logo Sign In

On Jedi and Attachment

Author
Time

A point of contention when talking about the prequels is the Jedi Order’s stance on attachment. A particular scene people often come back to is Yoda’s conversation with Anakin in RotS, where Yoda seems to give some questionable advice about grief. This issue was brought back to my attention by a scene at the end of one of the episodes of Book of Boba Fett, where Luke is shown to be carrying on that same anti-attachment philosophy.

There’s been a lot of back-and-forth on this, mainly on the question of whether or not this is a good philosophy, and if it’s not, whether that was intentional on the part of George Lucas.

For example, there’s the fact that the Jedi take on new members when they’re babies, because they don’t want prospective Jedi to develop attachments to their families. To me, this flies in the face of the argument that the Jedi are only against possessive, selfish attachments, since familial bonds don’t really fit into that category. If you accept that even the love between a parent and child is something that’s selfish and dangerous, then that leaves you to conclude that all interpersonal relationships are selfish and dangerous and lead to the Dark Side.

It’s true that Anakin consistently takes things too far in his obsession with keeping people in his life. His reaction to his mother’s death is odd in that he focuses on himself, angrily vowing never to fail again, and when he fears for Padme’s life, the language he uses about her is very possessive and dependent to an unhealthy degree.

Basically, Anakin’s relationships are an extreme negative example of the pitfalls of attachment, rather than what would be the norm for all Jedi. Ideally, Jedi would be coached in how to deal with emotions like grief, and how to come to terms with the loss of loved ones so that it doesn’t cloud their judgment. But instead of doing that, the Jedi try to keep their students from even having loved ones at all, and directly associate the act of mourning with negative emotions like jealousy and greed.

This whole issue is further complicated by the ending of RotJ. Luke refuses to kill Vader because of their relation, and it’s Anakin’s attachment to his son (and thus his desire not to lose him) that pulls him back to the Light and causes him to destroy the Emperor. So we have a scenario where familial attachment saves the day and brings victory for the Light Side, with the main difference being that Anakin acted on his attachment in a self-sacrificial way this time, though it’s not certain whether he knew the act would kill him.

This seems to suggest that Lucas’ intention was for the Jedi to be wrong about attachment. And this interpretation was inadvertently backed up by Luke’s portrayal in the old EU, where he’s fully open to attachment and allows it for his students. But there’s something important to keep in mind. The Jedi’s rules on non-attachment hadn’t been invented yet when the OT was being written, and therefore, the EU writers obviously didn’t incorporate it into their stories. By the time George was writing the prequels, he had changed a great deal as a person (as all people do), and therefore was approaching those films with a different perspective. The Jedi’s stance on attachment seems to be something he came up with in the gap between trilogies. And of course, he’s also spoken against the idea of Luke ever getting married in his version of events.

Keeping that in mind, when we look at Luke’s depiction in BoBF, things start to make more sense. BoBF is a project that Dave Filoni is closely involved with, and Filoni was especially close to George and seems to understand his vision and intentions. So, it’s fairly safe to say that Luke’s portrayal in BoBF aligns pretty closely with Lucas’ vision for a post-RotJ Luke.

TL;DR Luke being pro-attachment in the old EU was just a happy accident caused by George simply not having decided yet that attachment was a bad thing.

But we can’t turn back. Fear is their greatest defense. I doubt if the actual security there is any greater than it was on Aquilae or Sullust. And what there is is most likely directed towards a large-scale assault.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think Luke’s depiction and philosophy in the old Expanded Universe are much more consistent with Lucas’ two trilogies than Luke’s depiction in The Book of Boba Fett.

