---
section: Library
booktitle: "The Perennial Path: The Art of Living"
booktype: "Translations"
bookcode: "PPATH"
dategiven: "10 November 1970 am"
place: " in"
chapternum: "Chapter #2"
chaptertitle: "Source of violence in man"
acode: "7011100"
shorttitle: "PPATH02"
audio: "No"
video: "No"
esttime: ""
displaytitle: "The Perennial Path: The Art of Living: Chapter #2"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->


There would not be any difference if a person sitting in his cave on a dark night of the last day of the dark half of the months keeps his eyes closed or open. There will be darkness even if the eyes are closed or open. But there would be difference if that person keeps on sitting with his eyes closed when morning comes, the sun is rising, the rays the of the sun are falling on the door of the cave and birds begin to sing. There was no difference when the eyes were closed or open in the darkness of night. And the darkness of the night was not responsible for that man's condition. The situation was that there was darkness. But when the sun has risen if the man keeps on sitting with his eyes closed and sees darkness, it will be his responsibility for seeing the darkness. If he wishes, he can open his eyes and be free from darkness.


The animal's life is like the dark night of the lost day of the dark half of the month. There is no possibility of self-knowledge in that condition.


Animals have no knowledge of self-existence, there is no alternative for them, there is no freedom to know themselves, there is no possibility for this. So it cannot be said that animals are responsible for self-ignorance. They are in a dark night and are not responsible for the darkness. That is why no fault can be attributed to them if they do not go in search of self-knowledge; but man has passed through that journey of animal world and has entered the world of consciousness where there is Sun's bright light, and if any man remains in darkness then no one but he alone is responsible for it.


lf we are ignorant of self-knowledge it is due to our eyes being closed. It is not our natural state, it is our choice. There is light on all sides. In the journey of his evolution, man is standing at that place from where he can know himself. In spite of this, if he does not know himself who else but him is responsible for it? This does not mean that man is the creator of self-ignorance. No, self-ignorance is there, but if man does not try to destroy it, then the responsibility is his. He is not the creator of self-ignorance, but can become its destroyer; does not try to become so, so the responsibility lies on his head. If man prefers to remain self-ignorant, it will be his decision, he has kept his eyes closed. There is now no dearth of light.


I just now remembered a very famous and rare statement of Sartre. Sartre's sentence is 'Man is condemned to be free'. Man is not free. He is helpless in this matter. Man has got all kinds of freedom except one choice and that is to choose not to choose'. He cannot choose at all 'not to choose'. Except this, he will have to make all other choices. That is why he cannot choose not to choose, because that also will be a choice. Man has to make choices every moment. Manhood has a journey. Man is outside the responsibility of God. Man is out of this circle from where he is free to make a choice. Now if I am ignorant of the knowledge of self it is my choice, and if I have the knowledge of self it is also my choice. If I am miserable or happy it is my choice.


Man cannot be free from his responsibility. Now, as a human being, man's responsibility will go on increasing every moment. This responsibility is Man's dignity -- his prestige. It is also his humanity. Man's thoughts make his individuality, his decision is his destiny, his intention is his longing, it is his own creation. So now none should even mistakenly think, 'What can I do in what I am?.' As soon as he says 'what can I do?' he declares his inability to do it. One who refuses to choose, refuses also to be a human being. What is, is. After taking wine, man goes back to the animal world. After committing violence, he returns to the animal world. On becoming angry, he goes back to the animal world. So, if you look at a person filled with anger, you will see a human form only but not the soul of a man. If you look at angry eyes, you will not see man's eyes, but a different form of eyes. There comes a beast in his eyes which was hidden within. So when in anger or in becoming violent, man acts like a beast -- he cuts, he shouts, he hacks. Man's nails have now become very short as there was not much need of them. Wild beasts have got such nails which can drag out bones and flesh of their prey.


For millions of years man did not need to use his nails to drag out flesh and bones, so they became shorter and shorter. Then man had to manufacture knives, spears and swords. These are substitutes by which he does the work of beasts. His teeth are not such so as to cut the flesh and bring it out. So man made deadly weapons and other tools and bullets which can penetrate men's chests. All the weapons, tools and missiles invented by man are to substitute his lost past beasthood. They are supplementaries. We have not got what beasts have, so we have to make their substitutes, and they are undoubtedly better than those of beasts.


Has any beast got the atom bomb? Has any beast the means and contrivance to throw bombs hundreds of miles away? No, beasts have got only the nature-given tools. Making use of his intelligence, man has produced that thing which cannot be produced even by the mass of millions of animals. This action is man's own choice. The day on which any person sees clearly that it is his own responsibility for what he is, his transformation and evolution begin on that very day. The door to religion can never open in the life of that person who thinks, what I am, I am; nothing is in my control, I am helpless. The understanding of this fact that I am responsible for my destiny. I am the person to decide my fate, transforms man's life. So I said that man is responsible for his ignorance of self-knowledge. He is responsible in the sense that he can remove his ignorance but does not do so. He can be a free man but does not become free.
<p class="sutra">SUBLIMATION OF VYASANAS BY MEDITATION</p>


The desire for violence, is not solitary. Suppression of many desires is also linked with it. The desire for violence is already there; there is a longing to commit violence, but there is no scope for it on many occasions. We wish to commit violence but are unable to do it, because our civilization, culture, way of life, circumstances and adverse situations come in our way. It is difficult to find out a person who has not, at one moment or another, thought of killing someone. It is also difficult to find a person who has not thought of at one moment or another to commit suicide. If the thought did not occur in the day time it might have occurred in a dream at the night. But all persons do not kill others and all persons do not commit suicide. They think and think, but due to adverse situations, murders and suicides do not take place. But when once the desire for violence rises in the mind and it is not possible to put it into practice, the desire persists and the force of the desire is checked outwardly. This goes on accumulating. The desire for violence remains within, and along with it, acts of violence not committed and also fresh desires to commit violence are collected together. The desires thus collected are not of one birth but of many births. We go on living, birth after birth, with this collection with us. Desires are with us, there is also a suppressed flow of longings with us.


Desire creates a new flow force on one side, on the other side, collection of old forces go on increasing and then there is a possibility of an explosion at any moment. It is therefore necessary to understand two things to be free from desire and from violence. Dissolution of desire for violence and also the dissolution of suppressed flow are equally essential. If the desire for violence goes away new forces of violence are not created in future. Mahavira has used a very fine word for catharsis. We call it purgation which is called catharsis by the western psychologists.


Mahavira has called it withering away. It is a wonderful word, means the falling of a thing. It is the scattering of a thing which has been collected. It means to separate a thing by throwing away dust particles collected on it. Many such forces of suppressed desires are lying collected within us. It is only in meditation that catharsis of these forces can be done. There is no other way for the catharsis of man's suppressed forces. How is it done in meditation?


If you perform a small experiment when there is a desire in your mind to box someone, you will be much perplexed. i am not joking about that experiment. A big science laboratory in America is working on this experiment. There is Esalen Institute in California. There is a very great sage-Rishi in America at present. His name is Pearse. He puts bandages on the eyes of those who have a strong desire to commit violence in their minds. Then he keeps pillows in front of them and asks them to go on boxing the pillows as if they are enemies. He says, 'Beat him whom you wish to beat.' At first, the man laughs and says, 'how can I beat a pillow?' But there is no difference in beating another person and a pillow. It makes no difference in the poison produced in the blood while striking any person and striking a pillow. What is more in another person than in a pillow? So Pearse would ask his violent patient to strike the pillow. At first, the patient would laugh but Pearse asks him not to laugh and start striking. The patient would ask him if he (Pearse) was making fun of him. Pearse would say 'There is a little fun in it, but go on beating'. The patient would start beating the pillow and in a short time persons standing there would be surprised to see not only his speed in beating, not only his way of thrashing it, not only showing his enmity against the pillow but his tearing it into shreds, and biting it with his mouth. He would tear the pillow into many pieces. Those who underwent this experiment say the mind became very light after the experiment. The mind was never so light before.


What does Pearse say? He says when you have the violence let out with a purpose against someone, it is exhausted. Now show your violence against air, don't show it against any person, because there will be reaction if it is let out against someone. If I box someone, it will not be lost in the sky, the sky will not absorb it. The person whom I box will react. He may react today, or tomorrow or in future. He may wait but he will surely react. If I box someone and if he happens to be a person like Buddha or Mahavira he may not react, but as soon as I box him, there will be reaction and repentance in his mind also. Bear in mind, anger alone is not bad, repentance is equally bad.


Repentance is anger upside-down. In fact when a person repents, he does nothing else except to start the preparation to become angry. When a man repents and says, 'It was very bad, I became angry', he is trying to persuade himself 'I am not so bad a person; I acted wrongly once, but it is not very important.' Thus by repenting man tries to re-establish himself as a good man. He is re-establishing his old mind from his own viewpoint. and when he is thus re-established, he will be ready to box someone. Again there will be repentance and again a box. In this way the vicious circle of anger and repentance will go on revolving. So when we strike somebody, there follows not only repentance but there is also a preparation to reply to the attack from another person.


Thus violence would create a vicious circle, and it becomes difficult to come out of it. But when a person is striking a pillow, this does not happen. In striking a pillow, catharsis takes place. So, Pearse is asking us to strike a pillow, because the present world in which we live has become very objective. Mahavira flourished 2500 years ago. He would have said, 'Strike the air, where is the necessity of a pillow?' But we would object to it and ask, 'Strike the air? A pillow can be punished. At least, it looks like the back or the stomach of man. When we box or strike a pillow, we feel we have touched somebody. The pillow will also react, though a little.


In 2500 years after the death of Mahavira, the world has become objective. The meditation which Mahavira has talked about, does not require even a pillow. No pillow is necessary in the meditation about which I talk too. But it would perhaps be difficult in America to box-to-strike-without a pillow. There should be some object. If no human being is there, let there be a pillow. Mahavira would prohibit us to strike even a pillow. He would tell Pearse there is some -- a little -- violence committed in this action. One who strikes a pillow projects his enemy in that pillow. There is no enemy receiving the beating, but the striker is enjoying beating and is taking interest in it. This interest also will keep the flow of violence more or less going.


Complete catharsis of violence cannot take place in this method. So people having undergone the treatment in Pearse's laboratory, will return to him in about six months' time and will say, 'Violence has again accumulated in our minds.' Now they will again require a pillow and will have to strike it again.


The process of meditation asks us to leave aside anxiety of anything, one has to practise subjective violence. Objective violence means not to commit violence with ourselves, and subjective violence means simply to let go violence. Impulses of violence suppressed within a person's mind will disappear, when he is practising meditation, shouts aloud, boxes somebody, or jumps and dances. After an hour's experiment on any day, you can experience this fact, that your suppressed impulses have disappeared and you having been lightened, have come out of your room. And on that day, you will not be able to be angry as easily as you had been yesterday. You will not be able to box anybody so easily as you had done always. The same reasons which made your eyes red-hot yesterday, will make them green like the water of a lake today. And you will begin to laugh at yourself, thinking that due to the violence which can be purged thus, you gave pain to others and created a vicious circle.


Once Mahavira was standing near a village, at that time some persons came there and beat him severely. Somebody pushed nails in his ears. He was just standing and looking. After some time, somebody asked him, 'Did you not say anything?' You should have said something, you should have at least asked them why they were beating you unnecessarily. Then Mahavira replied, 'they were not beating me unnecessarily, there must be some reason within them to beat me. It is possible, the reason may not be concerning me, but there must be some cause within them. And I also thought it is better they beat me, because if they beat someone else, they cannot go back without getting a proper reply. It is difficult to find out a better person than I to purge their violence on.' Mahavira behaved like a pillow with those persons.


Meditation is purgation, it is catharsis. Meditation means, let that which is taking place within, come out without any purpose. That process of coming out will not be on anybody, but it will be in a void. It is to be dedicated to the void.


