Saga The Jedi Order and the Sacred Texts - Flawed from the Start?

IMO - One of the primary ways that the PT differs from the OT is this -

In the PT the Jedi had a long standing complex system that each of them were part of. Some were closer to warriors while others focused on research , diplomacy , teaching etc. While this system did have its flaws , It did endure for a long period and was only taken down by a very powerful Force User completing a long term plan.

In the OT two people, without any real notice, took a 19 year old kid away from a normal , boring perhaps, but regular life and forged him into a weapon to take out Vader and Palp. That was the sole plan. Yoda and Obi Wan presented a truncated very focused set of teachings and lore, including some outright lies , for what they considered to be the greater good. Even if Luke, like Rey had a huge head start in his powers and even if he did spend months with Yoda while the Falcon limped to Cloud City on a jury rigged hyperdrive, He would not be getting the full breadth of the Jedi training but only what he required to complete his task.

This is where some of the differences in concepts and basic mindset came from. Yoda and Obi Wan were working in a crisis situation with really no margin for error with an typical mercurial teen who happened to have great potential. They had to meet him halfway so to speak and use what was in front of them.

I also suspect that the trauma of Order 66 remained with Obi Wan and Yoda, causing them to act in ways hat they might not have.

 

Or, to take this back OOU; a different story was being told in the OT. One that culminated in the personal redemption of one man through the example of his son, whose own journey culminated in understanding what the Jedi teachings were. There was no 'lore' required for those teachings, no strict rules or dogma attached. They were simple, and they basically boil down to knowing oneself - to question your own motives and actions; that to defeat a monster you should not yourself simply become and usurp it.

And there were a thousand ways to tell the story of what lead up to that tale, and for myself what the PT did was to create the least likely, the most incongruous of origins for it. It introduces a whole bundle of notions that are badly thought out and, in many ways, meaningless. 'Balance in the Force' is a prime example of this, especially as Lucas has espoused contradictory propositions - on the one hand horribly mangling yin/yang with Judeo-Christian dualities and suggesting that there must always be dark to counter the light, but at the same time advising that in order for there to be balance the Sith must be destroyed?!

Another point of departure is the idea of attachment being the underpinning of all of Anakin's problems - which Lucas ultimately narrows down to the very shallow proposition of romantic love. So it really doesn't surprise me that the argument for some nature of deeper truth to this should take the form of re-defining the word itself.

So, in answer to the OP: OOU, no the Jedi were not flawed from the start. The Jedi Order, as begotten within the PT?....absolutely yes. By design. Because they had to be the fall guys for blameless, tragic Anakin....after all, what choice did he have?

 

The dark is always there because it is like a cancer. It is the darker aspects of man and unfortunately, it can never go away. That was the lesson of "THX-1138" and many similarly themed stories. That there will always be selfishness, greed, fear, anger and hate. The balance is the light which keeps people focused. You will find fear in your life, but the counter to fear is courage. The courage to face your fears and turn away from them. The opposite of anger is serenity. To find the place beyond anger where you are strongest and calm. The opposite of hate is compassion. And so on. With the Sith, they must be destroyed because they will disrupt the balance again and again. They are the cancer that tries to destroy the healthy cells that make up the whole.

Anakin's attachment is not focused on romantic love, but on the idea of possessing and controlling people, something that is very real when it comes to twisted notions of love. See people with obsessive personalities and who stalk people. The attachment issue is trying to hold onto people that you love, not always in a romantic way, but with those who have a strong bond. Obi-wan almost turns because he is attached to Qui-gon, who was like a father to him. Ezra was attached to his parents and becomes attached to his friends. Luke was attached to his sister. Each of these attachments are based on strong bonds that run deep, but when negative emotions are introduced into the equation, they can lead one down to the dark path. For Anakin, his love was both a good thing and a bad thing. The problem was that he let the bad control the good.

The same choice every other Jedi has. To either let go of his attachments or not to. He made the decision. Not the Jedi. They gave him the tools to solve his problems.

 

"Balance in the Force " is an a very good example of how people, even when starting with decent intentions , can become dogmatic and stray from a set of core Teachings into ego and remaining in power.

I never really looked at this concept as anything but a misread, misunderstood text from ancient times each side was holding up as their version of the "Truth".

In this way it really does mirror what has happened here on Earth. Every religion is a mash up of many systems that have come before, with ideas cherry picked over long periods of time by one group as a way to expand their influence. Even when reading the very same text Jews and Catholics have a vastly different view of what the real meaning of the words are.

This is the very same thing that happened in the GFFA to the Jedi and Sith. A core understanding of a energy field created by life gave rise to two very opposing sets of ideas of how to deal with a natural occurrence.

And - Since this is Star Wars I am going to toss in the Wills of the Force here. These Beings may in fact have made a choice to manipulate the Force to keep it "in Balance" as defined by their own view of nature or right and wrong, or Light vs Dark. I would completely agree that the Wills are a much debated topic but as far as I know they are considered to be cannon.