The rules of the Jedi Order of the Prequel Era are absolutely flawed, if not even terrible. Being totally selfless is impossible. Love always requires a certain degree of possessiveness. If I love someone, I want to be with that person not only because I like him/her as a person, but also because the presence of that person makes me happy and makes me feel good. If the presence of that person didn’t make me feel good, then there would be no reason for me to engage in a romantic relationship with that person in the first place. In love, you have to give and receive. You give your love in the hope that your love will be reciprocated and that the exchange of that love will make you happy. A stoic love without attachment is simply not true love, but a generic feeling of relative interest. Like it or not, attachment is an absolutely natural thing that is part of human psychology. We are all attached to someone. It’s not right to kill someone to save a person we love, but at the same time it’s absolutely right to worry about those we love and wish they are well. If we find out that someone we love is in danger of life, then it’s right to try to save him/her. Not just because we want that person to be good, but also because that person makes us feel good. In life one cannot be either entirely selfless or completely selfish. You need a balance, and that’s what neither the Jedi nor the Sith (as well as George Lucas himself) have ever understood. Being concerned and afraid for the people we love is absolutely natural, we just have to learn not to let these fears dominate us and cloud our judgment. Expressing all emotions, even negative ones, is absolutely right, and that’s what the Jedi should have taught. Not teaching that attachment is something that should be avoided at all cost, but understanding that it’s natural, understanding that the negative emotions that arise from it are absolutely natural, and therefore learning to control them and not letting them dominate one’s judgment, basing on the personal situation and personal needs of every single individual.

I’m sorry, but “Be happy for those who turn into the Force” is not a balanced and human teaching, not at all. On the contrary, “Protect the ones you love, do everything you can to make them feel good, but if in the end you don’t succeed, then, only then, you have to learn to let go”, this is a deep, human and healthy teaching. But what did the Jedi do instead? To avoid the Dark Side at all cost, they simply preferred to bypass the problem. Instead of studying and understanding the personal situation and needs of each individual, and instead of teaching how to express your attachment towards others in a balanced and controlled way, they acted in an extremist way by eliminating the possibility of having any attachment. Instead of teaching to have good relationships, they simply forbade having relationships in the first place, teaching to repress any negative feelings. And what has this led to? It led Anakin to be immersed between two opposite extremes: pure passion and pure stoicism. They taught him to repress every negative feeling, leaving him unprepared for tragedies. And guess what, when people are unprepared to deal with a tragedy then, when a tragedy happens to them, they offen react violently. No wonder Anakin went completely crazy and turned to the Dark Side. They didn’t teach him to deal with his negative feelings in a human and healthy way, they let him be manipulated by Palpatine who fed his negative feelings by gradually teaching him to deal with them in the wrong way, and as a result the Galaxy has been completely fucked up.

I think Luke’s philosophy in the old EU is much more consistent with the 6 original films precisely for this reason. Luke learned from the mistakes of the old Jedi Order and created a philosophy that doesn’t necessarily violate the old Code, but at the same time allows people to express themselves freely and deal with their negative emotions in the correct way. On the contrary, his philosophy in The Book of Boba Fett isn’t consistent with the films, because Luke proves that he has learned nothing from the mistakes of the old Jedi and conveys the message that what happened with Anakin was exclusively his fault, and not even fault of the dogmatic interpretation the Jedi of the Prequel Era had of the Code, a dogmatic interpretation that forbade absolutely normal feelings.

In addition, I think Lucas’ quotes regarding the whole “Luke shouldn’t marry” thing should be contextualized, because they’re quotes dating back to the time when Lucas had his first divorce. At the time he had strong anti-marriage feelings because of this, so we shouldn’t take those quotes as if they were his immutable thought.

«This is where the fun begins!»
(Anakin Skywalker)

Author
Time

The thing is, a lot of people have interpreted the prequels as saying that the Jedi were in the wrong, and that they were psychologically harmful to Anakin. But I don’t think George wrote the prequels with that in mind. I think, in his mind, Anakin was clearly in the wrong, and the Jedi were right. Anakin was written to be essentially an arrogant brat who throws a tantrum when he isn’t granted the rank of Master at 22 years old, a moment that was meant to show Anakin being ungrateful rather than the Jedi being mean to him. He repeatedly gets angry over perceived slights by the Jedi, but all those “slights” basically just amount to him not advancing at the breakneck pace he thinks he should be.

