Gandhi - A True Mahatma? (Complete)

Gandhi:A True Mahatma?

T

o measure the inherent character of a nation, one looks to see the predominant qualities used inassociation with its people and with its history. For most nations past and present, there is little todistinguish its culture from the mass of humanity, except for superficial differences such as physicalfeatures, rituals, languages, and other factors. These are nations where the individual is molded bythe customs long-held by the society; indeed there is little room for the expression of trueindividuality, as the mass – with some justification – sees such individuality as a threat to itsstability. This stability, however, is not permanent, as either it must accept the outgrowth of theindividual or face internal turmoil; or it succumbs to outside pressures, often in the form of invasion. Conquered, they lose their identity and become but a footnote in the list of destroyednations.Few are the nations able to delicately balance the uniformity desired by the mass with the interestsand ambitions of the individual. The nations that do so become known for their creations, for their outward achievements, become remembered through their writers and musicians, sculptors and painters, inventors and geniuses. Their allowance of the growth of the individual in turnstrengthens the mass, which cycles back to provide the foundation for the individual. Governed byoutward works and desire, these are nations likely to have a significant military history, withnumerous conquests. The defect in these nations is due to the very nature of desire itself - an error in relating external achievements and desires to the truest Self, which is of an internal character.While these societies will always have small minority of men willing to rise beyond the desire principle, their influence is minimal on the bulk of their fellow citizens. If these nations can bedescribed as having systems of higher ideals, mostly of an ethical or moral basis, they cannot truly be said to have had a pervasive spiritual or transcendental foundation, even if some of their creations hinted at deeper internal realities. Without this strong element enabling regeneration,these nations are marked by the eventual exhaustion of their force. Conquering, they losethemselves in their excesses, wasting their vitality and creative strength, leaving their mark on theworld but unable to sustain themselves.Fewer still are the nations with an enduring inclination towards transcending the divisions made bythe individual ego. These nations have in their foundation principles that not only take up the needsof the community and the creations of the individual, but also present extensively traveled paths tohelp the individual delve deeper into his own nature in order to then transcend his nature.Essentially, these are nations with a foundation based upon knowledge not of objective facts anddata, but illumination of the highest Self. It was not just the rare enlightened men who procuredthese truths (originating from subjective individual experience), because unlike in other perished or perishing nations, these experiences were known to men in all eras, whatever the general state of society. It was this foundation, laid down from times immemorial, which gave balance to thesenations, allowing for the exploration of many paths and the ability to absorb shock after shock.This lofty heritage - based upon a secure internal strength - is what makes these countries less likelyto attack others, and more able to rebound from the trauma of invasion and division, since beingruled by an outsider or having its land parceled could not shake an inherent unity based onsomething much more subtle, something eternal. Conquered, they survive their conqueror; twice born are the immortal nations.Who then, were these men that established this higher basis for their nations? They were not the philosopher or intellectual playing with abstraction, the scientists analyzing material phenomena,the general or ruler toying with men and nations, the businessman expanding his wealth: rather, theywere men of profound spiritual realization, with concrete experience of the Divine. In India they

were and are known variously as Rishis, Yogis, Gurus, and other terms of reverence, dependentupon the form of practice, type of attainment, or the type of works produced by the individual, toname but a few factors. Whether these individuals have realized their hidden Soul (Purusha) or trueSelf (Atman), the Universal Self or Supreme Self, the personal or impersonal Godhead, or even theexperience of Nirvana, they have indeed gone beyond the normal boundaries of mortals. Then thereare those who had not yet attained any sort of definitive spiritual realization, those who remainseekers of the Godhead. Most commonly seen as ascetics, these Sadhus (practitioners of spiritualdiscipline) and Sannyasis are known to abandon not only earthly desires but also their very homesand families in search of the eternal Truth. These were ones often with a thorough understandingof the wisdom passed down by the Seers whether orally or in the scripture, persons pure in theheart, yet without possession of the ultimate knowledge gained only by experience.One title not seen often in Indian narratives and spiritual disciplines, is that of Mahatma, commonlytranslated as “Great Soul”. In fact, it was popularized by the Theosophical Society in the late 19

th

century; their founder, Helena Blatvatsky, claimed contact and guidance from 'Mahatmas' in Tibet.Theosophical literature was widely known to Indian elite home and abroad at the time, and thusMohandas Gandhi, given the religious nature of his political strategy and speeches, was to receivethis title upon his return from South Africa from those exposed to that particular salutation. Thishonorific, the one he is now famously associated with, renders a translation that would naturallyrestrict itself to certain rare births in the Hindu tradition. This is because Mahatma literally means“Great Self,” as the Purusha is the individual Soul supporting the play of Nature in Men, and Atmantranscends beyond the play and is not usually considered in personal terms, this being what oneassociates Mahatma with when it is used as a title for a particular individual in the lila or play. For with Atman comes the experience of complete Oneness, with no division and thus no need for theseparation between greatness and littleness: personality is associated with the Purusha,impersonality generally is associated with Atman. If Mahatma is to be used, it seems morenaturally suited as a descriptor of the greatness of the immortal Time-Spirit in its essence, rather than in its manifestation. Of course, if we view it generically as describing a great person or even agreat soul, we can understand the intent behind the name. Nevertheless, since Mohandas Gandhi is considered to be an important Hindu spiritual figure, wemust analyze whether or not such an honor should be bestowed upon him, from a Hindu point of view. This of course demands that we answer the crucial question: Did he have direct knowledge of his Soul or the Self (Atman)? In the following letter written in 1938 - less than a decade before hisdeath - Gandhi admitted that he had not:I certainly gave you permission to live with me but take it that this desire is born of attachment. It would not do simply to assert that Ramana Maharshi and Aurobindo areone-sided while I am all-sided. One who is one-sided but understands his mission and pursues it has merit. One who claims to be all-sided but is only experimenting has evenless worth than broken almond shells. Only God knows where I stand. I am an aspirantwhile they are known to be, and perhaps are, realized souls. Anyway their followersattribute to them full self-realization.

1

In a letter written on January 3rd, 1948, Gandhi admitted that he was not even close, writing, “I amnowhere near realizing Rama yet, but I am striving. When I have the realization, the glow of myahimsa will spread all around.

2

” By this time in his life, Gandhi’s name was known throughout theworld, and he was considered by many to be the latest in the long tradition of Indian holy men.However, as he was well aware, he had yet to experience the same states of consciousness that hadmade these past men so revered. Gandhi, perhaps feeling he had not truly earned a title thatimplied Divine realization, admitted that the praise might not have been deserved: