What makes a Pagan Jedi

kindness goes a long way in any philosophy
flexibility and adaptability should too, though it's not often found in many religions.

At a personal level, I think that kindness is awesome. Using the soft approach to things often gets done what forcing the issue does not. In Buddhism (at least, I think it's from Buddhism, though it may also be from Confucius) it is said that the wise walks with his head bowed, and is lower than the dust. In this way, people are struck by the wisdom and tend to be more receptive to advice which fits their situation.

But there are also people who confuse kindness with passivity: is it kinder to allow a man who is intent on killing himself to do so, or is it kinder to use forceful means to save his life? Though it depends on the situation, most Buddhists agree that the use of force to save the man's life is actually a kindness, while being passive and allowing the man to kill himself is an act of violence.

In Paganism, I've noticed that this passivity is prevalent among the people who just don't know what they're doing, especially among certain groups of the New Age movement. However, these are the minority any more, as people who become spiritually aware come to a natural balance within themselves and begin to understand how the balances of energies work. They understand that kindness is a means of preventing suffering, and so they become forceful where soft kindness wouldn't work. This is what makes people like Tiamat so effective at what they do, even when they are seeming to come off as negative at times: they are diminishing the suffering of others by directing the suffering away from them.

Thus, a Pagan Jedi is really no different from any other kind of Jedi, other than the perspective from which they perceive the Force. I think that the reason we have rites is not to separate, but to allow for a \"comfort zone\" while people come to an understanding of this. It's the illusion of separation which creates comfort, and though we are not the same, we are all still one.

This idea can also be framed into Christian and Humanist terms, but I'm already risking the tl;dr limit.

good points, i do think that quote is from buddhism...not 100% certain though.

quite true that sometimes to do kindness a degree of forcefulness may be necessary.

It's difficult to gauge sometimes, though.

I agree that to be kind is not always soft , although I see it as the preferred option, and force to be last option,and though they seem to two sides of the same coin perhaps there are other sides,In your example above of a man wishing to kill himself, I would see that inner strength of those that wish to practice kindness much more beneficial than force, the inner strength being a certainty from within that all is not lost , more a speaking to the spirit than to the \"Drama\" of all is lost, for if you talk to the \"Drama\" then all is lost, for the person will feel that , all that you are seeing is the drama and not them, ( the powerful spirit) you have done what they have and believed the drama of their mind, which is why they feel lost.......kind of like the way you would speak to a child throwing a tantrum , from outside the situation, so as I see it another side of the coin....Well there we have it a three sided coin

i prefer a good 20 sided die to a coin....lots of options available that way, even if you are less likely to get the result you want, what's life without chance.

Life without chance ? BORING one would think

To reference the most popular Pagan saying (I know not all paths follow it but...):

\"An it harm none, do what ye will\"

Very simple, yet also complicated. I find it's a good guide since you can do whatever makes you happy as long as it doesn't hurt or denigrate anyone (and that includes yourself).

Sometimes the simplest of truths are the most powerful!

MTFBWY

I like the modernized version of this:

\"If it does no harm, do whatever you want to.\"

That's not the same as kindness, though.

The problem is, in the example I gave, would harm be knocking someone unconscious to save their lives, or allowing them to kill themselves (since these are the only options presented in the situation)? In both cases, harm is probable.

Compassion demands that action be taken to prevent suffering. If he killed himself, and he was Catholic, would his soul ultimately go to Hell? If he was Buddhist, would killing himself cause him to be unable to dissolve karma to his next lifetime? If Hindu, would he be reincarnated as an insect and have to start the entire process of working up to humanity again? If atheist, would he be robbing the community of valuable insight which only he is capable of?

Or is this suicide an attempt at preventing suffering? Someone who is intent on harming themselves is very difficult to be kind to. In such cases, it's best to use the least amount of force to get the job done; but it must be done.

\"An it harm none\" is great as a general rule, but one must still weigh the harm which is done and choose the least amount of it. To do otherwise is to invite suffering... one cannot simply avoid harm altogether in a world which is focused on promoting it.

by killing himself he may also inflict suffering upon family, friends, and others. by using just enough force to stop him then reasoning with him could stop a great deal of suffering