Hypothetically

TL;DR: Half-truths are more dangerous than lies. I once asked my father to read the Bhagavad Gīta, just so he will be able to have a conversation with me. But that prompted him to just start watching the Mahābhāratam TV show. Now first of all, it is a TV show that alters the true story to suit the audience's feelings. But even ignoring that, there are bigger problems. Mahābhāratam is a story that illustrates all the wrong things people did that led to a war, with which Śrī Kriṣṇa illustrates the right path to live, in the Bhagavad Gīta. All anti-religious idiots too do the same thing by criticizing the actions of people in Mahābhārata. Then those same idiots would think that it conveyed the idea that it was moral to sit silent during the dice game and as Draupadi was being disrobed. That would give them a good rationale to criticize it. But then their opinions are irrelevant because they actively ignore the context or tātparya (what it's trying to convey). You see, half-truth ...

Basically, a good commie is simply someone who wishes that all people will attain peace. But he does not try to control others in order to attain that goal, as that is against the idea of giving peace to all people. For the same reason, it is one who meditates on: 🕉️ Asatoma Satgamaya, Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya, Mrityoma Amritamgamaya. 🕉️ Shanti, Shanti, Shanti Hi: A bad commie chastises others, and in the process, he destroys the very foundation on which he built the notion of communism. It is said that the idea that the nature of man is egoism is to say that the nature of a factory worker is to cough, and that it is only a problem of capitalism. However, they forget the fact that it is the nature of nature of man to be capitalist, and not the nature of something else. To explain this paradox, the bad commie simply dehumanizes the capitalist by saying he is not a man, but is a demon. So they bring in superstitions to make these claims. (I guess communism is not about peace for all, but ...

# 1. The simple principle All things that appear are created by imposing a Nama Roopa on to Brahman. Jiva (Nama Roopa) > Lakshana: Brahman Eeshvara (Naama Roopa) > Lakshana: Brahman For all that appears, their true Lakshana is Brahman. That is, even for inert matter. A Jiva is simply Brahman reflected on the mind, which is inert, yet reflective enough to be life. On the contrary, the material world does not reflect life. And Eeshvara is Brahman viewed from within Maaya by a Jiva, when in a state of Ajnaana. # 2. Extending it to multiple levels e.g. Robert (Nama Roopa) > Lakshana: Pet (Nama Roopa) > Lakshana: Jiva (Nama Roopa) > Lakshana: Brahman e.g. Bad Word (Nama Roopa) > Lakshana: Sound (Nama Roopa) > Lakshana: Inert Material (Nama Roopa) > Lakshana: Brahman In this way, the we see that words can refer to chains of meanings. But you can always jump to the deepest meaning, and the ultimate deepest meaning is always Brahman. Now, when we are within the influenc...

The thing is, every sage will tell you that the Purana stories are not literal, but simplified tales to help you understand reality. And the atheists immediately equate them to the Panchatantra Tales or Aesop's Fables, because they think to say otherwise would simply be saying that they're literal, and therefore they are lies. But the thing is, the first principle of all the traditions is that the basis of all reality is a consciousness, or Brahman, and not material. In short, if one doesn't believe in an imperishable self or Atma in all beings, then they are not speaking in the same terms. The reason is that if you get everything on top, but miss the foundation, you'll be making a big mistake. For example, I found a 16 year old coder in Twitter in 2022 saying that he knows React.js, but did not know about deeper concepts like HTML. If you don't know what HTML is, you'll think that all websites are made of JS and CSS, and miss that it's HTML with styling and...

Eeshvara Swaroopa Moorthi is one way of saying "the Spirit of God". So it's the same thing. That is, "the conception of the light of God." And about Panchayatana Pooja, it's only necessary to worship 5 deities to make it analogous to the 5 people who you spend most time with. But then if you just consider numbers as an abstraction and don't cling to the discreteness, then focusing on the Self alone is enough. But instead, I can worship the presence of the light in each person too. But well, each person is tainted by their own minds anyways. But here's where the another analogy comes in: if you're the light source, you do not have.to do anything to dispel darkness, except be present. Also, take care to ensure you don't have conflicting thoughts. The rest, I'll conginue only in my private meditation notes. I just mentioned this because I used the word deities, and it's a slur in the modern world, but I don't care about it.

