The Council Present As Follows: Fill & Download for Free

A great question. The answer tells us so much about the corruption of the Jedi during the Clone Wars and why they lost Anakin to the Dark Side.Most of all, Ahsoka’s expulsion and subsequent choice to not come back to the Jedi is beautiful storytelling, perhaps only surpassed in the Clone Wars series with the last few episodes of season seven, which tell us Ahsoka’s story during the execution of Order 66.The vote to expel AhsokaTaking away the Padawan braid, theThe Council voted to expel Ahsoka. We know that the decision was not unanimous, as Yoda said so himself during the Council Judgment: “Reached a decision we have, though not in total agreement we are.”It is Plo Koon who voted against Ahsoka’s expulsion. Likely everyone else, even Yoda - and even Obi-Wan Kenobi - voted to expel her.Who votedWe have a good idea who got to vote. In the episode we first see a Council meeting with ten Jedi Council members, and later the official ceremony to expel Ahsoka, where we see only six Council members.During the Council meeting, Tarkin brought a demand from the Senate: Ahsoka Tano had to be expelled from the Jedi order so that she could be tried for the bomb attack on the Jedi temple.The ten Jedi Masters present are Coleman Kjac, Eeth Koth, Kit Fisto, Shaak Ti, Saesee Tiin, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Ki-Adi-Mundi, Yoda, Mace Windu and Plo Koon:The Council meeting. Tarkin conveys the demand of the Senate.Five Council members speak:First, Obi-Wan Kenobi, who pleads that the Council sides with Ahsoka.Then Ki-Adi-Mundi, who calmly says that “there is evidence she was the mastermind behind the attack on the temple.”Third up is Saesee Tiin, who somberly agrees with Ki-Adi-Mundi: “She was found in possession of nano-droid explosives. This alone is enough to convict her.”Fourth is Mace Windu: “I understand your sentiment, Obi-Wan, but, if the Council does as you suggest, it could be seen as an act of opposition to the Senate. I’m afraid we have little choice.”Yoda is last, and he does not yet choose sides. He calls for Ahsoka and Anakin to be summoned to the Chamber of Judgment. “And in our decision, may the Force guide us.”In the Chamber of Judgment, we see six Council members. From left to right: Shaak Ti, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Ki-Adi-Mundi, Mace Windu, Yoda and Plo Koon:JudgmentA short session follows, in which both Plo Koon and Mace Windu ask Ahsoka critical questions.Obi-Wan Kenobi does not speak:TorturedAhsoka defends herself and remarks that her sense is clouded.To which Yoda responds: “Clouded by the dark side these things are, Padawan Tano. Dangerously clouded. But not just surrounding you, surrounding many things, in these times.”Anakin interrupts angrily: “You’ve already made your decision, haven’t you? This meeting is just a formality!”And indeed it is, as Yoda answers: “Reached a decision we have, though not in total agreement we are.”Ahsoka is expelled from the Jedi order.Who voted to expel Ahsoka?It is clear that Ki-Adi-Mundi, Mace Windu and Saesee Tiin voted to expel Ahsoka. Their questions, statements and attitudes all hint strongly at it.Yoda is the great enigma. He never gives us a clear indication of his position, and we all respect Yoda and know of his wisdom. Surely he would oppose expelling Ahsoka?Yet I am confident that he did not oppose expelling Ahsoka. Yoda’s voice weighs heavily; he is the heart and conscience of the Council and of the Jedi order itself, more than anyone else. A true first among equals. Had he opposed Ahsoka’s expulsion, then I doubt the Council would have gone for it. I say he either voted in favor of expelling Ahsoka, or abstained.With Mace Windu, Ki-Adi-Mundi and Saesee Tiin in favor of removing Ahsoka and Yoda at least not opposing it, most other Council members would simply go