#non attachment

[kundalini33]

Whats in alignment will never leave. Therefore Im not worried

[writerbuddha]

Good morning, @writerbuddha. Is the idea of ​​attachment being forbidden by the Jedi something that George had when making the Prequels in the 90s/2000s or is it something he has always had since the OT, in the 70s and 80s?

Hello! :)

He probably had the idea back in the 70s and 80s. There's a clear indication that George Lucas had the idea that there's a facet or aspect of "love" that walks hand in hand with fear, anger, hate and aggression, and that a Jedi Knight must be able to rise above them. In the 2000s, he said that Luke and Anakin faced the same issues, the fear of losing someone they love, from which erupted anger and hate and aggression, but while Anakin said yes, Luke said no. Even if it's not spelled out in the 70s-80s, non-attachment is there.

In the first Star Wars trilogy (70s-80s), Obi-Wan and Yoda do not give a teaching on attachment to Luke, they teach him that anger, fear and aggression, as well as hate are what make up the dark side, and that being consumed by them is what makes Darth Vader who he is during the trilogy. However, Obi-Wan warns Luke, his feelings for Leia "do you credit, but they could be made to serve the Emperor," and when Luke confronts Vader, his father suggests that if Luke won't join him, he will try to turn Leia instead. Luke reacts with anger, fear, hate and aggression, attacking and maiming him. The Emperor takes delight in and urges him to stay in that state of mind, strike Vader down and take his place at his side. But Luke manages to get his fear, anger, hate and aggression under control, and he chooses to be compassionate.

In the second trilogy (90s-2000s), a distinction is made between fearful love, which is attachment and possession, and fearless love, which is compassion and unconditional. Attachment and possession are forbidden for a Jedi Knight, as they're identified as the shadow of greed, locked together with the fear of loss, whereas compassion is central to the Jedi's life, who live selflessly for others.

[the-wandering-wayseeker]

I think the most frustrating/disheartening misconception I often see about Star Wars, and the Jedi specifically, is the misguided notion that love and attachment are one and the same. Which in turn leads to fundamental misunderstandings of who the Jedi are and what their teachings on non-attachment mean. While you absolutely can be attached to those you love, you do not need attachment to have love for someone. That's as true in Star Wars as it is in real life. The reason that Jedi teach non-attachment is because attachment leads to suffering, and suffering is a path to the Dark Side. This, like many other facets of Jedi philosophy, takes inspiration from Buddhism. Buddhism teaches non-attachment for the same reason: to mitigate or eliminate suffering, which is caused by greed, delusion, and/or aversion. This does not mean that the Jedi are forbidden from loving others. They are forbidden from developing attachments to others, which is why the Order, by the time of the Clone Wars, has outright banned romantic relationships. It's hard to be in a romantic relationship without attachment. But Jedi can love, and do. We see beautiful friendships throughout Star Wars. Parental-like relationships between Master and Padawan. Sibling-like relationships between Master and Padawan. Outside of the Clone Wars era, especially in the High Republic, we often see the Jedi in acts of loving service. Obviously, what that looks like varies from individual to individual, but that loving compassion for all living things is absolutely instrumental to being a Jedi.

[lazyyogi]

If you look to others for fulfillment, you will never truly be fulfilled. If your happiness depends on money, you will never be happy with yourself. Be content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.

Lao Tzu

[arabdoll]

Every day we all meet ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. Once you see what sort of person they are, you will realize there is no need to be racked with anxiety that they should hold any particular opinion about you.

Marcus Aurelius

[hobbitinnumenor]

30-Day Tolkien Challenge 🧝🏻‍♂️🧝🏻‍♀️📖🤓⚔️🐴✨️ Day 16: Favorite Quote

"Love not too well the work of thy hands and the devices of thy heart." ~Ulmo in "The Silmarillion

I'm a yogi, and my personal path in adulthood has involved a lot of learning to accept, to practice non-attachment. This quote deeply resonates with the woman who's been through that journey 🙏🏻🌊🌬✨️

🎨 "Ulmo, Lord of Waters" by John Howe, via Tolkien Gateway

[shanquarius]

Boundaries are truly a deep form of self love. I thought I knew what self love was but still found myself putting others needs above my own because I wanted to protect them from the treatment I have both given and received. I learnt the hard way that this approach often just opens the door for others to take advantage of you. By respecting your own limits and not trying to please everyone you really honour your true self and naturally attract people who mirror that same respect and authenticity.

