SPECULATION Lukes New JEDI Code

The thing is, NOTHING that we've ever seen of Luke indicates that he'd agree with the "no attachments" idea, nothing. Quite the reverse in fact. And Rey, she has even less reason to buy into that still (he whole life has been about wanting family, love, companionship, and a place to belong).

 

His actions shows us he agrees with it.
He lets go of his attachment to greed, power and the lives of those he loves - and refuses to fight saying he is a Jedi. That is letting go of attachments.

But for me it is what Maz says that is important: She can find her belonging with Luke - as a Jedi.
Maz basically tells her, for all intent and purposes, that her family is dead and she needs to find her own way. Her own life.
That life is with Luke - training to be a Jedi. As a Jedi she will find ultimate belonging and fulfillment.
She'll find her bliss.

 

1. No, nothing indicates that yet. We don't know why he left yet.

2. That'd be so freaking depressing. I DESPISE the whole "hero must have crappy personal life, or they're not truly heroes" crap. It's cliché, it's lazy, it's annoying, and it sends entirely the wrong message. And the idea that Rey, after being alone for so long, has to be alone forever just to be a Jedi, no. That'd be a TERRIBLE idea from a writing perspective.

3. The "no attachment" rule was a poorly-conceived retcon on Lucas's part so that he could do the godawful "doomed romance" between Anakin and Padme.

Heaven forbid she get to be an awesome Jedi doing awesome Jedi stuff and have a family if she chooses. A hero who can have both and make it work, what a novel concept in fiction. That sounds FAR more interesting, and would her character FAR more.

 

I meant his actions in ROTJ.
If he continued on the Dark Side path he could've got more power, saved Leia & co, and lived himself. But he saw two things:
1. If he did that he would become Vader.
2. That by letting go of his selfish desires he can overcome the Dark Side and whatever will be will be.

Luke does exactly that - he lets go of everything he is attached to. He sees that those feelings of attachments were leading him to the Dark Side.
His anger at potentially losing Leia started it and then the power that gripped him furthered it. But he let go.
So after this action, which results in his father being redeemed, do you think he is then going to go on an suggest that attachment is a good thing?

It shows the ultimate hero for me. Sacrificing things that mean lot to them for the greater good. And being a Jedi is a fulfilling life. If it wasn't, the ten thousand strong Jedi Order in the PT wouldn't have existed.

A retcon? Did you see Obi Wan or Yoda shacked up with anyone?
How many superhero flicks are there where the hero has to let go of having a partner or family?
Spiderman had to reject being with Mary Jane. In the recent Batman films, Bruce Wayne had to let go of Rachel. Superman does the same with Lois I think in Superman 2. I dunno, it just happens a lot. And it happens for two reasons. Firstly, their loved ones will be targeted. Secondly, that this will compromise the hero and prevent them from being the hero and in fact might turn them into the villain.

 

I have to disagree with this idea that Luke gave up all of his attachments and that was the reason he prevailed at the end of ROTJ. There was one particular attachment that was the most important one that allowed his other attachments to continue on: Luke's attachment to his father.

And to modernize it a bit, let's use another word for attachment that is very prevalent in TFA: sentiment. Snoke has twisted Kylo Ren into thinking that Vader's sentiment (or attachment to his son) was his weakness, ultimately leading to the fall of the Empire. He is successful in convincing Kylo Ren that if he just lets go of his sentiment for (or attachment to) his father (and other family), he can finally extinguish the light.

It is a very poignant mirroring of the old Jedi code: In the PT and OT, Jedi were told to avoid attachments (sentiment), which in my mind indirectly led to the rise of evil and the Empire. Now, the Supreme Leader of the First Order is telling his apprentice to do the same thing, let go of his sentiment toward (attachment to) his family in order to extinguish the light and allow the Dark Side to prevail. This symbolism and mirroring makes it crystal clear to me that the old Jedi dogma about no attachments was flat out wrong. It is not whether you have attachments or sentiment toward others, but it is what you do with those emotions. That is what the new Jedi Code (or rules) should emphasize.

And, oh by the way, Luke's sentiment toward his father (attachment) was exactly the reason why he prevailed over Emperor Palpatine. I imagine that until that moment, when Luke demonstrated his attachment, sentiment and love for his father, Anakin no longer believed he could ever be loved again. Love, sentiment, attachment to others... that is the ultimate weapon against evil. Luke already proved it once and I imagine he will prove it again, whether directly or by proxy through his new apprentice, Rey.

