Yoda gave bad advice to Anakin in the Temple?

Qui-gon and Obi-wan discover the power of love. But they also know how to let go of people and things, which is what unconditional love is, as opposed to attachment. Where you cannot let go.

 

I totally agree with what you just wrote, Darth Sinister. The problem is the "logic leaps" in there. You seem to imply that there is a difference between love and attachment. That is a product of your subjective interpretation, but objectively speaking, love = attachment according to Webster's, American heritage, Roget's, or whatever other source you can find on our language. It's that simple. If you add any connotation, you do it at your own risk and without the support of any objective definition. According to our language, love and attachment are synonyms. The only time they have different meanings is when an adjective is added to give the noun a specific connotation.

Unconditional love, which you claim is superior to attachment, is a form of attachment, "selfless attachment."

This general thing called "attachment," which you claim is inferior to love, is actually a synonym for a general thing called "love."

Conditional love, which would logically be the opposite of unconditional love, is "selfish attachment" - the bad kind that caused Anakin's fall and that Yoda tried to warn against.

What made the warning ineffectual is the fact that "attachment" (love) is a category, under which falls both "selfless attachment" (unconditional love) and "selfish attachment" (obsessive love). So Yoda, by warning against all attachment, was throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He condemned all bonds of attachment, which actually condems all human emotional bonds. But it is ultimately the human emotional bonds under the category of attachment that save the galaxy. To throw out ALL forms of attachment is to throw out the positive along with the negative.

 

i think yoda relaizes there are differences between emtional bonds and attachments, even in the PT.

"i wont let my visions become real master yoda"

that signaled to yoda that anakin would do anything to ward off death, thats why yoda realaized his emotional tie to this person was bordering on attachment. thats why he told him to let go of everything he feared to loose, because of comments like the above one.

 

You're saying it's contextual, and based on Yoda's reading of Anakin that he can not handle attachment. So Yoda says "Shut it all down." I can see the logic in that (it worked for 3PO in New Hope), but I can also see the failure.

For if Yoda sees a difference between emotional bonds and attachment, it is a difference that he himself invented (literally, I can't say it any other way, those are the exact same things). So to not explain the difference (as he sees it) is to fail at explaining his position. Regardless of whether he knows that Anakin is married or not, Yoda did not clearly exaplin his terms. He made a logical fallacy. Simply put, there is no difference between emotional bonds and attachments. There is a difference between positive emotional bonds and destructive emotional attachments, but still "bonds" and "attachments" are literally, synonyms. And just because a good connection can lead to a bad attachment does not mean that they always will or that they are even close to the same thing. They may be on the same spectrum, but so is a pebble and a mountain - doesn't mean they have anything in common besides the general categorization of "earth." That was Yoda's error - he didn't see the forest for the trees. He threw the baby out with the bathwater. He - dare I say it - dealt in an absolute in saying all attachment is bad rather than distinguishing the bad to be avoided from the good to be embraced.

 

Yoda was speaking to a Jedi Knight, who is in an Order where attachment is forbidden. This was taught to Anakin and he must have heard it as he stated as much to Padme in AOTC ? ?Attachment is forbidden. Possessions are forbidden?. Anakin knew the deal.

But then again, Anakin was not the typical Jedi Knight.

Yoda was also speaking to a man that came to them with pre-existing attachment issues, as a ten-year-old boy.

Yoda?s advice is spot on? for any typical Jedi. The advice he gave Anakin is right, it?s just that it wasn?t what a person with attachment issues wanted to hear. This is not Yoda?s fault that his advice was falling on deaf ears.

 

There's something else that's falling on deaf ears here, and that is the meaning of the word "attachment." You can't just use the word any way you like. Attachment is the same thing as love, end of story. Don't believe me? Check out a dictionary. Don't want to talk about what the dictionary says but rather how Yoda means it? Well, then you're making the same mistake as our little green friend, assuming that everyone is on the same page is you, even when you know for a fact that someone is clearly not. But we'll forego this debate because I can't keep typing the same things.

Instead, we'll focus on DT421's claim that "Yoda?s advice is spot on? for any typical Jedi." Good call. So you are implying that Anakin is "any typical Jedi?" Because that would refute the idea that he was the Chosen One, the idea that he was no trained from birth, the idea that he had conflicts that no Jedi had ever had before, the way he was found, the way he was trained, the way everything happened for all three movies. Anakin is not a typical Jedi, so giving him the "typical Jedi" spiel and merely "hoping" he gets it is more then a little foolhardy. Face it, Yoda made an error. It's okay, that doesn't make him the bad guy of the movie. That doesn't get the blame off Anakin. All it does is accept the fallibility of everyone in the Universe and not bow before Yoda like he is some infallible Emperor. The point is that Yoda did beat the Emperor - once he changed his point of view.

