Random Symbols (Ivory Tower: Episode 2)

Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by JediGaladriel, Jan 26, 2000.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JediGaladriel Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 1999
    star 5
    This is a typo-friendly thread. I guessed you meant Maul, and I figure most people will.

    To edit, click on the icon of the pencil and paper. It will bring up a screen that looks like the post screen, with your message in the "Reply" box. Make the changes you want, then hit "Submit."
  2. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Good Post, all.

    I'm going to react mostly to obilon's great post, since there's just too much stuff in this thread...

    As for the technology issue. Han, when we first meet him is reliant on his ship, but that is before he changes over to the rebellion.

    The above quote dovetails nicely with leia's exasperation directed at Luke in ANH: "I wonder if your friend cares about anything. Or anyone." We are introduced to a Han that cares only for him, his ship and his wookiee, and trusts nothing else. By the end of the trilogy, he has become one who makes great personal sacrifices (Leia: "I wonder who they found to pull that off?") and depends on his friends.

    (BTW Does anyone realize that Han NEVER pilots the Millenium falcon in ROTJ!)
    Not to nitpick, but I think he flew it off of Tatooine to the fleet after the recuse at Jabbas. I may be forgetting a scene, but I beleive we hear him off-camera and can infer he's flying.

    All the elements of the Rebellion's use of technolgy (especially lightsabers!!) is as a tool. First there is the individual. Then the force. Then the technology or tool.

    Yeah, good point. Lightsabers, X-Wings, etc. all seem to be personality enhancers. Objects which allow the individual to flourish and make a personal difference.

    Look at snubfighters. A collection of small, directly controlled machines employed by individuals to combat machine-like opponents (TIEs) or massive weapons of destruction (SD, SSD, DS). That the rebels employ these individually controlled fighters and destroy huge manacing implements of destruction ("technological terrors") is a huge moral underlining SW.

    Okay, I'll let someone else jump in....


    "Copy Gold leader...I'm already on my way out."
  3. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Good Post, all.

    I'm going to react mostly to obilon's great post, since there's just too much stuff in this thread...

    As for the technology issue. Han, when we first meet him is reliant on his ship, but that is before he changes over to the rebellion.

    The above quote dovetails nicely with leia's exasperation directed at Luke in ANH: "I wonder if your friend cares about anything. Or anyone." We are introduced to a Han that cares only for him, his ship and his wookiee, and trusts nothing else. By the end of the trilogy, he has become one who makes great personal sacrifices (Leia: "I wonder who they found to pull that off?") and depends on his friends.

    (BTW Does anyone realize that Han NEVER pilots the Millenium falcon in ROTJ!)
    Not to nitpick, but I think he flew it off of Tatooine to the fleet after the recuse at Jabbas. I may be forgetting a scene, but I beleive we hear him off-camera and can infer he's flying.

    All the elements of the Rebellion's use of technolgy (especially lightsabers!!) is as a tool. First there is the individual. Then the force. Then the technology or tool.

    Yeah, good point. Lightsabers, X-Wings, etc. all seem to be personality enhancers. Objects which allow the individual to flourish and make a personal difference.

    Look at snubfighters. A collection of small, directly controlled machines employed by individuals to combat machine-like opponents (TIEs) or massive weapons of destruction (SD, SSD, DS). That the rebels employ these individually controlled fighters and destroy huge manacing implements of destruction ("technological terrors") is a huge moral underlining SW.

    Okay, I'll let someone else jump in....


