Non-violence comes automatically, there is no need to bother about it. And when it comes of its own accord it is never ugly.
What about the Christian philosophy, the Christian attitude of turning the other cheek?
Jesus has learned that idea from India. There was no other way for him to learn it, because Jewish scriptures have no ideas about non-violence. Even the Jewish God is not non-violent. He clearly declares, "I am an angry God. And those who are not with me are against me. I am not nice," he says, "I am not your uncle."
Certainly he is your father, not your uncle. With an uncle you can have some nice relationship, friendship. Mostly uncles are nice. But father... so he makes it clear, "Don't try to make me your uncle. I am not your uncle." Actually declaring this: "I am not your uncle, remember it, and I am not nice; I am a very angry and jealous God...." When Adolf Hitler said, "Those who are not with me are against me," perhaps he was not aware that he was being very Jewish! That is the attitude of the Jewish God.
Somewhere Jesus got the idea of non-violence. It had never existed anywhere except India. And particularly at the time when Jesus moved from Egypt to India, it was very much in the air because Mahavira had just passed away five hundred years before, Buddha had just passed away five hundred years before. Sanjay Viletthiputta who was a very significant Master, Ajit Keshkambal who was also a very charismatic figure, Makhkhali Gosal -- all these people had turned the whole climate of India into non-violence. Everybody was talking about non-violence.
Brahmins became ashamed of their scriptures; they started changing the commentaries on their scriptures. They started changing their rituals. You will be surprised. Now if you go in a Hindu temple, you are supposed to offer a coconut. This coconut was originally not a coconut but the head of a man. But a coconut resembles the head of a man: it has two eyes, beard, skull. They started interpreting their scriptures to say that it was not actually a man's head, it was only a coconut you had to offer. You will see in India the statues of Hanumana covered with a red color. Once it was blood, but they had to change it, otherwise they would look very foolish.
The whole country was impressed by these great teachers; they were all of tremendous importance, and they were logically mostly on solid ground. They stopped all kinds of sacrifice. But what will you do without blood? Some red-color substitute will do. A few very orthodox places continued in their old ways. For example in Calcutta, in the temple of Kali, still animals are killed every year and the blood is poured over Kali. In very orthodox places it remained; otherwise it disappeared and substitutes came in.
When Jesus reached India, he must have reached at the time when the whole country was agog with the philosophy of non-violence. He got the idea from India, and that is one of the reasons why the Jews could not accept him. He had got many ideas from India, from Egypt, and then when he came back he was thirty. From thirteen to thirty -- seventeen years are completely missing from all Christian accounts. Those seventeen years he spent in Egypt, in India, in Kashmir, in Ladakh, and perhaps in Tibet too. And the vibe of Buddha and Mahavira was still very alive, so it was not his own vision either.
But he became tremendously impressed by the idea of non-violence. And the idea was rational: to harm somebody must be against God, because it is God's creation -- you should not be destructive. But the question was, if others harm you, then...? That's where turning the other cheek comes in; that was his invention. It is mentioned nowhere in Indian scriptures that you turn the other cheek. The question was not raised, it seems. Non-violence was preached so rationally that nobody asked, "If somebody harms you, then what?"
Mahavira and Buddha would be perfectly ready: "Let him harm you, he will be punished by his karmas. Do not bother about it; you go on your way."
Yes, once Buddha was asked, "If somebody hits me," a bhikku, a monk asked him, "What am I supposed to do?"
Buddha said, "You are walking and a branch of a tree falls on you, hits you. What are you going to do?"
The man said, "What can I do? It was just an accident, a mere coincidence that I was under the tree and the branch fell down."
Buddha said, "So do the same. Somebody was crazy, mad, angry; he hit you. It is just like a branch falling on you. Don't be disturbed by this, don't be distracted by this. Just go on your way as if nothing has happened."
But when Jesus came back to Jerusalem and started saying this, people must have been asking him again and again... because it was so new to the Jewish tradition. It was bringing in a very foreign idea which did not fit with the Jewish structure at all.
Jesus said that if somebody hits you on one cheek, turn the other cheek. You are asking me what I have to say about it. This will be the attitude of a man who believes in the idea of non-violence, the philosopher of non-violence. But when you are hit by somebody and you give him the other cheek, you are encouraging violence in the world. It is not non-violence. And you are assuming something which is absolutely your imagination. If somebody hits me, according to Jesus I have to give him my other cheek. But his tastes may be different. He may have enjoyed the first hit, he may enjoy the second even more; he may be a sadist. Then you are encouraging a sadist to torture people; you are encouraging violence. Even to allow your own body to be tortured by somebody is to encourage violence.
