»The Ego«

There is an aspect to our existence that many religions share:

The identification of the ego as the origin (or underlying “reality”) of sin, attachment, suffering etc.
Regardless of how different metaphysics and the path(s) towards liberation,… it is my understanding, that in essence these paths boil down to transcending/surrendering/extinguishing the ego.

In the Matrix universe, I think, Smith is a representation of this common aspect:

Let me give you a quote by Huston Smith ("The World's Religions") on a Buddhist term, because this quote imo hits the nail on the head in regard to Smith and the Matrix. But I believe this term describes a phenomenon known in Hinduism and Christianity as well:
“Tanha is a specific kind of desire, the desire for private fulfilment. When we are selfless we are free, but that is precisely the difficulty – to maintain that state. Tanha is the force that ruptures it, pulling us back from freedom of the all to seek fulfilment in our egos, which ooze like secret sores.”

As long as we live a life in illusion and ignorance, we are not aware of our ego being the source of this illusion; secretly, like the agents in M1, the force of our ego maintains our existence within the illusion.
Concordantly, as long as the illusion still has a firm grasp on Neo, Smith is a part of the system. But the more Neo is lifting the veil clouding the truth behind the illusion, the more Smith removes himself from the system and becomes Neo’s personal opponent.
When Neo becomes the One and his path proceeds from identifying the illusion through experience towards identifying its origin, he fully unplugs Smith from the system.

“He is you. Your opposite, your negative…”

Neo and Smith are two forces within the same identity: Neo is the force striving for the true nature -> selflessness; Smith - the former agent - is the force striving for fulfilment in the ego -> selfishness -> “This is my world, my world”

Whether we are Christian, Hindu or Buddhist,... these are two important competing aspects of our identity on our path towards liberation in God, Brahman or Nirvana:

The less we are concerned with our selflessness, the less we are aware of our ego/selfishness -> M1.
But the more we try to live in selflessness, the more we have to conquer our ego -> Rel/Revs.

Concordantly, the more Neo lets go of the outside world, the more Smith takes over, until...

"At least the yogi is alone with his mind (...) But the battle is not yet won; at close quarters it is just beginning. For the mind's fiercest antagonist is itself. Alone with itself it still shows not the slightest inclination to settle down or obey.” (Huston Smith, "The World's Religions")

...their final confrontation in Revolutions.

If you can somewhat follow me on this, you may agree that I understand the Matrix universe as an allegory for our consciousness; and Neo’s path as an allegory for the growth of consciousness, with the different forces/aspects of our self (ego, selflessness, intellect, rational, intuition…) being identified, and consulted, conquered,… or grown.

The path of liberation in Hinduism is to surrender the lower self (the ego) to the higher Self (universal, or "de-limited" (matrix-explained.com...) Spirit -> Brahman, The ONE), which is a person's true nature,... to realize your true nature -> enlightenment.


From delusion lead me to truth (Neodämmerung, Navras)

This may shed some different light on Neo's sacrifice.

Tozy, that was a great observation. And I agree that the Wachowski Brothers created a fantastic visual analogy of our inward struggle by making an external one in the form of Neo vs. Smith. In their battles we can see the two fighting for dominance. Although to be honest, when I think back on the movies, Neo doesn't really seem hellbent on beating Smith. He seems to have more of a desire to just be. He fights Smith only out of necessity and does not have an emotional need to conquer him. Even at the end of Revolutions he only offers to fight Smith as a means to an end. Smith, on the other hand, is completely consumed by his need for purpose. And eventually he finds his purpose--to end. Ironic how in his struggle to propogate and have a world all to himself, the only thing that will bring peace to him is his destruction.

I wanted to add my thoughts to yours in regard to what the apostle Paul had to say about the inward struggle we have.

