I do not regard God as a person. Truth for me is God, and God's Law and God are not
different things or facts, in the sense that an earthly king and his law are
different. Because God is an Idea, Law Himself. Therefore, it is impossible to
conceive God as breaking the Law. He, therefore, does not rule our actions and
withdraw Himself. When we say He rules our actions, we are simply using human
language and we try to limit Him. Otherwise, He and His Law abide everywhere and
govern everything. Therefore I do not think that He answers in every detail
every request of ours, but there is no doubt that He rules our actions, and I
literally believe that not a blade of grass grows or moves without His will. The
free will we enjoy is less than that of a passenger on a crowded deck.
"Do you feel a sense of freedom in your communion with God?"
I do. I do not feel cramped as I would on a boat full of passengers. Although I know that my freedom is less than that of a passenger, I appreciate that freedom as I have imbibed through and through the central teaching of the Gita that man is the maker of his own destiny in the sense that he has freedom of choice as to the manner in which he uses that freedom. But he is no controller of results. The moment he thinks he is, he comes to grief.
23-3-'40, p. 55
Perfection is the attribute of the Almighty, and yet what a great democrat He is! What an amount of wrong and humbug He suffers on our part! He even suffers us, insignificant creatures of His, to question His very existence, though He is in every atom about us, around us and within us. But He has reserved to Himself the right of becoming manifest to whomsoever He chooses. He is a Being without hands and feet and other organs, yet he can see Him to whom He chooses to reveal Himself.
14-11-'36, p. 316
In a strictly scientific sense God is at the bottom of both good and evil. He directs the assassin's dagger no less than the surgeon's knife. But all that good and evil are, for human purposes, from each other distinct and incompatible, being symbolical of light and darkness, God and Satan.
20-2-, 37, p. 9
The laws of Nature are changeless, unchangeable, and there are no miracles in the sense of infringement or interruption of Nature's laws. But we, limited beings, fancy all kinds of things and impute our limitations to God.
17-4-'37, p. 87
To me God is Truth and Love; God is ethics and morality; God is fearlessness. God is the source of Light and Life and yet He is above and beyond all these. God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist. For in His boundless love God permits the atheist to live. He is the searcher of hearts. He transcends speech and reason. He knows us and our hearts better than we do ourselves. He does not take us at our word for He knows that we often do not mean it, some knowingly and others unknowingly. He is a personal God to those who need His personal presence. He is embodied to those who need His touch. He is the purest essence. He simply is to those who have faith. He is all things to all men. He is in us and yet above and beyond us. One may banish the word 'God', but one has no power to banish the Thing itself. And surely conscience is but a poor and laborious paraphrase of the simple combination of three letters called God. He cannot cease to be because hideous immoralities or inhuman brutalities are committed in His name. He is long suffering. He is patient but He is also terrible.. He is the most exacting personage in the world and the world to come. He metes out the same measure to us as we mete out to our neighbours — men and brutes. With Him ignorance is no excuse. And withal He is ever forgiving for He always gives us the chance to repent. He is the greatest democrat the world knows, for He leaves us 'unfettered' to make our own choice between evil and good. He is the greatest tyrant ever known, for He often dashes the cup from our lips and under cover of free will leaves us a margin so wholly inadequate as to provide only mirth for Himself at our expense, therefore it is that Hinduism calls it all His sport — Lila, or calls it all an illusion — Maya. We are not, He alone Is. And if we will be, we must eternally sing His praise and do His will. Let us dance to the tune of His bansi (flute), and all would be well.
5-3-'25, p. 81
[Replying to a question asked of him at a meeting in Switzerland on his way back from the Round Table Conference in London, Gandhiji said:]
You have asked me why I consider that God is Truth. In my early youth I was taught to repeat what in Hindu scriptures are known as one thousand names of God. But
these one thousand names of God were by no means exhaustive. We believe — and I
think it is the truth — that God has as many names as there are creatures and,
therefore, we also say that God is nameless and since God has many forms we also
consider Him formless, and since He speaks to us through many tongues we
consider Him to be speechless and so on. And so when I came to study Islam I
found that Islam too had many names for God. I would say with those who say God
is Love, God is Love. But deep down in me used to say that though God may be
Love, God is Truth, above all. If it is possible for the human tongue to give
the fullest description of God, I have come to the conclusion that for myself,
God is Truth. But two years ago I went a step further and said that Truth is
God. You will see the fine distinction between the two statements, viz., that
God is Truth and Truth is God. And I came to that conclusion after a continuous
and relentless search after Truth which began nearly fifty years ago. I then
found that the nearest approach to Truth was through Love. But I also found that
love has many meanings in the English language at least and that human love in
the sense of passion could become a degrading thing also. I found too that love
in the sense of Ahimsa had only a limited number of votaries in the world. But I
never found a double meaning in connection with truth and even atheists had not
demurred to the necessity or power of truth. But in their passion for
discovering truth the atheists have not hesitated to deny the very existence of
God—from their own point of view rightly. And it was because of this reasoning
that I saw that rather than say that God is Truth I should say that Truth is
God. I recall the name of Charles Bradlaugh who delighted to call himself an
atheist but knowing as I do something of him, I would never regard him as an
atheist. I would call him a God-fearing man, though I know that he would reject
the claim. His face would redden if I would say " Mr Bradlaugh, you are a
truth-fearing man, and so a God-fearing man. " I would automatically disarm his
criticism by saying that Truth is God, as have I disarmed criticisms of many a
young man. Add to this the great difficulty that millions have taken the name of
God and in His name committed nameless atrocities. Not that scientists very
often do not commit cruelties in the name of Truth. I know how in the name of
truth and science inhuman cruelties are perpetrated on animals when men perform
vivisection. There are thus a number of difficulties in the way, no matter how
you describe God. But the human mind is a limited thing, and you have to labour
under limitations when you think of a being or entity who is beyond the power of
man to grasp.
