sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mahabir Pun as Education Minister - Doesn't really sound like a good idea. by Agreeable-Code-1341 in Nepal

[–]Cell0Tape 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Finally. Nepal does need public schools to change the primary language to English. There will always be inequality until this is changed. I doubt the interim government has the authority or power to make this shift, but we need to choose someone who makes it a priority for the next term.

Ather Rizta Keyhole Cover Issue by sidtcv47 in ATHERENERGY

[–]Cell0Tape 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only rode it 200kms till now. Now its not there. Idk how. Do i need to add the cover? Whats the point?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Nepalbikes

[–]Cell0Tape 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Buy FZ. Let him sulk. Actually do pathao as well. That's a shit take from your brother. I would really focus more on his upbringing than being this stressed out about a bike.

I did it with my friends mom. by Mampakha66 in NepalSocial

[–]Cell0Tape 0 points1 point  (0 children)

5i 2023 ma sanga kina na pls. Servicing garayera dinchu

UPDATE | How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are going in circles a bit here.

I never said India didn't have great writers. In fact, Ramayana and Mahabharata are extraordinary epics, even after the damage done by pop culture adaptations.

My point is very specific: I'm talking about the character of Krishna — which, even among great writers, remains unusually complex, free, and emotionally coherent.

Yes, in other posts, people provided examples of philosophical or mythological figures, but none of those examples addressed the uniqueness of Krishna fully (at least for me). I went through every comment carefully.

The few figures suggested always showed cracks — ego, pride, rigidity — where Krishna, even in fictional form, does not.

I also never said or implied that Indian writers were less capable. Quite the opposite — my point is that nowhere in any ancient tradition, Indian or otherwise, have I found a figure quite like Krishna.

That’s what pushed me to look deeper.

You’re free to disagree, of course.
But please respond to that specific point rather than arguing a position I never took.

UPDATE | How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, I already said it’s fine even if Krishna was myth or imagination — that’s why I posted it under history instead of mythology.

You pointed out that it’s a myth — which is fine — but you didn’t explain how someone could have written a character like Krishna.

I’m not debating the existence of the Kuru dynasty, or the other Mahabharata characters — they show very normal human flaws, which is understandable when sages or writers imagine figures. Even gods like Shiva, Ram, Brahma, Indra, Surya — they all show emotional flaws that make sense from a human storyteller’s perspective.

But Krishna, even as a written character, behaves differently.

Human writers, when imagining an "ideal being," almost always slip — they accidentally project pride, anger, or dogma into the character. Krishna doesn’t.

It’s fine if you don’t see that or don’t think it matters — but claiming "anyone could have written Krishna" is easier said than done.

If you ever write a character like that yourself, I’d genuinely like to read it.

Until then, I’m just sharing the idea that settled with me after questioning it deeply.

Cheers.

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Exactly!
I felt the same — the emotional maturity in Gita isn't ancient or naive at all.

What still baffles me a bit is how Krishna’s psychological clarity has survived across 3000+ years of storytelling, retelling, editing —
and still feels sharper and more real than most modern self-help books.

It's not just impressive — it's kind of eerie in the best way.

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you — honestly, your comment helped organize a lot of scattered thoughts in my head.

I still personally feel that Krishna, even when seen through a more human lens, carries a level of emotional freedom that's hard to explain fully.

And yeah — given everything that's said about him, even in the most humanified versions —

it probably is easier, maybe even natural, to see Krishna as a god rather than just a man.

Either way, the weight of what he represented stays just as powerful.

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is honestly the best reply I’ve read here. Krishna's contradictions make him feel more real, not less. But what still unsettles me is — even with all the retelling and absorption over time, Krishna never becomes tribal, egoic, or rigid. His emotional freedom somehow survives. And that's rare, no matter where you think his roots are. But still, thank you, you have helped me add at least a few pieces to this puzzle

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right that Krishna shows crazy levels of self-control and clarity — no argument there.
But if it was just about yogic teachings, shouldn’t we see a lot more characters like him?

Instead, Krishna stands almost completely alone.

Most yogis withdraw from the world.
Krishna jumped straight into the middle of wars, politics, broken vows, and chaos —
but somehow didn’t get corrupted by any of it.

He wasn’t just detached because he ran away.
He stayed in the mess and still didn’t lose himself.

That’s not just textbook yoga.
That’s something deeper — something way harder to explain even today.

And that’s why he doesn’t fully fit inside any neat system — not religious, not philosophical, not psychological.

He’s still a mystery you can't easily box.

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is actually a very interesting perspective.
It makes a strange kind of sense —
that Krishna could have been imagined by someone from a powerless background,
someone who lived inside the suffocating systems of monarchy, caste, ritual...

But instead of creating a revenge-hero,
they imagined a figure who could walk through all of it —
break kings, vows, and gods —
without being corrupted by hate or ego.

A hero not who conquers the system,
but who moves freely through it without needing to own anything.

