- 1,191
- 261
- Thread starter
- #121
Are you suggest ling full rating law manipulation for destroying it?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Reason destroyer Aizen
- Thread starter Adam1396
- Start date
- 1,886
- 1,539
Dunno... Either law based NPI or probably that. I suggest the former is more safe bet
- 1,308
- 692
The fact that it is true or not doesn't really matter, your intent was obviously the one to piss him off since referring to that in particular was completely random and useless to the conversation and can bring to a quarrel, that from what Johnner said in the Bleach general discussion you seem to have already with Slime supporters
- 1,886
- 1,539
Can we just tag the mods and end this nonsense?
- 2,655
- 546
- 403
- 821
Yeah, I don't know why a long wall of text was made, Reiatsu or Spiritual energy change nothing within the context, I study Japanese myself and the ViZ official translation isn't wrong at all, if anything the new updated translation reinforce the notion Aizen killed something that couldn't be killed with Reiatsu since Gin verbatim stated you can't do nothing to it with Reiatsu.
I still say Aizen should get abstract NPI to be able to kill a being of reason verbatim stated to not be able to do nothing with Reiatsu.
- 11,638
- 21,057
I heavily doubt any of them will. It would require them to evaluate a thread of over 100 messages, and the majority of those messages - at least the messages that pertain to the actual topic at hand, and not just simple agrees and disagrees - are about debating the contextualization and semantics of Gin's statement. If it was further streamlined into a single post, that succinctly explains both sides arguments, it could increase mod participation quite considerably.
- 1,886
- 1,539
Nah, the counter arguments are nothing but nitpicks that makes no sense. The OP made it pretty clear with the scans he brought. Only that should be taken into consideration.
It would be something like this: Enhanced NPI (AE 1 - reason/laws).
- 1,886
- 1,539
Remove everything regarding space-time, concepts yada yada from the main post and put the reasoning just that. @Adam1396
Add this as well regarding the raws to further support the claim:
- 8,594
- 2,582
No Law Manipulation. Lille has essentially the same “beyond reason/ logic” descriptor when he uses The X-Axis. That was removed since it wasn't enough.
- 1,886
- 1,539
Nobody claimed law manipulation? I just proposed his physiology is based on ideas like laws soo law based intangibility.
- 8,594
- 2,582
?
Updated proposal:
Enhanced NPI (AE 1, concept type 1- reason/laws) - interacted with dangai cleaner.
Possibly law manipulation (to destroy dangai cleaner he has to affect reason to some degree)
- 1,886
- 1,539
oh... He didn't removed the conceptual part soo I was distracted abit.
Anyways, dunno bout this then soo ehh?
EL_xWatcher1234x
He/Him- 3,566
- 1,533
Is this according to the wiki ? Link ?
- 7,780
- 11,569
@Elizhaa @Starter_Pack @LordTracer @Theglassman12 @Shadowbokunohero @RitsuØ1
Your inputs would be heavily appreciated here.
Your inputs would be heavily appreciated here.
- 998
- 1,268
After reading the whole thread, I believe this is more of Abstract NPI at most. Concept Manip/Type 1 seems a bit of a stretch. Are there any more scans on why reason should be Concept Manip?
- 1,191
- 261
- Thread starter
- #137
I already updated OP. I was arguing CM due to how these kind of beings can be destroyed described in the wiki.
Another thing can be law manipulation.
So whatever seems more plausible to you guys.
- 403
- 821
So, let's use facts and logic to evaluate this feat in the best way:
あれは霊圧の側やのうて
理の側の存在やないですか
霊圧でどうこうできるモンちゃいますよ
"That’s not something on the side (の側, domain of, an example could be "emotional side" as for the place of emotions)
of spiritual pressure,
but rather something on the side (domain) of reason, isn’t it?
(The Kototsu) It’s not the kind of thing you can't do anything to it with Reiatsu (Spiritual pressure)"
The official English translator as well caught the nuance of Japanese which machine translator can't, the nuance it's not about it being Reiastu or Spiritual energy, it's completely irrelevant here, because either case, for both Reiastu or Spiritual energy the source is the same, Kototsu isn't on that side (domain) but it is on the side of Reason.
Gin after: Reiatsu, you can't do anything to Kototsu with it.
This does not remotely imply a stronger Reaistu would do something, as some people tried to argue, this clearly imply Reiatsu as energy it's utterly useless as the English official is clearly implying that as well.
Now the question should be, what's 理 means:
あれは霊圧の側やのうて
理の側の存在やないですか
霊圧でどうこうできるモンちゃいますよ
"That’s not something on the side (の側, domain of, an example could be "emotional side" as for the place of emotions)
of spiritual pressure,
but rather something on the side (domain) of reason, isn’t it?
(The Kototsu) It’s not the kind of thing you can't do anything to it with Reiatsu (Spiritual pressure)"
The official English translator as well caught the nuance of Japanese which machine translator can't, the nuance it's not about it being Reiastu or Spiritual energy, it's completely irrelevant here, because either case, for both Reiastu or Spiritual energy the source is the same, Kototsu isn't on that side (domain) but it is on the side of Reason.
Gin after: Reiatsu, you can't do anything to Kototsu with it.
This does not remotely imply a stronger Reaistu would do something, as some people tried to argue, this clearly imply Reiatsu as energy it's utterly useless as the English official is clearly implying that as well.
