IMPORTANT: DOCTRINE UPDATE

maybe was because even in the orthodox , I never make a straight interpretation like "there is no emotion", emptiness of emotion....

you are right, there is more free interpretation...

for me, are the same... I don't take everything in the way it comes, just my interpretation...

thx.

666, it's probably because both are published versions of the code.

This is really well done! Thanks for your time on it!

concur. update acknowledged and approved.

With regard to the Codes, the Orthodox version is perhaps more widely known (the "There is no...." version) but some of us prefer the other version because it acknowledges the presence and necessity of each item but demonstrates that it is not a hindrance to our development as Jedi.

For example, "There is no emotion, there is peace" implies that Jedi do not have any emotions ever. We are not fictional Vulcans, we are human, and emotions are a vital response to the stimulus of our spirit. The version "Emotion, yet peace" acknowledges our emotions but implies that we treat them as signals and guidance to achieve peace and to not be at the mercy of our emotions.

I could write a whole essay on this topic so perhaps it is more fitting to discuss it elsewhere!

666 wrote: maybe was because even in the orthodox , I never make a straight interpretation like "there is no emotion", emptiness of emotion....

you are right, there is more free interpretation...

for me, are the same... I don't take everything in the way it comes, just my interpretation...

So most believe after they have spent time looking at it. As Mark said, people do interpret it as us having no emotion which is why many prefer the alternative. It is a minor clarification...

Connor Lidell wrote: Bravo, TOTJO.

Just as we don't apply what the community says to our site so we don't apply anything we say onto the community...

This is our doctrine for our church and for our use. If it works for others then they can use it but we don't plan on having it affect anyone but ourselves...

Hmm? I'm confused as to why that's related to my statement.

Connor Lidell wrote: Hmm? I'm confused as to why that's related to my statement.

It was my fault, I mis-read it as 'brave', implying that we were trying to achieve something outside of TotJO (because it wouldn't be brave to apply it to ourselves - as that is what we do anyway lol)

Oh! Ok. Yeah, that would mean something completely different. hahaha.

It seems well done. Though it is interesting in some parts, it is the old school in me. I like the open interpretation of the doctrine.

Question. I am about to do the Breakdown portion of my IP and want to know if the council wants to add the 21 maxims to that analysis, or keep it the way it is.

Please add it...

It is now a part of the official doctrine...

We will ask folks to go back and do it if it is not completed as the other parts are...

Thanks for asking!

I will also be going back and suggesting it to those who have completed the IP, but are still awaiting Masters...

I might do it with the new doctrine, even though I HAVE a Master.

Ok. Good stuff. Thanks for the quick reply as well. I am looking forward to breaking that one down!!

Jestor wrote: Please add it...

It is now a part of the official doctrine...

We will ask folks to go back and do it if it is not completed as the other parts are...

Thanks for asking!

I will also be going back and suggesting it to those who have completed the IP, but are still awaiting Masters...

The 16 teachings are completely different as well...

No problem...

Remember, your journal is yours...

You can post pretty much what you like...

The maxim 'Humility' has been changed.

Old wrote: Humility: To have no ego.

New wrote: Humility: To accept the ego for what it is.

Akkarin wrote: The maxim 'Humility' has been changed.

Old wrote: Humility: To have no ego.

New wrote: Humility: To accept the ego for what it is.

I have often explained humility to others as "not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less." I'm not sure it's entirely accurate, but it helps get the gist of it across sometimes.

steamboat28 wrote:

Akkarin wrote: The maxim 'Humility' has been changed.

Old wrote: Humility: To have no ego.

New wrote: Humility: To accept the ego for what it is.

I have often explained humility to others as "not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less." I'm not sure it's entirely accurate, but it helps get the gist of it across sometimes.

this was more or less the point behind "Humility: To have no ego.", as opposed to what is generally understood of humility (the kind Nietzsche dislikes).
Egolessness is a core concept/virtue/goal in some religions: it is the rejection of the idea we are separate from the whole. For us it's the Force, for Buddhists it's anata, for sufis (kind of muslims) I don't remember if it is called anything but the idea is that the believer, the world and allah are all one...
And then there's samadhi meditation, which is about focusing one the subject (of meditation) so much that the mind is no longer separate from the subject: it has no ego.

This relates to old fashioned (2001 original maxim) humility how?
A Jedi isn't boastful of their actions, because while it would be accurate to say you are responsible for, say, feeding someone, it is not truly your action:
The Force made it inevitable (for example, there was someone to be fed in the first place), and the result isn't a change in you (your ego), but a change in the Force (the whole).
To have no ego is to understand this... Which is true humility, not the absolute refusal of materialism, or the denial of one's actions or place. This would be in violation of the "honesty" and "harmony" maxims.

I dissent.

If you know what the ego is, if you recognize it then it ceases to be. If you feel there's something to accept it's still with you.