Examine this by performing a small experiment when you become angry. Shut yourself up in a closed room and be angry. Be as angry as you can in that empty room. You will laugh a lot because the whole thing will look very absurd. You have always become angry with others, but when you examine it in solitude, you will find that it is becoming more difficult to be angry with others. On the first occasion you will laugh in solitude, and on the second occasion you will laugh on becoming angry with others. Keep a mirror in the room and be as angry as you can, and see how you look in it. Then you will realise that this kind of madness you cannot do even in solitude because it makes you laugh. And then imagine what kind of a picture you will create in the minds of a company of some people by becoming angry. If you wish to break the mirror, you may do so, and standing in that destruction, see what kind of poison there is within you. These poisons will be purged, it will be their catharsis. After this catharsis you will br able to see your violence. To be free from violence, it is inevitable to see violence.
<p class="sutra">VIOLENCE VIS-A-VIS SEXUAL ENJOYMENT</p>


From the time of Rashabha to that of Parshva, religion had four slogans; or you can say, the chariot of religion had four wheels, or you can say religion had four legs. Religion was a four-wheeled vehicle. Mahavira added one more slogan, that of celibacy No predecessor of Mahavira up to Parshva made celibacy a religious slogan. It is a very interesting and a matter worth understanding. This will be found wonderful that thinkers and wise men from Rishabha to Parshva did not include celibacy in slogans of religion. Up to Parshva, it was thought that one who attained nonviolence would observe celibacy without any effort. It was thought so because sex itself is a very deep-subtle form of violence. Why is sex called violence? It is essential to understand four slogans in this connection, and it will also be proper to think about why Mahavira considered celibacy as a separate slogan.


Mahavira's name is very intimately connected with nonviolence. No other name is so much connected with it. But you will be surprised to know that Mahavira had to separate celibacy from nonviolence. The whole reason why he did this was -- that the persons whom Mahavira was addressing were unable to understand violence in its deepest sense, they could understand only the upper layer of nonviolence. As long as one understands nonviolence at the superficial level, one cannot realize that there is violence in sex also. When one understands the deep and subtle nature of nonviolence, one realizes that sexual desire is also one form of violence. But this point was not raised, was not discussed till the time of Parshva, because nonviolence was being understood in its deepest sense by the people. Why was it so?


There are two or three matters to be understood with regard to this. As I told you, when a person begins to love another, it is proved that he is unhappy. It is like this: when a person says he will get happiness from another person, it is decided that this person is miserable. It is impossible that a person who could not get happiness from himself, would get it from another person. He will get delusion, not happiness, he will get deception, not the truth; he can see dreams but will weep when he wakes up. The desire for another is a positive proof that one hasn't yet got the key to happiness. And there cannot be any sexual enjoyment without the desire for another.


Sex is hidden in the desire for another so it is also violence, moreover it is also violence because the semen particles a person has got are all living full of life. A person is making use of these semen particles during sexual intercourse throughout his life. All those semen particles which go out die within two hours after sexual intercourse. And if a few semen particles enter a woman's ovary, they start on a journey of a new life and the rest of the particles die within two hours. Thus millions of semen particles die in one sexual intercourse. These semen particles are lives in seed form. Each particle has the potentiality of becoming an individual, a person. So there is already a massacre -- killing of millions of persons in one sexual intercourse. And this killing of millions of persons is violence.


It is essential to bear in mind the third point. Those who have understood nonviolence in its true and deep sense will say, the individual for whom there is a possibility of being born or the one whom you have given birth, is created by you to die. Really speaking, birth is the beginning of death. If birth is one end of life, the other end would be death. If a father is considered responsible for the birth of child, he is taking only half the responsibility. Whose responsibility will it be for death? If a mother takes the responsibility of birth, she is assuming only half the responsibility Whose responsibility will it be for the death? When the father or the mother assumes responsibility for the birth, it becomes a dishonest transaction. Then what about the responsibility for death?