What I think happened is that the whole prequel Jedi philosophy simply didn’t gel well with modern audiences, so people came up with interpretations that placed the Jedi as the ones who wronged Anakin rather than Anakin just being in the wrong. It’s perfectly fine to choose to interpret the prequels as being critical of the Jedi. I just don’t believe that was George’s intention when writing them.

But we can’t turn back. Fear is their greatest defense. I doubt if the actual security there is any greater than it was on Aquilae or Sullust. And what there is is most likely directed towards a large-scale assault.

Author
Time

It’s easy to read the PT as Lucas dealing with the fallout of his divorce through the journey of Anakin.

Also, Temple of Doom is a “breakup script” in the same way Phil Collins’ Face Value is a “breakup album.” With both, the dust of the relationship hadn’t fully settled and a lot of raw and ugly feelings had to come out.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

What I think happened is that the whole prequel Jedi philosophy simply didn’t gel well with modern audiences, so people came up with interpretations that placed the Jedi as the ones who wronged Anakin rather than Anakin just being in the wrong. It’s perfectly fine to choose to interpret the prequels as being critical of the Jedi. I just don’t believe that was George’s intention when writing them.

Well, in the Expanded Universe continuity the Prequel Jedi are clearly wrong, and I support this idea regardless of Lucas’ thought. Also, I tend not to trust George’s statements about this specific subject, because they often contradict each other. So I prefer to give my own interpretation, which I think makes a lot more sense than the “Anakin was wrong” interpretation. No, Anakin wasn’t completely wrong. Of course he had his responsabilities, but the Jedi were wrong either in prohibiting something completely natural as the love between two people. Everyone has a certain amount of responsibility for Anakin’s fall: the Jedi, Palpatine and Anakin himself. It’s neither all Anakin’s fault nor all Jedi’s fault. Even assuming that Lucas wanted to convey the message that the Jedi were right and Anakin wrong, he did so in a way that doesn’t allow people to identify with the Jedi cause and literally leads everyone to see Anakin as a victim of circumstances, Palpatine’s manipulations and the Jedi dogmatism, rather than a victim of himself.

«This is where the fun begins!»
(Anakin Skywalker)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Servii said:

A point of contention when talking about the prequels is the Jedi Order’s stance on attachment. A particular scene people often come back to is Yoda’s conversation with Anakin in RotS, where Yoda seems to give some questionable advice about grief. This issue was brought back to my attention by a scene at the end of one of the episodes of Book of Boba Fett, where Luke is shown to be carrying on that same anti-attachment philosophy.

There’s been a lot of back-and-forth on this, mainly on the question of whether or not this is a good philosophy, and if it’s not, whether that was intentional on the part of George Lucas.

For example, there’s the fact that the Jedi take on new members when they’re babies, because they don’t want prospective Jedi to develop attachments to their families. To me, this flies in the face of the argument that the Jedi are only against possessive, selfish attachments, since familial bonds don’t really fit into that category. If you accept that even the love between a parent and child is something that’s selfish and dangerous, then that leaves you to conclude that all interpersonal relationships are selfish and dangerous and lead to the Dark Side.

It’s true that Anakin consistently takes things too far in his obsession with keeping people in his life. His reaction to his mother’s death is odd in that he focuses on himself, angrily vowing never to fail again, and when he fears for Padme’s life, the language he uses about her is very possessive and dependent to an unhealthy degree.

Basically, Anakin’s relationships are an extreme negative example of the pitfalls of attachment, rather than what would be the norm for all Jedi. Ideally, Jedi would be coached in how to deal with emotions like grief, and how to come to terms with the loss of loved ones so that it doesn’t cloud their judgment. But instead of doing that, the Jedi try to keep their students from even having loved ones at all, and directly associate the act of mourning with negative emotions like jealousy and greed.

