Did Mahatma Gandhi going to heaven?

[Sufjon]

no, you did a very good job Sufjon. thank you. do somewhat understand this, due to my studies of Kabballah. they have what is called B Nai meditation. it is experiencing the all and nothing of the Creator. i think you may understand this much better than others. also they teach equanimity. that no matter what, you are not swayed in your emotions, and can practice true compassion. weather a person curses you, or praises you makes no difference. it should affect you one in the same. this way, you can practice charity with a proper motive, and not to please men. it is the same mindset i get into, when battle is a real possiblity. i do not take the enemies hostility or anger personally. they are doing their job, i am doing mine. when i step into the ring with someone, its the same. no personal feelings, just deal with them in a way, that leaves emotion out of it. this way, i can also feed an enemy, or give them a cup of water, with no animosity, or other negative feelings. when we an get rid of our ego, we are truly free. Peace to you and yours.

Hi Benidict: you are right on the money. From what little I know of the Kabballah, it has seemed to me that it is very much like the teachings of my faith. By the way, you mentioned battle, and I still pray for your safety!

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

his religion aside. i cant judge the mans eternal destiny. but…yes the big BUT. he did shun his wife from thier marriage bed, and liked to sleep nude with 12 year old girls. when his wife fell ill, he denied her medical care, and she died miserably. when he took sick, he hired the best physicians he could get. he was not a very nice man. hopefully, he repented at the end of his life. i dont see much of a difference between him and some others we have serious problems with on moral grounds. hugh hefner for example. Peace

Hi Benidict: Yeah, I have heard some bad things about Gandhi as well. I have never thought of him as a saint or anything, just a good political leader who happened to use religious principles to achieve his purposes on a practical and national level. I know he tried to be a holy man, but you know most of us are trying. It seems that many times the people who reach the highest peaks in certain areas also create a corresponding deepness in the valleys in their lives. Kind of like an analog sign wave - the bigger the upswings the bigger the downswings. I think of him a lot like Abraham Lincoln. I have heard a lot of strange things about him, but Abe was a deeply religious man, and in spite of his strangeness, we are all so much better off because of him, and I’m grateful for the sacrifices he made for humankind. i know you’ll know what I’m talking about because of the sacrifices you are making in your endeavors overseas in dangerous places on our behalf.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[benidict]

Hi Benidict: Yeah, I have heard some bad things about Gandhi as well. I have never thought of him as a saint or anything, just a good political leader who happened to use religious principles to achieve his purposes on a practical and national level. I know he tried to be a holy man, but you know most of us are trying. It seems that many times the people who reach the highest peaks in certain areas also create a corresponding deepness in the valleys in their lives. Kind of like an analog sign wave - the bigger the upswings the bigger the downswings. I think of him a lot like Abraham Lincoln. I have heard a lot of strange things about him, but Abe was a deeply religious man, and in spite of his strangeness, we are all so much better off because of him, and I’m grateful for the sacrifices he made for humankind. i know you’ll know what I’m talking about because of the sacrifices you are making in your endeavors overseas in dangerous places on our behalf.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Hi Sufjon. yes. politically he did do alot of good. his personal life, i will leave up to him and his Creator. and you are right. the higher the upswings the lower the downswings. i guess we can learn what not to do, from others mistakes. i have enough to answer for on Judgement day, than worry about anothers misdeeds. i sincerely hope he repented, and was recieved into heaven. and abraham lincoln was not the man on the pedestal, people made him out to be either. not a nice man. lol! thank you for your continued prayers. you are in mine also. i hope all is well with you and yours. Peace

 

[benidict]

Hi Benidict: you are right on the money. From what little I know of the Kabballah, it has seemed to me that it is very much like the teachings of my faith. By the way, you mentioned battle, and I still pray for your safety!

