»Satori«

CaptPostMod wrote:

Vanexel711 wrote: From the American heritage Dictionary Satori: A spiritual awakening sought in Zen Buddhism, often coming suddenly. Again, my point exactly Vanexel711, thank you.

Hmmm...I'm a bit confused. I really shouldn't comment, as I haven't had the time to really dig deep into all these amazing posts, but I do have one question. If satori itself is an enlightenment which occurs "suddenly", and as Feral Boy mentioned sometimes occuring with the hearing of a single word or phrase, isn't this what happens to Neo? Granted, his conscious development is something which has evolved through all three films, but reading the script, I feel Neo is really at a loss after Smith says "This is my world." It takes the words of the Oracle to make him realize the "truth". Is that not Satori?

deleted

CaptPostMod wrote:

My point is that at the end of the films Neo achieves enlightenment, but it is needless and dangerous to specify that this enlightenment is Satori.

After reading the transcript, it seems he was using 'Satori' as an illustrative term rather than a definative.

Larry W wrote:

at this point neo stands on the verge of satori ready to resolve the paradox of choice and choicelessness of free will versus fate...

Plus, Andy then refers to the same point as:

Andy wrote:

The Jesus Thing.

Satori and Jesus are blatently not of the same philosophical mould.

It strikes me this sequence was designed for laughs, and Larry's speech deliberately over-technical.

So, if everyone can infer the basic meaning from this usage (sudden enlightenment), why stickle over detail?

[/English language student reading]

I think part of the difficulty in interpreting and untangling this scene in an attempt to break it down into its component parts is that there are so many philosophical and religious (as well as mathematical, I suspect) ideas that the Wachowski Brothers tried to convey all at once--all packed together in a single scene. You've got an element of the religious aspect with the "Jesus thing," you've got an element of Satori, you've got an element of an equation being balanced, etc. Perhaps what N-tell was hinting at earlier was that the Wachowski Brothers were aiming for an integral interpretation of all these elements, where instead of showing their separate resolutions at different points in the movie (i.e. Neo having a Satori-like moment, then fifteen scenes later the martyr scene occurs), they are all shown to have their completion--their nexus--at a single point with a single act on Neo's part.

It was inevitable that it happen in this fashion, and completely necessary--not just from a literary standpoint, but from the standpoint of showing the point where all these seemingly conflicting ideas merge into one--THE One. Choice and choicelessness meet head-on, as stated by Larry, in an act of surrender. This act balances the equation, it was fated to happen and yet was a result of Neo's choice, and it was a sacrificial act of a messiah on the behalf of his people. It's all there--all smashed together into one scene.

So if it seems like any one concept doesn't apply, then you're both right and wrong. Certain themes do play their part, but they are not the total picture in and of themselves. There is something larger going on, and you have to think of the scene in an integral manner in order to appreciate the whole thing.

A good place to start that helped me begin to comprehend some of the motivations behind the Wachowski Brothers, check out this "About Us" section of the Integral Institute, of which Ken Wilber (one of the philosophers on the philosophers' commentary on the Matrix DVD box set) is president.

By the way, I just now went onto Google to try and find an old post that I made about the integral nature of the Matrix Revolutions DVD cover, and not only did I find it, but it just so happened to be the same thread where I mentioned Inev's 777th posting. Enjoy!

deleted

deleted

Comet wrote:

To be pedantic, did he actually say Neo achieves Satori?

"At this pont of the story Neo stands in the verge of Satori, ready to resolve the paradox of choice and choicelessness, of free will versus fate. But that can only be achieved through an act of surrender..."

...is a quote. But it doesn't say that Neo achieves Satori.

intell wrote:

As for integralism, what do you believe Larry (and Andy) are doing by linking all these "existing philosophies" together. Showing how they are all related? Then how are they related? Just what message do you think they are sending?

From the talk Larry Wachowsky and Ken Wilber:
Ken: We've talked about the nature of interpretation as well, and the sort of more integral a context you have, the more certain similar meanings can start to emerge for somebody, and, we, you know, you and I both are, you know, we're integrally informed. I mean, we share a passion for that sort of integral approach. So I think, without giving any of the things away, there's certain, certain areas of this, you know, overall production that you and I certainly see eye to eye on.

