बाइबलमा औषधिको रहस्य - भाग ३ - बाइबलमा पञ्चतत्व - येशूले औषधि हरु प्रयोग गर्नु भएको - by Ps. Sukdev Giri || Nepali Christian Magazine

 बाइबलमा पञ्चतत्व

भजनसंग्रह २४ अध्यायको १ पदले भन्छः पृथ्वी र त्यसमा भएका जो-जति छन्, सबै परमप्रभुका हुन्, संसार र त्यसमा वास गर्नेहरु सबै उहाँकै हुन् । पद २ ले भन्छ : “किनभने उहाँल त्यसलाई समुद्रमाथि बसाल्नुभएको छ, र पानीहरूको गहिराइमा त्यसलाई स्थापित गर्नुभएको छ ।”

भजनसंग्रह १०४ को १० देखि १५ मा यस्तो लेखिएको छ । (यहाँ पञ्चतत्वको रहस्य लुकेको छ ।)

उहाँले पानीका मूलहरूलाई खोल्सामा खन्याउन लगाउनुहुन्छ त्यो पानी पहाडका बीचबाट बग्छ । तिनीहरूले सबै जीवजन्तुलाई पानी दिन्छन् । जङ्गली गधाहरूले पनि आफ्नो तिर्खा मार्दछन् । तिनीहरूकै छेउछाउमा आकासका चराहरूले आफ्नो गुँड बनाउँछन्, हाँगाहरूका बीचमा तिनीहरू गीत गाउँछन् । उहाँले आफ्नो उच्च स्थानबाट पहाडहरूमा पानी बर्साउनुहुन्छ, उहाँका कार्यहरूका फलबाट पृथ्वी तृप्त हुन्छ । उहाँले गाईबस्तुका निम्ति घाँस, अनि मानिसहरूका निम्ति रूखपात उमार्नुहुन्छ, र जमिनबाट आहार त्यसको अनुहार चहकिलो पार्नलाई तेल, र त्यसको हृदय बलियो ल्याउनुहुन्छ । मानिसको मन आनन्दित गराउनलाई दाखमद्य, र तुल्याउनलाई रोटी उहाँले दिनुहुन्छ । पञ्चतत्व भन्नाले संसारका ५ ओटा कुराहरूलाई बुझ्नुपर्छ ।

१. घाम वा आगो :

घाम वा आगोको कारणले मानिस वा प्राणीहरू जीवित रहन सक्छन् । शरीरमा ताप कम्ति वा बढि भएको खण्डमा यसले हाम्रो शरीर र पृथ्वीलाई बाधा दिन्छ । यसको तालमेल हाम्रो जीवनमा राम्रोसँग मिल्नुपर्छ । धेरै चिसो भए मानिसहरूमा निमोनिया, दम, चिसोको विभिन्न समस्याहरू आउन सक्छन् भने शरीरमा धेरै ताप भएको खण्डमा पनि मानिसहरू विरामी हुन सक्छन् । खानेकुराहरू गर्दा हाम्रो शरीरमा ताप (उर्जा) पैदा हुन्छ, नत्र हामी विरामी हुन्छौं वा मर्न सक्छौं ।

२. पानी :

पानी जीवनको निम्ति नभै नहुने कुरा हो । यसको कारणले जीवन रसीलो र फलवन्त हुनसक्छ तर यसको अभावमा जीवनको कल्पना पनि गर्न सकिदैन । पानीको सन्तुलित प्रयोगद्वारा हाम्रो जीवनमा आरोग्यता प्राप्त गर्नसक्छौं भने यसको बढी प्रयोगवा यो प्रदुषित भएको खण्डमा हामी रोग विमारको सिकार हुनुपर्छ । सहरी क्षेत्रमा पिउने पानी र ढल सँगसँगै बगेको कारणले पानी प्रदूषित भई यसले धेरै प्रकारकारोगहरू सृजना गरेको छ । हाम्रो शरीरमा ७०% भाग पानीले ओगटेको हुन्छ ।

