ATTN: COUNCIL; Updated Doctrine Proposal

  • Visitor
4 years 1 month ago #344896 by
Rex, thank you.

I quote "You can say that the IP does, because we have it as an assignment. But by and large the IP was never designed to focus people on what the Jedi Path was, but rather for knights and masters to get to know who their potential students are, to weed out those that don't want to put in any work (and I'm not saying that as an observation, that's literally the answer I've received from council members that were present earlier this decade)."

I underlined the weeding out wording.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 years 1 month ago #344905 by Alethea Thompson
Emphasis should be put more on the “those that don’t want to put in any work”.

If you cannot complete the IP, then it’s not a hard leap to believe that placing the student in an apprenticeship wouldn’t be fruitful for either the Training s Master or the Apprentice. I’m actually not opposed to that mindset, it makes sense. I am opposed to the IP not having a bigger emphasis on what it really means to be a Jedi of our Order.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3, Kobos, Rex,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 years 1 month ago - 4 years 1 month ago #344907 by Adder

ren wrote: The closest non-jedi religious concept to the Force as described by the current doctrine is Brahman (interestingly also at the source of other better known religions).

Wiki describes it as 'In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.'

Doesnt change yet causes changes= what we usually refer to as energy when describing the Force, everything else we could copy/paste and exchange brahman with 'the Force', and 'hindu' with 'jedi'.

Hindu is a broad category, and Brahman is not universally defined within Hinduism but its a good place to start. Given what you said you'd be looking at a non-dual school of Hinduism wouldn't you to match closer to Jediism? As to me Jedi doctrine here clearly seems to state it is more then belief or thought, but also pragmatic action.

I might use something like this super simplified (and therefore probably wrong) way to look at it;

Metaphysical belief -> Ontology of that belief in reality -> Practises of that belief informed by its ontology

Being for us something like;
Force believer -> Force philosopher -> Jedi

Jediism is the three of those things together in a someone (a Jediist).

Any other labels beyond that are probably sections (sects) of the compete 'three bodies of path for a well rounded spiritual way'.
Versions of other labels then being; belief alone, or philosophy alone, or practise alone, or belief and philosophy but without practise, or belief and practise without philosophy, or philosophy and practises but without belief :D

So maybe, given one cannot know the whole, an Indian version might be;
Brahman -> Advaita Vedanta -> Jainism & Buddhism

Leading to it being something like two branches of belief;
- the metaphysics of the Force,
- the ontology of it as a non-dual thang in a seemingly dualistic existence, and thirdly

- a trunk of practise. The practises being the actions of belief in ones mind, body and environment.

But 'Why Jedi and not Force Practitioner' is a good question to ask :D
If 'Force Practioner' was used instead in those three bodies of the path, then what difference is Sith vs Jedi if they both have all three components!!! My thinking is probably (assuming an identical fully reduced universal non-dual definition of the Force) just different ontologies and practises. But for me, by fully reducing the Force as it is in the Doctrine, the closer one gets to the Force the more value all its non-self aspects begin to have, making it more and more 'light' and less 'dark'. The definition of the Force being then what defines it as 'light'.

But there might be dualism Force believers too? A distinct light Force and a distinct dark Force, but sharing the universal parameters. Or three types of Force, or more. Not to get caught up in the labels, but more to the point that does the essence being defined exist as a singular existence monism by rule of Doctrine, or not? Does the current Doctrine cater to them, and if not, is it really a Temple for all Jedi anyway (and should it)?

In regards to the use of divine, its probably not appropriate since its originally from and has significant contemporary use as meaning 'god'.
Last edit: 4 years 1 month ago by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alethea Thompson, J. K. Barger, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 years 3 weeks ago #345196 by Alethea Thompson
*Poke* :)

As it seems the discussion portion on sacred, divine and metaphysical, shall we have a vote? ^^

Just write which word you prefer as it pertains to the following:

Jediism is a religious school of thought based on the observance of the Force, an ubiquitous and *DIVINE/SACRED/METAPHYSICAL* energy that a Jedi (a follower of Jediism) believes to be the fundamental nature of the universe.

I’ll give it a week before I make an edit to the original proposal document. :)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 years 3 weeks ago #345198 by Rex
Who is voting on this?
Metaphysical or alternatively ontological anyhow
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alethea Thompson, Kobos

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 years 3 weeks ago #345201 by Kobos
I will say I am a very do you type of Jediism person. I look at it this way because in idea there is a lot of knowledge through the community of different SW related religious/spritiual groups. To lose that knowledge by creating sects, is a dangerous thing for the ideology as is.

Though I understand that I chose to study here because of the fact that TOTJO is an order that closely shares my ideals and I have had enlightening, knowledge/informational and overall friendly conversations in (Not, that I didn't and don't get frustrated with interactions some times, I do.) . However, looking at it as someone who cares about the continuity of this Order, I understand the need for a definition to define the Order, but, I believe it should be vague for the purpose of diverse ideas. "Do not set your self so far a part you, cannot see others."- IDK probably someone at some point. Some of these ideas will be bad or not fitting(IMHO) and will be determined by consensus of the order through the natural evolution of the discussion. So, I truly think it's a good idea to keep it vague.

This is what I would purpose and vote for were it up to me. It leaves a lot open and doesn't define the Order much, but hopefully inspires those who may find a different path through a start with us (IMHO a just as worthy cause). Think people who are members but not in ranks or clergy. I have learned much from some of these people and I would fear squashing that path.

"Jediism is a religious school of thought based on the observance of the Force, an ubiquitous and infinite energy that a Jedi (a follower of Jediism) believes to be the fundamental nature of the universe."

I know it's not what we would expect but it's what I got. I don't know that I added much to this conversation. But, this is something that triggered some thought on it. For the record I started out thinking I was a grey, because well I wasn't thinking about the actual idea just focused on getting in and figuring out where I fit in the idea :) .

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alethea Thompson, Carlos.Martinez3, OB1Shinobi, Skryym

Please Log in to join the conversation.