Place Of The Cow
THE COW is a poem of pity. One reads pity in the gentle animal. She is the mother to millions of Indian mankind. Protection of the cow means protection of the whole dumb creation of God. The ancient seer, whoever he was, began with the cow. The appeal of the lower order of creation is all the more forcible because it is speechless. (YI, 6-10-1921, p. 36)
…The cow is the purest type of sub-human life. She pleads before us on behalf of the whole of the sub-human species for justice to it at the hands of man, the first among all that lives. She seems to speak to us through her eyes: 'you are not appointed over us to kill us and eat our flesh or otherwise ill-treat us, but to be our friend and guardian'. (YI, 26-6-1924, p. 214)
I worship it and I shall defend its worship against the whole world. (YI, 1-1-1925, p.
Mother cow is in many ways better than the mother who gave us birth. Our mother gives us milk for a couple of years and then expects us to serve her when we grow up. Mother cow expects from us nothing but grass and grain. Our mother often falls ill and expects service from us. Mother cow rarely falls ill. Here is an unbroken record of service which does not end with her death. Our mother, when she dies, means expenses of burial or cremation. Mother cow is as useful dead as when she is alive. We can make use of every part of her body-her flesh, her bones, her intestines, her horns and her skin. Well, I say this not to disparage the mother who gives us birth, but in order to show you the substantial reasons for my worshipping the cow. (H, 15-9-1940, p. 281)
The Cow In Hinduism
The central fact of Hinduism is cow protection. Cow protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution. It takes the human being beyond this species. The cow to me means the entire sub-human world. Man through the cow is enjoined to realize his identity with all that lives. Why the cow was selected for apotheosis is obvious to me. The cow was in India the best companion. She was the giver of plenty. Not only did she give milk, but she also made agriculture possible….....
Cow protection is the gift of Hinduism to the world. And Hinduism will live so ling as there are Hindus to protect the cow…… Hindus will be judged not by their TILAKS, not by the correct chanting of MANTRAS, not by their pilgrimages, not by their most punctilious observances of caste rules, but their ability to protect the cow. (YI, 6-10-1921, p. 36)
Cow-Slaughter
I would not kill a human being for protection a cow, as I will not kill a cow for saving a human life, be it ever so precious. (YI, 18-5-1921, p. 156)
My religion teaches me that I should by personal conduct instill into the minds of those who might hold different views, the conviction that cow-killing is a sin and that, therefore, it ought to be abandoned.
(YI, 29-1-1925, p. 38)
Cow slaughter can never be stopped by law. Knowledge, education, and the spirit of kindliness towards her alone can put and end to it. It will not be possible to save those animals that are a burden on the land or, perhaps, even man if he is a burden. (H, 15-9-1946, p. 310)
My ambition is no less than to see the principle of cow protection established throughout the world. But that requires that I should set my own house thoroughly in order first. (YI, 29-1-1925, p. 38)
Cow protection to me is not mere protection of the cow. It means protection of that lives and is helpless and weak in the world. (YI, 7-5-1925, p. 160)
But lit me reiterate….that legislative prohibition is the smallest part of any programme of cow protection. …People seem to think that, when a law is passed against any evil, it will die without any further effort. There never was a grosser self-deception. Legislation is intended and is effective against an ignorant or a small, evil-minded minority; but no legislation which is opposed by an intelligent and organized public opinion, or under cover of religion by a fanatical minority (TBC)

I used to adore this Ghandi gentleman but since I read his views on blacks and Africans, I dropped him bloodkat toga like a plague.
Anyone with such views sucks.

oderemo:
I used to adore this Ghandi gentleman but since I read his views on blacks and Africans, I dropped him bloodkat toga like a plague.
Anyone with such views sucks.

Looking for perfection in humans is pointless endeavor. Nobody is pure good and rarely pure evil most of time. Ghandi was a creep but it doesn't detract from his overall legacy. Albert Einstein liked sleeping with his 1st cousin but it doesn't take away from achievements.

Blue3k:


Looking for perfection in humans is pointless endeavor. Nobody is pure good and rarely pure evil most of time. Ghandi was a creep but it doesn't detract from his overall legacy. Albert Einstein liked sleeping with his 1st cousin but it doesn't take away from achievements.