In Advaita Vedanta, though Eeshvara (Brahman) is the creator of Maya, he doesn't do anything else within it. The only understanding one gains from knowing Eeshvara is that he is all-knowing, and is your true self, and is the one who created the Maya you're experiencing - and therefore you have a guarantee that everything is going to turn out right eventually. However, as the fate unfolds, the ones who help you are the deities. That is, within Maya, you are bound to cause and effect by your own choice, and your goal is to navigate the maze and attain liberation. But in that process, when you're overcome by darkness, you need the help of deities to be the light that dispels it. Now Bhagavad Geeta points out the metaphysics, guides you to understanding it, and then also advises you to have Bhakti to your own Swaroopa as Eeshvara as part of Bhakti Yoga. And it doesn't directly recommend worshipping multiple deities. But the Swaroopa of any entity at all is Eeshvara. Therefo...

#Draft Was in class. Second / third row, left side, door to the left, close to the grill window, that is, facing the central garden side. There was a snail, and I was describing about the snail to the person near me, I forgot who it was, probably Akshay BR, but may not be.. I'm not sure. But if it was him, I surely did annoy him too, despite him being interested in this stuff. Basically I decided to randomly analyze a snail, simply because I decided that I could find knowledge anywhere. (So basically this dream is me in school, but if I had a more developed prefrontal cortex!) So anyways when he got annoyed, miss made him stand up lol. So anyways, the break came. It was like, it was an evening studies class, because this was at about sunset, and the weather was kind of gloomy. So Dhanvin came to me, but in the dream, it was more like my dad if he was younger - and that would be because he was being playfully sarcastic, and in a long time, I'd only talked to my dad like that. So...

#Draft (1) The analogy of directions to destinations - from East, West, South (1.1) Add the analogy of someone from East asking why can't I go North if others can choose different paths - when the goal is to reach the centre. (2) A better analogy - representing angles in degrees vs radians - the value of sin(180) is obtained at sin(6.28) in radians. For those who use different axioms, the methods have to be different. If you mix up, you get different results. (3) Why doesn't everyone use radians then? Because each path has its own benefits. Degrees are easier to measure using protractors, but radians are easier to work intuitively with.

First of all, I do not know of a person named Muhammad. So every person holds his own view of him. If any person finds goodness in his words and finds peace, I'm all for that. But it's also true that some people have found bad ideas from his words. But this is true for any good person too. Even if a person was really good, people only see how they and others see him. Now, I believe that you can find good ideas from anywhere, and I hold no restrictions on where you can find it from. It is your heart where the real you lies.  If someone finds bad ideas, wherever they're from, I do not have to put in constant effort to defend myself from them. I am protected by my deities according to my beliefs. I follow Advaita Vedanta. (More on this below). If I am harmed, it's because my deities failed to protect me. If I find peace, that too is from my deities. Whether they protect me or not is based on what's in my heart and that's due to my actions. My fate is my own making,...

Wanted to watch Terminator 1 (which my dad showed me in when I was young). So dream character was me myself. I was watching some other movie before that, but when it got immersive, I forgot what it was. Now, I don't remember how Terminator 1 was. I didn't know if it was the one with the bar fight. So my dream still began reconstructing it. Arnold walks drives a cruiser bike into the front of a hotel, naked. And Arnold's body was censored with black bars. I wonder why all dream CDs always censor naked people. Cosmic censor board? When he gets up and walks in, of course he gets the looks. There are two hallways sections, one the public restaurant, and the inner, I believe was the private dining hall of some gangsters. I walked in. They asked - [and oh wait - as I was seeing the dream, it was as if I was Arnold himself, and at other times, it was as if I was a spirit watching around him. Let me guess, maybe it was like how you see yourself in 3rd person when you're recolle...

A sin is not an immoral action. A sin is simply defiance of a stated set of rules. For example, if it was said that one must polish their shoes before wearing socks, then not doing so is simply a sin. It has nothing to do with morality. A sin a sin simlly because it is defined as such.

#Draft Dharma is often taken to mean morality. It isn't. It simply means duty, or more precisely, the right action (Karma) one must do for the best results. The Dharma of a solider of bad king is to serve his king, not to defect. Or is it? I'm not sure. But the point is to make the idea clear. A more clear example can be made when you take entities without agency. The Dharma of the immune system of a bad guy is to defend that guy, not to kill him, knowing he's a bad guy.

A good commie is a good guy who feels that communism can solve world problems. A bad commie is a guy who thinks that the rich should not have what they have and it should be taken from them. In effect, a good commie will always try to sell communism, while a bad commie tries to enforce it. The thing about a good guy is that he will never blame others for his conditions. But the bad guy will use the story of the good guy to fight the rich guys. The bad guy is bad here, because he doesn't have the quality of the good guy that makes him good. He cannot fight for the good guy and claim that he is good, because he is not good, as I've just shown. The act he took on because he was bad cannot redeem him. Analogy: It would be like saying that an impulsive person who shot a bad guy was good because of what he did. No, he decided to kill because he was impulsive, and even if the killed person was bad, that doesn't make his killing good. Now the situation is different if the guy who ...

