Advaita and the strange problem of subjective experience
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 12. 2023
- Support this channel by becoming a member / @vimoh
Or make a one-time donation by clicking the Super Thanks button under this video!
I am Vimoh, an Indian atheist and my videos have to do with religion, atheism, Indian culture, and sometimes contemporary political happenings.
Below are some videos from this channel that every Indian atheist must watch.
✔️ Videos for the Indian atheist - • Delving Deeper
✔️ How I became an atheist - • My journey between rel...
✔️ Why I am not a "Hindu atheist" - • Why I am not a Hindu A...
✔️ Why I am not a "Hindu atheist" (part 2) - • Belief in karma = beli...
✔️ The Indian atheist problem - • The Indian atheist pro...
✔️ Why atheism is important - • You can't fight irrati...
There was no Advaita Vedanta in the entire discussion.
Pahle isko Sanskrit me pad le
Pahle isko Arabic me pad le
Pahle isko Hibrew me pad le
Sanskrit wale se pucho ki kya tu ne arabic me quran padhi ya Hebrew me tora'h padhi, jo tumko nhi maante,, isi tarah dusro se b puchna chahiye😂😂
Happy Manusmriti Dahan Divas
Let's celebrate the Victory of Good over Evil..
BrHmans over chamars 😠 😡 👿 😤 🤬
Good vs evil is subjective..nothing is 100%
@@zohebsaikia telling women to jump into fire of her husband's funeral is evil
@@sracharNot said in Manusmriti
@@rohitsawant4452 read it
Invite acharya Prashant on the debate!!
sorry but even he wont be able to explain that isnt objective. he too is very subjective.
@@upanishaddarshan 🤔🤨
He cannot survive here 😂
@@upanishaddarshan I don't think he is a theist per se. He talks more about the values .
@@Slade69 but the topic here is Advaita. Even I myself find Advaita fascinating and is studying it since long...but I still get that it is purely subjective. What's outside the body can never try to explain something inside.
Vimoh is doing God's work. Oh wait.
Yes and no
😂😂😂
Your are correct in incorrect way 😆😆😆
Good one😂
Nice
Good to hear the closing remarks. Civilized disagreements are a thing of rarity these days
"Main aap ko kavi andar nehi leta hu" 🤐
सर आप को पहले बार आजाद सर के चैनल में देखा अमित सर के बहुत बड़ा फैन हूं आज से आप का भी फैन होगया हूं सर
Actually its true, most bramhins teach Sanskrit only to their bramhin students. I had a friend who was bramhin and he used to go to another old bramhin's Sanskrit class. When i showed interest in that class he used to change the subject.
Yeah but I've learnt sanskrit in school. Language and literature is okay, the religious literature side of sanskrit is a shitshow
@@rushikeshsapkal7674You had one or two classes a week. That's not how you learn a language. Languages require immersion. You have to talk to people who can read sankrit to emulate the pronunciation and rhythm of the language. You have to read Sanskrit extensively, which almost always means reading scriptures, and epics, and their commentaries.
Once you have done these things for a few years, you also need to be a part of a community that reads and communicates in Sanskrit. In India, good luck doing that if you're not a Brahmin. I'm also going to tell you that you don't know sanskrit.
The question now is, why should you know Sanskrit? Does it add any value to your life? If you learn to speak any other foreign language, even Mandarin, it improves your resume, your salary and it introduces you to a new literature and people. What do you get with Sanskrit? Everything written in it is not only scientifically outdated, but also philosophically stagnant. It is the most useless Indian language to learn unless you're perhaps a linguist or a student of theology.
Learn Tamil, Punjabi, Bengali, or Gujarati. You will see the obvious benefits. Learn your own native language if you have now defaulted to a popular tongue like English or Hindi, and reconnect with your ancestral brethren.
I think the caller has good points to argue but you have no answer to debate with him.... And you get angry
It is my subjective experience that you lack simple comprehension, but given that we can all watch the video, it is also evident that you lack simple comprehension
@@thomascromwell6840great way to insult the guy and talk down to him.
I wanted to give an great example of a blind mathematician, Leonhard Euler.
He wasn't blind from birth though, he went blind later in his life
@@RR_theproahole yes but he did most of his great works even after he went blind
Hey Vimoh have you saw the latest
Sham Sharma Podcast
Where they discussed about casteism and how people deny it.
Vimoh would please put your captions in English. I interested in your stuff but I don't know Hindi. I'm from Chennai.
24:55 I only found a mistake here. Actually axioms are unproved mathematical statements that are accepted to be true and are called self evident to do further mathematics.
There are 7 axioms I think. One of them is a line is made up of infinite points. We can't prove that but we can prove 100s of other postulates by assuming this statement to be true.
I said can be. Not that they have to be. Maybe I oversimplified it. Sorry. Maybe I should have said "shown to be true".
@@vimoh No actually. Axioms and Postulates in maths can't be proved, even when tried, because they are the building blocks in mathematics which are used to prove theorem(say A). We assume them to be true so we can start further reasoning. The only way we can prove an axiom is by circular reasoning. We first assume the theorem A to be true and then go back to the axiom. And here the theorem A works as the axiom.
But the thing is axioms aren't extraordinary claims. There are 5 or 7 axioms and they are intuitive statements like parallel lines never meet in flat space, all right angles are equal to one another, a circle of any radius at any point can be drawn, etc. and we prove other things from these.
@@RandomIndianUsingYT Maybe we can say axioms are true in the same way vimoh explained how we know a tree exists in front of us when we see it. I think another way is to actually see at the real world. If by assuming one axiom to be true, we found certain theorems valid and later we also find the theorems to be giving accurate results and predictions in real life, then we can say the axioms or postulates are not wrong.
I haven't deleted any comments here. Please stop implying that I have.
That's a good point. Thanks for explaining. I am no mathematician obviously. I was using the 2+3=4 example to only show that when someone comes with a claim like "reality is consciousness" and says it's the same as 2+2=4, I can show them that there is a difference between the two. Math works and can be used to make predictions. Therefore there is reason to think of it as more than something we just started believing. Unlike other claims.
My name is Advait, and as an NRI born outside India, I have spent a long long time immersed in Western culture, never having much contact with my home culture. Combined with the fact that my parents are strong Hindutva supporters, I always felt uncomfortable thinking too much about my Hinduism critically, even though I was incredibly religious. Over here though, Hinduism gets mixed up with New Age bs (imagine 1970s Woodstock + ISKCON stuff), which meant that even when I was young I had doubts. When I was 17, I realised that I don't believe it any more, and have spent the past year experiencing what I now know to be a common experience for atheists all over the globe.
However, most of the media I consume is relevant to America and a Christian context, so thank you to Vimoh (and r/atheismindia) for helping me both learn more about my culture, the meaning of my name, and to come to terms with the idea that walking away from Hinduism doesn't necessarily mean not being an Indian any more.
Great naration
@@amaranthswami2577 Wdym? If you mean that I come across as emotionally vulnerable and rant-y, then you're probably right. I probably am. And perhaps one could go so far as to say that it's wrong to use my personal struggles to make a semi-political point.
But that scarcely changes the fact that, looking past my doubtlessly emotionally loaded language, I am right.
So which religion do you follow?
@@humaisabbasi None
If I'm not wrong , your parents are most probably from Karnataka or Goa right
Subjective experience is a science too:
''Psychology, at its core, is all about the scientific method. It uses empirical research and careful observation to examine how people behave and think. To collect and analyse data; researchers use a variety of approaches like surveys, experiments, observation and statistical analysis.''
but science accept only the evidence not something which is untestifiable
During Newton's time itself it was known that Newtonian Mechanics was not the complete truth. For example it couldn't explain the orbit of Mercury. Newton said that God might intervene and make things right sometimes(for the other orbits).
BTW nice conversation . I would like you to introduce the Indian Philosophy of Charvaks - specially the material school of thought for Consciousness.
Also, how would anyone explain an conscious AI? which is bound to happen in the next 5-10 years.
Just to point out Einstein's general theory of relativity fails to explain Black Holes. So there is a higher theory yet to discovered.
I wish I could have a conversation with this guy.
Anecdotal experiences are not universal proof. 2+2 is 4, universally in the decimal system, not the subjective experiences.
He was right... Axioms cannot be prooved... It was accepted as a fundamental thing... In physics too we have 7 basics axiom type things... That we call fundamental quantities... We don't know what they are, atleast some we are know but rest we don't... So basically we rely on our assumed things...
Personal experience in itself amounts to first layer of evidence. Then that personal experience, with peer review and comparison, could be confirmed or negated by people around us. On a grander scale, there may be people who do not share the personal experience i do, and some person who do share, according to their nurture and nature. And then there are some fundamental physical experiences/states that no human could deny. I've always felt that it's that simple.
