Patriots, Chauvinists, Secessionists and Terrorists

[chitrala]

From Raj Thakre to mumbai attack, past few incidents make me think that what is it that separates a terrorist from a patriot? When does a citizen stop being a patriot and becomes a chauvinist, and when does he become a secessionist?

Why Chandrashekhar Aazad or was not a secessionist or a chauvinist or even a terrorist but a patriot and a revolutionary? All the newly formed states(or even in past) separated from the erstwhile states have their own list of revolutionaries. If Kashmir becomes an independent state one day the all of these terrorists would become revolutionaries. If Islam becomes the most popular religion in world one day(allah na kare :D) then all the jihadis would be regarded as patriots.

These jihadis are convinced that they are fighting for a right cause. They think that lives lost in jihad are collateral. They don't feel any remorse for that or at least don't convey it. They are ready to sacrifice themselves for their cause just like any military person.

Then what is the difference between an LTTE bomber and a commando? In fact commando might be a little less sure about righteousness(?) of his actions....he simply takes the order from superiors and follows it with clinical precision. These jihadis/rebels have to be convinced or properly compensated to take such actions.

Why Raj Thakre is a chauvinist and not Narendra Modi? They both are playing vote bank politics. Can one be a Hero in his times and a Villain later or vice versa?

Please spare this thread from emotional outbursts. There are other threads for that. I hope I am able to convey what I anted to.

[JaiSpeaks]

I think a patroit or revolutionary picks up arms based on the experiences that he might has had . His actions are extreme but in hi sown way he assumes that its in the best interest of the people . So for him its a selfless agenda .

Terrorists are almost always brainwashed into doing what they do . They work on some specific desire that they crave and the people who brainwash them into terrorists play on their desire to extract things that are needed . So its a mind job but their actions are always selfish .

Chavunists and seccessionists are power hungry folk, who are so ruled by their ego and are the scum of earth . They are the ones who need to be in power and in control . They make terrorists and their actions create the revolutionaries .

[tantric_yogi]

Please spare this thread from emotional outbursts.

Why Raj Thakre is a chauvinist and not Narendra Modi? They both are playing vote bank politics.

Chitralaji ... you are using emotions with statement like above while asking us to remain un-emotional. Why else would you place two in the same tarazoo? One divides ... other unites. One is corrupt to the bone ... other is working hard to rid his state of corruption. One talks shit without taking responsibility ... other leads his state to prosperity.


I hope I am able to convey what I anted to.

No ... Sethji ... you didn't. Please start again.




:) With all due respects ...

[echarcha]

Chitralaji, you seem to talk only of Raj and Modi. Why do you forget Rajiv Gandhi who changed Constitution in SHAH bano case just to appease Muslims? You want us to be non emotional but you yourself display anti Hindutva emotions:rolleyes:

[landyaBhai]

actually Chitralaji is talking about ideas that appeal to people who are on either side of the fence ...

These are just words to conveniently label the same person as an enemy or a friend ...

At times the same seccionist was a friend but now he is an enemy ... the same applies to others ...

the question should be who are our friends and who among these friends would one day become our enemies ... and which of our enemies can be turned into friends ...

It's all based on an agenda ... depending upon this agenda, one can turn into another and vice-versa ...

[Randheer]

Answer is how many times Chandrasekhar Azad does burst firing from AK47 in CST or some London station. How many times Chandrasekhar Azad did took British people Hostage. How many bombings in London. Some amount of vilonece both revolutionary and sessionist and terrorist will do. Violence in this case is tool. It is the degree and manner, which it is done is what separates a terrorist and a revolutionary. None of the true and succeeded revolutions have done ethnic cleansing like Kashmir.

Compare ChandraBabu Naidu and Raj Thakrey and you will find the difference between what is deifference between a clown and a true regional leader.
Narendra Modi talks about a lot of other things also but media never covers it. Narendra Modi never grew with a "Thakrey" family surname and misused it.

