rishi
Gandhi Speaks of Christmas
Posted on: 12/17/2011 09:28
I have never been able to reconcile myself to the gaieties of the Christmas season. They have appeared to me to be so inconsistent with the life and teaching of Jesus. Jesus preached not a new religion but a new life. He called men to repentance. It was he who said, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven". I am sure that if He were living here now among men, He would bless the lives of many who perhaps have never even heard His name, if only their lives embodied the virtues of which He was a living example on earth; the virtues of loving one's neighbour as oneself and of doing good and charitable works among one's fellow men.
For though we (sing), "All glory to God on High and on the earth be peace," there seems to be today neither glory to God nor peace on earth. As long as it remains a hunger still unsatisfied, as long as Christ is not yet born, we have to look forward to Him. When real peace is established, we will not need demonstrations, but it will be echoed in our life, not only in individual life, but in corporate life. Then we shall say Christ is born. That to me is the real meaning of the verse we (sing). Then we will not think of a particular day in the year as that of the birth of the Christ, but as an ever-recurring event which can be enacted in every life…
When, therefore, one wishes "A Happy Christmas" without the meaning behind it, it becomes nothing more than an empty formula. And unless one wishes for peace for all life, one cannot wish for peace for oneself. It is a self-evident axiom, like the axioms of Euclid, that one cannot have peace unless there is in one an intense longing for peace all around.
And so, as the miraculous birth is an eternal event, so is the Cross an eternal event in this stormy life. Therefore, we dare not think of birth without death on the cross. Living Christ means a living Cross, without it life is a living death.
Jesus lived and died in vain if he did not teach us to regulate the whole of life by the eternal Law of Love.
It is my firm opinion that (the West) today represents not the spirit of God or Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan's successes are the greatest when he appears with the name of God on his lips. (The West) is today only nominally Christian. It is really worshipping Mammon. 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom.' Thus really spoke Jesus Christ. Here you have an eternal rule of life stated in the noblest words the English language is capable of producing. But the disciples nodded unbelief as we do to this day. His so-called followers measure their moral progress by their material possessions.
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 a Roman Emperor it became an imperialist faith as it remains to this day. Christ died on the Cross with a crown of thorns on his head defying the might of a whole empire.
The message of Jesus, as I understand it, is contained in his Sermon on the Mount unadulterated and taken as a whole. This teaching was non-retaliation, or non-resistance to evil. The virtues of mercy, non-violence, love and truth in any man can be truly tested only when they are pitted against ruthlessness, violence, hate and untruth. With His dying breath on his Cross he is reported to have said: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
How I wish America could lead the way by devoting the season to a real moral stocktaking and emphasizing consecration to the service of mankind for which Jesus lived and died on the Cross.
All quotes taken from What Jesus Means to Me by M.K. Ghandi.
Compiled by R.K. Prabhu © Navajivan Trust 1959
Comments
rishi
Posted on: 12/17/2011 09:30
I forgot to put the quotation marks in, but all of the above is Gandhi speaking.
MistsOfSpring
Posted on: 12/17/2011 10:38
What's fascinating to me is that he died in 1948, so he's talking about the Christmas of the 1940s. What do you suppose he'd say about Christmas today?
rishi
Posted on: 12/17/2011 18:12
Hmmm.... creates an image in my mind of Norman Rockwell characters chatting on their iPhones about the latest sale at Walmart...
Alex
Posted on: 12/18/2011 17:42
In some ways Christmas is when we are the most christian. At this time of year in Ottawa, those who are poor or live in shelters, or institutions eat better then they do the rest of the year. People give more money to drop in centres for People living with AIDS. Also people are given coats, hats, and underwear, even if they do ask for them.
People all so visit, spend time with, and listen to their elders, and others in institutions.
So as far as I can tell at least some people do turn their eyes towards Christ at this time of year.
I think what Jesus would have problems with is nedless consumption.
Also I believe Gandhi ( I have made the same error) had it wrong, in assuming that all people who call themselves Christian really are what they say. Especially when he was around, the church was just a front for many, and membrship in the church was a social obligation if one wanted to acvhieve success in business, or politics.
Arminius
Posted on: 12/18/2011 19:01
When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, it also became a religion with imperalist ambitions. Imagine the nerve of Christian missionaries going to the Far East and telling them that their traditions are wrong and Christian imperialism is right?!
