13 Jan '15 10:11>5 edits
When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” - Jiddu Krishnamurti
I suspect that this kind of sentiment is popular particularity at this time with what has transpired in Europe and the killing of cartoonists and others.
Its quite interesting. All humans are capable of violent acts or from refraining from violence. If one is also termed a Hindu, or a Muslim or whatever does this really necessitate that they have extricated themselves from humanity. It appears to me that these appellations are quite redundant for its acts which define whether an individual is violent or otherwise. Of course the seeds of the violence are sown in the mind and percolate to the seat of motivation, resulting in violent acts.
Gandhi himself was a Hindu by faith and yet he stated that there was no cause that he was willing to commit violence for. According to the above Gandhi is a man of violence by definition and yet he acts in a non violent way towards all persons.
The Danish Christian existentialist Søren Kierkegaard wrote a rather wonderful work in which he argues that a 'man of faith', actually a 'knight of faith' can act entirely independently from mankind. The import of course is that things like nationalism, violence, ethnic strife etc have no effect because the 'knight of faith', is able to completely detach himself from these forces and is thus free to act independently from the world.
In other words, its not entirely clear whether faith and violence are mutually exclusive as the quotation from the above seems to be saying. What say you?
I suspect that this kind of sentiment is popular particularity at this time with what has transpired in Europe and the killing of cartoonists and others.
Its quite interesting. All humans are capable of violent acts or from refraining from violence. If one is also termed a Hindu, or a Muslim or whatever does this really necessitate that they have extricated themselves from humanity. It appears to me that these appellations are quite redundant for its acts which define whether an individual is violent or otherwise. Of course the seeds of the violence are sown in the mind and percolate to the seat of motivation, resulting in violent acts.
Gandhi himself was a Hindu by faith and yet he stated that there was no cause that he was willing to commit violence for. According to the above Gandhi is a man of violence by definition and yet he acts in a non violent way towards all persons.
The Danish Christian existentialist Søren Kierkegaard wrote a rather wonderful work in which he argues that a 'man of faith', actually a 'knight of faith' can act entirely independently from mankind. The import of course is that things like nationalism, violence, ethnic strife etc have no effect because the 'knight of faith', is able to completely detach himself from these forces and is thus free to act independently from the world.
In other words, its not entirely clear whether faith and violence are mutually exclusive as the quotation from the above seems to be saying. What say you?