HOPE FITZ
“PLATO AND GANDHI: JUSTICE AND AHIMSA”
(An examination and a comparison of Plato’s and Gandhi’s most fundamental
virtues; how these virtues were influenced by their respective epistemes; and why
these virtues are necessary for a democratic culture, or nation – state)
My keen interest in the topic of this paper was influenced by my long held belief
that the fundamental virtues of Plato and Gandhi, namely, justice and ahimsa,
respectively, are necessary for a democratic culture or nation – state as well as a virtuous
life of an individual. At this stage of the paper, let us take ahimsa to mean non-harm and
compassion. When I turn to Gandhi’s thought, I will expand and elaborate upon the term.
Objective:
Based upon the foregoing considerations and the theme of this conference, the
objective of this paper is to examine and compare the fundamental virtues of Plato and
Gandhi, namely, justice and ahimsa and to consider the need of these virtues within a
democratic culture and/or nation state. Both Plato and ‘Gandhi were interested in moral
character and they believed that character was formed by the development of certain
virtues. Furthermore, they held that when a person has developed a virtue, he or she
would be disposed to act in accord with that virtue. In addition, Plato and Gandhi each
thought that his fundamental virtue was necessary for a harmonious society. Also,
although Plato’s ideal polis1 was not a democratic state2 and his sense of justice was not
what it is taken to be in a democracy, I will argue that a view of justice, as a virtue and a
1
2
Polis refers to a city state.
However, Athens, at the time of Plato’s life, was deomocratic..
right, as well as Gandhi’s view of ahimsa are necessary for a democratic culture or
society.
Approach:
In researching and writing about any philosophy or people, especially that of the
ancient past, the approach or methodology must take due account of hermeneutical
considerations, especially that of an episteme, i.e. body of knowledge.3 I take this body
to include: whatever a given culture or society believes to be truth or fact, accepted
myths4 as well as environmental and historical influences. In fact, the body of
knowledge includes whatever could influence the values and beliefs of a people. Thus,
we philosophers of today need to avoid the mistakes which a number of philosophers
have made in the past. These mistakes include: applying our modern methods and logical
tools of analysis to a philosophy before understanding the episteme; and/or either
ignoring or not taking due account of aspects of an episteme which are germane to a
subject under consideration.5
3
I believe that I first learned about the importance of an episteme from reading the works of the
great Post Modern thinker, Michele Foucault. Granted, he was concerned with discourse and how
knowledge is based on discourse, yet he did realize that when we are studying any philosophy, we need
first to look through the lens of the body of knowledge of the people at the time and place of the writings
before we apply our modern methodologies to that episteme..
4
Joseph Fletcher was right that myth is part of the human veltanschauung, i.e., world view. He has
written numerous books on myth.
5
A number of years ago, while I was attending Claremont Graduate School, more than one of the
analytic professors did this. In fact, when studying Plato, this was particularly apparent. In addition to the
Dialogues of Plato, we studied the works of Gregory Vlastos’ and looked at Plato through his lens. We
ignored or diminished the importance of Plato’s accounts of intuition, rebirth, and myth in general. In so
doing, we were engaging in reductionism which I have come to see as a “great enemy” of reason.
1
Focusing again on justice as described in The Dialogues of Plato, let us determine
what Plato meant by “justice.” In order to do this, we will examine his metaphysics as
well as his views on the tripartite soul and an ideal state. His metaphysics includes: the
Forms; the Good; and particular myths, which he describes, having to do with rebirth and
the eternality of the soul. So, incorporating the hermeneutical approach, as stated, I will
examine what Plato says about these subjects and based on the findings, state what I take
justice to be for him. What will emerge from this study is a view according to which
Plato believed that the universe was ordered and that order was necessary to establish
harmony. Also, he thought that both the state and the individual’s soul or character
should be ordered. Both kinds of ordering are undertaken to achieve harmony. Also,
although the thrust of the Republic seems to be political, in that the state seems prior to
the individual, we need not be concerned because the ancient Greeks believed that the
individual was part of the state. In fact, they were viewed as one.6 Thus, we need not fall
into an epistemic mistake of thinking of the state and the individual as separate. As we
shall see, harmony in the state and the individual require justice. What we will learn,
however, is that Plato’s sense of justice is not that which we in the modern world hold. It
has more to do with ordering than fairness as we conceive of it today.
After examining what Plato’s sense of justice is in the individual and the state, I
will turn to the thought and practice of Mahatma Gandhi, Being a Gandhi scholar,7 I am
6
Christopher Vasillopulos, my colleague, has helped me to internalize this fact.
I have written numerous articles on Gandhi (Please see references.), and lectured about his thought
and practice in several cities in India (even at the Institute where Gandhi was shot) and in the United States.
I also studied his beliefs and practices at the Gandhi Institute for Peace which is run by the Graduate School
of Gandhian studies in Chandigarh, India. In addition, I have returned to the work on my book. Ahimsa: a
Way of Life; a Path to Peace, which was interrupted by my husband’s ill health before his death last year.
The publisher, Linus Publishers, with whom I had a contract, seems to be open to publishing the work
when I have completed the manuscript.
7
2
very familiar with his fundamental virtue, namely, ahimsa. Actually, the term ahimsa,
which originally meant non-harm, non-injury and nonviolence, later came to mean both
non-harm and compassion. As we shall see, for Gandhi, these two virtues of non-harm
and compassion were broad in meaning and scope.
One cannot appreciate Gandhi’s thought or action unless she or he understands
the profound influence that ahimsa had upon his life. I would go so far as to say that
ahimsa was fundamental to all of his actions. In making this point clear, I will adumbrate
the origin of ahimsa in the ancient Vedic literature and its development in Hinduism,
Jainism and Buddhism. Then, I will show how Gandhi’s own thoughts about
ahimsa were influenced by the three great Vedic traditions and a few persons and beliefs
which also influenced him. Finally, I will show how he introduced ahimsa into the
social/political arena by making it the foundation of his Truth or Soul Force against
oppression. With this movement, he was able to end much of the oppression of the
Indian population in South Africa and ultimately to free India from Great Britain’s
colonial rule.
In comparing Gandhi’s fundamental virtue of ahimsa to Plato’s views of justice, I
will be emphasizing their shared beliefs that virtues are basically dispositions to act and
that the more one has developed a virtue, the more she or he is disposed to act upon that
virtue. Also, I will be looking at Gandhi’s view of a harmonious society and how we can
counteract conflict and violence with ahimsa. Finally, even though Plato believed that
democracy was a flawed system of government, I will argue that both justice, as a virtue
and a right, and ahimsa are needed for a democratic culture or nation - state.
3
PLATO:
Metaphysics:
As stated earlier, in order to understand what Plato meant by “justice”, we need to
examine his metaphysics and what he said about the tripartite soul and ideal state. To
this end, let us begin with his metaphysics.
The Forms:
Plato’s metaphysics involves a realm that is transcendent to the world, namely, a
realm of Being. Plato speaks of or alludes to this realm as one of Forms [Eidos].
