again, i see perfectly what you are saying. and i agree to it to a great extent. i was in the same school until recently. well, in fact i am still part of it, i guess. but here is my current thought. i will not swear an allegiance to any "label" per se. i don't care about the labels. what you say about nepali society and religious fundamentalism is true. if you put it that way. but then again, there is that everliving gap between theory and reality, and that is the gray we talk about. in principle, i agree to change. and i do not embrace change just because it is inevitable. sometimes, i do believe in change for change's sake. but not all the time. no, i cannot support change for mere change's sake all the time. sure, there are modifications needed all the time, and that is the process of evolution. but i do not believe in regressing. and sometimes i feel some changes are for the worse, that they will make things not as good as before. well, i don't want change in those cases. rationality - whether budhha was right or wrong is another discussion - comes from wanting the best for one and for all. it does not align itself with radicalism. for one thing radicalism is painful. for another it is not always useful. and for the very same reason, the labels "conservative", "liberal", "radical" pigeonhole ideas, people etc. that perhaps should not be. in sum, i find it easier to say i am for or against a certain idea, a certain issue, rather than a certain sect, a certain organization, a certain label.