- 10,381
- 9,118
Agreed. I think clarification from Planck is definitely best.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Jujutsu Kaisen Hax/Ability & AP Upgrade Thread Pt. 3
- Thread starter Dr._whiteee
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jujutsu kaisen
- Status
- 10,771
- 18,692
Okay, I already called him out for his opinion, if I'm wrong then so be it, it doesn't change the fact that mentions of Buddhism are being used to extrapolate abilities here and already 3 staff disagree.
Another attempt to invalidate my vote, so why don't you question the rest of the staff? That I am not familiar with Buddhism =/= that I don't know what is being argued about, since I can easily research the theory and base my answer on it, plus I have my own knowledge of the abilities in the wiki and the more complex ones. So stop trying to invalidate my vote basing own your own assumptions.
- 2,289
- 1,732
- Thread starter
- #163
It does, because it shows you were misrepresenting arguments to try and defame my points despite my points being passed in a CRT. That's a pretty big deal.
Dalesean only stated that he agrees with the post Maitreya made. Neither you, Maverick, and Dalesean, have provided proof that you have read my ontology blog enough to actually deduce if I am "extrapolating abilities." beyond the evidence shows. So no, those votes are not invalidating the thread in entirety, especially since not one of you can actually point to anything being extrapolated beyond the one ability that has already been removed since before you even commented.
I did question Dale? Maverick simply agreed with Dale so I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone.
Not sure why you think this would satiate my curiosity about your voting habits? I'm questioning you because you've been making yourself present despite not having much verse knowledge, and by piggybacking off of the opinions of others who also didn't read the blog, I am trying to verify you actually can substantiate your reasons for disagreeing, which by the looks of it based on you putting the staff down for blanket agrees and your consistency in not outlining how I am extrapolating, is quite warranted on my end.
I am stating that because of the claims you are making regarding my evidence, not because of your inherent lack of knowledge on Buddhism. I'm asking you to validate your vote, so I am not sure why you keep framing this as me dishonestly trying to invalidate your vote. This is pretty simple good faith debating basics.
- 2,289
- 1,732
- Thread starter
- #164
Do you have a reason for this comment?
Also, no one is straight applying (all aspects of) "Buddhism" to JJK. JJK is outright stated to have buddhism as the mythological framework for the verse, and I actively worked backwards from what already exists in JJK, to establish which Buddhist concepts could be used. So I would appreciate if you would drop that misnomer of my stance.
- 1,243
- 841
W interview scan
- 17,765
- 17,260
To be clear, I agreed with the prior thread, in as far as it stuck solely to the cosmology and Buddhist concepts presented in-universe as opposed to outside it. Since to my understanding, it was clarifying the underlying concepts and elements of the power system.
Mind you, this doesn't mean that characters can for example, get Transduality Type 3 without any in-universe implication but rather if there's enough information already presented to support any such abilities.
Mind you, this doesn't mean that characters can for example, get Transduality Type 3 without any in-universe implication but rather if there's enough information already presented to support any such abilities.
- 21,131
- 30,084
only thread, admin, and bureau's votes have voting measurement
- 3,737
- 4,037
I believe I and many other people have, for multiple points in fact. Regarding Tengen’s overall being, causality for Mahoraga, and there have been many discussions revolving around things like conceptual manip. The sources are being talked about and addressed, the primary issue is regarding the lack of sources for the claims being made.
I also think we are getting somewhere in this discussion considering:
And many other opinions regarding this topic all sharing a similar opinion of that against some of the proposed positions in the OP. The various input from other members and staff regarding this topic leads me to believe that progress is being made regarding the opinions people have about this topic.
- 3,737
- 4,037
The scan you posted is of Gege saying how he took inspiration from Buddhism similar to how he took inspiration from Bleach and Hunter X Hunter, not that Buddhism as a “mythological framework” was totally incorporated into the series. Even incorporating Buddhist concepts like Kubo did for Bleach doesn’t necessarily lead to that conclusion.
You’re extrapolating things not even said from the scans you’re presenting.
People don’t need to prove to you that they meet your arbitrary requirement of being able to deduce whether or not you are “extrapolating abilities” or not. They can deduce that themselves by reading the arguments presented. Nobody needs to “prove” to you that they read your blog or understood the arguments being presented.
