Kungfu Panda

"Often, one meets his destiny on the path he takes to avoid it."

Banyak filosofi yang ada di dalam film kungfu panda.
Hope you like it as much as I do.

Met nonton guys..

Salam,

Cahyo

http://bluecarrot.livejournal.com/2008/06/14/

Kungfu Panda isn't all about the awesome animated kungfu and comical
interactions between the characters; it's clear that the production team
put in much thought about its philosophies as well. I loved the funny
parts, no doubt, but what really bought me were the zen-like messages
littered throughout the movie. It's like a light shining a path to
attaining enlightenment.

You know (if you've watched it already) how the old turtle master
constantly reminds the Master Shifu that there are no accidents. At one
scene where he is warning Master Shifu that he senses Tai Lang's
imminent escape, Master Shifu becomes too preoccupied with sending a
messenger to the prison to warn the guards about it and to make sure
that security is doubled, that he fails to take in the next
philosophical message that Master Wu Kui imparts: "Often, one meets his
destiny on the path he takes to avoid it." And the next thing we know,
Tai Lang manages to escape because of the duck messenger's presence and
the feather he drops. Of course, even if Master Shifu hadn't sent the
messenger, Tai Lang would still escape by other means (although we won't
know what that would be) because his escape is already predestined. The
significance of the later statement, therefore, is really to suggest
that even if we try to prevent something from happening, it will still
happen if it is meant to happen.

How can we know that the outcome won't be different? How is it
guaranteed that an event IS meant to happen? Does it mean we are unable
to change its fate, and also the fates of our lives, since it is already
predestined? The answer is... I don't know. I mean, we all can make
assumptions about what will happen without it necessarily happening. On
top of that, we're so accustomed to the mundane daily existence, that we
tend to infer the way we understand the world. If I am in my house and
it is raining outside, I know that if I step out of my front door, the
scenery will be the same as if I were in the house. The predictable
environment allows me to create a logical assumption of my immediate
surroundings at that particular time. It won't be so predictable if I
compare through a series of time, for example, it doesn't necessarily
rain at the same time everyday. However, what if when I step outside, I
realise that it's not raining as compared to if I were inside? Which
will throw me into chaos for that moment I come to realise it, but then
I can use logic to reason that the area the rain clouds cover does not
reach my front door, and so I will become balanced again. Therefore,
humans live on logic because it provides a sense of comfort and balance.

Back to the idea of destiny. We can't say for certain if events are
destined to happen, because that will be like trying to challenge our
logical existence. Even the rain clouds can be unpredictable, as the
winds may come and then blow them away, so we cannot say for sure that
rain will fall. And that in itself is another logical explanation of why
it didn't rain! However, we usually say that events are destined to
happen AFTER they have happened, because it has already been timestamped
and left a mark on reality, so we know we're not just imagining things.
For instance, we will take an umbrella out to prevent us from getting
wet. Suddenly, while walking by the side of the road, a car zooms by a
puddle of water nearby and we get drenched. We once again lose our
composure because we did not foresee such an event occurring. All the
logical reasoning of the way water moves when a car goes over it will
not satisfy our bewilderment as to how we tried to prevent ourselves
from getting wet, and yet we still got wet. The next best logical
explanation would then be to blame it on destiny. If it's destined to
happen, it will happen no matter the steps we take to prevent it from
happening. Thanks to destiny, we are able to accept it as the most
logical reason, so that we can become composed again, and probably even
laugh at our predicament.

What about seeing destiny BEFORE it has happened? People who can do that
are revered as great masters of our time, because all the rest of us
can't. From Jesus to Master Wu Kui, we won't be able to understand how
they have that ability to foretell the coming of events. Sure there were
people who called Jesus a liar, and therefore, saw that he be crucified,
but when the things he said turned out to be true, many people started
following the teachings of Christ. In fact, trying to understand how
these great masters can predict events would be throwing our lives into
total chaos, because we won't be able to see any logic in it, nor logic
in the reasonings we try to derive, from the way we've come to
understand our lives. That's why it's only logical we look to them as
great masters. I mean, can you see logic that Jesus' body really
disappeared from his grave after 3 days, while it was heavily guarded to
prevent people from getting close to it? God became the most logical
explanation then.

So I guess I ended up taking a different approach towards destiny than
what I started out with. But because of this, I see that we are really
logical creatures after all. We need to reason everything - from how
rain clouds behave to how the universe first came about - to maintain
balance within. Where does it leave metaphysics? How can we be sure it
is not our logical way of throwing things we don't understand to this
category of explanation? Similarly, throwing things we don't understand
to God? The logical reasoning would then be simply 'knowing'. Yet, that
is logic at play! Oh dear, I think I just lost my balance totally!
Sigh...