Ghandi is a racist and racism is antithetic to almost everything he preached. You can't preach peace and even receive a noble price for peace but have the mind of a monster.

“Kaffirs(black people) are as a rule are uncivilised – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company"

http://www.mortalpoet.com/corruption-is-not-the-problem-with-africa/

Sapiosexuality:
Ghandi is a racist and racism is antithetic to almost everything he preached. You can't preach peace and even receive a noble price for peace but have the mind of a monster.

You can be peaceful and racist. I understand peace to be the opposite of violent. He's respected for his non violent struggle against British. Racism can't be opposite to what he preached since he believed in caste system. We could talk for hours how messed up some of his beliefs were but all this information is one YouTube video away.

Blue3k:


You can be peaceful and racist. I understand peace to be the opposite of violent. He's respected for his non violent struggle against British. Racism can't be opposite to what he preached since he believed in caste system. We could talk for hours how messed up some of his beliefs were but all this information is one YouTube video away.

You can't preach peace and be a racist. They are diametrically opposed except the preachers knowledge of what peace really means is jaundiced. Then it ceases to be peace.

You can't insult and denigrate people for their skin colour and make them feel bad about themselves and at the same time you are telling everyone to imbibe peace. That's double standards.

Sapiosexuality:
You can't preach peace and be a racist. They are diametrically opposed except the preachers knowledge of what peace really means is jaundiced. Then it ceases to be peace.

You can't insult and denigrate people for their skin colour and make them feel bad about themselves and at the same time you are telling everyone to imbibe peace. That's double standards.

Speech isn't violence. Hurting your feeling isn't assault. It's impolite but it's same as instigating violence. This slippery slope logic is how societies end up with restrictive hate speech laws. Free speech has to leave room for other people to express themselves in ways you don't necessarily agree with as long the aren't instigating violence or screening fire in theatre when there's none.

We know he's not a virtuous character. I just don't see him as violent. I think a person's actions make them violent in personal or through state.

Blue3k:


Looking for perfection in humans is pointless endeavor. Nobody is pure good and rarely pure evil most of time. Ghandi was a creep but it doesn't detract from his overall legacy. Albert Einstein liked sleeping with his 1st cousin but it doesn't take away from achievements.

.
Do not justify this Ghandi insult on my race, if you are happy to associate with him so be it, this man was a qualified racist, he preached peace and same time degrading other ppl.
How can you loop same together.?

Blue3k:


Speech isn't violence. Hurting your feeling isn't assault. It's impolite but it's same as instigating violence. This slippery slope logic is how societies end up with restrictive hate speech laws. Free speech has to leave room for other people to express themselves in ways you don't necessarily agree with as long the aren't instigating violence or screening fire in theatre when there's none.

We know he's not a virtuous character. I just don't see him as violent. I think a person's actions make them violent in personal or through state.

Lol. This is a joke. Not Violent? Is racism a word, an action or both?

Trump is a billionaire and the POTUS, do you think he's violent? Why do Indians lynch black people for committing same crimes fellow Indians are warned for? What is the effect of the cycle of evil?

What is peace? If a man wants world peace will he hurt any body? Will he try to do just what is legal or what is good? Will he be impolite? Why are you defending this guy who hates your likes? Why?

Is Hitler a good man because he was good to the Aryan race? It seems this is your argument for Gandhi. Gandhi was great to India but to humanity what is he worth? Why are you defending this guy?

oderemo:
.
Do not justify this Ghandi insult on my race, if you are happy to associate with him so be it, this man was a qualified racist, he preached peace and same time degrading other ppl.
How can you loop same together.?

I didn't justify his actions. Racism isn't logical or right. Speech isnt violent unless you instigate violent actions. Ghabdi hurting your feeling doesn't count. Ghandi got his award for nonviolent resistance not because he was virtuous saint. The same thing MLK Jr based his civil rights protest on.

The guy believed in caste system even his own indians were beneath him. Was he violent in personal life no. I would say he was willing to use state to duscrimate if caste system remained in Indai.

Sapiosexuality:
Lol. This is a joke. Not Violent? Is racism a word, an action or both?

