SPECULATION Lukes New JEDI Code

See now we are getting to deep. The smartest minds in the world have argued that LOVE is a selfish feeling. The debate is we love people because it makes US feel good to love them. It's a debate that will go on forever and no matter how good someone puts it, the other side comes back with an equally intelligent response. A vulnerable person would literally change their mind after reading each post or article.

I get everything you say, but I feel you are grasping at straws to save your argument. And I can't prove you wrong. I admit that. But I don't think you can prove me wrong either. I really don't know where to go from here.

Luke gave up his attachments by letting go of his anger?

Luke embraced his attachments to let go of his anger?

I guess we would have to ask Luke.

 

I'm not really grasping at straws though - I'm saying the same thing as George Lucas did in that video I posted. You have your opinion on this, that's fine. I'm not in this to prove anything either way. I am just saying that this is how Lucas' defines attachment and this is how he presented it in the films. But it is a film, it's a piece of art and you can go in another direction with it if you like. But I think that if you do so, you miss the point of the scene. This is Luke sacrificing his life. This is Luke letting go of the one real chance he has of saving Leia. If he kills Vader and turns to the Dark Side then he saves her. If he remains attached then he does this. But he let's go of the attachment - the possessive, selfish side of his love and he acts on the unconditionally loving, compassionate, selfless side of his love. Look at his father - Anakin. What did he do? He didn't let go of his attachment to Padme and he turned evil. She died. Luke did the opposite. He let go of his attachment to Leia and he remained good and she lived.

Love is an all encompassing word. There is selfless side to love and selfish side to love and everything in between. A Jedi must love only on the selfless side.

 

What I highlighted in bold is my favorite part of your post.

But you can't keep bringing in Lucas to defend beliefs. You and I both know Lucas has switched his mind about the meaning of a certain scene more than the amount of rain drops that can accumulate in a glass when it is pouring rain.

Besides that fact his words from interviews are no longer canon. Even when it was he contradicted himself so much Albert Einstein couldn't keep up with what he was saying.

In the end I just don't agree. Luke never gave up his attachments. He simply kicked his dads ass by tapping into his anger. After that he let go of his anger to go against what Palpatine wanted.

Kill your father!

No.

Simple to me.

 

To be fair to Lucas, he has been pretty consistent on this. I mean, he has said it numerous times and he has had wise characters in the films say it. I'm not completely sure where we don't agree other than on the meaning of attachment. It strikes me as you just view that as Luke's love for his friends and sister. I view it as the selfish part of love he has let go of - but that he still loves them selflessly. Not really worth worrying about too much. But I do think it is important, however you word it, to realise that Luke made a selfless decision when he threw down his saber. It was not a decision that had an ounce of greed. To me that indicates a letting go of attachment. To you it's just him being calm.

Anyway, I think these Lucas quotes sum up his thoughts on the matter and as much as what he says now isn't canon - what he has said and shown in the past continues to be until it is contradicted:

"This is obviously a very pivotal scene for Anakin because this is reuniting with his mother and his youth and at the same time dealing with his inability to let go of his emotions and allow himself to accept the inevitable. The fact that everything must change and that things come and go through his life and that he can't hold onto things which is a basic Jedi philosophy that he isn't willing to accept emotionally and the reason that is because he was raised by his mother rather than the Jedi. If he'd have been taken in his first year and started to study to be a Jedi, he wouldn't have this particular connection as strong as it is and he'd have been trained to love people but not to become attached to them. But he has become attached to his mother and he will become attached to Padme and these things are, for a Jedi, who needs to have a clear mind and not be influenced by threats to their attachments, a dangerous situation. And it feeds into fear of losing things, which feeds into greed, wanting to keep things, wanting to keep his possessions and things that he should be letting go of. His fear of losing her turns to anger at losing her, which ultimately turns to revenge in wiping out the village. The scene with the Tusken Raiders is the first scene that ultimately takes him on the road to the Dark Side. I mean he's been prepping for this, but that's the one where he's sort of doing something that is completely inappropriate."
--George Lucas

