Is it just me or has every "isolationist" Alt Right-ish influencer turned raging imperialista just hours after Trump attacked Venezuela and captured Maduro? Complete frauds. But perhaps I shouldn´t be surprised. After all, I´m old enough to remember when Trump dropped the MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs) on the Taliban in Afghanistan, making every MAGA supporter on Twitter cheer along.
Isolationism my ass.
So it´s imperialist war, then. To the bitter end.
OK, this was interesting. A Russian investment czar allied with Putin blasts Zohran Mamdani, while portraying Russia as a bastion of anti-Woke traditionalism...and capitalism. He even sarcastically refers to the new NYC mayor as "comrade"!
Must be some *really* smart people in this terrorist cell, known as the Volcano Group. I´m sure depriving 45,000 homes of electricity during the Christmas season (a.k.a. winter) will make them more motivated to fight against climate change...
Yes, I´m being ironic.
45,000 homes in Berlin without power after politically motivated attack by "left-wing extremists"
A kind of sequel to my blog post "God´s suicide". Efilism is an extreme form of anti-natalism and sounds either like trolling or like an "intellectualized" version of a clinical depression! I suppose you could call it "the philosophy of a school shooter"...
What is "efilism"?
Efilism is a radical philosophical position that argues that sentient life is inherently negative and should be brought to an end.
The term was coined by the YouTube philosopher and activist Gary Mosher (known online as Inmendham).
While it shares DNA with Antinatalism, Efilism goes much further in its scope and its "solution" to suffering.
Efilism is rooted in a hard-materialist view of biology.
Sentience is a trap: Nature is described as an "asymmetrical" system where pain is far more intense and frequent than pleasure.
The DNA Scam: Efilists believe that biological life is simply a "meat-machine" controlled by DNA. DNA has no consciousness or morality; it just wants to replicate itself. Humans and animals are merely the "vehicles" used by DNA to continue its existence, regardless of how much suffering that replication causes.
No Purpose: Since there is no God or cosmic plan, all the "blood, sweat, and tears" of evolution are for nothing—they serve only to produce more entities capable of feeling pain.
It is important to distinguish between these two, as they are often confused:
| Feature | Antinatalism | Efilism |
| Scope | Mostly focused on human reproduction. | Focuses on all sentient life (animals, insects, etc.). |
| Main Argument | The "Consent" argument (you can't ask a baby if they want to be born). | The "Suffering" argument (the biology of sensation is a design flaw). |
| The Goal | Humans should stop having children. | All sentient life should be "liquidated" to stop the cycle of pain. |
Efilists often use a hypothetical scenario called the "Red Button":
If there was a button that could instantly and painlessly delete all sentient life in the universe, would you press it?
An Efilist would answer "Yes." They argue that pressing the button is the ultimate act of mercy because it prevents the trillions of years of future suffering that would otherwise occur in the animal kingdom and human history. By deleting life, you "solve" the problem of pain permanently.
Efilism can be seen as a modern, "digital-age" version of older pessimistic traditions:
Mainländer’s Legacy: Like Philipp Mainländer, Efilists see the universe as a tragic mistake that should move toward non-existence.
Negative Utilitarianism: This is the branch of ethics that prioritizes minimizing suffering over maximizing happiness.
The Problem of Agency: Critics argue that humans have no right to decide the fate of other species (like animals) who might "want" to live despite the struggle.
Nihilistic Extremism: Many find the philosophy's end-goal (total extinction) to be a form of "cosmic psychopathy" that ignores the intrinsic value of beauty, love, and consciousness.
Evolutionary Futility: Scientists point out that even if life on Earth were wiped out, the same biological "trap" could simply evolve again elsewhere in the universe or on Earth after millions of years.
Would you like to explore the specific ethical debates regarding "Wild Animal Suffering," which is a major focus for Efilists, or perhaps look at the psychology behind philosophical pessimism?
Will this happen within our lifetime? The European Union (with Scotland as the newest member-state) will ally with Canada against the United States. There will be US attacks against some Canadian province (Alberta has oil) and Greenland. Russia will ally with the United States, at least diplomatically.
