1-A JTTW & Abilities CRT

[Antvasima]

Okay. Jasonsith quoted it earlier though. I just want us to be certain before we apply such an extreme upgrade.

 

[Planck69]

@Jasonsith @Zaratthustra @Planck69 @Elizhaa

What do you all think should be done here? Please take the following into account as well.

That seems pretty tangential to the main CRT and mostly seems to be trying to addressing the generalisation being made by ShivaShakti.

The material Universe would be High 1-B by any metric, since it's at the most basic level spacetime continuums embedded as objects in higher timelines unto infinity.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Never mind then. Thank you for the evaluation.

 

[PrinceofPein]

The Argument
So what is the point I'm getting at? Simply put the worlds that exist within grains of sand should in turn also have worlds within them, leading to a recursion effect.

"Should" is actually an argument from speculation

I have three reasons for my logic that I'll just briefly summarize.

1. Firstly Chilicosm & Buddha-Realm's statement says "A grain of sand", not a grain of sand in this world, just a grain of sand. It's a very broad statement referring to every grain of sand pretty clearly. On top of that, it states clearly that a Buddha's entire realm exists within a grain of sand. That would also have to include the one in the Main JTTW World.

a grain of sand contains a world, does not mean that every grain of sand from the world contained inside the grain of sand, also has a world inside them.

2. It's also stated that Buddhas exist in every world. That would have to include the lower worlds as well, in which the Buddhas within those lower worlds would also have their own realms.

"such as this various buddhas in all the worlds"

3. If the Great Way scans do indeed mean it's responsible for these recursions of larger things such as Worlds, Buddha-Realms, Mountains, and Oceans being within smaller things, then why would it not affect the lower worlds within the Universe it already encompasses?

It will not affect it cause it was never stated to affect it in the first place, and this are arguments from speculations and readers trying to guess the authors intent, and the speculation been that; all sand ever contains other worlds, when it was never really mentioned that the sands from those lower worlds contains another world.
also none of the scans in the OP really talked about recursions. it was pretty straightforward in its saying.

While for the Dharmakaya, its rating is largely dependent on the cosmology size

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Here we go

 

[Greatsage13th]

Here we go

Well...we were expecting minor angry monopoly men to have a shot.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Here we go

Well...we were expecting minor angry monopoly men to have a shot.

If you don't have anything constructive to say, please refrain from commenting especially calling someone "minor angry monopoly men"

 

[Greatsage13th]

If you don't have anything constructive to say, please refrain from commenting especially calling someone "minor angry monopoly men"

You could've ignored the punchline to begin with. It was a joke comment.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

You could've ignored the punchline to begin with. It was a joke comment.

Reminder that comedy is very much dependent on tone and delivery, both of which are difficult to gauge in written form when we don't know the person.

As such, be mindful in the future for these kinds of "jokes" (and being honest, I don't even see it as one even with the clarification of intent, ngl).

 

[Greatsage13th]

Reminder that comedy is very much dependent on tone and delivery, both of which are difficult to gauge in written form when we don't know the person.

As such, be mindful in the future for these kinds of "jokes" (and being honest, I don't even see it as one even with the clarification of intent, ngl).

Alrighty then, but still hard to resist an oversimplified joke.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Alrighty then, but still hard to resist an oversimplified joke.

That do be true ovo

Now, as for the thread at large, I find myself in agreement with OP

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

"Should" is actually an argument from speculation

a grain of sand contains a world, does not mean that every grain of sand from the world contained inside the grain of sand, also has a world inside them.

Don't know what you're saying here rephrase if you can.

"such as this various buddhas in all the worlds"

Is there an issue? It says there are various buddhas in all the worlds.

It will not affect it cause it was never stated to affect it in the first place, and this are arguments from speculations and readers trying to guess the authors intent, and the speculation been that; all sand ever contains other worlds, when it was never really mentioned that the sands from those lower worlds contains another world.
also none of the scans in the OP really talked about recursions. it was pretty straightforward in its saying.

