₦airaland Forum

There are two ladies I would love to meet.

1. Ujujoan. I always stop to read her posts for her exquisite writing style. Such commitment to excellence even on a public forum. Every comma, apostrophe and dot in its place. Shows a keen sense of order and, perhaps, integrity. Most of her posts also resonate with sensibleness and decorum. Great lady, I would think.

2. Maedan. I admire her for her sensibleness, creativity and levelheadedness - most times! Also knows her tenses and pays attention to her writing. Her contributions are often refreshing and wholesome. Another great lady.

I forwarded that to a cousin of mine about seven years ago when someone first forwarded it to me, and he replied "It's a tough software o!"

Good day M_Nwankwo. All you have written has greatly illuminated this matter. Many thanks.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=436863.msg5954142#msg5954142 date=1272293755]Hi My Joe. Thanks for your well reasoned posts. The problem is not with vision, dreams or clirvoyance per se. The problem is with man himself. To draw from the power of God requires an inner purity, that is purity of the spirit and that is absolutely decisive in all manner of inner seeing. Such a purity not only guides the seeing one but prevents any extraneous interference from sources that do not swing in the will of God. Genuine spiritual abilities are independent and above any religious or philosophical adherence.[/quote]Ok.

[quote author=m_nwankwo]If a Budhist and a christian that have attained a pure level of spiritual maturity is shown the kingdom of God in picture, each will recognise in the description of the other what he or she has seen as the kingdom of God.[/quote]In real life, it would certainly be great to see examples of this.

[quote author=m_nwankwo]Thus the main reason why there are differences in what believers report is simply that they are not seeing the real stuff, that is, they are not capable of drawing in purity from the power of God. Rather they are drawing from the world of there own creations, worlds that came into existence as a result of the union of their own spiritual voilitions with the principal neutral power of God that is in creation.[/quote]This makes a lot of sense to me.

[quote author=m_nwankwo]Thus, different faiths have their worlds, angels, gods, cathedrals,  moses, buddha, Jesus etc and yet all these creations are not the real spiritual or divine personalities but the creations of the producer.[/quote]This must be true.

[quote author=m_nwankwo]But those entrapped in these worlds are unaware that they are leaving in the worlds, images and personalities of there own creation. Only inner purity and obedience to the laws of God will give the human spirit the mobility to ascend beyond these worlds of sham and draw from luminous sources. Once people draw from luminous sources, there will be no contadiction in what they have seen.[/quote]But there appear to be highly pious people in all the movements seeing all sorts of things.

[quote author=m_nwankwo]The laws of God are uniform and unchageable,[/quote]Only this is capable of being true of the Supreme God. That is what makes all the confusion disturbing.

[quote author=m_nwankwo]it is the varried voilitions of men that create the confusion  and contradiction that you seem to be worried about. Just like a budhist, a christian or even an atheist that sow yam will reap yam, so is it in the real spiritual worlds and manifestations therein.[/quote]Ok.

[quote author=m_nwankwo]But no body can see beyond what is stipulated by his inner spiritual maturity even if he wants himself and others to believe otherwise. Thus inwardly impure or fearful people will keep seeing demons of fear, witches and wizards, mystics and sages of all traditions will keep seeing ascended masters, inwardly lustful people will keep having intimacy in dreams and visions of participating in immoral activities, religious prople will keep seing Vigin Mary, Buddha, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and yet pure childlike human beings will draw from out of the power of God what has happened, is happening and will happen. Most often this last group are not even counscious of this in the physical sense. Even in this last case where genuine seeing is the case, the process of remodelling the purely spiritual pictures to fit into the earthly concept of time and space is a key determinant. The remodelling of the spiritual waves emanating from the spirit by the brain varies with each individual, those who are blessed with this inner sight abilities transform these experiences more accurately than those who acquired these abilities through training and experimentation. No matter how good a swimmer is, he cannot be a fish in water.

Among all peoples and cultures, there are those who God have called to be fish in this regard and thus have both the necessary ability for reception as well as tranformation of the recieved experiences into earthly concept of time and space.[/quote]Won’t the prophets and spiritual leaders of the past such as Moses, Ezekiel, Buddha, Laoze, Paul and Mohammed, fall into this category? Which just takes us right back to the confusion?

[quote author=m_nwankwo]Thus , so called spiritual exerises like meditation, chanting, incarntations, taking hallucinogens, fasting, concentration, auto suggestion , self hypnosis etc will at best create an unreliable swimmer but not a fish. In most cases though, these exerises open the spirit to the sham world that I alluded earlier where everything is both possible and impossible. The physical body protects most people from currents emanating from these worlds but if people choose to lift this protecting cover through the various spiritual exerises, then, not only will they  leave in a sham world of there own creations but they can be harmed.[/quote]Except, perhaps, where the person taking the exercises is pure hearted and motivated by wholesome motives?

[quote author=m_nwankwo]Dreams, visions, clairvoyance and similar things are not a requirement for serving God but they can actually lead us astray. Stay blessed.[/quote]This ^^^ is what I feel deeply inside of me.

But still there may be some who for the purpose of spiritual fulfillment devoid of tainted motives wish to experience the divine or the spiritual. Are we to conclude that spiritual knowledge is out of the reach of some? You have already asserted that the exercises common to the mystical schools of thought are not useful and may even lead to harm. Is there a possibility that an Average Joe or Plain Jane can attain spiritual experience and comprehension even though not originally called to be fish?

To rephrase the question: Since you dismiss spiritual exercises as unhelpful what are the steps to growing in spiritual understanding and recognition of the "ways of God"?

morpheus24:
I think MR RSA answered you fairly

What you are saying is that reminding me of other people who are not the subject matter, then telling me that Zuma is not a dictator like other African leaders, and then spinning off lines about my possible motives is a "fair" answer. Then I must question your standard of "fairness".

morpheus24: but non the less this was not the answer you would be satisfied with.

You are right. The answer I would be satisfied with would be something like: "He has this quality. . ." "We believe he can deliver in this important area. . ." "We looked at the other contenders and felt he could surpass them in. . ."