"The scene in the garage here, we begin to see that what he's really upset about is the fact that he's not powerful enough. That if he had more power, he could've kept his mother. He could've saved her and she could've been in his life. That relationship could've stayed there if he'd have been just powerful enough. He's greedy in that he wants to keep his mother around, he's greedy in that he wants to become more powerful in order to control things in order to keep the things around that he wants. There's a lot of connections here with the beginning of him sliding into the Dark Side. And it also shows his jealousy and anger at Obi-Wan and blaming everyone else for his inability to be as powerful as he wants to be, which he hears that he will be, so here he sort of lays out his ambition and you'll see later on his ambition and his dialogue here is the same as Dooku's. He says "I will become more powerful than every Jedi." And you'll hear later on Dooku will say "I have become more powerful than any Jedi." So you're going start to see everybody saying the same thing. And Dooku is kind of the fallen Jedi who was converted to the Dark Side because the other Sith Lord didn't have time to start from scratch, and so we can see that that's where this is going to lead which is that it is possible for a Jedi to be converted. It is possible for a Jedi to want to become more powerful, and control things. Because of that, and because he was unwilling to let go of his mother, because he was so attached to her, he committed this terrible revenge on the Tusken Raiders."
--George Lucas

CHUNG: OK. Now, one of the themes in this next motion picture is this forbidden love. You can love, people can love, but they have to love unconditionally and a Jedi is forbidden from loving. I don't - I want to get inside your head and figure out, what are you trying to tell us? Now what does that mean to you? I mean I'm wondering if you share that feeling.

LUCAS: Well, it's - what has to do with a Jedi is has to do with...

CHUNG: No, I'm not talking about the Jedi. I'm talking about George.

LUCAS: Hey, it's a story. Come on! It's like I'm trying to tell a story in that situation. It has to do with...

CHUNG: Well, what about the message there? What are you telling us?

LUCAS: The message is you can't possess things. You can't hold on to them. You have to accept change. You have to accept the fact that things transition. And so, as you try to hold on to things or you become afraid of -- that you're going to lose things, then you begin to crave the power to control those things. And then, you start to become greedy and then you turn into a bad person.

"The key part of this scene ultimately is Anakin saying "I'm not going to let this happen again." We're cementing his determination to become the most powerful Jedi. The only way you can really do that is to go to the Dark Side because the Dark Side is more powerful. If you want the ultimate power you really have to go to the stronger side which is the Dark Side, but ultimately it would be your undoing. But it's that need for power and the need for power in order to satisfy your greed to keep things and to not let go of things and to allow the natural course of life to go on, which is that things come and go, and to be able to accept the changes that happen around you and not want to keep moments forever frozen in time."
--George Lucas

It [SW] will be about how young Anakin Skywalker became evil and then was redeemed by his son. But it's also about the transformation of how his son came to find the call and then ultimately realize what it was. Because Luke works intuitively through most of the original trilogy until he gets to the very end. And it's only in the last act - when he throws his sword down and says, "I'm not going to fight this" - that he makes a more conscious, rational decision. And he does it at the risk of his life because the Emperor is going to kill him. It's only that way that he is able to redeem his father. It's not as apparent in the earlier movies, but when you see the next trilogy, then you see the issue is, How do we get Darth Vader back? How do we get him back to that little boy that he was in the first movie, that good person loved and was generous and kind? Who had a good heart.
- Time interview (Bill Moyers) 03/05/99

The film is ultimately about the dark side and the light side, and those sides are designed around compassion and greed. The issue of greed, of getting things and owning things and having things and not being able to let go of things, is the opposite of compassion - of not thinking of yourself all the time. These are the two sides - the good force and the bad force. They're the simplest parts of a complex cosmic construction.
- Time interview (Bill Moyers) 03/05/99

 

But he realizes that this may not truly save her, because if Vader is killed, then he cannot fulfill the Prophecy. Of course, Luke doesn't know the future that well (and it's debatable if he even knows about the Prophecy), but what Luke does know is that fighting Vader is part of Palpatine's plan, so the probable end result will likely benefit Palpatine more than Luke. And even if Luke did kill Vader, he still has to deal with Palpatine, whose powers are largely unknown to Luke (Big Thanks to Obi-wan for the lack of a head's-up about the Force lightning!)

And make no mistake....Palp's and Vader's emotional attacks on Luke are applied directly to Luke's attachment to his friends and the fleet. Luke goes into this situation thinking it will result in his own death ("Soon I'll be dead, and you with me.") It's not until he discovers that Palps has set up traps for the fleet and the Endor squad that Luke begins to have fears. He's more than willing to sacrifice himself, but he doesn't want to sacrifice his friends, because who would be left to save the galaxy then?

