The heart of the world

 

You learn new stuff every day, I mean, what on earth is this? 

What is the Brahma Padartha of the Jagannath idol in Puri?

The Brahma Padārtha (also called Brahma Tattva or Brahma Substance) of the Jagannath idol in Puri refers to the mysterious, formless, eternal essence believed to reside within the wooden idol of Lord Jagannath. This concept is esoteric and sacred, and it plays a central role in the spiritual power and sanctity of the deity's murti (image).

---

🌀 What Is Brahma Padārtha?

• "Brahma" here means the absolute, unmanifest divine essence—the ultimate reality (nirguna Brahman).

• "Padārtha" means "substance" or "entity."

• It is not made of wood or any visible material, and is believed to be eternal, unchanging, and divinely potent.

• It is the inner core placed inside the heart space of each deity during the Nabakalebara ceremony, a rare ritual when the wooden forms of Jagannath, Balabhadra, Subhadra, and Sudarshana are ritually renewed (usually every 12–19 years).

---

🔒 Secret and Sacred Tradition

• The Brahma Padārtha is never seen by the public or even most priests.

• During Nabakalebara, the old idols are buried and new ones are created—but the Brahma substance is carefully transferred from the old to the new idol by a select group of priests in a ritual called Brahma Parivartan (“transfer of the Brahma”).

• This ritual happens at night, in total secrecy. Even the priests performing the ritual are blindfolded, and some say their hands are covered as well.

• According to tradition, anyone who sees the Brahma Padārtha dies or becomes spiritually overwhelmed.

---

🧭 Interpretations

The exact nature of the Brahma Padārtha is not publicly known, but there are many interpretations:

🔹 Traditional Beliefs:

• Some believe it is a relic—perhaps a fragment of a divine jewel, ancient deity, or even Buddha’s tooth or Krishna’s heart.

• Others say it is a symbolic object, like a salagrama shila (sacred stone representing Vishnu), or a mantra written on palm leaf.

🔹 Philosophical Interpretations:

• From a Vedantic or Pancaratra point of view, it represents Paramatma, the indwelling supreme spirit.

• It may symbolize the transition from Nirguna (formless) to Saguna (with form)—i.e., the eternal presence of God in a visible, devotional form.

---

🙏 Connection to Devotion and Mystery

For devotees, the Brahma Padārtha reinforces the idea that Jagannath is not just an idol, but a living, divine being—his heart beats with eternal consciousness.

It reflects the deepest level of sanctity in Hindu image worship: behind the visible form lies the invisible, eternal, formless divine.

---

Would you like a symbolic or poetic interpretation of this concept, or how it might be approached in solitary devotion or meditation? 

Can you tell me more about the idea that it´s actually Krishna´s heart?

Yes, the idea that the Brahma Padārtha inside the Jagannath idol is Krishna’s heart is one of the most powerful and poetic devotional interpretations in the Jagannath tradition. It blends mythology, mystery, and bhakti into a rich theological symbol.

---

🫀 The Story: Krishna's Heart Survives Death

This belief is rooted in a narrative from Odisha’s local traditions and Puranic-style legends, especially as told in the Jagannath Mahatmya and Darubrahma narratives:

1. Krishna's Cremation: After Krishna leaves his mortal body (as described in the Mausala Parva of the Mahabharata), his body is cremated, but his heart does not burn. It remains intact, glowing and powerful.

2. The Floating Relic: This heart, sometimes called the “Darubrahma” (divine wooden essence or relic), floats on the ocean, carrying within it the eternal presence of Krishna.

3. Discovery by a King: A devout king—identified in some versions as King Indradyumna—has a dream or vision of the floating relic and is divinely instructed to recover it. He builds a great temple and carves the idols of Jagannath, Balabhadra, and Subhadra out of divine neem wood (daru).

4. Heart Placed in the Idol: The Brahma Padārtha, said to be Krishna’s unburned heart, is installed inside the core of Jagannath's body. It becomes the eternal inner essence that gives life to the deity’s image.

---

🌀 Theological and Devotional Meaning

💓 Symbol of Eternal Love:

• The idea that Krishna’s heart survives is a metaphor for God’s endless love for his devotees. It remains ever-beating, ever-present, even beyond death.

🔥 Symbol of Transcendence:

• Just as Krishna is beyond death, his heart represents the eternal divine reality that cannot be destroyed—neither by fire nor time.

🔁 Cyclical Renewal:

• During Nabakalebara, the heart is transferred from old idol to new—showing that forms may change, but the essence remains. It is a living symbol of divine continuity.