@m_nwankwo

Thanks for your excellent post. You have made a lot of points I have not previously considered or was unaware of. When I am a bit freer, I will like to ask some questions.

Deep Sight:
Interesting. Let me ask your own view on that -

Do you think it is possible for God to REVEAL HIMSELF in the manner claimed by Religion.

I think the fact there is so much confusion - with religious folk often resembling dogs yapping at the fence, the wrong fence, for that - strongly points to the fact that God is unknowable. I think. But I am not in a position to dismiss the possibility that he has revealed certain things to certain people.

RSA:
Yar Dua and your Goodluck are not inspiring me and why is that? maybe because I'm not a Nigerian

South Africans know why we like and voted for Zuma,for us is not about last year but its about what you did for your people in the last 50 years of your life.We want people with the right intentions,Zuma lived his entire life for the people and we know as a President he'll do his best,he is not a dictator.

And so far as a President he's doing well,I think you and other people are more concern about his private life and that your problem,as a South African I am happy with his contribution in the office,and I will choose him and his personal issues over Mugabe or any dictator in Africa who has a 'good' private life, but a corrupt dictator in the office.

I hope you know now.

No, not in the least. But thanks for responding. Maybe if I get lucky I will find a South African who can discuss the topic. Stay blessed.

Deep Sight:
It is beyond cavil that the essential message of virtually all revelation cutting across varied religions and worldviews is actually the same - to wit - :

Love thy Fellow Man.

That happens to be my view. But it is not that of the religious people - not all, one must add. There is an idea out there that one must come to accept a definition of God and take it from there. To prove this, this God has caused some REVELATIONS of HIMSELF. You see why we still here talking?

^^^ For me, it's certainly "better" to not pursue what you wrote and end up with the sort of merry-go-round you appear to revel in.

noetic16:
1. there are no universal theme for revelations that come from God, simply because many other spirits choose to impersonate God.

If this is true, we are all in trouble - well, most of us. Since revealers hear different things, we may assume that only one set of revelations is right, and the others are all duped! That means a lot of people will come to grief for trusting the spiritual realm. Imagine Eckanker being right, for instance, and 1.8 billion Christians being wrong. I don't know how many will react to this arrangement whereby God allows the evil spirits to pretend to be him and give accurate revelations to trick people.

noetic16: 2. DS is not a believer, yet he has dreams that do attain reality . . . .this is testimony to any ignorant atheist, that there is a spiritual realm that strongly influences the physical.

I wonder what you mean he is not a "believer". Anyway, I am more concerned about point 1 and am waiting to hear from other spiritual people.

noetic16:
if so, why then did u make your primordial statement, about an anti-religion jewish state?

says who? how do u know this for a fact? are u a member of the PM's family?

your understanding of God is really really ignoble and largely misinformed. are western or eastern ideas independent of God's knowledge? and are these western states independent of faith beliefs and doctrines?


Dude, again I am sadly disappointed. myjoe is science in parallel or opposite to God? 

Your assertions were/are ridiculous  . . . .(no intent to be offensive)

You erroneously create the impression that Africans expect God to come and do everything for them . . . .that explains my analogy that do I expect God to come and cultivate my farm for me. . .  simply because I believe in Him?
why not take time out to experience why people genuinely trust God.

Ok.

^^^ I cannot dispute the above. I cannot. But as you may have noticed, I am here concerned about the usefulness of it all in our apprehension of the ultimate reality. Your abilities have not led you nearer to finding the definite truth about things, have they? You see, I recently attended a forum where the lecturer told someone: "You believe. We know." What makes him make that statement which I find presumptions? That is what I am going on about in this thread.

Why is there no single theme that runs through REVELATIONS which spiritual people hold up as coming from God to serve as "proof" that their way is right?

The above is rather harsh. I personally do not possess any certainty or knowledge that there are no revelations. I want spiritual people to help throw light on these awkward differences in material thought to flow from a single source.

AIRDIG:
As a seeker, looking for the truth. I pursue the truth, on a clean slate, without bias.
over time, I have come to garner oodles of knowledge about Christianity, Islam and the Grail message
People around me recently discovered my change of attitude about the concept of God.

I appreciate the fact that your views are not just some baseless accussation but rather scriptural. That's welcomed.
As it stands, it is easier for me to think that the Bible writers make mistake in their presentation of the scripture than to think of God with evil machination.

I am still looking for the purpose of life; But I think,  I'm losing my religion.

Don't get mad when cornered,  instead THINK!

What do you think of the exchanges in this thread?

RSA
Let’s face it: Zuma is hardly inspiring. Well, to some of us. And that is being very conservative with words. I am personally at a loss, therefore, why he enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, such immense popularity among the people of South Africa. I am hoping you can help me make sense of this.
Why do you and your compatriots like Zuma as much as you do?
Thanks.

Why do you find that "scary"?

The Problem with Dreams, Visions and Clairvoyance

Mysticism is an immediate, direct, intuitive knowledge of God or of the ultimate reality attained through personal religious experience. While the mainstream of Christianity, Islam and Judaism teach us to believe by faith, the mystical and esoteric movements tell us that it is possible to experience God directly.

Daoism has mysticism at its core. Eckanker tells you not to content yourself with dreams and visions, but to undertake soul travel and go have a chat with the saints – Moses, Buddha, Paul, just pick one – who will tell you things exactly as they are. Adherents of the Grail Message also talk about intuitive knowledge and direct experience, but quite inexplicably they vehemently repudiate "mysticism".

There are many other movements offering mysticism either as their main staple or as a part of what you get if you join. Buddhism, Hinduism and the other Eastern faiths have schools that do mysticism. In Islam, there is Sufi, and in Judaism, there is Kabala.

Christian mysticism is derived mainly from the writings of Saint Paul and the Gospel of Saint John. It is said that the Gnostics were adept at it before they were persecuted to extinction and replaced by other forms of esoteric Christianity. Anyone interested in Christian mysticism may look at The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas à Kempis, The Original Teachings of Jesus, by Vladimir Antonov, and[i] The Cloud of Unknowing[/i], an exceptional work by an anonymous 14th century English monk.