Alex
Posted on: 12/18/2011 19:33
From what I understand from reading Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire http://savingparadise.net/ and according to recent scholarship on the topic,done after Gandhi died, it was not until the Holy Roman Empire (circa 1000 C.E.) was built that Imperialism took over Christianity. It came with the adoption of blood atonement, the idea that God sent his son to be killed to atone for people's sin. The reason this theology was forced on the church was because before, killing people was considered to be wrong and a sin by Christians. The church needed to be able to justify killing people in order to go to war with the Germans who had adopted heritcal view from a fusion of Christianity and older German religions . Thus came the first crucifix, (Jesus nailed to a cross, which represented a tree), and the Christmas Tree, because the tree held a central place in German religions.
This change also stared the first mass killing of Jews, by Christians, and essentially marked the begining of western imperialism and colonialism, because without being able to kill, Europeans could not have gone to war with the America's, Africa, and much of Asia.
Arminius
Posted on: 12/18/2011 20:24
Hi Alex:
It must have started a bit earlier, around 800 C.E., when Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor and was given the divine right to conquer and convert Pagan Europe. Most of Germany was still pagan by then, and was won for the Holy Roman Empire and forcibly converted to Christianity by Charlemagne. The brutality of forced conversion was justified because the converted were spared eternal damnation. This attitude persisted right into modern times.
Arminius
Posted on: 12/18/2011 20:42
Hello again, Alex:
Upon re-thinking what you just wrote, you were right. Charlemagne managed to convert some Germanic tribes easily and quickly by simply making their chiefs into prince bishops and leaving it up to them to convert their subjects. This naturally resulted in a mixture of Pagan and Christian traditions, which, as you pointed out, led to troubles later on. But the papal yoke never sat easily on German shoulders. That's why the Protestant Reformation started and succeeded in Germany.
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 12/19/2011 08:50
Heh, Heh ...
Many thanks for the wise comments of all. Could it be that there are Christians (Kri's Tiye Annes) of truth in small proportions in all places (even church)? After all nothings perfect ... perhaps even everything is not perfect ... although away from this place ... there is near peace when things are wellspread ... until they collide and do the cosmic dance ... generates chaos of another kind. Then deep within there is that desire for peace ... what Freud called the buried death wish ... perhaps why mankind loves the warring side ... there must be an opposing desire tuit!
I wonder what Ghandi's thoughts were on St. Nick of Cusa:
God's heart is everywhere and ...
His soul being unbounded ...
Far from perfect if it can't be possessed! Could no one find it? That would be one 'elle've of Job eh ... would make roil Tiye boil ... like Shakespeare's witches brewing ... Shaw's devilish caldron? Is that dissonance or just love of chaos ...?
Perhap there's two of eM mire images or just a symbol in clay ... kinda an odd smear on the Wahl ... Dan, O'dean breath 've pyre? That'd be God stirring when the racket below disturbed the peace ...
Such an impression of dual disturbances, sort of gives those that cling to the gift by stomping on others ... a sinking feeling when they rest? Then there is that saying that one turn always has an opposing fault ... or was that just meis ... a wee thing, amousin self while in the dark? I just don't know about "all-there-is" to comprehend! Then I am not alone as the bible says God's offspring didn't wish to know either ... I must be a corrupting force in never-never land where authorities possess the feeling they know it all; perhaps we in the humble underlying sects could get it together again ... gravid collapse? Don't yah just love the sentient Cos ovite aL? Fallstaff ... like Eros ...
Gotta love the substitutional word ... sum's light ... flighty ... hard to tell what they mean without severe depth ... in the Tome they's abstract? What do you expect ammans not supposed to know ... giving cause to aggression in the Mid East ... blanKa Jinn'st de Shadow ... just behind the Green Dore?
waterfall
Posted on: 12/19/2011 10:01
Ghandi was truly God's disciple, in that he knew the laws of the land and the ways of the world and yet refused to conform. While others choose to work within the rules to effect change he turned the tables against the leaders and worked their own rules against them, much like Christ. He was in the world, but not "of" this world. He stepped outside of the box and led "the way" and when others are confronted with the truth of a new perception, it cannot be denied. His aim was not to make all sides happy, his aim was to make truth the ideal that men should follow. IMHO.
Arminius
Posted on: 12/19/2011 13:21
Ghandi was truly God's disciple, in that he knew the laws of the land and the ways of the world and yet refused to conform. While others choose to work within the rules to effect change he turned the tables against the leaders and worked their own rules against them, much like Christ. He was in the world, but not "of" this world. He stepped outside of the box and led "the way" and when others are confronted with the truth of a new perception, it cannot be denied. His aim was not to make all sides happy, his aim was to make truth the ideal that men should follow. IMHO.