Although he uses many words to describe the Forms, basically, they seem to be eternal,
unchanging, non-material, verities that can be divided into at least three categories,
namely: principles or standards,8 such as justice and beauty; eternal truths;9 and
patterns.10 Also, he speaks of things in the world having reality because they partake of
the Forms.11 Apparently things in the world receive their being or existence from the
Forms, and a system of Forms. Thus, the Forms would seem to be causal. However, in
the Theaetetus, a later Dialogue in which Socrates is not the main speaker and guide of
the dialogue, Plato has the main character, Theaetetus, involved in seriously questioning
8
9
10
11
Phaedo, pp. 75-75;
Meno, 82c, p. 365.
Parmenides, 132d;; Timaeus, 49; Phaed, 76e
Parmenides 75, 76, 129 and 132d.
4
what knowledge is. Since we know the Forms by knowledge, the Forms would also be in
question.
Apropos of Plato questioning what knowledge is, which would put into question
what he says about the Forms, the authors of one of the translations of The Dialogues
suggest that this questioning is in keeping with Plato’s thought because he always
questioned himself. 12 I am not convinced of this suggestion. For one thing, Plato’s view
that the Forms [somehow] cause things in the world seems to clash with his views of
rebirth of the soul and immortality. How can a Form cause a human being to be, if her or
his soul or character is eternal and subject to rebirth? The only answer would be to draw
a sharp distinction between the soul and body, as Descartes did later between mind and
body. The soul, in this case, would be altogether different from the material self.
However, this raises the problem with the tripartite soul which I will discuss shortly.
Whatever final view that Plato came to hold about the Forms, in general, I do believe that
he continued to hold that there was some ordering principle in the universe which he
called the “Good” and which he did associate with what he viewed as the supreme Form.
Let us consider what he said about the Good.
The Good:
The Form of the Good:
One view of the Good is that of the supreme Form.13 Perhaps, it would be better
call this a “Form of Forms”. For, as it is described in the Parmenides, it would seem to
be that which gives order to the other Forms, the system of the Forms, and indeed to the
12
13
Parmenides, p. 920.
Robert Brumbaugh, p. 155
5
universe or scheme of things entire.14 Another possible view of the Good which is found
in the Timaeus, is the myth of a personal deity [demiurgus] or an imaginative
personification of the good which created the world or was its cause. Thus, it is not clear
exactly what the nature of the Good is. However, A. E. Taylor, speaking about this
subject, says that for the Greeks, there was not the sharp distinction between the personal
and the impersonal. 15 Even so, given Plato’s many references regarding ordering and
the importance of ordering needed to establish and/or maintain harmony, I think that
whatever else it may be, the Good, for Plato, is an ordering principle or law. As such, I
take it to be the supreme Form of the good. Furthermore, this Good, i.e., this ordering is
what he seems to believe gives harmony to the universe.
Although the Theory of the Forms itself is a myth, I tend to think of it as a
speculation rather than pure fiction. As I suggested earlier, I think that Plato observed
order in the universe and he gave an explanation of it based upon the episteme of his
time. Based on that order, he thought that human life and the state should be ordered and
wrote theories to explain that ordering. Even the tripartite soul can be considered myth,
but I think that this is also a speculative attempt to explain an ordering whereby harmony
can be achieved. However, in these speculations, Plato appealed to several myths which
were ancient even in his time. Based upon what I have said about myth, let us turn to a
consideration of its role in metaphysics.
Metaphysics and Myth:
14
15
Greater Hippias, 297b.
A. E. Taylor, p. 143
6
As most philosophers know, metaphysics is steeped in myth. Let us take “myth”
in the broad and positive sense of: a sacred story of a people, the social purpose of which
is to explain and support their most fundamental values and beliefs. As we know myth
can and usually does involve fiction, and also speculation. However, as Joseph Fletcher
realized in his vast work on myth, it is pervasive in human understanding. In myth
there may also be truth or what is taken to be so, especially involving the history and
culture of a people. Nonetheless, since the time of the empiricists, especially David
Hume,16, many of our modern or recent philosophers have either ignored or diminished
the myth embedded in the writings of the rationalists, including Plato.17 This is an
epistemic mistake. Myth played an important role in the philosophy of Plato and
furthermore, as stated earlier, some of what we would call “myth” in his writings was
what I take to be speculation rather than sheer fancy. I take a number of myths that Plato
puts forth in this light. Let us look then at what we gather about a weltanschuung or
world view which Plato seems to have held or at least entertained.18 To that end, let us
first consider what he had to say about the myth of immortality and pre-existence. Here I
quote a passage from A. E. Taylor on the subject.19
Myths of Immortality and Pre Existence:
I wrote my Master’s Critique on David Hume. Not only would he dismiss myth as an explanation
of human experience, he held that all metaphysics and religion was meaningless!
17
As mentioned earlier, in the Philosophy Department at Claremont Graduate University, I was
asked to ignore what Plato said about intuition, myth, etc. I was also told that analytic philosophers were
interested in the “plumbing”, i.e., the enthymemes (logical arguments with suppressed premises) and how
to correct them.
18
Ernest Becker, What Plato Said, p.136, In this book, one gathers that Plato never abandoned the
belief that he had found the way of life and [I take it.] a world view which he taught to his students..
However, he did seem to entertain some views and then either discard them, or leave a question open as to
whether or not he held these same views.
19
A. E. Taylor, p. 90.
16
7
In the great myths of the Gorgias, Republic,
Phaedo, Phaedrus, and the half-mythical cosmology of the
Timeaus, the convictions as to immortality and preexistence are made the basis for an imaginative picture of
fortunes and destiny of the soul, in which the details are
borrowed partly from Pythagorean astronomy, partly from
Pythagorean and Orphic religious mythology, the main
purpose of the whole being to impress the imagination with
a sense of the eternal significance of right moral choice.
The as yet unembodied soul is pictured in the Phaedrus
under the figure of a charioteer borne on a car [chariot]
drawn by two winged steeds (spirit and appetite), in the
train of a great procession of gods whose goal, as they
move round the vault of heaven is that ‘place above the
heavens’ where the eternal bodiless Ideas [Forms] may be
contemplated in all their purity. The soul which fails to
control its coursers sinks to earth, ‘loses its wings’ and
becomes incarnate in a mortal body, forgetting the
‘imperial place whence it came.’ Its recollections may,
however, be awakened by the influence of beauty. [Kalos
refers to both beauty and good.], the only ‘Idea’ [Form]
which is capable of presentation through the medium of the
senses. Love of beauty rightly cultivated develops the love
of wisdom and of all high and sacred things; the ‘wings’ of
the soul thus begin to sprout once more. After one early
life is over, there follows a period of retribution for the
good and evil deeds done in the body, and, when that is
ordered, the choice of a second bodily life. The soul which
has thrice in succession chosen the worthiest life, that of a
lover of wisdom is thereafter dismissed to live
unencumbered by the body in spiritual converse with
heavenly things. For others, a pilgrimage of ten thousand
years’ retribution after each life is necessary before the soul
can become fully ‘winged’ and return to her first station in
the heavens.20
In the Republic, Plato relates from the mouth of a witness from the world of the
dead what happens at the time of incarnation. Destiny here is key, as it was and is in
Hinduism. Also, as in Hinduism, virtues depend not on fate, but on the character of the
soul. A. E. Taylor expresses this view:
20
Taylor, pp. 90 – 91.
