Saga My personal interpretation of "balance in the Force"

One of the largest themes and concepts in Star Wars, to me anyway, is the idea of striking balance. The whole "balance in the Force" thing was introduced in the prequel trilogy, and although not stated in the original trilogy, it clearly played a role in it. Anakin Skywalker was the Chosen One: the individual destined to return/bring balance to the Force. This prophecy seemed to be celebrated by the Jedi Order in the prequel trilogy, though in an "ironic twist" to the Jedi, Anakin fell to the dark side, became the Sith Lord Darth Vader and greatly helped in destroying the Jedi Order, which was oversaw by Vader's master, Darth Sidious (aka Emperor Palpatine), of course. At the end of their emotional confrontation on Mustafar, Obi-Wan told Anakin that it was said he would destroy the Sith and restore balance in the Force, not join the Sith and bring darkness to the Force. Earlier, Yoda had even suggested that the prophecy could have been misread. But in the end, as we see in Return of the Jedi and as confirmed by George Lucas, Anakin does bring balance in the Force by destroying the Sith - that is, killing Sidious and himself being redeemed and subsequently dying.

The Jedi and the Sith are opposite sides of the spectrum. The Jedi strictly believed in following the light side, while the Sith aligned with the dark side. One may argue that these two organizations hold extreme views of the aspect of the Force that they align with - and I believe that they certainly do, and it was intentionally written to be so. I do not think the Sith need much explaining on this, but what about the Jedi? How could they hold "extreme" views?

The answer lies in the Jedi Order of old, the one presented in the prequel trilogy. Remember the Jedi Code? Forbidden love? "Rejoice for those who die?" "Let go of people who die?" "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate... to suffering." Doesn't it sound a bit... much? Perhaps a little exaggerated? I can't really find the right word here to pinpoint my thoughts, but one may argue that it is a bit of an extremist view.

When Anakin, as Vader, destroyed the Jedi Order, this was actually the *first step* in restoring balance to the Force. The Jedi represented the extreme view of the light. And when Vader was redeemed and destroyed the Sith, this was the last step. The Sith were the extreme view of the dark - and they were destroyed. I believe it's here that both Anakin and Luke made a discovery, a discovery made by a certain someone else that I'll put at the bottom of this post since it is a spoiler: that the dark side is a natural part of you. It's human nature. The constant struggle that one has with him or herself is not purging their dark side as the Jedi seemed to believe, but it's by not allowing that dark side to consume you, to take control of your actions. Think of it this way.

Too much light is blinding. You won't be able to see clearly. You may even be naive, for lack of a better word. But too much darkness and you won't see at all. It is like a drug, it will take over your mind. That's why you need the light in that darkness - but you don't get rid of it.

Lucas originally said that the dark side is a cancer (or disease? - do not remember which word he used) on the Force, that destroying the Sith was what brought balance and fulfilled Anakin's prophecy. But does this mean the dark side is unnatural? Here's another analog.

The dark side is one big rock. The light side is a bunch of tinier rocks. On a balancing scale, one large dark side rock totally outweighs one small light side rock. But a bunch of light side rocks put together, and you will have balance.

It's not the best analogy since it's not totally accurate to my little hypothesis/theory here, but I think you can get the idea that I'm trying to get to here. I'm not necessarily suggesting one must have a 50/50 between light side and dark; in fact, I believe the dark side is meant to be so strong, so easily seductive and so easy to fall to and let it consume you. I see it as a more 95/5 or 90/10 thing - the former being the light, the latter being the dark.

I don't believe the dark side makes you inherently evil. I think it can be used to one's advantage without slipping to it, and without getting out of balance. This was Luke's conflict in Return of the Jedi: he was not trained with the dark side, and he was slipping too close to it. But now, he is a wise and powerful Jedi Master, a master of the Force, and I think he knows how to preserve the balance - something I think that Snoke will try to break for his own advantage.