There are people who are said to be born with clairvoyant abilities. That is, they have more than the five senses. They can tell you something that is about to happen before it happens. They dream and such dreams come to pass. Some, who are not born with these abilities, are said to develop them by going out of their way to develop their “psychic centres” or such. This is said to be true of many Celestial Church prophets and many who join Eckanker, Amorc and the other esoteric movements.

[b]So given the capabilities of dreams, visions, clairvoyance and mysticism, they can be trusted to be able to transmit to us an objective picture of God, the cosmos and the afterlife, right? WRONG! They are not objective at all. That is the pith of the problem.

You see, a Catholic will see visions in which the Virgin Mary will appear to him, telling him things about the impending end of the world. An Eckist will go on astral travel and the Mahanta will link hands with him and tell him that hellfire is a figment of some people’s imagination. I have never heard of a Pentecostal Christian whose near death experience does not include an excursion to hell, the infernal house where, we are told, God has assigned the devil to burn and torment sinners in raw fire for eternity. Rosicrucians carry out their experiments which always confirm what nature of things are taught in their monographs. And it would be unimaginable for an adherent of the Grail Message to dream and see something that runs counter to what is contained in the Message. There are no Celestial prophets who routinely sight the Mahanta. And God forbid a Sufi mystic will see a vision remotely depicting the three-in-one God!


Given the above, I believe dreamers, visioners and clairvoyants will realise why the rest of us, lay people in these matters, are wont to believe that it is all in your head. We may be wrong, of course, but can you not clearly see why we treat all dreams and visions the same way we treat books written by intellectuals, as subjective materials to be read and sifted through to find what is useful and what is not?[/b]

Do you have extra-sensory powers? Perhaps you can explain a few things to us. What do you think?

noetic16:
This is FALSE.

How do u explain the fact that the jews still see themselves as God's chosen people even till today? and their belief for the end of the world and the awaiting of a messiah?

Noetic16, There are orthodox Jews, Hasids and other sects who still see themselves as God's chosen people. There are moderate Jews who don't care much. There are atheist Jews. But the Prime Minister of Israel does not take instructions from a prophet or priest, like King David allegedly did. The Constitution of the State of Israel spells out a democracy modeled on the Western ideals of the Rule of Law; it is not a faith document like the Torah or Quran. Israeli scientists do not recite the ten commandments in their laboratories. I hope you understand this. . .

noetic16: how does God work? would God go to my farm to plant my crops for me because I believe in Him? . . . . .u speak as if Africans and theists are a bunch of foolish people . . . . your ignorance is embarrassing.

Pele. Didn't mean to embarrass you. Your knowledge of Africans and understanding of how deferring to higher powers has impacted on them is impressive. Keep it up. 

This ^^^ is hilarious!

The story is told of an African leading his flock of sheep along a path. Suddenly he came upon a mountain, blocking his way. He quickly knelt down before the mountain, chanted some incantations and proceeded to collect some wood with which he lit a fire. He then tied up his fattest male sheep and burnt it in sacrifice to the mountain.

A white man came along the same road with his sheep and met the same obstacle. He took a good look at the mountain and began to explore it. He began by climbing to its top, finding gold and all sorts of precious things along the way,

The other day I was listening to a serious forum discussion on how to solve the unending crisis in Jos. During the phone-in segment, the first person to call in said the only way forward was prayers and fasting. A well-educated, serious-looking Nigerian woman was asked by a journalist to proffer solutions on the way out of the Israeli-Arab conflict. What did she say? You guessed it - "the only solution is God." I read the sad story of a girl who died of bosom cancer because she was taken to the hospital when the bosom had collapsed. At its early stage when chemotherapy would have been sufficient to take care of it, her people had summoned "men of God" to administer prayers upon her.

Did oyinbos have this problem too? Eric Hobsbawm, the famous British Jewish historian, has no doubt. According to him, Jews began to make outstanding impacts in all disciplines after the 18th century when they freed themselves from the application of Mosaic laws which they hitherto applied to the very last details of their lives. The laws blocked their minds and chained their imagination, threatening to keep them in the era of sea-parting gods. So the Jews' achievements came, not when they were "God's chosen people", but at the time they consciously rejected that identity! Mazaje has already made reference to the Dark Ages, when the Church had the final say on matters and people were being lynched for "witchcraft" all over Europe. Is it a coincidence that the human race has made more progress in the last 100 years than it has since the world began?

Don't assume for a moment that the West is now free of religious crack pots. After September 11, some pastor said it was because the twin towers resembled the Tower of Babel. God had to bring them down! But while you still have these people among oyinbos, they don't do much damage because they appear to be in the minority. So even in the rare case that they occupy responsible positions (like that Pentagon general who said he saw the devil flying over Somalia) there are enough rational people to offset the damage they do.

Here in Africa you find them in every state house and office building. In another thread I made reference to the foolish governor of a troubled state in  the Middle Belt of Nigeria who went to sleep knowing that a community under his watch was going to be attacked that night without doing something concrete to stop it. The following day he woke up and declared three days of prayer and fasting to forestall further occurrences.

How can people make progress who rely on God to work for them? I am sorry to say, but the majority of African people are like children who refuse to deal with the complexity of the world around them, but look to a big daddy up there to take care of things. There can be no grain of doubt that superstition and irrationality sit at the pith of, or, at least, play a large part in Africa's backwardness. It is a sad story.

^^^ The evidence actually says he was born into a poor, not middle class, family.

Long time, Bawo!

^^^ One couldn't agree more with this line of reasoning.

^^^ I couldn't help noticing that, too.

[quote author=john_blaze link=topic=433397.msg5919799#msg5919799 date=1271705314]I already knew, just wanted to bring proof to this forum so that I dont get labelled a conspiracy theorist!!![/quote]Knew what?

I don't do conspiracy theories, but what we know about IBB makes this more than a possibility. In fact, it would be impossible that IBB has no paid agent in a from like Nairaland.

Pastor AIO:
I would love to see a thread that was a comic book dialogue between Mazaje and Olaadegbu. Not that I would read through it, but it would be a nice idea that such a thread existed.

