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

This post and the conversations that followed it are the reason I have almost sprained my eyes while reading Watts. This is not to deride the original post or anyone's subsequent posts. This is, in fact, a criticism not even of Watts but of the generally philosophical structure that he writes about. To make this easy for both reading and responses that might follow: I will break my issues with the whole we are all one and that anyone with a sense of self or group has an inherently troublesome dichotomy of view style of philosophy into numbered points.

1.) First issue this style of philosophy itself seems to have an in group and out group. Those that know and see the world "properly" and those that do not.
2.) The idea that something is wrong because it's risky is similar to saying because emotions pose danger we must not feel them.
3.) For all the claims of we are, one Watts would very likely still press charges if assaulted. One cannot assault oneself nor can you charge yourself so it is a logical breakdown.
4). Just because there are divisions does not mean they are not useful nor does it mean they are wrong.
5.) If we were all one and if the knower and the known were the same we would need no teachers and all that we know would bloom over time with no action needed on our part.
6.) We cannot logically live by the ideas that Watts puts forward or we would die. If the self is an illusion along with any separation then a car would not smoosh us if it hit us. But we all know we would move if we saw one headed our way.

In short, the concepts of Watts do have truths to them but they come with their own sets of issues in and of themselves. So while useful they are just a tool and one does not need a hammer all the time, nor does one need a particular philosophical view all the time for it to have its uses.

Nicholasos wrote: It's not so much the "rewards" as in the separateness itself. Jediism and The TOTJO are two different things. While one doesn't need to complete an initiate program and an apprenticeship to become a Jedi existing within the Force, one would to advance as an individual within the ranks of the Temple. This separateness is what Watts was referring to when he explained how every "religion, cult, and project (which define themselves as non-religions or universally inclusive religions)" is self defeating, right?

Watts played with the idea if the game of black and white - where two seemingly separate, opposite things are actually one and the same. Light/dark, crest/trough up/down, good/evil - they're both sides of the same coin.

So then, would Jedi/nonJedi, novice/councillor, member/guest, simply be different perspectives of the same state of being? In that case, the separate-ness is not the true nature of these states, but judgments that we as individuals force upon them in our need to create distinctions.

Would it resolve your crisis to think of it that way?

I will defend my faith because I feel Jediism is right for me, but my job is not to convince you that it's the right for you. If you feel Jediism is inherently a self-defeating ego trap, you don't have to study it. But by trying so hard to force it into a single definition from a single writer, you may be missing the larger message. Be skeptical, but don't stray too far into nihilism that you lose sight of practicality.

I think its more of a philsophical reagent then a philosophical view. I reckon Jiddu, Watts and Tolle seem to all sort of orbit these concepts for their applicability in forcing some loosening of worldviews among 'Western' audiences from the mid 20th century, to the extent the audience either becomes a listener/follower, seeker, or teacher, of experiential transformation

Thank you all for the wonderful responses. While my post wasn't necessarily in regards to Jediism itself more so than the TOTJO, as they are two very different things whether it be regarded philosophical or spiritual, I appreciate the thoughtful input. This has strengthened by belief in Jediism certainly, and I will contemplate your responses to further my understanding of the beliefs here at the Temple. I'm very happy this is a place where I can truly ask questions and engage with others.

Thank you!

TOTJO is there if you want it. Not even TOTJO suggests that you need it, to be a Jedi. So in answer to your title - yes, some are. Some aren't. But it doesn't strike me as wise to make sweeping statements about what "we" are doing here. It's an individual thing which people come to for different reasons, with different intentions, and which they allow to affect them in different ways.

It struck me that the implication throughout this thread is that TOTJO views its own members as somehow "more Jedi" than others. Whilst it's true one is likely to consider someone "more Jedi" who habitually acts that way, discusses the ins and outs of the belief structure/underlying philosophy - and therefore there are people here who are "known" to be Jedi by those who have spent years communicating with them - nothing stops new members, people who will never come to TOTJO, members of other religions or groups altogether embodying and promoting the same ideals and practices. Plenty of people have arrived as Knights in all but rank. Many are Knighted who never met that standard. So it goes.

The in-crowd notion, I'm not sure where that comes from really, but I believed it, too... until I joined what I thought was the in-crowd. It wasn't what I expected.

It wasn't my intention to make sweeping statements about what the TOTJO is doing here, only to question the distinction between Jediism and TOTJO in honesty. My apologies if I came across as confrontational or demeaning, truly it wasn't my intention. This issue has just caused me great internal conflict on my path forward with Jediism, and I reached out to this community for responses. And I am grateful for all that have replied.

TOTJO is simple a drop of water in the sea of Jediism.

The distinction is that TOTJO is Jediism, but Jediism is not just TOTJO.

There is no need for internal conflict. If you wish to stay here and gain some insight, you are welcome to. You do not need any rank to do so. Rank is only as important as you make it out to be.

Karn, your insight is very welcome indeed. Thank you.