Posts
74721
Following
404
Followers
2066
weclome to my website!!
$PAGE_VIEWS
blobcatnompeachblobcatautismblobcatgrimacing

georiga on telegram
georgia@trashserver.net on xmpp
(response times may vary)

fedoradebiankdenewxfcesailfishoslineageos2fdroidraspberrypi

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि त्वं ब्रह्म असि अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म
@lain although i think killer of animals is the literal meaning, especially killing cattle
1
0
0
@lain paśughna is the word used, it means both killing animals and killing oneself
1
0
1
@lain@lain.com@mischievoustomato@tsundere.love the linkedin version captured something about the meaning that the literal translation didn't, which is that a butcher of animals is meant to also mean someone who kills themselves/the Self ie someone who acts against their own interests and "kills" the divinity within them
1
0
1
you aren't ready for this but God doesn't have a permanent consort because He has no equal. He/She consorts sometimes in His/Her descents, yes. but saying God has a consort like Shiva-Shakti dualism is only useful to describe Energy-Consciousness. but there is no difference between Shakti and Shaktimam! the potency of God is inherent in God, God is One.
0
0
2
also, the end of the ras panchadhyayi (most important lila of the srimad bhagavatam, the source of this book) says that reading it counters the disease of lust in the heart. God doesn't lust. He is moved by His own bliss more than anything, and is also incredibly moved by all things sentient beings experience, but this isn't lust.
0
0
1
this guy is treating God like a straight man. jivanmuktas don't have "sex feelings", and have no need for sex because they have no infatuation or attachment and dwell in infinite bliss. God is the greatest yogi, so of course He/She doesn't have "sex feelings" either. when God engages in romance and sex as an avatara, it is to teach about union with God. what the fuck is this sampradaya teaching???
1
1
1
its frankly hubris to think we know this much about God, especially when such a supposition is so ugly
1
0
0
"the Vishnu portion of Krishna" this my friends, is the kind of ideology you'd expect from a sampradaya that considers there to be different kinds of souls, and that doesn't consider all to be Brahman
1
0
0
literally dogmatic nonsense. Vishnu is Krishna and Krishna is Vishnu, the chatur-vyuha is a relic, and even the dashavatara are not the sole exclusive avataras of the Lord. to me all beings are Gods amsas/kalas, especially the devas who are both manifestations of God and inferior to Him, and yet all beings are also mysteriously God in full. it pains me that people make a science of Gods very being so. there is simply no discreteness within God! all you need to know is that whenever justice declines and unrighteousness prevails, God manifests on this Earth.
1
0
0
i certainly do intend to make a kagi account considering how often i use duckduckgo to bang google which i'd really rather not do
0
0
2
@lain oh wait, that's 300 searches a month. i'm pretty sure i search more than that
1
0
0
kagi has a browser that supports safari, chrome, and firefox extensions? now that's just excessive, i only need firefox extensions.
0
0
0
@lain oh that's affordable hmm. definitely something i'll do in the future.
1
0
0
overlooked that the author of the book is a gaudiya, because i like a lot about gaudiyas, but he's a madhva follower too?? unacceptable, sorry.
0
0
0
@lain shit, how much for this service.
1
0
0
yashas and sri are also often done a disservice by being "fame" and "beauty", when they mean much more than that in sanskrit
0
0
1
on the bhagas, i HATE when aishvarya is interpreted/translated as superlative wealth instead of superlative lordship/majesty. while being the possessor of all the worlds wealth is a quality of God, avataras are often poor or otherwise ascetic. God doesn't covet wealth or flaunt His wealth.
2
0
2
Show older