anyway, textually, attachment includes love. they are not 1:1, of course, but the jedi certainly forbid 'love'. anakin is being tongue-in-cheek and bending the rules when he defines compassion as 'unconditional love' in response to padme's 'wait, isn't love forbiden' [look, I'm explicitly referencing the text and not some random 2007 george lucas interview], and here 'love', in anakin's statement, is used in the more general sense (e.g. love for human kind) not love in the prohibited sense (e.g. for a person, like a spouse or your mother).

the PT movies - the canonical text - do not define attachment, but it is heavily implied and a part of the movies that, as part of the ban on attachment, they forbid loving interpersonal relationships such as familial and spousal relationships.

so like.

pro jedi fans.

sure, in your ideal fantasy world using strung-together sentences from george lucas, who is notoriously inconsistent in his worldbuilding (luke and leia kiss anyone?), attachment takes on the buddhist meaning.

but stop fooling yourself - and trying to fool everyone else - that the PT jedi order does not ban 'love', on a personal scale, under the umbrella of attachment, because then the whole movies kind of crumble (then why was anakin asked to forget his mother? I don't think fearing for your mother's LIFE is unhealthy attachment, particularly when she's enslaved, FFS, he did actually leave her, y'know, crucial part of TPM).

pro jedi fans: it's in the text!

me, scanning the movie scripts: yeah you're full of shit. where did you get this, AO3?

padme: 'jedi aren't allowed to marry'. falling in love is forbidden... because attachment... yadda yadda ya... yoda's literally says 'missing and mourning people is attachment', that's a normal sign of grief, that's not unhealthy at all under normal circumstances

What do you mean I can’t just wing it and spend 2 hours just to end up with a body that is still disproportionate, I actually have to learn? Ughhhhhhhhhh

I see you moots, you band class moots.