In science, we draw the conclusions by experiments. How do we derive the conclusion in advaita vedanta , by trust. Now how do we equate the vedanta with science. Science stands on empiricism. what is the foundation of vedanta.
Actually I wonder that the theory of conservation of energy with its integration with big bang and the theory of Brahm and parmaatma , i could realise various connecting points। This also coincides at many levels in energy transition into matter and visa versa, as explained in e=mc^2
How did God create the world? The Spirit of God moved over the face of the deep. The book of Genesis is echoing the ancient knowledge of Advaita Vedanta with this description of creation. For a scientific discussion of what this means based on the holographic principle of quantum gravity and why Advaita Vedanta is fundamentally based on scientific concepts, see the Science and Nonduality website: @t or read the PDF documents: @t @t
Ananda and nirguna doesn't goes together..Final realized state of jiva is nirguna hence Ananda is not experienced..Lot of mismatch between what advaita teaches and what is experienced..
Sanakracharya states that unity in no diversity. Brahman is undifferentiated. Unity in diversity advita is propond by ramanujacharyA. We cannot say illusion in brahman as per Sankara.
This guy should first learn communication skills prior to teaching, spends so much time taking irrelevant things like the weight of an atom, plunk time etc, spending so much time explaining simple ideas and keeping the main idea hidden. He should respect people's time and get to the point and not talk about things that don't matter to convey the key idea. What a waste of my time!
He did not speak for you. The nature of the audience he spoke for was of a lighter and friendlier note. The knowledge and intellect he has is very hard to accuire in one's life.if you had slightest respect for the magnimity of the topic you would have never said so.
This kind of programmes are more needed
Dear
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Very interesting thanks for this
Pranams to Dr K Ramasubramanian.
🙏🙏🙏🕉️🕉️🕉️🔥🔥🔥
In science, we draw the conclusions by experiments. How do we derive the conclusion in advaita vedanta , by trust. Now how do we equate the vedanta with science. Science stands on empiricism. what is the foundation of vedanta.
Actually I wonder that the theory of conservation of energy with its integration with big bang and the theory of Brahm and parmaatma , i could realise various connecting points। This also coincides at many levels in energy transition into matter and visa versa, as explained in e=mc^2
How did God create the world? The Spirit of God moved over the face of the deep.
The book of Genesis is echoing the ancient knowledge of Advaita Vedanta with this description of creation. For a scientific discussion of what this means based on the holographic principle of quantum gravity and why Advaita Vedanta is fundamentally based on scientific concepts, see the Science and Nonduality website:
@t
or read the PDF documents:
@t
@t
😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
Ananda and nirguna doesn't goes together..Final realized state of jiva is nirguna hence Ananda is not experienced..Lot of mismatch between what advaita teaches and what is experienced..
Ananda is not an experienced it is Ananda itself
2:43
Sanakracharya states that unity in no diversity. Brahman is undifferentiated.
Unity in diversity advita is propond by ramanujacharyA.
We cannot say illusion in brahman as per Sankara.
A scholar,no doubt but poor communicator.
Let him be. But people continuously attend him are not fools.
This guy should first learn communication skills prior to teaching, spends so much time taking irrelevant things like the weight of an atom, plunk time etc, spending so much time explaining simple ideas and keeping the main idea hidden. He should respect people's time and get to the point and not talk about things that don't matter to convey the key idea. What a waste of my time!
He did not speak for you. The nature of the audience he spoke for was of a lighter and friendlier note. The knowledge and intellect he has is very hard to accuire in one's life.if you had slightest respect for the magnimity of the topic you would have never said so.
If you value time do not waste u r time here. We are OK with him