 

smokewars, i know what your getting at about the definition of attachment


but anakin does see the difference between "love" and "attachemnt" as defined by lucas
(yoda). its pretty clear from what he tells padme in AOTC, that to him, love and attachment are indeed two different things. in fact, he uses attachment in the same sentence as posession, which leads me to be believe, in star wars, the two are very similar.

 

I think Qui-Gons return is heavily overrated in some aspects. He did not return to "rewrite" the code or change the Jedi Way, he did not return to tell Obi-Wan and Yoda off about getting it wrong, he did not return for any of that - he returned to teach Yoda & Obi-Wan the key to "force-immortality". And like it or not - but that little key involves the 2 words: "no attachments". That's a huge part of it, Anakin has no attachments when he dies, same with Obi-Wan and Yoda, same with Qui-Gon. That's not even "from a certain point of view" or anything, that's straight out of Qui-Gons mouth.

Now Smokewars, the people who wrote those dictionarys did not write Star Wars. It may sound like an absolute, but it's a true one - whatever George believes applies in the GFFA. He believes the word "attachment" to have a negative spin to it - and he makes it a highly important factor in the entire saga. As for me believing it, well i'm not american and i've just turned 19 - meaning that Star Wars has been in my life for as far as i can remember, and i've basically learned and extracted a lot of stuff from it. One being what Sinister (and not to mention Anakin) said about the difference between compassion (unconditional love) and greed (attachments). Websters definition of attachments doesn't really mean anything to me, there is no "end of story" there.

If you disagree with GL on attachments, then that's fine; but George, right or wrong, put his own notions into Star Wars. I could just as easily put a "end of story" behind that.

Exactly

"Attachment is forbidden, compassion - which i would define as unconditional love - is central to a Jedis life"

- O_F

 

There's something else that's falling on deaf ears here, and that is the meaning of the word "attachment." You can't just use the word any way you like. Attachment is the same thing as love, end of story. Don't believe me? Check out a dictionary. Don't want to talk about what the dictionary says but rather how Yoda means it? Well, then you're making the same mistake as our little green friend, assuming that everyone is on the same page is you, even when you know for a fact that someone is clearly not. But we'll forego this debate because I can't keep typing the same things.

Instead, we'll focus on DT421's claim that "Yoda?s advice is spot on? for any typical Jedi." Good call. So you are implying that Anakin is "any typical Jedi?"

Smokewars ? I?ll repost just for you.

?Yoda was speaking to a Jedi Knight, who is in an Order where attachment is forbidden. This was taught to Anakin and he must have heard it as he stated as much to Padme in AOTC ? ?Attachment is forbidden. Possessions are forbidden?. Anakin knew the deal.

But then again, Anakin was not the typical Jedi Knight.

Yoda was also speaking to a man that came to them with pre-existing attachment issues, as a ten-year-old boy.

Yoda?s advice is spot on? for any typical Jedi. The advice he gave Anakin is right, it?s just that it wasn?t what a person with attachment issues wanted to hear. This is not Yoda?s fault that his advice was falling on deaf ears.? ? DT

Try reading the WHOLE post and considering it first, before running your mouth off next time.

Anakin made the choice to become a Jedi. The onus was on him to conform to the Jedi ways, not on Yoda to conform to someone with attachment issues.

 

"Anakin made the choice to become a Jedi. The onus was on him to conform to the Jedi ways, not on Yoda to conform to someone with attachment issues"

Exactly! And this excuse Ani uses about compassion being
unconditional love is total BS. You can have compassion for
someone you see on the news, doesn't mean love has anything to
do with it. He is just trying to rationalize his feelings to
Padme in hopes she will become more open to the suggestion.
He's prob also trying to rationalize it for himself so he can
make himself believe his feelings will not be going against
the Jedi code.

 

You can't just use the word any way you like. Attachment is the same thing as love, end of story. Don't believe me? Check out a dictionary. Don't want to talk about what the dictionary says but rather how Yoda means it?

Here is some more, just for you again, Smokewars. This isn?t from any dictionary, but straight from the maker?s mouth himself:

"I would like to see our society mature, and become more rational and more knowledge-based, less emotion-based. I'd like to see education play a larger role in our daily lives, have people come to a larger understanding?a ?bigger picture? understanding?of how we fit into the world, and how we fit into the universe. Not necessarily thinking of ourselves, but thinking of others."

