Er Gen verse Transduality Type 2 for 4th step cultivators

[Larssx]

But he's not explaining "the obvious" because his conclusion is not obvious.

This is what the transduality page actually says:

Transduality is the state of being wherein an entity exists independently of, and qualitatively beyond, various dual systems, ranging from very specific, limited sets of dual distinctions to duality itself on a conceptual level. If the 0 and 1 of binary systems can be considered a duality, a transdual character’s fundamental existence might be definable as being in-between the numbers of 0 and 1, being 0 and 1 at once, being defined as being a “2”, or as not being describable through any numbers at all at the higher levels.

I understand that, at a surface glance, the Essence might seemingly meet the criteria of "being 0 and 1 at once" as it is said to have no form or shape, but contains them.

But here's the thing, that's not "being 0 and 1 at once." It would have to both A) Have no form and B) Have a form or have every form.

The only description that actually meets this criteria is that it is simultaneously infinitely large and infinitely small. Everything else describes is simply transcending or creating certain concepts, which isn't the same as being transdual. None of the concepts described are dualities.

As I mentioned above, these are dualities.
Also, if you examine the Transduality page carefully, you will see the same quote I gave above.
What is duality according to you?

 

[Malekith]

But he's not explaining "the obvious" because his conclusion is not obvious.

This is what the transduality page actually says:

Transduality is the state of being wherein an entity exists independently of, and qualitatively beyond, various dual systems, ranging from very specific, limited sets of dual distinctions to duality itself on a conceptual level. If the 0 and 1 of binary systems can be considered a duality, a transdual character’s fundamental existence might be definable as being in-between the numbers of 0 and 1, being 0 and 1 at once, being defined as being a “2”, or as not being describable through any numbers at all at the higher levels.

I understand that, at a surface glance, the Essence might seemingly meet the criteria of "being 0 and 1 at once" as it is said to have no form or shape, but contains them.

But here's the thing, that's not "being 0 and 1 at once." It would have to both A) Have no form and B) Have a form or have every form.

The only description that actually meets this criteria is that it is simultaneously infinitely large and infinitely small. Everything else describes is simply transcending or creating certain concepts, which isn't the same as being transdual. None of the concepts described are dualities.

How is there no duality here? You are taking everything literally, not interpreting the sentences that were provided. Existence and non-existence; Light and its absence (darkness/darkness); Contains the beginning and the end (Creation and Destruction);
For me they are all dualities, as they are the counterpart of each other simultaneously, at least I see it this way and the description of transduality fits, of course if you want to take everything literally without interpreting the sentences this is your view

 

[Deagonx]

If you contain dualities and are independent of their effects

It's not said to contain any dualities.

Existence and non-existence; Light and its absence (darkness/darkness); Contains the beginning and the end (Creation and Destruction);

Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Is infinitely small, but also infinitely large
Is completely unique and boundless

Forms and shapes aren't dualities.

Beginning and ending is a duality, but it's not saying that it contains "the beginning and end" it contains all beginnings and endings. Instantiations of certain concepts isn't the same as the actual duality they represent. At best, however, this would be one instance of a duality being contained.

All space isn't a duality.

Time isn't a duality.

Noise and light isn't a duality.

Places aren't a duality.

See where I'm going with this? It's far from an "obvious" conclusion to make and there's plenty of room for discussion without acting as though people who do not jump to the same conclusion that you did are being too stubborn or ignoring something obvious.

 

[Georredannea15]

It's not said to contain any dualities.

The statement mentioned in the OP clearly refers to duality systems.


"Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Is infinitely small, but also infinitely large
Is completely unique and boundless"

These are good examples of duality systems.

 

[Deagonx]

The statement mentioned in the OP clearly refers to duality systems.

No, it clearly doesn't. As a matter of fact, my last comment which replied directly to you goes over this in a very matter-of-fact way, so if you'd like to address my points you are welcome to do so, but repeating yourself will not get you anywhere.

 

[Larssx]

It's not said to contain any dualities.



Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Is infinitely small, but also infinitely large
Is completely unique and boundless

Forms and shapes aren't dualities.

Beginning and ending is a duality, but it's not saying that it contains "the beginning and end" it contains all beginnings and endings. Instantiations of certain concepts isn't the same as the actual duality they represent. At best, however, this would be one instance of a duality being contained.

All space isn't a duality.

Time isn't a duality.

Noise and light isn't a duality.

Places aren't a duality.

See where I'm going with this? It's far from an "obvious" conclusion to make and there's plenty of room for discussion without acting as though people who do not jump to the same conclusion that you did are being too stubborn or ignoring something obvious.

You are confusing the duality
For example, opposite concepts like Life and Death are duality, but also Being and non-being is also duality.

 

[Deagonx]

You are confusing the duality
For example, opposite concepts like Life and Death are duality, but also Being and non-being is also duality.

There's no confusion, I fully understand the being and non-being would be a duality.

 

[Georredannea15]

No, it clearly doesn't. As a matter of fact, my last comment which replied directly to you goes over this in a very matter-of-fact way, so if you'd like to address my points you are welcome to do so, but repeating yourself will not get you anywhere.

Well... Everyone defends and repeats something with their own arguments. That's just my opinion.

 

[Malekith]

It's not said to contain any dualities.



Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Is infinitely small, but also infinitely large
Is completely unique and boundless

Forms and shapes aren't dualities.

Beginning and ending is a duality, but it's not saying that it contains "the beginning and end" it contains all beginnings and endings. Instantiations of certain concepts isn't the same as the actual duality they represent. At best, however, this would be one instance of a duality being contained.

All space isn't a duality.

Time isn't a duality.

Noise and light isn't a duality.

Places aren't a duality.

See where I'm going with this? It's far from an "obvious" conclusion to make and there's plenty of room for discussion without acting as though people who do not jump to the same conclusion that you did are being too stubborn or ignoring something obvious.

Is not the place he refers to and his very existence, which does not exist and exists at the same time, what is the counterpart of existence? It is nonexistence. Light and darkness are not a duality? In the Dao, light and darkness represent the same two-sided coin, they are a point of balance.

When he says that he contemplates all beginnings and endings, he is talking about being in control of the concept of destruction and creation in all aspects that they suffer.

 

[AKUTO123]

Eh seems that argue will not any result us because you say same things also we say so ı think we argue this thread enough . We must be wait other persons comment

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

There is some scan that says Yin and Yang themselves are the basis of duality and it is coming from DAO.

 

[Deagonx]

his very existence, which does not exist and exists at the same time

Where is that specified?

 

[Malekith]

Where is that specified?

Does not exist in a specific location = Does not exist anywhere
But creates and contains all places = Contains all places itself
That is, in my conception and you can disagree with this is your opinion, this is the existence and non-existence described in other words.

 

[Deagonx]

Does not exist in a specific location = Does not exist anywhere

This is wrong.

 

[Malekith]

This is wrong.

This is your opinion it's okay, we see things differently.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Crabwhale the problem is that most of the examples being used here isn’t really a duality here. Existing before time is a thing and making time doesn’t mean you’re beyond a dual system. It’s one thing if it’s talking about dual natures like Light and Darkness and existing beyond both, but there’s hardly anything listed there that’s mentioning dualities.

@Larssx i know what Transduality is, no need to talk down on me and act like I don’t know shit. The problem is none of your examples remotely line up with dual nature. Explain to me how does existing before time and creating time as well equal to dual nature? What about time itself is dual nature? You haven’t explain that at all

 

[Crabwhale]

@Crabwhale the problem is that most of the examples being used here isn’t really a duality here. Existing before time is a thing and making time doesn’t mean you’re beyond a dual system. It’s one thing if it’s talking about dual natures like Light and Darkness and existing beyond both, but there’s hardly anything listed there that’s mentioning dualities.