Now the question should be, what's 理 means:
- reason
- logic
- principle
- order of things
- underlying structure of cosmos in Buddhism
So I would say Kubo is pretty blatant here, he's trying to say to us Kototsu can't be harmed by Reiastu because it exists on the side of (Reason, Logic, principle), however Aizen managed to do so thanks to his new acquired Transcendent powers, which are a whole other dimension above the usual (not literally but it explain why It's power are a scale above anything related to normal Reiatsu).
Now, the databook makes it blatant as well, here it states that "Aizen to demonstrate that his power surpasses even reason, Aizen mercilessly destroys the "Kōtotsu", that governs space-time.
Confirming Aizen is above 理 (Reason, Logic, principle).
Is this concept manipulation type 1? absolutely not, maybe a type 2 or 3, since Kototsu is stated in the databook to govern it's area.
Last edited:
Arkenis
They/Them- 25,182
- 13,000
That isn't a thing. Type 2s aren't the true abstraction, they represent it. Look at the examples.
- 403
- 821
True, I got confused, but Aizen would get Abstract NPI.
As he said.
It should't be Concept manipulation but NPI for abstract.
- 1,191
- 261
- Thread starter
- #141
It's very clearly not type 2. It doesn’t embody anything.
Most logical explanation other than being a reason was what sig said. It simply doesn’t exist in the same dimension (it's a being made of torrent of time), or exists in a completely independent time axis.
And it was made clear cut, original time axis exist and it sends someine off original time axis (which again touches dangai's another hyperdimensional nature, a point which isn’t much discussed).
So this one still is the most plausible way to put it.
- 403
- 821
- 1,191
- 261
- Thread starter
- #143
Except he doesn’t just interact with it. He outright destroys it implying he messed up with the law/concept connected to it.
- 2,870
- 2,263
How does destroying by exerting his Transcendent Reiryoku/Reiatsu imply he messed up the very law/concept connect to it.
- 1,191
- 261
- Thread starter
- #145
Simply because it's not how his reatsu extertion has been potrayed throughout the series.
His glowing eyes should also tell you that.
And don't twist my words. He did not destroy law/concept connected to it. He simply messed up with it (manipulation) to destroy dangai cleaner.
- 1,886
- 1,539
Can we like... Stop using anime as a source? Kubo literally puked over it.
- 1,191
- 261
- Thread starter
- #148
When did kubo provide talk about this animation stuff and that he killed dangai cleaner with reatsu flex. I don’t think I missed any major statement from kubo.
Anyway, even in manga reatsu crush is portrayed in particular manner with visual. It's most definitely not reatsu crush.
- 1,191
- 261
- Thread starter
- #150
Look at panels of his reatsu flex. Then you would understand how it's not. In all his reatsu flex scenes reatsu is always visually shown.
How is this not reiatsu?
For the human erasing scene he didn’t do anything at all. Even if he suppressed himself, there were still reatsu exerting from him. Aizen didn't flex, human simply got erased by being near aizen.
- 1,886
- 1,539
Kubo had no control over the anime stop the
. That eye glow up was never a thing in the manga. All we seen is that some pressure blown a hole through Cleaner.Transcendent Reiatsu works differently. One can't even sense it let alone feel its effects. That dude who got erased by going near Aizen was vanished in a silent manner.
Arkenis
They/Them- 25,182
- 13,000
By his reiatsu...
- 1,191
- 261
- Thread starter
- #153
Yes. Except in a scene he deliberately did something which is clearly not reatsu flex or burst, in other scene he did nothing.
One was a being of reason, another a human with soul.
What a weird comparison it was to begin with.
- 1,191
- 261
- Thread starter
- #154
So anime isn’t considered canon anymore?Kubo had no control over the anime stop the
Transcendent Reiatsu works differently. One can't even sense it let alone feel its effects. That dude who got erased by going near Aizen was vanished in a silent manner.
Anime clarifies some manga scenes in general. There are a lot of things not shiwn in manga, anime gives motion and show us how it's done.
Anyway manga very clearly and deliberately shows it was not a reatsu blast and has anything to do with reatsu. Anime just shed more light onto it. So your point has no ground to begin with that he reatsu blasted.
Arkenis
They/Them- 25,182
- 13,000
So what is he using if not reiatsu?
- 1,191
- 261
- Thread starter
- #156
Hax. Are we forgetting his transcendent status and hogyoku? While both are explicitly stated to be able to reshape reality?
Arkenis
They/Them- 25,182
- 13,000
Are we forgetting that the verse's UES is through their spirit energy? The thing he says is what's transcendent? You are casting far more assumptions than what we actually see.
- 1,886
- 1,539
Yes... Anime was never canon... Never was supposed to be... Kubo had nothing to do with it aside from giving designs and so.
The anime you are talking about is TYBW which is clearly supervised by Kubo himself after the abomination of his work in the previous anime by Pierrot.
There was nothing "blast" about that panel. We can clearly see a hole was punched through the cleaner and only Reiatsu is capable of this. There was no explosion recorded in that scene, just air pressure.
Last edited:
- 7,780
- 11,569
- 11,638
- 21,057
I already gave my evaluation here.
I don't have much else to say about this thread. I still believe the evidence can theoretically imply either interpretation without contradicting the sentence structure of Gin's statement, and the contextualization surrounding the feat is incredibly vague when it comes down to indicating specifics - and I can't truly say with any level of certainty -- as of this moment -- what stance I believe has the most credence to it.
Similar threads
