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.
āAnti-Jediā 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 ātaken out of its Buddhist context,ā for the average English-speaking Star Wars fan, it can only be interpreted as ānon-love.ā By contrast, many āPro-Jediā fans have a tendency to simply stop at ārespecting the Buddhist inspirationā of Lucasā Jedi doctrine, and insist, what itĀ reallyĀ meansĀ 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 quick to conclude that the kind of attachment the Buddha warns against has nothing to do with their ānormal attachmentsā or ānormal love.ā
Buddhist teachings highlight a simple fact of life we all know at some level but we donāt wish to face with: whatever we think we have, we can never truly have it. No matter how deeply we want toĀ haveĀ a mother, a spouse, or anyone we love, who makes us feel good, we can never trulyĀ haveāāāor own or possessāāāthem. Everything changes; nothing lasts forever. All that brings us happiness must eventually pass beyond our reach. Any kind of love that resists thisāāāany 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 changeāāāis 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.
āIn our society,ā the Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo, born Diane Perry, writes in her book, The Heroic Heart, āwe 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 āI want you to make me happy and to make me feel good.ā Conversely love says, āI want you to be happy and to make you feel good.ā It doesnāt say anything about meā¦ The important thing is that love allows us to hold things gently instead of grasping tightly. It is an important difference.ā She explains, āThe 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. Itās only when we grasp tightly that we have a problem.āĀ
āAttachmentā is a sticky word. In its literal sense, it refers to a tie or a fastening. Figuratively, it denotes an emotional fastening. When gentle, itās seen as love, liking, or connection; when strong, itās seen as clinging. Here, we encounter the first, basic problem: what exactly do we mean by āloveā? Tenzin PalmoĀ observes: āIn English, āloveā is a very multifaceted word. Itās very misused, as we all know. We say, āI 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 meditateā¦ā All these words for love have very different connotations. We are talking about very different emotions: romantic love, altruistic love, mere pleasure, etc.ā Attachment isĀ a kind of love, but what kind of love is it? In simple terms, attachment is a kind of love that says, āyou make me happy, so I care for you, I want to be close to you, I donāt want to be without you.ā The English wordĀ attachmentĀ refers to the feeling that you like or love someone or something and that you would be unhappy without them ā 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, weāre talking about attachment.
Batja Mesquita, the social psychologist and affective scientist who studied how the concept of āloveā is tailored to interactions and relationships in particular cultural contexts,Ā pointed outĀ that in the Western/Westernized world, āfor 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.ā In this context, āLove means giving attention to your loved oneāāāsometimes at the expense of attention for other thingsāāāwanting 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.ā Love āsingles out and elevates one particular individualā and itās ultimately built around the goal of āto be united in mutual admiration, attraction, or longing.ā 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, whatĀ isĀ love if not attachment? āI think itās fair to say that Americans have some unhealthy concepts around the ideas of love and relationshipsāĀ saysĀ Alex Kakuyo, Buddhist teacher and a former marine āFor us, love is attachment-based, almost to the point of obsession.ā
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 ālove,ā and identify attachment - the kind of love thatās 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.
InĀ Attack of the Clones, when PadmĆ© tells him, she thought, to love is āforbidden for a Jedi,ā 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 PadmĆ© that compassion would include passionate love, with some Tumblr users even altering the quote, changing āunconditional loveā to āunlimited love." Anakinās 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:
"Iāll admit that when I first sawĀ Star Wars:Ā Attack of the Clones, I thought Anakin was stretching the truth when he told PadmĆ© compassion was ācentral to a Jediās life.ā The idea that Jedi āare encouraged to loveā seemed like the kind of thing youād 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 isnāt about brandishing a certain color lightsaber; itās marked by loving-kindness for all living things."
ellievsbear
prguitarman
turnnoffyourmind
snowghoul
2087
