u/Znshflgzr

Hello guys. Close to the end of Yakou´s route we get this scene where he dives into the Singularity because he is trying to figure out what awaits them there or something like that.

As Yakou goes deeper he encounters the remnants of the old gods. Nerose is the 1st one and as he tries to discern Nerose´s true nature and his weakness we get these lines (rough trasnslation):

>His quiet murmur overflowed with understanding, and even as his original sin was being stripped away, Yakō smiled. He could already see the way to counter this Taikyoku

>In short, it is about making everything easy to understand. If there were such a thing as true originality—something no one had ever seen or heard of before—it would amount to nothing more than something that nobody understands.

>That is because nobody comprehends it. Therefore, even if done forcibly, fitting it into an existing mold/pattern/form imbues it with attributes; it transforms into something comprehensible

>It is the foundation of Onmyōdō and a truth that applies to all creation (Shinra Bansho). If one wishes to overcome this principle—one need only call it by another spell (name).

>If I were to give a name(spell) to this Throne, to this Taikyoku (principle)—

>"The Morning Star—Tendō Hisōten. Its true form is realized here."

>The instant it is bound by a name (curse), the formless law takes on a shape and stabilizes.

>That aura remains immensely powerful—far surpassing the Yakou of the present—yet he feels no fear. For the reason to fear it has vanished.

>is precisely because things are vague and obscure that they radiate a sense of wonder. Once you assign them a name and give them a defined form... they become nothing more than ordinary objects, there simply to be gazed upon.

>While observing the realm of God, he felt a faint sense of exhilaration at the fact that he had escaped the erasure of original sin. He can go on—at this moment, Yakō was quietly convinced that this was the way to infiltrate the Singularity.

Now, this sounds a lot like when he talks to Ryusui about the importance of names and patterns/molds/shapes in his Taikyoku, at the beginning of their route, but this is a bit too philosophical for me.

I think this scene is about Yakou using his Taikyoku to give form to Nerose´s law, since Taikyoku is the thing that can defines all things in the world, but narration mentions Onmyodo/Onmyojutsu what do you think happened here? Is there something lese to unpack here? Maybe this is somehow about divine names?

Hello guys.

So the Singularity is often described as "blank" or "colorless" place. I think most of us interpret this as "Taikyoku-less" or a place free of principles (For example, in Dies Irae, the principle of Foreknowledge doesn´t exist in the Singularity, right?).

Another example is Ryumei surviving: it is said that she rejected the East, and now she is not a part of either Yato´s nor Hajun´s world, and the cost is that contact with their laws will evaporate her because none of their laws support her existence. So when asked "how did she survive for that long" she says something like "because this place is a singularity. A colorless world belonging to no laws/principles. It lies beyond the influence of the Throne; thus, the laws of the gods hold no water here". Something along these lines. Of course, she still struggled to survive, but this was part of the reason.

Now, the thing is: reading K3, it doesn´t feel like the singularity is blank: it is clear that Yato´s Laws are operating, and it is clear that Hajun´s Tengu Do is trying to do its thing too. We even see things like the Tenma (almost) getting giga-deleted when their names are spoken, and I think this is a consequence of the principles of the world, because they have been established as "those who already lost" or something like that.

More importantly: when Yato dies the Tengu Do is completed, Japan is still a singularity but Hajun´s laws clearly take over.

What I am trying to say is: the blank singularity doens´t feel that "blank" to me. Ryumei says it is beyond the influence of the Throne, but I feel like we see the Throne influencing it all the time. To me it feels more like "the laws become unstable". Do you guys have any opinion on this? I wanna know what you think.

Hello guys. So in K3 there is this scene when Shiori and Soujiro become demigods in their battles with Morei and Akuro.

Morei and Akuro make fun of them for thinking they reached godhood on their own, but it is just borrowed power, and I think we even see Hajun flashing on the screen before this happens. So it looks like Hajun is sharing his divinity so they'll kill the Tenma (?)

The question is: if Hajun is sharing his divinity, why don't they go insane? When asked about their desires they both talk about not wanting to be alone, for example, Soujirou says he no longer desires a world with no people because that would be too boring. He used to think killing everyone would prove he is the strongest, but now he rejects the idea of a world where he doesn't have any oponnents left.

After this, Akuro and Morei cut their connection to their power and Soujirou and Shiori become human again. The Tenma invite them to reach Taikyoku on their own.

What happened here? Why are they moving further away from Hajun's ideals when he seems to be the source of their divinity? Why don't they go insane like Nakanoin or Yakou (who for a second wanted to kill everyone but himself)?

Hello guys. There is one thing I don´t understand: what do the Gods need the Throne for?

In K3, the Throne is defined as the place where all laws originate from, so it seems like the thing that sustains all phenomena (alongside the god).

>That place is none other than the Taikyoku Throne. It is the center of the phenomena from which existing laws flow, the core of the universe.

We know a God is like a pivotal existence. Masada has talked a bit about what would happen if god dies and he is not replaced, according to him: the world may go on on what is left of his law, but it will decline until everyone dies; on the other hand, if god is killed by an apoptosis, his entire world will just go "poof" (or something along those lines).

So the world needs someone to sustain it, but I don´t understand why gods cannot do this without the throne? For example: Yato sustains Eastern Japan in K3:

>The swaying of the trees, the whispering of the wind, the flow of the water—everything that unfolded in the defiled land was, without exception, a fragment of this prayer. Though it had been unheard of and unseen until now, the defiled land was none other than him himself.

