PT Yoda: "Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose." (PLEASE SEE WARNING ON PAGE 14)

And it backfired epically (destruction of the Death Star), and he got a rival promoted over his head by Palpatine as a result. Once bitten, twice shy.

 

That doesn't mean that you don't try it again.

 

It seems to me that one challenge in the SW movies is that they present characters who clearly have a complex moral and philosophical code, which is important to the story, but they don't really have the time or inclination to delve into that code on-screen very much. As a result, their motives can become cloudy.

There is a difference between being uncaring, cold, robotic, and not indulging excessive attachment. Stop and think about it. To prevent Padme's death - or really, to spare HIMSELF the pain he would feel should she die - Anakin is willing to betray the galaxy into slavery, to participate in murder (and mass murder), to betray and personally murder his former friends and colleagues - and even children. He is "so in love" with Padme that he is willing to do all that (again, I would argue that he is actually willing to do all that out of fear, fear for himself, to spare himself pain, but... either way). That is about as excessive an attachment as you can get.

Yoda is trying to steer Anakin away from excessive attachment, from attachment without limit, without proportion, which can lead to terrible fear of loss..which can (and DOES!) lead to some terrible actions out of a desire to avoid that loss.

The movies are full of examples of people who get this, BTW. Just the other day, I was rewatching FORCE AWAKENS. Early on, Po is talking with Max Von Sydow's character (sorry, blanking on the name), who has just provided him with the key part of the map to Luke Skywalker. Suddenly, the First Order shows up. This is going to be very bad, for all concerned. Po tells Max that he needs to hide. Max tells Po, pointedly, that HE needs to GO. You can see that Po is torn - the actor sells that really well. Po wants to stay, to help, to fight, to protect Max, to help protect the villagers (even if odds are, it won't matter, overall). But he goes - not because he is uncaring, not because he is cold, but because in the bigger picture, it's the right thing to do, the galaxy is at stake here. Moments later, his X wing destroyed, Po tells BB-8 to abandon him, to run, to get away, with the map. BB-8 doesn't want to - but does, because, again, while he is friends with Po, there are much bigger stakes. The scene is repeated later, when Rey also tells BB to run, while she tries to hold off Kylo Renn. In none of these cases is the one doing the running uncaring or callous, in none of these cases is their friendship or loyalty called into doubt.

This idea...that one has to be careful about attachment to people, to objects, to status, to many things, that one has to avoid excessive attachment as it can become a dangerous trap, is not "just" some weird Jedi thing. There are strains of it in many philosophies - Stoicism, Buddhism, etc. It can be challenging if it is as seen as a call to be uncaring (it's really not!). But IMHO, Yoda was simply trying to remind Anakin of a complicated but central Jedi teaching, in a brief onscreen scene - the implication being that there were many hours, days, maybe years, where this was explored in more depth.

 

Nobody has that excessive an attachment that they are willing to do absolutely anything not to experience (or re-experience) their loss without it being plain for everyone else to see. And it's highly unlikely they would express regret like Anakin does when he kills the Sand People (which is actually after the fact of his mother's death and prevents nothing) and then helps Palpatine kill Mace.

The strains of having no possession which are present in earth philosophies are more about control than in order to prevent people from becoming genocidal tyrants.

 

Or a third time...

 

darth-sinister

1) So you’re saying that being a true Jedi means having a lack of ability to love or establish personal meaningful relationships? Remember, my wife is a psychologist, and because of that, I know the exact clinical term for those unable to establish personal meaningful relationships. They’re called psychopaths. By your own definition, the character who comes closest to the Jedi ideal is Palpatine. He didn’t love anyone. He had no meaningful personal relationships. I guess he must’ve been a perfect Jedi.

2) And what happens when a Jedi’s duty requires him to do something blatantly evil? The Jedi have sworn allegiance to the Republic, yes? What if the Republic orders the Jedi to commit a war crime? What if Count Dooku had won the war, was about to take over Coruscant, and both the Chancellor and the Senate ordered the Jedi to destroy the entire planet, including everyone on it for having “failed them”? (Note: When Hitler realized that Germany was gonna lose World War II, he wanted every single German killed for having “failed him”.) In such a circumstance, would you rather have the Jedi follow their heart or their duty? Back here on earth, we actually established a legal precedent that requires follow their heart instead of their duty at Nuremberg. So are you saying that the Jedi should just follow orders, no matter what?