When going into investigations into subjectivity and perceptions INTO yourself, you *may* find yourself in a much more surreal realm. Your subjective experience is best used in understanding your own self, your mind, your body and the link between them, and the various parts of your psyche. Your dreams and your inner visions and your imagination are the most surreal things there are. Those can be called "purely subjective", and people like Carl Jung have come close to understanding that even in the realm of our imaginations, we have common tropes (whether we are from the Appalachians, or Africa, or Bihar, or Rome or Tokyo) that we call archetypes, hinting to something that he called a "collective consciousness". That's the closest one could come to the cusp of understanding a surreal concept.
There will be people who say that "a naturally blind person's perspective of the world is diff from someone who isn't" and you'll only be right until the criteria moves away from visual stimuli. The person will most definitely experience physical forces such as gravity, the decay of time, and physical pain. Here again an argument will be made "some people can't feel pain", in order to make the "mera subjective tera subjective kiska objective" point. Multiple studies done all across the world using standardized tests will reveal the statistic which would tell that such people are a deviation in the norm in a general spectrum of feeling pain in whatever sample/population that test is done on, and so on and so forth. It's not all a huge mystery, some things are verifiable in this universe. Get a grip.
Thanks, Vimoh, nice talk.
Quest for the search of truth!🙌
Tark ke paar kya hota hai , agar tark ke paar kuch nahi hota to ye to ek believe jesi baat ho gai na ki tark ek last point hai , usi tarah in hindu dharm jo ved ko pramaan maana (believe) hai to wo asthik aur jo believe na kare wo nasthik ye parameter unhine banaya hai , jo ki sahi nahi hai , aap uski questioning ko rook rahe hai mai ye kahena chahta hu ki ham chahe jitna kah le ki ham believes pe 100% believe nahi karta ,lekin usse believe karna ki padega chahe wo bilkul kam believe kare , agar wo ek bhi believe nahi karta to wo survive hi nahi kar paayega , to mai ye kah raha hu ki tark sirf physical world ke liye sahi wo fact based hai jo ki bilkul sahi baat hai , lekin facts ke aage bhi to khuch hoga , please sir bataye ki ye thik hai ki nahi , by the way i love this type of debates ❤
Best conversation ❤😊
You forgot to say that we too are riddled with our own biases which is why objective evidence like math is important alongside our experience, our perception and the judgement we make of our experience.
Sirf apni judgement karna hai toh mai toh kuch bhi bol doon?!!.. Moon merese kuch pachaas kilometer door hoga!! 😅
Loved this❤
Invite acharya Prashant on debate❤❤❤
Modern Muslim Apologists play the same game. Whenever you point any mistake, discrepancy or contradiction in Quraan, they give exactly same response as this Brother
Very good debate
Sup, this was a surprise just was glancing through youtube and this pops up
I feel that he should read about indoctrination.
Epic discussion
@21:06 We see earth flat but it's round. So yes, we should consider the mathematics not our observation.
❤❤❤❤❤
Aresir 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻very very good sir ❤❤❤❤
❤❤❤❤
26:29 26:30 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I just cannot understand the point of this video. Vedant itself prescribe to leave 100% accuracy (bhram Satya jagt mithya ) then what is the point .
English translation are the most correct authentic doors to people's thought in ancient times. Why people hate translations is beyond me?
Its just a matter of avoiding some uncomfortable things. If you are a non believer, then you can very easily say that this text is thousands of years old and people back than had some wrong conceptions of the world, but if you are a believer and your life depends on some very old book written in a dead language and you believe it contains some profound knowledge then you play these games to avoid criticism and justify your beliefs.
@@RR_theproaholedamn that's very accurately put.
good spirited guy he was
Vimoh was being too rude and not letting that guy put his opinion properly. Continuously breaking his flow and interrupting his talks. And than vimoh was accusing the guest of being rude.
exactly
The guy was detouring from the question tbf. Instead of answering a simple yes and no question he started another argument.
But one fire plus one water one or tow or zero?
Consciousness is different from matter because when a person is alive and when is dead if we compare the weight we won't find any difference so how can you say matter= consciousness
2+2 = 4 only if we accept current decimal system.
Its an axiom because the current system of communication is simply accepted.
