Serious Caste system creates societal harmony even if it limits economic growth

[Transcended Trucel]

The higher castes know their genetic superiority over the trash and live happy.
The mediocre trash know their place and work towards living well and reincarnating to upgrade castes.

The sewer trash(my filthy cockroach bloodline) know their place as the rubbish of humanity. They don't attempt to grow. They suffer in peace and silence. But they do not suffer disappoinment unlike in the filthy current capitalistic system! For when one has no hope, there is no disappointment!

I praise the curry ancestors for having invented caste. I fucking hate whites & Muslims for destroying it! Trash cockroaches should know their places!

I have suffered so much fucking disappoinment due to being told false lies. Even when I realized my intellectual inferiority, I kept grinding and will continue to do so. Because that is all a cockroach pajeet like me knows! Fuck whites for creating this capitalism. Fuck the Muslims for ruining the caste system. They should have let the shitskin pajeets live the medieval way.
Caste system is great and wonderful. garbage should never attempt to escape their origins.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Caste system is cope. All curries are subhuman and need to have their skulls crushed on the same streets they shit on.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

Caste system is cope. All curries are subhuman and need to have their skulls crushed on the same streets they shit on.

ideally yes but at this point it's too late

 

[Grim_Reaper]

ideally yes but at this point it's too late

It's never too late to politely ask Mr. Jinping to drop a nuke.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

The higher castes know their genetic superiority over the trash and live happy.
The mediocre trash know their place and work towards living well and reincarnating to upgrade castes.

The sewer trash(my filthy cockroach bloodline) know their place as the rubbish of humanity. They don't attempt to grow. They suffer in peace and silence. But they do not suffer disappoinment unlike in the filthy current capitalistic system! For when one has no hope, there is no disappointment!

I praise the curry ancestors for having invented caste. I fucking hate whites & Muslims for destroying it! Trash cockroaches should know their places!

I have suffered so much fucking disappoinment due to being told false lies. Even when I realized my intellectual inferiority, I kept grinding and will continue to do so. Because that is all a cockroach pajeet like me knows! Fuck whites for creating this capitalism. Fuck the Muslims for ruining the caste system. They should have let the shitskin pajeets live the medieval way.
Caste system is great and wonderful. garbage should never attempt to escape their origins.

What makes you think the curry caste system led to societal harmony?

Caste system is cope. All curries are subhuman and need to have their skulls crushed on the same streets they shit on.

Bruuutal

 

[Transcended Trucel]

What makes you think the curry caste system led to societal harmony?


Bruuutal

caste system meant stability. cockroaches knew their places. everyone knew their place and role, for it was set in stone centuries prior to their birth. No one had false hope unlike the western system which now dominates everywhere. Every cockroach nigger/abo/pajeet/chink and so forth thinks he can work towards a better life. In the end this leads to disappointment, false hopes, and even suicide

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

caste system meant stability. cockroaches knew their places. everyone knew their place and role, for it was set in stone centuries prior to their birth. No one had false hope unlike the western system which now dominates everywhere. Every cockroach nigger/abo/pajeet/chink and so forth thinks he can work towards a better life. In the end this leads to disappointment, false hopes, and even suicide

A problem with this that I see is that cockroaches on the top stayed on top as well, while gifted people at the bottom untouchable ranks rotted. In the long run, the makes the society less stable because the important intellectual jobs were probably given to the smart people at the start, but over generation stupid people could say dumb shit and stay on top for millennia. It’s probably a reason why curries went from religions like Buddhism millennia ago being the most common belief to pouring milk on black dick statues of the father of the elephant head god with 10 arms after purifying themselves by taking a bath in cow dung, in order to marry your daughter to a dog to remove an evil eye curse.

 

[Caesercel]

A problem with this that I see is that cockroaches on the top stayed on top as well, while gifted people at the bottom untouchable ranks rotted. In the long run, the makes the society less stable because the important intellectual jobs were probably given to the smart people at the start, but over generation stupid people could say dumb shit and stay on top for millennia.

Mediaeval people do not perceive time and the world that way. Progress is actually a new paradigm in public consciousness brought about by enlightenment and technology. To the ancient there is no progress in the world, things have been like this forever and will stay the same forever. A reflection of the never changing eternal God and his will. And the same would go for caste hierarchies. You don't change your eternal place just because you were "gifted". Only release from the cycle of death and rebirth will release you.

You can retroactively see the progress of history from a modernistic lense and claim that the original upper castes were intellectually superior masters and leaders. But them and their bloodlines were never supposes to be replaced

Buddhism millennia ago being the most common belief to pouring milk on black dick statues of the father of the elephant head god with 10 arms after purifying themselves by taking a bath in cow dung, in order to marry your daughter to a dog to remove an evil eye curse.

These practices predate buddhism

 

[adharmi]

Caste system is cope. All curries are subhuman

need to have their skulls crushed on the same streets they shit on.

I agree but I don't want to die before I lose my virginity

 

[adharmi]

A problem with this that I see is that cockroaches on the top stayed on top as well, while gifted people at the bottom untouchable ranks rotted. In the long run, the makes the society less stable because the important intellectual jobs were probably given to the smart people at the start, but over generation stupid people could say dumb shit and stay on top for millennia. It’s probably a reason why curries went from religions like Buddhism millennia ago being the most common belief to pouring milk on black dick statues of the father of the elephant head god with 10 arms after purifying themselves by taking a bath in cow dung, in order to marry your daughter to a dog to remove an evil eye curse.

bullseye

India was majority Buddhist country during ashoka's reign. Stayed that way for few centuries I think.