Therefore, a fully nonviolent mind (or person) is unable to assume the responsibility of becoming a father or a mother. There is a deep reason for that. Such a mind is incapable of becoming the cause -- the instrument -- of anybody's death. To give birth to a child becomes the cause of death of that child. It makes no difference if death comes after seventy years. This time element makes no difference. So the whole thing comes to this: the semen particles which come out due to sexual intercourse and which die within two hours are sure to die, and those which are saved will also die after seventy or eighty years. Sexual enjoyment goes on producing death though it looks like giving birth. This is the sole deception of life, that 'death' is written on the back door of life. When you enter life, you get in looking at the gate of birth, but when you go out of life, you get out from the gate of death. This is the deception of life that 'happiness' is written on the first or the entrance door, and 'unhappiness' is written on the back door. You enter life in hope of happiness but when you get out, you are frustrated, perplexed and mad with unhappiness.


I have heard a funny story: A man in New York had collected many wonderful things and had kept them in a museum. The things were so attractive and wonderful that those who were going there to see them, kept on gazing at them and were not willing to go out from the museum. And as long as they did not get out other visitors wishing to buy tickets stood at the gate There was no question of their entrance. Then there was a great difficulty in managing the whole show. At last visitors inside were asked to go out because the visitors outside were continuously tapping on the door so that they might enter the hall. So the collector of curios found out a clever device to solve the difficulty. Perhaps he might have learnt this device of cleverness from nature. There were about ten to twelve halls in the museum. To guide visitors to go from one hall to another, a small board with an arrow was kept in each hall. There was a board with an inscription, 'There are other wonderful things', and an arrow pointing to the next hall. So this man played a trick and put the largest arrow on the board in the twelfth hall with an inscription, 'Please proceed further and see more wonderful things which you have never seen or heard about.' And when a person went out of this hall, he was directly put on a highway. Now it was impossible for him to turn back to the hall. There stood a watchman at the door. If one desired to enter the museum again, he had to buy a ticket and enter through the front door. From the day this board was placed there in the museum, there was no congestion because people were directly put on the highway in their curiosity to see wonderful things.


Once Lao Tse asked Confucious: 'Do you know of that age when people were so religious-minded that none talked about religion?' One has to talk about religion only in an irreligious society. Where is the need of talking about religion if people are religious-minded? No one else except a sick person talks about health. Generally the sick person himself becomes a doctor because he is discussing and talking about health and medicines. Such a person reads many magazines and pamphlets on health and books on Naturopathy. Sickness does not make the poor fellow so conscious as to forget it by discussing and talking about health. Similarly, an immoral society talks about morality; an amorous or sensual society talks about celibacy; a fallen society talks of their progress and a poor community talks about wealth. We discuss that matter which we haven't got. There was a lot of violence in the times of Mahavira, nonviolence was not understood in its depth, so he was compelled to discuss celibacy separately. Only the discussion about nonviolence was considered enough by Rishabha, and perhaps it was not necessary even to discuss it in the times before Rishabha. When violence grips the mind tightly discussion about nonviolence starts immediately. So I said sex is a kind of violence and absence of sex is the blooming of nonviolence.
<p class="sutra">SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY</p>


Sympathy has been looked upon as a very valuable attribute. It means you become unhappy and show your sorrow on seeing some one else unhappy. It also means 'to experience', that is to experience along with another. But the person who experiences unhappiness when the other is unhappy does never experience happiness when the other is happy. You show your feelings of sorrow and unhappiness if anybody's house catches fire, but you do not show happiness if some one else builds a big building. It is very important to understand this matter. What does this mean?


This means sympathy is a kind of deception. That sympathy is genuine when you experience unhappiness in the miseries of others and experience joy and happiness in the happiness of others. But we are able to experience or show unhappiness in another's unhappiness, though many a time we are unable to experience happiness in another's happiness. That is why, it will not be correct to say we are able to show sorrow when another is unhappy'. If we are able to be happy in the happiness of others, then and then only, would it be proper to show our sorrow in their unhappiness. On the contrary, we derive some pleasure in the unhappiness of others. We take some pleasure in another's difficulties. We become fully delighted in others' miseries. So when you go to show your sorrow in others' miseries, try to examine within you whether you derive some pleasure or not at that time.


