When you admit you're not saying reality stops existing when you close your eyes, it feels weird/wrong to go back to saying "the existence of the world is dependent on our consciousness". That's not how it works, our consciousness enables *awareness* of reality, but it doesn't enable reality. I agree the only idea we have absolute certainty of is our own mind. But it feels like that certainty is being blown out of proportion. Also science would be open to reality not existing without us if you could show evidence of that. You'd have to overcome the fact that we have overwhelming evidence that every time a person permanently stops being conscious, reality didn't end. That person's awareness ended, but _reality_ didn't end. Now of course we can't prove we're not in "The Matrix" or a dream, and so sure, conceivably all of this evidence might turn out to be 'part of the simulation', but that doesn't change the fact that _right here, right now_ we don't have good reason to trust any other way of viewing reality more than the one that appears to be working. Also we don't have evidence of an "infinite" consciousness. Instead, evidence indicates consciousness is a product of the brain and when it stops functioning, that's it. (Why would this be the case if out consciousness was somehow separate? And if we think, _"well that may just be another weird rule we invented for ourselves in a dream,"_ then yeah that's possible but _we have no real reason to believe it's true._ ) Yes, I'm absolutely certain my own consciousness exists, but I don't think it's honest to call that "god", nor to pretend that anything other than _MY perceptions_ of reality are reliant on my consciousness. (edited to improve clarity on a few things. 11/25/2024)
What Vedanta is saying is deeper than this. It states, there is one universal- Consciousness/ God within which everything is and the Universe is. And so every- 'thing' in its essence is this 'Consciousness'. And this can be realized through first hand direct experience.
@@adhvaitha Well it's slightly less important what's being claimed and more important to know *what evidence justifies believing it.* After all, what you've described here doesn't contain any real evidence -- and maybe you're saying there isn't any evidence but it has to be experienced, but that's exactly the same as any other falsehood which asks you to believe first and "see evidence" later, which we know is *confirmation bias.*
@@majmage Anything, even scientific theories needs to be approached with some amount of belief and hypothesis to know the Truth. So we need to approach this simply with an open mind to find out for ourselves.
@@adhvaitha Sure, every worldview involves assumptions. We can imagine a simulation designed to trick those inside, where something that doesn't indicate truth in our universe works in that universe. Let's say when more than 50% of people believe an idea, it becomes true in the sim. Well you can see how the most rational, most intelligent individuals in that universe would conclude that's a reliable path to truth, right? And in a very real sense, it does in fact work: the sim is programmed to *make things true* when this "faulty" (by our perspective) method is used. If 51% of the sim people believe the sun is blue, _it becomes blue._ Well why should anyone in that sim believe otherwise? Your position (in our universe) seems to be to (A) abandon the one method that seems reliable, and (B) embrace a method that doesn't seem reliable at all. So while I could agree that maybe your method is secretly reliable in some greater part of the universe, right here, right now we have no reason to believe it. So both are assumptions, but one is certainly more rational, right? We _could_ irrationally assume that sledgehammering through our bathroom wall reveals the exit to the matrix. We _might_ irrationally assume that throwing a key forcefully onto the beach at Waikiki, Hawaii will wake us up from the dream. But *we have no indication those assumptions are true,* and we simply don't have infinite time to experiment with every conceivable way reality might work, right?
@@adhvaitha Every strategy for knowing truth (epistemology) involves assumptions, I agree. The issue is only one epistemology reliably works. Worse, that epistemology would by definition, automatically expand to include any other provably reliable method of knowing truth. Well that's the epistemology I'm relying on. The reliable one. The one where we rely on evidence. So while I agree 'base reality' might be completely different than it appears to be (it might be a dream, a simulation, a "Matrix", or even wilder possibilities we haven't even considered yet), at the present moment there doesn't seem to be any reason to abandon rationality (to abandon the only method that seems to work).
