»Matrix pushing pluralism?«

I don't know, but, it seems to me that the Wachowski's just wanted to include every religion in their movie. Maybe they are trying to push the idea which pervades our society called "religious pluralism" (which can be readily seen on this forum), by saying that all religions pertain to the story equally well.

I would be disappointed if this were the case, because anyone with a brain should be able to see the inherant flaws in the contradictory pluralistic thinking.

Do you think this is the case? Do you have a pluralistic view of religion? Express your views here.

stinkz wrote:

Do you have a pluralistic view of religion?

What do you mean by "pluralistic"?

It's the idea that all religions are the same. They all are equally valid, all are false, or all are true.

Right now I cannot see Matrix being a religious movie (Where are the spirits? Where are the gods?)

The only yhing I can see is that they take mosaic pieces from a lot of (religious) philosophies and implement them in a new way.

ok... I can understand that. But we know that there are many religious overtones to the movie. Plus, Morpheus was the most steadfast believer in his savior, Neo... but his hopes were smashed. They make him say "I don't believe that" even when his own savior tells him something. It seems that they are showing the fallibilty of his faith.

Pluralism isn't really as described above. Empedocles was considered a pluralist, with his belief that no single view of reality can explictly account for our experiences of our lives. But then these same concepts also drive Idealism and Materialism, which are dipolar to say the least. Other than the individuals who believe in a religion and a god in an active term of view, those who have real faith and belief, the rest of us are pluraists. If you're a Christian, who believes and has faith, and you read these forums, and start to have any belief towards, say Buddism, or forbid you partake in Gnosticsism, you have become a pluralist. I watch and like movies other than just the Matrix series, so I'm a pluralist ;p

Not really... but nice try though. The fact that you watch more than 1 movie doesn't make you a pluralist. It is when you have conditioned your self to be able to believe two contradictory things. What probably makes you a pluralist (im guessing by your name) is that you buy into Buddhism or the Buddhist idea that everything is Buddhism.

The reason most people today have a pluralist outlook is because religious "tolerance" is being pushed on society. Now tolerance, itself, is not a bad thing... but when it comes before truth it creates a problem.

Nope, not a Buddist, or Christian, Muslim, Hindii or any other blather. Altho some Buddism as a philosophy and not a diety I will agree upon.

Name's just a handle, Japanese for Angel of Death, left over from years ago of playing a video game under that handle. All the Japanese people I deal with have known me under that name for a decade, so I just have gotten used to using it. Altho Gundam has a ShiniGami named character, so kids always ask if I'm into Gundam. And Gundam seems so old to me, I read it and watched it when they came out in 1978, so the same shows and charcters finally becomeing popular here in the US seems like very ancient history to me.

So I was right... you agree with Buddhism... probably because of its blatantly contradictory statements like "all religions are Buddhism."

you have to remember that the wac. brothers dont own warner brothers studio. the studio releases what they want released and im sure alot of the movie was made to put ideas into peoples minds to either persuade their outlook on 'reality' or to continue to program the publics minds. yes, many different ideas from most all religions are in the films but maybe that was done to simply control more people. warner brothers is an 'elite' family dynasty like other studio production companies and besides money the main goal is to shape the publics thoughts or at least try to(some dont allow the programming happen to them). most or at least alot of people on this board know that religion has been more of a hindrance to the human race than helpful at all. people see what they want to see in the films based on what they believe about 'reality' and religions. that is the trap in my views. i think the overwhelming message of the films is to forget everything you know because its ALL propaganda. if you wanna compare the whole jesus,buddha,god thing then by all means have a blast.

stinkz wrote:

So I was right... you agree with Buddhism... probably because of its blatantly contradictory statements like "all religions are Buddhism."