३. हावा :

हावा जीवनको अर्को महत्वपूर्ण तत्व हो । यो बिना जीवनको कल्पना नै गर्न सकिदैन । स्वच्छ हावाको कारणले वातावरण राम्रो हुन्छ तर खराब हावाले वातावरण दूषित हुनाले हाम्रो स्वास्थ्यलाई पनि प्रतिकुल असर पार्छ । त्यसैले हामी स्वस्थ हुने हो भने हावा स्वच्छ हुनु आवश्यक छ । बोटविरुवाहरूले हावा ताजा रहनलाई र उत्पादन गर्नलाई सहायता गर्छ भने कलकारखानाहरू र मानिसहरूले फालेका फोहोरहरूले हावालाई पनि प्रदुषित पार्छ । यसैले “स्वच्छ हावा स्वच्छ जीवन, दुषित हावा अस्वस्थ जीवन

४. माटो :

माटोसँग हाम्रो नाता छ । हामी यहि जन्मछौं, हुर्कन्छौं र मछौं । यसैले हाम्रो जीवन स्वथ्य हुने हो भने माटो पनि स्वथ्य हुनु पर्छ । यदी यो विषालु भएको छ भने यसले हाम्रो जीवनलाई रोगको खाडलमा धकेल्छ । माटोमा उम्रेका चीजहरू शुद्ध हुने हो भने माटो शुद्ध हुनुपर्छ । आजकल विषादीहरूले गर्दा भूमि प्रदुषित भएको छ र यसले हाम्रो जीवनलाई पनि प्रभावित पारेको छ ।

५. अन्न:

अन्न हाम्रो जीवनको स्रोत हो । यो विना हामी जिउन र स्वस्थ रहन पटकै सक्दैनौं । विभिन्न प्रकारका खानेकुराहरूले हाम्रो जीवनलाई जीवन्त राख्छ । अन्नको प्रदूषित अवस्थाले हामी रोगी हुनसक्छौं । यसैले यी ५ ओटा पञ्चतत्वहरूलाई हामी औषधि भन्नसक्छौं । अबको केही खण्डहरूमा येशूले निको पार्नको निम्ति पन्च तत्वजन्य औषधिहरू प्रयोग गर्नुभएको बारेमा हेर्नेछौं ।

बाइबलमा औषधिको रहस्य - भाग १ (येशू र औषधि ) - Book by Ps Sukdev Giri

 येशूले औषधिको बारेमा बताउनुभएको

काठमाडौँमा एक जना मानिस जन्डिसले अत्यन्तै विरामी भएर अन्तिम अवस्थामा अस्पतालमा पुग्यो । डाक्टरले उसलाई किन अन्तिम अवस्थामा आएको भनेर सोधपुछ गर्दा बिरामीको जवाफ थियो – “म येशूको विश्वासी हुँ, हाम्रो चर्चमा औषधि प्रयोग गर्नुभन्दा बढी प्रार्थनामा चङ्गाई छ भन्ने कुरा सिकाईन्छ ।” उसको कुरा सुनेर डाक्टर छक्क परे अनि रिसाए पनि । केही समयपछि त्यो विरामीको मृत्यु भयो । डाक्टरको प्रश्न थियो – यो कस्तो किसिमको धर्म हो ? जसले औषधिको बिरोध गर्छ......। के इसाई हुँदैमा औषधि प्रयोग गर्न हुँदैन र ?

