This is a wonderful video, Farhan. One of my favourite aspects of this debate is a mutual respect and the level of willingness shown by Dawkins to hear Sathish Ji out. Such a welcome departure of the snarkiness and sheer disrespect and derision shown by Abrahamics and some rabid atheists. Satish Ji explains one of the core philosophies of Hinduism in a very succinct way. Hopefully, people can try to give it an open-minded listen rather than rejecting it as pagan mumbo-jumbo at the outset.
Evolution made us this way that we can understand this nature, our companions and the whole universe and Every Atheist wants to understand to others If they are Theists or Atheists.
Sham Ji if you would say hinduism a religion or a way of living it's not perfect or I can say it has many flaws just like other religions and those flaws are being corrected by Science, Common Understanding and literacy and I've seen many rabid hindus like you who never face other just make videos to Pull others down face Athiests Like Javed Akhtar if you can and try to read Evolution and some basics of Quantum Mechanics Just like you read Gita Ramayan Rigweda Yajurveda and other Holy books.
@@kunalkatariya3046 can u tell me what u want to argue in the first place? Lol Ur saying "ooooo hinduism fake no science auhdsmsnsjha" Like bro just tell us what scientific errors are there so we can talk lmao
I really like the spirit of Shri Satish Kumar, not getting disturbed by the questioner. He has the immense humility. Both persons approaches are good, only the paths are different..
Finally seen two sane persons are talking and we are saved from those words "verse 69 chapter 29 and this and that"......really enjoyed the talk and was encouraged to think rather to believe and most importantly a connect to nature and seeing myself as a part of it in a "holistic" way......... now i have a hope that still people are left who can drive this mankind towards some sensible and tolerant environment
He was mostly right initially...but then at occasions, he was not making sense...I am proud he is an Indian, in his seventies, is fluent with Dawkins and is having a conversation with confidence...great job...
Carl Jung made a distinction between two types of rationality. The first type he called "thinking" the second he called "feeling". Thinking was true and untrue. Feeling was a rational apprehension of qualitative likes and dislikes or it feels right or feels wrong. Etc. For example a painter can paint a painting making nuance choices of feels right feels wrong. And it is a different process than true or not true. Dawkins recognizes this faculty exists. But what western culture does is marginalizes this type of discernment only to certain areas namely the arts and often pejoratively. We know that artists and chefs etc. can have this highly developed ability, but it is often excluded from science altogether.
I love how Satish is trying to translate the Sanskrit words to an English man 😂. Well that's the problem of English, it lacks words, most of the fundamental Indic Philosophical words cannot be translated to English 😀.
@@pranavdwaraknath7459it's not about vocabulary but about indigenousity of words ...and in case of Sanskrit it's just too many native word which you can not translate..but try to converse it
I agree, this is not Hinduism vs Atheism. Satish Kumar never mentions religion. He is a philosopher. Westerners might view this as Philosophy vs Science. However, non-dual Eastern philosophies such as Taoism or Hindu Advaita, would suggest that what Satish is trying to explain is the wholistic view, that in order to completely understand reality, we not only must understand the measurable material quantities of a thing, but also its (so far) unmeasurable essential qualities, "essence" or "spirit". I believe that Satish has used the term "spirit" erroneously. I think that "essence" would be a more accurate term for what he is trying to describe. (Although I can't be sure) This illuminates the dichotomy between most Western logic and some Eastern logic. Western logic is often narrow and dual in nature, and usually breaks down to pairs of opposites, e.g. light/dark, yes/no, either/or, on/off. Many Eastern philosophies are non-dual, and are therefore more wholistic in their understanding, which emphasizes a "oneness" that is both quantitative and qualitative. Their logic encompasses the concept of both/and. In my mind, this can be illustrated by the by the Taoist "Yin Yang" symbol, where the whole is exemplified by the "oneness" encompassing the pairs of opposites. This is also a part of non-dual Hindu philosophy or Advaita. Westerners generally have a hard time understanding this concept. We generally have a more reductionist view of reality. As a result, I am sure that when Dawkins hears Satish talk about the "spirit" of the tree, his mind goes back to an earlier time in human history when we believed in "animism", where each object was believed to be inhabited by a "spirit being". This is not what is meant by Advaita. It goes much deeper than that. "Spirit" is most likely an incorrect English translation of what Satish actually means. I believe that the English word closer to what Satish means would be "essence". In Western philosophy "essence" is a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.
I am an agnostic. But sathish has great points. It is now a leap of faith for the viewer. But he has a great point - if you look at most matter as just molecules, then destruction of it without consequences will happen. Exactly what we have done to our soil in 100 years industrial farming. Suppose hypothetically the soil had CRIED ( like a human ), we would have behaved differently. Since we dont accept this philosophy, we go through decades to realize our mistakes.
Yes, as Satish Kumar pointed out, the way we see the world, in turn shapes the world in which we live. And so, in a very real sense (yet not immediately obvious to most people) we as human beings are, quite literally, _creating_ our human world.
"I could agree to this on a poetic level" "The word spirit is used in such a broad way that it ends up having no meaning." "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." True. A flower that appears beautiful to one person may not appear as beautiful to another person. If you ask 5 people to arrange 5 flowers in the order of beauty, we'll have multiple sequences. "I think the word spirit is used in such an imprecise way, that we would not be able to say the proposition was true or not.." Whatever science finds out in future these people will say "we knew atma existed" or "this isnt atma, atma is more fundamental, you can't perceive it" The philospher's way works for the masses. People who are not adept at science can work with emotions. More trees will be saved, if trees are believed to have atma, because that is easily understandable, we cannot ask a further question, and people will just learn to love them. The alternative is looking towards the future and understanding the need of saving trees. This requires a rational thought process and all people are not capable of this. It takes effort. Everything has atma, so love it - is a simple but effective way, but it won't make sense to people who think.
It's stupid to define words in such a broad manner because then they lose the essence of the word they become a book 😂 if you can not be precise in your speech you can never convey the idea which is to be conveyed
@@yungman7053 😂yes you are exactly right .. some people think of the world too subjectively and then they claim they have wisdom of the highest degree 😂😂
I think this indian philosopher is very wise. I think his understanding is very deep. His 'world view' as he called it is truly holistic. But it is not a worldview that is in anyway unique to hinduism. This holistic world view is common to people from all times and places from Jesus and the christian philosopher mystics to the native americans. It is a philosophy which understands first and ultimately that 'all is one'. Nothing in the universe is separate, and everything in the universe has a physical aspect and a spiritual aspect and these are 2 sides of the same coin. They belong together and this is nature...this is natural. I thought he explained himself extremely articulately, from a position of deep understanding. Pay attention to his answer when Dawkins asked him how he knows he is right? He said he does not...this is his understanding, this is how he relates to the world. This is the key to a great misunderstanding...our understanding of the world is what guides how we act in the world. He is so right to point out that it is an arrogance of the narrow scientific view which has led the western world to view nature, not as something he is intimately and fundamentally connected to, but as a pool of resources for the benefit of himself. And he succinctly points out that Dawkins' wish to 'save' the environment comes not from true respect for nature but only a fear for his own future...in other words, not from love but from selfishness. Mr Sathish understands that what is important is not whether we are right or wrong but that we apprehend the world in as broad a context as possible and that our actions flow from our understanding. I thought Dawkins and his camera man were merely paying Sathish lip service because they are far too 'educated' and conditoned into materialist world view to understand his holism.
I quote the last fragment of the discussion when Satish Ji said to be open minded. This is very important because when we close our mind then the knowledge is dead.
Even Atheism is also recognized under Hinduism and respected. Rishi Charvaka was best example. He was respected Rishi ( means Guru) who got recognized and not at all prosecuted.
Only when you think about it again and again, you come to know this gentleman is actually talking something which literally makes no sense, with utmost respect to the gentleman.
I believe Richard and his other friends there confusing spirit to an entity which makes a human or an animal to feel pain and defend for an attack eg. But spirit is much above that, its everywhere around, connected and whole, to be felt and understood by each, but cannot be explained in full. Rock having s spirit not necessarily mean working or breaking it will give it any pain, not would it obstruct, but presence of it as a mountain, breaking it would certainly trouble the spirit of mountain, trees, forests and a whole lot of spirit called - eco system. I would like to thank both Richard and Satish for such a fantastic open debate. We should evolve to this stage from being indoctrinated with a religion.
This happens when you try to explain Indic philosophy in other language. Keeps discussing spirit.. Lost in translation... Dawkins wants to use spirit as per English language and Satishji wants to explain indic philosophy using the word spirit. More like religion and dharma.. Easy for others to misunderstand...
I think with spirit he means a self, something which is other than a matter existent even if we recursively break down whole world to a single atom. His Spirit would still exist.
ESSENCE OF SPIRITUALITY... (1) NEVER EXPECTED SUCH A BEAUTIFUL EXPLAINATION EXISTED🤔 (2) WHAT A HUMBLE WAY OF PROVING AND REACHING TO A COMMON🤗 CONCLUSION...WE DON'T KNOW (3)AS "DIDCOVERY OF INDIA" OPENING LINES END WITH.... NOT KNOWN (NAHEE HAI 🙄 PATTA) 👌YET LOT TO KNOW..🧐.. WITH OPEN MINDS THANKS MR.FARHAN ...