[chitrala]

Don't know why earlier in the day I was not able to post my replies...I dont think I was banned.:D



Terrorists are almost always brainwashed into doing what they do . They work on some specific desire that they crave and the people who brainwash them into terrorists play on their desire to extract things that are needed . So its a mind job but their actions are always selfish .


Thats what puzzles me.....are these terrorists brainwashed or they are convinced of the cause. It might be possible what we call 'brainwashing' is realization or conviction for them....how can we call their actions selfish when they knew right from the beginning that they were gonna lose their lives.
Take an LTTE bomber, he/she knows that they would die along with the victims, their families being taken care after them migh be incentive but not the prime cause for their actions. One can't lose its life on shaken beliefs.

@Yogijee..... I am not putting Modi and Raj on same balance....I believe I have said earlier that they both are very different....I was puttin an outsider's view, where both appear chauvinist to the point of secessionist...they both address to a certain group... appeal to them and alienate another group(modi is bigger than that I agree)...

Chitralaji, you seem to talk only of Raj and Modi. Why do you forget Rajiv Gandhi who changed Constitution in SHAH bano case just to appease Muslims? You want us to be non emotional but you yourself display anti Hindutva emotions:rolleyes:

I talk of a lot of things you seem to take ntice of Modi and Raj only:D....I never supported religion in politics... it should be kicked out of politics(which is impossible)...Be it Shah Bano or Roop Kanvar....Ihow could I support it...Am I being Anti -hindu here...I dont think so....Yuo can replace Modi with Mayawati (who is fabulusly changing coors now) and Thakre with Laloo(who has a little more motley target group relatively)....

[chitrala]

actually Chitralaji is talking about ideas that appeal to people who are on either side of the fence ...

These are just words to conveniently label the same person as an enemy or a friend ...

At times the same seccionist was a friend but now he is an enemy ... the same applies to others ...

the question should be who are our friends and who among these friends would one day become our enemies ... and which of our enemies can be turned into friends ...

It's all based on an agenda ... depending upon this agenda, one can turn into another and vice-versa ...

You got it LB pai.. But the moot question remains that what makes us more righteous....I agree we are not killing innocent people around(Kashmiris might differ on this).... point is that we have differences....the question is not of merely land now....people have become thekedar of faith too...


How does a terrorist who believes that the world will be more peaceful under Islam(allah na kare aisa ho :D) can be more wrong than a person who believes Kashmir will do much better under India or Tibet under China or Israel under jews or Chechenya under muslims or Kosovo under erstwhile Yugoslavia or Germany under Aryans or USA under white roman catholics etc.
Answer is how many times Chandrasekhar Azad does burst firing from AK47 in CST or some London station. How many times Chandrasekhar Azad did took British people Hostage. How many bombings in London. Some amount of vilonece both revolutionary and sessionist and terrorist will do. Violence in this case is tool. It is the degree and manner, which it is done is what separates a terrorist and a revolutionary. None of the true and succeeded revolutions have done ethnic cleansing like Kashmir.



Yes...it is the conviction that drives.....for them it is a war....war on kaafirs....for us they might be terrorists but they must be a source of inspiration for many....My point is that there is no universal terrorist...before independence there was a popular belief that we would be better under british empire.....so for all who thought so, freedom fighters would be secessionists....

It is just the matter of ideology.....it s just the matter of what side you are on.....you can never be wrong...whether you are an NSG commando or a terrorist....as long as you are ready to give you life for your belief....as long as you have conviction in your beliefs....

[tantric_yogi]

Don't know why earlier in the day I was not able to post my replies...I dont think I was banned.:D





Okay ... serious ... I know you are kidding ... there is no censorship at this site ... you are free to write irrespective of your religious or political affiliations ... Chitralalji, this is just so guests and new members are not left with an impression.

Decision to ban a member is not taken lightly. Consensus has to be 100% ... between the administrator and all the moderators. Many old timers are also requested for input and their decision respected. No member has ever been banned for expressing views and opinions. Gali galoj ... harassment ... non-stop tirades ... haranguing ... is very often the cause. Ban of a regular member does not come easy in a small community such as this one.

:D .......

