in my opinion sankara is wrong that karma is opposed to jnana. all desireful karma leads to phala, and this process is a learning experience. experience, including suffering, is a great teacher. God taught me this yesterday, that though i sought to be taught by God, my suffering was God teaching me. God was already my guru.

selfless action is a form of renunciation because you are renouncing your ego by renouncing the fruits of your action. "through renouncing/by that renunciation, enjoy" definitely also refers to nishkama karma

this translation is quite poor. while "whole" is an acceptable definition of purna which means full (and complete/whole/infinite but also by implication perfect and self-fulfilled) i dont know where they are getting "is all that is visible" and "is all that is invisible". idam is just "this" and adah is just "that". that is full, this is full. (in the upanishads that refers to God and this to the universe) "was born out of" is not a very good translation of udacyate either which means comes forth/proceeds/arises. there is a sense of timelessness here where material and efficient cause is conveyed with a lack of specificity as to exactly how creation unfolds (no specific mention of emanating/manifesting/projecting/being born, these are all just approximate synonyms). so, from the full the full arises. perhaps the most egregious part to me is "when the whole is absorbed into the whole". adaya means "having taken", of the full the full having taken. (having taken the full from the full) i would insist on this translation over "is absorbed" because having taken refers directly to the creation of the universe from God but also definitely refers to the dissolution of the universe in God. because the full alone remains (actually eva is an intensifier particle, so its closer to meaning "indeed" or "verily", while "alone" magnifies based on context), Brahman can be described as remaining undepleted when the universe proceeds from Him and as still being perfect when the universe ceases to exist (or more accurately for most hindus, exists in a causal seed state within God. but for me, God itself is the causal agent and source material, even the seed too dissolves into Him. this may be semantics though)

so a much better translation would be "that Brahman/God) is full, this (the universe) is full. from (that) full, (this) full arises. having taken the full from the full (referring specifically to creation but also to dissolution), the full indeed remains."

the meaning: God is full/complete/whole, the universe is full/complete/whole. God is the efficient and material cause of the universe, which is created from Him and returns to Him. this act of creation and dissolution doesnt diminish Gods fullness.

for monists, both the universe and God being described as full means that the universe is God. for dualists, it means both God and the universe have an essence which is complete.

@kaia i'm not catholic, just evil (for now)

my little brown dog is so cute

God loves truly infinitely more than He hates because He loves from the very fullness of His Love-Being, while He hates things that are evil in a relative and functional sense because they lead beings away from Him. they are not evil in themselves, nothing has evil as the substrate of its being because God is the substrate and God is All-Good. if God were to be averse to something infinitely, it would be His own cosmic opposite, and such a being does not and will never exist.

wow i woke up early

God taught me so much. i am in sin, but God is so gracious.

yeah theres at least two important things i do not like about this.

if you dont type "please" in a search bar why would you say please and thank you to an llm

alright time to go to bed

God is always alive, and is not a void, but His very self-knowledge doesnt necessitate comparison to vibration unless He seeks to know Himself as limited.

when i say God is an Enjoyer and a Doer, i mean this in reference to divine agency but i mean this in a non-dual way.

hopefully one day ill be smarter and much closer to God and able to formulate the "perfect" monist philosophy i seek so much

Being/Knowledge isnt an action by God, it IS God. an action implies activity and it implies duality.

its a shame because theres much i love about trika

also, doesnt movement imply time as well as causation?

if trikas really do believe God is never at rest (static) even when the universe is dissolved and that God needs to vibrate in some way (subtly or grossly) to recognize Himself, i disagree. energy is moving consciousness, but consciousness isnt inherently energetic. but maybe reading source texts would persuade me otherwise. probably not, because "it moves--yet it moves not" is in the isha upanishad and i take the isha upanishad as absolutely divine. and God is called unmoving in other places in the upanishads as well.

anyway, i think i see where the trikas are coming from. if God knowing Himself is the universe and this process of self-understanding (called vimarsa) involves spanda inherently, then why wouldnt God knowing Himself involve spanda when the universe ceases? a trika would presumably say, consciousness inherently manifests as spanda, like shiva manifesting as shakti, but you know, oh well. it moves not! to me spanda is less an inherent vibration of self-knowledge, the heartbeat of consciousness, and more the deliberate creative vibration that vibrates and thus contracts consciousness, creating apparent limitations and diversity. to me it is mahamaya Herself.

a synthesis between monism of the vedantins and the tantrics would be very useful here! must i become such an acharya? right now my ideas are so half-baked... who knows... maybe God will talk to me more...

passibilists and process theologians: you can make God suffer and God cant affect your free will.

monists: God isnt us, we are God.

instead of diminishing God for the sake of theodicy the process theologians and passibilists (despite my former post im not a passibilist, im an absolute monist who believes the world is real) should just be universalists (and ideally, monists, but you cant have everything)