I think meditation is the best way achieve anything is an art of knowing the self the commentary on God and existence not going to work for all the art of knowing self and the self realisation is the first and the last motive of every living creature other than there is no ethical or moral conduct that guides you as per your own understanding and logic
For what i think is as matter is manifestation of energy, then the ultimate source of energy can be considered as god , or if energy has manifested itself into matter to express itself and to take from then the most intelligent being ( robots maybe or Ai idk ) can be considered as god.
This argument is full of assumptions and inconclusive. Here are some points that need to be addressed 1. Evidence from a scientific perspective means "information that supports or contradicts a scientific theory or hypothesis". The etymology of the word is irrelevant; what matters is how it is used today. Is there any evidence for the hypotheses like "there is an infinite consciousness", "everything is an appearance in the infinite consciousness"? For sure consciousness enables identity ("I" as distinct from the world) and enables us to perceive the world, but does the world cease to exist when my consciousness ceases (I cease to exist)? Is there any evidence for such a hypothesis? 2. I can not deny I exist, but that is possible only until I exist. Is there any evidence for the hypothesis that I can continue to assert my existence after my body is destroyed? 3. Is there any evidence for non-embodied consciousness ie consciousness that exists without a body? 4. Avastha Traya has been used as a convenient anchor for discussion of Vedantic concepts. But the Upanishads themselves speak of a fourth avastha ie Turiya and Valmiki calls death a panchama avastha. Is there evidence for the hypothesis of continuation of consciousness after death? 5. How does the non deniability of my consciousness demonstrate the existence of "God" or "an infinite consciousness"? especially when there is no confirmed evidence for the hypothesis that the world is a simulation in consciousness? For sure the hypothesis of "solipsism" has existed for a long time! Plato's "cave of the shadows" also talks of the dubious nature of our understanding of the world based on our sense experiences
What Vedanta is saying is deeper. As per Vedanta, there is one infinite intelligence/field of Consciousness within which the Universe itself is created. And so every- 'thing' in its essence is this 'Consciousness'. And this can be realized through first hand direct experience. Anything, even scientific theories needs to be approached with some amount of belief and hypothesis to know the Truth. So we need to approach this simply with an open mind to find out for ourselves.
@adhvaitha It is true that Vedanta says so (especially Advaita Vedanta, because Dvaita Vedanta speaks differently)! But when hypotheses are proposed in science they are tested for evidence to confirm whether they are true or not. If they are found false, they are discarded and new ones are proposed for testing. There is no "belief" in science as in the religious or metaphysical context
@@adhvaitha Yes, certainly, they are but they are not considered correct until validated. Should we not adopt the same approach for metaphysical hypotheses too, instead of saying "this is correct"?
I want to know weather God and past life exists or not ,as I have many questions on my life but if they don't exist I can get to die in peace as I don't have to repeat my life
Attaching these ideas to quantum mechanics is a ridiculous mis-step that virtually everyone is making these days. Think about it: if you argued the existence of God (or whatever you want to call it) from Aristotelian Physics, or Newtonian Physics in the past then what happened to "God" (or at least your argument for it) when we realized those theories of physical reality were wrong? So why pin it on quantum mechanics, unless you are making an unwarranted assumption that quantum mechanics is the ultimate correct physical theory - which it OBVIOUSLY isn't because it doesn't map onto Relativity (or vice versa, if you wish). Ridiculous analogies between the "empty space" thesis of physics and "emptiness"...I have to say I think there is quite some confusion here, from my point of view. Might be better to just Be rather than trying to convince others (or perhaps yourself) using extremely tortuous metaphors and analogies. Just read the Ashtavakra or Avudhuta Gita instead. If you want a further "argument" then perhaps one just needs to rest one's mind on it even longer. Namaste!
Good points kept forward… I just want to know what you feel about the God.. It’s a Simple YES or No.. just answer this, we’ll discuss about it. The point that you made was absolute right that was to connect the Emptiness of Quantum Mechanics to be linked with this analogy. Do you know what it means to Exist other than Conscious and Experience?
