EASTERN RELIGION GENERAL

Alright as there seems to be both interest and knowledge someone suggested a general for eastern religions so here I try.

To kick it off: I just finished the Dhammapada. Where do I go next?

Attached: 2000px-Dharma_Wheel.svg.png (2000x2000, 347K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samatva
youtube.com/watch?v=iB1W0_8dynE
youtube.com/watch?v=sOzS0dfijWA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

If you're going for superficial understanding of Eastern religions, then move on to the tao te ching and then to the Bhagavad Gita.

If you want to actually learn about eastern religion, you'd need to either read Dhammapada hundreds of times and focus on each chapter weekly. The implications/assumptions/core of each chapter shows much more than simply whats on the text. Most of the chapters has the Buddhist core mechanism baked in and you wouldn't understand or get it if you didn't know what to look for. Its what allows Dhammapada to be connected to the rest of the Buddhism.

Pantheism/Paganism = Satanic religions.

The Bible is the Word of God. It shines light upon the darkness.

Your secret/occult societies that worship Lucifer (Freemasons, Illuminati, Jesuits, Theosophy, Gnostics, Druids, Witches, Rosicrucians, Knight's Templars, Kabbalists, etc) will be destroyed when Christ comes back.

That's it, fire the bonfire.

fucking crhistians, I swear

Well I don't want only superficial understanding but saying the dhammapada only helps if i knowwhat I'm looking for begs the question how I will know that. Really want to learn about buddhism.

Yeah yeah we know.
Make your own thread about how posting deus vult will make you lose your virginity. This thread is for eastern religions.

I was the one who suggested it, thanks OP!

>tao te ching and then to the Bhagavad Gita.
For an overview sure. But as you mention, it's more important to focus deeply in one subject if you want understanding to the level of a lay practitioner, or more, a student of that religions' philosophy.

धर्म एव हतो हन्ति धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः ।
तस्माद्धर्मो न हन्तव्यः मानो धर्मो हतोवधीत् ॥

>dhammapada only helps if i knowwhat I'm looking
That's not what I said. I said Dhammapada has many more to show than simply what's at face value (do good lmao). If you wanted to learn Buddhism, you'd have to understand the basic principles from which Buddhism came to be. The 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path, and so on.

Explain to a brainlet what's Hinduism and budism about

>many more to show than simply what's at face value
This is the case for most such writings, they are only enhanced by further study and moreso, by understanding their background in a much larger corpus of literature. Honestly, Gita doesn't tell you much about Hinduism at all, at least on a philosophical level. But there's a reason it's the first thing which Children read.

Jatakas are always fun to read, as well.

Attached: guruvayur.jpg (900x600, 510K)

Yeah Irealised I worded it like I want to know about eastern religions in general. No this thread is for eastern religions in general my question was about buddhism sorry.
I.e. where to learn "and so on"

Start with "what the buddha taught by walpola rahula" its a simple book for basic cores of buddhism written. Once you understand whats on the book, you will understand much of the core buddhism that's applicable to most/every Buddhist texts out there. You can then use your new understanding to re-read dhammapada and get new understanding of dhammapada. If you understand the core of Buddhism, you can understand the reasoning behind both Mahayana and Theravada sutras(texts).

Ofcourse that was the point.

Great thread op.

Don't mind the abrahmicist terrorists.

I've read the bhagavad gita and it's very interesting, but the essence is kinda hard to understand. Can someone please explain the significance more thouroughly.

a. In the First Dhyana existence, there are three sensations: 1) the sensation of happiness (sukhavedana) associated with three consciousnesses (eye, ear, and body consciousness); 2) the sensation of satisfaction of the sphere of the mind consciousness (manovijnana); and 3) the sensation of equanimity associated with four consciousnesses (eye, ear, body, and manas).

>Can someone please explain the significance more thouroughly.
Hindu here, what exactly are you confused about?
Also remember, there is no one "meaning" there, even different Hindu schools will interpret the Gita a little differently.

Like when it talks about indifference in emotion as a means of achieving enlightenment. How is that further of importance in Hindu philosophy in general?