I believe that, technically, they have created a modern myth, which is in many aspects an expression of the integral approach.
To discuss why they are (or why anybody would be) interested in the integral approach would be too much of a diversion from the topic of this thread, but I think in the link I've given in my first post in this thread, Ken Wilber has given a good summary.
The link is:
beliefnet.com...

intell wrote:

And while you're answering that one, include, if you please, an answer to why 'resolving the paradox of choice and choicelessness, free will vs fate is such a profound discovery

I can't recall saying that...

CaptPostMo wrote:

So Larry Wachowski has officially announced what the ending of the trilogy was meant to represent-Neo achieving Satori(...)"At this pont of the story Neo stands in the verge of Satori, ready to resolve the paradox of choice and choicelessness"

Hello Cap. Another good post I see. I'm very interested by how the paradox is resolved according to your beliefs ?

I still can't understand how you can be free if you live in a world that affects you much more than you can affect it.

CaptPostMod and Tozy--great links, you guys. I want to know more about the integral approach, because I haven't even begun to scratch its surface. It intrigues me and concerns me all at the same time. The reason for its intrigue is because of its obvious promise of mind expansion and a larger worldview. It concerns me because of my Christian background.

Ken Wilber wrote:

A person could be attuned to an “integral spirituality” while still be a practicing Christian, Buddhist, New-Age advocate, or Neopagan. This would be something added to one’s religion, not subtracted from it. The only thing it would subtract (and there’s no way around this) is the belief that one’s own path is the only true path to salvation.

I don't know how to embrace that. I believe that the only true path is through Jesus Christ. Now, unlike the vast majority of Christianity, I believe that everyone will eventually take this path and no one will be left behind. But I don't know if that qualifies as integral thinking since I'm still insisting that even though everyone ends up at salvation there was still only one path that got them all there. Perhaps I will be unable to completely take on Ken Wilber's "doctrines" as my own, but I would like to learn as much as possible. Ignorance is NOT bliss as far as I'm concerned.

Oh yeah, for those who want to download the interview on their hard drive, here is the direct link to it (right click on the link and choose "save target as"):

x300.putfile.com...

Enjoy

deleted

First I want to say thanks to all who provided those wonderful links. Feral, I thought those old mxo boards were lost. This discovery warms my heart. Capt, I'm glad you resolved that paradox for yourself as well and did the research. Now if you had done that first, then it might have been even better, yes? "Took the long way around, I see. But that's fine" (Inev, to me a year ago) ...

The Gehenna / Hell hypothetical example
...Because to me, since as you say, Gehenna is a more specific term, if I had seen them name the club, "club gehenna" then that would have prompted me to see what correlations or symbolism is being employed. I would ask, "just what is the writer trying to tell me (or anyone who knows about Gehenna) about this club?" A second question would come to my mind and that's, "is there a use of this term outside of my understanding." This is relevant because sometimes the terms had a meaning before it was employed as we first experienced them. To go back to the gehenna example, the real place by that name (outside the walls of Jerusalem) is itself named after the previous inhabitants of that area, "the sons of Hinnom" so an investigation into them might be necessary. That is, if I saw a club gehenna in the movies. The same with Satori.

FeralBoy wrote:

I don't know how to embrace that. I believe that the only true path is through Jesus Christ.

Hmm. Guess what? You can still be integral if you believe this. Ken Wilber said that 'belief in one's own path being the only true path would be subtracted' and this means Feral's path or n-tell's path. If it is through the Christ, what is intended is that I truly believe just that, not that my current understanding of what that involves is the thing. Remember, his own disciples had misgivings about his role. The point is to always take in more knowledge and be willing (as some of them were) to adjust as more intell become available.

FeralBoy wrote:

but I would like to learn as much as possible.

Now that is the path. I guess integralism can involve knowing that the path and one's understanding of the path can be and often are 2 distinct things.

tozy wrote:

To discuss why they are (or why anybody would be) interested in the integral approach would be too much of a diversion from the topic of this thread

That's because I tend to get more involved with the intent of a thread than its stated topic at times.