You can't explain to me why all sands ever would not also apply to other worlds, it is never stated that there is a limit to what all sands represent. You are arguing that a statement addressing grains of sand does not affect other worlds when it never stated otherwise.

Outside of that we also have pseudo evidence that the Author based these statements on mirroring a recursion-based Cosmology. And we also have pseudo evidence that what is causing said recursion is exactly the same recursion cosmology. While the evidence is not 100% it is certainly more clear than any evidence that says otherwise which you would have to provide.

 

[ShivaShakti]

It also states "Grains of Sand", which is evocative of the Ganga Sand, the ganga itself being infinite. It would be quite difficult to argue that it isn't intended to be a lofty expression, due to greater context.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Don't know what you're saying here rephrase if you can.

I dont know how i can make it clearer, but look at it this way, use the Real - life earth as an example and I am a supreme being and while talking to my creation (you guys that can i crush with a finger) I said within all grain of sands in the world, contains another world.
That does not mean the sands within those worlds inside the sands also contain their own worlds.

you will need explicit proof of that, which you have not provided

Is there an issue? It says there are various buddhas in all the worlds.

yes, but it does not say that each buddhas must have a buddha below them

You can't explain to me why all sands ever would not also apply to other worlds, it is never stated that there is a limit to what all sands represent. You are arguing that a statement addressing grains of sand does not affect other worlds when it never stated otherwise.

that was not my argument, I am arguing for you endless hierarchy to work, there must be an explicit statement that each world contained in sand also has worlds contained in all the sands in them. to make it easier for you to understand,
lets say the current world = X
and the worlds inside the sands in "X" are = Y
and then the sands inside "Y" are = Z.

we have proof that there are worlds inside X which are the Ys but we have no proof or rather you have not provided an actual proof or statement that says Z also contains world, it was just a speculation on your part.

Outside of that we also have pseudo evidence that the Author based these statements on mirroring a recursion-based Cosmology. And we also have pseudo evidence that what is causing said recursion is exactly the same recursion cosmology. While the evidence is not 100% it is certainly more clear than any evidence that says otherwise which you would have to provide.

these dont mean much, Naruto was based on Dragonball does that mean we should scale all characters from Naruto to DB?
Anyway I also dont have to provide anything as I never made a claim.
Don't get me wrong, if the proofs can be provided, this easily becomes one of the largest High 1-B, maybe second largest in this wiki, but so far, I am not seeing it.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

yes, but it does not say that each buddhas must have a buddha below them

I was not trying to establish a Hierarchy of Buddhas, all Buddhas are equal so there can be no hierarchy, I was just stating every world has a Buddha and therefore every world would have a Buddha-Realm and worlds within them.

these dont mean much, Naruto was based on Dragonball does that mean we should scale all characters from Naruto to DB?

That is an extreme false equivalence, one is giving us a look at the Author's intentions when stating something using the exact same names and concepts and the other is inspiration, two very different things

In any case, I don't have any other evidence to convince you, I believe the "All" encompassing statement of grains of sand means "All" grains of sand, if your interpretation is that the author meant only certain grains of sand then I'll just list you for disagreeing.

 

[Alexander]

I was not trying to establish a Hierarchy of Buddhas, all Buddhas are equal so there can be no hierarchy, I was just stating every world has a Buddha and therefore every world would have a Buddha-Realm and worlds within them.

That is an extreme false equivalence, one is giving us a look at the Author's intentions when stating something using the exact same names and concepts and the other is inspiration, two very different things

In any case, I don't have any other evidence to convince you, I believe the "All" encompassing statement of grains of sand means "All" grains of sand, if your interpretation is that the author meant only certain grains of sand then I'll just list you for disagreeing.