@@Moonlight-p8m according to raman Maharshi everything is predestined, so everything good & bad done by supreme consciousness so it can't be great, it is the pure evil
Aristotelian physics and Newtonian physics were not wrong. wrong was the idea those theories explained in full the nature of reality Those theories do explain an aspect of reality but not its totality They are truths but not absolute truths There is nothing wrong in using to illustrate the agency of God in certain aspects of the universe
Thanks for your efforts explaining advait vaad. Please take Swami Sarvapriyaanand's route to explain existence in all three states - Being awake, dreaming, and deep sleep. The reason why I am recommending is the problem with the definition of consciousness. As per definition consciousness is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings". This directly contradicts with your explanation. Your teaching is right, your explanation is inaccurate / incomplete.
Hi, I did not understand your point. The 'Consciousness' is the only common factor in all 3 states of existence. Hence, it is fundamental. This is the point of 'Avasthatraya Viveka'. In the deep sleep state there are no objects for Consciousness.
This argument is full of assumptions and inconclusive. Here are some points that need to be addressed 1. Evidence from a scientific perspective means "information that supports or contradicts a scientific theory or hypothesis". The etymology of the word is irrelevant; what matters is how it is used today. Is there any evidence for the hypotheses like "there is an infinite consciousness", "everything is an appearance in the infinite consciousness"? For sure consciousness enables identity ("I" as distinct from the world) and enables us to perceive the world, but does the world cease to exist when my consciousness ceases (I cease to exist)? Is there any evidence for such a hypothesis? 2. I can not deny I exist, but that is possible only until I exist. Is there any evidence for the hypothesis that I can continue to assert my existence after my body is destroyed? 3. Is there any evidence for non-embodied consciousness ie consciousness that exists without a body? 4. Avastha Traya has been used as a convenient anchor for discussion of Vedantic concepts. But the Upanishads themselves speak of a fourth avastha ie Turiya and Valmiki calls death a panchama avastha. Is there evidence for the hypothesis of continuation of consciousness after death?
@@adhvaitha OK. The second sentence of your reply - "The 'Consciousness' is the only common factor in all 3 states of existence", contradicts the very definition of consciousness and confuses a learner. Compare it to how Swami Sarvapriyanand explains. You both are trying to teach exact same truth. Please treat this is a constructive critics and not a criticism.
Can you explain this with the context of evolution and how life formed from a single cell (proven beyond doubt).. you logic is vague .. I’m conscious… god is consciousness.. I am god ..
Let's put it this way. There is one intelligence/field of Consciousness within which the Universe itself is created. Evolution is a phenomenon within this pure intelligence, as the entire Universe is within this.
@ how do you prove there is intelligence beyond cognition and living beings? What’s your proof? Your video just says because we are conscious the whole universe is conscious and consciousness is ultimate reality .. again this can’t be logically deduced .. this is just an assertion ..
What Vedanta is saying is deeper. As per Vedanta, there is one infinite intelligence/field of Consciousness within which the Universe itself is created. And so every- 'thing' in its essence is this 'Consciousness'. And this can be realized through first hand direct experience. Anything, even scientific theories needs to be approached with some amount of belief and hypothesis to know the Truth. So we need to approach this simply with an open mind to find out for ourselves.
@ any experience we have happens in our brain.. there is no proof of consciousness existing beyond brain… sure this is a hypothesis just like some religions believe in a creator deity that exists outside of space and time.. this is not a “proof” of anything..
@@adhvaitha I understand what Vedanta (and many other philosophies like panpsychism ) say.. I’m saying it’s a stretch to call it a “proof” of anything.. these are just assertions and even if you experienced something it still happened in your brain.. there is absolutely no evidence for consciousness beyond brain ..
The ultimate reality to me is sentient omnienergy being of omniverse itself. Creation and destruction is just different form of sentient omnienergy being. Everything I see is manifestation of sentient omnienergy of omniverse itself.
@@adhvaitha I suppose my comment was not a fully formed thought. I meant it as a compliment. I haven't been exposed much to non-Abrahamic religions. It's refreshing. Looking forward to learning more.
@@phyrkrakaAbrahmic religions are purely a religion guided by one hard truth(prophets, books etc whatever), while Hinduism(or Sanatan Dharma) is everything (religion, philosophy cult etc). We do not believe, we seek the truth...
