• 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.

TenSura LN Major Revision - Slime-Verse Salvation, Part 1 - Tier 0 Slime is Real

1,489
1,085
Introduction
Hello everyone, hope ya'll are doing well. Recently, just a few days ago, a thread was opened for 1-A Veldanava. However, reading the thread, anyone can tell how lacking it is, thus, this thread has came to be, providing sufficient explanation for whatever tier Veldanava, or God, is to be.

Note that, as this is an extremely important revision, achieving for a very delicate Tier, I have provided the OTL, Fan-Translation, RAWs, and MTL for every single scan provided. If I missed something, feel free to point it out, but do not ask for RAWs of scans already provided just for the sake of derailing the argument or alike. With that, lets begin this! :)

Table of Content
To understand what this character is, lets first clear up a few things :
Is Veldanava God?
No, he is not, not at all. Velgrynd, who is Veldanava's sister, stated that Veldanava is not God, but he is indeed the Creator of the World[1]. In fact, there are various kinds of traditional gods that became so through Evolution, but none can be the same as the Notion of God itself, none is the same as the All-Encompassing God[2].

Who is Veldanava?
If Veldanava is not God, what actually is he? Well, he was Willed into Existence, before the Creation of the World, but still after the Great Spirits, after which he derived from the Eight Great Divine Spirits the Seven Seraphim, as a response to which the Seven Demon Primogenitors also came to be as Shadows of the Light that was the Angels to maintain balance[3]. After this, he proceeded to create the World and lost Turn Null as a result[4]. Eventually, he lost his other powers as well after marrying Lucia, and died. But even that was simply because he willed it, or well, by the will of the Omnipotent and Omniscient God, according to whose will the World moves[2].
In truth, the form of True Dragons that everyone can perceive is merely a shape they take in response to Religious Desires of People[5], or if their actual self Wills it. Because in truth, their actual form exists as the Most Perfect and Unique Creation, completely All-Inclusive and Individual, a Singular Entity[5], that is, a Unity[5]. Is Veldanava the same? Yes, but not exactly. You see, while the rest of the True Dragons, even in their true form, are called Creations, Veldanava would be the Avatar of God, the Omnipotent and Omniscient as a means to experience Imperfection[2]. True Dragons are created by God as its Masterpiece, its Greatest Creation[6], with Veldanava being its own avatar it Willed into Existence as a means to experience change, implying that he cannot do so, in his True Form, after all, God cannot change, thus why he made an Avatar to experience it, that is, Veldanava.

The Omnipotent and Omniscient :
Veldanava was willed into existence before the World. At the time of his Creation/Birth, there was nothing else, that is to say, he was Alone. There was nothing else besides him. To begin with, All that was, was a Perfect, Complete and Flawless Will, that lacked absolutely Nothing, the All-In-One and One-In-All, Omnipotent and Omniscient, All-Encompassing, and All-Knowing that knows all Possible Scenarios/Outcomes[7]. That is to say, Veldanava was a means to seek Imperfection for the Absolute One-ness and Perfection[7].

Lack of All Qualities :
There is a difference between Physical-ness and Spiritual-ness. Physical Reality[8], and what is vaster then that, Spiritual Reality, that is, Nonexistent Voids, Worlds of Darkness, Abyss .Yet Physical-ness and Spiritual-ness also dictate the difference between many other things, such as Material Composition and the Abstract, that is, the Material Body and the Soul. A Soul is a Consciousness by definition, but that is not all. First, there is, the Spiritual Body, the Virtual Memory, then deeper then that, is the Astral Body, through which one Thinks. Beyond that is a Crystallization of Energy, the actual Soul. And beyond even that, is the Core, the part containing the Information of a being[9][10], as well as their Conceptual Self[11] . But beyond even all that, is the Ego, the actual Consciousness, the Self-Awareness of a being, a collection of Wavelengths[9][10], their very Identity, after loosing which they are reduced to Literal Nonexistence, or so to say, they return to the All-Encompassing Completeness, God[12], at which point, they lose their very Identity and even Self-Awareness, and are unbounded by any Restriction, just like in Buddhism, as they dissolve back into the Ultimate Essence, that is, the Final Destination, the Promised Land where the Story Ends, Liberation[13][12], the Ethereal Beauty to which all Illusions are ultimately reduced to[4].

Lack of All Distinctions :
Since God is All-Encompassing, it also lacks all Distinctions and Differentiation. It would lack the Distinction between and be Transcendent over Cause and Effect[4][14], Reality and Fiction, Illusion and Substance, Truth and Falsehood, as well as Light and Darkness, which are Ying and Yang, Virtue and Sin, Holy and Evil, and even the Contradictions that derive from them, as all are but mere Illusions in front of the Ethereal[4].
v
God's Will :
Everything moves strictly according to the Will of the Omnipotent and Omniscient[2], including Veldanava marrying Lucia, and even as far as Rimuru devouring Michael with Azathoth, all that is an Inevitable, Harmonious Plan[12]. This is, in fact, Pre-Established Harmony that the Author Fuse added in the WN version as well, and kept it the same as is in the Light Novel. Pre-Established Harmony itself is a theory in respect to a Monotheistic View of God as the Ultimate Monad, Monas Monadum, Absolutely Simple.
Note, here, the important thing is that he didn't change his mind in this aspect in both the Web Novel and the Light Novel.

Counter Arguments
  • Veldanava gave up his omniscience and omnipotence, but a Tier 0 cannot become a Non-Tier 0, wouldn't that be a contradiction?
Answer : Not at all, since Veldanava itself was the means that God used to give up his omnipotence, that is, creating an Avatar. Proof of which is that the All-Encompassing Completeness still exists. Even more so is the fact that Veldanava was willed into existence and was born/created, and the fact that the form of all True Dragons we see, such as Veldora, Velzard, etc., are just avatars of their True Form. The same applies to Veldanava, the only difference is that his True Form is a bit more special.
  • But Veldanava describe his True Form, doesn't that mean he could comprehend it even though Veldanava himself is not Tier 0?
Answer : Again, not at all, since Veldanava being inherently aware of his True Form does not mean he can comprehend it. Even normal True Dragons are inherently aware of their True Form, inasmuch as Veldora describing his True Form, but that does not, by any means, imply that he can comprehend his True Form. Even more so, if its in that sense, even we can describe God, such as in Negative or Positive Theology, inasmuch as calling him by a name, God, or describing him by a term, such as The Omnipotent, The All-Encompassing, does that mean we are reducing the Ineffability of God and can understand him? Not at all, by any means, No.

Conclusion

  • The All-Powerful Conceptual God is Tier 0.
  • Everything happens according to its Will. That is, lets say a Non 1-A Character gains 1-A Powers or Existence, even that is because God willed it. Thus, this serves as an Anti-Anti-Feat for Irregular and Illogical occurrences such as between Higher and lower Realities.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for reading, folks! 🗿
 
Last edited:
This needs to be locked and queued to be evaluated by Ultima. I have no idea why you're calling staff.
Not reaIIy
That said, to keep things under relative control, a certain stipulation will be established: Only 4 threads tackling 1-A to High 1-A verses will be left open at any given time. And similarly, only 2 threads tackling Tier 0 upgrades will be left open at once. Exceed that limit, and the thread will be closed, added to the hub, and opened when we reach its place in the queue.

Good luck.
RN, other then this, there is onIy 1 other tier 0 thread, Fate.
 
Ovy7 made Umineko "Creators Tier 0" upgrade thread 2 weeks before this thread so it needs to be closed and this thread evaluated.
Thats because it included both Tier 0, High 1-A, and even 1-A stuff

Tho, in any case, I'm free to the staff themselves closing it, but imo I would like to wait for Ultima, and if prefers this on queue or evaluated right now.
 
For starters, I'm requesting the context for this scan. Preferably the full scene that it is part of, because not much is clear from this alone.

In any case, I'll point out the obvious: This "All-in-One" entity is explicitly described as having been born/created, in all three translations provided, so that's already a pretty huge dent on the proposal for Tier 0. The fact that this is explicitly referring to Veldanava's true form, going by what the scans are saying, makes that pretty indefensible in my eyes.

But I'm still only putting forward a negative case for this. There's still the matter of whether, if the aforementioned issue is put the aside, the positive case for Tier 0 fits the bill. Overall: No, I wouldn't say it does at all. All the evidence seems to hinge on:


Ontop of the first scan that I asked for the context of, up there. After that, the OP shows some distinctions that the verse makes between things (Truth/Falsehood, Illusion/Substance, Holy/Evil, etc) and reasons that God is thus "All-in-One" with respect to them all, thus Tier 0.

Yeah, so, that's not really sufficient, generally speaking. "All-in-One"ness doesn't really fit the bill for Tier 0 on its own because, well, Tier 0 transcends oneness no less than it transcends manyness (Transcends the opposition between one and many, in fact), so you're going to need more specific descriptions than that. Being a qualitatively simple essence doesn't really cut it because the notion of "simplicity" that's relevant at that scale is neither qualitative nor quantitative.
 
In any case, I'll point out the obvious: This "All-in-One" entity is explicitly described as having been born/created, in all three translations provided, so that's already a pretty huge dent on the proposal for Tier 0. The fact that this is explicitly referring to Veldanava's true form, going by what the scans are saying, makes that pretty indefensible in my eyes.
This part I am pretty sure the op has already addressed this, it isnt referring to the true form instead he was willed into existence likely referring to Veldanava avatar

I will wait for arguments from Astral as I am not knowledgable when it comes to tier 0
 
Last edited:
For starters, I'm requesting the context for this scan. Preferably the full scene that it is part of, because not much is clear from this alone.
Here,
Raw :
この技を破られた時、モスだって慌てふためいたのだから。

そしてゼギオンは、モスに告げたのと同じ言葉を、ヴェガにも投げかけた。

「笑止。波を打ち消すのも、また波。ならば、ソレを包み込めばいいだけだ。流れに逆らう事なく同一化する事こそ、この宇宙の真理であると知れ。夢幻は幽玄へと収束されるのだから、このオレにとっては、貴様の波動を見切る事など容易い事なのだ」

簡単に言うが、それは普通ならば不可能な芸当である。

というか、誰であっても不可能なはずだ。少なくとも、相手の演算能力を完全に上回る必要がある訳だが……
ヴェガの演算能力には限界があると、ゼギオンはとっくに見切っていたのだった。

「意味わかんねーよ!」

ヴェガがキレ散らかした。
Translation :
Even Moss panicked when this technique was broken.

