 In light of recent events in the world, we felt it was important to shine some light from our perspective on the matters. Often in spiritual communities, there's a break in the conversation between the use of violence, creating change, destruction, and the emergence of a new consciousness. Of course, it doesn't seem ethical to support violence, but what happens when the violence seems like an inevitability against the corrupt forces who are clearly more violent and using their force to impose domination and control against people? It's often a difficult conversation to have, when deep spiritual revelations through modalities such as meditation and even plant medicine, we receive insights such as everything is love, yet we live in a world that has a tremendous volume of inequality, injustice, and systemic racism. We know that on a macro level, we are collectively moving into a higher consciousness, and the intensity of global events is shining light on how dark things really are. In this, we seem to be viewing some of the darkest parts of our collective shadow. Looking to the wisdom of the world, we dove in to discover if there was an answer to this question, and for many ancient philosophies, religions, and cultures, we have found the wisdom that even in the case of war and violence, there is a time and place for it, when absolutely necessary. One example of this can be found in the Bhagavad Gita, in which one of the main characters, Arjuna, is faced with leading an army into battle and struggles with the awareness that many of his friends and family are on the opposing army. Yet, Krishna appears to him and guides him through many lessons to help him realize that this war is in divine order, and that Arjuna must see the battles through, because if he does not, chaos and terror will reign supreme. However, if he fights, he will win, and he will change the course of history, creating a new era for the world. We also may glean some insights from a particular part in ancient Egypt's history. Do you remember Akhenaten, who we discussed in the original human history movie? During his short reign, this very important pharaoh changed the rules dramatically for how Egypt was governed, and one of the things that he did was pull all of the military forces back, and he essentially said, do not attack, unless someone attacks first, implying very clearly as though having a military was important, but for what intention? It is not to dominate others, but only as a line of defense. In the influential Chinese spiritual text, the Tao De Ching, a translation that states, there is no calamity greater than lightly engaging in war. In other translations of the same verse, it says, there is no mistake greater than making light of an enemy. Through overconfidence, we make ourselves vulnerable. These concepts in many ways have been distilled into our western culture, to our shared belief in the human right of self-defense. If someone is being physically, emotionally, or mentally attacked by someone, we're all pretty much in agreement with the right to defend themselves, up to and including an appropriate level of physical violence to do so. If someone is walking through a city and sees a child across the street being physically abused by a much larger person, well, that's also easy to discern rightfulness. It's direct and present in that moment. You feel compelled to protect this person as you would care for yourself. We step in, perhaps with physical intervention to the best of our abilities, and most would share the understanding that this would be appropriate. But what if we see a video of our brothers or sisters being beaten down or killed by someone with no apparent rightful cause? And what if it's a story or scenario that we've heard of or seen before? And what if we perceive the problem to be not that one person is killing another person, but instead we perceive that the problem is a culture, a set of rules, or a system that supports these atrocities? How does the principle of self-defense apply here? How do we protect ourselves? How do we protect our brothers and sisters? Not against the person, but against the system, a culture. The truth is, this is not going to be a clean transition into a new paradigm or collective way of being. It's messy because the system that attempts to impose its control upon our freedom has deep roots in the world and to them, giving up control or a change in the way that we collectively think is not an option. The philosophers would say that if a situation demands violence to protect yourself, it is acceptable. But the determination of when a situation demands a more extreme action or violence is completely subjective and therefore, something that is perhaps difficult for many to agree upon. When is it necessary to take action? When is the line crossed? The United States Declaration of Independence itself states that when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. Ultimately, this is going to be a job for both the American people and the people of the world, our whole species to do something about, at every level. And people who are in positions of power and authority are just as responsible as those who line the streets in protest about the injustices and tyranny in the world. Everyone must do their part if we are all to create the change that we really want to see and we really must stand up for a higher potential reality for all of us if we want to see that come to be. Ending racism and police brutality among other things is only just the beginning. If we really want to see a better world, we're going to have to really shift our thinking, speak to the reality that we want to create and then move towards it passion, purpose