along. For sure they felt the need to reach as unanimous a decision as possible, to maintain unity among the Jedi.Who voted against expelling Ahsoka?This leaves only two Council members who may have voted against expelling Ahsoka:Plo Koon, who discovered Ahsoka as a young gifted child and brought her to the Jedi. He still is close to her and often fatherly calls her “Little Soka”, a sure sign of affection.Obi-Wan Kenobi, who is a close friend and mentor of Ahsoka. Together with Anakin they have been through much. We can see his pained face throughout the judgment.I first thought Obi-Wan had voted against expelling Ahsoka, and I hoped Plo Koon had done the same. But then I found an interview with Dave Filoni, who directed the Clone Wars and is in many ways its heart and soul. He gives us the tragic answer:“And through the whole trial, Anakin is the only one that stays 100 percent in her court. I think Plo Koon stays 75-80 percent of the way in her court because he says, “I don’t believe she could’ve fallen so low.”In Obi-Wan we really see the Jedi because he is compromised. Obi-Wan doesn’t believe Ahsoka is guilty of these crimes, but he has a very hard time arguing politically that the Jedi Council shouldn’t do what they do to her. He trusts in the Force, which is what they love to say when they don’t know what they’re doing, and they expel her.”Source: Interview: Dave Filoni on Star Wars: The Clone Wars Season Five, Part 2 | StarWars.comPlo Koon was the sole Council vote against expulsion. He was the one Yoda referred to when he said: “Reached a decision we have, though not in total agreement we are.”Obi-Wan Kenobi, out of loyalty to the Jedi order and out of political necessity, voted to expel Ahsoka Tano. Even though he believes Ahsoka didn't do this.ConclusionThe decision to expel Ahsoka was a political one: the Jedi Council feared antagonizing the Senate and the population of Coruscant, and so they sacrificed Ahsoka. It underlines again how much the Jedi had lost their way during the Clone Wars.The feeling of betrayal must have been crushing. Not just for Ahsoka, but also for Anakin. We can only speculate how the confrontation between Anakin and Obi-Wan Kenobi afterwards went …The tragedy is complete when later in the episode we learn that Ahsoka was innocent. Now the Council is directly confronted with the consequences of their actions: they have betrayed the trust of this young Padawan, one they all knew well. And now she stands again before them. The Council tries to patch things up by offering to reinstate her, not just as a Padawan, but as a full Jedi Knight. As for all that has happened, they try to reframe it as something positive: proof of her maturity and readiness.Anakin is overjoyed. He never stopped believing she was innocent, and had proven so by finding the true culprit of the bomb attack. Now she can come back and things will be as they were before.But Ahsoka refuses the offer.“I am sorry Master, but I am not coming back.”Have a look at the faces below. Plo Koon looks carved from stone; Obi-Wan is eaten by regret.As for Anakin, there is a dark pain and grief on his face. He has become more isolated than ever: Ahsoka is gone and Obi-Wan and Yoda have shattered his trust.Only Padme and Palpatine remain ...ShatteredSource: Star Wars: The Clone Wars season 5, episode 20: “The Wrong Jedi”PS I hope you enjoyed my answer. I have also written other answers about Star Wars. Below are three of them, feel free to check them out - and please leave a like if you enjoy them:Harmen Breedeveld's answer to What is something really dark from Star Wars but gets ignored?Harmen Breedeveld's answer to How would a straight fight between Darth Vader and Darth Sidious go? Does Sidious stomp Vader easily?Harmen Breedeveld's answer to I am considering starting to watch Star Wars: The Clone Wars on Disney+. Where should I start?

