Search Results (3)

Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948) and Aurobindo Ghose (1872–1950) hold distinct, yet overlapping, positions on the topic of war and peace, violence and nonviolence, and how evil ought to best be confronted. To some extent, the overlaps in their views can be seen as an effect of them basing their respective ideals on a shared foundation of Hindu teaching. More specifically, at least some portion of this overlap can potentially be seen as a function of the influence exerted upon both of these thinkers by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda, who was an inspiration to many modern Hindu thinkers, including both Gandhi and Ghose, as both figures attest. This paper will argue, apart from any historical influence he may or may not have had upon them, that Gandhi’s and Ghose’s views both, in different senses, comport well with the teaching of Swami Vivekananda. Specifically, the argument will be what could be called the utopian and realist orientations of Gandhi and Ghose, respectively, regarding the topic of violence, and we can find a logical reconciliation in Vivekananda’s philosophy of karma yoga: the path to liberation through service to the suffering beings of the world. Full article

Much has been written on Martin Buber’s public response to Mahatma Gandhi’s article “The Jews”, which had been published in the newspaper Harijan in 1938, just after the Nazi pogrom against the Jews known as “Kristallnacht”. I wish to examine more closely Buber’s conception of God’s command to the Jewish people to settle the land of Palestine in a manner that expresses love for their Arab neighbors, seeks harmony and peace in the land, and serves not only the common good among Jews and Arabs but the good of the land itself—that it would be fruitful for all. Central to Buber’s conception of the state of Israel in Palestine—and Jewish settlement more generally—was God’s ancient command that the Jews must establish a just society. The Jews must be faithful, Buber contended, to build a community and state that obeys God’s calling and aligns with their mission to reflect God’s justice in the world. Thus, understanding and harmony between the Jews and Arabs must be integral to the Jews’ approach to Arabs in Palestine, not peripheral to their mission. Buber’s response demonstrates his desire to relate directly and personally to Gandhi, to reveal falsehoods and misunderstandings, and to facilitate a greater awareness of the richness of the Jewish tradition that may be used to benefit the land of Palestine and its peoples. This vision for the Jewish mission deserves more attention in the historiography. Full article

Times of crisis push human beings, a clannish creature, to retreat into closed societies. Anthropologically, this can be explained with concepts such as pseudospeciation, group narcissism, or parochial altruism. Politically, the preference for closed societies results in our modern world in nationalism or imperialism. Henri Bergson’s distinction between static and dynamic religion shows which type of religion promotes such tendencies of closure and which type can facilitate the path toward open society. Bergson rejected nationalism and imperialism and opted for an open patriotism with its special relation to dynamic religion. Dynamic religion relativizes political institutions such as the state and results today in an option for civil society as the proper space where religions can and must contribute to its ethical development. It aligns more easily with a counter-state nationhood than with a state-framed nationalism. Whereas Bergson saw in Christianity the culmination of dynamic religion, a closer look shows that it can be found in all post-Axial religions. Martin Buber, Mohandas Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Abul Kalam Azad, and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan exemplify this claim. After World War II, Catholic thinkers such as Jacques Maritain or Robert Schuman by partly following Bergson chose patriotism over nationalism and helped to create the European Union. Today, however, a growing nationalism in Europe forces religious communities to strengthen dynamic religion in their own traditions to contribute to a social culture that helps to overcome nationalist closures. The final part provides a positive example by referring to the fraternal Catholic modernity as it culminates today in Pope Francis’ call for fraternity and his polyhedric model of globalization that connects local identity with universal concerns. Full article