तीन प्रश्न
Summary
The text presents a discussion on three philosophical questions posed to M.K. Gandhi, along with his detailed responses. The first question concerns the caste system (varnashrama), asking why it is considered birth-based if anyone can possess qualities of any caste. Gandhi defends birth-based varna as a natural law, arguing that inherited traits from parents and past lives shape one's nature, and that while change is possible, it is limited within a single lifetime. He rejects the notion of hierarchy, stating a true Brahmin is a servant of all, and acknowledges the current system is distorted. The second question addresses Gandhi's apparent contradiction in claiming to be an Advaitin (non-dualist) while also supporting Dvaita (dualism) and believing in the soul's independent agency. Gandhi explains that he accepts both perspectives, viewing creation as both real and unreal due to constant change. He embraces anekantavada (the doctrine of many-sidedness), which he links to non-violence and truth, allowing him to understand others' viewpoints without anger. The third question challenges Gandhi's concept of God as attributeless and actionless, yet subject to divine will. Gandhi responds that God is both doer and non-doer, and that human language is inadequate to describe the indescribable. He asserts that faith, not intellect, is necessary to believe in God, who grants freedom and does not coerce obedience. Gandhi concludes by affirming his devotion to this compassionate God, whom he worships tirelessly.
Conclusion
This document reveals a deeply personal and philosophical defense of faith, where the author reconciles apparent contradictions—such as belief in a non-interventionist God who is yet the object of devotion—through the lens of anekantavada, or the doctrine of many-sidedness. The implications are profound: the author argues that intellectual humility and the acceptance of multiple viewpoints are not weaknesses but the very foundations of truth and non-violence. By refusing to impose his beliefs on others and granting them the freedom to deny God, he models a form of spiritual leadership rooted in compassion rather than coercion. The outcome is a call for a tolerant, pluralistic society where faith is a matter of personal conviction, not dogma, and where the ultimate truth is approached through love and mutual respect rather than rigid orthodoxy.