Jujutsu Kaisen Hax/Ability Upgrade Thread Pt. 3.5

[Deagonx]

Both the scan I posted and the RAWS support the notion of Tengen being the founder of Japanese Buddhism.

No, the manga scan just says he spread it, not that he founded it. Huge difference. The anime says it was neither.

It's not, though; as I explained above, Buddhism was not predominant in Japan until the Heian period (it was developed and became more accessible in the Nara period) .

But Buddhism isn't what's being referred to as a minority. Jujutsu is.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Bump

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Can I get a staffie to tag the mods that Mex did at the top of the thread?

 

[Maitreya12]

Doing this response over again is pure hell. . I got permission to post this by @KingTempest by the way.

I was probably a lot more thorough in my first response I typed out. But I cannot be bothered this time around so imma try to keep this as short and sweet as I can. Making my main points as abundantly clear as I can.

Gege himself even ascribes to Buddhism being an integral foundation of the story's mythos. While there is a large volume of direct correlates we could point out here (which can be found in the ontology blog), I will stick to those I find most important.

This is a mischaracterization of what’s said in the link, this is a problem I have with the wording the OP uses because I find that he inflates what’s actually said in the link with his own words.

For example, right here in this link he provided, nowhere does it state that Gege is using Buddhism as an “integral foundation of the story’s mythology.” This is just a complete over inflation of the words that are actually said in order to try and make their point seem more substantial than it actually is.

What’s actually said in the link above is that Gege used Buddhism as an “inspiration” the same way he used Bleach as an inspiration to his story. And the same way Kubo himself says he used Buddhism as inspiration in his own story as well. But that doesn’t mean Bleach has the same ontological underpinnings as Buddhism inherently to try and apply these abilities like non-duality and void manipulation to the series based on that.

See the difference in terminology between “taking inspiration in” and “integral foundation to the story’s mythos?” It’s a very high level of saturation to the words in order to make their point seem stronger than it really is.

What’s especially interesting about this link by the way, is the fact that Gege himself mentions how Evangelion was stepped into mythology, which the creator of Evangelion quite literally said was a misconception by the way.

Take note of that by the way, it’ll be important later on. But just know that all the imagery and visual motifs shown in Evangelion which resembles Kaballahlistic thought and ontology isn’t actually done to demonstrate ontological similarities between the series and mythology, they were all done “just to look cool.”

The system of jujutsu and the golden age of cursed users directly proceeded Tengen's spreading of Buddhism and Jujutsu side by side in the period preceding the Golden age of sorcery; the Hieian period. This is important as it establishes Tengen as an authority on jujutsu and as the one who spread knowledge of it throughout Japan, thus creating a formalized system that led to the establishment of Jujutsu society, so much so, that the first cohort to hear her teaching were considered the standard of jujutsu innovation. It also clearly ties into the system of jujutsu to Buddhism as the two were taught complimentary to one another by Tengen. Thus, the ontological truths of Buddhism clearly play a crucial role in Jujutsu overall.

No it does not, these words do not lead to the conclusion you are making. Tengen “spreading Buddhism and Jujutsu side by side” does not correlate to ontological truths in Buddhism being present in Jujutsu Kaisen.

That’s simply not how the standards on the wiki work as sharing similarities, even incredibly deep ones do not necessarily lead to ontological similarities being present unless explicitly stated in that exact or similar manner, something that is distinctly lacking in many examples listed as evidence here by the OP.

That is all I’ll say about these specific points below as many of them share the same problems of over saturation and inflation of the words used here to paint a stronger picture of the position than it really is.

Void Manipulation

With the context out of the way, I want to address the abilities from the last thread that had some contention. Starting off we will address void manipulation. As a brief summary, Sunyata is a concept from Buddhism that espouses that all things in existence inherently lack identity and are always changing. Thus, all things contain a certain "emptiness" from which different forms can arise from. In the JJK verse this has been alluded to and outright mentioned as a part of the verse, so let us look at the important mentions and implications.

This point about void manipulation is especially egregious because a lot of the “evidence” being used to try and support the position basically amounts to the interpretations the OP has about certain panels that lead to a confirmation bias forming to substantiate that interpretation.

The panels do not act as evidence for the point, the OP is simply interpreting the panels to act as evidence for void manipulation. And then acts as though it is actual evidence because of that interpretation.

Next, I will move on to Gojo, as he has had two experiences with this "void". The first time this happens is after Gojo experiences near death at Toji's hands. This causes him to experience "the core of cursed energy" at death's door and skyrockets not only his physical ability but also his grasp of jujutsu. We clearly see the "core" Gojo describes is the black canvas with white dots intermixed that Gege constantly uses when speaking of ontological concepts. We see this rear its head again when Gojo is deciphering how Sukuna is redirecting unlimited Void to Megumi. The six eyes is clearly able to gaze beyond Sukuna to see the canvas housing Sukuna and Megumi's soul.

Case and point, many of these examples of “voids” or “canvases” being shown in the manga don’t actually amount to evidence towards void manipulation and is instead being asserted as evidence for void manipulation due to the belief the OP has about these certain panels. But that belief does not amount to actual evidence towards the position.

Like for example, the last link in the quote above here about Gojo looking “into the canvas housing Sukuna and Megumi’s soul”….isn’t even a blank canvas consistent with the other images.

It’s literally a blurred background of Sukuna and Mahoraga with two white dots symbolizing the souls of Megumi and Sukuna. This isn’t even a “canvas” consistent with the other images shown and trying to be presented as evidence.

It’s literally just assumed to be evidence posted instead of just a simple stylistic choice done by Gege. Evidence being posited that isn’t even consistent with the other showings previously.

These are the examples of beliefs that are being posited as evidence towards the intended position of void manipulation. It’s just a personal viewpoint the OP has about the story forming a confirmation bias of these images.

We see Gege utilize this same canvas imagery when discussing how Cursed techniques are passed on.
Black flash is another perfect example. This mark of pure cursed energy control is accomplished by applying cursed energy to an attack in 0.000001 seconds. This creates a distortion in space which once again unlocks "the core of cursed energy" exposing the same black (where the technique gets its name from) starry canvas and bringing the user immensely closer to a true understanding of cursed energy.

Every single one of these examples doesn’t inherently amount towards evidence of the positions being posited here, it’s asserted that they do, but they do not. It’s literally just looking at blank pages and certain backgrounds and asserting them as evidence, but can’t be proven they actually are.

What if Gege just drew blank panels because it would save him time or those starry outlines because he thought it would look cool, like in the instances of the black flash you cite. You are literally looking at blank panels here and asserting them as evidence towards your position, when you can’t actually prove them to evidence towards your point.

Remember how I mentioned how there was a common misconception that Evangelion holds a lot of Kabbalah thought to it? Yeah, so how do you know you’re not having a misconception here?

How can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that all these panels and pictures of just blank pages or black backgrounds is intended by Gege as evidence towards void manipulation instead of just visual motifs he’s being because he thinks they look cool? It can’t be done, these examples you list just don’t act as evidence towards your intended point, they only do if you assume it does, but they on their own do not act as supporting evidence.

Notably, when Kenjaku is discussing how life takes shape, he explicitly mentions that cursed energy is what gives form to humans, sorcerers, and curses alike in the form of possibilities. We know this also extends to animals as well given Mei Mei's binding vow. Kenjaku mentions that this form (which his goal is to perfect) is "always flickering darkly in chaos," and we are given a shot of the white form taking shape in the darkness. This is important as it confirms the idea the "form" and "possibilities" exist distinct from sentient and beings and that this energy/chaos directly drive the progression of life and existence. Kenjaku also alludes to this non-dual nature when transporting humans from his barrier as a means of staying true to his binding vow, here, he states that the "space between dream and reality is a curse". This harkens back to the concept in jujutsu that the mind/body split is a false duality [2] underlined by information. Information being necessary to dictate form from emptiness, and this "information" is always "flickering in chaos" and being driven by sentient beings who exist as a totality of those levels of reality.

Sukuna is our second most important character, as he is consistently shown to be associated and interacting with this void. When Sukuna is trapped inside Mahito's domain, the scenery switches from the audience's perspective of Mahito/Nanami within his domain and explicitly shows us the interaction of Mahito's domain/Sukuna's innate domain and soul occurring on the black and starry canvas. Here is able to hit Mahito from his innate domain due to the temporary linkage. When Sukuna fights we can also at time see this canvas be portrayed (although in a grey tone given it's superimposition over reality). Here you can he slashes Mahoraga with his slash only visible to us. He then exclaims that "Mahoraga can see it" after he adapts and counters his next volley. Similarly, when Sukuna finally gets his hands on Yuji, we can see that the only time we can his slashes are when we get this grey paneling, indicating a layer of reality that only Sukuna can see. Sukuna's ability to paint his domain over reality also directly touches upon this concept of Finally, we see this a final time with Sukuna when he explains how he cut through infinity. During this scan, Sukuna discusses how he needed to target beyond just space and the world, but ultimately hit existence itself to put him in a pack. During this scene we clearly see Sukuna once again cutting through this void, only this time it's completely black like the others and not grey, indicating Sukuna is hitting the bare bones existence unlike his normal slashes.

1. Finally, we get to our last and most important player: Tengen. As you know, Tengen is an immortal hermit who acted as the founder of the formalized understanding of Jujutsu that persists to the modern era, as well as the person responsible for zoning the influence of jujutsu across the world. As discussed earlier, Tengen did this while also spreading Buddhism, underlying how intertwined the two systems are. We know that because Tengen was able to dissolve their ego and become one with existence that their consciousness is effectively immortal. In fact, the keep their ego as a distinct entity, they must use barrier jutsu to separate themselves from existence. this is why she requires a star plasma vessel so that she can animate once again by rewriting the physical information of her host. Now, early on we are told by Gege in the databook that Tengen lives in a "special barrier" (this barrier stated to be the "essence of jujutsu" [2]) that only those invited by Tengen can enter. We are later informed that this barrier is a "Sunyata Barrier" which allows for advanced barrier users to completely configure its shape. The natural state of this barrier is inherently blank but can be formed into fractal geometry, movies theatres, etc. During Tengen's explanation, he directly states that these Sunyata barriers are configurable by barrier users to some extent (depending on their skill) and we are given a direct footnote to contextualize the meaning of Sunyata which is as follows

This footnote is obviously important as it contextualizes the "special barrier" that Tengen was stated to exist in, explains why the space in the barrier can be configured by people, and also directly translates this nature to barrier users, who, despite never stepping foot in the barrier, would be able to somewhat configure it due to experience using barrier techniques in general. For proof of this, we can look at the first time an individual awoke their domain on screen which happens to bring us back to Mahito. When Mahito first realizes his innate domain, he discusses feeling the core of his soul (note the same black starry canvas) and then creates a barrier to trap Nanami. We clearly see that this barrier consists of the same canvas shown a trillion times throughout this thread as it lifts Yuji away to isolate him.

Conclusion: Barrier users and Black Flash users should be given Void Manipulation. Information type 2 for the verse should be given specific Non-duality for the material-spiritual split and Void should be considered a layer beneath this.

I could keep going on and on, go point after point and example after example showing how and why this logic is flawed. How and why assumptions are being used to form an interpretation that supports the position, but not the actual series itself.

