not sure. my guess is 5 days. he also said "be the change you wish to see" see my thread - coolest guy in the world
The racist bastard probably went for over a month. 30+ day fasts are not uncommon, even now. Your average Joe Schmo is doing trendy 40 day fasting retreats.
Yeah i just read Woody Harrelson is about to begin a 40 day fasting. To see how the expericnce affects his brain. Thats the craziest thing ever. In hawaii, never mind that, its gonna be his second time doing this. First time for 40 days, before he went a mere twenty. So iam guessing that Ghandi went a long long time. look at some of his pictures. Craziest thing ever. Bones.
It may not have been his choice to 'only' go 20 days. The fasts are observed by a professional who keeps track of the clients well being and vitals. They will end the fast if things start going bad.
The longest I've ever gone without food or any nutrition was about two weeks maybe? I struggled with anorexia and digestive disorders for years, so I spent a lot of time NOT eating. :L
i believe that fasting for about 4 hours and then eating...LSD lifts the veil keeping me from seeing god
Heres the latest news i got going on here. I went three days without food before my mom and dad stopped me. I ate a plate of fries after my mom like jumped when i told her, so i went to sleep. Later on i got woken up by them saying we have to call the cops on you, you havent eat anything. From the 26th until the 13th i was in the hospital, psych ward. Get this, they said i was in the hospital and medication becuase of laughing and illogicallness. That whole thing wasnt even mentioned, i didnt know what to do. Iam happy thats over. LOL
I read somewhere a while back that Ghandi sometimes slept with nubile young women to test his vow of abstinance. I'm sure it wasn't hard for the women, though.
You're very wrong about that. He may have been a bit different but he was far from a "freak", and I don't know where you get the hatred bit. Care to post a link? He basically freed the indian sub-continent from the yoke of British colonialism through non-violent means, showing the way to Dr. King and others.
A link? Isn't that what google is for? Here are a few books on the subject: Raising up a Prophet: The African-American Encounter with Gandhi Gandhi: Saint or Sinner? The Gandhi Nobody Knows Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity
I think there is evidence he said what we would deem racist at certain points in his early life. He does seem to been under the allure of British standards in his early life, so probably aped their values to a certain degree. If he were to have been killed in his early 20's that opinion of him would have not changed. But it does seem he changed. It's easy and flippant to call him racist even at the end of his life, but I'd like to read some of the racist comments he made at the latter stages of his life. It is true he slept with his grand-nieces, and judging by this (below) picture of them together, there was a certain reverence where they might not have sex with him but would be convinced to sleep with him to help with his spiritual growth (yeah, that's what they all say)...that behaviour is "freakish" then and now. Who thinks it's ok to test your sexuality with your nephew or neice when you are in your mid 40s? http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html If you read this and not think he was a bit of a freak, perhaps say why, Amyoxl. Natural philosophy, who had he hate for? If you don't qualify that assertion it is a little meaningless. He probably was full of hate about certain things, that can be a positive or negative...it depend what he hated. He probably was venerated to an almost ridiculous level near the end of his life, and all the less admiral qualities and naive things he may have written were ignored or wiped from the record of his life....till decades later. Imho, he probably was the more acceptable face of India, and the British were willing to deal with him, because he could be two faced (pragmatic if you like). Did he: basically free the Indian sub-continent from the yoke of British colonialism through non-violent means? Probably not. Like most things it was probably a combination of events. Ghandi was just given complete recognition because of his significant role and eventual near martyrdom for the cause. I'd prefer the more negative criticisms to be the only thing remembered about him, because I'm not a huge fan, but I'd not be being fair to him. Personally I don't think one person should be given credit for a particular resolution to an issue, if there were others involved and the truth is different, but I do realise these issues need figureheads. It makes writing history a whole lot easier.