Zegion then said the same words to Vega that he had said to Moss.

Laughter stops. A wave is also what cancels out another wave. Then all you have to do is wrap up the wave. Know that the ultimate Truth of the Universe is to become one with the world without going against the flow of the current. Since illusions are reduced to the ethereal, it is easy for me to see through your waves.

It is a simple thing to say, but it is a feat that would normally be impossible.

At the very least, it would have to completely surpass the opponent's computing power. ......
Vega's computing power was limited, Zegion had long since seen to that.

I don't get it!”

Vega snapped.
Source : Volume 21
In any case, I'll point out the obvious: This "All-in-One" entity is explicitly described as having been born/created, in all three translations provided, so that's already a pretty huge dent on the proposal for Tier 0. The fact that this is explicitly referring to Veldanava's true form, going by what the scans are saying, makes that pretty indefensible in my eyes.
The "I was created" is referring to Veldanava as the avatar, not God. This is clear by the fact that in another instance of the same volume, its said he was manifested. To be exact, God manifested Veldanava[his avatar] before creation of the World, where he was alone since the World didn't exist yet. This also goes along the fact that "Veldanava desired change and thus gave up his "Omniscience and All-Encompassing Nature"[aka manifested as an avatar] showing that his true form[God] cannot change, which is why it manifested an avatar[Veldanava]. I think with that, its pretty clear that "I was created" is referring to Veldanava, not God.

"Veldanava", strictly speaking, is a True Dragon, the star king dragon, yet the Godhead is what created the true dragons.

Additionally, there's another instance where Feldway stated that the system of Cause and Effect is "self-inflicted", and because Veldanava is now effected by it, he isn't Omnipotent and Omniscient. In other words, since Veldanava is not Omnipotent and Omniscient anymore[aka he isn't God, and just an imperfect manifestation], he is prone to Cause and Effect, implying that his true form originally was not.

God being "created" would contradict these statements, but that contradiction can be fixed when we look at it from another angle where it was Veldanava who was created, not God.

generally speaking. "All-in-One"ness doesn't really fit the bill for Tier 0 on its own because, well, Tier 0 transcends oneness no less than it transcends manyness (Transcends the opposition between one and many, in fact), so you're going to need more specific descriptions than that. Being a qualitatively simple essence doesn't really cut it because the notion of "simplicity" that's relevant at that scale is neither qualitative nor quantitative.
Would the fact that it created True Dragons, which are themselves, All-Inclusive Unities, be enough? Since God is transcendent over creation, and true dragons are still "the most perfect creation" it would be transcendent over this as well.
Note that these All-Inclusive unities aren't really "different" from one another in the sense that they encompass something the other doesn't, aka, they all are All-Inclusive via being God's greatest creation, its only their manifested form that differ from one another.
But I'm still only putting forward a negative case for this. There's still the matter of whether, if the aforementioned issue is put the aside, the positive case for Tier 0 fits the bill. Overall: No, I wouldn't say it does at all. All the evidence seems to hinge on:
Ontop of the first scan that I asked for the context of, up there.
Additionally
There is also this as well

So far, does any of this change your thoughts?
 
What exactly are the "waves" being talked about here?

To be exact, God manifested Veldanava[his avatar] before creation of the World, where he was alone since the World didn't exist yet. This also goes along the fact that "Veldanava desired change and thus gave up his "Omniscience and All-Encompassing Nature"[aka manifested as an avatar] showing that his true form[God] cannot change, which is why it manifested an avatar[Veldanava]. I think with that, its pretty clear that "I was created" is referring to Veldanava, not God.

"Veldanava", strictly speaking, is a True Dragon, the star king dragon, yet the Godhead is what created the true dragons.

Additionally, there's another instance where Feldway stated that the system of Cause and Effect is "self-inflicted", and because Veldanava is now effected by it, he isn't Omnipotent and Omniscient. In other words, since Veldanava is not Omnipotent and Omniscient anymore[aka he isn't God, and just an imperfect manifestation], he is prone to Cause and Effect, implying that his true form originally was not.

God being "created" would contradict these statements, but that contradiction can be fixed when we look at it from another angle where it was Veldanava who was created, not God.
Yeah, fair enough.

Would the fact that it created True Dragons, which are themselves, All-Inclusive Unities, be enough? Since God is transcendent over creation, and true dragons are still "the most perfect creation" it would be transcendent over this as well.
Note that these All-Inclusive unities aren't really "different" from one another in the sense that they encompass something the other doesn't, aka, they all are All-Inclusive via being God's greatest creation, its only their manifested form that differ from one another.
Doesn't change much either, no. Surpassing a character described as "all inclusive unity/totality" doesn't warrant much in any context, and neither does it in this case.

It's basically what all beings return to, eventually, in the same sense as Nirvana, free from all Restrictions, where one's Story is over.
Yeah, I've seen that one. It could serve as supporting evidence but by no means as the main body of the argument.

Basically, from the above point, beings that have reached the Promised Land have basically went back to the All-encompassing. But, a specific character via a specific power can bring "fakes" of them that have all their memories[aka not their actual self, that's already dissolved into God], and they state that their form in the World is "Fictional", and even their conversation is an illusion, even the World is but a dream.
The references to them being "fictional," "This conversation is an illusion," etc. seem to be just pointing at the fact that these copies aren't really the actual people, but just fakes. Doesn't seem to be a metaphysical point at all.

The Kanji used for God is 完全無欠、〝全なる一〟
  • 完全 : Completeness/Perfection
  • 無欠 : Flawlessness
  • 全なる : The One, the whole/All in one/All-Encompassing One
  • Additionally, the Kanji itself is used by Japanese people in similar context describing Yog Sothoth.
Yeah, I gathered as much. Doesn't mean much, either.

There is also this as well
Doesn't mean much, either. I mean, the Leibniz stuff isn't even in-verse, from what I can gather, and even then probably wouldn't really give Tier 0 even if all of his Monadology was copy-pasted into it.

So far, does any of this change your thoughts?
Honestly? No. Overall, I'd say the potential is probably there, but it's so vague and scattered that it doesn't do the trick in the end.
 
For starters, I'm requesting the context for this scan. Preferably the full scene that it is part of, because not much is clear from this alone.
This scan only explains the working logic of a skill, this does not indicate anything other than the existence of a flow in creation in a certain direction.
All-in-One"ness doesn't really fit the bill for Tier 0 on its own because, well, Tier 0 transcends oneness no less than it transcends manyness (Transcends the opposition between one and many, in fact),
... where all was one and one was all.
In fact, although it is not said that God transcends this, isn't it stated that God is both oneness and manyness?
Yeah, fair enough.
Actually int his part, the phrase "He had been manifested" is used when Guy Crimson [primordial, embodiment of darkness, king of the underworld] referring to himself as a tertiary person, this has nothing to do with Veldanava.
Honestly? No. Overall, I'd say the potential is probably there, but it's so vague and scattered that it doesn't do the trick in the end.
The last volume of the series has not been released yet and there may be a after-stories, so I guess we can say that there is still a possibility.
 
What exactly are the "waves" being talked about here?
Apparently, its a technique/attack of a character. This is what I found
Translated :
であれば、それを放置するようなゼギオンではない。その技の性質を見極め、とっくに対策を編み出していた。〝虚喰無限獄インフィニットイーター〟の本質は、波形にあった。エネルギーの波長をゼロにしてから、それを自分のものとして奪う──つまり、喰らう訳だ。
ならば、波長をゼロにされないように、逆位相をぶつけて相殺してしまえばいいのである。

まして、ヴェガの技はモスのそれに比べて未熟だった。ある程度は権能のお陰で真似出来ていたが、練度は及ぶべくもなかったのである。効率面では遠く及ばず、ゼギオンならば簡単に打破出来たのだった。
Raw :
If so, Zegion would not have left it alone. It had long since discovered the nature of the technique and devised a countermeasure. The essence of the “ Infinite Eater” was in the waveform. The wavelength of the energy is reduced to zero, and then it is taken away as one's own - in other words, eaten.
Then, to prevent the wavelength from being reduced to zero, it is enough to cancel it out by striking it in the opposite phase.

Moreover, Vega's technique was inexperienced compared to Moss's. To some extent, he was able to imitate Moss's power. To a certain extent, thanks to his authority, he was able to imitate them, but his skill level was not up to par.
In terms of efficiency, it was far from perfect, and Zegion could have easily defeated him.
Doesn't change much either, no. Surpassing a character described as "all inclusive unity/totality" doesn't warrant much in any context, and neither does it in this case.
What kind of statement would be needed to support it, in that case? On the same note, reading the Tier 0 revisions, I noticed this part where you said that God is Absolutely Simple, the Divine Simplicity, but isn't Divine Simplicity Oneness?
 
Apparently, its a technique/attack of a character. This is what I found
Yeah, in which case, it seems to be basically a throwaway line without much elaboration to it.

What kind of statement would be needed to support it, in that case? On the same note, reading the Tier 0 revisions, I noticed this part where you said that God is Absolutely Simple, the Divine Simplicity, but isn't Divine Simplicity Oneness?
There's a lot of ways to cash out "simplicity." Using the analogue of space, for instance: A 0-dimensional point is simple, insofar as it's the most basic possible figure that can't be further subdivided into anything else. An aspatial entity is also simple, but for the completely different reason that it's absent from space entirely.

