As I read it, the Jedi are supposed to be hypocrites, particularly in the prequel trilogy. Its a pretty standard "the supposed guardians of good have become overly comfortable, arrogant, and neglectful of the higher virtues, creating the environment in which evil will flourish from within and nearly destroy them, until a messianic figure restores virtue and reestablishes the institutions that are supposed to guard the good."
There's plenty of clumsy writing, too, but the basic outline is pretty clear.
We'll see how the next three movies play out, but so far it's virtually impossible to square the messianic "bringing balance to the force" and anything we've seen in the first six movies. "Jedi were too dominant, so all the Sith and all but one Jedi will be killed" isn't exactly balance by any philosophy I know, Eastern or Western. If the series is striving for a Eastern-style "balance is important", it's not doing a very good job. (Especially since such things usually run the light/dark axis at at least an angle to what we'd normally call good/bad; the Sith are usually written as stupid evil, which doesn't fit into a "balance" story very well.) If that's not it, what is it?
I think the fact that there's no clarity whatsoever about what "balance" is, or why it's desirable, or why somebody would prophesy about it, or... anything really.... is the problem. (Ambiguity is one thing; if there were multiple interpretations by multiple characters within the story that'd be one thing, but there's just no "there" there that I can find.)
Again, the story just doesn't stand up to this level of analysis, and it's not clever ambiguity, it's just... no "there" there. The story doesn't go back this far; it's a story about good and evil and space magic and space princesses and lasers going pew pew pew. And it's at least decent at that.
I think the key consideration should be the context in which the movies were created. Movies are made to make money and the more time a movie-maker spends on ironing out small inconsistencies, the more money they lose.
That movie was made to be relatable by a wide audience so it's no surprise that many people can have differing interpretations of the deeper meaning. This is simply one of them.
This gets squared (or exponentiated) if you, like some people have done, decide that the films may themselves be unreliable narration. Which I think is not a useful decision, because you pretty quickly run smack up into the fact that these are just fiction anyhow in this case; the films were not written to stand up to that interpretation.
I think it's particularly difficult to draw any sweeping conclusions because it's not clear to me that the movie universe is written carefully enough to justify them. For every Jedi epigram, you can find a Jedi violating it, or for some epigrams, it's hard to find anyone actually doing the thing. Jedi, for instance, repeatedly act in a way that can be described as "fearful"; is the Jedi proscription against fear simply referring to the brute emotion, or anything that can be described as fearful? Honestly, the best answer is probably that it was not written to be able to answer that. Are the Jedi "hypocrites", or is the writing just too clumsy? Especially after the prequel trilogy, I can't help but think it's the latter. (And I do not mean that as a fashionably-snotty thing to say; I really don't think they were well-written. But they don't necessarily deserve the opprobrium heaped on them; they were not especially bad by Hollywood standards. I'd call them pretty average on that front. Most Hollywood movies are philosophically and ethically really quite mushy.)
One must also bear in mind that from a "hard science fiction" point of view, the concrete and scientifically-proved existence of "The Force" may change things. In our real world, I think almost everything that Yoda says is gibbering nonsense, but in his world it may be entirely true that fear inexorably and directly leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. There's a mechanism for it to do so that doesn't exist in our universe, and we should expect that if "The Force" is real that it means that there are things that are perfectly true in Star Wars that aren't true here, making it even harder to draw sweeping conclusions.
The conclusion I come to is that this is a fun movie series that, in the end, simply doesn't stand up to this level of analysis, as evidenced by the fact the analyses always seem to simply be the analysis' author writing about exactly what they already believe, dressed in Star Wars trappings.