Your friend
Sufjon

yes, and these teachings are also found in Christianity. the book of James tells us, we war, and have contentions because of our covetessness and desires. very similar to what Buddha taught. that it is desire which causes suffering and pain. to get rid of suffering and pain, we must get rid of unwarrented desires, and covetessness. by doing this, we free ourselves to serve, and escape the polutions of the world. not to mention, it makes life much easier. Peace

 

[Xuan]

Hi Xuan, and thank you for the kind response. You have a really good question. It was one of the first ones I ran into years ago, and the answer involves on of the most difficult aspects of our path. In our scriptures, the Lord calls upon us to perform our duties without attachment to the outcome. He asks us to give the outcomes (whether successful or not) as an offering of love to all others and to Him. Not an offering of worship, but an offering of love. The idea is that one achieves heaven by being involved in caring about others and not about yourself. So by doing things like learning or communicating, you are performing important endeavors. Again, this is what we believe so I’m not preaching, but we are to give the outcomes of what we do to the world around us, the people around us, and to God. We are free to enjoy every minute of it, but we are asked to try to avoid becoming attached to the enjoyment. We are asked to watch ourselves like an observer, the idea being that the soul observes what the person does, but not getting tied up in the drama. We can feel joy, sorrow and all of that, but the idea is to let it flow through you as you live in the moment. You feel happy because your friend kissed you, now let it pass and feel sorrow when someone lies to you the next minute. Just be there in the minute, take it as it comes and move on to the next minute. The trick is to be fully present in the here and fully present in the now. I am saying this like it’s easy. It isn’t. It takes a lot of practice and work, but over time you start to see it happen. I hope that somewhat answers your question. You happened to zero right in on one of the most difficult parts to comprehend. It’s also one of the hardest to do. You have to go little by little. I will also admit that many in my own faith are not even trying to reach that level in this lifetime. Most are still in the devotion stage, but that’s fine, because we have forever, and there is nothing wrong with wherever or whoever you happen to be. That’s where John Lennon got the idea that 'there’s nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be." To illustrate this, we say that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. We all go through these various phases at one time or another.

Your friend
Sufjon

Hi Sufjon,
Thank you very much for your response. I had to read your post a couple of times, but I think I understand it a little better now. You’re right, it’s complicated, but the idea of allowing oneself to become attached (to learning, communicating, etc.) in order to provide benefit to others casts a whole new light on it. I gather that the learning and communicating are simply means to an end, the primary purpose being to provide benefit to others. I can see, though, where this would be difficult to navigate, and provide a lot of wiggle-room.

On the one hand, a person could spend a great deal of time learning to become virtuous because it’s a personal goal of his, and that could be used to provide benefit to others, by example if nothing else. On the other hand, an athlete could perform in his sport because he loves to, but at the same time he could say that it provides benefit to millions of spectators. I can see where it could be a real tightrope to walk.

Your point about looking at yourself as an outside observer is an interesting one. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that in writing before. I find myself doing it from time to time, though, and it can be a very humbling experience.

Again, thank you very much for your response. You’ve given me a lot to think about.

Xuan

 

[The_Wanderer]

Having asked this question on a Catholic discussion forum, one can surmise that the OP was looking for what the Catholic Church teaches, not what Hinduism teaches.

Hinduism does not hold the Truth regarding God and our eternal destiny.

Hinduism has no set belief regarding God per se, since it’s a large collection of beliefs given a nice, neat lable. There is no one, unified Hinduism, but many Hinduisms.

 

[BKulash_eski]

Amen! If someone like Mahatma Gandhi is not with God, what hope is there for me? Only God’s grace and mercy complete me.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Mahatma Gandhi

Hope is what we have. Can you in good conscience stop laboring, and expect to travel the world, Quit your job and see what God sees as works and be rewarded.
I think not. I had a plan worked out through prayer, a path to do it, God’s will, with my wife. Some how it was haulted. Ghandi was an enlightened man, but let him do what he did trying to bring someone along for the ride, just one other person. This is what Christ was doing. He wanted us all along for the ride, not only his self.

