georgia
Posts
74799Following
404Followers
2061$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 fucking hate when hindi/sankskrit words are wRittEn lIke thIs. there are no devanagari capitals, get over yourself
0
0
1
georgia
georgia
kagi search isnt that great but i really like kagi assistant. maybe i just havent optimized kagi search yet idk
0
0
0
georgia
georgia
very fake and gay that the svetashvatara isnt part of the principal upanishads and likely has no authentic sankara commentary.
0
0
2
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
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