Nonviolence vs Activism

I'm working through "Freedom from the Known" and Krishnamurti breaks down violence thusly:

-violence is created when we feel hatred, anger, enmity, jealousy, sexual demands, nationalism - anytime we create or acknowledge separation or an "us vs them" mentality towards others
-It feels good to be violent - we take pleasure from disliking other people, hating particular groups, being antagonistic
-it doesn't come from others, from society or the government or becky with the nice hair, but from within ourselves
-we can only address violence from within ourselves, we can't solve others' violent thoughts/actions

He suggests that in order to end the violence within us, we need to face violence as a whole, without the biases and prejudices conditioned into us by our cultures/experiences. Without anger, jealousy, or hatred.

With that in mind, I got to thinking about modern social activism. It's founded on anger and antagonism, and usually perpetuates those feelings/behaviours. One side treated others violently, and the other side being angry at the way they're being treated. One side strikes, and the other retaliates. One side, another side. Us vs them. Culture vs subculture. We're right vs they're wrong.

So looking at it from that angle, should we, as Jedi, engage in social activism? Or should we be addressing the anger that we are creating within us, hoping that it inspires those around us? Where does nonviolence fit into the warrior archetype, if at all?

Are we meant to be walking contradictions - striving for nonviolence while harbouring violent thoughts like anger, jealousy and fear? Can we end violence while insisting on affirming the right and wrong sides of an issue?

Or is Krishnamurti full of crap?

Tell me what you think!!

Defend ideals by force of arms ..... minimal caaualties ...... worldwide revolution ...... armed uprising ..... Communist run world state

Meh, the usual stuff from me.

Silas Mercury wrote: Defend ideals by force of arms ..... minimal caaualties ...... worldwide revolution ...... armed uprising ..... Communist run world state

Meh, the usual stuff from me.

But you didn't address what I was presenting.

can violence ever be really ended?

violence vs non-violence

Social activism when I was young was about non-violent campaigns of awareness, but which tried to avoid being associated with creating anxiety or discomfort in anyone in anyway - especially those who were neutral. But it is inevitable that an opposing side will disagree and react to the presence of a competing argument, but I prefer to avoid the entire concept of 'might is right' and as a result handing out pamphlets seems pretty low key to things like shutting down city blocks to protest, (or worse).

Obviously it depends on the issue's seriousness but I'm not talking to any particular actual activism, just the concepts.

The trouble comes in how one defines success, and how truthful they are about the relationship between the selfs real motivations and the purported motivations. Its not helpful to ones spiritual path to lie to oneself, and it certainly does undermine the argument if its being misrepresented outwardly to sugarcoat more nefarious or juvenile machinations. I think that is what he means about confronting violence, inwardly, enabling any contradiction to be seen as just a reflection of self and nothing more. This doesn't mean the causative stimulus should not be acted upon though, it just helps reduce the friction of inflated expectations pulling on rigid sets of values - which stops emotions bubbling over into distorted hungry passions and instead allows it to remain refined as a more pure motivation drive which can be employed more long term..... the long fight is the harder one, so instead everyone wants to burn the house down overnight, instead of slowly renovating it.

So if we needed a 'warrior' archetype I think it's about confronting ones own fears and weakness - much in the way described above. The outer manifestation of warrior them, in regard to throwing swords or shouldering rifles etc, are likely just examples of those things bleeding over into society, and probably signs that those societies were under some serious stress and conflict at the time, IMO. I think that is what is meant by an enlightened society, or a mature society, but no society will ever be entirely secure from violence just because violence is so easily manifested alongside otherwise non-violent behaviour.

Adder wrote: Social activism when I was young was about non-violent campaigns of awareness, but which tried to avoid being associated with creating anxiety or discomfort in anyone in anyway - especially those who were neutral. But it is inevitable that an opposing side will disagree and react to the presence of a competing argument, but I prefer to avoid the entire concept of 'might is right' and as a result handing out pamphlets seems pretty low key to things like shutting down city blocks to protest, (or worse).

So do you think that the ideal "Jedi" way to avoid the "us vs them" (thus anger, thus violence) is to campaign for awareness? Isn't that still right vs wrong? Or is it more "here are the facts, presented without bias"? If the latter, I think that's a really great option!

Leah Starspectre wrote: So do you think that the ideal "Jedi" way to avoid the "us vs them" (thus anger, thus violence) is to campaign for awareness? Isn't that still right vs wrong? Or is it more "here are the facts, presented without bias"? If the latter, I think that's a really great option!

For me yea its the latter. Influence (the debate) rather then control (the debate); support (the debate) rather then activism (to end the debate). Society is a reflection of its people but people change faster then society can keep up.... so change in society is natural, its just about doing it in the most productive manner possible. Both sides usually have room to have better arguments, so getting mired into one or the other runs the risk of getting blinded by group dynamics inherent with its function to define its particular position. But there is a place for different efforts of focus as they bring different depths of truth.

Adder wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: So do you think that the ideal "Jedi" way to avoid the "us vs them" (thus anger, thus violence) is to campaign for awareness? Isn't that still right vs wrong? Or is it more "here are the facts, presented without bias"? If the latter, I think that's a really great option!

For me yea its the latter. Influence (the debate) rather then control (the debate); support (the debate) rather then activism (to end the debate). Society is a reflection of its people but people change faster then society can keep up.... so change in society is natural, its just about doing it in the most productive manner possible. Both sides usually have room to have better arguments, so getting mired into one or the other runs the risk of getting blinded by group dynamics inherent with its function to define its particular position. But there is a place for different efforts of focus as they bring different depths of truth.

So do you think that as Jedi, we should not participate in activism, but instead, simply be present to guide it from both/all/no sides?

Leah Starspectre wrote: So do you think that as Jedi, we should not participate in activism, but instead, simply be present to guide it from both/all/no sides?

Its my approach yea to avoid violence, but I guess there are some things which really throw a shadow over the future - the most obvious in this context (about the how of targeting awareness) is freedom of the press and of association. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is probably a good basis to assess those systematic risks to society. But minorities do have a distinct disadvantage, even under ideal conditions - it's just violence is not the only answer IMO.

Adder wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: So do you think that as Jedi, we should not participate in activism, but instead, simply be present to guide it from both/all/no sides?

Its my approach yea to avoid violence, but I guess there are some things which really throw a shadow over the future - the most obvious in this context (about the how of targeting awareness) is freedom of the press and of association. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is probably a good basis to assess those systematic risks to society. But minorities do have a distinct disadvantage, even under ideal conditions - it's just violence is not the only answer IMO.

I think that's what I'm trying to sort out. How do solve the issues without violence. And not just that, but displaying our own nonviolence where both sides of activism can see, and ideally learn from it.