Is there more evidence to support the following of this religion over the Abrahamic religions? What makes it more “true”?
For starters, Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) cannot fit in to the narrow definition of ‘Religion’ per say. It is much more than that. Sanatana Dharma or Eternal way of life. There is no english equivalent to the word “Dharma” , roughly it can be said “that which sustains” is called Dharma.
In Sanatana Dharma Philosophy there is no such thing as “True” and “False” religions. To quote Swami Vivekananda " We do not progress from error to truth, but from truth to truth, from lower truth to higher truth" Vedanta is certainly the Highest Truth.
Any Truth must be universal not partial, Whether you believe in Gravity or not, Gravity will have its effect. So No “God” can be partial based on the belief of his followers.
Below is a verse in Vedantic Scripture.
"As the different streams having their sources in different places all mingle their water in the sea, so, O Lord, the different paths which people take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee. "
This is a quote from Bhagavad Gita
"Whosoever comes to Me, through whatsoever form, I reach them; all are struggling through paths which in the end lead to Me. "
Here “Me” implies merging with Universal consciousness not “personal god”
Is there any evidence for the existence of this “Universal consciousness”?
What makes it “truer” than the alternative?
I dont know what do you mean by Evidence. To have a meaningful understanding, one must glance through the concepts. You can test it through reasoning and Logic.
If you believe that you exist then you are accepting the existence of Brahman, even if you deny your existence, you are accepting it.
Can there be more evidence to the existence of Brahman than ourselves?
I’m happy to let it drop if you prefer. Thanks for answering my question.
Can there be more evidence to the existence of(fill in the blank) than ourselves? I’m sorry, but almost every religion out there has that line in one form or another. “If you believe that you exist then you are accepting the existence of Brahman, even if you deny your existence, you are accepting it.” Uh…no. Not playing your game is not a part of playing your game.
One is not conscious of his Body or Mind in dreamless deep sleep, Yet after waking up one says “I slept well”. Now who is the Experiencer here.
I find quote of Swami Sivananda relevant here.
earn from sleep
study the condition of deep sleep, where there is neither the play of the mind nor the senses.
there are no objects.
there is neither attraction nor repulsion.
wherefrom do you derive ananda in sleep?
this experience is universal.
everyone says: ‘i slept soundly. i knew nothing. i was very happy in sleep.’
during deep sleep you rest in satchidananda atman and enjoy the atmic bliss which is independent of objects.
the difference between deep sleep and samadhi - super consciousness - is that in deep sleep there is the veil of ignorance, and in samadhi this veil is removed.
from sleep you draw four conclusions:
- you exist; there is a feeling of continuity of consciousness.
- there is advaita - oneness.
- you are ananda svarupa - bliss itself.
- the world is mithya - a play of the mind.
names and forms are illusory.
the world is mere play of the mind.
when there is mind, there is world.
if you can produce destruction of the mind consciously through yoga sadhana - practice, the world will disappear, and you will feel the atman everywhere. "
I bet that all sounds just magnificent when you’re already a believer.
If you have never experienced this osmosis of unfathomable proportions, it can be difficult to reflect. The solar system is calling to you via a resonance cascade. Can you hear it? Have you found your myth?
Well, I guess you didnt get what I meant, This is one of the difficulties of passing judgments on subject before glancing through its concepts and having basic idea of it.
Vedanta declares that you are "God " and you exist. Even if you say that I dont exist, now who is denying that? It is you, right?
In Vedanta , Atheism has whole new meaning.
This is what Swami Vivekananda had to say on Atheism
“Not believing in the glory of our own soul is what the Vedanta calls atheism.”
- Swami Vivekananda
We’ve already got a definition for “atheism”, so there’s no need for yours. Perhaps you should come up with a new word that specifically means “Not believing in the glory of our own soul”?
sniff Umm, who lit the incense?
Perhaps you could explain who “Swami Vivekananda” is and why I should pay attention to what he has to say?
Me, because when I wake up and say “I slept well”, it’s based on how I as an awake person feel, not on what I don’t recall from sleep. It’s based on me feeling well-rested, perhaps, or rid of the aches and pains from the previous day, or simply full of energy to start the day. Or I might say, “I slept badly”, because I still feel exhausted. All of it based on how I currently feel, not on how I felt.
Not at all, I dont consider myself “Believer” as Vedanta says, Question everything, dont accept anything without proper enquiry and analysis.
Vedantic religion cannot be classified in to theism , atheism, agnosticm or deism.
Here the scriptures consists of nothing but scientific enquiry. There is a debate between various people, There is question and negation, these scriptural debates are called “Upanishads”
In Mandukya Upanishad you can find scientific analysis of three states of experience, waking state, dreaming state and deep sleep state , Fourth state is called Turiya. Remember, this text dates back to thousands and thousands of years much before the development of field of Psychology .
This is not my definition, This was a quote of Swami Vivekananda.
http://www.belurmath.org/swamivivekananda.htm
This link should help you. You are not obliged to pay attention, you can choose to ignore, But I thought Atheists are different from Theists who would be open minded for discussion, not prejudiced and fundamentalists like Theists.
Do you think that his definition is correct? If you do, own up to it. If you don’t, then why bother quoting it?
Being skeptical and asking you hard questions is not being “prejudiced and fundamentalists”. You’ve made claims, some of which we are having difficulty even parsing. If you’re not willing to be challenged on the claims you make, then you’re in the wrong place.
I dont know why you gave link to some irrelavent site. I guess you are just confusing Vedanta with something else.