»De-limited Spirit«

Larry Wachowski (Path of Neo):
____________________________________
"You see at this point in the story Neo stands on 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, which occurs after he has abandoned the perspectival nature of Truth, accepting the Totality of Present Consciousness which ultimately allows an evolutionary transition, transcending the Cartesian dilemma through the emergence of the de-limited spirit, which then provides the world with the choice of a third path, the path of Neo, the path of the peace."
_____________________________________
forums.matrixfans.net...


De-limited spirit?

Yep,... DEM told us about it:


Neo: "The program Smith has grown beyond your control. Soon he will spread through this city as he spread through the Matrix. You cannot stop him, but I can."

DEM's response can be interpreted two ways:

(1) DEM: "We don't NEED you; we NEED nothing", as in "we don't need any help, we can deal with this ourselves.


or... (go back to the scene and listen to how DEM pronounces it!)...:


(2)

tozy wrote:

"Everything that has a beginning has an end. I see the end coming. I see the darkness spreading. I see death." At that moment "the end" is Smith, the destruction of the world through him. So, Neo leaves the Oracle thinking that he has to fight and destroy Smith. But,... upon his Satori (integral: sudden spiritual breakthrough) moment, hearing the Oracle's words spoken by Smith, he understands that "the end" is not Smith himself, but the end of the manifestation Smith through the end of what manifested him..., Neo himself -> sacrifice Just the same, upon hearing DEM's words, Neo doesn't understand them for what they are. But his reaction to DEM's seemingly hostile and threatening gesture - he reacts all calm and unemotional, unconcerned about his own life - shows that he is ready for this sacrifice and that he will understand when the moment has come. "And if you fail?" "I won't" -> You have already made the choice, now you have to understand it.

if thats true, and neo knows that he has to die in order to save them, why fight smith for so long, I think its obvious that he is still trying to kill smith. even if it seems like a lost fight from the beginning, with all those smiths watching, but cuz hes the one he kan do them all in.

tozy wrote:

"Everything that has a beginning has an end. I see the end coming. I see the darkness spreading. I see death." At that moment "the end" is Smith, the destruction of the world through him. So, Neo leaves the Oracle thinking that he has to fight and destroy Smith. But,... upon his Satori (integral: sudden spiritual breakthrough) moment, hearing the Oracle's words spoken by Smith, he understands that "the end" is not Smith himself, but the end of the manifestation Smith through the end of what manifested him..., Neo himself -> sacrifice Just the same, upon hearing DEM's words, Neo doesn't understand them for what they are. But his reaction to DEM's seemingly hostile and threatening gesture - he reacts all calm and unemotional, unconcerned about his own life - shows that he is ready for this sacrifice and that he will understand when the moment has come. "And if you fail?" "I won't" -> You have already made the choice, now you have to understand it.

if thats true, and neo knows that he has to die in order to save them, why fight smith for so long, I think its obvious that he is still trying to kill smith. even if it seems like a lost fight from the beginning, with all those smiths watching, but cuz hes the one he kan do them all in.

Oxymoron wrote:

if thats true, and neo knows that he has to die in order to save them,...

Neo: Trinity... There's something I have to say. Something you need to understand. I know I'm supposed to go. But beyond that - I don't know...
Trinity: I know. You don't think you're coming back.

Oxymoron wrote:

why fight smith for so long, I think its obvious that he is still trying to kill smith.

Because, I believe, the trilogy talks about conscious and subconscious knowledge.
Our conscious knowledge involves what we are aware of. Our subconscious knowledge involves what we really are, but unaware of -> Know thyself

Neo, after having consulted the Oracle in Revolutions: I need...time...

...to turn myself inward, to consult my subconscious.
He has never before consciously seen the three power lines, but he is now ready to see them in his subconscious.
-> Even though he doesn't know what is expecting him there, Neo's subconscious tells him that he has to go to the machine city...

Neo: I know I'm supposed to go. But beyond that - I don't know.

...He'll understand when the time has come.

Just the same, Neo's knows that he, and he alone, can destroy Smith; but he is not yet aware of how. This subconscious knowledge has not yet become conscious knowledge. Only when Smiths speaks the Oracle's words to him, does he understand. That is the moment that he is about to understand his true nature:

Neo: You were right, Smith. You were always right. It was inevitable.

-> Subconscious knowledge becomes conscious knowledge through experience:

Neo: Then why didn't you tell me about the Architect? Why didn't you tell me about Zion, the Ones before me - why didn't you tell me the truth?
Oracle: Because it wasn't time for you to know.
Neo: Who decided it wasn't time?
Oracle: You know who. *She points at the Temet Nosce (know thyself) sign above the door*
Neo: I did. *Oracle nods*

To me, this delimited spirit is very much in keeping with machines as spirit and humans as material theories. And that the goal in the trilogoy is the uniting of spirit and matter.

Of course Cartesian dualism largely concerns the inability of the spirit to overcome and integrate fully into the material. So in delimiting the spirit, Neo removes the restrictions of the spirit, solving the dilema of Cartesian dualism and bringing unity and peace.

I still don't see the concept of Buddha-nature in all of this. The concept of Buddha-nature is just such a separate (though on the surface similiar looking) approach than the concept of Brahman.

CaptPostMod wrote:

To me, this delimited spirit is very much in keeping with machines as spirit and humans as material theories. And that the goal in the trilogoy is the uniting of spirit and matter.

How about this interpretation:
The humans are... humans. The machines are a metaphorical expression of man's spirit nature and it's effect on man's life.
Separation and unification, as seen in the trilogy, are not a physical act; rather they take place in man's consciousness.

How's that? Let me talk in Hinduism (sorry for repeating myself; I do so for the sake of those who are not familiar with these concepts), so you can decide for yourself in how far you can agree with the Buddhist approach:

There is an underlying reality to man's nature; Hinduism calls it Brahman, universal consciousness (beyond thought), world soul. In Brahman we all are one.
Man is essentially Brahman, but our sense of "I" does cloud our consciousness from this our true nature. We perceive ourselves as individual selves, unaware of our true nature, in which we are one with everything.
This, I believe, is the separation the Matrix universe talks about: A separation in our consciousness from our true nature - and thus the All - through the sense of "I".

Hinduism argues that our spirit nature cannot be grasped by the intellect; it must be experienced,… not unlike in:

Oracle: You know what that means? It's Latin. Means "KNOW THYSELF".
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Being the one is just like being in love. No one can tell you your in love, you just know it. Through and through. Balls to bones.

So, I believe, when we see the light penetrating Neo on all three levels, physical, mental and spiritual…

Nicely said, Tozy. Well done.

tozy wrote:

So, I believe, when we see the light penetrating Neo on all three levels, physical, mental and spiritual… matrix-explained.com... ...it is an expression of the “experience” spirit nature, as opposed to mere understanding on the intellectual level. Accordingly, as I understand it, Neo doesn’t delimit spirit; rather de-limited spirit, his true nature – from his subconscious - enters his consciousness -> Neo overcomes the separation in consciousness -> “know thyself” -> enlightenment.

The one question I do have, though, is why then does Neo struggle when the light is trying to penetrate him? In the script, Neo is simply filled with light, which ties in more to your theory. However, the brothers changed this slightly. Neo seems to have to be almost crucified before he is given that "connection". Why do you feel they chose to depict this?

Vanexel,
I have the honour of,… er… “quoting” you… :
___________________

SMITH (CONT'D)
Everything that has a beginning, has an end.

The familiar words suddenly clear Neo's mind. He looks up as Smith looks down.

SMITH (CONT'D)
Don't be afraid, Neo.

Neo almost can't believe what he just heard as--

Another flash reveals the liquid obsidian covering Neo's face, but his face is calm, even serene.

SMITH (CONT'D)
What? What did I just say?

In his confusion, he looks to Neo who now understands.

SMITH (CONT'D)
No, no. This isn't right, This can't be right!

One final time, Neo rises to his feet

SMITH (CONT'D)
Get away from me!

NEO
What are you afraid of?

SMITH
It's a trick!

NEO
No, it's what you want. It's why you're here.

SMITH
No!

NEO
You were right, Smith. You were always right.

Rain pours down Smith's tortured face.

NEO (CONT'D)
It was inevitable.

Smith's eyes fire, a scram rises up from him and in a crackling, blinding flash of lightning--
He stabs his fist into Neo, who stands with his arms open, accepting the blow.
____________________________
forums.matrixfans.net...


Obviously, in this scene, Neo surrenders to Smith, but - as the above quote from the Revolutions script shows - Neo has to talk a reluctant - even scared - Smith into copying onto him.

As you know from my above posts, it is my understanding that Smith is a representation of Neo's ego,... the sense of "I", the force "pulling us back from freedom of the All to seek fulfilment in our egos" (matrix-explained.com...); and the light is a representation of "de-limited" spirit, Neo's true nature -> universal spirit.


Smith has copied onto Neo:
______________________

Neo's body hangs motionless, supported by the passageway as we see as Neo would, an empty husk that is being filled, liquid light pouring into him from every connection.