China and Russia will eventually have a fallout, leading to a shooting war between them...or between the Chinese and India (an ally of Russia). Euro-Canada will ally itself with China against Russia. The Russians will effectively lose control of Siberia to Beijing.
Just speculating, of course. But I wouldn´t be surprised if the "prophecy" above comes true!
 |
| Credit: jkaiser |
Some context to the claim that Venezuela has the world´s largest oil reserves. TL/DR: No, they don´t really have that. Much of their oil is of very low quality, something I read somewhere before. The link goes to X.
I think this will be the last part of this long Sunday lecture on the Pancaratra (or Pancharatra) tradition within Hinduism. Fittingly, it´s about God himself.
This is an excellent question, because it gets to the concrete cultic core of Pāñcarātra and clears up a lot of later anachronisms.
I’ll answer in three layers:
What Nārāyaṇa is in Pāñcarātra
How he is concretely worshipped (forms, icons, postures)
Whether Pāñcarātra is the “original” cult of Nārāyaṇa
In Pāñcarātra, Nārāyaṇa is not one deity among others. He is:
The supreme, eternal Lord
The source of the vyūhas
The final goal of ritual ascent
The resident deity of the temple icon (arcā)
Crucially:
Pāñcarātra is not “about Viṣṇu in general” — it is about Nārāyaṇa as supreme sovereign presence.
Other forms (Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa, avatāras) are secondary manifestations of him.
Yes — very explicitly, and this is one of the most important concrete cultic forms in Pāñcarātra.
The Ananta-śayana / Yoga-nidrā form of Nārāyaṇa is:
Canonical in Pāñcarātra
Theologically loaded
Ritually central in many temples
In this form:
Nārāyaṇa reclines on Ananta / Śeṣa
Lakṣmī is at his feet or chest
Creation emanates during his “sleep”
This is not decorative mythology — it expresses core doctrine:
| Element | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Reclining posture | Transcendence + effortless sovereignty |
| Ananta-Śeṣa | Infinite support / cosmic order |
| Sleep (yoga-nidrā) | Creation without exertion |
| Lakṣmī | Mediating śakti, grace |
The famous temples of Śrīraṅgam, Tiruvanantapuram, Melkote all reflect this Pāñcarātric logic, even when later traditions reinterpret it.
Pāñcarātra allows multiple authorized arcā forms of Nārāyaṇa:
Standing (sthānaka)
– For kingship, protection, public darśan
Seated (āsana)
– For teaching, bestowal of grace
Reclining (śayana)
– For cosmic sovereignty and emanation
But in all cases:
The deity is Nārāyaṇa, not a local Viṣṇu or avatāra.
Nārāyaṇa’s most concrete doctrinal role is that:
He does not descend directly
He emanates vyūhas
Thus:
Vāsudeva = Nārāyaṇa in his purest mode
The temple icon ultimately represents Vāsudeva
This means:
Worship is not historical or narrative
It is ontological alignment
No — but it is the first systematized, temple-centered, theologically rigorous cult of Nārāyaṇa.
Nārāyaṇa appears earlier in:
Late Vedic texts
Mahābhārata
Early Upaniṣadic material
But there:
He is cosmic
Abstract
Not embedded in a full ritual-temple system
There was no unified Nārāyaṇa cult with icons, mantras, and initiation.
Pāñcarātra:
Makes Nārāyaṇa the exclusive supreme deity
Builds a complete ritual system
Integrates:
Mantra
Icon
Temple architecture
Liberation theory
Subordinates all avatāras to him
In that sense:
Pāñcarātra creates Nārāyaṇa as a lived, temple-based religious reality.
Later traditions inherit but reinterpret this:
Retains Nārāyaṇa’s supremacy
Keeps reclining iconography
Philosophically reframes him via Vedānta
Marginalizes Nārāyaṇa
Elevates Kṛṣṇa
Retains Pāñcarātra ritual mechanics only
Absorbs Nārāyaṇa into “Viṣṇu”
Makes avatāras dominant
Weakens the vyūha structure
In Pāñcarātra, Nārāyaṇa is the eternal sovereign whose reclining, iconic presence anchors ritual, cosmology, and liberation, while all other forms exist only as his functional manifestations.