I believe - and hope - that in the sequel trilogy, Luke will put these discoveries to use, and reform the Jedi to follow these principles rather than it's former, more extreme principles it held during the prequel era. A "New Jedi," if you will.

So here's that Rebels spoiler I was talking about - only read if you watched that finale!

Spoiler

In the finale, Vader tells Ahsoka that he has destroyed Anakin because he was weak. Ahsoka says she'll avenge Anakin, and Vader tells her, "Whoa, hang on there, that's not the Jedi way!" and Ahsoka retorts that she's no Jedi before whipping out those white lightsabers. I think Ahsoka has actually struck balance here! One person on another thread claimed that she was a "warrior of the light side" rather than a Jedi - I still believe this is accurate, but I think Ahsoka has hinted at a bit of darkness in her when she says that she will avenge Anakin. But is that wrong? Could it be morally justifiable? It's ultimately up to your interpretation. I believe this moment was a very important and defining one in the Star Wars universe though, and will be one that serves as the basis for the New Jedi. In a way, metaphorically, Ahsoka was the first of these new Jedi, these “different Jedi,” if you will - she of course claims not to be a Jedi since, you know, these new Jedi I mention don't exist yet; it's a time period when the extreme principles of the Jedi Order of old are still remembered. And that's not who Ahsoka is. TL;DR Ahsoka has struck balance in the finale.

TL;DR The Jedi and Sith represented extreme sides of the Force, throwing it out of balance. When they were both destroyed, it brought balance to the Force and laid out the opportunity to maintain that balance. Luke reforms the Jedi to surround its principles around the idea of balance in the Force (since that's, ironically, what the Jedi Order always wanted, even in the prequel trilogy, despite their extreme views, they desired for balance - they simply did not realize what balance meant). Balance isn't necessarily 50/50 light and dark, but more like 90/10 light and dark - the light side is by far very important, but you can't let it be blinding - and the dark side is more seductive, so you cannot slip into a dark state. The "fight against the dark side" isn't about purging the dark side - it's about controlling your dark side so it doesn't control you. Maintaining balance rather than extremism is the theme of Star Wars, including the sequel trilogy.

When I wrote this, I was quite tired, so if you're confused about anything or want me to clarify a point or two, feel free to ask and I will. I might not have properly expressed everything that was on my mind since it's a lot.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading!

 

Cannot edit my original post, so if I may, I'll put this in a separate reply.

I'll see if I can use another example - this time with Mortis and the original trilogy. The Daughter represented the light side, the Son the dark side, and the Father was the balance between these two. The Son let the dark side consume him too much, evidently, and that is when he, albeit inadvertently, destroyed the Daughter. The Father knew that in order to bring balance, the Son, his own son, would have to be destroyed. Let's take this into context with Luke, Vader, and the Emperor in the original trilogy. Luke Skywalker sent the bombs that destroyed the Death Star, presumably killing millions of people - now, I may be misinterpreting this, but is that an attribute of the light side? In Jedi, however, should Luke have struck down the Emperor or Vader, he would have fallen to the dark side (so it seemed). In the end, Luke throws away his weapon, boldly claiming that he is a Jedi, and endures torture from the Emperor - who, I believe, is like the Son. Vader - the Father - having experienced both the light side and the dark side in their purest forms, realizes what must be done, and it's he that destroys the Emperor, which destroys the Sith and restores balance in the Force. Yet for Luke, this act would have turned him... to the dark side? Perhaps. As Luke was arguably much more "inexperienced" than his father, destroying either of them would have made him dance too closely with the dark, but not with Vader. Anyhow, couldn't one argue that destroying the Emperor was necessary, and was even needed to liberate the galaxy and free it from darkness? Isn't it necessary to get your hands dirty sometimes? I think that's what the balance is - performing actions that are in accordance with the light side, AND that may not seem to be attributes of the light side immediately, but are morally justifiable anyway. So yes, you cannot slip to the dark side, but you cannot let either side consume/control you. Does that make any sense?

