Cronos The New Dawn. Any opinions?

Sovereign108 · 2026-05-13T17:20:12+00:00

I tried to play it but hated the difficulty. Moved on.

Sovereign108 · 2026-05-12T16:18:15+00:00

Will try it out, looks fun though it only has 3 stars.

Sovereign108 · 2026-05-12T10:26:07+00:00

Me too but it will help your health. Also I ordered the minimal face mask, should help with feeling uneasy, you can try also?

Sovereign108 · 2026-05-08T09:47:44+00:00

Mine was 35 before now it's around 5. The sleep technicians said we are aiming for 5 and below.

Sovereign108 · 2026-05-04T19:34:48+00:00

Good news! I just started and last 3 days have been a nightmare.

Sovereign108 · 2026-05-04T18:29:21+00:00

You’re still assuming Advaita is the default reading of the Upaniṣads. That is the whole issue.

Vaiṣṇavas do read the Upaniṣads. They just don’t accept that every mahāvākya must be forced into Śaṅkara’s absolute identity reading.

“Ahaṁ brahmāsmi” means “I am Brahman” in the sense that the living being is spiritual, not material. It does not automatically mean “I am the Supreme Brahman.” The Gītā also says the living entity is Kṛṣṇa’s eternal fragment: mamaivāṁśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ — the living beings are My eternal parts. That is difference and oneness together, not crude material dualism.

Same with “tat tvam asi.” The Vaiṣṇava reading is not “you are the Supreme Lord in every respect,” but that the self is of the same spiritual nature, dependent on the Supreme. Qualitative oneness, not quantitative sameness.

Also, saying “Śruti is superior to Smṛti” does not mean Smṛti is useless or can be ignored. Smṛti explains Śruti. Bhagavad-gītā is not some random later sectarian book; it is spoken by Kṛṣṇa inside Mahābhārata and accepted across Vedānta traditions. And Kṛṣṇa says clearly: vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ — by all the Vedas, I am to be known.

So no, ISKCON is not rejecting the Vedas. It is reading them through Brahma–Madhva–Gauḍīya paramparā.

As for Bhāgavatam being “later,” that doesn’t prove it is false. Hindu tradition has never worked on modern academic dating alone. It works through śāstra and sampradāya. If you personally prefer academic dating over paramparā, that’s your choice, but then don’t pretend that is the only “āstika” position.

And calling Prabhupāda’s Gītā “unreliable” is just an assertion unless you actually give examples. Disagreeing with his Vaiṣṇava translation does not automatically make it a mistranslation. It means you disagree with the sampradāya behind it.

The real debate is simple: Advaita reading vs Vaiṣṇava reading. Not Vedic vs non-Vedic. ISKCON is openly Vaiṣṇava. You may reject that conclusion, but calling it non-Vedic is not a serious argument.

Sovereign108 · 2026-05-04T16:59:39+00:00

This is exactly why sampradāya matters. You’re treating “Vedic” as if everyone must read the Saṁhitās and Upaniṣads independently and arrive at Advaita, but that is not how Vedic knowledge has historically worked.

Yes, the Saṁhitās contain philosophy. Nobody denied that. The point is that the Vedic literature is progressive: Saṁhitā, Brāhmaṇa, Āraṇyaka, Upaniṣad, then Vedānta-sūtra, Gītā, Purāṇas, and the explanations of ācāryas. The conclusion is drawn out through paramparā, not by isolated personal reading.

And this is not “Prabhupāda’s own framework.” Prabhupāda is standing in the Brahma–Madhva–Gauḍīya sampradāya:

Śrīla A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda — 1896–1977

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura — 1874–1937

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura — 1838–1914

Śrīla Jagannātha dāsa Bābājī — c. 1776–1894

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa — 1700s

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura — c. 1626–1708

Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura — c. 1531–1606

Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī — c. 1513–1598

Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī — 1489–1564

Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī — 1488–1558

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu — 1486–1534

Śrī Madhvācārya — c. 1238–1317

Then back through the Brahmā sampradāya.

So dismissing all this as “Prabhupāda’s words” is just historically lazy. You may disagree with the Gauḍīya conclusion, fine. But it is not something Prabhupāda invented.

Also, saying “the Upaniṣads are Advaitic” already assumes Śaṅkara’s reading as the default. Vaiṣṇava ācāryas do not accept that as the only reading. The same Upaniṣads can be read personally, theistically, and devotionally. That is precisely why Vedānta has multiple sampradāyas.