    "Copy Gold leader...I'm already on my way out."
  4. JediGaladriel Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 1999
    star 5
    I agree with obilon (though I think originally there had been plans for Han to fly the Falcon off Tatooine). Throughout ESB, the Falcon has ceased to respond to Han, because it was an attempt to return to his old life. After his death and resurrection, that old part of his life would be left behind. Though I can't see that particular mythic truth outlasting "Jedi," no matter how true in might be symbolically.
  5. JediGaladriel Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 1999
    star 5
    Actually, we were discussing the issue elsewhere about Lando. It's because I agree with you, symbolically, that I think Lucas was right to change the script -- it would have shifted the focus very strongly to Han when it didn't belong there. As it is, the symbol did an interesting thing that wasn't distracting -- it's moved Lando to the place Han was at the beginning, ready to begin that journey, while Han moves on to the next one (and Anakin, the third member of the redeemed trio, moves on into yet a third). Kind of a continuum of going from pure self to self+machine+limited group (Han at the beginning, Lando at the end; come to think of it, Anakin in EpI, with his podracer), to leader of a group (Vader throughout, albeit in a twisted way, Han in RotJ; yes, Lando is a General, but his function is very much the loner with the Falcon, as Han was at the end of ANH), to the balance (?!) between the two, where the personal concerns of the heart meld with the concerns of the leader and bring redemption (Anakin at the end, probably Han not too long after).

    [This message has been edited by JediGaladriel (edited 02-23-2000).]
  6. one-fan Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 18, 1999
    star 2
    What is this thing?

    Obilon-I do hope that you are wrong about the "love triangle," we want space opera, not soap opera.

    More seriously, I agree with Jedi Galadriel. From a mythic archtype standpoint(!) to have the giver of wisdom steal the anima is just wrong.

    ON the earth, air, fire, water theme-the Jedi themselves wear earth colored clothing, Tatooine is air and fire, Naboo is water and earth, as is Dagobah.

    As far as technology, the Jedi and many of the other "good guys" are pretty techie-I keep bringing this up, but Obi-Wan does space ship repair with a screwdriver. I'm inclined to think that it's not "technology=bad", "nature=good", but rather how the opposing groups use and view technology. I especially like the idea of the Rebellion using technology to enhance their essential personalities, while the Empire uses technology to control and suppress individuality. Remember, that several living nonsentient creatures pose dangers-the Rancor, the Sarlacc, the dianoga, the sea creatures of Naboo.
  7. JediGaladriel Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 1999
    star 5
    I didn't see a love triangle in the old one. I saw Luke with a crush, and Leia using him to annoy Han. Then I saw Han being an irritating jerk during RotJ. For heaven's sake, she'd told him she loved him, she'd spent months of her life planning his rescue, she'd risked her life in carrying it out... and he actually questions it? Grrr. I have to admit, my totally unintellectual, gut instinct every time he brought the subject up was to take him and shake him. Definitely not the response I want to have with Ani.

    Okay, I have a different symbol question to put on the table. It came up in the discussion of the McCallum interview, and OJSithLord said he wants the twins to be illegitimate. Now, I say that would be symbolically wrong, but I can't explain myself. (Before I get myself in trouble about not being accepting of non-traditional family structures, trust me, I come from an n-t family structure; I'm speaking purely in the myth realm here.)

    Is there a symbolic difference between the illegitimate child and the legitimate one? In the first case, I tend to think of Mordred, or the son of CuCuchlain (whose name I can never remember if I'm not looking right at it) -- both fated to be their good fathers' downfalls (both through rebellion and war; Mordred's actually through treachery). As opposed to Luke, who is his father's salvation, or Cinderella, the legitimate heir to the "kingdom," denied by her stepmother, who finally brings all to rights by retaking her rightful place. Anyone have thoughts on this?
  8. JediGaladriel Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 1999
    star 5
    Darth Vader "fell.' He did not pick up and leave. That will make all the difference in my mind.