Yes, which.....again.....meant not fighting Vader or Palpatine with the intention of saving his friends. Do you realize that, had Vader not turned, Luke's decision basically meant Palpatine would kill him, the fleet would be destroyed, and Han and Leia would be captured? Luke's choice put the onus of victory completely on the shoulders of everyone but him.

 

Not sure I follow. Luke has no idea about the prophesy. The prophesy has been abandoned by the Jedi. Yoda and Kenobi sent Luke to destroy Vader and the Emperor. When Luke gets there his intention is to redeem his father and together destroy the Emperor/and or distract the Emperor so the Rebels can destroy him in the Death Star and/or die with his father doing this. But what happens is that Vader finds the spark that sets Luke off - Leia. And then Luke goes nuts. The biggest motivation here for Luke to turn evil is the power he feels when he defeats Vader. He realises how his hate has made him powerful. He knew before that that his friends were in peril - that the Emperor had known the Rebellion plan and it was all a trap. Thus he would think that if he turned to the Dark Side he could save his friends. But again, Luke is caught up in the moment. He feels the pull of the Dark Side - but then comes to his senses and makes the rational choice to throw down his saber. He does the Jedi thing and lets go of his desires (attachments).

Absolutely. They play on his attachments. That's what Vader does to get Luke to get angry. Up until that point Luke lashes out here and there but the Sith don't do enough to push him over the line - until Vader brings up Leia. So they are using this attachment and this attachment is pushing him into the Dark Side and so surely it makes sense that by letting go of his attachment (the possessive side of his love for Leia and co) is what enables him to overcome the Dark Side?

What Luke is doing here is realising he has to let go of his desire to control everything - to try and save everyone. He makes the rational choice that he can't do that and it's wrong to try and do that and so better to just be a Jedi and let go of it all. Allow events to transpire. If he tries to hold on to it all things will just be even worse. He will be evil and be the very things his friends, his sister and the galaxy despises. He sees what his attachments are turning him into. His father. So he throws down his saber and proclaims himself to be a Jedi.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 21, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 21, 2016 ---

This is going to sound arrogant and condescending but I am afraid it cannot be helped! I think a mistake people make in regards to Luke is in thinking that he is so much better than the Jedi of old and has a completely different philosophy as a Jedi. I think this is just plain wrong. The only things where Luke was right and the Jedi were wrong, was in there still being some good left in Darth Vader. That Anakin Skywalker could be redeemed. The Jedi didn't think that possible. Sidious didn't think that to be true. But Luke, being Vader's son, saw the light in him.

But this does not mean that:
1) The Jedi were wrong about attachments
2) That Luke was right to use the Dark Side to defeat Vader
3) That Luke will massively change what it is to be a Jedi.

The fact is, Luke came to be a Jedi late on. This gave him many flaws as a Jedi. He was reckless. Brash. Arrogant. Fearful. Possessive. Irrational.
To suggest that Luke is a new kind of Jedi, that he is beyond what Yoda and Ben taught him is just wrong.
Yoda was a very wise Jedi. Yes, he and his Order got caught napping in the PT. Yes, they were too rigid with Anakin who should've been viewed as an exceptional case. Yes, they got too close to the political system and not close enough to the living Force. But the actual way of the Jedi was and is as it should be.
A Jedi must conquer the Dark Side and never use it. A Jedi must never act in greedy or selfish ways (which attachment leads to). A Jedi's duty is to the Force and the galaxy as a whole - not to himself or a few exclusive people he loves.
And like I say, when it comes down to it, Luke conquers the Dark Side/Palpatine by acting as a true Jedi - he let's go of his selfish desires.

 

Well, I have a personal theory that Yoda and Ben played a few cards close to their chest.

BEN
Hmm. To protect you both from the Emperor,
you were hidden from your father when you
were born. The Emperor knew, as I did, if
Anakin were to have any offspring, they would
be a threat to him. That is the reason why
your sister remains safely anonymous.