Oh and it wasn’t just “one ability that has been removed” that was the issue in this thread. There were multiple abilities listed out that many people took issue with including immortality type 9 for Tengen, causality manipulation for Mahoraga, people have took issue with non-dualism and conceptual manipulation. All those are things still in the OP of the thread, Tengen being proposed to have HDE was just one of the most obvious examples as such.
- 3,737
- 4,037
Just to clarify, whose position are you agreeing with exactly? Mine or Dr.Whitee’s?
- 1,243
- 841
With said staff you listed are agreeing to people that haven't read the full context. Quite the opposite, we're not getting anywhere.
- 7,236
- 13,107
Sorry for the ambiguity. I am saying I also don't think references to Buddhism justify thinking of it as a 1:1 analogue of the real-world religion and scaling it based on information that was never given in the verse.
- 2,289
- 1,732
- Thread starter
- #174
No, Kubo's discussion of incorporating different context into the manga brings Gege to discuss his own influence. He then expressly moves into Evangelion and states he took the same approach except with Buddhism as his framework instead.
Yes, people do need to read the contextual information when presented in order to sufficiently understand the CRT.
If you are claiming that something is an extrapolation then you should be able to point how it is, otherwise, how would you ever be able to determine when something is just "inspiration" vs. something actually existent within the verse? There is a criteria, and I established that in the Ontology thread, which is why JJK isn't just scaling one to one which is something I discussed in the text you quoted above.
That was indeed the only thing you brought up as specific to Buddhism from what I saw and we isolated on. I plan on addressing the other stuff as I did with void manip stuff with Tatsumi but have spent most of the time trying to explain points that would be cleared up by just actually reading the preceding text.
Yes, I do still plan on addressing any contentions with these. Tatsu said he was reading the blog, so I am waiting on that, me and you have spent a majority of our time talking about Tengen being one with the universe, despite that point not really being relevant overall. That's kinda of my point as I would rather address those things but am stuck defending something that's already passed.
Tengen having HDE was removed towards the beginning of the thread and I admitted I got the dimensional manip wrong and Dimensional travel was more appropriate. The other things you mentioned I consider still in contention, with other abilities passing with relatively no contention. So yes, listing the mods as flat disagrees based on the input they actually gave/commented on, was not a correct move.
Uhm, so can we try this. Give my your list of grievances of areas where you disagree/think I am pushing it, and I will address em point by point so we can save time.
- 3,346
- 1,902
1. what is this thread waffling about.
2. even though its extremely likely that the irl religion exists in the verse, i dont think using it to scale abilities without context is safe
2. even though its extremely likely that the irl religion exists in the verse, i dont think using it to scale abilities without context is safe
- 3,737
- 4,037
What you mean “no”?? He literally says the words “inspiration” that bleach was his “initial inspiration”, then he moved onto Hunter X Hunter and Evangelion and then he took inspiration from Buddhism.
The words “mythological “framework” aren’t in that statement. He’s just talking about using “Buddhist concepts for inspiration.” You’re extrapolating this statement.
This entire conversation has been an explanation about how it is an extrapolation. My last post expressly pointed out how what you’re saying is an extrapolation using Nirvana as an example.
Literally every time you said this:
I pointed out how this doesn’t inherently mean Buddhism and Jujutsu are linked on a fundamental basis because simply having a religion existing as part of the verse isn’t enough to link them on a foundational level like that. Especially when you’re saying statements like this:
to try and make the claim that Tengen reached Nirvana and the “ascension” Tengen reached was different from fusing with the planet.
There is literally no statement Tengen reached Nirvana, that’s an extrapolation off the word “enlightenment” found in religious teachings.
There is no statement that the earth is trapped in samsara in JJK, that’s an extrapolation of Buddhist teachings, thus nothing bars Tengen from becoming one with just the world in JJK alone. You only assume this to be the case because in JJK you can comeback as cursed spirits.
You can’t go from in JJK you can comeback as cursed spirits —> the earth is trapped in samsara in JJK. You need a direct statement and explanation of that being the case, otherwise that’s just an extrapolation on your part.
Just like how this is an extrapolation:
Because literally no statement exists that Nirvana is “outside all other existences” in JJK. The only time the word “Nirvana” is even mentioned is in a person’s title, not for any kind of clarification purposes on the foundation of the series.
These are all extrapolations from Buddhism to JJK in order to lead to the conclusion your coming to, it does not coming from any natural part founded within the series itself.
All the points you’re making, come from extrapolations.
