Video: Click!
Before we get into comments on above video, let me take you to a tour where I would give my few words.
Disclaimer
We have also watched his other videos which are related to Jesus, Bible and Christianity namely Gems of Jesus and Is God Love?. His teachings are indeed great and heart touching. His understanding is very much better than those of Christian critics from Hindu world.
He has given outstanding moral teachings from Jesus' sermon on the Mount and Jesus washing feet of his disciples. What he admits is that Jesus taught not only by his words but also by his character and action. He says Jesus taught what a self-less love really is. Hence, this made his disciples of socially demeaned classes to transform, grow and spread Jesus' message throughout the world. The guru has also admitted that Jesus' sermon on the Mount had had a great impact in his life such as becoming salt and light to the world. Perhaps, his teaching style is to be embraced and appreciated.
However, his message is the core issue where he has imputed Eastern philosophical ideas into the scripture. To be honest, his teaching is totally out of Christ-centeredness from our view-point. Whatever he teaches on regaining heaven, seeking the hidden light within us, working on attainment of 'sama-drishti', release from all fears, selfless love overcomes fear kind of topics, he is completely out of Christ. What he is teaching is good but the way he uses the Bible and yet negotiate with Christ-centeredness is a big problem. From our context, maybe we can take Paul as an example who attained a state of 'sama-drishti' but only by abiding in Christ, point to be NOTED! Next, for him death is no longer fear and this same message he gives to us [Phil. 1:21; 4:11-13]. Or, we can take John who also taught there is no fear in love [1 John 4:18]. The teachings might sound so similar to our ears but the only difference here lies is Christ! The guru is merely explaining the scripture by excluding Christ! This is the area where we Christians cannot compromise!
No matter how well the guru taught but he desperately replaced Christ with the Eastern philosophy. This is where we should be alert. It is by God's grace we attain the salvation and become a new creation in Christ.
Next, he has also taught that every religions are different by their contemporary cultural contexts which is Progressive truths (Saamayik Satya) but same in their timeless context which is Absolute truths (Saaswat Satya). Even in this area, he has given vague teachings without considering religious dogmas. These both areas actually come into one category: Superficial aspect. All religions sound alike in this area. But if we ask the concern of God's identity, purpose of our life, our destination then all religions have their own thoughts. For instance, God in Islam namely Allah is not Triune but God of the Bible is Triune, Jesus is God's Son in the Bible while He is not in the Qur'an. The destiny in Buddhism is Nirvana but in Christianity it is new heaven and new earth. Hinduism has karma and reincarnation concept while Islam and Christianity do not have this.
It is therefore his teachings bear many problems and these are entirely from a Pantheistic perspective. The Gospel is out, Christ gets boycotted and lessons remains merely philosophical making the Bible what it really isn't.
***
A Peer-Reviewed Response article
In English:
Comments:
1) He has provided very practical basis for Genesis story of
human creation with relatable examples that make peoples compelling to believe
characters like Adam, Eve, Snake, and tree of knowledge
2) He has made people feel that Biblical creation story
really makes sense
3) But he has explained away all the account with
unnecessary exaggeration like 'apple' and additional story plots
4) He has read all Hinduistic philosophy into Biblical
account of creation in which the very existing God disappears away leaving the
Genesis account teaching law of karma and effect
5) He has mixed up story from the two scriptures: Bible and
Qur'an but giving lectures with Hindu mindset [Note: Qur'an because in ISLAMIC
BELIEF, the Eden was paradise, it was not on earth. But -biblically, it was on
earth but meeting point with heaven realm]
6) He explained Genesis story as if it only has a moral and
philosophical value as in Hindu or Buddhist stories
7) He has swiped away the need of Savior but giving teaching
the way Krishna did to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita that human themselves needs
to realize and struggle with hard attempts. Hence, the very Gospel is
eradicated.
8) Dosh aru laai diyo bhane, swarga gumaauna parne hunchha.
dosh aafai le liyo bhane, swarga paauchha. Here, the Biblical meaning of heaven
associated with God has been vanished and replaced by Hinduistic mindset
9) He has used certain Biblical themes but his explanation
is problematic e.g. Swarga gumaye: Paradise lost
10) He has left out Gen. 3:15 verse
11) Baahiri Jeevan ra bhitri Jeevan: once we analyze our
inner world, we would be nothing than sadness. He has changed Biblical JUST GOD
to Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita to whom wicked and righteous do not matter.
This clearly shows difference between YAHWEH and Krishna. For YHWH, our outer
and inner aspect must be coherent. This is what we call transformation. The
Bible doesn't teach 'sama-drishti' as Krishna did.
12) He made his students to realize that the Bible is
teaching exactly the same thing the Gita teaches.
13) He brings a false and dangerous teaching of
'Self-redemption' to regain heaven. He brings a non-dualistic view.