Remember that Qui-gon and Obi-wan became one with the Force, and would be privy to more knowledge than ever before. I don't think they truly gave up on the Prophecy.....they just didn't know what the specifics were. Somehow, some way, Anakin would fulfill the Prophecy, and his children were the key, but he needed some nudges to get him there. The fact that Luke was Vader's son and very powerful were the two things that allowed him to get closer to the Sith than any other Jedi would be able to.....it played on the Sith characteristics of gaining power and competition through new apprentices. Now, I'm not saying Ben's and Yoda's plan was completely thought out ahead of time and foolproof, but if you look at Luke's last act in the novelization:

Luke stared at his father beneath him, then at the Emperor, then back at Vader. This was Darkness-and it was the Darkness he hated. Not his father, not even the Emperor. But the Darkness in them. In them, and in himself.
And the only way to destroy the Darkness was to renounce it. For good and all. He stood suddenly erect, and made the decision for which he'd spent his life in preparation.
He hurled his lightsaber away. "Never! Never will I turn to the dark side! You have failed, Palpatine. I am a Jedi, as my father was before me."

...He's basically setting himself up for certain death. In and of itself, that's not a terribly good idea, since it completely relies on everyone else to do the job of destroying Palpatine (by means of destroying the Death Star.) What his act does do, however, is teach Vader a powerful lesson....that one can turn from the Dark Side, and sacrifice can lead to a personal victory. It showed that one must be true to the Light Side no matter what the cost, even if it meant giving up one's power....something that even Lucas talks about. If Ben and Yoda were to tell Luke that Vader would eventually turn back from the Light Side, Luke's actions would have been decidely different, and his final act of throwing his lightsaber away wouldn't have been as meaningful because he would simply be expecting his father to "come around". Luke had to demonstrate his complete faith in the Force with the full expectation that he would be killed for the act to have a real effect on Vader. As such, I see a lot of reverse psychology on the part of Ben and Yoda, essentially sending Luke in as the sacrifical lamb. As powerful as Luke was, he was not able to defeat Anakin without the help of the Dark Side. Luke had to deny himself that power even at the expense of allowing Palpatine to win...something Anakin felt he was incapable of doing. "It is too late for me, my son". Luke's "final" act provided the nudge that Vader needed, and Palpatine being distracted with killing Luke gave Vader the opportunity he needed.

Luke's body slowed, wilted, finally crumpled under the hideous barrage. He stopped moving altogether. At last, he appeared totally lifeless. The Emperor hissed maliciously.
At that instant, Vader sprang up and grabbed the Emperor from behind, pinning Palpatine's upper arms to his torso. Weaker than he'd ever been, Vader had lain still these last few minutes, focusing his every fiber of being on this one, concentrated act-the only action possible; his last, if he failed. Ignoring pain, ignoring his shame and his weaknesses, ignoring the bone-crushing noise in his head, he focused solely and sightlessly on his will-the will to defeat the evil embodied in the Emperor.

Prior to this, Vader wanted to destroy Palpatine to gain power.....with Luke, he chose to destroy Palpatine because it was the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences to himself. Vader was finally able to shed himself of his own attachments, self-doubt, and fear - the very things Palpatine used against both Skywalkers as a means to control them.

 

That's an interesting POV. Personally, I think that Kenobi and Yoda really didn't think Vader could be redeemed. Kenobi's tone of voice when talking to Luke says it all for me.

Having said that, there are a couple of things that could make me accept this idea. Firstly, it is the fact that, as you point out, Yoda and Kenobi put all their eggs in Luke and Leia's basket - to the point that they wait until Luke is the risky age of 19. Untrained as a Jedi. Reckless. Do they really expect him to be able able to defeat the Emperor and Vader?

The other this is that Lucas did once say:

"The part I am working on now is mostly about Darth Vader, who he is, where he came from, how he became Luke and Leia's father, what his relationship to Ben is. In Jedi, the film is really about the Redemption of this fallen angel. Ben is the fitting good angel, and Vader is the bad angel who started off good. All these years Ben has been waiting for Luke to come of age so that he can become a Jedi and redeem his father. That's what Ben has been doing, but you don't know this in the first film."
--George Lucas

I take that as in redeem = Luke doing what his father didn't and thus redeeming the family name. But it could be as you say - that Ben thought only Luke could bring his father back to the light...

 

Dammit...I knew that quote, and forgot to add it. That said, I didn't want my post to get any more TL;DR than it already was.

At that point, Ben and Yoda stop trying to divine what the Force wants, and wait for a sign from the Force about how best to continue. Even when Luke declines to go with Ben to Alderaan, Ben says, "You must do what you feel is right, of course." After Luke's aunt and uncle are killed, Luke changes his mind....Ben only needed to be patient and let things play out.