Assumptions like stating Sukuna is “cutting through a void” when it’s just a black background Sukuna is cleaving. Assuming that black background is intended to be a “void” and being posited as evidence as such when it could simply be a stylistic choice done by Gege, not intended or depicted to posit ontological similarities between Jujutsu Kaisen and Buddhism. Or using translators notes as supposed evidence of ontological underpinnings within the series just because it defines what the term “Sunyata” means in Buddhism which is then extrapolated onto meaning “Sunyata” as it is understood in Buddhism is shared within JJK.

I could keep going on like that, but I think I’ve made my point clear enough as is. These positions that are being put out by the OP are simply not founded or supported within the series itself, and so as such has to rely on ideas or similarities being found by the two mediums and positing ontological underpinnings between the both in order to justify these incredibly high reaching abilities such as void manipulation and non-duality.

These abilities are not founded or supported in the series and many of the supposed “evidence” trying to show ontological similarities between Jujutsu Kaisen and Buddhism in support of those abilities don’t actually amount to substantial evidence due to them being founded on interpretations made by the OP instead of concrete evidence found within the series itself.

I hard disagree with this thread.

 

[Udlmaster]

Originally, I had intended for my previous response to be my last on the topic, however, I am the loathe to give people the wrong impression, through action or omission. So, let it be known, this will be my final response here, regardless of what is said and done.

I will make this as comprehensive as possible, so be warned.

Buddhism does grant that there is a phenomenological soul/consciousness, that is, an experience of consciousness that propagates thinking, perceiving, etc.

This is not the soul. To look at what is the soul, we will look to the religion that Buddhism would be compared to most, that is Hinduism.

What we find when we look to Hinduism is "Atman" the soul and self

“The self within all is this self of yours.” Occasionally, as we see from Yåjñavalkya’s words, the larger brahman is also spoken of as the åtman or “self” of the universe, and thus the poetic nineteenth century translation, “the world-soul.” The Brhadårayaka puts it eloquently: “This self is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this self. The radiant and immortal person in the self and the radiant and immortal person connected with the body [here, also referred to as åtman]—they are both one’s self. It is the immortal; it is brahman, it is the whole” - The Hindu World by Sushil Mittal and Gene Thursby, pg. 48

From here we may look at "Anatman"

From the Pali to English dictionary by Aggarama Ambalangoda, pg. 21

Anatta, a. soul-less. m. non-ego.

And thus, while there exists Consciousness and the Mind, which only exist as the Conditioned Existence, the Soul does not exist.

A word about what is meant by the term 'Mind' (manas) in Buddhist philosophy may be useful here. It should clearly be understood that mind is not spirit as opposed to matter. It should always be remembered that Buddhism does not recognize a spirit opposed to matter, as is accepted by most other systems of philosophies and religions. Mind is only a faculty or organ (indriya) like the eye or the ear. It can be controlled and developed like any other faculty, and the Buddha speaks quite often of the value of controlling and disciplining these six faculties. The difference between the eye and the mind as faculties is that the former senses the world of colours and visible forms, while the latter senses the world of ideas and thoughts and mental objects. We experience different fields of the world with different senses. We cannot hear colours, but we can see them. No r can we see sounds, but we can hear them. Thus with our five physical sense organs—eye, ear, nose, tongue, body—we experience only the world of visible forms, sounds, odours, tastes and tangible objects. But these represent only a part of the world, not the whole world. - What the Buddha Taught, pg. 39

There is not a self. There is not non-self. There is no view of a self to be held.

Suffering requires a sufferer, attachment and desire require a subject, and of course the whole point of Buddhism is the get humans to follow the 8 fold path so that their views, conduct, livelihood (essentially thoughts, behaviors, and feelings) were in line with the mission of enlightenment and reduction of this experience among living things.

The self is a delusion. You misunderstand the Buddha's teaching as much as you misunderstand me.

You come at this from a Westerner's perspective, you think because there is suffering that there must be a self to suffer, this is wrong.

Within the Digha Nikaya, Brahmajāla Sutta — The All-embracing Net of Views, Buddha expounds on all sixty-two of the ideas and philosophical views of the self, he discusses yours and deems it false.

The subject doesn't exist because the whole position is wrong. That is to say, it is neither existent nor non-existent.

"This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands. And he understands: 'These standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such a future destination, to such a state in the world beyond.' He understands as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding he does not misapprehend. And because he is free from misapprehension, he has realized within himself the state of perfect peace. Having understood as they really are the origin and the passing away of feelings, their satisfaction, their unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, the Tathāgata, bhikkhus, is emancipated through non-clinging.

"These are those dhammas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak. - Brahmajāla Sutta — The All-embracing Net of Views

Furthermore, in the Maha-Nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse, Buddha specifically outlines that there isn't a subject, this is false;

"Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that 'My self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus released that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' is his view, that would be mistaken; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is his view, that would be mistaken. Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released. [To say that,] 'The monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,' that would be mistaken. - Maha-Nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse

To be clear, even the translators introduction for the sutta says as such;

The second part of the discourse, taking up the teaching of not-self, shows how dependent co-arising gives focus to this teaching in practice. It begins with a section on Delineations of a Self, classifying the various ways in which a sense of "self" might be defined in terms of form. The scheme of analysis introduced in this section — classifying views of the self according to the variables of form and formless; finite and infinite; already existing, naturally developing in the future, and alterable through human effort — covers all the theories of the self proposed in the classical Upanisads, as well as all theories of self or soul proposed in more recent times. The inclusion of an infinite self in this list gives the lie to the belief that the Buddha's teachings on not-self were denying nothing more than a sense of "separate" or "limited" self. The discourse points out that even a limitless, infinite, all-embracing sense of self is based on an obsession in the mind that has to be abandoned.

The following section, on Non-delineations of a Self, shows that it is possible for the mind to function without reading a "self" into experience. The remaining sections focus on ways in which this can be done by treating the sense of self as it relates to different aspects of name-and-form. The first of these sections — Assumptions of a Self — focuses on the sense of self as it relates to feeling, one of the "name" factors in name-and-form. The next section — Seven Stations of Consciousness — focuses on form, formlessness, and perception, which is another one of the "name" factors that allows a place for consciousness to land and grow on the "macro" level in the cycle of death and rebirth. The last section — Eight Emancipations — focuses on form, formlessness, and perception on the "micro" level in the practice of meditative absorption (jhana)- Maha-Nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse

Within the Cula-Sihanada Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's roar, the Buddha explicitly outlines the Self as not existing, there is no such thing.

"Bhikkhus, when ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge has arisen in a bhikkhu, then with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge he no longer clings to sensual pleasures, no longer clings to views, no longer clings to rules and observances, no longer clings to a doctrine of self. When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.'"[12] [68]

That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words. - Cula-Sihanada Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's roar

Within the Alagaddupama sutta: The Snake Simile sutta, Buddha explicitly states the idea of clinging to a self because "I feel, I think" is wrong.

"There are, monks, these six grounds for false views. What are the six? There is here, monks, an uninstructed worldling who has no regard for Noble Ones, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it; who has no regard for men of worth, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it: he considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; he considers feeling... perception... mental formations thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same, shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'

"But, monks, there is here a well-instructed noble disciple who has regard for Noble Ones, who knows their teaching and is well trained in it; who has regard for men of worth, who knows their teaching and is well trained in it: he does not consider corporeality in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; he does not consider feeling... perception... mental formations in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also he does not consider in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he does not consider thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.' - Alagaddupama sutta: The Snake Simile

Buddhist (in general) do not deny the mind/soul anymore than they deny the body as not being real.

Buddhists do not conflate the soul and mind. You are doing heavily lifting by conflating these two things together and then misapprehending the teachings of the Buddha by deceptively cutting out sections of the Buddha's teachings which sound like they suit you, however, as a Buddhist, I bother to read Sutras and Buddhist literature.

Your citations for this huge claim is the Vajira Sutta, however, you cut off the first and last paragraph, which entirely change the meaning of the Buddha's words;

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
his is a heap of sheer constructions:

Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.

'It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

- Vajira Sutta

This directly refutes the idea that the mind truly exists, because how could the mind and body exist if only suffering comes to be and suffering ceases. How could the Buddha say the Mind and Body exist if he reprehends Mara, his antithesis, for believing him to hold a view or assume a being?

This was deceptive framing of the Buddha's word to sully the waters and I take particular offense that you're using it against myself, a Buddhist.

For your second citation, it is also missing the first part of the paragraph:

Then Citta, the son of the elephant trainer, said to the Blessed One: "At that time, Lord, when the material self is assumed, would if be wrong to assume the existence of the mind-made and formless selves? Is the material self the only one that is real? But if the mind-made self is assumed, then are the other two not real? And if the formless self is assumed, are the other two not real?"

"At the time, Citta, when any one of the three assumed selves is present, then we do not speak of the other two. We speak only of the one that is currently assumed.

"If people should ask you, Citta: 'Did you exist in the past, or not? Will you exist in the future, or not? Do you exist now, or not?' - How would you answer?"

"I should say that I existed in the past, and didn't not exist; that I shall exist in the future, and shall not not exist; that I do exist now, and I don't not exist."

"Then if they reply: 'Well! that past self that you had, is that your real self; and the future and present selves unreal? Or the future self that you will have, is that real one; and the past and present ones unreal? Or is the self that you have now the real you; and the past and future ones unreal?' - How would you answer?"

"I should say that the past self that I had was real to me at the time when I had it; and the others were unreal. The present self is real to me now; and the others are unreal. In the future, the future self will be real and the others unreal."

"Just so, Citta, when any one of the three assumed selves is present, then we do not speak of either of the other two.

"Just, Citta, as from a cow comes milk, and from the milk curds, and from the curds butter, and from the butter ghee, and from the ghee junket; but when it is milk it is not called curds, or butter, or junket; and when it is curds or butter or ghee or junket, it is not called by any of the other names.

"In the same way, Citta, when any one of the three assumed selves is present, then we do not speak of either of the other two. For these, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world. But a Tathāgata [one who has fully realized the truth] makes use of them, but does not misapprehend them."

You once again take the quote out of context of the discussion it was in. What the Buddha is saying here is that when you grasp at the self as a material thing, you should discard the idea the self is also a mind-made thing and that the self is a formless thing.

He is, in essence saying that there is no fixed self even when you do assume that a self exists, you should discard the idea of a fixed self that exists as body, mind or formless and you should discard the idea of a self that exists in the past, now or the future.

As Buddha said in this very sutta;

"it is hard for one, such as you, holding different views, with a different faith, with different aims, striving after a different perfection, trained in a different system of doctrine, to grasp this matter!"

We even see these notions within the Dhamapadda

That Dhamapadda, as there's not just one as you made out here via the use of "the", as there's 26, but in this case, this isn't about the true state of being, this is about morality and mental fortitude, hilariously, this is actually about the cause-affect relationship between your mind and experiences but not that the mind or soul truly exist either.

We are what we think

All that we are arises with our thoughts

With our thoughts we make the world

Speak or act with an impure mind, and trouble will follow you, as the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart

We are what we think

All that we are arises with our thoughts

With our thoughts we make the world

Speak or act with a pure mind, and Happiness will follow you, as your shadow, unshakable

How can a troubled mind understand the way?

Your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your own thoughts, unguarded

But once mastered, no one can help you as much, not even your father or your mother

You originally posted this from the section in which I discuss the Dharma and it's relation to the Dharmachakra shown used by Mahoraga

I directly quoted a section from your blog about the Dharma and pointed out how the Dharma doesn't represent what you said it did.

