Flaws with no attachment mentality
#1
Posted 31 July 2005 - 10:51 AM
And yet, Obi-Wan and Anakin profess brotherly love for each other (albeit unconvincingly), and in Episode I there seems to be a very unconvincing father/son thing going on between Obi-Wan and what's-his-name... that Northern Irish Jedi guy... the one Liam Neeson played... his name sounded like a beer... Qui-Gon, yeah, that guy. Meanwhile, Yoda seems somewhat close to Mace Windu within the boundaries of their working relationship.
Does anyone see something wrong with this picture?
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
#2
Posted 31 July 2005 - 11:25 AM
I think this is one of the few areas there's a sliver of consistency. I'd find it hard to believe that a Master and Padawan learner wouldn't have some kind of attachment because of the time spent, and the Master's opening the avenues of what the Force is to the learner, and like all good teachers, this has them have some gratitude toward their Master. Even Yoda is kinda pissed Dooku who was once his student is the biggest baddie they encounter face-to-face in ATOC.
In reading yoru post and thinking of a response, it dawns on me that OBi Wan, who supposedly was arrogant in his youth and attempted to train Anakin on his own like Yoda did (he mentions this in the OT) didn't really screw up after all. What's presented onscreen reinforces that he did all he could for Anakin, and Anakin did himself in.
#3
Posted 31 July 2005 - 11:56 AM
This post has been edited by xenduck: 31 July 2005 - 11:57 AM
#4
Posted 31 July 2005 - 01:13 PM
The OBW/Annie relationship was more like a forced lab partner arrangement. See ya later.
If anything, in Ep. IV Ben "protected" Luke by presenting a more handsome portrayal of his pupil, in order to tease Luke into getting involved. No doubt if Luke knew then what we know now, he'd want to just steer clear of the whole mess.
#5
Posted 31 July 2005 - 03:04 PM
thats your uncle talking
#7
Posted 04 August 2005 - 09:02 PM
So, what Yoda was trying to tell Anakin was that if someone dies, you have to accept it the best you can and move on. For Anakin, what that should have meant was that if Padme was destined to die in childbirth, he should be there to hold her hand and comfort her, then take their babies and keep on living.
For Obi-wan, even though he had a brotherly relationship with Anakin, he was wise enough to realize that it was time to let go of that attachment. I've heard fangirls on Hayden's forum say they hate Obi-wan, that they would have poured water on Anakin, and taken his legless body back to their mom's house for freaky sex. But that's inappropriate attachment. He's not the person that Obi-wan loved anymore, he's done horrible things and will continue to do horrible things if allowed to do so.
#11
Posted 06 August 2005 - 11:35 AM
Maybe that's why Yoda's so cranky- he hasn't had sex in 900 years!!
#12
Posted 06 August 2005 - 12:21 PM
A yoda youngling. That would have been stirring to see go down. GL, can you add that PLEASE?
---
Boba Fett meets up with DV in a dimly lit hallway of the super spice barge.
DV: Now do my bidding. I've killed before.
BF: I know! Even the women and children. That was Awesome!
#13
Posted 06 August 2005 - 03:02 PM
Padme says, "I thought love was forbidden to a Jedi." Is she right?
I think the problem here is that we all are confusing love, sexuality, and attachment, which do not always have to exist together. It's possible to have sex without love and attachment; it's possible to love without sex and attachment...
...is it possible to have sex with love but without attachment? It's pretty hard. Could this be at the root of the rule not to marry? (I think marriage is plainly forbidden. "If the Council finds out that we're married....")
I understand "attachment" in the sense of clinging, desiring permanence in something that is temporary. You can love someone and not be attached -- meaning that you cherish the person while she is here but then accept it when she is gone. It's an attitude. "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be all in the name of the Lord." (I'm quoting a Judeo-Christian source simply to illustrate how common this spiritual mindset is)
Someone else pointed out that in the Expanded Universe products (EU), it is mentioned that Jedi were not always celibate but eventually became that way. The reason seems clear to me -- it is hard to stave off attachment when love and sex are both concentrated on one person. Marriage is forbidden.
[Final note on this subject -- I was glancing through a Star Wars book at a store the other day and noticed it said that Obi-wan had had an affair with a female Jedi in his younger days...I'm not sure how significant that is, but I thought I'd bring it up]
#15
Posted 08 August 2005 - 10:38 AM
Is attachment the inability to let go of things that you like or love?
Are you allowed to have emotion love? Physical love? Spiritual love?
Our personal temperaments have certain propensities and tendencies toward attachment. Our role in society and our jobs also have certain propensities and tendencies toward attachment. A soldier and a civilian have different priorities in attachment to physical things. A doctor and the family menber of a sick patient have different attachment.
One way of systematically dealing with attachment is to proscribe certain behavior. When these things are considered extravagant (to whatever degree you wish to take it), there is an inclination to deny it, either as a punishment or a sacrifice.
There are degrees to these things, as well as cultural and institutional justifications in these things. For example, the Catholic church requires priests to sacrifice marriage in order to serve the people of the church. He is "married" to God. In an Anglican church, a minister is allowed to marry because it doesn't go against their philosophical belief system. A hermit (which can be self-imposed or institutional) gives up almost everything except basic needs.
So what is this definition of attachment for the Jedi? Well, GL is quite vague, isn't he. It's also a fake world, so there isn't much substance to it. Anyone who tries to live by some Jedi creed (Jedism, for example) is simply imposing his or her own interpretation, which is very convenient.
Can you love someone fully and still not be attached to the person? Well, emotions aren't something you turn on and off. Personally, I think attachment to people and things can be a negative thing, but you have to look within the social context in which you're talking about attachment and how it helps or hinders your function as a person, as a professional, or as a member of a society.
The idea of not developing attachments is a pretty good idea conceptually. How you live it is another matter, subject to individual, cultural, and institutional interpretation.