EXT. MATRIX CITY STREET - NIGHT

The old Smith realizes that he is laughing alone, There is something wrong with then new Smith.

The new Smith begins to tremble, a shiver that grows into a convulsion.

OLD SMITH

Oh no, no, no. It's not fair! It's not fair!

INT. MACHINE CITY TOWER - NIGHT

Neo's body arches, his arms pinned wide as he tries to scream but instead of sound, a shaft of light beams out.

He opens his eyes and light pours out of them.

EXT. MATRIX CITY STREET - NIGHT

Light brightens around Smith's sunglasses, until they begin to crack and shred like wet tissues as shafts of brilliant light burst free.
_______________________


I believe it is Smith, the many, the sense of "I", now caught inside/by Neo's stilled mind, which struggles against being extinguished from within by the overwhelming power of the light -> Neo's true nature, The ONE.

deleted

Larry W. wrote:

...But that can only be achieved through an act of surrender, which occurs after he has abandoned the perspectival nature of Truth, accepting the Totality of Present Consciousness which ultimately allows an evolutionary transition...

perspectival nature of truth
-> Neo

totality of present consciousness
-> Neo + Smith

accepting the totality
-> merging

deleted

OK,... let me try:

The ultimate truth is “nothingness” -> beyond attributes.
A manifest existence, is an existence in the world of attributes.

With the eyes of the world of attributes, one must see a perspectival nature of truth.

-> DEM: “We don’t need YOU”

To see truth in its essence, one must transcend the world of attributes -> enlightenment

-> DEM: “We need... NOTHING”


We know from the Oracle that Smith is Neo’s opposite, his negative.

Neo (positive) = Smith (negative)

In this equation, total consciousness is present, but parted into two halves.
Now,… if you change the equation into this…

Neo (positive) + Smith (negative) = 0

...total consciousness, again, is present, but this time as a whole,… and it equals (or will result in)… “nothing”.

To get there, Neo has to accept the "totality of present consciousness", by leaving his side of the equation, the perspectival nature of truth, and merging with Smith.

-> DEM: "We need... NOTHING"


Better?

I think I was assigning totality incorrectly. So the equation then is. x (prespectival nature) and y (totality of present consciousness).

CaptPostMod wrote:

I think I was assigning totality incorrectly. So the equation then is. x (prespectival nature) and y (totality of present consciousness).

I am not sure I understand the equation you see behind the variables as you give them. The equation I would make out of your variables would be:

x1 (Neo -> perspectival -> positive) = x2 (Smith -> perspectival -> negative)

x1 (Neo -> positive) + x2 (Smith -> negative) = Y (totality of present consciousness)

CaptPostMod wrote:

Which then translates to, "abandoning Neo and and accepting Smith"

Not abandoning Neo, but adding Neo and Smith to a whole by moving both to one side of the equation.

CaptPostMod wrote:

So it is not necessarily a stament that one muse abandon perspectivism in favor of current consciousness, but that one must give up fixed perspective in favor of total realization?

To avoid misunderstandings:
Perspectivism, as in acknowledging that all perception takes place from a specific perspective?
How would you define "current consciousness"?

deleted

CaptPostMod wrote:

Perspectival is a word used in perspectivism, so I take it to mean, as you say, "perception occuring from a specific perspective."

Ah,.. ok... I asked, because under "perspectivism" I do not understand the phenomenon - perception occuring from a specific perspective - itself, but the acknowledgement of that phenomenon.
For that reason I was not sure how to understand your...

CaptPostMod wrote:

a stament that one must abandon perspectivism in favor of current consciousness

It's always best to ask...

CaptPostMod wrote:

But re-reading it, I am now taking totallity in a different light. Instead of absoluteness, I'm taking it as all encompassing (total).

Yep -> kbi.org.au...

CaptPostMod wrote:

So Neo must abandon his fixed perspective of what is and is not true

I wouldn't say "his fixed perspective of truth". His repeated "I don't know" is a clue that he has no fixed perspective of truth; he is still the one to seek truth.
Rather I'd say "his approach to truth within the realm of perspective" -> conditioned existence.

CaptPostMod wrote:

and accept the all encompassing nature of consciousness in this moment?

or:
and understand that he has reached the end of his path (it is my interpretation that the machine city is a metaphorical expression of the very center of man, the "seat" of our true nature); now he has to give up the realm of perspective -> death of the "I", to reach full awareness.

