Do we hide behind our titles? Thoughts?

Manu wrote:

Amyntas wrote: You mean for a Religion based on a movie ? As good as any religion then , which is escapism in a way really is not it ?

I have a radically different view from you, Amyntas. First off, the movies might have provided the symbological elements with which we "interface" with religion, but it's not a game for me, no escape from reality. As a matter of fact, it is about embracing reality and seeing it for what it really is.

Tenets, Doctrine, Creed... they all stem organically from my appreciation of reality. I have no use of escaping towards idealistic concepts posted on a web page just so I can pretend to wield a lightsaber in my bathrobes.

Good point, not going to argue it , i feel the same way btw , but religion is used a escapism in some or a lot of cases

Amyntas wrote: ...religion is used a escapism in some or a lot of cases

It is not the "classical" definition of religion, but I like the interpretation of the word based on its etymology religare, in which the job of religion is to make whole again the bond between human and divine.

Or in my Krishnamurti-flavored "twist" of the word, for our perceptions (mental models) to align again with the divine (reality).

Krishnamurti - Freedom From the Known wrote: That state of mind which is no longer capable of striving is the true religious mind, and in that state of mind you may come upon this thing called truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love.

So religion in this sense is not escapism, but quite the opposite. It is about achieving a true grasp of reality, and the power that comes from it.

That's why I like the term "Force realism" more than I like "Jediism". Emphasis on the realism.

Manu wrote:

Amyntas wrote: ...religion is used a escapism in some or a lot of cases

It is not the "classical" definition of religion, but I like the interpretation of the word based on its etymology religare, in which the job of religion is to make whole again the bond between human and divine.

Or in my Krishnamurti-flavored "twist" of the word, for our perceptions (mental models) to align again with the divine (reality).

Krishnamurti - Freedom From the Known wrote: That state of mind which is no longer capable of striving is the true religious mind, and in that state of mind you may come upon this thing called truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love.

So religion in this sense is not escapism, but quite the opposite. It is about achieving a true grasp of reality, and the power that comes from it.

That's why I like the term "Force realism" more than I like "Jediism". Emphasis on the realism.

It can be . To some it is , to others it many not be.

Manu wrote:

Amyntas wrote: ...religion is used a escapism in some or a lot of cases

It is not the "classical" definition of religion, but I like the interpretation of the word based on its etymology religare, in which the job of religion is to make whole again the bond between human and divine.

Or in my Krishnamurti-flavored "twist" of the word, for our perceptions (mental models) to align again with the divine (reality).

Krishnamurti - Freedom From the Known wrote: That state of mind which is no longer capable of striving is the true religious mind, and in that state of mind you may come upon this thing called truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love.

So religion in this sense is not escapism, but quite the opposite. It is about achieving a true grasp of reality, and the power that comes from it.

That's why I like the term "Force realism" more than I like "Jediism". Emphasis on the realism.

Be careful with talking about these kinds of things Manu, lest you open yourself up to people calling you a vague, cryptic, mystical, pseudo-religious philosopher with no backbone for the ability to be straitforward. We need to make sure everything said correlates exactly as the very familiar world we grew up in. We can't be exploring out into ways of thinking that could risk that! We would come off (somehow) weak, ignorant, arrogant, and who knows what other adjectives and notions may be throne around! (I get rather excited when someone comes up with a new one for me!) :lol:

Thank you Marta, proteus and manufacturing all valid points. However, I agree with your statements proteus but, disagree. Manu, isn't one who has no backbone or, one who doesn't have have solid ground to stand on.

But, it does bring up the fact are we religious? Or merely, a religion on an unstable foundation on a mixed bunch of philosophies, other religions ideology, and view points. It's interesting to think of all this as a whole.

We the maxims, the oaths, the codes but, how often I don't see it neccarily on our Web page and how often it's discarded by members and even our ranking officials. Now, I am not pointing fingers at anyone but, that is how I perceive it.

Sven what an awesome question. This conversation has to one of the best I have seen philosophy and Jedi learning to me besides lessons I have seen in some time. Also its quite beautiful to see it being produced civilly. So, are we religious?

Me personally in my Jedi like ideas, yes. It is not nessicarly the way you are defining it though. As I work on myself I find I am trying to live each moment up to a set of ideals that parallel the teachings here. So I am constantly or "religiously" trying to practice Jediism though I like Force Realism, thank you for that term Manu. Now as for a loose cobble of philosophy into an unstable religious foundation. I dont believe that a tight set of philosophy is needed to form a strong foundation. We have that solid foundation; our philosophical beliefs are a mute poin,t to the fact that each of us in one way or another believe that the force exists. This includes Sith, Jedi, Taoist ect. That believe in a similar type of force that interacts with reality.

Sorry about typing you think im bad normally this is from my phone.

Sven One wrote: I agree with your statements proteus but, disagree. Manu, isn't one who has no backbone or, one who doesn't have have solid ground to stand on.

Sven, I appreciate the defense, but I think Proteus was being playful in his wording, not actually saying I have no backbone (I hope!) :laugh:

Sven One wrote: But, it does bring up the fact are we religious? Or merely, a religion on an unstable foundation on a mixed bunch of philosophies, other religions ideology, and view points. It's interesting to think of all this as a whole.

We the maxims, the oaths, the codes but, how often I don't see it neccarily on our Web page and how often it's discarded by members and even our ranking officials. Now, I am not pointing fingers at anyone but, that is how I perceive it.

You are entirely right, I think somewhere in the Doctrine page a line that John once said should be thrown in: "the Code serves you, you are its master, not its slave".

I reckon the process of childhood builds an avatar of a character, due to the environment but based on the genetics and ones will - a nature residing as a face of ones essence. It would be 'functional' to some extent, but not ideal most likely. So there is real benefit to confront and refine this, to various extents. Ones path then could be building specific 'avatars' for shaped effect, ie conduct. As 'action' above the simplest reactionary modes work better with a framework. It does not have to be nothing or original. Jiddu and Watts and Tolle love to talk about the process of tearing down the original, but it does not have to stop there, its just the beginning of what is possible, and I'd suggest perhaps what Mahayana and Vajrayana delves into.

A mere thank you isn't enough Add. It doesn't and in my opinion should never end there. The constant search for each of us. The process of Taring down the original for just that is often the general whisper I hear. The labels ohh you found them .... Now what ? I love to read those who have found avenues to visit further in many paths. Not like me but , like me! I say if I can give Mr Crowley a college try I can ceartinly only look into those as well. Ahhh labels that add not take away! Thanks for those two! We may share a few more conections after these two studies! Much and many banks again Adder!! May the Force we share already ... Be with you !

JLSpinner wrote:

Lykeios wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: I say personally there can not be a more or less of a Jedi . There can only be YOUR path of Jedi ism , which is yours and never in competition with mine. Never. There is no contest ever. In that light there has to be difrent interpitations. Not who's got what code or how much more ... Right !?
Pm me if u like for more if u like !

This, frankly, is why I left Jediism. There is no ruling on what makes someone a Jedi or makes them not a Jedi. It's this wishy-washy bologna that drove me away.

This very reason is one of my favorite things about Jediism. I don't have to bend over blindly to dogma or be shamed into submission. I have put my house in order. I've built it with discipline and courage. No one tells me how to be. I decide with the tools I have.

Good point.