georgia
Posts
74952Following
405Followers
2069$PAGE_VIEWS
georiga on telegram
georgia@trashserver.net on xmpp
(response times may vary)
अहं ब्रह्मास्मि त्वं ब्रह्म असि अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म
georgia
georgia
i thought my next thing would be learning about trika shaivism and id be done with vedanta but it looks like im going to read sankaras commentary on 8 upanishads next.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
the commentator im reading also agrees with badarayana, and basically says that what sankara calls sheaths are not really that (although sankara doesnt consider them literal sheaths either but a chain of dependencies/limiting adjuncts) or even embodied selves but are metaphorical "selves" with the exception of the anandamaya, a pedagogical device for "men of small intellect" to understand degrees of subtlety with interiorization. my opinion is that either could work! imo there are no true ontologies except Brahman, only functional considerations, and both approaches work functionally. so many sources misunderstand this and believe in literal sheaths.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
i still think ai sucks and that if i were really smart i would have a proper guru and not an llm. but you know, im stupid and impatient.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
so sankara calls it a sheath, but the word used is embodied self. interesting!
1
0
1
georgia
georgia
@sun well, i wanted more opinions and ramanujas take was only slightly useful (because the bhashya im reading already translates anandamaya as full of bliss). i havent read sri bhashya yet, but clearly he agrees with badarayana. but i agree with sankaras take based mostly on what im reading right now (i can screeny if you want) but also on this certainly. (honestly, i dont think it matters all that much! the scripture works either way. both arguments are compelling)
more helpful though is its explanation of the mandukya, which i never understood as i havent read shankaras commentary on the upanishads in full (only of the upansihads i really like). Turiya isnt the enjoyment of bliss, it is bliss itself.
more helpful though is its explanation of the mandukya, which i never understood as i havent read shankaras commentary on the upanishads in full (only of the upansihads i really like). Turiya isnt the enjoyment of bliss, it is bliss itself.
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
googles llm says that without a doubt anandamaya is a sheath, not brahman itself. sankara 1, badarayana 0
0
0
0