and collaboration. And while so many are protesting actively, there are many many more who are watching it all transpire. For those who are not compelled to join the protests, the question becomes, what can we do in these moments of uncertainty? This is going to be an answer that each person must generate on their own. For us, it feels of the utmost importance to focus on the elevation of global consciousness and bringing our most authentic truth, wisdom and love to the world. Along with this, it feels important to stress the significance of daily meditation. We know through the Maharishi effect that mass meditations can affect global consciousness. And if millions upon millions of people were to practice meditation and prayer every day, we may just help to offset the anger and violence and bring new awareness to the world by the raising of our own consciousness. But of course, we recognize that meditation alone will not change the world. Actions must also be taken. We are seeing this happen today and we pray that humanity continues to take actions towards a better future as we move throughout this year and beyond. We really love this world and want nothing more than to see humanity rise into a new paradigm of truth, love and authenticity. But in order to get there, we must recognize the systemic problems that ripple throughout the underbelly of society, keeping us tethered to old ways of being, thinking and behaving. It's time for us to be the change, to embody the shifts that we want to see the world transform into. And if we all do our part, there's no future that is out of reach. This nation, America was primarily built on two things. One of those things is violence and the other thing is capitalism. Especially for African Americans if we want to get our voices heard, I believe that either we're going to have to get violent or we're going to have to use our money to talk for us. And I am all for the non-violent path. I honestly believe that getting an economic strategy in place would be the most beneficial path but I do also understand why people are going out and rioting and trashing buildings and stuff because as Martin Luther King said, riots are the voice of the unheard. So it's not surprising at all in a country that was built off violence that when things do start to get violent people start to pay attention. I believe violence is inevitable. It's an aspect of God that gets expressed throughout the universe and it's a matter of how we utilize this aspect of God as a tool. Violence can be utilized in many ways and I think it depends on where we're coming from with that violence. Are we coming from the solar plexus chakra? Are we coming from a place of the ego where we want to overcome and dominate others or prove ourselves above others or to others? Are we coming from a place where we want to take from others and so we're going to exert violence and force? Are we coming from a place of the heart chakra? Where we're coming from a place that we have the capability of violence to start to be able to exert force and to guard against something so we use it to preserve and protect. And I really enjoyed the way that Goku and the Z fighters did this in Dragon Ball Z as they had great power and great abilities. They had the tool of violence at their hands and fingertips just as their enemies did but unlike the enemies who were utilizing it to overcome and dominate and destroy they utilize it to protect and preserve. And so just like on the side of a police car it says protect and serve that would be one way to utilize violence as a tool to maintain homeostasis within an ordered system. So there's been a question as the series of protests some turned into riots seems to be sweeping across the United States from coast to coast and those questions all seem to revolve around violence. Why is it necessary to be violent? What purpose does it serve? Why do people choose this route? Why aren't people going the route of Dr. King and deliberately being non-violent? Well, those are all good questions but all of those are tied up in what is the definition of violence and how does it apply to this situation. So let's look at a couple definitions of violence. So the first is behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something but I have one question with regard to this definition. We say it's behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill. Could violence also be non-physical forces? Could they be psychological? Emotional? Verbal? Cognitive? Spiritual? Could they be things that attack you in other than a physical means with the intention to hurt, damage, or kill? The next definition is a strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force. Now another way to look at that might be severity or vehemence. And the only question I have with this definition is it calls out an unpleasant or destructive natural force. So my question to that would be could violence erupt from unnatural forces? So rather than being a hurricane, a landslide, an earthquake or something of that nature could violence also come from unnatural man-made is this something that can be done by people? The last definition we're going to look at is the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force. That can more commonly be thought of as bullying or in its very extreme force as terrorism. So I've got a couple issues with this one. The first is that it specifies the unlawful exercise. Unlawful exercise. Okay, so that seems to say that the law the law enforcers, the state cannot be guilty of violence in using physical force to intimidate or to hurt kill or damage. But we've seen that before. That's what a revolution is. That's what social