पश्चिम नेपालको कुनै एक गाउँमा ४० दिनको उपवास २४ बस्ने अठोट गरेको एकजना विश्वासी एक हप्ता नबित्दै अचानक बिरामी भयो र उनलाई तुरुन्तै अस्पताल लगियो । बिरामीको जाँचपछि थाहा भयो कि उनको शरीरमा अन्न-पानी नपरेको कारणले जलवियोजन र कुपोषण भएको रहेछ । सो बुझेर डाक्टरले उनलाई केही खानेकुरा खानु भन्नुभयो, तर बिरामीको जवाफ थियो, “डाक्टर साब म विश्वासी हुँ, म उपवासमा छु, यो समयमा मैले केही पनि खान मिल्दैन... ।” डाक्टरले भन्यो “तपाईंको अवस्था निकै गम्भीर छ त्यसैले थोरै जुस वा पानी पिउनुहोस् ।” बिरामी विश्वासीले आफ्नो ४० दिनको उपवासमा केही पनि नखाने संकल्प गरेको देखेर डाक्टरले तुरुन्तै स्लाइन पानी चलाउनपर्ने सुझाव दिए । तर आफूलाई येशूको भक्त सम्झने विश्वासीको भनाई थियो- “स्लाईनलाउनु भनेको त खानेकुराखाए जस्तो हो र यसले मेरो उपवासलाई तोड्छ यसैले म, यो पनि चलाउदिनँ ।” ?यो कुराले डाक्टरलाई साह्रै नराम्रो लाग्यो । यो नकरात्मक खबर चारैतिर फैलियो र सबैले भन्न लागे प्रार्थना मात्र गन तर औषधि प्रयोग नगर्ने कस्तो मान्छे र कस्तो धर्म... 

यो घटनामा पनि जलवियोजनको कारणले त्यो मानिस मर्यो । पूर्वी नेपालको तराईमा एउटा मानिसलाई सर्पले टोक्यो ।त्यो व्यक्ति इसाई भएको कारणले चर्चका मानिसहरूलाई बोलाएर वचन घोषणा गर्दै, शैतानलाई हकार्दै र मृत्युको आत्मालाई येशूको नाममा भागिजा भन्दै घन्टौ प्रार्थना गरे । बिरामीको शरीरभरी विष फैलिएको कारणले केही घण्टापछि उनको मृत्यु भयो । गाउँलेहरूले यो कुरा थाहा पाए पछि मण्डली परिवारमा ठूलो समस्या र विरोध आयो । मानिसहरूले यो नकरात्मक खबरलाई इसाईहरूको विरूद्धमा प्रचारप्रसार गरे । त्यसपछी इसाई धर्म ठीक छैन यो धर्मले औषधि, डाक्टर र अस्पतालको विरोध गर्छ भन्ने गलत खबर फैलियो ।

माथिका यी तीनैवटा प्रतिनिधि घटनाहरूबाट देख्न सकिन्छ कि कतिपय इसाईहरूमा औषधिबारे बाइबलले के कुरा बताएको छ भन्ने राम्रो ज्ञान छैन । धर्मशास्त्र बाइबलले भन्छ- "ज्ञानको कमीले गर्दा मेरो प्रजा नष्ट भएको छ (होशे ४:६) । वास्तबमा बाइबलले औषधिको बारेमा धेरै कुराहरू बताएको छ र हामी य यो पुस्तकमा पुरानो तथा नयाँ करारमा औषधिहरूको प्रयोग के कसरी र कहाँ भएको छ भन्ने विषयमा चर्चा गर्नेछौं । 

अब पाठको पहिलो पदको रुपमा हाम्रा उद्धारकर्ता प्रभू येशूले भन्नुभएको यो खण्डबाट सुरु गरौं ।

यो सुनेर उहाँले भन्नुभयो, “निरोगीहरुलाई वैधको आवश्यता हुँदैन, तर रोगीहरुलाई हुन्छ (मत्ती ८:१२) ।

