Posted by: vishontar May 19, 2008
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Ramesh Dai,
Interesting question :)! I don't see things from only one angle because partial vision is unable to give us a complete picture. Prachanda, will always be a controversial figure in Nepali History. He is the man who perturbed the peace and stability of the nation on the one hand, on the other hand he has shaken the foundation of highly accustomed regressive culture. On the one hand he seems to be a cause of social inharmony, on the other hand he seems to be the one who ignited revolution for the social justice.
I will never support him for his armed revolution, I have been repeatedly saying it. His armed revolution was untimely. Tomorrow if historian justify him objectively, he will be considered to be a lucky man who got his fortune form an idiot king.
His 10 years of long revolution made him a terrorist where as his few days long peaceful protest made him a hero. This could have made him to realize the strength of the piece and he would have vowed for peace in Lumbini. People learn from their experience, however, Prachanda's experience was very costly for the nation.
Regarding the vow he as taken in Lumbini, it doesn't count because he is free to leave that vow at any time. The vow was not taken from strong will, he will change with situation, so will his vows. Tomorrow, if his opponents trouble him, he will retaliate; there go his vows to fetch water :).
Buddha taught to take vows, and protect them. I don't think that Prachanda's vow for peace meant anything for him. He just said that because it was the right thing to say in Lumbini. I think Prachanda didn't say so because he is now completely started to believe in non-violence.
I have no doubt that he want to bring change, so does other parties. However, he is fail to realize that he is a patient of his violent vision.
No one can be completely bad and completely wrong. I believe he is a good man from many angle, as well as bad man from many angles.
He has some qualities same as Buddha, for example: no discrimination and change for good.
He has some qualities which are completely against Buddha: violence, perhaps dishonesty, and cunningness.
There are many people in our country who silently suck the blood of weak people like leech. They think negative most of the time, and always look for the opportunity to do bad to satisfy their greed. These people never thinks for the welfare of anybody else other then them and their family. If Prachanda really things for the welfare of the oppressed people, he is better than these greedy leeches. If his so called revolution is just to get the power, he is worse than these leech.
After all Karma is mental intension.
Interesting question :)! I don't see things from only one angle because partial vision is unable to give us a complete picture. Prachanda, will always be a controversial figure in Nepali History. He is the man who perturbed the peace and stability of the nation on the one hand, on the other hand he has shaken the foundation of highly accustomed regressive culture. On the one hand he seems to be a cause of social inharmony, on the other hand he seems to be the one who ignited revolution for the social justice.
I will never support him for his armed revolution, I have been repeatedly saying it. His armed revolution was untimely. Tomorrow if historian justify him objectively, he will be considered to be a lucky man who got his fortune form an idiot king.
His 10 years of long revolution made him a terrorist where as his few days long peaceful protest made him a hero. This could have made him to realize the strength of the piece and he would have vowed for peace in Lumbini. People learn from their experience, however, Prachanda's experience was very costly for the nation.
Regarding the vow he as taken in Lumbini, it doesn't count because he is free to leave that vow at any time. The vow was not taken from strong will, he will change with situation, so will his vows. Tomorrow, if his opponents trouble him, he will retaliate; there go his vows to fetch water :).
Buddha taught to take vows, and protect them. I don't think that Prachanda's vow for peace meant anything for him. He just said that because it was the right thing to say in Lumbini. I think Prachanda didn't say so because he is now completely started to believe in non-violence.
I have no doubt that he want to bring change, so does other parties. However, he is fail to realize that he is a patient of his violent vision.
No one can be completely bad and completely wrong. I believe he is a good man from many angle, as well as bad man from many angles.
He has some qualities same as Buddha, for example: no discrimination and change for good.
He has some qualities which are completely against Buddha: violence, perhaps dishonesty, and cunningness.
There are many people in our country who silently suck the blood of weak people like leech. They think negative most of the time, and always look for the opportunity to do bad to satisfy their greed. These people never thinks for the welfare of anybody else other then them and their family. If Prachanda really things for the welfare of the oppressed people, he is better than these greedy leeches. If his so called revolution is just to get the power, he is worse than these leech.
After all Karma is mental intension.