My Opinion. Jestor's Lie

Before we go any further, the author of this thread should apologize for name-calling. That it is an opinion does not somehow make it less offensive, nor does it imbue the author with permission to engage in name-calling.

Star Forge wrote: I think it's pointless to argue over doctrine, light vs dark, theology, or creeds as far as TOTJO or Jediism is concerned, because those things simply do not exist here. The only "doctrine" is a few paragraphs that can be summed up as "we believe in peace, love, happiness, tolerance" and so on, and the closest thing to theology or real doctrine is a collection of already published works by other people, found in the initiation program.

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/sermons/2073-what-is-a-basic-teaching

The teachings expand one's understanding of the doctrine...

Mortose wrote: Then "Jedi" could become anything...
Should there not be at least some solid structure?

Like the solid structure of Christianity? No differing views there...

Star Forge wrote: when I suggest that the Star Wars Expanded Universe be used as a sort of Jediist myth from which we could have an ever-expanding library of philosophical and theosophical depth, you guys are like "but thats fiction lol."

Our Jediism takes its inspiration from the sources that inspired the Jedi of George Lucas. That has been our disclaimer from the very beginning. Don't like it? Cool, we have no issue. You can start whatever other Jedi church you like

Exactly why do we need to have a 'sort of Jediist myth'?

It's not for me to judge the works of the authors of the expanded universe but I could bet you that they aren't the greatest philosophical and inspirational minds in history, and when we choose to let the entirety of history inspire us and teach us I doubt there is really much competition...

Star Forge wrote: For the past couple years, I've been entertaining the idea of writing an actual book -200 pages or more- about the Jedi Way (or Jediism, if you prefer). I've even got some bits written that I could use for the book or at least for reference. But I have no motivation. One, very few Jediists would give a damn. Secondly, anything I or anybody else does with the word "Jedi" involved will automatically lump us in with you. So there goes any legitimacy I may have as a Jedi, at least in the eyes of the world.

As Head of PR I can assure you that in every single conversation I have given I have made it clear that we are a NOT the church of Jediism. You want legitimacy? Go out and build it. The only legitimacy this temple has is that which people choose to give us based on their impression. If you give a better impression you will get greater legitimacy - it really is as simple as that.

Would you choose not to write a book because Jedi aren't interested? Or are Jedi not interested because you haven't written a book? If you believe that your work is great then go out and do it! We have no authority over that. Why do you care so much what other people think (or don't think) of you?

'Jedi' is as good a title as any for the practice of honoring the hero of myth. 'Heroism' just doesn't sound right. The word 'Jedi' connotes (metonymy) the role of hero. Jediism is syncretic, in that, the qualities of many and various heroes are the context from which we build a religious practice in the 21st century. Lucas' film plot follows the structure of the hero plot found in a structuralist interpretation of myth (Raglan and Campbell). His works are interpretations of the myth of the hero just as this Temple is an interpretation that expresses our own appreciation for the hero and seeks to find ways to practice this understanding in our daily lives. Scholarship of the quality of Lord Raglan, Campbell, Watts and others, as well as, an appreciation of ancient or classical religious, philosophical, and scientific texts anchors our understanding and practice of Jediism.

Where there is darkness, light;

Hehehe troublemaking. Note its context is defined by its surrounding lines.

Akkarin wrote:

Star Forge wrote: I think it's pointless to argue over doctrine, light vs dark, theology, or creeds as far as TOTJO or Jediism is concerned, because those things simply do not exist here. The only "doctrine" is a few paragraphs that can be summed up as "we believe in peace, love, happiness, tolerance" and so on, and the closest thing to theology or real doctrine is a collection of already published works by other people, found in the initiation program.

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/sermons/2073-what-is-a-basic-teaching

The teachings expand one's understanding of the doctrine...

Mortose wrote: Then "Jedi" could become anything...
Should there not be at least some solid structure?

Like the solid structure of Christianity? No differing views there...

Star Forge wrote: when I suggest that the Star Wars Expanded Universe be used as a sort of Jediist myth from which we could have an ever-expanding library of philosophical and theosophical depth, you guys are like "but thats fiction lol."

Our Jediism takes its inspiration from the sources that inspired the Jedi of George Lucas. That has been our disclaimer from the very beginning. Don't like it? Cool, we have no issue. You can start whatever other Jedi church you like

Exactly why do we need to have a 'sort of Jediist myth'?

It's not for me to judge the works of the authors of the expanded universe but I could bet you that they aren't the greatest philosophical and inspirational minds in history, and when we choose to let the entirety of history inspire us and teach us I doubt there is really much competition...

Star Forge wrote: For the past couple years, I've been entertaining the idea of writing an actual book -200 pages or more- about the Jedi Way (or Jediism, if you prefer). I've even got some bits written that I could use for the book or at least for reference. But I have no motivation. One, very few Jediists would give a damn. Secondly, anything I or anybody else does with the word "Jedi" involved will automatically lump us in with you. So there goes any legitimacy I may have as a Jedi, at least in the eyes of the world.

As Head of PR I can assure you that in every single conversation I have given I have made it clear that we are a NOT the church of Jediism. You want legitimacy? Go out and build it. The only legitimacy this temple has is that which people choose to give us based on their impression. If you give a better impression you will get greater legitimacy - it really is as simple as that.

Would you choose not to write a book because Jedi aren't interested? Or are Jedi not interested because you haven't written a book? If you believe that your work is great then go out and do it! We have no authority over that. Why do you care so much what other people think of you (or don't think) of you?