I remember something that each budha land or something like that is infinite and everything is equally infinite, and an atom is infinite, and that atom has infinite universes, and each universe has infinite atoms, which has infinite universes, which continues infinitely through all possible infinities that can be extended, everything is the same.
infinite

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I remember something that each budha land or something like that is infinite and everything is equally infinite, and an atom is infinite, and that atom has infinite universes, and each universe has infinite atoms, which has infinite universes, which continues infinitely through all possible infinities that can be extended, everything is the same.
infinite

Yup, that's from the Mahayana System's Cosmology that delves into deeper and deeper infinities, which as I stated is what JTTW hints is responsible for its massive recursive cosmology.

 

[PrinceofPein]

You did not even address some of my points specifically the ones asking for proofs

I was not trying to establish a Hierarchy of Buddhas, all Buddhas are equal so there can be no hierarchy, I was just stating every world has a Buddha and therefore every world would have a Buddha-Realm and worlds within them.

and your argument is that, inside the worlds inside the buddha realms is another buddha who has another buddha realm which contains worlds and so on like that, but I dont see a scan of proof of such in the OP.
Also you claims won't work, if all Buddhas are actually equal, at least in the sense that, an higher dimensional being cannot be uncountable infinite smaller than a lower D. it is usually the other way around, but that is beside the point, it is fiction anything is possible but the other points still stands.

That is an extreme false equivalence, one is giving us a look at the Author's intentions when stating something using the exact same names and concepts and the other is inspiration, two very different things

names and concept will never equal scale, unless almost every verse that uses anything remotely close to the Abrahamaic/Judaism mythology will be tier 0. and No I am not contesting that aspect of your claims, what I am contesting is that you have literally "No proof" of the worlds within sands, that goes on infinitely.

In any case, I don't have any other evidence to convince you, I believe the "All" encompassing statement of grains of sand means "All" grains of sand, if your interpretation is that the author meant only certain grains of sand then I'll just list you for disagreeing.

all sands in this world contains another world =/= all sand in this world contains another world, and within those worlds, all the sands there also contains another world and this goes on for infinity.

it is not about votes, your claims are shaky.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

You did not even address some of my points specifically the ones asking for proofs

and your argument is that, inside the worlds inside the buddha realms is another buddha who has another buddha realm which contains worlds and so on like that, but I dont see a scan of proof of such in the OP.

All worlds mean all worlds, I don't need to prove that the word "All" (used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing) means all worlds including those within Buddha-Realms or grains of sand.

all sands in this world contains another world =/= all sand in this world contains another world, and within those worlds, all the sands there also contains another world and this goes on for infinity.

it is not about votes, your claims are shaky.

I don't feel I need to prove anything, you're trying to twist the author's words. He never stated "The grains of sand in this world contains worlds" he stated "A grain of sand contains worlds", why would we not default to that applying to all grains of sand? You're trying to limit the extent of his phrases beyond what is stated with zero evidence and I'm going by the natural assumption that they are all-inclusive using the Author's interpretation and meaning with evidence supporting such.

And my claims are shakey in your "opinion" not everyone's which is why I said it comes down to a vote.

 

[Antvasima]

I dont know how i can make it clearer, but look at it this way, use the Real - life earth as an example and I am a supreme being and while talking to my creation (you guys that can i crush with a finger) I said within all grain of sands in the world, contains another world.
That does not mean the sands within those worlds inside the sands also contain their own worlds.

you will need explicit proof of that, which you have not provided

I agree with this, and think that Pain_to12 makes sense in general here.

 

[ÆONS]

Agreed with the OP. Also, Pain, the reason why people felt uncomfortable with your presence here is that you have a tendency of stonewalling threads with arguments endless circular arguments that prevent changes from being applied sooner. There was even a comment calling out your behavior in a staff discussion thread about stonewalling in general in which most people wanted to make a guideline on.

I really hope that you don't stall this thread more than necessary like you did very recently toward MG.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't think that Pain_to12 is stonewalling. He usually makes good points in my view, even if his grammar could be improved a bit.

