There is no need to prove truth, it is proof in itself. It is self-evident. And remember, that if anything has to be proved by logic, it can be disproved also by logic. Logic is only a play, it is not a strength. Anything which is proved by logic can be disproved by logic. Logic is just like a lawyer, logic is like a prostitute, it is not attached to anyone – it can take any side, it can be used on both sides, for and against anything. Just as a sword doesn’t belong to anyone, logic also doesn’t belong to anyone. Your own sword can be used by your enemy to cut your throat. You cannot say, “It is my sword, how can it cut my throat?” The sword belongs to no one. Similarly, logic too belongs to no one. That is why people who depend too much on logic will find one day that it is not dependable at all. One day, they will realize that they were riding a paper boat. One day they will discover that the logic which acted as a support for them to stand became the cause of their downfall.
If you believe in God, you say that there must be someone who created this world. Your logic is that this world must have been created by someone, so there should be a God. But then the other argument is: Who made God?…Because how can God exist without being created? There is no difference between the two arguments. One believes in God, and the other is an atheist. But I see no difference between the two, because both of them depend on the logic that how can anything exist without being created?
You get annoyed with an atheist and you tell him, “Keep quiet! Nobody has made God.” But the atheist is only saying that if God can exist without being made, why can’t the world exist without being made? The logic is the same, the argument is the same, so nobody wins.
Nothing is ever proved by logic. What is, is beyond logic; what is, is self-evident. But if you go to Shankara with logic, he will counter all your logic. There are very few people who are as logical as Shankara. You can meet people who have known the divine – like Ramakrishna – but such people are rare who have known the divine and can counter the arguments of the atheist. Ramakrishna could not counter the argument of an atheist. He didn’t know logic; he was a simple and pure person. Vivekananda could counter the logic, but Vivekananda doesn’t have any experience of truth. People like Shankara are unique. He has in him the qualities of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda both. He has known just as Ramakrishna has known, and he can use arguments in favor of what he has known, just as Vivekananda can do without knowing.
But Shankara has been misunderstood. The irony is that all his life Shankara tried to destroy the egos of the pundits, and those very pundits took him to be a pundit also! These pundits go on saying that Shankara conquered all. Shankara must be having a hearty laugh at this. The victory of logic is no victory at all. To defeat anyone with logic means nothing. If anyone is defeated in argument he just keeps quiet, he doesn’t feel defeated at heart.
If you put a lot of arguments before someone, he may not be able to reply to you in the same way so he will keep quiet at that time, but in his mind he will go on waiting to take his revenge on you. To defeat someone with logic is like using the sword to make him surrender. He will surrender for the time being, but will wait for the right time to take his revenge. One who is defeated with a sword is not defeated at all. Only the one who is defeated with love is really defeated, because no other surrender is meaningful until you surrender from the heart.