I can´t help but to ask: what is the point of the Throne? when does it become relevant?
To me it seems like the Hadou Gods naturally have the capacity to sustain their worlds. What do they need the throne for? What is the point of this artifact exactly?

Hello guys. As many of us I started with Dies Irae and Ikabey. The Ewigkeit system was very well explained IMO, and we even got a glosary in Ikabey.

Before reading K3 I thought Taikyoku was going to be just another term for Atziluth, but now that I am reading the novel that doesn't seem to be the case:

When the Tenma actiave their Taikyoku it looks nothig like Atziluth, it doesn't even look like a Hegemony type Briah. They usually just spawn their Kamunaraga / Zuijinso and they gain some powers (like Sukuna being able to cancel other abilities), meanwhile in Dies Irae Briah involved some sort of pararel world / "pocket dimension" or whatever you wanna call them.

What I am trying to say is, these don't seem like laws that can expand to the whole world. I understand some Tenma are Gudo type, but what about people like Sukuna? The abilities don't seem that similar to me: I am not seeing the pararel worlds, hegemonies, and of course singularities are not bring created. What is going on?

How do you guys conceptualize this? Are Ewigkeit and Taikyoku related? What degree are the Tenma supposed to have? Are they supposed to be on the Briah digree? Or between Briah and Atziluth?

To give more context, I've read up to the main battle with Numahime and Momiji, so I have not finished the novel

Hello guys. So I am reading Don Quijote and I noticed it has a TON of continuty issues. The kind of issues that would be considered attrocios today, but it is still seen in a positive light.

>THE ISSUES

Basically it tries to "retcon" itself or talks about stuff that did not happen.

My favorite example is, you guessed it, Sancho's donkey. Imagine this: Sancho is traveling on his donkey and later on that same chapter he is like "Oh, I wish I had my donkey! How could I lose it?"

I re-read that page a few times. WDYM you don't have your donkey anymore? You were...you know, riding it 2 pages ago.

Turns out the donkey just vanished. Just like that. There is no more context to it.

>SO WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

Honestly, IDK. In later editions this is fixed because they added an extra-page where someone steals Sancho's donkey, but in the OG 1st edition this is basically Schrodinger's donkey! And this happens a few times: "Oh! Good thing I have my donkey back!" "Darn...I lost it again"

I checked the notes and they mention this, but the notes basically say "yeah, this book has a lot of mistakes like this, but honestly who cares? It is still pretty good. Just enjoy the prose bruh, besides it is a light-hearted story, who cares if the donkey is gone or why?".

>WHAT I WANTED TO DISCOUSS

That got me thinking: huh, this doesn't sound like the criticism I see online. They are trivializing the mistakes and focusing on the positive elements of the book...

Is this what we should be doing? Or is are they being too indulget? Does it matter if the donkey is there or not?

Hello guys. I play this game with my family. We got to the final chapter, as you can expect we got our asses kicked right at the end.

We decided to restart in easy mode, things are going great but I want to know how things work in the final chapter.

So, if I remember correctly there are 2 kind of tokens: ranger-related stuff and barrier-related stuff. The later seem straight forward, you interact with them to weaken the barrier, but what are the ranger tokens supposed to do? The flavor text say they "join the fight" but I don't see anything. What are these even supposed to do?

Hola gente. A mi mamá le gusta leer pero se desanima mucho cuando pasa algo triste:

Hace poco leimos el Principito: al principio le encataba, era su libro favorito pero el final no le gustó para nada. Después tuve la no-tan-genial idea de recomendarle El Conde de Montecristo: unos 7 capítulos después ya quiere ponerlo en la basura.

En mi casa tenemos casi puros clásicos. Es evidente que en la gran mayoría de libros pasan cosas buenas y malas. Dije que le buscaría un libro más lindo y riendo me dijo: "Cuando encuentres un libro que destile pura miel, me lo recomiendas"

Alguien conoce algún libro que sea dulce y lindo? Algo tierno y pasteloso.

Hola gente. Con esta historia sucede una cosa muy curiosa: en las adaptaciones le cambian el final, en concreto el desenlace de Edmond y Mercedes.

En qué es diferente el final? La version corta es:

- En el libro Edmond y Mercedes siguen caminos separados y Edmond se casa con Haydee

- En algunas películas Edmond se reconcilia con Mercedes y estos re-anudan su relación.

La relación de Edmond y Mercedes es muy complicada en el libro. Mercedes se muestra más estable, pero por parte de Edmond hay tanto cariño como odio hacia ella: a veces piensa en ella como un ángel y a veces la maldice como la traidora que lo olvidó. Llega incluso a decir que hubiera preferido que Mercedes hubiera muerto porque eso le hubiera dolido menos.

Edmond parece inseguro de sus propios sentimientos, a veces piensa una cosa y a veces la otra. En la película logran reconciliarse, en el libro la relación ya está muy dañada y se han vuelto distantes (de entrada tienen como 20 años sin verse, no es para menos).

Son conclusiones muy diferentes para esta historia. Conocían ambos finales? Y si es así, cuál les parece más apropiado? Un final romántico donde el amor sobrevive a todo? O un final más trágico donde la relación se perdió y es muy tarde para repararla?