- shanquarius

[tranquil-slaughterhouse]

[alayah-moss]

“If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind” - Ram dass

[turiyatitta]

“At the zenith of non-attachment, we uncover the paradox of true life: not a possession to be clutched but a boundless flow that nourishes from a realization of interconnectedness, guiding us back to our essence, woven into the fabric of all that is.”

[kundalini33]

Im learning to love without attachment.

To release the grip of expectation and just let people be.

I’m learning that real love isn’t about holding on tight or trying to shape someone into what you need - it’s about accepting them as they are, where they are, even if that version never changes.

Loving freely means honoring your own boundaries, yes,

but also giving others the space to grow, stumble, heal… or not.

It’s not always easy.

But it’s teaching me grace.

It’s teaching me patience.

And most of all, it’s teaching me that love isn’t about possession..

it’s about presence.

And I can still love deeply

without needing to grip tightly.

[writerbuddha]

Even Padmé wasn't a Jedi, did she have attachments to Anakin?

Well, it's very important to understand that non-attachment is not restricted to the Jedi - it's not a religious vow or rule or concept. It's to close the gap between reality and how you approach to it: you are not trying to acquire permanent happiness through possessing and having impermanent things. Jedi Knights are not supposed to have attachments, it's not a Jedi-specific quality. Han Solo also let go of his attachment to Leia in Episode VI, when he was genuinely willing to stand aside so she and Luke could be together, if that would make Leia happier. Shmi Skywalker didn't have attachment to Anakin: her love wasn't about how happy Anakin makes her, but how happy she wants Anakin to be. So, she let him go, even though being without him was unpleasant for her. Jedi Knights are cultivating this attitude toward everyone, they're trained to love without grasping or clinging on the people they love, without wanting them to stay in their lives and stay as they are, to make themselves happy.

I would not say that Padmé was attached to Anakin, since she was able to let go of him. At the end of Episode III, she never ceased to love him - wanting him to be happy and free from suffering - but she was able to tell him that she cannot and won't follow him on the path he is going down, even if it means, she will have to live without him. In Clone Wars, it was her who effectively ended their relationship, even though later they reconciled, and although she ultimately did not sacrifice Anakin for keeping Grievous a prisoner, it was clear that she was seriously considering it, and her choice wasn't born out of fear of not having him in her life. She traded Grievous for Anakin only after the Gungans, who lost many of their own to capture the droid general, urged her to do so. That was a more complex situation, involving the conundrum of sacrifice for a meaningful victory vs. sacrifice that leads to victory but makes victory hollow.

So, I say that her flaws are mirroring Luke's flaws. As George Lucas says about Luke leaving Dagobah in Episode V, "[Luke is] being succumbed by his emotional feelings for his friends rather than the practical feelings of “I’ve got to get this job done before I can actually save them. I can’t save them, really.” But he sort of takes the easy route, the arrogant route, the emotional but least practical route, which is to say, “I’m just going to go off and do this without thinking too much.” And the result is that he fails and doesn’t do well for Han Solo or himself." In the same way, Padmé is succumbed to her emotional feelings of being in love with Anakin, rather than the practical feelings of "it would destroy us, he is a Jedi, I am a Senator, it won't work, we love each other but we can't be together." She takes the emotional but least practical route, which is to say, "I know it's a doomed relationship and I won't be happy with it but I'm so in love, I will do it anyway." Which is not exactly attachment.

[nvraln]

when you first hear "your thoughts don't belong to you" it sounds so unrealistic... then as you become more conscious of your inner thoughts.... you're able to find the source of each thought and then it all starts to make sense

[cobotis]

Be clear that there is no reality, happiness or identity in thoughts. Then you stop looking there... Thoughts are not the problem. But looking for yourself in them was the error...

~ John Wheeler

[santmat]

“The world is like an army of stars in the dawn sky. Sahajo says: they will not stay. Like a pearl of dew, like water in the hollow of your hands. The mind makes a fortress of smoke and creates a glorious kingdom there. It is a game of hide and seek, Sahajiya, nothing happens. No truth is told. Know that the world is false, only the soul remains. Sahajo says: know the true Self, which time cannot destroy.” (Sant Sahjo Bai)

[epitome-the-burnkid-viii]