Ironbound

No Spine

Holy hell, I forgot how annoying your signature was. I dislike large, rapid or flashy gifs as a rule. Blatant and disruptive. Also what the hell even is that discount swinub, it pisses me off. Also I'm docking a further point for daring to suggest that there's any such thing as too much green. So that's -1/10 and I'm definitely blocking that aggravating thing.

Too much wiggly woggly zoomy goomy fingers and hands, can't tell what's going in there 6/10 I guess?

7.8 too much zumeme/10

I used to play Classical Carnatic on a violin. I used to be good at it, too. Perhaps the bitterest result of me losing use of one of my hands is that I can no longer play the violin. ....not that it matters now, anyway. What kind of place do you feel at home in?

That's the idea! Dialga has warped the drawing into 4D, so there's too much detail! In all seriousness, it's just me having fun. I don't yet have the time to do anything serious or with colour, so consider this sort of stuff a pastime.

Just gotta keep it coming, hue PRIMALLLL DIALGAGAGAGAGA

As you know, exams are a pain, but I had a little respite from slogging today...what better thing to do than herald the entrance of Sun and Moon? Even if all I can manage is a simple pen sketch. (Though ofc, from a competitive angle, I think it's a horrible jilt to an already overpopulated meta, with mechanics that are even nore borked if possible, and that gen4 is and always shall be the best... still, can't deny there's a lot to draw!)

If you mean what I'd do to calm myself during a grim stretch, I generally: 1. Draw/sketch 2. Paint seriously on canvas if I have the time and energy 3. Tend to my plants and/or buy more if I can make the trip to my supplier's nursery 4. Go for a long walk with my dog or play catch with him 5. Swim, weather and time permitting 6. Sit outside and gaze at the sky, watching and listening to the birds; My dog is usually with me at such times as well 7. Exult in a storm if it's raining and if I can afford to get drenched 8. Listen to my preferred music, classical Carnatic and Hindustani instrumental 9. Spend some time with my family if they are available 10. Take a nap and relax my mind But if you ask me what I do to 'spoil' myself with...

Perhaps, yes, but we could argue that there is a difference between faith and true religion, as well. Faith may be pure dogma, and need not be based on any scientific (be it a physical, social, psychological or philosophical science) fact or observation...but it is more than merely faith that makes a religion. If religion is the step up from faith, then spirituality is the step up from religion, and one cannot be truly spiritual based on dogma or unscientific ritualism, for that is in denial not only of the world as it exists but of knowledge and the refusal to accept other sources of knowledge...which is, I suppose, exactly what plagues so much of the populace, and which is what has always been the cause of all so-called 'religious' war. I should amend what I said and specify that spirituality, and not merely faith or religious studies, is the same as philosophy, and that a spiritual person is by default also a philosophical one, with reference to my earlier post's statement.

1. When the only criterion you consider for your selection is your own liking, others can't help you decide what your aesthetic preferences are any better than you yourself, can they?2. Again, anything that anyone else says from any angle other than your own personal wishes (which no one else can be expected to know better than you) is immaterial for your decision making. 3. You've answered yourself already with the first sentence. I don't see how anyone else can help you decide what you'd want to use, same situation as (1) above. People might suggest the one Mon there that is not weak to fairy and which has the highest special defense, but then again, see (1).4. Unnecessary defensiveness. I've no vested interest in railing against your personal choices, especially given that I understand our criteria of selecting Pokemon are different. I have not exhorted you to personally use Magnezone, or any other Pokemon; it was you who were using it (or anything else based on whatever your desire was) already of your own volition.5. I'm simply asking you to specify what you want us to tell you. You've turned down every suggestion people have given you yet, either on personal grounds (which none can be expected to understand better than you, see (2)) or because you wish to manage on your own in any eventuality as stated in (1), or simply because you already have your own answer as stated in (3). What is it that you want us to tell you? You do not ask for improving your movesets or making changes to your existing Pokemon. You specifically ask us to tell you to replace a Pokemon when you already know what you want and categorically state that you will pick only things that you like for your own reasons. This, I don't see how to do, without a more specific instruction/revision.

Your account seems like a history or a chronicled description more than anything else. It's certainly interesting; have you considered writing in detail about it? Perhaps adapt your knowledge into a collection, a book? Also, strider, where is the difference? If the generally accepted definition of a religion is a set of beliefs pertaining to a way of life (not to be confused with mythology or lore), and a philosophy is a way of thinking and a study of existential knowledge, then a religion ahould be a philosophy and vice versa; a study of knowledge of life and a set of beliefs to model life based on such knowledge.

