Non-violence does not mean being good to others or turning the other cheek; this is a naïve interpretation of non-violence. In fact, non-violence does not have much to do with the "other" at all. It is actually about self-knowledge. If you know yourself, then you’re not afraid. And if you’re not afraid, you don’t treat the other as the "other" at all. With this realization, do what you must—this is non-violence.
This summary is AI-generated. Please read the full article for complete understanding.
Questioner: The Sikh Gurus gave swords to the Khalsa to protect their religion. Gandhi Ji used non-violence to get freedom for the Indians. Jainism, too, gives a lot of emphasis to non-violence. I don’t understand the concept of non-violence in this context. Kindly give me clarity.
Acharya Prashant: Non-violence is not synonymous with non-resistance or cowardice. Violence is fear. Fear is ignorance. It’s obvious. When you do not know yourself, then you somehow want your own limited, physical, personal security at the cost of everybody else, at the cost of the entire universe. This division is fear and violence.
“I take myself as what I am not: I take myself as this little physical unit. I take my personal welfare as separate from that of universal welfare. In fact, I take my personal interests as opposite to the interests of others.” This is fear, and this is violence.
When you are afraid, then you want to increase your welfare by decreasing the welfare of others, what is these days called a zero-sum game. You say, “I as a unit am different, rather separate from you as a unit, and there is this one piece of bread in between the two of us. If I want to ensure my welfare, then I must deny this piece to you.” This is violence. Do you see how fear and violence go together? “I am afraid for my personal welfare, so I want to have the piece of bread for myself. And because I want to have it for myself, I want to forcibly deny it to you.” This is violence.