Your response was to then show me the Dharmachakra, which is NOT the Dharma in so as much the Cross isn't the Bible, you continuing to saying "but they are connected through symbolism and representation" is no different that the Cross and the Bible, no matter how much you declare they aren't. Once again, this is coming from a Theravada Buddhist.

So from this counter-response the following points can be summarized

In your own copy and paste job from Wikipedia highlighted the part where it flat out says the Dharmachakra is a symbol for the Dharma, meaning they aren't the same thing.

If I show you the cross, and say "This is the Symbol of the Christ" I am not then saying Christ is a wooden cross, you buttered crumpet.

• the Dharmachakra is a direct symbol of the Dharma, linking them inherently.
• In the Buddhist context, Dharma is a direct term for "Phenoemona"

My criticism of your post was the use of "Dharma", your justification to then bring up the Dharmachakra and then say to me that you aren't conflating them, but the use of Dharma is fine because they're "inherently linked" is Conflation.

You also continually ignore all the examples I've provided where Dharma also means the Teachings of the Buddha. But that doesn't suit the narrative you're spinning.

But here, you like Wikipedia a lot, and you obviously read the page, let me highlight a sentence you keep overlooking.

For practising Buddhists, references to "dharma" (dhamma in Pali) particularly as "the dharma", generally means the teachings of the Buddha, commonly known throughout the East as Buddhadharma. It includes especially the discourses on the fundamental principles (such as the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path), as opposed to the parables and to the poems. The Buddha's teachings explain that in order to end suffering, dharma, or the right thoughts, understanding, actions and livelihood, should be cultivated. - Wikipedia

• Dharma does indeed refer to "cosmic law and order" that directly come from the truth body of the Dharma.

The Dharma doesn't have a Truth body.

Yet another example of where you woefully misinterpret Buddhist ideas. You've somehow brought in the Trikaya, the Three Bodies of a Buddha, specifically the Dharmakaya, the Truth Body. However, the Dharma isn't a Buddha, so doesn't have a Dharmakaya.

In terms of the Buddhist teaching of the three kayas, we could say that the contents of consciousness belong to the nirmanakaya, the realm of manifest form. The pulsation of the mindstream, with its alternation between movement and stillness, belongs to the sambhogakaya, the realm of energetic flow. And the larger open ground of awareness, first discovered in moments of stillness, is the dharmakaya, the realm of pure being itself, eternally present, spontaneous, and free of entrapment in any form whatsoever. - The Play of the Mind: Form, Emptiness, and Beyond By John Welwood

Uhm, yeah it would. Taking the consciousness away of another individual to re-roll your line in rebirth would not be something the Buddha would be cool with. Rebirth in Buddhism isn't supposed to transfer the ego, and especially not at the cost of causing direct ego death of another individual.

When you die in Buddhism, you lose everything of your past life. Nothing transfers over except for your Merit, which roots you to existence.

In fact, it's hotly discussed in Theravada circles how exactly transmigration works if nothing is transferred over. So, no, them losing everything after death doesn't violate Buddhist cosmological laws.

Which is an inherently nonsensical position to take since the whole point of the Dharma is that it is the truth body and actual ultimate reality compared to the world of phenomena, and by buddha turning the wheel with his teachings, he was bringing about consequences related to all of conditioned existence.

What's nonsensical is this sentence. Not only do you conflate the Dharmakaya again, but you for some reason bring up the Tibetan Buddhist (Thus a part of Vajrayana, not Mahayana or Theravada) idea (Chö) for the Dharma being the Ultimate reality and Truth.

You were the one who decided to splice sections from my ontology blog while trying to relate them to this specific thread.

You linked said blog in the Original Post. Don't make it out now that I rooted through your garbage and dug up dirt on you.

It's literally Buddha laying down the Dharma, explaining his position on the nature of existence, and then intertwining his take on existence with the practices and teachings one should follow to escape and attain Nirvana via enlightenment.

Hmmm, I wonder what the word is for the Buddha's teachings is? I guess we'll never know.

I literally did not and just explained that above.

You did as you showed above.

This isn't really an argument? Angel directly states that the term "God" is just a namesake for her creed. That isn't at all compatible with the Judeo-Christian beliefs that espouse a singular and all-powerful god.

She was also on a squad called the "Nirvana pacification unit" which has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian beliefs and is tied directly to Buddhism.

It is actually. Many Christian sects say you can't name God, Apophatic belief is officially endorsed by the Catholic Church. "God" is just what we chose to name them, ultimately, it doesn't matter what you call them as long as you venerate them.

Why would them existing as a part of Buddha's teachings make them not intertwined?

They can be intertwined, however, that does not mean they should all be grouped up. Why do you think there's dozens upon dozens of sutra which go over a single topic.

It's simple, because the nuances between the concepts shouldn't be ignored. It's like saying "Physics and Quantum Mechanics are intertwined, so why can't I group them together?"

You wouldn't go, when explaining Quantum Mechanics or Physics go;

"Physics/Quantum Mechanics: ..." Because immediately that makes it seem like they're the same or synonymous, that they can be used in replace of each other, when while they are related, they shouldn't be put together in that way.

<Insert the large quote there>

You copy and pasted the introduction to Buddhist Theories of Causality by Tadeusz Skorupski, meaning you likely looked up "Causality in Buddhism" and found that and just threw the intro at me as if the introduction itself is enough.

Because I'm not intellectually incurious, I decided to find the article in question and read the whole thing and...

None of it says anything about what you were arguing nor is it anything against what I was arguing, which I might remind you;

Sunyata is the idea that all things are empty of intrinsic existence, there's nothing fundamental. Sunyata has nothing to do with causality.

The article, which is rather small at 27 pages

Causality in the Buddha’s Discourses
The Buddha accepts the concept of karma current in his lifetime, but he recasts its
interpretation. He denies the existence of the self, but affirms moral responsibility for
human actions. He defines karma as an act of mental volition (cetanā), and the bodily
and verbal actions that stem from it. These three actions are integrated into the
scheme of the ten unwholesome paths of karma (akuśalakarmapatha), and their
opposites, the ten wholesome paths of action (kuśalakarmapatha). These two paths of
actions broadly integrate the entire spectrum of human actions. The Buddha affirms
that karma entails inevitable consequences, but denies determinism. The kernel of the
Buddha’s teaching is captured in a single stanza voiced by Aśvajit, one of his first
five disciples: “Of all phenomena that issue from causes, the Tathāgata foresaid their
cause, and he also stated their cessation, the great mendicant” (Mahāvagga I.39;
Mahāvastu III.62).

Buddhist Theories of Causality by Tadeusz Skorupski, pg. 4

In fact, inside it, it does bring up something that supports what I was saying;

Some five hundred years after the Buddha’s demise, there emerged a body of
scriptures proclaiming new doctrines, jointly known under the name of Mahayana
Buddhism. In distinction to Abhidharma doctrines formulated by the early Buddhist
schools, the Mahayana sets forth new doctrinal and soteriological horizons. While the
Abhidharma affirms the nonexistence of the self, the Prajñāpāramitā texts propound
both the nonexistence of the self, and the nonexistence of dharmas. This nonexistence
of the self, and of the dharmas, having no inherent nature (svabhāva), is articulated in
the notion of emptiness (śūnyatā). Pañcaviṃśati (46.10–47.7) teaches that śūnyatā
does not arise and does not subside. It does not become defiled or purified. It does not
decrease or increase. It is neither past, present, or future. Having this particular
character, śūnyatā has no form, sensation, perception, formation, or consciousness.
There is no arising and no cessation of ignorance. There is no arising and no cessation
of the twelve links of dependent origination. There is no suffering, origin, cessation,
or path. There is no spiritual realization (abhisamaya), no arhatship or its fruit, no
Buddha and no enlightenment (bodhi). Since all phenomena are empty and have no
inherent nature, the texts assert that empty phenomena arise from empty phenomena,
and that ultimately phenomena have no origination and no cessation.

Buddhist Theories of Causality by Tadeusz Skorupski, pg. 15-16

This isn't some new concept or something I am pulling out no where.

And this is not a response to my criticism.

"Udayi, whosoever can recall the khandhas he has previously occupied in great number, of such a person would it be fitting to question me about past lives, or I could so question him; that person could satisfy me with an answer thereof, or I him. Whosoever sees the passing away of beings and their subsequent arisings, of such a person would it be fitting to ask me about future lives, or I could so question him; that person could satisfy me with an answer thereof, and I him.

"Enough, Udayi, of former times and future times. I will teach you the essence of the Dhamma: When there is this, there is that. With the arising of this, that arises. When there is not this, that cannot be; when this ceases, so does that."

This literally says what I've been arguing this entire time...

But I'll get to that since I believe there's been a miscommunication in this aspect, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to us both misunderstanding each other.

That's not the same as invoking the First cause argument for existence as that is incompatible with Buddhist cosmology and phenomenology.

That's the wrong "First cause" and this is where I'll get into what I believe is just a miscommunication, and originally, I was outraged that you'd bring up Christian argumentation into the discussion when we're far from the topic, and it only serves to muddy the waters, but I think on reflection I see we've a misunderstanding.


I'm not arguing about Conditioned existence arising from other Conditioned existence (Mother gives birth to child), neither am I arguing about Conditioned existence itself arising from something else (Samsara arising from other thing).

What I was talking about was how things arise within Dependent Origination, when "we", that is to say, when metaphorical flame is "lit" that one snuffs out when one attains cession, doesn't arise from anything, which is why all the resources I've brought up say there is no First cause (something which causes us to become conditioned), Ignorance has no first cause.

The rejection of arising from any one or other of the four categories of self, other, both or neither (non-causality), all types of extremes to be avoided, is a recurring theme throughout SN 12 Nidānasamyutta. Rejection of arising from “self” can be seen as further expressions of emptiness as not self (or what pertains to self), as the usual “self view” predominant in non-Buddhist Indian religious-philosophical systems was one of “existence”. - “Dependent Origination = Emptiness”—Nāgārjuna’s Innovation? An Examination of the Early and Mainstream Sectarian Textual Sources, pg. 18

It should be clearly remembered that each of these factors is conditioned (paticcasamuppantia) as well as conditioning (paticcasamuppada). Therefore they are all relative, interdependent and interconnected, and nothing is absolute or independent; hence no first cause is accepted by Buddhism as we have seen earlier. Conditioned Genesis should be considered as a circle, and not as a chain. - What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula

It is this 'thirst', desire, greed, craving, manifesting itself in various ways, that gives rise to all forms of suffering and the Continuity of beings. But it should not be taken as the first cause, for there is no first cause possible as, according to Buddhism, everything is relative and inter-dependent. Even this 'thirst', tanha, which is considered as the cause or origin of dukkha, depends for its arising (samudaja) on something else, which is sensation (vedana),2 and sensation arises depending on contact (phassa), and so on and so forth goes on the circle which isknown as Conditioned Genesis (Paticca-samuppada), which we will discuss later. - What the Buddha taught, pg. 47

All of these were talking about Dependent Origination, and my concern with bringing up Causality in relation to Dependent Origination was that you were saying there was a causal chain from which you could find a root.

To start, I think you are completely forgetting that the world of Samsara is the conditioned and phenomenological world.

I have not forgotten.

