TV Discussion The Jedi: Their Roles and Philosophies in Star Wars TV

I personally think Star Wars is improved when it inches close to The Lord of the Rings. There is nothing wrong with Star Wars getting more nuanced or mature, from time to time.

But Luke in TLJ is different than Frodo at the end of ROTK in one crucial way. Though they are both wounded by their experiences, ultimately cannot enjoy their post-heroic lives, and depart the world as we know it, Frodo goes off to the Undying Lands after the great evil has been defeated, not before. Luke does so...while a great evil is still rising, re-establishing control over the galaxy. I think that's at the heart of many fans' problem with Luke's story as told in TLJ. He gave up while the Dark Lord was still out there.

 

Nailed it. To expand further, I'm not a LOTR expert, but are we ever told anything about Frodo's life in the Undying Lands? I know his choice to go there was an aspect of 'you can't go home again', but Frodo did go there with friends. So, while he may have been forever haunted to some degree by his ordeal, he had the opportunity to be with his dear friends and reflect on his success. After the end of TFA I was concerned about why Luke had isolated himself like that, but my thought was that he was in communion with The Force, and that whatever he' was doing might be something like the Gandalf Grey to White experience that would give Luke the strength to face the current challenge. ...but Luke had severed his connection to The Force and sat in isolation for 5 years, doing absolutely nothing. Just waiting to die in failure and misery.

 

Frodo, in the books, simply can't enjoy his life in the Shire after returning from his adventure. His wound from the Morgul blade, the memory of the burden as Ringbearer, his knowledge that he ultimately succumbed to it at the cracks of Mount Doom, etc, all served to give him a lonely and wounded post-heroic existence. His companions (Sam, Pippin and Merry) are all treated as heroes at home, while Frodo is largely ignored and forgotten. Essentially, the unknown soldier who saved the world. Then, after some time, he departs for the Undying Lands, which is really simply a metaphor for him dying.

But again, all of that happened after...he fulfilled his quest to destroy the Ring of Power, and bring down Sauron...

Now you can say that Luke already fulfilled his life quest by helping to destroy Palpatine, etc, and so he's entitled to move into his post-heroic phase, as Frodo did. However, the ST, by bringing back an identical threat in the form of Kylo and the ST during Luke's middle age, essentially robbed Luke of the ability to legitimately do that without being harshly judged as quitting an existential fight for survival. That's at the heart of fan issues with it.

 

I began this conversation in another thread, but given the persistence of disagreement on this most fundamental philosophical element of Lucas’s creation, and given its resurfacing with episode 6 of the Book of Boba Fett, I felt it merited its own thread.

The fire-starter question I propose: Is Luke Skywalker’s (and Ahsoka Tano’s) adherence to the no attachment rule consistent with his character, and is it a good thing? My take is yes and yes.

First, I don’t think Luke is, or ever has been since the start of ROTJ, attached to his friends and family in the way the concept is explained in AOTC - as a possessive, selfish love. He loves them selflessly. With compassion. Unconditionally. That’s totally different and not at all contrary to what Luke and Ahsoka preached in episode 6 of the Book of Boba Fett. You must have compassion as a Jedi (a deep compassion for all, in fact) but not attachment/ possessiveness, which is inherently selfish and a potential part to the dark side. This is spelled out very clearly by Anakin Skywalker in AOTC:

“Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden. Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is essential to a Jedi's life. So you might say, that we are encouraged to love.”

Of course, Anakin ends up violating that precept with his possessiveness towards Padme, and helping destroy the Jedi and New Republic as a result. But this was the thesis statement. And Luke is actually following that ideal in this episode (and has done so since ROTJ).

In my view, Filoni understands this material, and George Lucas’s intentions, perhaps better than anyone. I think he knows that the way he wrote Luke’s perspective on attachment in this episode of the Book of Boba Fett was 100% consistent with the character as written by Lucas - and the attachment philosophy as written by Lucas.

And that’s the essentially Buddhist concept that attachment is a grasping, possessive and selfish kind of love. And not at all the same as compassion and unconditional love, which are central to the Jedi way.

In this context, I think the “no attachment” rule is not equal to a “no friendship” or “no loving relationships” rule. (Something the PT may have been too rigid on). “No attachment” simply defines what kind of friendship and love is consistent with being a Jedi.

