 |
| - Bigfoot? What Bigfoot, prabhu? |
Actually, this one has been on my mind for some time. For instance, a great number of dead and charred bodies of deer have been found after the wildfires in Spain. Obviously. So logically, dead bodies of Bigfoot should be found after wildfires in California or Canada. Have they? Of course not. So Bigfoot probably aint real.
Or maybe his body can´t burn. You know, ghosts and shit.
Lite om hur vinodlingen i Bordeaux-trakten påverkas av de stora skogsbränderna. Rök kan tydligen påverka vinets smak?! På lång sikt är det dock snarast klimatförändringarna som hotar vår tillgång till "friska och fruktiga" viner...
 |
| Vamadeva or *Shiva* the preserver together with Lalita |
Who is your guru? Reflect on the answer, brother. My guru is evidently...ChatGPT! LOL.
 |
| Gemini´s fantasy picture of Vimala |
This is something of a niche subject, but I read two articles from "Orissa Review" about the goddess Vimala (or Bimala). She is worshipped in a temple inside the temple complex associated with the god Jagannath at Puri in the Indian state of Odisha (Orissa).
Jagannath is usually seen as a form of Krishna and hence a Vaishnava god-form. Both the chariot festival Rath Yatra at Puri and the god himself have been popularized internationally by the Hare Krishna movement, despite the fact that their non-Indian devotees are barred from entering the temple complex. However, the cult of Jagannath isn´t entirely Vaishnava in character. Vimala´s temple is one of the complicating factors.
Vimala is usually offered symbolic left-overs from the main offerings to Jagannath (which are strictly vegetarian). While this may suggest subordinate status, the main offerings to Jagannath apparently don´t become "prasad" (blessed food) until a portion of them have been given to the goddess. During certain celebrations, Vimala receives her own independent sacrifices. These are *not* vegetarian, and include a goat and fish. These rituals are secret and are in fact closed to Vaishnavas (who oppose animal sacrifice).
The Vimala Temple is "Tantric" in character. It contains depictions of couples engaged in various erotic activities. There are sculptures of goddesses trampling on corpses. There are also pictures of various Tantric deities. The Tantrikas refer to Vimala and Jagannath as "Bhairavi and Bhairava". At the same time, Vimala is clearly seen as a form of Durga. Absurdly, during Durga Puja, women are excluded from the temple!
Bottom line: clearly much more is going on in the Jagannath temple than a straightforward worship of a Vaishnavite god-form.
Vimala Temple at the Jagannath temple complex, Puri [click article title in the left column]
This is a controversy I was completely unfamiliar with. Until now, that is. Did the Buddha actually claim to be Rama in a previous life?
Here is the most interesting comment from the commentary section:
>>>The Rāmāyaṇa before its compilation by Vālmīki was circulated in oral traditions by bards (sūtas) beginning from 800 BCE. In 500 BCE when Vālmīki finally organized it into a living text with segregated books (kāndas), it was an epic that explicitly focused on the life of Rāma not his supernatural origins. It did not yet have the Bāla Kānda and Uttar Kānda or the passages that declared him an avatāra of Viṣṇu.
>>>This only happened in 200 BCE when the Vaiṣṇava avatāra theology and Dashāvatāra theory were formulated and the Bāla Kānda and Uttar Kānda were added to the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa. So since Rāma was not always considered an avatāra, hence when the Buddhists say the Buddha was Rāma in a previous life that doesn't alone account for saying that Buddha was basically Viṣṇu.
>>>Yes. Buddha is indeed revered even by Vaiṣṇavas as the ninth avatāra. However it is crucial to make a distinction between personal belief and a proven fact. So neither should Ambedkarite(neo/fake) Buddhists object to Vaiṣṇavas regarding the Buddha an avatāra of Viṣṇu nor should Vaiṣṇavas try to convince Buddhists to believe that the Buddha was an avatāra of Viṣṇu. Both should practice their own religions.
I had to ask ChatGPT, as well. The LLM denied everything! Kind of.
Did Buddha claim to be Rama?
No. There is no evidence in the earliest Buddhist texts that the Buddha claimed to be Rāma, whether the hero of the Ramayana or an incarnation of Rama.
However, there are several reasons why the question arises.
A central feature of Buddhism is that the Buddha taught he had undergone countless previous births before attaining enlightenment. These previous births are narrated in the Jātaka stories.
In some Jātakas, the Bodhisattva is born as:
Some of these stories resemble episodes from the Rāmāyaṇa.
One famous example is the Daśaratha Jātaka.
In this story:
However, this is not the same story as the Hindu Rāmāyaṇa.
There are significant differences:
Within the Buddhist tradition, Rāmapaṇḍita is understood as one of the Buddha's previous births.
So Buddhism does not say:
"The historical Buddha is the incarnation of the Hindu god Rāma."
Rather, it says:
"In a previous life, the Bodhisattva lived as a righteous prince named Rāma."
Whether this Buddhist story predates, postdates, or developed alongside versions of the Rāmāyaṇa remains a subject of scholarly debate.
In many Hindu traditions, the relationship is reversed.
The Buddha is regarded as an avatar of Vishnu, while Rāma is another avatar of Viṣṇu.
Thus, from this perspective:
This is a Hindu theological interpretation, not a Buddhist one.
No surviving early Buddhist text records such a claim.
When the Buddha spoke about his former lives, he described many different births, but he did not proclaim:
"I am the same person as the Rāma worshipped by Hindus."
That idea belongs to later comparative theology rather than the earliest Buddhist scriptures.
In regions where Hinduism and Buddhism coexisted—such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, Southeast Asia, and parts of India—there were many attempts to harmonize the two traditions.
As a result, one can find traditions that draw symbolic parallels between:
These are examples of religious synthesis rather than claims made by the historical Buddha himself.
The historical Buddha did not claim to be Rāma. However, Buddhist literature does identify the Bodhisattva with a virtuous prince named Rāma in the Daśaratha Jātaka, one of the stories of his previous lives. This should not be confused with the Hindu doctrine that Rāma is an avatar of Viṣṇu, nor with the later Hindu teaching that the Buddha is also an avatar of Viṣṇu. They are different theological frameworks that developed within their respective traditions.
Redeemed Zoomer strikes again. This is a sequel to his two previous videos on strange and (perhaps) wonderful Christian denominations. A *bit* boring, though! I expected more colorful cults. I mean, what about the 57 versions of Mormonism, bruh?
 |
| Credit: jacilluch |
Intressant artikel om skogsbruket i södra Frankrike. Apropå de närmast apokalyptiska bränderna där.