14) He neglects all the Biblical teachings of sin,
judgement, heaven, hell, death
15) The problem in his teaching: 'We have no fear, none, of
nothing'
16) He then gives problematic ending: To regain the lost
heaven, in language of Christians, pray to God. Point to be noted: He has given
already problematic definition of God i.e. the laws of nature is God. Is that
even a personal being to hear our prayer? And he ends by equating the prayer to
God with coming into 'sama-drishti'
This video is really problematic to Christians where the
Eastern philosopher gurus are twisting God's word to mean what it never means.
They preach this way to make peoples realize that the religion and scripture
are indeed teaching same thing. They change definition of God, theme of story,
the cultural background of the story and even the purpose of the story. They
cherry pick the stuffs and dramatize them to input their own teachings. This
whole video seems supporting the Genesis creation story as very relevant story
that makes sense but what is the value of such compelling explanation where
Gospel is kicked out and Savior is made of no need? His explanation may seem
brilliant to peoples and even to Christian who thinks it is a kind of
contextualization. However, the contextualization which negotiates with the
core message is a bad contextualization or even a total wrong turn! What he
solely teaches is nothing different than this: "We can fix ourselves"
which is a total U-turn from the Biblical message: "You need a
Savior". This is very sad and I believe that we Christians, if we really
care about our faith, we should be alert about these sorts of
twisted interpretation.
नेपालीमा
प्रतिक्रिया:
1) उहाँले मानव
सृष्टिको उत्पत्ति कथाको लागि सान्दर्भिक उदाहरणहरू सहित धेरै व्यावहारिक आधार
प्रदान गर्नुभएको पाइन्छ जसले मानिसहरूलाई आदम, हव्वा, सर्प, र ज्ञानको रूख जस्ता पात्रहरूलाई विश्वास गर्न
बाध्य तुल्याउँछ।
2) उहाँले
मानिसहरूलाई बाइबलको सृष्टिको कथा साँच्चै अर्थपूर्ण छ भनी महसुस गराउनुभएको पाइन्छ
|
3) तर... उहाँले
सबै कथालाई 'स्याउको रूख' जस्ता अनावश्यक बढाइचढाइ
टिप्पणी र थप नाटकीय वृतान्तका साथ व्याख्या गर्नुभएको पाइन्छ ।
4) उहाँले
सृष्टिको बाइबलीय विवरणमा सबै हिन्दूवादी दर्शनहरू हाल्नुभयो जसमा अवस्थित बाइबलको
याह्वे ईश्वर विलीन हुन्छन्, अनि कर्म र प्रभावको नियमले
ठाउँ लिई उत्पत्ति कथाले त्यही सिकाएको जस्तो देखाउंछ ।
5) उहाँले बाइबल र
कुरान दुईवटा ग्रन्थहरूबाट कथाहरू मिश्रित गर्नुभयो तर हिन्दू मानसिकताका साथ
व्याख्यानहरू दिनुभयो [नोट: कुरान किनभने इस्लामिक विश्वासमा अदनको बगैंचा स्वर्गमा
थियो, यो पृथ्वीमा थिएन। तर बाइबल अनुसार, यो पृथ्वीमा
थियो तर स्वर्गको क्षेत्र सँग एक मिलन बिन्दु थियो]
6) उहाँले
उत्पत्तिको कथालाई हिन्दू वा बौद्ध कथाहरूमा जस्तै नैतिक र दार्शनिक मूल्य भएको
रूपमा मात्र व्याख्या गर्नुभयो।
7) उहाँले
मुक्तिदाताको आवश्यकतालाई हटाउनुभयो तर कृष्णले अर्जुनलाई भगवद्गीतामा सिकाउने
तरिका जसरी सिकाउँदै गए कि मानिसले आफैं महसुस गर्न र कडा प्रयासको साथ संघर्ष
गर्न आवश्यक छ। यसैले, सुसमाचार
मेटिएको छ।
8) दोष अरुलाई
दियो भने, स्वर्ग गुमाउन
पर्ने हुन्छ । दोष आफैले लियो भने,
स्वर्ग
पाउछ। यहाँ, ईश्वरसँग
सम्बन्धित स्वर्गको बाइबलीय अर्थ हराएको छ र हिन्दूवादी मानसिकताले प्रतिस्थापित
गरेको छ |
9) उहाँले केही
बाइबलीय विषयवस्तुहरू प्रयोग गर्नुभएको छ तर उहाँको व्याख्या समस्याग्रस्त छ जस्तै:
स्वर्ग गुम्नु
10) उहाँले
उत्पत्ति ३:१५ पद छोड्नुभएको छ
11) बाहिरी जीवन र
भित्री जीवन: हामीले हाम्रो भित्री संसारलाई एकपटक विश्लेषण गर्यौं, हामी दुःखी बाहेक केही हुनेछैनौं। उहाँले