@30.57 newly found respect and view for rocks ❤️ What a lovely man, his smile and generosity.. at this age- he isn't getting fumbled by a young man questioning his every word and politely debates.. That's his 'spirit'.
Although Satish's ideas and philosophy are far from the reality of the understanding of the universe, his ideas are poetic and beautiful to think about. Even though I don't agree with Satish's philosophical ideas, his views and the contrast with Richard's ideas, which I agree with and argue for, makes this interview one of the best that I have seen.
@@rajathrkumar9686 Because I can perceive the through my material senses. How do you know that your understanding is right? How do you know that spirit exists when you cannot perceive it?
@@kicksomeup6998oone of the important point made in the video was even if nobody's checking on flower it's still beautiful...same as that even if there's is nobody to perceive that aatma exist..it will still exist
When both understand that matter is spirit in its grossest (dense) state and spirit is matter in its most sublime state, then they will speak the same language.
Richard Dawkins confuses Religion with Spirituality. For example a Guitar has a spirit because of the beautiful sound that it will make by a human. A human can Express with art. A rock has a spirit because it has beauty when it is carved, created, used, Spirit means lots of things to people.
Wonderful discussion. Richard seems to be lost in translation. Although a staunch atheist, he has that rigidness as a result of Abrahmic upbringing, not willing to accept an alternate worldview. The last point of keeping an open mind was bang on.
Dawkins spends half an hour being "closed" to Satish's worldview and then wants to know Why he thinks Science has insufficient humility. When asked how Satish knows he is right about his assertions, Satish's response (without hesitation) is a humble "I dont know if I'm right". I suspect that the many years of debating arrogant professors of Christianity & Islam has rubbed off on Dawkins in a bad way.
@@pranavdwaraknath7459 @Pranav Dwaraknath But that's my point - we usually see Dawkins questioning to understand which we all appreciate - here however the tone is of questioning to challenge. The 3rd person jumping in may have made matters worse as well. Debating religion and debating spirituality are very different - "How do you know?" line of questioning is hardly an attempt to understand anything. That's how a 'push back' is carried out.
@@jayprakashnair2499 I suppose the two of us can agree that the 3rd person intervening wasn't of the slightest of help. But I believe you grossly misunderstand Dawkins as many Indians do. What you are objecting to , is his line of questioning. What was extremely polite was his tone. So for us Indians to truly understand what he asked would also require us to understand the English language. For the fact that much is lost in translation. Dawkins was simply trying to understand and in the English language ; this IS how you try to understand.
@@jayprakashnair2499 Dawkins is, was and hopefully always will be polite when it comes to his tone. There's nothing there. There are just hurt feelings from people who he cannot care less about.
@@pranavdwaraknath7459 I guess there is merit in that line of thought for sure - misunderstanding how English language is asserted across the globe. In fact, what I find compelling about what you are saying is the fact that the two us, both of Indian origin, have very different reception of the same content. I'm with you on that front. Cheers.
The artistic romance involved in the words of Sir Satish basically lies in the concept of transfer. As it is associated with the concept of energy. Energy can be transferred from one form to the other. The romance of art associated with this science will say it is the spirit of energy/mass which work on the quantitative transfer. Robust words of religious sentiments say soul changes body like man changing cloth. This romance is not only in earthly phase this also concentrate on the layer of dimensions we are associated with, which may be of the same phase in which we exist or a dimension which can be represented as a skew line to our dimension. Beautiful discussion thanks to all of you for such a enriching session of Philosophical Science which is a subject of the clustered study of Spirituality. Best regards.
Dawkins has the motive to prove what is right and wrong. Sateesh has no motive to prove something is right and wrong.. So he sees things in inclusive manner and Dawkins only able to see what is good for him. A bit of selfish manner. Satish always trying to point out that many things will be involved and participated to have a certain outcome. But Europeans have a different mind set which of selfish nature.. It is not a surprise, that Dawkins completely missed to understand it.. If Europeans has this understanding.. European lands might be shared with Native Americans and Aboriginal People. Their morals only exists in Movies and Publicity Stunts. Forgive me if I hurt anyone feelings.. It is not what I wanted. Thanks.
I think one of the limitations of scientists is that they often think spiritual people haven’t gotten to their point of thinking yet. They can’t seem to wrap their head around the fact that a lot of spiritual people understand and and agree with what materialists are saying and have gone a little further. I imagine (if it hasn’t happened yet) Dawkins will be like “oh shit, I get it”.
@@hazeshi6779half the video goes in depth on answering that. Spiritual is quality. Material is quantity. The material is that your wife and children are made up of organs and have blood sploshing through their veins, and you have obligations to buy their birthday presents and provide food and shelter, and they may in the future return the favor in your old age and take care of you. But reducing your wife and children to that takes away the spirit of your wife, the spirit of your children. Your love for your wife and children isn’t love for the material, it isn’t love for their organs, love for their blood, love for their insurance policy in your elder years. What you love is spiritual. And in order to love a tree or love a landscape or love a river or love a rock, we can’t see them as merely material, since we cannot love water molecules, we cannot love wood, we cannot love silicon dioxide in the same way we cannot love the organs, the blood, the tax deductions, of our wife and children. The trees, rivers, rocks, have spirit because we are capable of loving them. Anything we are capable of loving has a quality that can be loved, and therefore has a spiritual side. Your pet has spirit, that’s why you cannot bring yourself to cook it as food, because you see it as more than its flesh and organs. We instinctually reject reducing things we love or celebrate as meat, so a war horse that is celebrated for victories and beknighted for heroism we revere and we would find anathema if someone wanted to reduce it to meat.
Great video. I do however disagree with the initial statement that this is "how to debate an athiest". This was a perfectly lucid discussion between two athiests. Being spiritual does not make you a thiest. He clearly states he does not believe in the supernatural.
Mr. Satish is humble and have a profound view but I have to admit that he is not able to explain it in words. Richard is correct when he says that the word spirit is being used in different aspects and presented as the same thing. This viewpoint of Mr. Satish does not represent the wholesome view of hindu philosophy but a certain school of thought of hindu philosophy much like that of bhakti marg. An atheist can be best argued by the Shaiva philosophy because it is so profound that atheism is just a part of it and yet it is a belief system which explains the super natural aspects of life.
I think Dawkins was right / Satish was wroing in a different area of the discussion; while Dawkins was right that his use of the word spirit is different when it comes to the spirit of the law (talking about underlying principle of the law) and the spirit of the room or rock; he clarified that what he means is that there is a physical reality and a qualitative reality (spiritual), and metaphysics includes things like meaning, friendship, respect, the quality of a room or country or college, so I don't think he misused the word spirit, only if it is understood as qualitative metaphysical aspect of reality; satish was wrong about the intrinsic quality of the flower as beautiful, it could be argued that the information is imbedded in the flower whether it's beauty is observed or not, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder; as far as what he as a Jain monk argued that was dharnic would be the idea of wholism, because it is Dharmic to believe that everything is interconnected.
Farhan Qureshi Dawkins destroyed Deepak Chopra in a similar interview... Fear was clear on his face but Mr. Satish was consistent on his point so I feel he was unable to express what he actually had in mind. As per Sihiva followers the concept of God doest not fit in anywhere because God as a creator intelligence is an Abrahamic concept. Shiva is what the universe was before it existed... That nothingness from which universe came into existence. Then a phenomenon called shakti happened and shiva transformed from its non existent state to subtle existence and so on went to various forms like Rudra. Shiva also took form of vishnu and Bramha later on and Bramha is the whole creation and exists in everything as everything is bramha. So these are all the manifestations of the creation process for the understanding of it as per the human aspect. This philosophy says that we are self conscious form of shiva and shiva exists everywhere rock tree cat planets air so if we can go dig in the ego we can connect the consciousness with universal consciousness. The phenomenon which made the universe made me and also the rocks. This body is made up of some rocks and any rock can someday become a human body. This is a holistic view and may be of no use for Dawkins but USE is also a human aspect. There is no difference between anything in the entire universe either back in time or on a quantum level it's just one thing... Looking at them differentiating things and discussing them ... We are just the conscious part of that very same creation. This may make sense to a person like Dawkins but by generalising everything with one word spirit is as Dawkins said just poetic.
I agree with everything you said about the universe and Shiva and creation and the shakti; Dawkins caught Deepak off guard, and the only part Deepak failed was the quantum healing; other than that my bias is for Deepak.
Farhan Qureshi A profound spiritual guru like Deepak Chopra who has millions of people blindly following him should be sure about each and everything he says. Quantum healing is just a jargon he gave to a half baked concept which on his part is a very irresponsible thing. People like Satish are far better than Deepak, at least Satish believes in what he says and is ready to accept that this is just his own belief and he can also be wrong. I noticed that Dawkins who generally crushes the opponent was treating Satish with respect and tried not to insult him. Dawkins, I have seen is not against believers... He disagrees with them but doesn't hates them. But he surely hates the bluffs who fool people with stupid gibberish served as spirituality and I respect him for that
A person with spiritual instinct can understand it but here he is debating with an atheist. What an atheist will understand from the phrases like "A rock has a spirit"?
Both are right on their own thinking!!! I have respect for them both!!! To me there is no big difference between them but by the purpose of greater good of humanity one of them has some advantage over another on this period of time, may be only the time could tell.
A=Outer state, physical U=Inner state, mind M=undifferentiated state, consciousness/soul __=Fourth state, brahman/purusha/spirit How well words spirit and soul describe reality is dependant on how you intepret them. Words are always words, but i hope we all will realize meaning behind all words.
@@aumatomos7811 nope that's not A u m Means three state of consciousness Dream Deep sleep And awake And 4th one is turiya the chidanand state ,the blissful consciousness state Soul and brahman are no indifferent And spirit is not the word for aatma nor is soul It's self ,self = aatma
The difference is that the intrinsic qualitative aspect of reality (spirituality) would inevitably suggest that this quality came from design rather than imposition of subjective experience of the human observer. This comes from the Divine but this was not mentioned. Dawkins basically is saying that the invisible quality does not exist outside of the beholder.
It is clearly a hierarchy and not a network. Being poetic might be cool; but it's not useful to understand how the world works. Seeing it as a network is just plainly wrong. I'm astonished by how ignorant people praising Satish are in the comments section here.
Ain't a true philosopher, just an apologist posing as a philosopher. Actual philosophers consider meaningful questions. Like the Krishnamurtis for example.
I think all Satish Kumar is saying is that a pure materialist understanding of the world makes you miss the qualitative value of it, and without the qualitative value we have no reason to develop a subjective sense of care and respect. By contemplating the connectedness of everything we can cultivate that value for nature, our relationship to it and our relationship to each other.
wow..i have watched this video before. but second watch now made more sense and better understand what they are speaking and has better understanding of hinduism.
I support mr Dawkins...I am a nature lover.. i love animals ,trees ,humans and i am against pollution ,plastic,global warming. But i am an atheist.. i dont see any spirit in nature . But some of the persons who destroy environment are religious people.. think scientifically
I mean what kind of religious people you are talking about ... because it's not like all atheist are protecting nature and not harming ..infact it doesn't matter you are religious or not for the point of protection of nature...you can protect it as religious or as atheist...as far as nature is considered... But I really want to know what do you actually meant by religion
Since a tree cannot exist without the sun (among other ‘outside’ elements), we can say that the sun is actually ‘part’ of the tree and that the very definition and concept of “tree” must necessarily contain the sun within it. But although we can say that the concept of “tree” must include the sun, must not the concept of “the sun” contain the concept of “tree” within it as well?
Yes A Sun would be incomplete without the process that it initiates in the tree 🌳 Sun would be incomplete without the mentioning the life giving abilities that’s it’s brilliant sun rays have Also sun would be incomplete without the brilliant destructive sun rays that destroys everything comes near to it or by radiation. What we define sun, is just for our understanding but the very definition of sun moon and any other object in cosmos is incomplete without the co relation with another matters and anti matter and the quality of the matters(metaphysical material) in the cosmos. We say oh 1 meter is the length of the path travelled. By light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second but when we see it through the lens and concept of string theory nothing is said to be it everything every parameter changes every second Hens the ray of light 💡 in its length from the particle concept and from the waves theory concept both are changing indifferently. Hence we assume that the difference in the reading that changes is so small to measure that it does not effect overall exact length but that could be true for us but not for the ultra microscopic elements. The length of meter would be inaccurate and undefined from the prospective of the photon particles as the length changes every time. For our understanding we say that length of meter is this but not by the view of strings concept. Which says that nothing is accurate and not by the lens of quantum realm.
the whole point of the debate is : *1. "Flowers have an inherent property of "beautifullness"* *2. "Beautifullness is a property that we humans assign on various things"*
Though I agree with Satish Kumar worldview, I do understand and agree with Richard that the word "spirit" is inaccurate to describe what Satish kumar was pointing to when he said there is spirit in rock. This is a well known deficiency of English language which originated in west that does not have certain concepts or ideas which exist in Hindu wisdom. There are many such ideas and concepts like maya, viveka, Altman , jiva which are fully developed well articulated in Vedantic wisdom and are completely absent in west / abrahmic faiths and when one tries to use words from English dictionary that seem to be close (but aren't ) to such unique Vedantic concepts , the confusion is created.each word comes in any language comes with its own baggage based how it has been used in conversations and writings in that particular culture from where the language comes. That is precisely happening here with word "Spirit". The "Chaitanya Tatva" aspect as used in Sanskrit language is being referred as "spirit" here in this conversation. The word "spirit" or any other word in English does NOT describe the idea of Chaitanya as found in Sanskrit texts since such idea does not exist in western thought and that creates the whole confusion. AUM Shanti .. Peace to all
I think Satish was wrong about intrinsic beauty without the beholder to appreciate it, even if the information is imbedded in the flower to be the flower; but on his use of the word spirit, even though he used it in different ways, he was right because he as saying that there is physical and metaphysical quality of reality. The spirit of the law is metaphysical, even if in this situation it means the underlying principle of the law. The spirit of the room or college means the metaphysical quality of the room or college, as does the spirit of anything, so I don't think he used the word spirit incorrectly
When we say that "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder", there can be two ways of seeing it: 1) One, is to say that there is no beauty in anything but everyone makes out his/her own meaning of beauty when looking at an object. This is a more human-centric approach. 2) The other way of seeing it is by saying that everything has its own intrinsic beauty by itself, now an observer may or may not find it beautiful by his/her own personal standards, that's a different thing. Just as every food has some intrinsic taste, now some may find it delicious, some may not. In any case the intrinsic taste is still there. Same is the case with beauty. We generally tend to see it from the first viewpoint, while Satish sees it from the second. It's just a matter of outlook, however I must say that the second viewpoint is surely more benign and appreciative of everything around us.
what Satish ji lacked was English vocabulary, he wasn't able to explain the Indian culture in words that the English understand. If this was in Sanskrit then he would have been able to distinguish between brahman and mana.
He's just explaining the samkhya darshan philosophy. Atma en parmatma or brahmen en atman. If u say a rock has a spirit or every matter that exist has in it self a spirit.if u look it this way that every matter that is in existince is in a continue vibration. every molecules ,atoms etc are in a continue vibration. this is also symbolise as the dancing shiva or the natraj where u see shiva dancing in a cirkel with four arms in each he holds a certain thing and he dances on a lord of death. shiv means oneness or absolute. he dances in a cirkel cause every thing in this world is a cirkel or a zero.it originates from a absolutenes. He dances that symbolises the continu movement of matter in this reality. He dances on the lord of death and shows one finger to him beneath and one finger is pointed towards himself. this symbolically means that the absolutness is above death above the material boundaries.That is also why shiv is also called mahakaal. meaning greater than death and time. in one hand he has a fire and the other he has a litle damaru(a little drum) which he constantly plays. the damaru means everything derives from frequenties or movements and later is vaporized in fire. *note* that fire in sanskrit has also several meaning. one meaning is energy. the fire u and i daily use is named martya agni.
well quantum physics kind of says this too, though it is controversial, everything is in waves, there is an individual matter, but waves are in essence the reality of the universe
However beautiful the idea is, if it doesn't solve the problem it is useless. Same is the case with Mr.Satish. His idea of wholism is quite poetic but I'm highly skeptical if this philosophy is anything useful. Also I was astonished by the fact how he misunderstood the concept of hierarchy, and also his examples of world affairs are very immature.
Drunk talks with friends after the sun comes up. XD This is the first video I've seen that has Professor Dawkins pausing to think, rather than pausing to hold his tongue.
Saying "in the future" is more separated from reality than saying "the spirit of". Dawkins has such a simple and superficial mind that it's scary to think of all the people listening to him.
Apart from being a mutually respectful debate , Dawkins lifted the veil of confusion metaphysicsts like this sow with misuse of language . When confronted to pin point usage of a certain word - spirit - Satish takes refuge in obscurity of “holism” . Or Satish would say he uses the word spirit to denote different things and he uses this word for rocks and wrath oceans etc to save them from destruction and to keep the word spirit in English language . Sorry , but That’s quiet lame . Its like saying things are so interconnected that they cannot be understood so take my word for it . However, he admits honestly, that’s it’s his assertion alone , his views and he doesn’t know if this is accurate . That’s integrity , that is worthy of respect.
Spirit of hydrogen is two of them with oxygen makes water. Combines to form different things too. Two carbon and one oxygen doesn't form water. It's an information which transcends physical realm.
Ngl I used to think this guy was bs when this was released, I was so blind lool, it took me 3 years to understand the spirit definition is not same as English
My personal interpretation is that Atheist reject all external & separate god ! This is 100% correct ! . Atheist correctly reject what is false or not true ! But True Atheists should not stop at merely rejecting all external & separate god, they should actively seek the truth ! A possible direction was shown by ancient indian rishis /yogis ! maybe they should atleast try that ! Atheist can now turn inwards & experience the internal god !