I agree with waterfall: Ghandi truly was a disciple of God. He fully deserved the title "Mahatma," which means "Great Soul."
rishi
Posted on: 12/20/2011 11:38
Also I believe Gandhi ( I have made the same error) had it wrong, in assuming that all people who call themselves Christian really are what they say. Especially when he was around, the church was just a front for many, and membrship in the church was a social obligation if one wanted to acvhieve success in business, or politics.
This is a great point, Alex. But I suspect that Ghandi was very much aware of the distinction that you are making. I read something recently by the American philosopher, Harry Frankfurt, that really caught my attention. It is a way of getting at this distinction without having to open up that can of worms about who is and is not really Christian. Frankfurt's approach is focused on the concept of caring. Basically he suggests that people will often say that they care about something, but that this is often (in his words) "bullshit." It is that bullshit which Ghandi is focusing on I think. Here is a nice quote by Frankfurt:
– Harry Frankfurt (in The Importance of What We Care About)
p.s. Harry Frankfurt has two other good books out that relate to this theme, one called "On Bullshit" and the other called "On Truth".
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 12/21/2011 08:10
Is it thus "bull chi-ite" to care about anything isolated from all-that-is? Walk softly meis ole! Go thick psi is Syrhnian "see"!
Reminds me of the document; Rite's Ole Scoured 'n Va Le'd (crippled halve of the hoes, tilded shack ... hoe ruse, Ðoby Genteel when opening the doer?) Desire is like that when out of control ...
There was a crooked man, and Moby Dick is not about a whal' ...
Sous Lem’n …
Behind the heart sah an upright …
A standard for pathè, and psych əIC path' …
Something to be aware about when flat out …
The route still operates …
Karees psi Annes of life!
Many people would deny it as neu rholo jiGael storm (chimeris'n) …
That would upset their common desires …
As they rest on rye nough saur as’ …
Monotheistic thing-heh, singl’et Trumpet, other being secondary bêtè …
Bare beauty that one can float in …
As medium of the imaginary sol’ …
Sometimes universal solvent …
Can cure all things by sucking eM up and redistribute ‘n aL …
Directions, which is thin space to the collective sort …
Coming to the point on gravid stuff!
Appears no one can see one waver …
One’s dunne heis goan!
If you’re going to go there …
Some time is required to unravel the hidden facts …
In dah naught, Shadow of doubt; no Tæ laid Ξ!
That’s verion Christian exposure as spectre …
As purely desire’ve God …
When subliminal wod in due; negative myth, understanding!
It is difficult to put pure love and pure thought …
In the same place without bi polar personae!
That’s an average IQ as near 200 …
When they are both thinking and not all jacked off …
Boot some thing like business …
Not being right!
Business bean just too active about RIP’n someone off …
Fore moor than exchange is worth …
Aura concern of equivalent share in optional thought!
That’s alternate to expansive Gods, unbalanced nature …
Or just Cos Moe logical point …
Mire dot, or mêré blot of moisture …
In shamayim, as tier beyond …
What’s normal as san’, eMoe ß’aft, Jew’L rus a’Lem!
Then writ in plural languages it is difficult to learn …
As the English Spin Drifting …
On British Democrazy kept in the dark …
Bib urning which persona had clews.
That’s chi, pyre in the hole …
As defined by in verse words …
Turned about on their ends like Hebrew Lameth …
In the thin space of the highly disordered attentive Ness …
Witches desire to the nth degree …
The holy one in Greek Classic just isn’t there, abstraction …
Black Hole to St. Eve in hawking Erse ole …
AS’ so blè ache!
The one right beyond where myth of des Une came from!
When the relation is in verse …
Like 1=xy; ſ=Q/t (that a’ Q=ſt) …
Creating opposing spikes; O’Nijx, Hebrew Anne haled to the page …
Ayres in apparent arrest, standing up; love is frightful thing when in right mind of Eire!
rishi
Posted on: 12/21/2011 15:45
Is it thus "bull chi-ite" to care about anything isolated from all-that-is?
Just between you and me and Dr. Who: Would that be to feign care? Because if we feign sovereignty, as would-be isolates from all-that-is, there would be no thing but me to care about. This would be a frightening conclusion (!) since so much of religious life often seems to be about feigning to care. That's my unfeigned two cents, at any rate...
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 12/22/2011 07:39
Rishi 'n waht erres as fluid going everywhich way but Luçe!
Sort of like babbling under the bridge ... lightens the sol' ...
To every good season ... a spirit? Toby whetted!
Eclessiastic wishes Rish ...
WB