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.