(JTTW) Sun Wukong CRT

[QuasiYuri]

The fact it's a poem doesn't really matter. A lot of things in JTTW are written in the same way, the only thing we disapprove of is flowery language. If we're going to start talking about the poem's meaning outside of the novel though, then the poem is based on the Mahayana Cosmology. Which is specifically a recursion-based cosmology. So either way with or without outside context the poem means exactly what it says it does.

Sand has a totally different meaning in that cosmology so it wouldn't help either. Same with chilioscom since buddhist cosmology has only 3 order of universe based on that (trichilioscom and stuff).
Also the poem is a preface, not part of the narration in itself.

The entire thing isn't about physical cosmology at all, but about dharma.

Like I said above the poem is extremely literal and yes it is borrowed to convey that exact message.

If you take it litteraly then there's no talk about sub worlds having sub worlds in their own grain of sand and it isn't about grain of sands in general, but "a grain of sand".

Regardless of how you put, High 1-B is based on two short lines mixed with one's personal interpretation, interpretation which isn't backed up anywhere in the novel.
I would really prefer if people could stop just saying that "high tier are important" (for whatever reason) and actually cast more doubt on what should be considered enough proof to give such tiers.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Sand has a totally different meaning in that cosmology so it wouldn't help either. Same with chilioscom since buddhist cosmology has only 3 order of universe based on that (trichilioscom and stuff).
Also the poem is a preface, not part of the narration in itself.

The entire thing isn't about physical cosmology at all, but about dharma.

1. Let's not talk about the other cosmology then. Chilioscom means a thousand world's no matter what translation it is that's a fact.

2. SInce when do prefaces not hold as much validation as narration?

3. That's your opinion, and you have no proof to support that opinion. With context, the poem is referring to a recursion-based Cosmology and without context, you have no proof it's not. Just because something is focused on something specifically does not mean whatever else is said can be passed by. Unless you can find a secret meaning behind what a grain of sand holding a thousand worlds means. (That is not your headcannon)

If you take it litteraly then there's no talk about sub worlds having sub worlds in their own grain of sand and it isn't about grain of sands in general, but "a grain of sand".

Regardless of how you put, High 1-B is based on two short lines mixed with one's personal interpretation, interpretation which isn't backed up anywhere in the novel.
I would really prefer if people could stop just saying that "high tier are important" (for whatever reason) and actually cast more doubt on what should be considered enough proof to give such tiers.

4. If it's taken literally every grain of sand contains a thousand worlds. And every world would have an Earth with more grains of sand as Earth is created automatically upon the Universes's creation.

5. The High 1-B is based on two valid lines based on literal interpretation. An interpretation that isn't refuted anywhere in the novel.

 

[QuasiYuri]

1. Let's not talk about the other cosmology then. Chilioscom means a thousand world's no matter what translation it is that's a fact.

2. SInce when do prefaces not hold as much validation as narration?

3. That's your opinion, and you have no proof to support that opinion. With context, the poem is referring to a recursion-based Cosmology and without context, you have no proof it's not. Just because something is focused on something specifically does not mean whatever else is said can be passed by. Unless you can find a secret meaning behind what a grain of sand holding a thousand worlds means. (That is not your headcannon)

1. There's actually 3 kind of Chilioscom, but let's keep it at that.

2. I'm just giving context, which is that it isn't a cosmological explanation given by someone but a mere poem.

3. With context, it isn't recursion based since the very term used is incompatible with such an idea. And without context, it doesn't have anything to do with recursion and never once implied such a thing.
Also if you want to talk about taking it litteraly and not using headcanons (since High 1-B is, as you admitted earlier, a fruit of your headcanon), then it just is a "Shrödinger's Butterfly" case where a grain of sand paradoxically contains the very world it is in. No hierarchy involved.

4. If it's taken literally every grain of sand contains a thousand worlds. And every world would have an Earth with more grains of sand as Earth is created automatically upon the Universes's creation.

5. The High 1-B is based on two valid lines based on literal interpretation. An interpretation that isn't refuted anywhere in the novel.

4. It never said every grain of sand. You said to take it litteraly.
Taking things litteraly, I don't see any mention about a Earth nor lower-order sands having lower order chilioscoms.

5. As I have shown, it is what I would call sheer wank. Also, why do you call the thing we both do by a different name? Either we have two "interpretations", or we have two "headcanons".

