IMPORTANT: DOCTRINE UPDATE

Well, with those definitions in mind (please be aware this n00b sticker is really damn sticky it simply won't peel off) I'm going to stick my neck out here and say I don't like either the old or the new maxim that much.

Warning! n00b messing with maxims. Code red!


I'm not saying my bit of blah hiding in there should be the new-new form. It's just that, it seems the recently updated version is causing some grumbling.

To have no ego is to exist in a perfect state of humility and enlightenment - that certainly is an unreasonable demand on Jedi.

A reasonable demand however would be trying to get people to understand what the ego is and in doing so to understand the reasons behind their actions.

A Jedi does not boast of their accomplishments and knows that their accomplishment is its own reward.

In Buddhist and Hindu traditions, of which Buddhism emerged from ascetic Hindu traditions, the idea of being one with the world is represented by the term 'Atman' which means 'Self'.

There is no separate self from the universe, because we are all manifestations of the Force.

The maxim should be read in terms of its additional description.

A Jedi does not boast of their accomplishments and knows that their accomplishment is its own reward.

Accepting the ego for what it is, well what is it? The ego in this maxim is referring to a particular type of greed, that is to say egoistic (selfish) greed. There is more to that however, because if one is being greedy then one is elevating their self-worth above that of others. This elevation of self-worth is mistakenly thinking of your 'Self' as being greater or better than another and hence not realising that there is no 'Self' within the Force.

bard wrote: What about something like:
Humility: To be mindful of the ego.

THis is how I read the new version....

How, it translated into my the definition of words in my head...

I dont have to 'accept it' as 'well now I am stuck with it, and cant get rid of it'....

I read it as 'I understand I have one at times, and am seeking to do my best to not pay attention to it'...

lol...

Jestor wrote: I dont have to 'accept it' as 'well now I am stuck with it, and cant get rid of it'....

I read it as 'I understand I have one at times, and am seeking to do my best to not pay attention to it'...

That's the difference between 'accepting' something and 'tolerating' something.

Tolerating just just putting up with something that exists.
Accepting is going beyond just putting up with it to truly understand why it is the way it is.

Akkarin wrote: That's the difference between 'accepting' something and 'tolerating' something.

Tolerating just just putting up with something that exists.
Accepting is going beyond just putting up with it to truly understand why it is the way it is.

For the most part I agree with that Akkarin. I would also add (for myself) that it is not limited to understanding. But that it is a part of being at peace with something. In theis case the ego. And I realize that when I say "being at peace" people will auto associate this with the opposite of conflict. But it can also be like a comfortable recognition that can be embraced for what it is.

When we fight with something to understand it we rarely make the kind of progress we would like. And I will give an example. Marriage counseling. Often times people go to marriage counseling when their marriage is in trouble. But that is not when marriage counseling works best. It's true beauty is when the couple is happy. Then they can go to counseling to help grow their relationship together, maybe work out little quirks that bother eachother. (notice I said work out and not change. Maybe it is the one noticing the quirk that needs to be resolved) the point is that when two people love eachother it is far easier to understand and resolve then when they are fighting and unreceptive. And they are more likely to grow apart at that point then grow together.

Akkarin wrote:

Jestor wrote: I dont have to 'accept it' as 'well now I am stuck with it, and cant get rid of it'....

I read it as 'I understand I have one at times, and am seeking to do my best to not pay attention to it'...

That's the difference between 'accepting' something and 'tolerating' something.

Tolerating just just putting up with something that exists.
Accepting is going beyond just putting up with it to truly understand why it is the way it is.

Now it is getting silly....

Really?

So, accepting cant mean 'tolerating'?


Here is the thing....

We have these maxims, teachings, and ask for what they mean to the individual...

And, I understood all of these to basically mean the same thing, looking at the spirit of the words, rather than the 'Webster' defintions....

IF I have an ego (I do occasionally), then I should seek to not have it...

and Jon

If it is possible Brenna then tell me who this person is who has no ego?

One who has left this plane of existence...

My thinking, anyway... lol...

To have no ego is to exist in a perfect state of humility and enlightenment - that certainly is an unreasonable demand on Jedi.

