Nonviolence vs Activism

If your assessment is "Some "activists" can't see the forest for the trees and are often as bad as whatever they are opposing in their methods and rhetoric", then I concur.


I believe it is important to be aware of all the circumstances and decide accordingly, yes.

Some activists simply want to represent the untold-story and bring it to the public, and that is good and healthy.

Throwing blood on someone*, less useful.


*and that is a relatively harmless act, compared to some of the hijinks people get up to, not even getting to the emotional horseplay that occurs with the internet-warriors.

I'm also not saying that there is never a case for violence. I won't go into larger political or national issues, so for a generic metaphor - You're walking home from a nice evening with your family (calm down Bruce Wayne) and some dick with a head full of Ice wants to cut you, not just "take your money" or something you could turn the other cheek for. They're just plain mean - The situation doesn't call for you to "make them aware of the circumstances", it calls for you use whatever skills you have to put them on the ground, and you not.


But, all things being equal, in a nice civilised society, where the "they" has not entirely lost their marbles or declared a war of purification on all mankind or something - Then there is plenty of room for good old fashioned communication and awareness-raising without angry mobs and molotov cocktails.

>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?

To me, this boils down to two questions:

1. can we help others if we can't help ourselves?
2. Can we presume we are in the position to help others simply by believing that our cause is the same as that of others?

Addressing violence within ourselves requires means to put ourselves in a position where the factors named by Krishnamurti no longer have the capability to take over our thought process and, as a consequence, determine outward action. By what means this can happen is up to everyone's own choice / approach.

Addressing violence as a concept has a rather different dimension to it, however, as it's within an uncontrolled / untrained mind's natural tendencies to be violent to a certain degree. Not necessarily physically violent, but in any way that involves self-preservation, which in itself includes entitlement and egotism. Overcoming one's "raw" self is determined by the willingness to do so. Willingness is, amongst other things, governed by need and benefit.

It is the latter that may be within our sphere of action (if that should be called "social activism" or something else is up to each individual). As such, one approach could merely be to serve as a role model. Once we've truly overcome our "raw" self and have thus removed violent tendencies from our thought process and our our action, we can choose to go through life personifying what it means to be without violence. By doing so, perhaps others are inspired to undertake the same journey within themselves and ultimately realize the same state.

What I personally believe we shouldn't do, however, is trying to convince others of our views - and here we arrive at the second question. Can we presume that our views are correct and those of others aren't? Can we presume that our current situation and our approach to it is universally applicable? In order to engage in "social activism", we'd have to presume both of these questions come with a positive answer. However, I'd claim that this is rarely the case.

For both Leah and the greater audience,

There are some great non-violent action advocates out there worth looking into and considering. I've listened to lectures by Mr. Gene Sharp many times and in many places, and have studied quite a few cases where his methods were used successfully. He runs an organization centered around Non-violent Action Here is a bit on it:

Mission Statement
The mission of the Albert Einstein Institution is to advance the worldwide study and strategic use of nonviolent action in conflict.

The Institution is committed to:

· defending democratic freedoms and institutions;
· opposing oppression, dictatorship, and genocide; and
· reducing the reliance on violence as an instrument of policy.

This mission is pursued in three ways, by:

· encouraging research and policy studies on the methods of nonviolent action and their past use in diverse conflicts;
· sharing the results of this research with the public through publications, conferences, and the media; and
· consulting with groups in conflict about the strategic potential of nonviolent action.

Here is how his institution defines Non-violent Action:

What is nonviolent action?

Nonviolent action (also sometimes referred to as people power, political defiance, and nonviolent struggle) is a technique of action for applying power in a conflict by using symbolic protests, noncooperation, and defiance, but not physical violence.

Nonviolent action may involve:

1. Acts of omission—that is, people may refuse to perform acts that they usually perform, are expected by custom to perform, or are required by law or regulation to perform;
2. Acts of commission—that is, people may perform acts that they do not usually perform, are not expected by custom to perform, or are forbidden to perform; or
3. A combination of the two.

As a technique, therefore, nonviolent action is not passive. It is not inaction.