Transposing that into the metaphysical level leaves you with a similar dynamic in there. You can be qualitatively simple, in the sense that you're some quality/essence/substance that's totally basic and can't be broken down into anything more fundamental, and you can be "simple" in the sense you are no quality or essence or substance at all, but instead transcendent over those things. The "oneness" in the latter case is really something totally negative in import; it signifies less a convergence into some metaphysical singleton and moreso a removal of any qualities whatsoever. Less "All-in-One" and moreso "Totally and utterly unqualified," and so the former alone isn't sufficient to infer the latter.
 
Last edited:
The "oneness" in the latter case is really something totally negative in import; it signifies less a convergence into some metaphysical singleton and moreso a removal of any qualities whatsoever.
Wouldn't that qualification be met with the fact that when all Physical and Metaphysical parts[Physical body, spiritual body, astral body, soul, core, and finally, the Self-awareness/Consciousness] is removed, one is reduced to the All-encompassing God as it has lost all qualities that define its "Self", that define what it is.
Transposing that into the metaphysical level leaves you with a similar dynamic in there. You can be qualitatively simple, in the sense that you're some quality/essence/substance that's totally basic and can't be broken down into anything more fundamental, and you can be "simple" in the sense you are no quality or essence or substance at all, but instead transcendent over those things.
Less "All-in-One" and moreso "Totally and utterly unqualified," and the former alone isn't sufficient to infer the latter.
That type is not the case here at all, since God isn't the absolute one-ness simply because it is utterly basic and most fundamental, but because it is all-encompassing. It unites all[many] into one, so its not "Oneness" and can only be '"reached" by removing all your qualities[physical and metaphysical], as explained in the above part.

Additionally, the first form of "Oneness" you gave as an example would still have restrictions, such as the very restriction that it is "One" and not "many", it is less then many. Yet one who has reached God[by removing their qualities] does not have any Restrictions/Limitations. God's form of Oneness is that "Everything is there, and Michael felt himself becoming a part of it", the All-In-One[Absolutely One] and One-in-All[One in Many].
And, if the question ever arises, that Part of it is not really a disqualifier per say, because he was becoming a part of God not by adding something onto himself to achieve greater power or anything alike, but rather due to everything that defined "him" as "himself" was removed, all his qualities were removed.

"All-Encompassing" by itself does not establish true Oneness in the sense of Divine Simplicity, nor does "Absolute Oneness" does, but combined, they do, as it means not only is the "thing" in this case Basic and Cannot be divided into further parts, but at the same time, its "Oneness" also encompasses "many-ness" due to it being All-encompassing

Conclusion : God is not just "Oneness" in the sense of being utterly basic, but "Oneness" in the sense of encompassing many as well, it thus lacks the distinction between "Oneness" and "Many-ness" as it is both
 
Last edited:
That type is not the case here at all, since God isn't the absolute one-ness simply because it is utterly basic and most fundamental, but because it is all-encompassing

Additionally, the first form of "Oneness" you gave as an example would still have restrictions, such as the very restriction that it is "One" and not "many", it is less then many. Yet one who has reached God[by removing their qualities] does not have any Restrictions/Limitations. God's form of Oneness is that "Everything is there, and Michael felt himself becoming a part of it"

"All-Encompassing" by itself does not establish true Oneness in the sense of Divine Simplicity, nor does "Absolute Oneness" does, but combined, they do, as it means not only is the "thing" in this case Basic and Cannot be divided into further parts, but at the same time, its "Oneness" also encompasses "many-ness" due to it being All-encompassing
Those two characteristics aren't really mutually exclusive and you could feasibly have both of them. For example, in Neoplatonism you have the One, which is the unconditioned ground and source of all things, which is beyond essence, but you also have the "One-Being," which is essence itself (Basically, delimitation itself) standing logically prior to anything pinning something down as this or that essence (In the way the Platonic Form of "X"ness is prior to anything pinning something down as this or that X), and is inferior to the One. I also discussed something similar here.

So you can absolutely have something "qualitatively simple" that's nevertheless all-encompassing. It being considered devoid of restrictions also doesn't necessarily mean much, because whether that means anything is gonna be wholly cashed out by what the verse considers a restriction, obviously. For example, some people consider a spatiotemporal nature to be a restriction, and some don't. (Not saying Tensura God is spatiotemporal, btw. Just an illustration)
 
Those two characteristics aren't really mutually exclusive and you could feasibly have both of them.
I didn't say they were mutually inclusive, just, they can mean different things when separated and when put together.
For example, in Neoplatonism you have the One, which is the unconditioned ground and source of all things, which is beyond essence, but you also have the "One-Being," which is essence itself (Basically, delimitation itself) standing logically prior to anything pinning something down as this or that essence (In the way the Platonic Form of "X"ness is prior to anything pinning something down as this or that X), and is inferior to the One. I also discussed something similar here. So you can absolutely have something "qualitatively simple" that's nevertheless all-encompassing.
About the "One-being", that can be explained in Tensura terms as well. Since the true form of any true dragon is also All-Inclusive[Many-ness] as well as a Unity/Singular[One-ness], yet they are nonetheless created by Godhead as its greatest creation. Even Veldanava[a True Dragon] is not "God", Velgrynd herself wouldn't be either, with the same logic. There are various notions of Divinity, but none is the same as De-Facto Conceptual "God" itself.

On a side note, for the highlighted parts, God is also the Source of All things, and the Kanji used to define it can also be translated as The One
The Kanji used for God is 完全無欠、〝全なる一〟
  • 完全 : Completeness/Perfection
  • 無欠 : Flawlessness
  • 全なる : The One, the whole/All in one/All-Encompassing One
  • Additionally, the Kanji itself is used by Japanese people in similar context describing Yog Sothoth.

Additionally, on your specific example on "One-Being"[Essence itself]. Such a thing would be All-Encompassing and also hold a form of One-ness, yes, but that can't, strictly speaking, really be defined as the "Lack" of qualities, because that's the very thing that defines it, One-Being is Essence/Quality itself. In that sense, everything would always be a part of Essence, as long as they retain their Quality/qualities. Michael would, in that sense, be a part of the All-Encompassing from the start, even when he was "alive", simply because Michael still had qualities that defined his being.

But that's not the case here, because Michael only reached the "All-Encompassing" when all his qualities were removed, same with the Promised Land, it is not achieved by stacking or adding qualities till the point you have all possible qualities, but rather by removing your qualities, aka Dissolution.

So, I think I missed to clarify it in the conclusion last time, but God would be "All-Encompassing", yet also hold "Absolute Oneness", yet at the same time be what lacks qualities and can only objectively be reached via reducing one's qualities. I believe that something that shows such characteristics cannot really be anything much less then what Divine Simplicity is.
It being considered devoid of restrictions also doesn't necessarily mean much, because whether that means anything is gonna be wholly cashed out by what the verse considers a restriction, obviously. For example, some people consider a spatiotemporal nature to be a restriction, and some don't. (Not saying Tensura God is spatiotemporal, btw. Just an illustration)
Normally, it wouldn't. But here its explicitly "devoid of restrictions" in context to attaining the "True State of Buddhism" and "Liberation/Dissolution". The Kanji used for the latter is 解脱, which in japanese is used when talking about Buddhism and Nirvana, and the kanji used for the prior is 悟り, which is used in Japanese for terms like Nirvana in the Buddhism sense, and also translates to Nirvana when translated by DeepL.
Raw : 悟りを開き罪なき者へと至った人間の心核コ コ ロは、魂を縛ったとしても自由には出来ない事を。如何なる制約も受けずに輪廻の輪から解き放たれて、約束の場所へと旅立つのだ。 即ち、解脱。
This scan only explains the working logic of a skill, this does not indicate anything other than the existence of a flow in creation in a certain direction.
Just because the statement was mentioned along with the working of a skill doesn't null its use. In fact, it isn't much rare for extremely important statements to be dropped randomly at random instances. That, however, does not mean they are unusable.

Also, apologies for editing this reply so many times, I just remembered adding a few things much later after I had already posted the reply 🙏
 
Last edited:
So, I think I missed to clarify it in the conclusion last time, but God would be "All-Encompassing", yet also hold "Absolute Oneness", yet at the same time be what lacks qualities and can only objectively be reached via reducing one's qualities. I believe that something that shows such characteristics cannot really be anything much less then what Divine Simplicity is.
About this part, I'm currently thinking of[and doing so] writing a full explanation on why God is Tier 0, or to be exact, why the bolded characteristics make it so that God is required to be Tier 0 and nothing less of sort. Though it will prolly take a few hours of writing[I suppose around 1 day in total when we include everything else I have to do], so it should be done by tomorrow[15~16 hours from now].

Therefore, I'd appreciate it if you[Ultima] and everyone watching waits until that is prepared.
No, its not based on purely scans. Its more on the side of "why it cannot be anything less then tier 0" by logically "explaining" why. In other words, its a lot of yap words.

That was all. 🙏
 
So you can absolutely have something "qualitatively simple" that's nevertheless all-encompassing
writing a full explanation on why God is Tier 0
Finally done. Here's the explanation [I focused on explaining stuff only, so there won't be many scans, they're already in the OP or other prior messages; however, I will try my best to link already used scans from the thread to where they belong in the explanation, specifically the conclusions].
Properties of God
All-Encompassing-ness
Absolute One-ness
Lack of Qualities


All-Encompassing-ness is one of the famously known attributes of the Divine, both in Philosophy and Religion. However, here, I'll be discussing the Philosophical Side of it.

