Krishnamurti: My neighbour is violent: how shall I deal with it? Turn the other cheek? He is delighted. What shall I do? Would you ask that question if you were really non-violent, if there were no violence in you? Do listen to this question. If in your heart, in your mind, there is no violence at all, no hate, no bitterness, no sense of fulfilment, no wanting to be free, no violence at all, would you ask that question about how you meet the neighbour who is violent? Or would you know then what to do with your neighbour? Others may call what you do violent, but you may not be violent; at that moment your neighbour acts violently you will know how to deal with the situation. But a third person, watching, might say, “You are also violent.” But you know that you are not violent. So what is important is to be for yourself completely without violence—and it does not matter what another calls you.

Instead of offering a straight up advice about the irrationality of allowing violence and turning your cheek for more violence, he insinuates that only a violent person would have such a question. He also proves that he himself cannot answer the question, why?

He has not once answered the question, by his own ethos that a person with such a question is violent and one that never has the question is not violent but also eludes that turning the other cheek is not the answer:

at that moment your neighbour acts violently you will know how to deal with the situation. But a third person, watching, might say, “You are also violent.” But you know that you are not violent.

A person turning the other cheek is not violent, is not going to be called violent, instead they will be meek, and humble, not violent, therefore no person will call someone who's meek, who's humble violent, where as in his answer it is clear that turning the other cheek, being meek, humbling yourself before your violent neighbor, is not the answer.

The fraud is so enveloped with hearing himself talk, as is evident by almost everything he says, that he never answers the question at all, not even in the slightest. He concludes with to be for yourself without violence. Violence is a way of the world. Plants have consciousness, regardless of you or anyone else ignorant to that, it is a violent act to eat, it is violent act to defecate, there is violence in conception, in birth, there is violence in death, violence is a part of life. When a murdering rapist is running around only violence will stop him, he will laugh at humility and meekness, therefore it is to be wise that his actions are meet with violence as quickly as possible. When a tiger is loose in tow, he must be meet with violence. Violence is part of this world and by it's merit of being part of this world is under the function of duality, it serves more than one dimensional purpose that turn the other cheek preaches. Spiritual folk are among the most deluded individuals, and the peddlers of dozens of books or of retreats and seminars are rolling around in their riches because of how deluded and non questioning, non inquiring their followers are.