In that context, I also think Luke will accept Grogu finding his own version of that ideal to live by: showing compassion and non-possessiveness towards Mando, but still joining him in his quest for a Mandalorian renaissance.

What say you?

 

Luke sees in Grogu that his attachment to Mando is undermining his commitment to becoming a Jedi, which will ultimately doom him (think Karate Kid: squished like grape). Luke knows this danger first hand - he runs away from his training when his friends are in trouble, and it nearly dooms them all. In ROTJ he is able to let go, and approach the world with non-possessive compassionate love - that is what saves the day (in spite of a couple near misses in between). I think the choice Luke offers is a test of Grogu's willingness to let go, and surrender himself to the Jedi way. I wouldn't be surprised if he chooses the lightsaber, and is allowed to keep both gifts. I think he will be allowed to return to Mando - once he has learned the lessons he needs.

 

I agree wholeheartedly @Bor Mullet that Lukenis consistent and his portrayal reflects a more subtle version of attachment.

I agree with the exception of "unconditional" love. All love/feeling is conditional and embodied.

However, the Jedi way is to accept this conditionality and aspire towards something "better" - relationships of respect, esteem and love. With no harm. I.e. Peace. "Inner", "outer" and the two combined. For which the Jedi are the wise guardians.

 

A lot of people seem to be getting worked up about this, as if the idea won't be explored further in future episodes of Disney+: A Star Wars Story. I'm sure we'll come away from these series with Grogu having taught Luke an important lesson about being a Jedi Master.

We saw this with The Last Jedi, where many people seemed to assume Luke remained static for decades. I say have patience, there's more to it.

I essentially agree with the original post.

 

Really interesting discussion here. Luke's position on attachment in this episode really struck me. It felt unlike the Luke of the EU. It sounded quite dogmatic in the style of the PT Jedi. But he is just starting out—Grogu is his first student, and it's likely we are only seeing the beginning of a longer conversation about this. Maybe Grogu will ultimately be able to be both a Mando and Jedi (in the same way that many of EU Luke's students went out there and did other stuff while embodying Jedi values in different walks of life), and the end point of the debate is that Luke realises he won't be able to (and shouldn't) simply recreate the Jedi as they were.

That said, the shadow of the ST looms over all of this and I just wonder how (r)evolutionary he can realistically be. I couldn't help wondering whether Luke is going to be portrayed as more dogmatic and rigid than his EU counterpart, in order to set up the eventual failure of his academy and Ben's fall. Correct me if I'm wrong but he only goes to Ahch-To and finds the sacred texts (out of what I assume was a crisis of faith where he thought maybe they would tell him the deeper truth of the Force that the trappings of the Jedi he's pieced together second-hand have only danced around) after Ben turns, so 6 years before TFA. And in TLJ he is bitter about the PT-era Jedi (there's that great deleted scene where he says to Rey "that anger, thinking about what the raiders are going to do, the texts in the library say ignore it. Act only when you can maintain balance...even if people get hurt") and definitely seems to think that the Jedi lost sight of the reality of the Force by getting bogged down in their own dogma. If he has only got to that point 30-odd years after ROTJ then I don't know how much evolution of the Jedi we are going to see in his new academy.

But I have a lot of faith in Filoni and Favreau and will be happy to be proven wrong.

 

I wonder how Luke approached the attachment aspect of Leia's training? The two obvious examples of Han and her son would surely have meant her training from the outset would have to be different. Did Luke turn a blind eye? Was he just teaching her Jedi skills knowing she couldn't be a fully fledged Jedi?

 

I think part of the controversy around this concept (and I’ve witnessed this starkly in past conversations with fellow fans) is some fans feel personally affronted by the “no attachments” rule. As if it’s a judgment on their own perceived attachments in real life.

But I think this feeling is mostly due to a misinterpretation of the concept, or at least an interpretation that’s different from what Lucas intended. It’s not about being aloof and antisocial. Or reflecting family and friends. It’s simply about not being possessive of other people. Loving them without grasping onto them, or imposing your will on them. It’s an inherently compassionate perspective.

Perhaps some of the PT Jedi lost sight of that a bit. But Luke and Ahsoka, based on what we saw of them in this past TBOBF episode, seem to be interpreting the rule in the way it was intended.