Muslim invaders and Hindu uppercaste rulers wiped out most of them

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Mediaeval people do not perceive time and the world that way. Progress is actually a new paradigm in public consciousness brought about by enlightenment and technology. To the ancient there is no progress in the world, things have been like this forever and will stay the same forever. A reflection of the never changing eternal God and his will. And the same would go for caste hierarchies. You don't change your eternal place just because you were "gifted". Only release from the cycle of death and rebirth will release you.

You can retroactively see the progress of history from a modernistic lense and claim that the original upper castes were intellectually superior masters and leaders. But them and their bloodlines were never supposes to be replaced

So what? Transcended truecel was trying to say it’s better than other systems for creating social harmony.

These practices predate buddhism

Yes, but the degeneration took thousands of years. Hence why I said it didn’t work long term.

bullseye

India was majority Buddhist country during ashoka's reign. Stayed that way for few centuries I think.

Muslim invaders and Hindu uppercaste rulers wiped out most of them

Yeah quite tragic. Buddhism stayed in existence by higher IQ people like east asians, and the curries were too low IQ to appreciate it, and instead resorted to worshipping things like monkey gods with 10 arms who created the universe.

 

[Caesercel]

So what? Transcended truecel was trying to say it’s better than other systems for creating social harmony.

I don't know about that. How would caste system fit in with modernity anyway

and instead resorted to worshipping things like monkey gods with 10 arms who created the universe.

I'm genuinely curious as to how is this any more ridiculous than any other worship

 

[god'slonelyman]

Curries wanted to feel superior to someone, when they couldn't find anyone, they started casteism imo. Jfl they always got mogged by Afghan Chaddams...

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

I don't know about that. How would caste system fit in with modernity anyway

It doesn’t fit in with anything. It was a stupid system at almost all times, and only worked better than tribal societies at being more complex.

I'm genuinely curious as to how is this any more ridiculous than any other worship

It’s more ridiculous because animals irl are stupid af, and thinking having deformities like 10 arms making it godly is brain dead. Meanwhile at least in Buddhism says there is no creator, and they worship the Buddha for showing people the way and to emulate him his qualities.

 

[Caesercel]

It doesn’t fit in with anything. It was a stupid system at almost all times, and only worked better than tribal societies at being more complex.

That's untrue. The system existed because it worked. Atleast for the time being. Its not very different from heirarchies in any other similar context.

It’s more ridiculous because animals irl are stupid af, and thinking having deformities like 10 arms making it godly is brain dead.

Wrong on both ends. Gods are not animals and 10 arms are not a deformity.

. Meanwhile at least in Buddhism says there is no creator, and they worship the Buddha for showing people the way and to emulate him his qualities.

I'm not aware of Buddhism enough to comment on that. But there indeed are versions of chinese buddhism that pretty much revere Buddha as a God ( even if in everything but in name)

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

That's untrue. The system existed because it worked. Atleast for the time being. Its not very different from heirarchies in any other similar context.

It worked better than tribal systems, as I said, but it gets brutally mogged by pretty much other social system in other societies in that time that were as civilized or more than curryland.

Wrong on both ends. Gods are not animals and 10 arms are not a deformity.

Having a god with a literal elephant head or a monkey god literally makes them animals. And how it 10 arms not a deformity? You have to be mentally retarded to believe this shit.

I'm not aware of Buddhism enough to comment on that. But there indeed are versions of chinese buddhism that pretty much revere Buddha as a God ( even if in everything but in name)

Yes, those were popular among low iq peasant workers that combined their traditional religions with Buddhism this way. But in places that preserved the ancient traditions better, this would be quite alien.

The Buddha himself said that if prayer worked, everyone would already have what they prayed for, but they don’t. All in all it’s pretty much pointless.

 

[Caesercel]

It worked better than tribal systems, as I said, but it gets brutally mogged by pretty much other social system in other societies in that time that were as civilized or more than curryland.

Yeah. That statement is straight up pulled out of ass.

Having a god with a literal elephant head or a monkey god literally makes them animals.

No. It makes them God with an elephant head and a monkey God.

And how it 10 arms not a deformity?

Humans have deformities not Gods

You have to be mentally retarded to believe this shit.

Yes. Just like any other belief system

Yes, those were popular among low iq peasant workers that combined their traditional religions with Buddhism this way. But in places that preserved the ancient traditions better, this would be quite alien.

Yes. Deeper philosophical thought is not meant for peasants. Sane goes for Hinduism and its philosophies. The vast masses needn't worry about the details and just pray to god.

.

The Buddha himself said that if prayer worked, everyone would already have what they prayed for, but they don’t. All in all it’s pretty much pointless.

Buddha is indeed right

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Yeah. That statement is straight up pulled out of ass.

Are you a hindu?

No. It makes them God with an elephant head and a monkey God.

