Violence is not the nature of man; it is the acquisition of his past, itis the impression of his past. Violence is man's conditioning which wasunavoidable through the process of his evolution from beastly life.Beast is to be pardoned because violence is unavoidable in its life. Mancannot be pardoned, because violence is his choice; it is notinevitable when he chooses violence.
Violence is inevitable for beasts, it is a responsibility for man. It isa fact for beasts, for man it is merely a historical memory. It is thepresent for beasts, it is past for man. We have the choice in front ofus. Man can take a decision to be nonviolent; he can take a decision tobe violent also. That is why when a certain person takes a decision tobe violent, no beast can compete with him. Really, no beast can be asviolent as a man can be, because a beast is violent by nature while manbecomes violent by planning. So, even after a through search amongbeasts, we cannot get such violent beasts as Chengez Khan, or Taimur, orNadir, or Hitler. If we consult the history of beasts and ask them ifthey had parallel examples they would reply, 'We are very poor in that,we do not have any memory -- any record -- in this matter.' It is veryinteresting to know that no animal except man becomes atrocious towardsits own fellow-members. No animal kills another animal of its class,does not commit violence towards it. This distinguishing feature is alsothere in the violence of animals.
Man is the only animal who kills other men. It is interesting to knowthat if an Indian wolf is left near a Pakistani wolf, it will not harmthe other, but to keep an Indian near a Pakistani is full of danger.Language experts say this is perhaps due to difference in language. Theopinion of the linguists seems to be true. They say, as both the wolvesdo not speak any language, the Pakistani wolf does not speak Urdu andthe Indian wolf does not speak Hindi, so they do not know they areforeigners. But man from one province becomes a foreigner in anotherprovince. If what the linguists say is correct and I feel there is truthin it, we shall be compelled one day to make man speechless -- silent-- so as to make him a human being. Perhaps it would be difficult tocreate humanity without being speechless in the world.
Man is rational only in the sense that he rationalizes his follies, heis not rational in any other sense. Aristotle definitely said Man is arational animal but the history of man uptil now does not prove it.History has disproved Aristotle. Man seems intelligent only in one thingand it is this, he is trying to rationalize his follies. Even when hekills someone he rationalizes his action. He says I shall have to killhim because he is a Mohammedan; he is a Hindu, he is not an Indian, heis a Pakistani etc. As if it is a sufficient cause for being killed tobe a Pakistani or enough to kill a person if he is a Mohammedan.
Man finds out a cause to kill, such as this man is rich, he should bekilled, this man is a communist, he should be killed. When old causesbecome worthless, new ones are being found out: '' Let us find out newones. Let us start dividing them into the rich and the poor. Let us havea class-war."
Thus when man wants to commit violence, to kill, he conveniently finds out causes.
Animals never kill without a cause. I am telling you this that if weunderstand violence of man we shall see that man becomes violent withoutany cause. So violence is his choice and that is why no animal canbecome as cruel and violent as man can be. To be violent is simply thenature of animals, it is not its choice, that is why there can be aNadirshah and there can be a Mahavira among mankind. Nonviolence is notthe choice of animals but man has to make a choice of nonviolence.
The Perennial Path: The Art of Living #1
OSHO International.
Replies
thanks for this article
I enjoyed it
love all ways!