theres some weird shit in there. enjoy. i like the ethics and respect them because they have their root in a technical understanding of immutable laws of the self and karma. they are extreme and unforgiving just like reality is. the ethics in tattvartha sutra are really for the monk and not the layman. there are texts for the conduct of laypeople, but i dont know of a text that concerns the ethics for a kshatriya which is what we would be primarily concerned with. i know jains claim the teachings of bhagavad gita as originally theirs which is primarily about the ethics of being a kshatriya in regards to the morality of killing, but i still want to see a specifically jain text about kshatriya ethics, not something claimed to be second hand, especially since it claims itself to be a kshatriya religion primarily. As i read adi purana and the padma purana (jain ramayana) i should stumble upon them.
i just opened up my physical copy to a random page and landed on the section on non-absolutism which then goes into the sevenfold predication. starts on page 136. maybe that can help.
>brahmins are aryan leftovers
i didnt realize you meant modern brahmins, i thought you meant the concept of being a brahmin.
there is not one universal code of conduct for every person in dharmic religion. renouncing the world for one person could be a great deed (a brahmin) but for another it could be a great sin (a kshatriya). what you see as an anti-life doctrine is actually the most pro-life thing for another person. what you see as pro-life could be seen as a horrible mode of existence to another. the thing thats subversive is when the conduct and goals of one type of person at a certain stage of varnashrama is preached as appropriate for every stage of varnashrama. take for example, the attitude of the nigger when it comes to White culture. they cant understand it when its explained to them, they just see it as strange and life denying to be monogamous and only have sex within marriage, follow basic laws, eat lightly seasoned food, etc.
>The division model that is plastered left and right tends to imply a very clean separation, with warriors left out of spiritual matters on purpose.
thats not true. the brahmanas overlap with the kshatriyas, the kshatriyas overlap with the vaishyas, and the vaishyas overlap with the sudras. understanding the 3 gunas of samkhya philosophy and their psychological implications, the varna system makes a lot of sense. this is explained in bhagavad gita.
>vedic religion is abrahamism because they both advocate worship of a supreme being
did i paraphrase that right?
>but the early texts are much less defending the idea of babysitting humans
>I think we should consider a category of orthodox purist Vedism
thats exactly what sri dharma pravartaka acharya is doing (dharmanation guy). he is preaching the Sri Vaishnava sect which is recognized as the most orthodox school/lineage/sect/style of vedic religion.
>so there can only be one self
they might have an explanation for this in the tattvartha sutra
>But I hope this doesn't imply something negative about the karma
karma is negative as it obscures the true nature of the self.
>In sheer logical terms, a complete thing would be that All I talked about above and that All couldn't do anything as it is in any kind of creation. It has to generate splinters, fruits with more focused identities, filtering among the infinity of all attributes to create real selves, real individualities, even if these individualities in the spiritual realm would also be capable of adopting different forms (sort of avatara) and hence be humans down the line.
i think vedic sects have argued with each other about this at length. the part about how the All has to generate splinters to perform action is heresy to many of them.
>Which is meant to be an infinite task
daunting, literally the most difficult thing you could ever possibly do, but not infinite
>to take a break and be willing to indulge oneself in the life of a simpler lifeform just for the sake of it.
everytime you dedicate your life to the religious path but fall short of the ultimate goal by the time of your death, you'll have accrued enough good karma to live in a better heaven everytime.
dont underestimate this idea. advaita was very much feared by prabhupada and his whole sampradaya as carrying people off the right track. they called them mayavadis. chaitanya said you had to take a bath if you saw the face of a mayavadi and anyone who reads their literature is for sure doomed. after buddhism peaked in india, hindusim was mostly a minority until adi shankara revived hindusim with advaits philosophy which then wiped out buddhism.
The Allure of Mayavadi Philosophy and How to Refute It
Introduction to Vedanta Advaita