Mathematics is abstract, not material.
One silly argument to counter you.
If you proved 2 bananas + 2 bananas = 4 bananas.
That does not mean 2 + 2 = 4.
How can you say that whatever is applicable to bananas is applicable to everything.
You're saying mathematical truths are contingent truth
Vimoh is not even listening to that guy. He is trying to quote Advatya which is nothing to do with the specific religion. And by not knowing sanskrit people have intrepretted things differently and the best example is - 'Bhagwat Geeta as it is' by ISCON, and many more. The reason is fairly simple though, they have some kind of confirmation bias.
The guy on a call could not give an example properly, Adavat simply says non-duality. For example, human is dead, then buried, eaten by insects, mixed with soil, the plant grows from the same soil consuming sun and water, and now all these forms change into fruits, human eats the fruit. This is one of the cycles I tried to explain.
Here, Vedanta or Advat points out is if as a human your ego says everything has its own existence, or your superior than other etc. then its a false interpretation. Technically there is one super energy called as Brahm operating in the realm of dimention we call it as Time, this brahm keep on changing forms from one to another and this cycle goes on. Nothing is 2 thats the fundamental condept. In physics we say energy is neither created nor destroyed it simply changes its form. Now I am not saying both of the concepts are exactly same or right, they may be or may not be. But if we see and experience, we feel this concept is true.
Basically According to Vedanta or Advatya nothing is real, everything is subjective and relative. For a dog everything is black and white, for humans we see colors. There is no way we can know the truth or reality. It's strictly how we precieve.
Important thing here is that comparison of vedanta and Science is like comparing apple with oranges. Vedanta is about study of subject whereas science is all about study of objects that subject is precieving. As per vedanta, subject and object are interdependent, none can exist without the other. Same has been proven by double slit experiment. Both science and vedanta are trying to answer questions of humans. Thats the reason Vedanta rejects all the religious beliefs and rituals. Its a totally different branch of Hinduism, infact its more like a philosophy based on experience and self study of people, but generally people confuse Advatya with orthodox scriptures
…I am not saying that you are not unworthy… 😂😂😂
Caller ko hallucinations ki theory bhi padhna chahiye..! And become a seeker.
bro confused solipsism with advaita
Vimho be like ---- Arre bhai kehna kya chate ho ??
Kyunki aise logon se discussion karne aise chees ko leke jo objective naji hain vo difficult hai 😊
I would love to See these conciousness advocaters of god... in next 20 yrs.... when machines will have conciousness
19:23 😂😂😂😂
My goodness, the word salad the caller threw around.
About experience, I would argue that we can be 100% certain if we're clear on the characteristics of something we're talking about.
If the caller asks you if you can be 100% sure of seeing a tree, you should ask him what are the characteristics he attributes to a tree; like something that is attached to the ground, takes in nutrients from the ground to grow, has a trunk, leaves and so on.
If you can verify that something matches those characteristics, you can be 100% certain about it.
Contact Dr. Zakir Naik if you really want to know the answers to your questions… We all want to see it . Take the love ❤
Propagandist😅😂
medical doctor ke alawa aur koi nahi mila brother??
@@spuriusscapula4829 Jii brother
U r talking about 'science' so much but what I noticed that u urself were not doing the communication logically. The other person was asking ques and without giving answer u were counter-questioning him. U shud ve been following the science of logic. The other person was too polite and knowledgeable. Even when u didn't know about a particular topic like 'Gravity', u defined it incorrectly so confidently without the basis of any facts/evidence.
One more thing, let me correct u, Sanskrit is not dead. U can do some scientific research which will prove to u that there are many people who speak, even communicate in Sanskrit.
its practically a dead language.
@@ashwinvk4124 practically it's alive for people speaking Sanskrit language.🙏
@@deepikamishra5385 and how many people can they speak that language to?
What is the extent of monetary gain they can get from speaking Sanskrit?
@@ashwinvk4124 I'm referring to a different set of people and u r targetting a certain group. We are not on the same page.
Good afternoon Vimoh bro religion k bina morality ho skti h kya?
Yes, for eg,
Confucianists & Greeks (stoicism/epicureanism) had civilizations that were not really founded on religion but moral philosophies.
@@AkshatKapur ok thanks brother.. I would like to read more about this☺
Religion kaunsa morality sikhata hai? Caste k naam pe kisiko untouchables bana dena? Sati k naam pe kisiko jinda jala dena? Sanskar k naam pe homosexuality jo ki natural hai usko taboo bana dena? Jo log apni religion ko chhodna chahte ho unko marna?