In such a situation. one interesting thing is that you feel you are the person showing sympathy and the other is in a position to receive it. When that another person comes into the position of receiving sympathy he becomes a beggar and you become the donor effortlessly. When That person comes into the state of receiving your sympathy, you come into a patronising position and he becomes an humble or low person. And if you check up within your heart, you will find the presence of a kind of pleasure in showing your sorrow for his condition. You are sure to get it. And if you don't get it, you will be the person who can be completely happy in another's happiness. We become jealous of another's happiness, we are resentful. So, the other aspect of this matter tells us that we are unable to be unhappy in another's unhappiness, but we have been naming it 'sympathy'. I have been talking of this Kind of feeling which is generally known as sympathy. So I thought it proper to select another word empathy.


'Sympathy' is a false thing, it is deception And if we understand fully that if the sympathy of someone is genuine, that is, he experiences unhappiness in another's unhappiness and experiences happiness in another's happiness, even then it remains as violence, it cannot be nonviolence because as long as there is another, it cannot fulfil the conditions of nonviolence. Nonviolence is an experience of non-duality. It is the experience that apart from the other there is also I. It will certainly be violence if your experience of feeling unhappy on seeing another unhappy is false. And even if the feeling be true, I remain I and the other remains the other. The bridge between the two is not broken and there is no possibility of nonviolence. To know the other as the other is also violence. Why? Because I am living in ignorance as long as I consider the other as the other. In fact the other is not the other.


Empathy does not mean knowing that the other is becoming unhappy but it means I myself have become miserable. It is not knowing that the other has become happy, but it means I myself have become happy. It is not like this, that the moon is shining in the sky; but it is I too have been shining. It is not that the sun is rising but that I have risen. It is not that flowers have blossomed but it is I who have blossomed. Empathy means nonduality. Empathy means oneness. Nonviolence is oneness.


So, there are three states: one is false sympathy, which is violence, pure and simple; two, genuine sympathy which is a very subtle form of violence, and three, empathy which is nonviolence. It may be violence or a subtle form of violence; it may be genuine sympathy or false sympathy -- all these are happenings at the mental level. Empathy is a spiritual happening.


lt is never possible for us to be one on the mental level with someone else. My mind has a separate entity, your mind has a separate entity. My body has a distinct entity, your body has a distinct entity. It is not possible to have unity or oneness on a physical and mental level. Unity or oneness is possible only on the spiritual level, because we are already on the spiritual level. Just as the water in a pitcher sunk in water is the same as the water outside the pitcher, there is only an earthen wall of the pitcher between them. If that wall is broken, the two waters would become one.


There is a wall of mind and body which prevents us from meeting the other, which stops us from becoming one with another. We all are like earthen pitchers in the ocean of consciousness. Pitcher will be distinct and separate but that which is in it is not separate. One who experiences nonviolence, knows the Self, knows also that even though pitchers may be separate, the thing within them is one and the same. That experiencing of 'one' is nonviolence. Therefore, it cannot be sympathy because the other is necessary in sympathy. The other is not eliminated from it.


Sympathy is that which is beyond the mind. It is not in the mind or below it, but it is above and beyond the mind. And this happening which takes place beyond the mind is spiritual. Me alone can call it spiritual who knows what is in an atom is also there in the Universe. He alone can call it spiritual who knows that a drop of water and an ocean are one. One who has known one drop perfectly well has got nothing more to know about the ocean. When a drop is known the whole ocean is known. He has known the ocean within all who has known the drop within himself. Then he does not die because there is nothing left. Then that ego, that 'I' has disappeared because no 'thou' is seen there. As long as there is 'thou', there is 'I'. The pair of 'thou and I' is always together. Martin Boehme's book I AND THOU IS a very valuable book. According to Martin Boehme's idea, all the relationships of life are the relationships of 'I and thou'. But there is yet another world which is beyond 'I and thou'. There is another world of real life which is not of relationships but is of life-energy, of God, where there are no I and thou.


Empathy is the highest peak of spirituality, and sympathy is our temporary worldly practice. This sympathy is generally 99 per cent false. We do not simply deceive others but deceive ourselves also. And even if it is one per cent genuine, 'I' and 'thou' still remain Pitchers do remain there. And perhaps we peep from one pitcher into another also. And even then we do not have any idea that there is that 'One' between the two pitchers, that 'one is flowing between the two'.


I call that element empathy where there remains 'One' only, where there is not other. You may call it nonduality, or Brahma, or God, you can call it what you like. You can call it existence also. Life attains its highest peaks, its peak experiences where there is 'One' only. When 'thou and I' have fallen off, one realises that relationship of 'thou and I' is surely violence.


Life is a continuous flow, it is an unbroken stream, it is one, but we are unable to experience that oneness, because we have bu;lt ramparts around us, we have built our own walls, we have surrounded us from all sides, we have created boundaries, in fact they are not there. They are made by us and they are temporary. These boundaries exist nowhere. If we ask a man of spiritual eminence he would say the same thing. The spiritual person would say so because he has experienced the expansion of the soul, and the scientist would say so because he tried to Find out all boundaries, but could not see them anywhere.


lf you ask a scientist 'where does your body end?' he would reply 'it is difficult to answer the question. Does it end at bones? No, it does not end in bones, because there is flesh on the bones. Does it end in flesh? It does not end there because there is the covering of skin on it. Does it end at the layer of the skin? It does not end there because the layer of atmosphere is necessary outside it. If that is not there, there would be no bones, and no flesh. Does it end at the atmosphere layer? No, the atmosphere layer ends at two hundred miles above the earth. And if this atmosphere layer does not get the sun s rays, it would be no more there. The sun is one hundred million miles away from the earth. So does my body end at the skin? One hundred million miles away? Even our sun would be cold if it does not continuously get rays of light from great sunS. Then the question is, where does my body end?


The scientist says, we have investigated all the so-called boundaries, but we did not find them. The spiritualist says, when we looked within, we saw the limitless. The scientist talks in negative language; he says, there are no boundaries. The spiritualist talks in positive language; he says it is limitless. Both the statements mean the same thing. Today, religion and science stand very near each other. All their pronouncements stand very near one another. The scientist cannot say where our body ends. This body ends there where the Universe might be over.


I call this experience Empathy, when the stars are not far off, but when they begin moving within me, when I am not far off from them and I begin to dance on their rays. And when the waves of the ocean are not far from me, they become my waves; and when I am not far from them, I become a part of them. And when the flowers of trees become my flowers, the dried leaves fallen on the ground become my leaves, then I am not aloof from all these things. There is no greater delusion than the feeling of aloofness. To have the feeling of separateness is the greatest illusion, but we go on entertaining it.


To entertain such a feeling is useful, as there would be difficulty if it is not entertained. I cannot call it my wealth which is yours. Taking away your clothes, I cannot convert them into my clothes. Following worldly behaviour, your shop is not my shop, your building is not my building, though you would say 'everything is yours' when I am a guest in your house, but the statement is not to be taken seriously. So our purpose is served. But life is beyond such temporary arrangements. Such arrangements make certain indications and the worldly intercourse goes on. But one who considers such arrangements, such worldly intercourse as life, remains outside the great mysteries of life. Doors of the great palace of life do not open for him, there is no music of life-flute for him, the voice of God is not heard by him. In his pursuit of utility, he misses the life which is nondual, boundless and endless. One has to seek that nonduality beyond utility. It is to be investigated beyond my suggestions. It is to be sought after till it is achieved. Its achievement is called empathy by me. It is the nonviolence, it is the love, it is the nonduality, it is the liberation.
<p class="sutra">NONVIOLENCE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE</p>


Nonviolence is not social policy and law. If it is social tradition and law, it can never free itself from violence Nonviolence is not social, it is spiritual. If we make nonviolence a social law, then we may, some day, consider violence a necessity. And then it becomes such a disaster that violence will be considered necessary to protect nonviolence. Suppose a man commits violence against somebody, the court will commit violence -- punish him because he had committed violence. If a country -- a nation commits violence against another country, then the latter will react with violence against the former, because it is considered just to reply violence with violence.


