not arrogant just set the bar too high

well, exactly.
and who fought because he saw the order in danger? mind you, not the republic, the first priority was the order.

 

They had relationships. Ones where they were becoming attached. I don't know what happened to Kit and Aayla, but I believe Obi-wan broke it off with Siri. As Lucas said to Jackson, the Jedi aren't celebate (sp). They just cannot become emotionally attached the way Anakin did to Padme. They needed to be more like Han and Leia, who were unattached, but very much in love with each other.

 

well, exactly.
and who fought because he saw the order in danger? mind you, not the republic, the first priority was the order.

"the opression of the sith will never return...you have lost!"

he says this even after his first comment about protecting the jedi order. its obvious that while mace is defending the jedi, he is also defending the republic, and even more broadly, the people. he knows that if the sith gain control, the jedi will be wiped out-not opressed. so its obvious that his actions are also in defense of the people whom palpatine will terrorize.

 

darth sin,

i take it you've read the ROTS book. keeping that in mind, there are many jedi including mace windu himself that have trouble with attachment rule. mace windu, kit fisto and aayla secura all had attachment issues. kit and aayla's came in a different form, to each other, and aaylas attachment to a quilan vos. yes even early obi wan as well.

i really don't see how any jedi truly overcomes their attachment issue, well save for yoda and obi wan (maybe whie).

in dark rendevous you really get a great sense of jedi attachment, you see what living an elitist life will do to some people. you see what people are willing to do to keep a hold on that lifestyle.

i've read LOE, ROTS, and Dark Lord, hell i have them now, and nearly every character has issues with attachment, the bar was just too high. in the movies you don't really see the attachment issue as clearly in the movies, but they are still there, you just have to look a little harder.

 

Yes, the attachment rule is a good one for the Jedi. But you are forgetting that Anakin can not just let go of his feelings for his mother, and Padme. Jedi don't have any attachments to begin with when they are trained, so what have they got to let go of? There was no possible way to get around Ankain's attachment problem. He was already too old to be a perfect Jedi. Which is what everyone expected of him. To be perfect.

 

I meant that everybody dies, that's just a part of life. We can either choose to accept it, or follow a path we shouldn't choose.

 

The attachment aspect of the whole story is kind of ironic though...

Remember, Luke preempts his training to go to Bespin (Cloud City) because of his fear of losing his friends, yet he somehow escapes and/or avoids being turned over to the Emperor.

And again it is Luke's attachment to his father that obsesses him to believe his father can be turned back, thus fulfilling his father's destiny.....

 

I dont believe the Jedi were arrogant or they set the bar to high, I thinks the Jedi Code at the time was just what is was, and what had been for thousands of years. Yoda reffered to himself as bieng arrogant for not seeing the changes that were needed,that he was too rigid, that his way should not have been the only way, as in listening to other Jedi, such as Qui Gon.

I'v always thought (since the PT began) that Anakin as the Chosen One, who was to bring balance, was also to bring this change that Yoda referred too in ROTS novel. I dont know if Anakin ever offered any insight or ideas of "change" but, I'm quite sure if he would have, the council would of easily dismised it, or referred to Anakin as arrogant as Obi Wan did in AOTC.

 

Luke saved his father by showing him compassion. That's all it was. That's all it took. By telling his father that he loves him, but he will not kill him. He will not kill for his friends. He will not embrace power to save his loved ones. That's what Anakin did. He killed for his wife, but really it was for himself. He embraced power to save Padme, but it was to save himself from being lonely if she died.

As far as I know with Kit and Aayla, because I haven't read the comics centering around their relationship, I cannot say if they were attached or not. I can say that they were in love. But being in love and being attached are two different things. Being attached is wrong. Being compassionate is right.

Attachment is being unable to let go of your loved ones, should death come for them or if they leave you. It prompts you to do bad things. Become obsessive. Possessive. Jealous. Greedy. Fearful. Angry. Hateful.

Being compassionate is to accept change. Accept the here and now, not the future. It prompts you to think of others, rather than yourself. You are kind, caring, loving, selfless and happy.

Again, I repeat myself, but compare the two love stories of the Saga. Anakin and Padme screwed up. Han and Leia got it right.

 

Haha, sorry but that makes no sense. Love = emotional connection, by definition. That's just a fact. You can't say, "Well I love my wife but I have no emotional connection to her." Love is an emotion. If you love someone, you are emotionally connected to them.

In any case, if you were attached to nothing in life, there's no reason to live, so any philosophy or religion based on that idea is foolish and stupid. It's true that you should limit your attachments so that you are free to do as you please as much as possible, but everyone is going to care about something, even if it isn't a person or people, you're going to be attached to something. If you fear losing nothing, you have nothing to lose, and having nothing to lose means you have nothing of value. If you don't even fear losing your physical health, you obviously aren't enjoying it much apparently. It's just a completely moronic idea.

As long as your attachments are chosen carefully and deliberately, they are not a harm to you, but an advantage and a reason to stick around I don't believe any Jedi didn't have attachments, it's pure nonsense, they were attached to their ideals, to the Republic, to other Jedi, etc. It's just a silly ideal doomed to failure from the start.

 

yes, so he is protecting his order and his and their status in a republic. so, he cannot let go of the republic.
i'm not saying this is wrong, i'm just saying in his own way, mace et al are attached to the idea of having a republic and an order around. meaning, they give a toss about these things. which is what attachment seems to mean. that you give a toss about something or somebody.

