Are the Upanishads the greatest spiritual texts?

>Probably originated all Dharmic religions
>Probably influenced Chinese mysticism
>Influenced Egyptian mysticism and thus Hermeticism
>Which in turn influenced Greece and the mystery religions
>Which in turn influenced Christianity and Islam and through them the whole world
>It's influence is continued through the New Age movement and modern Occultism

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No. Buddha debunked it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Buddha was an anti-white shill, the Marx of his era.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        White is a relatively recent Amerimutt term. White people are no where to be found in the Buddhist suttas/sutras or the Vedas. Cope harder Brahmin larper.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why was the caste system etablished.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            There was no caste system until the angloids came. It was the varna system and it was a system based on occupation to keep society functioning. It also has the merit of passing down your skills on said occupation to your children.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >angloids
              Check out this song:

              There is so much weird occult bullshit going on in London. I bought a book of paintings for birds from a London Press, and almost every single painting they picked seemed like it had Masonic and occultish imagery. It was jarring as hell. I don't understand how people can view such works as example sof "high-art". If anything, it seems that the art scene attracts a ton of people into the occult, and I think it's been going for a couple hundred years.
              I remember not long ago I read there was a major Satanist meeting in London.
              Idk, man, but I think the Angloid royalty, including the Rothschilds, are definitely in connection with some creepy occult force.
              It seems a lot of European ""nobility"" are philosemites in cahoots with Kabbalahist cannibals of children.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              > There was no caste system until the angloids came.
              Retard alert.
              > It was the varna system and it was a system based on occupation to keep society functioning.
              Yeah, it was based on occupation. But also if you were a king or a noble or a priest you would pass that to your children; but only if both parents were from the same cast. They also had to perform the ceremony rituals at exact dates. If they did not do this, they became outcasts called "pillagers".
              What I want to ask is, if theoretically the system was occupation based, how did the upper classes, the kshattryas and the brahmins etablish themselves as such in the first place? And if they had etablished themselves as such in the first place, why would they have put a caste system in the second to mantain a power they had already earned? They had supposedly no reason to, unless it is admitted that all societies are formed on the basis of one genetically superior ethnicity subjugating an inferior one. ALL societies are like that, and they collapse when the distinctive ethnic characterictics get lost in mixing. That's the only reason India survived as a society for the humongous period of 3229 years.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What I want to ask is, if theoretically the system was occupation based, how did the upper classes, the kshattryas and the brahmins etablish themselves as such in the first place?

                Because the proto-brahmins themselves likely wrote the vedas and shaped society as they were probably the most literate ones.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                > Because the proto-brahmins themselves likely wrote the vedas and shaped society as they were probably the most literate ones.
                This is pure bullshit. There's a period of roughly 1000 years between the first Vedic kingdoms in the aryavarta and the etablishment of the varnas. So your argument that they wrote the vedas before etablishing themselves as the legitimate rulers is not very bright, to say the least. Like the theory of the social relations in general. It's all bullshit. The Vedians, realized that they were going to loose all their power if they continued to freely mate with the native chiefs, event that had already happened numerous times before the etablishment of the castes. It's obvious: the call for socialism doesn't become a threat before the difference between the ruling class and the opressed class became almost null.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Vedic kingdoms

                Name the first one.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Indra.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Never existed outside of mythology.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Indra is the supreme god in Hinduism. There is no one before him.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                He was later dethroned, but that's besides the point. There was no vedic kingdom called "Indra".

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I never said that. I understood you asked for the first king. A king is the physical representant of god.

                If you ask for the first kingdom, I'd say it was the Kuru kingdom, though I'm not sure.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay then going back to your point here

                > Because the proto-brahmins themselves likely wrote the vedas and shaped society as they were probably the most literate ones.
                This is pure bullshit. There's a period of roughly 1000 years between the first Vedic kingdoms in the aryavarta and the etablishment of the varnas. So your argument that they wrote the vedas before etablishing themselves as the legitimate rulers is not very bright, to say the least. Like the theory of the social relations in general. It's all bullshit. The Vedians, realized that they were going to loose all their power if they continued to freely mate with the native chiefs, event that had already happened numerous times before the etablishment of the castes. It's obvious: the call for socialism doesn't become a threat before the difference between the ruling class and the opressed class became almost null.

                >There's a period of roughly 1000 years between the first Vedic kingdoms in the aryavarta and the etablishment of the varnas.

                The rig vedas are said to be written in 1500 BCE. The Kuru Kingdom began in 1200 BCE. The Vedas predate the first vedic kingdom by about 300 years. My point remains

                >What I want to ask is, if theoretically the system was occupation based, how did the upper classes, the kshattryas and the brahmins etablish themselves as such in the first place?

                Because the proto-brahmins themselves likely wrote the vedas and shaped society as they were probably the most literate ones.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    If hinduism is so great then how come India is a massive hellhole?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      One thing has nothing to do with the other, Hinduism isn't the same as your prosperity gospel, mutt

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm neither christian nor american.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    What are the best English translations?
    It's very important to recommend English translations here.
    Also, something will *always* be invariably lost in translation.
    Also, recommend a Bhagavad Gita translation too. Thank you.

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fucking pajeets

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *