Embed this noticegeorgia (georgia@netzsphaere.xyz)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jul-2026 09:02:25 JST
georgiai find this view of final beatitude to be incoherent. "being fit for liberation means realizing identity with Brahman" (strange for a madhvavada, because madhva said only vishnu is Brahman). this is true. however, he goes on to say that after identity with Brahman is realized, through devotional service (bhakti/seva), one attains eternal residence in vaikuntha/goloka, where one merely "associates" with God, ie is separate from Him. so are we Brahman, or separate from Brahman? also, note how he says "they don't fall down" and also "if they fall down".
i shouldn't say monotheist, its monist/panentheist. also i had no idea that it was the only part of the vedas that explicitly mentions the four varnas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha_Sukta
Embed this noticegeorgia (georgia@netzsphaere.xyz)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jul-2026 07:47:06 JST
georgiathe 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.
@lizzie as long as you don't think egregious things like that God loves human sacrifices, worshiping God and surrendering to Him is always a good thing, whether you're a monotheist, monist, polytheist, pantheist, panentheist, etc etc
Embed this noticegeorgia (georgia@netzsphaere.xyz)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jul-2026 07:41:35 JST
georgia"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.
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.
i should also mention that dharma means law, and even (especially in buddhism) means "phenomena"
Embed this noticegeorgia (georgia@netzsphaere.xyz)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jul-2026 07:03:31 JST
georgiai 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.
Embed this noticegeorgia (georgia@netzsphaere.xyz)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jul-2026 06:48:13 JST
georgiaanother 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!)
Embed this noticegeorgia (georgia@netzsphaere.xyz)'s status on Saturday, 25-Jul-2026 06:00:20 JST
georgiamore 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.
weclome to my website!! $PAGE_VIEWS:blobcatnompeach::blobcatautism::blobcatgrimacing::blobcatblackwhite::blobcatfireeyes:JOIN THE FITIVERSE!fitiverse@muc.volatile.bzdm me if you need a friendsend cats!! :debian::void::xfce::lineageos2::fdroid::raspberrypi: