[xenduck]

zatoichi, fantastic post. i really like your point about dooku not killing obi-wan when he had the chance. im upset with myself for having overlooked that, it would have helped my position in the post about tyrannous.

about the EU, i would like to add that nihilus probably is a reference to nihilism, or the root latin word nihil-meaning 'nothing'. sion is the name of a fortress that was conquered by king david and eventually became synonmious with jerusalem. and a naga is (i think) a hindu snake-demon, sometimes good sometimes bad.

and, zatoichi, your name reminds me that ive been meaning to compare jedi to samurai. there are very importnat distincions between the two, obvioiusly, but in an attempt to extrapolate the methodolgy of the jedi order, i look for similar orginizations in the real world. it seems commonly accepted that the philosophy of star wars has an eastern flavor; so a comparison of jedi and samurai seems approriate. thus, my next essay i shall call, in pure punnic fashion, orientation of the jedi.

This post has been edited by xenduck: 06 August 2005 - 01:04 PM

[xenduck]

jedi orientation

PART 1: the origin of the order

no doubt the history of the jedi order has been variously explored and explained throughout the EU. I, for one, am only vaguely familiar with the EU so this essay may be redundant or entirely “wrong”. Nevertheless, I am less concerned with the ‘how’ as the ‘why’. I shall try to answer, by comparing examples from the star wars saga to eastern systems of thought, these three basic questions: why was the force first used? why were the ways of the force perpetually taught? and, why was the jedi order formed?

As we have learned, all living being possess, in their cells, a certain amount of midichlorians. Those born with an extraordinary amount of midichlorians gain extraordinary physical and metaphysical abilities. These abilities manifest themselves in several ways, including enhanced reflexes, heightened sense, premonition, and possibly acute perception. It is currently unknown to me how old the recognition of the force is, but presumably every generation of sentient beings produces a number of “gifted” individuals; therefore it is likely that as long as there has been consciousness there has been awareness, in varying degrees, of the force. Over the countless eons of the myriad worlds of the universe, the innate abilities of protojedi were slowly developed until an individual, or group, founded the basic principles of force-wielding. The abilities would have gained in potency as each successive generation of force-wielders discovered new venues for their powers. Like qui-gon was the first to return from the force, there was probably one person who originally realized the vast potential of the force and made unprecedented progress in its applications. The first to take the ‘first steps into a larger world.' the first to recognize fully that the force, like lao tzu’s “way” was what “the myriad creatures depend on (for) life, yet claims no authority.”

but how and why should the ‘first’ go about teaching others? in the world of myth, David leeming answers, “this doubt assails the buddha, he nevertheless immediately responds to a definite request for guidance; the moment the pupil puts the right questions, the teacher’s doubts are resolved.” in other words, the force-wielder would certainly impress upon others a feeling of awe at his ‘magical’ accomplishments. a few would want to learn this knowledge also, and then fewer he/she would deem worthy. Almost immediately, there would be a rift between those who wanted to aid society and those who wanted to aid themselves with what they had learned. Here we have the separation of the sith and the jedi. Perhaps, by virtue of opposing schools was each school defined. Musashi, book of five rings, writes of the way of the warrior, “in this way of life in particular, if you misperceive the path even slightly, if you stray from the right way, you fall into evil sates.”

The chief virtue of the jedi would be, above all, compassion. “Whatever you do should be done for the sake of your master nad parents, the people in general, and for posterity. This is great compassion.” writes tsunetomo in the hagakure. “When one punishes or strives with the heart of compassion, what he does will be limitless in strength and correctness. Doing something for one’s own sake is shallow and mean and turns into evil...the foundation for ruling the country in peace is compassion.”