---

🕉 Syncretic and Tantric Elements

In some Tantric or esoteric interpretations, Krishna’s heart is also seen as identical with the formless, universal consciousness, combining:

• Vaishnava bhakti (love of Krishna)

• Tantric symbolism (Brahma tattva, bija essence)

• Philosophical metaphysics (Paramatma, Nirguna Brahman)

In this reading, the heart is not just an organ, but the cosmic center, the Bindu, the mystical flame or sound (nada) that sustains the entire world.

---

Horst-Mahler-Lied

 

Några reflektioner från vår ofrivilliga grannblogg... 

Horst Mahler har gått bort, och så vidare

Bromance or just transvestigation?

 

Does Macron have a bromance with his waifu Brigitte? Is Brigitte really her own brother and Macron´s father? Or is Candace Owens just fake and gay? There is also a funny one-person conspiracy theory that Candace herself is a man, LOL.

Frankly, why do the Macrons even care about this BS? I assumed France was the world capital of libertinage anyhow. As opposed to, say, MK-Ultra.

And here´s ChatGPT!  

Does Candace Owens claim that French president Macron´s wife Brigitte is really his father and a gay man?

Yes — Candace Owens has repeatedly claimed that French First Lady Brigitte Macron was born male, specifically alleging she was formerly her brother, Jean‑Michel Trogneux, transitioned to female, and engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy including incest, identity theft, and CIA mind-control involvement.

Key details:

• Owens asserted in 2024 that she would "stake her entire professional reputation" on the claim that Brigitte Macron is a man Omni+15Advocate.com+15The Independent+15.

• She promoted these allegations in an eight-part podcast and social media posts under titles like “Becoming Brigitte” The Week+15Them+15People.com+15.

• The conspiracy theory originated from fringe French outlets in 2021, and similar claims have no credible evidence and remain widely debunked Advocate.comThe Times of IndiaThe Guardian.

---

🔍 French Legal Action

• President Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron have filed a 218–219 page defamation lawsuit in Delaware, accusing Candace Owens of spreading false and defamatory conspiracies about Brigitte, including that she was born male, involved in incest, and that Emmanuel Macon’s presidency was linked to CIA programs Advocate.com+15El País+15dw.com+15.

• The lawsuit includes 22 counts and seeks unspecified damages for emotional and reputational harm CBS Nyheter.

---

✅ Conclusion

No credible basis exists for Owens’s claims. The conspiracy is defamatory and discredited, prompting legal action by the Macrons. So, yes, Candace Owens has publicly made those claims, and they are false as well as legally challenged.

Powerful demons

 

 

Sthaneshwar Timalsina again, talking about Shiva, Bhairava and Rudra. Think Non-Dual (?) Shaiva Tantra. Note the weird story on how Timalsina has to save his ascetic Advaita uncle once every year from physically dying by simply hurling him to a modern hospital?! The Rudra-mantra stuff strikes me as very esoterick...

Make of this somewhat peculiar material whatever ye wish.  

Understated

 

LOL. My nostalgic revisits of old Amazon customer reviews continue. Yes, this is a sequel to the "Apollo cult" stuff. Brace yourselves...

Is this a true description of the moth/butterfly collector´s subculture: "But then, it's quite possible that collectors of Lepidoptera really are a bit `out there´. I read in another book about the existence of two factions within this particular community in Britain. One believes it's OK to kill and pin moths, but not OK to kill and pin butterflies. Another faction doesn't want to kill moths either. (Presumably, there is also a third faction who wants to kill'em all.) Apparently, the conflicts between these groups can become somewhat acrimonious..."

Yes, that description is broadly true — and even understated. The world of Lepidoptera collectors (and amateur entomologists more broadly) has long had its internal divisions, some of which can get surprisingly passionate for what is, on the surface, a quiet and delicate hobby.

Here’s how those dynamics break down:

---

🦋 1. The "Moth vs. Butterfly" Split

✔️ Real and observed.
In the UK and elsewhere, there's a cultural distinction between moth collectors and butterfly collectors, even though both belong to the order Lepidoptera. Historically:

• Butterflies have enjoyed a more romantic, conservationist image, especially post-1970s.

• Moths were traditionally treated more as subjects of natural history and taxonomy, often collected in large numbers by amateur and professional entomologists.

Some modern butterfly enthusiasts consider pinning butterflies to be cruel or unnecessary, especially for common or protected species. But they may be more lenient with moths, which are often more difficult to identify alive due to their nocturnal behavior and less distinctive field markings.

