Master Yoda a hypocrite?

" then Yoda just gives him a bunch of bull."

If Anakin had just followed that bunch of bull, letting go and letting things play out without trying to control them, then he probably wouldn't have fallen and Padme would still be alive.

"Then why does he seek the way too immortality if he doesn't want to become all powerful? Why did he want to be immortal to sip tea for the rest of eternity?"

To help Luke and possibly Anakin overthrow the Emperor if he should happen to die. Obi-Wan being able to hang around in Luke's head turned out to be pretty important didn't it?

 

It appears that Yoda's hypocrisy knows no bounds. Remember during Yoda's teachings to Luke--ESB--he said the force is used for knowledge and defense never attack. Sure enough it was Yoda who had previously sent OB1 to "destroy the Sith."

There are always exceptions. From the Novels I got the impression that OB1 was the closest thing to a perfect Jedi. Just the same he (OB1) admitted that he didn?t know if he could kill Anakin if it meant that the War would be ended one day sooner. That is very un-Jedi. My point: they?re not perfect and maybe b/c of that are at times hypocrites.

 

Yoda: "Hypocrite I am not. Kill you I will, if you say otherwise."

 

"It appears that Yoda's hypocrisy knows no bounds. Remember during Yoda's teachings to Luke--ESB--he said the force is used for knowledge and defense never attack. Sure enough it was Yoda who had previously sent OB1 to "destroy the Sith."

not this again

yoda was acting in defense of himself (he had been attacked by an order given by sidious), other jedi (who had been attacked and may still be alive) and most importantly in defense of the republic, which really didnt know what was in store for it.


think before you post people

 

The wit never leaves.

 

Sorry in responding late to this BobaMatt (catching up), but if Anakin were allowed to grow up with his mother, this might have been the best "training" that Anakin could have ever received. She was a very wise woman and actually gave Anakin the best piece of wisdom that mirrors what Yoda tells Anakin in ROTS:

SHMI: You can't stop change any more than you can stop the suns from
setting.

She?s telling Anakin he has to be able to let go. She is sacrificing her roll as his mother/guardian so that her son may have a better life ? it?s her compassion for Anakin. Compassion for Luke is what gets Anakin to defeat the Emperor and bring Balance to the Force ? not the awesome use of Force powers. He simply picks the Emperor up and tosses him to his death, while withstanding his onslaught.

According to Lucas, Anakin is less powerful than Sidious after he?s put in the suit. It isn?t about power potential and the use of the Force. The main struggle of SW is compassion over greed.

Anakin had what it took all along. And had he stayed on Tatooine with his mother he would have had time to grow up and mature. His greed may have never gotten a hold of him in the manner in which it eventually did.

 

Well if we want to go back in time, Yodas "Jedi Order" forced the hand of the Sith, as the jedi destroyed the sith(with a little help from the sith themselves obviously).

 

but Yoda, in EpIII, says "A prophecy, that misread, might have been"

 

No wonder Yoda seems like a hypocrite to me ... this part of his philosophy understand I do not.

It appears from the quote that attachment implies greed and greed implies attachment. They are effectively therefore synonymous. So we can just as well say that "attachment is a source of pain and suffering for everybody."

All of this seems well and good and reasonable. If I don't attach to anyone I don't suffer. Fair enough done deal. BWJAM!

I am also supposed to love people, in fact love everyone. OK, so all I have to do is love without being attached. I guess this would go something like this:

"Deek, I just wanted to tell you that I have been diagnosed with cancer and my unborn baby will not likely survive the treatment and my chances of living longer than 6 months are very slim."

"Windy, this is Deek. I love you, you know that. In fact, I love you about as much as I love the cable guy that came to fix my TV this afternoon. Lotta love here. I just want you to know how happy I am that you will be reunited with the force. It is all pretty natural. Don't take it personally that I am indifferent whether you exist in integral corporeal corpuscular form, or whether your identity is subsumed into a cosmic All-will. If I allowed myself to attach to you that would be greedy and cause me no end of pain and suffering."

 

[Ric Olie] "I love this thread" [/Ric Olie]

 

Before the mods close this one down, I would just like to suggest that the word "hypocrite" is a bit overused nowadays. In the common usage, anyone who acts in conflict with the ideals they claim is a hypocrite. They use the meaning of hypocrisy intended by Byron:

Oh, for a forty-parson power to chant
Thy praise, Hypocrisy! Oh, for a hymn
Loud as the virtues thou dost loudly vaunt,
Not practise!

