@jeru depends when. if its in a year, certainly. ill be my best self by then (i hope).

isnt it cute how books from the mid 19th century have titles like "The system of the Vedanta : according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Sankara's commentary thereon set forth as a compendium of the dogmatics of Brahmanism from the standpoint of Sankara"

clearly, the brahma sutras are not shruti, if sankara can just say "ahem i disagree". its a funny thing that orthodox vedanta is more defined by the commentator than by the scripture! (also, i thought i was reading his commentary, but i am actually reading another commentator who is basing their commentary off his commentary. fuck me)

@sun @lain also can you ask it "is anandamaya the innermost self aka para brahman or is it the causal body. is it a sheath or is it a self." it will probably mostly cite sankaras bhashya on the brahma sutras which im reading, but i want other opinions.

@sun @lain
it really is such a good answer. i did assume three nested bodies, because kosha theory is quite literally that and the koshas overlap with the bodies. but they are states/modifications of brahman produced by one limiting adjunct (ignorance). at least in advaita vedanta...

most of the sanskrit i understand to my surprise. its a bit funny seeing "smrti" mean memory here. because thats also what hindu scriptures besides the vedas that have a human author are called. but it literally means "what is remembered".

i noticed that in some places primary texts are cited (vedantasara in part 1) but in others they arent. part 3 contained my existing assumption (dormant samskaras are the causal, citta a subtle fructification). but part 2 contains something unique, the claim that samskaras (here defined as individual impressions that cluster together to form tendencies) belong to the subtle body, and vasanas (ingrained patterns here) belong to the causal. where can i find this? whats the primary source?

@dhfir yeah smh

@dhfir sorry but i think you misunderstood my post

@cinerion i consider this too to be "fun personal usage"

@sun @lain holy shit, thanks. this is incredibly informative, although a bit grandiloquent. the yoga vs vedanta distinction was my hunch as well.

the clarification that "Nothing moves between compartments; the description changes with the state of manifestation." is quite helpful. also, chitta not being a storehouse.

my only concern is the addressing of vasanas/samskaras/vrittis. some say the samskara is the seed and the vasana the shoot, which is basically what my previous post said. here it says that the samskaras are the impressions and the vasanas the ingrained pattern. but it seems to be basing it on source texts, which i appreciate.

anyway, ill need to read this a few more times.... and get a kagi subscription... thank you!

if all this is true, my effortpost the other day is 100 percent correct. which makes sense, because before i made it, i reviewed the wikipedia article on three bodies doctrine. is this the universal vedantic perspective? no, because in my perusal of sources, i found this next screenshot. damn it, i was so close.

@scathach not gonna say i dont wanna be mean.

i should mention that vasanas and samskaras are not consistently defined in relation to eachother, either. now i feel like a doofus for reading only scripture and wikipedia for so long.

@scathach for this person it was a consequence of an obsession with computer science. it literally became their whole world. but you're right, learning a programming language or the language of math is as lovely as learning a spoken language.

@lain can you ask kagi please

maybe i should just ask an llm my question and ill be surprised. "if chitta is part of the antahkarana of the subtle body, how are samskaras of the causal body stored within it"

@scathach so, thats bad. reducing the world to information is bad. reducing the mind to a computer is bad.

@scathach while computer science enables one to think in new ways (https://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.html a long time ago i read this essay), computer scientists are very fond of applying their science onto reality itself. thus you get computer touchers saying things like that God is describable by an algorithm. im not making that up, an atheist who views the world as essentially nothing more than information on fedi said that.

@scathach so its bad, thanks.

NOW it asks me.

anyway, if the chitta is taken as the subconscious mind, and this is transferred from body to body, this is not too dissimilar from me saying the samskaras (deep tendencies) persist. the question is do they persist in the deepest part of the mind, or are they merely stored in a non-mental (as advaita vedantins say, characterized by ignorance + the samskaras) causal body until they fructify and appear in the mind? i definitely need to consult more sources. either way, my point about karma being justified because we arent just a gross body and a soul is valid.