Sanatana Dharma is really amazing because it is actually scientific! everything is scientific. Ayurveda is scientific, yoga is scientific. the Vedas outline the scientific procedures involved in everyday living. The influence of planets, astrology and astronomy. the use of mathematics far ahead of even what is taught in universities today. Sanskrit the mother language that just by its pronunciation affects out body positively. the system of Nadis and Chakras that gives detailed understanding of our subtle states. being atheist is like reinventing the wheel. is there a point ? we life for a century give or take and our life is so minuscule in the magnitude of things. why not respect and learn from those before us and leave something for our future generations just the same as they did for us ? this is rational. that's what Sanatana dharma is !! and its ever evolving. only a small mind finds this difficult to understand.
@@Dharmicaction if you think Newtonian physics is outdated, you're very welcome to jump from a 100 feet cliff. Try turning into a wave then and reach the international space station. Cheers.
@@Dharmicaction चार्वाक का वह दर्शन जिसने हिला दी थी वैदिक धर्म की नींव -अग्निहोत्रं त्रयो वेदा…यानी अग्निहोत्र करना, तीन वेदों को मानना और भस्म रमाना बुद्धिहीन लोगों का काम है. ऐसा माना जाता है कि चार्वाक के समय तक तीन ही वेद थे चौथा अथर्ववेद बाद में जुड़ा. प्राचीन भारतीय दर्शन में वेद त्रयी की बात की जाती है - ऋगवेद यजुर्वेद और सामवेद. चार्वाक के कुछ श्लोक कहते हैं: -न कोई स्वर्ग है और न कोई नर्क. न कोई परलोक में जाने वाली आत्मा है और न कोई कर्मफल. जो कुछ है यहीं है. -जो यज्ञ में पशु को मारकर स्वर्ग जाने की बात कहते हैं तो वे अपने पिता या दादा को, मां या दादी को मारकर उन्हें स्वर्ग क्यों नहीं भेजते? -श्राद्ध करना पागलपन है. अगर कौए को खिलाया हुआ पितरों को पहुंचता है तो कौए का खिलाया हुआ विदेश गए आपके पिता तक क्यों नहीं पहुंचता? उनका सबसे प्रसिद्द श्लोक है जिसे प्रधानमंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी ने शनिवार को बनासकांठा में लोगों को भाषण देते हुए कहा. यावज्जीवेत सुखं जीवेद ऋणं कृत्वा घृतं पिवेत, भस्मीभूतस्य देहस्य पुनरागमनं कुतः ॥ अर्थ है कि जब तक जीना चाहिये सुख से जीना चाहिये, अगर अपने पास साधन नही है, तो दूसरे से उधार लेकर मौज करना चाहिये, शमशान में शरीर के जलने के बाद शरीर को किसने वापस आते देखा है?
Whenever such professional debate arises, the theologists or the religious experts starts speaking philosophy. But is this what exists in India? To an Indian Hindu, philosophy hardly makes any sense. They follow whatever their family has been following. Now doesn’t matter how hell of a philosophical knowledge vedas contain, the end product is an orthodox blind follower. For most Hindus, Mandirs and Gods and orthodox traditions is what Hinduism is. No one has ever read Vedas, anyone barely understands Sanskrit. So trying to justify Hinduism (or any other religion) by reasoning philosophy is useless. This philosophy is not practiced by common people. This reasoning of Vedas and Upanishads isn’t representative of an average Hindu. The debate is thus pointless if you consider the mainstreamly practised Hinduism as Hinduism of the Vedas/Upanishads. And anyways, if you take out orthodox tradition and the legend stories, Hinduism is basically a subset of philosophy and ethics. If that is, then why do you need religion for being moral and rational thinker? Isn’t Hinduism better, rational and modern with those stupid things at bay? If Hinduism doesn’t change today, it will become obsolete like Christianity and Islam. Maybe that will be better. Be moral because it’s good and beneficial to humanity, not because of random stupid belief and assurance of getting a premium membership of heaven/moksha.
But the essence of hinduism lies in vedas and upnishads If Today's people dont read vedas and upnishadas does not means hinduism will change its meaning
@@krishnajhawar4055 yeah it will not. But accept that fact that what you are following is not Hinduism, it's just bunch of conservative traditions that your family has made up by themselves over hundreds of years. Call it whatever but Hinduism is neither conservative not it has much stuff about tradition. Hinduism is about a way of life that you choose for yourself, with the help of knowledge from Vedas.
I think the use of the term spirit that has occupied this argument for long in my assessment is just "FORM". Everything that exists has a FORM. That's what defines its nature.
zakir naik wont debate with people with reason as his logical fallacies will be caught. he only answers common people and convince them with Logical Fallacies.
I saw this interview in the documentary, and I have to say that the editing really didn't do this man justice. I am still an atheist and not convinced, but I find that he at least has a lot more nuance than was shown in the documentary version of this conversation. The editing made him look a lot more foolish than he seems when we get the full conversation. Very interesting, but still unfortunately misguided and based upon the human mind's conflict between emotion and reason, feeling versus knowing.
@@FumaxIN Here is a RUclips upload: Part 1 ruclips.net/video/Daqofc-PXtY/видео.html @ 39:15 is this guy Part 2 ruclips.net/video/znm_NidEw_s/видео.html Also if you want to buy it: www.amazon.com/Enemies-Reason-Richard-Dawkins/dp/B005NJQZFC
@@Kori114 Thanks bro. Will watch the documentary. Well I considered myself an atheist 2-3 years back but now I have recently started to explore spirituality and Dharma But one should not be biased and question out everything
This is a wonderful video, Farhan. One of my favourite aspects of this debate is a mutual respect and the level of willingness shown by Dawkins to hear Sathish Ji out. Such a welcome departure of the snarkiness and sheer disrespect and derision shown by Abrahamics and some rabid atheists. Satish Ji explains one of the core philosophies of Hinduism in a very succinct way. Hopefully, people can try to give it an open-minded listen rather than rejecting it as pagan mumbo-jumbo at the outset.
well said
Evolution made us this way that we can understand this nature, our companions and the whole universe and Every Atheist wants to understand to others If they are Theists or Atheists.
Sham Ji if you would say hinduism a religion or a way of living it's not perfect or I can say it has many flaws just like other religions and those flaws are being corrected by Science, Common Understanding and literacy and I've seen many rabid hindus like you who never face other just make videos to Pull others down face Athiests Like Javed Akhtar if you can and try to read Evolution and some basics of Quantum Mechanics Just like you read Gita Ramayan Rigweda Yajurveda and other Holy books.
And I know you'll not answer because you're a coward like Sawarkar..
@@kunalkatariya3046 can u tell me what u want to argue in the first place? Lol
Ur saying "ooooo hinduism fake no science auhdsmsnsjha" Like bro just tell us what scientific errors are there so we can talk lmao
This is Advaita (non-dualistic) Philosophy of Vedanta (Part of Hindu Scriptures).
Yeah but advait will probably say the rock is an appearance in your consciousness. Better definition.
@@OfficialGODthat's another way of saying it
Appearance is also non dual to consciousness
This is not Hinduism vs Atheism.
This is Philosophy vs Science.
You're right
Sen Kumar hindu philosophy vs atheism
You are right. When you seek and find every specie is made up of ONE, then seeking becomes philosophy.
Atheism is an accepted branch of Hinduism (Samkhya and Carvaka) so.... Interpretation vs Interpretation. lol
well said but I thank this person for posting this video.
Pure Vedanta ❤️🕉️
I really like the spirit of Shri Satish Kumar, not getting disturbed by the questioner. He has the immense humility. Both persons approaches are good, only the paths are different..
Finally seen two sane persons are talking and we are saved from those words "verse 69 chapter 29 and this and that"......really enjoyed the talk and was encouraged to think rather to believe and most importantly a connect to nature and seeing myself as a part of it in a "holistic" way......... now i have a hope that still people are left who can drive this mankind towards some sensible and tolerant environment
Grateful to Satish for this exchange and for setting me and many others on a new path of inquiry with his kindness and wisdom.
Beautiful discussion. AUM namah Shivaya
He was mostly right initially...but then at occasions, he was not making sense...I am proud he is an Indian, in his seventies, is fluent with Dawkins and is having a conversation with confidence...great job...
I’ve listened to this several times and keep learning new things. Satish is just fantastic.
Carl Jung made a distinction between two types of rationality. The first type he called "thinking" the second he called "feeling". Thinking was true and untrue. Feeling was a rational apprehension of qualitative likes and dislikes or it feels right or feels wrong. Etc.
For example a painter can paint a painting making nuance choices of feels right feels wrong. And it is a different process than true or not true.
Dawkins recognizes this faculty exists. But what western culture does is marginalizes this type of discernment only to certain areas namely the arts and often pejoratively.
We know that artists and chefs etc. can have this highly developed ability, but it is often excluded from science altogether.
I love how Satish is trying to translate the Sanskrit words to an English man 😂.
Well that's the problem of English, it lacks words, most of the fundamental Indic Philosophical words cannot be translated to English 😀.
It is possible to communicate your philosophy's core ideas without indulging in semanticism, which is something we wish to avoid.
Perhaps if you invested enough time in empowering your vocabulary, you wouldn't face that problem.