Quote:

You are posting into the forum called "Symbols in the Matrix & References to existing philosophies"

So a thousand threads like this could be (and are being) written. But until at least one of these gets more into the Wachowski's intent - and integralism - how can the matrix be explained on Matrix-Explained.com?

deleted

Quote:

Buddhism teaches that there are 84,000 paths to enlightenment.

Wow! They counted them?

I have a hard time putting limits on enlightenment, and the nature of god should it even exist. I cannot believe that someone who has never heard of christ in his life but has lived a good life and was a good person should be condemed because their is no path but through christ. I cannot believe in a god that would enforce such a thing, which is why I am really more of a diest then a christian, but it is christian teachings and writings that I rely on most heavily on my own spiritual path.

I'll repost the St. Thomas stuff, consider it.

Gospel of St. Thomas

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

CaptPostMod wrote:

Keep the faith! It's my experience that people who are rooted in their faith tend to be much more open to in depth religious discussion then people who doubt their faith.

Dang, that was awesome, man! That was like a subtle burn on all those closed-minded religious people. I love it!

intell wrote:

Hmm. Guess what? You can still be integral if you believe this. Ken Wilber said that 'belief in one's own path being the only true path would be subtracted' and this means Feral's path or n-tell's path. If it is through the Christ, what is intended is that I truly believe just that, not that my current understanding of what that involves is the thing. Remember, his own disciples had misgivings about his role. The point is to always take in more knowledge and be willing (as some of them were) to adjust as more intell become available.

While I'm all about adjusting when new information presents itself (as you've seen from my behavior on this forum), I didn't understand the point you were trying to make. Do you have an anology? It still seems to me that if you believe that there's only one way to salvation that you can't be an integral thinker.

hexediter wrote:

I cannot believe that someone who has never heard of christ in his life but has lived a good life and was a good person should be condemed because their is no path but through christ. I cannot believe in a god that would enforce such a thing

Even though I try extremely hard not to base my doctrinal beliefs on emotions, I do know exactly what you mean. And because I no longer believe in eternal damnation, I have great relief in that area. After all, if God knew ahead of time who would believe in Him and who wouldn't, yet went ahead with Creation anyway, isn't He just as responsible for sending those people to hell? He didn't have to go through with creating anything. But that's a whole other topic. I'll leave you with one of my favorite Scripture passages on the subject.

In 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, Paul wrote:

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

feral... wrote:

It still seems to me that if you believe that there's only one way to salvation that you can't be an integral thinker.

Meh. Maybe. Or maybe integralism is more about trying to identify that path than limiting oneself to one's own preconcieved set of beliefs. Looking 'round about you can perhaps help you to see what others have brought to the table. An analogy, you ask? "Like to hear it? Here it goes..."

While I'm convinced the road Im driving on will lead me to the house I'm trying to find (or else I wouldn't be on it), I realise I could have incomplete details as to any exits or detours I may have to take, if any. Now there are roads others are traveling, either hoping to reach the same location or not. Don't you think I might have to gain some sort of knowledge of these other roads to see if I may have to use them to get to my own destination? Integralism is more about checking one's own understanding of the path than doubting the path itself. Perhaps.

One road leads to diamonds.
One road leads to gold.
One road leads you only
To everything you're told.

In your heart you wonder
Which of these is true.
The road that leads to nowhere,
The road that leads to you

Will you find the answer
In all you say and do?
Will you find the answer
In you?

Pilgrim, in your journey,
You will travel far,
For, pilgrim, it's a long way
To find out who you are...
"Pilgrim", Enya

hex... wrote:

I cannot believe that someone who has never heard of christ in his life but has lived a good life and was a good person should be condemed because their is no path but through christ. I cannot believe in a god that would enforce such a thing

Who said anything about condemned? Walking one path means, damning others? Never may that happen! Read the text and you will see how inconsistent with the personality of the God of the Bible this popular view is.

"It is unthinkable of you! Is the Judge of the whole earth not going to do what is right? Suppose 50 righteous men are found in the city [Sodom]?" (Abraham)
"Then I will pardon the whole city on account of the 50" (God)
Abraham went all the way down to 10 and the answer was still the same.