The abhorrence of, and constant threat of succumbing to, the ‘rival school’ would have led to more and more strict regulations on teaching about the force. To borrow an old maxim, “with great power comes great responsibility.” if the jedi are to take it upon themselves to aid society, then how will they ensure their teachings wont lead to, through their misuse, the downfall of society? The order had to be established so that a council of experienced leaders could decide how best to teach their padawans and to decide what preventative measures could be taken against the darkside. The council’s duty, as munenori, in the book of family traditions on the art of war says of the samurai, would be “seeing the situation of the states, knowing when there will be a disputation, and healing disturbances before it happens.” the council, in order to limit the influences of the darkside, would have put regulations on many things which could potentially lead the inexperienced down the ‘wrong’ path. In the movies, these repudiations seem to center around attachment and aggression. Attachment leads a host of negative emotions such as obsession, jealousy and the fear of loss. Munenori writes, “there is repudiation of attachment and avoidance of lingering on anything. Not lingering is considered quintessential.” The Tibetan book of the dead refers to all attachments as visions, “these visions have no reality outside your consciousness.” And it urges one to, “remember the clear light...from which everything in the universe comes, to which everything in the universe returns...no need to be attached to (visions) at all...if you become involved with these visions, you may wander for a long time confused.”
Aggression seems to be an innate quality of most beings, expressing itself from time to time with little enticement, reason, or purpose-and often a by-product of attachment. Aggression itself is a negative emotion that is always harmful to the individual and usually harmful to others. But is also often the cause of sorrow, regret, dissension and grudges. Therefore, it would be indispensable for the jedi, by force of will, to control his aggressive feelings. Munenori, “don’t let your mood become hurried and aggressive, it is essential to control your mood by means of your will, so your will is not drawn by your mood.” Some may say that the jedi order should not be so strict, but, like tsunetomo says of the lotus sutra sect, “it is by reason of its fearsome character that it is the lotus sect. If its character were not so, it would be a different sect altogether.”

qui-gon says “your focus determines your reality.” and obi-wan that, “many of the truths we cling to are based largely on our own point of view.” in the dhammapada we are told, “with our thoughts we make the world.” so it is imperative that the jedi maintain clear and positive thoughts; abstain from attachment and aggression. Lao tzu tells us, “one who excels in fighting is never roused in anger.” But if the jedi are to defend society, then some forms of aggression are unavoidable. The important distinction is, as I said, that negative aggression is that is without catalyst of consideration. So the positive version would be “aggressive negotiation”. Or rather, active pursuit of resolution. In my next post, I will explore the role of the lightsaber in public defense; as a weapon, and as a symbol.

This post has been edited by xenduck: 08 August 2005 - 10:20 PM

[xenduck]

jedi orientation

Part 2: lightsaber, the life-giving sword

if jedi are to protect society, then what will protect the jedi? The jedi is imbued with discerning perception, supernatural insight and incredible, inexorable power. This is surely enough to serve the jedi in all capacities, as campbell, in the hero with a thousand faces, writes about wisdom, “a consummate master would require no physical weapon at all, the power of his magic word would suffice.” but the problem with wisdom and words is that they are intangible, and invisible. To the teeming masses, the power of the jedi must be clearly seen to be respected and obeyed. What the jedi need is a symbol, something simple and elemental; something both elegant and utilitarian. Thus, the birth of the lightsaber; a vraja (or thunderbolt). An instrument that cuts through all things, actual and dubious. Campbell, “The thunderbolt is one of the major symbols in buddhist iconography. Signifying the spiritual power of the buddhahood (indestructible enlightenment) which shatters the illusory realities of the world.”

Yoda informs luke. “Do, or do not. there is no try.” this is indicative of the abilities the jedi wields. That anything can be accomplished through the force, but only when the mind is serious and faithful. Tsunetomo writes similar words, “no matter what it is, there is nothing that cannot be done...moving heaven and earth without effort is simply a matter of concentration.” this concept is certainly intimidating, but, like words and wisdom, the faithful mind cannot be conspicuously displayed to those who would do harm. The lightsaber shines as the jedi’s power incarnate. Just as the samurai wore their two swords, the lightsaber is a badge to be respected. But the power of the lightsaber isn’t solely in its use as a symbol. It has very real applications for when the jedi, or the people, are threatened. Yet, when is it suitable to a passive jedi to brandish his/her potent weapon in combat? The lightsaber is representative of the same authority as the swords of the samurai, the samurai unsheathed their swords only “to use them when unavoidable...myriad people suffer because of the evil of one man. In such a case, myriad people are saved by killing one man. The sword that kills is the sword that gives life.” writes munenori.