In Romans 7:18-25, Paul wrote:

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Oh yeah, one more connection with the idea of freeing your mind:

In Romans 12:1-2, Paul also wrote:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

Feral boy - I liked your post and generally agree with it. But there is much much more. I hold a similar interpretation. If you are interested - see my posted at

Hi MT1,

I read your essay about six months ago and was completely blown away by it! I love the idea that the Matrix Trilogy can/should be viewed as one Grand Metaphor for self-enlightment. I also believe there is enough material to view the movies the way you do.

Mix the movies 'Fight Club' (=characters in the movie representing other aspects of 'self') with 'Identity' (=battles represent internal conflict that take place within one mind), and apply those ideas to the Matrix movies and you get pretty much the way you look at the movies! I think it's Brilliant!

In line with your idea, I came up with the following (also based on the commentary by Ken Wilbur and Cornel West and on what you wrote in your essay)

Matrix: realm of the mind
Zion: realm of the body
Machine City: realm of spirit

Sentinels: fear; anxiety
Agents: naivity; ignorance

Neo: self; ego
Smith: destructive side; alter-ego

Oracle: intuition
Architect: rationality

Merovingian: sin; power
Persephone: lust; temptation

Keymaker: the 'way' to enlightment

Morpheus: Faith
Trinity: Love
Cypher: Avarice
Dozer:Strength
Tank/Link: Intelligence

There are many more, but as you stated in your essay, everyone should see the Matrix for themselves and find their own 'map' of the Matrix.

For those reading but not having any idea what this is all about, here's a starting point:

The basic idea is that everytime Neo has a conversation with another character in the movie, Neo is in synch with or in touch with a certain aspect of 'self' -reflecting on what he should do or what his 'senses' are telling him.

So, for example, everytime Neo speaks with the Oracle, Neo is listening to his intuition and everytime the Oracle tells Neo something, it is actually Neo's intuition talking back to him.

It gives a whole new perspective on what the Oracle keeps telling Neo: "No-one can see beyond a choice they don't understand". That's pretty much how intuition works. Your intuition can only 'tell' you what to do if it understands the motivations governing a certain choice. I think it's a brilliant idea!

My take on the Matrix, having watched Matrix1 for the first time last night, is also that it is describing freeing the mind/enlightenment/personal change.

Did anyone notice the reference to the Wizard of Oz? When Neo chooses the red pill Morpheus says (something like) "You are now like Dorothy about to take off from Kansas." The author of the Wizard of Oz, L Frank Baum, was a keen yogi and interested in Eastern philosophy. He wrote the Wizard of Oz as an allegory of the path to enlightenment.

Thought you might be interested... I didn't find any references to the Wizard of Oz on this site.

I believe it’s Cypher that says to Neo: “Buckle your seat belt Dorothy ‘coz Kansas is going bye-bye”

The reference to L. Frank Baum’s Wizard of Oz is meant to foreshadow Neo’s journey into another world. There are also more overt references to Louis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland in the same scene meant to portray Neo’s journey –Neo's ‘tumble down the rabbit hole’.

As Neo’s journey progresses through the course of the three films there are also references to:

Plato’s Republic (Neo’s role as Liberator; the Matrix world as Plato’s Allegory of the Cave)
Jean Baudrillard’s Simulation and Simulacra (The Matrix world as Hyper-Reality)
Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces (Neo’s role as a Mythological Hero)
Nietzsche’s Ubermensch (Neo’s role as Superman)

Christianity (Neo’s role as Jewish Messiah)
Gnostic Christianity (Neo’s role as Gnostic Redeemer)
Buddhism (Neo’s role as Buddha)
Hinduism (Neo’s code as Atman)
Taoism (Neo as Yin, Smith as Yang)

A lot of the fun in analyzing these films is in discovering the references to some of the more classic works of literature and philosophy and to legends in some of the world’s more dominant religions, such as those listed above.

In some cases the references add depth and resonance to the story, in other cases, they are crucial to understanding the central message I believe the Wachowski’s are communicating through the films which is to “WAKE UP!”.