 

[lewr2]

While God only truly knows, Jesus said that HE was The Way, The Truth and The Light. Nobody comes to the Father, but BY Me. In Romans it says:
If you confess with your mouth the LORD Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.

You are not saved because you’re baptised or because of the WORKS you perform. You are saved by grace, through FAITH in Jesus Christ as the ONLY way to heaven. If you do not believe that, then the BIBLE says, you are condemned already.

Blessings

 

[Sufjon]

Hi Sufjon,
Thank you very much for your response. I had to read your post a couple of times, but I think I understand it a little better now. You’re right, it’s complicated, but the idea of allowing oneself to become attached (to learning, communicating, etc.) in order to provide benefit to others casts a whole new light on it. I gather that the learning and communicating are simply means to an end, the primary purpose being to provide benefit to others. I can see, though, where this would be difficult to navigate, and provide a lot of wiggle-room.

On the one hand, a person could spend a great deal of time learning to become virtuous because it’s a personal goal of his, and that could be used to provide benefit to others, by example if nothing else. On the other hand, an athlete could perform in his sport because he loves to, but at the same time he could say that it provides benefit to millions of spectators. I can see where it could be a real tightrope to walk.

Your point about looking at yourself as an outside observer is an interesting one. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that in writing before. I find myself doing it from time to time, though, and it can be a very humbling experience.

Again, thank you very much for your response. You’ve given me a lot to think about.

Xuan

Thanks Xuan - it’s given me a lot to think about too. I converted when I was 13, and I’ve been working on it ever since.

 

[Sufjon]

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Mahatma Gandhi

Hope is what we have. Can you in good conscience stop laboring, and expect to travel the world, Quit your job and see what God sees as works and be rewarded.
I think not. I had a plan worked out through prayer, a path to do it, God’s will, with my wife. Some how it was haulted. Ghandi was an enlightened man, but let him do what he did trying to bring someone along for the ride, just one other person. This is what Christ was doing. He wanted us all along for the ride, not only his self.

Hi BKulash_eski;: Your point is well taken and you are correct, but I think it’s important to make the distinction that Gandhi was not something like Jesus. He was a political leader and to many he was a spiritual leader, but he was not an Avatar or a saint. He did bring others with him in his struggle for independence, basically he brought a whole nation with him. He did indeed quote and promote scripture and he tried to live a holy life, but that basically makes him something like an earlier analog or precursor of someone like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Basically, a man with a vision and a mission, who used spirituality as his platform. You are also correct that he wasn’t taking anyone with him in a Christ-like or Christian sense, because we have nothing that corresponds to the Christian concept of the need for salvation.

I am intrigued by what you said about your path and it being halted somehow. Sounds like there’s a story there. If you care to relate it sometime, I would really like to hear it. I think it really helps us to learn from one another by sharing our stories and experiences.

Thanks again
Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Hinduism has no set belief regarding God per se, since it’s a large collection of beliefs given a nice, neat lable. There is no one, unified Hinduism, but many Hinduisms.

Hi Wanderer: Can you elaborate on that if you would? In what ways are there many Hinduisms? I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps our points of reference are different and this is causing me not to understand what you said.

Thanks
Your friend
Sufjon

 

[ConfusedTim]

I have asked my non denominational friends this question whenever they say “are you saved” and we are saved by “faith alone”. It seems to throw them!

 

[Contarini]

Is Mahatma GAndhi going to heaven? He was Hindu. What is Catholic teaching on this?

How would we know?

And why is Gandhi always the person who comes up? I can think of non-Christians (like Buddha or Guru Nanak, though admittedly they lived longer ago and we have less direct sources for them, which may be why they come across as more unambiguously admirable) whom I would find it harder to imagine in hell than Gandhi.

I admire many of the things Gandhi did, but I find his writings to be obnoxiously priggish and not particularly saintly by the standards I recognize. That doesn’t mean that he went to hell, only that I don’t think he’s the best test case to refute the view that all non-Christians go to hell.