It's not , if you understand it in the way It concludes you are god ,god is you ,it's you the infinite consciousness you have to just dive deep within urself to experience it .., nothing else can give the evidence of it
Know more about 'Conscious Creation' and 'The Adhvaitha Conscious Society' through this important value video: go.adhvaitha.com/consciouscreation
I had a mystical experience in 2007. I appeared to be divine as everything else, all one thing, divine. So now I have discovered Vedanta.
🙂🙏
I believe what we perceive empty space is not empty. Energy still exists there. Energy is omnipresent
🙂🙏
Science also says that..search vacuum energy. It's real
Thanks brother
Shivoham🙏
Welcome 🙂🙏
Brilliant. Thanks.
You're welcome. 🙂🙏
Very very nicely presented
Thanks 🙏
🙂🙏
🕉🕉🕉🕉HARIH🕉🕉🕉🕉TAT SAT🕉🕉🕉🕉RĀDHE RĀDHE🕉🕉🕉🕉LAMBODHARĀYA💘💘💘💘💋💋💋💋😍😍😍😍🌹🌹🌹🌹😘😘😘😘❤❤❤❤🧡🧡🧡🧡💛💛💛💛🍀🍀🍀🍀💎💎💎💎🍑🍑🍑🍑💋💋💋💋🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🥇🥇🥇🥇🏆🏆🏆🏆🥇🥇🥇🥇💖💖💖💖🎉🎉🎉🎉🎂🎂🎂🎂🍰🍰🍰🍰🌹🌹🌹🌹🍰🍰🍰🍰🎂🎂🎂🎂💋💋💋💋❤❤❤❤💋💋💋💋🎂🎂🎂🎂🍰🍰🍰🍰🎂🎂🎂🎂🍑🍑🍑🍑💋💋💋💋🧡🧡🧡🧡💛💛💛💛🍀🍀🍀🍀💎💎💎💎🕉🕉🕉🕉KRĪM KĀLIKĀYAI NAMAH🕉🕉🕉🕉KLĪM KLĪM KĀMĀKHYA KLĪM KLĪM NAMAH🕉🕉🕉🕉SRĪ RĀMAKRISHNA JAYAM ZINDĀBĀD🕉🕉🕉🕉NAMO BHAGAVATE RUDRĀYA NAMAH🕉🕉🕉🕉LAMBODHARA PRASAVE NAMAH🕉🕉🕉🕉JAI SRĪ ĀDI SHANKARACHĀRYA SHARANAM ZINDĀBĀD🕉🕉🕉🕉
🙂🙏❤️
Wonderful insight
🙂🙏
I fall in category of calling God as infinite intelligent beyond religion
🙂🙏
When you admit you're not saying reality stops existing when you close your eyes, it feels weird/wrong to go back to saying "the existence of the world is dependent on our consciousness". That's not how it works, our consciousness enables *awareness* of reality, but it doesn't enable reality.
I agree the only idea we have absolute certainty of is our own mind. But it feels like that certainty is being blown out of proportion.
Also science would be open to reality not existing without us if you could show evidence of that. You'd have to overcome the fact that we have overwhelming evidence that every time a person permanently stops being conscious, reality didn't end. That person's awareness ended, but _reality_ didn't end. Now of course we can't prove we're not in "The Matrix" or a dream, and so sure, conceivably all of this evidence might turn out to be 'part of the simulation', but that doesn't change the fact that _right here, right now_ we don't have good reason to trust any other way of viewing reality more than the one that appears to be working.
Also we don't have evidence of an "infinite" consciousness. Instead, evidence indicates consciousness is a product of the brain and when it stops functioning, that's it. (Why would this be the case if out consciousness was somehow separate? And if we think, _"well that may just be another weird rule we invented for ourselves in a dream,"_ then yeah that's possible but _we have no real reason to believe it's true._ )
Yes, I'm absolutely certain my own consciousness exists, but I don't think it's honest to call that "god", nor to pretend that anything other than _MY perceptions_ of reality are reliant on my consciousness.
