I read the article on your long debate and also your comments. A few clarifications that I would like to make based on that.

Eastern traditions have two main strands that are often confused to be the same here in the West including among the practitioners. One is based on mysticism. Yoga falls in this category. Other is based on inquiry. Advaita (nondualism) and Buddhism fall in the latter. Yogic mysticism emphasizes experience (called samadhi) while nondualism negates all experience and the experiencer too. They both share the preliminary disciplines such as ethical living, detachment from worldly pleasures, meditation etc but their endpoints are vastly different. The yogic samadhi is essentially dualistic and caught in the division of the experiencer and experience. Nondualism is the recognition that the experiencer is the experience and both are illusory, being ultimately projections within samsara. It is important to be clear on that.

Your question on Consciousness is based on the common understanding as an epiphenomenon of the brain. There is a conscious experience projected by memory that we have and very much seems to be a product of the brain. But is brain itself a physical reality as commonly assumed thus far in a Newtonian sense or just a wave in an all pervasive Consciousness that is the essential truth of all matter?

You can read this interview with Donald Hoffman to get a neuroscientist's viewpoint on the "case against reality": https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

The question on God's brain ultimately is based on materialistic thinking that presupposes matter as the first principle. If we inquire into our own essential nature which cannot be different from whatever we call God, when we ask the question 'who am I', we may find that it is Consciousness devoid of any content. That is what I meant by "pure" Consciousness. All information processing is content and that's what matter is. And it has its place. So the realization of one's nature as Consciousness has no conflict whatsoever with scientific progress. In fact, it may lead to better progress once the scientific community comes around as many argue.

One more clarification on the "Hindu yoga/paths" I saw referred. There is no such thing. The way of inquiry is called jnana yoga (which is not the yoga of Patanjali despite the word yoga there). And all these paths are open to all and nobody self identifying as Hindu or Buddhist has any extra privilege. All that counts is the sincerity of the one taking up the inquiry or even yoga for that matter.

Also you ask in your article you shared:

>>Here, then, are some questions I have for the Eastern spiritualist. Is the talk of absolute reality as a tranquil state of transcendent consciousness meant to whitewash the existential, cosmicist implications of mysticism in something like the way the exoteric televangelist anthropomorphizes God, calling him a loving father? Why think that the source of the entire, mostly inhuman universe would be essentially conscious?

The equating of consciousness with 'humanness' is in fact anthropomorphic. Consciousness devoid of content is prior to humanness and there is no reason why 'inhuman' universe cannot be essentially conscious. In fact, if we look at the tremendous order of the infinite universe that is mostly inhuman, the most logical thing to arrive at is that it is an intelligent universe and intelligence cannot be an accidental byproduct of matter. It is far more logical for the source to be essentially conscious. The televangenlist relies on and propagates only a belief system which is thought to whitewash the existential, cosmicist implications as you said. The mysticist also perhaps does the same by lulling himself into a state of samadhi. Whereas inquiry into one's own nature is not believe anything or to experience anything which are both impermanent but to actually find out the one truth of the self, universe and God through inquiry.