यो खण्डमा प्रभु येशूले, वैद्य वा डाक्टरको आवश्यकतालाई स्पष्टसँग स्वीकार गर्नुभएको छ । रोगीलाई डाक्टर, औषधि र अस्पतालको आवश्यकता पर्छ भन्ने कुरा येशूले मानिसकोरूपमा राम्रोसँग बुझ्नुभएको थियो । डाक्टरले उनको पढाई तथा अनुभवबाट आर्जित ज्ञानद्वारा कुन बिरामीलाई कस्तो औषधि चलाउने, के खाने के नखाने, के गर्ने के नगर्ने भन्ने कुराहरू बताउनसक्छ । अति आवश्यक परेको खण्डमा बिरामीलाई स्वास्थ्य केन्द्रमा वा घरैमा राखी आवश्यकता अनुसार उपचार गर्ने कुरामा उनीहरू लागि पर्छन् । डाक्टरको राम्रो सल्लाह सुझाब अनुसार बिरामीले व्यवहार गर्दा बिरामी चाँडै स्वस्थ हुनसक्छ । तर निरोगी मानिसलाई डाक्टरको आवश्यकता पर्दैन र उसलाई औषधिको पनि आवश्यकता हुदैन । कुनै मानिस रोग नलागे पनि अस्पताल गयो, औषधि खायो र त्यहाँ सुति मात्रै रह्यो भने सद्धे मानिस पनि बिरामी हुनसक्छ । हाम्रा येशू प्रभुको भनाईलाई यसरी बुझौँ, रोगीलाई डाक्टर, औषधि र परेको खण्डमा अस्पताल पनि चाहिन्छ । येशूले भन्नुभएको कुरा हो, रोगीलाई वैद्यको (डाक्टर) आवश्यक पर्छ । 

येशूले स्वास्थ्यकर्मीलाई स्वीकार गरि प्रमाण खोज्नुभएको मत्ती ८: १-४, एकजना कुष्ठरोगी निको भएकोः उहाँ डाँडाबाट ओर्लनुभएपछि ठूलो भीड उहाँको पछि लाग्यो । एकजना कुष्ठरोगी उहाँकहाँ आयो, र उहाँको अघि घुँडा टेकि यसो भन्यो, "हे प्रभु तपाईंको इच्छाभए मलाई निको पार्न सक्नुहुन्छ ।” उहाँले आफ्नो हात पसारेर त्यसलाई छुनुभयो, र भन्नुभयो “म इच्छा गर्छु तिमी निको भइजाऊ।" तुरुन्तै त्यसको कुष्ठरोग निको भयो । तब येशूले त्यसलाई भन्नुभयो “कसैलाई नभन्नू तर जाऊ र आफूलाई पुजाहारीकहाँ देखाऊ, र मोशाले आज्ञा गरेको भेटि चढाऊ र मानिसहरुलाई प्रमाण होस् ।” यस घटनामा प्रभु येशूले समाजबाट त्यागिएको, ओडारमा गएर बस्नुपर्ने एकजना कुष्ठरोगीलाई आफ्नो अलौकिक शक्तिद्वारा बोलेर नै निको पार्नुभएको छ । प्रभु येशू जसलाई कुनैपनि कुराहरू गर्न असम्भव छैन, उहाँले निको पारिसकेपछि त्यस कुष्ठरोगीलाई पुजाहारीकहाँ गएर प्रमाणको लागि देखाउने आज्ञा दिनुभयो । वाइबलको पुरानो करारअनुसार कुष्ठरोगी निको भएपछि ऊ प्रमाणको लागि पुजारीकोमा जानैपर्छ । लेवी १४:१-३२ मा यी कुराहरू बताइएको छ । (येशूले विद्यमान राम्रा संस्कृतिहरूलाई स्वीकार गर्नुभएकोले हामीले पनि समाजमा विद्यमान राम्रा संस्कृतिहरूलाई स्वीकार गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने देखाउँछ ।) हाम्रो यो विषय " बाइबलमा औषधिहरू” सम्बन्धि भएको कारणले, हामी यो खण्डलाई त्यसैको नजरबाट हेर्नेछौं । 