LORD BYRON: Don Juan, Canto X.

The original meaning of "hypocrite" is subtly but importantly different, and is well used by Milton:

For neither man nor angel can discern
Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks
Invisible, except to God alone,
By his permissive will, through heaven and earth.

MILTON: Paradise Lost, Bk. III.

Byron has a bone to pick with the religious type of person and, observation in hand that the Christians around him continued to do bad things, he implies by using the word hypocrite that all of their professed ideals are only a show.

Milton realizes that true falseness cannot be discerned by observing human behavior. Milton believes in sin and Byron does not. By sin I mean the concept that you can have a certain ideal and truly believe that you SHOULD live according to that ideal, and yet still be unable to live by it. I should pay the bills on time but one time I didn't. Does this make me a hypocrite, that is do I live behind a false facade that is claiming it accepts the obligation of bill-paying? Or does it just make me weak, harried, and imperfect?

To the point re Yoda: He may be giving Anakin what he believes in his deepest heart is the best advice, he may be describing his true beliefs, and yet he may not be able to live up to them. That doesn't make him a hypocrite: it makes him a sinner.

 

It's simple. EVERYONE, even Yoda, lets their emotions dictate their actions every once in a while. For Yoda, his reflexes acted on his emotions in AOTC when he saved Obi-Wan and Anakin. That's all.

 

i dont think it has anything to do with emotions. as anakin said in ROTS, "Jedi are selfless, they care about others". meaning whoever it was that could have been about to get crushed by a pillar, yoda would have saved. He's just being a jedi, and protecting someone about to get killed.

 

So where is the line drawn then? Sure the Jedi are selfless and think about others, but yet they're not allowed attachment. Where do you think the line is drawn?

Of course emotions plays a part in it. It's normal in everyone's life. Before any given situation you can tell yourself exactly how you are going to act, but then when that situation comes you do it differently. Why? Because your emotions become your reflexes.

 

Obiwan506
posted:
"Of course emotions plays a part in it. It's normal in everyone's life. Before any given situation you can tell yourself exactly how you are going to act, but then when that situation comes you do it differently. Why? Because your emotions become your reflexes."


I agree... intellect can only go so far. Your emotional response comes from who you are and what you believe in. How you carry yourself in every day average situations, how you deal with a little adversity is a good indicator of how you will react in times of trial. If you are disciplined and reserved you will be less prone to an emotional outburst than someone who often exhibits a lack of self control. We all know a "hothead" when we see one.


*sighs*

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth." Matt.5:8

 

I honestly believe he was listening to the will of the force and saving the life of the chosen one.

 

I wouldnt say hypocritical but not perfect...also...if he killed dooku and let anakin/ob1 die...he would kill the chosen one...mace windu said somehting in shatterpoint (a clone wars novel) and said that no matter how dark times as long as anakin is alive the jedi and the galaxy have hope...i think yoda had something like this in mind.

 

I don't think Yoda thought in that split second about the Chosen One, the Prophecy, or the future. He only had a split second to make up his mind. That is why I use the word reflexes. His emotions became his reflexes and no matter what Yoda already had in his mind, his emotions took over in that split second.

 

Funny, Obi-Wan506, but your sig quotes may be the answer to the question of "love" posted above. Let's look at what has been said about love in the movies themselves, namely Anakin's line in AotC:

ANAKIN:Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden.
Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is
central to a Jedi's life, so you might say we're encouraged
to love.


This is love in a very Christian sense of the word: love thy neighbor, love thy enemy. It's not about emotion and passionate feeling, but about duty and understanding. This sort of love is perfectly possible without specific attachment.

Attachment is forbidden among the Jedi, not because love and attachment are in and of themselves bad things, but because of what they might lead to. Look at it this way: any lifeguard knows that running is forbidden on a pool deck, not because running on a pool deck is bad, but because the deck is slippery and running on it increases the chances of you slipping and hurting yourself.

 

He's not being hypocritical. It wasn't necessary for Obi-Wan & Anakin to die in that hangar, it wasn't destiny, it wasn't inevitable. Dooku can be caught another day.

If Yoda forsaw that Obi-Wan & Anakin were destined to die there & circumstance had meant that Yoda HAD to stop Dooku there & then, he would have done just that and allowed the two Jedi to snuff it.

