Violence results from a feeling of deprivation, while peace results from a sense of discovery. Those who have the notion that they have been deprived of what is rightfully theirs suffer perennially from negative psychology. It is this negativism that frequently takes the form of violence. But those who live with the positive feeling that they have experienced the feeling of discovery enjoy mental peace. Their lives remain eternally peaceful. Those individuals or groups who feel hatred for others, and who stoop to violence in their dealings with them, prove by their behaviour that their grievances derive from a sense of deprivation. On the contrary, those individuals or groups who lead peaceful lives prove by their behaviour that they have experienced the feeling of finding what they truly desire in life. The mind of a frustrated person is always obsessed with the prevalent state of affairs; while a person whose mind is free from the psychology of frustration will be capable of thinking by rising above the immediate circumstances. Thus a frustrated person is a present-oriented person while a person free from frustration is a future-oriented person.

Social violence is against real human nature. Violence, the greatest of all crimes, is lethal to humanity. In spite of this, why do people engage in violence? The reason is that they take into account only present conditions, and lack the ability to see future prospects. Then such people find self-styled justifications for engaging in violence. Their version of justification appears to them to be based on logical argument, but in actual fact their arguments are fallacious. In defiance of all rational opinion, they adhere to the notion that, in their own case, for such and such reason, engaging in violence has become morally justified.

But the truth is that any so-called justification for violence is invalid. Whenever an individual or a group engages in violence, they have at one and the same time the option of a non-violent or peaceful method. This being so, why should violence be resorted to at all? When the opportunity to achieve one's objective is available without having recourse to violence, why should everyone opt for violent methods? The truth is that violence must be in principle discarded absolutely and peace must be adopted absolutely. Therefore, man ought not to engage in violence on any pretext. He must adhere to a peaceful course of action in all situations.

[Highlight1]

Violence is purely an aggressive response to any kind of provocation; while peace may be called a positive response to provocation. Peace is the result of planned action, while violence may be referred to as an instantaneous negative reaction. The peace-loving person first thinks and then acts. The violent person first acts and then thinks. There is hope in peaceful action from start to finish. In violent action, however, there are false hopes to begin with, which are soon followed by frustration. The way of peace runs an even course from beginning to end, while the path of violence is strewn with obstacles. In peace, construction is all, while with violence, destruction is all. The peaceful course ends in success, while the violent course ends in frustration and regret.

In having recourse to peaceful methods, there is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained. Violent methods, on the contrary, bring no gains, only losses. The way of peace is the way of humanity; while the way of violence is the way of animality. A peace-loving person ignores problems and avails of opportunities, while a violence-loving person leaves opportunities untapped and remains locked in a futile struggle with problems. While an act of peace causes the orchard of love and well-wishing to blossom; an act of violence sows the seeds for a whole jungle of enmity and hatred. The culture of peace is, in short, the culture of goodness, while the culture of violence is the culture of evil.