Need I remind you that I myself am Buddhist, and do not forget lightly that the Maya is inherently a conditioned existence.

Suppose, monks, that a magician (māyākāro) or a magician’s apprentice (māyākārantevāsī) would display a magical illusion (māyaṃ) at a crossroads. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void (rittaka), hollow (tucchaka), coreless (asāraka). For what core (sāro) could there be in a magical illusion (māyāya)? So too, monks, whatever kind of cognition there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a monk inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void (rittaka), hollow (tucchaka), coreless (asāraka). For what core (sāro) could there be in cognition? - The Birth and Death of a Buddhist Cognitive Metaphor by Shi Huifeng

Dependant Origination has nothing to do with the Genesis of the world or the first cause argument

Dependent/Conditioned Genesis is Dependent Origination. It's just another translation of Pratītyasamutpāda.

What are you talking about? I didn't conflate any concepts lol, I was correcting your claim that the mind doesn't exist by discussing how it does so on a phenomenological level. the concept of Annata is directly related as it states there is no permanent self.

It exists only through our own ignorance. However, even in your example of using the phenomenological view, the Soul still isn't a thing.

What are you talking about? I didn't conflate any concepts lol

You brought up Anatta when I was talking about Sunyata, saying that I didn't understand Anatta.

Bringing up Anatta when I was very obviously talking about Sunyata makes it seem like you believe them to be the same thing.

You literally said dependent origination and sunyata don't intertwine as concepts. That's literally foundational to Buddhism.

Damn, did I LITERALLY say that? Hmm, let's see what said, shall we?

Firstly, Dependent Origination and Sunyata should not be grouped together as if they're the same concept, because they couldn't be more vastly different.

Hmmm, here I'm not saying they don't intertwine as concepts, I'm saying they shouldn't be grouped together as if they are the same concept.

Strange how I never said anything to the effect of what you're saying I LITERALLY said. How strange, that.

Not really, I outlined that you pretty much just strawmanned me the whole time while trying to appeal to my character being in bad faith to poison the well. You haven't even addressed my counter points with anything other than "you got that source from Wikipedia." which isn't a counter argument.

Oh I did. But you never particularly bothered.

Likewise, you never actually addressed the fact you were splicing, just that I was wrong to call you out for slimy behaviour, which is just tone policing, and I don't care for it.

I mean if this is your take away than you can't possibly reading JJK given the ontology thread is literally passed, there is a cornucopia of direct tie ins, and the mahito stuff is one single page of evidence among all of that.

As much as there was a cornucopia in the Fruit of the Loom logo.

---

All in all, this thread has only been exhausting and as said above, this will be my last post, I've been less and less convinced of the veracity of the claims as times gone on, and as DeagonX has so eloquently shut down one of the points with contemptuous ease, I find that is exemplary of the entire affair. I hope we can all come to the conclusion that we should keep Religion out of VSB.

I have no intentions of coming back to the thread because, as a very wise person once said;

Remember kids: arguments can be won without you getting the last word.

 

[SunDaGamer]

I don't think this helps your point. We are told that the barriers outside of Tengen's special barrier are the ones that don't really matter and exist mostly for show. The ones youare pointing out are the ones that stablize jujutsu across Japan.

The sunyata barriers are the only barriers explicit to Tengen in his labryinth as your scans show he directly states he is the master of said barriers, something also backed up in the fight vs Kenjaku proper. With these barriers also holding the special property of allowing for large scale reality warping as shown by both Tengen and Kenjaku [1] [2] [3] , I am indeed confident in asserting the sunyata barriers indeed are the "special ones" talked about given the emphasis put on them and their inherent relationship to barrier techniques. Tengen even states he believes he'd "have the upper hand" in the Sunyata barrier once again outlining his special relation to the Sunyata.

Read your scan

THE BARRIER
Upon arrival at the lowest level, there is a visiting path to the Tomb of the Star, which is the foundation of all the major barriers protecting Japan, and where Tengen kneels. By passing through the correct (righteous) path, one can finally find their way and reach the main inner shrine. At the center of the main shrine, a sacred tree rooted deeply in the ground towers above all.

After passing through the final gate of the bottom floor, there is a special barrier that only those permitted by Tengen himself are allowed to enter where Tengen is enshrined, which is different from the barrier that envelops the technical college.
- Panel caption: A sacred tree that holds the final barrier ascends as if it's piercing through Mt. Mushiro from deep underground.

The special barrier is a singular barrier at the bottom floor of the Tomb of the Star, it's never stated to be the same as the Sunyata Barriers in the upper levels and Tengen being a master of Sunyata Barriers doesn't prove the barrier being mentioned in your scan is a Sunyata Barrier. Tengen's barrier is the essence of Jujutsu in Japan because of how it confines the arising of most curses and sorcerers to Japan which gives Japan a monopoly on cursed energy, the Sunyata Barriers aren't stated to do that ever.

 

[Phoenks]

<big text>

I hate to crowd the staff thread at all, but man, this one of the most beautiful debunks I've ever seen on this website...

You attacked his claims with multiple, better sources. You used his own sources against him. You exposed multiple shady tactics such as his explicit cutting of particular quotes from various readings. You took the time to properly define Buddhist terms and explain why they don't work with the material at hand. Very thorough and understandable all the way through. I wish I could give it another like.

Guess this is what happens when you try to bullshit Buddhist teachings and wave Wikipedia articles around in front of an actual Buddhist. Amazing.

 

[M3X_2.0]

@Deagonx @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Maverick_Zero_X @Duedate8898 @Elizhaa

@Deagonx @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Maverick_Zero_X @Duedate8898 @Elizhaa

Can I get a staffie to tag the mods that Mex did at the top of the thread?

Done.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I agree with Uld's points about the abilities derived from Buddhism.

 

[Dereck03]

@Dereck03

I had already said I disagreed with the thread previously but it seems there was discussion again, having seen White's arguments as well as those of the con I am clearly in favor of the con especially with Udl's (I spelled it right this time, don't get mad at me) points.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

For the record, I disagree with this thread for Udlmaster's reasons.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I also disagree for Udlmaster's reasons.

 

[Udlmaster]

I lied this is my last post.

I also disagree for Udlmaster's reasons.

For the record, I disagree with this thread for Udlmaster's reasons.

I had already said I disagreed with the thread previously but it seems there was discussion again, having seen White's arguments as well as those of the con I am clearly in favor of the con especially with Udl's (I spelled it right this time, don't get mad at me) points.

NAME SPELLED RIGHT? POG?!

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

That's three disagrees from evaluating staff; can we close this yet?

I agree with Uld's points about the abilities derived from Buddhism.

I had already said I disagreed with the thread previously but it seems there was discussion again, having seen White's arguments as well as those of the con I am clearly in favor of the con especially with Udl's (I spelled it right this time, don't get mad at me) points.

I also disagree for Udlmaster's reasons.

 

[M3X_2.0]

That's three disagrees from evaluating staff; can we close this yet?

No. @Dr._whiteee still has the right to answer the arguments here. It’s his thread. Even if he’s not able to change staff’s mind, he has the right to try.

Let’s not pull this card here just because he’s enjoying his vacations.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

I agree with Uld's points about the abilities derived from Buddhism.

I had already said I disagreed with the thread previously but it seems there was discussion again, having seen White's arguments as well as those of the con I am clearly in favor of the con especially with Udl's (I spelled it right this time, don't get mad at me) points.

I also disagree for Udlmaster's reasons.

Can I get some specifics on what is being disagreed with here? A lionshare of Uld's arguments are addressing the ontology thread and not the info found in the OP, and it's kind of hard to have a discussion when I don't really know where you stand outside of agreeing with Uld.

I will be responding to Uld later today, but if I can't really get any engagement then I don't see much point tbh.

 

[Phoenks]

Can I get some specifics on what is being disagreed with here? A lionshare of Uld's arguments are addressing the ontology thread and not the info found in the OP, and it's kind of hard to have a discussion when I don't really know where you stand outside of agreeing with Uld.

I will be responding to Uld later today, but if I can't really get any engagement then I don't see much point tbh.

Your ontology blog is being used as context to extrapolate certain terminology in JJK to substantiate the claims that they have said abilities you're suggesting they do in your OP.

Without that context being accepted first and foremost, your CRT falls apart. So Udl's points are definitely very relevant. If staff agree with his deconstruction of your ontology, then they naturally oppose the claims you tend to make going off of that ontology.

 

[Deagonx]

I will be responding to Uld later today, but if I can't really get any engagement then I don't see much point tbh.

I think you would get considerably more utility out of simply abandoning any argument that relies on invoking Buddhism in any way and focus on the arguments that do not rely on that. If there are other arguments you want to make that do not involve Buddhism that haven't been addressed, it would likely be prudent to just create a new thread, as it's not usually the case that after a long protracted argument in a month old thread that you're going to get a renewed wave of attention for hitherto unaddressed arguments.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Originally, I had intended for my previous response to be my last on the topic, however, I am the loathe to give people the wrong impression, through action or omission. So, let it be known, this will be my final response here, regardless of what is said and done.

I will make this as comprehensive as possible, so be warned.


This is not the soul. To look at what is the soul, we will look to the religion that Buddhism would be compared to most, that is Hinduism.

What we find when we look to Hinduism is "Atman" the soul and self



From here we may look at "Anatman"

From the Pali to English dictionary by Aggarama Ambalangoda, pg. 21

And thus, while there exists Consciousness and the Mind, which only exist as the Conditioned Existence, the Soul does not exist.

There is not a self. There is not non-self. There is no view of a self to be held.

This whole section is proving my point. Several times throughout this thread I have made the point that in JJK, the soul/body split is indeed a false one that is underlined by deeper ontology of emptiness.

We are literally making the same points here, so I'm not sure why you are highlighting these things when I myself have made the very same points. There is no fundamental soul in JJK in the same way that there is no "body" outside of conditioned existence.

The self is a delusion. You misunderstand the Buddha's teaching as much as you misunderstand me.

You come at this from a Westerner's perspective, you think because there is suffering that there must be a self to suffer, this is wrong.

Within the Digha Nikaya, Brahmajāla Sutta — The All-embracing Net of Views, Buddha expounds on all sixty-two of the ideas and philosophical views of the self, he discusses yours and deems it false.

The subject doesn't exist because the whole position is wrong. That is to say, it is neither existent nor non-existent.

Once again, you keep flip flopping between the two levels of reality that I outlined in my previous response, to bring this up again

In terms of doctrine, Buddhism rejects the existence of a permanent self (ātman), and denies the existence of a first cause in any form. The nature of existence is interpreted in terms of the two truths: conventional and ultimate. Conventionally, there exist beings and things, but only as conceptual entities (prajñaptisat). Ultimately, they do not exist, because they have no permanent core. So how does the inexistent world function? Conceptual entities are dissected into impersonal phenomena or dharmas as ultimate units. The dharmas are momentary, and they arise and vanish in space and time in conformity with definite principles that regulate their flow and interdependence: karma and dependent origination. The term karma, literally “action” or “deed,” as a technical concept, denotes the principle of ethical causation: there are no agents, but there are actions and their consequences. Karma as action denotes an act of mental volition (cetanā), and the bodily and verbal actions that stem from it.

In a conventional sense the mind/soul and body do exist to us as conscious observers. When talking in ultimate terms, these things don't exist, both soul and body, because of Sunyata and Dependant origination. Thus, they lack a stable core and are dependant on other things for their form.