"Thought is the problem."- David Bohm

tozy wrote:

Neo and Smith are two forces within the same identity: Neo is the force striving for the true nature -> selflessness

Sorry but I disagree. When the Architect proposes to him to choose between an already dying Trinity and the very high possibility of humanity's end, he chooses Trinity against all the odds.

Sacrifying the whole humanity for your own personal happiness, that's not selfless, that's crazyness (Merv himself said that the pattern of love looks like crazyness).

The previous Ones were about selflessness, but Neo was obviously choosed to make a different choice, and the only feeling that the Oracle knew would overwhelm logic to the point of risking humanity's surival, was the true love.

----

I have a question regarding the ego/desire theory. If desiring something is coming from the ego, then when someone reaches enligthment, he does not desire anyting anymore ?
Then what is his purpose in life ? Why would he go on living ?

Buddha said that since desire is what prevents us from being happy, then we must learn to forget the desire. But that's a nonsense since you try to destroy the desire of happiness in order to be happy !

Gödel demonstrated that every logic in this world will ultimatly contradicts itself, except his demonstration since it predicted its own contradiction.
Therefore, the real meaning of life is to put an end to its misery, meaning suicide (I guess Smith was not wrong finally when he said "the purpose of life is to end").

The illusion is that, as long as you're not unhappy enough to put an end to your life, you'll accept the illusion of this world because it does not hurt you enough. It's all a question of happiness finally.

Apocryphe wrote:

I have a question regarding the ego/desire theory. If desiring something is coming from the ego, then when someone reaches enligthment, he does not desire anyting anymore ? Then what is his purpose in life ? Why would he go on living ? Buddha said that since desire is what prevents us from being happy, then we must learn to forget the desire. But that's a nonsense since you try to destroy the desire of happiness in order to be happy !

Wait for Capt, I have already asked him about the same thing.

Apocryphe wrote:

I have a question regarding the ego/desire theory. If desiring something is coming from the ego, then when someone reaches enligthment, he does not desire anything anymore ? Then what is his purpose in life ? Why would he go on living ?

He/she would not necessarily (nor would they die). Samsara (life and death) is the flame that burns around us. Nirvana is the escaping of that flame.

The only reason that a being continues on after attaining Nirvana is to bring the Dharma to others. This is the Bodhisatva ideal. The Bodhisatva vows not to enter fully into Nirvana until all can enter with him/her.

Apocryphe wrote:

Buddha said that since desire is what prevents us from being happy, then we must learn to forget the desire. But that's a nonsense since you try to destroy the desire of happiness in order to be happy !

It is not to be happy, it is to end suffering. But you are correct in that the goal is defined as a goal by the very nature of you desiring it. There must be no goal, no "attainment with nothing to attain."

Apocryphe wrote:

Wait for Capt, I have already asked him about the same thing.

As I said then: "Adventure, excitement, a Jedi craves not these things." According to Zen Buddhism, one must simply be in harmony. Eat when hungry, sleep when tired, work when it is time to work. This brings Samyak Sambodhi.

Apocryphe wrote:

tozy wrote: Neo and Smith are two forces within the same identity: Neo is the force striving for the true nature -> selflessness Sorry but I disagree. When the Architect proposes to him to choose between an already dying Trinity and the very high possibility of humanity's end, he chooses Trinity against all the odds. Sacrifying the whole humanity for your own personal happiness, that's not selfless, that's crazyness (Merv himself said that the pattern of love looks like crazyness). The previous Ones were about selflessness, but Neo was obviously choosed to make a different choice, and the only feeling that the Oracle knew would overwhelm logic to the point of risking humanity's surival, was the true love.

Allow me to quote myself (from matrix-explained.com...):
____________________________________

...I can give you two examples (always keeping in mind that both, the Gita and the Matrix trilogy, are subject to interpretation!):

1.
The Gita describes how, at the beginning of a mighty battle between two armies, the god Krishna gives spiritual advise to the warrior Arjuna, who realizes that the true battle is for his own soul.