[chitrala]

Okay ... serious ... I know you are kidding ... there is no censorship at this site ... you are free to write irrespective of your religious or political affiliations ... Chitralalji, this is just so guests and new members are not left with an impression.

Decision to ban a member is not taken lightly. Consensus has to be 100% ... between the administrator and all the moderators. Many old timers are also requested for input and their decision respected. No member has ever been banned for expressing views and opinions. Gali galoj ... harassment ... non-stop tirades ... haranguing ... is very often the cause. Ban of a regular member does not come easy in a small community such as this one.

:D .......
No, no I was not complaining....if you want me to edit that....I would...happily...

I tried posting twice this afternoon.....I got a strange message saying something like I was not logged in or whatever so refresh and do it again....and each time I refreshed the screen and logged in again but nothing happened...I thought I would do the standard log-out/cookie clean up procedure.... it worked later in the evening without my doing that....

[rameshp]

whether you are an NSG commando or a terrorist....

leaving aside all the philosophical BS you posted, what distinguishes a commando or a policeman from a terrorist is the one takes people hostage, the other one rescues the same people from terrorist. if you are ready to put them both (the terrorist and policeman) on the same side, then i believe you are just a step away from getting your training from one of the several terror camps because psychologically you are ready!:rolleyes:

[landyaBhai]

leaving aside all the philosophical BS you posted, what distinguishes a commando or a policeman from a terrorist is the one takes people hostage, the other one rescues the same people from terrorist. if you are ready to put them both (the terrorist and policeman) on the same side, then i believe you are just a step away from getting your training from one of the several terror camps because psychologically you are ready!:rolleyes:

It is not a question of righteousness rameshPai ... cuz I know when once life is in danger it is righteousness that gets out the window first ...

You are not getting the question ... the question is not who is bad or who is good ... because that can be argued both ways ... for all the sane people like us, we know what terrorism is and for other retards it is otherwise ...

So from the perspective of righteousness we cannot argue as it will is not a universally acceptable yardstick ...

heck even the labels like terrorist, secessionist, etc are used either ways ...

What I feel the question wants to point out is that "Is there a single point where we can agree upon in these world of terms and ideas?"

[landyaBhai]

You got it LB pai.. But the moot question remains that what makes us more righteous....I agree we are not killing innocent people around(Kashmiris might differ on this).... point is that we have differences....the question is not of merely land now....people have become thekedar of faith too...


ChitralaPai, these days I dont question about the value of life ... It seems more valueless ... Also asking question about innocence can start anywhere from the welcoming of man on the face of the earth to the invention of guns and bullets ... sometimes I feel there is no causality ... guns and bullets came before man arrived ...

Moreover, we as the common person who have not been involved in this violence will never know for sure who was innocent? Intellects like us come up with more words like "collateral damage" ... heck even Krishna gave a new dimension to this killing ... He told Arjuna: "These people are already dead, the fact that you think you are the killer is the cause of sorrow" ... Hardened criminals seem to not have this dilemma like Arjuna ... It is people like us ... You know why? because we are not involved in action ... If we were, we would do what an animal right from the ant to the human being has been doing ... preserving one's life at the cost of something else ... ofcourse religions, country, family, good/righteousness are terms invented by us to make us feel better ... but the intelligent human being realizes the emptiness in these words ... There is no better example of soldiers returning from battle and going under the post-war trauma or delusions ... Do you think we go into this trauma in our life times .. No ... we just come up with intellectual discussion into these terms ... and these are all empty terms ... very heavily misused by either side into inciting a person to kill another, while they rest and come up with more beautiful stories around these terms ... may be come up with some medal of sorts ...

[landyaBhai]

I just realized there is common thing with all of these "ists" ... they are all passionate about what they are doing ... ofcourse some of these live in future while there is only one of them that lives in the present ... the soldier lives practically and more humbly ... He is not a visionary ...He is a realist ... ofcourse his realism seems more practical (in this age) for bringing peace ...

one thing is sure if there were not the the other three .. the soldier would not be needed as well ...

[rameshp]

It is not a question of righteousness rameshPai ... cuz I know when once life is in danger it is righteousness that gets out the window first ...