8
According to the tastes and dispositions of the individual
souls, and to the degree of wisdom derived from
philosophy or from experience, they make their choice, and
this once made is irrevocable.21
Based upon A. E. Taylor’s description of Plato’s accounts of
rebirth and the eternality of the soul, let us turn now to an examination of
what Plato says about the tripartite soul.
The Tripartite Soul:
Of the numerous questions and problems associated with Plato’s Dialogues, I
agree, at least in part, with one of the twentieth century Plato scholars, W.K.C. Guthrie.22
In his discussion of the problem, he quoted and expressed his agreement with R.
Hackforth who was another Plato scholar of the same period. The quote was: “The
problem of the tripartite soul is the thorniest of all Platonic problems and in spite of the
vast amount of discussion in recent years, it cannot be said to be solved.”23 I would say
that this is one of the “thorniest” of Platonic problems. However, I believe that if we are
careful to consider the pertinent aspects of Plato’s episteme, we can make sense of the
tripartite soul and its relation to the city-state.
First, we must agree with a number of scholars who have made clear that the
accounts of the soul in the Gorgias, Republic, Meno, and Timeaus are not the same. In
21
Taylor, p. 95.
W. K. C. Guthrie, “Plato’s Views on the Nature of the Soul” in Plato: a Collection of Cricial
Essays, Gredgory Vlastos, Anchor Cooks, Doubleday and Company, inc., New York, 1971
23
R. Hackforth, Plato’s Pahedrus, 1952, p. 76 as quoted in
22
9
the Republic, we have the view of the tripartite soul. A.E. Taylor gives a good account of
the three parts.24 According to him, the parts are:
The reasoned part:
the part with which we reason, the calculative or rational part.
The appetitive part:
the part with which we feel the appetitive cravings connected
with the satisfaction of our organic bodily needs.
The spirited part:
the part made up of the higher and nobler emotions, chief among
which Plato reckons the emotions of righteous indignation.
The three parts form a unified soul, although Plato made clear that reason must be in
control of the other two parts.
In the Republic, Plato argues that the soul is eternal. However, in the Timaeus,
we read that only the reasoned part of the soul is eternal.25 This view is in keeping with
what Socrates said about virtue. He held that knowledge alone is virtue. The problem
with such a view is that there are other parts to the human soul or character and if the soul
must be virtuous in order to achieve an eternal state in the realm of Being, then such a
state is impossible. Surely, Plato must have considered this problem. However, in the
Meno he may have been focusing on purification. If the soul must be purified in order to
“see” into reality, and eventually to gain release from the cycles of rebirth and to achieve
a permanent state of life in the realm of Forms,26 then how can the parts that are tied to
the body and cannot be purified, be eternal? Or put another way, how could a human
being ever achieve the virtuous state needed for immortality? This is a quandary.
However, in the Phaedrus, Plato had implied that purification takes place in the repeated
24
25
26
Taylor, The Mind of Plato, p. 80.
Paul Shorey, What Plato Said, p. 287.
The “seeing” is obviously an intuitive grasp which only those who have the Love of Wisdom
have.
10
cycles of rebirth including the time when a soul is disembodied and can chose what kind
of life to pursue in the next life-time.
Whatever Plato came to hold about this matter, I
think that the tripartite state of the soul is psychologically correct as it makes sense of our
individual experiences related to both the appetites and the spirited parts of ourselves
which he called “soul” and we call “character.” It would not be an adequate account of
character to just emphasize the intellectual aspect of our natures, as Socrates did. One
scholar suggested,that the tripartite soul may have been Plato’s attempt to overcome the
problems with Socrates’ view.27
Granted, the foregoing accounts of rebirth and immortality of the soul are myths
and, as stated, they involve fiction. However, it is interesting to me that the ‘myth’ of
rebirth has existed in India for thousands of years. It is fundamental to Hinduism,
Jainism, and to some extent Buddhism.28 I view this more as a speculative world view or
scheme of things entire than simply fiction. As Kant made clear, such views are beyond
what can be proven, but so are the views of the monotheistic religions that speculate
about an after life in a heavenly state.
What I find interesting is that some of the early Western Christians, who wrote
about Plato and the Hindus, emphasized the myth of rebirth as fiction. Yet, they did not
view their own myth of creation and salvation as fiction. In contrast to a Christian or
religious lens, some of the more recent philosophers who write about Plato either ignore
or diminish the myths. I believe that this is an epistemic mistake.
Taylor, “The Soul of Man” in The Mind of Plato.
The great Buddhist scholar, David Kalapuhana, Professor Emeritus from the University of Hawaii,
held that Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha did not believe in rebirth per se. He was not interested in
metaphysics and said so. However, his audience were Hindus who all believed in rebirth, so he spoke in
those terms. What he seems to have held is that the wheel of life may take place during one’s life time
rather than in life cycles. I did an NEH Summer Institute at the University of Hawaii some years back and
David Kalapuhana was the Director. Also, I have read a number of his books on Buddhism.
27
28
11
The Ideal State:
Plato’s ordering of the state, as we shall see, was based on guardian rulers who
were just in their actions. Plato did not see that kind of justice in the democratic system
of Athens which had taken the life of Socrates. So he wanted rulers who could be counted
on to act justly. So he wrote his view of an ideal state. In his ideal state, people had
different roles. Some were to be rulers and some soldiers, both of which he called
“guardians,”29 and some were merchants and skilled workers. He reasoned, as did the
ancient thinkers of India, that the city-state would be more ordered and hence
harmonious, if each class of person were to become expert at her or his work. Thus, his
ideal city-state would be what we would call “closed.” It was not democratic, as the
people were ruled by an elite group of intellectuals who ruled because they could, not for
gain or fame. What is significant about Plato’s ideal state, is that the guardian rulers had
to be just in order to form and exact just laws that would establish and maintain order and
thus harmony for the people of the state. That is why I think Plato was so keen to argue
for the ordering and thus harmony of the soul. Let us turn now to a discussion of justice
and the soul.
Justice:
Justice and the Soul:
For Plato, a just person was virtuous because his or her soul was in harmony, i.e.,
reason was in charge of the appetites and spirited part of the soul. Thus, this person could
be expected to act in a just way. This is a difficult claim to substantiate because most
29
Barker, p. 198, Later, he called the soldiers auxiliaries.
12
people would argue that even if one were to know, via reason, what was just, this would
not ensure that the person would always act in a just way. In order to strengthen this
claim, I think that Plato’s myths about rebirth and purification of a soul that enable it to
live eternally in the realm of being, are required. Given these myths, let us take a very
close look at Plato’s view of the soul and justice.
Plato makes very clear that the reasoned soul or the soul that is devoted to
wisdom is a soul that is ordered. Reason is in control of the appetites and the spirited part
of the soul. If the soul is ordered, it is in a state of harmony. Such being the case, and
given the belief in a soul’s rebirth and gradual purification, a soul that is in harmony and
focused on what he called “the love of wisdom”, cannot help but be just. The persons
with such a soul are those whom Plato believes should be the leaders that are chosen to
rule the state.