Once engaged, the jedi is a force to be reckoned with. When hunting general grievous, obi-wan plops down right in the midst of dozens of enemies. This is in accordance with the way of the samurai. tsunetomo, “the way of the samurai is one of immediacy, and it is best to dash headlong, even if it will be very difficult to succeed by advancing straight ahead. it will not do to think about going at it in a long round about way.” this doesn’t mean the jedi should act rashly, rather, that he/she should be “resolved in advance” having already concluded what is to be done in a particular situation before that situation arises. This means having a concept of one’s action’s ramifications, of being able to discern right and wrong without deliberation. Musashi writes of nine rules of martial arts that read like jedi precepts, a few are:

think of what is right and true.
Understand the harm and benefit in everything.
Learn to see everything accurately.
be careful even in small matters.
do not do anything useless.

“You hardly become a master,” writes musashi, “unless you can see the immediate in a broad context. Once you have learned this principle, you should not be defeated even in individual combat against twenty or thirty opponents.”

No thought should be given to life or death, victory or defeat, expounds tsunetomo, but only what needs be done. “No matter if the enemy has thousands of men, there is fulfillment in simply standing them off and being determined to cut them all down. You will finish the greater part of it.”

Zen Buddhism was the religion of the samurai. Zen stressed the transience of life and that each moment should be cherished as though death would come in the next minute. This corresponds with qui-gon’s living force; the here and now. To me, being mindful of the living force means not allowing the anticipation of the future, nor the bias of the past, to hinder your judgment or actions. In the unfettered mind, the zen master soho explains, “This means one should cut right through the interval between previous and present. Its significance is in cutting off the edge between before and after, between now and then. It means not detaining the mind...if the mind congeals in one place and remains with one thing, it is like frozen water and is unable to be used freely.” this, among other similar concepts, is what soho refers to as ‘the mystery of immovable wisdom’. He symbolizes this immovable wisdom as a sword, “This sword can freely cut anything, from rigid metal and tempered steel to dense and hardened gems and stones. Under heaven there is nothing that can parry this blade. The person who obtains this uncreated mysterious ability (the living force) will not be swayed by the commander of huge armies or an enemy force of hundreds of thousands. This is the same as there being nothing that can impede the blade of this famous sword. Thus I call the strength of this mysterious ability the sword.”

the samurai seem almost certainly to be the template of the jedi. This does not suggest that samurai and jedi are identical, only comparable. The philosophy of buddhism, and taoism is manifest in the words of the jedi, but their actions, their role in society, are in accordance with the way of the samurai. In conclusion, here is a quote from yoshikawa’s famous novel musashi. these words, spoken by musashi, could have been uttered by old ben before his fatal encounter with darth vader aboard the death star.

“This river, you know, may be the three-pronged river of hell; this road, the mile-long road to perdition; this hill ill soon climb, the mountain of needles on which the damned are impaled. Nevertheless, this is the only path toward true life...there are those who die by remaining alive and others who gain life by dying.”


and BTW, i adore yunakitty's post about attachment in eastern philosophy on the thread, 'Flaws with no attachment mentality'

This post has been edited by xenduck: 08 August 2005 - 10:24 PM

[Zatoichi]

Thanks for the name reference xenduck

"zatoichi, your name reminds me that ive been meaning to compare jedi to samurai."

I'm positive that you are right about the origins of the Jedi order, or at least close. I just can't remmember where I read about it. Cursed memory. I shall have to do some rereading.

Anyways... I was wondering if you could do me a favor by making a list of the books you reference and their authors (I'm too lazy to do the rereading necessary). It would really be great if you could. With any luck I could get them at a library or buy them. With that kind of reading who would need to take a philosophy class?

besides that, keep up the spectacular work.