 

For me, how supposedly “selfish” love is an issue for me in Star Wars. While in episode 3 Anakin’s love for Padme certainly crosses that threshold, I don’t see any reason why it was selfish in episode 2. The prequels seem to make the argument that romantic love for a Jedi is inherently problematic and will lead to the events of episode 3. That just seems kinda odd to me. Luke’s actions in episode 5 also dont seem very selfish to me. Perhaps he left too early yes but it is entirely human and not evil at all to worry about the well being of your friends and act to try and help them. As a thing in itself, it isn’t selfish or possessive in my opinion to not want to loose loved ones or to even act on that desire. Committing child murder and genocide to prevent that loss is, but I’d argue that such actions aren’t inevitable products of love. If I purchased karate lessons at the strip mall and the first thing they told me is that I can’t love my parents or get married I’d stop going there.

 

You might wonder how Obi-Wan interpreted the rule.

Spoiler

 

Obi Wan, while empathetic to the feeling, is still a by-the-books Jedi. In the end he was able to separate himself from Satine and did not dwell on her death as Anakin did for his loved ones. And he straight up comes out and says that he wouldn't stay with the Jedi if it ever came down to a choice.

 

We don't really know for sure if he dwelt on her death or not; he could've just kept it to himself better than Anakin did.

 

We know he doesn't dwell on it because he doesn't go out of his way to seek vengeance against her murderer but instead gets his bearings and goes back to the greater fight where he was needed, The Clone War. He already had gone rogue so to speak by attempting to rescue her. When he failed, he did not wallow in his grief as Maul expected him to, instead he confronted the reality of what happened and got right back up when Bo Katan came to his rescue.

 

Right. And that's the other thing. The Jedi Order doesn't force one to detach from friends, family and lovers. If one wishes to form such strong attachments, they can. They just have to leave the Jedi Order. The Jedi Order requires a pure devotion to the common good. Compromising on that can result, as we saw with Anakin, the destruction of the Order itself.

It certainly wasn't ever implied that Luke's actions to save his friends in TESB were "evil." His intentions were inarguably good. That decision to leave was simply seen as disruptive of Luke's Jedi training during a critical moment, and harmful to the cause of stopping Vader and the Emperor.

 

It seems to me that they are going to adapt the attachment rules according to what's convenient for the plot in the specific cases. Here the plot demands Grogu to face this tough decision, and so they made Luke act out of character and be ultra-rigid about non attachment. In the future, we'll likely also see Jedi who chill out and spend all the time they want with their beloved ones.

 

Also, from what little we understand about Force Ghosts, you probably wouldn't be able to transcend the death of your physical body if you hold on to any strong attachments in the living world. You need to let go of all of that and achieve a pseudo sort of enlightenment.

 

I'm not sure that judging folks and using language as in the above quote is productive for a thread where you want to have a discussion. I'd hate to be that person that has to defend this by trying to defend that one has the right to be "affronted" and that they don't feel judged.

Annakin was taken from his mother at a very delicate age of development - he definitely had an Attachment disorder. FTR, I do think that the PT Jedi were rigid and dogmatic and blind, leading the their downfall. Plapy really leveraged that.

 

"Some fans" is the important qualifier. These are people who I have spoken with, and are open about it. It is not meant as a judgment on anyone else unless they self-identify with that. And even if it does feel like a personal affront, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There are likely legitimate personal reasons for why some people do not warm to this concept as presented in Star Wars. Just as there are personal reasons for why I am open to/ positive about the concept. We all have biases.

I also agree that the PT Jedi became so complacent about the Jedi under their care (and so blind to their struggles with being Jedi) that they missed the pain that Anakin was experiencing, and as such, missed the exploitation of that pain by Palpatine. Had they been more attentive, and more actively compassionate (as their philosophy dictates), they may have been able to better help Anakin manage his abandonment/ attachment issues, and help him back to the light.

Note that Luke presents this as a simple test at the start of Grogu's training. We don't yet know how rigid he is/ will be in its application.

