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
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
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 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.
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 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 😂😂
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.
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...
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 ...
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 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.
@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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
What is physical? Is it that which we can see and touch? What is spiritual? is it that which we feel? Then what is feelings that we experience? Is the experience that we so often feel and is ethereal in fact not real? Or is it real because we perceive it? Is the emotions we feel chemical reactions in the brain? Or is it because we feel emotion which in turn trigger chemical reactions? Are we humans because we can think? Or thoughts have created what we refer as humans or humanity? Does my body have a soul? or my soul have a body? Or the body and soul in fact one and the same? Towards the endless human curiosity to understand and perceive the profound truths of this universe and the endless discussions we have made to reach there. I for one, towards this endless myriad questions have realised that I know absolutely nothing.
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.
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 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.
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.
I think spirit here is being used as an expression to indicate the current state of existence and all potential states of existence, at a all levels together for an object, and then raised to the universal level.
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.
the first five minutes , they are talking about the heap paradox.Like i show you a heap of sand , and now i remove one grain again and again , when dose it stop being a heap?
lol, it was fun to watch.. Modern Scientists need to learn Sanskrit to breakdown the secrets hidden inside the Vedas.. Just like their Seniors learnt from those Ancient texts.. Keep your Mindset open & respect other beings..
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.
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.
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.
I think this is a new philosophy in itself. The philosophy which views that everything in the world has qualities that associates them with other things and such qualities are non-existent without reference to those other things. One thing I don't get is why one couldn't call what he refers to as 'spirit' simply 'properties'. For example: properties of a human being (maybe compassionate, racist, etc) and properties of a rock (maybe chemically fitted for certain lab experiments, maybe crafted into beautiful statues, etc). Or, one could just call it "qualities', as he has been calling it, without using the term "spirit".
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
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.
So spirit is quality of something but Quality is what Impose on things Using our ideas for a goat Flower is food but a human it may be beauty So quality is due to our thoughts or Brain, not Due to the Flower itself
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
Beautiful discussion. AUM namah Shivaya
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.
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..
Pure Vedanta ❤️🕉️
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
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
I’ve listened to this several times and keep learning new things. Satish is just fantastic.
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.
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
Grateful to Satish for this exchange and for setting me and many others on a new path of inquiry with his kindness and wisdom.
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.
Thank you so very much for sharing this... 🕉️ 🙏
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.
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 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 😂😂
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.
I love the holistic explanation...it s so much like integral theory...a favorite of mine
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...
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 ...
Great minds!
It explains everything Richard Sir🙏
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 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.
@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 like that idea that we should have openness.
Absolutely Brilliant...♾️ ✨🌟
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.
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.
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
Awesome awesome awesome.thank you
Thank you so very much for sharing...
Excellent healthy discussion.
Respect from Bangladesh
Thank you 🌎🌱
Very good discussion's..
Super.👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Such deep and complex philosophy yet so simple
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Wow, just wow!!!
Krishna's words are real , look at that old man he knows the core values meanwhile Indian Babas : 🗿
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
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
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.
you can really see. while dawkins doesn't believe in hinduism. he sure hell respects it more then islam and christianity.
Beautiful and Brilliant. ♾️🌈✨
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.
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.
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.
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"?
Awesome 😍....
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.
Never underestimate the rockiness of a rock 👌👌
Thank you...
Really Beautiful...
💍💎
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.
Honesty spoken at 32:23
What is physical? Is it that which we can see and touch?
What is spiritual? is it that which we feel?
Then what is feelings that we experience? Is the experience that we so often feel and is ethereal in fact not real? Or is it real because we perceive it?
Is the emotions we feel chemical reactions in the brain? Or is it because we feel emotion which in turn trigger chemical reactions?
Are we humans because we can think? Or thoughts have created what we refer as humans or humanity?
Does my body have a soul? or my soul have a body? Or the body and soul in fact one and the same?
Towards the endless human curiosity to understand and perceive the profound truths of this universe and the endless discussions we have made to reach there. I for one, towards this endless myriad questions have realised that I know absolutely nothing.
Great discussion, i really liked statements from both sides
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
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.
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
Interdependence, and dependence-rising: nothing exists on its own. But it's only through dependence on others that a thing can be its own.
Difference in lexicon ≠ misuse of words
Lovely.👍👍👍👍
A Tree is made of elements that are not tree. Mind-blowing
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.
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.
I think spirit here is being used as an expression to indicate the current state of existence and all potential states of existence, at a all levels together for an object, and then raised to the universal level.
extream! summary of sanatan
This is such a perfect example of Barnum statements being thrown around.🙈
The dichotomy of imagination & reality. Satishji you are a wonderful person but I rather agree with Dawkins.
Great
Where is he? We need him to make farmers understand farm laws against farmers protest.
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.
the first five minutes , they are talking about the heap paradox.Like i show you a heap of sand , and now i remove one grain again and again , when dose it stop being a heap?
Mind = blown
Farhan you have any twitter id so we know when you post new videos?
When we realize the entire life on Earth started from Rocks, The spirit of the Rocks becomes more apparent.
I am watching idea discussions that might have happened a millennia ago in nalanda or taxila university.
lol, it was fun to watch.. Modern Scientists need to learn Sanskrit to breakdown the secrets hidden inside the Vedas.. Just like their Seniors learnt from those Ancient texts..
Keep your Mindset open & respect other beings..
He is quoting Vedanta
I have read it, fascinating nothing supernatural but spiritual great Indian work on philosophy
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.
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
We are stardust Richard Dawkins, hence we are connected with Universe or Cosmos in a Grandest way,
It's more of muscle and neural memory than i would say of soul
9:38 sathish says that there is no tree in isolation and requires context...is there any instance wherein a tree stops being a tree?
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)
@16:15, i lose everything!!! Dawkin was very polite!!
Dawking is just a frog in well ...he need b more open.
I think this is a new philosophy in itself. The philosophy which views that everything in the world has qualities that associates them with other things and such qualities are non-existent without reference to those other things.
One thing I don't get is why one couldn't call what he refers to as 'spirit' simply 'properties'. For example: properties of a human being (maybe compassionate, racist, etc) and properties of a rock (maybe chemically fitted for certain lab experiments, maybe crafted into beautiful statues, etc). Or, one could just call it "qualities', as he has been calling it, without using the term "spirit".
They are more interviewing each other than debating. You debate to explore and subject and find the truth. Not to Win!
Dawkins might actually get the point if the word essence was substituted for spirit.
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
Seems to me like it's the same old story, we want to answer things that we cannot answer and never will answer
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
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
So spirit is quality of something but Quality is what Impose on things Using our ideas for a goat Flower is food but a human it may be beauty So quality is due to our thoughts or Brain, not Due to the Flower itself
In a POSITIVE DIALOG, Religion are Not Included. . UNLESS OF DESPERATION,
The modern fanatics lacks this.