Literally my first post in this thread. Actually my first one…was exactly that. And they remain the same, HDE was removed but type 9 immortality and causality Manipulation for Mahoraga remain. I also have issue with void manipulation and non-dualism in similar respects that I don’t think the evidence you cited leads to the conclusion you make, only done by taking Buddhist ideas into account to come to the conclusion. Like taking “chaos” to mean “void” or assuming the “space between dreams and reality” that Kenjaku mentions is in similar respect to non-dualism and void manipulation when it doesn’t have to be the case inherently in the series. But since you plan on addressing that topic with Tatsu, that’s another matter. Other things don’t make sense to add such as power nullification for Tengen, they didn’t nullify Yuki’s black hole, the barrier just “suppressed” it.
- 2,289
- 1,732
- Thread starter
- #178
That is not a correct reading of what he stated
He is stating the Bleach is what first inspired him. This was followed by HxH and Evengelion. He singles out Evangelion as being steeped in mythology (it is heavily kabalistic) and says that he wanted to do the same, but with Buddhism.
Yes, and I disagree heavily with this for information already contextualized in the blog. It's not just "Buddhism existed" it is buddhism existing in a world that shares similar ontological underpinnings, a world where characters call buddhist scriptures "textbooks to the soul", etc.
You keep claiming it doesn't mean they are linked but not providing why that is the case. Tengen quite literally spread jujutsu and Buddhism side by side and said teachings kicked off the golden age of Jujutsu. You have to explain why those things would be separate when the text is indicating they are not.
Jujutsu is predominantly found only in Japan precisely because it was Tengen's specific buddhist teachings that allowed for a formal system of jujutsu. That's why despite having CE, other humans (and animals) never learned how to operate it, they didn't have "the textbook" as Mahito puts it.
This is incorrect. I already stated to you earlier that Nirvana is a state of being.
Tengen states their will dissolved into nothingness and this is backed up by the initial description of Tengen in the HI arc. Tengen achieving Buddahood by reaching enlightenment which involves dissolvement of the ego and attachment, is tit for tat the concept of nirvana. There is no other way to put this, especially when we know how deep the Buddhist influence goes.
While it obviously don't scale to IRL buddhism Nirvana, it does stand as the concept existing in the JJK verse as a state of oneness that allows one to be "one with the heavens and Earth" outlining physical and metaphysical aspects of existence. So no I am not extrapolating from the usage of words, these concepts are directly present in the manga proper.
Incorrect, there are several pieces of evidence that support the idea of Samsara.
- The scene we just saw with Gojo expressly highlights Gege incorporating buddhist reincarnation into the manga with his talk of heading north or south after death.
- Angels religion expressly discuss forced incarnation being an a front to her creed's laws, which we know is a Buddhist sect.
- The cycle of reincarnation is not only limited to humans coming back as curses, but reincarnation in the forms of humans, curses being reincarnated as curses, etc.
- The mechanic by which people are reborn as curses is through holding onto emotions and attachments based on things they experienced in life. This is legitimately the mechanism for Samsara and Karma.
- Kenjaku references the karmic aspect of binding vows when telling Mahito that breaking a vow with another person could result in him turning into a caterpillar.
- The fact that Sukuna, Tengen, [2] and Kenjaku all have ways for extending their consciousness through taking control of or directly incarnating their consciousness into others, these 3 being progenitor's of Jujutsu knowledge in the world.
- Sukuna's body being preserved over 1,000 years through the usage of Sokushinbutsu ritual
- Prison Realm making explicit reference of Buddhist afterlife realms
That's not the only evidence for reincarnation being a thing in the verse.
I don't when the evidence provided already tells me that Tengen achieved an enlightenment which cause dissolution of the self and caused him to become one with the universe. That's a pretty explicit means by which Tengen accomplished his feat, and to ignore the coinciding ontological buddhist underpinnings in addition, would just be ignoring evidence Imo.
We're not gonna agree on this because I explicitly worked backwards from what concepts were already found in the series. You keep saying none of these concepts are found in the series but my evidence and blog both prove those things are foundational to the verses ontology. Which is why I've been asking you to respond to that.