To endure violence is injustice, and it is not proper to endure injustice. And the slogan of nonviolence, of which I am talking about is spiritual. And if we wish to discuss social nonviolence, there will always be a relative law of nonviolence also. It will accommodate both violence and nonviolence. These two will be mixed there, it will be like a Mixed Economy. Violence and nonviolence stand side by side here; only their aspects go on changing. Complete or total nonviolence is not possible on the social level. It is extremely difficult to achieve total nonviolence even on an individual level. It is not proper even to hope when we shall achieve it on a society level and a mass level. It is as improper as to hope for self-realisation on a society mass level .


It is not proper even to hope that all persons will achieve self-knowledge, because it is a matter of choice. If a person wishes to remain without self-knowledge, he cannot be compelled to achieve self-knowledge. There will always be freedom to achieve self-knowledge, there will be choice. We simply hope that gradually more and more persons may get self-knowledge, but there is one danger -- fear. I shall tell you about that also. He who achieves self-knowledge, cannot return to this society of ours. He does not return. There is no new birth for him, because desires, hope and wishes are necessary for a new birth. He whose desires have remained unfulfilled returns for a new birth in which he wishes to fulfil them.


If persons like Mahavira or Buddha return to one new birth, their one desire at least has remained unfulfilled and that was to tell others what they had known. That is also a desire in its true sense. If I have got something which I wish to tell others, I shall return. But that is also a desire, the final desire. But when that desire is crossed, how can one return? Those who achieve self-knowledge, disappear into the space. They become one with that great 'Cosmos', with that great 'Consciousness'. Those who do not achieve self-knowledge, return to the earth. That is why the society at times brings forth some flower of self-knowledge. Such a flower blossoms, fades away and its fragrance is lost in the sky, and then the society goes on as before. The society cannot be the knower of self-knowledge, it shall remain ignorant of that. But the flower of a self-realized person will go on blossoming, can go On blossoming and has been blossoming in the society ignorant of self-knowledge.


Nonviolence can never become a fact on the social level. Therefore those who have advocated nonviolence on the social level, have admitted the presence of violence; they will have to do so. Violence will continue. Then violence and nonviolence will be the two aspects of the society according to its necessity. There will be nonviolence when it is required, and there will be violence when i; is necessary and it will be adopted. When India was fighting for freedom, the freedom fighter was nonviolent. And when he got power, he became violent. It was possible to fight nonviolence for freedom because there was no scope to fight violently. But on achieving authority, the nonviolent fighter did not think of ruling nonviolently.


The English did not use their guns as much as these nonviolent people have done in this country. One who considers nonviolence a matter of policy, or a convenience of the society, will become violent if necessity arises. It will be a matter of convenience for him whether to be violent or nonviolent. But Mahavira can never be made violent under any circumstances. To him nonviolence is not a social policy or principle, it is a spiritual truth. It is not a matter of convenience for him so that he can be whatever he likes. It is the great destiny for him. Everything can be sacrificed for nonviolence; even the self can be sacrificed. But it is possible only for an individual to be such a nonviolent person. And if a society ever commits a mistake of turning nonviolent, it will simply be come cowardly, but cannot be nonviolent.


If a society thinks that it shall follow Mahavira's nonviolence, then there will emerge a nonviolent society. A nonviolent society is not possible. Only individuals can be The followers of Mahavira's nonviolence. So the society which tries to be nonviolent thinking that it follows Mahavira's nonviolence will simply be a cowardly society, and it will proclaim its cowardice as nonviolence. It will go on calling its lack of daring to commit violence as nonviolence. But if we scratch its skin a little, we shall find streams of violence flowing within. A coward is also a great violent person but he is so only mentally. So bear in mind, a society cannot be nonviolent, I do say that it is never possible. It is very difficult, it is impossible. Only an individual can be nonviolent. The nonviolence which I am talking about is not a social truth, it is an individual achievement.
			

> [!info]
> Copyright 1964-1990 Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)
>