One characteristic difference between humans and other animals is that humans have the capacity for gratuitous violence. Only humans engage in violence for its own sake, it seems. Perhaps if one could see clearly how conventional enables this horrendous capacity, conciousness would undergo a radical change.

This post was last updated by nick carter Mon, 23 Nov 2009.

Iam neither attached to violence or non violence. Iam awareness and eternal bliss...

gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Mon, 23 Nov 2009.

For most, if not all of us, the present moment is never untouched, untainted by the past, because we are the past continuing in the present, pushing forward to the future. This is our conditioning and it is observable in so much as thought never stops to question its own movement, never relents in its compulsive quest for more of the same in modified form. Call it fear, call it greed, call it mindlessness, it doesn't matter. This movement is what we are and it is madness, violence, insanity. But we see this only after the fact, only in hindsight. It's like being on a speedboat and looking back on the wake it's churning up, but, without access to the controls, helpless to do anything about its velocity or direction, and unable to cut the motor.

It's not enough to say we are conditioned because we are conditioning itself. We are seized and possessed by this movement and so identified with it that we can do nothing but be carried along by it to our deaths and to the detriment of all living things. We can cry out for help, pray, pretend it's not really happening, hope for the best, or participate in K-discussion forums, but it goes on.

This post was last updated by nick carter Thu, 03 Dec 2009.

"It's not enough to say we are conditioned because we are conditioning itself."

It's apparent that, at the very moment of a thought, the thinker is the thought--there is no separate thinker. So can't it be said that, at the moment of action, the action is the actor?

At the moment of violence, we aren't somebody being violent, we are the violence.

Leads one to wonder whether there is any basic "somebody" at all, but just action identified as of one kind or another.

As to why animals do not exhibit gratuitous violence, maybe it's because animal activity is closely bound to instinct and fundamental "natural law." (This is all speculation here. Proceed at your own risk.) An important natural law is the conservation of energy. When one depends on stalking and hunting for his very life, he doesn't have much incentive to engage in energy-wasting gratuitous violence. Under conditions of severe starvation, humans may turn violent fighting over food, or in seeking to kill those who might take their food, but there might be a decrease in gratuitous violence.

max

nick carter wrote:
thought never stops to question its own movement, never relents in its compulsive quest for more of the same in modified form. Call it fear, call it greed, call it mindlessness, it doesn't matter. This movement is what we are and it is madness, violence, insanity.

Before the movement of thought leads to violence, it takes one through anxiety, anger, frustation, hate etc. When a person is not able to deal with these emotions, then he resorts to violence.He always has a reason (right or wrong)to opt for violence.

The unwarranted violence is a different matter. What is It's relationship with thought (conditioning) ? Both pleasure and pain generating thoughts have seed of violence hidden in them. Is this kind of violence enevitable because we have devoloped the capacity to think ? Does our belonging to animal kingdom plus our ability to think has something to do with it ?

These are some of the questions we must address to understand this basic, but defective trait of our nature.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

We are reactors. When we're young, we're forcibly taught to be reactive by our instructors, and we go on to serve as instructive examples to the young until we are dated and obsolete and dismissed. At this point, we may wonder whether our well intructed lives amount to anything more than a failure to learn and a waste of time. Our reaction to this possibility determines whether we're capable of learning or we're hopelessly instructed.

This post was last updated by nick carter Thu, 03 Dec 2009.

nick carter wrote:
One characteristic difference between humans and other animals is that humans have the capacity for gratuitous violence.

I'm afraid that animals, as well, have the characteristic for unnecessary violence. The headlines about the chimp that attacked and tore the face off its owner's friend is one example. Another is an aggressive dog that selectively bites one human(but not another) without provocation or tears a cat to shreads if given the chance. This natural world is violent. This week a 17 year old boy killed his 10 year old brother then went to see his girlfriend. She said he was happier and more cheerful than ever. When interrogated, the 17 year old said he had been having fantasies of killing someone for a few years now, not for any reason other than the desire to kill. Can such violence ever end in the human species?

nick carter wrote:
We are reactors. When we're young, we're forcibly taught to be reactive by our instructors, and we go on to serve as instructive examples

Do you see a connection between being forcibly taught and violence? Many parents and teachers have used physical and verbal abuse to control (teach) children. Do you think centuries of these parenting and educational practices are in some way responsible for violence? Or is violence genetically encoded?

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." J. Krishnamurti

This post was last updated by Ruth Bass Sat, 05 Dec 2009.

There is a cause for this through the type of food we take also...
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Mon, 07 Dec 2009.

Hi Dr, Is not fear the father of violence,instinctual,or otherwise?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

"Is not fear the father of violence,instinctual,or otherwise?"

A state of fear is a state of confusion. If we know what has to be done, when there is no choice and we see clearly what has to be done, we just do it. Fear comes in when there is the confusion and uncertainty of deciding between choices. This confusion, uncertainty and turmoil is violence. So fear is violence.

max

max greene wrote:
So fear is violence.

Yes Max, They are one and the same.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

nick carter wrote:
For most, if not all of us, the present moment is never untouched,

Do you mean to say that the present moment is never touched? or Untouched? If you really mean "never untouched" then I may question it. May be you do not mean it literally. Scientifically and therwise too the present moment is eterna and unknown.
Mitta Kumar Khera

What I said was that "the present moment is never untouched, untainted by the past".

The present moment is now, the Real. The past is Reality and cannot touch the Real. As said above, the present moment is eternal and unknown. But as living beings, we are of that moment. Consciousness and thought obscure the moment.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 20 Dec 2009.

nick carter wrote:
Only humans engage in violence for its own sake

Only Humans have the capacity to endlessly re-live their fears, as entertainment/pleasure.
Uncontrolled violence is simply a side effect of our beliefs/opinions/hopes/dreams.