This was shown to me in a vision when I was 8 years old. For four years, I received the exact vision again, until I was 12 years old; always precisely the same; until I had experience this vision about ten times. I meditated on it many times, over the decades. Human philosophical understanding and the language to communicate this reality, was slow to obtain. It took me 55 years of life and meditation to understand the vision. 8+55=63... Thanks for making the video. I have been learning Hindi and some Sanskrit for 3 1/2 years, and I plan a very long stay in India.....
@@ash9x9 It was one vision, repeated exactly, over a period of four years; short and concise. I was between 8 and 12 years old. I am a blue eyed, Anglo-American, whose family came to North America during the middle of the 1600's. The British "Fathers" of Nation and Religion LOST their power over us as the time went on. We established our own Founding Fathers in all avenues of human, social interactions. I began this life in Detroit Michigan through parents who brought me into an aberrant form of Christianity. I grew up on "8 Mile Road", if you ever saw the movie by that name. This is background... Because I was only 8 when this vision first came, I was determined to understand it, even through the fog of human existence. First the fog must settle and dissipate. The vision itself was layered in three abstractions of existence. Like Nachiketa (Katha Upanishad), I believe The Eternal Essence, within, was showing me the inferior offerings of my progenitors. Sorry for the background. The vision, itself, is imagery, one thought, and understanding and awareness at the end; always the same. A picture is worth a thousand words... I will need time to paint with words... I am happy to share more if you are still interested... Perhaps this can help to stimulate dialog on this important topic.
Beautiful and Profound. This is how I see sections of your video. Advait, the un-manifested is the only thing, the one thing, that is everything, (in our manifested state) we call it nothing or something (when mind fails to comprehend it, it becomes difficult to explain with words/language). Any comment on Advait, logically violates its definition. We are in manifested state, so the un-manifest always remains beyond our comprehension. Advait is beyond experience. So in first part, the hymns says ; how can we explain or talk about that is not manifested ? In second section when it becomes two, which is Dvait, it is a manifested state and that can be understood. So now Rig Veda explains: Within Advait Shiva, raises fire. Fire is form of energy, Shakti, Fire emits light, observer of this creation is Shiva, and immediately offsprings love between Shiva and Shakti. This is now Dvait - the two. Actually it’s three: Shiva, Shakti and connection/experience which is the light of love. Mathematically it is N+1 ( if N=0 nothing, then that is the only thing or everything, the Shiva - the one and only thing and remains non manifested.) If N is 1 then it has manifested, concious (seed of Aatma, Chetan, feeling of being alive), duality(N+1), there is experience of love, fire, Shakti and this duet of Shiv/Shakti has inseparable bond. Shakti is energy and as we know it can change its state from one form to another, fire, heat, light, expansion, sound, vibrations…. innumerable states of energy. Energy (law of conservation) cannot be created nor destroyed, it just changes its states/forms. N can now be any number, few or infinite forms of energy represents N. These uncountable states of energy forms our Universe. (In N+1), The 1 is Shiva, who is the observer of this various forms of energy and is experiencing love and is in state of bliss, called SatChitAnand. Are you aware observer(witness/knower) experiencing nature, who understands that the environmental around us is up made of various states/forms of energy/Shakti ? Who are you ? Ponder upon this. Pure Knowledge leads to Bliss. Jai SatChitAnand. 💕Namaste.🙏
The truth has no beginning or end, i have been studying rig veda and practicing agnihotra, and i saw that one purusha, didnt go into fully, he is like a firey ring of light, the monkey mind cannot percieve the eternal nature of time, it is terrifying to the mind actually, that is death, yama, the soul.
Ironically modern science and astronomy are coming up with the same theories now. Nobel prize winners in 2022 declared that the whole universe is just a virtual reality.
