When it comes to the connection between Buddhism and the Jedi teachings on not forming attachments in Lucas' Star Wars, I see that many fans - whether they identify as "pro Jedi" or "anti Jedi" - are confused about what "attachment" supposed to be mean in Buddhism.
“Anti-Jedi” fans try to excuse and legitimize their misinterpretation of the Jedi teaching by arguing, "attachment" has a very specific meaning in Buddhism, so once non-attachment is “taken out of its Buddhist context,” for the average English-speaking Star Wars fan, it can only be interpreted as “non-love.” By contrast, many “Pro-Jedi” fans have a tendency to simply stop at “respecting the Buddhist inspiration” of Lucas’ Jedi doctrine, and insist, what it really means is clinginess and obsession (implying, Anakin was like Joe Goldberg from You.)
Both kinds of fans are mistaken. When they hear that in Buddhist philosophy non-attachment does not mean the absence of love or connection, rather, it connotes clinging, grasping and the inability to let go, they're quickly conclude that the kind of attachment the Buddha warns against has nothing to do with their “normal attachments” or “normal love.”
This is not so.
Buddhist teachings highlight a simple fact of life we all know at some level but we don’t wish to face with: whatever we think we have, we can never truly have it. No matter how deeply we want to have a mother, a spouse, or anyone we love, who makes us feel good, we can never truly have — or own or possess — them. Everything changes; nothing lasts forever. All that brings us happiness must eventually pass beyond our reach. Any kind of love that resists this — any kind of love that has the element of the desire for someone or something to stay in our lives, to stay as they are, to not to change — is an attachment, a grasping, a clinging a Buddhist must cease. The Buddha taught that attachment is the cause of our suffering: all reality is impermanent, yet we want the things we like or love to be permanent.
“In our society,” the Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, born Diane Perry, writes in her book, The Heroic Heart, “we believe that the more we are attached, the more loving we are. But it is simply not true. Attachment is tricky, but basically it means ‘I want you to make me happy and to make me feel good.’ Conversely love says, ‘I want you to be happy and to make you feel good.’ It doesn’t say anything about me… The important thing is that love allows us to hold things gently instead of grasping tightly. It is an important difference.” She explains, “The test of whether we are attached or not is how we feel if we lose something or someone we love. Are we holding on with both hands or are willing to let go? Inwardly, we need to be able to let go. It’s only when we grasp tightly that we have a problem.”
“Attachment” is a sticky word. In its literal sense, it refers to a tie or a fastening. Figuratively, it denotes an emotional fastening. When gentle, it’s seen as love, liking, or connection; when strong, it’s seen as clinging. Here, we encounter the first, basic problem: what exactly do we mean by “love”? Tenzin Palmo observes: “In English, ‘love’ is a very multifaceted word. It’s very misused, as we all know. We say, ‘I love my parents, I love my children, I love my partner, I love ice-cream, I love walks in the country, I love television, I love football, I love to meditate…’ All these words for love have very different connotations. We are talking about very different emotions: romantic love, altruistic love, mere pleasure, etc.” Attachment a kind of love, but what kind of love is it? In simple terms, attachment is a kind of love that says, “you make me happy, so I care for you, I want to be close to you, I don’t want to be without you.” The English word attachment refers to the feeling that you like or love someone or something and that you would be unhappy without them – a feeling of affection or fondness that is characterized by a resistance to be without the person or the thing you like or love. Whenever feelings of loving or liking have the shadow of the fear of loss, we’re talking about attachment.