(edited to improve clarity on a few things. 11/25/2024)
What Vedanta is saying is deeper than this. It states, there is one universal- Consciousness/ God within which everything is and the Universe is.
And so every- 'thing' in its essence is this 'Consciousness'. And this can be realized through first hand direct experience.
@@adhvaitha Well it's slightly less important what's being claimed and more important to know *what evidence justifies believing it.* After all, what you've described here doesn't contain any real evidence -- and maybe you're saying there isn't any evidence but it has to be experienced, but that's exactly the same as any other falsehood which asks you to believe first and "see evidence" later, which we know is *confirmation bias.*
@@majmage Anything, even scientific theories needs to be approached with some amount of belief and hypothesis to know the Truth. So we need to approach this simply with an open mind to find out for ourselves.
@@adhvaitha Sure, every worldview involves assumptions.
We can imagine a simulation designed to trick those inside, where something that doesn't indicate truth in our universe works in that universe. Let's say when more than 50% of people believe an idea, it becomes true in the sim.
Well you can see how the most rational, most intelligent individuals in that universe would conclude that's a reliable path to truth, right? And in a very real sense, it does in fact work: the sim is programmed to *make things true* when this "faulty" (by our perspective) method is used. If 51% of the sim people believe the sun is blue, _it becomes blue._
Well why should anyone in that sim believe otherwise? Your position (in our universe) seems to be to (A) abandon the one method that seems reliable, and (B) embrace a method that doesn't seem reliable at all. So while I could agree that maybe your method is secretly reliable in some greater part of the universe, right here, right now we have no reason to believe it.
So both are assumptions, but one is certainly more rational, right? We _could_ irrationally assume that sledgehammering through our bathroom wall reveals the exit to the matrix. We _might_ irrationally assume that throwing a key forcefully onto the beach at Waikiki, Hawaii will wake us up from the dream. But *we have no indication those assumptions are true,* and we simply don't have infinite time to experiment with every conceivable way reality might work, right?
@@adhvaitha Every strategy for knowing truth (epistemology) involves assumptions, I agree.
The issue is only one epistemology reliably works.
Worse, that epistemology would by definition, automatically expand to include any other provably reliable method of knowing truth.
Well that's the epistemology I'm relying on. The reliable one. The one where we rely on evidence.
So while I agree 'base reality' might be completely different than it appears to be (it might be a dream, a simulation, a "Matrix", or even wilder possibilities we haven't even considered yet), at the present moment there doesn't seem to be any reason to abandon rationality (to abandon the only method that seems to work).
I have a philosophy the meaning of God matters not word itself
🙂🙏
Satyameva jayathe 🙏
Sanaatana dharma mother of all religions,,,,,
Vasudha iam kutubhamkam 🙏
🙂🙏
I think meditation is the best way achieve anything is an art of knowing the self the commentary on God and existence not going to work for all the art of knowing self and the self realisation is the first and the last motive of every living creature other than there is no ethical or moral conduct that guides you as per your own understanding and logic
For what i think is as matter is manifestation of energy, then the ultimate source of energy can be considered as god , or if energy has manifested itself into matter to express itself and to take from then the most intelligent being ( robots maybe or Ai idk ) can be considered as god.
This argument is full of assumptions and inconclusive. Here are some points that need to be addressed
1. Evidence from a scientific perspective means "information that supports or contradicts a scientific theory or hypothesis". The etymology of the word is irrelevant; what matters is how it is used today. Is there any evidence for the hypotheses like "there is an infinite consciousness", "everything is an appearance in the infinite consciousness"? For sure consciousness enables identity ("I" as distinct from the world) and enables us to perceive the world, but does the world cease to exist when my consciousness ceases (I cease to exist)? Is there any evidence for such a hypothesis?
2. I can not deny I exist, but that is possible only until I exist. Is there any evidence for the hypothesis that I can continue to assert my existence after my body is destroyed?