Yoda goes to Dagobah waiting for his sign, and Luke goes to Ach-to to wait for his sign....and in both cases, the "sign" comes to them. The Will of the Force is subtle...

 

I think the difference in opinion here, and perhaps with Lucas even, is the idea that as a Jedi, you can't have a family (i.e. wife and kids) and still act in a morally sound manner because you will always put your interests (and those of your family) above all others. While generally true, I reject that proposition, at least to the extent that you suggest that if you have these family connections, you are more inclined to commit evil.

I still maintain that a Jedi can have such family connections and do that which is for the greater good of the galaxy. While it may be more difficult, it should not be precluded automatically, lest the organization begin to lose its humanity.

 

I get that and I think there could be something to be said for Jedi students maintaining a relationship with their birth parents. I think it's far more possible for a child to learn over time not to be attached to their parents, especially when they come of age. They can love them, but children can generally not be possessive of their parents. It's a completely different story the other way around. There's no way I could not be attached to my kids and not live with the constant fear and anxiety I do now for their well being. It's natural for parents to die and leave kids. It's tragic for kids to die and leave their parents. Essentially, we all learn to let go of our parents at some point.

The difference here with attachment though is that a Jedi has been taught to wield great power through the Force. And there are two sides to the Force - the greedy side and the selfless side. If you are a Jedi and have a wife & kids then you will fear losing them, you will put them above others and you won't do your duty. You can't get passed that. Well, the vast majority couldn't.

This links in with the real world views on Jesus. Many people don't like the notion that Jesus could've married Mary Magdalene because they believe he should be married to the church. That is, he should view everyone else equally. Love everyone else equally. If he married someone then he would've loved them more than others. This works the same with the Jedi. They Jedi should serve only the will of the Force. And to do that they both need to love everyone unconditionally, their love should be available for everyone and not be exclusive and lastly, having attachments does mean you are allowing a greed to exist within you. And that is essentially the Dark Side.

For a human being in the real world being attached is a natural thing. You're not evil for being attached. It is a selfish thing but natural. You just have to make sure you don't let your fears of losing your attachment to damage the people you love. If you love someone set them free. But this is different in the Star Wars universe because we are dealing with superheroes. And with great power comes great responsibility, as they say. So it is not right for a Jedi to have attachment in my book. They can love. They should love. But to be attached is to be possessive is to be greedy.

 

My apologies, as this is going to be long.

I think this part of your post exemplifies where we perhaps differ on the meaning behind Star Wars... don't misconstrue what I am saying though, as I do not mean to suggest that one view is right and one is wrong. Quite the contrary. Like all great art, we can each interpret it in a way that is satisfying to us personally.

In any event, I have never viewed Star Wars as being about "superheroes." Sure, the Jedi and the Sith exhibit some supernatural powers, but I think they are much more subtle than perhaps some want those powers to be and expected in the ST. Certainly in the old EU and videogames, Force sensitives have wielded unreal "superhero" powers that I never found within the actual OT. (Upon reflection of TFA, I actually don't like how "powerful" Kylo Ren and Rey were...) But I have never understood the desire for Luke to have progressed into some Force-God that can pull down Star Destroyers or even destroy an entire planet just by the Force of his mind, pun intended. To me, Star Wars has really always been more of a reflection or commentary on human faith and religion, which makes it interesting that you said the following:

Strangely enough, some of the disagreement I have with your view of the Jedi is the same criticism I have of the Christian faith, as you have described above. The Christian faith has gone out of its way to portray Mary Magdalene as a Schutta and to belittle the relationship she had with Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church for centuries has molded and shaped the scriptures (by selecting or outright eliminating certain gospels) to fit into a narrative that it wants to promote, whether historically true or not. Please don't filet me for saying that, it is just my personal opinion and belief.

I see a strong parallel between the Roman Catholic Church and the Empire trying to control the narrative shortly after the destruction of the Second Death Star, Emperor Palpatine, and Darth Vader... the latter being the Inverse Dark Side Space Jesus revered by Kylo Ren, perhaps the Knights of Ren, Acolytes of the Beyond, and so forth (arguably even the Jedi revered Anakin and the "Prophecy" before he fell). Darth Vader was not the perfect dark side messiah, as Snoke and Kylo Ren said, he fell due to "sentiment." Jesus was not perfect either, by the scriptures' own admission, while hanging on the cross, he questioned why his Father had "forsaken" him. I suspect the perfect-messiah propaganda sent out by the Remnants of the Empire would also like to deny that Darth Vader took a wife in Padme' and had children, just as the Christian faith denies that Jesus took a wife in Mary Magdalene and had children.