    Yes, that's exactly what the difference is in my mind. In the cases of Arthur and CuCuchlain, the sons were both conceived under strange circumstances, each tainted by fate to be an agent of the father's destruction... I think you're right about illegitimacy always having a dark undertone in myth, and I don't think that's something that can be "fixed"; it's an archetypical issue, not a political one. I can see the illegitimate daughter becoming equivalent to the illegitimate son -- that's an archetype that really is moving -- but I think there's something very deeply rooted about the image of the "rightful" heir vs the "usurper." (Of course, it gets sticky when you mix it with the primogeniture issue, if the illegitimate child is also firstborn, but that's another can of worms.) But I'm also afraid it may just be my personal take because of my own situation -- it's not really comfortable to wear the mark of Mordred, but I don't mind teaching the Arthurs of the world that lesson sometimes.
  9. ThereIsNoSpoon Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 1999
    star 2
    I do agree that having Luke & Leia be illegitimate would be 'wrong' somehow. I agree with Galadriel on the love triangle thing. The OT had one, but it was not traditional as the prequel's supposedly is. The OT's triangle was warped and circumstantial, while the prequel's triangle is rumored to be very Othello-y. I am hoping this is not so. A love triangle is ok, and is expected, but a full-blown one would be over the top, not because it 'doesn't belong in a SW film', for truly the SW saga is about love, but because, as was stated earlier, it would ruin Vader's image. It is much more interesting to look at Vader in the OT and think, 'here is a man who has loved and lost; here is a man in true pain and suffering', not 'here is a man who has become disillusioned by the notion of love, a truly heartless villain', because we know that is not so. He knows love, and without an undying love for Amidala, he could not possibly be redeemed, for he would not know any love for his son and daughter; rather he would view them as the unfortunate results of a failed system. Without this love, the light side would hold nothing for him, give him no incentive for returning.
  10. MissPadme Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 4
    I like your answer, ThereIsNoSpoon! It would make no sense at all in this context for the twins to be born out-of-wedlock; I think Lucas wants to make it very,very clear Luke and Leia are the rightful heirs to their parents' legacy, marriage the only way to establish that legitimacy. I'm in agreement with JediGaladriel that there tends to be a negative association in myth with children born out of wedlock. At best, they're jinxed. At worst, they're flat out evil. Anakin's magical mystery conception is as close as you're going to get to "illegitimacy" in SW and look at what happens to him.

    I don't think a love triangle among Amidala, Anakin, and Obi-Wan will happen either. That would make Amidala and Obi-Wan "guilty" in the eyes of the audience and Anakin the victim. His destruction is then rationalized; he's just mad somebody took his woman and that his woman stabbed him in the back. Amidala doesn't seem like a cheater to me and Obi-Wan (as I've said on another thread) is too honorable and too much of a Jedi to do something that cheap. Nope, I don't think Lucas wants us to think that way. Palpatine could manipulate Anakin's love for Amidala to his purposes, but that's as far as it would go.
  11. JediGaladriel Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 1999
    star 5
    I also tend to think that the way it's set up, the emotional manipulation will be more along the lines of what we see of the manipulations of Luke's emotions about Leia in Episode III -- if you will not be turned, then perhaps she will. After all, she's already in Palpatine's sphere of influence.

    I think the one permutation of the triangle that could make some character sense in the context of the prequels would be if Obi-Wan was in love with Amidala, but never said anything, and neither Anakin nor Amidala suspected. However, this wouldn't seem to fit with Obi-Wan's later character; he's certainly more concerned with Luke's father than with Luke's mother. There's not even something along the line of "Your mother was a good woman." He doesn't seem wistful. He just doesn't seem to register her existence (neither does Vader, but his love for her is symbolically implicit in his love for Luke). And if that's the case, that in itself could be a problem between Anakin and Obi-Wan... if Obi-Wan refuses to allow Anakin to help her on a personal level -- especially if it's a repeat of whatever situation kills Shmi -- that would certainly shake empathetic Anakin's faith in his Master's moral standing.
  12. za4ph2od Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 1999
    I think it works if Anakin's wife was hoing around w/ Obi...Anakin won't just fall- he'll be pushed over the edge...
  13. JediGaladriel Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 1999
    star 5
    Uh, yeah. That works symbolically. The mother of the twins is a "ho." rolleyes.gif