No, the hindu god ganesha is literally wearing a real elephant head from killing a baby elephants

Ganesha | Meaning, Symbolism, & Facts

Ganesha, elephant-headed Hindu god of beginnings, who is traditionally worshipped before any major enterprise and is the patron of intellectuals, bankers, scribes, and authors. He is a remover of obstacles. The 10-day festival Ganesh Chaturthi is devoted to him. Learn more about Ganesha.

www.britannica.com

“But when Shiva sees the handsome young boy—or when the inauspicious planet Saturn (Shani) glances at him, in some variants of the myth that attempt to absolve Shiva of the crime—he or one of his attendants cuts off the child’s head. When Shiva cuts off an elephant’s head to bestow it on the headless Ganesha, one of the tusks is shattered, and Ganesha is depicted holding the broken-off piece in his hand.”

Humans have deformities not Gods

Having 10 arms is a deformity, unless you think these gods need 10 arms to float around like a squid jfl.

Yes. Just like any other belief system

Nope, there is a hierarchy of belief systems. Some are objectively more retarded.

Yes. Deeper philosophical thought is not meant for peasants. Sane goes for Hinduism and its philosophies. The vast masses needn't worry about the details and just pray to god.

But even in deep hindu philosophical scriptures the same retardation appears. For example in the mahabharata, some curry philosopher talks about the benefits of rolling around in cow poop and worshipping it jfl

The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Section LXXVIII

The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: K.M. Ganguli translation, at sacred-texts.com

www.sacred-texts.com

 

[Caesercel]

Are you a hindu?

Is that relevant?

No, the hindu god ganesha is literally wearing a real elephant head from killing a baby elephants

Ganesha | Meaning, Symbolism, & Facts

Ganesha, elephant-headed Hindu god of beginnings, who is traditionally worshipped before any major enterprise and is the patron of intellectuals, bankers, scribes, and authors. He is a remover of obstacles. The 10-day festival Ganesh Chaturthi is devoted to him. Learn more about Ganesha.

www.britannica.com

“But when Shiva sees the handsome young boy—or when the inauspicious planet Saturn (Shani) glances at him, in some variants of the myth that attempt to absolve Shiva of the crime—he or one of his attendants cuts off the child’s head. When Shiva cuts off an elephant’s head to bestow it on the headless Ganesha, one of the tusks is shattered, and Ganesha is depicted holding the broken-off piece in his hand.”

Sure. But its still the soul ofGanesha and not the elephant.

Having 10 arms is a deformity, unless you think these gods need 10 arms to float around like a squid jfl.

Humans have deformities not Gods. Gods are not bound by human biological needs and limitations. The arms symbolise how the Gods have control over multiple domains.

.


Nope, there is a hierarchy of belief systems. Some are objectively more retarded.

There's no hierarchy if all of them are false.

But even in deep hindu philosophical scriptures the same retardation appears. For example in the mahabharata, some curry philosopher talks about the benefits of rolling around in cow poop and worshipping it jfl

The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Section LXXVIII

The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: K.M. Ganguli translation, at sacred-texts.com

www.sacred-texts.com

Leaving aside what's in the ancient text itself. I find it interesting that you have a link to a very specific quote, that I'm sure most regular hindus would have trouble finding since they haven't read the book, ready to post. This is more revealing about you than it is about hinduism

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Is that relevant?

Yes, cause I can’t understand such defensive opinions otherwise.

Sure. But its still the soul ofGanesha and not the elephant.

This doesn’t debunk the idea that this is worshipping elephant head god. And besides, in Hinduism the soul of a god isn’t different than the soul of a cockroach, so that is pointless to bring up.

Humans have deformities not Gods. Gods are not bound by human biological needs and limitations. The arms symbolise how the Gods have control over multiple domains.

Gods clearly have deformities on Hinduism. If this weren’t the case, then you wouldn’t see people worship humans with these deformities as well, but this is common in hindu cultures. Whether the baby is born with a tail or some other deformity.

There's no hierarchy if all of them are false.

There is a hierarchy if some religions are more sensible. Just like how blackpill is more correct than redpill which is kore correct than bluepill. If we look at them as failed theories about reality, then certainly some were more in line with reality than others. For example, many Buddhist ideas about the nature of the mind are still acceptable. Believing in no soul (anatta) is more in line with reality than believing in a soul.

Leaving aside what's in the ancient text itself. I find it interesting that you have a link to a very specific quote, that I'm sure most regular hindus would have trouble finding since they haven't read the book, ready to post. This is more revealing about you than it is about hinduism

I’m very well read in many world religions, that’s why. I have read the mahabharata, and remember this part and it made me laugh hard. Most religious people don’t read their own texts because they aren’t autistic and don’t care.

 

[Caesercel]

Yes, cause I can’t understand such defensive opinions otherwise.

Its for the sake of debate. What's the point if your errors in understanding are not corrected.

This doesn’t debunk the idea that this is worshipping elephant head god.

But that's not the idea that is being debunked. The idea being debunked is that hindus are worshipping animals.

Gods clearly have deformities on Hinduism. If this weren’t the case, then you wouldn’t see people worship humans with these deformities as well, but this is common in hindu cultures. Whether the baby is born with a tail or some other deformity.

This putting the cart before the horse. Those people with deformities are worshipped because their deformities are representative of God's image. God's image exists a priori to the deformity and not vice versa.

There is a hierarchy if some religions are more sensible. Just like how blackpill is more correct than redpill which is kore correct than bluepill. If we look at them as failed theories about reality, then certainly some were more in line with reality than others. For example, many Buddhist ideas about the nature of the mind are still acceptable. Believing in no soul (anatta) is more in line with reality than believing in a soul.