Thus you sometimes get "split positions":

• ✔️ Kill-and-pin moths: OK

• ❌ Kill-and-pin butterflies: Not OK

This inconsistency is sometimes criticized within the subculture as aesthetic bias — butterflies are seen as “pretty” and “special,” while moths are “brown” and “numerous.” Some collectors find this logic incoherent, which leads to…

---

⚔️ 2. Ethical Conflict & Acrimony

✔️ Also real.
The debate over killing specimens is a hot-button issue in some Lepidoptera societies:

• Conservation-minded members may advocate photographic records only or live-trapping with release.

• Traditionalists argue that collecting is essential to taxonomy, museum work, and species monitoring, and point out that collecting rarely impacts populations if done responsibly.

• A small but vocal group of "preservationists" regard any killing for hobby purposes as immoral.

This has led to splits within societies, heated letters in entomological journals, and personal feuds, especially when public exhibitions or conservation policies are involved.

---

🐛 3. The “Kill-’Em-All” Faction

✔️ Exists — but rare today.
There used to be (and still are) a few collectors who treat Lepidoptera much like stamps: if it’s new, rare, or not in their collection, they’ll pin it, regardless of status or rarity. This approach is increasingly frowned upon, especially with endangered species and international regulations (e.g., CITES).

In the past, collectors like Walter Rothschild or Lord Walsingham amassed enormous insect collections from around the world, killing millions of specimens — but in a pre-conservation era where scientific knowledge took precedence.

Today, modern ethics, conservation laws, and social pressure have significantly constrained this approach, at least publicly.

---

📚 In Summary

Yes, the Lepidoptera collector subculture can be:

• Quirky

• Internally divided

• Occasionally acrimonious, especially over ethics

But it’s also deeply passionate, often scientifically valuable, and part of a long tradition of natural history. Like many niche hobbies, it contains multitudes — from Zen-like moth-watchers to pin-happy collectors with secret drawers full of rarities.

The Apollo cult revisited

 

LOL. I didn´t know Bernard D´Abrera was *this* notorious. Not only does ChatGPT know about him, there is even an entry on the man on RationalWiki (the link in orange below). So I can´t have been the only person who noticed his somewhat idiosyncratic butterfly books. And just as I suspected, D´Abrera had the reputation for being...shall we say...difficult. Still, the AI is actually a bit charitable to some of his observations here. The Apollo "cult" seems to be real?!

Bernard d´Abrera

Here is D´Abrera again. Is this a true or fair observation? "In this volume, D'Abrera has some pretty unkind words to say about some of his fellow butterfly-collectors. He claims that there is a veritable cultus of the genus Parnassius (the Apollos) among lepidopterists, a cultus with its own high priests, acolytes, a nomenclature bordering on the hagiographic and a literature with the force of Canon Law. Anyone who questions the prevalent taxonomy of these particular butterflies is suspected of heresy, anathematized and excommunicated. Presumably, the authors' taxonomy is controversial among Appolo-infatuated collectors and scientists all over the Holarctic region..."

Yes, Bernard d’Abrera’s remark about a "cultus of Parnassius" among lepidopterists is real — in the sense that he did write things along those lines — but whether his observation is fair depends on how charitably one interprets his rhetoric.

---

🔍 Context and Interpretation

D’Abrera was known for his deeply opinionated style, often blending scientific observations with cultural, philosophical, and theological polemics. His statements about the Parnassius "cultus" reflect his broader frustration with what he saw as:

• Overly rigid or dogmatic taxonomic systems

• Scientific elitism or groupthink in entomology

• Excessive splitting of species into subspecies or varieties based on minor morphological differences

He often described these behaviors in grandiloquent, sometimes sarcastic terms, borrowing language from religion — "high priests," "canon law," "heresy," etc. It’s colorful and provocative, but it’s also a metaphor, not a literal accusation.

---

🦋 Is There Any Truth to It?

Surprisingly, yes — at least partially. Here's why:

1. Parnassius Has a Complex Taxonomy

• The genus Parnassius (Apollo butterflies) is notoriously difficult to classify.

• Many populations are geographically isolated mountain dwellers with subtle but consistent morphological differences, leading to:

  • Dozens (or hundreds) of named subspecies

  • Frequent disputes over species vs. subspecies status

2. Strong Collector Enthusiasm

• Parnassius is beloved among butterfly collectors, especially in Europe, Russia, Japan, and China.