Truth cannot be explained as we are finite beings in the level of understanding. But truth is infinite. It is like making a monkey understand Political Science...But salute the person who is explaining very well. Hats of to you, Sir.❤❤
@@vishveshtadsare3160you tell me how it isnt ? Truth is different from Science and Science can never be an impediment to truth like how it is not an impediment to god 😂 let go of your ego
What is Existence? When we say that something do “exist”, -what do we really mean? If we are in the business of contemplating on ultimate reality we cannot afford to be sloppy in our inquiry into the true nature of reality. Our choice of words and concepts can either open doors into new understandings or close the gates into new horizons of insights effectively. For this reason it is of outmost importance to know exactly what we mean when we use certain terms. Not in order to win philosophical debates but for us to give rise to insight and the removal of obscuring limitations in our own mind stream. If we choose to introduce a supernatural being (or principle) to explain reality we have effectively stepped over into the realm of personal faith rather than remaining in the clear light of critical thinking and investigation. Let’s look into the impossible proposition that a supernatural entity is the producer of all phenomena; -if the “creator” is independent of its creations it is not part of the same continuum as its creations and can thus not be the cause of such phenomena. In the same way as only a mango-seed can produce a mango-tree with its fruits. There needs to be an obvious link, or continuum between cause and effect in order for a development to take place. If, on the other hand, the proposition indicates that god and its creations are part of the same continuum that would indicate that god share the same nature as its own creations, e.i. being equally changeable, subject to decay and impermanent as its creations. If instead we maintain that god can do whatever he pleases and is subject to no laws or limitations then we are simply cowards trying to escape an unpleasant argument! Resorting to superstitious beliefs will certainly not help us when the time comes. If we believe god is everything what’s the point in prayer or supplication then? If god is regarded as perfect then surely all his creations must be perfect too? In that scenario religion, dogma, sacrifices and precepts would all be unnecessary since god permeates everything anyway. If god somehow is not part of all his creations then where does his field of influence start and where does it end? What’s included and what’s excluded in his sphere of influence in such a scenario? Questions like these are essential to conduct and investigate into if we are truly interested in finding out the true nature of reality. Questions like these should not be used in order to insult others with. They should be used by ourselves in order to transcend our clinging, hang-ups and obscurations. They should be deeply personal and hit the target hard and decisively if their intended meaning will have an eye-opening effect. Let’s talk again about the term “existence”. What do we really mean when we say that something exist? Do we, by that term, mean that something is observable, tangible and exist independently of an observer? Or, do we believe that something exists as an appearance to an observer only due to a situation of causes and conditions but lack any inherent true existence beyond that? Or perhaps we mean that phenomena can exist independently without causes and conditions? We need to be clear about what we really mean when we use a word such as “existence”. If we don’t, our whole interest into the the true nature of phenomena will be muddled and we will not be able to critically determine truth from falsehood in our own thinking! For us to understand what the word “creation” really means we must first investigate our views on the word “existence”. If we believe that nothing exists independently of other causes and conditions our conclusion must be that nothing is ever truly “created” either. How can something that is dependent on other factors be said to be independently existing? To be honest, isn’t change and impermanence the only true attributes we can honestly give to phenomena? If we reconcile our attachment to independently truly existent phenomena with the observable reality we might come up with the idea that phenomena somehow oscillate between states of being truly and independently existent and states of decay and change. Such notions are groundless for the simple reason that it suggests that phenomena sometimes are susceptible to causes and conditions, and sometimes not. For something to go from being dependent on other causes and conditions to being (temporarily) independent of such factors still needs other causes for the change to take place! We don’t need to observe reality for very long to conclude that nothing harbours such oscillating qualities. It is also equally illogical to propose that we have two parallel realities where some phenomena only appear due to temporary causes and conditions while other (types of) phenomena do exists independently and without any apparent causes and conditions. Such reality would be an impossible reality to both live in and experience. And again, it is a theory that doesn’t correspond with the observable reality! If we, on the other hand, maintain the notion that everything exists independently of causes and conditions then that can only be true if they where never created and will never change or die. Why? Something can only be truly independent and truly existent if it relies on nothing for its existence. Is that the type of world we see around us? In such a world how could change be even possible? If we try to reconcile this by producing the confused notion that something suddenly come to existence out of previously being (in a state of) non-existence? If we don’t believe in cause and effect we must ask ourselves what instigates such sudden arising without being a causal factor? If we at this point introduce a supernatural entity of some kind to justify such spontaneous arising as the “creator” we need to investigate into the real reasons why we need this supernatural entity in our reasonings? If we don’t want to get really stuck in our pursuit for the real truth we need, at this point, really ask ourselves why have we introduced a supernatural entity (god) into our speculations about reality? If it is because our (impossible) clinging to our notions of reality as being truly existent needs a “creator” to be believable we are at least being half-honest to ourselves. But that doesn’t mean we are any nearer to being in a better alignment with the true nature of reality! Far from it! Somehow we must work much harder on sharpening our faculties and adopt a much firmer grip on our logical abilities so that we can come to see how utterly impossible our notions on “existence” and “creation” are. The bottom line is that we are letting our limited experience of apparent reality fool us into thinking we know what ultimate reality is made of. We are not taking into account that our present state of very limited understanding is projecting our fantasies onto an illusion of ultimate reality. At present we wholeheartedly believe in duality and in the notion of truly existing phenomena and therefor apply those erroneous assumptions onto our fantasies about reality. This is the root-cause for all our unfulfilled desires and subsequent sufferings. Due to our incessant insistence on the application of false projections we meet with nothing but resistance and obstructions from reality. Do we really believe we can turn reality over to our way of thinking? Are we really that presumptuous in our arrogance? Or, are we not starting to slowly realise that we should begin looking more closely into the real reason why our version of reality fit so poorly with the reality we meet everyday? Hasn’t the world and reality been clear enough in its continuous insistence on bringing us the very clear and unequivocal messages, over and over again, that our alignment with reality is lacking in some very fundamental ways? Are we not reaching a point now when it has become abundantly clear that relying blindly on uninformed assumptions about the nature of reality will only prolong our agony and utter bewilderment? Isn’t it time to instead start the process of really come to understand reality instead of relying on hope, fear and superstition? Welcome to the Path of Buddha Dharma! You decide when to embark upon the true path, but be assured that it is the true and only path. It is the universal path. The only path of wisdom known throughout all worlds and throughout all times.