People mistakenly claim that Gandhi rejected Christianity because of the bad behavior of Christians (they typically rely on one quote about liking Christ but not Christians). In his autobiography, Gandhi explicitly says that he did *not *reject Christianity because of a few bad apples. The fact that he didn’t think Christianity on the whole was more likely to produce holiness than Hinduism certainly played a role, but his rejection of the unique divinity of Christ seems to have been the most important factor.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi Wanderer: Can you elaborate on that if you would? In what ways are there many Hinduisms? I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps our points of reference are different and this is causing me not to understand what you said.

Thanks
Your friend
Sufjon

I’m not Wanderer, but I would say the same thing. Advaita Vedanta philosophers seem to have a very different view of things from, say, bhakti Vashnavas in the tradition of someone like Caitanya (a point of view best known in the West through the Hare Krishnas), with the non-dualist Shaivas having another perspective again And on the level of worship and ritual obviously there are many different cults (not using that word pejoratively but simply in the sense of “organized forms of worship”) and traditions.

I recognize that there are certain things held in common, and that many of the “Hindu” philosophical traditions that most clearly fall outside the broadly Vedanta spectrum have died out or been absorbed into the mainstream. I also recognize that modern Western scholars have a strong bias toward emphasizing plurality over unity.

But certainly the statement Wanderer made is a fairly common observation made by Western scholars of Hinduism. Perhaps Hindus would reject it?

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

How would we know?

And why is Gandhi always the person who comes up?

My advisor in graduate school had written quite a bit about Ghandi and he was of the opinion that the hagiographic legends that had grown up around him since his assassination had done more harm than good to a true understanding of the man. He thought for example that Ghandi’s decision to take a vow of chastity in middle age was a cruel thing to do to Kasturba, his wife.

In other words, in his view the real Ghandi was a complicated figure with faults as well as admirable qualities who made many decisions that can be called into question. He also operated in a pretty competitive political arena that by its nature didn’t allow for ideological or even moral purity all of the time.

Whenever I read things Ghandi wrote specifically about religion, it seems he was very much of the “all religions are equally true” school of thought. Which may be him simply being true to the Hindu and/or Jain tradition for all I know, but normally that sort of thing makes me grit my teeth as it seems a lot of mushy-headed nonsense.

 

[Sufjon]

Whenever I read things Ghandi wrote specifically about religion, it seems he was very much of the “all religions are equally true” school of thought. Which may be him simply being true to the Hindu and/or Jain tradition for all I know, but normally that sort of thing makes me grit my teeth as it seems a lot of mushy-headed nonsense.

Perhaps a night guard will help you in living with us.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Contarini]

My advisor in graduate school had written quite a bit about Ghandi and he was of the opinion that the hagiographic legends that had grown up around him since his assassination had done more harm than good to a true understanding of the man. He thought for example that Ghandi’s decision to take a vow of chastity in middle age was a cruel thing to do to Kasturba, his wife.

In other words, in his view the real Ghandi was a complicated figure with faults as well as admirable qualities who made many decisions that can be called into question.

I am no Gandhi scholar, but that’s my impression too. Of course, that’s true of most if not all historical figures!

Whenever I read things Ghandi wrote specifically about religion, it seems he was very much of the “all religions are equally true” school of thought. Which may be him simply being true to the Hindu and/or Jain tradition for all I know, but normally that sort of thing makes me grit my teeth as it seems a lot of mushy-headed nonsense.

From the parts of the autobiography that I’ve read, it seems pretty clear that Gandhi was poorly formed in his own Hindu tradition. According to Paul Griffiths, editor of the excellent volume Christianity through non-Christian Eyes, the “all religions are equally true” approach is characteristic of “neo-Hinduism” rather than traditional Hinduism–and Griffiths points out that this position really does imply superiority, since Hindus are essentially claiming that their religion is superior to less inclusive religions!

