It seems me and JMG have something in common. We both hanged around the far left political subculture in our sadly misspent youths. In JMG´s case, the place was Seattle, where he encountered the RCP and FSP. I actually encountered the RCP in another US city, but not the FSP, although I certainly devoured the latter group´s magazines and pamphlets. As for Situationism, the anarchists around 1985-90 still talked about them. If you knew were to look, you could even buy Swedish translations of some of their pamphlets. I agree that they were typical French rebel intellectuals: some interesting takes here and there, but of course completely unpractical from a political POV. Their Swedish co-thinkers (which I think were called The Golden Fleet) were apparently unpractical for another reason - they were constantly high on drugs!
But I´m digressing...
The essay linked below is apparantly the first in an entire series. I already have one (important?) disagreement: Marx and Engels were hardly "beta-Marxists" (JMG´s neologism for New Left-derived middle class reformists with a pseudo-radical veneer). They really did support the creation of an independent workers´ movement. However, Marx and Engels were pragmatic enough to support the workers´ movement even under conditions when a revolution was highly unlikely. This led to a tension in the Marxist movement between those who believed in a future revolution (which on the standard interpretation included Marx and Engels themselves - although some have argued that "the late Engels" became a reformist) and those who really wanted reformist politics.
But the latter group (who went on to appropriate the Social Democratic label) didn´t want a "managerial aristocracy" of the current type, but (at least initially) a different kind of managerial elite based on the organizations of the labor movement. "Beta-Marxism" emerges when the labor movement is no longer a serious contender for political power in capitalist society and the managerial elites turns towards (or even creates) middle class "identities" and their protest politics, immigrant groups co-opted by the system, and so on. This does lead to relevant policy changes.
JMG´s description of "alpha-Marxism" (Leninists and Stalinists) and "beta-Marxism" (the New Left, often absorbed by the Democratic Party in the US) are spot on otherwise. I mean, I could name names! It will be interesting to see where he finally lands in his analysis of the Situationist situation...
Yes 🙏 — what you’re recalling sounds very close to a regional or folk version of a Gāyatrī Mantra for Lord Ganesha.
Let’s break down the words you remember:
“Madikai Vidmahe” – This resembles “Vakratundāya Vidmahe” or “Gajānanaḥ Vidmahe”, both common openings of Ganesha Gayatri mantras.
“Matangai Dīhāmi” – Likely a variation of “Tanno Dantīḥ Prachodayāt” or “Tanno Gajapathiḥ Prachodayāt”. “Matanga” (Sanskrit: Mātaṅga) is an epithet of Ganesha, meaning the great elephant.
“Tanno Sūryaḥ Prachodayāt” – Here’s the unusual part. Normally the last line is “Tanno Dantīḥ Prachodayāt” (meaning May Ganesha guide us). But in some folk recensions, especially in South India, mantras for Ganesha and Sūrya are blended, since both are invoked to remove obstacles and bring clarity.
Sanskrit:
Transliteration:
Meaning:
*Om, we meditate on the one-tusked (Ekadanta),
We contemplate the curved-trunked (Vakratunda),
May that tusked Lord (Dantī, i.e., Ganesha) inspire and illumine us.*
It’s possible you’ve encountered a hybrid Gayatri where Surya replaces the last word. This might be from a local tradition, musical rendering, or oral variation. For example:
In some Tamil and Telugu bhajans, Ganesha is equated with Surya as the source of light, so the final invocation becomes Tanno Suryaḥ Prachodayāt.
“Mātaṅga” as Ganesha’s name also connects him to cosmic illumination, which could explain why the Sun (Surya) gets invoked in the variant.
✅ So: it’s not a “canonical” Sanskrit Gayatri from the Vedas, but likely a folk or regional Ganesha-Surya Gayatri variant.
Would you like me to reconstruct the most accurate Sanskrit version of the line you remember, so you can use it in chanting if you wish?
