When are we supposed to stop fighting?

[KariTheFox]

It's interesting that Eve is brought up, since the Eden story is a kind of theodicy to explain why evil and suffering exists in the world at all; in Eve's case, it's because a woman was led astray and disobeyed god.

But Venat isn't really meant to be responsible for the existence of suffering, suffering is an extant part of life, she does not say people 'should' suffer as some kind of moral imperative or punishment for their sins, she is saying that they already do, and that they should acknowledge it. I wonder if part of this tension comes from a western audience trying reckon with a very Buddhist view of the nature of suffering that Endwalker presents.

[Veloran]

I wonder if part of this tension comes from a western audience trying reckon with a very Buddhist view of the nature of suffering that Endwalker presents.

Except the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of suffering and reincarnation through the attainment of Nirvana and the renunciation of all earthly ties. In other words the exact opposite of the idea Venat represents.

[Necrotica]

Except the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of suffering and reincarnation through the attainment of Nirvana and the renunciation of all earthly ties. In other words the exact opposite of the idea Venat represents.

Venat has taken the position that achieving Nirvana would be to give up on life and seek death. She bought into Meteion's message. Since ONE planet achieved ultimate happiness with no suffering, then wanted to die, clearly EVERYONE EVER would be the same way. There is no way people on different planets with different biology and psychology would ever think differently from each other.

Venat/Hydaelyn, if left in power would forcibly maintain a cycle of death and suffering because she knows best. She might as well be Satan.

[YianKutku]

Venat has taken the position that achieving Nirvana would be to give up on life and seek death.

She never said that.

She said achieving paradise through shortcuts would lead people astray.

Which has been demonstrated by the Ancient Amaurotines.

[Veloran]

She said achieving paradise through shortcuts would lead people astray.

Which has been demonstrated by the Ancient Amaurotines.

Being born with a natural ability for something is "taking a shortcut"...?

[Slatersev]

Venat has taken the position that achieving Nirvana would be to give up on life and seek death. She bought into Meteion's message. Since ONE planet achieved ultimate happiness with no suffering, then wanted to die, clearly EVERYONE EVER would be the same way. There is no way people on different planets with different biology and psychology would ever think differently from each other.

Venat/Hydaelyn, if left in power would forcibly maintain a cycle of death and suffering because she knows best. She might as well be Satan.

Last time I checked, Satan's endgame isnt literally dying so people are free to choose there own future unobstructed by the past. It's what makes so many of the claims about Venat weird.

Somebody who wants to be a "Supreme deity" but who has barely any followers as most people worship the 12 or something else. Who fully intended to die if and when the Sundered had champions capable of it.

She never said that.

She said achieving paradise through shortcuts would lead people astray.

Which has been demonstrated by the Ancient Amaurotines.

Its pointing out that the Ancients "perfect" paradise at that point would be built on ignoring that things already aren't perfect in the first place. And that as good at things were, they were never perfect.

She never argues that they should just give up and die, or that living a long near immortal life is bad. Just that you can't plug your hands in your ears and pretend everything is perfect when its not. That if a "Paradise" requires pretending a problem just doesn't exist, then its not a Paradise.

[Gemina]

There's a pretty significant difference between being lead astray and acting while having all the facts. The former would be Eve, while the latter would be Venat. One is far more egregious than the other.

So which one is more egregious than the other? This isn't as obvious as one might think, but it also isn't that important for the parallels between the two entities to be established. The manifestation of suffering paid for with the eradication of paradise.

It's interesting that Eve is brought up, since the Eden story is a kind of theodicy to explain why evil and suffering exists in the world at all; in Eve's case, it's because a woman was led astray and disobeyed god.

But Venat isn't really meant to be responsible for the existence of suffering, suffering is an extant part of life, she does not say people 'should' suffer as some kind of moral imperative or punishment for their sins, she is saying that they already do, and that they should acknowledge it. I wonder if part of this tension comes from a western audience trying reckon with a very Buddhist view of the nature of suffering that Endwalker presents.

Again, the parallels are still there. It wasn't Eve's intention to get her and Adam yeeted out of Eden, and to plunge mankind into pain and suffering. Yet, both Venat and Eve are blamed all the same.

Now things start veering away from each other when you look at the circumstances and intentions leading to the sundering and the forbidden fruit nom-nom. But I was more or less referring to the eventual consequence, and the blame assigned.

[YianKutku]

Being born with a natural ability for something is "taking a shortcut"...?

Summoning Zodiark is not a "natural ability" except in the loosest sense of the term, I would say.

Venat never said "paradise is wrong". She exhorted those who wanted to sacrifice to Zodiark to rebuild Amaurot with their own hands, which would indeed rely on those natural abilities, whether creation magic or simple crafting by using manipulator limbs like their own hands. This is putting aside whether Ancient society was perfect in the first place, since obviously Venat (and Hermes and Hesperos) disagree, but the principle holds true whether it is the ability to wield creation magic, or the ability to manipulate aether at all. It's the same as warning the people of the Fifth Astral Era not to keep sucking up huge amounts of aether from the environment; it's a shortcut, and the consequences for using that shortcut can be tragic.

[KariTheFox]

Except the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of suffering and reincarnation through the attainment of Nirvana and the renunciation of all earthly ties. In other words the exact opposite of the idea Venat represents.

I mean, the fact that the ideas of Endwalker exist in opposition the 'goal' Buddhism as you say does not mean the story is not rooted in a Buddhist understanding of suffering. In the same way a western story about rebelling against the church and killing God is still rooted in a culturally Christian understanding of divinity and authority.

Edit: I'd also argue that having you soul forced to relive its most painful memories in meteion's nest until erased from existence in some unspecified point in the future is absolutely not the 'ultimate goal' of Buddhism. Nobody's achieving personal enlightenment or walking the eightfold path in Ultima Thule, they are simply wallowing in their despair.

[Cleretic]

Summoning Zodiark is not a "natural ability" except in the loosest sense of the term, I would say.

Venat never said "paradise is wrong". She exhorted those who wanted to sacrifice to Zodiark to rebuild Amaurot with their own hands, which would indeed rely on those natural abilities, whether creation magic or simple crafting by using manipulator limbs like their own hands. This is putting aside whether Ancient society was perfect in the first place, since obviously Venat (and Hermes and Hesperos) disagree, but the principle holds true whether it is the ability to wield creation magic, or the ability to manipulate aether at all. It's the same as warning the people of the Fifth Astral Era not to keep sucking up huge amounts of aether from the environment; it's a shortcut, and the consequences for using that shortcut can be tragic.

Something else important to take into account is that Venat wasn't objecting to 'rebuilding but doing it wrong', but that the crowd didn't want to rebuild from disaster, they wanted to undo disaster.

Speaking literally, you can read this as just a semantic difference; they're standing in a ruined city, they want the city to not be ruined. But that's very much the wrong reading, it's very clear in the scene that they're coming from a fundamental angle of 'we want to go back to when this never happened'. They don't want to move on from suffering, they want to move backwards to the world where it hadn't reached them.