Trump is a billionaire and the POTUS, do you think he's violent? Why do Indians lynch black people for committing same crimes fellow Indians are warned for? What is the effect of the cycle of evil?

What is peace? If a man wants world peace will he hurt any body? Will he try to do just what is legal or what is good? Will he be impolite? Why are you defending this guy who hates your likes? Why?

Is Hitler a good man because he was good to the Aryan race? It seems this is your argument for Gandhi. Gandhi was great to India but to humanity what is he worth? Why are you defending this guy?

You confusing issues now. Racism prejudice in heart or words isn't violence. Lynching is violence. Calling you Nigger is mean ehile hanging you is murder. Peace is non violence. You bring up violent acts because yiubcant tell me saying mean words is an assault to your person. It's only hurts your feeling.

You be delved outside your original points since you want to start asking was Hitler or Ghandi good. It's all opinion Hitler honestly isn't much worse than the other racist killers in his day.


I told you peace is non violence. Aka non aggression principle. Hurting people physically is violent. Hurting feeling is nobodies problem but person or group offended by language used. Impolite behavior isn't illegal.

I'm defending him because yiur trying to paint false picture. You adequate racism to violence which it's not. You can't point to violent act he's done. Second him being racist in 50's isn't a big deal. I already told you I don't look for perfection in humans. His character flaws don't take away from his legacy or impact on world.

Blue3k:



You confusing issues now. Racism prejudice in heart or words isn't violence. Lynching is violence. Calling you Nigger is mean ehile hanging you is murder. Peace is non violence. You bring up violent acts because yiubcant tell me saying mean words is an assault to your person. It's only hurts your feeling.

You be delved outside your original points since you want to start asking was Hitler or Ghandi good. It's all opinion Hitler honestly isn't much worse than the other racist killers in his day.


I told you peace is non violence. Aka non aggression principle. Hurting people physically is violent. Hurting feeling is nobodies problem but person or group offended by language used. Impolite behavior isn't illegal.

I'm defending him because yiur trying to paint false picture. You adequate racism to violence which it's not. You can't point to violent act he's done. Second him being racist in 50's isn't a big deal. I already told you I don't look for perfection in humans. His character flaws don't take away from his legacy or impact on world.

Do you disagree with this definition of violence and peace.

Violence:

Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.

Peace:

Freedom from disturbance; tranquillity.

Sapiosexuality:
Do you disagree with this definition of violence and peace.

Violence:

Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.

Peace:

Freedom from disturbance; tranquillity.

No because the are against free speech. Hurting your feeling isn't an act of violence. Nobody going to be arrested for being a racist. The definition of peace would gave to conform to legal definition of violence and respect freedom of speech to valid.

Second you went to definition 2 of violence which correlates to strong emotions like furry or rage. ("the violence of his passion". Why not use 1st definition like most people would or the law defition like government does.

(Law)
Violence:
the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Blue3k:


Yes because the are against free speech. Hurting your feeling isn't an act of violence. Nobody going to be arrested for being a racist. The definition of peace would gave to conform to legal definition of violence and respect freedom of speech to valid.

Second you went to definition 2 of violence which correlates to strong emotions like furry or rage. "the violence of his passion". Why not use 1st definition like most people would or the law defition like government does.

Violence:
the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Is any of the definitions wrong? If both are correct how then is Gandhi not violent?

Sapiosexuality:
Is any of the definitions wrong? If both are correct how then is Gandhi not violent?

No because you misused the definition of violence. This definition refers to strong emotions. That would mean anyone that feels strong emotions towards anything is a violent person. I doubt you'll classify everyone as violent.

Violence: strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.

"the violence of her own feelings"

synonyms:intensity, severity, strength, force, 
vehemence, power, potency, fervency, ferocity, 
fury, fire

"the violence of his passion"

Blue3k:


No because you misused the definition of violence. This definition refers to strong emotions. That would mean anyone that feels strong emotions towards anything is a violent person. I doubt you'll classify everyone as violent.

Is racism not a strong emotion, hate, for people of different colour?

Sapiosexuality:
Is racism not a strong emotion, hate, for people of different colour?