 

No. The Jedi are compassionate and selfless and their views and ways are consistent with it, not extreme. If you don't want to dedicate your life to others, then don't be a Jedi. It's pretty simple.

The Jedi and Sith aren't the Force nor do they represent it. The Sith aren't the dark side and the Jedi aren't the dark side.

The Force is equally both the light and dark side and is present in every living being, sentient or not. The actions of the Sith made the dark side take over the light, thus bringing the Force out of balance. The light side doesn't take over the dark by default. It's passive.

The destruction of the Jedi, whose work contributed to the balance, increased the imbalance. When Anakin returned to the light and destroyed the Sith (both Darth Vader and Darth Sidious), balance was restored.

 

I've been discussing this on other forums and with friends, so I have made some developments that I have not updated here. Just to make this clear: I am aware that the Jedi and the Sith are simply organizations and are not, literally, representative of the Force itself.

It was certainly the ways of the Sith that tipped over the cup and threw the Force out of balance - which is why, as Lor San Tekka points out, the Jedi are needed for there to be balance in the Force. Perhaps calling the Jedi themselves "extreme" was not what I meant - I believe the Jedi's principles as outlined in the "Jedi Code," however, were still flawed, though perhaps not as far as extreme.

In my view, the Jedi tried to almost deny the dark side. To find balance within oneself, you have to be willing to accept that you, yourself, have a dark side. The challenge and conflict is that you cannot let yourself be consumed by this dark side; you cannot let it control you. You have to tame it. And this is not necessarily accomplished by the purging of your natural emotions. I believe the basis of these things will serve as the reformed principles and Jedi Code for the new Jedi that we will, presumably, see rise in the sequel trilogy.

If you have not yet watched the "Prequels are Secretly Brilliant?" video, I would recommend doing so - it's a great analysis of the prequels, and helped me with my own interpretation. Thanks for providing your input though, I see where you are coming from and do not entirely disagree with you.

 

That makes no sense. The Jedi help keep balance in the Force, but they are not a requirement. Just like the police isn't a requirement for balance in nature.

How is it flawed?

They don't. They acknowledge the dark side in the movies. There's a difference between not using it and pretending it doesn't exist. The Jedi do the former, not the latter.

?!?!

"Purging natural emotions"?! When did they ever do that? They are trained to not act on emotions, it clouds one's judgement. Not act on fear, anger and hate. To let go and be selfless. To be compassionate, not passionate. That's the Jedi way, not a flaw.

 

...which is essentially what I am saying... I do not see how that does not make sense, especially giving that you are agreeing with me. Perhaps I did not make that clear in the way I phrased it - my apologies for that.

I think I explained this. Concepts such as love seemed to have been forbidden by the Jedi Code. Yes, I am aware that the Jedi way is selflessness and not to act on emotions, but isn't it arguable that selflessness can still be used even when acting on emotions? The struggle is to not let these emotions "cloud one's judgement," in your own words, but that does not mean to purge your emotions altogether.

Hm... I am not saying that they deny the existence of the dark side itself, but instead attempt to deny it as an aspect of you - which it is. The fight isn't to rid yourself of your dark side, it's to prevent it from taking you over.

And in some ways, one can see that as purging emotions within oneself. I somewhat elaborated on this already in this particular post just previously. Does emotion automatically turn one to the dark side, or can it be used as a tool of selflessness as well?

 

I apologize for double-posting yet again, it still appears I am unable to edit my previous post.