Kinda true , like English don't have any accurate word for the word dharma
@@pranavdwaraknath7459it's not about vocabulary but about indigenousity of words ...and in case of Sanskrit it's just too many native word which you can not translate..but try to converse it
I agree, this is not Hinduism vs Atheism. Satish Kumar never mentions religion. He is a philosopher. Westerners might view this as Philosophy vs Science. However, non-dual Eastern philosophies such as Taoism or Hindu Advaita, would suggest that what Satish is trying to explain is the wholistic view, that in order to completely understand reality, we not only must understand the measurable material quantities of a thing, but also its (so far) unmeasurable essential qualities, "essence" or "spirit". I believe that Satish has used the term "spirit" erroneously. I think that "essence" would be a more accurate term for what he is trying to describe. (Although I can't be sure)
This illuminates the dichotomy between most Western logic and some Eastern logic. Western logic is often narrow and dual in nature, and usually breaks down to pairs of opposites, e.g. light/dark, yes/no, either/or, on/off. Many Eastern philosophies are non-dual, and are therefore more wholistic in their understanding, which emphasizes a "oneness" that is both quantitative and qualitative.
Their logic encompasses the concept of both/and. In my mind, this can be illustrated by the by the Taoist "Yin Yang" symbol, where the whole is exemplified by the "oneness" encompassing the pairs of opposites. This is also a part of non-dual Hindu philosophy or Advaita. Westerners generally have a hard time understanding this concept. We generally have a more reductionist view of reality.
As a result, I am sure that when Dawkins hears Satish talk about the "spirit" of the tree, his mind goes back to an earlier time in human history when we believed in "animism", where each object was believed to be inhabited by a "spirit being". This is not what is meant by Advaita. It goes much deeper than that. "Spirit" is most likely an incorrect English translation of what Satish actually means. I believe that the English word closer to what Satish means would be "essence". In Western philosophy "essence" is a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.
I am an agnostic. But sathish has great points. It is now a leap of faith for the viewer. But he has a great point - if you look at most matter as just molecules, then destruction of it without consequences will happen. Exactly what we have done to our soil in 100 years industrial farming. Suppose hypothetically the soil had CRIED ( like a human ), we would have behaved differently. Since we dont accept this philosophy, we go through decades to realize our mistakes.
Yes, as Satish Kumar pointed out, the way we see the world, in turn shapes the world in which we live. And so, in a very real sense (yet not immediately obvious to most people) we as human beings are, quite literally, _creating_ our human world.
"I could agree to this on a poetic level"
"The word spirit is used in such a broad way that it ends up having no meaning."
"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." True. A flower that appears beautiful to one person may not appear as beautiful to another person. If you ask 5 people to arrange 5 flowers in the order of beauty, we'll have multiple sequences.
"I think the word spirit is used in such an imprecise way, that we would not be able to say the proposition was true or not.."
Whatever science finds out in future these people will say "we knew atma existed" or "this isnt atma, atma is more fundamental, you can't perceive it"
The philospher's way works for the masses. People who are not adept at science can work with emotions. More trees will be saved, if trees are believed to have atma, because that is easily understandable, we cannot ask a further question, and people will just learn to love them.
The alternative is looking towards the future and understanding the need of saving trees. This requires a rational thought process and all people are not capable of this. It takes effort. Everything has atma, so love it - is a simple but effective way, but it won't make sense to people who think.
I had the same thoughts.. And you have written them perfectly. Well done 👍
Beauty is objective lol. A thing is beautiful regardless of whether one considers it or not
It's stupid to define words in such a broad manner because then they lose the essence of the word they become a book 😂 if you can not be precise in your speech you can never convey the idea which is to be conveyed
@@yungman7053 😂yes you are exactly right .. some people think of the world too subjectively and then they claim they have wisdom of the highest degree 😂😂
I think this indian philosopher is very wise. I think his understanding is very deep. His 'world view' as he called it is truly holistic. But it is not a worldview that is in anyway unique to hinduism. This holistic world view is common to people from all times and places from Jesus and the christian philosopher mystics to the native americans. It is a philosophy which understands first and ultimately that 'all is one'. Nothing in the universe is separate, and everything in the universe has a physical aspect and a spiritual aspect and these are 2 sides of the same coin. They belong together and this is nature...this is natural. I thought he explained himself extremely articulately, from a position of deep understanding. Pay attention to his answer when Dawkins asked him how he knows he is right? He said he does not...this is his understanding, this is how he relates to the world. This is the key to a great misunderstanding...our understanding of the world is what guides how we act in the world. He is so right to point out that it is an arrogance of the narrow scientific view which has led the western world to view nature, not as something he is intimately and fundamentally connected to, but as a pool of resources for the benefit of himself. And he succinctly points out that Dawkins' wish to 'save' the environment comes not from true respect for nature but only a fear for his own future...in other words, not from love but from selfishness. Mr Sathish understands that what is important is not whether we are right or wrong but that we apprehend the world in as broad a context as possible and that our actions flow from our understanding. I thought Dawkins and his camera man were merely paying Sathish lip service because they are far too 'educated' and conditoned into materialist world view to understand his holism.
Upanishads teaching this a lot .Even some verses in Vedas ignorant about God
I quote the last fragment of the discussion when Satish Ji said to be open minded. This is very important because when we close our mind then the knowledge is dead.
Even Atheism is also recognized under Hinduism and respected. Rishi Charvaka was best example. He was respected Rishi ( means Guru) who got recognized and not at all prosecuted.
This is Best of all the your postings. I am fan of you, Nabeel, Abdullah and Harris. Thanks for you all
Harris bashes hindus all the time. Shuts them totally.
Thank you so very much for sharing this... 🕉️ 🙏
Only when you think about it again and again, you come to know this gentleman is actually talking something which literally makes no sense, with utmost respect to the gentleman.
Go down the rabbit hole. Eventually everything will make sense.🙃
Allow time to run its course. Only then, I am sure you can perceive the alternative.
I believe Richard and his other friends there confusing spirit to an entity which makes a human or an animal to feel pain and defend for an attack eg. But spirit is much above that, its everywhere around, connected and whole, to be felt and understood by each, but cannot be explained in full. Rock having s spirit not necessarily mean working or breaking it will give it any pain, not would it obstruct, but presence of it as a mountain, breaking it would certainly trouble the spirit of mountain, trees, forests and a whole lot of spirit called - eco system. I would like to thank both Richard and Satish for such a fantastic open debate. We should evolve to this stage from being indoctrinated with a religion.
This happens when you try to explain Indic philosophy in other language.
Keeps discussing spirit.. Lost in translation...
Dawkins wants to use spirit as per English language and Satishji wants to explain indic philosophy using the word spirit. More like religion and dharma..
Easy for others to misunderstand...
I think with spirit he means a self, something which is other than a matter existent even if we recursively break down whole world to a single atom. His Spirit would still exist.
ESSENCE OF SPIRITUALITY...
(1) NEVER EXPECTED SUCH A BEAUTIFUL EXPLAINATION EXISTED🤔
(2) WHAT A HUMBLE WAY OF PROVING AND REACHING TO A COMMON🤗 CONCLUSION...WE DON'T KNOW
(3)AS "DIDCOVERY OF INDIA" OPENING LINES END WITH.... NOT KNOWN (NAHEE HAI 🙄 PATTA)
👌YET LOT TO KNOW..🧐.. WITH OPEN MINDS
THANKS MR.FARHAN ...
@30.57 newly found respect and view for rocks ❤️ What a lovely man, his smile and generosity.. at this age- he isn't getting fumbled by a young man questioning his every word and politely debates.. That's his 'spirit'.
If you find it logically sound, you need to take a class in logic.
I love the holistic explanation...it s so much like integral theory...a favorite of mine
Although Satish's ideas and philosophy are far from the reality of the understanding of the universe, his ideas are poetic and beautiful to think about. Even though I don't agree with Satish's philosophical ideas, his views and the contrast with Richard's ideas, which I agree with and argue for, makes this interview one of the best that I have seen.
how do know ur understanding of reality is right
@@rajathrkumar9686 Because I can perceive the through my material senses. How do you know that your understanding is right? How do you know that spirit exists when you cannot perceive it?
@@kicksomeup6998oone of the important point made in the video was even if nobody's checking on flower it's still beautiful...same as that even if there's is nobody to perceive that aatma exist..it will still exist
I like that idea that we should have openness.
you can really see. while dawkins doesn't believe in hinduism. he sure hell respects it more then islam and christianity.
It explains everything Richard Sir🙏
When both understand that matter is spirit in its grossest (dense) state and spirit is matter in its most sublime state, then they will speak the same language.
This is the type of discussion we want ❤
This is what i call professional high level intellectual discussion
worth it 👌 type
Cant get the exact word
Richard Dawkins confuses Religion with Spirituality. For example a Guitar has a spirit because of the beautiful sound that it will make by a human.
A human can Express with art.
A rock has a spirit because it has beauty when it is carved, created, used, Spirit means lots of things to people.