Extremism never leads to good results. Anakin embodied one extreme. Just because his extreme had disastrous results does not mean one should embrace psychopathy and follow any order, no matter how heinous. All you’re doing is advocating the exact opposite, equally horrific extreme.

 

The Jedi don't lack the ability to love or have meaningful relationships. Obi-wan was friends with Dexter and loved Anakin. Yoda considered Taarful and Chewbacca to be his dear friends. Ezra considers Hera, Sabine, Zeb, Chopper and Hondo to be his friends. Kanan loves Hera. Luke loves his father. But they cannot form attachments to people.

"The Jedi are trained to let go. They're trained from birth," he continues, "They're not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can't form attachments. So what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 213

"It's about a good boy who was loving and had exceptional powers, but how that eventually corrupted him and how he confused possessive love with compassionate love. That happens in Episode II: Regardless of how his mother died, Jedis are not supposed to take vengeance. And that's why they say he was too old to be a Jedi, because he made his emotional connections. His undoing is that he loveth too much."

--George Lucas, Rolling Stone Magazine Interview; June 2005.

"This is obviously a very pivotal scene for Anakin because this is reuniting with his mother and his youth and at the same time dealing with his inability to let go of his emotions and allow himself to accept the inevitable. The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that he can't hold onto things which is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn't willing to accept emotionally and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he'd have been taken in his first year and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn't have this particular connection as strong as it is and he'd have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them. But he has become attached to his mother and he will become attached to Padme and these things are, for a Jedi, who needs to have a clear mind and not be influenced by threats to their attachments, a dangerous situation. And it feeds into fear of losing things, which feeds into greed, wanting to keep things, wanting to keep his possessions and things that he should be letting go of. His fear of losing her turns to anger at losing her, which ultimately turns to revenge in wiping out the village. The scene with the Tusken Raiders is the first scene that ultimately takes him on the road to the dark side. I mean he's been prepping for this, but that's the one where he's sort of doing something that is completely inappropriate."

--George Lucas, AOTC DVD Commentary.

Why do you think that the Jedi considered overthrowing Palpatine and oversee a peaceful transition of power back to the Senate? They disagreed with his policies and actions. And when they found out that he was a Sith, moved to take him down. Anakin's duty was to stop Palpatine. It is the reason for his existence. But he chooses to be selfish because he is attached to Padme. He stops Palpatine from being killed simply to save her and only because he is attached to her.

"You almost come a second too late. You're rushing over to make sure that nothing happens-but your anticipation is that they're going to hurt each other. When the lightning starts things are going from bad to worse from your point of view. And when Mace is going to kill him, you have to act.

Try and increase how uncomfortable you feel as the shot goes on. Try to think back on the Darth Plagueis story-run that through your head. Take it one step further: you realize that by telling the Jedi about Palpatine being a Sith that Padme is going to die. Basically, you just killed her."

--George Lucas To Hayden Christensen, The Making Of ROTS.

"Okay, well this sequence always started out with Mace, uh, overpowering Palpatine and then Palpatine using his powers to try to destroy Mace and Mace deflecting his rays with his Lightsaber. It always was that Anakin cut the Lightsaber out of his hand. But this part where he pretends to lose his power and be weak was something that I added later cause this moved the point where Anakin turns down to this moment right here and you can see that he’s now that it's very clear that he’s, he wants him to go on trial so he can pump him for information about how to get these powers."

--George Lucas, ROTS DVD Commentary.

"I have what I call two sharp "right turns" in the movie and they are very hard to deal with. For the audience, it's a real jerk, because you're going along and then somebody yanks you in a different direction. Anakin turning to the dark side and killing Mace is a very hard right, because we're dealing with things that aren't so obvious. The audience knows Anakin is going to turn to the dark side, but the things that he's struggling with are so subtle that it may be hard for people to understand why his obsession to hold onto Padme is so strong.

Showing how much Anakin and Padme care for each other is one of my weak points. Expressing that is hard to do. It's really hard in the end to express the idea, I'm so in love with you that I would do anything to save you; I'd give up everything -friends, my whole life- for you, and make that real-make that stick-and say it in two minutes. When I created it I knew I wanted two hard right turns-it's designed to be that way-and I knew I was taking a real chance that it wasn't going to work. But you have to see if you can make it work. If it doesn't work, well then I'm going to get skewered for it. But if I can make it work, it'll be neat. It'll be good."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith.