“The battlefield of these contenting forces is Kurukshetra (Kuru, from the Sanskrit root kri, “work, material action; and ksetra, “field”). This “field of action” is the human body with its physical, mental, and soul faculties, the field on which all activities of life take place.”
(Paramahansa Yogananda)

The different worlds of the Matrix can be equated to Kurukushetra:
The Matrix as the mental, Zion as the physical, 01 as the soul faculty. The darkness and destruction of the “real world” are an expression of the deluded state of consciousness of mankind, as opposed to Neo’s "Lights everywhere. Like the whole thing was built with light" after being blinded (grown in consciousness -> spirit awareness).

2.
As you may remember, the Gita begins with Arjuna stepping back from the fight. He tells Krishna that he cannot kill his kinsmen, he even says:

Better for me indeed if the sons of Dhrita-rashtra, with arms in hand, found me unarmed, unresisting, and killed me in the struggle of war. (1.46)

This seems – for us – to be the right thing to do. It seems that Arjuna is a noble and selfless man who would even give his own life rather than kill his relatives, even if they are his enemies in war.

But the Gita argues differently:
According to the Gita, there are two qualities of good works:
- Good works for the sake of a reward, be it gratitude, glory or things else -> selfish
- Good works for the sake of the good/God, independent from any reward for the one acting -> surrendering the reward to God -> selfless

Arjuna’s apparent selflessness - his concern for his kinsmen’s lives - is not the actual reason for his hesitation; rather he does so for a very selfish reason: his concern for the personal consequences of his actions: how am I supposed to live with the fact that I have killed my relatives? This will haunt me for the rest of my life:

And I see the foreboding of evil, Krishna. I cannot foresee any glory if I kill my own kinsmen in the sacrifice of battle (1.31)
If we kill these evil men, evil shall fall upon us: what joy in their death could we have, O Janardana, mover of souls? (1-36)
I can therefore not kill my own kinsmen (…) What happiness could we ever enjoy, if we killed our own kinsmen in battle? (1.37)

And that is exactly the short-sighted vulnerability in Mayan life, in which the architect tries to get to Neo, when he says:

the relevant issue is whether or not you are ready to accept the responsibility for the death of every human being in this world

The 5 Ones before Neo were overwhelmed by the personal consequences (as described by the Architect,... the rational) of their action/choice, as we can see in their surrender to the architect's options and the continuing cycle of death and rebirth.

In his translator’s introduction to his version of the Gita, Juan Mascaro writes:

In the battle of the Gita there is a great symbol of hope: that he who has a good will and strives is never lost, and that in the battle for eternal life there can never be a defeat unless we run away from the battle.

Eternal life in Hinduism is to sacrifice the lower self (ego) to the higher Self (Atman) (-> see the end of Revolutions).

Neo is the first One not to run away from the battle.
___________________________________


Neo: Are you saying I have to choose whether Trinity lives or dies?
Oracle: No. You've already made the choice. Now you have to understand it
(...)
for what it's worth...you've made a believer out of me.

Apocryphe wrote:

I have a question regarding the ego/desire theory. If desiring something is coming from the ego, then when someone reaches enligthment, he does not desire anyting anymore ? Then what is his purpose in life ? Why would he go on living ? Buddha said that since desire is what prevents us from being happy, then we must learn to forget the desire. But that's a nonsense since you try to destroy the desire of happiness in order to be happy !

seravingian wrote:

Matrix: realm of the mind Zion: realm of the body Machine City: realm of spirit

Thanks Very interesting post.

I see this post about the Mind, Body and spirit over and over.

What is its origin?
What religion is it based on?

seravingian wrote:

Christianity (Neo’s role as Jewish Messiah) Gnostic Christianity (Neo’s role as Gnostic Redeemer) Buddhism (Neo’s role as Buddha) Hinduism (Neo’s code as Atman) Taoism (Neo as Yin, Smith as Yang)

Another interesting post.

I do not know too much about other religions.

