I Was Wrong (Which Proves Something Else, Which I Was Right About)

The West Got Hinduism Wrong — And I'm Done Being Quiet
Neo Dharmism | 29 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2eD73ZLMyY

3:37 Hinduism is, by you, tracked to Upanishads, as first big step.

Interesting that you put it earlier than the Gita, which I thought was a part of Mahabharata.

Now, what I've read, Upanishads promote Pantheism: in you, it's Brahman itself which is your atman, and for some reason, what is more potent and knowledgeable than anything somehow enters into intellectual, not just poverty, Christianity admits this to a degree in the Incarnation, but actual error, unless you were never wrong in all of your life, which I find highly improbable as a fact, and highly improbable, you being an intellectual, that you are not aware of this.

Christianity says, God could ask "who touched me" or "my clothes?"
Hinduism seems to say, when I thought the First Christians were Evangelicals, "God" thought so.

6:54 A wave doesn't just depend on the water, it also depends on the sea bottom.

A wave in the mid Pacific is very unlike a wave in the Bay of Biscaya or in a storm in St. Malo.

Now, you my know, some Christians have decided the Ark of Noah was myth. Some even lost Christianity over that. Part of the reason is, the schooner Wyoming was destroyed completely, with loss of lives, in Nantucket Bay.

However, in Nantucket Bay, the water is just in medium 9 m deep.

And the reason this still worked as a refutation to their minds is, they had decided for a non-global Flood, against the obvious reading of the Bible, and in a large regional Flood, the depth would be sth like Nantucket Bay to North Sea. In a global Flood, it would be more like the Pacific.

The wave is in a mathematical and geometrical sense a circle segment. That segment can have the centre above sea bottom, in the Pacific, but it cannot have the centre below sea bottom, in Nantucket Bay. Hence a high wave was shorter, more abrupt, more violent, than a much higher wave than that would be in the Pacific.

Waves say more of the sea bottom than of the ocean. I think the ocean is a very bad metaphor for God.

9:06 The line Ekam sat etc, ... do you think this was from a time when Hindus or Proto-Hindus (whichever the Vedic religion actually was, I'd say Pre-Hindus) were speaking with people of other religions?

I find it likelier it's a kind of Ecumenism than a kind of Pantheism, as per Upanishads.

I find it likely Ecumenism led to Pantheism, either in Upanishads or in Buddhism and later imported by Gaudapada, for instance.

9:06 bis

I looked up, and here is what I found, whole sloka:

ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti
agniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānam āhuḥ.

Truth is one, though the wise describe it in many ways — as Agni, as Yama, and as Mātariśvan.

So, as I misstated it as being about outside religions, I was wrong in my guess.

Not necessarily Pantheism, but at least "unity of all gods" ...

So, if my atman were identic to brahman, why was I wrong?
v Rig Veda 1.164.46
https://www.sanskritica.com/shlokas/rig-1-164-46-ekam-sat