 

Ahh..and now we're talking.

I have said before that this is the only way the PT could begin to make sense for me - if the increased focus on prophecy, of dogmatic views of how the future will unfold, of ideas of destiny and fate, was the error upon which the downfall of the Jedi and the Republic fell; the fulcrum being the charismatic prophet Qui-Gon Jinn.

Alas, that is not the story Lucas is telling, because he is very firm that the prophecy was indeed fulfilled; that Anakin was, indeed, the Chosen One.

In fact, you highlight - better than I have managed - the major difference between the OT and what was introduced in the PT; you mention the Wills of the Force as acting to impose itself upon the galaxy, to keep the notion of balance in the Force (whatever that might be). So that, in that story all are mere cyphers, their choices irrelevant to the outcome - or at best, already made for them.

In the OT, each rebel who took part in the battle of Endor played their part; their choices were what made the difference - and part of Luke's epiphany was to understand that he was not all powerful, that the choices those others were making would be the difference - and so he did not make the same mistake as his father and think to chase after a power he could never truly have.

 

Lucas did point out Qui-gon's role in all of this, that he was both right and wrong to take Anakin from his home after arranging for his freedom. That he was right in that he is the Chosen One, but the price in wanting to help fulfill the prophecy was too steep, due to the danger present in Anakin's upbringing.

 

We don't really have much info on the Whills in canon beyond their name being associated with several groups of Force worshippers, but looking at how Lucas described them, they seem to be merely a higher 'level' of intermediary between the Force and other beings, just as the midichlorians already are established to be (at least to my understanding)

 

I have often wondered if we , as fans , give too much weight to what GL said after the fact.
He had help in writing the OT but the Prequels, which I thought were good but with some cringe worthy flaws, were all him.
Once he experienced the fan backlash from rhe PT , he wound up selling to Disney.

As fans we have the right to extrapolate from the concepts in bedded in the films, TV and cannon novels to flesh out the details.

To me, Anakun was not the Chosen One end of story To me he was created by rhe Wills for reasons still murky to manupulate rhe Force and Force users.
Rey is a continuation of this effort but with the added guidance of the 4 kniwn Firce ghosts , Qui Gon, Yioda Obi Wan and now Luke.

IMO this is consistent with cannon and a logical , reasonable viewpoint that gives this saga more meaning and complexity.

People aew cwrtainly welcome to disagree with me but it goes back to my original premise in this post.

GL should not be considered to be the end all authority for Star Wars.

The misunderstanding of ancient texts, the fall of a religion into a stale dogma, rhe constant battle anganst the darkness in each if us, love and friendships gained and lost and perhaps found again. Democracy won and lost, all this and more is in this saga.

I for one dont need the blessing of GL to find and interpret these things.

 

I think initially they were far more proactive in their compassion when possible, and more exact about clinging as opposed to companionship. However by ep 1 their veiws had become dogmatic and more rhetoric than embodied concepts. This is well illustrated by qui gonn's disagreement with the council and difficulty attempting to act on his compassion for those in untenable conditions, and is forced to settle for tricks and gambling. I do believe if he had survived he would have worked very hard to actualize compassion the Jedi held for people in situations like Shmi and Anakin.

 

He sold to Disney because he had no real desire to spend another ten years making films, in order to keep his studio going. The man's in his seventies. He would be in his eighties by the time he was finished. He's a diabetic and gotten sick of the stress of making big budgeted films. That's why he bowed out.

No one said otherwise.

ROTS states that the Chosen One will bring balance to the Force by destroying the Sith. He does that in ROTJ. Ergo, he is the Chosen One. You don't need Lucas to spell that out. That hasn't even changed with the ST. Snoke and Ben are not Sith Lords. Kennedy has already stated that they're not discounting or altering the story.

Lucas wasn't saying that the Whills were manipulating people. What he was saying was that it is the Whills who communicate through the Midichlorians, which in turn the Jedi hear and then they choose to do the good that they do. The Sith choose to ignore that and in turn, do the evils that they do.

We don't know what Rey is, other than very strong in the Force.

There's no proof that there was any misunderstanding in the Jedi texts. That's your supposition. The fact that Rey took them and Yoda knew this before destroying the tree, shows that they weren't wrong. What Luke was getting wrong was he choose to runaway and give up after failing. He reminds him that he and Obi-wan had failed with Anakin and yet, they didn't stop. They took him and his sister into hiding, then trained Luke to face his father and encouraged him to train his sister and others.

As to Jedi dogma, you take what a Sith Lord who is trying to turn a Jedi to the dark side as gospel. There was no dogma there. Unless you believe that the dark side is a good thing.

