Acharya Prashant responds to a question about the argument of non-violence in the context of meat-eating. The questioner points out that if the life of an elephant and a chicken are equal, then the life of a chicken and bacteria should also be equal. Since we kill countless bacteria while breathing and in agriculture, she questions the right to criticize those who eat chicken and goat. Acharya Prashant begins by defining violence. He acknowledges that human existence itself involves the death of many small organisms. For instance, our skin, mouth, and digestive system are home to millions of microorganisms that are constantly living and dying. A human is not a single organism but a collection of countless small lives, and our existence is inextricably linked with theirs. Even simple actions like clapping, speaking, or turning in bed cause the death of these microorganisms. A human cannot survive without the bacteria in their intestines; if they perish, the human will too. Therefore, the definition of violence cannot simply be the act of one being causing the death of another, as that would make human existence itself an act of violence. He explains that violence is not merely about the act of killing. He uses the example of a lion in the jungle, which is never called violent. This is because the lion is naturally conditioned to eat meat and lacks the consciousness to choose an alternative. It is, in a way, a machine of nature. The word 'violence' can only be applied to a being that possesses the consciousness to think, understand, and make choices. A human is the only being in nature who can be either violent or non-violent because humans have the consciousness to think, meditate, and make decisions based on higher principles. Violence, he clarifies, occurs when your consciousness has the option of compassion, but you choose not to exercise it and instead kill another being for your own selfish reasons. The key elements are the availability of a choice and the motive behind the act. When you kill a goat or a chicken, it is violence because you have the alternative to live without killing them; you do it for the pleasure of taste, which is a petty self-interest. This is different from the unavoidable killing of bacteria while breathing or the death of plants for food, which are necessities for survival. Similarly, killing in self-defense when all other options are exhausted is not considered violence in the same vein. He also refers to the Mahabharata, where Shri Krishna encourages Arjun to fight, explaining that killing for a higher, spiritual cause is not violence. Thus, violence is when you have a practical alternative to save a life, but you choose to kill for your own selfish pleasure.