The logic of atheists is based on perception (Pratyaksha Pramana), which was propagated by the sage Charvaka. Perception means the knowledge derived from the observation with the naked
eyes. Infact in the logic (Tarka Sastra) all the means of knowledge are based
on perception only. In the inference (Anumana) also, the fire on the hill is
inferred by its smoke. But the relationship between the fire and smoke is
perceived with the naked eyes only. Similarly other means of knowledge are also
based on the perception only. Thus Charvaka forms the basic of the entire logic
and without logic there is no knowledge. The statement that the God is above
logic must be proved only by perception. The divine miracles performed by the
human form of Lord prove that there is a power above the logic. These miracles
are seen by the naked eyes. The atheists must be allowed to prove whether the
miracles are simply magic tricks. When they cannot prove, they must accept the
existence of super power above the logic. If they do not accept this they are
contradicting their own basis, which is the perception. The divine miracles are
experienced by the devotees and the experience cannot be contradicted. If the experience
is contradicted, the experience of the atheists is also contradicted. Therefore
atheists must be open-minded and should not be conservative. If they are
conservative they have no right to criticize the religious conservatism.


 


The theory of Vedas and Bhagavath Gita never contradicts the perception and therefore the logic of atheists becomes the basis of the spiritual knowledge. The Lord comes in human form and
this human form is perceived by the naked eyes. Even the miracles performed by
demons establish the existence of super power. Therefore to convince the
atheists the miracles of the Lord are not necessary. When they are convinced
about the existence of the Super power (Maya), the possessor of the Super
Power, the Lord, coming in human form must be also accepted because the form is
seen by the naked eyes. The salvation is breakage of the bonds in this world.
Since the bonds of this world exist based on the perception, the salvation is
also existing based on the perception. Since the family members and the money
are perceived by the eyes, the bonds with them are also perceived. Thus the
salvation (Moksha) must be accepted by the atheists. A single bond with the
human form of the Lord is called ‘Saayujya’ or ‘Kaivalya’.


 


Since the human form is perceived, Sayujya or Kaivalya is also perceived and must be accepted by the atheists. The Bliss is derived by the devotee from the divine knowledge of the human form of
the Lord. Therefore the Bliss is also true according to atheists. Thus the
goal, the means to please the Lord (Sadhana) and the fruit of Sadhana (Moksha
and Kaivalya) are perceived and exist in this world itself. Veda says ‘Yat
Saakshat Aparokshaat’, ‘Pratyagatmana Maikshat’ which mean that the Lord in
human form is perceived by the naked eyes. Veda also says ‘Ihachet Avedeet’,
which means that everything is true as seen in this world itself. This is
called ‘Jeevanmukthi’, which means attaining the salvation while one is alive
and not after death. The salvation after the death is not true because that has
no basis of perception. Thus if the atheists are little bit patient and leave
their aggressive nature of criticism, they are best fitted in the true
spiritual knowledge of Vedas. In fact Swami Vidyaranya included the philosophy
of Charvaka in his book as one of the logical philosophies (Darsanaas).

Views: 23

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

My main aim to propagate the divine knowledge
On this earth is Universal Spirituality
For World Peace, because there should not be difference
Based on the religion, two people should not fight
For the sake of Nivrutti, which is reaching the Lord.
Nivrutti is related to Lord and is very sacred.
Should one stab another for the sake of this?
In India have you not heard of a Muslim stabbing Hindu
And vice-versa just for the sake of religion?
There is meaning if two fight for wealth etc.,
Which is Pravrutti, Pandavas and Kauravas fought
With each other for wealth, it is justified
Both belong to the same Hindu religion
They did not fight for the religion
It is shameful for the Lord to see such fights!
The same Lord is in two different dresses.
And you both are fighting for the difference in the dress!
You are not recognizing that the same teacher came
And taught the same syllabus in two different languages.
To one class He came in red shirt and to another class
He came in white shirt, you are fighting for His shirts!
You are fighting for the two languages, which differ.
The teacher is the same and the syllabus is the same.
You sit and analyze the contents of His teaching.
You treat the teacher as your Master in your section.
Is He not the Master for the other section also?
Both the sections constitute the whole school.
You say that He is the Master of the whole school.

The school consists off two distinct sections vividly.
If you say that He is the Master of the whole school,
The school must contain only your section, then only
Your statement is right, but the school shows two sections.
Your statements are contradicting each other clearly.
Hindus say that Brahman is the creator, Muslims say
That Allah is creator, Christians say that the creator is
Jehovah, all say that the creation is this entire world.
If Hindus say that Brahman created India, and if
Muslims say that Allah created Arabian countries and
If Christians say that Jehovah created the western countries,
The problem is solved, there can be three Gods together,
Who have created the three parts of the earth separately.
But this is not so, each religion says that their God only
Created the entire world, unfortunately there is one world!
One world only! Come on, all of you sit together here
And give me the final conclusion after debate, otherwise,
The scientists are laughing on all of you! Shame to all!

They criticize that these religions do not have even
The basic logic, which is the fundamental common sense.
Because of you, the greatest God is also mocked by them
They say that the religions are rigid conservatisms!
Even a small boy is putting this question to all of you.
Stop all your discourses and first answer this question.
If you want to say that God created the entire world,
You have to accept that there is one God only always
And that His names are all the above three names.
We see in the world a single person having three names.
If there is one God, He only created this entire world.
All the human beings are invariably His children only.
No Father is partial to a single child and therefore
He must have preached the same knowledge to all
In different languages and in different methodologies
To different levels, this is Universal Spirituality.

RSS

© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service