Love is also a strong emtion so is passion. Lol it's a moot point. Just say you want to classify everyone as violent if that's the case. Your vehement disdain for racism is violent. Are you a violent person?

Blue3k:


Love is also a strong emtion so is passion. Lol it's a moot point. Just say you want to classify everyone as violent if that's the case.

But the point here is that racism is a strong emotion and he's been deployed it against black people or those he prefers to call Kaffir. If a person preaches forgiveness but hold grudges isn't such a character a hypocrite? Is a man preaches love and exudes hate isn't he a hypocrite? If a man preaches peace but glorifies war is he not to be spoken of in the language of the other two other examples?

Blue3k:


Your vehement disdain for racism is violent. Are you a violent person?

No. Hatred for racism is not destructive so it cannot be qualified with the term. Are we violent because he fight diseases? Are we violent because we fight bad governance? You see, we are positively constructing something in these areas and cannot called violent people.

Sapiosexuality:
But the point here is that racism is a strong emotion and he's been deployed it against black people or those he prefers to call Kaffir. If a person preaches forgiveness but hold grudges isn't such a character a hypocrite? Is a man preaches love and exudes hate isn't he a hypocrite? If a man preaches peace but glorifies war is he not to be spoken of in the language of the other two other examples?

You have strong emotions and seem passionate about issue. Your vehement disdain for racism is violent by the dictionary definition you privided. Are you a violent person?

You keep diverting from point. Ok he's hypocrite that doesn't make him violent. Saying mean thing isn't violence. Where did he glorify war or are you making a metaphor?

You'll classify everyone including yourself as violent by the dictionary definition.

Violence: strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.

"the violence of her own feelings"

synonyms:intensity, severity, strength, force, 
vehemence, power, potency, fervency, ferocity, fury, fire

"the violence of his passion"

Blue3k:


You have strong emotions and seem passionate about issue. Your vehement disdain for racism is violent by the dictionary definition you privided. Are you a violent person?

You keep diverting from point. Ok he's hypocrite that doesn't make him violent. Saying mean thing isn't violence. Where did he glorify war or are you making a metaphor?

No, I'm not. I already answered that. Look up. I don't run from any argument. Now tell me, that is, after reading my answer above, how is hatred against black people progressive?

Sapiosexuality:
No, I'm not. I already answered that. Look up. I don't run from any argument. Now tell me, that is, after reading my answer above, how is hatred against black people progressive?

By the dictionary definition you are the way your logic workd. Again yiur diverting from point. Holding regressive mentality isn't violence. Being mean, spiteful racist isn't an act of violence to anyone's person. Thr fact he hurt your feeling isn't violence against you.

You said strong emotions are violent so anyone with strong emotions are violent people.

Sapiosexuality:
But the point here is that racism is a strong emotion and he's been deployed it against black people or those he prefers to call Kaffir.

Blue3k:


By the dictionary definition you are the way your logic workd. Again yiur diverting from point. Holding regressive mentality isn't violence. Being mean, spiteful racist isn't an act of violence to anyone's person. Thr fact he hurt your feeling isn't violence against you.

How am I diverting? Are those killed by Boko Haram violent for simply experiencing hurt? And how does our definition support this?

Blue3k:


By the dictionary definition you are the way your logic workd. Again yiur diverting from point. Holding regressive mentality isn't violence. Being mean, spiteful racist isn't an act of violence to anyone's person. Thr fact he hurt your feeling isn't violence against you.

You said strong emotions are violent so anyone with strong emotions are violent people.

Strong emotions are violent just for being strong emotions? Where did I say that strong emotions are violent? Blue3k is a human being but every human being is not blue3k. How is that hard to grasp? Read everything again. This is just be cause you don't want to accept that a man who hates you for your skin colour is not qualified to be your hero. Tell me, would it be wrong to assert that a person who worships and adores his hater is a mental slave?

Sapiosexuality:
How am I diverting? Are those killed by Boko Haram violent for simply experiencing hurt?

You said Ghandi is violent for words and racist ideas then divert to other topics like Hitler and bvoko haram who commited violent acts such masd murder. Boko Haram falls under definition 1. This is digestion yet again.