I see no point in arguing Jediism because I doubt we'll ever see eye-to-eye, but I will explain my decision not to write my book, because I would hate for you all to get the wrong idea.

For one, there would be no audience. Jediists aren't interested, and they won't be. Potential Jedi, in my experience, gravitate toward Jediism. It's the path of least resistance, and it offers community. A 200+ page book by a humorless Jedi with a history and English degree is a less attractive option to going to a user-friendly site, with people that are generally friendly, with work-at-your-own-pace lessons that come in small increments and are easy to understand. If the book would accomplish nothing, largely due to the proliferation of Jediism, then there's no point in writing it, since I already know and live by what I would write.

It occurs to me as I read this thread that we are creating the source material for Jediism and this Temple every day in our journals. While our writing hasn't yet been arranged into a neat little package, we are still laying a foundation for future Jedi by sharing our own thoughts, experiences, and lessons as we walk our individual paths.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and others left out) also wrote of their own experiences. It wasn't until later that the stories were collected into a New Testament.

scott777ab wrote:

From Jestor in my Request thread.

Funnily enough, I don't seem to recall any "light" teachings here...

Really?
Look at the Oath that is required to be a member.
Look at the Codes that are required to be followed according to oath.
All that is light teaching.

So Jestor I will have to disagree and I will say that TOTJO only promotes Light Teaching and nothing else.

You know me....




hahhahahahha
:woohoo:

Br. John wrote: The vast majority of our teaching and training is only available after one becomes an apprentice.

Thank you for bringing that up Br. John. I have been wanting to write about that, but was waiting for someone else to mention it first. Now that you have I have some questions and concerns.

My Questions:
1. One thing that help main interest for me in something is being able to view in the least the table of contents. Basically knowing something of what is to come. What I am saying, is that the most of the stuff within the IP I have already self-studied years ago, not all of it, but most of it. What I mean I the ideologies. The information on Campbell was fun, Watts was a bore but still good information, the field was a retelling of stuff I have already heard studied before. Likewise with the religion exercises. So my question is this: would you all(the council) consider providing a basic table of contents of what is to come. The reason I say this, is the table of contents for the IP holds very little interest for me, but if I had some idea of what was to come, I would know whether or not to spend my time finishing the IP.

Guess it was just one question. LOL

As I stated earlier today in the "witch hunt" thread each teacher/knight or master has a different prescribed course of study. This adds to the diversity of the Temple of the Jedi Order. There is no one prescribed course of study for apprentices that I am aware of..

To be honest, I feel we could sum it up by : simplicity, patience & compassion.

That is really all I have to teach anyway ...

The thing is, for all the ranting that is going on about what our religion is based on (Star Wars, c'mon, really ?), whether or not we teach the 'light' (a concept which I'm finding just depressingly absurd) there is very little recognition of the actual basis for it all.

What Akkarin said is largely true -- we have taken our inspiration from that which inspired Lucas, but Lucas wasn't the only one it inspired. In some ways, it is the history of all of that which inspired much of classical literature - from Milton to the Gothic horror or Shelly & Stoker (for all you "darkness" fans) and as far as we can truly study the onset of the religious mind and related religious behaviours --

The problem is how we've come to view religion. We don't mind the traditional religions calling themselves religions because they don't threaten us ; we've already come to disbelieve in them enough that the liturgy is little more than showmanship. That is why the Jedi really would do best to wait before actually having any ...

Alan Watts summed up the dilemma rather well in Chapter I of The Book :

It might seem, then, that our need is for some genius to invent a new
religion, a philosophy of life and a view of the world, that is plausible
and generally acceptable for the late twentieth century, and through
which every individual can feel that the world as a whole and his own
life in particular have meaning. This, as history has shown repeatedly, is
not enough. Religions are divisive and quarrelsome. They are a form of
one-upmanship because they depend upon separating the "saved" from
the "damned," the true believers from the heretics, the in-group from the
out-group. Even religious liberals play the game of "we're-moretolerant-
than-you." Furthermore, as systems of doctrine, symbolism, and
behavior, religions harden into institutions that must command loyalty,
be defended and kept "pure," and—because all belief is fervent hope,
and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty—religions must make
converts. The more people who agree with us, the less nagging
insecurity about our position. In the end one is committed to being a
Christian or a Buddhist come what may in the form of new knowledge.
New and indigestible ideas have to be wangled into the religious
tradition, however inconsistent with its original doctrines, so that the
believer can still take his stand and assert, "I am first and foremost a
follower of Christ/Mohammed/Buddha, or whomever." Irrevocable
commitment to any religion is not only intellectual suicide; it is positive
unfaith because it closes the mind to any new vision of the world. Faith
is, above all, open-ness—an act of trust in the unknown.

It seems to me that all of the "darkness" talk here isn't any more "dark side of the Force" ... or the moon, or anything else. It is 'darkness' only because it is some notion that someone is clinging to rather than discovering who one truly is and what one truly believes. Furthermore, beliefs and truths are living, dynamic phenomena -- they change. Thus, there can be no fixed, unshakable path to them. So, any talk of a 'light' path or a 'dark' path is utter non-sense. And funny, but neither really have much to do with being nice to people or being just scandalous ...

It all comes down to the experience of Life being authentic or conditioned. Now, what do we do about that ? Well, we're still exploring that ...