There's a book "How to Live a Good life - a guide to choosing your personal philosophy" - a collection of essays on practical moral philosophies (including religious ones) by 15 philosophers, it's a nice introductory read.@@kakashiii1639
Morality is instinctual and at same time it's subjective
We naturally feels bad if somebody dies but from empricist point of view, morality is irrational.
Axioms cannot be proven. 0/0 is infinity, 0! Is 1.. these CANNOT be proven.
This is what we call Galua
I like Vimoh debates on science and philosophy.
Dear vimoh, love your debates. But sometimes you get carried away, for example in the ‘axioms’ topic you were wrong. ‘Axioms’ are taken as self evident and cannot be proved. They are taken as self evident and are accepted without proof. They are used as the foundation for a particular system of reasoning. So you should clarify about this.
Yes. I clarified this bit in the next live stream.
this guy is going to go on a long merry go round in future full of word salads that vedantis throw without any evidence i mean logic is a tool of seeking truth but ultimately if logic is not backed by evidence its as good as imagination i myself suffered a lot on this merry go round for more than one year they just have words and words nothing else they just build a tremendous structure of thought in their heads and derive pleasure out of its complexity btw a lot of nondual experiences etc also come under the domain of psychedelic experiences or what these people claim to be ultimate state as samadhi is the altered state of mind trying to alter the normal way we perceive things will make you go crazy and mentally ill i did all of this bs.
Hello Vimoh. I wanted to express my gratitude to you, for being one of the few rationalists we have.
Most atheists I know were influenced by people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking etc. The thing is, these people are either very old, or have already passed away.
It is people like you who are keeping the pillar of logic and reasoning strong with the youth, I hope you grow more popular as time passes by.
Watch for Alex O connor
Genetically modified skeptic
Rationality rules
I too feel the same.
Hi Vimoh you made some critical errors in this video-
1. 99% is a belief its not a calculated belief because you don’t know what 100% entails and how to differentiate between 65%,78% and 99%. 99 was just an arbitrary number you picked
2. Axioms cannot be proven
3. Mathematics has its own problems please look into work of Gödel
4. Colour Green, Red. You cannot be sure not even 99% as you claimed that both of you are seeing the same thing in same saw even if language says the same. Colour blind people call an apple an apple but we both see different things
5. The line of argument you picked for bigbang is exactly what theists pick for religion. They feel because there are some truth it’s reasonable to believe unless proven otherwise which you said for bigbang
Fyi my position is full fledged agnosticism as I don’t believe i can even know enough to assign % to experience to make even a calculated belief
Mera question hai ki aap atheist hai toh jab aap marenge toh apke sath kya hoga apko jalaya jayega ya dafan kiya jayega
Agar koi god nahi hai toh thik hai aap bhi bach jayenge aur hum bhi jayenge jahannam se par tb kya hoga jab marne ke baad pata chale ki god exist krta hai toh god ko manne mein uske exist manne mein koi burayi nahi hai marne ke baad kuch nahi raha toh best hai tum bhi safe hum bhi safe but just think what happen when god exist..the choice is yours
Are bhai agr God exist bhi krta hoga to aisa thodi hogi ki wo Khud ki worship krvana chahta hoga or chahta hoga ki saare usko respect kre bina jaane ki wo exist krta hai. Agar aisa krvana hai to pehle koi proof to hona chahiye na ki wo exist krta hai or Religious books proof ni hai uske hone ka yeh saari humans ne likhi hai khud ke fayde ke liye
Let me try to make it clear.
May be.....
Your green is my blue and my green is your blue.
But if both of us see an object which appears to me as green and which appears to be blue to you, but whatever we see we agree that its one object and we agree to give it a common name.
If we name it red, then my green which is your blue is red for the language.
So all my greens will be green for me and I will call it red.
Your blue will be blue for you always you will call it red.
Both of us will be calling it red, but can we be sure that it appears to be same to both???
So knowledge is never 100% or knowledge is not defined to be something 100%.
😅 that's what vimoh said 99% he doesn't need to have 100% it's far enough to refute the argument some mysterious being farted and universe came into existence.
arre bhai.. your green and my blue thodi hota hai. you dont get to decide that blue is green or that green is red.