The experience that one feels while practicing spirituality and that which gets noted down is religion
@@dheer33no religion is more like controlling and coming up with people with political aggregation
Krishna's words are real , look at that old man he knows the core values meanwhile Indian Babas : 🗿
Wonderful discussion. Richard seems to be lost in translation. Although a staunch atheist, he has that rigidness as a result of Abrahmic upbringing, not willing to accept an alternate worldview.
The last point of keeping an open mind was bang on.
Never underestimate the rockiness of a rock 👌👌
Dawkins spends half an hour being "closed" to Satish's worldview and then wants to know Why he thinks Science has insufficient humility. When asked how Satish knows he is right about his assertions, Satish's response (without hesitation) is a humble "I dont know if I'm right". I suspect that the many years of debating arrogant professors of Christianity & Islam has rubbed off on Dawkins in a bad way.
That's just projecting from your part. Dawkins simply questions to understand the view better.
@@pranavdwaraknath7459 @Pranav Dwaraknath But that's my point - we usually see Dawkins questioning to understand which we all appreciate - here however the tone is of questioning to challenge. The 3rd person jumping in may have made matters worse as well. Debating religion and debating spirituality are very different - "How do you know?" line of questioning is hardly an attempt to understand anything. That's how a 'push back' is carried out.
@@jayprakashnair2499 I suppose the two of us can agree that the 3rd person intervening wasn't of the slightest of help. But I believe you grossly misunderstand Dawkins as many Indians do. What you are objecting to , is his line of questioning. What was extremely polite was his tone.
So for us Indians to truly understand what he asked would also require us to understand the English language. For the fact that much is lost in translation. Dawkins was simply trying to understand and in the English language ; this IS how you try to understand.
@@jayprakashnair2499 Dawkins is, was and hopefully always will be polite when it comes to his tone. There's nothing there. There are just hurt feelings from people who he cannot care less about.
@@pranavdwaraknath7459 I guess there is merit in that line of thought for sure - misunderstanding how English language is asserted across the globe. In fact, what I find compelling about what you are saying is the fact that the two us, both of Indian origin, have very different reception of the same content. I'm with you on that front. Cheers.
The artistic romance involved in the words of Sir Satish basically lies in the concept of transfer. As it is associated with the concept of energy. Energy can be transferred from one form to the other. The romance of art associated with this science will say it is the spirit of energy/mass which work on the quantitative transfer. Robust words of religious sentiments say soul changes body like man changing cloth.
This romance is not only in earthly phase this also concentrate on the layer of dimensions we are associated with, which may be of the same phase in which we exist or a dimension which can be represented as a skew line to our dimension.
Beautiful discussion thanks to all of you for such a enriching session of Philosophical Science which is a subject of the clustered study of Spirituality.
Best regards.
Cool to think about, but yeah, I would disagree with many of those ideas.
Great minds!
Dawkins has the motive to prove what is right and wrong. Sateesh has no motive to prove something is right and wrong.. So he sees things in inclusive manner and Dawkins only able to see what is good for him. A bit of selfish manner. Satish always trying to point out that many things will be involved and participated to have a certain outcome. But Europeans have a different mind set which of selfish nature.. It is not a surprise, that Dawkins completely missed to understand it.. If Europeans has this understanding.. European lands might be shared with Native Americans and Aboriginal People. Their morals only exists in Movies and Publicity Stunts. Forgive me if I hurt anyone feelings.. It is not what I wanted. Thanks.
I think one of the limitations of scientists is that they often think spiritual people haven’t gotten to their point of thinking yet. They can’t seem to wrap their head around the fact that a lot of spiritual people understand and and agree with what materialists are saying and have gone a little further. I imagine (if it hasn’t happened yet) Dawkins will be like “oh shit, I get it”.
Then in what way are they spiritual. Or rather what do you mean by spiritual.
@@hazeshi6779half the video goes in depth on answering that.
Spiritual is quality. Material is quantity.
The material is that your wife and children are made up of organs and have blood sploshing through their veins, and you have obligations to buy their birthday presents and provide food and shelter, and they may in the future return the favor in your old age and take care of you.
But reducing your wife and children to that takes away the spirit of your wife, the spirit of your children. Your love for your wife and children isn’t love for the material, it isn’t love for their organs, love for their blood, love for their insurance policy in your elder years. What you love is spiritual. And in order to love a tree or love a landscape or love a river or love a rock, we can’t see them as merely material, since we cannot love water molecules, we cannot love wood, we cannot love silicon dioxide in the same way we cannot love the organs, the blood, the tax deductions, of our wife and children.
The trees, rivers, rocks, have spirit because we are capable of loving them. Anything we are capable of loving has a quality that can be loved, and therefore has a spiritual side. Your pet has spirit, that’s why you cannot bring yourself to cook it as food, because you see it as more than its flesh and organs. We instinctually reject reducing things we love or celebrate as meat, so a war horse that is celebrated for victories and beknighted for heroism we revere and we would find anathema if someone wanted to reduce it to meat.
When we realize the entire life on Earth started from Rocks, The spirit of the Rocks becomes more apparent.
Great video. I do however disagree with the initial statement that this is "how to debate an athiest". This was a perfectly lucid discussion between two athiests. Being spiritual does not make you a thiest. He clearly states he does not believe in the supernatural.
Spirits are supernatural
@@apurvsingh5541 depends on what you believe is natural
@@gayathrijinesh3004
Nature is not a belief but fact
@@apurvsingh5541replace the spirit with aatma in the conversation...and meaning will be more understandable ..spirits and aatma doesn't matter
Mr. Satish is humble and have a profound view but I have to admit that he is not able to explain it in words. Richard is correct when he says that the word spirit is being used in different aspects and presented as the same thing. This viewpoint of Mr. Satish does not represent the wholesome view of hindu philosophy but a certain school of thought of hindu philosophy much like that of bhakti marg. An atheist can be best argued by the Shaiva philosophy because it is so profound that atheism is just a part of it and yet it is a belief system which explains the super natural aspects of life.
I think Dawkins was right / Satish was wroing in a different area of the discussion; while Dawkins was right that his use of the word spirit is different when it comes to the spirit of the law (talking about underlying principle of the law) and the spirit of the room or rock; he clarified that what he means is that there is a physical reality and a qualitative reality (spiritual), and metaphysics includes things like meaning, friendship, respect, the quality of a room or country or college, so I don't think he misused the word spirit, only if it is understood as qualitative metaphysical aspect of reality; satish was wrong about the intrinsic quality of the flower as beautiful, it could be argued that the information is imbedded in the flower whether it's beauty is observed or not, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder; as far as what he as a Jain monk argued that was dharnic would be the idea of wholism, because it is Dharmic to believe that everything is interconnected.
Farhan Qureshi Dawkins destroyed Deepak Chopra in a similar interview... Fear was clear on his face but Mr. Satish was consistent on his point so I feel he was unable to express what he actually had in mind.
As per Sihiva followers the concept of God doest not fit in anywhere because God as a creator intelligence is an Abrahamic concept. Shiva is what the universe was before it existed... That nothingness from which universe came into existence. Then a phenomenon called shakti happened and shiva transformed from its non existent state to subtle existence and so on went to various forms like Rudra. Shiva also took form of vishnu and Bramha later on and Bramha is the whole creation and exists in everything as everything is bramha.
So these are all the manifestations of the creation process for the understanding of it as per the human aspect.
This philosophy says that we are self conscious form of shiva and shiva exists everywhere rock tree cat planets air so if we can go dig in the ego we can connect the consciousness with universal consciousness.
The phenomenon which made the universe made me and also the rocks. This body is made up of some rocks and any rock can someday become a human body. This is a holistic view and may be of no use for Dawkins but USE is also a human aspect.
There is no difference between anything in the entire universe either back in time or on a quantum level it's just one thing... Looking at them differentiating things and discussing them ... We are just the conscious part of that very same creation.
This may make sense to a person like Dawkins but by generalising everything with one word spirit is as Dawkins said just poetic.
I agree with everything you said about the universe and Shiva and creation and the shakti; Dawkins caught Deepak off guard, and the only part Deepak failed was the quantum healing; other than that my bias is for Deepak.
Farhan Qureshi A profound spiritual guru like Deepak Chopra who has millions of people blindly following him should be sure about each and everything he says. Quantum healing is just a jargon he gave to a half baked concept which on his part is a very irresponsible thing.
People like Satish are far better than Deepak, at least Satish believes in what he says and is ready to accept that this is just his own belief and he can also be wrong.
I noticed that Dawkins who generally crushes the opponent was treating Satish with respect and tried not to insult him. Dawkins, I have seen is not against believers... He disagrees with them but doesn't hates them.
But he surely hates the bluffs who fool people with stupid gibberish served as spirituality and I respect him for that
A person with spiritual instinct can understand it but here he is debating with an atheist. What an atheist will understand from the phrases like "A rock has a spirit"?
What Satish is saying here sounds a lot like René Guenon in the book “Reign of Quantity”
No, this Philosophy exists in Vedas so is ancient and not new..
Guenon was inspired by Indian philosophy, so prolly that's why.
Only take away being that I like humans to co exist like these 2 guys here. Both are needed for a good ecosystem of human affairs.