"There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous" (Acts 24:15)

Sound like the kinda God you mentioned?

feral... wrote:

if God knew ahead of time who would believe in Him and who wouldn't, yet went ahead with Creation anyway, isn't He just as responsible...

If God knew ahead of time who would hurt him and who wouldn't, yet gave them life along with everyone else anyway, isn't he the epitome of fairness/justice?

Hex, glad to see you again, now where's Loctavious? I miss his introspective posts.

Feral Boy wrote:

I believe that the only true path is through Jesus Christ.

Feral, could you explain a bit about your understanding of this path?

CaptPostMod, I have read your approach of the freewill/destiny paradox and I would say that it is not far from my idea I have about it.

Mine is more physic oriented, I'll try to explain it without being called crazy and despite my bad english .

I believe that the world is exactly the contrary of what we think. We imagine the world being made of particles and then there is the void around them. But it's an heliocentric vision because it's actually the void that exists (a lot of quantic theories confirm that) and we (the matter, the energy) are only holes amongst that field of existence (you can see them as cylonic spiral whose center is the particle, an electron for example).

The only way to become one with the void again is to wait for that imperfection to collapse (we call that the entropy) and therefore, what we see as death (the end of a system) is only a further step towards the original state of perfect stilness.

So you see, by dying, we escape the rules of the system and become that energy as a whole again and we're not bothered by these imperfect "holes" wich create pain and imbalance in the world.

I don't know if I explained myself very clearly, it's kind of complicated....

This article was posted on BuddhistChannel.tv today. I don't necessarily agree with everything it has to say, but it touched on a lot of the topics in this thread. I thought a few of you might want to check it out.

buddhistchannel.tv...

Oh, and Apocryphe, I'm sorry but I missed your post originally. Actually your post isn't that crazy at all. In fact it is excessively Buddhist in nature. Yes, reality and consciouness are "knots" in the true fabric of everything that must be released in order for everything to attain original nature (Buddha nature). You hit it pretty well right on the head.

hexediter wrote:

I cannot believe that someone who has never heard of christ in his life but has lived a good life and was a good person should be condemed because their is no path but through christ.

I see your point, and i believe the same thing although i am a christian, i do believe in Karma. It may sounds like a contradictory of thoughts and opinions, however to be a Christ follower (Christian) you do not have to have heard of christ to what i believe. I believe that to truly be a "Christian" you must be Christ-like, which means someone with good Karma is someone who is acting out like Christ.

Keep the faith, Enter into Enlightenment

Might that be an oversimplification of what Christ was (is) about? Just live a good life?

What about Purpose?

Yes this is true, however what happens to the people that have never had the chance to come in contact with a Christian. God is a merciful God, and yes Jesus said "noone comes to the father but through me" however how do you come to know Christ without even knowing of him...? As well as this, what happens to infants that die at birth, or children that have no concept of God? I believe for children the cutoff age is 13 because in Jewish tradition 13 is when a child enters into adult-hood. However Jesus did not say "no one comes to the father but through me, unless your under 13 because you do not understand what God is" it is an unwritten, unspoken exception to what i believe of course. God is Merciful to these children however in the same way people in other countries that have no knowledge of god have no concept of God, and therefore are like children that do not have the concept of knowledge of god. This is why i believe that they are an exception, however this should not stop missionaries or anyone from thinking twice about going to these places and preaching the word.

On the contrary, the devil owns this world, and man and woman did sin, but Jesus made the sacrifice of his own life so that all people could cross that gap between sin and god. So because god wanted something back it was basically on Satan's terms therefore the rule of "no one gets to the father but through me".

Intell you do bring up an excellent point, however it is still impossible to the un-enlightened soul to comprehend how god works, therefore Jesus's words may not be without fine print.

keep thew faith, enter into enlightenment

And what about people who are retarded ? They didn't choose to be retarded and yet they'll go to heaven, wich finally makes the choice only God's choice.

Also, what about children who are not very mature at 13, who have had a harder life and didn't develop their capacity as expected ? They'll be hold responsible for their actions while it was not really their fault if they're like that.

Nah sorry, all that judgment thing is senseless... but I respect your belief, this is your choice of course.