 

Hmm, not sure I agree with everything your saying here. I think GL's intenetion was that Luke is a new breed of Jedi. A Jedi thought pattern that has evolved. One that WAS fearful of letting go of his friends. Following his vision on Dagobah his initial instinct was to help them (against Yoda's wishes).

This line of thinking continued when speaking to Ben in ROTJ, stating that he could not bring himself to kill Vader, at which point Ben says, "Well the Emperor has already won". He was afraid of killing his father knowing that he still had good in him. Although it would have been good for the galaxy if he killed him, Luke could never live with himself if he followed the instructions of Yoda and Obi-Wan.

Therein lies the irony of this story, of how love (through compassion AND emotional attachement) and the fear of losing the ones you love, which I should point out were traits the old Jedi Order discouraged; eventually restores peace and order to the galaxy.

P.S. Luke did kill for his friends.

 

I have to agree with Jedipurge20.

 

That's not how Lucas defines it. Take it up with him.

A Jedi cannot afford to have fear, because fear is the path to the Dark Side. With the power a Jedi weilds, they become concerned with wanting more, to keep people and things as they are ideally. By having no fear, the Jedi are capable of making more rational decisions. They're capable of seeing the mistakes that they could make by not being rational. By not controlling their emotions. Anakin wants to control the fate of others to make himself happy. He's being selfish and is willing to abuse the gift he was given. He wants to cheat death and to do so, he must have power. He is afraid of change. These things are all connected to emotional attachments. By not having attachments, is a Jedi truly able to function.

Well, Lucas says so. The novelization only put the attachment thing with Mace to try and justify why Mace would go after Palpatine. Nowhere in the film is this really shown. And don't just say that he talks about the Jedi Order surviving. Because he then goes on to talk about saving the rest of the galaxy from Sidious.

Jedi have relationships, but they don't have attachments to those that they care about. Anakin is the prime example of having an emotional attachment to Padme. Han has no attachment to Leia and they're totally in love with each other.

Being attached means you're selfish and self-centered. Having no attachments means that you're thinking of others. That's what it all comes down to.

Giving a toss about somebody is called compassion. Having attachment is where you're just thinking about yourself. Mace was compassionate about not wanting to see the Republic and the Jedi fall to the Sith.

Nope. The Jedi are pretty much the same. No fear. No anger. No hate. Luke being fearful for his friends was what was driving him to the Dark Side. He had to let go of his fears of losing people to become a Jedi. He doesn't do that until he almost turns and then he finally gets it. As Lucas says, he makes

 

Just to clarify, Luke never loses his fear of losing his friends. After putting Vader on his back in a tirade, he hesitates and contemplates, that he has almost killed his father, who he believes still has good in him. So he never gets it. He is willing to sacrfice himself (by throwing down his lightsaber) for his father. Yoda and Obi-Wan would've **** if they saw Luke do that. That was NOT what he was supposed to do. They NEVER believed Vader could be turned. It was Luke's love and belief in his father, both of which was possesive love (contrary to what you believe), that eventually lifts the shadow of the Empire.

Agreed. Just wanted you to clarify your point.

 

Let me put it this way. Luke spares his father because he shows him an act of compassion. Compassion means that you don't hate your enemy. Luke doesn't hate his father. He puts down his Lightsaber because he knows that if he kills his father, he will become his father. Luke spares his father because he stops thinking selfishly. By sacrificing yourself, that is an act of compassion. Yoda and Obi-wan are quite proud of the fact that Luke did this. In fact, they were watching the fight. They could always watch, but they couldn't interfere.

Luke shows compassion for his father, because it is not his place to judge whether his father deserves death or not. This causes Anakin to reflect on his life and do the same thing as his son. Show an act of compassion.

"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

That is what the Skywalkers do. They stop thinking about themselves, whic his possessive love and start thinking of others, which is compassionate love. Luke's accepting that his father could be killed, but he will not kill him. He's accepting that Han and Leia might die, but he will not betray them. He's accepting that his life might be forefit and so he throws down his sword. And Anakin is no longer worried about being all powerful. He's no longer thinking of himself. He's no longer concerned with the pain of losing his loved ones. He's concerned with saving others for noble reasons, rather than for selfish ones.

 

That's just so beautiful, I think I'm going to cry. ~sniff!

 

well, everyone has there own feelings about certain things, events, and people. yaddidameen, your right in saying that never having any attachments is impossible. NO matter how they were raised, no one could ever let go of all their attachments. The jedi order could not make anakin let go of his feelings and attachments because he was not taught to do so at a young age. Even though Quigon was raised to only let go of dangerous attachments in the jedi order when he was young like any jedi, he didn't. No one should have to let go of all their attachments, if someone never had any attachments, then they would have a hard time understanding people. and they would also have a difficult time learning anything really about how things work with a society, about how people would feel towards anything in the negative or positive, about why wars erupt between different races and/or cultures, about how to fix issues and/or bad situations, and many other things they would not understand half the time. As for the jedi order, in terms of attachments, they don't want you to let got of all attachments, but only the ones in which affect you and others around you. whether life threatening or similar. Those are my thoughts on this yaddidameen.

 

Great points, I just beg to differ. We'll leave it a that. However I do like what you quoted from GL, during the making of ROTS. It is heartfelt.