EDIT: As I think about this more, it is a really beautiful and subtle way this movie delves into the rumored subject of the ST, the difference between right and wrong and how the lines between the two can be blurred. We have this parallel of giving-up-attachments, as well as the Stormtroopers-taken-as babies-just-like-the-Old-Jedi. Any others I am missing?

 

"But I was going to go to Tosche Station to pick up some power converters!"

"But it's a whole 'nother year!"

 

Sorry... poor attempt to interject some humor in a serious thread I guess.

 

Power + Save his friends and sister (because of his feelings of attachment thus close to joining the dark side to do this).

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 10, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 10, 2016 ---

That's very well written and the idea of sentiment stemming from attachment is a compelling one.

However you're using the term "attachment" to directly mean sentiment which, although technically quite sound, I believe isn't quite the intention in the Star Wars films. Attachment in this context means something you "love" and desire and want to make your own (become a possession). You want to make it exclusive to only you. It's something you want to take for yourself. Now the issue with this and being a Jedi is that the Jedi serve the Force and have essentially a Buddhist mentality of being connected with all living things already. Equally. You are one with everything so to speak. What these attachments do is attempt to break that. You lose focus on the whole and think of the self. This is problematic for a person who has the power of the Devine as essentially they can do terrible things when following this desire, this attachment.

Now the thing with the use of the term sentiment is that in my view Snoke uses it as a derogatory term. He uses it because of the negative connotations it has regarding weakness and yes attachment. It wasn't sentiment that called Vader back to the light, it was unconditional love and compassion. The ultimate power of the light - that the Jedi have always encouraged.

Sentiment, attachment, desire etc suggest you love something or someone but that selfish desires and involved. Vader's act of saving Luke was utterly selfless as with it it, he gave his own life.

So in my view, Snoke is wrong. Clouded by the Dark Side. Or rather he is talking this way to play down the power of love and compassion to keep Kylo turned away from the light.

 

I'm a fan of the ideas and the spitit of the Jedi code, less in love with how it is written, or how useful it is as a guide to Jediness. (Runs and hides.)

Also, I'm not convinved Luke lets go of his 'attatchments' or gives up his 'sentimentality' in ROTJ, as such. I think he more surrended himself to the light and trusted in the will of the force, come what may. It was an extreme demonstration of faith which ultimately tipped the balance for the galaxy.

And as much as I bask in Yada's awesomeness, he was not infallible. An example of how the code and Yoda didn't do Annikin Skywalker any favours was when Anikin confesses to Yoda about his visions of Padme, and he schools him to 'Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose?' How'd that one work out? Might have been better off trying to inspire some hope in the poor guy along the lines of "Always in motion is the future ', and encouraging him to keep his faith and trust in the lightside of the force. Perhaps helping him to rise above his emotions, instead of supressing them, would have given the guy a little more faith in himself and the force, and helped him exorcise his fear and anger a bit, making him less sussceptable to the darkside.

Avoiding attachments/sentiments seems to me to be the easier way to remain calm and peaceful ect. Having attachments and rising above fears/desires associated with those attachments, and having a more powerful trust and faith in the light and the force is hard. But ultimately, I think, more powerful.


Further, in regards to the specific usefulness of the code.

'There is no emotion, there is peace.'
Aren't people who maim and kill in a calm and detached manner known as serial killers? How does this statement help one rise above and master ones emotions to find peace?

'There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.'
Pooey, of course there is ignorance. Recognizing ones own ignorance is the first step to knowledge. The aquisition of knowledge never ends, no matter how much knowledge you have, there is always more to find out.

'There is no passion, there is serenity.'
Not much to say, except perhaps to ponder how useful the previous statement is in comparison to the serenity prayer: Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. Courage (passion?) to change the things I cannot accept, and wisdom to know the difference.

'There is no chaos, there is harmony.'
Don't mind this one as much, the perception of chaos depends on your observational scale, or point of view, anyway, just look at fractals.

'There is no death, there is the force.'
Nothing to add here that hasn't been mentioned, escept 'there are worse things than death.'

Just reiterating this is only my point of view, please feel free to help me change it, and don't flame me too hard.