I was going to say this. That thread would be something to watch. Mazaje1 with his new but treasured passion flexing his muscles in one corner, and OLADEEGBU the more experienced hand smiling confidently in the other. I won't stick my neck out predicting the end.

^^^ Thanks to you too.

Deep Sight:
Howdi, commander Nuclear.

Let me be clear: what Myjoe wrote is irrefutable. I did not seek to refute it.

I sought to contextualize it.

At all events we should be clear -

It is possible that Mother Theresa was a closet hired assasin - only God knows.

This ^^^ is not useful.  In fact, it is lame. Mother Theresa as a hired assassin is not a fact we know and can work with. We can only assess people on what we know – not go off speculating on what they might have been within the unique knowledge of God. We assess Gandhi on what we do know. And what matters is factualness of the information we have, not whether the majority of people know or not. We can interpret facts differently, but they are basically facts.

Deep Sight: However when we use her as a refernce point, we clearly refer to that which we observe - the virtues that we see - and that is the real issue.

Ditto Gandhi. The Composite Image we know of, is what we use as a reference point.

You mean the received Gandhi.

nuclearboy:
I watched "The Mahatma" over 2 decades ago and even then remember all that was posited about him was peace peace peace. So what? Plus like a very wise guy said earlier, the Nobel committee never once considered your "mentor". Methinks that came about from having more information than you do!

Thanks for this. I am non-violent, myself - refused to learn how to use firearms when I had the opportunity and don't intend to own one ever. But it will take another thread to thrash out the practicability of "pacifism" as preached by Gandhi. I remarked on it in passing here . I think Gandhi's support for the invasion of Kashmir, the experience of Nehru at the hands of China during the border conflict, which probably helped to spur India into a weapons race, helps to explain things. It shows that Gandhi not only knew the impracticableness of pacifism, but put it to pragmatic use only.

I assume that after reading what I wrote, these are your views. I respect them, even though I don’t share them. But I would like to point out a few things.  You wrote a lot of hypotheses and conjectures, but failed to answer any of the posers I raised if we are to demonstrate Gandhi’s humanism. You did not highlight a single thing the young Gandhi or the OLD version ever did to bring help to a non-Indian human being.

I wish to repeat that I am not saying that Gandhi was a monster, but that he was not half the enlightened soul you people claim he is.

Deep Sight:
Ok.

This is an extreme assertion. That he did not demonstrate his humanism? Can we honesty assert that in all fairness?

I not only did that, I demonstrated it.

Deep Sight: Haba Myjoe, Myjoe, Myjoe!

What sort of reasoning is this? ? ?

Deep Sight: That you have no record of Ghandi buying sweets for young boys and denouncing his tribalistic aides as Ahmadu Bello did, suddenly translates into the general ideas about Ghandi being “delusions?”

Haba.

Even if I had not invested time and effort in highlighting the point of emphasis in that paragraph, your recourse to a non-issue would still have been self-serving and disingenuous.  The thrust of that paragraph is not the items (“sweets” as you call them ) that he bought for those boys but his remark to his aides which showed what an enlightened human soul he was. I do have records of Gandhi giving sweets to kids. My point is that he only gave sweets to Indian kids. While Bello repudiated triabalism on the part of his aides, Gandhi made it a policy among them. Placed beside Bello, he would be an ant beside an elephant.

Deep Sight: Before proceeding, let us note carefully the origin of the word which is littered throughout your quotes – Kaffir.

I source Wikipedia –

[I]“The word kaffir, sometimes spelled kaffer or kafir, is an offensive term for a black person, most common in South Africa and other African countries. Generally considered a racial or ethnic slur in modern usage, it was previously a neutral term for black southern African people.[/i]

Now at the very outset the foregoing should make it clear that the very use of that word does not necessarily connote a racial denigration – but was in many ways a term of general description used in a neutral sense.

If I am to assume that your devotion to Gandhi made it hard for you to see the slur in the words and context of his quotes (it is in the human nature of all of us to do that sometimes), did you read this:

Gandhi was Aware of the Abusive Nature of his Words, including “Kaffir”

"And finally, about Mr. Douglas who, as I have stated above, has tendered his resignation. The gentleman has been simply overhasty. He took offence at the Maulana Saheb's use of the word kaffir for a Christian. I can understand his resentment. It would have been better if the word kaffir were not used."

Deep Sight: I fear that this is at best, an overstatement and at worst, quite incorrect and misleading.

Fine, if that is your truthful conclusion.

Deep Sight: I have reviewed the quotes you presented to me and also read up on some of these issues.

I think to be fair to him – just as you have yourself noted – it is important to carfully contextualize the period of time and the social issues he was addressing.

From all that I have read I think that for the most part Ghandi’s references to Kaffirs in derogatory terms were socialy apt descriptions and not racial denigrations.

Socially speaking I may validly describe the state of an extremely poor segment of a given society. In a state of extreme poverty, it is correct to state that people may be very dirty, uncivilized and may even behave like animals.

Such was the derelict state of the generality of the Kaffirs that Ghandi referred to and to my mind the mere fact that he aptly described them as such does not automatically mean that he was denigrating the black race. Rather I think he was correctly describing the state in which they were at the time – and there can be nothing wrong with this.

And in support of this perspective let us look at some of his comments again –

Now note the words – “Even the half-castes and kaffirs, who are less advanced than we have resisted the government”

I think that the statement quoted above is one that places things in careful context. He is clearly speaking about the state of advancement of each racial grouping. Remember as you have yourself pointed out that this is a period of history and a place where the society was highly fractionalized along ethnic, racial and cultural lines and each group was desperately struggling for relevance and survival.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in the above statement – and it shows clearly that Gandhi was referring to the state of advancement of each group which cannot be denied.

In today’s world, the white race is far more advanced than the black race and indeed almost every other race.

Does stating this fact make me racist?

Are you racist if you refer to the “less advanced black world?”

If in today’s world, that would not be considered rascist, then I think it is absolutely unfair to categorize Gandhi’s comments as rascist simply because he gave apt and frank assessments of the level of development of each racial grouping.

