conceiving creation itself as being a yajna is so quintessentially vedic and no doubt would be supported by mimamsakans. i prefer jnana yajna (the sacrifice of knowledge) myself!

i genuinely believe that God will correct mankinds errant beliefs about God and religion at some point.

the vedas (not taking about the upanishads) are very beautiful and definitely significantly divinely inspired but it really says A Lot that when modern hindus try to invoke the vedas its either "all the vedas are actually about different qualities of Vishnu" or its the hymn of purusha (forget what its called), which is the closest thing to being monotheist in the vedas while still being rather antiquated in its conception of God.

sorry everyone without this very specific belief, you merely *think* you are liberated. sorry Buddha, Sankara, etc.

for real though, some vaisnavas get so offended when you say avataras bodies are composed of sattva-guna and not "Brahman stuff". this is why calling avataras "incarnations" like in christianity is inaccurate. (sorry christians! your flesh isn't exalted anymore, but it will be in Vaikuntha). of course, Brahman is formless and transcends form, it is Gods will and His amazing qualities and amazing lack of qualities that give His form spiritual potency, not it being made of Brahman-stuff. call me a mayavada, i don't care.

"shunyavadas and mayavadas btfo" i guess. here you see that many vaishnavas are like many christians who say "if you don't believe in a personal God, you aren't a monotheist and won't go to heaven". but of course, this isn't true. saguna brahman and nirguna brahman are both Brahman, Brahman is partless and non-dual. not being like human beings who are solely "personal" as well as comprising both sat and asat, sarva and shunya is simply part of what makes God so wonderful. but yes, its easier to reach God through bhakti of saguna brahman than through jnana of nirguna brahman.

i can see how someone who approaches hinduism for the first time is turned off by all the (frankly incessant) references to Gods feet, and putting Gods feet on your head, but it just means God is so holy even "His feet" are holy, and putting someones feet on your head is an act of deference because then the lowest part of them is above you.

anthropomorphists who believe God has a "true form" that looks like a human being and that we are made in its literal image when God incarnates among aliens and appears as one of them

another hindu hot take. Brahma doesn't actually exist as described (Lord of creation of each individual universe and their protector, chief engineer, Lord of the vedas, progenitor of all progenitors and all mind-born sages), but the most notable secondary creator in each universe (vastly inferior to the Supreme Lord's capacity as mover of His energy-consciousness and sanctioner of all its vibrations and thus creator, sustainer, dissolver of all things) could be called "Brahma". likewise the longest lived and highest celestial (deva) could be called Brahma. also, "Shiva" and "Vishnu" just describe the Supreme Lord with different flavorings, it is silly to say God takes a firm triparte form or worse, that there is a trinity. (sorry christians!)

the counterargument to accusations of anthropomorphizing the divine by assigning certain feelings, form, gender, abode, etc that "actually the human is rooted in the divine, so its not strange that there is overlap" is incredibly insufficient

"the material universe is an expansion of God"

"the material universe is a contraction, covering and discretization of God"

the fact that duty and virtue are the same word in sanskrit says a lot

sorry for my correct and divinely sanctioned hinduposting! (this post is bragging and thus not divinely sanctioned, but oh well)

more bs, Durga is not just Adi Parashakti but the Supreme in full, Tripura Sundari. She is the Shakti but she is Shaktimam as well, and pure Purusha. and one worships the Devi to both material and spiritual aims. (it is said that one worships Mahadeva to spiritual aims primarily, but in truth, one can pray to God for anything) also, "internal potency" is a silly construction, God has no inside and outside.

when balarama is called a "plenary expansion" of Krishna i laugh. he's a violent drunkard. Krishnas behavior in the SB isn't totally exemplary either but i just consider the account to be adulterated.

i've read a lot of the srimad bhagavatam including the whole 10th canto, but this book is good review

naradas words always accelerate the plot but this isn't always a good thing

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.

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???

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.