Because souls are reborn, they must learn about the physical world, so they must
be educated. Education of the rulers is based on the recognition of possible rulers. This
takes place with young boys and girls. The chosen children are reared and educated by
the state. The education is lengthy, but various tests are given which eliminate those
students who do not excel. Thus, the students will either prove themselves worthy of
being rulers or fail to do so. Of course, given the view of purification of the soul, those
who have the love of wisdom will excel at their studies and become guardian rulers or
philosopher kings. Let us turn now to the explanation of how Plato’s ideal state would be
governed
Justice and the State:
13
Justice is the virtue that is needed for the guardian rulers of the state and thus,
those rulers must be counted on to act with justice. Also, even though they will have a
long education in how to become rulers, it is their souls, or as we would say, their
character, which will determine how they act. Hence, Plato’s analysis of the soul is such
that, according to him, it must, as the state, be ordered so that it is in harmony. If it is, he
argues, the person will be just to others.
Plato’s seems to strengthen the foregoing belief when he compares the parts of the
soul with the classes of persons in the state.30 A. E. Taylor and Paul Shorey suggest that
what Plato meant by “justice”, as applied to the state, was that each part of the society
was concerned with its own duties and developing its crafts [techne].31 Apparently, he
meant the same for the soul. Those who, by nature and or training are wise should be the
ruling guardians of the state while those who by nature respond to the appetites and/or
their spirited natures, will have to abide by the law of the guardian rulers. These persons
will have to learn temperance and moderation. They include the merchants and the
skilled workers. However, even the soldier guardians, who have courage as a basic virtue,
must obey the dictates of the ruling elite.
Justice and the Good:
Focusing on the tripartite view of the soul, again, what we see is that the Good is
an ordering principle not only of the universe, but of human beings and the state. In these
latter two domains, it has to do with justice as the highest virtue. Based upon what has
30
31
A. E. Taylor, p. 83.
A. E. Taylor, p. 104; and Paul Shorey, “The Republic”.
14
been said about justice and the Good, only the elite rulers could have a soul that is in
harmony, because only they are ruled by wisdom. Furthermore, if we accept the myth of
rebirth, many of these rulers are so “spiritually” advanced that they will always act justly.
Conclusion:
Based on both Plato’s writings and a number of scholars offering interpretations
of what Plato said, it seems to me that ”justice” for Plato was basically a kind of ordering,
namely doing what one does well based on what kind of character and mind she or he
has and not being concerned with doing what others do.32 Given this view, I would like
to tweak out a bit of our sense of justice as fairness, but the closest I can come is to say
that if each person did what she or he was disposed to do by nature and/or education,
there might be a kind of fairness and indeed a harmony within and between the classes.
However, there is no sense of democracy in which the people are sovereign. Far from it!
Also, there could be no possibility of the lower classes aspiring to the level of rulers. In
fact, I believe that Plato’s ideal state looks quite similar to the Hindu in that one is
basically “stuck” with her or his station in life and has to be reborn into higher levels of
society. This is especially true, if we take seriously the myth of rebirth.
Having examined Plato’s sense of justice, I want to turn to Gandhi’s notion of
ahimsa, However, before I do so, I want to mention some of the shared beliefs and values
of the ancient Greeks and the ancient Hindus which influenced the thought of Plato and
Gandhi respectively.
Some Similar Metaphysical Views of the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Hindus:
32
Ibid.
15
The ancient Greek philosophic traditions, which influenced Plato’s thought, and
the ancient Hindu philosophic traditions, which influenced Gandhi’s thought, had some
general beliefs and values in common. Among the general beliefs, was that there is a
realm of becoming, involving change, and a realm of being involving permanence. Also,
the Hindu tradition and the Greek tradition held that the permanent realm was more real
than the changing realm which was the physical world. Interestingly, Gandhi did not
share these beliefs about the world, as he took the world to be real.33 In addition to these
ontological beliefs, both of the ancient traditions held a notion of the soul which was
separate from a body, although embodied when in the physical world. The soul was
eternal; subject to rebirth in different bodies; and after a kind of purification for the
Greeks, and an overcoming of the ego and achieving self-realization, for the Hindus, a
soul could eternally reside in the state of Being.34 The difference between the two
traditions is that for the Hindu, there was no personality or even personhood involved at
the final state of the soul when it was released from the constant cycles of rebirth
(samsaras).
Values which the ancient Greeks and ancient Hindus held in common basically
had to do with a moral or virtuous character. Furthermore, the virtues which formed
character had to be taught and developed. Both traditions held that courage was a virtue.
For the Greeks, it was particularly important for the soldiers to develop. For the Hindus,
ahimsa was the major virtue, but, as with the Greeks, courage was important for the
warriors or soldiers. For Gandhi, each individual had to develop courage in order to live
an engaged life according to his beliefs, which we will discuss, but especially the
33
34
Gandhi, Truth is God, p. 11.
Aristotle did not share this belief.
16
satyagrahis, i.e., members of Gandhi’s truth force against oppression, had to have
courage. Otherwise, how could they engage in acts of non-cooperation and acts of civil
disobedience with no weapons and a determination not to harm anyone?
Other virtues differed in the two traditions. The cardinal Greek virtues were
wisdom and justice, which the guardian rulers had to have; courage, which, as stated, the
guardian soldiers had to have; and temperance or moderation which the merchants and
skilled workers had to have. For the Hindus, as stated above, ahimsa was the main
virtue, but courage was important, especially for the warriors, because they fought battles
throughout history.
These major differences, I believe, may have been because of the fact that the
Greeks were much more focused on the citizens within a state and the governing of those
citizens by the state, while the Hindus (as well as the Jains and Buddhists) were more
focused on an individual and how that individual develops a virtuous character. Despite
the different virtues, both traditions held that moral character is formed by virtues and
that virtues within a human were dispositions to act that had to be taught and practiced
and the more one had developed a virtue, the more likely he or she was to act upon it.
Plato, as we have seen, also believed that some virtues, such as justice and beauty, were
eternal Forms. Even though the Hindus did not believe this, they did share with the
Greeks the view that persons at various stages of spiritual development, i.e., the
development of the soul, would be more or less virtuous.
With regard to status and classes, both traditions held that the more virtuous one
was, the higher status one should have in the social arena. Also, it should be the virtuous
17
persons who either lead the state [especially Plato’s view of the guardians] or influence
the thought of the people and are revered by them [the Hindu Brahmans of priests].
Gandhi’s Metaphysics:
Given what was said above about the shared beliefs and values of the ancient
Greeks and ancient Hindus, let me briefly explain the metaphysical view which Gandhi
held. As stated earlier, he was a Hindu, and more specifically, he belonged to a particular
sect that is pervasive in India today. It is called Advaita Vedanta. Advaita means nondual and Vedanta means unified. Hence, this is a monistic view of reality. In such a
view, the world is devalued, i.e., it is not as real as the transcendent level of Being. As we
know, Plato shared this view. Gandhi, however, did not accept this view completely, as
he argued that although he was an Advaitin, he thought the world was real.35 He did
accept what all Hindus and Jains and many Buddhists believe and that is rebirth. In fact,
with each of these traditions, it is the Karmic Law which in conjunction with one’s duty
[dharma], based on one’s class or caste, brings about one’s destiny.
Other basic themes in Hinduism include the yoga paths of: devotion (bhakti),
good works (karma) and a high level of spiritual intuition based on the development of
both reasoning and virtues (jnana). Each of these yoga paths involves meditation which I
have discussed in another paper.36Another belief is the stages of life which include:
student, householder, forest dweller (when one decides to take on a more contemplative/
spiritual way of life) and a holy state wherein one has renounced the worldly life
This statement is found in a little book, with Gandhi’s sayings, called Truth is God, by
Prabhu, pp. 10 – 11.
