This movie in no way, shape, or form "inspired" me. The main character is contemptuous, the message full of new-age rhetoric, and the teacher no more than a macguffin. If you get anything from this movie, you must have been a pretty lousy person to begin with.
shareI've felt exactly like the subject line says about this film.
As a kid i liked these sort of movies, a la Karate Kid and others - wise teacher teaches a wimp how to beat everyone or how to win, while occasionally spouting bits of eastern-like wisdom.
But in real life unfortunately these don't work at all, i instantly disliked this movie and turned it off, when the old guy started teaching about looking inside yourself.
I did this before - in myself i found no source of eternal goodness and no solutions to problems, in fact i was more inclined to do evil and be proud, when thinking i can do everything myself.
I've read lots of these pseudo-intellectual or new-age stuff books - but as a result you get nothing good, just long explanations why something is this or that, and worthless recipes like "you just let it go, imagine this, meditate, do a mantra/affirmation, love yourself/cosmos or breathe in and out".
The only thing that got me any good results was the New Testament, not that i instantly became sinless like Jesus Christ, but slowly but increasingly better relations with people, decreasing pride, etc.
So I don't thank the creators of such movies, but i thank God for his son Jesus Christ.
Yeah, pretty much this. I am not saying that one should not try to be fit and healthy. But you can't dedicate all your life to sports and karate. One has to work his brains too.
Guess there really are people who act worse than 12 year olds.
@ Cousineoleg, how can you put down new age stuff, yet follow all that bible nonsense? Now THAT's nonsense, for clear reasons you can find pretty much anywhere, if you choose to look for it... You made good sense up until that part, pretty much.
share@ Cousineoleg, how can you put down new age stuff, yet follow all that bible nonsense? Now THAT's nonsense, for clear reasons you can find pretty much anywhere, if you choose to look for it... You made good sense up until that part, pretty much.
I don't mind people like you who only take the good things from the bible, but at the same time, have you looked into all the power struggles, lies, treachery, and deceiving that has changed the bible over the years? That, and how it was written much after Jesus' time. I don't say that in an insulting manner, but apart from me being a skeptical person and knowing how people changed anything and everything simply to control people, I can't logically see Christianity as making any sense... Aside from moral codes that existed even before its time. To me it would make more sense to look further back from Christianity if you're going to follow a religious code.
Personally, I find Buddhism to make the most sense, though I don't consider myself religious. It's based on logical thought, finding truth and peace within yourself as opposed to asking a deity for it, and doesn't ask for worship or that you're a sinner. More that you are imperfect, and life is the pursuit of truly finding yourself - in essence, your entire life is good if you make it good, bad if you make it bad.. But you aren't inherently bad. Anyhow, I find a lot of that sort of stuff that Buddhism teaches to make the most logical sense, in terms of religion. I wouldn't consider calling myself anything, as my life is a constant evolution of thoughts and ideas about existence.
Just curious, though, why didn't the new age stuff speak to you?
I don't mind people like you who only take the good things from the bible, but at the same time, have you looked into all the power struggles, lies, treachery, and deceiving that has changed the bible over the years? That, and how it was written much after Jesus' time. I don't say that in an insulting manner, but apart from me being a skeptical person and knowing how people changed anything and everything simply to control people, I can't logically see Christianity as making any sense... Aside from moral codes that existed even before its time. To me it would make more sense to look further back from Christianity if you're going to follow a religious code.
Personally, I find Buddhism to make the most sense, though I don't consider myself religious. It's based on logical thought, finding truth and peace within yourself as opposed to asking a deity for it, and doesn't ask for worship or that you're a sinner. More that you are imperfect, and life is the pursuit of truly finding yourself - in essence, your entire life is good if you make it good, bad if you make it bad.. But you aren't inherently bad. Anyhow, I find a lot of that sort of stuff that Buddhism teaches to make the most logical sense, in terms of religion. I wouldn't consider calling myself anything, as my life is a constant evolution of thoughts and ideas about existence.
Just curious, though, why didn't the new age stuff speak to you?
One of cousinoleg's posts:
"I was like that for many years, having grown in a basically atheist family (we never went to church, spoke of God and Jesus, etc), reading the Bible, not really understanding what it's about, then putting it away for years."
That's pretty much my life as well, but societal pressure sucked me into Christianity. I went to a church and sincerely believed for years, though I had to struggle with unjust doctrines of the churches I otherwise admired.
Then I read some atheist Bible scholars' treatises which showed how the history in the Bible is factually inaccurate and some of its "morals" (which are trumpeted dangerously by many political interest groups in USA) are simply reflections of the tribal prejudices of the culture which created the Bible. At that point I realised that the Bible is simply another human social-control project like the Buddhist writings, the Koran, or Das Kapital.
