12-17-2006, 10:22 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 17 2006, 06:23 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 17 2006, 06:23 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Dec 17 2006, 11:46 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 17 2006, 11:46 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Gandhi in his heart and mind was a loyal soldier of the british government......he never demanded purna swaraj, because he could never conceptualise a free india standing on its own might, without the crutches of the british foundation. All his letters are signed, your hubble servant "gandhi".....It proves that he forget nationalism, he was a british sycophant and the british found him an effective tool for sustaining their rule over India.
He was also a master politician......he knew he was no mahatma, his knowledge of the scripture was NIL, he was pathetic as a philosopher, and hence he knew to project himself as the unopposed leader of the masses, he must reinvent himself as being different......So the shameface, in his autobiography projects his candidness as the means to his making of the mahatma........It must be remembered that dialectical debates wasnt his cup of tea and moreover he was endowed with a weird sophistic logic as claimed by Sri Aurobindo himself........he was so horny, but he projects himself as the brahmacharya of the century.
Someone has recently claimed online that gandhi was actually an asura. I second that!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
THere is something wrong with this post
[right][snapback]62198[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whose quote you quoted Acharya? This guy is not thinking correctly. Without Gandhi India would not have become independent in 47.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]62205[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is obviously a vitriolic attack, full of prejudiced opinions without citing a fact. Was this posted in this forum. If not what is the point of discussing on this. In the Internet there are many such character assasinations. Some fool calls a saint as a criminal, that doesn't mean we have to provide justification or defend anything or even think about it.
He was also a master politician......he knew he was no mahatma, his knowledge of the scripture was NIL, he was pathetic as a philosopher, and hence he knew to project himself as the unopposed leader of the masses, he must reinvent himself as being different......So the shameface, in his autobiography projects his candidness as the means to his making of the mahatma........It must be remembered that dialectical debates wasnt his cup of tea and moreover he was endowed with a weird sophistic logic as claimed by Sri Aurobindo himself........he was so horny, but he projects himself as the brahmacharya of the century.
Someone has recently claimed online that gandhi was actually an asura. I second that!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
THere is something wrong with this post
[right][snapback]62198[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whose quote you quoted Acharya? This guy is not thinking correctly. Without Gandhi India would not have become independent in 47.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]62205[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is obviously a vitriolic attack, full of prejudiced opinions without citing a fact. Was this posted in this forum. If not what is the point of discussing on this. In the Internet there are many such character assasinations. Some fool calls a saint as a criminal, that doesn't mean we have to provide justification or defend anything or even think about it.