I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion you have. It is one thing to say "blacks are least advanced" and another to say "blacks are inferior". My problem with Gandhi is not even that he said blacks were inferior (everyone did at the time), but that he actively sought to put them in their place, to repress them.

Take, for instance, the Durban post office incident. There were two doors installed, a "whites only" and a "non-whites". Why would a "humanist" break his neck fighting until a third door, "Indians only", was installed? I already acknowledged the time it was, but I think you are making too much of that, like other Gandhi apologists tend to. At that time there were already white intellectuals, politicians, activists and an emerging black Christian clergy, asserting "the fundamental equality of all human races". Why was Gandhi behind rather than ahead? And why aren't we worshiping these guys rather than a backward thinker just because he later "renounced material things" and stopped sleeping with his wife? (Wish I had the time or inclination to x-ray those aspects of his life here, including the real reasons Gandhi came to such prominence.)

Deep Sight: Now please do not misunderstand me – I am NOT suggesting that there were not in fact clear undertones of prejudice in some of the things that he said BUT I CONTEND AS FOLLOWS –

1. As you yourself have noted, Gandhi was only human. All great men are only human. Thus they all surfer from failings of character just as much as everyone else does.

Love, Deep Sight, is basic. Love for ALL of God's children, including, if not especially, those in communities you consider less advanced. I already sang my admiration for Mandela, Pope John Paul II and Obafemi Awolowo despite what I consider their flaws.

Deep Sight: 2. The society of that time was highly divided, sectionalized along ethnic, cultural and racial lines and each grouping was struggling to define itself and its rights in society. Gandhi was doubtless in his younger years influenced by these tensions.

3. HOWEVER IT IS MOST INSTRUCTIVE TO NOTE that as he grew older and his experience within society improved, he matured into a well-rounded thinker devoid of prejudice. This development of his thinking and perceptions is what I wish to emphasize – to show you that the hot-blooded Mohandas Gandhi GREW AND CHANGED INTO A BROAD-MINDED ACTIVIST WITH HUMANISM AS HIS CENTRAL WORLDVIEW.

Point 3 above is what I will anchor my submissions on.

Have a look at this quote, also from Wikipedia –

“Two professors of history who specialize in South Africa, Surendra Bhana and Goolam Vahed, examined this controversy in their text, The Making of a Political Reformer: Gandhi in South Africa, 1893–1914. (New Delhi: Manohar, 2005). They focus in Chapter 1, "Gandhi, Africans and Indians in Colonial Natal" on the relationship between the African and Indian communities under "White rule" and policies which enforced segregation (and, they argue, inevitable conflict between these communities). Of this relationship they state that, "the young Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions prevalent in the 1890s."[18] At the same time, they state, "Gandhi's experiences in jail [i]seemed to make him more sensitive to their plight, the later Gandhi mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of common cause. His negative views in the Johannesburg jail were reserved for hardened African prisoners rather than Africans generally."[19] [/i]

I hope you realise these professors are guessing? "Seemed". "Seemed". Does that tell they had any facts to back up their hypotheses? Let's assume they are right about the prison comments. That would cancel this:

Recalling his time in a Transvaal prison in October 1908, Gandhi said later that he spent the "first night in the company of some kaffir criminals, wild-looking, murderous, vicious, lewd and uncouth." (17)

Now, what has changed? There is zero evidence - zero! - of the highlighted portion. But there is abundant evidence to the contrary.

Deep Sight: Former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela is a follower of Gandhi,[20] despite efforts in 2003 on the part of Gandhi's critics to prevent the unveiling of a statue of Gandhi in Johannesburg.[17] [/i]

Please note the highlighted portions and I firmly believe that these put the discussion in context because you will note that –

1. The YOUNG Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions. Note the emphasis on the word “young.” As we said he is not perfect and he grew out of those influences as you will note that ALL of the supposed racist remarks were made in his relative youth, and that[b] as he grew and refined himself, he removed himself from that mentality which evinces a clear improvement, development and laudable change in his mindset.[/b] The Old Mohanda Ghandi did not espouse such views. So my friend, we are all allowed to learn from our misguided past and refine our views as we grow older.

These are conjectures. Gandhi did not abuse blacks in India. Yes. And my grandpa did not abuse Eskimos in his farm. See the point? There were no blacks in Gandhi's way in India. The truth is that we do NOT know whether or not Gandhi was still prejudiced against blacks when he was in India since opportunities did not present themselves for him to show his love or hate for them. He did not go out of his way to issue statements renouncing  his earlier views or to put in a word for blacks in South Africa or elsewhere. Your assertion that "as he grew and refined himself, he removed himself from that mentality which evinces a clear improvement, development and laudable change in his mindset" is, therefore, anchored on nothing. I hope this demonstrates to you that people say such things because they have tuned their minds into the image of the mythical Gandhi.

Deep Sight: 2. Note that the professors write that “Gandhi's experiences in jail seemed to make him more sensitive to their plight, the later Gandhi mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of common cause.”

Is there a single evidence of this? I have searched and found none. If you show me the evidence I will acknowledge my errors here. I have no interest in denigrating Gandhi. I started on him with the same notions you have of the designer Gandhi, the one who is Buddha, Jesus and Vishnu rolled into one. I simply changed my views on him in the face of facts. For that matter, I still respect his contributions, even if they are hard to tell since too much mythologising has taken place.

Deep Sight: 3. Note particularly that it is written that –“His negative views in the Johannesburg jail were reserved for hardened African prisoners rather than Africans generally” This is a crucial point as it underscores what I earlier said  - to wit – that he aptly described poor people as being dirty or behaving like animals – he thus attacked a state of backwardness and NOT a race. There is a huge difference.

Those particular words may have been for the criminals he encountered in jail, others were not. If it is your view that Gandhi did not attack a race, then those are your views. The facts, however, say otherwise.

Deep Sight: 4. Most telling, is the fact that the champion of black rights, the great Madiba himself –Nelson Mandela – IS A FOLLWER OF GANDHI TILL THIS DAY! ! ! ! !

What does point No. 4 above suggest?

