Interpretation of Scripture

On many issues, Gandhi's approach to interpretation of sacred scripture is consistent with the approach found in the Bahá'í Faith, but there are exceptions. Gandhi usually interpreted scripture more or less literally. For example, he interpreted the Sermon on the Mount more literally than did many contemporary Christian theologians. Such a literal approach to interpretation is fine in many cases. But every now and then, Gandhi runs into problems because no literal interpretation appears possible in some cases.

Consider the following illustrative example. Gandhi translates verses 24-26 of Book VIII of the Gita, which concern the conditions that determine the exemption from ``return'' of souls after death, as follows:

24. Fire, Light, Day, the Bright Fortnight, the six months of the Northern Solstice--through these departing men knowing Brahman go to Brahman.

25 Smoke, Night, the Dark Fortnight, the six months of the Southern Solstice--therethrough the yogin attains to the lunar light and thence returns.

26. These two paths--bright and dark--are deemed to be the eternal paths of the world; by the one a man goes to return not, by the other he returns again.[5]

These admittedly esoteric verses suggest that a person can attain moksha, nirvana, or salvation merely by dying in the correct season or time period. Gandhi confesses his difficulty in applying such a literal approach to the interpretation of the first two verses, and himself attempts a metaphorical approach to their interpretation:

I do not understand the meaning of these two shlokas [verses 24-25]. They do not seem to me to be consistent with the teaching of the Gita. The Gita teaches that he whose heart is meek with devotion, who is devoted to unattached action and has seen the Truth must win salvation, no matter when he dies. These shlokas seem to run counter to this. They may perhaps be stretched to mean broadly that a man of sacrifice, a man of light, a man who has known Brahman [God] finds release from birth if he retains that enlightenment at the time of death, and that on the contrary the man who has none of these attributes goes to the world of the moon--not at all lasting--and returns to birth. The moon, after all, shines with borrowed light![5]

Gandhi, like most Bahá'ís, finds it difficult to believe the incredible proposition that the positions of the sun and the moon in the sky can dictate whether a person will find liberation! Gandhi's interpretation, which he modestly describes as ``stretched,'' is far more acceptable to most Bahá'ís than the literal one. Bahá'u'lláh explains that sacred scripture has multiple levels of meaning. Sometimes the intended meaning is literal, but at other times the meaning is ``hidden'' and can only be properly understood through metaphorical or allegorical interpretation. This idea can also be found in the parables of Jesus Christ, such as when he said ``let the dead bury their dead.'' Obviously, a dead person cannot bury another dead person, rather Jesus was referring to people who are ``spiritually dead.'' In the aptly titled Kitáb-i-Íqán (the Book of Certitude), written more than 15 years before Gandhi was born, Bahá'u'lláh explains that the best way to interpret scripture is the one that takes us closest to the Truth:

It is evident unto thee that the Birds of Heaven and Doves of Eternity speak a twofold language. One language, the outward language, is devoid of allusions, is unconcealed and unveiled; that it may be a guiding lamp and a beaconing light whereby wayfarers may attain the heights of holiness, and seekers may advance into the realm of eternal reunion   The other language is veiled and concealed, so that whatever lieth hidden in the heart of the malevolent may be made manifest and their innermost being be disclosed   This is the divine standard, this is the Touchstone of God, wherewith He proveth His servants. None apprehendeth the meaning of these utterances except them whose hearts are assured, whose souls have found favour with God, and whose minds are detached from all else but Him. In such utterances the literal meaning, as generally understood by the people, is not what hath been intended  [6]

Moreover, in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, Bahá'u'lláh specifically explains that the terms sun and moon, found in sacred scripture, can be used as metaphors, and counsels readers to renounce attachment to the letter of sacred scripture, that they may thereby attain to its spirit:

By the terms ``sun'' and ``moon,'' mentioned in the writings of the Prophets of God, is not meant solely the sun and moon of the visible universe. Nay rather, manifold are the meanings they have intended for these terms. In every instance they have attached to them a particular significance. Thus, by the ``sun'' in one sense is meant those Suns of Truth Who rise from the dayspring of ancient glory, and fill the world with a liberal effusion of grace from on high. These Suns of Truth are the universal Manifestations of God in the worlds of His attributes and names

In another sense, by these terms is intended the divines of the former Dispensation, who live in the days of the subsequent Revelations, and who hold the reins of religion in their grasp

In another sense, by the terms `sun', `moon', and `stars' are meant such laws and teachings as have been established and proclaimed in every Dispensation, such as the laws of prayer and fasting  

O my brother! Take thou the step of the spirit, so that, swift as the twinkling of an eye, thou mayest flash through the wilds of remoteness and bereavement, attain the Ridván [paradise] of everlasting reunion, and in one breath commune with the heavenly Spirits. For with human feet thou canst never hope to traverse these immeasurable distances, nor attain thy goal. Peace be upon him whom the light of truth guideth unto all truth, and who, in the name of God, standeth in the path of His Cause, upon the shore of true understanding.[7]

According to this point of view, Gandhi was entirely justified in his attempt to ``stretch'' the meaning of Gita 8:24-25. Indeed, the literal meaning is not what Krishna most probably intended. Gandhi's comment on verse 26, about the bright and dark paths of the world, further shows that he was not against using metaphors in interpretation:

The Bright one may be taken to mean the path of knowledge and the dark one that of ignorance.[8]

Hence, although far from being identical, Gandhi's approach to interpretation is not altogether inconsistent with the Bahá'í approach. Further evidence of Gandhi's flexibility towards interpretation is his willingness to regard the Mahabharata not as a literal history but as a mythic one:

Even in 1888-89, when I first became acquainted with the Gita, I felt that it was not a historical work, but that, under the guise of physical warfare, it described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts of mankind, and that physical warfare was brought in merely to make the description of the internal duel more alluring. This preliminary intuition became more confirmed on a closer study of religion and the Gita. A study of the Mahabharata gave it added confirmation. I do not regard the Mahabharata as a historical work in the accepted sense. The Adiparva contains powerful evidence in support of my opinion. By ascribing to the chief actors superhuman or subhuman origins, the great Vyasa made short work of the history of kings and their peoples. The persons therein described may be historical, but the author of the Mahabharata has used them merely to drive home his religious theme. [9]

Back to Published books Baha'i Academics Resource Library ][ Sacred Writings ][ Search
Primary sources ][ Secondary sources ][ Resources and etc.
Bulletin board ][ Links ][ Personal pages ][ Other sites hosted by the Library