I get what George is trying to say about attachment, but it bugs me that he considers emotional connection to your own mother, or simply the act of falling in love with someone, as something problematic. Anakin falling for Padme is portrayed as a dangerous thing, like it’s a “sin,” but Anakin’s behavior towards Padme doesn’t become overtly possessive until RotS. It’s hard to gauge what Lucas considers to be crossing the line from “good” love to “bad/possessive” love.
I understand the resistance to the ideas about attachments but that’s really something to take up with Buddhism/Hinduism more than Lucas who is being a pretty loyal messenger to the eastern view on such things, rather than misinterpreting or inventing.
The idea behind attachments, I think, is a good idea poorly executed. The Force gives mere humans immense power, and humans are fallible and make rash decisions based on emotion, greed, and self-interest. Trying to eliminate any potential motivation to slip away from righteousness is probably a good idea. The distinction between “good” love and “possessive” love needed to be way more clear, but if the PT leaned further into this idea, the distinction becomes more clear. Anakin’s love for Padmé isn’t healthy because of what it motivates him to do. Simply, it clouds his judgment. He isn’t making rational decisions because he’s afraid to lose her.
The problem with this, though, is that no human is capable of living a life without sin. George Lucas is a Buddhist Christian, and if heaven is where the righteous come to live with God in the afterlife, and sin is antithetical to God’s very being, heaven should be entirely unpopulated. An infinite being has infinite moral standards, and no human is perfect. Drinking soda is a sin. Driving a car is a sin. And those are just baby examples, there’s so much worse stuff that everybody contributes to simply for existing, it’s just that maybe it isn’t tone appropriate to bring that up on a Star Wars forum. Even being associated with anything like this, though, makes you partially morally responsible for great harm.
I thought that first part was already pretty explicit.
You’re describing Christianity without Christ. The whole point is that Christ redeemed humanity’s imperfections and allows people to become more perfect than they were and reach heaven with his help. I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve here by trying to point out problems with Christianity.
I think you’re also stretching the definition of sin. Why is drinking soda or driving a car sinful? Contributing to something just by existing isn’t a sin either because sin requires an actual choice being made.