These are two of the most persuasive arguments for atheistic morality that I know of:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/10c.html
That's pretty much my life as well, but societal pressure sucked me into Christianity. I went to a church and sincerely believed for years, though I had to struggle with unjust doctrines of the churches I otherwise admired.
Then I read some atheist Bible scholars' treatises which showed how the history in the Bible is factually inaccurate and some of its "morals" (which are trumpeted dangerously by many political interest groups in USA) are simply reflections of the tribal prejudices of the culture which created the Bible. At that point I realised that the Bible is simply another human social-control project like the Buddhist writings, the Koran, or Das Kapital.
These are two of the most persuasive arguments for atheistic morality that I know of...
I am atheist because there is no evidence for God's existence, at least that I know of. If you can point out any to me, I'll be glad to examine it.
Example: Jesus is said to have impressive magical powers regarding medicine and weather control. In Mark 16 he says that his followers will have the same magical powers, which they make much use of in Acts. So why don't Christians have these magical powers today? If there are any confirmed, tested cases of prayer curing cancer any time recently, that would definitely push me in the right direction. Or God could prove himself by resurrecting the World Trade Towers just as they were before 9/11/01 with all the people inside brought back to life, which would almost certainly be a deathblow for atheism.
The idea that morality comes from "God's commands" is flawed, because it is impossible to know what God's commands are. Hundreds of different sects have conflicting doctrine: one says it's sin to eat pork but not beef, one has that reversed, one mandates vegetarianism, one mandates eating meat, one says that life-saving medical blood transfusions are an abomination, one forbids wearing clothing made of two fabrics, etc. A mortal sin in one sect can be a divine mission in another, so what is the basis for determining the correct one?
Even if we deduce which religion is correct, God's commands must past the test of logic. If God declares that "x is a sin" when x is a harmless action with no victim, there must be a reason for considering x a sin beyond "because it is God's will". If God did not arbitrarily declare x a sin, would x be perfectly okay?
Eg., at the topless beach where I caretake while scoping the supermodel wannabes, I often see a little boy playing with his two shavenheaded mommies, and they come across as a very happy family. Too many pundits in my country say that such a family arrangement is a civilisation-threatening abomination, and would make legislation to break that family apart, for no reason that I can fathom.
Biblical morality is horrendously flawed. The first 40% of the Ten Commandments crush the basic freedoms that my country was founded on, and other parts of the Bible show God gleefully approving of genocide. It is clear to me that the Bible's author was not an all knowing superbeing, but a committee of primitive men whose childish, petulant God was a mirror of their own shortcomings.
I am atheist because there is no evidence for God's existence, at least that I know of. If you can point out any to me, I'll be glad to examine it.
Example: Jesus is said to have impressive magical powers regarding medicine and weather control. In Mark 16 he says that his followers will have the same magical powers, which they make much use of in Acts. So why don't Christians have these magical powers today? If there are any confirmed, tested cases of prayer curing cancer any time recently, that would definitely push me in the right direction. Or God could prove himself by resurrecting the World Trade Towers just as they were before 9/11/01 with all the people inside brought back to life, which would almost certainly be a deathblow for atheism.
The idea that morality comes from "God's commands" is flawed, because it is impossible to know what God's commands are. Hundreds of different sects have conflicting doctrine: one says it's sin to eat pork but not beef, one has that reversed, one mandates vegetarianism, one mandates eating meat, one says that life-saving medical blood transfusions are an abomination, one forbids wearing clothing made of two fabrics, etc. A mortal sin in one sect can be a divine mission in another, so what is the basis for determining the correct one?
Even if we deduce which religion is correct, God's commands must past the test of logic. If God declares that "x is a sin" when x is a harmless action with no victim, there must be a reason for considering x a sin beyond "because it is God's will". If God did not arbitrarily declare x a sin, would x be perfectly okay?
Eg., at the topless beach where I caretake while scoping the supermodel wannabes, I often see a little boy playing with his two shavenheaded mommies, and they come across as a very happy family. Too many pundits in my country say that such a family arrangement is a civilisation-threatening abomination, and would make legislation to break that family apart, for no reason that I can fathom.
Biblical morality is horrendously flawed. The first 40% of the Ten Commandments crush the basic freedoms that my country was founded on, and other parts of the Bible show God gleefully approving of genocide. It is clear to me that the Bible's author was not an all knowing superbeing, but a committee of primitive men whose childish, petulant God was a mirror of their own shortcomings.
Sons of single heterosexual mothers grow up fine without a father. Straight children sometimes have gay parents. I was raised by Mommy and Daddy, yet there was a time when I was sexually confused and wanted to be a woman, eagerly envisioning my reassingment surgery. Today I live happily as a heterosexual male virgin, surrounded by family units where the mothers go around in thong-bikinis on their family outings, and I am a popular clown among these women, their husbands, and their children. Not wanting to be a homewrecker, I never seek to have affairs with them, instead masturbating to their memory each night.
