make build make install make clean why don't you make your wife cum

i agree with sri aurobindo that the world is Brahman and real, and created in lila. he has some good takes. i dont believe his upanishad is revelation though and that he is a rishi. its not beautiful or original enough to be scripture, for one.

my studies will only cover 7 mukhya upanishads because the rest arent on shlokam and theyre the only combined english-sanskrit and word for word translation i know of -.- i dont want to read just the english and commentary, i want to actually be able to put the text in a translator.

translating every upanishad verse for verse is going to make me really familiar with them which i love

kagi just made a change ive been seeking, which is universal translation settings (instead of varying with each query)

satyadharmāya can have many complementary meanings. one devoted to Truth in the sense of being devoted to God as satya, one who practices truth, or one whose nature is Truth itself.

despite being a monist i find many of sankaras interpretations uncompelling

oh "birth and non-birth" definitely means "creation and destruction" as well, because of the literal meaning of "saṃbhūtiṃ ca vināśaṃ"

plz read my effortpost

im smarter than kimi (or at least i know more about the hindu topics i ask it about) but im probably not smarter than the fancy claude model which was trained with all sorts of primary sources

i used to think that olivelles translation was universally better than easwarans being more literal, but now i see merits in both, and not just greater beauty in the case of easwarans. for instance, the early upanishads has for tiṣṭhattasminnapo mātariśvā dadhāti "in it matarisvan places the waters". while the upanishads has "without the self, never could life exist". now, i would say these very different translations are are both poor, but they both have some merit. olivelles is a very literal translation that totally misleads from the true meaning, while easwarans is an interpretation of the literal some degrees removed from it. here is my understanding and also my interpretation.

tiṣṭhat: staying/standing (still), (ie remaining immutable, unmoving, unchanging, as God is)

tasmin: in that (that refers to God in vedanta, in it, as in within itself, both as in literally within it and as in by virtue of it. in it, by it, through it.)

apaḥ: activities/actions (functions, especially of living moving beings. literally water, but by virtue of substances like water and ghee being used in ritual activities, ritual activities, and by extension of that all activities of living beings. by extension of that, all activities of all things. this is not merely my understanding but a well known one in vedanta.)

mātariśvā: this is not easily translated. he was a devata who gave fire to mankind, often compared to prometheus. thus he is associated with or is literally considered to be Agni, meaning both fire and the God of fire, who is very important in the vedas because of burnt oblations as well as because fire is necessary to life. this may be parsed as "growing in the mother", referring to fire growing in the fire-stick, coming from śvi meaning to increase and mātṛ meaning mother. however, he is also identified in the rig veda with the wind Vayu, and Vayu refers to both wind, the God of wind, and life-air, ie prana. "mātr" can be both mother and space or the heavens and "'śvas" means to breathe and to move. so in vedanta matarisva can be understood literally as the indian prometheus who gives fire to mankind and thus supports their rituals, or he can be understood (and especially was and is) as he who moves/breathes in space ie the cosmic or life breath which supports the functions and movement of living beings. in light of this clearly easwarans translation is superior. why would matarisvan, a fire bringer and the living cosmic wind, place water (of course, diverse elemental imagery is clearly intended, so one cant ignore the literal meaning)? the brihadaranyaka upanishad calls vayu a sutra, or thread, and says that this thread binds this world, the other world, and all bodies/beings. vajnavalka says that he who knows this string and he who knows the inner controller (which he explains is Atman), knows Brahman, and thus knows all. now i should mention the vedantic philosophical concept of sutratman, the thread-Self, because sutratman is a common translation of matarisvan. this has more than one connotation. in one sense, upon the Self all is woven, warp and woof, connecting all of reality, so it is the thread-Self. this is conveyed in the mundaka upanishad "in whom heaven, earth, and the interspace are woven, the mind along with all the pranas,
know him alone as the one Atman". in the upanishads Brahman is also compared to a spider that weaves the world like its thread, and then returns its threads to itself. in another sense in later vedantic philosophy, the sutratman specifically refers to a form of Brahman, the cosmic/universal subtle body or universal subtle principle, or in advaita Brahman from the perspective of the limiting adjunct of the subtle. if the viraj is the gross cosmic form of Brahman, the sutratman is the subtle cosmic form of Brahman. it becomes obvious why sutratman is an interpretation of matarisvan and a synonym for vayu. the subtle body contains the prana and mind, and thus the sutratman can be said to drive all breath and all activity, being he who breathes/moves in space. so overall, in vedantic philosophy, vayu or matarisva or sutratman can be said to support all of dynamic creation as its subtle active principle. on it the activity of life itself depends, and in it all of the universe is subtly held together, with gross proceeding from subtle. on that note, if i were to give a translation of matarisva, it would be "he who breaths/moves in space".