(1) Nothing much, since Mandela is not a historian. (2) Nothing new, since just about everyone is a fan of Gandhi. Dr King was a fan of Gandhi and we have learnt he did not even know about Gandhi's racial views.

Deep Sight: It suggests very clearly as I said that Ghandi’s remarks were directed at  state of backwardness and NOT a race. It also shows that Mandela is able to tell the difference – unless you are willing to suggest that Mandela – a lawyer and student of history himself – would condone rascism against black people. You know that that is as unlikely as it is absurd.

The Mandela appeal doesn't really cut it. Here is what I think (1) Mandela does not know all the facts. (2) He got his Gandhi from the popular press, like everyone.

Deep Sight: Gandhi’s comments this ought to be taken in careful context.

Like I did throughout my earlier posts.

Deep Sight: Now I have further evidence to suggest as I said that although he was influenced by segregationist ideas when young, he grew out of this mentality.

In fact, the man widely known for his pacifist and non-violent stance once openly advocated war –

Now this was Gandhi at a younger age.

As he grew older, he became famous for denouncing all forms of violence and advocated non-violent means of pressing for change.

It is thus clear that there was a huge paradigm shift within his mind from the early years in South Africa to the latter years when his wisdom had grown and he was virtually an old sage.

Now regarding the war which he had previously supported note this from Wikipedia –

”In 1927 Gandhi wrote of the event: "The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war with anything like the vividness that the [Zulu] 'rebellion' did. This was no war but a man-hunt, not only in my opinion, but also in that of many Englishmen with whom I had occasion to talk."[25]  

Thus he had clearly come to have a different perspective of things.

Whereas in his younger days he saw the war as a chance to assert Indian participation in the society of the time, he had now come to view it as a cruel and unjust persecution of fellow human beings.

If Gandhi joined the British in fighting the Zulus to assert Indian participation, then he was under the misguided view that putting out another man's candle would increase the brightness of his own - hardly humanistic. You see, Queen Victoria and her marauder bands were basically armed robbers, stealing land in Africa, India and anywhere else they could grab it. They were not killing Zulus and taking their lands to benefit the Indians in anyway.

Deep Sight: So I believe the points should be clear – there is no doubt that he changed as he grew older – and this is recognized by Mandela, and is laudable in a human being.

It is possible Mr Gandhi learnt one or two things about the horrors of war. But how much did he really change since he endorsed Nehru's use of armed force in Kashmir - to grab land - at the same time he was counselling Jews to use non-violence when their very existence was threatened by armed people?

Deep Sight:
Ok. With the foregoing, am I free to open a thread announcing that you are not, and in fact have never been a pure athiest, and have merely been deliberately mis-understood by Noetic and his gang?

Make the text pink with font size 24!

Howdy maz. But what's with mazaje1? You got banned?

This is one of the great threads of recent times. Thanks Deep Sight and m_nwankwo. I have never been able to think of the Holy Spirit in terms of a person, even though this position has been taught by the Grail Message and popular Christianity, but not the Bible. Jesus, on the other hand, I have never been able to equal with God or fuse somewhat into God. Since comprehending the doctrine has always been a problem for me, M_nwankwo’s explanations on this thread, even though I do not accept them and accept the Trinity doctrine even less, have brought some clarity to it, or a version of it.

Let me place a caveat to anyone reading the above. Today, when we assess people like Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Thomas Jefferson and even Josef Stalin, historians warn us that we should not assess people of the past with standards of today. I share this view. There were very very few people in 1900 who did not have racist views. The British middle and upper classes looked down upon their Irish workers in those days. Even today people within African countries still look down upon people of other tribes as inferior. Gandhi was born a caste Hindu and Hindus are raised to see the world through the prism of stratification. An average Hindu followed this to the letter and was arrogant in asserting his caste. That is what Gandhi was in this respect – an average Hindu. Not a tad above average. Gandhi’s grandson says in defence of him that Gandhi lived in a time when racism was the norm, therefore he was normal. That is correct.

But does the fact it was 1900 really excuse Gandhi’s brand of racism? No. Nada. Nope. While it is true that everyone, including blacks themselves, considered black people to be inferior in those days, not everyone was contemptuous of them. The idea of “negro” inferiority was only brought into Western thought to justify the slave trade. By the 1700s it was the orthodoxy at universities no thanks to the efforts of philosophers like David Hume. But long before 1900 there were already intellectuals, movements and religious leaders, dismissed by The Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1884, as “ignorant philanthropists”, who advocated the fundamental equality of the races. There were many thinkers who asserted that if blacks were given the same opportunity as whites, they would “improve”. One would have expected a “sage” like Gandhi to be progressive, rather than primitively reactionary.

Has anyone taken note of the fact that Gandhi had no problem with violence when he joined the British in their war against the Zulus in South Africa but turned around to adopt “non-violence” in fighting the same British and the Boers for Indians knowing the Indians could not hope to win on the battlefield? A policy he later adopted in the Raj, again conveniently, when he came up against the well-armed British, thus preventing himself and his people from being slaughtered as much as the Zulu in South Africa and the Kikuyu (Mau Mau) in Kenya.

While I am here presenting The Other Gandhi, there should be no mistake about the fact that I recognise his contributions, even though outright lies have been told in hyping them out of proportion. I even alluded to his words here.  I particularly admire his work among the impoverished masses and how he brought his immense mental capabilities to solve communal problems. He was courageous in denouncing the idea of the untouchables, but even in that regard, he did not do enough in my opinion. The Untouchables were created by the caste system. So how tenable, then, was his position of rejecting untouchability while endorsing the caste system? Why did he not take the step, like the Bramo-Samaj and the Arya-Samaj movements, of rejecting the caste system?  And can anyone explain why the man you people now claim is a saint counseled Jews to oppose the evil of Nazism by “soul force”, by which he meant mass suicide, but advised the government of his protege Jawaharlal Nehru to annex Kashmir by armed forced? And has anyone ever asked himself why the leaders of Independent India who claimed to follow his principle of Satyagraha (non-violence) wasted no time pursing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction? Anyway, the idea that Gandhi won Indian freedom through non-violence is misguided. The British gave up the Raj because of the heat piped their way by World War II.