 

An attachment isn't something that could go both ways though - it already is on the selfish end of the spectrum. If you have an attachment then you have become possessive of something or someone. You desire it for yourself. A Jedi must be selfless in serving the Force

You're kind of making a straw man argument there. The Jedi are calm when they face their enemies and go into battle - but they aren't detached from their actions in the sense that they are unthinking, uncaring or devoid of compassion. The calmness and peace they practice allows them to think clearly and then take the right course of action - that sometimes means killing, yes.

But that's what they're saying here. You shouldn't ever be ignorant. You should always learn.

Passion in this sense is about acting on your emotions. Acting on things you desire, lust after - it's about greed. "You will know when you are calm, passive, at peace", is Yoda's response to Luke's question about how he will no the difference from a good and bad decision.

No flaming do you require, already know you, that what you need!

 

Is it confirmed anywhere that Luke is currently at the First Temple? I've only seen the film and I just picked up Han saying something like [paraphrase] "those who knew him best thought he went off in search of the first Jedi Temple". I may well be missing something here!

Me neither. I never saw the Jedi emphasis on defense as a pacifist or non violent approach so much as a tactic toward self-protection from the dark side/anger combination.

Maybe a defense over attack reference wouldn't be remiss in a new Code. Luke's treatment of Vader reminded me of Lincoln's "am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends with them?"

That Code sounds full of logical and ethical absurdities to me too. I don't have nearly as many issues with the version the way it is presented in Kanan 7: First Blood, Part I: The Corridors of Coruscant:

Emotion, yet peace.
Ignorance, yet knowledge.
Passion, yet serenity.
Chaos, yet harmony.
Death, yet the Force.

I would add something like "to respect strength, never power." (Jedi do seem to be their own worst enemy.)

“Reason, to be accurate, must be supplemented by emotion.” - Reinhold Niebuhr

This sounds like wisdom to me. It works for both anger and love - good awareness of the difficulties these emotions may put one in and strategies to minimize negative effects sounds like good Jedi training to me.

 

My view on the Jedi Code:
Some people argue that attachment is what helped Luke in Jedi. Other say that the opposite it true.
That's not what matters.
See, unlike what the Jedi Council said, attachment isn't the problem. It's how it makes a person acts. It's the living in fear of losing what you consider yours that leads to the Dark Side. The Jedi, ironically, went with the easy path towards fighting against this by simply training from birth and not letting them form said attachments. Instead, what they should have done is teach their students how to deal with their emotions instead of denying it. I'm not saying to let their emotions fuel their actions, but to accept your feelings as natural, but you should remain in control and be compassionate, not angry.

TL;DR - They should have taught Anakin how to deal with his fear of loss (and lower his yandere-like tendencies) instead of just telling him not to be attached to anyone. Attachment isn't the problem, fear is.

On Jedi sex (I can't believe I had to write that):
George Lucas said in an interview circa Attack of the Clones that Jedi aren't celibate. Not all sex means that there is an attachment. Casual sex is a thing.

On a related note:
There honestly seems to be two Jedi Codes. One is the whole mantra, the other seems to be an actual set of rules instead of philosophy. Seriously, where does it say in that mantra that romantic relationships are forbidden? Or that a Jedi can only have one apprentice? Or that it is wrong to spy on the Supreme Chancellor? Or that it is wrong to kill an unarmed (literally or figuratively) opponent?
I think I know where the problem lies. The often quoted Jedi Code originated in the old West End Games RPG. That was first published in October of 1987 and was the foundation for what would become the EU (the various books were given to Timothy Zahn when he was writing the Thrawn Trilogy, which really kicked off the EU as we knew it). Lucas had very little to do with it or any of the EU materials, usually only intervening when he felt like it (like when it was decided to kill a film character in the New Jedi Order series, Lucas intervened and vetoed Luke, Han, or Leia. Or when he randomly declared that there would be no more Wookiee Jedi...which was later randomly undeclared when The Clone Wars had a Wookiee youngling). When it came time for the making of the prequels, Lucas mostly ignored what others have done and did his own thing (a rare exception being the name Coruscant, for example, but it was mostly minor things like this). This lead to him dropping references to the Jedi Code without going into details. His references clashed with what had been written a decade prior to the release of The Phantom Menace. And thanks to the novel Dark Disciples (which was written originally as an arc for The Clone Wars prior to it's cancellation) as well as the comic Kanan: The Last Padawan, the old mantra code is still canon, continuing this confusion.
When it comes to the Jedi Code, act as if there are two separate Codes: one more philosophical ("There is no emotion, there is peace...") and one that act as the rules of conduct for the Order and its members. It's simpler.

