Violence or non-Violence?
Again the age old fight between violence and non violence. It is a fight itself. As Bruce Lee said...we should be like water, flexible enough to take the shape of anything and strong enough to break a dam even. it depends upon the way one takes the things, which varies from person to person. We are not flexible enough to listen to others philosophy. Like Swamiji said once "why we disagree”. We are sitting in our well and taking it as the whole world. We deny others perspective of views. Violence or non violence, both are needed as I think, it depends upon the situation which one is the best possible solution. No way is complete without the exact opposite way. Good-bad, black-white, man-woman...even matter-antimatter. The circle is completed when an opposite thing is found for something. So ...ask yourself which one comes handy. Of course in front of the person double of my size, I will try to be a non-violent person, teaching him the same. In front of a person half of my size; I can be violent enough to teach him some manners first. Sometimes it is needed to practice violence to keep non-violent environment. If only non-violence could suffice the need, no country would need their army. And there is a term called crusade. Which we see in all the great epics that peace only can be established after perishing the enemy of mankind. And the terms like war, fight precede the action known as perishing as we all know. So in my opinion both are needed to balance the act we call living.