[xenduck]

hey, ya, thanx for reading! uh, im going camping for about a week, trying to wean myself away from my computer! so it will be awhile before i can get that bibliography. but i wont forget! ok, im off like a prom dress!

[Zatoichi]

Well while waiting for the biblio, I want to hear anyone's thoughts on that damnable balancing prophecy. Maybe it isn't referring to when Anakin helps Sidious wipe out the jedi. What if (and I'm sure GL wouldn't have thought of something like this) it refers to the end of ROTJ? Before the rise of the Empire it is two Sith and a handful of dark Jedi vs. the Entire Jedi Order. At the end of ROTJ, Luke is the last Jedi currently active. There is almost no other note worthy light side force users around (even in the EU). For the Dark Side there is The Emperor and Vader (as the two most powerful), The Emperor's hands (including Mara Jade, EU), Some of the Royal Guards (EU), spirits of dead Sith Lords (EU), and a bunch of other low level dark side users who pop up here and there (also EU). Then this happens.
(And it is by no means chronological. Also, almost all of it is EU.)
Darth Vader reverts to Anakin, and kills the Emperor. Say bye bye to the two most powerful Dark Siders. Mara Jade turns to the light after being cut off from the Emperor and meeting Luke. Luke sets about creating the new Jedi Order. Many dark and light side users come out of the woodwork. The Emperor gets killed several times over as he tries to come back. Leia has her children.

I would like to call that balancing. At different points during Anakin's life time each side had been far more powerful. Shortly thereafter they were much more even. Anakin takes out the top Dark Side users (himself included) and sets up the light side for a major comeback (seeing as how Luke is alive).

I think that this would be a decent explanation, but I doubt GL would have come up with something like this. I would love to hear what anyone else thinks about it.

This post has been edited by Zatoichi: 12 August 2005 - 11:54 AM

[Despondent]

I'd be interested in seeing some new people and aliens I've never seen before. That's was SW was about. Then it just got lame with all the reintroductions. If you watch it from the "beginning" (TPM), a lot of what happened in ESB won't even be new material anymore.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the jedi kids survivor cartoon they'll be doing. I guess. If they insist on showing it in 2 minute portions here and there I'll miss it and not care like the clone wars cartoon. Of which I had a positive reaction, it just wasn't worth the trouble.

But I'm sure everyone in the cartoon will be related and even MORE of the OT characters will appear. Ewoks too, mark my words. :angry:

[xenduck]

alrighty, im back in action! sorry i took so long, this bibliography turned out to be more work than i ever imagined. even though ive kept things super-simple, listing only the books and the authors-forgoing translators and edition info, i had a hard time getting that stupid picture! so the booklist follows the order of the picture.



About behaviorism by B.F. Skinner
Man and His Symbols by Carl G. Jung
Hagakure by Yamamoto Tsunetomo
Unfettered Mind by Takuan Soho
Common Sense by Thomas Paine
The Republic by Plato
Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu
The Flowers of Evil by Charles Baudelaire
Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche
Gulivers Travels by johnathan swift
Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
Beowulf verse translation by Seamus Heaney
Teachings of the Buddha edited by Jack Kornfield
The Art of War by Sun Tzu
Utopia by Thomas More
Machiavelli on Modern Leadership by Michael A. Ledeen
The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
Musashi by Eiji Yoshikawa
Star Wars and Philosophy edited by Kevin S. Decker and Jason T. Eberl
Guns, Germs and Steele by Jared Diamond
The World of Myth by David Adam Leeming
The Hero With a Thousands Faces by Joseph Campbell
The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi
The Making of Episode I by Laurent Bouzereau and Jody Duncan

This post has been edited by xenduck: 23 August 2005 - 10:09 PM

[xenduck]

Now, the careful observer may have noticed that at the top of the stack is about behaviorism which I haven’t yet quoted. Well, im about to. You see, while writing ‘the origin of the order’ it occurred to me that training with a lightsaber has an added benefit, or fortunate side-effect. It seems every generation must learn for itself that youth and power is a combustive combination. The burgeoning nascent abilities combined with an adolescent angst, especially under the strict dogmatism of jedi orthodoxy, would be a virtually unbearable strain on the padawan’s psyche. Skinner suggest allowing the ‘child’ to act out his/her aggressive feelings in a constructive way is an invaluable ‘safety valve’ for emotional pressure.