Thanks Eric Mathew for the questionIs the youngest mayor in India recently elected in Kerala experienced enough to take such a huge responsibility at such a young age? What are some of the negative consequences of electing such a young official?Many people do ask this question in having a 21 year old as Mayor of a large city, that too capital city of Kerala.Well, before I go to that answer, we need to check how Indian Mayorship worksThere are many municipal administration models in India, so as its not uniform across the statesOne of the most common model is Commissioner vs Mayor model which many cities like Mumbai, Delhi etc, where Mayors are ceremonial posts and Municipal Commissioner (a bureaucrat) appointed by state govt actually rules on the advise of the council. In these cities, the Mayor elections are mostly Westminister style and Mayor post is akin to President of India or Governor of states, with very ceremonial and limited role.Presidential elections where Mayor holds entire executive responsibilities with people directly electing the Mayor and he/she forming a Mayor council along with general council. Around 7 states, mostly in Central and Eastern India have this system. Here Municipal commissioner works under Mayor acting on his/her orders.Collective system: In this system, normal Westminster style elections take place and one among the corporators of the majority winning party would be made as Mayor. However the actual power of governance is not vested with the Mayor or the IAS officer, rather with the council of corporators. The general council will form various committees on each topic which will have corporators from all parties. These committees take call on their specialized area and decide thing. For example, Health committee decides decisions on Health and once the entire committee approves, the chairman/chairperson of the committee presents the proposal to the council and gets its approved. The role of Mayor is limited to role of a speaker or presiding officer of the council. He/she controls the debates as a neutral person and finally based on the decision of council (majority vote), the mayor signs the order. In individual capacity, Mayor has no power, so as the commissioner.And Kerala follows this collective modelDue to this model, its irrespective who becomes Mayor. Mayor is more a symbolic figurehead role. The ability or skill of the leader is to control the debates and discussions in the floor of the council like speaker in Parliament or Legislature. The actual decisions are never taken by the Mayor, rather by the committees which is always multi-party ruledFor example Trivandrum Corporation Council has 100 seats and LDF has 52 seats, BJP has 35 seats and 10 seats by UDF. This doesn’t mean LDF rules the corporation single handledly. The rule of corporation is by committees formed among the corporators of the council. So each committee will have corporators who hail from multi parties. If one party has more members in the council, they have more influence in committees…The ability of Mayor is to make consensus. May be for ideological or any reason a BJP corporator who heads one particular committee may not accept the proposal by other LDF committee members and imagine that committee has more BJP corporators. In such a case, the Mayor will try to break the deadlock thro’ consensus and dialogue. If that doesn’t work, the the proposal has to come to council as a private bill and after several rounds of discussions and consensus, it may be passed by the council thro’ majority vote. But thats very rare case. In most cases, the committee has to approve a proposal and the head of the committee must present.The advantage of this model is that, Municipalites are technical ruled by all parties, not the party of majority in the council. So the skill of the mayor is to drive the council thro’ consensus and help her party’s agenda to win thro’ dialogue. Its very diffcult for Mayor to push his/her agenda without support of opposition parties in Kerala municipal system.This sort of collective system is reminiscent of the governance model that came in Post French revolution era. It works on the French Directory concept or Dutch concept of Poldermodel governance.The negative of this system is that, untill all parties are satisfied, nothing moves forward. So more members from same party exist in the council, the ruling party do have more easiness to push its agenda or else lot of time is gone in convincing and discussing on proposals.Coming to Arya Rajendran’s case. She is the youngest Mayor of a Municipal Corporation the country. Ofcourse this means she has no experience in governance model. But in this sort of collective model, her role is very limited, more like a speaker in council. The actual governance happens thro’ various committees and its committee heads. So essentially Arya is not the all-powerful leader or head as many envisionizes or thinks. Infact she has very limited power.Further in CPM party culture, decisions are generally collective in nature. CPM always insist its leaders and people in Key positions to report their official matters to Party secretariat and policy decisions are normally take by party collectively.So Arya Rajendran will be guided by the Party officially in her work and there was a briefing on her job recently. But I feel, it shouldn’t be a key problem as her leadership skills will be tested mostly on ability to strike chord with opposition leaders and ability to make consensus etc. Otherwise its very limited role other than the tag and position she holds.