Does that make sense to you?

tozy wrote:

it is my interpretation that the machine city is a metaphorical expression of the very center of man, the "seat" of our true nature

From the Mundaka Upanisad/Neodämmerung lyrics (second paragraph):

He who knows all, and whose glory the universe shows, dwells as the spirit of the divine city of Brahman in the region of the human heart. He becomes mind and drives the body and life (...) There the wise find him as joy and light and life eternal.

And when he is seen in his immanence and transcendence, then the ties that have bound the heart are unloosened, the doubts of the mind vanish, and the law of Karma works no more.


A few more interesting quotes:

There is light within a person of light, and it shines on the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark.
(Gospel of Thomas)
____________________

The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"

Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.

Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
(Gospel of Thomas)
_________________________

Jesus said, The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and looked for the one until he found it. After he had toiled, he said to the sheep, 'I love you more than the ninety-nine.
(the parable of the lost sheep in Thomas)
_______________________

Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence. Ignorance -- whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities -- is dispelled only by Gnosis
The Gnostic world view (gnosis.org...)
_________________________

Not through much learning is the Atman (Brahman) reached, not through the intellect and sacred teaching. It is reached by the chosen of him – because they choose him.
(Katha Upanishad)
__________________________

And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others.
(Baghavad Gita)

Thank you for posting these quotes, tozy. I must admit I haven't read the Gospel of Thomas. I know of it but never had the opportunity to study it. Your post makes me want to check it out. What edition were you citing from (I know there are several, and many arguments about their authenticity).

tozy wrote:

The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?" Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death." (Gospel of Thomas)

The above quote is very Zen Buddhist in nature. That true mind is original mind. To know the end is to know the beginning (and the present).

tozy wrote:

Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence. Ignorance -- whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities -- is dispelled only by Gnosis The Gnostic world view (gnosis.org...)

This quote interested me in that it is both supported and countered in the Heart Sutra-

The Heart Sutra wrote:

No ignorance and also no extinction of it...

CaptPostMod wrote:

Thank you for posting these quotes, tozy. I must admit I haven't read the Gospel of Thomas. I know of it but never had the opportunity to study it. Your post makes me want to check it out

In that case I recommend that you also read "the Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels (-> en.wikipedia.org...).
It gives you a good introduction into Gnosticism (not the mythology, though, but the believe system behind the myth),... and an interesting view of the development of the early Christian church.

CaptPostMod wrote:

What edition were you citing from (I know there are several, and many arguments about their authenticity)

This is the link to the version I've quoted:
gnosis.org...

But I recommend that you read several versions and compare them, so that you can - somewhat - "make up your own damn mind" (-> gnosis.org...)
That's what I did with the Gita and the Upanishads.

CaptPostMod wrote:

tozy wrote: The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?" Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death." (Gospel of Thomas) The above quote is very Zen Buddhist in nature. That true mind is original mind. To know the end is to know the beginning (and the present).

You know,.... it's also very Hindu in nature :... the true self is the original Self (Atman), which is the universal SELF (Brahman = no-thing -> nothing -> ALL)

-> "Everything that has a beginning has an end" -> matrix-explained.com...

CaptPostMod wrote:

tozy wrote: Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence. Ignorance -- whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities -- is dispelled only by Gnosis The Gnostic world view (gnosis.org...) This quote interested me in that it is both supported and countered in the Heart Sutra- The Heart Sutra wrote: No ignorance and also no extinction of it...

While the heart sutra teaches "radical" nonduality, Gnosticism has a dual aspect: Man, though not God, is:

"to know oneself, at the deepest level, is simultaneously to know God: this is the secret of gnosis.... Self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical." (Elaine Pagels)

See also this introduction to Gnosticism and The Nag Hammadi Library: gnosis.org...

Thanks for all that. Good stuff to check out. I studied Gnosticism just a little while studying Meister Eckhart and Marguerite Porete many years ago. The "free spirit heresy" that they were proponents of was actually something that had pointed me towards Buddhism back in the day. But obviously Eckhart and Porete were writing on these topics a millinium after the Gnostic Gospels were written so going back a little further could be really interesting.

Have you ever read the Hiram Key? It's mostly melarky about the history of Free-Masonry but there's some really interesting things in it about the Gnostics. As I say, it needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt, but still worth checking out.

tozy wrote:

You know,.... it's also very Hindu in nature :... the true self is the original Self (Atman), which is the universal SELF (Brahman = no-thing -> nothing -> ALL)

Here I'm much more willing to concede the similiarties between Buddhism and Hinduism. Of course, Buddhism would say that their is no true self only original No-Self (Anattman). But in some ways the difference is symantic.