36
.
Hope Fitz, a booklet, Ahimsa: a Way of Life: a Path to Peace” published by the Gandhi Lecture
Series and Vedic Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, 2007.
35
18
(sannyasin). Still another belief is in the four varnas, i.e., classes or castes that many
Hindus still accept. The basic varnas are: the brahmans or priests; the ksatriyas or
warriors, the vaisyas or merchants and skilled workers and the sudras or servants. In
addition, there was the Harijan or outcastes. As far as I know, Gandhi never rejected a
belief in the varnas or the belief that one had to spend many lifetimes in a varna before
he or she could ascend to the next higher varna. However, Gandhi did spend a great deal
of time and effort working in behalf of the Harijans.
There is much more that can be said about Gandhi’s metaphysics and his
development of ahimsa, but I think enough has been said that we can see some
similarities and differences in the fundamental virtues of Plato and Gandhi.
Having noted Gandhi’s metaphysics, let us turn now to a consideration of
Gandhi’s fundamental value of ahimsa. Unlike Plato, Gandhi was not a trained
philosopher. Also, because ahimsa was a way of life for him, it is necessary to at least
sketch aspects of the development of his character which, as we shall see, involved
ahimsa.
Gandhi and Ahimsa:
Gandhi’s Life:
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (October 2, 1869 – January 30, 1948) was born in
a seaside town in Gujarat, India. His family, although of the Vaisya or merchant class,37
were well to do as his father was a successful merchant. There was not much about
Mohandas Gandhi’s childhood to indicate his future greatness. The one characteristic
37
As is well known, India has had and still has, especially in the rural areas, a class or caste system.
The four major classes are: Brahmin or Priest , Ksatriya or Warrior, Vaisya or Merchan and Sudra or
Servant.
19
that stood out was his moral sensitivity. This did not mean that he was always what we
call a “good boy”. As many young boys have done, he struggled against his “tethers” and
rebelled at times. His acts of rebellion included smoking and eating meat, which was
against his religion. However, as he grew and developed, he became more and more
sensitive to any pain or grief which he caused his father, Karamchand, mother, Putlibhai,
or others.
Gandhi’s parents had a decided influence upon his developing moral character.
His father was a gentle man. Once, when Gandhi admitted to some act of rebellion, his
father did not scold him. However, when Gandhi saw a tear trickling down his father’s
cheek, he felt a deep sense of shame. Years later, shame was to become central to
Gandhi’s nonviolent force against oppression, satyagraha, which we will discuss shortly.
Perhaps the greatest moral influence on Gandhi, as a child, was his mother. The
family was Hindu, but the father and mother had made the acquaintance of a Jain priest in
their neighborhood. He visited their house, and apparently Gandhi’s mother was very
influenced by the Jain thought and practices which he taught her and she, in turn, taught
to Gandhi. These included, fasting, meditation every day, following a strict vegetarian
diet, and taking a vow to not hurt or harm anything deliberately. Such practices are
present in the Hindu tradition, but they are not as strictly adhered to as in the Jain
tradition.
Gandhi was married at thirteen years of age. His wife, Kasturbai, was also
thirteen. Even though we today are shocked at this child marriage, at the time it was not
unusual for Hindu families to arrange such marriages. Also, the young couples
traditionally lived with the groom’s family, so they were not in need of an income. Even
20
though Gandhi and Kasturbai had a lasting marriage and they loved each other deeply,
Gandhi later wrote protesting against child marriages in general.
Kasturbai had a steadying effect on Gandhi’s life. When they were young, he said
that he was jealous of her and tried to dominate her. She helped him to overcome these
forms of himsa. During their years together, she “kept the home fires burning”, while
Gandhi was involved in social/political activities and in his writings. She reared their
sons and took part in most of his endeavors. In time, she even spoke for him when he
was put in jail, as he was often in South Africa and in India.
Returning to the subject of Gandhi’s youth, his father suffered a long illness and
when Gandhi was about the age to attend college, his father died. The family wondered
how they were going to afford the cost of Gandhi’s college education. In those days,
merchant people, of means, as well as the higher classes, often sent their sons to colleges
in England. So, after Gandhi’s older brother secured the money for Gandhi’s education,
he was sent to a law school in London. His mother’s last words to her son were to the
effect that he was to avoid women, alcohol and meat. He abided by his mother’s wishes,
but it was difficult to avoid meat, especially learning how to prepare vegetarian food or to
find a vegetarian restaurant.
In a few years, Gandhi graduated from law school and obtained his law degree.
However, in part due to his shyness, he was not able to conduct his first case, and he
showed no promise for his chosen profession. It took the time in South Africa, where he
was sent to defend the Indian people from the oppression of the English courts, for him to
come into his own and become a great lawyer and leader of his people. I have long
believed that the “match that lit the fire” of the shy young lad so that he became one of
21
the bravest men who have ever lived, if not the bravest, was the night that he was thrown
off the train in Maritz Burg, South Africa on his way to Transvaal. He had purchased his
first class ticket by mail, but when the conductor realized that there was a man of color in
a first class compartment, Gandhi was told that he would have to go to the third class
compartment. He refused and he and his luggage were literally thrown off the train. It
was this incident, I believe, that aroused his indignation at the injustice of this act and
began a “fire” within him so that he would fight against such oppression. But, as we
shall see, that “fight” was, for him, always nonviolent.
After arriving in Transvaal, he met with the Indian leaders of the community.
What he learned about the oppression of the Indian people inspired him to challenge the
unjust laws which denied the Indians equal status in Transvaal. Some of the laws which
were enacted before and during Gandhi’s struggle for Indian rights in South Africa had to
do with: showing an identification card wherever one went in order to travel and secure
work; not being allowed to own property, having non-Christian marriages declared
illegal; and police being allowed to enter an Indian’s home unannounced and uninvited.
It was in South Africa that Gandhi developed satyagraha. Satya means Truth and
graha means to grasp firmly. So satyagraha, a Sanskrit term, refers to a Truth Force or
Soul Force against oppression. Oppression for him involved a corrupt government and/or
corrupt government officials. However, with his nonviolent truth force he was able to
change the oppressive laws against the Indians in South Africa and after he returned
home to India, he used this force to unite the people in their struggle to free themselves
from English rule. They did so.
22
Ahimsa in Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism:
Slowly, Gandhi came to understand ahimsa as a way of life. But to understand
what this meant for him, we need to examine this ancient concept and how it developed.
The origin of ahimsa is about 3,600 years old. We find the rudiments of it in the Vedas,
which are the sacred writings of the Hindus. To be more precise, it is in the Yajur Veda,
the third of the four great books of the Vedas. Throughout that text, there are a number
of references, to justice, how members of a family should show kindness to one another,
being concerned for a community, harboring no hatred towards anyone, and most
importantly, not harming others.38 In the Upanishads, which are the ending sections of
each of the Vedic books, this idea of ahimsa was expanded. It even concerned animals.
One was not to harm an animal unless that animal had threatened him. However, there
were exceptions to violence that had to do with when it was morally acceptable to kill.