Which is quite literally what this thread is outlining in terms of perception of the various levels of reality, the relationship between soul, matter, information, and Sunyata, and the applications that allow for the power system in this verse.

Furthermore, in the Maha-Nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse, Buddha specifically outlines that there isn't a subject, this is false;

This isn't exactly right, I used this same ideal in the quote I posted in my last response regarding that view

“For these, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world. But a Tathāgata [one who has fully realized the truth] makes use of them, but does not misapprehend them.”
Potthapāda Sutta (DN 9)

This is directly touching upon the phenomenological nature of reality and how a Tathagata can still use the conventional level of reality for utility, but must not misunderstand that that level is "actual reality" and thus "misapprehend them"

That is not a denial of the conventional self, rather the ultimate self which is exactly what this thread argues.

There is literally a whole section of my blog which goes over this in detail and explains that those who have met death in JJK have come to this exact realization which in turn boost their powers in verse.

This statement underlies the non-dual aspects of existing and the conditioned aspects of existence needing to be an amalgamation of all these factors at once to truly encapsulate a subjective conscious experience. We also see shades of this ideology with Maki during her true awakening. After become enlightened herself during a Sumo match with a kappa, Maki unlocks her awareness of her oneness with existence. It's to such an extent that Maki is able to "Smell light" and "see sounds" , a statement which makes no logical sense unless categories of experience are stripped away to bare experience. This in turn allowing her to grow leaps and bounds in her awareness, perception, and reactivity. Finally, this theme can also be seen via the dynamic between Yuji and Mahito. The two are tied by fate with Yuji initially having a perfect counter to him despite their skill gap. Mahito himself states they are two sides of the same coin, a sentiment that a more enlightened Yuji also shares. This also being relevant to their existence itself, with Mahito being a curse born out of humanity's hate for itself and Yuji being born human of a cursed womb. The major difference is the perspective of the conscious being and the beings that are similar to them (humans vs. Curses). Finally, the tie in to all this comes from Kenjaku, who himself states that humans, cursed spirits, and sorcerers are all but different possibilities inherent in humanity, with this being a driving force behind his literal thousands of years of planning.

To be clear, even the translators introduction for the sutta says as such;

Within the Cula-Sihanada Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's roar, the Buddha explicitly outlines the Self as not existing, there is no such thing.

Within the Alagaddupama sutta: The Snake Simile sutta, Buddha explicitly states the idea of clinging to a self because "I feel, I think" is wrong.

I'm skipping over this section because the same issues arise that I went over above. I don't really get how you are reading my ontology blog and come to the conclusion that I am arguing for an eternal self/soul. If we both agree on this, this whole section of the argument is pretty useless.

Buddhists do not conflate the soul and mind. You are doing heavily lifting by conflating these two things together and then misapprehending the teachings of the Buddha by deceptively cutting out sections of the Buddha's teachings which sound like they suit you, however, as a Buddhist, I bother to read Sutras and Buddhist literature.

Your citations for this huge claim is the Vajira Sutta, however, you cut off the first and last paragraph, which entirely change the meaning of the Buddha's words;

This directly refutes the idea that the mind truly exists, because how could the mind and body exist if only suffering comes to be and suffering ceases. How could the Buddha say the Mind and Body exist if he reprehends Mara, his antithesis, for believing him to hold a view or assume a being?

This was deceptive framing of the Buddha's word to sully the waters and I take particular offense that you're using it against myself, a Buddhist.

This is more blatant mischaracterization of my argument. Read the source you just posted and my original post. I am clearly not arguing that the mind exists on the ultimate level of reality and nothing I have ever posted in this thread comes close to claiming that.

The section I posted was directly utilizing the aggregate of being example of the chariot to highlight that there is a "conventional self". Hence the quote

So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.

This was to directly bolster the point I made here regarding the self

Buddhist (in general) do not deny the mind/soul anymore than they deny the body as not being real. Both obviously exists, they are just not eternal. That is the major distinction within Buddhism compared to other religions such as Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions. In those religions that soul is eternal and substantial. In Buddhism, it is impermanent and ultimately ephemeral as it exists as "phenomena," which are inherently empty due to dependant origination.

I didn't "leave out" the end section because it wasn't necessary. I never claimed that the self, mind, or soul exists at the ultimate level, which is blatantly obvious from my post above, this thread, and my various responses to you. The quotes I am using are spliced because I'm not trying to post books ontop of the books we are already writing to each other. None of the splicing I am doing is hiding any information. So I would appreciate if you stop trying to poison the well here.

For your second citation, it is also missing the first part of the paragraph:

You once again take the quote out of context of the discussion it was in. What the Buddha is saying here is that when you grasp at the self as a material thing, you should discard the idea the self is also a mind-made thing and that the self is a formless thing.

Correct, which is exactly what this thread is arguing once again.

He is, in essence saying that there is no fixed self even when you do assume that a self exists, you should discard the idea of a fixed self that exists as body, mind or formless and you should discard the idea of a self that exists in the past, now or the future.

^

As Buddha said in this very sutta;


That Dhamapadda, as there's not just one as you made out here via the use of "the", as there's 26, but in this case, this isn't about the true state of being, this is about morality and mental fortitude, hilariously, this is actually about the cause-affect relationship between your mind and experiences but not that the mind or soul truly exist either.

Once again, I am not, nor have I ever claimed, that the soul/mind truly exists. Please read the actual thread OP as we have literally wasted several posts arguing over your mischaracterization of my arguments here.

I directly quoted a section from your blog about the Dharma and pointed out how the Dharma doesn't represent what you said it did.

Your response was to then show me the Dharmachakra, which is NOT the Dharma in so as much the Cross isn't the Bible, you continuing to saying "but they are connected through symbolism and representation" is no different that the Cross and the Bible, no matter how much you declare they aren't. Once again, this is coming from a Theravada Buddhist.

No, first off I already proved that the Dharmachakra does represent causality and this is directly tied to the system of Karma which is in turn tied to the moral actions of sentient beings. Thus, the wheel is a direct symbol of causality at work. The cross is not a symbol that underlies any ontological aspect of Christianity. It's a sign of the act of crucifixion underling the sacrifice God made to free humans from original sin.

I'm not arguing about the importance of symbology or recognition of the symbol to a specific religion; I am talking about the meaning of the symbol itself.

Sukuna, in verse, directly utilizes the symbol of the Dharmachakra to figure out Mahoraga's ability, so this is very blatantly what Gege was going for.

In your own copy and paste job from Wikipedia highlighted the part where it flat out says the Dharmachakra is a symbol for the Dharma, meaning they aren't the same thing.

I never claimed they were the same thing. The Dharma chakra is representative of the casual reality of the conditioned world, which obviously ties into the dharma as the ultimate reality truth body of the buddha's teachings and the only way to escape the cyclical nature of Samsara.

You keep strawmanning me and trying to claim I arguing for things that aren't consistent with Buddhism while ironically proving the material in this thread correct.

If I show you the cross, and say "This is the Symbol of the Christ" I am not then saying Christ is a wooden cross, you buttered crumpet.

My criticism of your post was the use of "Dharma", your justification to then bring up the Dharmachakra and then say to me that you aren't conflating them, but the use of Dharma is fine because they're "inherently linked" is Conflation.

See above^

You also continually ignore all the examples I've provided where Dharma also means the Teachings of the Buddha. But that doesn't suit the narrative you're spinning.

I did not ignore them and in fact actually addressed this very argument.

I think the biggest factor here is that you keep trying to flex Buddhism here without realizing how Japanese Buddhism differs from Theravada Buddhism.

In Mahayana Buddhism the Dharma can be broken down into three aspects called the Dhramakaya, which translates to "truth body" and underlies the pure form of existence from which Buddhas manifest and return to. This is directly tied to the teachings of Buddha and the phenomenology of the conditioned world.

Trikaya, (Sanskrit: “three bodies”), in Mahāyāna Buddhism, the concept of the three bodies, or modes of being, of the Buddha: the dharmakaya (body of essence), the unmanifested mode, and the supreme state of absolute knowledge; the sambhogakaya (body of enjoyment), the heavenly mode; and the nirmanakaya (body of transformation), the earthly mode, the Buddha as he appeared on earth or manifested himself in an earthly bodhisattva, an earthly king, a painting, or a natural object, such as a lotus.




The concept of trikaya applies not only to the historical Buddha, Gautama, but to all other buddhas as well.

That is why I am referring to the Dharma as the truth body, as Mahayana Buddhism has this conception not shared by other branches.

But here, you like Wikipedia a lot, and you obviously read the page, let me highlight a sentence you keep overlooking.



The Dharma doesn't have a Truth body.

Yet another example of where you woefully misinterpret Buddhist ideas. You've somehow brought in the Trikaya, the Three Bodies of a Buddha, specifically the Dharmakaya, the Truth Body. However, the Dharma isn't a Buddha, so doesn't have a Dharmakaya.

No, this is clearly an example of you thinking that buddhist conceptions don't exist outside of the Theravada school of Buddhism and being ignorant of the different ways the schools interpret the canon of Buddhism.

In the quote you are referencing it is clearly highlighting the "practical" aspect of the Dharma, which would make sense for non-esoteric/Mahayana sects and contextually does make sense there. However, in Mahayana Buddhism, that is not the only context of the Dharma, when speaking abstractly about the ultimate nature of reality, the Dharmakaya does exist as the true essence of reality.

The dharmakāya (Sanskrit: धर्म काय, "truth body" or "reality body", Chinese: 法身; pinyin: fǎshēn, Tibetan: ཆོས་སྐུ་, Wylie: chos sku) is one of the three bodies (trikāya) of a buddha in Mahāyāna Buddhism. The dharmakāya constitutes the unmanifested, "inconceivable" (acintya) aspect of a buddha out of which buddhas arise and to which they return after their dissolution. Buddhas are manifestations of the dharmakāya called the nirmāṇakāya, "transformation body".

The Dhammakāya tradition of Thailand and the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras of the ancient Indian tradition view the dharmakāya as the ātman (true self) of the Buddha present within all beings.[1]

In fact, it's hotly discussed in Theravada circles how exactly transmigration works if nothing is transferred over. So, no, them losing everything after death doesn't violate Buddhist cosmological laws.

Theravada wouldn't even be applicable here. And yes, directly causing suffering to another being would indeed be a violation of the moral order. I'm not really gonna argue that.

What's nonsensical is this sentence. Not only do you conflate the Dharmakaya again, but you for some reason bring up the Tibetan Buddhist (Thus a part of Vajrayana, not Mahayana or Theravada) idea (Chö) for the Dharma being the Ultimate reality and Truth.

Yeah, because that is the relevant aspect here? JJK deals with Mahayana Buddhism and Vajrayana Buddhism, the latter which is a subset coming from the teachings of Kukai after her learned Zen Buddhism from China. This is the buddhism we directly see within the series and given the esoteric foundation of the series, most directly correlates to JJK's ontology.

It is actually. Many Christian sects say you can't name God, Apophatic belief is officially endorsed by the Catholic Church. "God" is just what we chose to name them, ultimately, it doesn't matter what you call them as long as you venerate them.

No it's not. Your example isn't even valid. Not naming God is completely different to saying the "concept of God" is simply a name for a creed. The Christian sects do indeed see god as an omnipotent force of creation that has absolute authority, which is mutually exclusive that what Angel is describing in the seen, essentially claiming her usage of the word "god" is just something she uses to relay to outsiders that is simply representative of her beliefs.