You are not getting the question ... the question is not who is bad or who is good ... because that can be argued both ways ... for all the sane people like us, we know what terrorism is and for other retards it is otherwise ...

So from the perspective of righteousness we cannot argue as it will is not a universally acceptable yardstick ...

heck even the labels like terrorist, secessionist, etc are used either ways ...

What I feel the question wants to point out is that "Is there a single point where we can agree upon in these world of terms and ideas?"

bhaiyya, I havent even replied to that at the level at which you guys are discussing! I am only replying to fact that a policeman and a terrorist are being made equivalent. To me that screams a bloody islamist agenda of glorifying terrorists! You guys can anaylize all you want on whether one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter but dont equalize the roles of terrorist (or freedom fighter or whaterver you want to call them) with that of policemen!

Sure, both are acting on behalf of their masters or orders of others, but I believe there is no way you can say both are same which is what this statement from Chitrala meant to me:


whether you are an NSG commando or a terrorist....as long as you are ready to give you life for your belief....as long as you have conviction in your beliefs

[chitrala]

I just realized there is common thing with all of these "ists" ... they are all passionate about what they are doing ... ofcourse some of these live in future while there is only one of them that lives in the present ... the soldier lives practically and more humbly ... He is not a visionary ...He is a realist ... ofcourse his realism seems more practical (in this age) for bringing peace ...

one thing is sure if there were not the the other three .. the soldier would not be needed as well ...


Precisely that is what troubling me for long now. At least they are sure of something, they know what to do, they might be grossly wrong but they are convinced of their righteousness. And this applies to almost all groups, right-wingers, leftists, atheists, bigots etc. etc..

And I find myself almost on fence everytime not because I don't want to take sides but because I see fault on both the sides. I lack the zunoon, the hunger and that frustrates me.

[landyaBhai]

You guys can anaylize all you want on whether one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter but dont equalize the roles of terrorist (or freedom fighter or whaterver you want to call them) with that of policemen!


thanks for saying it ... "ROLES" ... ofcourse, in any country and in any religion, there is definetly one role that is higher than the rest ... and that is of the soldier ...

But then it wouldnt be surprising to have terroists also stake their claim as "a soldier of some religion, like in our world, Islam" ... The terrorists also want to be glorified as well and then he takes two things and puts it together ... "solider + religion and we make it = terrorist"

[landyaBhai]

And I find myself almost on fence everytime not because I don't want to take sides but because I see fault on both the sides. I lack the zunoon, the hunger and that frustrates me.

Chitrala pai, if these people are not questionable then so are you ... why get frustrated ... I know how it feels ... You are all alone and everybody has someplace to belong to ... Socially people like you have nowhere to go ... cuz wherever you go, you will be considered an outkast ... But being alone is an ultimate freedom ... You atleast dont waste your time labeling others as bad ... and you as good ... You tend to see things as it is and leave them as it is ... what more can you do ... if you want to do something about it, you have already come an inch-closer to becoming one of these "ists" ... or may be inventing a new "ist" ... may be something like this word: "a centrists" ...

[rameshp]

thanks for saying it ... "ROLES" ... ofcourse, in any country and in any religion, there is definetly one role that is higher than the rest ... and that is of the soldier ...

But then it wouldnt be surprising to have terroists also stake their claim as "a soldier of some religion, like in our world, Islam" ... The terrorists also want to be glorified as well and then he takes two things and puts it together ... "solider + religion and we make it = terrorist"

I think you go wrong when you generalize "solider + religion and we make it = terrorist" - it takes a lot more to be labelled a terrorist. Being a soldier of a religion doesnt make you a terrorist but using terrorizing people in the name of religion certainly does! I think you understand the difference between the two - you can still be a soldier of religion and advance your religion the peaceful way, but the moment you cross a line as in terrorizing people to advance your religion/agenda makes you a terrorist. There is no ambiguity in that. If a mullah teaches his follwers to spread the religion, it does not make him a terrorist but if he teaches them to spread by means of terrrorism, that makes him and his follower terrorists. This clearly is the difference between how christainity and islam are being spread today. One by pursuation (mostly with money) and one by force. Who will you call a terrorist here?