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

1. There's actually 3 kind of Chilioscom, but let's keep it at that.

2. I'm just giving context, which is that it isn't a cosmological explanation given by someone but a mere poem.

3. With context, it isn't recursion based since the very term used is incompatible with such an idea. And without context, it doesn't have anything to do with recursion and never once implied such a thing.
Also if you want to talk about taking it litteraly and not using headcanons (since High 1-B is, as you admitted earlier, a fruit of your headcanon), then it just is a "Shrödinger's Butterfly" case where a grain of sand paradoxically contains the very world it is in. No hierarchy involved.

4. It never said every grain of sand. You said to take it litteraly.
Taking things litteraly, I don't see any mention about a Earth nor lower-order sands having lower order chilioscoms.

5. As I have shown, it is what I would call sheer wank. Also, why do you call the thing we both do by a different name? Either we have two "interpretations", or we have two "headcanons".

1. Yes we are keeping it at a thousand.

2. We don't ignore any text unless we are given a reason to. We are never given one so we will take the poem (Which JTTW uses to describe fight scenes and descriptions) at face value.

3. The word Chiliocosm at a minimum means a thousand worlds there is no incompatibility here. And without context, it means a grain of sand holds a thousand worlds. The translation you found is an abridged version while the one I used is unabridged and the most accurate.

4. A grain of sand would refer to every grain of sand. Just like if I said a Toyota Hilux contains four seats.

5. The only wank is that you desperately are trying to set your own opinion on it as fact.

 

[Lugh_Tuathe_Dé]

What's happening here?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

What's happening here?

He thinks because the thousand world statement is subtext it should not be taken seriously. I believe unless it's clearly proven to not be true or is simply flowery language that it should be taken in its purest context. Especially considering bigger things being contained in smaller things is a common thing for the novel to do. With mountains being contained in seeds and oceans within feathers.

Other than that I have no clue what points he tries to make. Everything else he say's is just his weird interpretation.

 

[Greatsage13th]

What's happening here?

A heated debate.

 

[Lugh_Tuathe_Dé]

So still need to prove that it's High 1-B

 

[Lugh_Tuathe_Dé]

1. There's actually 3 kind of Chilioscom, but let's keep it at that.

2. I'm just giving context, which is that it isn't a cosmological explanation given by someone but a mere poem.

3. With context, it isn't recursion based since the very term used is incompatible with such an idea. And without context, it doesn't have anything to do with recursion and never once implied such a thing.
Also if you want to talk about taking it litteraly and not using headcanons (since High 1-B is, as you admitted earlier, a fruit of your headcanon), then it just is a "Shrödinger's Butterfly" case where a grain of sand paradoxically contains the very world it is in. No hierarchy involved.

4. It never said every grain of sand. You said to take it litteraly.
Taking things litteraly, I don't see any mention about a Earth nor lower-order sands having lower order chilioscoms.

5. As I have shown, it is what I would call sheer wank. Also, why do you call the thing we both do by a different name? Either we have two "interpretations", or we have two "headcanons".

If it's not High 1-B what tier would the cosmology be?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

From his perspective, it would be 2-B.

 

[Vietthai96]

If it's not High 1-B what tier would the cosmology be?

Higher degree of 2-B

 

[Greatsage13th]

Anyways, why can't a poem from the novel be used to summarize high 1 B Cosmology?

 

[Lugh_Tuathe_Dé]

Anyways, why can't a poem from the novel be used to summarize high 1 B Cosmology?

So, unless this borrowed poem is something meant to convey the message that "there's an infinite recursion of worlds each within its own grain of sand" (which also wouldn't make much sense, since I highly doubt regular humans are meant to be super powerful 1-B beings), I highly doubt it's giving a tier any time soon.

 

[Greatsage13th]

It isn't exactly what it says. It is not that every grain of sand contains the world (the sentence just says "the Buddha's world in a grain of sand" with no indication of anything like recursion, subworlds, or anything like that).
I think you just take it a bit too litteraly and outstretch it way beyond the meaning of the sentence.

I think that the translation below, which is a bit more understandable, shows it quite well (not saying the one you're are using is bad tho, since I'll use its stuff right after).

When you know that there are no things and no mind
Then you are a Buddha with a true mind and a Dharma body.
A Dharma−bodied Buddha has no form;
A single divine light contains the ten thousand images.
The bodiless body is the true body.
The imageless image is the real image.
It is not material, not empty, and not non−empty;
It does not come or go, nor does it return.
It is not different nor the same, it neither is nor isn't.
It can't be thrown away or caught, nor seen or heard.
The inner and outer divine light are everywhere the same;
A Buddha−kingdom can be found in a grain of sand.
A grain of sand can hold a thousand worlds (chilioscom);
In a single body and mind, all dharmas are the same.
For wisdom, the secret of no−mind is essential,
To be unsullied and unobstructed is to be pure of karma.
When you do no good and do no evil,
You become a Kasyapa Buddha.