Could you point out a scene were Neo is
Gnostic
Buddhist
Hindu
Tao?

CaptPostMod wrote:

The only reason that a being continues on after attaining Nirvana is to bring the Dharma to others. This is the Bodhisatva ideal. The Bodhisatva vows not to enter fully into Nirvana until all can enter with him/her.

But then it means that he desires to help the others, so he won't be able to reach peace since allowing everyone to enter Nirvana is probably an impossible task.

Logically, you have only two options :either destiny/Karma granted what you desire and you're happy enough to stay alive, or you suffer a lot and then decide to kill yourself.

If you reach a real deteachment from desires, then you'll kill yourself too (it's just a different path) since you have no desire for anything.

When you look objectivly at the question, the Bodhisatva is just another system of control to keep you alive in a world where you suffer (if you don't suffer then you're in the first case where karma granted you what you wanted).
The ultimate truth is to finally realize there is none, the bohavista appears to me like the last trial of you capacity to discern the truth from the illusion.

Captsmode wrote:

It is not to be happy, it is to end suffering.

I think that it requires a lot of "self-lying" to believe that happiness is not what humanity crave for.

-----------

Tozy wrote:

Arjuna’s apparent selflessness - his concern for his kinsmen’s lives - is not the actual reason for his hesitation; rather he does so for a very selfish reason: his concern for the personal consequences of his actions: how am I supposed to live with the fact that I have killed my relatives? This will haunt me for the rest of my life:

First, I must say I respect your personal beliefs, so please don't take wrong what I'll write next

Though it looks very deep, that concept is unfortunetly a false logic.
Every behavior in our brain starts with a program (that we call emotions in a general way) and an emotion put a pressure on us by making us feel pain or pleasure.

To be good, it's to feel bad when you hurt someone else, so Arjuna's feelings are not bad at all.
How can you be good if deep inside of you, there is not a little voice that makes you feel guilty about doing something bad ?
That's how our brain works, and it's a nonsense to say someone is not "that good" because he actually does it because he would feel bad otherwise. But that's exactly the definition of goodness ! : to feel compassion for the others.

Also, when you say that it's not selfish to sacrifice all these men for God, then it means that you obeyed your own selfish desire to please God because you'll feel beter that way, and again we fall in the case of "he did it because he felt better with that".

Tozy wrote:

The 5 Ones before Neo were overwhelmed by the personal consequences (as described by the Architect,... the rational) of their action/choice

Oh, because Neo was not overwhelmed by the consequences of letting Trinity die ? I think not, Archie said it hismelf :

"Already, I can see the chain reaction - the chemical precursors that signal the onset of an emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason"

Conclusion : every action is the result of a program/emotion in our brain and they're all equal, they're not bad, they're not good, they're just "all here to do what they're all here to do"

A emotion takes the label of good when it will include a behavior that takes other's well-being into account, but your description above labels any emotion as bad just because it will make us act by creating a painfull emotion if we don't obey it.

Apocryphe wrote:

First, I must say I respect your personal beliefs, so please don't take wrong what I'll write next

Nah! What could be negative about a fruitful exchange of arguments?... That's what I am here for...

Apocryphe wrote:

Though it looks very deep, that concept is unfortunetly a false logic.

Hehe,... you know, this is a logic familiar to millions of people, since the Gita - which btw has been mentioned by the brothers as an influene to the trilogy (forums.matrixfans.net...) - is an essential scripture of Hinduism.

But, of course, this has been taken out of context, and it is a thinking still somewhat strange to our "Western" minds...
Let me try to explain (the nondual approach) in short:

Based on the premise that we are essentially Spirit Supreme (the Absolut/The ONE), but unaware of it and thus caught in the delusion that we are separate identities (starhtml.de...),... there are different qualities to good works:

Usually, if we do good, we'd like our deed to be known and acknowledged. A little "thank you" doesn't hurt. How about if you give a beggar some money and he doesn't say a word and just walks away? Most of us would be... alienated. And even if we didn't mind, the personal reward of our doing good would be the conviction that: "I am a good person", making us feel good about ourselves.
So, even if we do good out of compassion, it is for the other person's sake as much as for our own.

