This blog springs from an conversation which I had with an old man. It is about the age old question, Guilt and consiousness. Everyone at some point in his life, has surely had his subconsious pook at him. It may about something which he did or about to do.
Say, the subject of this discussion allegorically is a theif, and my old uncle is sure that the theif would feel the guilty at some point in his life. Many of you agree would here. I wont, say it is Robin hood for theif or the murder, that psycopath of SAW for murderer, these guys after all the loot and gore they did, can go about the rest of their life of retirement in merriment and would enjoy as many creature comforts they can afford, wont they.
It may sound crazy, but many can repent on their good deeds as well as any Shakal or Diablo. If we deduce that the good deed had done more bad than good, or relatively the good has not been really good and had the good deed not been done it would have been good deed. Example you helped an old man cross the road and that jolly old fellow merrily steps into the arrack shop on the other side of the village highway or practically you did not return the 100 rupees which your freind lost and didn’t even know about that. DISK kid and those 100 could have been stolen money.
So I say repentance is instability of the human mind and consiousness only our alter-ego mocking at us, which may result in indigestion, disgression, sociopathy or saintliness. And all the scenarious though representing tangential behaviour equally likely.
But how to explain this ideas to a man, who is sixty and who is very likeable and whose modesty can sometimes crush your lucidity in its own vortex of catchwords and phrases ?
And I finally wriggle out, with this classic, can differ but still both be right.