I can't open the video directly, but here's what your mantra lines correspond to—not a standard Gayatri, but likely a folk or creative blend:
| Your Recollection | Likely Intended Meaning | Standard Gāyatrī Variant |
|---|---|---|
| "Madikai Vidmahe" | Could be a lyrical form of “Vakratundāya Vidmahe” (we focus on the curved-trunked Lord, i.e., Ganesha) | Vakratundāya Vidmahe (Ganesha Gayatri) |
| "Matangai Dīhami" | A personalized variant of “Tanno Dantīḥ Prachodayāt” (let that tusked one guide us) | Tanno Dantīḥ Prachodayāt |
| "Tanno Sūryaḥ Prachodayāt" | Substitutes Surya (Sun) for Ganesha in the last line—a regional or devotional variation, unusual but not unheard of | Standard ends with Dantīḥ (Ganesha), not Surya |
You’ve likely encountered a creative or devotional adaptation that blends a Ganesha Gayatri with Surya in the final line—perhaps aiming to invoke both obstacle-removal and illumination.
Such hybrid mantras are common in folk and bhakti practices. They're meant to capture emotional and symbolic resonance, not strict scriptural fidelity.
Meaning: We meditate upon the one-tusked, curved-trunked Ganesha; may that Ganesha enlighten us.
Meaning: We meditate upon Āditya (Sun), the maker of light; may the Sun inspire our intellect.
Your mantra is not a standard Gāyatrī from Sanskrit scripture, but rather a folk devotional variation—a heartfelt fusion invoking Ganesha and Surya together.
If you’d like, I can reconstruct a polished version in Sanskrit for you, or explain how you might chant it meaningfully in a devotional practice.
The Nationalnyckeln project slowly moves forward, and who knows, at this pace maybe they will reach their declared goal around the year 3000 or so. The goal being to publish books covering all (!) extant species of multi-cellular organisms found in Sweden. The latest volume, hot off the presses, is titled "Nationalnyckeln: Kräftdjur - tiofotade kräftdjur. Crustacea: Euphausiacea - Decapoda". Yepp, things are going to get cray cray!
In somewhat plainer English, the book covers two groups of crustaceans: the krill and the decapods. The latter group includes shrimps, crabs, hermit crabs, crayfish, lobsters and God (or is it the other guy) knows what else. I always wax philosophical when leafing through works of this kind. The idea that an indifferent cosmos just tugging along gave rise to sinister-looking creatures like decapods is frankly scarier than the Gnostic take that of course the Devil did it.
We get to meet some old favorites, too. I mean, I can´t be the only person around here who actually *ate* some of this creatures. From my childhood, I remember panicky news broadcasts about the signal crayfish destroying the last remaining populations of European crayfish in Swedish lakes. The European species had already been severly decimated by a disease known as the crayfish plague. Introducing the American signal crayfish (which is resistant to the disease) was originally seen as the salvation of the Swedish crayfish industry (and, I suppose, one of our hallowed summer holiday traditions). Unfortunately, it turned out that the signal crayfish was a vector of the plague - precisely because it´s immune to it. The end result was an almost complete collapse of the remaining European crayfish population! Maybe just as good that I gave up eating crayfish long ago.
As usual, I learned a few new things from this book. For instance, I had no idea that there is actually a European lobster found in Swedish waters (but then, I never really reflected on the exact provenance of my lobster sauce). Or that the claws of the decapods are actually legs?! Or rather legs that adapted to a somewhat different function entirely.
But mostly, I felt ontological dread looking at the full color pictures of bizarre crab-like creatures from the oceanic depths you never knew existed in the first place, realizing that the first representatives of still extant decapod groups evolved over 200 million years ago. Our culinary problems with IAS crayfish are just a blip in the cosmic ocean! And perhaps even a bit cray cray...
Some more speculations about the elusive "soma" of the Vedic scriptures. The idea that soma was really the lotus is intriguing, to be sure. I think ephedra was the most official proposal 20 years ago (when I studied comparative religion at university level). What it is today, who knows.
It´s fascinating that while the original Veda Samhitas have been preserved for 3000 years, the knowledge of soma (necessary for many of the rituals) has been lost...perhaps forever.