To begin with, what does the term Encompass mean? It means to include something within something else. One daily life example is how any individual part of a chair is encompassed by the chair as a whole. Another, rather different, example in context to Astronomy is how all planets and galaxies are encompassed by the Universe. Yet another way to look at it is in context to Philosophy, where it can refer to "including a quality". This can be exemplified by Universal Concepts, universals that include the properties of particulars participating in an "act".

This has two kinds. For example, the quality of "Three-sided-ness" is an essential quality of triangles participating in the concept of Triangles, as all triangles must be three-sided to be even defined as "Tri-angle". On the other hand, a "Red Triangle" is not an essential quality of triangles, as all triangles are not Red. Rather, "Red-ness of a Triangle" here is a its an Accidental Quality.

To summarize, the Concept of Triangles would, by necessity, include the Quality of "Three-sided-ness", and cannot exist without it, but it does not necessarily include the concept of "Red" as its not an objective fact that a Triangle has to be red.

However, there are still two types of "Encompass"-ness. The first is when something that encompasses something else can be reduced to its individual components, meanwhile the other is what encompasses something and cannot be reduced to its individual components.

However, even the latter version of it has two kinds, the type of Encompass-ness that cannot be reduced to its components quantitatively, but can still be reduced to those components qualitatively, and the other is the type of Encompass-ness that cannot be reduced to its individual components at all, whether Quantitatively or Qualitatively, that is, it is Absolutely Irreducible. Both these further types are something we'll be discussing in the Absolute One-ness part.

Now, lets move to the term "All". In the simplest of terms, "All" just means "Everything". One might say "All" is strictly something based on context. Now, while that might seem to be, its not actually true. As when you decide to attach something to "All", its not truly "All" anymore, and rather the "All" of a specific thing. For example, "All Triangles in existence" mean all Triangles that can exist, regardless of size, or color. However, "All Triangles" obviously cannot include any "Circles", as "Circle" is not a "Triangle", it does not have the property of "Three-Sided-ness".

Therefore, in the true sense, "All" can truly be what its supposed to be when its used by itself. Let's say a word, "All". What does one get from the term? All Triangles? No. All Circles? No. All Apples? Not at all. "All" simply means Everything, it's not limited to simply Triangles or Circles, or Apples, or anything, because limiting itself to something would change its meaning of "All" completely.

So to say, the best sense in which we can define "All" is, "All things", It cannot even be "Mathematically Possible" or something like that, because then you're limiting "All" to Mathematics, which then again, simply changes what "All" means completely, and applies a limit to it. Therefore, the best term to describe it would be "Logically Possible Qualities", or, in simpler terms, "All that can be".

One might say why not Illogical things too? Well, its simple. To define "All", we also have to define what can be. And Logical impossibilities are what cannot be. Therefore, they are not necessarily included in "All". However, an even better way to describe it would be that "Logical Impossibilities" are an Accidental property of "All", whereas "Logical Possibilities" are the Essential Property. However, that does not mean that a form of "All" that includes Logical Impossibilities is bigger or different then something that only contains logically possible things.

Why? This is because Logically Impossible things do not exist to begin with. For example, "Nothing", in the truest sense, is logically impossible to prove compared to "Something". Therefore, adding what is not logically possible to something is like adding nothing to something, or, adding 0 to 1. That is, there is no real addition to the already existing "1". Both "1" and "1+0" are equal, as they both end up as just "1". In the same way, adding "Logically Impossible things" to "All" would not truly add anything that "All" does not already contain.

Now, in terms of "Size", "All", in the truest sense, can only be described as High 1-A+, the existence of all Qualities, and even that is just Bare Minimum.

In the same vein, "All-Encompassing", when taken in the truest sense, can only be rated as High 1-A+, and nothing less then that. Because "All-Encompassing", from the very term, means to encompass "All" within oneself.

One might say, because its basically encompassing "All", there's a contradiction because there cannot be anything "more" then "All". Now, while that is true on the surface, but there is more to it then what meets the eye. You see, "All" just means "All Qualities". For example, "All Natural Numbers" include all numbers in the set of natural numbers, from 1 to Infinity. However, "All Natural Numbers" does not include the set itself, but instead all of its elements. In the same way, "All-Encompassing" would be the "Set" containing "All" Qualities. Or, in Wiki terms, it would be the Logical Space containing all Logically Possible Qualities. And that, in itself, is High 1-A+, no less no more. Another thing to note is that "All-Encompassing" is not a "Quality" per say, just as a "Set" is not an "Element". Its instead the sum of them, clearly distinguishing itself from any individual "Quality" or "Element" itself.

Note that, here, we're talking about the type of "Encompass-ness" that cannot be reduced to individual components quantitatively, but can still be reduced in a qualitative manner. Because "Absolutely irreducible" form of All-Encompassing-ness is just something else, something we'll be discussing in later parts. So whenever I say "High 1-A+" for "All-Encompassing-ness", I'm referring to the previous type, not the Absolute type.

Now, one might ask, does that mean we should give High 1-A+ to all characters in fiction that are stated to be "All-Encompassing"? Well, that depends on how the verse treats that term. If a character is "All-Encompassing" yet there is something that is objectively shown to be not within the scope of the "All-Encompassing" character despite that "something" possessing a "Quality" itself, then its clear that the "All-Encompassing" here is not truly "All", which then limits the tier of this "All-Encompassing" character based on what exactly the other "Something" is. For example, a character that is stated to be "All-Encompassing" yet later on in that work of fiction, its objectively shown or stated that there is, lets say, a higher reality beyond said "All-Encompassing" character that it does not encompass, or that it only encompasses or is "All-Encompassing" in context to a certain reality level, then that just means the character isn't truly "All"-Encompassing, because as explained above, that's basically applying a "Limit" to "All", which changes its meaning entirely, and so does it changes the meaning of "All-Encompassing".

However, if the verse in question does not objectively show or state that there is something "beyond" the "All-Encompassing" that also just so happens to possess a quality, then its the valid "High 1-A+" form of All-Encompassing nature. A lot will say that this is a hard-NLF[No-Limit-Fallacy], and that we can't just assume that its truly High 1-A+ without it showing "special" or "Specific" proof/statements of encompassing "All Logically Possible qualities". However, that is objectively false, as "All" by itself, when not given any specified limit, just literally, means "All", which we've already discussed at a prior point.

Sub Conclusion : As long as the "All-Encompassing", under the context of no "Anti-Feats", is truly bare minimum High 1-A+. In TenSura terms, this would be the true form of True Dragons, that is "All-Inclusive". Although there is more to it then just that, but even by just being "All-Inclusive", it's already at the point where it cannot be much less then High 1-A+. And if anyone is wondering, "Inclusive" is just an alternate term for "Encompassing". Both essentially mean the same thing.

Note that, I'm not at all saying that just having "All" attached to a random word without even a little elaboration[unlike here where they actually elaborate on what they mean by all encompassing] is gonna be H1A+ as well, no, that kind of stuff ain't gonna scale anywhere, much like how we regard terms like "All-Loving" or "All Existence" as metaphorical language. Additionally, something like "All-Existence" is also a form of applying self-limitations to "All", so that too.

To start with, lets talk about "One-ness". There are many forms of "One-ness", The Mathematical version of it can simply be describes as "something that is quantitatively one and cannot be less then one", be that a 0-Dimensional point or something far bigger. However, here, we'll be discussing the Philosophical notion of it.

"One-ness" means "Multiple Qualities united into one indivisible thing", while also being irreducible to the things you encompass. However, even that 'Irreducibility" has levels, or what type of qualities the Oneness is uniting.

Depending on those levels and types, "One-ness" itself has various notions. There is just the normal kind of "One-ness", which is restricted to some level or form, while on the other hand, there is the "Absolute One-ness" of God. The first is a Quality, a quality greater then the qualities that this form of Oneness is uniting, meanwhile the other is just not a Quality to begin, it transcends Quality.

For the first type, lets take the example of what we consider "1-A" form of One-ness. That is, a One-ness that unites Space and Time into a single, indivisible thing. That sort of Oneness is 1-A, because it encompasses Space and Time while also being "One", that is, irreducible to either of them.

However, this is not "Absolute" or "True" One-ness, because the "One-ness" is still limited to something. Whether that be the amount of qualities it is uniting[we'll discuss this later], or at what level of irreducibility it is to those qualities. For example, the 1-A sort of "One-ness" is not Absolute because not only does it only unity two fundamental qualities, that is, "Space" and "Time", but it can also be reduced.

To elaborate on the second part, here, I'm strictly referring to Qualitative Reduction. That is, if we remove/reduce the quality of "Space" itself from this "One-ness", it would not be 1-A all that is left of it is just the quality of "Time". You might say that this is just because it encompassed only two qualities, but that's not the case. Lets take a High 1-A form of "One-ness" itself, one that unites the Qualities of "Space", "Time", and also the Essential/Common Quality that dictates the framework of 1-A, that is, the Quality distinguishing the different levels of 1-A. Here, if we remove the quality of "Space" or "Time", sure, it's not gonna get reduced to below High 1-A, but if we remove/reduce the quality of "Reality-levels" from this One-ness, it would no longer be High 1-A, and would just be reduced to 1-A in case we didn't remove the quality of "Space" AND "Time" from it as well. This proves that even his form of "One-ness" is not truly "Absolute". Additionally, this sort of "One-ness" can also be reached by "Powering Up", that is, "getting stronger", but only qualitatively, strictly speaking. What I mean is that this form of "One-ness" can still be reached simply by adding/stacking qualities, instead of quantities, the same way a Non 1-A can become 1-A simply by adding the Quality of 1-A on itself.

