Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
Does people really read TD pages and their requirements before posting something here?
The sophisticated argument are real here.
The sophisticated argument are real here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And i already say it very vague for consider it as duality system...
It is not beginning and end that i mostly focus on.
Did You really read my post?
Well, this statement even support what i sayHas 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
Yeah has no "...." it just for explain about essence (sorry, i say root above) that is unbound the thing, not for explain essence is a system of duality that is a negation of the thing"Essence exist outside of time, but simultaneously, creates and contains all times"
The statement here regarding essence is actually pretty clear in my perspective and in all of its lines is only referring to "being something" and "not being that thing".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
I mean, you are using whataboutism argumentDoes people really read TD pages and their requirements before posting something here?
The sophisticated argument are real here.
But that's not enough, that's the issue. You need to be either unaffected by it or being superior to it.The statement here regarding essence is actually pretty clear in my perspective and in all of its lines is only referring to "being something" and "not being that thing".
Being lightless and noiseless and all noise and light.
Infinitely small and infinitely large.
Being in all places while not being at any.
I don't see anything vague here regarding context being referring to nothing but contradiction.
It is not whataboutism woman.I mean, you are using whataboutism argument
4th steps and above literally are superior to essence, what are you waffling about?But that's not enough, that's the issue. You need to be either unaffected by it or being superior to it.
Which lacks in this context.
Well bruh...referring to "being something" and "not being that thing".
Yeah has no "...." it just for explain about essence (sorry, i say root above) that is unbound the thing, not for explain essence is a system of duality that is a negation of the thing
Lightless and noiseless just other word for describe has no "....." that is just describe the nature of essence like what i say aboveBeing lightless and noiseless and all noise and light.
Infinitely small and infinitely large.
Read TD page, I ******* dare you.Lightless and noiseless just other word for describe has no "....." that is just describe the nature of essence like what i say above
The arguements here are about duality in specific tho. Not seeing anyone arguing over superiority and pretty agreement in that case.But that's not enough, that's the issue. You need to be either unaffected by it or being superior to it.
Which lacks in this context.
Idgi, agree to disagree.Lightless and noiseless just other word for describe has no "....." that is just describe the nature of essence like what i say above
Infinitely small and large, again not by default we consider thing that "like duality" is a dual system
Bruh... i already did thatRead TD page, I ******* dare you.
No one cares if it won't get you TDThe arguements here are about duality in specific tho. Not seeing anyone arguing over superiority and pretty agreement in that case.
Outside of smth can itself refer to not being that thing tho. All of that is just based on context, considering how it being infinitely small and infinitely larger is referring to it's own nature and attributes, I'll not assume smth unsupported and will got with context. That is duality.Bruh... i already did that
Like what i say, has no "...." is more likely just for explain the nature of essence that is unbound or outside thing, than explain the system of logical duality (A and no/not-A)
Like what i say, has no "...." is more likely just for explain the nature of essence that is unbound or outside thing, than explain the system of logical duality (A and no/not-A)
NOHas 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)
Is this really hard for you to comprehend?Does not exist in a specific place, but creates and contains all places
Yeah but outside the thing is not will make you a negation of that thing (that is Not-A) and make it a system of duality. Is just for transcendent's natureOutside of smth can itself refer to not being that thing tho. All of that is just based on context, considering how it being infinitely small and infinitely larger is referring to it's own nature and attributes, I'll not assume smth unsupported and will got with context. That is duality.
Yeah but outside the thing is not will make you a negation of that thing (that is Not-A) and make it a system of duality. Is just for transcendent's nature
Bruh.....NO
Should you really test my patience man?
Is this really hard for you to comprehend?
Also bruh....**** this shit.
I'm out.
Need to play CSGO
Dont add something that not in the scan. It not state "not time" is just state outside time, and outside time by default is not negation of time or "not-time"If you're "not time", you're by default outside of it. So saying that it mentioning essence is "outside of time" somehow mean that it being lightless and light, infinitely small and infinitely large should be interpreted as being "outside of infinity" and --- , actually it doesn't makes sense for me to interpret that way. I'll go with what's looks more straightforward and not go with smth that doesn't makes sense.
