[QUOTE=chadayan;80938]you are looking from a Vedanta point of view(ontological stand).And Sankara did the same. If one look from a meterial-scientific stand point your hierarchy will be reverse for them. From a Christian point of view it will be another one. From Islam it will be another.
How can one say, ‘My view is the only reality’? If one say that it is just their point view.[/QUOTE]
I remember what a famous modern day scientist said, when a student challenged him that scientific knowledge is not reliable, because one day they told you the Earth is flat and the sun goes around it, and the next they told you the Earth is round the Earth goes around the sun. To which he replied: “Yes, they were wrong when they said the Earth is flat and the sun went around the Earth, and they were wrong when they said the Earth is round and the Earth goes around the sun, but if you think they are both equally wrong, then you are more wrong than both of them put together”
A wider viewpoint includes the previous narrower viewpoint, but the narrower viewpoint does not include the wider viewpoint. Charvaka begins from the ontological standpoint of only what we can see, hear, taste, feel and touch is real. But that is not true, and any scientist will tell you that - we cannot hear, taste, feel and touch gravity, atoms, the quantum field. We need to use inference to establish their existence. From the point of view of perception I am bound to conclude the following facts: The Earth is flat, the sun orbits the Earth, things are solid and static. From the point of view of inference the truth is the Earth is spherical, the Earth orbits the sun, spins on its axis and is hurtling through space at hundreds of thousands of mph, and nothing is solid but at the atomic levels consists of 99% pure space with atoms in violent activity, and at the quantum level there is no matter at all, only the probability of matter, appearing and disappearing every moment.
So returning to my point: Charvaka is the lowest viewpoint one can possibly have and this is why it gives us a fundamentally wrong view about the nature of reality. We have a name for it in philosophical parlance: “Naive realism”