[Prev][Next][Index]
Ravi Zacharias, Christian apologetic
-
Subject: Ravi Zacharias, Christian apologetic
-
From: dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti)
-
Date: 27 May 1995 01:01:55 -0700
-
Apparently-To: editor
-
Approved: toshi@cco.caltech.edu (Toshi Takeuchi)
-
Distribution: world
-
From editor Tue May 30 20: 45:06 1995
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
-
Organization: University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
-
Sender: toshi@cco.caltech.edu
Dear Friend:
Ravi Zacharias was born in a Hindu priest family, studied Christianity
and holds a Doctor of Divinity degree. He is a foremost Christian
apologetic. He has been called a Christian prophet by at least two
authors: Josh McDowell and Charles Colson, and is highly recommended by
Billy Graham. This post is about his book: Can man live without God,
which is a summary of his lectures to students in Harvard University.
In this book, he tries to prove that there is nothing wrong in Christians
potrayal of Christianity as an exclusive religion, and mentions
that Islam does it also. He also ventures to prove the falsity of
other religions. I have a few comments about his potrayal of
Hinduism.
He says that Hinduism is a false religion, despite its passing his
threefold test of truth: (a) logical consistency (b) empirical
adequacy and (c) experiential evidence; and he cites a central
statement from Hinduism (according to him):
"one of the presuppositions is that the material world as we know it is
not distinct from the ultimate, impersonal reality, Brahman."
But Hinduism gets caught (according to him) in another type of test:
(d) undeniability (a test of truth) and (e) unaffirmability (a test for
falsity). He used the following statement from Hinduism (according to
him) to establish that (e) checks positive:
"Hindu has to say: God exists, but I don't"
I am not going to discuss the tests themselves, but I certainly like to
discuss the alleged Hindu statements. Sri Ravi has indicated that he has
studied Hindu scriptures, but I am forced to doubt his authenticity.
Since nothing is more authentic than the Scriptures, I refer you to
Srimad Bhagabat Gita verse 9:4.
Maya tatamidam sarbam jagadavyakta murtina
Matsthani sarbabhutani na chaham teshvabasthitam.
(I exist in all these worlds in Avyaktamurti (unexpressed form = Akshar
Purush). The sarbabhutas (beings and non-beings of creation) are resident
in Me, but I am not resident in them.)
Clearly, God talks about a distinction there, does not He? It has been
proposed (pantheism) that since Brahman exists in His unexpressed form in
the worlds, the totality of these worlds IS the form of Brahman. But
pantheism does not apply to Hinduism. Sri Krishna says that quite
clearly in the SBG 10:42.
Bistabhyahamidam sarbam ekangshena sthito jagat.
(All these worlds is in one fraction of Myself. resident (in Me).)
Therefore, the totality of the worlds is merely a bit of Brahman. Other
verses can be cited here that say that this fractionation is not
physical, but spiritual. For a final look, let us look at how God, during
creation related the worlds to Him.
As a creator, He "gives away" (bisarjan) the creation (separation; don't you
think?). Verses 9:7-8 of the SBG describes the issue.
Sarbabhutani Kounteya prakritim yanti Mamikam
Kalpakshaye punastani kalpadou bisrijamyaham.
(Kounteya! at the end of the age, sarbabhut (all creation) goes into my
prakriti (Paraprakriti), and at the re-begining, I give them away.)
Prakriti svamabastabhya bisrijami punah punah
Bhutagramimam kritsnamabhasham prakriterbashat.
(I give away these bhutagram (creation), as I delimit My prakriti (the
aware Paraprakriti) to subject (the bhutas) under prakriti (unaware
aparaprakriti).)
It is curious that although entirely wrong about relationship between
Brahman and the created world, Sri Ravi Zacharias does not find any
inconsistencies with his threefold test of truth. He did not explain the
test too much.
The twofold test of undeniability /unaffirmability is, according to him,
where Hinduism registers as a false religion. He says that the
statement: "God exists, but I don't" is unaffirmable, since the speaker
is present right there. It seems to me that this statement is a
corrupted version of the famous "Brahmasatya, jaganmithya", but I could
be wrong. Assuming it to be so derived, I have the following objection:
Vedanta has two main thoughts: SarbaBrahma-vada of Sage Shandilya (Sarvam
khalvidam Brahma tajjalaniti santa upashita) and Neti-vada of Sage
Yajnyavalka. Although I can not claim that I have studied them in
detail, I claim familiarity with their tenets. They deal with the central
issue of Brahman being the Universal Spirit, but at the same time, His
omnipresence goes beyond the universe. In a very simplistic way, the
message is: when one tries to know God as the Universal Spirit, the
universe is not false, but when one tries to know God as Omnipresent
beyond the confines of the universe, the material reality of the universe
is blurred, as it becomes a FALSE boundary.
In his "wisdom" Sri Ravi Zacharias has treated this complex issue (as I
understand from his writings) as merely an exercise in semantics, and
declares Hinduism a false religion. Wise indeed!
It is fascinating how far some exlusionists would go to make their point;
as I see in this case, statements are invented with no bearing to the truth
and a system of faith judged on that basis.
Regards,
Dhruba.