    <JG dusts herself off, considers wandering over to one of the triangle threads to continue this, then remembers that it just gives her a headache after awhile. She shakes her head to clear it and re-opens the tower door.>

    I was thinking about the droids a bit more this morning, and the differences between the Rebels and the Imperials. One of the threads over in Classic is titled "Why an R2 unit, Uncle Owen?" I have no idea what's in it, but I realized that R2 is an astromech droid, but no one really questioned his working on the vaps. And it's not just the fact that we were introduced to the term "astromech" in TPM -- as early as ANH, R2 served as a flight assistant, and also was a handy place to stash plans and create messages. Threepio, who specializes in etiquette and protocol, programmed binary load lifters. I guess what I'm getting at is that Rebel technology seems to be multipurpose and adaptable, while Imperial technology seems to be highly specialized. Another case of Rebel tech more closely mimicking sentient life, or does it have another meaning?

    [This message has been edited by JediGaladriel (edited 02-26-2000).]
  14. Zack Flashpoint Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 6, 1999
    star 1
    Why is this thread in this forum. I cannot comment on the symbolism of stuff I have not seen, namely Episode 2.
  15. JediGaladriel Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 1999
    star 5
    I actually don't know, Zack. The original thread was in a general board, then when they re-organized the forums, it was put in EpII&III. So when I re-started it, I put it in the same place. We do speculate based on symbolic patterns.
  16. Vee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 16, 2000
    star 3
    Taking a much-deserved break from hunting down the disk on which her screenplay is stored. Was hysterical and nearly in tears over the prospect of months of work down the drain.

    Whew. Long intro.

    I just posted this on the thread about Amidala's name and the Love Triangle. Thought it might be some comfort food.


    I can't believe I've yet to see this listed anywhere, but here goes.

    Prepare yourselves.

    There's a structure in the brain called the "amygdala." If it is damaged or electrically stimulated, a person can become either overtly fearful or full of rage.

    Not a clue to the Love Triangle theory (God and the Flanneled One save us), but nonetheless, interesting if you're looking for a Ep. III/VI parallel.
  17. Emuboy Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 1999
    star 5
    Oh my God. I have found the Mecca of intelectual Star Wars discussion. I feel very small.

    I allways noticed how Leia's character sort of changes when she first encounters Wicket. She is alone and she reveals how she can be like her mother -caring and compasionate, when called for. Similarly, Amidala reveals her caring nature with another goofy character, Jar Jar. Both of these encounters are with cute, warrior races.

    I think JediGaladriel said something about Jar Jar serving his role as bring people back to the moral line. Suppose the twins were illigitimate. That could very well give Jar Jar a purpose, somehow.

    Someone else mentioned how Amidala comes from a planet with a water core, while Anakin comes from a desert planet. Is it any coincidence that while Luke lives on a desert planet, he also lives on a moisture farm? Leia is from Alderaan (sort of), which is a blue planet. It seems like the color blue and water are also part of the Skywalkers being lured by princess'. What are the symbolic meanings of blue?

    I think C3PO could show to have some very interesting symbolism when the Prequel Trilogy is finished. It's interesting that we see his perspective shot when he is out of his "shell", or, before his body is put on. Again, that is another example of how we are looking at the characters, not with them. We also see Vader/Anakin out of his shell (Vader suit), maybe we'll see Boba Fett, we see Amidala without her makeup. I guess it's really the same as the masks mentioned earlier.

    Re-reading my post, I find that I noticed alot of things, but I couldn't figure out what all of it meant. Chalk that up to it being late at night. If anyone else can draw meanings from my observations, please do!


