Are we "playing a rarified and lofty form of the old ego-game"?

In my studies of the Jediism ideals, I came across this explanation from Alan Watts that at first appears to undermine "religions and non-religions - all established in the name of brotherhood and universal love", which could very well be my naivety, or misunderstanding. As such I am very curious to the reception of the Jedi here after reading the content below. My apologies for the length, but it is necessary to convey everything...

"...the question is how to get over the sensation of being locked out from everything "other," of being only oneself—an organism flung into unavoidable competition and conflict with almost every "object" in its experience...

There are innumerable recipes for this project, almost all of which have something to recommend them. There are the practices of yoga meditation, dervish dancing, psychotherapy, Zen Buddhism, Ignatian, Salesian, and Hesychast methods of "prayer," the use of consciousness-changing chemicals such as LSD and mescaline, psychodrama, group dynamics, sensory-awareness techniques, Quakerism, Gurdjieff exercises, relaxation therapies,the Alexander method, autogenic training, and self- hypnosis….

The difficulty with every one of these disciplines is that the moment you are seriously involved, you find yourself boxed in some special in-group which defines itself, often with the most elegant subtlety, by the exclusion of an out-group. In this way, every religion or cult is self-defeating, and this is equally true of projects which define themselves as non-religions or universally inclusive religions, playing the game of "I am less exclusive than you...

It is thus that religions and non-religions—all established in the name of brotherhood and universal love—are invariably divisive and quarrelsome…

...It seems almost as if to be is to quarrel, or at least to differ, to be in contrast with something else. If so, whoever does not put up a fight has no identity; whoever is not selfish has no self. Nothing unites a community so much as common cause against an external enemy, yet, in the same moment, that enemy becomes the essential support of social unity. Therefore larger societies require larger enemies, bringing us in due course to the perilous point of our present situation, where the world is virtually divided into two huge camps…

Nevertheless, the more it becomes clear that to be is to quarrel and to pursue self-interest, the more you are compelled to recognize your need for enemies to support you. In the same way, the more resolutely you plumb the question "Who or what am I?"—the more unavoidable is the realization that you are nothing at all apart from everything else. Yet again, the more you strive for some kind of perfection or mastery—in morals, in art or in spirituality—the more you see that you are playing a rarified and lofty form of the old ego-game, and that your attainment of any height is apparent to yourself and to others only by contrast with someone else's depth or failure...

This understanding is at first paralyzing. You are in a trap—in the worst of all double-binds—seeing that any direction you may take will imply, and so evoke, its opposite...

Decide to be a Christ, and there will be a Judas to betray you and a mob to crucify you. Decide to be a devil, and men will unite against you in the closest brotherly love. Your first reaction may be simply, "To hell with it!" The only course may seem to be to forget the whole effort and become absorbed in trivialities, or to check out of the game by suicide or psychosis, and spend the rest of your days blabbering in an asylum….

But there is another possibility. Instead of checking out, let us ask what the trap means. What is implied in finding yourself paralyzed, unable to escape from a game in which all the rules are double-binds and all moves self-defeating? Surely this is a deep and intense experience of the same double-bind that was placed upon you in infancy, when the community told you that you must be free, responsible, and loving, and when you were helplessly defined as an independent agent. The sense of paralysis is therefore the dawning realization that this is nonsense and that your independent ego is a fiction. It simply isn't there, either to do anything or to be pushed around by external forces, to change things or to submit to change. The sense of "I," which should have been identified with the whole universe of your experience, was instead cut off and isolated as a detached observer of that universe. In the preceding chapter we saw that this unity of organism and environment is a physical fact. But when you know for sure that your separate ego is a fiction, you actually feel yourself as the whole process and pattern of life. Experience and experiencer become one experiencing, known and knower one knowing."

Does this actually undermine the active and serious participation in all religions and non - religions as simply "playing a rarified and lofty form of the old ego-game", in the context of understanding that "you know for sure that your separate ego is a fiction" and that "you actually feel yourself as the whole process and pattern of life"?

If I understand correctly (and tell me if I'm wrong), your question is if Jediism takes itself too seriously, as many religions do, can we truly do good? Or are we steeped in ego and power play?

Are there indivudual Jedi who take their religion so seriously that they become quarrelsome and divisive? Sure! Are there individual Jedi who are after power and the ability to look down their noses at others? Definitely. But any religion is made up of individuals with a multitude of different egos.