Yes, Nārāyaṇa is concretely worshipped, especially as Ananta-śayana
He is the central, supreme, ritual deity
Pāñcarātra is not the earliest mention of Nārāyaṇa
But it is the first full religious system built around him
If you want, the next logical step would be:
Why “Viṣṇu” replaces “Nārāyaṇa” in popular Hinduism
Or a direct comparison: Nārāyaṇa vs Kṛṣṇa vs Śiva as supreme
Or how temple iconography encodes Pāñcarātra metaphysics
Just tell me where to continue.
Our never-ending series on Pancaratra and related problematiques continue. This is part 15. Seems I can do this all day long!
What role does Shri / Lakshmi play in Pancaratra?
Śrī / Lakṣmī plays a foundational, not merely consort-level role in Pāñcarātra. In fact, without Śrī, Pāñcarātra theology and ritual do not function at all. Her role is ontological, soteriological, and ritual-mediatory, and it is one of the most distinctive features of the tradition.
Below is a structured explanation.
In Pāñcarātra, Śrī is:
Co-eternal with Nārāyaṇa
Ontologically necessary
The power (śakti) without which Viṣṇu does not act
Many Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās explicitly state:
Nārāyaṇa never exists or acts without Śrī.
This already differentiates Pāñcarātra from many Purāṇic forms of Vaiṣṇavism.
Śrī is:
Not created
Not an avatāra
Not subordinate
She is:
Viṣṇu’s intrinsic śakti
The principle of:
Manifestation
Grace
Mediation
In some texts, she is described as:
anādi (beginningless)
nitya (eternal)
sarvaśakti-svarūpiṇī (embodiment of all powers)
This is perhaps her most important role.
Viṣṇu is:
Supreme
Transcendent
Just
Śrī is:
Compassionate
Accessible
Relational
Therefore:
Liberation flows through Śrī’s recommendation.
She:
Softens Viṣṇu’s sovereignty
Advocates for the devotee
Makes grace possible
This logic is later fully developed in Śrīvaiṣṇava theology, but it is already present in Pāñcarātra.
In Pāñcarātra ritual:
Mantras are:
Often Śrī–Nārāyaṇa mantras
Nyāsa frequently places:
Śrī first
Viṣṇu second
Pūjā sequences:
Invoke Śrī before Viṣṇu
The ritual assumption is:
Approach Viṣṇu through Śrī.
Śrī participates in the vyūha structure:
She is associated especially with:
Vāsudeva
She is not duplicated as separate vyūhas
She remains:
Unified
Transcendent
Present at all levels
Thus:
Vyūhas = Viṣṇu’s self-differentiation
Śrī = enabling presence across differentiation
Śrī governs:
Prosperity
Order
Fertility
Stability
But in Pāñcarātra this is not merely worldly:
Cosmic order itself is an expression of her grace
Without Śrī, manifestation would collapse
| Tradition | Śrī’s role |
|---|---|
| Pāñcarātra | Ontological co-principle, mediator |
| Vaikhānasa | Revered but less central |
| Purāṇic Vaiṣṇavism | Consort, prosperity goddess |
| Śrīvaiṣṇava | Mediatrix, co-savior |
| Gauḍīya | Secondary to Rādhā |
Pāñcarātra is the bridge between Purāṇic Lakṣmī and Śrīvaiṣṇava Śrī.
Śrī’s elevation allowed Pāñcarātra to:
Integrate feminine divine power
Soften ritual hierarchy
Provide a relational path to grace
Influence later bhakti theologies
This is one reason Śrīvaiṣṇavas could adopt Pāñcarātra so thoroughly.
In Pāñcarātra, Śrī is the power that makes Viṣṇu accessible, grace operative, and liberation possible.
Śrī / Lakṣmī in Pāñcarātra is:
Eternal
Co-equal
Mediatory
Ritually central
Soteriologically indispensable
She is not peripheral ornamentation but the hinge on which the entire system turns.
