Spiritual Narcissm

Alan wrote: There are times during our life's journey that we need to attend to the self.
Nurse the broken heart.
Soothe the wounds of disparagement.

In my interpretation of Jediism, we eventually realize that the self is an illusion and narcissism a waste of time.

Eventually, one becomes strong enough to leave all that behind and attend to the needs of others.

It seems to be the case that folks end up on our Temple's doorstep with needs regarding the self.
For those who can, the ego is left at the door and we attend the wounds we can.

Yes Alan , but we also have to develope the courage to proceed even if we dont get pampered and encouraged by others , the need to be there for others should be deep rooted and needs to be nourished with knowledge and growth of the Self aswell , and we all need others to compare ourselfes to , but the thing is : when is it uplifting and when is it uncritically believing what someone says , sometimes people tell me i am wonderfull , i now ask myself the question , ow really , now i have to work even harder ? Do i want to stay wonderfull or do i want to be of use to others? Its not always easy. the thin line between unselfishness and narcisstic needs to be seen ..by the self ..and dealt with.

Kohadre wrote: Especially in a community like TOTJO that is based almost entirely on the internet, there is little option or opportunity to engage in religious group activities such as volunteering which benefit local communities and instill a sense of humility.

The TotJO website is on the internet, but the TotJO people, our community, don't exist on the internet.

How big is your community? We rarely get the opportunity to do anything standing physically side by side. But we are all share the same planet. Are my actions any less if I do them when no Jedi are around?

Kohadre wrote: Conversations are able to be edited and revised due to the nature of computer technology, which distorts the original message a participant may have very well intended - positive or not. This inhibits growth and allows many to hide behind a screen, as the inflection of their intended response cannot be audibly heard, nor is there any real consequence besides a reprimanding message.

Alternatively, since we don't have to respond straightaway we can take the time to put proper consideration into our responses before saying them. People hide when speaking face-to-face too, we wear some kind of mask all the time. There are always real consequences. Some people have been banned from the forum or reprimanded for their posts etc.

Thinking online communication is any less real than communicating in person is an illusion. It is just a different form of communication. We are real people spending real time sending real messages to real people.

Alan wrote: In my interpretation of Jediism, we eventually realize that the self is an illusion and narcissism a waste of time.

Eventually, one becomes strong enough to leave all that behind and attend to the needs of others.

White I agree with the above statement, I have a slightly different approach: if the "self" is an illusion, then the self-sacrificing utilitarian "leaving all behind" and "attend to the needs of others" seems as shortsighted and unbalanced as the more egoistic path. To me, we serve both ourselves and the world by embracing our own true Will, as described by Aleister Crowley in his Thelema. Otherwise, utilitarianism ends up being a fight against the self, and that only cements the illusion of separation.

Manu, your use of the word 'utilitarian' and 'utilitarianism' in your post does not make sense to me. I didn't use the word and so adding it to my sentiment about attending to the needs of others who are searching for their self or struggling with the conflicting needs of the self changes my meaning. My post regarding the illusory self is more in regards to Buddhism than with the ethical theory of Utilitarianism. And, yes, Crowley is the exact opposite of what I intended in my post: both will and self are inventions that arise out of desire which is the source of suffering. If I were to transform Crowley's selfish sentiment into a compassionate Jedi sentiment I'd say that what we embrace as our 'true will' is giving up the need to embrace this particular illusion while we serve the needs of others on their life's journey. Our 'true will', is more like that of Right Intention as found in the Buddhist Eightfold Path. Helping others by setting aside our own needs is compassion and so has little 'utility'.

My own personal believe..
A. Crowly is in my section of spiritual narcissism.

Alan wrote: Manu, your use of the word 'utilitarian' and 'utilitarianism' in your post does not make sense to me. I didn't use the word and so adding it to my sentiment about attending to the needs of others who are searching for their self or struggling with the conflicting needs of the self changes my meaning. My post regarding the illusory self is more in regards to Buddhism than with the ethical theory of Utilitarianism. And, yes, Crowley is the exact opposite of what I intended in my post: both will and self are inventions that arise out of desire which is the source of suffering. If I were to transform Crowley's selfish sentiment into a compassionate Jedi sentiment I'd say that what we embrace as our 'true will' is giving up the need to embrace this particular illusion while we serve the needs of others on their life's journey. Our 'true will', is more like that of Right Intention as found in the Buddhist Eightfold Path. Helping others by setting aside our own needs is compassion and so has little 'utility'.

Sorry Alan, I didn't mean to put words into your mouth.

As to Crowley himself, I in no way consider him a role model :laugh: but I do feel his "Every man and every woman is a star" speaks to me. And it seems to reconcile the apparent ego-driven reality with a grander scheme of destiny in which we all "fit" as one (the infinite ego-less reality). In this sense all acts done for others come, as you state, from compassion, rather than from suppression of the self. Perhaps we are talking about the same thing in different terms?

I am thrilled that this thread has sparked such a lively discussion , for me having a religion or a certain way of life is not making me better than another person , it just makes me more of the same or of who i am supposed to be , the fact that one has seen the light does not mean he has to behave as if that light is shining from his backside ...Humbleness should be a part of every enlightend path even if in your heart you feel you are happier than another ...there is no shame in feeling happy or proud ... :laugh:

Manu, thanks, that was a clearly written post. Yes, Crowley's philosophy is ego driven. It is those who believe that their stardom is not satisfying or question why it is delayed or are angry that their stardom is less than others' suffer from narcissism.

I agree with your words regarding destiny but not that there is a 'grand scheme'. This implies a schemer, whereas, I believe the 'scheme' is simply the structure of the cosmos. We create (imagine, intend) its meaningfulness. For example, positing a mindful deity. The structure is not the cosmos itself so we have to try to accommodate ourselves to the order of things that we encounter during our lives. We find ourselves thrown into a world not of our making. We fulfill our destiny by the choices we make.