-> By doing good we serve our ego -> this attitude is "good", but not "selfless".

If, however, our actions are supposed to help us overcome our ego to make us realize that we are essentially not a separate self, but The ONE (with all), the above approach to good works is counterproductive, bercause it strenghtens the ego, as opposed to helping to overcome it.
In this case, we have to develop an attitude that surrenders/devotes the fruit of our actions not to our ego, but to The ONE (-> karma yoga en.wikipedia.org...) (This parallels Buddhism's very own understanding of compassion).

-> This attitude is "good" and "selfless".

In the Gita, The ONE is represented by the God Krishna. Since getting deeper into the context of this myth would take too long, you have to take my word for it, that the "enemies" represent the deluding forces of our existence...

“The battlefield of these contenting forces is Kurukshetra (Kuru, from the Sanskrit root kri, “work, material action; and ksetra, “field”). This “field of action” is the human body with its physical, mental, and soul faculties, the field on which all activities of life take place.”
(Paramahansa Yogananda)

...and fighting them represents the path towards realizing the truth -> enlightenment.

So, even if Arjuna hesitates to join the fight out of compassion for his hostile relatives, it is nontheless on selfish grounds, because...

I cannot foresee any glory if I kill my own kinsmen in the sacrifice of battle (1.31)
What happiness could we ever enjoy, if we killed our own kinsmen in battle? (1.36)

But to see beyond that concern for the personal outcome of his actions allows Arjuna to surrender the fruits of his actions to Krishna (the non-self).
This is a representation of a striving, not for the satisfaction of our personal and separate self (-> delusion), but for a realization of our transpersonal Self, or non-self (-> truth).

-> from delusion lead me to truth -> know thyself


And this gets us back to Neo:
We are shocked that he is ready to sacrifice all of mankind to save Trinity. But this is a short-sighted understanding:
Even if he can save her, according to the Architect, mankind will be wiped entirely from the planet. So, what options would be left for the survival of Neo and Trinity?
This cannot be what Neo has in mind when he walks through the door to his left.

The Architect represents the rational, and this qualifies the options he is giving to the Ones. The Ones before Neo gave in to these options. They did have only the choice between the extinction of the human race and it's survival on Zion's back, because they couldn't see beyond the Architect's options.
Thus, they wouldn't take the personal responsibility for mankind's fate, handing it back to the machines and leaving mankind caught in the cage.

Neo, however, by means of love -> hope, can "see" beyond the architect's options. His hope is the expression of an intuitive (not yet conscious!) knowledge that there is more to this situation than the rational Architect is able to comprehend.
Thus, he disregards the possible personal consequences (if he fails) of his choice/action, shoulders the responsibility for all of mankind and heads on towards a higher purpose,... in the end saving all of mankind (incl. Zion) by ending the war (and enabling mankind to execute their choice to reject the Matrix -> growth).

Does this make more sense to you, now?

Now that's a post!

Dammit, I typed a long answer and it has been deleted !

Here I go again >sigh<

About your link : how do we kno that poster is really Bernard White (who played Rama in Revolutions for those who don't know) ?

Tozy wrote:

And even if we didn't mind, the personal reward of our doing good would be the conviction that: "I am a good person", making us feel good about ourselves. So, even if we do good out of compassion, it is for the other person's sake as much as for our own.

When I was young, I used to think like that. But now I know better (or I hope so ) and I disagree.
The humand mind will always do something for a reward. We are programmed to try to feel pleasure and to avoid pain as much as we can.

No matter what we do, any behavior is the result of a program in our head who is seeking for a reward. Being good, it's to feel bad for the people who are suffering for no reason.
The fact that this process goes through a system of "reward/punishment" does not mean that the process is wrong, it's just its way of functionning. The reward, his very nature, is means, is not an end, what matters is the purpose of the program that will use the pain/reward to reach its goal.