They can be intertwined, however, that does not mean they should all be grouped up. Why do you think there's dozens upon dozens of sutra which go over a single topic.

This doesn't make any sense. They are inherently intertwined because they both intersect regarding buddhist ontology? I literally just showed you them being foundational to the ontology and inherently linked.

• As an epistemological principle (i.e., as a theory about knowledge),[19] it holds that there are no permanent and stable things, though there are classes of permanent phenomena vis. space (vacuum), cessations (including nirvana), and suchness (the absence of self, namely, anatta).[20][21] Because everything is dependently originated, nothing is permanent (hence the Buddhist concept of impermanence, anicca) and nothing has any self-nature or essence (anatta).[22][21][23] Consequently, all phenomena lack essence.[19] In various traditions, this is closely associated with the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā).[24]

Sunyata is the Sanskrit term, which has been translated into English as “emptiness or voidness.” Along with pratityasamupadha (dependent-arising, dependent-origination), sunyata constitutes the foundational cornerstone of Buddhist phenomenology. By emptiness or voidness, Buddhists mean that all phenomena are empty of, lack, or are void of any “own,” inherent, permanent or separate existence. All phenomena arise dependently contingent on causes and conditions.

They quite literally go hand in hand so what are you arguing? Because you initially falsely claimed that I conflated the two concepts as the same which I directly pointed out was false in my last response. This seems like more stonewalling tbh.

It's simple, because the nuances between the concepts shouldn't be ignored. It's like saying "Physics and Quantum Mechanics are intertwined, so why can't I group them together?"

I'm gonna ignore the below because it's all irrelevant. What nuances are you speaking of? I already know they are two distinct concepts, I never claimed otherwise. I specifically touched on those nuances in the responses I have given you (including the one above), so I truly don't really understand what you're arguing here.

You copy and pasted the introduction to Buddhist Theories of Causality by Tadeusz Skorupski, meaning you likely looked up "Causality in Buddhism" and found that and just threw the intro at me as if the introduction itself is enough.

Because I'm not intellectually incurious, I decided to find the article in question and read the whole thing and...

Yes you are still wrong here. Sunyata is a thing because of dependant origination. If things didn't have dependant origination and indpeendnat existences, then Sunyata would cease to be a concept...

None of it says anything about what you were arguing nor is it anything against what I was arguing, which I might remind you;

You didn't even post anything here lol? Are you saying that his article goes on to directly contradict what he says in the opening?

The article, which is rather small at 27 pages

In fact, inside it, it does bring up something that supports what I was saying;

You didn't even point anything out? you just posted two long quotes? What idea of yours is being supported? If it's the idea that the self doesn't exist on the ultimate level, then sure, but I don't and never have disagreed with that.

All of these were talking about Dependent Origination, and my concern with bringing up Causality in relation to Dependent Origination was that you were saying there was a causal chain from which you could find a root.

I never said there was a root,, you made that part up. You specifically stated

Secondly, Dependent Origination is a Buddhist core idea that nothing arises separately, that something is more fundamental than anything else. There exists no "pre-existing phenomena" and there are no causal links between any of them, they all arise simultaneously.

Which is completely different to what you are trying to spin now.

For brevity and since you apparently won't be come back, I'm gonna end things here.

I think you would get considerably more utility out of simply abandoning any argument that relies on invoking Buddhism in any way and focus on the arguments that do not rely on that. If there are other arguments you want to make that do not involve Buddhism that haven't been addressed, it would likely be prudent to just create a new thread, as it's not usually the case that after a long protracted argument in a month old thread that you're going to get a renewed wave of attention for hitherto unaddressed arguments.

None of the stuff in this thread is reliant on Buddhism. Buddhism is an integral part of this verses ontology so trying to explain the verse without it is like trying to explain Dr. stone without using scientifically terms.


The bare bones of things is that.

Matter and spirit are fundamentally information which gives forms to things in the verse. This is also why the verse largely runs through conceptual means (cursed spirits, CE tie to emotion, etc). We have been shown time and time again that Gege routinely uses this canvas when showing us the "Real" form of existence as has been linked up above in the OP. This backdrop for existence is stated by Kenjaku to be the "chaos" in which cursed energy flickers, and cursed energy is directly tied to giving form to possibility. We know this extends to reality overall as Kenjakua states and proves that curses derive from an interstitial state between "dream and Reality". This also directly ties into Barrier users being able to reality warp in "sunyata barriers" despite never having stepped foot in one, thus translating to something they have been doing in regular reality.

Once again, I am only using Buddhism because that is what has been clearly established both by Gege and the series itself as the foundational concept wagon that Gege is using to craft abilities for his verse, none of what is posted in OP is "reliant" on Buddhism outside of identifying concepts.

I could, for instance, use the Quantum Field theory to outline how JJK ontology works. With Sunyata (or the black canvas we see if you don't want the Buddhist term) being akin the background quantum field, and information arising from a bottom up manner to manifest reality. Either way we slice it, these concepts exists in the JJK world and have been outlined in OP.


Which is why it'd be helpful to know exactly what they disagree with. I'd also like to point out that the concept type 3 section doesn't even touch on Buddhism at all as was completely ignored by the voters outside of Duedate.

 

[Maitreya12]

We have been shown time and time again that Gege routinely uses this canvas when showing us the "Real" form of existence as has been linked up above in the OP. This backdrop for existence is stated by Kenjaku to be the "chaos" in which cursed energy flickers, and cursed energy is directly tied to giving form to possibility.

Once again, I am only using Buddhism because that is what has been clearly established both by Gege and the series itself as the foundational concept wagon that Gege is using to craft abilities for his verse, none of what is posted in OP is "reliant" on Buddhism outside of identifying concepts.

For clarities sake as well I responses to these specific points in my own post, showing how the framework of the wording being used here is quite deceptive.

Doing this response over again is pure hell. . I got permission to post this by @KingTempest by the way.

I was probably a lot more thorough in my first response I typed out. But I cannot be bothered this time around so imma try to keep this as short and sweet as I can. Making my main points as abundantly clear as I can.

This is a mischaracterization of what’s said in the link, this is a problem I have with the wording the OP uses because I find that he inflates what’s actually said in the link with his own words.

For example, right here in this link he provided, nowhere does it state that Gege is using Buddhism as an “integral foundation of the story’s mythology.” This is just a complete over inflation of the words that are actually said in order to try and make their point seem more substantial than it actually is.

What’s actually said in the link above is that Gege used Buddhism as an “inspiration” the same way he used Bleach as an inspiration to his story. And the same way Kubo himself says he used Buddhism as inspiration in his own story as well. But that doesn’t mean Bleach has the same ontological underpinnings as Buddhism inherently to try and apply these abilities like non-duality and void manipulation to the series based on that.

See the difference in terminology between “taking inspiration in” and “integral foundation to the story’s mythos?” It’s a very high level of saturation to the words in order to make their point seem stronger than it really is.

What’s especially interesting about this link by the way, is the fact that Gege himself mentions how Evangelion was stepped into mythology, which the creator of Evangelion quite literally said was a misconception by the way.

Take note of that by the way, it’ll be important later on. But just know that all the imagery and visual motifs shown in Evangelion which resembles Kaballahlistic thought and ontology isn’t actually done to demonstrate ontological similarities between the series and mythology, they were all done “just to look cool.”

No it does not, these words do not lead to the conclusion you are making. Tengen “spreading Buddhism and Jujutsu side by side” does not correlate to ontological truths in Buddhism being present in Jujutsu Kaisen.

That’s simply not how the standards on the wiki work as sharing similarities, even incredibly deep ones do not necessarily lead to ontological similarities being present unless explicitly stated in that exact or similar manner, something that is distinctly lacking in many examples listed as evidence here by the OP.

That is all I’ll say about these specific points below as many of them share the same problems of over saturation and inflation of the words used here to paint a stronger picture of the position than it really is.

This point about void manipulation is especially egregious because a lot of the “evidence” being used to try and support the position basically amounts to the interpretations the OP has about certain panels that lead to a confirmation bias forming to substantiate that interpretation.

The panels do not act as evidence for the point, the OP is simply interpreting the panels to act as evidence for void manipulation. And then acts as though it is actual evidence because of that interpretation.

Case and point, many of these examples of “voids” or “canvases” being shown in the manga don’t actually amount to evidence towards void manipulation and is instead being asserted as evidence for void manipulation due to the belief the OP has about these certain panels. But that belief does not amount to actual evidence towards the position.

Like for example, the last link in the quote above here about Gojo looking “into the canvas housing Sukuna and Megumi’s soul”….isn’t even a blank canvas consistent with the other images.

It’s literally a blurred background of Sukuna and Mahoraga with two white dots symbolizing the souls of Megumi and Sukuna. This isn’t even a “canvas” consistent with the other images shown and trying to be presented as evidence.

It’s literally just assumed to be evidence posted instead of just a simple stylistic choice done by Gege. Evidence being posited that isn’t even consistent with the other showings previously.

These are the examples of beliefs that are being posited as evidence towards the intended position of void manipulation. It’s just a personal viewpoint the OP has about the story forming a confirmation bias of these images.

Every single one of these examples doesn’t inherently amount towards evidence of the positions being posited here, it’s asserted that they do, but they do not. It’s literally just looking at blank pages and certain backgrounds and asserting them as evidence, but can’t be proven they actually are.

What if Gege just drew blank panels because it would save him time or those starry outlines because he thought it would look cool, like in the instances of the black flash you cite. You are literally looking at blank panels here and asserting them as evidence towards your position, when you can’t actually prove them to evidence towards your point.

Remember how I mentioned how there was a common misconception that Evangelion holds a lot of Kabbalah thought to it? Yeah, so how do you know you’re not having a misconception here?

How can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that all these panels and pictures of just blank pages or black backgrounds is intended by Gege as evidence towards void manipulation instead of just visual motifs he’s being because he thinks they look cool? It can’t be done, these examples you list just don’t act as evidence towards your intended point, they only do if you assume it does, but they on their own do not act as supporting evidence.


I could keep going on and on, go point after point and example after example showing how and why this logic is flawed. How and why assumptions are being used to form an interpretation that supports the position, but not the actual series itself.

Assumptions like stating Sukuna is “cutting through a void” when it’s just a black background Sukuna is cleaving. Assuming that black background is intended to be a “void” and being posited as evidence as such when it could simply be a stylistic choice done by Gege, not intended or depicted to posit ontological similarities between Jujutsu Kaisen and Buddhism. Or using translators notes as supposed evidence of ontological underpinnings within the series just because it defines what the term “Sunyata” means in Buddhism which is then extrapolated onto meaning “Sunyata” as it is understood in Buddhism is shared within JJK.

I could keep going on like that, but I think I’ve made my point clear enough as is. These positions that are being put out by the OP are simply not founded or supported within the series itself, and so as such has to rely on ideas or similarities being found by the two mediums and positing ontological underpinnings between the both in order to justify these incredibly high reaching abilities such as void manipulation and non-duality.

These abilities are not founded or supported in the series and many of the supposed “evidence” trying to show ontological similarities between Jujutsu Kaisen and Buddhism in support of those abilities don’t actually amount to substantial evidence due to them being founded on interpretations made by the OP instead of concrete evidence found within the series itself.