[landyaBhai]

Precisely that is what troubling me for long now. At least they are sure of something, they know what to do, they might be grossly wrong but they are convinced of their righteousness. And this applies to almost all groups, right-wingers, leftists, atheists, bigots etc. etc..

And I find myself almost on fence everytime not because I don't want to take sides but because I see fault on both the sides. I lack the zunoon, the hunger and that frustrates me.

I personally have felt frustrated when I realized the futility and emptiness in these terms ... A good amount of life got wasted just believeing in these terms ... Our parents, our teachers, our friends all have made us feel as if there is an absolute reality in these so-called righteousness ... But as we grow and try to rationalize, we see the futility ... because we know if we can rationalize, the other can as well ...

actually, I dont know what I should say to my son ... what should I teach him .. cuz whatever I thought I knew, can be argued and (mis)represented either way ...

[landyaBhai]

I think you go wrong when you generalize "solider + religion and we make it = terrorist" - it takes a lot more to be labelled a terrorist. Being a soldier of a religion doesnt make you a terrorist but using terrorizing people in the name of religion certainly does! I think you understand the difference between the two - you can still be a soldier of religion and advance your religion the peaceful way, but the moment you cross a line as in terrorizing people to advance your religion/agenda makes you a terrorist. There is no ambiguity in that. If a mullah teaches his follwers to spread the religion, it does not make him a terrorist but if he teaches them to spread by means of terrrorism, that makes him and his follower terrorists. This clearly is the difference between how christainity and islam are being spread today. One by pursuation (mostly with money) and one by force. Who will you call a terrorist here?

Give me one example of any religion that tried to advance itself without being violent? (except Buddhism, they got booted out of their own land ...in the name of peacefullness)

soldier and religion can never go together ... if you think it can, then you are bring what every religion has been subjected to ... politics ...

Religion is MY PERSONAL LOVE FOR GOD ... just as, I dont want any organization to tell me "how I should love my wife", the same applies to my God ... trying to say that I want to advance my relationship and then joining it with peacefulness are two opposite things ... love is love, it is personal ... there needs to be no organization to it ... and if it has, then that is the one that needs protection .... not my personal things ...

[rameshp]

Give me one example of any religion that tried to advance itself without being violent? (except Buddhism, they got booted out of their own land ...in the name of peacefullness)

I dont have answer for that but you answered your own question. any religion that survived today has been violent at one time or the other! if you not violent, you become what Buddhism is today -sidelined and pushed around. On the other hand the question is, how long can you survive by being violent - that is how long will society tolerate a violent religion?

soldier and religion can never go together ... if you think it can, then you are bring what every religion has been subjected to ... politics ...

my dear LB, religion is politics! period! the sooner you realize this, the better!:)

Religion is MY PERSONAL LOVE FOR GOD ... just as, I dont want any organization to tell me "how I should love my wife", the same applies to my God ... trying to say that I want to advance my relationship and then joining it with peacefulness are two opposite things ... love is love, it is personal ... there needs to be no organization to it ... and if it has, then that is the one that needs protection .... not my personal things ...

you are contradicting yourself. if you are following a religion, you ARE being told on how to proceed with your relationship with god! its as simple as that! the moment you mention that the relationship between you and your god is personal and is not bound by what someone or some book tells me, you are saying you are not following any religion! religion is the organisation that guides your relationship with god. if you believe that this relationship doesnt need an organisation, then you are effectively saying you dont need religion!:)


just my 2 cents!

[landyaBhai]

Give me one example of any religion that tried to advance itself without being violent? (except Buddhism, they got booted out of their own land ...in the name of peacefullness)

I dont have answer for that but you answered your own question. any religion that survived today has been violent at one time or the other! if you not violent, you become what Buddhism is today -sidelined and pushed around. On the other hand the question is, how long can you survive by being violent - that is how long will society tolerate a violent religion?