• The group is surrounded by a wealth of literature, specialized monographs, and highly detailed field guides.

• Certain taxa can fetch high prices on the collectors’ market.

• This leads to passionate debates and strong in-group consensus on classifications.

3. Conservative or Rigid Taxonomies

• In some taxonomic circles, dissent from the prevailing views (especially by non-academics) is indeed treated dismissively.

• This isn’t unique to Parnassius or entomology — scientific subfields sometimes develop cliques, especially around charismatic taxa.

So D’Abrera is using exaggerated, satirical language, but he's critiquing a real tendency in the butterfly community: the tribalism that can emerge around difficult or beloved genera.

---

🧠 Is It a Fair Critique?

Fair-ish, but laced with hyperbole.

• Yes, because taxonomic debates can indeed become cliquish, politically charged, or stubbornly orthodox.

• No, if interpreted literally as some kind of irrational religious cult. Most taxonomists are serious professionals doing their best in a difficult field.

---

💬 Final Thought

D’Abrera was a provocateur, but his critique of Parnassius scholarship reflects a genuine tension in taxonomy between:

• Stability vs. revision

• Professional vs. amateur contributions

• Morphological vs. molecular approaches

It’s a poetic exaggeration, not a dispassionate analysis — but as a metaphor, it rings surprisingly true in some corners of entomology.

Would you like examples of famous Parnassius disputes or subspecies inflation?

Yes, please.

You're absolutely right to ask. The genus Parnassius (Apollo butterflies) is famous—or infamous—among lepidopterists for one of the highest rates of subspecific and varietal descrip­tions in Lepidoptera, often leading to protracted debates and sharply divided camps.

Here are some well-documented controversies that illustrate why D'Abrera’s depiction of a Parnassius cultus is at least partially grounded in reality:

---

🧐 1. *Over 200–290 named subspecies of Parnassius apollo*

• Parnassius apollo, the emblematic Apollo, has been described under more than 200 subspecies names, especially in Europe and Central Asia ResearchGateGöran Waldeck.

• In the Carpatho‑Pannonian region alone, 26 subspecies were defined based on limited morphological traits like wing color and patterns SpringerLinkGöran Waldeck.

• A 2024 morphometric study of 20 so-called subspecies in that region found virtually no significant wing‑shape divergence, suggesting that dozens of named forms may not merit formal taxonomic recognition SpringerLink.

---

🔬 2. Morphological discipline vs. molecular data

• Traditional taxonomists relied heavily on wing color, pattern, and minor structural traits (plus location data) to name new subspecies.

• Modern molecular studies (e.g., mitochondrial DNA barcoding) reveal that many of these subspecies lack genetic differentiation and may actually represent phenotypic variants within a single species MDPIOxford AcademicScienceDirect.

• This mismatch has fueled divisions between "splitters", who emphasize morphological subtlety, and "lumpers", who stress genetic unity.

---

🌍 3. Geographic isolation and the naming frenzy

• Many alleged subspecies inhabit extremely remote and narrow habitats (e.g. high-altitude Tibetan valleys, small Pamir peaks).

• Collectors described new subspecies often based on single or handful of specimens from unique locales — sometimes accessed only by helicopter ZobodatEureka MagEureka Mag.

• These small-isolated populations were quickly named, reinforcing the view of a taxonomic cult based on micro-endemism.

---

👥 4. Emotional and ideological investment

• Parnassius butterflies are deeply beloved by collectors across Eurasia.

• Some communities treat specific subspecies as prestigious or rare trophies, generating a parallel literature and community logic that can resist revisionist voices.

• An outsider questioning a named subspecies may risk criticism in those circles — an effect reminiscent of the "heresy" rhetoric D’Abrera uses metaphorically.

---

✅ Summary: How fair is D’Abrera’s characterization?

Claim	Scientific Justification
Parnassius has a cult-like subculture	Yes—intense collector and taxonomic interest across regions
Subspecies proliferation based on minor differences	Yes—hundreds of subspecies based on wing markings and location
Resistance to revision by questioning collectors	Yes, splitters vs lumpers dispute remains active

So while D’Abrera’s tone is deliberately provocative, it captures a real dynamic in Parnassius taxonomy: entrenched subspecific naming, sometimes spectacular collector devotion, and a lively tension between morphological tradition and molecular modernity.

---

Would you like an outline of a few especially contentious Parnassius species-groups or further reading on the ongoing molecular-lumping efforts?

