It is about "not accepting". Not accepting a trasmigrating soul that spans multiple bodies or exists an individual entity after the death of the body - due to lack of evidence.
Lokayata does not have to prove anything here. The burden of proof is on the party who posited the existence of afterlife.Next, what evidence does the Charvaka put forth to believe that the afterlife does not exist?
How do you prove perception? Btw, no system of philosophy has a problem with perception...so I am not clear if you are questioning the value of perception.Next, why does the Charvaka eat food to satiate his hunger? If it is based on induction, the Charvaka position is itself undermined as he unwittingly believe in induction. This leads to belief-behaviour conflict and the Charvaka can be rightly accused of hypocrisy - preach one thing but practise another, a.k.a. "Do as I say, not as I do!"
If it is based on perception the Charvaka should clarify how he has reached the conclusion that food satisfies hunger.
Bookmarks