 

Anakin was not trained from birth. He was told to train himself.

 

Yeah, but this is just widly inconsistent. Kanan loves Hera, and has romantic feelings for her, implying they want to be together, and have a meaningful relationship. This is just fine. However, the moment they put this on a peace of paper, aka marriage, it's suddenly forbidden attachment, even though it changes nothing about the way they feel about each other. Then there's this:



Despite Lucas' words about Jedi being allowed to love, the entire marketing premise of AOTC was based on the idea, that they're not allowed to love. Rather than just stick with the obvious anger, fear, aggression greed, jealously are bad angle used for the OT, Lucas opted to create this melodramatic idea of forbidden love, and it all became a muddled mess.

 

Just the fact that prophecy, balance, attachments (particularly that a child must be trained from birth not to be attached to anyone, even their mother, or it will mean dire consequences for the whole galaxy) and chosen ones are not items of concern in the OT at all, but are supposedly fundamental to the entire saga, is a pretty good smoking gun.

I mean just think about the training infants that they should not feel attached to their mother. What kind of psychopaths do the Jedi want in their order?

 

You're basing your argument about the films on the wording on a movie poster? Regardless, it's obviously referring to romantic love. The kind of love where you're supposed to commit yourself fully to one other person and put their needs above those of others. Can't you see why that kind of love might be considered problematic for a Jedi?

Being a Jedi isn't a luxury or a right. It's a choice, a commitment, a privilege. Anakin was totally and completely free to marry Padme. He just couldn't be a Jedi at the same time. If he wanted to indulge his emotional attachments in that way, he had to give up the power and the responsibility of being a Jedi Knight. But he wasn't willing to do that because he selfishly wanted it all.

 

darth-sinister

A personal meaningful relationship is an attachment. People form bonds and attachments to each other. It’s what we do. Perhaps you’re saying that Jedi should only form shallow relationships, and feel a shallow form of love? That’s what a psychopath does! This is the textbook definition of a psychopath that you’re advocating.

You also never answered my question. Palpatine is the character who most embodies. He never forms attachments to anybody. So why is Palpatine not the ideal Jedi?

As for following for your duty vs. doing what’s right, what happens if the Jedi find themselves in a Kingslayer situation? Violate your duty by killing the Mad King you swore to protect or fail your duty by allowing the Mad King to burn half a million innocents to death? Protect the innocent or protect the King? Which duty is more important?

As for it being Anakin’s duty to stop Palpatine, is that his duty because he swore to be a Jedi and it is the duty of every Jedi to stop the Sith? Or is it his duty to stop Palpatine regardless of whether he’s a Jedi or not due to the circumstances of his birth, over which he had no control? Is it the duty of every Jedi to stop Palpatine or is it Anakin’s duty specifically? Is it his duty to be a Jedi regardless of whether he wants to be one or not, due to circumstances over which he had no control. Is he allowed to leave the Jedi or do the circumstances of his birth mean that he can’t do that whereas anyone else can. It’s kind of useless to say, “If you want to have attachments, you can just leave the Jedi. Except for Anakin. He’s forbidden to leave because he’s the Chosen One.”

 

You're basically condemning Buddhism as evil and psychopathic. Not necessarily disputing your opinion, but that's what you're doing.

Of course, you're also grossly misunderstanding Buddhism on a fundamental level. The idea of non-attachment doesn't imply the promotion of "shallow relationships." It in fact implies the exact opposite. Non-attachment leads to completely unconditional love for all people and things, based solely on the universal qualities of our shared existence, as opposed to being based on such shallow things as whether that person has qualities which make you feel good.

e: Palpatine is not the ideal Jedi because his entire existence is based around attachment. He is attached to the things which give him power and make him feel good--just like Anakin, who only cares about Padme to the extent that she provides him feelings of pleasure and comfort, lashing out at her with hate the moment she stops providing him with those things. Neither of them love unconditionally, but both of them are extremely attached to their worldly concerns and possessions.

 

No, it's not.

Seriously, you're using the wrong definition of attachment. Look up the Buddhist version.

It's pointless for you, or any of us, to discuss this until we start using the same definition of attachment, the one Lucas was using.