Batja Mesquita, the social psychologist and affective scientist who studied how the concept of “love” is tailored to interactions and relationships in particular cultural contexts, pointed out that in the Western/Westernized world, “for the most part love is felt for people who offer something we want, need or like; who are psychologically or physically attractive; and who need, love or appreciate us back.” In this context, “Love means giving attention to your loved one — sometimes at the expense of attention for other things — wanting to be close to them, expressing your positive feelings for them, to hug, hold, cuddle, touch, pet (if it is an animal), kiss, and, in case of romantic relationship, have sex with them.” Love “singles out and elevates one particular individual” and it’s ultimately built around the goal of “to be united in mutual admiration, attraction, or longing.” It should be easy to see, why, in this cultural landscape, the notion of not having attachments is so often and so quickly equated as not loving family, friends, pets, possessions, and decried as unhealthy, even malicious. After all, many people insist, what is love if not attachment? “I think it’s fair to say that Americans have some unhealthy concepts around the ideas of love and relationships” says Alex Kakuyo, Buddhist teacher and a former marine “For us, love is attachment-based, almost to the point of obsession.”
The real difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists is that a Buddhist would recognize the difference between the feelings and relationships lumped into the board category of “love,” and identify attachment - the kind of love that’s characterized by a desire for the things and people we love to not to leave our lives - as grasping and clinging, an unrealistic and self-centered desire for coming and passing things to stay as they are so they can keep us happy.
In Attack of the Clones, when Padmé tells him, she thought, to love is “forbidden for a Jedi,” Anakin discerns two kinds of love: attachment, grouped together with possession, and compassion, which he says, he would define as unconditional love. Unfortunately, many viewers opted for the interpretation that Anakin tries to convince Padmé that compassion would include passionate love, with some Tumblr users even altering the quote, changing “unconditional love” to “unlimited love." Anakin’s statement, meant to convey Lucas philosophy that love is compassion and not attachment, is way too often dismissed as nonsense. Alex Kane wrote in a now-deleted article for StarWars.com:
"I’ll admit that when I first saw Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, I thought Anakin was stretching the truth when he told Padmé compassion was “central to a Jedi’s life.” The idea that Jedi “are encouraged to love” seemed like the kind of thing you’d say to a beautiful senator if you wanted her to fall in love with you, despite whatever the Jedi Code might have to say about it. But now, with years of hindsight, I understand Skywalker was speaking the truth. Heroism isn’t about brandishing a certain color lightsaber; it’s marked by loving-kindness for all living things."
Yoda: Careful you must be when sensing the future, Anakin. The fear of loss is a path to the dark side. Anakin Skywalker: I won't let those visions come true, Master Yoda. Yoda: Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them, do not. Miss them, do not. Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed that is. Anakin Skywalker: What must I do, Master Yoda? Yoda: Train yourself to let go ... of everything you fear to lose.
Lucas really was extremely explicit and clear. Entire thesis of the saga right there.
Love that scene so much. The slatted window is forever imprinted on my mind.
I only saw the original post but I found this in the reblogs and I want to go off on this a bit.
The Jedi are absolutely encouraged to love. Anakin and Obi Wan and Anakin and Ahsoka are proof of this. There is absolutely love there. Obi Wan demonstrates it with Qui Gon too, love is not the problem. It's the attachment. In Anakin we see this twice. His mother and Padme. And THEN Obi Wan. (TBF, I have not seen the Ahsoka series so it could be there too.)
Looking at his mother first, her connection is disjointed. It's the first time that Yoda sees there might be a problem. But when Aanakin kills the sand people over his mother's death. That's how we should know what's coming. Not that he will fall to the dark side, but that he forms unhealthy attachments to people as part of his identity. He does something painfully un-Jedi to deal with the loss of his mother. Was it unjust? Yes. Did he try to save her? Yes. Was Obi Wan possibly not the best influence in this case (Qui Gon and Darth Maul) yes, very possibly. But it's not just about ending the person that caused the injustice, which may be more in-line with the Jedi way, it's about making more people suffer for the injustice. This is where he goes too far. None of us would have faulted him for killing the specific individuals responsible for his mother's death. (Obi Wan and Darth Maul) The Jedi believe themselves responsible for justice. But he took it too far because a part of his identity, his attachment, was destroyed.