The whole problem is different for Hindus and Buddhists than for us, because of their belief in rebirth/reincarnation. So, for instance, Buddhists (even the Dalai Lama) believe that you have to be a Buddhist in order to reach final enlightenment, but other religions can still do a lot to move you down the path toward enlightenment by teaching compassion, detachment from selfish passions, etc.

But back to Gandhi–my basic take on him is that he was a sincere and idealistic person who was heavily shaped by British culture and largely detached from his own tradition. His fight against colonialism was internal as well as external–he tried valiantly to detach himself from Western values and reconnect with his spiritual heritage. But at the same time, he seems to have done this in a very idiosyncratic way. He could, after all, have given up all his political activities for a while and gone to study with a guru from one of the major Hindu traditions. I’m not saying that he should have done this, only that clearly he wasn’t a representative of ancient Hindu wisdom so much as a highly Westernized person who idealized Indian spiritual values in a lot of the same ways that Westerners do–hence, I think, his popularity with the West as the embodiment of Hindu wisdom!

I may be wrong on this, and welcome correction.

Edwin

 

[PbloPicasso]

My advisor in graduate school had written quite a bit about Ghandi and he was of the opinion that the hagiographic legends that had grown up around him since his assassination had done more harm than good to a true understanding of the man. He thought for example that Ghandi’s decision to take a vow of chastity in middle age was a cruel thing to do to Kasturba, his wife.

The way you state this means that Ghandi slept around with other folks prior to him taking a vow of chastity. You mean continence I believe, not chastity. I’m learning myself. So is your advisor aware that Moses also chose continence after he first saw God in the burning bush? This is a point I make when Protestants find it difficult to believe that a man, like Joseph (the worker), Mary’s espoused husband could and would live in the same manner. It’s quite odd that they don’t get this when we have non-Christians in the world doing the same thing. Where is their faith?

I want to make a point by telling a story about a very good person I know that had caught on fire while talking to him. I was surprised at the event but didn’t want to offend him because he was deep in thought over a topic very passionate to his heart. If I told him that his clothing had caught fire he would have stopped in the middle of the most important part of what he was teaching. I became anxious, obviously, and started to tell him, but pulled back each time he tried to over ride my insistence for attention. I felt bad, but because he was my friend I waiting until he was finished speaking. By this time the clothing was really blazing. I went for a piture of water but felt it my humiliate him to get soaked with water and ruin his reputation as a man that takes pride in his presentation on public appearances.

Then I smelled his burning flesh as he began to scream with excitement. I chose not to say anything that might draw more attention to him because I had such great respect for him and didn’t want anyone to think he might be a bit loopy that day. So I turned my head and acted like I didn’t see anything and reasured everyone in the facinity that everything was normal and under control. My greatly respected friend began to cry with immense pain it sounded and fearful of him ruining his reputation I chose to remain calm. Apparently someone had called the fire department and they ran up to him, but I stepped in to reassure them that everything was as it should be and that he was fine. “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover”, I said. They looked at me very peculliar. I told them that my friend is a man of great talent and requires much respect for all his accomplishments. When the firemen pushed me out of the way I was appauled that they would do something so rude. “How rude”, I yelped. “What do you think you’re doing”. “If I’m ever the gain the same respect as my dear friend behind me, then how will I ever reach it with you pushing and shoving on me?”

After my friend had fallen over, he didn’t seem to move. The firemen said “we’re too late,” and began to inspect the area around him. He said, “if only someone would have put the fire out before it became this severe. It would have probably saved his life.”

Moral of the story is: ____________________________________

Ike was merely telling us Catholic belief when he said that Hinduism does not hold the fullness of the faith. I would add that without the sanctifying graces from God through the sacraments, it would be very difficult to believe that a great man like Ghandi did in fact make it to heaven for many of us “true believers” in the Son of God that became man to die for us. If, and the Church teaches this very clearly… "If anyone is saved that is outside of the Church - not Christian or in communion with the Catholic Church - they are ONLY saved through Christ’s Church, which is the Catholic Church. We have no way of knowing whether or not anyone, including my entire Protestant family, if they will be saved. This is why all baptized Christians, particularly Catholic, are called to evangelize - to bring the good news that Jesus Christ is Lord of all and through Him we might have everlasting life. We take on Christ in baptism, which places an indelible mark on our soul. It is something that can never be taken from us - even if we try to “wipe it off” by rejecting our faith in Him.