There is truth and then there is untruth. All perceived hierarchies are irrelevant to this distinction. And what is "sensible" is basically a personal choice more than anything. A lot of people will find circumcision as the most insensible thing imaginable.

I’m very well read in many world religions, that’s why. I have read the mahabharata, and remember this part and it made me laugh hard. Most religious people don’t read their own texts because they aren’t autistic and don’t care.

Interesting.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Its for the sake of debate. What's the point if your errors in understanding are not corrected.


But that's not the idea that is being debunked. The idea being debunked is that hindus are worshipping animals.

This putting the cart before the horse. Those people with deformities are worshipped because their deformities are representative of God's image. God's image exists a priori to the deformity and not vice versa.

In the end, no matter what reasoning they come up in their head, they are worshipping deformities and animals. Rationalizing them as gods or godly traits is irrelevent.

There is truth and then there is untruth. All perceived hierarchies are irrelevant to this distinction. And what is "sensible" is basically a personal choice more than anything. A lot of people will find circumcision as the mist insensible thing imaginable.

Circumcision is insensible and braindead, it’s not just a matter of personal choice. By hierarchy here I mean the number of truths in the religion that is probably based in reality. Hinduism wouldn’t survive that test even in its own time, but this can’t be said of every religion.

 

[Caesercel]

In the end, no matter what reasoning they come up in their head, they are worshipping deformities and animals.

They are only deformities and animals to you. To them they are Gods, some of whom have animal looking parts, others with multiple limbs.

. Hinduism wouldn’t survive that test even in its own time, but this can’t be said of every religion.

Time has got nothing to do with whether something is true or not. If all religions besides hinduism are false now. They were just as false as hinduism even then.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

They are only deformities and animals to you. To them they are Gods, some of whom have animal looking parts, others with multiple limbs.

They are animals and deformities in reality as well. Calling poop by any other name doesn’t change the fact it is poop.

Time has got nothing to do with whether something is true or not. If all religions besides hinduism are false now. They were just as false as hinduism even then.

Time is relevant because those were the theories at the time based on what people. If someone made a theory that explained stuff at the time, and we didn't know about the exceptions, then for the time being it was a good theory. For example, creationism was a good explanation until we learned about evolution. However, monkey gods with 10 arms was never a good explanation for how the universe was made jfl.

 

[Caesercel]

They are animals and deformities in reality as well. Calling poop by any other name doesn’t change the fact it is poop.

No. Having 8 arms is having 8 arms. Calling it a deformity is entirely your personal choice. I have no issue with that choice but you should be able to recognise it as such instead of calling your opinions "reality". For some reason you are not able to recognise that :
a. Gods are not humans and hence are not limited by definitions of human limitations like deformities

b. No human is born with a healthy set of multiple functioning arms so unless that condition is arrived you have no criteria to classify it as a deformity

Your insistence seems to be that the Gods that are worshipped are a-human and hence deformed (because considering a and b no other explanation makes sense,unless you are calling whatever you feel like a deformity). Which is strange considering if being other-human is the criteria for deformity then all gods are deformed. The hindu Gods atleast have 8 or 10 arms, the abrahamic God doesn't even have a body!

For example, creationism was a good explanation until we learned about evolution. However, monkey gods with 10 arms was never a good explanation for how the universe was made jfl.

That is indeed also your personal opinion as well. Because opinion is the only criteria on which false hood can be judged without the quality of reality. Its all the same lies to me. (Also I'm pretty sure that's not the hindu creation story)

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

No. Having 8 arms is having 8 arms. Calling it a deformity is entirely your personal choice. I have no issue with that choice but you should be able to recognise it as such instead of calling your opinions "reality". For some reason you are not able to recognise that :
a. Gods are not humans and hence are not limited by definitions of human limitations like deformities

b. No human is born with a healthy set of multiple functioning arms so unless that condition is arrived you have no criteria to classify it as a deformity

Your insistence seems to be that the Gods that are worshipped are a-human and hence deformed (because considering a and b no other explanation makes sense,unless you are calling whatever you feel like a deformity). Which is strange considering if being other-human is the criteria for deformity then all gods are deformed.

The hindu gods are meant to like human-like, so they can be called deformities if they don’t functionally make any sense. For example, the hindu god Brahma has 3/4 heads but I don’t consider it a deformity because they do have a function (reciting the diffetent vedas). But having elephant heads or many arms serve no actual purpose and are just straight up deformities.

The hindu Gods atleast have 8 or 10 arms, the abrahamic God doesn't even have a body!

A god being immaterial makes more sense if it created the universe. But this is actually a contentious topic, because even though this is the case in more esoteric traditions, the Abrahamic God does actually have a body according to the various scriptures. Hence why it’s said Adam (and Eve) being made in God’s image. But since that sounded primitive and dumb, this idea was changed due to the influence of Greek philosophy.

We even see this in Upanishadic traditions of the Brahman being beyond materiality. But as I talked about before due to low iq, curries changed to be the same as their local god or all gods or whatever because that was too abstract for the low iq curry mind.