I do not accept the criteria of entering heaven or hell preached by noetic16 and InesQor. I have no clue whether Gandhi is going to heaven or not. All I am really saying is that if you place the Good Gandhi beside the Bad Gandhi, you would come out, not with a Saint Gandhi, but an average guy. I do not expect those I consider heroes to be perfect. I think highly of Karol Wojtyła (Pope John Paul II) because I consider the good things he did to be disproportionately more than his mistakes, like his unreasonable opposition to contraception. Same goes for Obafemi Awolowo. And one can write a whole book on the mistakes of Nelson Mandela that you don’t read in the media, but the sum of those mistakes would not be enough to dent his image. Sticking to the truth in these matters is the least we owe the victims of apartheid, colonialism, slavery, racism and casteism. Gandhi had the same attitude as the average caste Hindu of his day. The popular Gandhi is a product of hagiography and the manipulation of history, and does not qualify for the example you make of him. For his time, maybe he wasn’t a bad guy. But there is no way I can place him on the same pedestal as famous people of such moral stature as Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jnr, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Bertrand Russell, Nelson Mandela, Pope John Paul II, Julius Nyerere and others. (Seems the Nobel Peace Prize Committee shared my views, hence they never once nominated Gandhi, the “apostle of peace”.) These people are far from perfect, but I would nominate the worst of them for canonization a thousand years before Mr Gandhi. But, like I did say earlier, perhaps I am still missing something Deep Sight knows. I am talking of something concrete beyond beautiful expressions learnt from the Bhagavad Gita and the other Vedic scriptures. Maybe you can show an example, just one, where the man popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi lifted a finger to bring help to a human being who was not Indian. Or maybe anyone can counter the report that in the many pictures of his 21 years of living in South Africa there is not a single one with a black person within the distance. Some of his defenders have claimed that after making those remarks in South Africa, he got more enlightened. I have not seen evidence that he lost some of his deep-seated racism. Maybe someone here has.

Gandhi is not the first person to get this sort of treatment from the riggers of history. Everyone knows Abraham Lincoln liberated the slaves, but how many know his strongly-held racist views? Nkrumah is today the great pan-Africanist and liberator from the white man’s yoke, full stop. So not many know that beyond his Pan-Africanist posturing and socialist shenanigans, he was just another cynical African tyrant, not in the same league with Idi Amin, Mobutu or Mengistu, but clearly with the same primitive mindset and approach as characters like Laurent Gbagbo and Yahya Jameh. Actually, I think the historical figure he resembled the most was Catherine the Great of Russia. Not the reform-minded young queen, but the mean old empress of the later years. Mention John D. Rockefeller, and we all think of a kindly old philanthropist. I have not come across a single encyclopedia that tells us he was a vile kind of capitalist who came from the bottom of hell with the sole purpose of dispossessing people of what was theirs. There are other examples. If feelers I am getting are right, they have already started beatifying Jesse Helmes, in fact, they started the day he announced his retirement from the US Senate. Sometimes there is an orchestrated effort – like the case of John D Rockefeller whose sons and grandsons spent hundreds of millions laundering the Rockefeller name. Sometimes the dark side of someone just never came to light – like the case of William Clinton, along with his wife, easily one of the amoral political couples around. In some cases, such as Cecil Rhodes, it appears people simply forget. Characters like George Bush and Sylvio Berlusconi don’t even have to try hard. Conversely, there are heroes whom modern liberalism has denigrated to villains. I guess the world is like that.

Deep Sight:
@  Myjoe –

I strongly urge you to study the life, times and passions of Mr. Ghandi.

It is not conceivable that I would offer an opinion, least of all, one contrary to that held by almost everyone, on a subject I am not acquainted with.

Deep Sight: Here are a few of his sounbites -

“In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth.” - Mahatma Gandhi

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”  - Mahatma Gandhi

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” - Mahatma Gandhi

“Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well.”  - Mahatma Gandhi

“It is beyond my power to induce in you a belief in God. There are certain things which are self proved and certain which are not proved at all. The existence of God is like a geometrical axiom. It may be beyond our heart grasp. I shall not talk of an intellectual grasp. Intellectual attempts are more or less failures, as a rational explanation cannot give you the faith in a living God. For it is a thing beyond the grasp of reason. It transcends reason. There are numerous phenomena from which you can reason out the existence of God, but I shall not insult your intelligence by offering you a rational explanation of that type. I would have you brush aside all rational explanations and begin with a simple childlike faith in God. If I exist, God exists. With me it is a necessity of my being as it is with millions. They may not be able to talk about it, but from their life you can see that it is a part of their life. I am only asking you to restore the belief that has been undermined. In order to do so, you have to unlearn a lot of literature that dazzles your intelligence and throws you off your feet. Start with the faith which is also a token of humility and an admission that we know nothing, that we are less than atoms in this universe.” – Mahatma Ghandi

“I worship God as Truth only. I have not yet found Him, but I am seeking after Him.”  - An Autobiography (1936); also in All Men Are Brothers : Autobiographical Reflections (2005) edited by Krishna Kripalani, p. 63

“Truth alone will endure, all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time.” – Mahatma Ghandi

“We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.” – Mahatma Ghandi

I am familiar with the sentiments expressed in the quotes above, as they are embodied in the material you encounter on being introduced to Yoga. You can hardly do a thorough study of Eastern thought without being full of stuff like the above. The man who uses the sobriquet of Imhotep around here has studied them and you can see the result.

Deep Sight: When Christians like Noetic assert that Ghandi is going to hell, or Inesqor imagines that since he knew and understood Christ but never accepted Christian dogma – then he is not saved. . .

I can only utter a silent prayer that they themselves ever attain the spiritual height and development of an advanced and blessed human soul like Mahatma Ghandi.

Ants assessing an elephant.

