And by saying that, J. krishnamurti is separating himself from the rest of us....is he violent then?

I wouldn't classify it as violence, but a disservice certainly. We're all humans and I don't see the point in separating into nationalities, ethnicities or theologies

Even if we are authentic in our agnostic/atheist views our cultural histories will always have some impact on our view if the world ,,,, lets not get too religious about our beliefs..

I don't see how this is a partical approach. I have a nationality, race, gender, etc. These properties of me are often useful indicators to others about what I likely know, and how I likely view the world.

Everyone does this. Indeed there is a strong current in society today requiring people to do this, lest they be judged culturally insensitive.

I think categorizing chosen differences as "violence" is rather much.
Violence is violence.
I get his point, and it is spurring discussion (which is always a good thing),
but I disagree with the length he goes to make it.

His definition of violence is very different from mine. I think he might benefit from buying a dictionary. By equating violence with people identifying with groups he is building a case for silencing people who have views that are different from his. Any one who is different from him is by definition violent, if you follow his logic. I won't conform to his demands. If he really wants to shut me up I'm more than willing to give him first hand instruction in what true violence is. It would be very enlightening for him.