Clearly the subject of this whole thing isn't about anything like "it's sand all the way down", but rather something like "to see the world in a grain of sand".

Also I found the translation you were using, and this part is indicated to be a borrowed poem, rather than a cosmological explanation from

"Chapter 14, p. 153: The prefatorial poem beginning with the line, “The Buddha is Mind and the Mind is Buddha .” As indicated in part I of this introduction, this piece directly reworks an ode by Zhang Boduan (982/4?–1082), reputed founder of the southern lineage of the Quanzhen Order. See the Wuzhen pian , gathered in the collection, Xiuzhen shishu in DZ 263, 4: 746."

And given how this very same chapter, starts with an allegory "the six robbers disappear" (referring to the six sense of the body), I would be veeeery careful about how you litteral you would want to take things.

So, unless this borrowed poem is something meant to convey the message that "there's an infinite recursion of worlds each within its own grain of sand" (which also wouldn't make much sense, since I highly doubt regular humans are meant to be super powerful 1-B beings), I highly doubt it's giving a tier any time soon.

What's wrong with that notion?

What you don't believe in doesn't apply to anything without evidence.

 

[Planck69]

So, unless this borrowed poem is something meant to convey the message that "there's an infinite recursion of worlds each within its own grain of sand" (which also wouldn't make much sense, since I highly doubt regular humans are meant to be super powerful 1-B beings), I highly doubt it's giving a tier any time soon.

This sounds like arguing from incredulity, never mind how this applies to any recursive/infinite-from-both-ends hierarchy. Have nothing to say about the rest but this just popped out to me.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Little Liechtenstein

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Also, there are Buddhas in every single world. Meaning they would all have their own Buddha Realm. Then all of those realms would have worlds inside of them. There you go the whole High 1-B argument can be put to rest.

 

[Lugh_Tuathe_Dé]

You're not gonna convince them with just that kind of argument

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

You're not gonna convince them with just that kind of argument

There shouldn't be an argument in the first place. His entire reason for it High 1-B is invalid.

There is a Buddha Realm in every world because there is a Buddha in every world. There is a Buddha Realm in every world cause there is a Buddha Realm in every grain of sand. There is a recursion because every Buddha Realm has billions of worlds in them. With more Buddha's and Buddha Realms.

The fact I have to try and convince someone whose entire point boils to "ITs A PoEMM IT cANt BE vAliD" without any form of counter-proof is ridiculous. His opinion over how things are and are not valid stems simply from him not wanting them to be.

 

[Greatsage13th]

You're not gonna convince them with just that kind of argument

Neither can they counter his argument. It's a circular argument at this point in time and space.

 

[Vietthai96]

Neither can they counter his argument. It's a circular argument at this point in time and space.

But again, is there actually a solid hierarchy for the cosmology, or he just relying too much on the single poem and his own interpretation. You can't say his interpretation is true while other's is wrong.

 

[Greatsage13th]

But again, is there actually a solid hierarchy for the cosmology, or he just relying too much on the single poem and his own interpretation. You can't say his interpretation is true while other's is wrong.

I know, but the other's argument is on the basis that he thinks it's BS for humans to be 1B due to his disbelief.

 

[Vietthai96]

I know, but the other's argument is on the basis that he thinks it's BS for humans to be 1B due to his disbelief.

Did you read his arguments entirely, or just focus on his sarcasm???

Alright here are the facts.

When i read this line, i automatically ignore all of the rest below

 

[Greatsage13th]

Did you read his arguments entirely, or just focus on his sarcasm???

There was nothing sarcastic about it, his arguments I've read but it seems that I'm leaning towards neutral at this point but still agreeing for High 1B Cosmology slightly.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

So, unless this borrowed poem is something meant to convey the message that "there's an infinite recursion of worlds each within its own grain of sand" (which also wouldn't make much sense, since I highly doubt regular humans are meant to be super powerful 1-B beings), I highly doubt it's giving a tier any time soon.

Like the proof that he is biased is right here. He says if this poem is supposed to convey the message there is a recursion of worlds then it would be valid.
I then go to explain how that poem is directly taken and inspired from the Mahayana Cosmology which is based purely on recursions of Buddha-Lands and worlds.