  18. JediGaladriel Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 1999
    star 5
    I just have a hard time imagining not seeing with these guys. I was right in their heads looking through their eyes from the beginning. I don't expect to be kicked out of Anakin's head at any point; I don't think there's been another character in the saga that I've identified with quite as deeply, though I got close with Amidala. I mean, I loved the Classic guys, and was all for pretty much trusting Luke's judgment implicitly... but I never felt like I was really in there with them, just like I wanted to be (queerly, when I started writing my first fic, I made Luke into a very distant father who my character could not find common ground with; she spent all her time talking to Grandpa's ghost). And Leia, I've "gotten" lately, but it was only after I met Anakin. I just liked her attitude problem when it was first out, and really wanted to meet a Wookiee, just so I could tell the nearest person to "Get that walking carpet out of my way." But Anakin? Man, I was right there with him from the time he came down the steps into Watto's shop. And Amidala wasn't far behind; I think I was in her head by the end of the throne room scene (which is actually before we meet Anakin, of course, but more screen time has elapsed with her). How one person can identify both with being a dirty little slave boy and a cool-headed queen, I don't know. Especially simultaneously. But I was. I never once felt outside either of their heads. Excuse me, I'm a couple glasses of wine down this evening; I'll try and get back to the point now.

    I'm really interested in seeing how Threepio works out over the course of this. He lost his innocence in realizing that he was "naked," so he's set up for a journey of discovery. (How sentient is Threepio, really? Just out of curiosity. The realization that one is naked is mythically related to the process of becoming self-aware and responsible for one's actions; witness the upshot of the Eden story.)

    BTW, hello, Vee. Welcome to the Tower. I like the biological observation about amygdala. I wonder if anyone has pointed it out to Lucas yet (I suspect he's going from one of the names of the Buddha -- where's Shar when we need him? -- but it's all fair game, imho). I know that in Hebrew, "Amida" related to standing (the prayer said standing is called the "Amida"), and "-leh" is a diminuitive, so it translates down to something like "The little one who stands," as she did in the Senate.

    Okay, I'm just rambling now. As to the triangle, I think any kind of taint on the relationship between Anakin and Amidala would be symbolically inconsistent with the portrayal of Luke.
  19. DarthGregsTruk Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 30, 1999
    star 1
    Gudday all!

    Well, I have just waded through the entire thread and I must say that this has to be one of the best threads here at the JC! Mightily impressed am I icons/icon4.gif

    Most of the symbolism discussed above I found interesting... but one aspect grabbed my attention: Masks

    When I read the first few points on the elements of Masks used in Star Wars I couldn't help but be reminded of the line from the Faith No More song "The Gentle Art of Making Enemies":

    & let the suit keep wearing you

    As a matter of fact, the more I thought about it, the more the line seemed to fit with the personification of Vader in Return of the Jedi (especially towards the end of the film), where this awareness becomes explicit to Luke & Vader. The mask, in fact, was wearing Anakin, not the other way around...

    Allow me to explain:
    Vader, to all of us, originally became personified to us as a character & image via his Black Mask

    When Anakin turns to the Dark Side, and ultimately in the end begins to don the black suit and the Vader mask, he becomes the mask - he becomes Vader... It is the mere personification of Vader that takes over Anakin (or in this analogy, wears Anakin) rather than Anakin wearing the suit...

    & it is quite clear that this seems to be the case in Return of the Jedi with some of Vader's lines...

    "That name no longer has any meaning for me"


    Anyway, that's the DarthGregsTruk Thought of the Day LOL

    Cheers again!

    cGt


    -----------------
    http://www.q-net.net.au/~chefgreg/StarWars1.htmlShadow of the Sith
  20. fiasco Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2000
  21. ThereIsNoSpoon Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 1999
    star 2
    One last thing about the triangle, then I'm done with it:
    I could understand if the triangle didn't exist but was percieved to exist by Anakin. Perhaps Palpatine used the notion of a love triangle to push or help push Anakin over the edge. This would be acceptable because by his redemption in Jedi (probably earlier, but definitely by the time of his redemption) he would have seen that it was merely the Emperor's trickery, and rediscovered the love.
    Anyways, I thought I'd also chime in on the naming/symbolism thing (though this really doesn't have a whole lot of meaning; it's mostly just an observation):
    Padme is a word of much importance in a Buddhist mantra involving love. I can't quite remember the mantra's full meaning, but it's there.
  22. scum&villainy Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 1999
    star 4
    A fascinating thread - by far the most intelligent I've found. Good work fellas.