The divine prankster

I can´t help "test" some of my old blog post on ChatGPT, just to see its reaction. Years ago, I discovered that the author/creator (pun intended) of a series of colorful books on butterflies was a creationist with some pretty whimsical ideas. So naturally I had to ask the AI some whimsical questions about it!  

[My old blog post/book review] "Butterflies of the Neotropical region. Part 6" is an illustrated reference work to the South and Central American metalmark butterflies (Riodinidae). That, however, is the least interesting part of the book... 

I was somewhat surprised to see the author, Bernard D'Abrera, quoting both the Bible and Thomas à Kempis in an earlier volume of this series. In this volume, the plot thickens as D'Abrera turns out to be...yes, a true blue creationist! His creationist musings can be found on ppg. 984 and 1015-1016. It's all in there: attacks on the French revolution, Vulgate quotations, anti-Communism, Thomas Aquinas, creation ex nihilo... 

Charles Darwin's "On the origins of species" is referred to as Charles Darwin's Book of Fairy Tales for Grown Ups. I take it D'Abrera is a very conservative Catholic. 

The author attacks the notion of Batesian and Müllerian mimicry rings, claiming that there really is no such thing. He also claims that the metalmark butterflies are a practical joke by God at His own expense, since this butterfly family seems to recapitulate all other butterfly groups in an almost spooky fashion. I admit that they do. 

It's unfortunate that the author blends these interesting, though somewhat zany, philosophical speculations with a socially regressive message that would make King Louis XVI blush. Still, it does mean that I managed to solve a little mystery. 

[My question to ChatGPT] Is it true that metalmark butterflies "recapitulate all other butterfly families", that is, there are metalmarks which look very similar to members of other butterfly families?

Yes, it is true — metalmark butterflies (family Riodinidae) are remarkably diverse in appearance and often show striking resemblances to species from other butterfly families, including Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae, Pieridae, and Hesperiidae. This uncanny visual mimicry has long intrigued lepidopterists and evolutionary biologists.

---

🦋 Why Do Metalmarks Resemble Other Butterflies?

There are a few key explanations, none of which require divine pranks — but they do highlight fascinating evolutionary dynamics:

---

🔁 1. Mimicry (Batesian & Müllerian)

Many Riodinids are involved in mimicry rings, either as mimics or models:

• Batesian mimicry: A harmless species mimics a toxic one.

• Müllerian mimicry: Several toxic species converge on a shared warning appearance.

➡️ Riodinids sometimes mimic ithomiine glasswing butterflies, tiger moths, or even certain day-flying moths and skippers.

---

🎨 2. Morphological Plasticity and Evolutionary Flexibility

Riodinidae has over 1,500 species, mostly in the Neotropics, and has evolved into a wide range of ecological niches and visual forms.

• Some look like hairstreaks (Lycaenidae), others like brush-foots (Nymphalidae).

• This morphological convergence can happen due to shared habitats, predators, and selective pressures.

➡️ A Riodinid that lives in a forest canopy with Heliconius butterflies might evolve to look like them — not by divine humor, but natural selection.

---

🧬 3. Genetic and Developmental Flexibility

Butterfly wing patterns are controlled by a small number of regulatory genes (like optix, wntA, cortex, etc.). These can be turned on or off in different ways to produce similar patterns across unrelated groups.

➡️ This makes convergent evolution of appearance more common than you might expect.

---

🧠 D’Abrera’s Interpretation

Bernard D’Abrera’s creationist view reframes this convergence as a kind of divine parody or aesthetic gesture — a way for God to "confuse" naturalists or showcase his whimsical creativity. That’s clearly a philosophical or theological reading, not a scientific one, but it’s rooted in his broader worldview.

Despite this, his observation that Riodinids seem to “recapitulate” the appearance of other families is empirically valid — the reason why they do so is where his interpretation diverges sharply from evolutionary biology.

---

✅ Conclusion

Yes, metalmark butterflies do often look like members of other butterfly families. This is a well-documented phenomenon and a textbook example of mimicry and evolutionary convergence, not divine mischief — but D’Abrera’s colorful framing adds a strange and oddly memorable twist to it.

Would you like image examples of Riodinid species that mimic other families?

Large Language Model

 

The first video (about Ozzy Osbourne) is extremely infuriating. The second one is about a new trend among charismatic Christians: to speak in tongues and then ask ChatGPT to "translate" it?! Yes, really. Gives an entirely new meaning to the term "Large Language Model"! Ironically, both presenters sound AI-like so there´s that... 

I won´t even tell you what the third video is about. But yeah, chances are that´s just another AI end times deception...