Nonviolent action is action that is nonviolent.

I am always wary of beginning declarations with, 'As Jedi,'...especially considering my position within the Temple. However, for those who feel personally invested in social struggle - this may provide you with some ideas for recourse; moreover, his methods are far more successful than violent revolutionary struggle.

I hope this provokes some thinking.

Good subject , good replies ,

What i am always so surprised about is the violent language on social media when for instance an animal is abused , the comments are full of extremely violent language and i find myself accusing the commenters of blaming others for what they do themselves , but the danger of doing that is that i have been called all kind of horrible things from abuser to fascist and worse,
For myself i have decided that my non violence starts with MY language , i cannot change the hearts of people and make them non violent , but by adjusting my words to what i want to achieve , i find that that goal is approaching faster than when i try to fight fire with fire.
So now even though i stay at risk of being called names , i still point out when violent language is unappropriate and not in comparison to what is being discussed, How we approach eachother is greatly decided by language , and i am not afraid of being confronted with my own limitations , i think that is a good step to take if you want a violent free envroment , stop being offended so much and realise ,

Everything of value is defenseless, Lucebert

Activism for me is a positive way to try to change undesired circumstances and violentless.

Leah Starspectre wrote: 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!!

@Leah
Remember one small idea in the Ip is the ability to view other ideas as well. Some may not like a certain book or idea in the IP. That OK. In our own paths we will meet many ideas some we won't agree with at all... At the moment. Me personally,I'm a poor reader and a weak speller. Still ain't stopped me from learning. I printed out on paper 3 ring binder styly in a binder Freedom from the known. As I learn more and as I open up my views I see a bit more clearly then before. I have books that later on now in my life have just now come to use. In seeking we find,and some times its easy to think well this is a bunch of bullox. I encourage you to save things for a later time. Lots of stuff didn't make sense till much later in time ... Relevance is a wonderful revealer of wisdom, sometimes without it we can't see wisdom...but it has to be there or we will reach for nothing. We have to bediligant and choose to give ourselves the opertunity. Hope that helps , my pm box is always open.

Honestly, I think Krishnamurti is full of crap. If the Dali Lama himself admits to what Krishnamurti calls " violence " in his thoughts then I do not see the rest of humanity ever getting rid of their emotions that are "negative" In fact I think that if you did not get angry at and even hate those that would rape children and slaughter anyone different from themselves then you would be a monster. Anger is a natural thing and for a reason. Any sense of right or wrong will create what Krishnamurti calls violence and for someone to tell me that one should not get mad at and even get bloody with those who would enslave, rape, pillage, and burn all who opposed them would only have me laugh at them at best.

The fact is that evil has been around since the first cave man figured out he could club someone and take their stuff. That will not go away ever unless we plan to lobotomize people. That means nonviolence is nice to strive for as much as is possible but if you want to bend your blade into a plowshare be ready to plow for those that didn't. Because there has always been and will always be people that will take what they wish by force. So we must stand up to them or we watch the world burn and the innocent suffer.

How does that lead into activism? Well if the next Hitler rose up saying all gay men like myself were to be second class citizens we need to violently with words oppose such injustice. We need to stand up and say no that is wrong and we will not stand for it. We need to get out and show that we will not tolerate that. Then if someone in power tried to enforce such laws then we oppose them. And if it came to camps then it goes to war.

Yes that is an extreme example I know and really I just Godwin'ed the whole thing but the point stands that as Jedi we are supposed to uphold ideas equality of opportunity, equality under the law etc etc. And so when those ideals are threatened to me it would violate every precept I know to stand silent and just try to be a nice example of peace. The world will always need warriors, people willing and able to fight for what is right. We should hope to never need them often but we should never let their weapons rust either because evil does not respect time nor place nor innocence of person. Further, the world will always need warriors of the quill those ready to debunk myths and lies that try to spread hate and stir people to turn on each other. Those we will need far more often.

Yes, we should strive to bring peace and speak kindly and moderate. However, there comes a time where lines must be drawn and one must take a stance against what we know to be wrong.