Sand has a totally different meaning in that cosmology so it wouldn't help either.

After I explain it he just says it doesn't matter either way cause SAND has an entirely different meaning. Where is the proof for that? Idk he just decided sand means something entirely different. And he also decides that the poem is talking about the Dharma? When it doesn't mention the Dharma anywhere, it mentions the Dharmakaya, something entirely different.

Clearly the subject of this whole thing isn't about anything like "it's sand all the way down", but rather something like "to see the world in a grain of sand".

So his interpretation is that they see not the world, but a thousand worlds as a grain of sand. It never even mentions that in any shape or form. But I suppose his interpretation is just more valid cause he says so. While I just take the two of them at face value cause there is literally no proof of it being otherwise.

If you take it litteraly then there's no talk about sub worlds having sub worlds in their own grain of sand and it isn't about grain of sands in general, but "a grain of sand".

"There is a painter within every world."
"Every canvas contains a thousand more worlds. Every canvas also contains an alternate reality."
"In each alternate reality, there are billions of worlds."

I bet if you saw that in a novel, you would have a pretty compelling argument for a recursion-based cosmology. And in our case, all of this is stated not by a character but intentionally by The Author.

With context, it isn't recursion based since the very term used is incompatible with such an idea. And without context, it doesn't have anything to do with recursion and never once implied such a thing.

A chiliocosm at the minimum means a thousand worlds, at the best means trillions. Either way, nothing is incompatible.
He is deciding it has nothing to do with recursion.

I can show over four different ways it means recursion but apparently, he needs it spelled out for him. Every other argument is based on the fact he wants a 16th Century novel to spell out the words recursion or hierarchy.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Like the proof that he is biased is right here. He says if this poem is supposed to convey the message there is a recursion of worlds then it would be valid.
I then go to explain how that poem is directly taken and inspired from the Mahayana Cosmology which is based purely on recursions of Buddha-Lands and worlds.

After I explain it he just says it doesn't matter either way cause SAND has an entirely different meaning. Where is the proof for that? Idk he just decided sand means something entirely different. And he also decides that the poem is talking about the Dharma? When it doesn't mention the Dharma anywhere, it mentions the Dharmakaya, something entirely different.

So his interpretation is that they see not the world, but a thousand worlds as a grain of sand. It never even mentions that in any shape or form. But I suppose his interpretation is just more valid cause he says so. While I just take the two of them at face value cause there is literally no proof of it being otherwise.

"There is a painter within every world."
"Every canvas contains a thousand more worlds. Every canvas also contains an alternate reality."
"In each alternate reality, there are billions of worlds."

I bet if you saw that in a novel, you would have a pretty compelling argument for a recursion-based cosmology. And in our case, all of this is stated not by a character but intentionally by The Author.


A chiliocosm at the minimum means a thousand worlds, at the best means trillions. Either way, nothing is incompatible.
He is deciding it has nothing to do with recursion.

I can show over four different ways it means recursion but apparently, he needs it spelled out for him. Every other argument is based on the fact he wants a 16th Century novel to spell out the words recursion or hierarchy. And cant use his brain to put together the idea of it using context clues.

Calm down a little, no need for aggression

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Sorry, just irritated and heated.

 

[Lugh_Tuathe_Dé]

No need to get hostile

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Sorry, just irritated and heated.

Just remember, the monkey in our hearts far surpasses the things written down.

 

[Vietthai96]

Just remember, the monkey in our hearts far surpasses the things written down.

And have an arsenal of hair colors

 

[Greatsage13th]

And have an arsenal of hair colors

HEll Nah.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

And have an arsenal of hair colors

 

[Antvasima]

QuasiYuri largely seems to make sense to me above.

 

[Greatsage13th]

When i read this line, i automatically ignore all of the rest below

Why?

 

[Greatsage13th]

QuasiYuri largely seems to make sense to me above.

It wasn't really that significant of a nudge in the opposite direction.

 

[Vietthai96]

Why?

Because he said: "here is the fact"

 

[Greatsage13th]

Because he said: "here is the fact"

...I don't get it.

 

[Vietthai96]

...I don't get it.

In an argument and debate like this, you can't just say your is fact while the other are not

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

In an argument and debate like this, you can't just say your is fact while the other are not

When I said that I was referring to quotes from the novel, not my opinion. I was pointing out what has been directly stated in the novel listed from 1 to 4.

 

[Lugh_Tuathe_Dé]

Didn't notice that this thread has 8 pages and anyways are the calcs for the lower tiers are good?