There are many claims that Jesus-based miracles have been performed in both present and past. However, there are an equal number of miracles (for each group) attributed to Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, Moroni, Dianetics, Apollo, Thor, and other figures. All these phenomena (including the Jesus ones) usually turn out to be tall tales, conjuring tricks, or misinterpretations of ordinary scientific phenomena. Since none of these miracles (including those of Jesus, which are most likely tall tales created 100 years after his death) has passed the test of proof, they all cancel each other out. http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/minormiracles.html
The incorrect notion that "God's existence is inexcusably obvious" suffers because noone can agree what God's qualities and personality traits are. And this statement is contradicted by Christians' own mutually exclusive claims that "For God to clearly reveal himself would violate our free will because humans would then have no choice but to love and follow him," or "God does not clearly reveal himself because he knows that doing so would do no good; those who disbelieve and rebel would continue to disbelieve and rebel" or "God does not clearly reveal himself because he desires worship rather than mere acknowledgment of his existence." http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/burningbush.html
Christians have also overlooked another possibility that God is not Christian. I wonder if the following could be a legitimate theistic alternative to Christianity. http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/greatergod.html
In any case, I feel that this thread is a bit off topic for a board about the Peaceful Warrior. You might do better posting on the "Religion, Faith, and Spirituality" board on IMDB.
In reference to the original topic here, the Peaceful Warrior is pretty pretentious crap. I found it to be maudlin and uninspiring. Apparently it was based on a self-help book, and probably should have stayed in that medium, because it doesn't make a good film.
Advice for cousinoleg in dealing with nonbelievers: armchair psychology and leaping to assumptions about other people's thoughts and life stories, will not help your credibility as a mouthpiece for God. By contrast it may make simply you look foolish, especially on the RFS board where EVERYONE is ruthless. You might want to heed the advice of the following treatise on how Christians should approach atheists, especially the specific excerpt:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/hownot.html
Don't tell atheists what they think; let them tell you what they think.
The single greatest and most common mistake theists make in dialoguing with atheists, in my experience, is to attempt to present the atheist viewpoint themselves and then argue against it. The problem with this is that relatively few theists can accurately depict the atheist viewpoint, and when they try, they often end up presenting nothing but the same old false stereotypes - atheists are nihilists, atheists have no purpose in life, atheists just want to be free of moral restraint, atheists are angry or arrogant, and so on - which are common in apologetic literature, but which do not represent the true beliefs of the vast majority of atheists. The result is that the theist goes to some effort only to set up and then knock down a straw man, while the atheist's actual position remains untouched. This brings the atheist no closer to converting. If anything, it is far more likely to produce annoyance at the one who would presume to speak for atheists without understanding their views, and make a conversion even less likely.
To evangelistic theists, my best advice is this: Don't rely on books written by other theists to tell you what atheists think. Don't even rely on books written by theists who claim they are ex-atheists. Most such books, based on the ones I have read, cannot be trusted to accurately convey the atheist viewpoint. If you want to learn about a position, there is no substitute for asking people who actually hold that position. If you want to have a productive dialog with an atheist, be sure to assume as little as possible, and whenever it is practical ask them what they think, rather than presuming.
I don't get your criticism of this movie, it seems to be veiled with a particular culturally biased indoctrination. Much of the essence of the teachings of Jesus can be felt throughout this movie, eg The kingdom of heaven(where God lives BTW) is within us... etc
Over & above what we believe MAY be true, ie God exists, the Bible is the ONLY authority of truth or whether Jesus is humanities ONLY savior or if he ever lived..etc; people, as portrayed in this movie, learning, advocating & manifesting love, compassion, peace, non-violence, kindness..etc, ALL qualities of the historical Jesus is misleading people, how is that?
I respect your beliefs, however, the only time we should call others out on belief, is when beliefs are the impetus to cause UNNECESSARY SUFFER to conscious creatures both Human & Non-Human.
clap clap clap
you nailed it
brilliantly written
@cousinoleg
USSR? Dont confuse religion with politics. Also, every country on the planet has a main religion; USSR was no exception. Unbelief/atheism is only spreading widely in recent years.
From your arguments it appears you live in the US. A rapacious market driven empire that is nothing like the teachings of Christ. You oppress the rest of the world with military might and are forcing believers abroad to embrace your culture of consumerism, materialism and greed.
Its not even your continent to begin with, the Indians that were murdered and raped when you first got there already lived a serene life in harmony with nature.
You are fooled so utterly. I really hope you will one day find truth and enlightenment.
And yes, movie was totally cheesy. Main character was nothing but a sorry crybaby.