पुरानो करारमा कुशल शिक्षक, पाष्टर तथा अगमवक्ता मोशासँग अलौकिक ज्ञान र शक्तिमात्र थिएन तर उनमा औषधिबारे पनि राम्रो ज्ञान थियो । ती सबै कुराहरूलाई प्रयोग गरेर उनले परमेश्वरको राज्यको वृद्धि र विकासमा ठूलो योगदान पुर्याएका छन् । हामीले यो पनि बुझ्नुपर्छ कि मोशा दरबारमा हुर्किएका र त्यहाँको उच्च शिक्षा प्राप्त गरेका एकजना व्यक्ति थिए । प्रेरित ७: १२ “मोशालाई मिश्रीहरुका सारा विद्यामा शिक्षा दिइन्थ्यो, र मोशा आफ्ना वचन र काममा शक्तिशाली भए ।“ संसारको कुनैपनि दरबारको विशेषता यो हो, कि दरबारियाहरूले आफ्ना बालबच्चाहरूलाई संसारका सबै प्रकारका ज्ञान तथा सीपहरू सिकाउछन । राजनीति, संगीत, धर्म, दर्शन, व्यापार, वाणिज्य, कला, साहित्य, लगायत औषधिको ज्ञान पनि तिनीहरूलाई सिकाइन्छ । मोशाले मिश्र देशको दरबारमा औषधिको ज्ञान सिकेको कारणले उनले पुजाहारीहरू र अगमवक्ताहरूलाई औषधिको बारेमा जानकारी दिएको कुरो प्राचीन औषधि पद्दतिका डाक्टरहरूले विश्वास गर्छन् । त्यस्तै स्वास्थ्य क्षेत्रमा रहेका इसाई वैज्ञानिकहरू र यसै क्षेत्रमा सम्बन्धित बाइबल विद्वानहरूले पनि यो कुरा मानिलिएका छन् । मोशा आफै पनि एक जना स्वास्थ्यविज्ञ थिए । यसैले परमेश्वरले उनलाई आफ्नो मानवीय ज्ञान पनि प्रयोग गर्ने अनुमती दिनुभयो । यूहन्ना १:१७ “किनभने व्यवस्था मोशाद्वारा दिइयो, अनुग्रह र सत्यताचाहिँ येशू ख्रीष्टद्वारा आए । मर्कुस १०:५ तर येशूले तिनीहरुलाई भन्नुभयो, “तिमीहरुका हृदयको कठोरताले गर्दा उनले तिमीहरुलाई यो आज्ञा लेखिदिए ।“ (ब्यवस्था ५:१, व्यवस्था २४:१-५, मत्ती २४:४४ पढ्नुहोस्) मानवीय ज्ञान र तौर तरिकाहरू जसले मानिसहरूको हीत र प्रगति गर्छ भने त्यो ज्ञानलाई प्रयोग गरीसेवा गर्न राम्रो कुरा हो । 

मोशाले पुजाहारीहरूलाई धार्मीक कुराहरू मात्र सिकाएका थिएनन् तर व्यवहारिक कुराहरू पनि सिकाएका थिए । कुष्ठरोगीहरू कहाँ बस्नुपर्ने, तिनीहरूले मानिसहरूसंग कस्तो व्यवहार गर्नुपर्ने, तिनीहरू निको भएको छ छैन भनेर बेला-बेलामा पुजाहारीकहाँ जचाउँनुपर्ने व्यवस्था मोशाले बनाइदिए । त्यो बेलाका पुजाहारीहरू धर्म गर्ने मात्र थिएनन् औषधि गर्ने डाक्टर जस्तै पनि थिए । यहि कारणले गर्दा पनि हामी अगुवाहरूमा आत्मिक साथै व्यवहारिक ज्ञान भएको राम्रो हुन्छ । हो सबैले सबै विषयमा जानकारी लिन सक्दैनन्, हरेकको रूची फरक फरक हुनसक्छ । यसैले नै तपाईलाई बाइबलमा औषधिको रहस्यबारे केहि जानकारी होस् भन्ने उद्देश्य लिएर यो पुस्तिका लेखिएको छ । येशूले कुष्ठरोगीलाई चङ्गाई गर्नुभएपछि पुजाहारीकहाँ गएर देखाऊ भन्ने कुराबाट हामीले चङ्गाईको निम्ति प्रार्थना गर्ने, प्रभुबाट आशिष पाउने र आवश्यक पर्दा विज्ञ डाक्टरलाई भेटघाट गरी सहायता लिन पनि सकिन्छ । याद गर्नुहोस्, येशूले पुजाहारीकहाँ नजा, त्यहाँ पटकै नजा, त्यो आवश्यक छैन भनेर भन्नुभएन । तर येशूले भन्नुभयो जाऊ र पुजाहारीकोमा देखाऊ । यसैले हामीले राम्रा र अधिकार पाएका डाक्टरहरूबाट सहायता लिनसक्छौं ।

