"the caucasian darkwoke tranny hates none more than she hates herself"

streaming deltarune chapter 5 (finally) on https://twitch.tv/toki... ! hop on if you want

@YKantRachelRead girl who prounounces google like gōgle

@TransTina frowns.

my local dispensary is selling THC-infused bullets under the name “Send Them To Hell Twice”, they’re like 200mg and come with a pack of gloves

please trans women stop calling yourselves twinks im begging you

i support the class struggle of the proletarian roadrunner against Heil E. KKKoyote

@WASP_DOG im not unused to walking barefoot but i didnt realize how much differently i walk with shoes on . i'll get used to it quickly though i think

the amazing digital complex

i like these new shoes but they do make me feel like a dog wearing those little dog shoes

@georgia weaving ..... i really like weaving metaphors for creation . i think theyre particularly meaningful to me as somebody raised in a very patriarchal religious background , since weaving is typically a feminine mode of creation . im curious how much this holds true for india , historically ? anyhow it makes sense to use given the generally multi-/agendered nature of divinity presented

i used to think that olivelles translation was universally better than easwarans being more literal, but now i see merits in both, and not just greater beauty in the case of easwarans. for instance, the early upanishads has for tiṣṭhattasminnapo mātariśvā dadhāti "in it matarisvan places the waters". while the upanishads has "without the self, never could life exist". now, i would say these very different translations are are both poor, but they both have some merit. olivelles is a very literal translation that totally misleads from the true meaning, while easwarans is an interpretation of the literal some degrees removed from it. here is my understanding and also my interpretation.

tiṣṭhat: staying/standing (still), (ie remaining immutable, unmoving, unchanging, as God is)

tasmin: in that (that refers to God in vedanta, in it, as in within itself, both as in literally within it and as in by virtue of it. in it, by it, through it.)

apaḥ: activities/actions (functions, especially of living moving beings. literally water, but by virtue of substances like water and ghee being used in ritual activities, ritual activities, and by extension of that all activities of living beings. by extension of that, all activities of all things. this is not merely my understanding but a well known one in vedanta.)

mātariśvā: this is not easily translated. he was a devata who gave fire to mankind, often compared to prometheus. thus he is associated with or is literally considered to be Agni, meaning both fire and the God of fire, who is very important in the vedas because of burnt oblations as well as because fire is necessary to life. this may be parsed as "growing in the mother", referring to fire growing in the fire-stick, coming from śvi meaning to increase and mātṛ meaning mother. however, he is also identified in the rig veda with the wind Vayu, and Vayu refers to both wind, the God of wind, and life-air, ie prana. "mātr" can be both mother and space or the heavens and "'śvas" means to breathe and to move. so in vedanta matarisva can be understood literally as the indian prometheus who gives fire to mankind and thus supports their rituals, or he can be understood (and especially was and is) as he who moves/breathes in space ie the cosmic or life breath which supports the functions and movement of living beings. in light of this clearly easwarans translation is superior. why would matarisvan, a fire bringer and the living cosmic wind, place water (of course, diverse elemental imagery is clearly intended, so one cant ignore the literal meaning)? the brihadaranyaka upanishad calls vayu a sutra, or thread, and says that this thread binds this world, the other world, and all bodies/beings. vajnavalka says that he who knows this string and he who knows the inner controller (which he explains is Atman), knows Brahman, and thus knows all. now i should mention the vedantic philosophical concept of sutratman, the thread-Self, because sutratman is a common translation of matarisvan. this has more than one connotation. in one sense, upon the Self all is woven, warp and woof, connecting all of reality, so it is the thread-Self. this is conveyed in the mundaka upanishad "in whom heaven, earth, and the interspace are woven, the mind along with all the pranas,
know him alone as the one Atman". in the upanishads Brahman is also compared to a spider that weaves the world like its thread, and then returns its threads to itself. in another sense in later vedantic philosophy, the sutratman specifically refers to a form of Brahman, the cosmic/universal subtle body or universal subtle principle, or in advaita Brahman from the perspective of the limiting adjunct of the subtle. if the viraj is the gross cosmic form of Brahman, the sutratman is the subtle cosmic form of Brahman. it becomes obvious why sutratman is an interpretation of matarisvan and a synonym for vayu. the subtle body contains the prana and mind, and thus the sutratman can be said to drive all breath and all activity, being he who breathes/moves in space. so overall, in vedantic philosophy, vayu or matarisva or sutratman can be said to support all of dynamic creation as its subtle active principle. on it the activity of life itself depends, and in it all of the universe is subtly held together, with gross proceeding from subtle. on that note, if i were to give a translation of matarisva, it would be "he who breaths/moves in space".

dadhāti: establishes (english "place" obscures the meaning. the root is PIE *dʰeh₁- which means to place, to set, to do. sanskrit dadhāti means to place yes but is better defined by set, because it can mean cause, allot, and even conceive or resolve, as in to set ones mind to something. hence, "establish" is also a very good translation. because it means to do or cause it also means to create, but another usage of the word is to support/bear. clearly, all of these words complement eachother to refer to "he who breathes/moves in space" (who acts through/by virtue of Brahman) establishing (but also supporting) the functions of living beings and all things. there is a clear theological meaning here: God is the cause of all activities and functions.

so my overall translation would be something like "staying still, in That (within it, by it) He who moves/breaths in space (the vital breath, the dynamic principle of creation) establishes/supports the functions/activities (esp of living beings)." this translation is imperfect, but by it one sees the deliberate contradiction like the ones the isha upanishad are famous for. while God is unmoving/unchanging, He is the material and efficient cause all activities.

@georgia i like your effortpost a lot . i really appreciate the in-depth analysis of terms and especially their contexts within the larger tradition , something a lot of translations lack . but you're also very transparent about the personalness of your own interpretation , i think . i really enjoy reading all your posts about all this , they're very educated and thoughtful and it's one of the things i consistently come back to fedi for

"i wouldnt wish being trans on my worst enemy" well i would . all my enemies are men

eels

@ikeWren Very frequent city hall discussions round these parts are suburbanite moms whining about "the coyote problem" and worried about their babies getting eaten like bitch this is where they fucking live

human infested houses