Now, here's the thing. This Non-Absolute One-ness basically extends to forms of "One-ness" that are High 1-A+. Because even they are simply a "Set" of Qualities. For example, in a set of A that contains the elements 1, 2 and 3, if we remove the element 3, we cannot say the resultant set is set "A" anymore because it's not on one-to-one correspondence with the original set A. In the same way, even the High 1-A+ is just the sum of All Logically Possible Qualities, you can also call it the Qualitatively Reducible form of "All-Encompassing-ness" that I mentioned at the start of the first section. That is, if you remove even a single "Quality" from this High 1-A+ set, it won't truly be "All" Logically Possible Qualities nor the set of that, simply because its missing that one quality that we just removed.

Then, one might ask, what truly is the "Absolute" form of "One-ness", well, its exactly what we call Tier 0 on wiki. That is, the form of "One-ness" that lacks qualities itself, all of them. Now, allow me to elaborate on this in the next section :

Lets make this one short, since we already know what "Qualities" are, we can just get straight into what this actually means.
To start with, lets see some examples of things that "Lack" some qualities, but still not All of them.
For example, a Triangle has the quality of "Three-Sided-ness", and thus lacks the "Quality" of "Round-ness" or "Four-sided-ness" that defines a Circle or a Square respectively. This basically means that a Triangle is "Nonexistent" in terms of "Round-ness" or "Four-sided-ness", because it lacks those qualities, that is, its extension or applications in those qualities are null, nothing, or, Nonexistent.

To give a more common example, lets take the 1-A Void. And at the same time, I'll also be explaining what I meant by the Limitation of Non-Absolute "One-ness" that depends on the amount of qualities it is uniting.

Basically, what is a 1-A Void, first of all? And is it even a "Void" per say?

Well, for the first part, a 1-A Void is something that lacks the quality of "Space" and "Time", yet it is still bigger then those qualities. For example, a Space-less and Time-less Void that lacks physicality entirely, yet is still bigger then it, such as acting as a background canvas inside which the Physical Reality is contained, is a 1-A Void.

Now, is it a "Void" to begin with? Strictly speaking, No. It's not a "Void" in the sense of being completely Nonexistent Place, rather, its a "Void" with respect to Space and Time because it lacks the quality of "Space", "Time", and "Physical-ness". However, it can, at the same time, simply be a higher reality level. For example, in a Composite Structure where a 1-A construct contains a Non 1-A within itself as "Nothing/Fiction"[as an Empty Set; Example being how "All" contains "Logical Impossibilities" within itself as "Nothing"], a being of the 1-A level will simply see the entire "Non 1-A" as a Void/Nonexistent thing smaller then itself, meanwhile, for a Non 1-A, it will also see the 1-A as a "Void" or "Nothing", but this time, bigger then itself. That is to say, a 1-A Void being a "Void" is strictly limited to the perspective it is viewed as. Because even that 1-A Void can just be a Higher Reality, which naturally has its own qualities, such as the quality of being more "Real", as well as its own irregular notional qualities of "Space" and "Time".

Therefore, this form of "Void", while not reachable by a Non 1-A simply by quantitatively adding Space and Time to oneself, can still be reached by adding higher "Qualities" of Space and Time, or just the quality of "Real-ness" instead. Why, because this void still has those qualities, it just lacks a lower form of them. This is why, albeit this "Void" is still uniting the Non 1-A form of "Space" and "Time" as an indivisible[although Nonexistent] thing within itself while at the same time lacking both those qualities itself, it nonetheless still has its own qualitatively higher versions of them. Thus, it is not the "Absolute" kind of "One-ness".

If all of the above is true, then is this "Absolute" kind of One-ness? As I said before, its simply something that lacks "All" Qualities entirely. That is to say, unlike a 1-A void that only lacks specific qualities of "Space" and "Time", it lacks "All" Qualities[refer to what "All" is explained as in the first section], while it itself is still "bigger" then them and thus encompasses all those qualities. And that's exactly what a tier 0 is as per this.
Thus, unlike the Non 1-A Void that could still be reached simply via adding another "different" quality to oneself, the "Absolute One-ness" cannot be reached no matter how many qualities you add up, because it simply lacks "All" qualities", that is to say, since there is no quality that it does not lack, it also cannot be reached by adding any and all qualities.
This also proves how the "Absolute One-ness" is not a "Quality" per say, because "Lacking all qualities" is what defines "Absolute One-ness". This is also, by the way, what I meant by the "Absolutely Irreducible" type of "All-Encompassing-ness". Note that, "Omnipotent" or "All-Powerful" are synonyms of "Absolute", and mean the same thing when talked about in context to "One-ness".

And, again, how we deal with "No Limit Fallacy" here is the same as how we dealt with it in the first section.

Sub Conclusion : A "thing"[or whatever is more appropriate to call it] that is "All-Encompassing", yet also stated to be the "Absolute One-ness", and at the same time is shown to "Lack all Qualities" in that it is only reached by reducing one's qualities and thus becoming a part of this "thing", and being "Unbound" by any and all Restrictions/Limitations in the sense of reaching Nirvana/Buddhahood, can be nothing less then the oh-so grand Tier 0 itself. Because it is the "Absolute One-ness" and "lacks qualities" it also means its "All-Encompassing-ness" is the "Absolutely Irreducible" type. And because it "lacks Qualities" and is "All-Encompassing", it's "One-ness" is the "Absolute One-ness" type, and because it has the "Absolute One-ness", and it also "Lacks Qualities" and is "All-Encompassing" in the "Absolutely Irreducible sense".

That is to say, these 3 of its natures are just different names of one another. Just like how the "Power" of a Tier 0 is the same as its "Nature", its "Nature" the same as its "Existence", its "Existence" the same as its "Essence", its "Essence" the same as its "Mind", its "Mind" the same as its nature, and so on we go in the infinite loop.

That is to say, TenSura "God" is Tier 0 and nothing less.

On the other hand, something that is "All-Encompassing" yet also has a sort of "One-ness/Singular-ness", that isn't however Absolute, must still be High 1-A+ simply because of how its "All-Encompassing" nature works. Additionally, if its stated to be the "Greatest/Best" result/realization of the Tier 0, that itself further proves that its High 1-A+, because the greatest result a Tier 0 can bring out is only and only the set of "All Logically Possible Qualities/Worlds", that is to say, the greatest result it can bring out is something with the "All-Encompassing" nature that can still however be reached by stacking "All" Qualities.

That is to say, the "True Form" of "True Dragons" is High 1-A+. Note that, the existence of multiple "True Dragons" does not contradict their True Form's existence[in the sense that there cannot logically be more then one set of "All" Possible Qualities" in the same verse], because the true forms that they all[well, maybe except Veldanava] have is "All-Inclusive/Encompassing", thus, there is no distinction between them, they are basically the same thing. Additionally, they also fit the example of "One-Being" from Neoplatonism that you explained here :
Those two characteristics aren't really mutually exclusive and you could feasibly have both of them. For example, in Neoplatonism you have the One, which is the unconditioned ground and source of all things, which is beyond essence, but you also have the "One-Being," which is essence itself (Basically, delimitation itself) standing logically prior to anything pinning something down as this or that essence (In the way the Platonic Form of "X"ness is prior to anything pinning something down as this or that X), and is inferior to the One. I also discussed something similar here.

Note that, If some might be wondering why I explained some things again and again, its because I'm aware that there isn't only Ultima reading it, but many others as well, and that obviously includes potential completely new wiki users as well. Therefore, I tried my best to explain things as much as I can so everyone can understand, thus why it came out so large.
Thanks for reading, that was a long yap NGL
 
Last edited:
Are we allowed to use MTL here? I dont think we can use that

Some of the scan you give just use MTL

Not only that, you use word or translation in MTL as fundamental point in your argument, instead you use fan or official translation you use your own

I'm suspicious about some MTL, i think that to guide us somewhere
  • First
    This one, if we look at fan translation that translate the novel with context. It not mean universally individual and all-inclusive singular entity that lack of all atribute, but individual here just mean he is unique of all his kinds also the most perfect here are just some word that can describe the most powerfull or the most well comparing the other. If we takes fan translation here, the context just mean some uniques being comparing to the other being of his own kinds, but the MTL missguide us to think it is universally individual beinf that lack of all atributes or qualities
  • Second
    This also, MTL guide us to think this verse corectly use buddha's concept. If we look at official translation, some word that being used here are just some averge word that not guide someone to think this verse correctly use buddha's concept. You use word that without explanation if the word is correctly use in the verse as face value of the argument

SO THE SECOND TIME, ARE WE ALLOWED TO USE MTL?
 
Are we allowed to use MTL here? I dont think we can use that

Some of the scan you give just use MTL

Not only that, you use word or translation in MTL as fundamental point in your argument, instead you use fan or official translation you use your own

I'm suspicious about some MTL, i think that to guide us somewhere
  • First
    This one, if we look at fan translation that translate the novel with context. It not mean universally individual and all-inclusive singular entity that lack of all atribute, but individual here just mean he is unique of all his kinds also the most perfect here are just some word that can describe the most powerfull or the most well comparing the other. If we takes fan translation here, the context just mean some uniques being comparing to the other being of his own kinds, but the MTL missguide us to think it is universally individual beinf that lack of all atributes or qualities
  • Second
    This also, MTL guide us to think this verse corectly use buddha's concept. If we look at official translation, some word that being used here are just some averge word that not guide someone to think this verse correctly use buddha's concept. You use word that without explanation if the word is correctly use in the verse as face value of the argument

SO THE SECOND TIME, ARE WE ALLOWED TO USE MTL?
They all literally mean the same thing. You just can't seem understand that lol. Compare the MTL with Official Translation and Fan TL they are also the same just using different meaning. Just check the Raws.

Also most of the scans used are fixxed MTL made by Charvander and from my experience they are reliable when you compare most of it to the OTL. OTL often spell or pronounce names incorrectly, misgender characters, and sometimes have errors in their translation so it is not as good as you think. Fan TL is good and all however we cannot always rely on it as the official translation is our 1st priority and again it still cannot be fully relied on.
 
