Talk:Marduk Institute

Numerology

What is this Buddhist numerology crap? --Dr. Nick 21:46, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

It isn't just Buddhist, it's also Hindu, BTW. The second-tier Gods and Goddesses, mostly the latter, have 108 names. They are just below the top rung deities, the select few which have a full 1000 names. Either way, it's just 108 names for the same organization: Nerv. --UrsusArctos 21:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Yeah Dr.Nick that's why all of the "Numbers" on Lost add up to 108. --V 22:04, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh man, I didn't mean you guys should go and expand it... I'm going to nuke the note, on the basis that if we leave it in, we might as well start copypasting entire Wikipedia articles on numbers. Observe. --Dr. Nick 08:34, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

I see the effects of the nuking, but I'm damn puzzled by V's comment... --UrsusArctos 09:16, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Mentioning the significance of the number 108 is valid, Dr. Nick, since it IS a reference, not something they just pulled out of their arses. --Reichu 09:53, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Two things I'd put out at once. 108 is the number of steps to Nirvana in Japanese Buddhism (Very important), and that second-rung Hindu Gods and Goddesses have 108 names (I know this very well), and that Marduk himself had fifty names, all aliases of the same God. Whether Hindu or Japanese, 108 fits the game perfectly. --UrsusArctos 10:15, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, hmmm... Does Marduk have anything to do with Japanese Buddhism or Hinduism? --Reichu 10:19, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Nein. Marduk has to do with the last bit in the notes (Making Men so Gods could live in luxury). Marduk had fifty names, Anno stretched it to 108 to match with the Asian perception of the number. The whole thing is like a Buddhist Rosary, 108 beads(phantom companies) and one head bead (Nerv). Anno sneaked in a ton of symbolic material here. --UrsusArctos 10:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Either prove that the assumed reference is intentional, or create an embedded T&A section or something, please. As it stands, the connection seems rather forced (50=/=180!): if this is yet another religious ref, it sure isn't an obvious one. --Dr. Nick 12:13, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't have to be intentional, though it probably is. We don't need to make a Theory and Analysis section. This is what the Notes section is for. We don't actually say "they said somewhere they did this on purpose" but we're pointing out the obvious similarity. We're leaving it in and my decision is final. --V 13:33, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Okay, but I made a tiny weasel-wording edit so it doesn't look like we're stating a fact. That statement about Hindu gods and goddesses could use some sauce, though, and preferably something better than Wikipedia. --Dr. Nick 04:52, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree. At some point, I'm totally going to want all citations of Wikipedia nuked. --Reichu 06:25, 22 August 2007 (EDT)