While I am hesitant to embrace this view of Star Wars entirely (because the divine-savior narrative has been used so much in cinema), I can't deny the parallels that I see, with a dark twist on the Jesus story. Darth Vader was the Dark Side's martyr, the Remnants of the Empire denied his fallibility, his redemption, and perhaps even that he had a wife and children. The children that later come after (the Last of the Jedi) promoting a story of redemption to the light is the Anti-Christ or Anti-Vader. Accordingly, Snoke, Kylo Ren (the true heir to Darth Vader?), and the First Order want to extinguish the voice of the Anti-Vader, who has been kept secret and in hiding until the right time to emerge, rise to power, and lead the Republic to a new stabilized light galaxy, rather than one the the Empire, First Order, Kylo Ren, and Snoke want to keep dark.

I find it interesting that George Lucas was, according to Wookieepedia, "born and raised in a strongly Methodist family. After inserting religious themes into Star Wars he would eventually come to identify strongly with the Eastern religious philosophies he studied and incorporated into his movies, which were a major inspiration for 'the Force.'" Perhaps George Lucas has always been trying to tell us his true, and perhaps reformed views, on the Christian Church, by equating the evil Darth Vader with Jesus, and his preference for eastern religions, the ideals of which the Jedi certainly seem to embody.

In any event, this is all a pretty significant tangent from the original subject of this thread. However, my personal preference and belief is that Luke did in fact deviate significantly from the Old Jedi Code and would reform it differently. Perhaps that has lead him to certain failures and his seclusion. I would humbly submit that the narrative thus far, post-ROTJ, suggests that he may very well have deviated from his predecessors. As I have said before, both having a family and maintaining certain Jedi ideals would obviously be more difficult and involve more temptation. This was also supposed to be the subject of the ST, blurring the lines between good and evil. Finally, this kind of conflict and temptation that Luke and his disciples may face because of the decision to deviate from the Old Jedi Code is exactly what the franchise needed going forward if it was to continue and make Disney billions. It provides a well-spring of ideas for future films.

The Old Jedi ways have been explored and done. In my opinion, it is time for stories involving a different Jedi ideal, one that actually embraces the foundation of faith: family. This is, after all, the Skywalker Saga.

EDIT: Ha ha! Not sure what a "Schutta" is, but let's just say the auto-edit didn't like my term for "a woman of the house of ill-repute."

 

Don't get me wrong - I don't mean literal superheroes. I don't mean Star Wars is about superheroes -just that the Jedi have immense power and so it's order must ensure that this power is used responsibly else it will be used for the Dark Side.

Don't worry, I'm probably the most anti-religious person I know! I personally don't think Jesus existed! But within that myth, I believe that the church wants to preserve the idea, rightly or wrongly, that Jesus never married because it would reduce him from God to man. It would prevent him being the God that loved us all and instead make him the man that loved a woman above everyone else. My point is that the Jedi should have this mindset as really they need to form a oneness with the Force and the galaxy. If they don't, if they are exclusive with their love and attach themselves to people then they won't be acting for the good of the galaxy but for the sake of their own desires, greed and possessions.

Yeah, maybe.

Indeed.

Perhaps. Though I just think he took a great many old myths and the product born from that can thus be attributed to any religious or mythological story. It's much like how in basing Star Wars on historical events and people and the fact that history always tends to repeat itself means that Star Wars will always be pertinent. You can always say things like -"Ahhh, it's the story of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire!" Or "It's about Nazi Germany" Or "It's about America and Nixon in the 60's and 70'!".

It might be that without wise counseling of former Jedi, Luke took the wrong path and this backfired. However, as Solo says (and is fleshed out in the novel from which I will quote):

"He was training a new generation of Jedi. There was no one else left to do it, so he took then burden on himself. Everything was going good, until one boy, an apprentice, turned against him and destroyed it all. Everything Luke had word toward: gone. Luke felt responsible. He walked away from everything".

It appears that Luke was doing well. And I see no reason from his to deviate too far from the Jedi of the PT era. Sure, maybe he will allow Jedi students to know their parents. But in allowing partners and children, it is a recipe for disaster. You're encouraging a Jedi to form an attachment and deviate from their duty.