This whole issue is further complicated by the ending of RotJ. Luke refuses to kill Vader because of their relation, and it’s Anakin’s attachment to his son (and thus his desire not to lose him) that pulls him back to the Light and causes him to destroy the Emperor. So we have a scenario where familial attachment saves the day and brings victory for the Light Side, with the main difference being that Anakin acted on his attachment in a self-sacrificial way this time, though it’s not certain whether he knew the act would kill him.

This seems to suggest that Lucas’ intention was for the Jedi to be wrong about attachment. And this interpretation was inadvertently backed up by Luke’s portrayal in the old EU, where he’s fully open to attachment and allows it for his students. But there’s something important to keep in mind. The Jedi’s rules on non-attachment hadn’t been invented yet when the OT was being written, and therefore, the EU writers obviously didn’t incorporate it into their stories. By the time George was writing the prequels, he had changed a great deal as a person (as all people do), and therefore was approaching those films with a different perspective. The Jedi’s stance on attachment seems to be something he came up with in the gap between trilogies. And of course, he’s also spoken against the idea of Luke ever getting married in his version of events.

Keeping that in mind, when we look at Luke’s depiction in BoBF, things start to make more sense. BoBF is a project that Dave Filoni is closely involved with, and Filoni was especially close to George and seems to understand his vision and intentions. So, it’s fairly safe to say that Luke’s portrayal in BoBF aligns pretty closely with Lucas’ vision for a post-RotJ Luke.

TL;DR Luke being pro-attachment in the old EU was just a happy accident caused by George simply not having decided yet that attachment was a bad thing.

Totally out of touch George Lucas actually thought audiences would like the PT Jedi and think they were cool.

But this topic always leads me to wonder about how the Jedi parent children. What history are they taught? How much free-play do they have? What is appropriate behavior towards the opposite sex? What are there values regarding topics like economics, bioethics etc.?

I think it is time for a TV series to explore the Jedi Order itself; follow a 5 year old from recruitment to full knighthood or something.

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord

Author
Time
 (Edited)

So, I’m in the middle of watching the PT with director’s commentary, because it was recommended to me, and something that George Lucas said during Shmi’s death scene really struck me. George said that her death was inevitable, and that Anakin’s insistence on setting out to find her showed his inability to let go of his attachments and accept the inevitability of death.

But Shmi’s death wasn’t inevitable. Anakin had 10 years to come back and save her from slavery. Hell, if he’d come back even just a day earlier, he might have been able to rescue her. And even ignoring that, if you found out a family member had been kidnapped, and there was even the slightest chance that they were still alive and could be saved, of course you’d go get them. At the very least, you’d want the certainty of whether they’re dead or not, so that you can properly mourn for them.

If Shmi had died from natural causes, then the message would have made more sense. Her getting kidnapped and tortured to death obviously wasn’t an inevitable thing, and would have been easily avoidable.

But we can’t turn back. Fear is their greatest defense. I doubt if the actual security there is any greater than it was on Aquilae or Sullust. And what there is is most likely directed towards a large-scale assault.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Servii said:

So, I’m in the middle of watching the PT with director’s commentary, because it was recommended to me, and something that George Lucas said during Shmi’s death scene really struck me. George said that her death was inevitable, and that Anakin’s insistence on setting out to find her showed his inability to let go of his attachments and accept the inevitability of death.

But Shmi’s death wasn’t inevitable. Anakin had 10 years to come back and save her from slavery. Hell, if he’d come back even just a day earlier, he might have been able to rescue her. And even ignoring that, if you found out a family member had been kidnapped, and there was even the slightest chance that they were still alive and could be saved, of course you’d go get them. At the very least, you’d want the certainty of whether they’re dead or not, so that you can properly mourn for them.

If Shmi had died from natural causes, then the message would have made more sense. Her getting kidnapped and tortured to death obviously wasn’t an inevitable thing, and would have been easily avoidable.