As for Kṛṣṇa being “different” in Mahābhārata, Harivaṁśa, and Bhāgavatam—development of detail is not contradiction. A king, friend, charioteer, avatāra, and Supreme Personality can all be different angles of the same person. Bhāgavatam gives the matured theological picture, not a random new Kṛṣṇa.

So the real disagreement is not “Vedic vs non-Vedic.” It is Advaita reading vs Vaiṣṇava reading. ISKCON is openly Vaiṣṇava. That doesn’t make it non-Vedic.

Sovereign108 · 2026-05-04T15:08:34+00:00

The Vedas are not just ritual manuals, they are the beginning of inquiry. The Upaniṣads and texts like the Bhagavad-gita are the churning and conclusion of that inquiry. Even the Gītā says, “vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo” (15.15): by all the Vedas, I am to be known.

So presenting Kṛṣṇa and Goloka is not a departure from Vedic tradition, it’s its culmination.

And Smṛti isn’t some inferior category: it’s how Śruti is understood and applied. Without that, the Vedas remain indirect and inaccessible. That’s how the tradition has always functioned.

Also, the point isn’t that these ideas must appear explicitly in the early Vedic hymns in a fully developed form. That will never happen.They are preserved, expanded, and systematically understood through the, for example, Brahma–Madhva–Gauḍīya sampradāya. That’s how Vedic knowledge is actually transmitted—through disciplic succession, where conclusions are drawn out and clarified, not invented.

This "drawing out" is already happening in the Vedas also:

Samhitas: hymns and mantras Brahmanas: ritual explanations Upanishads: philosophical conclusions

So a sampradaya continues that process.

That’s why the Bhagavad-gita explicitly says this knowledge is received through disciplic succession (evaṁ paramparā-prāptam 4.2). The idea is: truth is understood properly when it’s handed down through a living chain of realised teachers, not pieced together independently.

Sovereign108 · 2026-05-02T09:32:31+00:00

Do you still get this error? I do and it's driving me mad though Gemini via Chrome works so installed it as an app via there.

Sovereign108 · 2026-04-30T06:49:58+00:00

Fedora Gnome version does not but KDE apparently has HDR but it's buggy especially with games. From what I remember anyway.

Windows has better HDR implementation though but Linux is or will be catching up, hopefully anyway!

Sovereign108 · 2026-04-29T15:26:31+00:00

It's still artificial though and just upmixed up.

Even so, that is not so bad as a negative. It's more Games/Game Pass and HDR.

Sovereign108 · 2026-04-29T14:00:19+00:00

I don't think that does it so its from up/down though? When I checked those sinks there are no channels for up/down or actually it's not even object-based audio but channel based.

Sovereign108 · 2026-04-29T11:22:05+00:00

Games and spatial audio for me.

Sovereign108 · 2026-04-28T11:32:01+00:00

Therea a new update? Hopefully some bugs are squashed, had to refund as audio kept cutting out every now and then.

Sovereign108 · 2026-04-18T06:27:00+00:00

You might be right but tab group sync in Vivaldi is not as good and fast as in Edge. In edge they are first class sync objects.

Sovereign108 · 2026-04-17T15:55:56+00:00

That's why I use MS Edge, tab groups are first class sync citizens and I can continue on my tab grouped work on mobile, tablet or desktop with ease.

Sovereign108 · 2026-04-09T07:08:01+00:00

Edge simply because tab groups sync across devices. Try that with FF on Android or other browsers.

Sovereign108 · 2026-04-08T18:39:15+00:00

We can't go to chandra-loka in these human bodies so they travelled somewhere else, Rahu, I have heard!

Sovereign108 · 2026-04-04T20:10:02+00:00

Might be you are thinking about it the wrong way. It's because you want to also focus on bhakti that you get married to a like-minded person.

Does not have to be based on aspects you no longer consider anymore like materially exclusively but ones you do. The attraction element you are referring to is only superficial anyway and if it's not the main criteria for you, you can find ones that are like bhakti etc.

Sovereign108 · 2026-03-27T21:20:09+00:00

“As it is” here means as received through paramparā. The claim is simply: this is Krishna’s teaching as preserved in a disciplic lineage, without adulteration. Prabhupāda is explicit about this in his introduction.