I think you can have that without Luke ignoring the wisdom of his far greater experienced mentors.

 

I understand. Perhaps I was just using that as an opportunity to jump up on my Luke-Is-Not-A-Force-God soap box.

To be clear, I don't think the Jedi should not strive for this ideal, just as I think all people in society should strive for perfection, even though divine perfection is really unattainable for us. Maybe the difference is, I believe the movies try to have us, the audience, align our beliefs with those of the Jedi. They are our surrogates, our avatars. We are not divine, and neither are the Jedi really. The Force is divine, the Jedi are just the leaders in trying to strive for that ideal. But again, humans are infallible and the divine is truly unattainable. In my mind, the Jedi should, on at least some level, embrace their humanity and not suppress it.

I completely agree with you here. No question George Lucas, and all great storytellers, draw on the same basic mythology. It is why all religions include some of the same basic stories, like the great flood. From my perspective, different religions just tend to differ in who they choose to deify. If you are really interested in this phenomena, old archaeology, and the possibility that human civilization goes back much further than we think (ancient Egypt perhaps being REALLY ancient) with these kind of cyclical religious stories being told, I would recommend a book called "Fingerprints of the Gods" by Graham Hancock.

But wouldn't you agree with me that from strictly a business, corporate, and storytelling perspective, the Star Wars Saga, the Skywalker Saga, needs to go somewhere different from before? I know one of the biggest criticisms of TFA was that it was too similar to ANH. It did manage to set the table for something different going forward though. The OT was decidedly different from the PT, the latter of which fully illustrated the ideals of the Old Jedi Order. Rather than going back to the PT, or even just re-hashing the OT, I think it makes the most sense, both from a business and storytelling vantage point, for there to be an "evolution" of Jedi thought.

There is no question that history is cyclical and we see themes revisited over and over. However, there is almost always a new twist or evolved version of what came before. That is progress. Progress towards what remains to be seen, as it could be good or bad (in universe). For instance, Luke embracing and having a family could have been a misstep. But in any event, that is what I would like to see: a progression and evolution of the story and the Jedi ideals, for better or worse.

 

I would say that there could well be an evolution of the Jedi in terms of allowing Jedi initiates to have a relationship with their parents. I have speculated that a child can naturally move away from (let go of their attachment) their parents. I think having ones parents around could be beneficial, if one learns not to be possessive of them. There was something iffy about Jedi taking babies to become Jedi. However, that is where I'd draw the line. In having a wife or husband and kids you can't avoid being attached and can't really ever let go (of the fear, possessiveness etc) of the selfish side of love you have for them.

It is natural to lose one parents. You build up to that. However, it is tragic to lose ones children and spouse. That is where the danger lies in such an attachment.

 

i am enjoying following this thread (so thank you @master_shaitan and @Dark Toilet).

i've always liked the concept of the Jedi as being a monastic one (and heredity being irrelevant, which is how they propagate ~ one does not need to be born to a priest to become a priest).

and i've never liked the idea of taking children from their families to train them up. the choice to become a Jedi should be a choice. how is this practice any less disturbing than cloning soldiers or some other cultish indoctrination?

i don't know enough about the structured Jedi beliefs/dogma to judge it intelligently, but i do think Luke (as the last) has already kinda broken the mold through his attachment to his own family in some ways. and i think reform is called for given the state of things.

the best reform holds what's good, changes what's not. i believe Luke is wise enough to find balance that does not reject the essential nature of the code but liberates it from whatever might keep it from actualizing a new generation.

how did he fail with Ben? maybe even how did the code fail? that's probably what he's been trying to learn in his exile.

 

I think that whole Anakin redemption and Luke rejecting the Dark Side did quite possibly show that having a family doesn't equate to being attached (as in not willing to let go of your desire to keep them). Anakin sacrificed his life and attachment to power to save Luke. Luke did the same. Both both of course loved each other and Luke still loved Leia. (I would argue that they had gone beyond their attachments however as they both acted utterly selflessly and out of compassion - attachment is a selfish, greedy side of love that wouldn't allow one to act in a way that would lead to self-sacrifice).

So yes, it can be done. You can have a family & not be attached & be a Jedi.