Last edited:
Vietthai96
He/Him- 9,237
- 12,284
I mean, the author took inspiration, elements from Buddhism sure i get it, and all the "similar case" like the cycle of rebirth is just authors took some elements from Buddhism, then add to his to his story, cool, that mean he took elements from the myth then incorporated into his work, but again that isn't mean the verse is 1:1 with the actual one, no offend but what you do is literally extrapolating that: hey this verse have some element from Buddhism and the author said he took inspiration from it, so it should be the same as real life Buddhism. Then process to give the verse's abilities hax that they not even show in verse. Sure we, or at least i understand there are Buddhist element in the verse, we don't deny that, if those abilities show the same feat as the real life myth, we don't mind agreeing and giving hax. The problem is from what i read the thread, they don't, you give them the hax simply because it have term or name from Buddhism, and like i have said before, no one gonna agree with that
- 3,737
- 4,037
Actually it is and you just proved my point.
Evangelion is “based on Kabbalistic thought” not that the framework of the series centers around. In fact the creator of Evangelion said that it was a misconception that the series was based on Kabbalistic thought.
So this just proved my point that they’re talking about “inspirations” here, like they say, rather than the framework of the series like you’re claiming.
The scan doesn’t prove the claim you’re making. It’s only saying that Tengen has access to Sunyat barriers and the translator note clarified that Sunyata is Buddhist concept of emptiness which all things are made out of. Not that all things in JJK are made out of Sunyata like in Buddhism.
There is no statement that all things are made out of Sunyata in JJK, the author note is simply clarifying what Sunyata means in Buddhism. So no there is no evidence they share the same ontological underpinnings. Simply sharing the name “Sunyata” doesn’t equate to ontologically being the same as one another.
If you want that, you need a statement in the series saying what the translator note says, but the fact that you’re pointing to that scan is particularly strong evidence that you’re extrapolating things here since the translator’s note isn’t part of the series meaning no ontological underpinnings are being shared in the scan you provided.
Because it’s not wiki standards to do that and because it’s an extreme extrapolation to do so, something I repeatedly explained and clarified multiple times now with staff supporting that notion. The burden of proof is on you to show they’re 1:1 identically matched, which requires far more evidence to do so. That’s the explanation, that’s the why that’s the case.
And that state of being is not clarified to be “one with the whole universe” in the series of JJK, you’re only extrapolating that from Buddhism.
“One with the heavens and the earth” you’re equating to “being one with the whole universe” which is an extrapolation of the usage of the words in Buddhist religion. “Heaven and earth” doesn’t outline physical and metaphysical planes without further clarification. That’s the extrapolation part, that’s the assumption part you’re taking off of a quote alone.
If you “can’t scale to IRL Buddhism” then you can’t use this as a basis to scale in general. You can’t cherry-pick what you’d like to accept to be applicable to JJK regarding Buddhist concepts but also like to ignore as there being differences between the two. You can’t make the claim that Tengen became one with the universe off the basis of “heaven and earth” because then you’re trying to scale to IRL Buddhism. Saying Tengen is “one with the universe” off of a heaven and earth statement is trying to shake to IRL Buddhism.
None of this goes against the idea I presented because your claim was “Tengen can’t be the earth because it’s trapped in samsara.” That was the statement you made and that statement doesn’t exist in the series and the quotes you’re presenting now doesn’t show that. Kenjaku sayinng karmic punishments exist in a binding vow=/=“earth being trapped in samsara.”
Being “trapped in samsara” has one meaning in Buddhism and no meaning in JJK because JJK has made no mention of “earth being caught in samsara” and to use that as a reason for why Tengen can’t be fused with the earth, has no basis found in the series.
That’s not what was being argued, please reread what I said because your claim was that the reason Tengen can’t have merged with the earth was because it was “caught in samsara” but this explanation doesn’t exist in the manga, therefore it doesn’t prove the claim you’re making.
There is no “one with the universe” that is again an extrapolation of the claims being made. You’re extrapolating the words “heaven and earth” to mean “one with the physical and metaphysical plane” despite no clarification on that or concrete statement made about that in the series. Not once is it mentioned or explained like that, you’re coming to this conclusion off the lines “heaven and earth” and taking ideas from Buddhism to place into JJK.
People have responded and explained time and time and time again why this is not the case, the most recent post above explains why this is not the case. The evidence in your blog has many issues presented with it and the evidence you present doesn’t support the claims you make.
- 4,474
- 5,714
As of this moment, I am still evaluating each point presented in the thread so far, and cross-referencing them with the previous ontology thread and the cosmology blog. It may be some time until I am able to give a decisive opinion on this matter - however, there is something I am presently far too disconcerted with to not leave a comment on.