The maxims are not demands. They are a statement of belief in what is good/wise. the explanations are a small guide on how a Jedi can get there, or better understand the meaning of the maxim. If they were demands you'd expect to see Jedi meditating 24/7. A maxim is an aphorism after all.

Akkarin wrote: To have no ego is to exist in a perfect state of humility and enlightenment...
There is no separate self from the universe, because we are all manifestations of the Force.

As long as we're locked in these meat-suits, we're *going* to have a concept of "I, myself" that is at least nominally separate from everything else. We can know otherwise, experience otherwise, and live as though this "I, myself" doesn't exist, but it will until we actually rejoin the whole, or it wouldn't take an act of doing to commune with it.

steamboat28 wrote:

Akkarin wrote: To have no ego is to exist in a perfect state of humility and enlightenment...
There is no separate self from the universe, because we are all manifestations of the Force.

As long as we're locked in these meat-suits, we're *going* to have a concept of "I, myself" that is at least nominally separate from everything else. We can know otherwise, experience otherwise, and live as though this "I, myself" doesn't exist, but it will until we actually rejoin the whole, or it wouldn't take an act of doing to commune with it.

Well of course, that is why we must accept that this is the way things are. We can know that there is such a thing as enlightenment without experiencing it, we can know that the ego is an illusion we create ourselves while still being bound by that illusion. But we accept that it is an illusion and work to overcome it.

As for tolerance as opposed to acceptance:

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/sermons/1976-08-july-2012-on-tolerance

Ace explained it wonderfully in that sermon.

Aceboizer wrote: So don’t tolerate anyone. That is not a mutually beneficial way to coexist. We should get to know each other, be civilized but honest. Humanity has learned to tolerate others, to peacefully ignore one another and hope neither side gets fed up with the farce.

Instead, we ought to learn about each other. Witness how the same concepts can be given alternative names which once peeled away reveal a rather familiar concept. If we shed our ‘tolerance,’ we might just find us staring at a reflection of ourselves. Put any name on a belief: religion, politics, science…they’re all just another label for our attempts at understanding some Universal Truth.

There are problems with acceptance though. Given a choice between tolerance and acceptance, what would you choose when faced with murderers, pedophiles, slavers, organ traffickers?

Tolerance gives you the opportunity to dislike but allow it to continue (agree to disagree). Acceptance implies lack of disapproval.

Google wrote: tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Google wrote: acceptance:
-agreement with or belief in an idea, opinion, or explanation.
-willingness to tolerate a difficult or unpleasant situation.

Again, I think we are splitting hairs...

Although, judging by the thesaurus definition, I'd say tolerance was more what I.mean...

Accepting things as they are does not mean laying down and letting it happen. (At least not to me) It means recognizing that things happen, all things; good, bad, normal, odd and being okay with the fact that some things are just out of our control. Accepting that it is the way it is and not filling ourselves with hate for the things we have difficulty tolerating or find morally wrong. It means saying, yes this happens and that person has done this thing. The person has committed an act that is in violation of a law or moral law and there will be reproductions for their actions. But the person themselves is not that act.

When faced with murderers, pedophiles, slavers, and organ traffickers I will accept that is what they do. They do not have the same moral beliefs that I do and this in turn means I am probably in a hostile situation I may have to defend myself or my friends and loved ones to get out of. I accept that and will take the necessary actions to insure the safety and wellbeing of those I am to protect.

I accept the individual for what they are. I do not tolerate their existence out of some skewed since of morality. I tolerate cowardice actions and thoughts because many do not know better and I accept that as “a” reality in this existence. And I take action when it is needed.

Does that make any sense?

Wescli Wardest wrote: Accepting things as they are does not mean laying down and letting it happen. (At least not to me) It means recognizing that things happen, all things; good, bad, normal, odd and being okay with the fact that some things are just out of our control. Accepting that it is the way it is and not filling ourselves with hate for the things we have difficulty tolerating or find morally wrong. It means saying, yes this happens and that person has done this thing. The person has committed an act that is in violation of a law or moral law and there will be reproductions for their actions. But the person themselves is not that act.

