Chefelf.com Night Life: Flaws with no attachment mentality - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Star Wars Fan Convention

Page 1 of 1

Flaws with no attachment mentality

#1 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 July 2005 - 10:51 AM

Yoda says the best attachment is the attachment that does not exist, that we should not be attached to anything or anyone at all.

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 am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#2 User is offline   Darth Player Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 622
  • Joined: 10-June 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 July 2005 - 11:25 AM

"Not that there's anything wrong with it...."

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.
0

#3 User is offline   xenduck Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 328
  • Joined: 01-March 05
  • Location:Far, Far Away
  • Interests:to inspire you vast and cool intellects to regard Star Wars with more sympathetic eyes.
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 July 2005 - 11:56 AM

well, its best to see 'attachment' as having two meanings, one, being loyalty, affection, or love. the other, obsession, dependence, or fixation. the first is good, and a jedi trait, the other is a no-no.

This post has been edited by xenduck: 31 July 2005 - 11:57 AM

Officer! officer! quick! all my money was stolen by a man in flannel!
0

#4 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 July 2005 - 01:13 PM

On the 1960s batman tv show, there was that QG/OBW kind of relationship with BW and DG. Maybe they got along in that other way. I don't know. They wore tights.

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.
0

#5 User is offline   xenduck Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 328
  • Joined: 01-March 05
  • Location:Far, Far Away
  • Interests:to inspire you vast and cool intellects to regard Star Wars with more sympathetic eyes.
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 July 2005 - 03:04 PM

QUOTE (Despondent @ Jul 31 2005, 01:13 PM)
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.


thats your uncle talking
Officer! officer! quick! all my money was stolen by a man in flannel!
0

#6 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 31 July 2005 - 11:58 PM

did make a better story.
0

#7 User is offline   Yunakitty Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 02-August 05
  • Location:GA
  • Interests:Yoga, cooking, and Hayden Christensen!
  • Country:United States

Posted 04 August 2005 - 09:02 PM

Well, I'm a student of eastern philosophy, and I used to have a big problem with the idea of no attachments. I thought the idea meant that it was meaningless to build relationships with people, to love your spouse, etc because you're not supposed to be attached. But I read the best thing recently in Yoga Journal. It says what it really means is that you have to be willing to let go of attachments when the time is right. IE, your parent gets sick and dies, you should celebrate their life, grieve for a moment, then move on with your life. Not lay in bed for 2 months, lose your job, and just make your life miserable. Or, it's okay to enjoy that wide-screen TV if you have a good salary and can afford it, but if you lose your job and need money for food, you need to be willing to sell the TV and not bitch and moan about it. Having inappropriate attachments is what causes suffering.

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.
0

#8 User is offline   Gomer-Piled Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 04-August 05
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 05 August 2005 - 10:27 AM

LOL!!! "Take his body back for freaky sex!" That is the best, man!!!
0

#9 User is offline   darth gimp Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 13-June 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 05 August 2005 - 04:08 PM

Yunakitty, that explains a lot to me about eastern religion, which I never understood. Thank you.

As it applies to the prequels, if that is what is meant by attachment, then why can't Jedi marry?
0

#10 User is offline   Yunakitty Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 02-August 05
  • Location:GA
  • Interests:Yoga, cooking, and Hayden Christensen!
  • Country:United States

Posted 05 August 2005 - 05:24 PM

I don't know why specifically, but physical love (and the fear of losing it) can lead you to do irrational things. That must be why the Jedi forbid it.
0

#11 User is offline   thehitman Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 16-July 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 06 August 2005 - 11:35 AM

QUOTE (Yunakitty @ Aug 5 2005, 05:24 PM)
I don't know why specifically, but physical love (and the fear of losing it) can lead you to do irrational things.  That must be why the Jedi forbid it.



Maybe that's why Yoda's so cranky- he hasn't had sex in 900 years!!
0

#12 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 06 August 2005 - 12:21 PM

Now that would be great, with that wasted character Yaddle and all, and possible offspring.

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!
0

#13 User is offline   DarthTherion Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 05-May 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 06 August 2005 - 03:02 PM

I posted the following in another thread a while ago. Sorry for re-using material, but I think this addresses the issue, and I don't have time to put it in different words right now. Enjoy:

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]
0

#14 User is offline   darth gimp Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 13-June 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 06 August 2005 - 03:38 PM

That makes sense DT. Sex or love by themselves would allow a Jedi to remain unattached, but in general the combination (=marriage) is too much.
0

#15 User is offline   njamilla Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 283
  • Joined: 02-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington, DC
  • Interests:Black belts: aikido, kendo, iaido, jodo. 1987 World Fencing Championships, World University Games participant. Writer: novelist, freelancer. Interestes: Renaissance, religious history, turtles.
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 August 2005 - 10:38 AM

Attachment can mean any number of things to any number of people. The more vague the definition the easier it is to make certain behaviors and actions conform to the definition.

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.
Author: Sword Fighting in the Star Wars Universe.
0

Page 1 of 1


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size