I hard disagree with this thread.

 

[Deagonx]

I've deleted Udl's comment and those referencing it since the content was insulting. That's not an appropriate way to conduct a debate at all, and I'm adding a warning for Udl.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Honestly I find myself in disagreement with this thread and I'm honestly not a fan of the Buddhism links for JJK scaling as a whole, though that's partially a subject for another time given the already-passed ontology thread

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

Here
^ I got permission from DDM to post here in this thread. ^ (idk if the link i linked works) (btw why does some people that have commented here not said they've gotten permission from X staff or whatever, namely two people, eclipso and udl. everybody else has done it or linked that they've gotten the permission except for these two. or is that not how rules work? would like some clarification please.)

There are lot of things that I find odd in this thread, or disagree with, like the constant accusations/smearing on someone in a negative light in a debate on purpose, for literally unnecessary and undeserved reasons, (Udl mainly) which I found odd that nobody even pointed out, except for Dr who was on the receiving end of said smearing. Don't think that's how debates are supposed to go, much less in Vsbw with all the rules and what not in place.

but anyways, I'll address another thing I disagree with.

What I'm saying is, the translation in the anime suggests Tengen didnt spread Buddhism, but that he spread Jujutsu, a minority belief, at the same time that Buddhism was spread by others. Shigeru can be heard verbally saying "minority" so it seems clear IMO that the intended meaning was that Tengen was preaching a minority belief alongside yet opposed to the more popular Buddhism that spread at the same time.



This scan doesn't use the word "Nirvana."

This scan doesn't say any of that.

This is just the same scan that I'm saying was translated very differently in the anime.

? You have both Viz and Tcbscans saying that Tengen spread Japanese Buddhism. Are you aware of these or no? If not, I can post both transitions here. Furthermore, several other slightly famous/quite famous JJK translators that are known in the JJK community, either indirectly agree with the translations posited by Viz (or tcb, but mainly Viz) when it comes to chapter 74, where said "Tengen spread Japanese Buddhism" comes from, based on the fact that their translations that HAVE covered from the beginning of JJK chapters to ch74 or past it, have not pointed out that this specific line in Ch74 is wrong. They've went over it but never said it is wrong. Here are two sources.

Jujutsu Kaisen Translation Notes (Lightning)

This is Lightning’s Jujutsu Kaisen Translation Notes Project. It is inspired by Nanami-says’ Mistranslation Project. Here not only will I point out any mistranslations from the VIZ version of JJK, but also attempt to provide additional context of a scene, elaboration of certain translations, & co...

docs.google.com

Then there's lightning himself. One of the best JJK translators well known in the community alongside the likes of Shimo.
So you have two translations that disagree with the "anime"s translation. Viz and Tcb. and two translators that practically agree or don't find any issue with this specific line in Chapter 74. I've also asked another person who knows Japanese to translate it too, who said the translation was right, as well, and had also translated it himself. Though I'm sure the word from lightning himself would be more convincing than somebody else who isn't really known, so here you go.


Also, why are we suddenly using the anime's translation here. unless you think the anime is different from the manga in Japanese? Then, no, not really. I checked. They sound about the same. Not that it is important anyways.

In conclusion with all that being said: Yes, Tengen, a Buddhist monk, did spread Japanese Buddhism.

Anyways, moving on:
One thing I want to outline for everybody else is, something, that I doubt most here or almost all, in this thread, know about/understand except for possibly duedate and dr white and perhaps few more.
It's the fact that Gege just doesn't spoon fed you the info. Anything lore related and such, and he'll most likely have you trying to search and connect the dots on your own. Anybody that has read his story completely and went through many interviews, a check on the raws sometimes or what not, and tried to understand the story on a deeper level would understand where I am coming from by saying this. You gotta have to connect the puzzle bits, and, search some of the stuff yourself to understand this. Yes, Gege literally thinks that. His writing is like that.

Fanbook:
[Kinoku Nasu-sensei’s influence on the way I construct my settings

“Fate/Zero” is an indispensable part of my list when it comes to anime influences. Kinoku Nasu-sensei’s (cofounder of Type-Moon) writing style when it comes to settings has influenced me immensely as well. The original story of “Fate/Zero was written by Gen Urobushi-sensei, so it may be a little different, but I like the way the complex story’s structure remained entertaining even though some of the explanations for the setting and terminology were skipped, just like in “Eva”. If there’s something you don’t understand, look it up later yourself – or something like that. Gilgamesh is my favorite character from the series. Watching him at his most stern and self-righteous in “Fate/Zero” made me happy, in a sense.]

Basically, Gege conforms to this type of writing style where he awaits for the reader to connect the dots or puzzle bits or in other words to search it up to better understand the story he has written.

[Respect for director Hideaki Anno

I hold an incredible amount of respect for director Hideaki Anno. The way in which the setting and worldview in “Neon Genesis Evangelion” (新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, the original TV anime) are never explained excessively, leaving a lot of room for the viewers imagination to fill in and the way in which the show is structured primarily for entertainment are all influences on me. There’s also director Anno’s editing. “Shin Godzilla (シン·ゴジラ, released in 2016) is truly remarkable, but the director’s “editing power” (?) really is very strong isn’t it? It’s all thanks to director Anno’s set stance that, even though I’m still stuck on “Eva”, I am now able to work on my own writing with the thought of “graduating from Eva” in mind]

With these two texts quoted from the Fanbook guide from Gege's own words, it would make sense as to why he just didn't explain what Sunyata is IN the manga itself but just used the Buddhist term for it and left it there. And to better understand the manga itself, the lore, the settings, you would need to also understand the concepts Gege brings in, mainly the Buddhist concepts and their connection. And how they work.

 

[Maitreya12]

The way in which the setting and worldview in “Neon Genesis Evangelion” (新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, the original TV anime) are never explained excessively, leaving a lot of room for the viewers imagination to fill in and the way in which the show is structured primarily for entertainment are all influences on me.

I’m very happy you bring this up.

Why? Because in my response above I showed that a lot of an interpretations that many people have regarding the roots of Neon Genesis Evangelion is a complete misconception, like the idea that it’s heavily inspired by Kabbalah.

In 1997, when an interviewer told Hideaki Anno, the now 61-year-old creator of Eva, who is not Christian or Jewish, that he believed the show was “based on Kabbalistic thought,” the director laughed and said, “That was quite a misconception.”

You can say that Gege leaves many things up for interpretation, but the problem is that those interpretations can be wrong and not intended to be extrapolated by the author. Examples like saying blank backgrounds are evidences for “canvases” and “voids” despite there being no way to actually prove that’s the case at all and so on. You can have the “interpretation” that that’s the case, but that interpretation is then also subject to misconceptions, which is why things can’t just be “up for interpretation”, they actually haven to be proven and demonstrated within the series.

There’s also other fundamental issues here in that Dr.White does not understand Buddhism or the things he’s arguing about. The fact that a literal Buddhist came in and explained in depth why his positions, stances and argumentations was wrong under Buddhist views I think is evidence enough.

The attempted argument of souls just being a “delusion” in JJK and not actually real despite literally everything in the series going against that notion. The constant conflation between the mind and soul in Buddhism despite being clarified that they should not be put together like that. The constant conflation between the Dharma and the Dharmachakra despite being explicitly told by a religious person themselves that this is something that should not be put together as if to mean the same thing, yet is continues to be done so anyway despite being informed because of “symbolism.” And many more.

These are all examples that show a lack of understanding towards a religion that is trying to be used to further a powerscaling narrative. That’s downright insulting if anything and is another huge issue that is being had here in this thread.

Has any staff been convinced by the arguments Dr.White has levied now that he has responded? Because if not, I think this thread has long overstayed its welcome and can be closed.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

I’m very happy you bring this up.

Why? Because in my response above I showed that a lot of an interpretations that many people have regarding the roots of Neon Genesis Evangelion is a complete misconception, like the idea that it’s heavily inspired by Kabbalah.

? Maitreya. Be real with me. You do know that this.. doesn't matter right? Like, did you understand my point that I was explaining or nah? Cuz it seems like you didn't. So just incase, I'll be extremely clear: My point is that we need to understand Gege's mind and how he writes. That's all. Nothing else matters. Like the director of Eva or creator changing their mind or saying that there was a misconception in a interview, doesn't really matter. What matters is what Gege thinks and interprets. His mindset is important. Nothing else is. Do you understand now? I hope you do.

You can say that Gege leaves many things up for interpretation, but the problem is that those interpretations can be wrong and not intended to be extrapolated by the author. Examples like saying blank backgrounds are evidences for “canvases” and “voids” despite there being no way to actually prove that’s the case at all and so on. You can have the “interpretation” that that’s the case, but that interpretation is then also subject to misconceptions, which is why things can’t just be “up for interpretation”, they actually haven to be proven and demonstrated within the series.

So you do acknowledge that Gege isn't as limited to his writing as you had previously thought, that's good. I'm not saying you agree with Buddhism. Just that you aren't in the same exact position 100% now. That's all. Whatever else Dr wanna argue or you, I'll leave it up to you two to argue about it.

There’s also other fundamental issues here in that Dr.White does not understand Buddhism or the things he’s arguing about. The fact that a literal Buddhist came in and explained

Maitreya, let's leave out whatever fancy words you decided to put. Literally the fact that you mentioned a literal Buddhist came in is.. irrelevant. Like I'm being deadass. It is irrelevant. Not just a buddhist in this case. It could be in any case. To explain what I mean: Whether you be a Muslim, Christian, or buddhist, it doesn't really matter. What matters is the facts that a person can provide from that said religion, the source. Whatever you might be, or that title you might have, doesn't matter. Especially in this site.

Another flaw with this "I am Muslim/Christian/Buddhist" (etc religion) is the fact that those said people can also be people that may only know the basics, or know a lot but not all, etc. Some could also be barely following said religion in the rules upheld in it. Example would be Muslims that call themselves Muslims but eat pork, or do other sinful things that are obviously not permitted. I'm a Muslim myself and I lack limited knowledge based on the fact that Ik that I would get clapped by my parents in Islam knowledge. I think you get my point already. And, honestly with the way Udl has conducted themselves so far throughout this thread especially the warning Udl got from Deagon (comment got deleted too so probably something bad) honestly, makes me skeptical about Udl's claim of being a Buddhist themself.

But that said. I'm sure what matters here is the evidence and facts shown instead.

The constant conflation between the Dharma and the Dharmachakra despite being explicitly told by a religious person themselves that this is something that should not be put together as if to mean the same thing, yet is continues to be done so anyway despite being informed because of “symbolism.” And many more.

Stop using "well a religious person said this" as a argument. This is just appeal to authority at this point.

These are all examples that show a lack of understanding towards a religion that is trying to be used to further a powerscaling narrative. That’s downright insulting if anything and is another huge issue that is being had here in this thread.

What? Most of your examples stem from relying on a person saying this. Neither has Dr white replied yet. (as busy as he is atm in life apparently.)
"That is trying to be used to further a powerscaling narrative" Drop this tone. Idk why you tryna smear dude like that when Dr white has a whole different interpretation and understanding of the story in comparison to you. Do you want me to also say that you and many others have been trying to push this narrative to give a completely false misinterpretation on the story on purpose? Yeah, no. This whole idea of trying to smear people like that is disgusting. Either you present your logical argument, or you don't. No need to mix in this attempt to smear a person's intent or interpretation of the story on a negative light on purpose. Udl has already done that. you don't need to do it like Udl.
"That's downright insulting" You're trying it again, in an attempt to just further smear the OP in a bad light rather than completely being logical and neutral. Drop it. This is not needed for this thread.

