Further Religious Structure

Streen wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to completely disagree. As I think some have already alluded to, making things more rigid and defined only limits everything further. Where does this desire come from, for structure and definition and institutionalization? All that accomplishes is closing our minds rather than opening them. When the Jedi community was at its height, there was little to no structure. That freedom gave birth to great things.

The Force flows freely, disobeys whatever rules we place on it, expands beyond any human comprehension. To think that we can write it out, include it all in a book is insulting to the Force (if such a thing is possible).

The 44

lol perhaps if we conceive of sophistication and structure in a purely mathematical sense. I mean them in the sense that the Upanishads and the Dao De Jing are more sophisticated than the new age aphorism "you just gotta live in the now, maaan". To him with understanding they all convey the same truth. Buuut, I believe further sophistication in the sense I specified proves more useful for Recognition than most of New Age philosophy. It can be therapeutic, but how many people really reach awakening with such vague verities? I'm skeptical, although I acknowledge that there are many paths, with diversity proportionate to the different kinds of personalities that may walk them. Advaita is certainly more sophisticated than most New Age philosophies, yet I think more have achieved enlightenment (non-dual consciousness) by following the former than the latter. This view is a product of my individual perspective, I readily acknowledge. I don't mean to debate you here, but to merely present an alternative view of "sophistication". To quote Hegel, "The learner always begins by finding fault, but the scholar sees the positive merit in everything." I appreciate poetic, laconic, and enigmatic approaches to expressing truth, but this path simply isn't for everyone. People who "over think it" can overcome this obstacle by finding truth's most sophisticated expression... one that satisfied their love for polysyllabilism lol.

Alexandre Orion wrote:
We don't necessarily need more or better Doctrine ;
We don't need more elaborate theology ;
We do not need more intricate ideology --

-- we need to dance to the rhythm of the music ...

... rather than against it.

I appreciate that... but I personally prefer to grow my yang in tandem with my yin. Math and mysticism... to the halves to the Holy Science, as Franklin MW would say. I concede, however, that it is debatable as to which kind of path is more practical for the majority, so perhaps I'm just quirky that way.

tzb wrote: Welcome to the Temple.

Regarding a need or desire for a sophisticated theology, many of us already have these, on an individual basis. However many of us feel our core message doesn't require any additional complexity, and instead choose to extrapolate our own approaches from a few basic rules - perhaps not even all of the rather simple doctrine you've read, most of which follows from the Code given enough consideration.

Personally one of the vectors of my life is to simplify, rather than to elaborate. I also came from Taoism (I've done a little work on this basis here ), but prefer the Jedi way because it is simpler, and therefore represents a real alternative. The action of the Force is change. A large, rigid body of theology does nothing to represent our core beliefs in this fluidity and the validity of individual, subjective experience.

Given our widely varying conceptions of what the Force actually means, one might find a phenomenology of it somewhat elusive. Fair warning

Ah, thanks. This gives me a sense of the common predispositions of the Jedi faithful. lol but I'll take up your challenge regarding a phenomenology of the force... in fact, I personally think one has already been conceived, but only in a different vocabulary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenological_definition_of_God This is my personal view, however. I do think Henry's language could be altered to describe the Force instead.

Hmm...

One of the awesome things about a faith like this is that it promotes unity through a general doctrine, but also diversity on the more intricate bits. The thing is, the more details that are put into the doctrine, the more is left out: It divides us.
If one person *believes* the force is conscious, and another believes it to be unconscious; and yet, both *act* in a way that exemplifies the Jedi beliefs in the value of life, justice, kindness, and knowledge: aren't both Jedi? Correct me if I am simply ignorant of some other simple parameter, but It would seem the answer is "yes".

Perhaps the solution to this little conundrum is to give access to all forms of applicable philosophy, and guides to their differences, similarities, implications, and ways to come up with one's own ideas; much like our Library.
The only problem is, to create such a complicated guide would be a ridiculously large undertaking, and consume a lot of time; after all, simplicity is key. Also this line of action could possibly create division amongst us, if people define their own brand of Jediism by these other things.

So maybe our only option is to just, in all simplicity, leave things as they are. Maybe add some more literature to the library, but that's as much as can be done without risk of division. As much as I love to discuss the finer points of philosophical inquiry, likely it would be better to focus on action; living life as the doctrine so simply, and perhaps even elegantly, supposes would be best. Let everyone know that beliefs are important, but if they are not followed by virtuous action they are not very practical for anything but conversation. And life is much more than conversation.

hi and welcome to the Temple! hope you find all you are looking for and then some!

Koffee wrote: I mean them in the sense that the Upanishads and the Dao De Jing are more sophisticated than the new age aphorism "you just gotta live in the now, maaan".

Not really. I mean, one of them is more complex, but that doesn't mean either of them are closer to whatever might pass as "truth" in this instance. As such, their efficiency is not tied at all to their complexity. We'd rather have the efficiency, in general.

In addition to Steam's comment, you cannot assume that the Upanishads or the Tao Te Ching are more accurate than "just chill out and be in the now, man". Certainly, the other two flesh out the details. And, maybe what you're looking for is an all-encompassing epic.

Most major belief-systems have epics behind them. But, this is not in the spirit of Jediism. Jediism is not a tale of great gods doing battle. Jediism is the tale of each man getting up every day, doing what they are passionate about, and spreading compassion. To be honest, Jedi have boring stories. Maybe a nice recalling of when you jumped into a burning building to save somebody (don't try that at home, kids)... but, we don't have gods doing battle, waters rippling in the celestial heights, or Vishnu's rapid eye movements creating the world...

carlos.martinez3 wrote: hi and welcome to the Temple! hope you find all you are looking for and then some!

Hello to you too, and thank you! It's a nice site so far, full of conversation and learning.

To be honest, I am glad for the absence of doctrine. I am glad for the opportunity for investigation and relationship with the Force.

To my thinking, too much doctrine gets in the way. I do not want to be told what the Force is. I want to look into it myself. I want to craft and refine my own vision.

One could say that even the best doctrine is debatable though.

Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Give to God what is God's".

Could mean: Pay your taxes, and tithe.

But.. what if in the Bible it says somewhere: "Everything belongs to God"...

Thennn.... Maybe you shouldn't give anything to Caesar.

Always an option to shape it yourself.