Just for clarity's sake: do you mean in the OP's summary of the text, or the actual text posted in the first of the thread? Because my point largely relies on the second of those.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Crabwhale I assume you’re referring to the scans posted in the OP for your second point but yes that’s what I’m referring to. Some of the examples mention that it doesn’t have space or it doesn’t have time but it made both and is the foundation of everything. Those examples aren’t really a Transduality feat, just them existing before creation.

 

[Crabwhale]

 

[AKUTO123]

There seems to be a great deal of disagreement about what is duality and what is not. In our opinion, duality and binary concepts are clearly duality and binary concepts, according to you, these are not binary concepts. I think this is related to what we call a binary concept or not. As if we will not be able to find a solution. İf we dont find without someone know explaining DT.

 

[Larssx]

You are really emphasizing the wrong point
Why do you ignore the other posts and just stick to the time part?
Not calling them duality?
Well we will probably just repeat each other so I will ask DT for help on this.

 

[Reiner04]

I mean... Pretty blatant? I agree.

 

[Robo432343]

what is the problem here

this is pretty clear cut td type 2

 

[Theglassman12]

@Larssx You mean the point you're using in the OP? With the lacking of shapes and time? Because you're the one quoting those specific examples and is trying to label them as dualities when stuff like shapes, time, etc. are remotely mentioned in a dual aspect.

 

[ImmortalDread]

what is the problem here

this is pretty clear cut td type 2

OP is not asking for TD type 2.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Wait he does? I disagree as well. I could understand TD type 1 and NEP type 3 but TD type 2?

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

OP is not asking for TD type 2.

Essence must gain Transduality Type 2.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

@Crabwhale the problem is that most of the examples being used here isn’t really a duality here. Existing before time is a thing and making time doesn’t mean you’re beyond a dual system. It’s one thing if it’s talking about dual natures like Light and Darkness and existing beyond both, but there’s hardly anything listed there that’s mentioning dualities.

@Larssx i know what Transduality is, no need to talk down on me and act like I don’t know shit. The problem is none of your examples remotely line up with dual nature. Explain to me how does existing before time and creating time as well equal to dual nature? What about time itself is dual nature? You haven’t explain that at all

Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes

One who transcends essence will naturally gain Transduality as the essence "Has no form or shape" This is literal Non Existence, and "creates and contains all forms and shapes" is literal existence.

"Non existence" with "Existence" are literally a duality.

Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings

"Beginning" and "end" are literal dualities, and then there "non-beginning" and "non-end" is other dualities for Beginning and End themselves.

Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places

All of these are literal duality of "Non-Being" and "Being"
"Non-Spatial" and "Spatial" is a duality.
"Non-Time" and "Time" are duality.
"Noiseless" with "Noise" and "Lightless" with "Light" is a literal duality.
"Non-Places" and "Contain all places" is duality.
Essence is a fundamental building of realities, so it does qualify for TD type 2.

Here you will see that "Essences are essentially the foundation of everything" including concepts

Well there's this scan to support it

 

[Reiner04]

Wait he does? I disagree as well. I could understand TD type 1 and NEP type 3 but TD type 2?

Why it's not TD type 2 tho? I fail to see it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Why it's not TD type 2 tho? I fail to see it.

Then you are failure. I will explain when I come home.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Then you are failure. I will explain when I come home.

One who transcends essence will naturally gain Transduality as the essence "Has no form or shape" This is literal Non Existence, and "creates and contains all forms and shapes" is literal existence.

"Non existence" with "Existence" are literally a duality.

"Beginning" and "end" are literal dualities, and then there "non-beginning" and "non-end" is other dualities for Beginning and End themselves.

All of these are literal duality of "Non-Being" and "Being"
"Non-Spatial" and "Spatial" is a duality.
"Non-Time" and "Time" are duality.
"Noiseless" with "Noise" and "Lightless" with "Light" is a literal duality.
"Non-Places" and "Contain all places" is duality.
Essence is a fundamental building of realities, so it does qualify for TD type 2.