That is a very strong ideal and I admire anyone who can truly separate between the person who commits an act and the act itself. I really try to do this because I realise that all people - no matter how vile their acts may be - are in some sense still "children of God" or "part of the Force". But I still find myself in situations sometimes where I don't only condemn the act, but feel hatred towards the person as well.

Accepting things as they are does not mean laying down and letting it happen. (At least not to me) It means recognizing that things happen, all things; good, bad, normal, odd and being okay with the fact that some things are just out of our control. Accepting that it is the way it is and not filling ourselves with hate for the things we have difficulty tolerating or find morally wrong. It means saying, yes this happens and that person has done this thing. The person has committed an act that is in violation of a law or moral law and there will be reproductions for their actions. But the person themselves is not that act.

When faced with murderers, pedophiles, slavers, and organ traffickers I will accept that is what they do. They do not have the same moral beliefs that I do and this in turn means I am probably in a hostile situation I may have to defend myself or my friends and loved ones to get out of. I accept that and will take the necessary actions to insure the safety and wellbeing of those I am to protect.

I accept the individual for what they are. I do not tolerate their existence out of some skewed since of morality. I tolerate cowardice actions and thoughts because many do not know better and I accept that as “a” reality in this existence. And I take action when it is needed.

Does that make any sense?

So what does acceptance mean to you besides that you hold knowledge about the things you "accept"?
In what way does a murderer whom you accept differ from one you are not aware of?

In what way does a murderer whom you accept differ from one you are not aware of?

It doesn’t. They are still people. And if they have both done it and I only know of one then that is how it is.

I don’t think I am explaining this in a way where it is being understood. I am not accepting a murderer. I accept that shit happens and that people are often the cause of it.

Story time…
I was talking one day and someone said, “I don’t trust that guy.” I said, “I do.” They were like “Really!?!?!?”
“Yup.” “I trust them to be exactly who they are... Nothing more, nothing less.”
I accept that we are not all the same and instead of wasting time tolerating and being annoyed and want to change everything the way I think it should be, I accept that it is the way it is and try to understand it for what it is. Then, maybe things will change in a way I think they might be better. But often times it is us or the times that changes and we have to see that for what it is.

See, I accept that you do not view it the way I do. I don’t have to tolerate your different view. Nor do I have to defend my view or convince anyone of its legitimacy. That’s just how it is.

I don’t know how I can explain it better. I may be able to come up with something more later…

You're confusing me. You say you accept people/events as they are, but you also say you do not accept murderers.

So how do you choose what you accept and what you do not accept?

See, I accept that you do not view it the way I do. I don’t have to tolerate your different view. Nor do I have to defend my view or convince anyone of its legitimacy. That’s just how it is.

Sounds like disregard, or apathy, not acceptance.

I don’t know how I can make it plainer.

Let’s see…
You say murderer. I say that is a person that has committed murder. I accept that the person committed a crime. I do not agree with someone breaking the law nor do I support it. But I can accept that the person has committed murder. That does not mean I have to tolerate it. Which none of this is the point really.

The point is not who can accept who and who what you have to tolerate. The point is how are you choosing to face your reality? Fighting it tooth and nail or learning about it and accepting that things are the way they are?

Again, you can choose to accept that we have different views on this; try to understand another's views; explain your own instead of trying to pick someone else’s apart or continue on the same path. It’s not apathy, disregard or whatever. It is that I have accepted that this will play out as it has time and time again… it is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess the confusion could stem from that it seems you seem to see the murderer as his actions. I see them as a person who has made actions. The action is wrong according to society. The person is the one that brought the action. But I am not accepting his action but that the action happens. And in recourse it will have to be dealt with.

IE: I trust that person to be exactly who they are, nothing more and nothing less. And I accept that is “a” (not the entire) reality that we are subjected to in life.

Perhaps need the dimension of time added to this;

Tolerate - disagree but seek no alteration temporarily, with intent to re-engage to seek alteration in future.
Accept - agree and seek no alteration, or disagree and have no intention to seek future alteration.

Ugh, lol..

Don't include time... Lets not drag imaginary things into it, lol...

Hahaha....