The soul is called the Ātma, God is called Paramātma, or Ultimate Soul. Therein the philosophies of Advaita, Dvaita and Visishtadhvaita seek to explain exactly what the relationship between the Ātma and are Paramātma is, and exactly what part of the divine energy is within us, with us, and is us. I've already elaborated this earlier, but the gist of it is thus: Advaita philosophy is the oldest doctrine of the Sanatana Dharma. At a time when the ancient philosophy of our society was forgotten in favour of mere ritual and dogma, when the powerful had broken the caste system into a perversion of what it was intended to be, when society was oppressed by thoughtless kings and lip-servicing priests, Hinduism was at grave peril of being eroded into a lesser dogma. It was at such time that Buddhism and Jainism gained ground, for they are but the same as the Sanatana Dharma, and oreafhbthe same concept of moral Dharma in a simplified form to the people, shorn of the mythology and rituals of the parent faith. However, the heart of the Buddhist does away with the mind of the Brahman, and Buddhism rejected Vedic knowledge and was silent about divinity, making it a watered down, agnostic concept of the same. Advaita was a school of thought propounded by one of the greatest of Hindu seers and revivalists of culture, Sankaracharya. Advaita means 'undivided', and basically states that the Ātma and the Paramātma are one and the same; the divine energy is what constitutes us, we are the divine, God is us, our souls are God. "Aham Brahmosi", said Sankaracharya, "I am God". At the time, it was just the shot in the arm that Hinduism needed, to instill philosophical revival into a dogmatic society and create a revolution in the people, boosting their confidence and knowledge of themselves, and reigniting their association to Hinduism, reversing its erosion at the hands of simplistic daughter philosophies and protecting Vedic knowledge from extinction or perversion. But then, how can god the supreme and perfect, god which by definition is mother energy pure and incomparably singular, be divisive among so many weaker souls, each with their own imperfections and Dharmic flaws? How can man equate hinself to god? Such were the questions brought forth by another great revivalist of Hindu culture, Madhvacharya, founder of the Madhva sect of Brahmanic philosophy. Dvaita philosophy, meaning 'divided in two/dual' states that the Ātma is categorically NOT the same as the Paramātma, but two different entities. The divine energy can be with us, yes, we can seek it as plants seek light, and grow towards it with our own efforts to abide by natural law, and we can attain salvation by successive regeneration...but we can't BE god. Man is not god, he can find god and have godhood in him when he is pious or perfectly aligned with his Dharma, and if his soul os pure it can join with God, but he cannot and will never be, by definition, the same as God. Visishtadhvaita, 'qualified undividedness/ monoism with diversification' is a compromise philosophy propounded by Ramanujacharya. It seeks to explain that there is only one Brahman, one Shakti, but it assumes various forms, instilled in different qualified aspects in different souls. Basically trying to say that God exists is different forms and levels in different Ātmas. Personally, I am of the Dvaita school (in fact, I am of the Madhva sect of Brahmins, of the line of Madhvacharya) which does not accept the notion of God being the same as man, be it with whatever qualifications or in whatever levels, for theoretically that implies that god can potentially exist '100%' in a sufficiently pure Ātma. Like I said, the soul and the Ultimate Soul can never be the same by definition, and it is arrogant to assume life to be equated as such. But that's now the realm of extremely minute philosophical detail, so we'll let such obscure debates pass.

KH

Untouchability is the greatest perversion of a system of beliefs that I've ever had the misfortune to study. Thankfully it has been aboloished. As such, it is always the twisted dogma of those who choose to interpret any codex for their own gain that spawns social evils. The caste system was simply a democratic segregation based on occupation; only when kings wanted dynastic rule to be ensured only to their own kin did they twist it to make it hereditary, preventing a grocer's son from being anything but a grocer, or a servant's anything but a servant. It's a sad chapter in history, but it is not to be alluded to in a discussion about Hindu philosophy, which itself is blameless for being twisted by those of evil mind...as always has happened in history. I'll ask you to read my earlier posts in greater detail to get a better idea of what all I said about our philosophy; I won't repeat all that again. However, the idea of a natural succession or recession of the form of life a soul embodies is directly related to the way it conducts itself according to its Dharma. There is no singular God-figure in Hinduism who decides judgments upon people, no 'referee', as you say. God is an infinite concept, not something that humans can understand or associate with unless they themselves transcend to a higher or purer form of life. It's more like a natural system, the flow of souls is like that of concentric rivers. In higher life, Dharma is more complex, being moulded by intelligence and desire and not merely by Instinct, and being either catalysed or poisoned by the strength of one's morality. A soul which stays truer and truer to its Dharma--there is no true English equivalent for the word--progress up these rivers, until it is finally pure enough to rejoin what we believe is God, Shakti, the omnipotent and all pervasive Energy. God, therefore, is defined as the Mother Energy (Shakti is accorded a female pronoun), which converts from form to form just as any energy does, to keep the flow going. Souls are parts of the same that cycle through various births and deaths, each vessel acting like a conductor with different resistance and different dissipation. A soul which doesn't abide by its Dharma loses energy and drops a bit to a simpler life form, which is more linear and more guided by Instinct, thereby making it easier for it to stick to its Dharma this time and try to get purer again. It's very like a water cycle in a layered filtration device. As the universe is infinite, so is energy, and so is God, and so are we and our souls...far more than merely the earthly concerns we have, which is but an infinitesimal part of an incomprehensible whole. True Hinduism is pantheistic, impartial and even agnostic, a philosophical science of morality and universality. It is not a religion in the narrow sense of the word, it is spirituality, and there's all the world of difference between the two. Don't confuse the Sanatana Dharma with Indic Mythology and our myriad colourful gods and deities. All mythology in any culture exists merely as a medium to convey philosophy to the masses in forms they can understand. 'Hinduism' is just an Anglicisation of everything the Indian believes in, for the west did not seek to differentiate between our philosophy and mythology, and lumped it all under one head. The Sanatana Dharma (everlasting way of life), as Hindu Philosophy is truly named, is just that: a way of life, not a set of dogmas or rituals, a philosophical science which seeks to understand and explain the much-touted "what is the meaning of life" question...and to me, at least until this stage in life, it answers it satisfactorily.

