georgia
Posts
74610Following
404Followers
2062$PAGE_VIEWS
georiga on telegram
georgia@trashserver.net on xmpp
(response times may vary)
अहं ब्रह्मास्मि त्वं ब्रह्म असि अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म
georgia
georgia
on "idolatry"
Show content
all things are God, yes. who can feel revulsion or hatred for others when they know this? for the world? what is to be rejected except that which leads away from God, and thus for one who already knows God, what is to be rejected? thus the material world can be enjoyed by the knowing.
for the knowing hindu, the murti is a celebration of divine immanence. when what is called by abrahamics "idolatry" occurs, it occurs without knowing that the world is God and that God is active in the world. one can worship even a clod of earth as God in knowledge, but if one worships a clod as if God is a clod, he is in great error. so basically, a murti is God, but God is not a murti. we are God, God is not us. God is the only reality.
this applies to "polytheism" ie worshipping lords other than God as well, whether devas or "god-men" (the latter assuming they actually have siddhis and are not frauds, grifters and cult leaders like 99 percent of them). worshipping something for a limited function (he is the god of rain, he makes the rain. or, he is a "god-man", he can walk on water. or, it is an idol, it facilitates my worship by looking like a god.) rather than its unlimited essence is ignorance, and often sinful. the essence of all things is God, the function varies. only God is identical in His existence and energy/powers and His essence (divine simplicity), both truly infinite. which is to say God can perform any function by His inherent freedom and potency, but i should say that worshipping Him in anticipation of a reward is a much lesser form of worship.
as for the devas and the siddhas, they are agents of God, aligned with His will. if they are amazing and venerable, it is because God is. worshiping them in their own right is ignorance and leads to karmic bondage, especially if it is for selfish reasons. selfishness too is rooted in ignorance.
let me return to murtis. murtis are instruments of getting closer to God through knowing action (knowing about God, knowing about oneself, and knowing about the murti). and in a similar manner that giving a child a doll can foster loving feelings of parenthood and responsibility, bathing a murti (for example) creates feelings of love for God. and to love God is to know God, because God is love. what could be wrong about that? proper murti worship is not just bhakti but also nishkama karma and jnana. all these paths lead to God. but without jnana, it all falls apart. ignorant love is not love, its infatuation, and like all desire, its selfish.
for the knowing hindu, the murti is a celebration of divine immanence. when what is called by abrahamics "idolatry" occurs, it occurs without knowing that the world is God and that God is active in the world. one can worship even a clod of earth as God in knowledge, but if one worships a clod as if God is a clod, he is in great error. so basically, a murti is God, but God is not a murti. we are God, God is not us. God is the only reality.
this applies to "polytheism" ie worshipping lords other than God as well, whether devas or "god-men" (the latter assuming they actually have siddhis and are not frauds, grifters and cult leaders like 99 percent of them). worshipping something for a limited function (he is the god of rain, he makes the rain. or, he is a "god-man", he can walk on water. or, it is an idol, it facilitates my worship by looking like a god.) rather than its unlimited essence is ignorance, and often sinful. the essence of all things is God, the function varies. only God is identical in His existence and energy/powers and His essence (divine simplicity), both truly infinite. which is to say God can perform any function by His inherent freedom and potency, but i should say that worshipping Him in anticipation of a reward is a much lesser form of worship.
as for the devas and the siddhas, they are agents of God, aligned with His will. if they are amazing and venerable, it is because God is. worshiping them in their own right is ignorance and leads to karmic bondage, especially if it is for selfish reasons. selfishness too is rooted in ignorance.
let me return to murtis. murtis are instruments of getting closer to God through knowing action (knowing about God, knowing about oneself, and knowing about the murti). and in a similar manner that giving a child a doll can foster loving feelings of parenthood and responsibility, bathing a murti (for example) creates feelings of love for God. and to love God is to know God, because God is love. what could be wrong about that? proper murti worship is not just bhakti but also nishkama karma and jnana. all these paths lead to God. but without jnana, it all falls apart. ignorant love is not love, its infatuation, and like all desire, its selfish.
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
so often when i have a problem with the upanishads i look at a more literal translation and the problem ceases
0
0
1
georgia
georgia
somehow even when kagi calls sanksrit hindi (which it frequently does) it translates it correctly
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
i would say that Atma-hanah (killers of the Self) means people who harm themselves in any significant way, killing their own spiritual realization. to harm oneself is to distance oneself from God, to distance oneself from God (the Self) is to harm oneself. in this way, they commit suicide, dooming themselves to a (premature) death and to an ignorant rebirth in the asurya worlds (which are asurya in that they have no sun and also in that they are asura-like, aka demonic). i especially view this in light of the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna talks about demonic people who undergo terrible masochistic austerities and hurt Him within them. (i know i said God is impassible but He does feel everything we feel in the way a yogi can feel the senses and be detached or even transcendentally moved by them as God is by His own being) being atma-hanah isnt denying one has a soul or viewing the soul as corrupt a la sankaras interpretation, or simply being ignorant of the Selfs nature, it is primarily being highly antagonistic to God and thus oneself and to oneself and thus to God.
2
1
3
georgia
georgia
God also taught me that i shouldnt criticize people like madhva because He fears God and I do not. In fact, when i talk about God on fedi, it is to magnify myself, not God.
0
0
1
georgia
georgia
considering most wealth is hereditary directly or indirectly, classism IS casteism.
0
0
2
georgia
georgia
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.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
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
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
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.
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.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
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.
0
0
1
georgia
georgia
if you dont type "please" in a search bar why would you say please and thank you to an llm
1
1
4