The Mandalorian The Mandalorian 3.08 - Chapter 24 (SEASON FINALE!!!!) - Discussion Thread (Spoilers Allowed)

Well, Luke doesn't know what will happen, so he didn't know it won't matter in the future.

I assume Luke is following the teaching of the Jedi where attachment was a pretty bad thing. The fall of Vader is a good example of attachment being dangerous.

In Jedi's interpretation, attachment is a possesive and controlling form of love. In itself, Vader was saved because he let his attachment to Luke go (Vader has possessive feelings for Luke since he discovered he was his son).


PS: The "no-attachment" rule is an issue because they forbid relationships trying to prevent attachment. I'm surprised how nobody mention that rule is based on fear.

 

Exactly, and what is hypocritical is Luke was sfrongly attached to his friends, and family. I mean in TLJ he says “wait, where is Han?” Oh but to Grogu, gove up Din and be a monk!

 

Love, Care and Empathy = Healthy attachments = Good
Possessiveness and Obsession = Unhealthy Attachments = Bad

Lucas was very clear about it. So was Yoda. So was Luke.
Luke did nothing wrong in building the New Jedi Order. And the Jedi didn't either.
You don't have a Jedi Order being successful for 25000 years if you haven't built it right.

 

“Holy Simplicity was good in its day..” (Cromwell, Wolfhall)

The issue is hypocrisy and inconsistancy of Luke’s character. Luje like Anakin has strong attachments, and unlike Anakin they served and saved him, Han rescuing Luke at the Death Star Trenchess, Leia rescuing Luke at the Bespin abyss, and Anakin saving him from The Emperor’s wrath. All of these relationships and ties saved Luke from certain death.

 

This is not true. Luke was never obsessed and possessive with his father. He wanted to save him. He had empathy for him. We have seen hundreds of examples of Jedi wanting to save their friends and companions, from Plo Koon saving his clone batallion to Yoda saving his clone squad, and many many more, including the examples you mentioned. These are not attachments, they are friendships or familial relationships. Luke and Han weren't attached to each other, they were friends. Luke and Leia were siblings. Having empathy for another living being does not mean one is attached to that being, that is an extreme logic jump.

Anakin fell to the dark side because he was possessive of Padme, because he was overly attached to his mentor, and because he had lust for power. They were nothing alike in that department.

 

Attachment
2.
affection, fondness, or sympathy for someone or something.
"she felt a sentimental attachment to the place"
Similar: bond, closeness

Luks and Anakin arn’t alike? Hahaha


Anakin: He must live! Noooo!

Vader: If you will not turn to the dark side, then perhaps she (Leia) will!

 

I think realistically claiming that they weren't attachments is absurd even if that was the original intention. Really there are just healthy attachments and unhealthy attachments. Saving people is good, killing kids or letting your emotions cloud your judgment is bad. Banning the concept of marriage overall is pretty dumb even if in Anakin's case it did result in the entire Jedi Order getting killed, the same with being unnecessarily restrictive over a baby seeing his father.

However, with how Lucas wrote it, there's supposed to be a significant difference between love and attachments. Luke did have an attachment to Leia, which is bad as it resulted in him attacking his father out of anger.

 

Synonyms, not the same thing.

I said "in this department", don't change my words.
Or do actually, it proves me right.

The Jedi are not common "mortals", they have a higher purpose to serve.
Banning marriage for the Jedi and the Jedi alone, makes sense to a certain degree.
I also think it's a little too radical, but we all saw what happened to Anakin.
The Order was 100% right in not permitting Anakin to get married.
Grogu was not Din Djarin's son at the time, and Din Djarin gave permission to Luke to train him.
And both Ahsoka and Luke were hesitant to train him, for very valid reasons as we saw.
Cause the kid was indeed very attached to Din Djarin.
.

 

Actually my point stands, Luke and Anakin were the same in that department of attachment, the only difference is Luke made a different choice, he wasn’t willing to destroy one attachment, his father, to save his sister.

 

Bo-Katan's people have a no attachments rule for their helmets.

 

Well it would be a waste to not see Katie Sackoff’s face.

 

Some of y'all need to go get a hotel room and work out all that unresolved sexual tension so that the rest of us can talk about this episode.

 

Those were act of compassion, not possessiveness. The “attachment” rule is Buddhist, plain and simple. And it translates as a possessive attachment. It doesn’t mean what a lot of fans think it means. It doesn’t mean what a standard English dictionary definition says it means.

 

Yup. Luke rose above because of his compassion and attachment towards his loved ones. He did what Anakin could not. Anakin essentially fell because of his attachment. Anakin lost sight of his compassion and dwelt only inward. It's a beautiful thing, Luke's OT arc.

 

In itself, Anakin explains in a pretty good way to Padme what Jedi think about love in Attack of the Clones (even if he doesn't really understand):

Anakin: 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.

The Jedi understand attachment as a possessive or obsessive form of love. That's why the Jedi Order forbid family or romantic relationships since they fear attachment will be developed (it's still ironic they have a rule based on fear).

Vader was saved because he shows unconditional love to Luke at the end. Vader needed to accept Luke wouldn't follow him to the Dark Side and need to let his possesive feelings (toward Luke) go.

 

No. To Grogu, Luke gives him a choice to either be a monk or reunite with Din. He doesn't constrain him either way.

And Luke having love and compassion for his friends is different from the concept of "attachment" in Star Wars, which is a possessive love.

 

Where does it say that that is the only definition of attachment in Star Wars? I would argue that Obi Wan had an attachment to Satine...but he was able to manage that attachment in a healthy manner.

 

George's own words, and the religion he was cribbing from.

 

This is true. I've read a recollection of George Lucas's comments about attachment where it's pretty clear he equates attachment with inability to let go and possessive love.

An example:

GEORGE LUCAS: The core issue, ultimately, is greed, possessiveness - the inability to let go. Not only to hold on to material things, which is greed, but to hold on to life, to the people you love - to not accept the reality of life’s passages and changes, which is to say things come, things go. Everything changes. Anakin becomes emotionally attached to things, his mother, his wife. That’s why he falls - because he does not have the ability to let go.

No human can let go. It’s very hard. Ultimately, we do let go because it’s inevitable; you do die, and you do lose your loved ones. But while you’re alive, you can’t be obsessed with holding on. As Yoda says in this one, [The scene in which Anakin seeks Yoda’s counsel] You must learn to let go of everything you’re afraid to let go of.’ Because holding on is in the same category and the precursor to greed. And that’s what a Sith is. A Sith is somebody that is absolutely obsessed with gaining more and more power - but for what? Nothing, except that it becomes an obsession to get more. The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth, 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.


PS: That said, I should mention this seems to be too far away from the topic of this thread.

 

Obi-Wan was entirely to prepared to never hear or acknowledge Satine ever again. His job forced back into her proximity and no, hanging out with someone calling you dear and beloved while ostensibly being a monk is not really mentally healthy.

 

Yup. It derives from the Buddhist definition. Which also includes “grasping,” including grasping onto life, as Palpatine does. It’s essentially over-attachment. There are legions of fans who simply aren’t aware of this. They must let go of the definitions they cling to!

But yeah, the finale. I’m liking it more and more. Lots of great moments. The over-the-shoulder POV shots during the jet pack battle, esp. the one of the Armorer coming at the commando and hammering him, are just incredible. And Grogu managed to revive his adorableness (and his usefulness) in these two last episodes.