That is indeed also your personal opinion as well. Because opinion is the only criteria on which false hood can be judged without the quality of reality. Its all the same lies to me. (Also I'm pretty sure that's not the hindu creation story)

By your logic, all theories are equally invalid if they’re wrong. This is just dumb, as this would mean Newton’s Laws of motions are as worthless as Aristotle’s, even though Newton’s laws have much more explanatory power than what Aristotle wrote. Or saying heliocentric model of the solar system is just as wrong as the geocentric model because technically all mass orbits around the centre of mass of the solar system, which is a little outside surface of the Sun rather than its centre.

 

[Caesercel]

The hindu gods are meant to like human-like,

There's a difference between human-like and human. The Gods are divine as well so my point still stands.

We even see this in Upanishadic traditions of the Brahman being beyond materiality. But as I talked about before due to low iq, curries changed to be the same as their local god or all gods or whatever because that was too abstract for the low iq curry mind.

In my understanding the concept of immaterial Brahman is perfectly compatible with hindu gods. Atleast from what little knowledge I possess. (I could make another point about how the same low iq curries came up with the concept of Brahman as well, but your curryphobia is not under discussion here. )

By your logic, all theories are equally invalid if they’re wrong. This is just dumb, as this would mean Newton’s Laws of motions are as worthless as Aristotle’s, even though Newton’s laws have much more explanatory power than what Aristotle wrote. Or saying heliocentric model of the solar system is just as wrong as the geocentric model because technically all mass orbits around the centre of mass of the solar system, which is a little outside surface of the Sun rather than its centre.

Both the examples you've presented are not wrong in a very technical sense. Newton's laws are still very much valid in the context of objects whose behaviour can be modelled using them. And the heliocentric model still preserves its essence in the context of the solar system. It doesn't become invalid just because we now know that the universe is bugger than the solar system.

All religions on the other hand feed complete bullshit about the nature of this world. Hence your preference of one over other is indeed a matter of personal choice.

 

[SoycuckGodOfReddit]

The caste system was good because it was part of a patriarchal society where females were put in their place (somewhat) and males were given clear social roles to work towards. In modern society, I think it would be difficult to implement without changing the economy, culture and soyciety significantly.

 

[WuhanFriedPuppies]

It's never too late to politely ask Mr. Jinping to drop a nuke.

Not gonna happen. All China needs to do is send weapons to all the separatists and India will break apart.

 

[Trannydestroyer]

It worked better than tribal systems, as I said, but it gets brutally mogged by pretty much other social system in other societies in that time that were as civilized or more than curryland.


Having a god with a literal elephant head or a monkey god literally makes them animals. And how it 10 arms not a deformity? You have to be mentally retarded to believe this shit.


Yes, those were popular among low iq peasant workers that combined their traditional religions with Buddhism this way. But in places that preserved the ancient traditions better, this would be quite alien.

The Buddha himself said that if prayer worked, everyone would already have what they prayed for, but they don’t. All in all it’s pretty much pointless.

I am a lower caste currycel and in our ancient history we were once buddhists who converted to Hinduism {our religion is more of syncretism with our local deities and mainstream Hindu Gods} Buddhism is more high IQ with interesting philosophical discussions and hinduism the high iq discussions were mainly done by the elite classes

 

[Trannydestroyer]

bullseye

India was majority Buddhist country during ashoka's reign. Stayed that way for few centuries I think.

Muslim invaders and Hindu uppercaste rulers wiped out most of them

it was multiple factors Adi Shankara's debates did a lot to replace Hinduism but he propagated worship same with other Ramanujacharya who was even bigger bhakta

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

There's a difference between human-like and human. The Gods are divine as well so my point still stands.

The fact curries see those things as divine says how low iq the population is.

In my understanding the concept of immaterial Brahman is perfectly compatible with hindu gods. Atleast from what little knowledge I possess. (I could make another point about how the same low iq curries came up with the concept of Brahman as well, but your curryphobia is not under discussion here. )

What I meant here is that curries did abstract away to something immaterial, but nowadays say shit like “actually -insert their favourite god here- is the same as brahman”

Both the examples you've presented are not wrong in a very technical sense. Newton's laws are still very much valid in the context of objects whose behaviour can be modelled using them. And the heliocentric model still preserves its essence in the context of the solar system. It doesn't become invalid just because we now know that the universe is bugger than the solar system.
All religions on the other hand feed complete bullshit about the nature of this world. Hence your preference of one over other is indeed a matter of personal choice.

Newton’s Laws and heliocentrism are both wrong and are only approximation based on observations at the time. This is what I mean by religious hierarchies, as some were believable at the time they were made and some weren’t believable even when they were made. They are not complete bullshit, as some religions do have valid observations about the world (if we take religion as primitive attempts to explain the world). Some religions are much more valid than others

I am a lower caste currycel and in our ancient history we were once buddhists who converted to Hinduism {our religion is more of syncretism with our local deities and mainstream Hindu Gods} Buddhism is more high IQ with interesting philosophical discussions and hinduism the high iq discussions were mainly done by the elite classes

It’s quite sad Buddhism died out in India while cow poop flinging and shiva dick worship became the mainstream religion.

 

[Caesercel]

The fact curries see those things as divine says how low iq the population is.

You are free to choose to label anything you want as "low iq" as long as we are clear or on the facts that curries are neither worshipping human deformities nor are they worshipping animals.