    I had a thought the other day about character developement in SW, namely that every character is introduced as the direct opposite of who the character turns out to be.
    Luke we see as a naive would-be adventurer dressed in tan/earthy cloaks. Three films later he's a Jedi knight, and has given up his adventurer ways (even declining the vast Endor battle - an ultimate adventure) to become the sombre, world-weary priest. In answer to the earlier point about Luke's outfit in ROTJ; far from showing Luke's descent into the Darkside, I believe his black suit shows his loss of innocence; his acceptance of his destiny, and the responsibility that brings. His black suit is much more clergy-like and subdued than the traditional Jedi robes, indicating his absolute seriousness, being last of the Jedi. We see this transformation - from a rebellious adolescent to a fully fledged priest ready to exorcise his, and his father's, demons.
    Leia is introduced as aggressive, stubborn and extremely dismissive of her rescuers. She's dressed in flowing white robes, signifying her 'virginal princess' persona. We see her in ROTJ a mother figure, as has been noted before, long hair flowing and all traits of stubborness removed. She has a sadness, too. She's a totally different woman to the Senator we met in EIV. Her costume shows the changes, from virginal robes to elaborate dresses (Bespin) to sensual bikini. She becomes a woman; she gets that "good kiss".
    Han is greedy, selfish, arrogant and a bragger. Much has been said about his transformation and I can't better that so I won't try.
    Chewbacca is introduced as Han's first mate, and that's all he is in ANH. On Han's capture he has to fend for himself, a process which continues and ends with his capture of the Scout Walker. He becomes his own Wookie.
    Lando undergoes the same change as Han, though his change is understated. We see him as a leader, a solo figure in ESB; by ROTJ he's a team player.
    Yoda and Kenobi are both introduced as humourous, mad things. Their nobility and wisdom is revelealed much later.
    The Emperor is introduced as a calm, regal figure. He holds all galactic power, save the pitiful rebellion. He becomes an agitated, obsessive control freak, so hellbent on destroying his only threat that he creates another - his most loyal servant. The Emperor we see in the Throne Room is completely different to previous incarnations.
    And as for Vader, well, he's a War Lord in ANH with a fearsome reputation. By ROTJ he's a broken shell who has come good.

    So my point is, every character becomes the reflection of who they were initially introduced as. So where does this leave the prequels:
    Mace Windu comes across as a cynic; but one with a good heart. Following Lucas' apparent reversal method, does this mean we shall see him as perhaps the member of the Council who sees Anakin IS the Chosen One, only he will not be as worthy as he appears now.
    Obi Wan seemed subdued and dominated by Qui Gon. He also seemed unaware of the living Force; his human interaction was poor; his relationships with everyone except Qui Gon and Yoda, lacking. To reverse this he'll become headstrong and charismatic, even domineering. Could this hint at a love triangle? Who knows. All the Jedi seem so asexual its hard to know. If anything I think Anakin's fall be as a direct result of Obi Wan's rise.
    Anakin's reversal is hard to predict, as he's such a mixed up character already. So I pass.
    Amidala, is also hard, as she is effectively two personas. Obviously Padme is the real her, but how much of the Regal side will we see. To reverse her TPM appearance she will becomes more focused; more unified. She (Padme) will become a much more headstrong character, echoing Luke's and Leia's growth.
    Palpatine's duality will also become less apparent as he is reversed.
    Panaka is too much a side character to speculate about. Maybe he'll go rebellious, become a more Solo-like character in reverse - from team player to scoundrel.
    And Jar Jar will become a fully
  23. Shar Kida Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 1999
    star 4
    Ol'val.

    Ecaz, obilon, fiasco, BlackHorse, Vee: Welcome to the Forum!