So strictly speaking the Vedic rituals are no longer efficacious. They are LARP-s. The gods want their mad honey!
.jpg/800px-Shree_Santoshi_Mata_(cropped).jpg) |
| Credit: Nishu0246 |
Tonight´s ChatGPT essay. ;-) It seems Hindus are still busy inventing new deities to this very day. Plz don´t tell the local unfriendly atheist society, they won´t understand...
Who is Santoshi Mata?
Santoshi Māta (literally “Mother of Satisfaction” or “Mother of Contentment”) is a relatively modern Hindu goddess, widely worshipped across North India since the mid–20th century.
She is not mentioned in ancient texts like the Vedas, Purāṇas, or Epics.
Santoshi Māta’s cult became popular after the 1975 Hindi devotional film “Jai Santoshi Maa”, which portrayed her as a compassionate, miracle-working mother goddess answering the prayers of simple devotees.
Since then, her worship spread rapidly, especially among women and lower–middle-class households, where she came to be seen as a protector and provider of domestic peace and prosperity.
Often regarded as a daughter of Ganesha in modern popular belief, though this is not scripturally attested in older traditions.
Her name Santoshi means “she who gives satisfaction/contentment,” suggesting her role as one who blesses devotees with peace of mind and fulfillment, rather than excessive wealth or power.
Her main ritual is the Santoshi Māta Vrat (Friday fast):
Devotees, especially women, fast on Fridays for 16 consecutive weeks.
They take a simple meal, avoid sour foods (like curd, tamarind, pickles) since sourness symbolizes discontent.
They perform a small pūjā with jaggery and chickpeas (gur–chana), her favorite offerings.
At the end of the vrat, devotees often sponsor a feast for small boys (symbolizing Ganesha’s sons).
Usually depicted as a simple, benevolent mother goddess, seated or standing, holding a sword and a trident (symbols of power), sometimes with her hands in blessing gestures.
Unlike Durga or Kālī, her appearance is gentle and approachable, reflecting her role as a household deity of satisfaction and domestic well-being.
She represents contentment, patience, and faith.
Her cult emphasizes that through devotion, simplicity, and fasting discipline, one can overcome poverty, quarrels, or dissatisfaction in life.
She embodies a more accessible, “everyday” form of the Goddess, as opposed to the grand cosmic goddesses of Sanskrit texts.
✨ In short: Santoshi Māta is a modern household goddess of contentment, often thought of as Ganesha’s daughter, whose Friday vrat and worship became hugely popular after the 1970s.
Would you like me to also tell you how traditional Hindus (esp. Purāṇic scholars) view her sudden appearance in the pantheon, and whether they consider her “authentic”?
Excellent question. Santoshi Māta is one of the most interesting examples of how the Hindu pantheon grows in real time.
No mention in ancient texts: Santoshi Māta does not appear in the Vedas, Upaniṣads, Epics, or Purāṇas.
First references appear in the early 20th century in local pamphlets and oral tales in North India.
Mass popularity exploded only after the 1975 Bollywood devotional film Jai Santoshi Maa. This movie gave her a mythic backstory (as a daughter of Ganesha) and spread her cult across India.
From a historian’s standpoint, she is a modern, invented goddess, created through popular devotion, cinema, and folk religiosity.
In Hinduism, new forms of the Divine Mother are always emerging. The Goddess (Śakti) is believed to be infinite, taking on new names and forms to meet the needs of the times.
Devotees argue: “She must be real, because she answers prayers.”
For them, her absence in old scriptures doesn’t matter. The power of śraddhā (faith) itself “calls” the goddess into manifest form.
Santoshi Māta fits into a long tradition of “local” or “folk” goddesses (grama-devatās, kul-devīs) being absorbed into broader Hindu practice.
Just as village goddesses like Mariamman in Tamil Nadu or Muthyalamma in Karnataka became recognized Shakti forms, Santoshi Māta entered mainstream worship.
In fact, Hinduism itself expects new emanations of the Goddess (Śakti) to appear in different ages (yugas) according to the needs of devotees.