@@adhvaitha Thank you for your reply. It’s just a matter on how long we are going to prolong our stay I samsara? In general, being in the very fortunate situation of having acquired a human body it is plain foolishness to squander away all our precious little time on side-tracks and dead-end practices that we must abandon anyway later on, if we ever get the chance of meeting with the real dharma again. If our goal is to liberate ourselves from samsara I suggest we do everything that is in our powers to find the true path that doesn’t deceive us into all the trappings of samsaric attitudes and behaviors. Everybody knows that the path of the Buddha surely delivers on that promise if we care to implement the teachings properly and diligently.
I totally get what you are saying. For a serious seeker, who is ready for absolute truth none of these stories on creation, rituals, etc., are required. But how many are actually at this level? And I think this is the beauty of Santana Dharma. Where we have something for a person at whatever level to help him progress. And coming to the ultimate path, there is also 'Adhvaitha Vedanta' and 'Ajatavada', the teaching of non-creation which is exactly about what you are saying. It's about the truth and nothing else. Thank you,
@@adhvaitha I absolutely agree that the present level of understanding in the student determines what teachings should be given. That of course always becomes a problem when general teachings are being given to a larger audience of no specific type. Any philosophical system that maintain the notion of non-creation and non-duality must also abandon ALL CONCEPTUAL NOTIONS for it to be truthful. That means that concepts such as Athman, Anathman, God or Brahman cannot be tagged on to a non-dual/ non-creation philosophy without returning back into the fold of duality and thus destroying its own philosophical position. Answers to how to resolve these contradictions can be found in the teachings on Śūnyatā, Prajnaparamitha and in the teachings on the Middle Way by Nagarjuna.
Thanks a lot for your work man 🙏🏻 thanks a lot lot to you in the era of ignorants and Atheist who dont even read their scriptures and engulf it from the media in a no context form its so rare and precious to have you all 🙏🏻
Nice.. Is there anything mentioned in our scriptures about the structure of the universe, shape of the universe etc? What does Jambu dvipa refer to ? Where is Meru parvat?
Meru parvat is our Spine. Mountains are our bones, rivers are our blood and nerves I think are the trees or hair not sure about nerves. I forgot the rest.
I am a ordinary person having no knowledge about Vedas or Upanishads, but have keen interest in listening to purana's and stories... Since past few weeks I am actually listening to mudgala purana, it's a talk between Rishi mudgala and daksha prajapati, where in one chapter it's mentioned that nirguna niraakaara Parabrahman ( here Ganapathi as vakratunda & swanandesha ( swa- ananda- Isha ... pure consciousness full of bliss , not the son of shiva & parvati ) decides to manifest himself as Gunaesha and from Gunaesha emerges a huge powerful fire ball ,which gives birth to pancha bhootha's and rest of the creations like cosmic egg, virata purusha, trinity and Shakti , the 14 lokas etc etc ... could this be the reason why in rigveda lord Indra and agni are given more importance....?
That point, pethaps even God does not know, God is like an eternal automated system, there is no personhood by our idea of personhood there, like a non-local continuum state, the transcendant purusha. There is nothing beyond purusha, the end of the journey, the final end.