 

Yes, but here's my problem the way this commitment was presented. My issue is not with commitment, or that being a Jedi and having a normal family life might not be compatible. My issue is, that it is continually represented in an extremely dogmatic fashion to the point. It's like those priests who tell you if you masturbate, you go to hell.

 

The_Phantom_Calamari

Yet such a view is fundamentally naive and at odds with human nature. Humans do form attachments. You can’t change human nature.

For example, there’s the old cliché about how parents are supposed to say, “I love all my children equally.” It’s a pretty hollow lie, and nearly everyone knows it not to be true. It’s harmless enough, but even most 5-year-olds (not exactly the most sophisticated group of people) can easily see through it. The idea that you can just unconditionally love all people equally doesn’t work in the real world. It doesn’t even work in these movies. Do you really think that Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda unconditionally loved Darth Vader as much as they loved Luke Skywalker? Do you really think Luke unconditionally loved the Emperor as much as he loved his father? Of course not. And you’d have to have impossible standards to expect it. The only character who even came close to that ideal probably was Palpatine, as he pretty much seemed to regard everyone around him equally. In other words, you can only pull it off by having shallow emotions.

CT-867-5309

I’m going by the definition provided by a trained psychologist who’s been in the field for over 10 years- my wife. Anakin’s problem is that he does not have secure attachments, which are perfectly normal and healthy. Instead, he has anxious-preoccupied attachments, which can be quite destructive. I prefer to base my definitions of words on facts and science, not on ancient fairy tales.

 

Well, that seems like a religious disagreement. I just don't agree with the tone of the criticisms against Lucas, as if his introduction of monastic celibacy into the narrative was some sort of contrived lunacy, as opposed to being a pretty appropriate inclusion with great relevance to the central themes of Star Wars, which comported with what we already knew of the Jedi and the type of order they were. And for what it's worth, I don't think the Jedi of all people would discourage their members from manhandling their lightsabers.

The Buddha disagreed. Take it up with him.

It isn't expected of anyone to achieve the capacity for complete and total unconditional love in a single lifetime. It is only expected that a person at least strive to achieve it. Of course people aren't perfect, and the Buddhist tradition recognizes that. That's why celibacy is not a requirement for the laity as it is for the monks. It isn't realistic to expect such a thing from everybody, because not everybody is equally as far down the path toward spiritual enlightenment. If you choose to be a monk, it is expected that you have progressed far enough in order to be capable of that kind of self-denial, and if you prove not to be capable, then it's no harm no foul--you just go back to being a part of the laity and keep on striving within the bounds of your present ability.

It's possible to have healthy and mostly non-possessive romantic relationships (like the kind which develops between Han and Leia by the end of the OT), and there's nothing exactly evil about that. It's just that, if you're truly seeking an end to all suffering, you must necessarily give up romantic relationships, because as everyone knows they will inevitably lead to pain at some point, even if just by virtue of the fact that one lover generally must outlive the other. If you truly wish to achieve enlightenment, you must reach a point where not being with your lover--or the thought of not being with your lover--causes no feelings of sadness or longing, and where you are truly and perfectly content with accepting the universe exactly as it is in the moment, even if in that moment you are deprived of the comfort of their presence--and even if you are deprived of that comfort in every moment from that point onward. Once you reach that point, marriage arguably becomes superfluous.

This is obviously a very difficult point to reach. No one is disputing that. But I would dispute your contention that it isn't possible.

Good Lord, no. No. Nooooo.

Not caring about everyone equally is not even remotely the same thing as loving everyone equally. Come on.

 

So you're being willfully ignorant, then?

Okay then, have at it.

 

Well, your trained psychologist wife who's been in the field for over 10 years is wrong when it comes to Buddhism. Maybe because she's a psychologist and not a theologist.

A child being allowed to feel safe and secure during their early development is not in conflict with the Buddhist principle of non-attachment. The whole idea behind Buddhist non-attachment is to allow people to feel safe and secure long after they've left the ignorance of infancy and have subsequently been confronted with all the anxieties and sufferings waiting around every corner of grown-up life.