--George Lucas.

"The film is ultimately about the dark side and the light side, and those sides are designed around compassion and greed. The issue of greed, of getting things and owning things and having things and not being able to let go of things, is the opposite of compassion?of not thinking of yourself all the time. These are the two sides?the good force and the bad force. They're the simplest parts of a complex cosmic construction."

?-George Lucas

Anything in there remind you of attachments? By all means, if you wish to continue to try and apply ?real world? logic to the GFFA, have at it. But if you have issues with Lucas? logic, then take it up with him.

After all, after Yoda and Anakin?s chat, what did Anakin proceed to do the rest of the movie, because of being unable to let go of the attachments which he had secretly forged?

Anakin?s pain from losing his mother, motivated his fear of losing Padme. His fear motivated him to seek out a Dark Side power, so he could still keep her. You know the rest.

 

Compassion=unconditional love. Unselfishness is where this falls under. Attachment=possession, which leads into jealously. All of which qualifies as greed.

Lucas says it's okay to love, just don't cling to people and things needlessly. To the point where you will kill to keep what you want, by becoming a selfish *******.

 

Getting back to 'Did Yoda give Anakin bad advice?' I thik Anakin chose Yoda instead of Obi just for that reason. Yes, Yoda gives good ADVICE but it is just that = philosophical positions for Anakin to meditate on. There is a difference between ADVISING (in which someone offers generalities or philosophies to ponder) and COACHING (when someone says, you do this if he does that. Then counter him here when he tries this). When Anakin first had his dream and continued to be scared about it over time Padme suggested that he should go to Obi. Anakin knows (and we have seen in all three prequels) that Yoda ADVISES (with his sometimes riddling wisdom) while Obi COACHES (with his direct orders). I do not think Anakin wanted direct orders in this case. There is a mistrust building between he and the Jedi. He therefore choses Yoda (who does not know as much about his social life) over Obi for those reasons. But when he cannot find any Yoda-isms to twist in his favor, he turns to Palps (the other major sympathetic influence in his life). Anakin is fearful and searching. He has an idea of what Obi may say about Padme, so he avoids talking to Obi in favor of Yoda. But in the end, he turns to Palps and eventually, well.....you know what happens.

 

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the advice. It was 100% right. But it's kinda like when a friend comes to you and tells you he has a problem with something, and you kinda have to tell him "Uhhh...I love you bud, but YOU are the problem". It's probably not going to be received all that well, even though it's the truth.

After I thought about this, my mind took me back to TESB when Luke wanted to leave Dagobah to "save" Han and Leia because of... attachment. Think about what he said.

Yoda,"You must not go".
Luke, "And sacrifice Han and Leia?"
Yoda, "If honor them and what they fight for, YES!"



You know Yoda had to be running his discussion with Anakin through his mind. He knew it was a trap, and from his line to Obiwan as the ship left, "there is another", IMO he didn't really think Luke would be able to resist the dark side. He didn't say, "Nah, He'll be ok".


The problem was Anakin wouldn't really open up to Yoda because if he had told him what it was all about then he would have been expelled from the order. So yoda thought he was giving advice that he had given a thousand times before. How was he suppose to know that Anakin was talking about his secret wife?

 

It's correct. Anakin had to conform, not the other way around. Lucas' definiation of love is based on the concept of how to be a better person. Yes, the dictionary has attachment as love. But it's not what Lucas is saying. What he is saying is that attaching yourselves to someone to the point of becoming fixated on them, is dangerous. To become so attached that you don't care about anyone or anything else. That you cannot adapt to the idea of change. That you become desperate to maintain what you precieve to be your own happiness, that you will sell your soul to the devil, just to get your way.

Padme accepted death. She wasn't afraid to die. Anakin, on the other hand, was afraid to lose his perfect little world. Thus he did what he did, because he was selfish.

 

Right, "attachments".

Let's look at this crazy word in the Star Wars universe again, one more time.

1. The Jedi cannot get married, [form those "evil" lifetime-covenant attachments with the opposite gender]. Well, Leia is definitely going to be a Force-User, and don't anyone tell me she isn't gonna' go and marry Han Solo.

2. The Jedi cannot be raised by their birthparents [form those "evil" lifetime-oriented attachments between parent and child]. Well, this worked some of the time, Obi and Yoda; and didn't work sometimes, as with Dooku. It definitely did not work with Anakin; strongly encouraging him to have no contact with his mother after him being given away at age 9.