Last edited:
Finally done. Here's the explanation [I focused on explaining stuff only, so there won't be many scans, they're already in the OP or other prior messages; however, I will try my best to link already used scans from the thread to where they belong in the explanation, specifically the conclusions].
Properties of God
All-Encompassing-ness
Absolute One-ness
Lack of Qualities


All-Encompassing-ness is one of the famously known attributes of the Divine, both in Philosophy and Religion. However, here, I'll be discussing the Philosophical Side of it.

To begin with, what does the term Encompass mean? It means to include something within something else. One daily life example is how any individual part of a chair is encompassed by the chair as a whole. Another, rather different, example in context to Astronomy is how all planets and galaxies are encompassed by the Universe. Yet another way to look at it is in context to Philosophy, where it can refer to "including a quality". This can be exemplified by Universal Concepts, universals that include the properties of particulars participating in an "act".

This has two kinds. For example, the quality of "Three-sided-ness" is an essential quality of triangles participating in the concept of Triangles, as all triangles must be three-sided to be even defined as "Tri-angle". On the other hand, a "Red Triangle" is not an essential quality of triangles, as all triangles are not Red. Rather, "Red-ness of a Triangle" here is a its an Accidental Quality.

To summarize, the Concept of Triangles would, by necessity, include the Quality of "Three-sided-ness", and cannot exist without it, but it does not necessarily include the concept of "Red" as its not an objective fact that a Triangle has to be red.

However, there are still two types of "Encompass"-ness. The first is when something that encompasses something else can be reduced to its individual components, meanwhile the other is what encompasses something and cannot be reduced to its individual components.

However, even the latter version of it has two kinds, the type of Encompass-ness that cannot be reduced to its components quantitatively, but can still be reduced to those components qualitatively, and the other is the type of Encompass-ness that cannot be reduced to its individual components at all, whether Quantitatively or Qualitatively, that is, it is Absolutely Irreducible. Both these further types are something we'll be discussing in the Absolute One-ness part.

Now, lets move to the term "All". In the simplest of terms, "All" just means "Everything". One might say "All" is strictly something based on context. Now, while that might seem to be, its not actually true. As when you decide to attach something to "All", its not truly "All" anymore, and rather the "All" of a specific thing. For example, "All Triangles in existence" mean all Triangles that can exist, regardless of size, or color. However, "All Triangles" obviously cannot include any "Circles", as "Circle" is not a "Triangle", it does not have the property of "Three-Sided-ness".

Therefore, in the true sense, "All" can truly be what its supposed to be when its used by itself. Let's say a word, "All". What does one get from the term? All Triangles? No. All Circles? No. All Apples? Not at all. "All" simply means Everything, it's not limited to simply Triangles or Circles, or Apples, or anything, because limiting itself to something would change its meaning of "All" completely.

So to say, the best sense in which we can define "All" is, "All things", It cannot even be "Mathematically Possible" or something like that, because then you're limiting "All" to Mathematics, which then again, simply changes what "All" means completely, and applies a limit to it. Therefore, the best term to describe it would be "Logically Possible Qualities", or, in simpler terms, "All that can be".

One might say why not Illogical things too? Well, its simple. To define "All", we also have to define what can be. And Logical impossibilities are what cannot be. Therefore, they are not necessarily included in "All". However, an even better way to describe it would be that "Logical Impossibilities" are an Accidental property of "All", whereas "Logical Possibilities" are the Essential Property. However, that does not mean that a form of "All" that includes Logical Impossibilities is bigger or different then something that only contains logically possible things.

Why? This is because Logically Impossible things do not exist to begin with. For example, "Nothing", in the truest sense, is logically impossible to prove compared to "Something". Therefore, adding what is not logically possible to something is like adding nothing to something, or, adding 0 to 1. That is, there is no real addition to the already existing "1". Both "1" and "1+0" are equal, as they both end up as just "1". In the same way, adding "Logically Impossible things" to "All" would not truly add anything that "All" does not already contain.

Now, in terms of "Size", "All", in the truest sense, can only be described as High 1-A+, the existence of all Qualities, and even that is just Bare Minimum.

In the same vein, "All-Encompassing", when taken in the truest sense, can only be rated as High 1-A+, and nothing less then that. Because "All-Encompassing", from the very term, means to encompass "All" within oneself.

One might say, because its basically encompassing "All", there's a contradiction because there cannot be anything "more" then "All". Now, while that is true on the surface, but there is more to it then what meets the eye. You see, "All" just means "All Qualities". For example, "All Natural Numbers" include all numbers in the set of natural numbers, from 1 to Infinity. However, "All Natural Numbers" does not include the set itself, but instead all of its elements. In the same way, "All-Encompassing" would be the "Set" containing "All" Qualities. Or, in Wiki terms, it would be the Logical Space containing all Logically Possible Qualities. And that, in itself, is High 1-A+, no less no more. Another thing to note is that "All-Encompassing" is not a "Quality" per say, just as a "Set" is not an "Element". Its instead the sum of them, clearly distinguishing itself from any individual "Quality" or "Element" itself.

Note that, here, we're talking about the type of "Encompass-ness" that cannot be reduced to individual components quantitatively, but can still be reduced in a qualitative manner. Because "Absolutely irreducible" form of All-Encompassing-ness is just something else, something we'll be discussing in later parts. So whenever I say "High 1-A+" for "All-Encompassing-ness", I'm referring to the previous type, not the Absolute type.

Now, one might ask, does that mean we should give High 1-A+ to all characters in fiction that are stated to be "All-Encompassing"? Well, that depends on how the verse treats that term. If a character is "All-Encompassing" yet there is something that is objectively shown to be not within the scope of the "All-Encompassing" character despite that "something" possessing a "Quality" itself, then its clear that the "All-Encompassing" here is not truly "All", which then limits the tier of this "All-Encompassing" character based on what exactly the other "Something" is. For example, a character that is stated to be "All-Encompassing" yet later on in that work of fiction, its objectively shown or stated that there is, lets say, a higher reality beyond said "All-Encompassing" character that it does not encompass, or that it only encompasses or is "All-Encompassing" in context to a certain reality level, then that just means the character isn't truly "All"-Encompassing, because as explained above, that's basically applying a "Limit" to "All", which changes its meaning entirely, and so does it changes the meaning of "All-Encompassing".

However, if the verse in question does not objectively show or state that there is something "beyond" the "All-Encompassing" that also just so happens to possess a quality, then its the valid "High 1-A+" form of All-Encompassing nature. A lot will say that this is a hard-NLF[No-Limit-Fallacy], and that we can't just assume that its truly High 1-A+ without it showing "special" or "Specific" proof/statements of encompassing "All Logically Possible qualities". However, that is objectively false, as "All" by itself, when not given any specified limit, just literally, means "All", which we've already discussed at a prior point.

Sub Conclusion : As long as the "All-Encompassing", under the context of no "Anti-Feats", is truly bare minimum High 1-A+. In TenSura terms, this would be the true form of True Dragons, that is "All-Inclusive". Although there is more to it then just that, but even by just being "All-Inclusive", it's already at the point where it cannot be much less then High 1-A+. And if anyone is wondering, "Inclusive" is just an alternate term for "Encompassing". Both essentially mean the same thing.

To start with, lets talk about "One-ness". There are many forms of "One-ness", The Mathematical version of it can simply be describes as "something that is quantitatively one and cannot be less then one", be that a 0-Dimensional point or something far bigger. However, here, we'll be discussing the Philosophical notion of it.

"One-ness" means "Multiple Qualities united into one indivisible thing", while also being irreducible to the things you encompass. However, even that 'Irreducibility" has levels, or what type of qualities the Oneness is uniting.

Depending on those levels and types, "One-ness" itself has various notions. There is just the normal kind of "One-ness", which is restricted to some level or form, while on the other hand, there is the "Absolute One-ness" of God. The first is a Quality, a quality greater then the qualities that this form of Oneness is uniting, meanwhile the other is just not a Quality to begin, it transcends Quality.

For the first type, lets take the example of what we consider "1-A" form of One-ness. That is, a One-ness that unites Space and Time into a single, indivisible thing. That sort of Oneness is 1-A, because it encompasses Space and Time while also being "One", that is, irreducible to either of them.

However, this is not "Absolute" or "True" One-ness, because the "One-ness" is still limited to something. Whether that be the amount of qualities it is uniting[we'll discuss this later], or at what level of irreducibility it is to those qualities. For example, the 1-A sort of "One-ness" is not Absolute because not only does it only unity two fundamental qualities, that is, "Space" and "Time", but it can also be reduced.

To elaborate on the second part, here, I'm strictly referring to Qualitative Reduction. That is, if we remove/reduce the quality of "Space" itself from this "One-ness", it would not be 1-A all that is left of it is just the quality of "Time". You might say that this is just because it encompassed only two qualities, but that's not the case. Lets take a High 1-A form of "One-ness" itself, one that unites the Qualities of "Space", "Time", and also the Essential/Common Quality that dictates the framework of 1-A, that is, the Quality distinguishing the different levels of 1-A. Here, if we remove the quality of "Space" or "Time", sure, it's not gonna get reduced to below High 1-A, but if we remove/reduce the quality of "Reality-levels" from this One-ness, it would no longer be High 1-A, and would just be reduced to 1-A in case we didn't remove the quality of "Space" AND "Time" from it as well. This proves that even his form of "One-ness" is not truly "Absolute". Additionally, this sort of "One-ness" can also be reached by "Powering Up", that is, "getting stronger", but only qualitatively, strictly speaking. What I mean is that this form of "One-ness" can still be reached simply by adding/stacking qualities, instead of quantities, the same way a Non 1-A can become 1-A simply by adding the Quality of 1-A on itself.