She is said to be the daughter of Ganesha, born when his sons asked for a sister.
She grants satisfaction (santoṣa) and harmony in households.
Her worship emphasizes simple devotion, fasting, and moral restraint, not costly rituals — which made her very popular among poorer women.
Yes, from a historical perspective, Santoshi Māta is an invented goddess — she emerged in the 20th century through popular culture, not scriptural tradition.
But in the Hindu devotional framework, she is as real as any ancient deity, because divinity is believed to manifest wherever devotion flows.
Would you like me to also compare Santoshi Māta’s rise with other modern or “newly revealed” deities in Hinduism, like Swaminarayan, ISKCON’s Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, or Shirdi Sai Baba — to see how “new gods” get accepted?
That’s a very perceptive question, because yes — her cult has a clear social profile.
From her rise in the 1960s–70s, Santoshi Māta became especially beloved among lower–middle-class and working-class women.
The main reasons:
Her Friday vrat is simple, inexpensive, and easy to perform at home.
Her offerings (gur – jaggery and chana – chickpeas) are cheap and accessible compared to costly temple rituals.
She promises contentment and relief from domestic troubles (poverty, quarrels, childlessness, drunken husbands, in-laws’ hostility) — very real issues for poor and lower-income families.
Classical goddesses like Lakṣmī, Durgā, or Kālī have elaborate pūjās, temple traditions, Sanskrit mantras, and Brahmin priests.
Santoshi Māta, by contrast, is a grassroots, household goddess. No priest needed, no Sanskrit necessary. Women could perform her vrat independently, giving them a direct religious channel.
The movie Jai Santoshi Maa was made on a small budget, but became a huge hit among poorer cinema-goers, who even treated it like a temple ritual (taking off shoes, throwing offerings at the screen).
This cemented her image as the “people’s goddess”, answering the cries of the humble and overlooked.
Today, Santoshi Māta temples exist in many cities, and her worship has spread beyond class boundaries.
But she still remains especially associated with women seeking household peace, prosperity, and relief from hardships, making her strongly connected to lower- and middle-income communities.
✅ So, in short: Yes, Santoshi Māta is most strongly associated with the poor and lower classes, because her cult offers a low-cost, accessible, and emotionally direct form of devotion — and this is exactly why she spread so quickly.
Would you like me to also explain why Friday fasting (her key ritual) is so significant in women’s religious lives across Hinduism, and how it empowered Santoshi Māta’s rise?
So I asked Skynet, pardon, Gemini if any important astrological events will take place in 2032. It turns out that the answer is yes: Uranus and Saturn will be in conjunction in Gemini (the astrological sign, that is). I haven´t checked the "official" cookbook interpretations yet, but it sounds intuitively...interesting. If intuition and/or astrology is your thang. That is.
Uranus and Saturn are co-rulers of Aquarius. Saturn is also the ruler of Capricorn. Uranus is the planet of freedom, revolution, innovation, but also downright kookery. In other words, the planet of sudden transformation. Saturn is the exact opposite: the planet of limits, discipline, tradition, hard karma. And (perhaps) very slow (and very wise) change. Gemini is ruled by Mercury, the planet of intelligence. But the intelligence of Gemini itself (themselves?) seems to be very "mercurial" and superficial (think Trump in his "best" years - yes, the Donald is a Gemini native). Remember also that mythologically, Mercury is a trickster deity.
So what on earth does this mean? It certainly sounds like a very strange combination of energies. Almost a bit...I don´t know...apocalyptic or something.
Btw, I amused myself to ask the Gemini AI what Hindu gods are associated with Saturn and Uranus. Saturn is (broadly) associated with Shiva. Uranus wasn´t known to the ancient Vedic sages, but a very modern interpretation connects it to Bhairava. But note that Bhairava and Shiva are really the same god?!
Maybe it´s safest to trust the pundits on TV, the local skeptic association and Professor Dave when they tell us that astrology is (of course) an ancient superstition.
Yeah, whatever.
We end early tonight, with this fantasy picture of Varuna standing next to the planet Neptune...
