@Wolfscar45 I don't think it is so obvious that Jedi who take the Code literally are just "an extreme minority". I remember WriterBuddha explaining that the Jedi do not actually believe that romantic love is wrong but that engagement in it conflicts with the duty of the Jedi (correct me I paraphrased that wrong). In addition to pointing out that they caution against possessiveness not just "any attachment whatsoever", this was very enlightening to me. I have incorporated this understanding into my belief about what the Jedi philosophy truly stands for.
But I am not entirely convinced that the narration about the Jedi in Knights of the Old Republic and the movies is intended (by writers) to tell us that the Jedi were actually all correct about their stance on love and attachment and thus that all fault lied with Anakin Skywalker. Don't get me wrong, I grew up particularly finding Anakin distasteful as an individual and still strongly believe that the Jedi Council were right on matters like denying him the rank of master. But regardless of the wisdom we can now recognize the Jedi philosophy, in its ideal form, had about love, there is still plenty of evidence that their stance on it became institutionalized into a normative suspicion regarding relationships, to an extent that it became a dogma for some conservative Jedi who were certainly not just an "extreme minority". It is wise to teach students to love compassionately and selflessly rather than give into the limerence that results in jealousy, suffering, and objectification of the target of affection. But with the normalization of this wisdom realistically comes the institutionalization of it as unquestioned principle that then is acted out systematically by the paternalistic and conservative authorities who do not necessarily all understand the wisdom behind it.
Case in point, we have Luminara Unduli being so quick to abandon efforts to rescue Barriss Offee, insisting that she is ready to "let go" when it is time. But her critical error in that case is that it wasn't the time to let go just yet in that situation! She had hardly made any real and concerted effort to save her Padawan and just prematurely gave up in a vague and blind adherence to a stated principle—adherence to a wise principle without the actual wisdom.
Even though we find out that Obi-Wan very much has known romantic love in his life and has a far more nuanced understanding and respect for it than it might first appear on the surface from the movies alone, when R2-D2 was lost the Battle of Bothawui, he showed no sadness whatsoever in casually telling Anakin what basically amounts to "oh well, poop happens". This shows that even for a wise individual like Obi-Wan, who can appreciate both love and the boundaries that come with the duty of the Jedi, the Jedi warning against attachment operates at the level of an ideology, here defined as a cultural lens, paradigm, or script that normatively frames how certain scenarios and values should be perceived to the extent of being internalized subconsciously. Obi-Wan is a compassionate individual, but even though he may understand better what WriterBuddha explains is the true meaning behind non-attachment, he reacts to this situation with a coldness disproportionate to the loss of a friend. (Perhaps that R2-D2 is a droid factored into Obi-Wan's disregard for him, so that this speaks instead to an underlying prejudicial inclination to objectify droids). In many other cases, we see that Jedi do permit themselves sadness to have lost friends in war, but in other cases, they are quick to dismiss off-hand any desire to show commitment and caring as already too much attachment.
Who decides when an individual's caring for a friend has become "too much unhealthy attachment?" This is a recipe for authority figures exercising judgement and control over their juniors' practices of compassion. Certainly Anakin's attachment to Padmé is a clear-cut example of toxic infatuation, but the mere desire to save your Padawan's life or a longtime friend is not what I would call an unhealthy, unreasonable, and unethical attitude towards relationships. Qui-Gon Jinn is characterized as a maverick to the Jedi High Council precisely because his instinctual drive to extend compassion to too many individuals outside of mission parameters was seen as bordering on unhealthy attachment. But who can judge that for Qui-Gon Jinn, this was really unhealthy and not just a more empathic commitment to a universalized, compassionate love?