“We are often aware of a strong tendency to do or say something although an occasion is lacking; we may be ‘bursting with good news’ but have no one to tell it to. More often, however, we do not respond because we have been punished; we have ‘repressed our rage’ because we have been punished for expressing it.... our behavior becomes stronger than the incompatible behaviors which have previously displaced it. If an explosion has unwanted consequences for others, appropriate steps may be taken to prevent it. The pressure may be reduced by providing an environment in which behavior may be freely omitted or impulses may be channeled into more useful outlets. ‘Toy guns,’ says a psychiatrist, ‘allow children to work out conflicts and ventilate some of their aggressive urges.’ We should say instead that they permit children to behave aggressively in unpunished ways.”

it would be a cathartic experience to regularly act-out in aggressive ways, (i.e. lightsaber practice) under circumstances where the aggression will not be severely judged or punished.


now id like to briefly address the prophecy issue: the prophecy motif is indeed ancient and has cropped-up in literature consistently for millennia. I believe, and this is strictly an opinion, that the prophecy was introduced solely to tie star wars in more firmly with classical literature. And that it is a result of lucas trying to adhere anakin as closely as possible to the archetypal hero myths. Perhaps later ill look into it more closely, but for now my stance is this; that the balancing prophecy was written vaguely and most likely all there was to know about it was expressed in its entirety in the PT. So, in truth, the jedi had no clue what the prophecy meant. We may assume it meant that anakin would even-out the numbers of light/darkside wielders; but only because thats what happened (mostly). This is what is suggested by Jason Eberl in star wars and philosophy, the prophecy may seem to determine anakin’s future, but it may be “counter-temporal causality- that, in this case, a future choice causes past knowledge, whereas we typically think of past events causing future events. But from the eternal observer’s perspective(the force), anakin’s choice and the knowledge expressed in the prophecy are both present.”

the problem with a saga set a long time ago in a galaxy far far away is that the author can come right-out and say a name or work connected with a familiar motif; the allusions have to be buried so as not to draw attention to themselves and ruin immersion. Thats why I believe that lucas drops so many hints through the names of people and places. For example, the librarian obi-wan consults about kamino in AOTC is named jocasta nu. Jocasta is the name of oedipus’ mother; no one reeks of prophecy like oedipus. Further, in the biblical book of samuel, we are told of king saul, who consults the witch of endor(or en-dor) to prophesies about an important (and ultimately fatal) battle.
Rudyard Kipling writes,
“Oh the road to En-dor is the oldest road
And the craziest road of all!
Straight it runs to the Witch’s abode,
As it did in the days of Saul,
And nothing has changed of the sorrow in store
For such as go down on the road to En-dor!”

Ok, ok, no more time, I gotta get going, sorry if this is an unpolished and disjointed post. More to follow, probably.

[xenduck]

i didnt manage to say all that i wanted to say in the last post regarding the prophecy. the point of bringing up jocasta and endor is to hint at the probability that someone at lucasfilms is familiar with prophecies in literature and history. while checking up on ol' jocasta at the star wars databank, i was suprised to read this following remark,

"So reliant was she on the Jedi Archive's data, she neglected to consider that perhaps the information could have been tampered with. This was but one example of Jedi complacency getting in the way of their service."

this goes hand-in-hand with yoda's statements about the jedi being "too sure of themselves." to me, this seems like an official, yet subtle, endorsment of the idea the jedi, arrogantly assured of their dominancy, needed to be purged and renewed; like a forest needs an occasional fire.

[njamilla]

OK, been there, done that. Read all those books and your eclectic picking at samurai texts is a very false way of critically exploring the ideas that informed the creation of Lucas's Jedi. Just because there is a similarity, doesn't mean there's a direct borrowing. Just because an idea from a Japanese author fits an idea in SW, doesn't presuppose that the idea was intentionally derived or intended to reflect the particular idea.