I read a Buddhist parable once that compared Anattman and Attman by saying if a Guru saw a chariot they would point to the chariot and say "The chariot is made of all of its part. All these pieces together are one, because they form chariot." But a Buddhist master would point to the chariot and say, "The chariot is made of all of its part. Chariot does not exist, because its form is all these dependent interconnected parts."

CaptPostMod wrote:

Have you ever read the Hiram Key? (...) it needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt, but still worth checking out.

I haven't read it, but it seems I should.... A huge grain of salt as in "Holy Blood / Holy Grail" or "Da Vinci Code"?

CaptPostMod wrote:

tozy wrote: You know,.... it's also very Hindu in nature :... the true self is the original Self (Atman), which is the universal SELF (Brahman = no-thing -> nothing -> ALL) Here I'm much more willing to concede the similiarties between Buddhism and Hinduism. Of course, Buddhism would say that their is no true self only original No-Self (Anattman). But in some ways the difference is symantic.

It seems to me that the different Hindu branches cannot agree on a clear definition of what the Atman is. Even more so, I believe, Buddhists and Hindus define it differently. Also, I believe, there are some misunderstandings about the other religion's concept. This quote is a good example:

"Those who seek to minimise the distance between Buddhism and Hinduism assert that in his anatta doctrine the Buddha only referred to the "selfishness" of people, which they referred to as the "small ego" in contrast to the "Grand Ego" (which is equated to the Atman)."
buddhanet.net...

I have never ever read any Hindu text call the Atman the "Grand Ego". Hinduism talks about the two selves.... "Self", not as in "ego", but as in "nature".
The lower self is the ego, the illusory sense of "I", whereas the true Self is the ALL (Atman -> Brahman), a person's true nature.

So, as I understand the (nondual) Hindu approach, the true Self is the no-self.

CaptPostMod wrote:

I read a Buddhist parable once that compared Anattman and Attman by saying if a Guru saw a chariot they would point to the chariot and say "The chariot is made of all of its part. All these pieces together are one, because they form chariot." But a Buddhist master would point to the chariot and say, "The chariot is made of all of its part. Chariot does not exist, because its form is all these dependent interconnected parts."

From the Katha Upanishad:

Know the Self (Atman) as the Lord of Chariot, the body as the chariot itself, the buddhi (intuition) as the charioteer and the mind as reins. The senses are said to be the horses and selfish desires as the roads they (the senses) travel. When the Self (Atman) is confused with the body, mind and senses, they say that he appears to enjoy pleasures and suffer sorrow.
(...)
Beyond the senses are the objects of sense.
Beyond the objects of sense is the mind.
Beyond the mind is the intuition.
Beyond the intuition is the great soul.
Beyond the great is the unmanifest.
Beyond the unmanifest is Spirit.
Beyond the Spirit there is nothing at all.
That is the end; that is the final goal.

tozy wrote:

I haven't read it, but it seems I should.... A huge grain of salt as in "Holy Blood / Holy Grail" or "Da Vinci Code"?

Holy Blood/Holy Grail grain of salt, definitely not Da Vinci Code.

Totally side story, but I used to work at the same literary agency as Dan Brown's agent (the Sanford Greenburger Agency). I met Dan Brown a couple times (he was the stereotypical professor as I remember, tweed jacket and all). This was a couple years before Da Vinci code. At that time, Dan's books were just moderate sellers. His agent was president of the agency, but the other agents felt like they had the best clients. They represented massive sellers like Nelson DeMille and Nick Sparks. But Heidi just had Dan Brown, author of Angels and Demons (which at that time had sold moderately well but wasn't really a blockbuster).

I left before Dan blew up with Da Vinci. I always wondered how the other agents reacted to that? Here's this guy they weren't too impressed with, and then out of nowhere he becomes one of the highest selling authors of the last decade! If memory serves the idea of the Da Vinci code was even discussed a little once in a meeting as being Dan's next book and no one really thought it sounded like it would do any better than his other mild selling books!

So there's my silly little side story for a laugh!

Incidentely, a book I haven't read but would very much like to is Masahiro Mori's The Buddha in the Robot: A Robot Engineer's Thoughts on Science and Religion. I stumbled on it today while researching some of these misperseptions of Buddhists about what Hinduism means by Atman. The book apparently postulates that if all consciousness is only the perception of consciousness, then artificial intelligence and intelligence are no different. Sounds like it touches on a lot of the ideas of the Matrix.

Animatrix wrote:

To an artificial mind, all reality is virtual."