{"ops":[{"insert":"I have taught history and political science for many decades, and since my high school days I have admired Gandhi, ever since I read a biography of him for a report. His self-discipline, commitment to non-violent resistance against oppression, and leadership skills in fighting for Indian independence formed the basis for my admiration. But as I have been reading his writings in All Men Are Brothers, it has become apparent that while those external features remain admirable, the thinking behind them can and should be questioned. \n\nThis hit home with the reading of the first paragraph in Chapter 6. I do not know if this passage was originally in English, or if it was translated. The Borodino Books edition published in 2018, from which I quote, does not list any translators but rather says it is using Gandhi's own words. If however it is a translation, then the translation may be the problem. Assuming that it is not, however, then the paragraph is one that might be quickly read and accepted uncritically by someone familiar with and sympathetic to Gandhi's goals. But the paragraph itself leaves questions for someone who actually tries to develop its logic.\n\nFirst off, Gandhi states his beliefs, and assumes that they are true. The core belief is that of advaita vedanta, the notion that the individual self is an illusion, existing only as a reflection of the ultimate reality which is the atman or soul of Brahma. Gandhi interprets this as the \"essential unity of man and for that matter of all that lives.\" He infers from this that \"if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and, if one man falls, the whole world falls to that extent.\" The practice of any virtue leads to more virtue in the whole community, and any immorality is a threat to the virtue of the whole community--\"nay, of the whole world.\" \n\nIf existence is non-dualistic, then do individuals really have the capacity to gain or lose spiritually? \n\nIf, for argument's sake, an individual can gain spiritually and thus raise the whole community, what happens when another individual at the same time is falling spiritually, and bringing it down? \n\nIf virtues and morality are essentially communal, then who gets to decide how they are defined and imposed (assuming that \"all men are brothers\" and therefore equal)? \n\nEven the opening line of the paragraph, \"I do not believe that an individual may gain spiritually and those that surround him suffer,\" leaves room for questioning its meaning. If people are suffering, does this indicate that no one is able to gain spiritually? Should it read, \"those that surround him suffer "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"for his gain"},{"insert":"?\" Should it read, \"may gain spiritually and "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"allow"},{"insert":" those that surround him "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"to"},{"insert":" suffer?\" Again, this may be a matter of translation, but as it stands the sentence is ambiguous, and depending on how it is read, there are important implications. \n\nIn reference to these basic elements of Gandhi's life and thought I mentioned at the beginning, none of these questions necessarily undermines my admiration for his public life of service. Using the elements and standards of critical thinking, in terms of defining questions, concepts, testing assumptions and logic and clarity, etc., do help to reinforce the importance of thinking for ourselves rather than just accepting the principles and conclusions of those we have been taught to admire. . \n"}]}