I agree. To me it appears George did not fully think through the changes he made to the Star Wars universe he created for the Prequels. Before the Prequels Jedi had family (Owen and Obi-Wan as brothers in the film novel), Jedi had children (Anakin fathering Luke), and so Jedi would have likely had wives, husbands or long term partners (maybe depending on what species they were), and even something as simple as the robes that Obi-Wan and Yoda wore were not considered the Jedi “uniform” (many everyday people wore similar or the same type of clothing).

Why he would make these changes just to help rewrite the Jedi so it made it somehow easier or a setting to help for Anakin to “betray and hunt down the Jedi” I do not understand.

Your point on Shmi above is another example. It is also a problem with George at the time of writing and directing making the Prequels: he tells us what is happening, but he does not show it. The old rule of “Show, don’t tell” is ignored by George many many times throughout the time of the Prequels.

Shmi’s death wasn’t inevitable, it was not really shown this way on film, or in the larger story, and as your wrote above it is simple to argue otherwise (in Anakin going back to free from slavery days or years before).

Did George think he did not have the story make more logical sense? It is almost as if people around him believe everything he says for so long, and did not challenge him, and having large section of fans believe whatever he said without question, that maybe he even believed he didn’t have to actually show this in a meaningful and effective way? Or that his focus was elsewhere on the technology being used to shoot the films, or something else? (like the lack of people around to challenge him, offer alternatives, point out and address any issues and so on).

Hayden Christensen’s thoughts at the time of ROTS on the criticism he received give an insight in George’s thinking: “I guess the impression that I got from George Lucas was that if they don’t like them, then they don’t ‘get’ it – and that was good enough for me.”, which is quite an arrogant and dismissive way of thinking from George.

It does not appear George’s focus was on making the story logical, or stand up to any general scrutiny the casual viewer may have had for these changes made to the SWU for the Prequels (before we go into the nitpicking, and scene by scene dissection that many of us Star Wars fans are known for!) 😃

The Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It’s really funny how this idea that the Prequel Jedi were intentionally depicted as flawed, has become a “mainstream” interpretation. I’ve heard this so many times. Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side, along with Vader’s sacrifice in ROTJ, are often used as “proof” that the Prequels repudiate the Jedi and their anti-attachment dogma.

But like… all you need to do is just read literally any interview with Lucas about this subject, and you’ll find he just straight up says (paraphrasing) “Actually the Prequel Jedi were awesome and correct about everything, and Anakin fell to the Dark Side because he didn’t listen to them.”

Like for example, this TIME magazine interview where Lucas says:

“[Anakin] turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things,” says Lucas. “He can’t let go of his mother; he can’t let go of his girlfriend. He can’t let go of things. It makes you greedy. And when you’re greedy, you are on the path to the dark side, because you fear you’re going to lose things, that you’re not going to have the power you need.”

Or this interview where he says:

Anakin wants to be a Jedi, but he cannot let go of the people he loves in order to move forward in his life. The Jedi believe that you don’t hold on to things, that you let things pass through you, and that if you can control your greed, you can resolve conflict not only in yourself but in the world around you because you accept the natural course of things. Anakin’s inability to follow this basic guideline is at the core of his turn to the dark side.

Bizarrely, Lucas equates attachment/love to greed, or at least believes these things are heavily connected. I can understand Lucas’ logic behind this sentiment, but this is certainly a very esoteric interpretation of attachment and love.

It’s commonly observed that Lucas’ Prequel-Jedi philosophy is very similar to certain core Buddhist teachings. It’s true that Buddhism teaches that attachment is a major cause of suffering. But when it comes to attachment through romantic love specifically, this is usually interpreted more along the lines of the need to accept a romantic partner as they are and love them selflessly (as opposed to viewing relationships as a means to satisfy your own desires), and the need to avoid codependency (becoming too “needy” such that relationships serve mostly to pacify fears of abandonment).