If I had thought all of those quotes directly contributed to the development of the Jedi, I would have traced their sources to the more immediate exp​ression of the ideas in primary sources (i.e. GL's writing or what he says).

Looking at GL's scripts, early drafts, later drafts, and what made it out of the editing room, you can pick things out of past cultures and generally say they influenced GL. But the extremely vague philosphical and literary references you find in SW are not very deliberately organized into a tight formalistic system. Yes, GL says Thousand Faces influenced him, but that's not textual or comparative analysis. It's annecdotal.

In my book, I make it very clear how I approach finding real world instances of Jedi-like traditions or forms. I never say that GL actually borrowed these ideas directly from this Japanese source or that religious source. I assert that GL's Jedi are this way, historical traditions or facts are this similar (but not exactly the same) way. I compare, but I do not insist one is derived from another.

Yes, I know you're not using my thesis for your thoughts, Xenduck, but your picking of historical texts is much like GL picking at history. For his fictional work, he has the benefit of taking what he wants out of history and not having to protray that idea as true. You, when you go through your quotes, you make it sound like GL deliberately intended to fold those philosophical concepts and ideas into his fictional characters. This is very misleading and bad textual analysis.

Several people, over the years, have offered me their assertion that GL borrowed many concepts from aikido because his concept of the Jedi reflect many aikido tenets spoken by instructors and written in the host of aikido books that have flooded the market. That's nice, and it seems reasonable. But GL, as far as I have seen in writing and in interviews, has never even uttered the word "aikido."

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but Musashi belongs to Musashi within the context of his life, times, and subsequent history. Munenori, Takuan, et. al all need to stay out of SW, and read within their own context. Sorry, but GL ain't that deep.

In SW and Philosophy, the various authors make connections between SW and various philosophies. The good essays use SW as a springboard to elaborate on real world philosophies, the bad ones assert "SW means this or that."

Cultural or philosophical revisionism is extremely commonplace these days, but it also has been in the past. Borrowing of ideas is fine, but accreting older philosophical systems into a new one is often a good looking bastard with no soul. I'll give you one example. Suzuki wrote a book on Zen and gave many examples of how the esoteric practices of swordsmanship perfectly express Zen. Well, Suzuki was never a swordsman, and his examples of sword practices were chosen only to illustrate particular similarities. But because the English translations were so ubiquitous, many Westerns accept at face value that swordsmanship is basically Zen, or Zennish. If you talk to Japanese swordsmen, some talk of Bushido, others of tradition, and others of Buddhism. Westerners often equate swordsmanship with Zen. Japanese equate Zen with religion.

I appreciate the dialog that happens when real writers, philosophers, and theologians are brought into discussions about SW, but a lot of what people say about these philosphers has become pop-philosophies. Then they get repeated over and over again. You should see what the authors of Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters. A Catholic theological standpoint would have some very different interpretations from the Protestant point of view of that book's authors.

Again, the emphasis should be on similarities, not GL's philosphical brilliance. SW is a good exp​ression of "find your bliss" but it's not a critical text. A swordsman learning to give up the sword is a profound epiphany, but SW is not a primer on ethical morality. It's more like a slogan.

[xenduck]

