another hot take on vedanta, this one should be obvious. i hate when devas/celestials are called rulers of the senses. while powerful beings can influence the senses, and have higher knowledge about what we experience, only Vishnu is enshrined within the heart and experiences all that we do. the only Lord of the senses is Hrishikesha.

it makes little sense to me to concieve of a vaisnavite kingdom of heaven (vaikuntha, goloka) as being 100 percent made of Brahman and blissful people in realized identity with Brahman but also full of various different and changing/moving things, like diverse bodies made of Brahman, wish-granting trees, surabhi cows. how terrestrial! (of course, they say the terrestial takes after the celestial not vise versa, but this is silly). Brahman is one thing and all things, but its not discrete. this is different from christians who call heaven "a holy place pervaded by Gods presence." i mean, anything is possible with God but "anything is possible with God" esp as it relates to the jivas is called "maya". so there would have to be maya at play in the highest abode. theres a lot of assumptions i'm making and assumptions theyre making to support their views, but oh well.

hmmmmm

people who think magic isnt a natural part of existence are quite simply ignorant.

the australian accent is cancer unless youre meg of megabattie on youtube

It is Saturday in Australia so here is a pic of an Australian cat, visiting from Down Under, after being teleported to the northern hemisphere. #caturday #australia

I <3 dravidians

I wonder what arabs would think if people tried to say "muhammad was black" in the way they very dubiously do with jesus. muhammad was racist in the hadith so that kind of rules it out, no?

today I experienced... nausea, bloating, and dyspepsia!

I would rather be called a faggot than a dyke but only because its inaccurate and thus not hurtful

my mom is an olive skinned mediterranean looking jew while my dad is a pale-ass pale of settlement looking jew with green eyes (or maybe blue, idk hes not in my life). guess who I take after?

it seems that when God descends and takes on a body of sattva guna He chooses His forms with a two distinct and seemingly contradictory goals: to show His superlative qualities, and/or to exalt the manner of form He chooses. with the first you get Krishna, the second, Christ.

its funny when christians poke fun at islam for being a newer faith and theyre literally protestants

why am I wired

🤝

dont get me wrong theres a lot I actually like about the monism-lite vaishnava sampradayas (sri vaishnavism and the pushtimarga sect and to a lesser extent gaudiyas), but one of my qualms is that serving God forever in a kingdom of heaven just feels like a fanciful eternal end "somewhere else" to an all-to similar (having a body and residence and role in both) temporary material existence "here". I believe that only God is eternal and unchanging and has no abode being omnipresent and incorporeal, and thus to transcend life and rebirth is to merge into God. I dont see this being necessarily in opposition to what I call monism-lite either, because the dependent parts or emanations one with the emanator can return into the supreme whole. but yes, I find vishishtadvaita and shuddhadvaita both very intellectually stimulating, interesting and compelling ideas about the relationship of God to souls and matter. the sri vaishnava concept that the souls are atomic parts of God which en masse and together with prakriti form Gods "body" is quite neat and reminds me of sabellianism (according to johann lorenz von mosheim according to wikipedia). perhaps even neater is the similar pushtimarg idea that everything is a part of Krishna, and nothing is illusory but all is an authentically real expression of God without being covered by maya. of course, I disagree with this, as my form of monism is closest to kashmir shaivism, but its very neat.

suya