You are made of your faith; whatever it is, that is exactly what you are.

Read at the scale the surviving comment actually supports.

Shankara reads sattva as the inner mind, already formed by leanings carried in from before, and draws the direct consequence: the self that has wandered from one birth to the next is woven out of its faith, exactly the size of the faith it holds. What can be read from the outside is the kind of worship a person offers, the one visible sign this brief comment names. The extant record here stays close to these two moves rather than developing a longer argument about faith's status relative to liberating knowledge.

Faith shapes the whole embodied instrument, not the mind alone.

Ramanuja widens sattva beyond the mind to include the body and the senses already discussed earlier in his commentary, so your faith conforms to your whole embodied instrument. To be made of faith names a transformation by that faith, and it carries a concrete stake: joined to faith bearing on meritorious action, you are joined as well to that action's fruit. What survives at this exact line is a compact statement of the principle rather than an extended unfolding.

A single brief gloss, read at its own scale.

What remains of Madhva's comment here is short: sattva means the mind, and whatever your faith is, that very thing you are, a sattvic faith making a sattvic person, and likewise for the rajasic and tamasic cases. The source does not extend, at this line, into the fuller argument about a soul's dependence on the Lord that appears with more room elsewhere, so this reading stays at the scale the text actually gives.

A single surviving gloss; anything beyond it is flagged as extrapolation.

Abhinavagupta's extant note glosses sattva simply as one's own nature, and says the self always carries some faith standing higher than all its other doings, so the self should be seen as made of nothing else. On a fuller Kashmir Shaiva reading, one might extend this toward the self's own inherent freedom rather than conditioning by past deeds, but the surviving comment does not develop this itself, so it is offered here only as a clearly labeled extension, not as his stated position.

Faith is sattvic in essence; only its coloring is borrowed.

Sridhara meets a real tension directly: hasn't faith already been named an effect of sattva alone, so how can it now be threefold? He answers that faith is sattvic in its own essence, but because it rests in a person whose sattva is itself mixed with rajas and tamas, it takes on that mixture, the way one liquid turns fatal mixed with poison and sweet mixed with cane-juice. Person and faith are not two things, and the color of one shows in the other, all the way down through worship, food, sacrifice, austerity, and giving.

A present, workable condition, not a sealed verdict.

Madhusudana traces faith's threefoldness to a second cause beyond past conditioning: the inner organ's own material blend of the three qualities, nearly pure sattva in some beings, overpowered by rajas or tamas in others, mostly mixed in the human case. He adds a real qualification: by scriptural insight this mixture can be worked on, sattva raised while rajas and tamas are held down, so the description names where a person presently stands, not a verdict closed against all further change.