Music played in person is the best music. The bitterest thing about losing the use of my hand is that I can no longer play the violin. Still, I used to attend concerts with my parents, I'd like to continue doing that if I get the time. What kind of music do you prefer?

I could always say that appliances behaving oddly and failing is entirely within the realm of natural possibility, that dogs sense the emotions of people very well and react to grief in general, especially if they've been close to a family and one such family member departs, and that it is normal when engulfed in grief of a close one's departure to forget small things no one remembers to have done, like placing a beer can and so on. It is also, perhaps, understandable to look a bit too deeply into odd or coincidental happenings under such circumstances. Or it could just be a wild Rotom. In any case, I'd not try to explain anything more, since I'm unaware of the full facts, have no reason to try to decipher them, and in any case it's arrogant for people to assume they can explain everything there is in this world. I'm merely stating, to the best of my knowledge: 1. My philosophy and culture does not justify the existence of souls outside the cycle of birth and rebirth; quite the reverse, as souls can only exit such cycle by attaining moksha or salvation...which means they become part of a universal divinity, and are no longer an individual will. And though our myriad mythology speaks of spirits and demons of various kinds, none of them are ghosts, strictly speaking. 2. I have never had any such so-called paranormal experience in life yet, though that may well be because I have never looked for one or tried to determine a paranormal cause for any peculiarities that I might have observed. 3. That which does not seem to affect my decisions should not prey on my mind. I've not found any evidence either historically within my immediate culture or in personal experience to point towards the existence of ghosts. Should this change, should I ever experience a ghostly or paranormal activity that is unable to be explained by any means I know or can know of, I would absorb the information and revise my views as appropriate. Until such time, though, ghosts don't conform with the way I view the world. What is this developing belief system that you speak of?

I don't think such things exist. The philosophy of Dharma and Karma does not have souls exist in a ghostly state; they progress from one cycle of birth and death to another, until such time as they are pure enough, I.e, attuned enough with their purpose of being as to transcend it and rejoin the universal divinity. There's no hell, heaven, or any other continuing sense of individuality after death in any state in my belief. That also means that there's no purpose for a soul to break this cycle and behave unnaturally, counting to exist in a state it has already departed from. Why do you ask if I believe in ghosts?

The definition of what is just and unjust is subjective and as such impossible to debate with any conclusion. Generally, society as an aggregate of individual values leads to a statistical approximate of the beliefs and modes of the largest subset, and thus assumes upon itself a broad set of social tenets of 'justice'; this develops into culture, and in turn continues to evilve and mutate based on the necessary of change with time. Broadly, the Dharmic concept of life applies here too, as it does almost everywhere. The idea is that a soul obeys its Dharma, its duty/tradition/instinct, as a natural urge. In lower life forms this urge is in the form of instinct, which is a strong driver of action, but in humans such instinct is a weaker driver than intelligence. Indeed, people have the strength of will to disobey instinct, and act accordingly. Dharma is individuality, and the basic tenets of living life are thus to identify one's duty or reason for living, live accordingly, and acceot the consequences that arise thereof. Therefore to attempt an answer to that question, being just and unjust is something that is determined by the individual with context to society. On the one hand, whatever society seems the norm of behaviour can be considered just. On the other, the individual may dissent with particular aspects of societal tradition and develop his own idea of a better one, which he believes to be more just than the prevalent system. Doubtless he will earn ridicule and hatred, even, but that is how many changes are born in culture and society, changes that often turn out for the better as society and its moral systems undergo a revamp. Social change and the evolution of societal concepts of justness are both catalysed and poisoned by the ideas of the individual, provided he has the strength of will a d the opportunity to broadcast his views.

π²/10 Best avatar yet.

π²/10

Ah, I seem to have arrived at the right time; there is consumer dissatisfaction in the market. Just the perfect time to unveil my supply of superior quality puns, and capture the economy! KH?

Define ghost.

Read the first post of this thread; it's laissez-faire round here. Anyone can start a new tangent, and it is not obligatory to answer or participate in an ongoing one. But yes, feel free to state, question, or reflect upon anything you might like, provided it abides by the admittedly very lax rules of this thread. Again, I'd point to the first post.