However, my view is that the Skywalker's are an exceptional case than one shouldn't hold up as a blueprint for a Jedi Order. I mean, look at the road Anakin went down before actually doing the right thing. It was his attachment that took him that far. Had he been an infant when he was taken in by the Jedi this wouldn't have happened (more of this later) but alas he was older and attached to his mother. And there seems to be a majority argument for Jedi being taken on at an age where they can make up their own minds (which I support) - so the danger Anakin faced and failed to overcome would be more prevalent if this were the case.

There is something to be said however for the notion that just because something is difficult it doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted - as in, just because it is difficult not to be attached (and possessive and fear losing) ones children it does not mean a Jedi shouldn't try. But my feeling is that this is a massive massive risk. A Jedi's role, duty, is to fight the Dark Side. They have to defeat it within themselves and then defeat it externally, wherever it may rise. Could anyone, Jedi or not, ever be able to resist the Dark Side (anger, fear, hate, aggression, greed) should their children be threatened? Anakin was lucky in that his selfless desire to save Luke tied in with bringing balance, destroying Sidious - that is, it tied in with the Force's will. There were 2 options. Let Luke die, stay with Sidious. Let Luke live, kill Sidious. But for someone else, it might not be so clear. What if their child is threatened and they have to decide whether to save them or complete a mission?

Anyway, my thoughts are that people should choose to be a Jedi. They absolutely should not be taken from birth. I get why the PT Jedi did that - and it appears that parents gave consent and kids could leave the order if they desired, but it is weird. I think Luke should take on youngsters who show a desire to be a Jedi. He should then work with their families in bringing them up. These initiates should try and understand their duty and through that not be possessive of their parents but simply act right by them and the people of the galaxy. Because that is what attachment, or letting go of it, is all about. It's not about casting off others from you - it's about allowing yourself not be dependent upon them and thus projecting your feelings onto them. Again - if you love someone, set them free. However, if these Jedi as they grow up are able to find a partner, get married and have kids then you're opening them up to the Dark Side. You are providing a hurdle too tall for most and an attachment that would require massive determination, training and time to master - a huge distraction from their duty. I think the honour and reward of being a Jedi should be enough for people to accept that they should not have their own family. If the decide they cannot do that, then don't be a Jedi.

 

i'm Catholic, so my interpretation of "attachment" and its application to the Jedi is pretty much in alignment with the analog of the priesthood. while Roman Catholic priests are celibate, Russian orthodox priests can marry and have children, but in all cases, one's service is to God first. so i don't see a contradiction with Jedi having family and yet still honoring their position without undue attachment (and i feel like this is how Luke handles the whole thing with Vader).

so in a very gray area, i agree with you absolutely, but not absolutely ~ hahaha.

because i agree that the Skywalkers aren't the blueprint, but they are all that's left of the Jedi. so to use that metaphor, when a building is destroyed, they don't typically rebuild it brick by brick exactly as it was based on the original blueprint. they'll improve things, update things, add new design elements in keeping with the fashion. and most importantly: if there was a structural problem that caused it to collapse in the first place, they will shore it up to prevent a subsequent collapse.

no matter what happens, i strongly desire Luke to be the model Jedi (in the manner i think we agree on). but i do think there's room for growth/change in the order, which will not necessarily dilute it or make it somehow less pure. it must be incrediby difficult for Russian Orthodox priests to balance their lives between the priesthood and their families. but they manage it. it requires less sacrifice, perhaps, than a celibate life? but it comes with its own challenges too, i'm sure.

i guess my point is there may be more than one way to serve the Force as a Jedi. without "illegitimizing" that service.

 

Absolutely, there's no point in me taking an rigid view on this. That's where Yoda fell on his face! But in using your analogy:

The worst a Russian orthodox Priest could do in failing in their service is perhaps failing to emotionally support someone? Failing to offer advice? Maybe important things to some people. But not earth shattering events. If a Jedi remains attached and unwilling to sacrifice a family for the Jedi Order then we're looking at a being with supernatural powers potentially disrupting the thing that holds good and evil together in the galaxy. That is the power the Jedi and Sith have. They are at the centre of this universe, influencing things to the point where there is either peace or disorder in the galaxy.

 

for people who take their souls seriously, the mistakes of a priest can have catastrophic eternal consequences.
naturally the galaxy in balance is a larger canvas affecting billions more lives, but i think the analogy is sound.
we're just talking about scale.