The point of language is that we have collectively decided/predecided that the greenscreen is a greenscreen because we collectively agree what green looks like to us. cant call it redscreen and say that its "my truth" . chal bsdk! These are objective and collective facts.
If you want to get into subjective truths in this example, it would be something like you saying 'I like green, it make me FEEL good, or it's my favorite color or I hate green' stuff like that and I can't really disagree with your experience. I can however disagree with you about my feelings of green.
Woh aapko unke andar nahi lete Vimoh Sir bas aapki baaton ko le raha hain... You need to be careful I guess😂
11:37
Arre bhai ye dusra banda poore video mein keh rha hai subjective experience matter se nahi aata lmao.Scientists ne living goat banayi thi matter se 😂.Bina brain(matter) ke vaise bhi ye kuch experience nhi kar payega.
I think the point about axiomatic truths needed a little more attention.
A proof in mathematics is not using "evidence" as we might understand from physics. a proof is a chain of logical conclusions based on certain assumptions. an axiom is a special kind of assumption but an assumption still. the reason why axioms are special is that we have not found an exception to the axiom's statement, YET, but there is no way to prove it using more fundamental truths.
the best example is of Law of Complement: a (boolean) statement can't be true and false at the same time. there is no way to "prove" it as such but assuming otherwise would break down our understanding of logic itself. if, however, tomorrow we find a contradiction to this law, unlikely but theoretically possible, then all of modern philosophy, mathematics, physics would have to be re-written. axioms are therefore not universal truths but the most basic assumptions we must make before we can even begin to work.
also, 1+1=2 does have a proof. it is over 300 pages long. Whitman's Principia. pehle woh padh ke aao. 😆
i have had this kind of conversation with philosophy students. philosophically it is near impossible to know if any of our observations can be trusted. however, the physical sciences start with the assumption that if multiple experiences correlate then the observations are reliable (not "trusted"). it is an important hack we need to get work done. no professors of science talk about it but they should.
if matters can create consciousness ness, then why can't we bring dead back to life..
as mordern human knows each cell of human body and how it functions.. then why a dead person can't be brought back to life ?
replace damaged part and bring the dead man alive..
this question really shook me
If a lamp is burning and the flame goes out, will it burn again when we refill the oil?
no but we can light it up...
exactly my point
who gives that first kick..
in a mother's womb when the first heart bit starts, who turns on ignition... what is that..
and once turned on it beats till one dies..
also human knows how a heart functions each artery vains chamber etc etc.. then why can't we restart a dead heart and run it for another 70 years
@@vimohwho lights that flame in us and what is that flame
It'll be a flame. But would it be the same flame?
why my replies aren't showing
who was this guy who was defending advaita vedanta using subjective experience..Instead he should have been taking a position to refute subjective experiences 😂
The subjectivity itself is consciousness.
@@karansarin1986 How ? I think they both are mutually inclusive
@@SUCcCk When you're conscious of something, you say...
"I am alive"
"I am aware of Qutub Minar"
"I know my foot hurts"
"I think you're a thief"
"I feel sexy"
No matter what the object of the experience you're having is, the subject is always you.
It is you who is being subjected to all these experiences.
YOU ARE THE SUBJECT
and
YOU ARE CONSCIOUS
Therefore,
SUBJECT = CONSCIOUS,
or, we can say
Subjectivity = Consciousness
Yes, but everything is subjective because of consciousness but some conscious being can't realise an rational subjectivity like humans
It's like an tinder amount of difference, And I think that collection of similar subjectiveness
Creates a objective facts in humane world
गूंगे आदमी को भी गुड़ मीठा लगता है।
In Atheism , is it like we have to deny the historical existence of 'people' like Krishn and Ram , and regard them mere mythological characters?
I'd rather say that they were pure humans, the mystical stories related to them are just mere exaggeration about there persona..people put them in the cage called 'Temple' , and said we cannot follow what they did because they are Gods and we are humans.very similar to what happend with Buddh and Mahavir.
My Atheism would regard them all as 'Great Souls' , The 'Maha-atmans' (Not mystical..purely humanly)
Vimoh Bhai, ye Jo janab hain inko jalebi banakar bechni chahiye, ye bohot ghumate hai
This is a ridiculous discussion. What is the main objective of believing in something? Is the objective of believing in Ram the same as believing in Jesus? The concept of ex-"hindu" itself is cringe. What are you excommunicating from exactly? what is "hindu"? To say, philosophy can be explained to anyone simply.... is a false statement.