While superficially similar, the Buddhist concept here is fundamentally different from the Prequel-Jedi philosophy which forbids romantic relationships entirely in order to avoid fear of loss. In particular, Yoda tells Anakin (regarding loved ones who have died), “Mourn them do not. Miss them do not”. Yet Buddhist tradition has pretty elaborate mourning and grievance rituals that last over a month in some cases. So the Prequel-Jedi philosophy about attachment and love is a lot more extreme than what’s found in mainstream forms of Buddhism.

Author
Time

You’re spot on Channel72. And this is one aspect that frustrates me a about the prequels, if not the main thing. I really like the Zen ideas that inspired the Jedi Code but it’s certainly not a 1:1 transfer of ideas and it’s execution was not the best.

Move along, move along.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

This is a great thread, and really enjoyable reading all the posts in here. I really prefer the Jedi as they were portrayed both on screen and in the EU before Lucas implemented his changes to them for the Prequels.

Many fans only separate the novels and comic books into “Canon and Legends” from the old EU when Disney announced their thing in 2014. For me, my own head canon, there is also separation of the Jedi before/after 1999. The retcons of them after 1999 of no longer having family attachments, the interpretations of ‘compassion’, ‘love’, ‘fear’ (not a problem for Yoda in Empire), possessions, being separated from their parents, even uniforms (as Emre posted above). As well as the general disconnects between the two trilogies that George chose to introduce, all means it is a major obstacle to cohere the two.

In the PT they are aloof, stern, slow-witted, are portrayed now as being some sort of monk-like attitudes, and yet somehow very quickly become some sort of and tactical masterminds in the Clone Wars (because the vast Republic didn’t have any military generals tacticians before?). It is a pity they became the victims of Lucas poor vision and writing for the PT.

Compassion also seems in short supply for other characters. Whilst the Jedi do get some deserved criticism for not freeing Shmi, or Anakin for not going back for her sooner (as Servii posted), Padme or the people of Naboo could have express their gratitude to the mother of the person who saved their planet and people, and freed her. The person who also helped them in their Queen’s hour of need by agreeing to her son putting his own life in danger in a pod race, sharing food, giving them shelter and so forth. Again, the poor plot, for some illogical reason (all roads lead to the poorly told, underwhelming and very sudden fall of Anakin), demanded otherwise.

Author
Time

Juno Eclipse said:

Many fans only separate the novels and comic books into “Canon and Legends” from the old EU when Disney announced their thing in 2014. For me, my own head canon, there is also separation of the Jedi before/after 1999. The retcons of them after 1999 of no longer having family attachments, the interpretations of ‘compassion’, ‘love’, ‘fear’ (not a problem for Yoda in Empire), possessions, being separated from their parents, even uniforms (as Emre posted above). As well as the general disconnects between the two trilogies that George chose to introduce, all means it is a major obstacle to cohere the two.

The interregnum between TPM & AOTC was an interesting period for the EU, at least where the Jedi are concerned. In spite of the “no attachments” rule established in TPM, EU writers still assumed Jedi could be in romantic relationships, the most explicit example being Ki-Adi-Mundi, who has shown having multiple wives and children. In hindsight, you can see the tension between the pre-1999 & post-1999 lore. It was Schrödinger’s Star Wars.

“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Author
Time

Superweapon VII said:

Juno Eclipse said:

Many fans only separate the novels and comic books into “Canon and Legends” from the old EU when Disney announced their thing in 2014. For me, my own head canon, there is also separation of the Jedi before/after 1999. The retcons of them after 1999 of no longer having family attachments, the interpretations of ‘compassion’, ‘love’, ‘fear’ (not a problem for Yoda in Empire), possessions, being separated from their parents, even uniforms (as Emre posted above). As well as the general disconnects between the two trilogies that George chose to introduce, all means it is a major obstacle to cohere the two.