 

[Fixxed]

Has no form or shape, but creates and contains all forms and shapes
Has no beginning or end, but contains all beginnings and endings
Takes up no space, but also contains all space (all space)
Exists outside of time, but creates and contains all time
Is noiseless and lightless, but contains all noise and light
Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Is infinitely small, but also infinitely large
Is completely unique and boundless


This is the definition of essence, as a result of these dualities Transduality Type 1 must gain I come with extra evidence for Type 2

Why even that a TD 1?? Or more correct is why even that is a logical duality??

Just begining and end or small and large is very vague for say that is logical duality, you must prove that the two contradicting thing is in one system of that "thing"

Here you will see that "Essences are essentially the foundation of everything" including concepts

Well there's this scan to support it.

Result:

Essence must gain Transduality Type 2.
Also 4th step cultivators should gain because they become their own essence

Even if the statement above is a logical duality, this will not make it TD 2, because it just mention 2 duality system

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Why even that a TD 1?? Or more correct is why even that is a logical duality??

Just begining and end or small and large is very vague for say that is logical duality, you must prove that the two contradicting thing is in one system of that "thing"


Even if the statement above is a logical duality, this will not make it TD 2, because it just mention 2 duality system

One who transcends essence will naturally gain Transduality as the essence "Has no form or shape" This is literal Non Existence, and "creates and contains all forms and shapes" is literal existence.

"Non existence" with "Existence" are literally a duality.

"Beginning" and "end" are literal dualities, and then there "non-beginning" and "non-end" is other dualities for Beginning and End themselves.

All of these are literal duality of "Non-Being" and "Being"
"Non-Spatial" and "Spatial" is a duality.
"Non-Time" and "Time" are duality.
"Noiseless" with "Noise" and "Lightless" with "Light" is a literal duality.
"Non-Places" and "Contain all places" is duality.
Essence is a fundamental building of realities, so it does qualify for TD type 2.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Damn.
How many times should i repeat this?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Ok cool but I don't see how it is TD type 2. TD type 1 and Nep type 3.

 

[Fixxed]

One who transcends essence will naturally gain Transduality as the essence "Has no form or shape" This is literal Non Existence, and "creates and contains all forms and shapes" is literal existence.

"Non existence" with "Existence" are literally a duality.

"Beginning" and "end" are literal dualities, and then there "non-beginning" and "non-end" is other dualities for Beginning and End themselves.

All of these are literal duality of "Non-Being" and "Being"
"Non-Spatial" and "Spatial" is a duality.
"Non-Time" and "Time" are duality.
"Noiseless" with "Noise" and "Lightless" with "Light" is a literal duality.
"Non-Places" and "Contain all places" is duality.
Essence is a fundamental building of realities, so it does qualify for TD type 2.

Has no "....." is just to describe the nature of the root that is outside and unbound the thing, is too vague for say it a duality system

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Ok cool but I don't see how it is TD type 2. TD type 1 and Nep type 3.

Has no "....." is just to describe the nature of the root that is outside and unbound the thing, is too vague for say it a duality system

This is the literal reason why another's Chinamen verse like Low Dimensional Games have TD 2 on their lower characters.
And yes, they are naturally duality. Just look at duality pages, before i destroy all of your arguments and reason

 

[Reiner04]

Then you are failure. I will explain when I come home.

Just begining and end or small and large is very vague for say that is logical duality, you must prove that the two contradicting thing is in one system of that "thing"

Being infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time is indeed comes under duality. everything else comes under the context of it being contradiction and has same relation as the above statement, so they will fall under duality.

 

[Fixxed]

This is the literal reason why another's Chinamen verse like Low Dimensional Games have TD 2 on their lower characters.

Different verse, different context

And yes, they are naturally duality. Just look at duality pages,

Well you must prove that, just say beginning and end doesnt mean it a system of duality (not by default)

Being infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time is indeed comes under duality. everything else comes under the context of it being contradiction and has same relation as the above statement, so they will fall under duality.

No, even if you have statement like light-dark hot-cold or something like that, by default we not consider that as duality with the current term

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Well you must prove that, just say beginning and end doesnt mean it a system of duality (not by default)

...
It is not beginning and end that i mostly focus on.
Did You really read my post?