God, Evidence, and the Authority of the Shastras

प्रत्यक्षमेकमित्युक्त्वा योऽस्तीश्वर इति ब्रुवन्। अतीन्द्रियार्थविज्ञाने शास्त्रमेव न मुञ्चति॥

“He who says, ‘Perception alone is valid,’ yet declares, ‘God exists,’ in truth does not escape the authority of the Shastras when dealing with realities beyond the senses.”

If you maintain that physical perception alone is a valid source of knowledge, then what is the basis of your belief in God? According to Hindu philosophy, God is not an ordinary material object that can be perceived by the senses. The Upanishads declare: “From whom words return, together with the mind, unable to reach Him.”

यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह । आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् न बिभेति कदाचन ॥ [Taittirīya Upaniṣad (also commonly numbered as 2.4.1]

The Supreme Reality transcends the mind, speech, and the senses.Therefore, God is not known merely through ordinary sensory perception, but through logical inference, scriptural testimony, and higher spiritual realization.

न सन्दृशे तिष्ठति रूपमस्य। [Kaṭha Upaniṣad]

“His form is not an object of visual perception.”

न तु मां शक्यसे द्रष्टुमनेनैव स्वचक्षुषा। [Bhagavad Gītā]

“You cannot behold Me with these ordinary eyes.”

My question is simple. If you say, “I believe only in physical evidence,” then how can you also say, “I believe in God”? If God has physical evidence, then present that evidence.If there is no such evidence, then either abandon your belief in God or reconsider your standard of knowledge. There is, however, a third possibility. Accept that not every truth is established through physical perception alone. That is precisely the position of the Shastras. Therefore, if you believe in God without physical evidence, then, whether you admit it or not, you are already following the very principle taught by the Shastras. So I ask: Which part of the Shastras do you reject? Do you reject that God exists? Or do you reject that God transcends the senses? If you accept God’s existence but deny His transcendence of sensory perception, your position becomes contradictory. If you accept that God is beyond the senses, then you have already accepted a fundamental teaching of the Shastras.

I ask another question. How did your belief in God arise? Through reason? Through personal experience? Through tradition? Through intuition? If so, then why should those sources be considered trustworthy while scriptural testimony is dismissed outright? Much of human knowledge is indirect. History, science, geography, and countless events of the past are accepted through reliable testimony and reasoned inference. Why should the same principle suddenly be rejected when the subject is spiritual reality? Your position appears somewhat like this: “I believe in the soul, but not in the texts that discuss the soul”. “I believe in karma, but not in the doctrine of karma”. “I believe in God, but not in the tradition that has reflected upon God for thousands of years”. Then my question is entirely natural:

“If not from the Shastras, then how did you arrive at these ideas?”

My purpose is not to advocate blind faith. My purpose is simply to seek consistency in thought. If physical evidence alone is valid, then explain the basis of your belief in God. If you admit that some realities may be known by means other than direct sensory perception, then the Shastras deserve serious reconsideration. My own position is clear. God exists. God transcends the senses. The Shastras teach this. I accept both God and the Shastras. You are free to hold a different position. But let that position be clear, rational, and internally consistent. In the end, I ask only three questions:

What do you believe?

How did you come to believe it?

Why do you believe it?

ℙ𝕚𝕔𝕜 𝕒𝕟𝕪 𝕤𝕚𝕥𝕦𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕟𝕠𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕡𝕣𝕖-𝕕𝕖𝕔𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕕 𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕤𝕥, 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕚𝕣𝕖 𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕚𝕔 𝕚𝕤 𝕓𝕦𝕚𝕝𝕥 𝕠𝕟 𝕚𝕥. 𝔻𝕙𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕒 𝕓𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕖𝕤 𝕤𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕥𝕠 “𝕀” (𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔼𝕘𝕠). 𝔹𝕖 𝕚𝕥 𝕗𝕒𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕪 𝕠𝕣 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕥𝕪, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕒𝕞𝕖 𝕤𝕖𝕢𝕦𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕗𝕠𝕝𝕝𝕠𝕨𝕤, 𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕤𝕥 𝕕𝕖𝕔𝕚𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕟 𝕒𝕟 𝕖𝕗𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕥 𝕥𝕠 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕥 𝕣𝕚𝕘𝕙𝕥. 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕝𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕝 𝕚𝕥 𝕒𝕤 𝕍𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕜 (𝕎𝕚𝕤𝕕𝕠𝕞 / 𝔻𝕚𝕤𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟). 𝔹𝕦𝕥 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕟 𝕕𝕖𝕔𝕚𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕝𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕪 𝕞𝕒𝕕𝕖, 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕍𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕜? 𝕋𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕓𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕕𝕟𝕖𝕤𝕤 𝕚𝕤 𝕓𝕖𝕔𝕒𝕦𝕤𝕖 𝕚𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕧𝕚𝕕𝕦𝕒𝕝 𝕕𝕠𝕖𝕤𝕟’𝕥 𝕨𝕚𝕤𝕙 𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕖𝕖 𝔻𝕙𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕒 𝕒𝕥 𝕒𝕝𝕝. 𝕎𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 “𝔼𝕘𝕠” 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕖𝕤 𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕤𝕥, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔻𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕙𝕥𝕚 (𝕍𝕚𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟) 𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕟𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣 𝕓𝕖 𝕚𝕞𝕡𝕒𝕣𝕥𝕚𝕒𝕝. 𝔸𝕒𝕤𝕒𝕜𝕥𝕚 (𝕒𝕥𝕥𝕒𝕔𝕙𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥) 𝕙𝕒𝕤 𝕡𝕣𝕖-𝕕𝕖𝕔𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕒𝕟𝕤𝕨𝕖𝕣 𝕒𝕝𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕪, 𝕢𝕦𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕤𝕜𝕖𝕕 𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕣. 𝕋𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕚𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕥𝕖𝕤𝕥. 𝔼𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕪 𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕕𝕖𝕔𝕚𝕕𝕖 𝕨𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕚𝕤 𝕣𝕚𝕘𝕙𝕥, 𝕡𝕒𝕦𝕤𝕖…𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕒𝕤𝕜 𝕪𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕤𝕖𝕝𝕗. “𝕎𝕒𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕔𝕝𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕨𝕟 𝕒𝕝𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕪?”. 𝔸𝕤𝕜 𝕒𝕘𝕒𝕚𝕟: “𝕀𝕤 𝕪𝕠𝕦𝕣 𝕞𝕠𝕣𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕞𝕖𝕣𝕖𝕝𝕪 𝕒 𝕧𝕖𝕚𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣 𝕪𝕠𝕦𝕣 𝕒𝕥𝕥𝕒𝕔𝕙𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥?” 𝕀𝕗 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕥𝕒𝕜𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕖𝕘𝕠 𝕠𝕦𝕥 𝕠𝕗 𝕪𝕠𝕦𝕣 𝕖𝕢𝕦𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕊𝕙𝕒𝕒𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕤 𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕝 𝕚𝕥 𝕚𝕤 𝕟𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕡𝕦𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕣𝕦𝕥𝕙.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WPCYu-OZrMY

If you believe in God without requiring physical evidence, then your theory of knowledge is already broader than mere physical empiricism. The question is not whether you should abandon reason, but whether you should consistently examine the very traditions that have systematically explored such realities for millennia.