I don't think he meant that by 'learning to let go of all that you fear to lose' he was suggesting that you should allow people to die even if you can prevent it. He's simply saying that if the person is destined to die and there is nothing you can do to stop it, then learn to accept the 'will of the Force'.

 

I think you are right that is what yoda meant, but it is still difficult to understand. How do you know whan it is someone's destiny to die, or when it is not. It appears that you must first have some perception of their destiny before you can act. Where does this come from? Maybe it was your destiny to save them, maybe it was their destiny to die... who knows until someone acts and makes a choice to either intervene or disengage?

The "Will of the Force" can be a clever excuse for not acting if you don't feel like living up to your own obligation to intervene and make things right.

 

yoda sucks

 

"He's not being hypocritical. It wasn't necessary for Obi-Wan & Anakin to die in that hangar, it wasn't destiny, it wasn't inevitable. Dooku can be caught another day."

If Dooku is caught and detained right then, the Jedi will get the plans to the Death Star and have a much better idea of what they're up against. Instead, Dooku escapes, gives the plans to Sidious, and eventually winds up on the Invisible Hand where Anakin begins his journey to the Dark Side in earnest. While hindsight is 20/20, it seems to me that the sacrifice of Obi Wan and Anakin would be worth the upside. Of course then there is the matter of the OT to think about...

And don't forget, according to Obi Wan, "I can't take Dooku alone. If we catch him now we can end this war." Are we to believe that he is wrong?

 

Yes and Dooku knew this. Hence why he did what he did. Remember, the Sith consider compassion to be a source of weakness for the Jedi.

Palpatine: "I have forseen it. His compassion for you will be his undoing."

Yoda: "You will know, when you are calm. At peace. Passive."

There are some things that are destined to happen and some things taht are not. Death by natural causes is destined. What happened to Shmi was meant to happen. It was the will of the Force that she die when and how she did. What happened to Padme was not the will of the Force, but the Force showing Anakin what will happen, if he continues down the path that he's been on. Anakin caused her death, indirectly. Thus it was not meant to be and could be changed. Yoda, not knowing that it was going to happen as it did, assumed that it was the will of the Force that Anakin's friend would die. It was meant to be.

Luke had to accept that there were some things beyond even his control. If Han and Leia were meant to die, then so be it. That's not to say that he cannot save them if he can, but he must also accept the very nature of things. That someone can and will die, and no matter what you do, if you cannot keep them from dying, then you cannot. You must not obsess about it.

Yoda: "Twilight is upon me, and soon, night must fall. That is the way of things. The way of the Force."

 

But if it is within one's power to stop someone from dying, then why not do so? You're treading on a discussion of the nature of fate, Sinister: if something was "meant to happen" but doesn't, then it can't have been meant to happen. You're right in saying that it was not the will of the Force for Padme to die, but rather a possible outcome of events. However, Luke leaves Dagobah with no way of knowing whether or not Han and Leia were meant to die, only that he felt he had to intervene. I'm not sure whether or not you're saying Leia and Han were meant to die or not -- I don't think you are -- but my point is that they could not have been meant to die on Bespin, for the simple reason that they did not.

Now why do I bring this up?

Anakin does not see a problem with learning the skill of preventing people from dying, because it is a skill with great utility. His problem is not a question of "changing destiny" but merely of acquiring a life-saving skill heretofore thought to be impossible. Anakin may be frustrated that this power exists but the Jedi refuse to use it.

This is, of course, not a direct response to Sinister's post, but more to those who are trying to make the argument that Yoda knew what Obi-Wan and Anakin's destinies were, and somehow sensed that it would be futile to kill Dooku. Why Yoda and not Obi-Wan or Anakin? Obi-Wan states point blank that Padme doesn't matter, only "duty," only the accomplishing of the mission which is, at that moment, to kill Dooku. Nothing is supposed to come before the mission. But would Obi-Wan have continued towards the Geonosis hangar were it Anakin or, if he were still alive, Qui-Gon that fell out of the gunship rather than Padme? My guess is no, and not simply because he wouldn't be able to take Dooku alone. Yoda -- having no knowledge that Anakin would one day be redeemed and destroy the Sith, and no time to think of prophecies when the greater good is on the line -- regrets not having killed Dooku, which is why he is so resigned to what he considers to be necessary collateral damage (himself, Obi-Wan, Han, Leia) in order to complete the task at hand. Dooku knew that Yoda would not live up to the Jedi ideal, and collapsed the pillar.