And then we have another thing in Hindu philosophy, viz., God alone is and nothing else exists, and the same truth you find emphasized and exemplified in the Kalma of Islam. There you find it clearly stated that God alone is and nothing else exists. In fact the Sanskrit word for Truth is a word which literally means that which exists — Sat. For these and several other reasons that I can give you I have come to the conclusion that the definition, 'Truth is God', gives me the greatest satisfaction. And when you want to find truth as God the only inevitable means is Love, i.e., non-violence, and since I believe that ultimately the means and the end are convertible terms, I should not hesitate to say that God is Love.
'What then is Truth?'
A difficult question, (said Gandhiji), but I have solved it for myself by saying that it is what the voice within tells you. How, then, you ask, do different people think of different and contrary truths? Well, seeing that the human mind works through innumerable media and that the evolution of the human mind is not the same for all, it follows that what may be truth for one may be untruth for another, and hence those who have made these experiments have come to the conclusion that there are certain conditions to be observed in making those experiments. Just as for conducting scientific experiments there is an indispensable scientific course of instruction, in the same way strict preliminary discipline is necessary to qualify a person to make experiments in the spiritual realm. Everyone should, therefore, realize his limitations before he speaks of his Inner Voice. Therefore we have the belief based upon experience, that those who would make individual search after truth as God, must go through several vows, as for instance, the vow of truth, the vow of Brahmacharya (purity) — for you cannot possibly divide your love for Truth and God with anything else, the vow of nonviolence, of poverty and non-possession. Unless you impose on yourselves the five vows you may not embark on the experiment at all. There are several other conditions prescribed, but I must not take you through all of them. Suffice it to say that those who have made these experiments know that it is not proper for everyone to claim to hear the voice of conscience, and it is because we have at the present moment everybody claiming the right of conscience without going through any discipline whatsoever and there is so much untruth being delivered to a bewildered world, all that I can, in true humility, present to you is that truth is not to be found by anybody who has not got an abundant sense of humility. If you would swing on the bosom of the ocean of Truth you must reduce yourself to a zero. Further than this I cannot go along this fascinating path.
31-12-'31, pp. 427-28
There are innumerable definitions of God, because His manifestations are innumerable. They overwhelm me with wonder and awe and for a moment stun me. But I worship God as
Truth only- I have not yet found Him, but I am seeking after Him. I am prepared
to sacrifice the things dearest to me in pursuit of this quest. Even if the
sacrifice demanded be my very life, I hope I may be prepared to give it. But as
long as I have not realized this Absolute Truth, so long must I hold by the
relative truth as I have conceived it. That relative truth must, meanwhile, be
my beacon, my shield and buckler. Though this path is straight and narrow and
sharp as the razor's edge, for me has it been the quickest and easiest. Even my
Himalayan blunders have seemed trifling to me because I have kept strictly to
this path. For the path has saved me from coming to grief, and I have gone
forward according to my light. Often in my progress I have had faint glimpses of
the Absolute Truth, God, and daily the conviction is growing upon me that He
alone is real and all else is unreal.
The further conviction has been growing upon me that whatever is possible for me is possible even for a child, and I have sound reasons for saying so. The instruments for the quest of Truth are as simple as they are difficult. They may appear quite impossible to an arrogant person, and quite possible to an innocent child. The seeker after Truth should be humbler than the dust. The world crushes the dust under its feet, but the seeker after Truth should so humble himself that even the dust could crush him.
Let hundreds like me perish, but let Truth prevail.
From Introduction to Autobiography, pp. 6-7