georgia
Posts
74634Following
404Followers
2064$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
so sankara calls it a sheath, but the word used is embodied self. interesting!
1
0
1
georgia
georgia
googles llm says that without a doubt anandamaya is a sheath, not brahman itself. sankara 1, badarayana 0
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
rangtong buddhism sucks!!! (by this i mean all shunyavada buddhism, not just tibetans with this perspective)
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
kagi gave me a much better understanding of samskaras/vasanas than my prior education mostly from wikipedia and various blogs. but honestly, im not that interested in advaita vedanta! i want to learn trika!
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
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"
0
0
2
georgia
georgia
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)
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
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.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
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.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
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"
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
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.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
so, i asked scroogles llm whether patanjali believes in a causal body after seeing a weird infographic when looking into the koshas. (ive barely touched his yoga sutras tbh. ouch.) in yoga philosophy (in the patanjali sense) the chitta is the total mind-stuff, and samskaras are stored in it. its used similarly to the term causal body in vedanta. this may be the source of my confusion!
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
as i mentioned earlier, chitta has several definitions. on my effortpost the other day, i said chitta the memory is in the subtle body, and contrasted it with the samskaras, the "soul memory" of the causal body which precedes the mental memory. i said even if youve forgotten in chitta, the samskaras remember. but i couldve been wrong?? now im reading that the samskaras are stored in the chitta, and the chitta is the unconscious mind. do they mean chitta as in memory of the antahkarana, or chitta as in total mind-stuff??? how can something in the causal body be stored in the subtle??? does it just mean that samskaras are felt within the minds memory when they fructify? i wish an LLM were advanced enough to explain this to me.
1
0
0
georgia
georgia
i think that upadhis as specifically defined by kevaladvaita vedanta (not to be confused with the other philosophical senses of it) are a poor explanation for reality. "its near that thing, so its qualities rub off on it and limit it". is a king limited by the presence of commoners around him? likewise with saying the effect is inherent in the cause. such contrivances diminish the active, deliberate creative role of God in determining all things.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
the different definitions of chitta are confusing. it can mean memory, part of the antahkarana, or it can mean the totality of the mind, AND as chit it refers to universal consciousness. not to mention it meaning heart as well.
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
now the bhashya is talking about the koshas. i never liked this part of the taittiriya upanishad specifically because of anandamaya kosha (the sheath of bliss). i found this ridiculous, isnt bliss the atman/brahman itself? but the brahma sutras says that anandamaya is parabrahman. so i looked into the koshas further (i said yesterday that i know little about the koshas) and found that anandamaya kosha is considered to be analogous to the causal body. what am i to do??? read further, i suppose.
0
0
0