If you want next, we could:
Compare Śrī in Pāñcarātra vs Śrīvaiṣṇava Vedānta
Examine Lakṣmī mantras and nyāsa in specific Saṃhitās
Or contrast Śrī–Nārāyaṇa vs Rādhā–Kṛṣṇa theologies
Just say where to go next.
Back to basics...
Does Pancaratra mysticism have some kind of stages? After all, there are several different emanations, Vasudeva being the highest.
Yes. Pāñcarātra does have a staged mystical structure, but it is not a “ladder of experiences” in the later bhakti or yogic sense. Its stages are ontological, cosmological, and ritual–mystical at once. The system you are intuiting—the emanations with Vāsudeva at the summit—is exactly where this staging lives.
What follows is a careful, technical explanation, because Pāñcarātra mysticism is often misunderstood as either “pure ritualism” or “crude emanationism,” neither of which is accurate.
Classical Pāñcarātra metaphysics is organized around the four vyūhas (emanations):
Vāsudeva
Saṅkarṣaṇa
Pradyumna
Aniruddha
These are not “avatars” but graded self-manifestations of Nārāyaṇa.
Vāsudeva – pure, undifferentiated divine consciousness
Saṅkarṣaṇa – principle of individuation (jīva and prakṛti)
Pradyumna – mind and cosmic intelligence
Aniruddha – ego, action, and manifest order
This already establishes a vertical structure.
Pāñcarātra ritual assumes:
The cosmos, the temple, the mantra, and the practitioner are homologous.
Therefore:
The vyūhas are:
Cosmological levels
Mantric realities
Ritual stations
Meditative foci
Mysticism occurs when the practitioner reverses the emanative flow.
Unlike later bhakti traditions, Pāñcarātra does not always list “Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3” explicitly. But the structure is clearly there.
External pūjā
Bodily purity
Icon worship
Ethical discipline
This is the domain of correct action (kriyā).
Mantra recitation
Visualization
Yantra contemplation
Mantra–deity identity begins
This is the domain of cognition (jñāna infused with mantra).
Nyāsa
Subtle-body mapping
Identification with cosmic principles
Dissolution of ego-bound individuality
This is the domain of interior ritual and yogic transformation.
Cessation of ritual differentiation
Awareness of divine plenitude
Not emotional ecstasy, but ontological stillness
This is liberation (mokṣa) in Pāñcarātra terms.
Pāñcarātra mysticism is:
Technical
Ritualized
Ontological
It does not emphasize:
Love
Longing
Ecstasy
Narrative intimacy
Those belong to later bhakti systems.
Instead:
Transformation happens by ritual alignment with cosmic structure.
You’re correct: Vāsudeva is the summit, because:
He is:
Unconditioned
Undifferentiated
Free from function
The other vyūhas:
Have cosmological roles
Govern manifestation
In ritual ascent:
One moves from function
Toward pure presence
Temple worship mirrors this ascent:
Outer courtyard → Aniruddha
Inner halls → Pradyumna
Sanctum → Saṅkarṣaṇa
Icon → Vāsudeva
Thus:
Walking through the temple is itself a mystical ascent.
| Dimension | Pāñcarātra | Later Bhakti |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | Ontological | Emotional |
| Method | Ritual + mantra | Remembrance + love |
| Goal | Non-dual presence | Loving union |
| Highest state | Vāsudeva | Rasa / prema |
| Accessibility | Initiatory | Open |
Because:
Pāñcarātra mysticism is embedded in ritual manuals
It lacks autobiographical literature
Later bhakti redefined “mysticism” emotionally
But structurally, it is one of the most sophisticated mystical systems in Indian religion.
Pāñcarātra mysticism unfolds as a ritualized reversal of divine emanation, culminating in non-dual awareness of Vāsudeva.
Yes—Pāñcarātra has stages, but they are:
Cosmological
Mantric
Ritual
Ontological
—not psychological or emotional.
If you want next, I can:
Compare this with Śaiva Siddhānta’s stages
Map Pāñcarātra ascent onto specific Saṃhitā passages
Or contrast it with Gauḍīya rejection of ontological ascent
Just say where to go next.