I couldn't help but notice that in another post, you said that it was because Anakin acted with passion rather than with compassion that he fell to the dark side. I actually think that's a very good and interesting point that you bring up. But isn't it possible to act compassionately with a small pinch of passion? Bringing back the Episode VI example, had Luke struck down the Emperor, that would have turned him towards the dark side. But, though a bit exaggerated, the Emperor is a dictator who is leading a massive, oppressive and cruel regime. Compassion is to act in favor of those who are unfortunate, perhaps abused. The same can be said for Vader - would that have turned him to the dark side? I think the answer, in context with the film, is yes, and that is because Luke acted solely out of passion when he was striking down his father, who had just threatened to turn Luke's sister towards the dark side. I suppose this could be compassionate as well, but it was pretty clearly a passionate duel from that moment forward. Luke danced too closely with the dark side, and that was the error there. So, I actually do agree with your point there to a certain extent.

 

My interpretation of balance of the force is all of the Sith being eliminated. A complete eradication of evil. That's what balances the force.

 

Haha, well yeah, I certainly don't disagree with you there! In case you thought I was saying that, I'm not saying one should be evil, or there needs to be an equal amount of evil as good. I just don't think you should let your dark side, or evil side if you want to put it that way, consume you, control you. That doesn't mean you reject it's a part of you though. And I think it is certainly up to interpretation what actions are in conjunction with "the light side" and what actions are not - if you get what I mean.

 

ANAKIN: "Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden. Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is essential to a Jedi. So you can say we are encouraged to love."


OBI-WAN: "You've met Satine. You know I once harbored feelings for her. It's not that we're not allowed to have these feelings. It's natural."

ANAKIN: "Senator Amidala and I are simply friends."

OBI-WAN: "And friends you must remain. As a Jedi, it is essential you make the right choice, Anakin, for the Order."

ANAKIN: "I understand my responsibilities."

What is not allowed is the idea of attaching yourself to one person above all others. When one is selfless and has learned to master their fears and let go of them, then they become far stronger than they were before.

It's both. As Yoda told Ezra, it is a lifelong struggle to not give into fear and turn it into anger. A Jedi must see the darkness within themselves, acknowledge it and then let go of it. That's what happened when Yoda saw his own inner darkness on the Force planet and it is what Luke sees when he's standing over Vader aboard the Death Star.

Negative emotions cause one to turn. Fear, anger, hate, selfishness, possessiveness, obsessiveness and jealousy. All are shadows of greed. Dooku became a Sith because he finally gave into fear, anger, hate and obsession. He desired more power to survive the coming darkness and turned to the Dark Lord himself, in order to get what he wants. Anakin became a Sith because he wanted to prevent Padme from dying, but he also wanted to bring about a new order to the universe. He wanted an end to war and felt that the people needed to be forced into doing what's best for them. Ezra's facing the dark side because he cannot let go of his parents deaths and is filled with anger and hate towards the Empire, and believes that he must crush all of his enemies in order to feel safe. Such is the nature of the dark side.

 

my "interpretation" is what gl says and what the movies say.

 

But they don't purge anything. They are trained to not act on emotions. To keep them under control.

When did they deny that?

The Jedi recognize that the Force has both a light and a dark side.
They also acknowledge that the Force is in (and is created by) every living being.
Therefore, every living being has both sides within them.

It's part of their beliefs and there's no evidence in the movies of the contrary.

The Jedi don't act nor use the dark side. They can, but they chose not to as part of their way of life, a choice that has served them well.

Emotions by themselves don't turn anybody. Acting on emotions can turn anyone. And emotions can also be exploited by others. By following the Jedi way, there's no blackmail, blindness, desperation, or anything else that could compromise their job and those they serve.

 

As Tommytom pointed out, Lor San Tekka said explicitly, and I quote "I have traveled too far and seen too much to ignore the despair in the galaxy. Without the Jedi, there can be no balance to the Force.".

It's flawed in quite a few ways, actually. The Jedi even admit themselves that they are not perfect. The very first line of the Jedi Code, even, is flawed. "There is no emotion, there is piece." I understand what was intended in the statement, but from a looser and more literal view, denying emotion, which the line suggests, is a very dangerous and harmful thing to do. The alternate code is much better and healthier, in my opinion.