God is light we are small souls living in the physical body ,I person who created as ,he is supreme soul he is everything. father and our mother he not living in physical reality he far away from physical reality there no time space from him he creator the universe name aurtperumjothi
No books can bring true knowledge and insight to our mind. Only our own rigorous investigation and conclusions have the capacity to establish unshakable insights in our own mind. In the best of circumstances a text can act as an important pointer towards a direction in which we must investigate. The mind is only satisfied with its own conclusions and that relies entirely on the depth in which we have penetrated reality. Doubt will always arise if our knowledge is based on observations and speculations by others. If we experience doubt we know that we need to go deeper in our own investigation of reality. A full resolve can only happen in the realm of no thought. Therefor we need to combine our spiritual work of thinking and reading with meditative experiences in order to transcend the limitations of our intellectual mind. To proclaim the truth of reality to the world is always going to be a fraudulent endeavour fraught with simplifications and distortions. In most cases we would do much better to just sit in stillness at the feet of our guru than chasing after famous words put down in literature by self-proclaimed avatars of wisdom.
Vedas and Upanishads are simply pointers to me. They provide a map to navigate this complex reality. Without them, we would be lost in this material world.
@@adhvaitha Very good! Keeping an open mind and trust our own abilities to gradually understand reality is all we can ask of ourselves. The inborn primordial wisdom will gradually shine through if we apply skillful methods and grow our confidence in our abilities.
Nice ... But ..It's not a Rig Veda.. It's Rig Ved. Ved means - Scared knowledge...contrary VEDA has no meaning. Also We shall respect the pronunciation for our Names.
It is Veda. Please learn Sanskrit. Veda is Hindi way of chopping down the vowels at the end. Rama , Siva becomes Ram, Shiv for Hindi speakers. Rama is clearly written as ra and ma and nor as ra and M with a binding at top of ra
Ok make a video and upload it along with evidence on whether to call Veda or Ved and if how they are different. No point in spending time on unnecessary criticism
Well, I agree and disagree as Rig Veda is not the oldest literature . I agree about part of the creation in Rig Vedas and human is not fully developed to understand as dimensions distort ion and religious belief systems keep them further away from real truth. We all know dinosaurs existed millions of years back, so creation has been there for millions of years, not thousands. Astral projection was possible through chakra and time traveling to extend human understanding. God exists for humans and living beings and God is pure energy and through consciousnesses, we can attain through the teaching of gods
Technically, Vedas are said to be 'eternal', They are simply the truths of existence which become accessible to different rishis when they reach a certain level of awareness.
@@adhvaitha I agree to you in this topic and I wondered sometime why as human need to know creator or about creation.Are we capable or responsible enough for this topic.
Nonsense! The most ancient still existing text is the Surya Siddhanta, already written at the end of the Kritayuga, while most of the hymns of the Rigveda are from the Dvaparayuga and only a few from the Tretayuga.
Why do you need to monkey balancing by quoting Bible. In bible, genesis is described differently, garden of eden, original sin etc. It is another point that Bible literally borrowed the imagery of upanishad. Jivatma is 'jiva' or eva. Atma is Adam. The upanishadic imagery of Jivatma and Atma in the tree was copied from upanishad, without understanding the allegory properly.
Our intellect cannot grab it? I can! If there is neither existence nor nonexistence it can only mean there was existence in a state outside of our so called space-time-continuum which means: in a higher dimension. The creation happened through a dimension fall through the reduction of speed (in our space-time-continuum no higher speed than lightspeed is possible, in the next higher dimension no speed lesser than lightspeed is possible).
@@adhvaithathat's no intelligent argument. The unmanifested state is still a state. In the Upanishads it is related to Brahman who according to the Puranas created Brahma by saying AUM (OM) to his dream or his meditation. All this shows that an existence is meant which is unrecognizable from our space-time-continuum which means a physical state in a higher dimension.
My simple question is Can you experience anything just outside perception or consciousness whatever it may be space time, matter, energy, dark matter. If no then you are just believing something which is not your experience. You are believing matter exist outside consciousness.
Appreciate your discourse. Please don’t use the word God. God is an Abrahamic concept. The Advaita concept of Brahman is significantly different from God.
@@adhvaitha What does God” “truly” mean? Where is it mentioned in the scriptures? You quote the Rig Veda? Where does the term God occur. What is the term used in the Sanskrit verse? We should use the term in the verse that is translated. The term God creeped into Sanatana Dharma after the British came. In Advaita belief there is no duality. God is an entity different from the Universe as expressed in Advaita. Everything that exists, what we know, and don’t know is Brahman. Aham Brahasmi. Brahman is a superset of the Abrahamic God.