Whenever I'm angry, it's in an absence of patience. It is fine to firmly dislike something, but when that turns into anger, you've gotten way out of line.

- I've had neck pain that's connected to the spine. My parents are hesitant to take me to a doctor, because they don't have enough money. They insist on trying Moov (a muscle pain ointment). They say it works for all pain. They should know better, but they are used to escapism. - My parents had not been able to buy me the books I needed to study for JEE when I was at school, because they were poor.

... There was a dog. There was a building. I came out from some cave with some snow-shaped blue coloured stuff covering the cave. I was trying to get into the building, which I guessed was a dormitory, and if I got in, I'd find people I knew. But there was a dog outside, and I could pause the dream and analyze my moves and make the right choice. I woke up at about that time and went back to sleep. --- What I'm curious about this is that the dog seemed to have a personality of its own. And I did not know who would be in the building. I didn't fully plan how I'd get in. The dog was an obstacle. I thought about finding any cut window bars, but maybe I'd have to climb the building. I didn't know how I was going to climb it yet, but it's the dream world. Maybe I could've flied or jumped harder, of scaled it like spider-man. I don't remember the laws of physics. I'm exploring the relationships between how the dream world exists, how different living en...

#MayNeedPolish In my opinion, God is the material, efficient and formal cause of the world. I had a rational reason as to why God is conscious. But I forgot it because it always ends up complicated. The reason for that is because it's like writing a manual on how to ride a bike. You don't learn to ride a bike by reading about it. So I'll skip this for now. God as the material cause of the world would be like the ocean. The power of the ocean would manifest as waves in the ocean. God would not constantly control the ocean, because the will of God is simply non-different from perfection. Free will and determinism converge into one. God as the efficient cause would be like the energy, and God as the formal cause would be like the patterns. In this manner, God is present with in the world, as the waves, but is also transcendent, as the ocean. In this case, the ocean and energy are not different. Patanjali's Yoga school posited that Purusha and Prakrthi were different, while...

Edit: If you factor in Vishishta Advaita (qualified non-dualist) Vedanta, or other forms of Bheda-Abheda (difference and non-difference) Vedanta, then it is possible for a cake to be sliced into one big slice and several small sizes. The big size can serve as the buffer that can adjust the small sizes as much as it wants. This puts full control in the hands of God, rather than on some physical laws. And this model is more correct considering the cake is actually a simplified model for what is actually infinite. Yet, this line of thinking helps one understand the theory of dependent origination. The idea is common in Daosim, Zen (which is Mahayana Buddhism with Daoist influences), Mahayana Buddhism and also Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita and Bedha-Abheda Vedanta-s. In Sanskrit, this is called Pratheethya Samutpaada (Pali: Paticcha Samuppada). Its basic principle is summarized as "This arises, that becomes" (Pali: Imasmim Sati, Idam Hoti). Now to my analogy. A cake can be divided...

#Draft Neither Reddit, nor ChatGPT are vulnerable to disinformation. Reddit - comment chain manipulation - reply and block, with or without moderator assistance - dangerous because it initially gives the impression that it is immune to manipulation this works because 1) if a reply to a comment is deleted before it received a reply that isn't deleted too, it won't show up as a deleted reply when someone browses the thread; and it won't seem deleted to the user too, so they won't know that the manipulation is at play; and 2) if someone replies and blocks you, you won't be able to reply to them, and this will make it seem like you didn't have a better reply, in case of political discussions - e.g. if someone asks you for proof and blocks you so that you can't reply with it.. - and if you edit the original comment, if it then gets deleted with moderator assistance in suppression of opinion, it'll be as if you didn't reply at all. They will try to frame y...

Steelmanning is a method used by super honest debaters, whereby they state the opponent's position better than themselves, before chopping it down. This is as opposed to strawmanning, whereby one makes a distorted version of the opponent's argument, or a strawman, and breaks it down. The goal is to break the opponent's argument in such a way that no part of the argument will survive the attack, as the edge cases are also included when you steelman the argument. However, when you steelman a fascist, you're playing right into their trap. A fascist wants to gain popularity, and they want you to strengthen their argument as well as possible. However, once you have done your part, they won't let you deal the breaking blow. They will silence you by whatever means necessary. A fascist is wicked. But the worst part is that, you never know you're steelmanning a fascist until you've steelmanned them. So if you ever encounter them, don't try to correct your mistake...