movements are. They are the use of force or intimidation by exhibiting force in order to protest and change unjust laws. So is violence really only the purview of someone acting against the state? Or can violence also be perpetrated by the state? The other is again it's looking at physical force. So it's still saying that violence is only a physical thing. Whereas I think most people would understand that it's entirely possible to be violent towards someone in a psychological way, in an emotional way, in a spiritual way, in a cognitive way, in a verbal way and a way that discredits or damages their identity, their culture, their nationality, their sexual preference, their lifestyle. So I think we need to expand what we call violence. When we ask the question what purpose does violence serve and is violence necessary? But the question then becomes then could it be said that violence by way of the American Revolution or violence by way of the Civil War, were these violent acts were these things that were unnecessary? Were these things that were unwarranted and didn't have purpose? I don't think so. Back when the Declaration of Independence was being read there was a line in there about the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. So often people forget those last two words with the blood of patriots and that's usually where they end the quote. But they forget the last piece about end tyrants. What is it in that quote? What is it in our present reality that is this American dictate, this part of our founding identity that we would declare an enemy or something we need to be independent from tyranny? How can tyranny be described? How is tyranny captured? Back in the American Revolution it was are we represented in our legislature? Are we represented in the decisions that are made on our person? Are we represented in the decisions that are made about us that we have to abide by and live with? And in those cases they were not. And they were violently even though it was legal at the time according to the British Crown for the British soldiers to keep the American colonists in line with whatever the British law decided was okay for them. But this violence that was subjected at the tyrannical British government that did not recognize the rights and the sovereignty and the ability of the American colonists to govern themselves or to be treated fairly as any other subject of the British monarchy was due, was not acceptable. It was not acceptable and so we went to war. We had a flat out revolution against our lawful government at the time that we wanted to be represented we wanted to be heard we wanted to be recognized as sovereign we wanted to be able to govern ourselves and to be treated fairly by a government that included us rather than a government that dismissed us. So if that's okay for how the country was founded if that's okay for how the country was created then please explain to me how it's different now we just don't see how our current government and I say current government I mean long before this current administration this has been happening since our country's inception and before that when we were still British colonies that there are populations of American citizens now American citizens that have not been represented treated fairly protected in the way that other Americans are or given the same opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as others and living in that circumstance even as things have gotten better generation after generation living in that circumstance is to be under the thumb of a tyrannical government a government that says it's okay for us to incarcerate you for petty crimes it's okay for us to brutalize you over police stops when you've committed no crime it's okay for us to kill you if we decide that we are in danger when there's actually no danger being faced and that the exercise of those abuses the exercise by the government by agencies of the government should go unpunished as they have been for a month or the last year or the last 10 years but for literally hundreds of years in this country that the state should be able to abuse and use its power and let's go back to our definitions involving the physical force intended to hurt damage or kill and do so with impunity which kind of brings me back to that third definition of violence reserved only for those who are not a part of the state and if so I think we've got a broken definition of violence because I think we can very clearly see for those that know this country's history that violence has been a very real part of this state and this country throughout its entire history and on top of that that violence doesn't always just come in physical forms like forms where no you don't get to get that loan we're not going to let you buy that house we're not going to let you into this school it comes in political forms no we're not going to recognize your vote no we're not going to prop up your candidate no we're not going to allow you to use your constitutionally given right to exercise your voice and creating and shaping the government country and of its states it can be done in emotional and psychological ways where we say no you are too ghetto for this no you are too ethnic for this oh no not with your accent no not with your hair like that no not with your faith in a land that has freedom of assembly and freedom of religion in a land that supposedly recognizes anyone who was born here as an American citizen the same as any other. So I ask the question especially around that third definition is the unlawful exercise of force or intimidation the only definition of violence because it could be said that violence already pre-existed the current protests and the riots violence pre-existed the current Black Lives Matter movement while violence pre-existed Colin Kaepernick's take a knee and all of the other factors that are currently in play in this discussion about police brutality and police accountability because violence is the very thing that they were protesting against violence is the exact reason for the movement because we are trying to stop the violence many people say that they want to go back to before these protests and before these riots and before all of this outrage and go back to when there was peace and what many of them don't realize is that there never was a time for many of us where there was peace not ever not in this country not ever peace is something that we're trying to get to it's not something we're trying to return to because we never had it we were subject to state violence the entire time we've been here and so this concept of going back to the peace that some of us have known is not acceptable because it's not peace for us and it never was so let's look at the definition of one other word because this is the one that is probably most accurate to what's going on right now and it's the one that's least discussed and that word is self-defense it's something that we pride ourselves it's something that we created the world's largest and most powerful fighting force in the world for the purpose of defending ourselves and our interests so let's look at the definition of self-defense self-defense is the defense of one's person or interest especially through the use of physical force which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime so there's a lot in that definition there's a lot in that definition but let's start with the beginning so the defense of one's person or interest in a world where police judges politicians lawyers prosecutors are able to physically according to the current laws of the land legally able to physically abuse my person with or without cause beyond what they are legally able to do to other citizens then my person and the persons that I care about my children my family my friends my community need defense especially through the use of physical force so self-defense can be physical in nature so if someone attacks you in the act of self-defense you can use the act of physical force against your attacker I believe some people call it fighting fire with fire in some cases that's the only way you can do it there is also the option of fighting fire with water which is much more effective which is what we started out with going back to Trayvon Martin's murder seven years ago where the black lives matter movement started that those protests were peaceful that those protests were nonviolent that those protests were a way to use water to fight fire because it was not our goal then or now to tear the whole system down in order to get our way it was simply our goal to be heard and when being heard to be at the table that makes the new laws of the land such that the abuses of the past and present were no longer legal were no longer sanctioned by the government federal, state, or local that it would be illegal to continue the abuses of the past on communities of color with impunity and so those protests continued for seven years when they weren't heard they were ignored, they were vilified when Colin Kaepernick invited professional football athletes and athletes around the globe to take a knee in protest against the abuses of the state on communities of color it was vilified even though he did it in a manner that agreed with soldiers who attacked this nation because it was never about protesting soldiers it was never about protesting a country it was about protesting the legal practices of that land and changing them and he was vilified along with many of the other athletes that were vilified and after so long of seeing our fight fire with water or our nonviolent approach shove to the side vilified those leaders martyred completely taken out of the picture when that happens for long enough and the abuses keep piling up with visual evidence and nothing changes well at that point we can't do the fight fire with water because fighting fire with water isn't working if it's a grease fire using water is not going to work so then at that point something else has to happen and we have to go into self defense mode and if that self defense has to be violent so be it because in the world we live in violence is already being visited on us in a far too frequent occasion so we use self defense in defense of our person in defense of those we love in defense of our communities and in defense of our interests so that when the state continues its abuses that there be repercussion to that so that hopefully we can redress it and eliminate these abuses in the future to the question of is violence necessary I'll say this violence was never necessary it was never necessary it wasn't necessary to be a part of the abuses that sparked this which is what we originally tried to redress and it wasn't necessary to be part of the protest if our concerns were heard if our concerns were addressed if the abuses stopped and if the law changed its stance on state sanctioned terrorism abuse and terrorism of communities of color around the country there are a lot of ways violence could have been prevented and should have been prevented but to say now that those communities those individuals who have been subject to state sanctioned violence for centuries to say to them now that violence is unnecessary what purpose does it serve it serves the very same purpose that our government created our military to defend us and that is a right that all Americans have thank you for your time