By Ajit Krishna Dasa
The Danger of Adopting an Atheistic Approach
In preaching, I often see devotees of Krishna unknowingly abandon our Vaisnava worldview in favor of an atheistic epistemology. This tends to happen when we engage with atheists or those who rely solely on sense perception and logic—what the Vedic teachings call the aroha-pantha (the ascending path). In such discussions, devotees sometimes concede to the atheistic claim that their aroha-pantha approach is neutral and, therefore, scripture cannot be accepted as proof.
However, as Vaisnavas, we rely on the avaroha-pantha (the descending path), which explains that God is necessary for a functional epistemology. True knowledge descends as revelation from the Supreme Lord through scripture, the disciplic succession, and eternal innate knowledge. This provides the surest foundation for understanding reality.
Below are key reasons why abandoning our scriptural epistemology in favor of so-called neutrality is a serious mistake.
The Myth of Neutrality
One of the main claims of atheists is that relying solely on sense perception and logic is a neutral, unbiased approach to knowledge. However, this is a myth for several reasons:
- Hidden Assumptions
Their definition of neutrality is already built on a specific epistemology, value system, and metaphysical outlook. It is not neutral at all.
- Circular Reasoning
The aroha-pantha approach assumes that sense perception and logic are reliable, but how can this be confirmed without using those very faculties? This is a self-referential contradiction. - Unrecognized Bias
Claiming to be free from bias while operating within an atheistic framework is itself an example of hidden bias.
Thus, so-called neutrality is not actually neutral but rather an implicit endorsement of atheistic epistemology.
Aroha-pantha vs. Avaroha-pantha
The Flaws of Aroha-pantha
In the aroha-pantha system, truth is sought through human senses and intellect alone. However, this approach faces a fundamental problem: it cannot validate its own reliability. How can the senses and intellect confirm their own trustworthiness when they are the very tools being tested? This creates a circular dependency, undermining the foundation of knowledge itself.
Without a solid epistemology, a consistent worldview cannot be established. If knowledge itself is uncertain, how can one claim to know anything?
The Strength of Avaroha-pantha
By contrast, the avaroha-pantha method is based on receiving perfect knowledge from a perfect source—God. This knowledge is transmitted through scripture and disciplic succession (guru-parampara).
Importantly, divine revelation not only provides true knowledge but also validates the proper use of sense perception and logic. It clarifies under what conditions these tools can be trusted and where they are fallible. Thus, rather than rejecting rationality, avaroha-pantha perfects it.
Contradicting Our Own Scriptures
Vedic teachings clearly state that sense perception and logic have no independent epistemic authority. They are mere tools that become reliable only when validated and guided by divine revelation.
Abandoning scriptural authority in favor of pure empiricism directly contradicts this fundamental teaching. If we reject our own revelatory epistemology, we are effectively rejecting our scriptures—and with them, our only safeguard against epistemic error.
Krishna Himself declares: “I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge, and forgetfulness.” (Bhagavad-gita 15.15)
Yet, if an atheist assumes from the outset that the supernatural does not exist or is unnecessary for knowledge, they have already dismissed Krishna before any discussion even begins. If a devotee of Krishna accepts these parameters, they are conceding that Krishna and divine revelation play no necessary role in determining what is real or knowable. This is a serious philosophical compromise that should never be made.
The Pitfalls of Appearing Neutral
When we attempt to step away from divine revelation to adopt a supposedly neutral position, we unwittingly accept the premise that only sense perception and logic can yield valid knowledge. This immediately gives our atheistic opponent the upper hand, as it sets the terms of the debate in their favor.
More importantly, it prevents us from demonstrating that a trustworthy epistemology is impossible without Krishna. The aroha-pantha approach is inherently self-defeating, as it cannot justify its own validity without falling into circular reasoning. In contrast, avaroha-pantha provides a solid foundation—knowledge descending from the Supreme Lord, which illuminates and perfects our use of sense perception and logic.
Conclusion
By adopting an atheistic epistemology in preaching, we fail to remain faithful to our Vaisnava worldview. Instead, we must boldly assert that without Krishna, knowledge itself is impossible. The so-called neutrality of aroha-pantha is a deceptive illusion—it cannot justify its own methods without collapsing into circular reasoning. On the other hand, our avaroha-pantha tradition offers a complete and coherent epistemology, rooted in divine revelation, which perfects human understanding.
In preaching, we should not hesitate to stand firmly on this foundation. By doing so, we can effectively demonstrate that only through Krishna can we attain true knowledge, and that abandoning scriptural epistemology is not an option for those who wish to remain philosophically consistent and spiritually faithful.
Ajit Krishna Dasa 
Leave a comment