3. Is there any evidence for non-embodied consciousness ie consciousness that exists without a body?
4. Avastha Traya has been used as a convenient anchor for discussion of Vedantic concepts. But the Upanishads themselves speak of a fourth avastha ie Turiya and Valmiki calls death a panchama avastha. Is there evidence for the hypothesis of continuation of consciousness after death?
5. How does the non deniability of my consciousness demonstrate the existence of "God" or "an infinite consciousness"? especially when there is no confirmed evidence for the hypothesis that the world is a simulation in consciousness? For sure the hypothesis of "solipsism" has existed for a long time! Plato's "cave of the shadows" also talks of the dubious nature of our understanding of the world based on our sense experiences
What Vedanta is saying is deeper. As per Vedanta, there is one infinite intelligence/field of Consciousness within which the Universe itself is created.
And so every- 'thing' in its essence is this 'Consciousness'. And this can be realized through first hand direct experience.
Anything, even scientific theories needs to be approached with some amount of belief and hypothesis to know the Truth. So we need to approach this simply with an open mind to find out for ourselves.
@adhvaitha It is true that Vedanta says so (especially Advaita Vedanta, because Dvaita Vedanta speaks differently)!
But when hypotheses are proposed in science they are tested for evidence to confirm whether they are true or not. If they are found false, they are discarded and new ones are proposed for testing. There is no "belief" in science as in the religious or metaphysical context
I disagree. "Assumptions, or working hypotheses, are a major part of science."
@@adhvaitha Yes, certainly, they are but they are not considered correct until validated. Should we not adopt the same approach for metaphysical hypotheses too, instead of saying "this is correct"?
Yes of course.
Who creates God?
Noone.
I want to know weather God and past life exists or not ,as I have many questions on my life but if they don't exist I can get to die in peace as I don't have to repeat my life
you have to repeat , but you can break it to not repeat your life again
Attaching these ideas to quantum mechanics is a ridiculous mis-step that virtually everyone is making these days. Think about it: if you argued the existence of God (or whatever you want to call it) from Aristotelian Physics, or Newtonian Physics in the past then what happened to "God" (or at least your argument for it) when we realized those theories of physical reality were wrong? So why pin it on quantum mechanics, unless you are making an unwarranted assumption that quantum mechanics is the ultimate correct physical theory - which it OBVIOUSLY isn't because it doesn't map onto Relativity (or vice versa, if you wish). Ridiculous analogies between the "empty space" thesis of physics and "emptiness"...I have to say I think there is quite some confusion here, from my point of view. Might be better to just Be rather than trying to convince others (or perhaps yourself) using extremely tortuous metaphors and analogies. Just read the Ashtavakra or Avudhuta Gita instead. If you want a further "argument" then perhaps one just needs to rest one's mind on it even longer. Namaste!
Good points kept forward…
I just want to know what you feel about the God.. It’s a Simple YES or No.. just answer this, we’ll discuss about it.
The point that you made was absolute right that was to connect the Emptiness of Quantum Mechanics to be linked with this analogy.
Do you know what it means to Exist other than Conscious and Experience?
Superposition principle itself questions the nature of reality, doesn't it ? And how can everything came from nothing (according to Big Bang) ?
If consciousness is supreme intelligent, then why it let suffering and pain, & why conciousness exist ??
Consciousness is 'Infinite' Existence. Everything exists in Consciousness.
Why it exists ???@@adhvaitha
@@sasankanath8418 Because it doesn't NOT exist? If you want an answer to the question "why" you'll be waiting a very long time, my friend.
Pain exists from your karma, which is your actions.
@@Moonlight-p8m according to raman Maharshi everything is predestined, so everything good & bad done by supreme consciousness so it can't be great, it is the pure evil
Aristotelian physics and Newtonian physics were not wrong.
wrong was the idea those theories explained in full the nature of reality
Those theories do explain an aspect of reality but not its totality
They are truths but not absolute truths
There is nothing wrong in using to illustrate the agency of God in certain aspects of the universe
Thanks for your efforts explaining advait vaad. Please take Swami Sarvapriyaanand's route to explain existence in all three states - Being awake, dreaming, and deep sleep. The reason why I am recommending is the problem with the definition of consciousness. As per definition consciousness is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings". This directly contradicts with your explanation. Your teaching is right, your explanation is inaccurate / incomplete.