What I meant here is that curries did abstract away to something immaterial, but nowadays say shit like “actually -insert their favourite god here- is the same as brahman”

I wouldn't know anything about that tbh

Newton’s Laws and heliocentrism are both wrong and are only approximation based on observations at the time. This is what I mean by religious hierarchies, as some were believable at the time they were made and some weren’t believable even when they were made. They are not complete bullshit, as some religions do have valid observations about the world (if we take religion as primitive attempts to explain the world). Some religions are much more valid than others

The thing is that your analogy simply does not work. Newton's laws are still perfectly applicable to mechanics even if its an approximation in the fundamental sense. And heliocentrism is only rendered wrong in the sense that we discovered that the universe is larger than the solar system. But the idea that sun is at the center of that system is still just as relevant.

On the other hand what information or truth can be derived about the workings of this world from other belief systems which cannot be achieved through hinduism? For your analogy to work other systems must give us information that is closer to the truth. Which isn't the case. If your disagreement with hinduism is purely on grounds that its metaphysics doesn't "sound" reasonable to you then that has already been addressed by Kant in Critique of Pure Reason (tldr: its like, your feels bro, the entire "religion hierarchy" is your feel)

It’s quite sad Buddhism died out in India while cow poop flinging and shiva dick worship became the mainstream religion.

A hindu could tell you that buddhists simply lost the debate to the superior reasoning and worldview of vedanta.

 

[Mentally lost cel]

Caste system is cope. All curries are subhuman and need to have their skulls crushed on the same streets they shit on.

Based ?

 

[Mentally lost cel]

Agreed

 

[Mentally lost cel]

There is already a caste system in literally everything in the world

How you are born =how you’ll be forever

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

You are free to choose to label anything you want as "low iq" as long as we are clear or on the facts that curries are neither worshipping human deformities nor are they worshipping animals.

If that’s what they see as divine, it doesn’t change the fact those aren’t animals and deformities.

The thing is that your analogy simply does not work. Newton's laws are still perfectly applicable to mechanics even if its an approximation in the fundamental sense. And heliocentrism is only rendered wrong in the sense that we discovered that the universe is larger than the solar system. But the idea that sun is at the center of that system is still just as relevant.

No, heliocentrism is wrong because everything in the solar system orbits around the centre of mass of the solar system (which isn’t the centre of the Sun).

And that’s what I mean. For example, it’s still possible to believe in some formless God even today but it’s not possible to believe in some monkey god with 10 arms. Calling them equivalent is completely asinine jfl.

On the other hand what information or truth can be derived about the workings of this world from other belief systems which cannot be achieved through hinduism? For your analogy to work other systems must give us information that is closer to the truth. Which isn't the case. If your disagreement with hinduism is purely on grounds that its metaphysics doesn't "sound" reasonable to you then that has already been addressed by Kant in Critique of Pure Reason (tldr: its like, your feels bro, the entire "religion hierarchy" is your feel)

I already gave you the example above with a formless god vs animal/human body gods (yes they are animals). But another easy example to give is the idea of no soul (anatta) in Buddhism probably being based on fact even based on what we know in science today.

A hindu could tell you that buddhists simply lost the debate to the superior reasoning and worldview of vedanta.

They didn’t, the Gupta Empire literally killed Buddhists. That’s like saying Islam simply won the debate against Hindus, hence why they have been getting cucked for millennia by them. I’ve seen dindus on quora say the same stupid shit about why mimamsa died out in India, that vedanta showed them compassion by not killing them all after “beating them in a debate”. Just delusional low iq understanding of history, although hindus are probably the least historically literate people on Earth.

 

[Caesercel]

, it doesn’t change the fact those aren’t animals and deformities.

I think I've already addressed that they are worshipping Hindu Gods, which are neither of those. You are just repeating yourself and showing your poor understanding of hinduism (and idealism in general) .

No, heliocentrism is wrong because everything in the solar system orbits around the centre of mass of the solar system (which isn’t the centre of the Sun).

And that’s what I mean. For example, it’s still possible to believe in some formless God even today but it’s not possible to believe in some monkey god with 10 arms. Calling them equivalent is completely asinine jfl.


I already gave you the example above with a formless god vs animal/human body gods (yes they are animals).

There's literally no reason to believe that a formless God is a better representation of reality than a monkey god. So it doesn't fit will the heliocentrism analogy

But another easy example to give is the idea of no soul (anatta) in Buddhism probably being based on fact even based on what we know in science today.

Interesting opinion. There are just 3 problems here:

1. The hard problem of consciousness is still unsolved so the question of duality is still up in the air.

2. The only other major doctrine besides buddhism that espouses non-duality is advaita vedanta. Which is ironically enough a part of hinduism.

3. Even if we ignore point no. 1 & 2, this arguments still puts Hinduism on the same "tier" as all of abrahmic faiths since they are all dualistic

They didn’t, the Gupta Empire literally killed Buddhists.

My point is that neither explanation is completely accurate. It was a retort to the equally historically illiterate idea that its "sad "that buddhism died out while hinduism came on top. (Actually its not even an idea, just pure opinion. So the other empty opinion that buddhism lost in intellectual debate to a superior ideology seems like a valid reply)

. That’s like saying Islam simply won the debate against Hindus, hence why they have been getting cucked for millennia by them.