The interregnum between TPM & AOTC was an interesting period for the EU, at least where the Jedi are concerned. In spite of the “no attachments” rule established in TPM, EU writers still assumed Jedi could be in romantic relationships, the most explicit example being Ki-Adi-Mundi, who has shown having multiple wives and children. In hindsight, you can see the tension between the pre-1999 & post-1999 lore. It was Schrödinger’s Star Wars.

The “no attachments” rule wasn’t introduced until AOTC. The only Jedi rules TPM established are that 9 is too old to join and that you can’t have multiple Padawans at once.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

darklordoftech said:

Superweapon VII said:

Juno Eclipse said:

Many fans only separate the novels and comic books into “Canon and Legends” from the old EU when Disney announced their thing in 2014. For me, my own head canon, there is also separation of the Jedi before/after 1999. The retcons of them after 1999 of no longer having family attachments, the interpretations of ‘compassion’, ‘love’, ‘fear’ (not a problem for Yoda in Empire), possessions, being separated from their parents, even uniforms (as Emre posted above). As well as the general disconnects between the two trilogies that George chose to introduce, all means it is a major obstacle to cohere the two.

The interregnum between TPM & AOTC was an interesting period for the EU, at least where the Jedi are concerned. In spite of the “no attachments” rule established in TPM, EU writers still assumed Jedi could be in romantic relationships, the most explicit example being Ki-Adi-Mundi, who has shown having multiple wives and children. In hindsight, you can see the tension between the pre-1999 & post-1999 lore. It was Schrödinger’s Star Wars.

The “no attachments” rule wasn’t introduced until AOTC. The only Jedi rules TPM established are that 9 is too old to join and that you can’t have multiple Padawans at once.

You may be right. It’s been half a decade since my last and final prequel rewatch, so my memory’s not fresh. I do remember the Jedi Council making a rather callous fuss over Anakin’s feelings for his mother, though.

“The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order and in the assertion that, without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a violent revolution… There can be only one permanent revolution — a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man. How is this revolution to take place? Nobody knows how it will take place in humanity, but every man feels it clearly in himself. And yet in our world everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The “no attachments” thing isn’t explicit in Phantom Menace, but I guess it’s implied during that scene when Yoda lays out the “Sith pipeline”: Fear --> Anger --> Hate --> Suffering

The “fear” phase is definitely related to Anakin being afraid of losing his mom, because Yoda points out he’s afraid of losing her right before saying this.

I’ve seen lots of people say Yoda’s quote about fear is very profound. Personally, I never really understood it very well, because the connection between fear and anger doesn’t seem obvious to me. There’s certain specific types of fear and anger that could definitely be linked (the usual obvious example is xenophobia), but that’s obviously not what Yoda means here. He’s clearly talking about fear of loss.

But even fear of loss doesn’t exactly fit the context. Anakin misses his mom. Missing someone isn’t exactly the same as fear of losing them, which muddles this a bit.

Also… Anakin is 10. Of course he misses his mom.

Author
Time

Channel72 said:

The “no attachments” thing isn’t explicit in Phantom Menace, but I guess it’s implied during that scene when Yoda lays out the “Sith pipeline”: Fear --> Anger --> Hate --> Suffering

The “fear” phase is definitely related to Anakin being afraid of losing his mom, because Yoda points out he’s afraid of losing her right before saying this.

I’ve seen lots of people say Yoda’s quote about fear is very profound. Personally, I never really understood it very well, because the connection between fear and anger doesn’t seem obvious to me. There’s certain specific types of fear and anger that could definitely be linked (the usual obvious example is xenophobia), but that’s obviously not what Yoda means here. He’s clearly talking about fear of loss.

But even fear of loss doesn’t exactly fit the context. Anakin misses his mom. Missing someone isn’t exactly the same as fear of losing them, which muddles this a bit.

Also… Anakin is 10. Of course he misses his mom.

This. Very much this.

“Sometimes we must let go of our pride, and do what is requested to us.”
– Anakin Skywalker