I do not accept the above assessment of the life, times and passions of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the one nicknamed “the Mahatma” or Great Soul. It is misguided. Your Gandhi appears to be the Gandhi of movies and story books, including my primary four reader. That Gandhi is a myth. If Gandhi subscribed to the principles of humanism, he did not live it. Indianism, yes. You see, history is a complicated subject. When we are trying to find out the true character of someone, we can only rely on his own words and what others observed him do. For example, you can argue that Ahmadu Bello was sectional in his outlook. But we know that is a partial assessment. Consider first his words:

“I prefer to share the little I have with those who have none at all. . . I can’t even hoard things for my children as many people do. For one thing, how do I know that my children, when I die, will not spend all the wealth I have thus amassed through tight-fistedness within twenty-four hours!”

And then his action
Once after buying some items at a supermarket, he collided with some boys loitering outside the shop. He asked them why they were there, at which they told him they did not have money. He told them to go into the shop and pick one item each. One of his aides asked the boys their names. Bello silenced him and remarked that he was asking for their names in order to have them reveal their tribal origins, which was not an issue at all.

There is no incident like the above in the life of Gandhi, so one wonders at the general “delusion” about Gandhi. Ahmadu Bello’s perceived tribal politics can be explained in terms of his fighting for his people in a system where other leaders were doing the same and his people would have lost out he not taken that approach. Gandhi’s racism cannot be similarly extenuated.

Yes, Mr Gandhi was a racist. Now, that is not a big thing when you are assessing someone in 1900 since everyone in those days, from the Pope to the slave was racist. Even today, most of us are still raised with some prejudice or the other. Only those who attain “spiritual [or intellectual] height and development” dump them soon enough. That would make Gandhi an average guy. But Gandhi was a racist of the worst kind, by which I mean a particularly hateful one. He hated blacks. And more, he instilled his racist views on his fellow Indians in South Africa. He was not the icon of peace, pacifism, tolerance and brotherly love that he is now presented to be. I will try not to zoom in on his other failings and sexual perversions, including paedophilia. After all, it is perfectly normal to assess someone like Prophet Mohammed without letting his marriage to a minor get in the way. But it is my view that these things should not be forgotten entirely lest we canonize People Like Us or outright knaves.

Since you did not make any reference to The Other Gandhi in your write-up above, I can only assume that either you are not acquainted with it or you are but it does not matter to you. I am acquainted with it and it does matter to me. The other Gandhi, the bad one, is completely blanked out by the hagiographers who have decorated the man in such garbs that what we now have is a designer Gandhi, one that is a blend of Guatama Budha, Jesus and Vishnu. And they have been so successful that I have been told that even Martin Luther King, Jr, did not know about the racist views of Gandhi. The truth, however, is much different. In fact, it can be argued that long before the likes of Hendrik Verwoerd came on the scene, Gandhi was among the earliest promoters of apartheid in South Africa.

I am in no position to write an essay right now, besides, you are much too intelligent to be spoon-fed on anything, so I will just reproduce a few of his quotes like you did.

[b]“The Raw Kaffir” – Gandhi Describing Blacks[/b]

"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and unclothedness."

"Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races, resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much?"
"Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."

Gandhi Complained about British use of ‘Kaffir Police’

"Poor people were, under the registration effected by Lord Milner's advice, dragged at four o'clock on a cold winter's morning -from their beds in Johannesburg, Heidelberg and Potchefstroom, and marched to the police station, or Asiatic Offices, as the case might be. It is they who under the Ordinance would be hustled by the Kaffir Police at every turn, and not the better-class Indians."

"At present, only the Permit Secretary is authorized to inspect a permit. Under the new Act, every Kaffir police constable can do so. Under the new Act, a Kaffir police constable can ask [an Asiatic] for particulars of name and identity, and, if not satisfied, can take him to the police station."

Was Gandhi really a pacifist?
"However, at about 12 o'clock we finished the day's journey, with no Kaffirs to fight."

Gandhi and Race
"As you were good enough to show very great sympathy with the cause of British Indians in the Transvaal, may I suggest your using your influence with the Boer leaders in the Transvaal? I feel certain that they did not share the same prejudice against British Indians as against the Kaffir races but as the prejudice against Kaffir races in a strong form was in existence in the Transvaal at the time when the British Indians immigrated there, the latter were immediately lumped together with the Kaffir races and described under the generic term "Coloured people". Gradually the Boer mind was habituated to this qualification and it refused to recognize the evident and sharp distinctions that undoubtedly exist between British Indians and the Kaffir races in South Africa."

"The bye-law has its origin in the alleged or real, impudent and, in some cases, indecent behaviour of the Kaffirs. But, whatever the charges are against the British Indians, no one has ever whispered that the Indians behave otherwise than as decent men. But, as it is the wont in this part of the world, they have been dragged down with the Kaffir without the slightest justification."
"It seems that the petition is being widely circulated, and signatures are being taken of all colored people in the three colonies named. The petition is non-Indian in character, although British Indians, being colored people, are very largely affected by it. We consider that it was a wise policy on the part of the British Indians throughout South Africa, to have kept themselves apart and distinct from the other colored communities in this country."

Gandhi was Aware of the Abusive Nature of his Words, including “Kaffir”

"And finally, about Mr. Douglas who, as I have stated above, has tendered his resignation. The gentleman has been simply overhasty. He took offence at the Maulana Saheb's use of the word kaffir for a Christian. I can understand his resentment. It would have been better if the word kaffir were not used." (21)


Gandhi on The Famous Train Incident when he was arrested on a coach reserved for whites

"You say that the magistrate's decision is unsatisfactory because it would enable a person, however unclean, to travel by a tram, and that even the Kaffirs would be able to do so. But the magistrate's decision is quite different. The Court declared that the Kaffirs have no legal right to travel by tram. And according to tram regulations, those in an unclean dress or in a drunken state are prohibited from boarding a tram. Thanks to the Court's decision, only clean Indians or colored people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams."
Note that “clean Indians” here refers to Indians of the higher castes.

Gandhi Supported Segregation

"Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all Kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension. Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen."

Gandhi’s Support for ‘Purity of Race’

"The petition dwells upon `the co-mingling of the colored and white races'. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type."

The above quotes are mostly picked from this website. I suggest you read everything. It has more Gandhi "sound bites" with all the references.