Jay bhim 💙 sir
General logo ki mehnat ki college seat khate ho😂 jaahil jai bhim jai neem wale😂
We expect truthful scientific research oriented informative knowledgeable videos for Spiritual seeker on
Unbelievable mysterious powerful spiritual path
Theoretical and practical
Spiritual science and philosophy
of
' Ramlal ji siyag sidhayog '
Nath Guru Parampara
Shiv Marg
Kundalini yoga
for
Self realisation , iternal spiritual awareness , peaceful life and
Peaceful bright future of human and world .
Samarthyashali Guru Parampara me dikshit hone ke baad hi manushya ke
Man , Praan , Deh , Chitta , Buddhi , Ahankar
me parivartan hone lagata hai aur jiv mukti ke or agresar hote rahata hai .
Aatmanubhuti hi
shradha , vishwas , bhakti ka mul aadhar hai aur sarvashreshtha praman hai .
Towards the Truth.
❤
Es vishay per videos banaye.
😮
Bhaiya ye atheist channel hai.
@@vimoh
Thanks
Cum se cum privately & personally. ..... baat kare
Pakistani Mulhid
Ghalib kamal
Zafar Heretic
Adam Seeker
Azaad Ground
Koharam
Apostate Imam
Ex Muslim Suchwala
Sameer
Sahil
❤
I have concluded that Advaita is just some philosopher's frustration with the inefficiency of human language or worse, his own frustration in not using language efficiently
The same reason why I prefer modern expositions rather than Traditional ones.
Traditional ones will mess up the thing,unless you totally buy their framework.
Indian epistemology relies on absolute certainty, which will appear too theoretical for practical purposes.
(Not saying all schools did so)
There are 30 known constants of the universe, and if only one of them differed by 0.001%, nothing would exist. So, there must be a higher entity that fine-tuned the universe very precisely, keeping it from unchanging; otherwise, nothing would be possible. The idea of an infinite regression is impossible because we exist. If it were infinite, we wouldn't be at this stage. Therefore, there must be a beginning, a final cause that doesn't have any cause to exist, proving our existence. This entity is referred to as a higher power and possesses attributes at an omni level. In Islam, it is called the one and only God, 'Allah.'
Consciousness is nothing but electrical impulses inside the brain.
Is aadmi ko sapne se nikalo. Salute to Vimoh for patience.
tamaam .
No people will say that " you read the wrong english translations written by missionaries, westerners to show hindus in a bad light".
God is in Maths
Then Give me a mathematical equation or a derivation to prove the existence of God.
@@ShivKumar-vs8yt binary 110
Ap phely atheist ho jisko hindu follow nai karay 😮bcz apnay sirf islam ko nahi target kia 😂 mai toh apkay support mai bilkul bhi nahi hun but thanks kahon ge phely atheist ko jisko views or subscriber ka dar nahi 😂 baqion ki tarah doglay nahi niklay. Aik ko nahi sab ko kia target but mai phr bhi kahun ge Duniya mai aik religion sacha toh hai koi toh hai yeh duniya bananay wala aisay apnay app nahi hojata baqi ap jisko mano ya na mano muja kia muja bus Hinduism kay baray mai jana tha yeh jo humray peechay paray howay har kisi ko support karay pagalo ki tarah bus wo islam ko target karay
manlo duniya ko banane wala entity "X" hain ! Toh "X" kaise existence mein aya? Matlab uska bhi toh creator hoga? Aur agar uska creator koi nahi hain toh ye man lene mein kya dikkat hain ki duniya ka bhi creator koi nahi hain? Every creation need not have a creator !
And agar chize better samajhni hain then follow acharya prashant ! You will have better understanding.
surah iklas mai bata toh dia hai
Anyways God bhi agar dependent ho toh kia faida usko God khanay ka
Duniya mai har cheaz depend zaror hoty hai even kay hum bhi lakin God nahi hotah dependent wo independent hai koi toh farq hona chaiyeh dependent or independent mein
Apnay kaha agar yeh duniya X nay banye us X ko kis banaya
Agar us X ko koi banay wala hotah toh phr wo God hotah na phr usko bananay wala usay bara phr usay bara yun dependent or independent mai koi farq he nahi hona tha
Ye surah iklas ki translation hai
Say (O Muhammad ()): "He is Allah, (the) One.