So now let's look at Padme. He has lost the other HUGE bond in his life, so he's going to double down on his other attachments, and Padme is #1. So on top of that he's going to deepen his trauma to loss, his fears are going up, he is putting his attachment higher on Padme, and now he's getting visions of losing her. I'm going to compare this with Ahsoka as well.
In TCA, Ahsoka leaves. It upsets Anakin, it's going to deepen all of the above traumas with Padme, but he doesn't lose his mind. He doesn't lose a piece of his identity. He lets her go. It's hard, but he does. Because his identity is not tied up in Ahsoka in the same way. This is the Jedi way. To have loved her while she was with him and to put her above himself, and when she needs to go, to love her in that as well. This is Buddhism, you love them when they are there, deeply, entirely, and when they are not there, you love them when they go. (It's honestly, in my mind, a lot like how ADHD/ADD people experience a lack of object permanence. I adore my friends. I would give anything for them if they needed it. And when their life gets busy and I don't hear from them for a while. I send a prayer their way and move on. And when they come back? It's like nothing has changed. I will love you just as much as before.) Similarly, Obi Wan might be the same during TCA. He knows he may lose him in battle and he loves him anyway.
Padme though. It's the way that he has attached his identity to her. Losing her would fundamentally change his identity within himself the same way it did with his mother. Losing Padme wasn't the problem. It was the possibility of losing her that set him off so badly that he does everything to stop it. Not even the event, the possibility of the event.
Now the battle on Mustafar. At this point Anakin has lost his entire identity. This is why it's hard to talk about whether or not he lost anything else when Obi Wan defeated and left him there. He is nothing but rage and pain at this point. He can't comprehend the loss of Obi Wan. (I have not seen the Obi Wan series and cannot speak on their reunion.)
The Jedi way, Buddhism, is NOT about not loving. It's not about loving someone entirely. It's about loving people as they change, it's about loving people as you change. As a child becomes an adult, as an adult goes into another change in their life, as a person dies. You love people where they are. And while they can influence your life, you must not let something outside your control control your identity.
Buddhism is about transcending this life by being a lotus in the mud. Your being is above the space beneath you. You still love, get married, but you let people come in and out of your life and do your best to give them the best of yourself. But in the end, the goal is to realize you're all part of the whole and to let go of the attachments because life and death is just not as separating as we like to think. It's all one.
The Jedi way is to be part of the Force. Dying does not separate you. You just join the Force. ("I am one with the Force, the Force is one with me." Rogue One does a wonderful job of showing that loss can hurt, but it is a transcendence, not an end.)
I'm going to make one more comparison. We all talk about unhealthy, toxic, abusive relationships, think back to when you read a post about person A needing person B to be one type of way. Person A needs B to be that way for their own identity. Because person B's identity doesn't matter as much. It's not about loving B, it's about loving B the way that A wants them to be. We see this a lot with parents.
But also think about relationships and how often you've heard "he's a really great guy, he just hates it when I X." A is an amazing person unless B threatens that sense of identity (this could be as simple as leaving the dishes in the sink and B gets a little upset - their identity is to have a clean house; it is similar to leaving the dishes in the sink and B beats A - their identity is to have A so under their control that A does everything the way that B wants. These are not similar in their abuse, they are similar in the way that A interprets their identity by the actions of B). This one and the above are unhealthy attachments. Where A has to control who B is or control the way in which they see B and when it doesn't live up to that it becomes unhealthy.
This was really long winded. You're welcome.
I always go back to a post on here I saw years ago that said that the way to have truly saved Anakin in a way that would have made him happy, would have been to put him in charge of the younglings when they first joined. When they're newly separated and scared and need that paternal figure. Anakin needs that kind of love, he would have been amazing at it, being their parent and their guardian. And he would have had to let the younglings go when they aged out of the program. Because life is to move on and change. And losing younglings to the exciting part of their life where they get a mentor and enter the program would have been a safe way for Anakin to experience loving and losing.