In terms of Star Wars lore, it is demonstrated in TCW that Force-sensitive children are allowed to be raised by their birth parents during infancy and thus, in purely psychological terms, develop in a securely attached environment. At some point they are taken to be raised by the Jedi, but even then they are watched over and trained by kindly Yoda, who is shown to have a fatherly bond with the Younglings under his care, suggesting that the inculcation of the non-attachment principle is done in a gradual and humane way which takes into account child developmental psychology (a subject which Lucas's research reading list for the prequels specifically includes). The problem with Anakin is that he was very securely attached to his mother and did not enjoy any of the benefit of being eased into a life of non-attachment from an early age.

 

The_Phantom_Calamari

The problem with the comparison to Buddhist monks is that the Jedi recruit very young children. They already claim Anakin is too old when his age range is still in the single digits. You said: “If you choose to be a monk, it is expected that you have progressed far enough in order to be capable of that kind of self-denial.” My response? Name me a single 5-year-old who’s progressed that far. We’re talking about a group of people who are prone to throw tantrums if their younger brother plays with their favorite toy…and you expect them to have achieved significant progress on the path to spiritual enlightenment?

And you’ll never end all suffering. It cannot happen. It does not happen. Suffering is a part of life. You can’t make it go away. You can deal with it in ways that are either healthy or unhealthy. With time, you can eventually accept your loss and move on with your life. But you cannot just eliminate all suffering or sadness or pain. You know that pain and guilt can’t be taken away with the wave of a magic wand. They’re the things we carry with us. The things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don’t want my pain taken away. I need my pain!

The reason I bring up Palpatine is because he’s the only character who unconditionally loves everyone equally. I guarantee you he does love everyone equally. He doesn’t love anybody, which he means he actually does love everyone equally by not loving them at all. And it’s pretty unconditional. He unconditionally views everyone as mere tools and objects to enhance his own goals. That’s the only way that it’s actually possible to pull off all these ideals. To be a psychopath like Palpatine. He unconditionally loves everyone equally and he has no attachments. His emotions are shallow, and he lacks the ability to love or form meaningful personal relationships. Unless you’re a psychopath, you don’t unconditionally love everyone equally and you do form attachments. It’s perfectly healthy and normal for humans to do this. I’d be more worried about humans who don’t form attachments. The most dangerous type of person isn’t a person who has attachments. It’s a person who has nothing to lose.

Also, I was referring to adult attachments, not child attachments. Anxious-preoccupied attachments refers to adult psychology, not child psychology. The equivalent term in child psychology is anxious-ambivalent. I know because my wife had me quiz her on all this stuff when she was studying for her degree.

It’s clear that Anakin has attachment issues. However, I strongly disagree that the answer is for him to just not be attached anymore. Humans don’t work that way.

And yes, I’m viewing this from a scientific rather than a spiritual perspective, because this very trilogy established that Star Wars is apparently supposed to be hard science fiction. Even the Force has a biochemical origin now. None of this wishy-washy mystical fantasy in-born with psychic abilities stuff, right? This is science!

 

Yes, which is still true whether you're trained from birth or not. It's called self-discipline. Any time a Jedi feels fear in their heart, which can happen even after a lifetime of training, under the normal circumstances, they have to continually train themselves to let go of those fears. Obi-wan was raised in the traditional Jedi way, yet he had fear for Qui-gon when he fought Maul. He feared losing him, which turned to anger and hate when he was killed. But Obi-wan comes to realize his failure and banishes the fear, anger and hate from his heart and defeats Maul without it. He continued to train himself to not feel that way again. He slipped a little when Satine was killed, but pulled back and kept on the same path as before.

The OT never stated that Jedi were allowed to have families and marriages. It wasn't an invention of the PT that marriages were forbidden, when Lucas himself hadn't decided on which was the correct course while making the OT. In the first draft, Luke tells Annikin that if his father had been better at being disciplined, he wouldn't have been a father.

GENERAL: "You are trained well, but remember, a JEDI must be single-minded, a discipline your father obviously never learned, hence your existence. Clean yourself up. Discipline is essential. Your mind must follow the way of the BENDU."

This was after it was discovered that he was fooling around with a female technician. In the next draft, the Jedi had families as I noted earlier. By the third draft, the idea of Jedi families were never mentioned. By the time he decided that Vader would be Luke's father, it was still unclear if all Jedi had families or if he was the only case. And as to the poster, it is referring to the impending marriage between them. The film makes it clear that Anakin can love someone, as all Jedi are trained to love unconditionally, but that attachments are forbidden.