Hi, I did not understand your point. The 'Consciousness' is the only common factor in all 3 states of existence. Hence, it is fundamental. This is the point of 'Avasthatraya Viveka'. In the deep sleep state there are no objects for Consciousness.
This argument is full of assumptions and inconclusive. Here are some points that need to be addressed
1. Evidence from a scientific perspective means "information that supports or contradicts a scientific theory or hypothesis". The etymology of the word is irrelevant; what matters is how it is used today. Is there any evidence for the hypotheses like "there is an infinite consciousness", "everything is an appearance in the infinite consciousness"? For sure consciousness enables identity ("I" as distinct from the world) and enables us to perceive the world, but does the world cease to exist when my consciousness ceases (I cease to exist)? Is there any evidence for such a hypothesis?
2. I can not deny I exist, but that is possible only until I exist. Is there any evidence for the hypothesis that I can continue to assert my existence after my body is destroyed?
3. Is there any evidence for non-embodied consciousness ie consciousness that exists without a body?
4. Avastha Traya has been used as a convenient anchor for discussion of Vedantic concepts. But the Upanishads themselves speak of a fourth avastha ie Turiya and Valmiki calls death a panchama avastha. Is there evidence for the hypothesis of continuation of consciousness after death?
@@adhvaitha OK. The second sentence of your reply - "The 'Consciousness' is the only common factor in all 3 states of existence", contradicts the very definition of consciousness and confuses a learner. Compare it to how Swami Sarvapriyanand explains. You both are trying to teach exact same truth. Please treat this is a constructive critics and not a criticism.
Can you explain this with the context of evolution and how life formed from a single cell (proven beyond doubt).. you logic is vague .. I’m conscious… god is consciousness.. I am god ..
Let's put it this way. There is one intelligence/field of Consciousness within which the Universe itself is created. Evolution is a phenomenon within this pure intelligence, as the entire Universe is within this.
@ how do you prove there is intelligence beyond cognition and living beings? What’s your proof? Your video just says because we are conscious the whole universe is conscious and consciousness is ultimate reality .. again this can’t be logically deduced .. this is just an assertion ..
What Vedanta is saying is deeper. As per Vedanta, there is one infinite intelligence/field of Consciousness within which the Universe itself is created.
And so every- 'thing' in its essence is this 'Consciousness'. And this can be realized through first hand direct experience.
Anything, even scientific theories needs to be approached with some amount of belief and hypothesis to know the Truth. So we need to approach this simply with an open mind to find out for ourselves.
@ any experience we have happens in our brain.. there is no proof of consciousness existing beyond brain… sure this is a hypothesis just like some religions believe in a creator deity that exists outside of space and time.. this is not a “proof” of anything..
@@adhvaitha I understand what Vedanta (and many other philosophies like panpsychism ) say.. I’m saying it’s a stretch to call it a “proof” of anything.. these are just assertions and even if you experienced something it still happened in your brain.. there is absolutely no evidence for consciousness beyond brain ..
The ultimate reality to me is sentient omnienergy being of omniverse itself. Creation and destruction is just different form of sentient omnienergy being. Everything I see is manifestation of sentient omnienergy of omniverse itself.
🙏🙂
What you seem to be describing is a philosophy, not a religion.
So what?
@@adhvaitha I suppose my comment was not a fully formed thought. I meant it as a compliment. I haven't been exposed much to non-Abrahamic religions. It's refreshing. Looking forward to learning more.
@@phyrkrakaAbrahmic religions are purely a religion guided by one hard truth(prophets, books etc whatever), while Hinduism(or Sanatan Dharma) is everything (religion, philosophy cult etc). We do not believe, we seek the truth...
Seven minutes of talking and no clear evidence of god.
This video is a Peace of garbage nothing else.
It's not , if you understand it in the way
It concludes you are god ,god is you ,it's you the infinite consciousness you have to just dive deep within urself to experience it .., nothing else can give the evidence of it