Violence is not the nature of man; it is the impression of his past. Violence is man’s conditioning, which was unavoidable through the process of his evolution from beastly life. The beast is to be pardoned because violence is unavoidable in its life. Man cannot be pardoned, because violence is his choice.
Violence is inevitable for beasts; it is a responsibility for man and becomes historical memory. We can take a decision to be violent or nonviolent. That is why when a human being takes the decision to be violent, no beast can compete with him. Really, no beast can be as violent as a man can be, because a beast is violent by nature while man becomes violent by planning. So, even after a thorough search among beasts, we cannot get such violent beasts as Genghis Khan, Timur, Nader Shah or Hitler. Interestingly, no animal except man commits atrocities against its own fellow-members.
If an Indian wolf is left near a Pakistani wolf, it will not harm the other, but to keep an Indian man near a Pakistani man is full of danger. Linguists say this is perhaps due to difference in language. They say, as wolves across the border speak no language -- the Pakistani wolf does not speak Urdu and the Indian wolf does not speak Hindi -- so they do not know they are ‘foreigners’. But a man from one province becomes a ‘foreigner’ in another province. If what linguists say is correct and I feel there is truth in it, we shall be compelled one day to make man speechless — silent — so as to make him a human being.
Man is rational only in the sense that he rationalises his follies; he is not rational in any other sense. Aristotle did say that man is a rational animal but the history of man up till now does not prove it. History has disproved Aristotle. Man seems intelligent only in one thing and it is this, he is trying to rationalise his follies. Even when he kills someone he rationalises his action. He says I shall have to kill him because he is a Muslim; he is a Hindu, he is not an Indian, he is a Pakistani and so on. Is it sufficient cause for being killed -- your nationality or the religion you follow?
Man finds out a cause to kill, such as: ‘this man is rich, he should be killed, this man is a communist, he should be killed’. When old causes become worthless, new ones are found out. It could be dividing the rich and poor or encouraging class divisions. So 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 we understand the violence of man we shall see that man becomes violent without any cause. So violence is his choice and that is why no animal can become as cruel and violent as man can be. To be violent is simply the nature of animals, it is not their choice. That is why, among humans, there can be a Nadir Shah on the one hand and on the other hand, you find a Mahavira. Nonviolence is not the choice of animals but man has to make a choice of nonviolence. (Abridged from The Perennial Path: The Art of Living, courtesy Osho International Foundation, www.osho.com).
COMMENT