● Hurting your feeling isn't violent act.
● Having strong emotions doesn't make you violent person legally.
● Being a racist isn't violent act that assaults annother person.

Blue3k:


You said Ghandi is violent for words and racist ideas then divert to other topics like Hitler and bvoko haram who commited violent acts such masd murder. Boko Haram falls under definition 1. This is digestion yet again.

● Hurting your feeling isn't violent act.
● Having strong emotions doesn't make you violent person legally.
● Being a racist isn't violent act that assaults annother person.

Lol. And I'm supposed to believe you don't get analogies? I just showed you Gandhi is violent and unworthy to be a black man's hero but you don't want to accept it.

Sapiosexuality:
Lol. And I'm supposed to believe you don't get analogies? I just showed you Gandhi is violent and unworthy to be a black man's hero but you don't want to accept it.

You only told me he's racist which known fact. By your logic because he hurt your feeling he's violent person. The crime of calling is calling you Nigger essentially. If you don't want him to be your hero ok that's your preference. Point is his legacy lives on and his ideals is what civil rights movement was based on. That's where black leader Martin Luther King Jr drew his Inspiration.

Your amnologies were poorly made and simply because tgey weren't apples to apples. You jumped from Hitler to boko Haram. The best on was Trump but even he's not violent by definition.

Blue3k:


You only told me he's racist which known fact. By your logic because he hurt your feeling he's violent person. The crime of calling is calling you Nigger essentially. If you don't want him to be your hero ok that's your preference. Point is his legacy lives on and his ideals is what civil rights movement was based on. That's where black leader Martin Luther King Jr drew his Inspiration.

Your amnologies were poorly made and simply because tgey weren't apples to apples. You jumped from Hitler to boko Haram. The best on was Trump but even he's not violent by definition.

What legacy exactly?

Sapiosexuality:
What legacy exactly?

Non violent protest and helping to end colonial rule in India. Inspiraring future civil rights leaders like MLK. These are big accomplishments.

Blue3k:


Non violent protest and helping to end colonial rule in India. Inspiraring future civil rights leaders like MLK. These are big accomplishments.

Very good, for India. Yes, big. Even Hitler accomplished something great. But as an African he supported every treatment the British meted out to you. He supported the burning of your likes. He supported the torture of Rosa Parks in that all white bus. He supported the hanging of dead black people on city gates. He supported them because he supported racism. Now why make such man your hero?

Sapiosexuality:
Very good, for India. Yes, big. Even Hitler accomplished something great. But as an African he supported every treatment the British meted out to you. He supported the burning of your likes. He supported the torture of Rosa Parks in that all white bus. He supported the hanging of dead black people on city gates. He supported them because he supported racism. Now why make such man your hero?

Good you can admit his legacy had impact. Lol the same guts methods also helped black man but you won't conceed that. He died before the Rosa park incident. You even ignorant to say he didn't support African rights when he did. I don't care who your hero is. Ghandi not even mine but I don't feel need to lie about him. Even Nelson Mandela had good things to speak of him.

The rest of the stuff you said not even true. Where did he support or call for murder? Is this annotheron of yiur metaphors? Yes he was racist doesn't mean he was violent.

During the course of the struggle, Gandhi widened his horizon and publicly supported African rights. He declared in an address to the YMCA in 1908:

“South Africa would probably be a howling wilderness without the Africans…”

“If we look into the future, is it not a heritage we have to leave to posterity that all the different races commingle and produce a civilisation that perhaps the world has not yet seen.”

Blue3k:


Good you can admit his legacy had impact. Lol the same guts methods also helped black man but you won't conceed that. He died before the Rosa park incident. You even ignorant to say he didn't support African rights when he did. I don't care who your hero is. Ghandi not even mine but I don't feel need to lie about him. Even Nelson Mandela had good things to speak of him.

The rest of the stuff you said not even true. Where did he support or call for murder? Is this annotheron of yiur metaphors? Yes he was racist doesn't mean he was violent.

Lol. He still pretends he doesn't understand analogies. The quote you just picked is the reason I wonder why such man should be your hero. On one hand he hates black people while on the other hand, in company of blacks, he hails them. Why make such a person you hero. You've admitted he hated black people and I think that's enough for me.