The Hindus believed that it was all right to kill a human in certain cases, such as to
protect the king. Also, certain animals were killed, and still are, in various sacrificial
ceremonies.
Jains and Buddhists, in contrast to the Hindus, do not condone killing of any sort.
Jains, especially, are absolutely committed to non-harm, non-injury and a vow not to hurt
any human or animal. Also, the Jains do not want to hurt any plant unnecessarily. This
seemingly extreme sense of non-harm is because the Jains believe that every living being
has a soul and one is not to interfere with the purification of that soul in its cycles of
rebirth. Even a living organism could, after many lifetimes, evolve to a level with a mind
and then, if one abides by the rules for purification and does not intentionally harm any
living being, he or she might achieve a state of omniscience that, strangely, sounds very
38
Yajur Veda, published by Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, India.
23
similar to Aristotle’s explanation of the one supreme state of Being.39 So the Jains
developed ahimsa to the highest level of non-harm, non-injury, and a vow not to hurt any
living being by thought, word or deed.
What impresses me about the Jains is not the very complex canonical law which
is based on non-harm and a belief in purification of the soul, but the way that they live in
this world today. I know a number of Jains in the United States and India, and they try to
live by the major principles or vows of non-harm, truth, non-stealing, not being attached
to material gain; and for mendicants a vow of celibacy (for lay people this would mean
no sex outside of marriage).40
In addition to ahimsa as non-harm, the Jains also spoke of compassion (karuna in
Sanskrit or anukampa in Prakrit). Yet it was non-harm which they focused upon. It took
the Buddhists with their metaphysics to develop compassion [without ego] to the fullest.
Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha, believed that all life was interconnected, interrelated,
interdependent, co-arising and co-existing. Hence, according to this belief and another
that we are both created and creating in this dynamic state of reality, he came to the
conclusion that there was no God, no soul or self and no abiding state of reality.41 The
belief in a soul or ego, he held is a construct. Also, the world is real, but it is in a
constant state of change. With such a belief system and no “tight boundaries” of the self,
compassion is easier to develop as one is not focused on a self or ego. When compassion
39
The Jains think of this omniscient state as one in which the soul, which is free from worldly
suffering, can engage in reflection and contemplation. It is no longer involved in wordly affairs.
40
I am not a Jain, but I am a Jain activist because they practice non-harm in all aspects of their lives.
Because I want to promote non-harm, I am a member of the Academic Council for Jain Studies in North
America.
41
In Pali, this theory is call patticia samuppada which means dependent origination.
24
is developed, as Buddha expresses it in the Abidharma ,”Compassion embraces all
sorrow or stricken beings and eliminates cruelty.42
Having only adumbrated the development of ahimsa in the three great Indic
traditions which profoundly affected Gandhi’s beliefs and practices, let me briefly
mention a few persons, besides his parents, who influenced his thought about ahimsa.
One of these persons was a Jain monk whom Gandhi met and admired. They did not see
one another often, but they did correspond. This monk’s name was Shri Rajchandrabhai.
He deepened Gandhi’s understanding of the Jain beliefs, that I have related, and those
which Gandhi’s mother, Putlibhai, had taught him when he was a child. In fact, Shri
Rajchandrabhai was one of the persons who had the greatest effect upon Gandhi’s early
thought.43.A second person who influenced Gandhi’s thought about ahimsa was the
famous Russian writer Tolstoy. Gandhi even named one of his ahsrams (a community,
often a religious or spiritual community) after Tolstoy. The big difference between the
two men regarding ahimsa, was that Tolstoy was a pacifist and Gandhi was not. Gandhi
said a number of times that he abhorred violence, but he preferred it to cowardice.
Gandhi condoned violence in the case of defense: of oneself, one’s loved one’s, one’s
community, state, and even in rare cases, one’s nation.44 However, I have come to
believe that, in general, he would not condone violence in a protest of satyagraha, i.e.,
Gandhi’s truth force against oppression, because, as we shall see, a satyagrahi, i.e, a
follower of Gandhi’s truth force against oppression, must never resort to violence and be
willing to sacrifice his or her own life in order to convert the oppressor to ahimsa
42
43
44
Ghosh, Abidharma, as quoted in Ahimsa: Buddhist and Gandhian, p. 27.
Digish Mehta, Shrimad Rajchandara, p. 82.
Raghavan Iyer, p. 203.
25
Focusing again on influences to Gandhi’s thought and practice of ahimsa, two of
the many beliefs which influenced Gandhi were from Christian sources. One was the
Sermon on the Mount in the Bible. Gandhi was especially taken with the idea of turning
the other cheek. Another source was from the Quakers or Friends. Gandhi learned about
them from Tolstoy and he was very impressed with their non-violent but socially and
politically active way of life.
Having just touched upon the major influences of Gandhi’s view of ahimsa, let
me now discuss what ahimsa meant to him and how he practiced it in every aspect of his
life. In 1916, Gandhi set forth what he meant by ahimsa. He held that there was a
negative and positive side to it. The negative side was: no harm to any living being by
thought, word or deed and a vow not to hurt. The positive side was: the greatest love
(compassion) for all creatures.45 However, it is important to recall that Gandhi, as the
Greeks, held that courage was a virtue and for him each person had to develop courage
before he practiced ahimsa and especially those satyagrahis or “warriors” who would
fight oppression with only the tools of non-harm and compassion.
As to the uses of ahimsa, these include: a means to Truth or God; standing up and
speaking out for what is true or right; a fundamental virtue for living , and the foundation
of Gandhi’s truth force against oppression. By “Truth,” Gandhi usually meant God, and
he described God as love. Hence, by a hypothetical syllogism, one could say that Truth
was love. As to a notion of God, Gandhi seems to have held two views. One view is of
an impersonal absolute state of being that cannot be known, but can, after gaining selfrealization, which involves many life cycles, be experienced. When it is experienced, it
Gandhi, “The Modern Review, as quoted in Raghavan Iyer, The Moral and Political Thought of
Mahatma Gandhi, pp. 178 – 184.
45
26
is described as saccidananda which translates to truth or being, consciousness (Gandhi
spoke of knowledge rather than consciousness) and a state of spiritual bliss.46 Another
view of God which Gandhi held was that of a personal deity. As I wrote in an earlier
paper about him, he never resolved this discrepancy. 47
As to the meaning of truth,
Gandhi did not mean just not falsifying information or deceiving, he meant having the
courage to stand up and speak out for what is true or right.
Regarding ahimsa in one’s everyday life, one is to practice non-harm and express
compassion whenever and wherever possible. Also, these virtues are not just restricted to
humans, but to all life. This is no easy feat, but Gandhi tried to live it every day of his
life. Finally, the greatest challenge is satyagraha. Such is the case, because a satyagrahi
must go into “battle” with only the weapons of non-harm and compassion. What is being
fought is oppression by people or institutions. Furthermore, one must not harbor anger,
let alone hatred, towards one’s adversary. In fact, recalling what was said earlier about
shame, Gandhi believed that if we used ahimsa and never gave in to violence, then the
oppressor(s) would feel shame and then there was a possibility that they could be
converted to ahimsa as a way of life. This is why in an act of satyagraha, one should not
resort to violence even in defense. When the satyagrahis were being beaten by the
English soldiers at the march on the salt mines, they did not strike back because it was
important that they did not use violence in their protest.
