camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Now I'm no Hindu, but I did pick up the Bagavad Ghita once and had a read, (the little Oxford Translation version mind, as my ancient sanscrit is abit rusty) and I came away deeply touched and inspired and with the distinct impression (well, easy certainty really) that Krishna isn't actually a god. Let me rephrase that- it never occured to me that 'Krishna' was supposed to be a 'god' now.
I got the impression Krishna is more like a term for infinity, possibility, all time and all space. The mutiversitude of transeverythingyness. The whole Bagavad Ghita seemed to be an anthropomorphisation of something that's not really possible to humanise (en-goddify)... but maybe I'm wrong. Afterall if millions of Hindus think of Krishna as a flute-playing blue bloke with magical fairy powers (or- a god) then who am I to argue.
Or maybe this kind of transendantal glimpsing of infinity type concept always ends up as mere religion whenever some dude comes back from forty days wandering in the desert without food and little water and then tries with wild eyes to describe what whacky out-there thoughts occured to them during the course of all those nights naked beneath the billions of stars above.
One verse in the Ghita comes back to me now whenever I notice Krishna reffered to as a Hindu god
"Those who love the gods shall go to the gods, those who love me shall come to me".
Maybe it's the same kind of thing when muslims and christians claim their religions aren't religions or something? Happily, despite being impressed by the Ghita I felt no particular inclination to shave my head, wear orange robes and go singing and dancing down Oxford Street but all the same... what is Krishna actually supposed to be, does anyone actually know?
I got the impression Krishna is more like a term for infinity, possibility, all time and all space. The mutiversitude of transeverythingyness. The whole Bagavad Ghita seemed to be an anthropomorphisation of something that's not really possible to humanise (en-goddify)... but maybe I'm wrong. Afterall if millions of Hindus think of Krishna as a flute-playing blue bloke with magical fairy powers (or- a god) then who am I to argue.
Or maybe this kind of transendantal glimpsing of infinity type concept always ends up as mere religion whenever some dude comes back from forty days wandering in the desert without food and little water and then tries with wild eyes to describe what whacky out-there thoughts occured to them during the course of all those nights naked beneath the billions of stars above.
One verse in the Ghita comes back to me now whenever I notice Krishna reffered to as a Hindu god
"Those who love the gods shall go to the gods, those who love me shall come to me".
Maybe it's the same kind of thing when muslims and christians claim their religions aren't religions or something? Happily, despite being impressed by the Ghita I felt no particular inclination to shave my head, wear orange robes and go singing and dancing down Oxford Street but all the same... what is Krishna actually supposed to be, does anyone actually know?
and deification along with caste hierarchy must reign