Interesting example considering Islam pretty much annihilated buddhist doctrine in curryland.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

I think I've already addressed that they are worshipping Hindu Gods, which are neither of those. You are just repeating yourself.

Your “addressing” is just saying they aren’t something the clearly are because they are labelled as god. If someone literally worships a turd on the ground that does not change the fact that if isn’t a turd.

There's literally no reason to believe that a formless God is a better representation of reality than a monkey god. So it doesn't fit will the heliocentrism analogy

It is infinitely better because if matter if made by God, then why would it have a material body? That makes 0 sense.

Interesting opinion. There are just 3 problems here:

1. The hard problem of consciousness is still unsolved so the question of duality is still up in the air.

Consciousness existing does not mean there is a soul. Modern neuroscience shows us different regions of the brain are associated with different conscious experiences, so this matches more with the Buddhist idea that consciousness does not arise without a cause.

2. The only other major doctrine besides buddhism that espouses non-duality is advaita vedanta. Which is ironically enough a part of hinduism.

Non-duality is not even supported in more ancient Buddhism, as it is a later Mahayana thing. Although Adi-Shankar was a mahayana monk before and was accused by other hindus of being a crypto Buddhist peddling buddhism into their religion, so take from that what you will.

In more ancient Buddhism consciousness arises moment to moment, and only due to causes and conditions.

3. Even if we ignore point no. 1 & 2, this still puts Hinduism on the same "tier" as all of abrahmic faiths since they are all dualistic

Depends. If you consider ancient Upanishadic religions then it mogs the Abrahamic religions hard. But if you consider modern Hinduism, then Abrahamic religions make much more sense. This is because the modern abrahamic religions are heavily influenced by greek philosophy while Indian thought has regressed for millennia.

My point is that neither explanation is completely accurate. It was a retort to the equally historically illiterate idea that its "sad "that buddhism died out while hinduism came on top. (Actually its not even an idea, just pure opinion. So the other empty opinion that buddhism lost in intellectual debate to a superior ideology seems like a valid reply)

It is sad that Buddhism died out in India while low iq monkey god worship and cow poop smearing has become the mainstream curry religion. It’s as much of an opinion as seeing pure gold and dog shit, and knowing which has greater value.

Interesting example considering Islam pretty much annihilated buddhist doctrine in curryland.

It was already pretty much endangered before Islam, and they finished the job. Both brain dead religions in comparison to Buddhism, but modern Hinduism is lower iq than Islam (other than maybe wahabis).

 

[Intellau_Celistic]

The sewer trash(my filthy cockroach bloodline) know their place as the rubbish of humanity. They don't attempt to grow. They suffer in peace and silence. But they do not suffer disappoinment unlike in the filthy current capitalistic system! For when one has no hope, there is no disappointment!

Use Nebula.

 

[Caesercel]

Your “addressing” is just saying they aren’t something the clearly are because they are labelled as god..

I'm not just "saying" they aren't something. I'm showing it. Your consistence insistence otherwise to stubbornly keep your errors seems juvenile. How can one be so clearly factually wrong about something and then insist to not correct themselves even when the actual facts are offered?

It is infinitely better because if matter if made by God, then why would it have a material body? That makes 0 sense.

Who says hindu gods are material? They are divine, that's why they are Gods to begin with.

Consciousness existing does not mean there is a soul. Modern neuroscience shows us different regions of the brain are associated with different conscious experiences, so this matches more with the Buddhist idea that consciousness does not arise without a cause.

I agree with this. But the associations are not the hard problem. It is more likely than not that sheer experience itself has neurological origins but experience itself still cannot be defined purely by the material brain. The question is, are p-zombies possible?

I myself think that its purely neurological and there's no soul but unless we can confirm it I'll refrain from considering any belief system with such values as superior because it closer to modern science, when modern science itself is not clear on the nature of conscious experience.

Depends. If you consider ancient Upanishadic religions then it mogs the Abrahamic religions hard. But if you consider modern Hinduism, then Abrahamic religions make much more sense.

There is no such distinction or incompatibility between the old and the new.

It is sad that Buddhism died out in India while low iq monkey god worship and cow poop smearing has become the mainstream curry religion.

I don't see the problem if we presume:

a. Buddhism lost the debate to the intellectual superiority of vedanta

b. The local practices and beliefs of hindus are compatible with vedanta.

It’s as much of an opinion as seeing pure gold and dog shit, and knowing which has greater value.

Jfl. Even this analogy is based on opinion so you've still not escaped the binds of your mind.

modern Hinduism is lower iq than Islam (other than maybe wahabis).

Just fucking lol

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

I'm not just "saying" they aren't something. I'm showing it. Your consistence insistence otherwise to stubbornly keep your errors seems juvenile. How can one be so clearly factually wrong about something and then insist to not correct themselves even when the actual facts are offered?

What facts? It’s clearly animal gods with deformities at the end of the day. Mental gymnastics won’t change that.

Who says hindu gods are material? They are divine, that's why they are Gods to begin with.

Because they have bodies, meaning they are still made of material of some kind.

I agree with this. But the associations are not the hard problem. It is more likely than not that sheer experience itself has neurological origins but experience itself still cannot be defined purely by the material brain. The question is, are p-zombies possible?

Nothing to do with souls though.

I myself think that its purely neurological and there's no soul but unless we can confirm it I'll refrain from considering any belief system with such values as superior because it closer to modern science, when modern science itself is not clear on the nature of conscious experience.