I have no desire for this thread to go on a tangent, but George, lighten up on your definition of the word "attachments". George really means obsession.

Like Padme, I'm so obsessed with you, I'm going to help destroy civilization as we know it to save your life.

 

Smokewars - I totally agree with what you just wrote, Darth Sinister. The problem is the "logic leaps" in there. You seem to imply that there is a difference between love and attachment. That is a product of your subjective interpretation, but objectively speaking, love = attachment according to Webster's, American heritage, Roget's, or whatever other source you can find on our language. It's that simple.

well, you're sort of taking the "attachment" part of the defintion of love out of context...in my webster's dictionary it states...

Love (luv) n. affection; strong liking; goodwill; benevolence; charity; devoted attachment to one of the opposite sex; passion; the object of affection; the personification of love: Cupid; (Tennis) no score; v.t. to show affection for; to be delighted with; to admire passionatly; v.i. to be in love; to delight.


now, I'm onlty making this point because smokewars, you seem to think love is attachment, which is isn't, at least not in every case. there's the goodwill part, the benevolence part, the charity part....those are the forms of love the Jedi strive for, the attachment side is the side they stay away from. Love is a tricky thing to define. It is the most powerful of emotions, and that emotion is felt a different way by every individual person. but to state that love=attachment, period, is a little brash...If I give a homeless man a pair of shoes out of love for my fellow man, I'm not getting attached to that man, I'm simply doing something out of the kindness of my heart; out of goodwill, or charity.

My point is, love doesn't always mean attachment.

 

Attachments were forebidden because of what Anakin Skywalker did. Marriage is only forebidden if you are a Jedi in training. Not of you're just a normal person outside of the Order. Marriage isn't bad, but it's the desire to place yourself above everyone else, that's the problem. And that's exactly what Anakin does. It's what he wants, not what Padme wants. She tells him that he doesn't need to do this, but he won't listen to her. But by becoming unselfish can you truly be happy. Can everything work out just fine.

Jedi were taken from birth for the same reason. The Younglings had to be able to have a clear mind, from distractions. As well as be able to understand the Force almost from the beginning. Look at Luke. He had trouble wrapping his mind around the idea of the Force.

Yoda: "You must unlearn, what you have learned."

And as we see with both Skywalker boys, it was dangerous leaving them with families and having attachments. The only reason Luke didn't turn was because he saw himself in his father and understood the lesson of the cave.

 

Yoda gave a great advice to Anakin about a loss of a close person/object. As you well know Jedis are not allowed to form "attachments" because once something bad happens to them it will only lead to jealousy the path to greed that is. Like Yoda said you have to train yourself the things you fear to lose. Jedis cant form attachments and bonds because it is against the code. Listen to the Jedi Master people he gave a perfect advice! It was Anakin who CHOSE the other path...CHOICE is the reason here.

 

I have a theory about the advice. I think that Yoda knew what Anakin was trying to do, and was warning him not to play God, which is almost exactly what you're doing if you try to keep someone from dying naturally.

 

faild overall

 

It is terrible advice. It is inhuman advice. I mean, it literally got laughs in the theater. "Miss them, do not"? Screw you, Yoda.

 

Yoda - "Miss them do not, mourn them do not"

later on...

"Goodbye Chewbacca...miss you I will"

later still...

"Killed not by clones, (cracks up) this Padawan. By a lightsaber, he was".

 

no damm way

 

This topic was already debated to death. No pun intended...really.
Anyway, this boils down to the difference between ADVISING and COACHING. Advising is offering ideas without giving hard solutions, allowing the pupil to reach his own conclusions. Coaching is direct orders: "You do this, and when he counters, you do this." Yoda is very much the advisor, offering pupils to grasp concepts. While Obi is the coach, barking out commands. Anikan knows that these two Jedi have these two leadership styles. Despite Padme telling Anikan to talk to Obi, he goes to Yoda. Not only does Obi know directly of Ani's infatuation with Padme, he also gives Ani no alternatives. Therefore, Ani goes to Yoda, hoping for better news he can twist into his favor. Unfortunately Yoda advises him on the Jedi principles long held...Anikan strikes out on that plan. Now he goes to the one last father/authority figure in his life: Palps.
The sad fact remains (and was mentioned by another writer on this and the previous chat) all Anikan had to do is listen to Padme. If not at the time of the nightmare, then at the time just before HE killed her. It's very Tragic and I imagine Lucas was nodding to the great tragedy authors as he had Anikan fulfills his own nightmare.
But the point remains, Yoda offered good ADVICE...but he did not COACH.