I am angry, violent. Why do I make an opposite, which is non-violence? Why is there an opposite? The fact is I am violent – why should I have an opposite? I have an opposite because I don’t know what to do with this violence. It has been one of my conditionings to say, ‘When you are violent, try to become non-violent.’ This is the traditional approach. But I am violent, and that is the only fact; everything else is non-fact. Is it possible to transcend, go beyond ‘what is’, not into the opposite? India has had this everlasting idea of non-violence. It is an escape from ‘what is'. If the mind is capable of understanding and going beyond ‘what is’, what is the necessity of ‘non-violence’? Then I am free: there is freedom from both.