Can you convince the logic of atheists in your spiritual explanations?

[dattaswami]

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).

[Agent Smith]

You ask really intersting questions. It's always been the other way round hasn't it? Could you kindly expand on your thesis, but please keep it short (2 paras max).

[Harbal]

You ask really intersting questions.

But then he goes on to answer them himself, which is when he invariably makes an idiot of himself.

[Agent Smith]

I suppose he wants feedback.

[Harbal]

I suppose he wants feedback.

Well he's getting on my nerves, if that counts as feedback.

[Agent Smith]

I suppose he wants feedback.

Well he's getting on my nerves, if that counts as feedback.

Most unfortunate! Is there some way you could accommodate him in your universe?

[Harbal]

Most unfortunate! Is there some way you could accommodate him in your universe?

I might be able to make room for him if he doesn't bring God with him.

[Agent Smith]

Most unfortunate! Is there some way you could accommodate him in your universe?

I might be able to make room for him if he doesn't bring God with him.

Too bad! To each his own.

[Harbal]

Too bad! To each his own.

What's bad about it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You ask really intersting questions. It's always been the other way round hasn't it? Could you kindly expand on your thesis, but please keep it short (2 paras max).

The only 'question' is the title and the only clue that it's a question at all is the question mark at the end of it. The title is completely meaningless. How is that 'interesting'? (Unless you have a particular fascination for words strung together randomly that make no sense as a whole.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You seem to be obsessed by so-called 'atheists'. How are you defining that word?

[Agent Smith]

You ask really intersting questions. It's always been the other way round hasn't it? Could you kindly expand on your thesis, but please keep it short (2 paras max).

The only 'question' is the title and the only clue that it's a question at all is the question mark at the end of it. The title is completely meaningless. How is that 'interesting'? (Unless you have a particular fascination for words strung together randomly that make no sense as a whole.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. The string of words that constitutes the title isn't meaningless to me it seems.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You ask really intersting questions. It's always been the other way round hasn't it? Could you kindly expand on your thesis, but please keep it short (2 paras max).

The only 'question' is the title and the only clue that it's a question at all is the question mark at the end of it. The title is completely meaningless. How is that 'interesting'? (Unless you have a particular fascination for words strung together randomly that make no sense as a whole.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. The string of words that constitutes the title isn't meaningless to me it seems.

It's objectively meaningless. What it is 'to you' is irrelevant.

[Agent Smith]

The only 'question' is the title and the only clue that it's a question at all is the question mark at the end of it. The title is completely meaningless. How is that 'interesting'? (Unless you have a particular fascination for words strung together randomly that make no sense as a whole.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. The string of words that constitutes the title isn't meaningless to me it seems.

It's objectively meaningless. What it is 'to you' is irrelevant.

While I do regard objectivity highly, in this case I would like to make an exception. Most probably the OP's title (a question) resonates with me and not you because we're at different stages in our philosophical journeys.

By the way, what's objectivity?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Different strokes for different folks I guess. The string of words that constitutes the title isn't meaningless to me it seems.

It's objectively meaningless. What it is 'to you' is irrelevant.

While I do regard objectivity highly, in this case I would like to make an exception. Most probably the OP's title (a question) resonates with me and not you because we're at different stages in our philosophical journeys.

By the way, what's objectivity?

Idiot. It doesn't mean anything. What is 'convince the logic' supposed to mean? The guy obviously has a very poor grasp of the English language, just as i would no doubt make an ass of myself if I tried to express myself in Indian on an Indian site.