    Ohm mani padme hum
    "The jewel in the lotus"

    I took one look at where this line of analysis could lead, and decided to break down this thread contribution into at least three separate posts.

    Before any analysis is begun of the symbology of lotus and jewel, it seems most appropriate to begin with the general explanation of this ancient mantra as given by the Dalai Lama (Mahayana Buddhist tradition):

    It is very good to recite the mantra om mani padme hum, but while you are doing it, you should be thinking on its meaning, for the meaning of the six syllables is great and vast. The first, om, is composed of three pure letters, "A", "U", and "M". These symbolise the practitioner's impure body, speech, and mind. They also symbolise the pure exalted body, speech and mind of a Buddha.*

    Can impure body, speech and mind be transformed into pure body, speech and mind, or are they entirely separate?

    All Buddhas are cases of being who were like ourselves and then in dependence on the path became enlightened. Buddhism does not assert that there is anyone who from the beginning is free from faults and possesses all good qualities. The development of pure body, speech, and mind comes from gradually leaving the impure states and their being transformed into the pure. How is this done? The path is indicated by the next four syllables.

    Mani, meaning jewel, symbolises the factor of method: the altruistic intention to become enlightened, compassion, and love. Just as a jewel is capable of removing poverty, so the altruistic mind of enlightenment is capable of removing the poverty, or difficulties, of cyclic existence and of solitary peace. Similarly, just as a jewel fulfills the wishes of sentient beings, so the altruistic intention to become enlightened fulfills the wishes of sentient beings.

    The two syllables padme, meaning "lotus", symbolise wisdom.** Just as a lotus grows forth from mud but is not sullied by the faults of mud, so wisdom is capable of putting you in a situation of non-contradiction, whereas there would be contradiction if you did not have wisdom. There is wisdom realising impermanence, wisdom realising that persons are empty of self-sufficient or substantial existence, wisdom that realises the emptiness of duality (that is to say, of difference of entity between subject and object), and wisdom that realises the emptiness of inherent existence. Though there are many different types of wisdom, the main of all these is the wisdom realising emptiness.

    Purity must be achieved by an indivisible unity of method and wisdom, symbolised by the final syllable hum, which indicates indivisibility. According to the sutra system, this indivisibility of method and wisdom refers to one consciousness in which there is a full form of both wisdom affected by method and method affected by wisdom. In the mantra, or tantra vehicle, it refers to one conciousness in which there is the full form of both wisdom and method as one undifferentiable entity. In terms of the seed syllables of the five conqueror Buddhas, hum is the seed syllable of Akshobhya - the immovable, the unfluctuating, that which cannot be disturbed by anything.

    Thus the six syllables om mani padme hum mean that in dependence on the practice which is in indivisible union of method and wisdom, you can transform your impure body, speech, and mind into the pure body, speech, and mind of a Buddha. It is said that you should not seek for Buddhahood outside of yourself; the substances for the achievement of Buddhahood are within.

    As Maitreya says in his Sublime Continuum of Great Vehicle (Uttara Tantra), all beings naturally have the Buddha nature in their own continuum. We have within us the seed of purity, the essence of a One Gone Thus (tathagatagarbha), that is, to be transformed and fully developed into Buddhahood.

    - From a lecture given by His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet, at the Kalmuck Mongolian Buddhist Center NJ

    *[The Hindu tradition associates the four sounds of A-U
  24. Emuboy Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 1999
    star 5
    Excellent observation, scum&villainy!

    Not to mention that C3PO goes from being a droid who doesn't even know he's not finished to a droid full of important knowlege. If your theory holds true, then I can see Jar Jar growing more responsible and Captain Panaka growing less loyal to the queen...

    [This message has been edited by Emuboy (edited 02-27-2000).]
  25. Emuboy Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 1999
    star 5
    Double post

    [This message has been edited by Emuboy (edited 02-27-2000).]
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.