If Arjuna fights for the One, then it means that he's also doing for the selfish reward of serving a higher purpose. And leading a war that would kill many people, how can that serve the One ?
It sounds more like another trick to convince people to enter in a sect and do bad things by getting them rid of their guilt in the name of a higher purpose.

Also, this does not answer the question of "what must we do ?". Arjuna knows that it's his task to lead that battle, but then what should the opponent think/ do ?
If I decided to follow that philosophy, how would I know whom to fight against ? Since desire is an illusion, then I should not fight for anything anymore, just wait to die.

Quote:

Even if he can save her, according to the Architect, mankind will be wiped entirely from the planet. So, what options would be left for the survival of Neo and Trinity? This cannot be what Neo has in mind when he walks through the door to his left.

Oh he certainly does. Archie himself said that Neo was programmed to make that choice (and programmed by the emotion "love"). He said :

"Already, I can see the chain reaction - the
chemical precursors that signal the onset of an emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason".

The feeling that Neo had to refuse to "reload" was Oracle's, she "believed" that it was the thing to do. The Oracle decided that, Neo was just her "arm". He did what the Oracle expected from him, she knew that love was the only feeling strong enough to force a sane human to risk humanity's existence.

apocryphe wrote:

The humand mind will always do something for a reward. We are programmed to try to feel pleasure and to avoid pain as much as we can. No matter what we do, any behavior is the result of a program in our head who is seeking for a reward.

This "human mind" that you speak of which always seeks reward is the very same mind that has to be risen above. What is right should not depend always on some benefit to be gained from it. Even the human mind understands also the dangers inherent in this logic.

Think of the "divine" mind. If you believe in a god that is good, what reward does a mind like that seek in order to do what is good.

Reprogram.

apocryphe wrote:

The fact that this process goes through a system of "reward/punishment" does not mean that the process is wrong, it's just its way of functionning.

No not necessarily wrong, but definitely self-centered and thus limiting. For instance, this mind-set can not honestly speak against those who commit acts that lead to human suffering if there is a benefit to be gained because benefit is what it is all about.

apocryphe wrote:

The reward, his very nature, is means, is not an end, what matters is the purpose of the program that will use the pain/reward to reach its goal.

Okay Merv. But as long as it is a programming, it implies a lack of clear thinking on a subject that should be clear without a reward involved.

apocryphe wrote:

Also, this does not answer the question of "what must we do ?". Arjuna knows that it's his task to lead that battle, but then what should the opponent think/ do ? If I decided to follow that philosophy, how would I know whom to fight against ?

A standard of "right and wrong". Not a hierarchy of ego-serving benefits.

apocryphe wrote:

The feeling that Neo had to refuse to "reload" was Oracle's, she "believed" that it was the thing to do. The Oracle decided that, Neo was just her "arm". He did what the Oracle expected from him, she knew that love was the only feeling strong enough to force a sane human to risk humanity's existence.

*sighs*
This is Neo's journey, not the Oracle's.

It is bernard white, Apoc.

intell wrote:

What is right should not depend always on some benefit to be gained from it. Even the human mind understands also the dangers inherent in this logic.

Actually, when Siddhartha (Buddha) began to wonder about the pain, he did it because he was in pain. He started to think about it because he needed to understand why that feeling.

His mind tried to find a way to escape that unbearable concept, and somehow rationalized it. "If I can't change the world, then I can change my mind". But you see, the whole point of this is still to ease the pain, to be in peace with yourself.
As Merv said, "Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the 'why' ".

Trying to reach a state where you don't desire anything is a nonsense in itself, since you'll still desire the fact of not desiring anything else. Gödel's theorem, dude, everything is there.

Quote:

Think of the "divine" mind. If you believe in a god that is good, what reward does a mind like that seek in order to do what is good.

Americans say that if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutly. I disagree, because if you possess everything, what can you be corrupted by ?