When Gandhi first developed satyagraha, in South Africa, he thought that noncooperation was a duty of a satyagrahi when fighting some form of oppression. He
46
sat is the stem of the noun satya which means truth, existence of Being; cit is the stem of the noun
citta which means mind stuff, and ananda is a noun meaning a kind of spiritual state in which one is fully
aware of the scheme of things entire and thus fulfilled.
47
Hope Fitz, “Gandhi’s Ethical/Religious Tradition/”
27
thought that civil disobedience was a right rather than a duty. [He learned about civil
disobedience from David Thoreau.] Later, he changed his mind and came to hold that
even civil disobedience could be a duty under certain circumstances.
A Summary and Comparison of Gandhi’s and Plato’s Most Fundamental Values:
Having explained Gandhi’s fundamental virtue of ahimsa, let us turn now to a
summary of Plato’s notion of justice and Gandhi’s view of Ahimsa.
Plato’s Justice:
In reflection upon Plato’s view of justice, his was a view that justice was a kind of
ordering that he thought would bring harmony to the state and the soul. Apparently, he
observed what he took to be order in the universe which is composed of the Forms. Also,
there is a Form of the Good, which I take to be an ordering principle, whatever else it is.
Because Plato believed that order would bring about harmony, he thought that order
should be applied to the state and the individual. With regard to the state, each person
was to do what he or she did best and not try to do what other people did well. In his
state, the guardian rulers would both create the laws and see that they were enacted.
These rulers would have to be just so that order could be established and maintained and
in order for them to be just, the souls of the rulers would have to be such that they would
act with justice. The guardian soldiers would act with courage to protect the citizens, but
they as well as the merchants and skilled workers would have to obey the guardian rulers.
The merchants and skilled workers would have to develop temperance or moderation in
their lives in order to do their work skillfully. Again, they had to obey the rulers.
28
In the soul, the reasoned part, or aspect, was to be in charge of both the appetites
and the spirited part of an individual. Only in this way, would the individual be able to
order his or her life and thus achieve harmony. Also, one’ station or place in the state
was determined by the part of the soul that dominated his or her life. However, as with
the classes in the state, it is clear that one’s soul and his or her station in life has more to
do with one’s character than with one’s education or training. When one is spiritually
developed or has reached a high level of the purification of the soul, this determines what
class one belongs to. This development is because of the cycles of rebirth including
when one is disembodied in the realm of the Forms.
Gandhi’s Ahimsa:
Gandhi’s ahimsa, as we have seen, is the culmination of an ancient idea that
originated in the Hindu tradition and was developed by the Hindu, Jain and Buddhist
traditions. Gandhi believed that ahimsa embodied both non-harm to and compassion for
all life. He practiced it as a means to Truth as God and the fundamental virtue for life.
One can see this in his account of the practice of law. He wrote:
I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to find the
better side of human nature and to enter men’s hearts. I
realized the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties
riven asunder. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me,
that a large part of my time during the twenty years of my
practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private
compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby –
not even money, certainly not my soul”48
48
Mahatma Gandhi , The Law and the Lawyers, Chapter 12, p. 45, 1027.
29
Not only did Gandhi practice ahimsa as a way of life, he made it the basis of his
satyagraha, i.e., his truth force or soul force against oppression. This was his
contribution to the development of ahimsa. He had brought it into the social/political
arena. Armed with ahimsa and courage, he was able to take on the government of Great
Britain and to win rights for the Indian people in South Africa and the freedom of India
from Great Britain’s colonial rule.
Having summarized and compared the fundamental virtues of Plato and Gandhi,
let us consider why both justice, as a right as well as a virtue, and ahimsa are necessary in
a democratic culture or nation state.
Justice and Ahimsa are Needed for a Democratic Culture or Nation State:
Justice:
As we have seen, Plato’s notion of justice as a virtue is basically an ordering of
the soul that is necessary for the ordering of a state. Apparently Plato based his beliefs
about ordering on his observation that there is a natural ordering of the universe and this
ordering brings harmony. With regard to the ordering of the state, it was to be run by
guardian rulers, and the citizens had to obey them. However, they had to be just, in the
sense that they could keep order, or the state would not have been harmonious.
Plato’s sense of justice, as an ordering of one’s soul or character and the state is
not the sense of justice that is needed for a democracy. A democracy which is governed
by the people is concerned with justice as fairness. Also, whereas justice is viewed as a
right as well as a virtue that is part of one’s character, fairness is viewed more as a right.
However, what constitutes fairness is not easy to determine. For one thing, there is the
30
issue of distributive justice. To make this clear, take an example of those of us who are
United States citizens. We live in a capitalist society. Given this background, many of
us would agree that initiative should be rewarded because it is deserved. However, at this
time, many of the wealthy and privileged seem to think that they are the deserving of the
great disparity between their income and that of the masses because they have “earned”
it. Also the voices of the masses think that they are deserving of the “American dream”
including a job, a home, vacations, and a decent retirement. So, again, what is fair is not
easy to decide. Also, the more power that the people have, the more they demand
fairness for themselves.
Thinking internationally, other issues having to do with fairness are: natural and
civil rights; constitutions which focus on either limited rights or needs of the people; the
future of nation states and economic survival.
Although determining what is fair is fraught with problems, it is obvious that
justice as fairness is needed in a democratic culture or state, However, it is clear to me
that Plato’s views about who and what the rulers need to be has validity today. To wit, I
think that those in power, and in the U.S. those who represent the people, must be
educated, highly intelligent, world traveled, and actually acting in behalf of the people.
But above all, the rulers must be moral or live virtuously. What we observe all too often
in our democracy is rulers striving for power and wealth. As to the people, they should
not be elected to power unless they have the necessary knowledge and character to rule.
Ahimsa:
31
It seems clear to me that ahimsa is needed in any culture or state as well as for
individual well being. Aristotle’s notions of living virtuously, supported by his ideas of
friendship and citizen involvement in government would work for a small community,
but not in our large nation states. We need to have people determined not to harm one
another, or other living beings, except for food or survival, and the earth itself, and to
really care for one another. We are a family of human beings living in different cultures
and nation states and as Buddha said, we are interconnected, interrelated, and
interdependent. If we don’t solve the environmental problems of our earth, water and air
and our social/political problems soon, our progeny and other life cannot be sustained on
this planet.
32
REFERENCES
Plato:
Works by Plato:
Plato: The Collected Dialogues, ed. by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns,
Bollington Series LXXT, Princeton University Press, c. 1961
_______, Plato’s Republic, tr. by G.M.A. Grube, Hackett Publishing Company,
Indianapolis. c. 1974.
_________, Plato’s Phaedo, tr. with an introduction and commentary by R. Hackforth,
The Library of Liberal Arts, Bobbs Merrill Company, Inc. 1955/
Books about Plato’s Works:
Barker, Ernest: Greek Political Theory: Plato and His Predecessors, Methuen & Co Ltd.,
London, first published 1918, reprinted 1961, 1964, and 1967.
Brumbaugh, Robert S: The Philosophers of Greece Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New
York, c. 1964.
Cornford, Francis MacDonald, Plato and Parmenides, The Library of Liberal Arts,
Bobbs Merrill Company, Inc. (No date give.)