बाइबलीय न्यायी परमेश्वरलाई भगवद् गीताको कृष्णमा परिवर्तन गर्नुभयो जसलाई दुष्ट र
धर्मीले फरक पार्दैन। यसले प्रभु र कृष्णबीचको भिन्नतालाई स्पष्ट रूपमा देखाउँछ। याह्वे
परमेश्वरको लागि, हाम्रो बाहिरी
र भित्री पक्ष सुसंगत हुनुपर्छ। यसलाई हामीले रूपान्तरण भन्छौँ । बाइबलले कृष्णले
जस्तै 'सम-दृष्टि' सिकाउँदैन।
12) गीताले सिकाएको
कुरा बाइबलले ठ्याक्कै त्यही सिकाउँछ भनी उहाँले आफ्ना विद्यार्थीहरूलाई
बुझाउनुभयो।
13) स्वर्ग प्राप्त
गर्नको लागि उहाँले 'आत्म-मुक्ति' को झूटो र खतरनाक शिक्षा ल्याउनुभयो। उहाँले
अद्वैतवादी दृष्टिकोण ल्याउनुभयो।
14) उहाँले पाप, न्याय, स्वर्ग, नरक, मृत्युको सबै बाइबलीय शिक्षाहरूलाई
बेवास्ता गर्नुभयो।
15) उहाँको
शिक्षामा समस्या: 'हामीलाई कुनै
डर छैन, केही छैन'
16) त्यसपछि उहाँले
समस्याग्रस्त अन्त्य दिनुहुन्छ: गुमाइएको स्वर्ग पुन: प्राप्त गर्न, क्रिश्चियनहरूको
भाषामा, परमेश्वरलाई प्रार्थना गर्नुहोस्। ध्यान दिनुपर्ने
कुरा: उहाँले पहिले नै ईश्वरको समस्याग्रस्त परिभाषा दिनुभएको छ अर्थात् प्रकृतिको
नियम ईश्वर हो। के त्यो पनि हाम्रो प्रार्थना सुन्ने व्यक्तिगत प्राणी हो र?
र परमेश्वरलाई गरिने प्रार्थनालाई 'सम-दृष्टि'
मा आउँदाको अवस्था सित बराबरी गरेर समाप्त गर्नुहुन्छ।
यो भिडियो क्रिश्चियनहरूका लागि साँच्चै समस्याग्रस्त छ जहाँ पूर्वीय दार्शनिक गुरुहरूले परमेश्वरको वचनलाई यसले कहिल्यै नदिएको अर्थ तर्फ घुमाउँदै छन्। धर्म र शास्त्रले वास्तवमा एउटै कुरा सिकाउँछ भनेर मानिसहरूलाई महसुस गराउन तिनीहरू यसरी प्रचार गर्छन्। तिनीहरूले ईश्वरको परिभाषा, कथाको विषयवस्तु, कथाको सांस्कृतिक पृष्ठभूमि र कथाको उद्देश्य पनि परिवर्तन गर्छन्। तिनीहरू आफ्नो शिक्षालाई मिल्ने गरी पदहरू छान्छन् र तिनीहरूमा आफ्नै शिक्षाहरू हाल्न नाटकीय तरिकाले पेश गर्छन्। यो सम्पूर्ण भिडियोले उत्पत्तिको सृष्टिको कथालाई धेरै सान्दर्भिक कथाको रूपमा समर्थन गरेको देखिन्छ जुन अर्थपूर्ण छ तर यस्तो बाध्यकारी व्याख्याको मूल्य के हो जहाँ सुसमाचार बाहिर निकालिएको छ र मुक्तिदाताको कुनै आवश्यकता दिलाइएको छैन? उहाँको व्याख्या मानिसहरूलाई र क्रिस्चियनहरूलाई पनि राम्रो लाग्न सक्छ जसले यो एक प्रकारको सान्दर्भीकरण हो भन्ने सोच्दछन्। जे होस्, मूल सन्देशसँग नमिल्ने सान्दर्भिकरण खराब सान्दर्भीकरण वा पूर्ण गलत मोड पनि हो! उहाँले जे सिकाउनुहुन्छ त्यो यो भन्दा फरक छैन: "हामी आफैलाई ठीक गर्न सक्छौं" जुन बाइबलीय सन्देशबाट पूर्ण रूपमा यू-टर्न हो: "तपाईंलाई मुक्तिदाता चाहिन्छ"। यो धेरै दुखको कुरा हो र म विश्वास गर्छु कि हामी क्रिश्चियनहरू, यदि हामी साँच्चै हाम्रो विश्वासको ख्याल राख्छौं भने, हामी यस प्रकारको गलत तरिकाले गरिएको व्याख्याको बारेमा सचेत हुनुपर्छ।
Comments:
1) I watched the video thoroughly. Interesting but highly problematic interpretation. You analyzed the video content well.
God’s existence is the starting point for every arguments for us. Bible begins with “In the beginning God…” But schools of thought in Hinduism have their own interpretations of Reality. According to their theology, God is not a personal God, but he is a universal entity who coexists with the universe and we have that essence in us. Essentially, Hinduism teaches that we are God. Christian’s and Hindu’s worldviews are very different and incompatible though there are some common moral/ethical teachings. Hindu view of Christ is very problematic which limits Christ as highly evolved spiritual being (Yogi/avatar). Philosophy and human reason must not be the starting point for faith though it can be used to defend, clarify, and confirm the faith.
***
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
0 Comments