Actually, that is what I have said ... Just because buddh-ism got screwed does not mean my love for God has got screwed ... I have not identified my God with anyone in particular ... and the same applies to my love for Him ... I am not in favor of organized "loving for God" ... :D (Just as nobody favors organized loving of their wives :D)

soldier and religion can never go together ... if you think it can, then you are bring what every religion has been subjected to ... politics ...

my dear LB, religion is politics! period! the sooner you realize this, the better!:)

that is what I said earlier ... I have realized this .. unfortunately some (not you alone :D) people still get passionate about this ...

Religion is MY PERSONAL LOVE FOR GOD ... just as, I dont want any organization to tell me "how I should love my wife", the same applies to my God ... trying to say that I want to advance my relationship and then joining it with peacefulness are two opposite things ... love is love, it is personal ... there needs to be no organization to it ... and if it has, then that is the one that needs protection .... not my personal things ...

you are contradicting yourself. if you are following a religion, you ARE being told on how to proceed with your relationship with god! its as simple as that! the moment you mention that the relationship between you and your god is personal and is not bound by what someone or some book tells me, you are saying you are not following any religion! religion is the organisation that guides your relationship with god. if you believe that this relationship doesnt need an organisation, then you are effectively saying you dont need religion!:)


I am not contradicting myself ... I using the term religion too vaguely ... they have a meaning for this as well in the dictionary ... I am not using that meaning ... Just as love is a word that I use to express my feelings for my near and dear ones ... but there can be different meanings and to a different degree ...

By the way, this is the meaning of "religion" as per the dictionary:

re⋅li⋅gion [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

—Idiom9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.


I am not talking about religion as it has been mentioned in the dictionary (Infact, if you see there is an inherent contradiction in each of these meanings)... there is no need to ...

I am not following any BOOK ... I was BORN with my palms open and there was nothing given to me (except this beautifully engineered body)... No book, no diety, no practice ... So no in that sense, I dont follow the religion that I think you are talking about ... Let them burn the holy *whatever* ... I personally dont care ... But I do care about life ... that is a book unto itself ...


just my 2 cents!

[JaiSpeaks]

Don't know why earlier in the day I was not able to post my replies...I dont think I was banned.:D



Thats what puzzles me.....are these terrorists brainwashed or they are convinced of the cause. It might be possible what we call 'brainwashing' is realization or conviction for them....how can we call their actions selfish when they knew right from the beginning that they were gonna lose their lives.

Their actions can be fueled by a desire of the meta physical , who knows !!! But ofcourse taking such a drastic step definately needs conviction . Like LAndya trying to find nothingness out of everything . Its a self sustained desire which transcends life itself . How many times have we heard that this falana bombing is so that it creates a better life for someone rather that if he does that he will get a reward , maybe in after life .
Most of them are running after the reward !!! Isnt that selfish? unless its relative to life ..

[JaiSpeaks]

I personally have felt frustrated when I realized the futility and emptiness in these terms ... A good amount of life got wasted just believeing in these terms ... Our parents, our teachers, our friends all have made us feel as if there is an absolute reality in these so-called righteousness ... But as we grow and try to rationalize, we see the futility ... because we know if we can rationalize, the other can as well ...

actually, I dont know what I should say to my son ... what should I teach him .. cuz whatever I thought I knew, can be argued and (mis)represented either way ...

Why would you want to teach him anything at all ? If you say everything can be interpreted differently , let him interpret the way he wants to ..

Because whatever and whenever you try to teach will be something that will be your own righteousness , which means that you are still stuck in the righteousness you are trying to break out of .. isnt it ?

[landyaBhai]

Why would you want to teach him anything at all ? If you say everything can be interpreted differently , let him interpret the way he wants to ..

Because whatever and whenever you try to teach will be something that will be your own righteousness , which means that you are still stuck in the righteousness you are trying to break out of .. isnt it ?

the question signifies the the redundancy

[JaiSpeaks]

the question signifies the the redundancy

So the question is exactly your predicament.