For how much of this thread is rooted in the discussion in the ontology thread and the scans for the verse presented in the cosmology blog, it is absurd just how many people are confidently asserting their opinion on this matter while self-admittedly having read neither of them. A substantial number of posts have been some variation of "I haven't read the ontology thread or the cosmology blog, but I don't agree with scaling to these concepts without substantiating context" when it has been established that the ontology thread and the cosmology blog contain the substantiating context for this scaling. I have never seen a thread before where so many people have openly justified refusing to look at the evidence presented by the thread creator while simultaneously claiming that the evidence does not exist as the cornerstone of their argument.
I can't say, at this current level of analysis, that I agree with the conclusions presented in the thread as of yet. But I won't accept a thread being rejected because of an overwhelming number of users voting while openly admitting that they did not even look at the evidence presented by the thread creator. That would be a terrible mishandling of our revision process.
For how much of this thread is rooted in the discussion in the ontology thread and the scans for the verse presented in the cosmology blog, it is absurd just how many people are confidently asserting their opinion on this matter while self-admittedly having read neither of them. A substantial number of posts have been some variation of "I haven't read the ontology thread or the cosmology blog, but I don't agree with scaling to these concepts without substantiating context" when it has been established that the ontology thread and the cosmology blog contain the substantiating context for this scaling. I have never seen a thread before where so many people have openly justified refusing to look at the evidence presented by the thread creator while simultaneously claiming that the evidence does not exist as the cornerstone of their argument.
I can't say, at this current level of analysis, that I agree with the conclusions presented in the thread as of yet. But I won't accept a thread being rejected because of an overwhelming number of users voting while openly admitting that they did not even look at the evidence presented by the thread creator. That would be a terrible mishandling of our revision process.
- 3,205
- 2,515
Ok it would seem that the Buddhist parts of the cosmology here are still up to debate which is understandable as it is finicky when it comes to wiki standards but we should at the very least not just tunnel vision on that specific bit and actually look at other parts and see who agrees and who does.
for example, things such as AP, scaling and abilities not reliant on the cosmology should be looked at too and we should see who agrees and who doesn't.
I agree with this thread in full but as I am no mod or admin that means little.
for example, things such as AP, scaling and abilities not reliant on the cosmology should be looked at too and we should see who agrees and who doesn't.
I agree with this thread in full but as I am no mod or admin that means little.
- 6,105
- 2,510
the only votes that count are the mod votes, so idk why u make it sound as if normal votes will get this rejected.
and so far the other mods seem to disagree with equating the ir mythology to the series.
- 3,737
- 4,037
I don’t think this is a fair judgement of the attitude in the thread.
For one personally I just don’t find it to be good format of discussion to just be like “here’s a blog that answers all the problems you bring up with the OP” and meanwhile said blog is like several essays long and focuses on a multitude of sections that may or may not satisfy your points in opposition. I think if a person has a problem with a specific point in the OP then evidence should be presented for that specific point in contention and not just have a huge blog of several different points thrown at you basically saying “have at thee, understand it for yourself.”
And saying like you first have to read this blog to be able to agree or disagree with the evidence presented in this thread just limits the ability for discussion if anything when someone has a problem with the evidence and points brought up in the OP itself.
And evidence has been brought up in this thread, in several posts attempting to prove the posited position of the OP. And in several posts of mine I’ve brought up counters to these proposed evidence citing how it doesn’t prove the claim being made of sharing ontological underpinnings in the verse.
People can see that evidence presented and still agree with the counter position laid and that wouldn’t be them refusing to look at evidence, it’d be looking at the evidence presented and coming to a conclusion off the discussion from that evidence.
- 1,243
- 841
What Dalesean did was to just only comment on Maitreya bringing up the site rule. He never clarified having read the evidence, nor did he state what his positions were beyond quoting a single paragrpah of Maitreya pointing out cross scaling rules. Maverick agreed with Dale, thus, their votes don't really hold any weight outside of the clarification, as they do not touch the thread/evidence in question. Notwithstanding the fact that they agreed to somebody who very pointedly ignores the full context of the OP and joined in this thread because Dr White reported Maitreya in the rvr.
I'm ngl this honestly does raise for some concerns for this site on how they handle voting and stuff like that IN a crt and especially in context like this. Which seems to be... quite apparent
Here too
especially the ratio. Seems like many appear to have that particular mindset too perhaps. but idk. it just comes off as odd to me with how things are handled and seen.