Is literally explain about the transcendent nature of essence over places. Not explain about essence being or are the negation (not-A) of the thing (A) and make essence the logical dual system"essence does not exist in any one specific place, but simultaneously, creates and contains all places"
I am not adding smth, I am going with what the context has provided that in some of the sentences the "outside" is referring to not being that thing. I said being outside of smth can mean that it's not that thing as well, as per context.Dont add something that not in the scan. It not state "not time" is just state outside time, and outside time by default is not negation of time or "not-time"
I mean, can you explain this nature with your arguement of "outside"?Infinitely small and larger is outside infinite??? What you mean???
It says it's lightless and light and noiseless and noise as to what it is. Outside stuff is just other way for it to say it's not smth and doesn't really hold water as an argument unless you can explain each line in the "outside" context or else it's just cherry-picking. You can use one line to discredit other particular lines and neglect the lines that cannot be described with this "outside" arguement.Being lightless or something like that just for describe the transcendent nature of essence over the thing, bruh.... even about "place" it say like this
Is literally explain about the transcendent nature of essence over places. Not explain about essence being or are the negation (not-A) of the thing (A) and make essence the logical dual system
I am also not timeIf you're "not time", you're by default outside of it.
The two duality systems are Type 1 according to the standards. But if these two duality systems are "all dualities" on the plane reality, then that is Type 2. But it would be a powerless Type 2.Even if the statement above is a logical duality, this will not make it TD 2, because it just mention 2 duality system
I definitely want TD type 2OP is not asking for TD type 2.
Do I have to repeat that the cultivators who have reached Step 4 is transcend the essence?But that's not enough, that's the issue. You need to be either unaffected by it or being superior to it.
Which lacks in this context.
Dude what are u talking about??? Yeah, I think I'll wait for DT to get here before I get into a childish fight with you too.Well bruh...
Lightless and noiseless just other word for describe has no "....." that is just describe the nature of essence like what i say above
Infinitely small and large, again not by default we consider thing that "like duality" is a dual system
So the key part is thisTransduality is not simply nonduality, but additionally requires something like qualitative superiority or immunity to attacks bound to the duality in question.
A duality refers to a logical duality for the purpose of this ability. That is to say, that the duality in question can be decribed as "A" and "not A" where A is some object or attribute. So, for example, fire and water are not a duality. The duality of fire would be fire and not fire. The duality of existence would be existence and not existence, which could equivalently be formulated as existence and nonexistence or existence and void.
All the OP has provided is that a duality exists. To get Transduality they must prove that people can qualitatively beyond Essence or are outside the system to such a degree that they are undefinable by the Essence.additionally requires something like qualitative superiority or immunity to attacks bound to the duality in question.
4th step cultivators are qualitatively beyond essence. You probably didn't see it because I mentioned it in the comments.So I was asked to comment and I don't feel like reading 100+ comments. So ignoring everything else and only reading the OP:
First off the qualifications for any TD rating are as follows
So the key part is this
All the OP has provided is that a duality exists. To get Transduality they must prove that people can qualitatively beyond Essence or are outside the system to such a degree that they are undefinable by the Essence.
As such I disagree with the rating. Since nothing that would qualify someone for TD has been provided in the OP.
How so4th step cultivators are qualitatively beyond essence
Well there are many examples of thisHow so
I need to see a scan for both claimsFor example, they can create and destroy essence with their will
They themselves are completely beyond the essence
I need to see a scan for both claims
Changing the Essence is concept manipulation, not Transduality.
I'm talking about the qualitative transcendence between changing the essence with a single thought.Changing the Essence is concept manipulation, not Transduality.
I have a scan that explains how transcendent cultivators (4th step) are independent from Essences/Laws, if that help (or not) :
That's not qualitative superiorityqualitative transcendence between changing the essence with a single thought.
Changing the Essence with a thought is just good Concept Manipulation, but it isn't Transduality.As the idea of "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size" implies, most statements of superiority wouldn't suffice to reach qualitative superiority, even if applied to already being infinitely stronger than the baselines for the level. E.g. being twice, a hundred or even infinite times stronger than a Multiverse level+ character, who already has infinite multiversal strength, would still not be enough to reach qualitative superiority over a multiverse.
That actually goes against them being Transduality, as they still require a personalized duraility system to function.independent from Essences/Laws, if that help (or not) :