 

[ÆONS]

I don't think that Pain_to12 is stonewalling. He usually makes good points in my view, even if his grammar could be improved a bit,

I don't believe that Pain is fully impervious or acts out of malice. There was a Touhou thread in which Pain was arguing with people about youkai physiology and I decided to set the record straight with them explaining their physiology in a way which made Pain understood what people were saying, which was nice.

Pain does have a serious issue with repeatedly delaying the discussion, though, and I still feel cautious about their behavior whenever they show up.

 

[PrinceofPein]

All worlds mean all worlds, I don't need to prove that the word "All" (used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing) means all worlds including those within Buddha-Realms or grains of sand.

It can be, I already provided an example, you missed it

I dont know how i can make it clearer, but look at it this way, use the Real - life earth as an example and I am a supreme being and while talking to my creation I said "within all grain of sands in the world", contains another world.
That does not mean the sands within those worlds inside the sands also contain their own worlds.

I don't feel I need to prove anything, you're trying to twist the author's words. He never stated "The grains of sand in this world contains worlds" he stated "A grain of sand contains worlds", why would we not default to that applying to all grains of sand?

yes we default it to the grain of sands within the world he spoke not within the worlds inside the grains of sands too, because before you can apply it further, you will need more proof which you have not provided so far

And my claims are shakey in your "opinion" not everyone's which is why I said it comes down to a vote.

well let me see what other people think based on the little I have said

 

[PrinceofPein]

Agreed with the OP. Also, Pain, the reason why people felt uncomfortable with your presence here is that you have a tendency of stonewalling threads with arguments endless circular arguments that prevent changes from being applied sooner. There was even a comment calling out your behavior in a staff discussion thread about stonewalling in general in which most people wanted to make a guideline on.

Because I did not agree with your upgrade threads on Touhou which I made 3 comments on does not mean I stonewall, tf is wrong with you, you keep saying this, we have never talked just once on a Touhou thread where I made 3-5 comments thats all.
And yes I will like the link to the staff thread that said I stonewall

I really hope that you don't stall this thread more than necessary like you did very recently toward MG.

I never stonewalled the MG thread, it is an argument. Stonewall would mean "delay or obstruct (a request, process, or person) by refusing to answer questions or by being evasive."
I did not refuse to answer questions neither was I evasive rather it was the oppositions that could not answer my questions.

 

[Antvasima]

Let's stop the derailment about stonewalling please.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I don't believe that Pain is fully impervious or acts out of malice. There was a Touhou thread in which Pain was arguing with people about youkai physiology and I decided to set the record straight with them explaining their physiology in a way which made Pain understood what people were saying, which was nice.

I don't even know much about Touhou, saying that what I am seeing is not enough or does not prove what they want to get passed does not equal stonewall, link the thread in questions here or I can do that, I dont like needless accusations

Pain does have a serious issue with repeatedly delaying the discussion, though, and I still feel cautious about their behavior whenever they show up.

Okay, please do mention 3 of those threads. At this point accusing someone wrongly of something should be report worthy cause tf, you say this a lot and I tend to ignore you when you say it and this was just based on a disagreement on a Touhou thread. but I have had enough

 

[ÆONS]

Let's stop the derailment about stonewalling please.

Fair, and I'm sorry.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Let's stop the derailment about stonewalling please.

Okay Sure

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

It can be, I already provided an example, you missed it

The statement was not made by some supreme being, it was used by the Narrator/Author. If I write saying all grains of sand contain worlds, you do not get to decide that I only meant this world, or that world, or specifically this area, or specifically that area. When I say all, as the author you have to accept that I mean "All".

yes we default it to the grain of sands within the world he spoke not within the worlds inside the grains of sands too, because before you can apply it further, you will need more proof which you have not provided so far

Where is the standard, the rule, that we default the statement "All" to only a specific world when it is mentioned countless times that there are Infinite Worlds, Countless Worlds, Worlds beyond measure?

This is what I am hearing from you atm;

I mean yes he said all, but in all honesty he probably just mean this one world, like he never said just this one world, but why would All ever mean more than this one world? I mean although they acknowledge that Buddha's exist in All Worlds which would have to refer to the worlds within grains of sand since those are the only other worlds that exist, but just because they acknowledge those worlds exist doesnt mean "All" includes them.