The word 'God' will have the meaning that we assign to it. Swami Vivekananda uses the word 'God' in his lectures. Every religion uses the word God in their own way. Obviously the word God is not in the vedas because Vedas are in Sanskrit. But we can use the word 'God' to denote 'Brahman' if we want to.
@@adhvaitha Sanatana Dharma is an assimilation of many faiths, that evolved over thousands of years. It accommodates beliefs that that differ with each other. From the name of your RU-vid channel, it is assumed you follow Adi Shankaracharya’s explanation of Brahman as postulated in Advaita, which he preached. Hinduism is an anglicised derivative of Sanatana Dharma. The term Hinduism itself is derived from Hindu, derived from Sindhu, the river. It was used by Persians to refer to the people of the sub-continent. The name of the country; India itself is an anglicised name. Hence quite a few people prefer to use Bharat even when communicating in English. Swami Vivekananda was indeed an exceptional monk. In the process of explaining Sanatana Dharma to the world he did the religion a disservice by propagating the term Hinduism and adopting Western concepts in order to explain Sanatana Dharma to English speaking people. Using English to communicate Sanatana Dharma, led to its anglicisation. This does not mean we should refrain from using English to communicate. However, God as commonly believed by people is separate from the universe and is believed to have power and grant wishes. Sanatana Dharma has no such God. This does not equate to the Advaita belief of Brahman. In many of his teachings Vivekananda defined God in his terms, to explain Brahman. Subsequently, English speaking Hindus, adopted many terms such as God, gods, goddesses, idols, Lord into their vocabulary, while talking about Hinduism. Unfortunately other learned men like Swami Chinmayananda, and many English speaking men of cloth preached this anglicised version of Santana Dharma. You will seldom or never hear the term God, used by a Purohit/Pujari/Swamy in a discourse in Sanskrit, Hindi or the many regional languages of Bharat. If ask a lay person to explain God, they will respond with the Abrahamic explanation of God/Allah. Trying to morph this understanding to mean something different from God/Allah detracts from the notion of Brahman. That is why I advocate that people who have some knowledge of Sanatana Dharma scriptures, use the terms therein rather than dilute the profoundness of Sanatana Dharma by adopting terms that have their established meanings, which are alien to Sanatana Dharma scriptures, Finally, just because every religion uses the term God and supposedly defines God in their own terms is not a valid reason to copy them. Sanatana Dharma is the worlds oldest living religion. Christianity and Islam are less than 2000 years old. Sanskrit is older than English. Let each take pride in their own religion. That said, Why should we adapt our terminology to suit theirs, when in many cases our terminology is superior to theirs.
😂😂😂😂😂 hahahaha Creation not happened in one fine morning. It has been happening since time immemorial and will continue to happening for endless period with its nature of change.
When you have to "read between lines" then you know that the original author had no idea what he was talking about just bullshitting like all religious "thinkers" do. Or do you really think he was running out of words to explain things clearly...? Waiting for someone else who might have those missing words an explain his gibberish...? Unreasonable delusion is the longer name for religion.
There is no need to Read between the lines If and only if we had the exact vocabulary from the Authors of the Rig Veda And the Authors of the Rig Veda Never wrote anything down It was pass down via word of mouth Before English language as we know it today So how is anybody suppose to make sense of what is written Without interpretation and without reading between the lines the only way to find out is by experiencing it So that is the best way Because reading between the lines creates infinite number of interpretations This can appear as bullshit
If you want straight forward Metaphysics, read Upanishads. Upanishads are the conclusion of Veda and the final knowledge has been written there in a more straightforward way.
Sorry friend, none of this is true. Just because the veda mentions it dosent mean it is true. Creation was created by very different energies for a very different purpose.
To assert "none of this is true" you must have knowledge of the truth. Why don't you tell rest of us what is the truth. But please don't be as lame as " creation was created by...different purposes".
To reject the veda is pure ignorance, the dark clouds of ignorance as the rgveda calls it, only to be broken apart by the radiant sun of self-evident knowledge, the veda. Please my friend, may you respect the sages and their gift of vedas! Take it from one who has studied rgveda alone for 2 years now with yajna agnihotra, the veda has saved my life and brought me ever closer to enlightenment, prosperity, happiness.
