The New Testament gave me comfort and boundless joy, as it came after the qrepulsion that parts of the Old had given me. Today supposing I was deprived of the Gita and forgot all its contents but had a copy of the Sermon (on the Mount), I should derive the same joy from it as I do from the Gita.
Young India, 22-12-'27, p. 426
Jesus expressed, as no other could, the spirit and will of God. It is in this sense that I see Him and recognize Him as the Son of God. And because the life of Jesus has the significance and the transcendency to which I have alluded, I believe that He belongs not solely to Christianity, but to the entire world, to all races and people - It matters little under what flag, name or doctrine they may work, profess a faith, or worship a God inherited from their ancestors.
The Modern Review, October 1941, p. 406
On seeing a painting of the crucified Christ in Rome, Gandhiji remarked: 'What would not I have given to be able to bow my head before the living image at the Vatican of Christ Crucified ? It was with a wrench that I could tear myself away from the scene of living tragedy. I saw there at once that nations like individuals could only be made through the agony of the Gross and in no other way. Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on others but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself.'
This Was Bapu, By R. K. Prabhu, 1954. p. 29
Buddhism
I have heard it contended times without number and I have read in books also claiming to express the spirit of Buddhism that Buddha did not believe in God. In my humble opinion such a belief contradicts the very central fact of Buddha's teaching... The confusion has arisen over his rejection and just rejection of all the base things that passed in his generation under the name of God. He undoubtedly rejected the notion that a being called God was actuated by malice, could repent of His actions and like the kings of the earth could possibly be open to temptations and bribes and could possibly have favourites. His whole soul rose in mighty indignation against the belief that a being called God required for His satisfaction the living blood of animals in order that He might be pleased - animals who were His own creation. He, therefore, reinstated God in the right place and dethroned the usurper who for the time being seemed to occupy that White Throne. He emphasized and re-declared the eternal and unalterable existence of the moral government of this universe. He unhesitatingly said that the Law was God Himself.
God's laws are eternal and unalterable and not separable from God Himself. It is an indispensable condition of His very perfection. And hence the great confusion that Buddha disbelieved in God and simply believed in the moral law, and because of this confusion about God Himself, arose the confusion about the proper understanding of the great word nirvana. Nirvana is undoubtedly not utter extinction. So far as I have been able to understand the central fact of Buddha's life, nirvana is utter extinction of all that is base in us, all that is vicious in us, all that is corrupt and corruptible in us. Nirvana is not like the black, dead peace of the grave, but the living peace, the living happiness of a soul which is conscious of itself, and conscious of having found its own abode in the heart of the Eternal.
Young India, 24-11-'27, p. 393
Islam
I do regard Islam to be a religion of peace in the same sense as Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are. No doubt there are differences in degree, but the object of these religions is peace. I have given my opinion that the followers of Islam are too free with the sword. But that is not due to the teaching of the Koran. This is due, in my opinion, to the environment in which Islam was born. Chriistianity has a bloody record against it not because Jesus was found wanting, but because the environment in which it spread was not responsive to his lofty teaching.
Young India, 20-1-'27, p. 21
Theosophy
Asked whether he had ever been a member of the Theosophical Society, Gandhiji is reported to have stated that he had never been a member, but he was and had ever been in sympathy with its message of Universal Brotherhood and consequent toleration.
He added: 'I owe much to the Theosophical friends among whom I have many. Whatever critics may say against Madame Blavatsky, or Col. Olcott or Dr. Besant, their contribution to humanity will always rank high. What has been a bar to my joining the society is its secret side - its occultism. It has never appealed to me.'
This Was Bapu, By R, K. Prabhu, 1954, p. 13
Spiritualism
I never receive communications from the spirits of the dead. I have no evidence warranting a disbelief in the possibility of such communications. But I do strongly disapprove of the practice of holding or attempting to hold such communications. They are often deceptive and are products of the imagination. The practice is harmful both to the medium and the spirits, assuming the possibility of such communications. It attracts and ties to the earth the spirit so invoked, whereas its effort should be to detach itself from the earth, and rise higher. A spirit is not necessarily purer because it is disembodied. It takes with it most of the frailties to which it was liable when on earth. Information or advice, therefore, given by it need not be true or sound. That the spirit likes communications with those on earth is no matter for pleasure. On the contrary it should be weaned from such unlawful attachment. So much for the harm done to the spirits.
As for the medium, it is a matter of positive knowledge with me that all those within my experience have been deranged or weak-brained and disabled for practical work whilst they were holding, or thought they were holding, such communications. I can recall no friend of mine who having held such communications had benefited in any way.
Young India, 12-9-'29, p. 302
Comparative Study of Religions
So long as there are different religions, everyone of them may need some outward distinctive symbol. But when the symbol is made into a fetish and an instrument of proving the superiority of one's religion over others', it is fit only to be discarded.
Autobiography, 1948, p. 480
God has created different faiths just as He has the votaries thereof. How can I even secretly harbour the thought that my neighbour's faith is inferior to mine and wish that he should give up his faith and embrace mine? As a true and loyal friend, I can only wish and pray that he may live and grow perfect in his own faith. In God's house there are many mansions and they are equally holy.
Harijan, 20-4-'34, p. 83
My fear is that though Christian friends nowadays do not say or admit that Hindu religion is untrue, they must harbour in their breasts the belief that Hinduism is an error and that Christianity as they believe it is the only true religion. Without some such thing it is not possible to understand, much less to appreciate, the G.M.S. appeal1 from which I reproduced in these columns some revealing extracts the other day. One could understand the attack on untouchability and many cither errors that have crept into Hindu life. And if they would help us to get rid of the admitted abuses and purify our religion, they would do helpful constructive work which would be gratefully accepted. But so far as one can understand the present effort, it is to uproot Hinduism from the very foundation and replace it by another faith. It is like an attempt to destroy a house which though badly in want of repair appears to the dweller quite decent and habitable. No wonder he welcomes those who show him how to repair it and even offer; to do so themselves. But he would most decidedly resist those who sought to destroy that house that had served well him and his ancestors for ages, unless he, the dweller, was convinced that the house was beyond repair and unfit for human habitation. If the Christian world entertains that opinion about the Hindu house, 'Parliament of Religions' and 'International Fellowship' are empty phrases. For both the terms presuppose equality of status, a common platform. There cannot be a common platform as between inferiors and superiors, or the enlightened and unenlightened, the regenerate and the unregenerate, the high-born and the low-born, the casteman and the outcaste. My comparison may be defective, may even sound offensive. My reasoning may be unsound. But my proposition stands.
Harijan, 13-3-'37, p. 36
The aim of the Fellowship (of Faiths) should be to help a Hindu to become a better Hindu, a Mussalman to become a better Mussalman, and a Christian a better Christian. The attitude of patronizing toleration is false to the spirit of International Fellowship. If I have a suspicion in my mind that my religion is more or less true, and that others' are more or less false, instead of being more or less true, then, though I may have some sort of fellowship with them, it is of an entirely different kind from the one we need in the International Fellowship. Our prayer for others must be NOT 'God, give him the light that Thou hast given me. BUT 'Give him all the light and truth he needs for his highest development.' Pray merely that your friends may become better men, whatever their form of religion.
Nevertheless, your experience may become a part of their experience, without your knowing it.
Sabarmati, A Report of the First Annual Meeting of the Federation of International Fellowship] 1928, pp. 17-19.
[1] The appeal issued by the Church Missionary Society of England, extracts wherefrom were reproduced in the Harijan issue of 26-12-'36.