He's human, but he's also a Jedi. He has to be above normal, human concerns. Anakin can be fine without attachments, because we see it with the other Jedi. Qui-gon had no attachments, and he was perfectly healthy. Obi-wan as well. Same with Yoda. Etc. They all accept that they can love, but unconditionally. They don't need marriage to have a healthy, normal relationship. There are people in the real world who never marry and not the basement dwellers. There are people who can love, but can also accept the natural course of life. Anakin couldn't do that and it was due to his attachment.

The Force is still an energy field. The Midichlorians are a biological aspect that allows life to exists and allows Force users to be able to hear the will of the Force and use it. And Lucas was never writing about hard science fiction. He created the Force as a spiritual aspect.

BILL MOYERS: I think it's going to be very hard for the audience to accept that this innocent boy, Anakin Skywalker, can ever be capable of the things that we know happen later on. I think about Hitler and wonder what he looked like at nine years old.

GEORGE LUCAS: There are a lot of people like that. And that's what I wonder. What is it in the human brain that gives us the capacity to be as evil as human beings have been in the past and are right now?

MOYERS: You've been probing that for a while now. Have you come to any conclusion?

LUCAS: I haven't. I think it comes out of a rationale of doing certain things and denying to yourself that you're actually doing them. If people were really to sit down and honestly look at themselves and the consequences of their actions, they would try to live their lives a lot differently. One of the main themes in The Phantom Menace is of organisms having to realize they must live for their mutual advantage.


MOYERS: You said you put the Force into Star Wars because you wanted us to think on these things. Some people have traced the notion of the Force to Eastern views of God--particularly Buddhist--as a vast reservoir of energy that is the ground of all of our being. Was that conscious?

LUCAS: I guess it's more specific in Buddhism, but it is a notion that's been around before that. When I wrote the first Star Wars, I had to come up with a whole cosmology: What do people believe in? I had to do something that was relevant, something that imitated a belief system that has been around for thousands of years, and that most people on the planet, one way or another, have some kind of connection to. I didn't want to invent a religion. I wanted to try to explain in a different way the religions that have already existed. I wanted to express it all.


MOYERS: I'm not a psychologist, I'm just a journalist, but it does seem to me there's something autobiographical with Luke Skywalker and his father--something of George Lucas in there.

LUCAS: Oh, yes. There is, definitely. You write from your own emotions. And obviously there are two sides to the redeemer motif in the Star Wars films. Ultimately Vader is redeemed by his children and especially by having children. Because that's what life is all about--procreating and raising children, and it should bring out the best of you.

MOYERS: So while Star Wars is about cosmic, galactic epic struggles, it's at heart about a family?

LUCAS: And a hero. Most myths center on a hero, and it's about how you conduct yourself as you go through the hero's journey, which in all classical myth takes the form of a voyage of transformation by trials and revelations. You must let go of your past and must embrace your future and figure out what path you're going to go down.

MOYERS: Is it fair to say, in effect, that Star Wars is your own spiritual quest?

LUCAS: I'd say part of what I do when I write is ponder a lot of these issues. I have ever since I can remember. And obviously some of the conclusions I've come to I use in the films.

--Of Myth And Men interview, 1999.



That's still the same when he introduced Midichlorians.

 

darth-sinister

With the midi-chlorians, I was being snarky and not asking for a 5-paragraph response. Attempts to provide a scientific explanation for the Force are ineffective because adding physics to the metaphysical doesn’t work.

Nobody equally loves all unconditionally. Nobody. Does not happen. And anyone who says they do equally love everyone unconditionally is lying to you. Yoda clearly doesn’t love Palpatine unconditionally. Obi-Wan doesn’t love Vader unconditionally.

And yes, we do see some of those characters form attachments. Egads! Obi-Wan, for example, actually displays a strong emotional attachment to Anakin, hence his reluctance to kill him. Hence the whole “You were my brother! I loved you!” bit. The difference is that Obi-Wan’s attachment to Anakin is healthy and secure. He’s able to accept what Anakin has become.