- 1,243
- 841
the OP clarified that the additional, or well full context alongside the OP, would be the blog. There is no other way around it. All you're doing is just further delaying things and preventing the dialectics of this debate to proceed more smoothly in a more truthful way.
- 3,737
- 4,037
I’m not you’re reading too deeply into what I said and totally misread. I’m not preventing anyone from reading the blog for themselves, I’m just explaining that there has been evidence presented in this thread and people disagreeing with that evidence presented isn’t a refusal to look at evidence. That’s all.
- 1,243
- 841
No you're trying to basically limit this to the OP only and I'm telling you that's not how it is done. In order to fully understand the evidence presented in the OP, you gotta read the blog because they're literally part of each other. Like these two make up for the full context of the OP, but you're trying to limit it to thread only. I'm sure that your intention is as clear as it gets so no, I'm not reading deep here.
- 3,737
- 4,037
I’m not limiting anything, you’re reading too deep here. People can look at the evidence in this thread and come to a conclusion with that evidence presented. If anything you’re the one trying to limit the discussion by saying you have to read the blog “in order to understand the evidence in the OP.” The OP has presented evidence to their claims and that evidence can be discussed in regards to the points being contested.
You shouldn’t have to read a whole blog in order to “understand the evidence” since the evidence should speak on its own and be presented for the point being argued against. If you have to say “you gotta understand the context bro” in order to try and prove your points…then that’s probably a good indication the points aren’t well founded within the series itself.
- 1,243
- 841
So all you're saying is that it is ok to ignore a blog that is connected to the context of the OP and basically in short justifying cherry picking. Thanks for admitting it.
Also,
"You shouldn’t have to read a whole blog in order to “understand the evidence” since the evidence should speak on its own and be presented for the point being argued against. If you have to say “you gotta understand the context bro” in order to try and prove your points…then that’s probably a good indication the points aren’t well founded within the series itself."
So you're saying that we should ignore the full context in order to nitpick PARTS of the context and if we don't do that and instead focus on the full context then that is somehow a good indication that the points aren't good and is just making up stuff?
Are yall reading this? This is the same dude complaining about "you're just using terms to try and extrapolate from Buddhism without proving it" consistently through this thread. Yet bro wants us to exclude out the rest of the evidence that is connected in context aka full context...
Maitreya you're so hypocritical no offense. This is just disingenuous on your part, massively. All you're doing is trying to purposefully exclude out full context and locking yourself in with parts of the evidence and trying to ignore the other that is the full context, which honestly makes you come off as a person just debating for the sake of agenda and not trying to debate for the sake of truth. THIS is how you're coming off as. And you have admitted it as much, which honestly makes your entire position throughout this thread quite skeptic. I'm inclined to believe that you're just doing this for the sake of agenda but I'm willing to give the Benefit of doubt, IF you can actually stop trying to exclude out evidence and actually respond to the full context.
Oh and don't use the several essays as an argument to say that people shouldn't read the blog please. This thread is literally 3x bigger than the blog in word and character count. Not kidding. I've given it a check. This means that for anybody actually having read through the entire pages of this thread, should be also easily capable of reading the blog too.
- 6,105
- 2,510
he never said that people should not read it.
- 1,243
- 841
He literally did
his position comes off as "nah it is not required for yall to read the whole context fr" when it is pretty mandatory to actually read the whole context as they're literally part of eachother
- 3,737
- 4,037
No I didn’t you trying to strawman me and lie about the position I’m making is pretty disingenuous and just straight bad faith acting.
If you please read the posts I said to you then you’d immediately see this:
Me saying “I don’t think you should have to read a blog to have a position on the evidence in the thread” isn’t a position of me saying you shouldn’t read the blog. You can read the blog, but I don’t think you “have to” read the blog in order to have a position on this thread since plenty of evidence has been presented and discussed in this thread itself and people are allowed to form an opinion and conclusion from that evidence presented.
No offense, but next time please properly understand the posts you’re responding to instead of accusation people of hypocrisy because it just makes you seem like the disingenuous and bad faith one in this conversation in order to try and push an agenda you support.
Last edited:
- 10,771
- 18,692
Since you linked my message, tell this to all the people who want my evaluations every day on my message wall and you will see how they eat you alive.
He said, no need to read the whole blog when the evidence speaks for itself which means that it is not necessary, but if you want to go ahead, and why is it not necessary? Because the whole debate and implication is that mere vague references to a religion will not guarantee abilities in verse that have no context or elaboration in them and are only pushed based on Irl standards, and this was my opinion after participating in the ontology thread and this whole thread.