But is Jediism inherently that way? I don't believe so. Who is our enemy? Who do we exclude? What part of our doctrine encourages us to believe so blindly that we do not see the effects on ourselves and others?

I recommend that you read Krishnamurti's "Freedom from the Known" (if you haven't already, of course) - it's a great reflection of the workings of the ego.

Early before the sun comes up...I prepare, I think ...and I thank the sun as it comes up. We sit. What religion am I? Please understand that our labels and definitions come from .... Others most of the time. We can redefine our ideas and actions. My Jedi ism allows many ideas to be at any chosen given time. The labels i find for myself only tend to be bumps and often ways of specific targets for others. If you have a Jedi ism that allows every myth valid for use, every ounce of wisdom valid... In that since , the undermining comes from the labels and not us. Seek.... And find....not religious. Not a game but more of a drive and a awakening... Welcome to the Temple! Smiley Face!

@ Leah I love that question ! Who is our enemy. Each answer can define the individual!. Mgoal and what I have seen finds the more empty one is the less they see others as ...enemy's. Black n white become... Well black n white and thatsbwhen the new sprout of things begins to pop its head out of the dirt!. Thanks forñthat. Who do we exclude! I love that! Good stuff friend and twice! Thanks for being a part of my personal Jedi ism!!!!

"The difficulty with every one of these disciplines is that the moment you are seriously involved, you find yourself boxed in some special in-group which defines itself, often with the most elegant subtlety, by the exclusion of an out-group. In this way, every religion or cult is self-defeating, and this is equally true of projects which define themselves as non-religions or universally inclusive religions, playing the game of "I am less exclusive than you…"

The TOTJO, for instance, requires admission into a ranking system and a completed program before technical "inclusion" which by definition requires "the exclusion of an out-group" and in turn results in the "playing" of a "rarified and lofty form of the old ego-game" by the individual. Is this not the antithesis of Jediism ideals?

This is a phenomenon that one can not really get away from in any natural sense, as most things one must get involved in through life will always possess some degree of what Watts describes. Some may find themselves trapped in some form inside one box or another, not knowing what to do with themselves and it can drive them a little crazy, but this is if one takes up the notion that this phenomenon is absolutely bad, unnecessary, dangerous, etc. But the more one realizes how impossible it really is to escape it, the more we may find that it is such a naturally inherit part of our nature, that at some point, it must be rendered necessary for many things in society to function as they must, and yes, this includes communities such as this one. What really matters though, is in what ways and to what degree the "grouping" phenomenon should be accepted or otherwise avoided, so as to be able to function fluently as we people intend and need to without catching onto a snowball effect of misinterpretation of what the nature and purpose of that group really is.

"The sense of "I," which should have been identified with the whole universe of your experience, was instead cut off and isolated as a detached observer of that universe. In the preceding chapter we saw that this unity of organism and environment is a physical fact. But when you know for sure that your separate ego is a fiction, you actually feel yourself as the whole process and pattern of life. Experience and experiencer become one experiencing, known and knower one knowing."

Considering the understanding that "you actually feel yourself as the whole process and pattern of life. Experience and experiencer become one experiencing, known and knower one knowing.", is the process of "joining" the Temple forcing the regression of one's understanding of "yourself" in order to "play a rarified and lofty form of the old ego-game"?

Is it?

"...this is equally true of projects which define themselves as non-religions or universally inclusive religions, playing the game of "I am less exclusive than you…"

The "game" being the process of advancing through rank in order to obtain further knowledge.

Nicholasos wrote: The TOTJO, for instance, requires admission into a ranking system and a completed program before technical "inclusion" which by definition requires "the exclusion of an out-group" and in turn results in the "playing" of a "rarified and lofty form of the old ego-game" by the individual. Is this not the antithesis of Jediism ideals?

There is no admission required to be a Jedi, And registration in TotJO is no more exclusionary than registering for a class at university, or creating a profile on Facebook. It's only when we start to focus on the differences or making judgements between groups that we start to see problems:

"If you don't have Facebook, you're a loser"
"If you don't register for this class, you're ignorant."
"If you're not a member of TotJO, you're doing Jediism wrong"

It's not the actual separation into groups that is the issue (because its human nature to seek out those who have similar interests/experiences), but the attitude towards those not in the group, or the perception of right-ness of those in the group. That's where the ego becomes problematic.