Krishnamurti is not someone who can be read at simple face value in what he says and interpreted with the same manners as anything else one reads. There are a lot of things he points out that a reader can insinuate "he's saying this is bad and it should not be done" simply through observing the topic and the points he makes on it. But it is not this simple.

Krishnamurti is blunt but not for reasons to do with "bad" and "good", "wrong" or "right". The way he communicates is an intrapersonal method of communication, of getting the reader to filter out as much of their social conditioning that makes them mistake certain ideas in certain false lights because [insert some social conditioned context here]. This topic of violence is no different. He's making sure you understand just how large the entire concept of "violence" goes, and what violence constitutes when all the mistaken ideas from your conditioning are filtered out. Then he leaves that with you to decide how you feel about it for yourself.

But he is not necessarily saying that "violence should be abolished". He's saying that violence is more inherent in the world than the reader might have ever imagined and that there is little one can really do to change that, if anything at all. The most significant thing one can change if one CHOOSES is how they deal with it within themselves, but ONLY upon understanding the nature of it without all the socially conditioned ideas about it that we get trapped in growing up.

I have to admit I have not made it that far in the IP yet so my opinion Krishnamurti is a mute point. However, having some rather deep involvement in activism while living in St. Louis. I noticed several things in the community that tends to organize. The loudest tend to lead the group, this being said most not all the time the loudest are the first to give into their passions which leads to violence which as mentioned in a previous post reciprocates. Anyways, being involved in that community I began to see where my place was. A lot of the level headed people became organizers and that worked well when they sent people into Ferguson. I was there, wasn't sure how I felt about that situation, besides that the loss of life was a terrible thing (I didn't want my ex to go alone, she didn't grow up where I did, she had little experience in that type of community). I did realize though that my place was simply this. Allow those who need to speak to speak and act peacefully, protect them from those who would oppress such opinions but also respect and defend those sent to help keep the order. Activism doesn't have to mean violence though in recent years passions have run high enough they often do now. In Ferguson I just sat in the middle of the street, I refused to move. Had violence broken out while i was there I would have tried and probably suffered to try and stop it but it didn't get violent until after we had left. So, in short I have my opinions and in time I choose to take action on the defense of human life, violence will exists and crisis precipitates change most people don't think things are a crisis until lives are lost. I think I am lost in my own thoughts, I will just try to stop violence and division even if I don't agree the activity. that's i guess where I am at if i see an egregious attack on people's rights i will not stand by and allow it but violence must be tempered and carefully planned for minimal "collateral damage" but I pray no violence becomes a necessity.

I'm a social activist and I struggle with feeling violent towards those who disagree with me. I'll be honest about that. Sometimes there's nothing I'd like more than to punch someone in the face. But I don't. And that's what matters.

When I was out protesting last Friday there were counter protesters. One of our people immediately ran across the street to confront them. I was tempted to do the same but decided against it. People that are going to counter protest are unlikely to have their minds changed.

Social activism is an important part of my life now and it's not really about violence (despite my occasional internal violent urges). It's not even really about us vs. them. It's about advocating for change. It's about spreading knowledge. It's about having a voice in this overwhelmingly loud society.

Personally I don't see that there's anything wrong with a Jedi taking part in activism. It's one of the ways we can stand up for our values. It's one way we can show the world what we stand for. Provided we are not advocating violence against others or acting out in violence I think it's okay.

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?

I've never read Krishnamurti (I look at it and the length fills me with dread) but I am specifically against violence.

Unlike some Jedi here, I always felt that I was not a warrior but more the monk... nowadays I consider myself a pacifist.

Why must activism come from a place of anger? Jedi are probably fed up of me banging on about them, but until recently I went to Quaker meetings most Sundays. Quakers are passionate campaigners for many causes; everything from prison reform to social housing to the welfare of immigrants. In all the time that I have spent with these people I never saw anger. I saw disappointment, I saw sadness, I saw hope, I saw optimism, I saw disbelief, but never anger.

We don't need anger to make changes. We don't need anger to fight for causes that we feel are important. Anger can be an instigator, but ultimately if we let anger continue to rule our passions then what are we really fighting for? The cause or our own emotions?