>indifference in emotion
Which verse? Are you talking about the idea of "sthitaprajna"?
सुखदुःखे समे कृत्वा लाभालाभौ जयाजयौ।
ततो युद्धाय युज्यस्व नैवं पापमवाप्स्यसि ॥
This verse is a heavily quoted one in Advaita. Basically, what Krishna is saying, is that all emotions are temporary, and to achieve Moksha, one needs to realize this. The general term for this sort of view is:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samatva
This same idea permeates Hindu philosophy in general. See idea of Tamasic/Rajasic, etc.

Yea, exactly this, thanks. Do you recommend any other good books or scriptures of Hindu or Vedic philosophy?
I have an interpretation of the Mahabharata but am yet to read it.

I should also say, it's not just that emotions are temporary, but that they are "all the same". A typical metaphor in song and poetry of South India for his, is the movement of waves in the ocean, which take the mind on a wandering journey, but remain part of the eternal ocean (which alludes to Shankara's metaphor for Brahman)
youtube.com/watch?v=iB1W0_8dynE
Gita isn't really philosophy, it's just wisdom literature and inspiration. You should read the Mahabharat and Ramayana of course, for cultural knowledge. But as for philosophy, everything is based on or references Upanishads as well as Vedas. If you are interested in Advaita (my school), then I suggest aparokshanubhuti as an introduction, but you'll need a deep understanding of Vedic philosophy to start with any of these later philosophical traditions.

Yeah the Gita is more aesthetic and a self-guide book than concrete philosophy but all in all very interesting, and a very nice allegory of the sea. I'm grateful for the all the info.

Also I forgot, if you are not already reading Gita with Sri Shankaracharya's commentary (Srimad Bhagavad Gita bhasya), do so, esp. the second chapter. Tattvabodha is also good in relation to this.

Hindu philosophy doesn't treat books with the same purpose as in the west, it's not traditionally how Brahmins learn. But I think there are likely some good books in English on Vedic and Vedanta philosphy.

Attached: badami.jpg (4272x2848, 817K)

No problem, m8. Glad to be of help.
प्रातः स्मरामि हृदि संस्फुरदात्मतत्त्वं
सच्चित्सुखं परमहंसगतिं तुरीयम् ।
यत्स्वप्नजागरसुषुप्तिमवैति नित्यं
तद्ब्रह्म निष्कलमहं न च भूतसङ्घः ॥१॥
youtube.com/watch?v=sOzS0dfijWA

kaya is just the Vedic counterpart of the god Ka. Ka is the self made actual. Ka is Prajapati made selves, like you and me.
That is to say a self to be felt through the fields (ayatanani) of senses (salayatana).
It is just what is called in philosophy “the actualization of a potential”.
It retains the same meaning in Buddhism - with a major difference.
In Vedism, kaya (lit. “what belongs to Ka”) is continuous and blissful (brings happiness).
In Buddhism, it can’t be. (anicca and dukkha).

As far as what are the particularities of" what belongs to Ka" are concerned, it can be summarized as follows, and holds both in Vedism and Buddhism:

Kaya is an organ (like eye, ear,… brain). It has the particular function of “gluing” the other organs together. It is very close to prana (breath), which is the chief of the organs in Vedism.

Kaya is not like a mere mano - that is to say - a mere “orchestrator” of the organs - but the “glue” that holds the all body and its organs together.
Its vital function is also “touching”.
It is therefore the all shebang of the sensuous realm of a personal self.
But it is also Ka as Prajapati, Brahma and Atma. It also deals with the (liberated) citta, out of this (world of senses) - within the different higher spheres.

In Buddhism, this actual form of the Atma>Brahma>Prajapati, as seen by the Vedist, as continuous and blissful, is a wrong view. Even in the higher spheres (like the Brahma world, for instance).

There can’t be continuity and blissfulness in paticcasamuppada.
Sakkāyadiṭṭhi (the Vedic view of a continuous and blissful Ka) is just a wrong view.
All actualisations (sensuous or not), of the organs or the khandhas, are impermanent and dukkha.