PARTISAN REVIEW
Gandhi's teachings cannot be squared with the belief that Man is the
measure of all things and that our job is to make life worth living on
this earth, which is the only earth we have. They make sense only on
the assumption that God exists and that the world of solid objects is an
illusion to be escaped from. It is worth considering the disciplines which
Gandhi imposed on himself and which-though he might not insist on
every one of his followers observing every detail- he considered in–
dispensable if one wanted to serve either God or humanity. First of all,
no meat-eating, and if possible no animal food in any form. (Gandhi
himself, for the sake of his health, had to compromise on milk, but
seems to have felt this to be a backsliding.) No alcohol or tobacco, and
no spices or condiments, even of a vegetable kind, since food should be
taken not for its own sake but solely in order to preserve one's strength.
Secondly, if possible, no sexual intercourse.
If
sexual intercourse must
happen, then it should be for the sole purpose of begetting children
and presumably at long intervals. Gandhi himself, in his middle thirties,
took the vow of
bramahcharya,
which means not only complete chastity
but the elimination of sexual desire. This condition, it seems. is dif–
ficult to attain without a special diet and frequent fasting. One of the
dangers of milk-drinking is that it is apt to arouse sexual desire. And
finally-this is the cardinal point-for the seeker after goodness there
must be no close friendships and no exclusive loves whatever.
Close friendships, Gandhi says, are dangerous, because "friends re–
act on one another" and through loyalty to a friend one can be led into
wrong-doing. This is unquestionably true. Moreover, if one is to love
God, or to love humanity as a whole, one cannot give one's preference
to any individual person. This again is true, and it marks the point at
which the humanistic and the religious attitude cease to be reconcilable.
To an ordinary human being, love means nothing if it does not mean
loving some people more than others. The autobiography leaves it un–
certain whether Gandhi behaved in an inconsiderate way to his wife and
children, but at any rate it makes clear that on three occasions he was
willing to let his wife or a child
die
rather than administer the animal
food prescribed by the doctor. It is true that the threatened death never
actually occurred, and also that Gandhi-with, one gathers, a good deal
of moral pressure in the opposite direction-always gave the patient the
choice of staying alive at the price of committing a sin: still, if the
decision had been solely his own, he would have forbidden the animal
food, whatever the risks might be. There must, he says, be some limit
to what we will do in order to remain alive, and the limit is well on this
side of chicken broth. This attitude is perhaps a noble one, but, in the
88