this post is meant as a rebuttle, njamilla, but i want you to know i have respect for what you have said. i spent several hours reflecting (or meditating, if you will) as to whether or not i am as naive as you seem to suggest. and no, you're wrong, or rather, you are wrongly accusing me of something i simply did not do. you say,
"Just because there is a similarity, doesn't mean there's a direct borrowing. Just because an idea from a Japanese author fits an idea in SW, doesn't presuppose that the idea was intentionally derived or intended to reflect the particular idea."
and that is absolutly true. but when did i do anything of the sort? i assume you are refering to the 'jedi orientation' essay, and yet, never did i suggest that lucas "borrowed" his ideas from anyone, i never even mentioned his name. this is the second time you have accused me of trying to inbue lucas with credit for the similarities i have demonstrated, however, you have never presented ANY evidence of such. i want you to show me where i have made this mistake, how can i correct myself if you dont show me the error? you talk about an error having been made, but where is it? i say to you a second time, these essays are only comparisons, the legitimacy and/or purposfulness is up to you to decide on. you say,
"You, when you go through your quotes, you make it sound like GL deliberately intended to fold those philosophical concepts and ideas into his fictional characters. This is very misleading and bad textual analysis."
and that may certainly be true, but it was not my intention. the title 'jedi orientation' was meant to show that i(me, myself, alone) was taking the concept of the jedi and defining it in terms of eastern philosophy. i tried not to suggest anywhere that lucas even knows what a samurai is; all im doing is making comparisons, and trying to be unbiased about it(though i fail at times, apparently). ultimatly, the goal of this entire thread is to demonstrate that many of the concpets in star wars have, if not always rationality, a real-world counterpart.
"Again, the emphasis should be on similarities, not GL's philosphical brilliance"
in my essay, 'the unconscious star wars' i was attempting to show conclusive evidence that lucas got his story template from jung and campbell, but no where else did i stress GL's philosophical brilliance. i am putting emphasis on similarities, its up to you to decide if he's philosophicaly brilliant. again, i charge you, where have i done otherwise?

njamilla, since i respect you as someone who has studied eastern philosophy, i would like to ask you a few questions; for my own eddification: did i in anyway incorrectly portray the jedi or samurai? are my comparisons apt, accurate? if they are accurate, then do you think the similarities are purely accidental? has your knowledge of the samurai (what i have written or what you have already known) given you a deeper understanding of the jedi's function or mentality?

i would appreciate your view as to whether or not there are similarities between jedi and samurai.

[Zatoichi]

On that note, when coming up with Star Wars, a lot of people had input. Not just George. So far I have readily enjoyed what xenduck has written. It is very interesting to say the least.

Oh and yay! Thank you for the list.

Now philosophy will be no prob ... Oh yeah, I have to read them first.

[njamilla]

Xenduck:

What is frustrating about GL is that there are so many potential instances of great philosophical insights in the SW movies, but the bottom line is that he doesn't incorporate philosophical themes very deeply. So when I see your essay entitled: "lightsaber: life giving sword", I get all bent out of shape because GL's Jedi are not as profound as Yagu Munenori's Shinkage school of swordsmanship.

You asked for some specific examples in my critique.

One thing is the eclectic sources you use when illustrating Jedi principles. You pull from Munenori, Soho, Musashi, Buddhism. Jedi philosophy does not pull from them specifically, nor could the Jedi represent all of these different views. The Hagakure is in some aspects a frighteningly militaristic book. Musashi, much recounted in stories, is not always the sypathetic character. (And I would not use Yoshikawa as a source because his Musashi is a fiction narrative.) Buddhism has many deeply philosophical exp​ressions, Zen being an offspring of Mahyana Busshism.

Some statements aren't accurate and could have been rephrased.
Xen: "Zen Buddhism was the religion of the samurai." -- Not particularly. But because of the plethora of English translations which you find in bookstores, it may seem that the samurai were all Zen Buddhists. Most people in Japan are Buddhist (at least nominally), and even during the time of the samurai (pick your era) I doubt many samurai would say, "I'm a Zen Buddhist." My observation is annecdotal, but my reasoning is that samurai were not predominantly Zen Buddhists, and that we Westerns get the idea that they were because of the kinds of translations that are reprinted and sold in bookstores.

Xen: "The lightsaber is representative of the same authority as the swords of the samurai, the samurai unsheathed their swords only “to use them when unavoidable...myriad people suffer because of the evil of one man. In such a case, myriad people are saved by killing one man. The sword that kills is the sword that gives life.” writes munenori." -- This phrase has been oft quoted and its implications a vast and profound. It basically offers a utilitarian justification, implying that the person who was killed was a means to an end. Intrinsic ethicists would have problems with this. I'm not saying that the debate shouldn't happen, but I cannot say that this is part of Jedi philosophic principles.