Now, here's the thing. This Non-Absolute One-ness basically extends to forms of "One-ness" that are High 1-A+. Because even they are simply a "Set" of Qualities. For example, in a set of A that contains the elements 1, 2 and 3, if we remove the element 3, we cannot say the resultant set is set "A" anymore because it's not on one-to-one correspondence with the original set A. In the same way, even the High 1-A+ is just the sum of All Logically Possible Qualities, you can also call it the Qualitatively Reducible form of "All-Encompassing-ness" that I mentioned at the start of the first section. That is, if you remove even a single "Quality" from this High 1-A+ set, it won't truly be "All" Logically Possible Qualities nor the set of that, simply because its missing that one quality that we just removed.

Then, one might ask, what truly is the "Absolute" form of "One-ness", well, its exactly what we call Tier 0 on wiki. That is, the form of "One-ness" that lacks qualities itself, all of them. Now, allow me to elaborate on this in the next section :

Lets make this one short, since we already know what "Qualities" are, we can just get straight into what this actually means.
To start with, lets see some examples of things that "Lack" some qualities, but still not All of them.
For example, a Triangle has the quality of "Three-Sided-ness", and thus lacks the "Quality" of "Round-ness" or "Four-sided-ness" that defines a Circle or a Square respectively. This basically means that a Triangle is "Nonexistent" in terms of "Round-ness" or "Four-sided-ness", because it lacks those qualities, that is, its extension or applications in those qualities are null, nothing, or, Nonexistent.

To give a more common example, lets take the 1-A Void. And at the same time, I'll also be explaining what I meant by the Limitation of Non-Absolute "One-ness" that depends on the amount of qualities it is uniting.

Basically, what is a 1-A Void, first of all? And is it even a "Void" per say?

Well, for the first part, a 1-A Void is something that lacks the quality of "Space" and "Time", yet it is still bigger then those qualities. For example, a Space-less and Time-less Void that lacks physicality entirely, yet is still bigger then it, such as acting as a background canvas inside which the Physical Reality is contained, is a 1-A Void.

Now, is it a "Void" to begin with? Strictly speaking, No. It's not a "Void" in the sense of being completely Nonexistent Place, rather, its a "Void" with respect to Space and Time because it lacks the quality of "Space", "Time", and "Physical-ness". However, it can, at the same time, simply be a higher reality level. For example, in a Composite Structure where a 1-A construct contains a Non 1-A within itself as "Nothing/Fiction"[as an Empty Set; Example being how "All" contains "Logical Impossibilities" within itself as "Nothing"], a being of the 1-A level will simply see the entire "Non 1-A" as a Void/Nonexistent thing smaller then itself, meanwhile, for a Non 1-A, it will also see the 1-A as a "Void" or "Nothing", but this time, bigger then itself. That is to say, a 1-A Void being a "Void" is strictly limited to the perspective it is viewed as. Because even that 1-A Void can just be a Higher Reality, which naturally has its own qualities, such as the quality of being more "Real", as well as its own irregular notional qualities of "Space" and "Time".

Therefore, this form of "Void", while not reachable by a Non 1-A simply by quantitatively adding Space and Time to oneself, can still be reached by adding higher "Qualities" of Space and Time, or just the quality of "Real-ness" instead. Why, because this void still has those qualities, it just lacks a lower form of them. This is why, albeit this "Void" is still uniting the Non 1-A form of "Space" and "Time" as an indivisible[although Nonexistent] thing within itself while at the same time lacking both those qualities itself, it nonetheless still has its own qualitatively higher versions of them. Thus, it is not the "Absolute" kind of "One-ness".

If all of the above is true, then is this "Absolute" kind of One-ness? As I said before, its simply something that lacks "All" Qualities entirely. That is to say, unlike a 1-A void that only lacks specific qualities of "Space" and "Time", it lacks "All" forms of Qualities[refer to what "All" is explained as in the first section], while it itself is still "bigger" then them and thus encompasses all those qualities.
Thus, unlike the Non 1-A Void that could still be reached simply via adding another "different" quality to oneself, the "Absolute One-ness" cannot be reached no matter how many qualities you add up, because it simply lacks "All" qualities", that is to say, since there is no quality that it does not lack, it also cannot be reached by adding any and all qualities.
This also proves how the "Absolute One-ness" is not a "Quality" per say, because "Lacking all qualities" is what defines "Absolute One-ness". This is also, by the way, what I meant by the "Absolutely Irreducible" type of "All-Encompassing-ness". Note that, "Omnipotent" or "All-Powerful" are synonyms of "Absolute", and mean the same thing when talked about in context to "One-ness".

And, again, how we deal with "No Limit Fallacy" here is the same as how we dealt with it in the first section.

Sub Conclusion : A "thing"[or whatever is more appropriate to call it] that is "All-Encompassing", yet also stated to be the "Absolute One-ness", and at the same time is shown to "Lack all Qualities" in that it is only reached by reducing one's qualities and thus becoming a part of this "thing", can be nothing less then the oh-so grand Tier 0 itself. Because it is the "Absolute One-ness" and "lacks qualities" it also means its "All-Encompassing-ness" is the "Absolutely Irreducible" type. And because it "lacks Qualities" and is "All-Encompassing", it's "One-ness" is the "Absolute One-ness" type, and because it has the "Absolute One-ness", and it also "Lacks Qualities" and is "All-Encompassing" in the "Absolutely Irreducible sense".

That is to say, these 3 of its natures are just different names of one another. Just like how the "Power" of a Tier 0 is the same as its "Nature", its "Nature" the same as its "Existence", its "Existence" the same as its "Essence", its "Essence" the same as its "Mind", its "Mind" the same as its nature, and so on we go in the infinite loop.

That is to say, TenSura "God" is Tier 0 and nothing less.

On the other hand, something that is "All-Encompassing" yet also has a sort of "One-ness/Singular-ness", that isn't however Absolute, must still be High 1-A+ simply because of how its "All-Encompassing" nature works. Additionally, if its stated to be the "Greatest/Best" result/realization of the Tier 0, that itself further proves that its High 1-A+, because the greatest result a Tier 0 can bring out is only and only the set of "All Logically Possible Qualities/Worlds", that is to say, the greatest result it can bring out is something with the "All-Encompassing" nature that can still however be reached by stacking "All" Qualities.

That is to say, the "True Form" of "True Dragons" is High 1-A+. Note that, the existence of multiple "True Dragons" does not contradict their True Form's existence[in the sense that there cannot logically be more then one set of "All" Possible Qualities" in the same verse], because the true forms that they all[well, maybe except Veldanava] have is "All-Inclusive/Encompassing", thus, there is no distinction between them, they are basically the same thing. Additionally, they also fit the example of "One-Being" from Neoplatonism that you explained here :

Note that, If some might be wondering why I explained some things again and again, its because I'm aware that there isn't only Ultima reading it, but many others as well, and that obviously includes potential completely new wiki users as well. Therefore, I tried my best to explain things as much as I can so everyone can understand, thus why it came out so large.
Thanks for reading, that was a long yap NGL

Are we allowed to use MTL here? I dont think we can use that

Some of the scan you give just use MTL

Not only that, you use word or translation in MTL as fundamental point in your argument, instead you use fan or official translation you use your own

I'm suspicious about some MTL, i think that to guide us somewhere
  • First
  • Are we allowed to use MTL here? I dont think we can use that

    Some of the scan you give just use MTL

    Not only that, you use word or translation in MTL as fundamental point in your argument, instead you use fan or official translation you use your own

    I'm suspicious about some MTL, i think that to guide us somewhere
    • First
      This one, if we look at fan translation that translate the novel with context. It not mean universally individual and all-inclusive singular entity that lack of all atribute, but individual here just mean he is unique of all his kinds also the most perfect here are just some word that can describe the most powerfull or the most well comparing the other. If we takes fan translation here, the context just mean some uniques being comparing to the other being of his own kinds, but the MTL missguide us to think it is universally individual beinf that lack of all atributes or qualities
    • Second
      This also, MTL guide us to think this verse corectly use buddha's concept. If we look at official translation, some word that being used here are just some averge word that not guide someone to think this verse correctly use buddha's concept. You use word that without explanation if the word is correctly use in the verse as face value of the argument

    SO THE SECOND TIME, ARE WE ALLOWED TO USE MTL?

  • This one, if we look at fan translation that translate the novel with context. It not mean universally individual and all-inclusive singular entity that lack of all atribute, but individual here just mean he is unique of all his kinds also the most perfect here are just some word that can describe the most powerfull or the most well comparing the other. If we takes fan translation here, the context just mean some uniques being comparing to the other being of his own kinds, but the MTL missguide us to think it is universally individual beinf that lack of all atributes or qualities
  • Second
    This also, MTL guide us to think this verse corectly use buddha's concept. If we look at official translation, some word that being used here are just some averge word that not guide someone to think this verse correctly use buddha's concept. You use word that without explanation if the word is correctly use in the verse as face value of the argument

SO THE SECOND TIME, ARE WE ALLOWED TO USE MTL?
Won’t respond to anything else,but the other translations are in the introduction.all but 2 so it isn’t just mtl
 
They all literally mean the same thing. You just can't seem understand that lol. Compare the MTL with Official Translation and Fan TL they are also the same just using different meaning. Just check the Raws.

Also most of the scans used are fixxed MTL made by Charvander and from my experience they are reliable when you compare most of it to the OTL. OTL often spell or pronounce names incorrectly, misgender characters, and sometimes have errors in their translation so it is not as good as you think. Fan TL is good and all however we cannot always rely on it as the official translation is our 1st priority and again it still cannot be fully relied on.
Even if it correct we cannot use MTL. And no it not mean the same, some MTL literally guide us to somewhere
Won’t respond to anything else,but the other translations are in the introduction.all but 2 so it isn’t just mtl
Yeah but the fundamental point of argument are from MTL, word by word
 
Yeah dont talking to me, talking to the standard of VsB
Keep coping.