Few Christians today are aware of the fact that reincarnation was a commonly held doctrine for the first 500 years of Christianity. Some of the first theologians of the Church taught reincarnation. Clement of Alexandria (c 150-214) explains his view of the transmigration of the soul as follows;Yet we exist before the foundation of the world, we who are already present even before then, through our being in God; we, the creatures given the knowledge of the divine Logos, through whom we are most ancient ...... (Admonition 1,6)For as each such birth follows the previous one, we are led in gradual progression to Immortality. (Stromateis IV, 160:3)Clement's pupil and successor was Origen who was the founder of systematic Christian theology and the most important theologian of Christianity after St. Augustine. Unfortunately most of his writings were destroyed by subsequent Church authorities because of his tolerant and universal views. What remains is his major work De Principiis — an attempt at a systematic presentation of Christian teachings, a treatise entitled contra Celsum and a commentary of the Gospel of Matthew. Two passages of his writings are enough to indicate his belief in the pre-existence of the souls and the karmic consequences of actions.Every soul ..... enters this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the stumblings of its previous life. Its place in this world is determined by what it has earlier gained or discarded. (De Principiis)Does it not make absolute sense that every soul ... is guided into a body, and this in accordance with deeds done earlier?.... The soul makes use of a body for a certain duration ..... but as it changes, the body becomes less suited to it and it then exchanges it for another one. (Contra Celsum)Many other theologians of the church made similar statements in the first 500 years of Christian teaching before the Council of Constantinople. One of them was Gregory of Nyssa (334-391) ;—The soul needs to undergo a kind of healing process in order to be cleansed of stains caused by sin. In the present life, virtue is the remedy that is applied to heal these scars. If they remain incurable in the present life then the healing treatment is continued in a future life. (The Catechetical Oration VIII,9)Almost every Christian historian to date has been of the view that the doctrine of reincarnation was declared an heresy (anathematised) at the Council of Constantinople in the year 533. A closer examination of the circumstances and proceedings of the council reveals that there was no such formal declaration by the council at all. The alleged anathema was merely a denial of reincarnation by the emperor Justinian under pressure from his wife the Empress Theodora.The Empress Theodora began her career (according to the historian Procopious) as a courtesan whose favourite act was to have geese pick corn kernels, stuck with honey, off her naked body in the presence of delighted spectators. When she became Empress in order to break with her past and to foster an image of virtue and piety she had 500 of previous courtesan colleagues tortured to death. She then turned all her efforts to dismissing the doctrine of reincarnation and karma — presumably to avoid suffering the consequences of her heinous acts! Both she and the Emperor were intent on consolidating the power of Constantinople and competing with temporal and spiritual supremacy over the Pope and Rome.Justinian and his wife Theodora, who took delight in lecturing the bishops on the nature of Christ, declared war on the teachings of Origen in 543 AD when he convened a special synod to have the teachings of Origin declared as heretical. This was all done without even bothering to consult the Pope in Rome. In the year 553 he convened the Council of Constantinople which afterwards became known as the 5th Ecumenical Council. Justinian saw himself as head of the Eastern Church and was trying desperately to consolidate this claim. There were 165 bishops present at the council with only 12 from Roman dioceses, all the other Western bishops refused to attend. Pope Vigilius himself who was visiting Constantinople at the time stayed away from the council in protest. The Eastern Orthodox bishops who were in a state of vassalage to the Emperor could hardly refuse to attend.The Emperor had the teachings of Origen condemned and fifteen anathemata (curses of the church) were declared against him. The formal procedures required that the official protocols of the council, which lasted for four weeks, were presented to the Pope for ratification. Vigilius had been made Pope in the year 537 upon the insistence of the Empress Theodora and thus buckled under pressure and signed the documents that were presented to him.The interesting thing is that the documents that were signed contained an indictment against three scholars against whom the Emperor had issued edicts and had declared heretics four years earlier. Origen's name and teachings were not mentioned. The three succeeding Popes were to mention the Fifth Council without ever once mentioning the name of Origen. Thus the notion that reincarnation was anathematised with the words — "Eternal damnation on anyone who preaches the spurious pre-existence of the soul and its natural rebirth" — at the fifth council with the support of the Pope and the bishops of the Church is erroneous, but somehow became fixed in Church law and was taken for granted ever since.Still the belief in reincarnation persisted among Christian sects such as the Albigensians, Cathars and the Bogomils all of whom were finally exterminated in the Middle Ages by the Church.Today there is a revival of the early Christian spirituality and belief in reincarnation by the Gnostic Christian sects.