They acknowledge it, but as a past entity. In a way denying it's present influence on the goings-on around them.

The biggest example of this is the whole Padme-Anakin story. Anakin wasn't allowed to form any kind of attachment to Padme, and by extension, was told he could never have a loving relationship with her. That's what started the whole thing (according to film canon). Anger was also taught to be denied, as it led to the dark side.

Honestly though, I'm confused as to why you're arguing so vehemently against Tommytom. He stated explicitly in his title that this was his own personal interpretation of the topic. Not fact, but personal opinion. Obviously it differs from yours, but that doesn't make it wrong. So why are you telling him it is?

 

Shira A'dola wrote

As Tommytom pointed out, Lor San Tekka said explicitly, and I quote "I have traveled too far and seen too much to ignore the despair in the galaxy. Without the Jedi, there can be no balance to the Force."

He has seen the despair in the galaxy, which he describes a state of imbalance and concludes that people like the Jedi or the Jedi themselves are needed to restore balance. In other words, without guardians of peace and justice the evildoers will continue to cause an imbalance.

It's flawed in quite a few ways, actually. The Jedi even admit themselves that they are not perfect. The very first line of the Jedi Code, even, is flawed. "There is no emotion, there is peace." I understand what was intended in the statement, but from a looser and more literal view, denying emotion, which the line suggests, is a very dangerous and harmful thing to do. The alternate code is much better and healthier, in my opinion.

The Jedi merely acknowledged that emotions could be a recipe for disaster (which have seen illustrated, haven't we?). Hence their training to control and master your emotions.

They acknowledge it, but as a past entity. In a way denying it's present influence on the goings-on around them.

Yoda say repeatedly that the dark side is clouding their abilities to make head or tail out of the current situation.

The biggest example of this is the whole Padme-Anakin story. Anakin wasn't allowed to form any kind of attachment to Padme, and by extension, was told he could never have a loving relationship with her. That's what started the whole thing (according to film canon). Anger was also taught to be denied, as it led to the dark side.

I'd say that's a point worthy of discussion. Annakin made his choice to become a Jedi prior to puberty, but he probably wasn't aware as a kid of all the ramifications that choice would include. In our world you may walk away from your order, but in the GFFA to let go a half or fully trained Jedi to pursue a life of his own is a rather complicated issue...

 

My point remains.

Not being perfect doesn't make the Jedi way flawed. They acknowledge that there is arrogance among some of them, but that has nothing to do with the Jedi way.

First, none of that is in the movies. Second, even if it was, if the point of the statement is clear and righteous, then why are you making a different interpretation of it just to corroborate your argument? How is not acting on emotion dangerous or harmful?

Wrong. They don't deny it. They acknowledge it more than once throughout the movies (specially in the PT).

Yes, his inability to let go and be selfless, his inability to follow the Jedi way, was what started the whole thing. He was the one who wanted to have the best of both worlds. Greed.

Which is true. One shouldn't act on anger. One should seek peace and clarity.

I'm discussing on a discussion board. What's so strange about it?

He stated explicitly in his title that this was his own personal interpretation of the topic. Not fact, but personal opinion. Obviously it differs from yours, but that doesn't make it wrong. So why are you telling him it is?[/quote]

When did I use the word 'wrong' when I replied to him? And if his conclusions are easily refuted by what's presented in the movies, then yes, it's wrong. Same for everyone else.

 

"There is no emotion, there is peace."

LUKE: "Vader. Is the dark side stronger?"

YODA: "No... no... no. Quicker, easier,more seductive."

LUKE: "But how am I to know the good sidefrom the bad?"

YODA: "You will know. When you are calm, at peace. Passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack."


KANAN: "You were right. I was a coward. But now I know there's something stronger than fear, far stronger. The Force. Let me show you how strong it is."

When a Jedi lets go of their emotions during a battle, they will find themselves stronger than before. Far more capable than they are when clouded by emotion.