Hello Viswa, why didn’t the father talk with his daughter first? He could have reached her far more easier than the politican? What do you call “use as a toy” ? If Mr. Z has political influence and money, It will not matter much, what the daughter will say at court. I think she has the right to refuse to give evidence. She should talk with her laywer what’s best for her father in that case. It is her father not her husband. He has no right to mix in her liasons, he could talk to her about his findings about Mr. Z, that’s all.
The anger of the father arises because the situation is not what he wishes, what should be, so there is anger.
Exactly. He wants her daughter to be safe. This is ‘what-should-be’ and this arises from attachments (which he thinks as love - because the ‘love’ as per K - has no ‘what-should-be’)
That’s the problem with ‘anger/self/ego’ - which is grown from ‘attachments/beliefs/idea/images’. So to sit and inquire/discuss about these is blocked by this ‘I’.
I think you know what I mean. Using her for his ‘desires’ where he plays safe and acts like a ‘loveable’ person.
Yes. And so Mr. X killed him.
Not at all. Logically/ based on humanity - you are right. But legally it’s against the act.
Why should she do that? - Does she ‘wants’ her father more than providing justice to Innocent children and wife of Mr. Z. So this implies, she could understand only her father’s pain but not Mr. Z’s family’s pain? - Does she is fragmented/attached here?
I will put this simple here,
- Mr. Z is a politician and also a husband and father for two children.
- He uses ‘Ms. Y’ for his desires.
- Mr. X came to know about this and shot him dead.
- Mrs. Z and her children becomes helpless now (say the ‘money’ which is in black - which Mrs. Z is not aware of and is taken by other politicians and Mr.Z is an opposing party politician) and their family becomes poorer.
- Mrs. Z files a plea in Court for justice.
- Mr. X - to save his life/fame - seeks a lawyer and they ‘frame up a story’ - as in the basis of humanity what Mr. X done to save her daughter is right - but legally it’s wrong - as one must have approached the court - and should not take the law/rights in their own hands to punish others.
- Ms. Y could understand both the pain of her father’s and Mrs. Z.
- So what should Ms. Y should say in the court?
Understanding something does not mean finding it okay. So she should say the truth.
But, if she says the truth - her father may be hanged to death or life time imprisoned. Her father spent his whole life preserving her, dedicated her, she is his everything. Is this the love she shows her father in return?
But, if she says the truth - her father may be hanged to death or life time imprisoned
It sounds like the case is clear and he will be convicted anyway. It’s not good for a society if policemen/persons in sudden uncontrolled anger use their weapons to take the law in their hands.
I think you’re familiar with Krishnamurtis statements concerning love. One of his questions in this case could be: Is it really love to kill the lover of his daughter in anger? Does she owe him something for his kneejerk reaction, did this incidence have something to with her at all?
This is a sick kind of love.
To me this kind of anger flaring up is a legacy of human society, which is attached to ideals, to visions of “what should be”. And holding those ideals dearer than" what is", and even kill for them.
It is our responsibility to recognize this violent heritage and understand the reasons for it. It is the “love” of the fatherland that allows soldiers to torture and kill thousands who do not belong to that fatherland. That’s a tainted kind of love or no love as K. might have put it.