Buddhism states this in no way. Buddhists worship no God or Gods, they look towards Buddha as a figure to look up to because he achieved total enlightenment and reached the bliss of Nirvana.
Buddhists do not believe that all religions are Buddhism. In fact it is closer to a philosophy than a religion. Buddhism is founded on the Four Nobel truths.
1. The existence of suffering
2. The origin of suffering is attachment
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable
4.The path to the cessation of suffering

Basically it works logically very well. We suffer when we don’t get things we want or we lose things we are attached to. Since nothing is eternal and everything will eventually die or be destroyed complete happiness can never be achieved if you have desires for worldly things such as possessions and partners. By destroying the want and desire for things we can be perfectly happy and enlightened (this is called Nirvana)
If you don’t want anything then you are constantly satisfied.

In regards to your quoted statement: This is a false statement, Buddha himself even said “The worship of false doctrines is evil” Any religion that is not based around creating generosity, selflessness, good will, peace and self control is fundamentally wrong and will not lead to salvation.

However what you said about pluralism is half correct (Ironically). I think you mean ‘Duality’ most eastern philosophies believe that it is possible for something to be more than one thing at once, even though seemingly contradictory. Whereas western philosophy has to make distinctions between things and ‘label and box’ them. Western people would say a wooden chair is just a chair and eastern people would say it is a tree, a log and a chair.

Jeffshag:

By claiming that the films are overwhelming a message that says "forget the Propaganda of religion"... isn't that just your thoughts coming through on the film?

For instance, you tell relgious viewers to have a blast finding all the meanings and messages in the film. Then you, one who sees the religions and philosophies as propaganda... are doing the same exact thing. You don't believe any of it, so you see it in the film, and your translations of the film is that religion does no good, forgetting about it is the key.

What's interesting about the Matrix is just how many versions of the story people have. I like that. I see the film, and I have a few "messages" that I got out of the film. The one is based totally on my own feelings. My religious thoughts and philosophical predispositions look at the film, and come to a conclusion. Ultimately, it is most satisfying to just me.

The second version of it is what I think the Brothers are trying to say. It would be stupid for me to put them down here on the forum because I know I don't really know, but I have lots of guesses that I will keep private.

The third version is me trying to look at the text of the Matrix, and actually find the "exact' meaning that the film tries to suggest. This is virtually impossible, but I try nonetheless.

But the view that we're wasting our time putting thought into the philosophical undertones is just your "religion" or "philosophy" coming out. You think it's propaganda, so the film was, according to you, about conquering all that.

Have a blast doing that.

Quote:

most or at least alot of people on this board know that religion has been more of a hindrance to the human race than helpful at all. people see what they want to see in the films based on what they believe about 'reality' and religions. that is the trap in my views.

Well, I suppose we do to an extent. On the other hand, I'm prepared to believe that there is no such thing as "no religion." You can be an atheist or whatever, but ultimately, you've got beliefs about this world and what it is about. There doesn't need to be a spiritual god to make religion work. Okay, maybe that's more philosophy then, but terms are terms. But, based on this quote, you've fallen into your own trap.

...believe me, i know theres a strong underlying message in the films. i dont doubt that one bit at all. i know theres some hidden 'instructions' one can apply to their life to bring about more awareness. im just saying that some things in the film,one might say, were placed there for diversion as well as to try to 'free ones mind'. ultimately though its up to the person to choose which 'path' to go.

Yaldaboath wrote:

stinkz wrote: So I was right... you agree with Buddhism... probably because of its blatantly contradictory statements like "all religions are Buddhism." Buddhism states this in no way.

I'm afraid you are missing something here. The Dalai Lama is one of the most major pluralists. He is able to get round the pluralism problem for several reasons:

1. While buddhists do not worship gods they still accept their existence.

2. Buddhists accepted the importance of certain gods such as the great Brahman. Though they denote less control to these deities. Gods can teach and gods can influence but they do not control man's destiny.

3. Buddhists believe in several realms of samsara. Some of these are heavens. In turn, these heavens are reached by amassing karma.

4. However, buddhists are of the opinion that these heavens are impermanent and that eventually everyone will have need of enlightenment with which to enter nirvana which is beyond permanence and impermanence.