New-age stuff? U know this film delivers wisdom from the ancient greeks and the mighty buddha. Thats philisophy from at least 2000 years ago? You call that new-age stuff. Sounds pretty ignorant to me.
shareNew-age stuff? U know this film delivers wisdom from the ancient greeks and the mighty buddha. Thats philisophy from at least 2000 years ago? You call that new-age stuff. Sounds pretty ignorant to me.
shareWeird how bettering relations with people and decreasing pride were two lessons in the movie...
shareI agree that there wasn't anything particularly new in this movie. I'm also a bit suspicious about the "enlightened warrior" theme. For example, reading about Morihei Ueshiba makes me think that he was essentially a damn good fighter who wanted to be a bit holier-than-thou. Practicing combat for decades and then kicking some guys ass and saying: "You lose because you are not in harmony with the Universe, like I am", is just a hypocritical rhetoric. However, regardless of the founders of an ideology, I believe a baby can be free from the burden of its fathers, although perhaps never safe. Often followers have a much more genuine thought than their teachers, but the teachers eventually die and so pure faith could remain. So, if you have a pure heart, no one can take it away from you, unless you throw it away (which easily happens with hypocrisy).
Even if this sort of movies do not say anything particularly new, just reminding is often enough. If the story is retold well, it can give some inspiration to keep the small wisdoms in mind and perhaps give an opportunity to find some new insight about them.
What I like about Zen is its immersion with reality, whatever the reality is experienced to be. For me, it is the nature and all the things and phenomena in nature. In that respect, I prefer the "western zen", which is free from the Buddhist superstitions. It is largely the sort of "perennial philosophy" found in this movie, with universal wisdoms that are discovered time after time in different schools of thought, from Zen to Stoicism, and even Christianity.
Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them. - Epictetus
That is what I mean with martial arts. I dislike it how they are promoted as the ultimate solution to everything.
shareAs Magi says; athletes and martial artists claim their activities give them discipline, yet athletic jocks are some of the most indisciplined people I have ever seen.
Back in the past, we were told that brains overcomes braun, but now the media taking advantage of the fitness and health craze; they want to place muscle over brain, byt saying that you are not trully a man if you don't have muscle, and pushing beautiful women as athletic ones who get to keep their beauty deep into their 50's and 60's, but not everyone has the time nor the genetic lottery to be fit forever. But we can try to be healthy.
Guess there really are people who act worse than 12 year olds.
Every time anything gives a person a different viewpoint than their own, whether slightly or majorly divergent, it is automatically labelled pretentious or preachy. Is that seriously the depth of the faith you have in your own ideals? Grow a spine...
shareThe main philosophical fault about these inspirational films is they sell the message that the success achieved is the result of the events portrayed. This is false, there are thousands of people going through all the same processes who do NOT achieve those degrees of success. People inspired by inspirational films have drunk too much koolaid about meritocracy, people who work hard/correctly win, and those who don't work hard/correctly don't. That is BS. Success is about chance and timing. And all the praying to invisible forces and looking inward will change mcuh to that. Horrible message, horrible acting, horrible script, really there is absolutely nothing redeemable about this, but faithers will like it, anyone who drinks koolaid...
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
Whatever I think about this film, your argument fails for this movie since it doesn't promise success in anything. It's not about winning, it's about knowing yourself which means knowing you can do something. You've just competed in a championship, somebody was better (as you point out, chance and timing), does that mean you couldn't have done what you just did? So that there is nothing worthwile in doing anything so sit on your couch and watching TV with a beer since it's all chance and timing and success is the measure of you so why exert yourself?
I find this story inspirational because it makes me wonder if I really can get so strong that you could take away my arms and legs and I would still be "a warrior", kind of like Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve.
But that's just me. ...or the clinical depression talking.
Making promises is the very definition of an "inspirational" ... take this "path" and you shall conquer ! So we agree fully.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
By that logic, all other stories say: you may conquer, you may not. Which is exactly what "Socrates" tells the kid in this movie. Which makes you mistaken.
But that's just me. ...or the clinical depression talking.
You will discover the real power of spiritual life only if you take action, I mean walking the walk not talking the talk.
I pay my movies subscriptions with the money I make online
http://easiestwaytoearn.blogspot.com/
The movie itself was entertaining enough but it did lack depth. I was expecting a Born on the Fourth of July type of transformation for the main character. Whereas Tom Cruise ultimately became disillusioned with the false values of patriotism, the lead in this film overcame obstacles in order to re-pursue his quest for gymnastic perfection.
When he climbed the mountain only to find a rock I wanted to tell him, "Yes. There is your gold medal. It has as much value as this rock."
The beauty of 'enlightenment' is that it has no commercial value. You can't use it to make more money or win more medals - but that's the message that many will take away from this film.
Pretentious? Big word, coming from a piece of *beep* like you.
share[deleted]
So's your mom
share