And with respect to DarkGrath's response? I find it lame especially in the last bit of the message, but TOAA and Maitreya already clarified that comment so I won't say anything.
@TheGunsFinalWrath since you love to question the validity of the staff vote you should report it to RVT or HR.
@Maverick_Zero_X @Dalesean027 as i reported, this guy is invalidating your votes. We have literally warned other users for the same behavior.
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 14,789
- 10,648
- 3,737
- 4,037
The total vote tally so far is:
Agree: @Dr._whiteee @LordGinSama @TheGunsFinalWrath @azontr @LIFE_OF_KING @Arkenis @Sir_sun_man @SunDaGamer (agrees with most besides Buddhist scaling)
Disagree: @Maitreya (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Tatsumi504 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Deagonx (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @BasedNecoScaler69 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Spinoirr (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Dereck03 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Maverick_Zero_X (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @SunDaGamer (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Vietthai96 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @ImmortalDread (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @BestMGQScalerEver (disagreed with Buddhism scaling) @Dalesean027 (disagreed with Buddhism scaling) @TOAAPRESENCE1 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @EldemadeDityjon (disagrees with Buddhist scaling) @Excel616 (disagrees with Buddhist scaling)
Officially there are 3 evaluating staff disagreements for this thread and no staff agreements in regards to the proposed abilities utilizing Buddhist roots as foundation for scaling.
Agree: @Dr._whiteee @LordGinSama @TheGunsFinalWrath @azontr @LIFE_OF_KING @Arkenis @Sir_sun_man @SunDaGamer (agrees with most besides Buddhist scaling)
Disagree: @Maitreya (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Tatsumi504 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Deagonx (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @BasedNecoScaler69 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Spinoirr (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Dereck03 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Maverick_Zero_X (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @SunDaGamer (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @Vietthai96 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @ImmortalDread (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @BestMGQScalerEver (disagreed with Buddhism scaling) @Dalesean027 (disagreed with Buddhism scaling) @TOAAPRESENCE1 (disagrees with Buddhism scaling) @EldemadeDityjon (disagrees with Buddhist scaling) @Excel616 (disagrees with Buddhist scaling)
Officially there are 3 evaluating staff disagreements for this thread and no staff agreements in regards to the proposed abilities utilizing Buddhist roots as foundation for scaling.
Last edited:
- 1,823
- 2,010
I disagree with the buddhism scaling too
TheGreatJedi13
Username Only- 5,017
- 3,191
I agree with Concept and some cursed technique being Concept Type 3
The way some cursed user for example like Mahito talks about Type 3 concepts born from the philosophy that caused humans to be limited as a form of self-imposed limitations and I'm pretty sure he is talking about the Concept of self on this one based on how he described it.
Though knowing Mahito's ability which basically being able to manipulate the soul of every human or touch it I would assume he control not only these concepts individually as type 3 but rather as type 2 that governs all of it on its entirety
the same way with Gojo, Yuki and Black Hole Woman although they seem to have a limitation of being able to only pull these off on a limited range of their cursed technique
Subjective Reality may not even be limited to barriers as most of their ability functions in a way by materializing or manifesting Abstract concepts into reality (such as Gojo with infinity or the woman who created blackhole by pushing it to extreme limit) though these are all limited to Creation aspect of Subjective reality and thus should be noted
will not comment on the rest
The way some cursed user for example like Mahito talks about Type 3 concepts born from the philosophy that caused humans to be limited as a form of self-imposed limitations and I'm pretty sure he is talking about the Concept of self on this one based on how he described it.
Though knowing Mahito's ability which basically being able to manipulate the soul of every human or touch it I would assume he control not only these concepts individually as type 3 but rather as type 2 that governs all of it on its entirety
the same way with Gojo, Yuki and Black Hole Woman although they seem to have a limitation of being able to only pull these off on a limited range of their cursed technique
Subjective Reality may not even be limited to barriers as most of their ability functions in a way by materializing or manifesting Abstract concepts into reality (such as Gojo with infinity or the woman who created blackhole by pushing it to extreme limit) though these are all limited to Creation aspect of Subjective reality and thus should be noted
will not comment on the rest
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 14,789
- 10,648
Excellence616
He/Him- 5,337
- 3,667
I agree
Disagree with Buddhism scaling
Disagree with Buddhism scaling
- Status
