.  As children, we quickly find out that if we're nurtured, loved, and cared for, this feels "good".  But if we're neglected, abused, and unloved, this feels "bad". 

Then he takes it to the next step by saying that if we merely remember what we have learned as a child, and apply it to others, this society and this world would be a much better place to live in.  OTOH, if we want a more troubled and turbulent society and world, then the hostilites we may create will have the effect of creating just that. 

Now, which do we want?       

However, I very much agree that religion can indeed very much help in the establishment of morals in a soceity, and I'm happy that it's prevailent in all societies to a greater or lesser degree-- I am by no means anti-religion.