What I like about non-realism is its radical potential. Getting rid of the idea of God goes with getting rid of the hierarchical structures that were needed by the Church to communicate 'Him out there'. So non-realism means that spiritual power is not the preserve of those with big hats, cycling clips and cassocks.
But our minds are colonised by the idea that power is to do with occupying a certain position, whether in an organised religion, an academic institution or a financial organisation. We all suffer from the (capitalist) mentality that power is to do with amassing wealth, position and a job for ourselves.
That is why religion is so important today: a spiritual perception of ourselves and the world does offer a_ radical alternative. Religion at its best is only to do with enhancing our perception and consciousness of ourselves and of relationships with others. And for me, nonrealism has offered something hew and very exciting about enhancing that perception. Perhaps losing ourselves in service to others might be our highest living religion in the future. Jesus taught that to save your self you have to lose yourself (Luke 9:25 & parallels), in a similar way that Buddhists do when they meditate. Buddhists when they meditate believe that they contribute to the rest of society in a way that cannot be quantified. A yogi meditating on a mountain may well be criticised for selfindulgence and failing to improve the social and political fabric of society. But who knows what the effect one individual finding peace and inner strength will have on the rest?
I have found it revitalising to examine the life of Mahatma Gandhi who transformed the perception of power of millions of people this century. Gandhi (1869-1948) was born in India, trained as a lawyer in London and spent 21 years in South Africa, | have found it revitalising to examine the life She says Gandhi envisaged of Mahatma Gandhi who transformed the perception of power of millions of people this century where he developed a method of non-violent action to establish relationships built on moral and spiritual values. In 1915, he returned to India and he used this method in many campaigns, in his struggle for Indian Home rule against the British Raj, against the Hindu community allowing untouchability, and against social and economic inequities.
I spent this summer doing research in India with Prof. Anima Bose,’ Director for Peace Education, New Delhi. According to her interpretation, Gandhi thought that power was an individual's inner strength and not muscles or weapons to exhibit power as such. ‘Power mainly over yourself not for wielding violently over others for victory, success, subjugation etc. Power wielding with others such as your moral power with mine not as against . . . so by generates power ‘‘force’’ that is activated within.’ So Gandhi thought that power is within the innate capacities of the individual; even the poorest individuals have a capacity for self-sacrifice. That is power. It belongs potentially to everyone. For Gandhi, religion was to do with living a moral life. His religion did not involve compelling people to accept a dogmatic belief. According to Gandhi, Truth is not an attribute of God; ‘Truth is God’. He is that. God is, nothing else is. We ‘are’ only to the extent that we are truthful in body mind and spirit and in our relationships with others. So God is manifest in truthful relationships.
I think that Gandhi's perception of power and religion is relevant not only to the religion and the " Anima Bose's interpretation of Gandhi's principles is cited from her recent paper delivered in June 1995 at the International Peace Conference in South Africa. Her title was, ‘Mahatma Gandhi's Principles of Peacemaking’.
Truth-force he meant that which ~ country to which he belonged. Martin Luther King was inspired by Gandhi to lead a non-violent civil rights movement in America. Gandhi's spiritual and moral values have wider social dimensions; they involve a holistic vision that without the other person, the individual is nothing. Gandhi's morality was to do with social responsibility vis-avis ‘the other’ without distinction of gender, status, wealth, caste, class, position etc.
Gandhi's insights will be relevant to many future countries, cultures and religions, as they advance in establishing peace and non-violence. A high point in human civilisation may be an ethic of love and self-sacrifice in order to help others out of their misery. But how far have we yet brought about relationships built on truth and love, on a personal, local, national or even international level? Have we advanced beyond our primeval desire to secure our own position and wealth for our own physical comforts?
Gandhi was inspired by Jesus’ teachings. And perhaps they could yet inspire our human relationships. Gandhi said, ‘The cross of Christ is the supreme, perfect historic example of assault and victory of love over evil. But alas, Christianity has made of it a creed, a doctrine, belief in which ‘,.. even the is to secure a heaven of comfort poorest individuals and security . . . The cross of SoF Magazine No. 24, January 1996 Gandhi's affinity with Christianity he said stemmed from his reading of the New Testament, particularly the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ teaching to love your enemies.’ He was inspired by the verses in chapter five of Matthew's gospel, ‘If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.’ Reading this he said, ‘delighted me beyond measure . . . That renunciation was the highest form of religion appealed to me greatly.” I think that Gandhi's comments abut Jesus’ teaching remind us of the radical teaching which is the centre of our spiritual heritage. Non-realism marks a new era in which we are free to cleanse, get rid of the idea that religion is to do with wielding power and influence over others. I think that it is our perception of power that we need to transform and develop in the Sea of Faith.
Religious leaders (Cupitt included) have the same simple message: live it. Surely our religion is not merely about the language we use; it is about the spiritual and moral values we live. And yet religious followers (Sea of Faithers included) could well make another dogma and an institution rather than a life out of it.
If we want to fulfil the radical Christ can yet be a working have a potential of non-realism we can principle of conquering love A do so by striving to be followers of overcoming evil everywhere.’ ! Capacity for the spiritual teachings of Jesus, For Gandhi, the cross of Christ self-sacrifice. the Buddha and others. Neither symbolised the supreme sacrifice.
For him, the cross represented Christ's ‘love in action’ When Gandhi saw the image of Christ crucified at the Vatican, he said: ‘I saw there at once that nations like individuals could only be made through the agony of the Cross and in no other way. Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on others, but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself.’ ' George, S.K., Gandhi’s Challenge to Christianity (Ahmadabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 2nd ed. 1947), pp. 23-4. > “A Retrospect’, 23 Dec. 1931; The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. XLVIII (Delhi:
Government of India, 1959), p. 434.
Christ nor Gandhi were members of an organised religion; both were system-breakers yet both That is power.’ were religious people; they realised that it is our latent power of sacrifice that is the essence of true relationship; it is our unconditional love which might make us delight in living a life of service to other people. Only then will we transcend the violence of an_over-intellectual understanding of faith, by living their message of love. > Whilst in England in his second year; Gandhi, M., An Autobiography, or The Story of My Experiments with Truth (Ahmadabad:
Navajivan Trust, 1927), p. 58. ‘ Autobiography, p. 58.