 

I don't think that the reference to dogma was based upon Palpatine's words - it was referencing the ongoing discussion here. So, what is dogma? A set of principles and ideas seen as incontrovertibly true. If I'm supposed to believe the Jedi Order of the PT then:

Taking children as infants only - Luke was trained as an adult and understood what being a Jedi was, so not necessary as a rule. This is a dogmatic principle.
Attachment, forbidden - Luke embraced his attachments, Obi-Wan advised that those attachments spoke highly of him. Again, having attachments did not hinder Luke's understanding. This is a dogmatic principle.
Following a defined command structure - Luke made his own decisions, taking advice only (or not) from his two Jedi teachers. Again, this did not stop Luke from understanding his Jedi teachings. This is a dogmatic principle.
Ignoring Anakin's failings because he is seen as the 'Chosen One' of prophecy; that this prophecy is understood to bring about the ruin of the Sith - this seems to be the notion that guides the Jedi's 'strategy', especially in ROTS. Dogmatic principle.

 

The interesting part about the concept of dogma is that those inside the box, so to speak, don't see it as dogma. The stamp of "dogma" typically come from outside.

For example - We may see Luke flying off to Cloud City as a heroic act that saved his friends. But for Yoda and Obi Wan it was a break with the long standing focus of the Jedi on "the greater good. " From this point of view Luke did not understand what being a Jedi was.

Anakin also did not truly understand what being a Jedi was from the point of view of other Jedi. Even in battle he would put the life of an individual above the mission , as when he wanted to turn back and assist his clone troops at the start of ROTS.

Dogma and Tradition can often be very hard to separate.

 

Yes, a good way to understand the difference is to replace the word "attachment" with the word "clinging." Your relationship with your friends is an exchange of mutual value. If that exchange ceases to be mutual and becomes one-sided, it is no longer really a friendship. If one person is seeking value from another that they cannot reciprocate from within themselves, then it has become a clinging relationship. This has nothing to do with a situation where someone has fallen on hard times and genuinely needs to lean on a friend for help. In that situation the exchange is still mutual because the helper friend is deriving the spiritual value of helping someone who is genuinely in need, and the friend being helped is reciprocating with gratitude. But if one person simply finds themselves unable to emotionally bear a friend's absence from their life, and comes to depend on that other person indefinitely to give their own life value, then that's a problem. Part of a healthy friendship is realizing that the point of friendships are to bring value to the universe, and that sometimes that purpose is greater served by changes to the friendship which may include a separation, be it permanent or temporary, physical or emotional.

We're human beings who exist in the world. Of course we're going to have closer relationships with some individuals compared to others. You need to have friendships, but you can't engage in an ongoing, proximate relationship with literally everyone in the world, because that's logistically impossible. Ideally you should be able to recognize the value of every individual in the world equally and feel an equal love for them as you would for all people and things. But just because you feel a universal sort of love for a person doesn't mean that you have to be a close friend or companion to them. If you and another person have dissimilar dispositions and personalities, you wouldn't be doing you or them any favors by trying to force that kind of a relationship. It wouldn't be beneficial to either of you.

Remember that what the Buddha advocated was a Middle Way. It is by definition neither a philosophy of sensual self-indulgence nor a philosophy of complete disengagement from the realities of daily life in the material world. The Middle Way is in fact intended to increase an adherent's appreciation of the material world by removing all anxiety about its impermanent nature. The problem here is a tendency to ascribe all kinds of undesirable meanings to the term "non-attachment" and then balk when actual Buddhist philosophy contradicts those false notions.

 

Luke and Leia were special cases, trained only as adults because of circumstances necessitated it.

Luke has his sister and his friends, which all Jedi have. Jedi Knight Tiplar trained at the same time as his sister Tiplee. We saw many Jedi who had friends throughout. What the difference is, is that Luke lets go of his attachments to his friends and sister and is able to finally get what being a Jedi is.

All Jedi make their own decisions. Obi-wan made his own decision to let go of Qui-gon and take out Maul the right way. Mace made his own decision to kill Palpatine, after proclaiming that he was going to arrest him. Yoda makes the choice to hide the truth about Clonetroopers from the Senate.

They didn't ignore his failings. They openly acknowledge them. They know that he has attachment issues. They know that he has problems with his loyalties over principles. But they also put faith in him to do the right thing, just like Luke put his faith in Vader. It comes down to what Rey said to Luke.

LUKE: "Leia blamed Snoke, but...it was me. I failed. Because I was Luke Skywalker. Jedi Master. A legend."

REY: "The galaxy may need a legend. I need someone to show me my place in all this. And you didn't fail Kylo. Kylo failed you. I won't."

Luke wasn't admonished for wanting to save his friends. What he was told was that he wasn't ready for this rescue mission, because it was a dangerous time for him and in the end, they were right. He didn't accomplish anything. It was only when he learned from his mistakes and used calm logic, over irrational emotion, that he was able to rescue Han.

Because he was loyal to people over principles. The principle of the mission was to rescue Palpatine, not to go back and help the Clonetroopers. That's why Aayla tells Ahsoka that you can save someone, but don't do it at the expense of everything else.