I have to say, this is kriffing brilliant.

This is also kriffing brilliant.

 

Lol, probably. (Jumps into the larva at Mustafar.)

As I said, its the wording I think that limits the usefulness as a tool for growing Jediness, I completely agree with the 'spirit' and concepts of the code. Just think it could be expressed in a less gnostic way to make it more helpful for those who havent achieved the rank of Jedi master yet. Obviously, I am a Padowan. I think perhaps I was trying to demonstrate how much room there is for floudering and misinterpretation, in addition to trying to encourage critical examination and alternate perspectives.

 

That's an interesting shout. So you're suggesting the map to Luke shows his path so far, where he is currently - he hasn't found the temple yet? Interesting...

Look at it this way - had Luke not let go of his attachment to his sister and friends and the power he felt when he used the Dark Side, had he not let go of that and instead continued supplementing it with the emotions of anger and hatred - what would have happened? Clearly, he would've turned evil.

By saying he let go of his attachments it isn't saying he stopped loving Leia or whatever. It is simply saying he let go of his need or desire to keep things for himself. To hold onto that which he desires because he desires it. Because he is attached. Because he is thinking of himself.

Instead Luke lets go of the things he wants to keep (loved ones and power) - letting go of his attachments. And he instead acts out of selflessness. Sacrificing himself for the greater good.

I think this is where many people are going wrong with attachments. They see them as a neutral thing, potentially positive, that can go either way. But that isn't the case here. The two ends of the spectrum in being a Jedi and Sith is essentially selflessness and selfishness. Compassion and greed. If you are attached to something then you are more on the side of selfishness. You aren't acting as though you are one with everything - you have made one thing or one person exclusive to you and your actions will then be focused on that things or person you have become possessive over.

The example is there with Luke and Anakin - and how they both react when Padme and Leia are threatened. This turns Anakin evil and almost does the same to Luke. The attachment itself is the selfish desire to keep the person yourself. Make him or her a part of you rather than understanding that in fact, we are all one or that as a Jedi that is how you should think.

Luke overcomes this by letting go of his desires, his attachments. And when he does that he is rewarded as it reignites the light in Anakin who then, finally lets go of his attachments (power, hatred) and acts out of unconditional love and compassion for his son. Had he let go of his possessiveness and attachment to Padme (extremely difficult once he has gone down the path he did with her and they're having a kid) then she wouldn't have died. That was the symbolism of her death - Anakin's selfishness and greed killed her.

This is where I would deviate slightly from my basic position and suggest that the RULES not the CODE was too rigid. I say this because it prevented them from being able to train Anakin, The Chosen One, as well as they needed to. Anakin should never have been taken away from his mother at the age he was. Instead, the Jedi should've adapted and, fairly or unfairly, treated Anakin differently. He was an exceptional case. And like I say, I don't think it wold be a bad decision to allow children to have a family life as well as train to be a Jedi. I think that could be helpful and you could still train them to let go of the things they might become attached to, such as parents and siblings. Again, that doesn't mean they can't love them. You just have to be able to let go of your possessiveness of them and put the will of the Force above them. I believe having a wife and children is different as it is next to impossible not to be attached to them completely. The action of getting married itself is an act of separation from the whole and making someone exclusive to you and you to them. And having kids creates a natural attachment both ways that really prevents you from thinking about anything or anyone else!

Yeah, that's my take on it. There is the code. There are the rules for the Jedi Order. The former is fine as it is. The latter requires some work.

Why thank you. I feel bad for arguing against your points now! But alas, I will do what I must!

 

Not really. Just testing my assumptions here.

• Assuming his friends best guess at his whereabouts was correct.
• Assuming he found the Temple he was searching for.
• Assuming he stayed at said Temple and that it is the settlement remains on the island we find him at.

Prob off-topic but I'm curious if I missed something else in the film, in the books, or it's so obvious it should be assumed.