 

[Antvasima]

Fair, and I'm sorry.

No problem.

 

[PrinceofPein]

The statement was not made by some supreme being, it was used by the Narrator/Author. If I write saying all grains of sand contain worlds, you do not get to decide that I only meant this world, or that world, or specifically this area, or specifically that area. When I say all, as the author you have to accept that I mean "All".

Where is the standard, the rule, that we default the statement "All" to only a specific world when it is mentioned countless times that there are Infinite Worlds, Countless Worlds, Worlds beyond measure?

This is what I am hearing from you atm;

I feel like you are not getting what I am saying, "within the cosmology, there are infinite worlds, and each sands in this infinite worlds contains a world of their own", which is what "All" will encompass in this context. it does not mean that each of the worlds within those sands also have worlds within the sands in them, which is your claim.
and unless there always have to be a buddha below another buddha the Buddha point does not hold much weight. as all the worlds in the sands can still have a Buddha and nothing will change.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I feel like you are not getting what I am saying, "within the cosmology, there are infinite worlds, and each sands in this infinite worlds contains a world of their own", which is what "All" will encompass in this context. it does not mean that each of the worlds within those sands also have worlds within the sands in them, which is your claim.
and unless there always have to be a buddha below another buddha the Buddha point does not hold much weight. as all the worlds in the sands can still have a Buddha and nothing will change.

Statements like All Worlds, Worlds beyond Measure, and Countless Worlds are only used AFTER they establish that grains of sand hold worlds within them and Buddha-Lands hold Infinite Worlds. So all of these multiple worlds statements are based on the grains of sand statements, and if you don't acknowledge that the grains of sands are included within the all-world statements then that means there is only one world.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Statements like All Worlds, Worlds beyond Measure, and Countless Worlds are only used AFTER they establish that grains of sand hold worlds within them and Buddha-Lands hold Infinite Worlds. So all of these multiple worlds statements are based on the grains of sand statements, and if you don't acknowledge that the grains of sands are included within the all-world statements then that means there is only one world.

Seems like we will go around in circles, anyway i may get back to this when I get back, but do link send link to the source of the scans, most of them are broken without proper context

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Seems like we will go around in circles, anyway i may get back to this when I get back, but do link send link to the source of the scans, most of them are broken without proper context

Sure, added references to everything as requested.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you both for helping out.

 

[Jasonsith]

I can be as good a casual audience here...

I am busy IRL and even in this site but maybe I should examine how valid those stacking statements are. Not commenting anything too soon... But...

Battle Buddha being 5-D and The Dharmakaya being at least 5-D possibly 6-D seems easily understandable even by the casual audience. The part you are talking about... I would need to revisit and re-examine the OG novel to comment anything.

 

[Greatsage13th]

"Pain_to12 said:
I dont know how i can make it clearer, but look at it this way, use the Real - life earth as an example and I am a supreme being and while talking to my creation (you guys that can i crush with a finger) I said within all grain of sands in the world, contains another world.
That does not mean the sands within those worlds inside the sands also contain their own worlds.

you will need explicit proof of that, which you have not provided."

The yin and yang in the novel, is stated to be boundless in their functions and there is NOT a gap that it hasn't filled. Which would mean the worlds below already had their own recursions due to the nature of duality to begin with.

 

[PrinceofPein]

The yin and yang in the novel, is stated to be boundless in their functions and there is NOT a gap that it hasn't filled. Which would mean the worlds below already had their own recursions

You do know this is vague as it gets? And does not mean much in context of this discussion
Let me wait for Jasonsith

 

[Greatsage13th]

You do know this is vague as it gets? And does not mean much in context of this discussion
Let me wait for Jasonsith

We dealt with the something as vague and flowery as Cthulhu mythos before. This one is less vague but more flowery. Yet having many hidden context in the reality of things.