Has any staff been convinced by the arguments Dr.White has levied now that he has responded? Because if not, I think this thread has long overstayed its welcome and can be closed.

? What's with this sudden rush. Let the OP give this side of the argument instead of trying to quickly shut it down.

 

[Deagonx]

Then there's lightning himself. One of the best JJK translators well known in the community alongside the likes of Shimo.

If you have access to this individual, I'd appreciate you asking them about the anime translation and how/if the wording was changed.

 

[Maitreya12]

I’m only going to respond to a few sections here since I don’t wanna drag this out as the post itself is largely filled with irrelevancies that do not go against the point, but it’s clear there was a deep misunderstanding of what I said. So let me clarify:

My point is that we need to understand Gege's mind and how he writes.

And my point is that you can be wrong in your understanding of Gege’s mind and how he writes. So everything you’ve said here is completely irrelevant to my point at hand.

Like the director of Eva or creator changing their mind or saying that there was a misconception in a interview,

“Changing their mind” what did they change their mind about, what they were saying was that there was a misconception was the interpretation people had about the series’ foundation.

doesn't really matter. What matters is what Gege thinks and interprets. His mindset is important. Nothing else is. Do you understand now? I hope you do.

So now I hope you understand that what you just said now is completely irrelevant and does nothing to go against my point. You say what matters is what Gege thinks and interpreted and I’m saying you could interpret wrong and think incorrectly about what Gege intends, just like in the case with Hideaki Ano in viewers incorrect interpretations about that series.

Got it? Good, so glad we could clear that up

Maitreya, let's leave out whatever fancy words you decided to put. Literally the fact that you mentioned a literal Buddhist came in is.. irrelevant. Like I'm being deadass. It is irrelevant.

It’s actually not and it’s quite problematic that you think it is. If you’re speaking about a religion, it’s good to have those who are knowledge and have studied the religion weigh their input in. Just like if you’re talking about prescribing a medication, a pharmacists’ opinion is important because of the study they have done on the matter. Just because some people can be incorrect or not knowledgeable enough about their religion, doesn’t make it irrelevant, especially when said person has provided ample evidence for each of their claims with citations and texts.

But that said. I'm sure what matters here is the evidence and facts shown instead.

Stop using "well a religious person said this" as an argument. This is just appeal to authority at this point.

It is not, you do not know what an appeal to authority fallacy is. It’s not just that “a religious person said this”, they’ve supported and backed their claims with evidence and showed how the opposing side had a deep misunderstanding of what they were talking about. Please understand the full argument before attempting to strawman the claims made.

What? Most of your examples stem from relying on a person saying this. Neither has Dr white replied yet. (as busy as he is atm in life apparently.)

The fact that you say this demonstrates that you have not even bothered to read the responses or keep up to date with the arguments at hand since Uld very much provided more than just his word as he cited numerous texts and scriptures for his claims to substantiate and Dr.White has already directly responded to Uld. You’re wrong.

"That is trying to be used to further a powerscaling narrative" Drop this tone. Idk why you tryna smear dude like that when Dr white has a whole different interpretation and understanding of the story in comparison to you. Do you want me to also say that you and many others have been trying to push this narrative to give a completely false misinterpretation on the story on purpose?

I’m not pushing a narrative, understand how burden of proof works before making baseless claims. I’m not positing claims about the narrative of the story, I’m disputing claims made. Big difference there, and just because Dr.White has a “different interpretation” here doesn’t make what I said any less true.

Yeah, no. This whole idea of trying to smear people like that is disgusting. Either you present your logical argument, or you don't. No need to mix in this attempt to smear a person's intent or interpretation of the story on a negative light on purpose. Udl has already done that. you don't need to do it like Udl.

It is not a smear and the fact that you try and paint it as one when it’s a legitimate concern is what’s truly disgusting and deplorable behavior here.

? What's with this sudden rush. Let the OP give this side of the argument instead of trying to quickly shut it down.

He has and several staff have weighed their input in and vastly disagreed with this thread, so if no other staff would like to comment about this thread or give input notifying they’ve changed their opinions above the thread, then I’m gonna ask this thread to be closed as it has reached a rounding conclusion.

 

[Maitreya12]

If you have access to this individual, I'd appreciate you asking them about the anime translation and how/if the wording was changed.

Is it alright for this thread to be closed now that input has been weighed in and each side has made their arguments known and has had time to respond?

 

[Dr._whiteee]

There’s also other fundamental issues here in that Dr.White does not understand Buddhism or the things he’s arguing about. The fact that a literal Buddhist came in and explained in depth why his positions, stances and argumentations was wrong under Buddhist views I think is evidence enough.

This is patently untrue, and you could search these things yourself.

The attempted argument of souls just being a “delusion” in JJK and not actually real despite literally everything in the series going against that notion.

Except it doesn't. It's already accepted that the mind/body split is a false duality, and this point has been made several times in the series. This thread literally argues for them "existing" on the conventional level but not the ultimate level, which is something your boy Uld ironically bolstered in this very thread.

The constant conflation between the mind and soul in Buddhism despite being clarified that they should not be put together like that.

This was covered all the way in the first post when discussing the aggregates, and once again, JJK is not following theravada buddhism.

The constant conflation between the Dharma and the Dharmachakra despite being explicitly told by a religious person themselves that this is something that should not be put together as if to mean the same thing, yet is continues to be done so anyway despite being informed because of “symbolism.” And many more.

I never conflated to two, I associated the two and once again my sources were never deconstructed. This point is even funnier given that the use of symbolism to tie to powers is literally how Sukuna figured out Mahoraga's technique and how it was figured out again during the gojo fight.

These are all examples that show a lack of understanding towards a religion that is trying to be used to further a powerscaling narrative.

Not at all, what's insulting is people not actually looking into the stuff themselves and simply allowing someone to flex their religious title to strawman, mischaracterize, and downright verbally assault someone else. Let alone ya'll not understanding the huge differences between Theravada Buddhism (what Uld claimed to be) and Mahayana Buddhism, particularly those which are esoteric, which from this post, you can see is what shapes Jujutsu thought.

It's absolutely insane that a verse with so much evidence for being inherently tied into Buddhism so much so that the literal historical framework is written into the historical past of the manga and tied to the verses power system, so much so that to non-western people reading the native language and having the context flat out state the buddhism is fundamental to the series.

Has any staff been convinced by the arguments Dr.White has levied now that he has responded? Because if not, I think this thread has long overstayed its welcome and can be closed.

Duedate, the actual verse mod, okay'd both abilities.

None of the dissenting mods have given an opinion on CT type 3, they'd simply said "agree with Uld" whose points don't cover CM type 3.

DDM removed his vote from me to lean to what am interpreting as neutral and has not clarified his stance.

 

[Deagonx]

Duedate, the actual verse mod,

There's no such thing as a "verse mod."

 

[Maitreya12]

Agree: @Dr._whiteee @Duedate8898

Disagree: @EldemadeDityjon @SunDaGamer @Dereck03 @UchihaSlayer96 @Maverick_Zero_X @Deagonx @Maitreya12 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @CloverDragon03 @Udlmaster @Phoenks @EL_xWatcher1234x

Neutral: @DarkDragonMedeus

I believe these are votes so far on the thread just for clarities sake.

 

[EL_xWatcher1234x]

Agree: @Dr._whiteee @Duedate8898

Disagree: @EldemadeDityjon @SunDaGamer @Dereck03 @UchihaSlayer96 @Maverick_Zero_X @Deagonx @Maitreya12 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @CloverDragon03 @Udlmaster @Phoenks

Neutral: @DarkDragonMedeus

I believe these are votes so far on the thread just for clarities sake.

You can add me in Disagree.

 

[Robespierre_Isidore]

Agree: @Dr._whiteee @Duedate8898

Disagree: @EldemadeDityjon @SunDaGamer @Dereck03 @UchihaSlayer96 @Maverick_Zero_X @Deagonx @Maitreya12 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @CloverDragon03 @Udlmaster @Phoenks @EL_xWatcher1234x

Neutral: @DarkDragonMedeus

I believe these are votes so far on the thread just for clarities sake.

I would like to also be added onto the Disagree list.
I will say I am shocked about no one bringing up the fact an item called Kamutoke appears which was made by a Yorozu's construction ability which bares the shape of a tokkosho vajra, specifically an item used to show the Buddha's ability to destroy evil. The item seems like vastly different from an actual tokkosho vajra if Sukuna one of the most blatantly non-Buddha like characters uses it to perpetuate his hedonistic desires.
There is also the Ganesha cursed spirit that attacks by targeting the concepts of people and removing obstacles which is only one facet of the god's being. There is no representation of Ganesha as lord of letters and learning or buddhi.
As someone who also reads JJK, it is a stretch with this thread for Dr._Whiteee to be using these lines of logic. There are several things wrong that Udlmaster pointed out very well. There has also been a series of points that people pointed out are shady or misconstrued. I do believe while there is clear inspiration from Buddhist teachings this is no more actual Buddhism than a piece of media saying, 'attack of the true cross!!' and then swinging at someone with a crucifix shaped item that is never explained beyond that save a vague idea of what it does. These are surface level at best and really do not lend what you are saying it lends.
This thread reads like a large case of someone saying 'nuh-uh it does work like that' and then not satisfying the point of contention at all which makes this upgrade thread a dud.

 

[Udlmaster]

makes me skeptical about Udl's claim of being a Buddhist themself.

I’m shutting this down here and now, because this goes beyond just arguing over fiction but crossing into my real life beliefs.

I won’t be having discussions on my personal life be derived from some random on the internet who thinks they have any right to speculate what my religion is. You being skeptical is irrelevant, keep it to yourself.

I have every right to show my disgust and annoyance that my religion is being used as a petty tool to further some lame brained argument about powers a fictional story has.

And might I point out that you can be a Buddhist and not be a whatever idea of a monastic monk you have in your head. Buddhism isn’t just monks who meditate all day in caves and have the unerring patience to tolerate any kind of speech that comes to them.

People saying “A Buddhist disagrees” isn’t them saying someone declared themselves Buddhist and then disagreed. They’re saying someone showed up with receipts and demonstrably proved their understanding of their religion.

I’ve pointed out throughout this thread my understanding of Buddhism, sourcing various Pali canon suttas and multiple Mahayana sources, in particular, the Diamond Sutra, this isn’t just my claim of being Buddhist, this is fact, fact that I have proven over and over again in this thread.

This ain’t a request. Do not speculate about my personal life again.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

And, honestly with the way Udl has conducted themselves so far throughout this thread especially the warning Udl got from Deagon (comment got deleted too so probably something bad) honestly, makes me skeptical about Udl's claim of being a Buddhist themself.

This kind of comment borders on report-worthy. Do not make one again.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

This thread seems to be turning very toxic, and that is not what I meant to happen here. I am pretty upset with how this thread has been handled, but if it's just going to serve to cause more toxicity, then I am fine with having it closed on the condition that when/if Gege actually delves into the mechanics, I can reopen this thread with the new evidence instead of having to make a whole new one.

 

[M3X_2.0]

@Deagonx or @KingTempest you can close this thread