Absolutely Brilliant...♾️ ✨🌟
Both are right on their own thinking!!! I have respect for them both!!! To me there is no big difference between them but by the purpose of greater good of humanity one of them has some advantage over another on this period of time, may be only the time could tell.
Difference in lexicon ≠ misuse of words
I think English word "spirit" should not be used in translation of atmaa and pram-atmaa
Yes. It is like how soul is not equal to athma.
A=Outer state, physical
U=Inner state, mind
M=undifferentiated state, consciousness/soul
__=Fourth state, brahman/purusha/spirit
How well words spirit and soul describe reality is dependant on how you intepret them. Words are always words, but i hope we all will realize meaning behind all words.
@@aumatomos7811that's utterly wrong
Read upanishad to know what aum means
@@parmar__12 that is from upanishads...
@@aumatomos7811 nope that's not
A u m
Means three state of consciousness
Dream
Deep sleep
And awake
And 4th one is turiya the chidanand state ,the blissful consciousness state
Soul and brahman are no indifferent
And spirit is not the word for aatma nor is soul
It's self ,self = aatma
Excellent healthy discussion.
Respect from Bangladesh
The difference is that the intrinsic qualitative aspect of reality (spirituality) would inevitably suggest that this quality came from design rather than imposition of subjective experience of the human observer. This comes from the Divine but this was not mentioned. Dawkins basically is saying that the invisible quality does not exist outside of the beholder.
This could not be more untrue. Just because something has design does not mean that it was designed.
Hell no doesn’t mean that
A Tree is made of elements that are not tree. Mind-blowing
This is such a perfect example of Barnum statements being thrown around.🙈
It is clearly a hierarchy and not a network. Being poetic might be cool; but it's not useful to understand how the world works.
Seeing it as a network is just plainly wrong. I'm astonished by how ignorant people praising Satish are in the comments section here.
A mumbo jumbo of words. That's all these philosophers do!
No clear definitions, no measurable things. Just words; useless words.
Ain't a true philosopher, just an apologist posing as a philosopher. Actual philosophers consider meaningful questions. Like the Krishnamurtis for example.
@@spuriusscapula4829 yeah, I agree. Shouldn't have generalised to all philosophers.
@@spuriusscapula4829 apologist? Care to elaborate?
True
I think all Satish Kumar is saying is that a pure materialist understanding of the world makes you miss the qualitative value of it, and without the qualitative value we have no reason to develop a subjective sense of care and respect. By contemplating the connectedness of everything we can cultivate that value for nature, our relationship to it and our relationship to each other.
wow..i have watched this video before. but second watch now made more sense and better understand what they are speaking and has better understanding of hinduism.
When you really listen, Satish is exceptional in his descriptions
I support mr Dawkins...I am a nature lover.. i love animals ,trees ,humans and i am against pollution ,plastic,global warming. But i am an atheist.. i dont see any spirit in nature . But some of the persons who destroy environment are religious people.. think scientifically
I mean what kind of religious people you are talking about ... because it's not like all atheist are protecting nature and not harming ..infact it doesn't matter you are religious or not for the point of protection of nature...you can protect it as religious or as atheist...as far as nature is considered...
But I really want to know what do you actually meant by religion
Humility in science is the need for the hour.
There is God PARTICLE in every PARTICLE so what he said has been proved... His thinking has been proved
Higgs Bozon
We are stardust Richard Dawkins, hence we are connected with Universe or Cosmos in a Grandest way,
He looks like a real enlightened person
Since a tree cannot exist without the sun (among other ‘outside’ elements), we can say that the sun is actually ‘part’ of the tree and that the very definition and concept of “tree” must necessarily contain the sun within it.
But although we can say that the concept of “tree” must include the sun, must not the concept of “the sun” contain the concept of “tree” within it as well?
Yes A Sun would be incomplete without the process that it initiates in the tree 🌳
Sun would be incomplete without the mentioning the life giving abilities that’s it’s brilliant sun rays have
Also sun would be incomplete without the brilliant destructive sun rays that destroys everything comes near to it or by radiation.
What we define sun, is just for our understanding but the very definition of sun moon and any other object in cosmos is incomplete without the co relation with another matters and anti matter and the quality of the matters(metaphysical material) in the cosmos.
We say oh 1 meter is the length of the path travelled. By light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second but when we see it through the lens and concept of string theory nothing is said to be it everything every parameter changes every second
Hens the ray of light 💡 in its length from the particle concept and from the waves theory concept both are changing indifferently.
Hence we assume that the difference in the reading that changes is so small to measure that it does not effect overall exact length but that could be true for us but not for the ultra microscopic elements.
The length of meter would be inaccurate and undefined from the prospective of the photon particles as the length changes every time.
For our understanding we say that length of meter is this but not by the view of strings concept.
Which says that nothing is accurate and not by the lens of quantum realm.
the whole point of the debate is :
*1. "Flowers have an inherent property of "beautifullness"*
*2. "Beautifullness is a property that we humans assign on various things"*
Though I agree with Satish Kumar worldview, I do understand and agree with Richard that the word "spirit" is inaccurate to describe what Satish kumar was pointing to when he said there is spirit in rock. This is a well known deficiency of English language which originated in west that does not have certain concepts or ideas which exist in Hindu wisdom. There are many such ideas and concepts like maya, viveka, Altman , jiva which are fully developed well articulated in Vedantic wisdom and are completely absent in west / abrahmic faiths and when one tries to use words from English dictionary that seem to be close (but aren't ) to such unique Vedantic concepts , the confusion is created.each word comes in any language comes with its own baggage based how it has been used in conversations and writings in that particular culture from where the language comes. That is precisely happening here with word "Spirit". The "Chaitanya Tatva" aspect as used in Sanskrit language is being referred as "spirit" here in this conversation. The word "spirit" or any other word in English does NOT describe the idea of Chaitanya as found in Sanskrit texts since such idea does not exist in western thought and that creates the whole confusion. AUM Shanti .. Peace to all
I think Satish was wrong about intrinsic beauty without the beholder to appreciate it, even if the information is imbedded in the flower to be the flower; but on his use of the word spirit, even though he used it in different ways, he was right because he as saying that there is physical and metaphysical quality of reality. The spirit of the law is metaphysical, even if in this situation it means the underlying principle of the law. The spirit of the room or college means the metaphysical quality of the room or college, as does the spirit of anything, so I don't think he used the word spirit incorrectly
When we say that "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder", there can be two ways of seeing it:
1) One, is to say that there is no beauty in anything but everyone makes out his/her own meaning of beauty when looking at an object. This is a more human-centric approach.
2) The other way of seeing it is by saying that everything has its own intrinsic beauty by itself, now an observer may or may not find it beautiful by his/her own personal standards, that's a different thing. Just as every food has some intrinsic taste, now some may find it delicious, some may not. In any case the intrinsic taste is still there. Same is the case with beauty.
We generally tend to see it from the first viewpoint, while Satish sees it from the second. It's just a matter of outlook, however I must say that the second viewpoint is surely more benign and appreciative of everything around us.
what Satish ji lacked was English vocabulary, he wasn't able to explain the Indian culture in words that the English understand. If this was in Sanskrit then he would have been able to distinguish between brahman and mana.
It is because there is no equivalent English words for non-translatable sanskrit words (esp key words like Athma, Dharma, Karma etc)
Honesty spoken at 32:23
Beautiful and Brilliant. ♾️🌈✨
He's just explaining the samkhya darshan philosophy.
Atma en parmatma or brahmen en atman.
If u say a rock has a spirit or every matter that exist has in it self a spirit.if u look it this way that every matter that is in existince is in a continue vibration. every molecules ,atoms etc are in a continue vibration. this is also symbolise as the dancing shiva or the natraj where u see shiva dancing in a cirkel with four arms in each he holds a certain thing and he dances on a lord of death. shiv means oneness or absolute. he dances in a cirkel cause every thing in this world is a cirkel or a zero.it originates from a absolutenes.
He dances that symbolises the continu movement of matter in this reality.
He dances on the lord of death and shows one finger to him beneath and one finger is pointed towards himself. this symbolically means that the absolutness is above death above the material boundaries.That is also why shiv is also called mahakaal. meaning greater than death and time. in one hand he has a fire and the other he has a litle damaru(a little drum) which he constantly plays.
the damaru means everything derives from frequenties or movements and later is vaporized in fire. *note* that fire in sanskrit has also several meaning. one meaning is energy.
the fire u and i daily use is named martya agni.
well quantum physics kind of says this too, though it is controversial, everything is in waves, there is an individual matter, but waves are in essence the reality of the universe
However beautiful the idea is, if it doesn't solve the problem it is useless. Same is the case with Mr.Satish. His idea of wholism is quite poetic but I'm highly skeptical if this philosophy is anything useful. Also I was astonished by the fact how he misunderstood the concept of hierarchy, and also his examples of world affairs are very immature.
As Feynman said
The dichotomy of imagination & reality. Satishji you are a wonderful person but I rather agree with Dawkins.
The modern fanatics lacks this.
Drunk talks with friends after the sun comes up. XD
This is the first video I've seen that has Professor Dawkins pausing to think, rather than pausing to hold his tongue.