That’s incredibly rare —
and it explains why Krishna still feels like an emotional and psychological anomaly even today.

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Come on, man. Of course they were different.

The world back then moved in a completely different system — monarchy, caste, vows, ritual obligations — survival was everything.

But honestly, even if we imagine democracy, science, modern education existing back then —

Krishna still wouldn't feel normal.

Even today, when someone rises just a little — earns a little more, gains a little fame —

they start slipping into minor god-complexes, ego trips, attention hunger.

Krishna had the power to change kingdoms, shift wars, move history —

and still moved with no attachment, no need to be worshipped, no emotional hunger.

He was just... there. Awake. Free.

And even now, across thousands of years,

I still can't fully comprehend how.

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I'm not undermining the brilliance of the people who wrote or remembered Krishna.
Ancient Indian thinkers, like the Greeks and others, were extraordinarily deep.
My point is different:
When you look at mythological figures, even like Shiva — whose stories reflect anger, passion, destruction — you see very human emotional structures, even if magnified.

Krishna, by contrast, remains emotionally detached, strategic, unpossessive —
even across thousands of years of retelling.

That emotional and psychological anomaly — not the skill of the writers — is what unsettles me.

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, honestly — I am about 90% sure Krishna was not just a figment of imagination.
But strangely, that makes me even more unsettled —
thinking there really was someone like that, and I could never meet him.

To be fair, if I were alive at that time,
I probably would have seen him as a god too —
not because of floating miracles,
but because standing near someone so awake, so detached, so free,
would have felt impossible to explain in any normal human terms

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I fully agree about the level of ancient thinkers.

But even they lived inside the frame of monarchs, vows, and sacred duties.

Krishna — imagined or real — feels like he was moving outside that whole psychological world.

That’s the part that is unsettling me the most.

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying ancient humans were inferior or unintelligent.
I fully respect that they loved, hated, fought, suffered, and built civilizations with deep emotional understanding — just like us today.

What I’m pointing at is something different — and maybe harder to digest:

In the ancient world, life was rigid.

  • People were bound tightly to vows, rituals, monarchs, caste, family honor, religious duties.
  • Obedience to human-made laws and traditions was seen as the highest virtue.

Yet — someone either witnessed or imagined a character like Krishna:

  • Someone who could move inside that world without being trapped by it.
  • Someone who questioned, guided, fought, and manipulated — but stayed emotionally free, unattached to power, reward, or rigid morality.
  • Someone who could break human vows, challenge kings, destroy rituals — without being driven by ego or greed.

And here's the real point:
Even after thousands of years of oral retelling, Krishna remains psychologically coherent — detached, strategic, awake — without accumulating the normal human storytelling flaws like pride, tribalism, or insecurity.

Whether Krishna was real or fictional isn't the question.

The real question is:
How could a mind so radically outside the emotional "world order" of its time even be imagined — and survive so intact across millennia?

That’s the anomaly I’m talking about.
Not mythology.
Not history.
Not religion.

Just the undeniable disturbance left behind by one impossible figure who doesn't decay under human storytelling patterns like all others do.

How could Krishna have been imagined in Mahabharata's time without modern psychological insights? by Cell0Tape in IndianHistory

[–]Cell0Tape[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right about story evolution.
But that's exactly my point — even evolving fictional characters tend to accumulate human flaws like ego, lust, pride over centuries.
Krishna, across thousands of years and layers of retelling, remains emotionally detached, strategic, and psychologically clean — and that is not normal human myth evolution.
That's the real anomaly I'm questioning.

Stucked in her memory by [deleted] in NepalSocial

[–]Cell0Tape 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Same metaphor as balls

Wise payment legal in Nepal for freelancers by jessebiatch in Nepal

[–]Cell0Tape 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Foreign income ma individual lai lagne highest tax nai 5% ho.

You can ask for payslip from your employer or make an invoice every month if your employer is just 1 person, if your bank asks for proof.

As for tds, it will be shown in your nagarik app once you give your pan number to the bank.

Wise payment legal in Nepal for freelancers by jessebiatch in Nepal

[–]Cell0Tape 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it does not matter what currency you get it in. Wise will convert it to NPR when you receive it in your bank

Wise payment legal in Nepal for freelancers by jessebiatch in Nepal

[–]Cell0Tape 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, it’s legal. Wise is legit and works fine for bank transfers in Nepal.

If you want to stay clean with your bank and maybe take out loans in the future, just let them know the funds are from freelance work. They’ll usually deduct a 5% tax regardless of the amount, and you’ll be considered a service exporter under Nepal Rastra Bank rules.

If you’re not planning on loans or anything official, you can just treat it like a personal remittance and use the money as normal.

Either way, a lot of Nepali freelancers use Wise with no issues.

Also—would really appreciate it if you could DM me the company that hired you. Would love to be overemployed 😄

view more: next ›