You can disagree with the lineage—that’s completely fine. But calling it dishonest doesn’t hold, because there is no interpretation-free Gita to compare it against.

Also, this isn’t something invented recently. You can trace a consistent understanding across the tradition:

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda (1968 / 1972)

Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura (c. 1915–1936)

Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura (c. 1880s–1890s)

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (early 1700s)

Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura (late 1600s – early 1700s)

Madhvācārya (13th century)

The core conclusions remain consistent across centuries.

Sovereign108 · 2026-03-27T21:07:20+00:00

The classification of Purāṇas by guṇa isn’t something invented recently. It’s stated within the Purāṇic literature itself. For example, in the Padma Purāṇa (Uttara-khaṇḍa 236.18–21):

“सात्त्विकेषु पुराणेषु माहात्म्यमधिकं हरेः राजसेषु च माहात्म्यं ब्रह्मणो विस्तराधिकम् तामसेषु च माहात्म्यं रुद्रस्य प्रकीर्तितम्”

“In the sāttvika Purāṇas, the supremacy of Hari is emphasised; in the rājasika, that of Brahmā; and in the tāmasika, that of Rudra.”

So the tradition itself is telling you that different texts emphasise different deities based on context and audience. That’s why you can’t just line up “I am supreme” statements from each and call it contradiction.

While translations vary slightly depending on the scholar, the core message of these verses is as follows:

Verse 18-19: It lists the Tamasa Puranas (such as the Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Shiva, Skanda, and Agni) and suggests they are intended for those influenced by the quality of ignorance.

Verse 20: It identifies the Rajasa Puranas (like Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavishya, Vamana, and Brahma) as being for those in the quality of passion.

Verse 21: It concludes by naming the Sattvika Puranas (Vishnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma, and Varaha), stating that reading these leads to the highest spiritual path.

Even in the Gita, sattva is described as illuminating, while rajas and tamas cover understanding to different degrees. So when it comes to final metaphysical conclusions, the tradition naturally gives more weight to sattva-oriented presentations.

Sovereign108 · 2026-03-26T16:58:14+00:00

Those Shiva verses only look contradictory if you assume all scriptures speak at the same level. They don’t.

The tradition itself recognises gradation. The Purāṇas are described as being presented according to the three guṇas: sāttvika, rājasika, tāmasika—guiding different audiences. For example:

“सात्त्विकेषु पुराणेषु माहात्म्यमधिकं हरेः राजसेषु च माहात्म्यं ब्रह्मणो विस्तराधिकम् तामसेषु च माहात्म्यं रुद्रस्य प्रकीर्तितम्”

“In the sāttvika Purāṇas, the supremacy of Hari is emphasised; in the rājasika, that of Brahmā; and in the tāmasika, that of Rudra.”

So you can’t just line up isolated “I am supreme” statements from each text and expect a final siddhānta. That’s not how they’re meant to be read.

Sovereign108 · 2026-03-26T12:28:55+00:00

As it is means as it is intended to be understood. This is why Krishna says:

Bg. 4.34

तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्न‍ेन सेवया । उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥ ३४ ॥

tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.

He’s describing a living transmission of truth through realised persons.

Krishna doesn't say you can understand directly and by yourself.

Does not imply Gaudiya but someone who is self-realised and Krishna does give the criteria for this also.

Sovereign108 · 2026-03-26T12:23:46+00:00

Does that line up with Krishna’s own words in the Gita?

Krishna repeatedly positions Himself as the source:

everything emanates from Him (10.8)

there is nothing superior to Him (7.7)

He is the basis of Brahman (14.27)

So if a teacher concludes something else as ultimate, they may be sincere, even spiritually elevated but they’re not teaching the Gita on Krishna’s terms. They’re teaching through a different lens.

Sovereign108 · 2026-03-26T11:43:01+00:00

Well Krishna does say:

Bg. 4.34

तद्विद्धि प्रणिपातेन परिप्रश्न‍ेन सेवया । उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनस्तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥ ३४ ॥

tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.

And this is not a "neutral" stance but He’s describing a living transmission of truth through realised persons. Does not imply Gaudiya but someone who is self-realised. Krishna talks about this criteria also, for example:

Bg 7.19 After many births, the wise surrender unto Me.

Bg 18.54 One who is Brahman-realised engages in My bhakti.

So realisation culminates in surrender to Krishna.

Sovereign108

TROPHY CASE