The fact that anasthesia can pretty much shut down consciousness pretty much shows it is in fact neurological.

There is no such distinction or incompatibility between the old and the new.

All religions evolve, unlike religious copers who think their traditions are the same as thousands of years ago.

I don't see the problem if we presume:

a. Buddhism lost the debate to the intellectual superiority of vedanta

b. The local practices and beliefs of hindus are compatible with vedanta.

None of these apply. First one is obviously not true, as history does not support it. There’s a reason why places outside India with higher IQ were all impressed by Buddhism and not the other traditions in India. And the second one is even if it isn’t compatible, they will force it to be. For example, just claim their local gods are brahman’s ultimate form or part of it’s pure form. This is what happened with the Vaishnavite and Shaivite traditions popular in India today.

Even this analogy is based on opinion so you've still not escaped the binds of your mind.

Not even an opinion tbh. Even at the time Buddhism was much more pragmatic and straight to the point, while Hinduism dances around trying to appease vedic and non-vedic traditions wherever they are found into an irrational mess.

Just fucking lol

Just keeping it real.

 

[Caesercel]

What facts? It’s clearly animal gods with deformities at the end of the day. Mental gymnastics won’t change that.

Since you've decided to not understand the very thing you set out to criticize I won't prod you further on this. Even though this would put a dent on validity of all further criticisms, since you clearly
1. Don't understand what exactly hindus worship
2. Don't understand the concept of divinity
3. Don't know what a deformity even is or where that term applies
4. Are entirely driven by your own mental definitions of these terms, which again leads to point no. 1
5. Don't understand idealism as a concept

The funny thing about all this is that hindus actually do worship animals and some of them do worship deformities (only when those things are approximate representations of divine form). So if you criticized that, it would make more sense. Instead of putting the cart before the horse and trying (and failing) to criticize ideal forms that exist in and of themselves.

If you can call a God a deformed human, then you might as well call a cat a deformed dog.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Since you've decided to not understand the very thing you set out to criticize I won't prod you further on this. Even though this would put a dent on validity of all further criticisms, since you clearly
1. Don't understand what exactly hindus worship
2. Don't understand the concept of divinity
3. Don't know what a deformity even is or where that term applies
4. Are entirely driven by your own mental definitions of these terms, which again leads to point no. 1
5. Don't understand idealism as a concept

The funny thing about all this is that hindus actually do worship animals and some of them do worship deformities (only when those things are approximate representations of divine form). So if you criticized that, it would make more sense. Instead of putting the cart before the horse and trying (and failing) to criticize ideal forms that exist in and of themselves.

If you can call a God a deformed human, then you might as well call a cat a deformed dog.

The hindu gods are literally modelled pff of animals and people. You are acting like they actually exist, which they don’t. So calling them godly or divine doesn’t make any sense. At the end of the day, some crackpot thought it would be a good idea to worship a monkey with 10 arms who created the universe., or whatever else they worship.

 

[Trannydestroyer]

None of these apply. First one is obviously not true, as history does not support it.

Really? I am aware Buddhist decline in India was due to multiple factors but we were taught that Adi Shankara's debates with Buddhists were a factor for Hinduism being restored do you have any books I can read on this?

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Really? I am aware Buddhist decline in India was due to multiple factors but we were taught that Adi Shankara's debates with Buddhists were a factor for Hinduism being restored do you have any books I can read on this?

The adi shankara thing is a common myth pushed by Hindus in India. The truth is that Adi Shankara was not popular during his own lifetime, and there is no outside reference to him (even from other Hindu writers) until the 11th century. Historically he is from 8th century (a contemporary of the prophet Muhammad), so this is around 300 years after his life. The stories of him travelling around India debating other schools is mostly mythology that dates to many centuries even after that. This is pretty common in Indian tradition as they do not have a very good sense of history, and they commonly mix history with myths all the time.

As for good books on the decline of Buddhism, I’ll see if I can find any. You would want to find some written by western scholars rather than ones from India, as it seems they are usually biased Hindus who don’t have an objective idea of history. A good start might be looking to the Chola Empire in South India or Gupta Empire in the north.

 

[Justice]

Caste system shouldn't exist

 

[Trannydestroyer]

The adi shankara thing is a common myth pushed by Hindus in India. The truth is that Adi Shankara was not popular during his own lifetime, and there is no outside reference to him (even from other Hindu writers) until the 11th century. Historically he is from 8th century

do you think he existed?

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

do you think he existed?

Yes, I don’t see why not. He wrote interesting commentaries on the Upanishads and a few other texts, and those got popular after his death. But him going around destroying people on debates around India, single handedly stopping Buddhism in India through sheer intellectual debates, uniting all of Hinduism (which is just another myth) and making Advaita reign supreme (even though it wasn’t ever really very popular among mainstream Hindus), are all just made up myths to praise this person after he wasn’t praised in his own life.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Those low caste literal shits need to be put in their place. They think they can walk all over us high caste niggas because they're finally free. I don't give a shit if they mog me, they will always be genetic trash, and they only reason they mog me is because they cheated their genes through hormonemaxxing and other methods I don't even know about, but no matter how much you try to change the size and shape of a shell, a shell will always be a shell. Their ancestors were the lowest lifeforms, and so are they, and nothing will change that.