2. "Allah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks).
3. "He begets not, nor was He begotten;
4. "And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him."
Koi toh farq hona chaiyeh hum may or insano mai agar God bhi humari tarah howa toh kia faida usko God kahney ka like humari tarah khana pena sona jagna shadi karna bachay etc
Toh God independent hota hai or God sirf Allah talah hai jiska na koi bhai hai na bhen or na humsafar or na baap maa wo akela hai or benayaaz hai wo independent hai hum unpay depend kartay hain wo hum pay nahi karta or na he kisi or pay
@@Islamigirl3511Allah ne ye duniya kese banai? Jab kuch nhi tha sirf Allah tha to usne ye duniya kaha se bana di? Vo bhi usse bahar or abhi Allah kaha hai? Agar jannat me hai to idhar kyu nahi a sakta? Agar uske banai Hui 1 jagah jisse so called "Jannat" kehte ho vaha ja sakta ha to dusri banai Hui ye jagah "duniya" me kyu nahi a sakta?
@@MohanPurohit-vp8hj most stupid question 😑Allah yahan bhi hai in saray question ka juwab Quran may mil chuka hai isko sunay seh behtar phely khud he parh lo bewaqoof bhot he koi slow ho lagta tum khud tahqeek karo. Yeh kia kisi kay muh say kuch bhi sun liya humay kia pata wo sach bol ra jhoot is liyeh ap khud he parh lein
And secondly humnay computer banaya toh hum computer mai kun nahi ja sakty us so called computer kay under hum agar chalay bhi jayein toh nazar kun nahi a saktay ???
@@Islamigirl3511 Pehle to stupid question keh k jawab hi nahi dia uska or baate banaye ja rhi tum slow ho, ye ho, vo ho, are baji apka rishta nahi lena hamne sirf jawab dy mere questions ka vo to dia nhi ja rha itna hi stupid question ha to de de jawab mene Qur'an nhi padi apne to padi haina to dena, or rhi baat computer ki to computer ko banane se pehle uske saare parts, meterial, chemical hamare pass mojud the tab jake bohot mehnat se hamne ek computer banaya fir vo bhi evolve hota gya, Lekin me puch rha hu "Agar sabse pehle sirf Allah hi tha uske alava kuch nhi tha to ye duniya kaha se nikal di uske Jeb mese nikal di kya? Agar sirf Allah hi hota to ajj bhi sirf Allah hi rehna chahiye tha lekin ye duniya kese a gyi? Me ye nhi keh rha ki ye duniya kyu banai ya kisne banai, Me puch rha hu "Kese" banai???
Vimoh sir, you have shown who is the boss.
You are the epitome of rationlism.
May your tribe increase 😅
Whenever I look at this man, I just see how sad life he have ,getting Nothing just supports a few people in his own echo chamber trying to get some dopamine by a few thousand people
1) You said "How sadistic life he have". By definition, "sadistic" means someone who enjoys inflicting pain on others. Now I want to know what kind of behaviour of him is "sadistic"?
2) You said "He just supports a few people in his own echo chamber trying to get some dopamine by a few thousand people." Now my argument is, if that is the case why he would allow himself people with opinions completely different that him to debate with him?
@shreyyadav8809 1 : that was a spelling mistake I corrected it
2.that's my question what he proves by doing that nothing in the end nothing he wins every argument people cheer him in his comment and that's how he get dopamine it's like a self Gladiator fight that's it
@@rahul1936 At first you said "He just supports a few people in his own echo chamber", and then you are saying something else in the argument after that, I think it is kind of flawed argument.
On the other hand the logic that you have given, don't you think it applies to all the babas and sadhus out there who have a large following?
@@shreyyadav8809 you are just thinking it's an argument Yeah let me give points and win from logic and all the stuff I am just asking the end purpose of all of this you people will bring religion and all things yeah that's negative yeah that's full of social evil and blah blah blah but what's your idea it doesn't matter how many people have how many followers what is the main reason what is the purpose at the end all matters what he have as a purpose nothing just an echo Chamber of the people is just an middle aged man living with no purpose in life so he created one that's it all to be here with people like you in the end nothing in the end it's nothing for you people
Few thousand intellectuals are far more better than millions of idiots.
Why you didn't marry
No one is marrying Atheist losers with cartoon posters
Why SHOULD he?