No, this stupid ideology has been the downfall of the whole of India.
After Buddha and Mahavira, India never again became the same golden bird it was.
After Buddha and Mahavira begins the downfall. Buddha and Mahavira are absolutely responsible for twenty-five centuries of slavery in India, because they taught people to be non-violent. They completely forgot that the other people surrounding the country are not non-violent. You are encouraging those people, inviting them: "Come and be violent to us." That's actually what has happened in Indian history for twenty-five centuries. Anybody who wanted riches, women, slaves, invaded India. There was no trouble, India was non-violent. Most probably they would pass through kingdoms and there would be no fight at all, no resistance even.
If you look at your non-violence and it has provoked violence, then what kind of non-violence is this? It has brought more violence in the world than there was before. Before Buddha and Mahavira, India was never invaded. There had never been any violence because people knew that to invade India was to just invite your death. But after Buddha and Mahavira's teachings people became just like butter -- you just cut into them with your knife, and there would be no noise at all. And millions of people were killed, burned without any resistance, because resistance would be violence.
But you go on missing seeing the point that you are provoking the violence in the other person. Who is responsible for it? Now turning the other cheek means you are telling the other person, "Please hit me a little more, it is not enough; I am not satisfied. Hit me a little more so that I can become a little more saintly." And you have only two cheeks. What are you going to do when he has hit you on your second cheek? What Jesus is saying looks a beautiful statement but it is not at all practical, pragmatic, scientific.
Reverence for life approaches the whole problem from a different angle.
Respect life, yours included.
In fact, you are first to be respectful towards yourself, then only can you be respectful towards anybody else.
Be loving towards yourself, then you will be able to love others too.
Reverence for life will not allow any provocation to violence. It will not start violence, but if anybody starts it, it will stop it immediately.
Jesus says, "If somebody hits you on one of your cheeks, turn the other cheek." I say, "Okay, turn his other cheek -- and hit him harder. Give him a lesson! Make it clear to him that it is not so easy to hit somebody on the cheek -- that it comes back, and comes back harder. And if you are capable, hit both his cheeks at the same time. Why give him the chance to turn the other cheek and become a saint? Hit him and tell him simultaneously,'I do not believe in violence, hence I have to stop it at the first chance. And remember that you cannot just be violent without being prevented.'"
You have to prevent violence if you respect life. And in another way too, it is respectful to hit the man, not to give him your other cheek, because that is very disrespectful. This may seem a little difficult for you: you hit me, and I don't hit you but show my other cheek to you, and say, "Please be kind enough to hit me." I am trying to be superhuman and reduce you below humanity.
I am humiliating you far more than I can humiliate you by hitting you. By hitting you I simply declare you are human, I am human, and I speak the same language that you speak. We are both on the same ground. This is more respectful because you are not raising yourself higher; you are keeping yourself on the same ground as the other man. You are telling him, "You are my brother; if you hit me you are going to get a bigger hit. Be watchful and be careful, because somewhere you may get into real trouble."
I am not in favor of your being superior to the other man. That's what Jesus is saying: "Be meek, be humble, turn the other cheek, because then you will inherit the kingdom of God."

You are not going to inherit anything. You have already inherited it -- that is your life.
Be loving and respectful to it.
Be loving and respectful to others. But don't try to be superior and higher and above others. Don't put the other man down.
In that sentence of Jesus you don't find it, but it is there -- that you are humiliating the other. You are creating guilt in the other. He will think it over at home, "What did I do? What kind of man was he? I hit him, and he gave me the other cheek. How cruel and how animal I am that I again hit him on the other cheek." He will not be able to sleep the whole night. He will come back tomorrow. The first thing he will want is to be forgiven. But to forgive him is again to put him down. No, I will say if he hits you, just be a sportsman. Don't try to be a superman, just a sportsman. Hit him really hard and tell him, "Whenever you need a good hit, you can always depend on me."
Never do any harm to anybody, but never allow anybody to do any harm to you either; only then can we create a human world.
They have tried the other way in India, and the experiment has completely failed. Twenty-five centuries of slavery, slaughter, rape, and still nobody raises a finger and says that Buddha and Mahavira are responsible for it. They created this impotence in the whole country, this weakness in the whole country. No, I am not in favor of creating impotence, slavery, and provoking people to do violence to you.
Never do violence of your own accord, but never allow anybody else to do it to you either.
Only then is there a possibility of creating a human world.