You compare Yoda's "Do or do not" quote to the Tsunetomo's Hagakure. I, as a writer, have to decide if I want Yoda's quote associated from a text which Mishima used to help form his radical Shield society. Apart from that, there is a lot of background which goes into the statement: "moving heaven and earth is simply a matter of concentration".


Overall, I would have to say that your method is scholastic, i.e. you compare SW to authorities from the past. This is not the literary or scientific method commonly used today. It was textual analysis which discretited the Donation of Constantine. It was the scientific method which explains Newton's principle that "Objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

njamilla, since i respect you as someone who has studied eastern philosophy, i would like to ask you a few questions; for my own eddification: did i in anyway incorrectly portray the jedi or samurai? are my comparisons apt, accurate? if they are accurate, then do you think the similarities are purely accidental? has your knowledge of the samurai (what i have written or what you have already known) given you a deeper understanding of the jedi's function or mentality?

Of all the essays that you have posted, it is very clear that you've done your research and make connections, but one needs to be careful of the manner in which a person makes his or her assertions. Because many of your statement are unequivocal (e.g. " The lightsaber is representative of the same authority as the swords of the samurai,"), it is easy to refute. Conversely, it's very difficult to defend intellectually.

Another thought that comes to mind are popular concepts of the samurai. The term, just like knighthood, needs to be understood in more breadth. Within a Western context, it's easy to see the positive aspects of a code like chivalry, but, also, if asked, a student of Western culture can also see the connection between chivalry and its association with the xenophobic policies of many kingdoms in Europe. An emphasis on the Christian aspects of knighthood also have to be considered. I do not think Tom Cruise's Last Samurai clarifies the image of the samurai.

There are several things that I like about your essays.

1) You give primary source examples which logically illustrate aspects of Jedi philosophy. I think you're on the right path with some of your premises. I think you could go with make a good connection between Jedi philosophy and the Shinkage school of swordsmanship. Sato (who translated The Sword and the Mind) says in his introduction: "Shinkage school of swordsmanship was pacifist."

2) All the quotes are relevant, and they give the reader very serious ideas to consider. Books could be written on every one of the quotes to cite.

3) There's an enthusiasm for the subject which clearly attempts to deepen our understanding of Star Wars. There are so many aspects of it that I don't care for: jedism, commercialism, the EU. Sometimes, I take it all too serious, and just need to be reminded to chill out.

[xenduck]

njamilla, thank you for your clarifing reply, and i think now i see where we disagree. i can feel assured that virtually everyone on this forum knows what a jedi is, i cannot, however, feel the same about samurai. that being the case, i have adopted an introductory approach. to someone already initiated, this may seem patronizing, but please understand why i have done this.
as the title 'life giving sword' implies, i feel that munenori most accutely resembles the jedi code, but i dont want my reader to think all samurai thought like munenori. by watching the star wars movies we get to meet numerous jedi individuals, and through them we can extrapolate the "average jedi". so my hope was that, by presenting a broad view of samurai, from various sources, the reader could get some concept of the "average samurai".
the problem then becomes that (excluding yoshikawa) i am left with over a thousand pages that need whittling down to a forum-sized essay. in short, this essay was not intended for someone who already knows the concepts disscussed, but meant to spark the interest of the "average reader".

i just dont have the space here to write volumes of explanatory notes, nor to tediously illustrate how exactly yoda's mentality maybe reconciled with tsunetomo's; simply becuase some other person has used the quote under different circumstances. and again, the uninitiated wouldnt not struggle with that bias. so this brings me to the question i grapple with when writing each essay, is it excusable to generalize so much literature? well, all i can say is: i highly encourage everyone to read the full texts; and hopefully these essays do just that-encourage learning.

also, you said, "many of your statement are unequivocal (e.g. "The lightsaber is representative of the same authority as the swords of the samurai,"), it is easy to refute. Conversely, it's very difficult to defend intellectually."
i would be interested to read your easy refutation; because, obviously, i wouldnt have written that unless i believed it.

and i would love to read your book, Shimmering Sword: Samurai, Western, and Star Wars Sword Fighting. know where i can find it?