This leads me back to what I have shared before about what attachment means in Chan or Zen Buddhism. Attachment is not just possessive love; it also refers to attachment to a place of belonging, an institution, an idea, and even a moral principle. In Buddhism, it is taught that ultimately, enlightenment involves letting go of even the Buddha-dharma itself. (For all of the movie's narrative weaknesses, Yoda's destruction of the old Jedi texts in Rise of Skywalker is actually symbolic of this point). Paradoxically, from a Zen Buddhist lens, the Jedi still bear some fault for becoming too attached to non-attachment. The principle of non-attachment became institutionalized as a normative value that was systematically acted out in the form of prohibiting relationships from blossoming too intensely. The singular focus on this systematized practice on one hand removed the principle from its insightful origins; it became a rule exercised rotely by some Jedi who took it more as a given indicator of right and wrong instead of a view informed by wisdom. On the other hand, it narrowed the scope of meaning of attachment to concerning only matters of love rather than a mental state of "grasping" and "rejecting". According to Zen masters, rejection—such as here like the ardent attitudinal and systematized rejection of romantic love—is still a form of attachment.
I do not think this was the case with all Jedi. Hell, I do not think that even Yoda and Mace Windu are the best examples of this flaw. In various stories, Yoda permits himself to feel cathartic sorrow for slain friends while in Shatterpoint, Windu demonstrates profound wisdom, empathy, and flexibility in creatively maximizing the preservation of lives within the nominal parameters of the mission. For all his appeal to law, he cares more about principles than rules, and his introspection that he is guilty of a love for the Republic and democracy also reveals a deeper level understanding of what non-attachment means. But even for Jedi such as these, the suspicion against attachment operates as an ideology because it subconsciously influences how Jedi who should or do know better act in situations where a dilemma arises with the principle. Their lack of support for Ahsoka Tano when she is falsely implicated in terrorism is perhaps the most instructive example (as much as it may be the result of contradictory writing of Mace Windu's values).
Here, I circle back to my overarching argument, which is not even so much about various Jedi taking the Jedi Code too literally. We can continue to argue at length about to what extent that the Jedi, viewed from an in-universe perspective, were too dogmatic about it. But I'm arguing from a perspective one step further removed from that, which is that I think the narration in Star Wars is intended by the writers to portray the Jedi as being flawed in some of their practices regarding love and attachment even while they have a sound reasoning for their position.
When we learn that Jolee Bindo disobeyed the Jedi Council to train his wife Nayama in the ways of the Force, only for her to turn to the dark side, the narrative given to us isn't that this vindicates the Council's position unequivocally. While regretting his choices, Jolee never recants his conviction that love—even the romantic kind—can save rather than destroy. Likewise, the drama of Revan and Meetra Surik's resolve to go to war to save the Republic against the Mandalorians, who were committing wholesale genocide on certain worlds, is very much also a drama about what form and practice of love is permissible to a Jedi. Revan, Meetra, and other Revanchists very much acted at first out of intense empathy and not the same kind of egotistical possessiveness of Anakin. It is true that the Jedi's fears were also not unfounded since Revan fell to the dark side, but was this incidental or not? In fact, the Jedi Council's policy in the Mandalorian Wars was an interesting inverse of the Council's policy in the Clone Wars. Some prominent Jedi even dissented from the decision to participate because they believed it was unethical, but the leadership were determined that integrity towards their duties meant fighting alongside the Republic. Thus, the right decision in lieu of love, in lieu of compassion, in lieu of non-attachment is not so clear-cut in the saga. And the saga is wrapped up in Luke's redemption of his father with love, in an inverse of his fall because of "love".
Perhaps we can say this speaks to what form of love is "healthy" or not, but what I am trying to highlight here is that the storytelling in Star Wars is intended to tell a complex narrative about the dilemmas and travails of love in its various forms and the principle of non-attachment. It is wonderful that we as fans have now developed a far richer understanding of the Jedi's philosophy, but we should be mindful about latching on (as a pun, I can say becoming "attached") to an essentialized view about the Jedi, who are actually meant to be a highly nuanced group with both wisdom and tragic failings.