Haha true
Saying "in the future" is more separated from reality than saying "the spirit of". Dawkins has such a simple and superficial mind that it's scary to think of all the people listening to him.
Wow, Richard has a lot of patience dealing with BS.
I think Richard is a stupid n narrow minded
Dawkins was patient as always.
You post about the person who also follows this bs
@@bhavyasaini2654 what do you mean? Didn't get you.
Apart from being a mutually respectful debate , Dawkins lifted the veil of confusion metaphysicsts like this sow with misuse of language . When confronted to pin point usage of a certain word - spirit - Satish takes refuge in obscurity of “holism” . Or Satish would say he uses the word spirit to denote different things and he uses this word for rocks and wrath oceans etc to save them from destruction and to keep the word spirit in English language . Sorry , but That’s quiet lame . Its like saying things are so interconnected that they cannot be understood so take my word for it . However, he admits honestly, that’s it’s his assertion alone , his views and he doesn’t know if this is accurate . That’s integrity , that is worthy of respect.
He is quoting Vedanta
I have read it, fascinating nothing supernatural but spiritual great Indian work on philosophy
They are more interviewing each other than debating. You debate to explore and subject and find the truth. Not to Win!
@16:15, i lose everything!!! Dawkin was very polite!!
Dawking is just a frog in well ...he need b more open.
It’s funny how he has to dumb it down so a scientist can finally understand it.
MR. Satish changes the context everytime he has to put something in his shoes, this is not philosophy but rather a nice wordplay and mystic ideas
Spirit of hydrogen is two of them with oxygen makes water. Combines to form different things too. Two carbon and one oxygen doesn't form water. It's an information which transcends physical realm.
How did Dawkins hold himself back? This is just beyond "CRAZINESS".... it is so difficult to hear all this and still get
no sense out of it....
Okay Scully
No sense ???
🤣🤣🤣🤣.
Idiots
Interdependence, and dependence-rising: nothing exists on its own. But it's only through dependence on others that a thing can be its own.
Ngl I used to think this guy was bs when this was released, I was so blind lool, it took me 3 years to understand the spirit definition is not same as English
Awesome awesome awesome.thank you
My personal interpretation is that Atheist reject all external & separate god ! This is 100% correct ! .
Atheist correctly reject what is false or not true !
But True Atheists should not stop at merely rejecting all external & separate god, they should actively seek the truth !
A possible direction was shown by ancient indian rishis /yogis ! maybe they should atleast try that !
Atheist can now turn inwards & experience the internal god !
Thank you so very much for sharing...
Where is he? We need him to make farmers understand farm laws against farmers protest.
So painful yet so simple..
they came with their camera crew desperately trying to get something controversial or silly and they failed
Sanatana Dharma is really amazing because it is actually scientific! everything is scientific. Ayurveda is scientific, yoga is scientific. the Vedas outline the scientific procedures involved in everyday living. The influence of planets, astrology and astronomy. the use of mathematics far ahead of even what is taught in universities today. Sanskrit the mother language that just by its pronunciation affects out body positively. the system of Nadis and Chakras that gives detailed understanding of our subtle states.
being atheist is like reinventing the wheel. is there a point ? we life for a century give or take and our life is so minuscule in the magnitude of things. why not respect and learn from those before us and leave something for our future generations just the same as they did for us ? this is rational. that's what Sanatana dharma is !! and its ever evolving. only a small mind finds this difficult to understand.
Seems to me like it's the same old story, we want to answer things that we cannot answer and never will answer
Just waited for it to go south which it did. Took about 10 minutes. Then the conversation went into the blender. Made a poop smoothie.
How so?
Richard is probably the best person on this planet when it comes to making rational concrete arguments.
Rationality based on what? outdated Newtonian physics? i don't see any difference between blind followers of Atheism and Abrahamic religions
@@Dharmicaction if you think Newtonian physics is outdated, you're very welcome to jump from a 100 feet cliff. Try turning into a wave then and reach the international space station. Cheers.
@@Dharmicaction चार्वाक का वह दर्शन जिसने हिला दी थी वैदिक धर्म की नींव
-अग्निहोत्रं त्रयो वेदा…यानी अग्निहोत्र करना, तीन वेदों को मानना और भस्म रमाना बुद्धिहीन लोगों का काम है. ऐसा माना जाता है कि चार्वाक के समय तक तीन ही वेद थे चौथा अथर्ववेद बाद में जुड़ा. प्राचीन भारतीय दर्शन में वेद त्रयी की बात की जाती है - ऋगवेद यजुर्वेद और सामवेद.
चार्वाक के कुछ श्लोक कहते हैं:
-न कोई स्वर्ग है और न कोई नर्क. न कोई परलोक में जाने वाली आत्मा है और न कोई कर्मफल. जो कुछ है यहीं है.
-जो यज्ञ में पशु को मारकर स्वर्ग जाने की बात कहते हैं तो वे अपने पिता या दादा को, मां या दादी को मारकर उन्हें स्वर्ग क्यों नहीं भेजते?
-श्राद्ध करना पागलपन है. अगर कौए को खिलाया हुआ पितरों को पहुंचता है तो कौए का खिलाया हुआ विदेश गए आपके पिता तक क्यों नहीं पहुंचता?
उनका सबसे प्रसिद्द श्लोक है जिसे प्रधानमंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी ने शनिवार को बनासकांठा में लोगों को भाषण देते हुए कहा.
यावज्जीवेत सुखं जीवेद ऋणं कृत्वा घृतं पिवेत, भस्मीभूतस्य देहस्य पुनरागमनं कुतः ॥
अर्थ है कि जब तक जीना चाहिये सुख से जीना चाहिये, अगर अपने पास साधन नही है, तो दूसरे से उधार लेकर मौज करना चाहिये, शमशान में शरीर के जलने के बाद शरीर को किसने वापस आते देखा है?
@@Dharmicaction yeah same there is no difference between Hinduism and foolishness.
@@Dharmicaction outdated newtonian physics?
You should have stayed at school
Whenever such professional debate arises, the theologists or the religious experts starts speaking philosophy. But is this what exists in India? To an Indian Hindu, philosophy hardly makes any sense. They follow whatever their family has been following. Now doesn’t matter how hell of a philosophical knowledge vedas contain, the end product is an orthodox blind follower. For most Hindus, Mandirs and Gods and orthodox traditions is what Hinduism is. No one has ever read Vedas, anyone barely understands Sanskrit. So trying to justify Hinduism (or any other religion) by reasoning philosophy is useless. This philosophy is not practiced by common people. This reasoning of Vedas and Upanishads isn’t representative of an average Hindu. The debate is thus pointless if you consider the mainstreamly practised Hinduism as Hinduism of the Vedas/Upanishads. And anyways, if you take out orthodox tradition and the legend stories, Hinduism is basically a subset of philosophy and ethics. If that is, then why do you need religion for being moral and rational thinker? Isn’t Hinduism better, rational and modern with those stupid things at bay? If Hinduism doesn’t change today, it will become obsolete like Christianity and Islam. Maybe that will be better. Be moral because it’s good and beneficial to humanity, not because of random stupid belief and assurance of getting a premium membership of heaven/moksha.
But the essence of hinduism lies in vedas and upnishads
If Today's people dont read vedas and upnishadas does not means hinduism will change its meaning
@@krishnajhawar4055 yeah it will not. But accept that fact that what you are following is not Hinduism, it's just bunch of conservative traditions that your family has made up by themselves over hundreds of years. Call it whatever but Hinduism is neither conservative not it has much stuff about tradition. Hinduism is about a way of life that you choose for yourself, with the help of knowledge from Vedas.
I think the use of the term spirit that has occupied this argument for long in my assessment is just "FORM". Everything that exists has a FORM. That's what defines its nature.
In a POSITIVE DIALOG, Religion are Not Included. . UNLESS OF DESPERATION,
hey farhan I would like you to debate zakir naik..what do you think about that
zakir naik wont debate with people with reason as his logical fallacies will be caught.
he only answers common people and convince them with Logical Fallacies.
:-D I would love to debate Zakir Naik, that would be great
I saw this interview in the documentary, and I have to say that the editing really didn't do this man justice. I am still an atheist and not convinced, but I find that he at least has a lot more nuance than was shown in the documentary version of this conversation. The editing made him look a lot more foolish than he seems when we get the full conversation. Very interesting, but still unfortunately misguided and based upon the human mind's conflict between emotion and reason, feeling versus knowing.
would you please tell where can I find the documentary?
@@FumaxIN Here is a RUclips upload:
Part 1 ruclips.net/video/Daqofc-PXtY/видео.html @ 39:15 is this guy
Part 2 ruclips.net/video/znm_NidEw_s/видео.html
Also if you want to buy it:
www.amazon.com/Enemies-Reason-Richard-Dawkins/dp/B005NJQZFC
@@Kori114 Thanks bro. Will watch the documentary. Well I considered myself an atheist 2-3 years back but now I have recently started to explore spirituality and Dharma
But one should not be biased and question out everything
They have an agenda already they were close minded unfortunately
Dawkins might actually get the point if the word essence was substituted for spirit.