There is a world of difference between healthy, secure attachments and unhealthy, insecure attachments. Someone with a secure and healthy attachment is able to let go when the time comes. It requires time and healing and mourning, but it does actually happen. For example, most people are able to move on from the death of their childhood dog. I don’t need to explain it you that children get attached to their dogs. Yet they will inevitably outlive the dog. Most people are sad when they lose their dog. They go through a mourning period. But eventually, they move on and let go. In fact, I have a friend who put his dog down because of his attachment. The dog had inoperable terminal pancreatic cancer and my friend decided it would be much kinder and more humane to put the dog down rather than have it suffer in agonizing pain for several months. His attachment meant that he didn’t want to see his beloved dog suffer. He didn’t want to see the dog in pain…because of the attachment. The attachment resulted in him letting go and accepting reality.

However, let’s say you’re right. Attachments will always and inevitably lead to evil and horrible death and destruction. We need to to do everything we can to get rid of attachments. Let’s accept that. There is only one solution to this problem, only one way to get rid of attachments. The human race needs to go extinct. The entire species needs to die. That’s the only way to get rid of attachments.

You basically have two options, sinister. You either acknowledge that attachments are a natural, healthy, normal and unavoidable part of life. Or you advocate in favor of human extinction. There is no other way. Humans will form attachments, no matter what you do. It’s part of human nature. It’s programmed into us. You can’t undo it.

And I’m not even sure I understand your argument at this point. The idea that attachments are the root of all evil makes little to no sense as the series’ main villain is the least attached person we see in any of these movies- Palpatine. Unless you’re supposed to see Palpatine as the good guy. But even accepting that Palpatine is the exception, and that in all other cases, evil is always the result of attachments, does that mean it would’ve been OK for Anakin to turn as long as he didn’t do so because of an attachment? If he’d decided to murder all those kids in the Temple just for the hell of it, would that have been acceptable because it had nothing to do with an attachment?

I have to admit, sinister, your morality system doesn’t make much sense to me. Vader is evil because of his actions, not because of his concern for loved ones.

 

realjim949 I agree. Vader is evil because of his actions, not because he loved his mother or Padme. You make a very good point about Palpatine being the most evil of all and has no attachments. That hadn't occurred to me until reading your last post.

One issue I have is that AFTER the visions of Shmi dying, Anakin fighting them off for a while, then going and finding her near death- why didn't Yoda or Obi Wan take the second set of visions seriously? He went to Yoda for guidance but instead of taking into account the fact that this kid's first set of visions came true, Yoda brushed him off. Even after feeling the immense amount of pain (through the Force) that Anakin was in while slaughtering the Tuskens. "Young Skywalker is in pain, terrible pain."

Yes I get that Jedi do not know whether or not ALL visions are going to lead to some one dying, but if the kid in front of you is the Chosen One and it has already been proven that his visions aren't just his mind playing tricks on him, then why wouldn't a teacher or mentor act with a modicum of compassion?

 

About emotions and attachments and the like.

I think that a balanced approach is the best. Extremes tend to be where problems can arise.

Being protective of your children is a good thing as long as that means you taking care that they are fed, have a place to live and look after them. But if that turns into a paranoid fear of loosing them to the point that you keep them locked in the house with you all the time, now that has crossed the line.

If a person has a friend or loved one that die, refusing to mourn or grieve will likely lead to problems as will wallowing in grief and clinging to it. Mourn and grieve and then move on.

This is how humans work, if you have someone that you care about, or are attached to. The way to let them go IS to mourn and grieve for a while. Say your goodbyes and move on.
Which is why I find what Yoda said in RotS so at odds with this.
He says that you should NOT mourn someone.
To me, that will just lead to problems and won't help.

Maybe that isn't what he meant and given that we do see Jedi mourn, then it becomes a case of Yoda phrasing his advice very poorly.

About Jedi loving everyone equally.
Take Qui-Gon's death.
In the battle of Naboo, Obi-Wan sees Naboo soldiers die but does he get very sad about that or yell NOO?
No and it would be odd if he did. He doesn't know them and this is a battle, people will die.
But when Qui-Gon dies he is more upset, again not strange because he knows Qui-Gon and cares for him.
So his emotional connection is stronger to Qui-Gon than to those Naboo guards.
Nothing odd here.
But if Jedi are supposed to love everyone equally, then shouldn't Obi-Wan be just as sad over the deaths of those random Naboo people as Qui-Gon?

Or take that the Jeid have a funeral for Qui-Gon, do they also attend the funeral for those Naboo that died in the battle?