Yes, and I think that's what Obi-wan and Yoda were trying to communicate to Luke (unsuccessfully) in TESB when he decided to jet off. He was reacting quickly and perhaps blindly to the peril his friends were in, and that almost had disastrous consequences. It wasn't an evil response, it was simply harmful to his development as a Jedi, and to the task at hand (which for them, was a future confrontation with Vader). Luke is now simply passing this lesson on to Grogu. You have to have a clear mind, and a pure commitment to the force and the galaxy you must serve, if you wish to pursue this admittedly very difficult path (and he doesn't mince words with Grogu about how difficult a path it is). To paraphrase Joey Campbell, when you follow your bliss, it's not all rainbows and butterflies. When you cross that threshold, the wind will howl.

In this context, the Luke of TBOBF seems to be very consistent with the post-TESB Luke of the OT.

 

If you feel strongly about someone but have no trouble letting go when the time comes, then there's no problem.
For most people, though, the fear of losing someone/something they're emotionally attached to is so strong that when there's a danger of that happening, they'll stop at nothing to prevent it. They'll get angry, they'll look for someone to blame, they'll get hateful, they'll suffer. And others will suffer too.

That's where it becomes a problem and that's why the Jedi need the rule of no attachment. Contrary to popular belief, that rule did not cause the downfall of the Order. They were doing just fine for thousands of years with the Code intact.
What defeated the Order was a combination of Sith plans and Jedi complacency. After a thousand years of Galactic peace, during which it was believed that the Sith were long gone, it's understandable that the Jedi (and the Republic as a whole) would be an easy target for Sidious. Because they all assumed they were safe! Not, I repeat not, because Jedi weren't allowed to form attachments. That had nothing to do with it.

Before Anakin and Dooku, there had been other Jedi, among them nineteen Masters (which isn't a whole lot), who had lost faith in their ways. Some of them may have turned to the dark side, some may have married.
None of them made the Jedi Order crumble.
What made Anakin's case special is that he unknowingly made friends with a Sith Lord who had managed to become Supreme Chancellor of the Republic.
It simply wasn't the fault of the Jedi Code that the order fell. The Jedi had grown complacent and Sidious, who had acquired more political power than any other Sith in history, took advantage of that. That's why Anakin fell, that's why the Jedi fell and that's why the Republic fell.

And that's what Luke understands.

The end. Thanks for reading.

 

Well is it safe to say that Ahsoka adopted Obi Wan's frame of mind moreso than Anakin's? She didn't have any significant love attachments, but it's hard to argue that Anakin was really the closest person she cared about. She didn't necessarily know right away what happened to him; but even as she walked out of the JO and later on was caught up in Order 66, she didn't go back to see if he was ok. You can either chalk that up to just simply being selfish, or that she was going by the principal to essentially look at the bigger picture.

 

Obi Wan didn't have the same emotional baggage Anakin had so even without taking their different temperaments into account, I think they would have different responses.

Once Shmi died, with Anakin having dreams about her, not immediately acting on them and arriving just in the nick of time, it was all but a foregone conclusion that Anakin would attach even more and even deeper to the next person like that. Which happened to be Padme.

And an order that takes on Infants was ill-equipped from the start to handle a child with separation anxiety. Their entire session with kid!Anakin in TPM where they simply fall back on their dogmatic beliefs is incredibly tone-deaf. Any child psychologist would turn away in horror. I mean at least use an empathetic voice if nothing else. Qui Gon was the only one who embodied Jedi compassion to me in this scene.

Palpatine was evil as hell but at least he understood about psychlogical underpinnings and volatile emotions to play them like a fiddle in others. The Jedi in comparism just seemed baffled by it. Which, no wonder, with the way the Order operated and Jedi were brought up.

On the one hand it helped them handle their own emotions better, on the other it made them super-vulnerable to a) a force user who is an emotional power keg like Anakin or b) a force user who at least knows how to handle an emotional powder keg like Palpatine.

For people with great instincts, they weren't very intuitive.

 

For me, Luke’s choice in ROTJ to throw aside his saber is meant to symbolize his growing understanding of the way attachments and desires can be turned by the dark side. Not only is he symbolically casting aside his weapon as a statement that he himself will not become a pawn weapon for the dark side and the Emperor to play but he is also realizing how close he came to embracing the dark side in a significant way from the perceived threat to his sister when Vader taunted he’d come for her next. It’s in this moment he realizes how easily evil can corrupt otherwise noble intentions. Just as it did his own father’s desire to protect his mother and later Padme. That is the philosophical magic of this concept and why so many fall to the dark side. Because it’s tempting. Because the dark side presents you with easy solutions that you can justify by rationalizing actions as connected to noble intents.