Shorey Paul: What Plato Said, abridged edition, Phoenix Books, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, c. 1933, Reprinted 1965.
33
Solomon, Robert C. and Murphy, Mark C, What is Justice: Classic and Contemporary
Readings, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, c. 1960
Taylor, A.E.: The Mind of Plato, The University of Michigan Press, Third Printing, 1969.
Articles about Plato:
________ Plato I, A Collection of Critical Essays: Metaphysics and Epistemology, ed. by
Gregory Vlastos, Modern Studies in Philosophy, Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, General
Editor, Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company Inc., New York, c. 1971
_________Plato II, A Collection of Critical Essays: Art and Religion, ed by Gregory
Vlastos, Modern Studeis in Philosophy, Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, General Editor,
Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company Inc., New York, c. 1971.
“Plato: the State and the Soul,” Britannica, http: www.philosophypagescom/hy/2g.htm,
The Philosophy Pages, by Garth Kememerling, 1997, 2011.
“Plato’s Ethics and Politics in the Republic,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, First
published April 1, 2003, substantive revision august 31, 2009,
http://Plato.stanford.edu/entries/Plato-ethics-politics/
Chin, Jacqueline, “Plato’s Republic: Innder Justice, Ordinary Jautce and Just Action in
the Polis,” published in Theroretical Ethics,
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/papers/teth/teth/chin.htm
34
Kamtekar, Rachana, “Social Justice and Happiness in the Republic: Plato’s two
Principles,” History of Political Thought, Vol. XXII. No 2, Summer 2001.
Gandhi:
Works by Gandhi:
Gandhi, Mohandas K., The Story of My Experiments with Truth, tr. by Mahaen Desai,
Dover Publication, c. 1983.
_________ Truth is God:[Gleanings from the writings of Mahatma Gandhi] bearing on
God, God-Realization and the Godly Way. by M.K. Gandhi, Published by Navajivan
Mundranalaya, India, c. 1955
A few of the books by Gandhi that are published by the Gandhi Smriti & Darshan Samiti,
New Delhi, where Gandhi was shot. I gave a major address there in 2006. Gandhi’s
granddaughter was one of the commentators. The General Editor for these books Anand
T. Hingorani, The books were reprinted in 1998.
Capial and Labour
The Law of Continence
The Law of Love
Modern V. Ancient Civilization
On Myself
The Sciene of Satyagraha
To My Countrymen
Other Works by Gandhi;
35
Gandhi M. K., The Law and the Lawyers, published by Navajivan Publishing House,
Ahmadebad 14, 1962
Gandhi, M. K.,Quotes of Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi Sahitya Bhandar, 2006.
Books About Gandhi’s Works:
I will mention here, only three of what I take to be the most important books:
Ghosh, Indu Mala, Ahimsa: Buddhist and Gandhian. Indian Bibliographies Bureau, copublishers, Balaji Enterprises, Delhi, India, 1989,
Fisher, Lewis, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, New York, Harper & Row Publishers, c.
1983.
Iyer, Raghavan, The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, Second Edition,
New York , Concord Grove Press, 1983.
________, Understanding Ghandi, ed by Usha Thakkar and Jayshree Mehta, Sage
Publications, India, c. 2011,
My Articles about Gandhi and Ahimsa:
2011 – “A Comparison of Confucius’ Notion of Ren as Human-Heartedness and InnerHumanity with Gandhi’s View of Ahimsa as Compassion” published in the E-Journal,
Dialogue & Universalism, Volume II, No. 1/2011.
2011 – a reprint - “The Role of Virtue in Developing Trustworthiness in Public
Officials,” involving a comparison of Gandhi’s and Aristotle’s writings that are germane
to the subject, published in the Oxford Forum in 2007. The paper was reprinted, with the
36
permission of the Oxford Forum, for future publication in Carnegie Leaning/Nelson
Education.
2008 – “Ahimsa and its Role in Overcoming the Ego From Ancient Indic Traditions to
the Thought and Practice of Mahatma Gandhi” was published in The Icfai University
Press, Vol. II., No. 4, October 2008, Hyderabad, India.
2007 – “Ahimsa: a Way of Life, A Path to Peace,” was published in a booklet, as part of
the Gandhi Lecture Series and the UMass/Dartmouth Center for Indic Stdues.
2005 – “India’s Three Great Contributions and Influences in the World,” a publication of
the World Association of Vedic Studies, WAVES, edited by Professor BhuDve Sharma.
2003 – “The Importance of Ahimsa: in the Yoga Sutra, in Gandhi’s Thought and in the
Modern World.” was published in India’s Contributions and Influences in the world,” a
publication of WAVES, ed. by BhuDev Sharma.
2003 – “Gandhi: Boundaries of the Self as They Affect Nonviolence and Peace,”
published in “Contemporary Views on Indian Civilization,” a publication of the World
Association of Vedic Studies, WAVES, edited by BhuDev Sharma, pp. 11 – 19.
2001 – “Non-harm and Love as Viewed by Immanuel Kant and Mohatma Gandhi,”
published in The Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. XXXII, Nos. 1 & 2, Panjabi
University, Patiala, India.
1996 - “Gandhi’s Ethical/Religious Tradition” (A Mode of Thought and Practices Which
Have Influenced Many Contemporary Thinkers) published in the Journal of Religious
Studies, Vol. XXVTI, Spring-Autumn, Nos. 1 and 2, Panjabi University, Patiala, India.
1991 – “The Role of Self-Discipline in the Process of Self-Realization,” and article
written with Dr. Bala Sunder Rai Bhalla, a Reader At Panjabi University in which we
37
compare the ancient thought of Patnajali, the author of the Yoga Sutra with the thought of
Gandhi with regard to the topic. Dr. Bhalla received his PhD in Gandhi Studies. The
papers was published in the Journal of Religious Studies,Volume XVTFL, Spring, No. 6,
Punjabi University, Patiala, India.
A Book Which I am Writing on Gandhi and Ahimsa:
Since my book on intuition was published in 2001, I have been working on a book,
Ahimsa: a Way of Life; a Path to Peace, This book deals with the Gandhi’s thought and
practice of ahimsa, the Hindu, Jain and Buddhist influence upon that thought and what
is need to practice ahimsa in today’s world. I advocate a freeing of ahimsa from its Indic
moorings so that it can be taught to and practiced by people of the world, especially
children.
I had a contract for the book in 2009 with Linus Publications of New York, but
because of my husband’s serious illness leading to his death in 2011, I was unable to
complete the book. However, I have written to the publisher, and I think that he is open
to publishing the book when I complete it. I hope to do that in the next few months.
Works on Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism:
I have taught these subjects for years, and my PhD is in Asian and Comparative
Philosophy, so there are many, many books which I have read on these subjects. When
teaching, I usually use:
Koller, John, Asian Philosophies, which is published by Pearson, c. 2012, 2007, and
2002,
38
For the course on Jainism, I use:
Jaini, Padmanabh S., The Jaina Path of Purification, Published by Motilal Banarsidass, c.
1998.
Also, with Regard to a great Jain monk who had a profound effect upon Gandhi’s
thought, I refer to:
Mehta, Digish, Shrimad Rajachandra: a Life,Published by the Shrimad Rajchandra
Ashram, Second Edition, c. 1991.
39