violence - krishnamurti

[sweetwater]

VIOLENCE'
Krishnamurti: The intention of these discussions is to be creatively
observant - to watch ourselves creatively as we are speaking. All of
us should contribute to any subject that we want to discuss and
there must be a certain frankness - not rudeness or a rough
exposing of another's stupidity or intelligence; but each one of us
should partake in discussing a certain issue with all its content. In
the very statement of anything that we feel, or inquire into, there
must be a sense of perceiving something new. That is creation, not
the repetition of the old, but the expression of the new in the
discovery of ourselves as we are expressing ourselves in words.
Then I think these discussions will be worthwhile.
Questioner (1: Can we go more deeply into this question of
energy and how it is wasted?
Questioner (2: You have been talking about violence, the
violence of war, the violence in how we treat people, the violence
of how we think and look at other people. But how about the
violence of self-preservation? If I were attacked by a wolf, I would
defend myself passionately with all the forces I have. Is it possible
to be violent in one part of us and not in another?
Krishnamurti: A suggestion has been made with regard to
violence, distorting ourselves to conform to a particular pattern of
society, or morality; but there is also the question of selfpreservation.
Where is the demarcation between self- preservation
- which sometimes may demand violence - and other forms of
violence? Do you want to discuss that?
Audience: Yes.
Krishnamurti: First of all may I suggest that we discuss the
various forms of psychological violence, and then see what is the
place of self-preservation when attacked. I wonder what you think
of violence? What is violence to you?
Questioner (1: It's a type of defence.
Questioner (2: It's a disturbance of my comfort.
Krishnamurti: What does violence, the feeling, the word, the
nature of violence mean to you?
Questioner (1: It is aggression.
Questioner (2: If you are frustrated you get violent.
Questioner (3: If man is incapable of accomplishing something,
then he gets violent.
Questioner (4: Hate, in the sense of overcoming.
Krishnamurti: What does violence mean to you?
Questioner (1) An expression of danger, when the ,me, comes
in.
Questioner (2: Fear.
Questioner (3) Surely in violence you are hurting somebody or
something, either mentally or physically.
Krishnamurti: Do you know violence because you know nonviolence?
Would you know what violence was without its
opposite? Because you know states of nonviolence, do you
therefore recognize violence? How do you know violence?
Because one is aggressive, competitive, and one sees the effects of
all that, which is violence, one construes a state of non-violence. If
there were no opposite, would you know what violence was?

[Steve Plonk]

If a tree fell in the forest, & there was nobody there, would it make a sound?

[Arcadia]

The intention of these discussions is to be creatively
observant - to watch ourselves creatively as we are speaking. All of
us should contribute to any subject that we want to discuss and
there must be a certain frankness - not rudeness or a rough
exposing of another's stupidity or intelligence; but each one of us
should partake in discussing a certain issue with all its content. In
the very statement of anything that we feel, or inquire into, there
must be a sense of perceiving something new.

Krishnamurti said that?, it sounds good!

[Jacob]

on "knowing violence because you know nonviolence," I feel it's more a matter of Law vs. Chaos than anything. We know peace because it is simple, explained, and sound (Law). Violence because it is pure emotion, illogical, and unpredictable (Chaos). We can throw out the moral implications altogether, because what's "evil" or "good" is always being redefined. With that in mind, we know that either type of living, be it Law or Chaos, leads to death in the long run. We all know the road of complete wanton behavior, but living in complete peace is just as bad. No? A complete embrace of Law would mean no expression or differing thought...as we are all doing on this forum. No talks, no desire, nothing. Don't know about you, but I like to dance now and then, so...