Because I think when teachers or parents teach something , they are convinced of it or its a passive acceptance . In both cases there is no conflicts in the mind . But in your case you cannot form a particular line of thought right ? Thats what i understood . And that is why its hard to teach something which you are in conflict with . Which means whatever path your son chooses to take you will always be in conflict of interest with him ..

Oh my God ... there is no pleasing you :D

[landyaBhai]

So the question is exactly your predicament.
Yes it will become a predicament, when he comes to me to ask anything ... cuz whatever I will answer will be not true ... even if I say nothing, that is also not a complete answer ...

Because I think when teachers or parents teach something , they are convinced of it or its a passive acceptance .


I dont think so ... It is very hard for students or children to divulge from their parents are teachers whether they are sure what they are talking about ... Also, it is very rare to find teachers and parents that say to their students or children that whatever they are teaching is not theory but from their experience and even the lessons drawn from experience may not necessarily be right ...

In both cases there is no conflicts in the mind .

There is a saying ... the people who are not in conflict are the ones that dont follow their mind ... and there are two kinds of people who do that ... One who are mad ... and second who have realized the futility of the mind ... the rest you and me are still seeing the world through the vagaries of the mind ... It is these people who are in conflict ...

But in your case you cannot form a particular line of thought right ? Thats what i understood . And that is why its hard to teach something which you are in conflict with .


Yes it is hard to teach something that one is in conflict with ... infact it is more harder to tell the other about the conflict as well ...

Which means whatever path your son chooses to take you will always be in conflict of interest with him ..


His conflicts will never be my conflicts ... It is always possible that children turn to me more mature than their parents .. most of the time it is the case ... but that does not imply that they dont have their conflicts ... People still see the world through their mental thoughts/feelings/emotions screen ... this by itself will be the source of conflicts ...

I dont know what are the chances of my conflicts being the same or different than him ...

But one thing I know, it is all because of the mind ... Atleast a pointer in this direction would bring both to a common platform where acceptance would be the key instead of resolutions ... because there is no way I can resolve his conflicts ... he has to do it himself ... but then that starts with the identification of the root cause ... A pointer in that direction with a firm conviction is definetly possible ...

[echarcha]

Baba bhai log, yeh bahut high level thinking ka thread hain. For me its simple - jihaadis are terrorists. Terrorism today, and has been for quite some time, equated to Islam and its not wrong. All terrorist problems throughout the world have Muslims at the root of it.

Chalo, before I get clobbered by such high level thinking, let me get out of here ;)

[JaiSpeaks]

His conflicts will never be my conflicts ... It is always possible that children turn to me more mature than their parents .. most of the time it is the case ... but that does not imply that they dont have their conflicts ... People still see the world through their mental thoughts/feelings/emotions screen ... this by itself will be the source of conflicts ...

I dont know what are the chances of my conflicts being the same or different than him ...

But one thing I know, it is all because of the mind ... Atleast a pointer in this direction would bring both to a common platform where acceptance would be the key instead of resolutions ... because there is no way I can resolve his conflicts ... he has to do it himself ... but then that starts with the identification of the root cause ... A pointer in that direction with a firm conviction is definetly possible ...

But isnt there a line where you need to define where acceptance begins . I mean what if he decides bullying is right . Would you accept it because you are supposed to not be in conflict with him .

[landyaBhai]

But isnt there a line where you need to define where acceptance begins . I mean what if he decides bullying is right . Would you accept it because you are supposed to not be in conflict with him .


There is no line ... and definetly not a straight line ... bullying is an action that presupposes a certain bent of mind ... besides this I dont know where I should stretch the line ...

I did not say that I cannot be in conflict with him.... infact what I think is people should be accepting of each other's conflicts ... yes they are free to react to whatever they are subjected to in the name of that conflict ... So if somebody hits you, there is a number of ways you can respond, depending upon the situation ... Unfortunately, I am not in a position to answer what I would do ... Plus, personally I feel that children learn from their parents ... they are quick learners ... The imposition of ideas never works, but ideas based upon actions do acts as teachers ... I feel parents can set examples which the child will readily follow ... However, there is not much one can do at a later stage in life regarding conflicts ...