Hence buddhists think that all religions will lead to some form of heaven, but this concept denies the strength of the religions in themselves because buddhism claims that none of them can produce a permanent salvation and that only buddhism can do this.

However, I could argue in return to Stinkz that all this is is a buddhist inclusivism and that pluralism is something different to this.

I presume Stinkz has read the writings of Hick and knows of the concept that all gods or concepts of the beyond are manifestations of the transcendental 'Real' which is viewed differently by various cultures. Pluralism merely recognises that people cannot change religious viewpoint because of their cultural background, but that they may well have the same spiritual outlook in essence.

I am beginning to believe that what exists in my country is atheism which has incorporated the old Christian tradition. I was very moved by the teachings of Nietzsche (if I should be allowed to call them teachings), but I cannot possibly imagine removing myself entirely from the concept of God (even though Nietzsche sees the concept of God to be detrimental to spiritual development). Even adopting atheism seems impossible for me in practice, because of my Christian cultural background.


(edit - the bit below is where I started waffling)
Then again Nietzsche's Zarathustra says of God "who is more godless than I that I might enjoy his teachings". Maybe there is sometimes more to be gained from religion if one has a neutral position to it? Something to ponder over....

Well... it looks like it's been a full year since I've posted here.... and it's still going. Wow.

It's evident that the film drew quite an emphasis on the concept of 'religion' and it's apparent that some sense of buddhism was smuggled into the context of the movie. What's even more attracting is the blend of all the human psychology inherent in the film without even the film's direct acknowledgement of them(i.e. alot of Nietzsche). More so, the film draws a unique discrepancy amidst it's approach towards and also negation of determinism. Can you guys see it? Clearly the religious context is centered on Christianity and thus presents a reflection through the depiction of the "real world" through Nietzsche(The Birth of a Tragedy). But the film's stress on "purpose" was clearly reliant upon its religious context and thus determinism rules out in the end and essentially makes "the real world" nearly as arbitrary and limited as the fake one.
Maybe I sidetracked a bit... I think pluralism is evident in the film. Not specifically in different religious aspects as much as it is based on a pluralistic expression of human psychology and analysis of the world(Nietzsche, Nozick, Plato, Kant, and even contemporary authors such as Scott Adams and Richard Bach).

stinkz wrote:

The reason most people today have a pluralist outlook is because religious "tolerance" is being pushed on society. Now tolerance, itself, is not a bad thing... but when it comes before truth it creates a problem.

I'm confused... Why is this 'religious pluralism' a bad thing? How is tolerance getting in the way of truth? Better still, what is truth? Is it science? Is it Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism, Zen, Taoism? My truth and your truth may even come from the same place, and still disagree. Yet they are still truths, are they not? So how can this idea of 'religious pluralism,' as I understand your definition and connotations, possibly be a problem, when clearly, tolerance allows many equally valid viewpoints to shine, and illuminate possibilities that might otherwise never be discovered?

Some believe that the Rigvedas--the oldest known religious or holy texts--are not mystical or spiritual so much as scientific treatises. (I don't understand the argument very well, myself, but there it is). The Vedas also teach that 'Truth is One; the sages call it by many names.' ...Sounds pretty tolerant to me. Yes, almost 'pluralist,' even. When religion says that there's only one path to Truth, it creates conflict. Are you saying that you'd rather conduct a Crusade than accept that the truth you know might just have something in common with something someone else accepts as truth, though you do not?

In the end, it's not about conditioning yourself to believe contradictory things; it is about finding the similarities between literally contrasting things that ought not to be taken literally in the first place.

Stinkz problem is that he can't imagine that religion might just be a way of looking at the world like mathematics or logic which essentially only continues to be used because it works. He doesn't simply believe in truths (which are altered as time goes by and experience increases), but 'eternal' truths.

Only religions believe in eternal truths, and even then only when they find their beliefs challenged.... No one cares about eternal truth quite so much as the evangelic Christian.