Tensura LN mtl isn't the same like others that has many errors because of bad translations. I can literally prove that

and also our case of MTL has already been addressed here:
 
Last edited:
Keep coping.

Our mtl isn't the same like others
and also our case of MTL has already been addressed here:
?????
the staff member straight up said, "We do not allow machine translations to be used at all, DeepL or whatever, does not matter. Any translation that isn't for an actual human who knows the language isn't usable."
 
?????
the staff member straight up said, "We do not allow machine translations to be used at all, DeepL or whatever, does not matter. Any translation that isn't for an actual human who knows the language isn't usable."
That is the reason why we put raws. Read astral comment below @Karabach-barabach @Robo432343

We provide people with multiple different translations so that you all can check

It is not that we intentionally use mtl since there is already a proper translation for it. My point is kanji can have different meanings. We don't even know which is the correct translation to use. There is no such thing as flawless translation, we do not only stick with 1 translation then call it a day. No that is not how it works

Also if you all don't believe that the translations are real. Try to compare with the OTL and MTL from Slime Reader you will see alot of similarity
 
Last edited:
Don't tag me in, I'm just going with the flow without much care
Then delete your comments and stop replying, it's a tier 0 thread, we don't want your clogging here. Hope Ultima will delete all useless comments here, mine as well. We don't need 5 people to debate over 3 scans, Fixxed made his comment and got his reply, now we just need to wait for Ultima.
 
Are we allowed to use MTL here? I dont think we can use that
We can. Most of the tier 0 threads have been continuously using the RAW version of scans just for the sake of better clarification in case there are errors with pre-existing translations. A clear example is the previous nasuverse thread. I don't see why we can't use it when everyone else can.
2 of them have their Slimereader translation and OTL translation provided in the OP, its not a big deal either as explained above, using the japanese raw is better in threads with delicate tiers like this.
1 of them is from Volume 21, which everyone already knows doesn't have an OTL, however, that's why I provided the RAW in text form in one of my prior comments on this thread.
One of them is from a side-story, and well, that has no hopes of getting an OTL or FanTL, doesn't mean it isn't usable tho. No one seems to be having contentions with the RAW and MTL translations, even Ultima. The only one who seems to have that is you, so far
Not only that, you use word or translation in MTL as fundamental point in your argument, instead you use fan or official translation you use your own
I'm suspicious about some MTL, i think that to guide us somewhere
  • First
    This one, if we look at fan translation that translate the novel with context. It not mean universally individual and all-inclusive singular entity that lack of all atribute, but individual here just mean he is unique of all his kinds also the most perfect here are just some word that can describe the most powerfull or the most well comparing the other. If we takes fan translation here, the context just mean some uniques being comparing to the other being of his own kinds, but the MTL missguide us to think it is universally individual beinf that lack of all atributes or qualities
Yes, they are not. I explained that VERY clearly in my last post here :
specifically the conclusions
So read that for yourself, I've already clarified what that gives before. But in any case, lemme clarify it again, that "Individual and All-inclusive, singular entity" does NOT imply the lack of qualities, nor ever it will. That's the very thing that makes then not Tier 0. Know that Japanese words have multiple meanings to them. "Perfect" and "Unique" itself can mean many things as well, with the most translations being something that hint towards a Monadic[non tier 0] entity.
  • Second
    This also, MTL guide us to think this verse corectly use buddha's concept. If we look at official translation, some word that being used here are just some averge word that not guide someone to think this verse correctly use buddha's concept. You use word that without explanation if the word is correctly use in the verse as face value of the argument
I literally just proved the translation before -_-
Normally, it wouldn't. But here its explicitly "devoid of restrictions" in context to attaining the "True State of Buddhism" and "Liberation/Dissolution". The Kanji used for the latter is 解脱, which in japanese is used when talking about Buddhism and Nirvana, and the kanji used for the prior is 悟り, which is used in Japanese for terms like Nirvana in the Buddhism sense, and also translates to Nirvana when translated by DeepL.
I don't know why some people just don't care to read the thread and still yap......
SO THE SECOND TIME, ARE WE ALLOWED TO USE MTL?
I don't see why its not allowable as explained in the first part
????
the staff member straight up said, "We do not allow machine translations to be used at all, DeepL or whatever, does not matter. Any translation that isn't for an actual human who knows the language isn't usable.
Did you read the whole thing? -_-
Anyway, as this is a 1-A thread it has to be locked and added to the queue.
They literally didn't argue the point again after I explained why I'm using MTL and RAWs as well.
Also, if a staff[including Ultima himself] had contentions with the MTL, they would have pointed it out already, in fact, the complain would be even more then in the 1-A thread, so idk why you're even bringing this up

Also, different staff can have different opinions.
Which rule says that MTL is not allowed?
None, it's just that its somewhat discouraged. I have several cases of other staff accepting MTL translations
Then delete your comments and stop replying, it's a tier 0 thread, we don't want your clogging here. Hope Ultima will delete all useless comments here, mine as well. We don't need 5 people to debate over 3 scans, Fixxed made his comment and got his reply, now we just need to wait for Ultima.
Hopefully, I don't mind getting this comment of mine deleted as well, I just don't want this thread to be clogged with useless complains that have already been dealt with before in other threads and this thread[only if people cared enough to read something fully rather then a single line].

I don't think what I said here was rude, but if someone did felt me being rude, I apologize. Once again, I do not want this thread to clog up like several other previous tensura threads.
 
I mean, the FIRST TIME i ever saw people becoming agains't MTL was after Maou Gakuin Web Novel's deletion, but it was the supporters of the verses who wanted to delete it because the MTL was problematic and the Light Novel already was covering everything (not to mention that the LN is almost the same as the WN), but afterwards ppl says that MTL is not allowed cuz "Maou Gakuin was deleted"

So I really want to know if there's truly a rule against it
Nope, there isn't any official rule against it in the page of discussion rules
Btw, please delete your comment[no offense], I will delete mine as well in a few minutes[except my reply to fixxed above]. Same for @Berga14
 
What exactly are the "waves" being talked about here?
"waves" can mean a lot of things in tensura some of it is not relevant and I am only responding to this and not the thread at large. its not really relevant persay to the Will unless you wanna say the Will has his own Wavelength because souls have different Wavelengths, as even Aura is a type of wavelength. Zelanus also backs this up with wavelength attack but i don't think we can use Ln 21 stuff


"This is quite tricky, isn’t it? You’re using aura…or fighting spirit, aren’t you, since you’re human…to leave your energy inside your opponent, as if emitting magicule-dispelling waves. Truly a frightening technique—and since we are spiritual life-forms, it will work on all of us.” これはこれは、厄介な技ですね。妖気──いや、人間だから闘気ですか。魔素を乱す波長を発し続けるように、エネルギーを敵の体内に残しているのですね。恐ろしい技です。これならば、精神生命体たる我等にも通用するでしょう example of different waves

heres another example
《解。精神干渉の一種です。魔素に影響しないので確認に手間取りましたが、同系波長を持つ者が多数存在するのは在り得ません。解除にも時間がかかるかと思われましたが、[主様][マスター]の怒りの波長により〝綻び〟が生じました Rimuru anger wavelength
<- emotions can be waves to.

Also Promise land btw is just some spiritual world outside the reincarnation system that TD veldanava made at some point when filling in the framework to be a place you go to for peace outside life and death the reincarnation system is just the Cycle of life and death its just some random planet seperated from cardinal Universe by the dimension walls and only king of heros has shown access to it as far as i am aware

The Will = Veldanava, The Will made the framework of the Multiverse persay

God Veldanava -> creating Great Holy Spirits and Palace of Beginning(yes before someone mentions it "what about heavenly star palace being 100,000 kilometers ik thats a discussion for anthoer day) -> Veldanava came out and created the Seraphim and the World.

thats all I'll be saying here given i think most of the scaling for this verse is wrong anyways on here and can be considered bias to it so this is all I will be saying for what "waves" could mean. hope this helps you out
 
"waves" can mean a lot of things in tensura some of it is not relevant and I am only responding to this and not the thread at large. its not really relevant persay to the Will unless you wanna say the Will has his own Wavelength because souls have different Wavelengths, as even Aura is a type of wavelength. Zelanus also backs this up with wavelength attack but i don't think we can use Ln 21 stuff
Just no, none of this suggests that God has its own wavelength. Your suggesting that it has that just because Souls and Aura have wavelengths, yet nothing there suggests the same applies to God. Moreover, the fact that Michael returned to the all-encompassing completeness after his ego vanished proves otherwise.
Also Promise land btw is just some spiritual world outside the reincarnation system that TD veldanava made at some point when filling in the framework to be a place you go to for peace outside life and death the reincarnation system is just the Cycle of life and death its just some random planet seperated from cardinal Universe by the dimension walls and only king of heros has shown access to it as far as i am aware
You do know that none of these things you're saying even has any merit without scans, right? I don't remember Promised Land having such properties either, so I'm interested in what scans you have that suggest absolutely any of this.
The Will = Veldanava, The Will made the framework of the Multiverse persay
Proven otherwise by many scans prior to your comment.
God Veldanava -> creating Great Holy Spirits and Palace of Beginning(yes before someone mentions it "what about heavenly star palace being 100,000 kilometers ik thats a discussion for anthoer day) -> Veldanava came out and created the Seraphim and the World.
The Great Spirits were created by Veldanava when he established the laws of the World. Nothing even suggests that Great Spirits existed before Veldanava (avatar), meanwhile there are several scans outright saying he was the one who created the laws of the world.

To sum up what I understood from this post of yours, you
  • haven't read a single thing in the OP proving your points otherwise
  • haven't read almost anything from the discussion in the thread itself
  • are using your own headcanons without providing any scans that affirm those claims of yours and negate my claims
 
Back
Top