Also, you assume that God is good, but I look around me and I see a shitty world where most of people (I don't even talk about all living beings) suffer a lot. If he's truly omnipotent, then there is no purpose o any suffering, wich brings the most obvious answer : he's not good at all.

Quote:

For instance, this mind-set can not honestly speak against those who commit acts that lead to human suffering if there is a benefit to be gained because benefit is what it is all about.

Hmm not really. In a lot of cases, living in a community where people are helping each others is more efficient than an egoist one.
Also, you can't live alone, so your fear or remaining alone will boost your gregarious instincts.

But I think that you have simplified my definition of "reward/punishment". You can still worry for other people because you'll feel bad for them. That's my definition of being good. So the debate is not if that's ok, it's that I mean it is not physically possible to be good if you desire nothing.

Quote:

it implies a lack of clear thinking on a subject that should be clear without a reward involved.

Quite the contrary, without a reward, people become lazy. Look at communism for instance.

Quote:

A standard of "right and wrong". Not a hierarchy of ego-serving benefits.

And who decide what is wrong ?

Quote:

This is Neo's journey, not the Oracle's.

The Oracle said "the path of the One is made by many" if I remember well.
Even Archie admits it "you played a dangerous game this time".

apocryphe wrote:

Also, you assume that God is good, but I look around me and I see a shitty world where most of people (I don't even talk about all living beings) suffer a lot. If he's truly omnipotent, then there is no purpose o any suffering, wich brings the most obvious answer : he's not good at all.

There are many ways to respond to this that would make sense.

1. Who is responsible for the way the "world" (you mean human society only, everything else in the Universe is working like clockwork, ) is? In other words, what is the source of human suffering?

2. I think you meant to write, "If god is truly omnipotent, then there must a purpose for suffering." If you didn't mean that, it is appropriate to bring up at this time, then. If you woke up during a surgical procedure, you would probably suffer. But the reason you submit to such a treatment is to correct something that could lead to worse. So consider whether there are more serious issues at stake.

You'll just have to find an answer that make sense and fits.

apocryphe wrote:

But I think that you have simplified my definition of "reward/punishment". You can still worry for other people because you'll feel bad for them. That's my definition of being good.

And if you don't feel bad for them is it okay to do nothing? Which one helps the sufferer. Pity (the emotion) or assistance (the action).

apocryphe wrote:

And who decide what is wrong?

Exactly. Is it a feeling? If so, then a person is right in causing suffering if he/she feels it is "right." No?

apocryphe wrote:

Quite the contrary, without a reward, people become lazy. Look at communism for instance.

Communism was to work based on cooperation. But as you point out

Quote:

people

want rewards/gains. Look at the rest of the physical world, though. It doesn't operate that way. See the problem with human society, yet? This is why Tozy, CaptPostMod, and others speak of "no-mind", methinks.

Apocryphe wrote:

About your link : how do we kno that poster is really Bernard White (who played Rama in Revolutions for those who don't know)?

forums.matrixfans.net...

This is the net, so you can't know for sure, but I trust Specter, the Admin over at MFN, to say the truth. They are also in contact with Spencer Lamm (burlyman), who does occasionally post over there for marketing reasons... (-> forums.matrixfans.net...)

___________________________________________________


Back on topic:

Apocryphe wrote:

Arjuna knows that it's his task to lead that battle, but then what should the opponent think/do ? If I decided to follow that philosophy, how would I know whom to fight against?

Not whom, but what...
As is the point of this thread, when I see Neo fighting Smith, I don't see an actual battle, but an inner struggle put into picture, not unlike in...

tozy wrote:

This is the net, so you can't know for sure, but I trust Specter, the Admin over at MFN, to say the truth. They are also in contact with Spencer Lamm (burlyman), who does occasionally post over there for marketing reasons... (-> forums.matrixfans.net...)

Yeah, and he is posting about The Art of the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions books here: forums.matrixfans.net...

His screen name is redeye