If there’s a dividing line between where the dark side begins and the light side ends it’s in these dilemmas and one false step onto the wrong side of the line leads to further corruption and more steps down to the dark path. Yoda speaks of this and the films dramatically showcase big changes in persona and physicality as one uses the dark side more and more, continuing to justify their actions to themselves as justified. It’s also meant to often be these same dividing line moments that can and have lead people out of their own darkness because the concepts intersect with both sides of the light and dark side spectrum. Case and point Anakin himself. So, the question becomes, “Among these sometimes noble and driven by the light actions which can also be corrosive and driven by the dark — such as the protection of others — what decides which is driven by which? For me, the answer to that question lies within. When the act is selfish and driven by a personal reaction/desire/fear/anger more powerful than what’s best for the person being protected then the act is not truly about the other person as much as it is driven by the self and the self’s own wants and that’s the conduit to the dark side.

When the act is truly selfless and the self is entirely separated from the action then that is the conduit to the light side. When Anakin chose to protect Luke it wasn’t for himself. It wasn’t to ensure his bloodline legacy could endure. It wasn’t him acting out of hate at the Emperor for all he had done. It wasn’t that he felt he’d survive and the two could rule together as he’d proposed previously. All of those would have likely kept Anakin firmly in selfish thoughts more focused on himself and he likely would have remained on the dark side because, let’s face it, dark side apprentices killing their masters is a dark side right of passage that often leads to further mastery of the dark side itself. No, Anakin came back because the act wasn’t about him in any way at all. It was entirely about compassion for Luke. Nothing else in that moment mattered but that and it was that selfless compassion that illuminated his path back to the light side and the man he used to be.

Luke’s own dark period in the sequel trilogies is structured similarly in that he’s at his worst when he’s seeking to control the Jedi teachings themselves and failing to see how concepts that are themselves on the dividing line which he’s justified to himself as noble and sacrificial are actually driven by the self. A mix of his own internal issues with guilt and his own selfish want to end this cycle of Jedi falling to the dark side have combined to put him on this misguided crusade and like his father before him… he’s deceived himself into believing that it’s just. That disconnecting from the force, living in isolation, refusing to be the weapon pawn he perceives others wish him to be is in fact selfless. Even though it isn’t. It isn’t an extension of when he first cast aside his saber all those years ago and surrendered himself to the will of the force and accomplished his greatest feat. The idea the Galaxy has of himself that he feels unworthy of and that he’s come to hate of himself is not a noble endeavor. It’s a hate. It’s selfish thoughts. Corruptive thoughts and it’s changed him. It’s closer to being his own dark phase of life. Only one mired in depression rather than rage his father succumbed to. It is only when he frees himself of all of that and indeed even his attachment to his physical self to help others and sacrifices his own ego to help others does he rediscover who he once was. “Jake Skywalker” ends and the soul of Luke Skywalker returns. Just as Darth Vader ended and the soul of Anakin Skywalker returned.

It’s extremely important for the power of Star Wars as a myth that the dividing line between light and dark remain controversial and divisive. Where one person sees something as selfless another may see it as selfish and that is precisely why it works. That people can argue about it and attempt to justify choices made in either direction is how it works. When it’s divisive and debated it helps explain why so many characters also end up walking the dark path before realizing it and how easily they can justify their intentions as noble. Similarly, it’s important that the light side of the force remain so entirely selfless that it is intimidating to imagine remaining on that side indefinitely. It shouldn’t be easy. Temptations to move from selflessness to selfish wants are what’s easy. A Jedi life shouldn’t be relatable. It isn’t meant to be. It’s a hard life. A life lived totally in the service of others and the light itself. However, it’s a life that leads to an understanding of the self and life so profound that its greatest users live on forever as part of life itself.

As human observers of this content most of us have flaws and selfish desires. Few of us are truly selfless. And seeing these extremes duel is meant to help us discover more about ourselves. That’s the magic of Star Wars as a modern myth.