dadhāti: establishes (english "place" obscures the meaning. the root is PIE *dʰeh₁- which means to place, to set, to do. sanskrit dadhāti means to place yes but is better defined by set, because it can mean cause, allot, and even conceive or resolve, as in to set ones mind to something. hence, "establish" is also a very good translation. because it means to do or cause it also means to create, but another usage of the word is to support/bear. clearly, all of these words complement eachother to refer to "he who breathes/moves in space" (who acts through/by virtue of Brahman) establishing (but also supporting) the functions of living beings and all things. there is a clear theological meaning here: God is the cause of all activities and functions.

so my overall translation would be something like "staying still, in That (within it, by it) He who moves/breaths in space (the vital breath, the dynamic principle of creation) establishes/supports the functions/activities (esp of living beings)." this translation is imperfect, but by it one sees the deliberate contradiction like the ones the isha upanishad are famous for. while God is unmoving/unchanging, He is the material and efficient cause all activities.

again on the isha upanishad i think that "worshipping the unmanifest/unborn" as superior to but still leading to ignorance vs "worshipping the manifest/born" can have many meanings. traditionally its interpreted by sankara as unborn prakriti vs born hiranyagarbha, but i think its worshipping being vs worshipping becoming, worshipping purusha and prakriti (although samkyhans call both unborn, to me they are cause and effect) as separate, worshipping God in an abstract sense vs worshipping God as He exists in the world, or to compare with common vedic understandings of God, worshipping the pradhana vs worshipping the devas. just like rote knowledge is enhanced by its application leading to immortality, being and becoming are best understood together leading to liberation, this is monism.

my fiber gummies were 30 dollars dude -.-

one who asserts divine passability must also deny divine simplicity or he must become a consciousness monist

the passibility debate is very much a reflection of christian myopia towards other religions, trying to innovate a theodicy when they could just look at liberated hindus or buddhists to see that while being blissful they view the suffering of everyone as their own. God is the greatest yogi, and dwells within the hearts of all, so naturally He feels the suffering of all. His compassion for us is infinite, yet He dwells in pure bliss. just like a yogis senses are intact yet they dont experience pain because of them, God suffers while not suffering. and yet, God is averse to suffering, not because it pains Him but because He is all-good. is God averse to our evil because it makes Him evil? obviously not. being averse to something because it hurts you is a form of selfishness, and God is self-less. who is more noble, someone who heals another because they fear catching their disease, or someone who heals them from compassion? viewing God as needing to be passible to be good is a misunderstanding of human empathy as well as divine empathy.

I have such a tummy ache

I'm happy that I found something I really really adore at my local chinese/japanese joint but it costs 60 dollars when you buy it in the quantity I do. -.-

kagi has been helpful but im still envious of whatever model moon used. it was clearly superior in its reasoning and moreso it clearly had been trained with primary sources.

I dont know how sankara can say that karma is opposed to jnana when one is advised to perform karma and study at the same time. and he claims vidya means personal deity meditaton, but he also cites an aranyaka that says meditation has a different and superior fruit to performing rituals while the upanishad says that vidya is inferior to ritual.

in the isha upanishad commitment to ritual duties (called "worship of ignorance") is said to be better than devotion to rote knowledge (called "worship of knowledge" to provide a deliberate contradiction where knowledge is more damning than ignorance) because karma is a great teacher and leads to less ignorant rebirths while partial knowledge or knowledge for its own sake (that doesnt lead to dharma or moksha) is a form of ignorance. but taken together, performance of duties and rote learning, or karma with devotion to studies, shows knowledge and its application, or true knowledge, and one can cross over the ocean of samsara by this. this is obviously meant to be analogous to vedic sacrifices (karma kanda) combined with learning the upanishads (jnana kanda).