I merely expressed in my own words what is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Encyclicals released by the Vatican. Do I have the answers? I do not claim to, but I do know that Christ is my savior and I have every obligation to spread the good news. I consider myself a lay evangelist. If I am ever ordained, I will become an ordained evangelist, preacher. It is dangerous for Catholics and Protestants to get too deeply involved in apostate religions. It is strongly recommended that we know our own faith very well before even thinking about learning a faith outside the realm of truth. That’s my understanding of what is taught. We all have free will and have to make our own decisions.

BTW: I have a friend that recently came into the Church from Buddhism. He’s now a very spirit filled Catholic Christian on fire for the Lord. It’s wonderful to see people learn the truth contained in the Catholic Church.

 

[Contarini]

The way you state this means that Ghandi slept around with other folks prior to him taking a vow of chastity. You mean continence I believe, not chastity. I’m learning myself.

I think that Gandhi, when writing in English, called it chastity. He didn’t make the distinction that you’re making.

And no, I don’t think Gandhi ever slept around with other folks (in the metaphorical sense of the term–as another poster pointed out, he did do so in the literal sense after taking the vow!) He married his wife when they were both very young–I think around 13 or 14–as is the traditional custom in India. And they seem to have been very much in love. The cruelty is that he stopped having sex with her, after several failed attempts, so that essentially he treated her like a temptation–and then he seems to have had these weird relationships with young women, which almost certainly didn’t involve intercourse but still seem creepy to most of us!

So is your advisor aware that Moses also chose continence after he first saw God in the burning bush? This is a point I make when Protestants find it difficult to believe that a man, like Joseph (the worker), Mary’s espoused husband could and would live in the same manner.

Well, Protestants aren’t going to accept the claim about Moses in the first place. I don’t think that even among Catholics it’s more than a pious tradition. I was barely aware of such a tradition, in fact–I think that now you mention it I read it in one of the Fathers maybe, and it is the sort of thing that the ancient/medieval Christians would have claimed about Moses. But the Biblical evidence (sorry to sound so like a Protestant!) seems against you. After all, Moses appears to have married a Kushite woman sometime after his encounter with God in the Burning Bush–though, again, there are traditions that put the marriage earlier.

It’s quite odd that they don’t get this when we have non-Christians in the world doing the same thing. Where is their faith?

I don’t think it’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of how one understands marriage.

We have no way of knowing whether or not anyone, including my entire Protestant family, if they will be saved.

Well, you don’t know if any given Catholic–including you yourself–will be saved either!

It is dangerous for Catholics and Protestants to get too deeply involved in apostate religions.

1. If you don’t do anything dangerous you won’t have a life worth living.
2. What does “too deeply involved” mean?
3. What do you mean by “apostate”? Do you mean in the sense of “corruptions of the original monotheistic revelation given to Adam and his descendants”?

Edwin

 

[PbloPicasso]

Well, Protestants aren’t going to accept the claim about Moses in the first place. I don’t think that even among Catholics it’s more than a pious tradition. I was barely aware of such a tradition, in fact–I think that now you mention it I read it in one of the Fathers maybe, and it is the sort of thing that the ancient/medieval Christians would have claimed about Moses. But the Biblical evidence (sorry to sound so like a Protestant!) seems against you. After all, Moses appears to have married a Kushite woman sometime after his encounter with God in the Burning Bush–though, again, there are traditions that put the marriage earlier.

I thought you were a bible Christian. Don’t you know that this is contained within the text of scripture? Oops. I guess you almost Catholic, by being Episcopalian. You may lack the depth of bible knowledge that I gained growing up in a bible only Christian faith.