Not saying that the Jedi were wrong here, their actions are quite normal. They are closer to some people than to others, that is expected, that is how people work.

In closing, some of the arguments here remind me a little of the Prime Directive in Star Trek and how it was sometimes used.
The basic idea is that Star Fleet should not interfere in pre-warp planets.
Good idea but at times it turns into "We must let whole planets get destroyed and whole civilizations wiped out because we can't interfere."
And the reasons given often boil down to.
1) These species are "meant" to die. IE it is "Gods" will.
2) You don't know what the consequences might be.

To the former, this would mean that doctors should stop treating genetic diseases.
And the latter means that you should not save anyone ever. After all, they could marry, have kids and then grand kids and one of those kids could become a tyrant. You don't know. So let them die.

Both the Prime Directive and the Jedi rules have good ideas in them but problems arise when they become dogmatic and absolute.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

It isn't so much about equality as it is to accept people for who and what they are. Luke has to accept his father for who he is and in doing so, understands why he became evil and then he forgives him for being evil. For doing the things that he did. He loves him in the way that a parent loves their child, regardless of them being a murderer, a homosexual, transgender, an addict or a failure in life in general. And for Vader, it is about seeing what this means and what makes him become good again.

"It really has to do with learning," Lucas says, "Children teach you compassion. They teach you to love unconditionally. Anakin can't be redeemed for all the pain and suffering he's caused. He doesn't right the wrongs, but he stops the horror. The end of the Saga is simply Anakin saying, I care about this person, regardless of what it means to me. I will throw away everything that I have, everything that I've grown to love- primarily the Emperor- and throw away my life, to save this person. And I'm doing it because he has faith in me; he loves me despite all the horrible things I've done. I broke his mother's heart, but he still cares about me, and I can't let that die. Anakin is very different in the end. The thing of it is: The prophecy was right. Anakin was the chosen one, and he does bring balance to the Force. He takes the one ounce of good still left in him and destroys the Emperor out of compassion for his son."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 221.

As to Yoda and Obi-wan, this is true which Lucas acknowledged when he said that the Jedi should love their enemies. I quoted that part earlier. This is why Luke succeeds where Obi-wan fails.

And then he lets go of his attachment to him, which is why he slices him up. He let him go and accepted him as he was now.

But it is also that he must think compassionately of his dog, who was suffering and against his own desire to hold on to the dog. I've been there before. You can love someone, but you must also be willing to think of them over yourself. Be it human or animal. To love beyond yourself.

There's a difference in loving someone and having them in your life, and becoming possessive of that person and becoming selfish on your part. You can love someone without being attached to them. Lucas's story is about that.

Attachment isn't the root of all evil. Attachment as defined in both Buddhism and in "Star Wars" is about possessive love and having a burning desire to hold on to those who come into your life and rejecting the most fundamental aspects of life, which is that people will come and go in your life. That people will fall out of love and move on, that people will become ill and die, or just die on their own. It is about thinking of yourself and being greedy. Unconditional love is love where you care for people and accept them for all their faults and foibles. But also where you can accept that people will die eventually, or leave you in general. And that you care about them over yourself.

His actions are born from his concern for others, but also his concern for himself. He loved his mother so much that he couldn't accept that he failed to save her and vowed to never let anyone else that he loved die on him. He became obsessed with wanting to become all powerful and even stopping people that he loved from dying. And in the end, he chooses to keep Palpatine alive rather than destroy him, because he cannot let Padme go. He puts his own desires ahead of everyone else.

Likewise, Han chooses to let go of Leia because he believes that she is in love with Luke and he will not stand in the way of their relationship. He cares about them so much, that he is only interested in their happiness, at the expense of his own. He just happens to be wrong and is rewarded with the knowledge that she loves him and that their is no threat to their own relationship, because Luke is her brother.

Obi-wan does feel bad about those who died during the battle, but he also felt bad for his Master because he took it personally, because he had been like a father to him. The difference is that he lets go of Qui-gon, afterwards. When Qui-gon was run through, he let his emotions get the better of him and it was due to his attachment to him, which he realized that he didn't know that he had. Once he lets go of it, is he able to become a Jedi.

Perhaps they did. They don't always attend funerals for their own either. When Sifo-Dyas died, they didn't travel to Felucia to claim his remains. They attended this funeral probably because the Naboo chose to mourn his passing and they attended out of respect.