Reflection on Book: Ke garne? by Lani Kay Ackerman

Reflection on the book: Lani Kay Ackerman. Ke Garne? Sustainable Christian Community Development in the Himalayas. Bloomington, IN: Author House, 2014.

Ke Garne? is a work of a missionary who spent a significant portion of her life (with her family) serving God, by serving Nepali people. She has identified the major issue of karma and fatalism in Nepali society and saw a great need to break the barrier created by the fatalistic concept in the society. This book can be taken as a missionary's reflection on the situation of Nepal is committed to enabling Nepalese people to commit in society. Unlike other missionary biographies, Ke garne? equally reflects on key biblical passages and shows the importance of incarnational mission in the country. Ke garne? documents both the spiritual growth of the Nepali Christians and the author as well. Ke garne is not a book that brags about the author's missionary dedication in a third world country rather their struggle to enable the native Nepali people to be involved in their own ministry. Nepali Christianity can learn a lot from this book that shows the importance of the synergy between belief in the Lord and involvement in the community. Nepali Christianity should not focus only on the ritual changes of their religious behavior but should opt for a change of the course of the community life. Their love for God should be reflected in their love for neighbors. Many times, in Nepal, mission work that is committed to helping the society and the works to evangelize the people are separate. Probably that’s due to government restriction. However, if we make Nepali Christian see the importance of such mission works as a Christian would bring a great change in the country. Ke Garne? shows the necessity and works to fulfill it.  

https://www.amazon.com/Garne-Sustainable-Christian-Community-Development/dp/1491842210

Edward Said's Orientalism

A Reading and Reflection on: Edward Said's Orientalism

 by: Pabitra M. Bhandari

Introduction

Orientalism is a exploration of thought behind the colonialism  as way to dominate the east by the west both politically and economically. The Author Edward Said, a Palestinial-American scholar and a prominent critic of the late twentieth century, had experienced the life in Jerusalem at the time of 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He had his education from prestigious schools in Europe and America.

Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between “the Orient” and (most of the time) “the Occident.” Edward Said sees a deeply rooted idea, beliefs or intentions in the west which is used to control, and manipulate the Orient world (p. 12). In this work, Said seeks to identify the dynamics behind the imperialist view of the world, which are so prevalent that its indistinguishable from the truth and the judgment it produces (p. 20). 

Summary

Orientalism is an interdisciplinary work that relates to many different academic faculties. It seeks to explore how the Orientalism (the Western view about the East, the Orient) has been instrumental in creating the colonization and post-colonization western point of view which has little to do with the real orient. Orientalism while it had its origin in the western imagination of the East, it established its root in power, domination, hegemony and authority. To develop his idea Edwar Said has divided the book into three main chapters: The scope of Orientalism, Orientalism Structures and Restructures and Orientalism now.

Edward Said saw that the original source of the Orientalism is are those who created literatures on the Orients. He calls them Orientalists, that they put forth the idea that the Orientals are naïve and do not know politic therefore Westerners should rule over them and help them. Therefore they made the westerner civilized and justified their invasion of the East.

Said gives his definition and scope that Orientalism incorporates all people whose activities are related to the east. “Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches the Orient-and this applies whether the person is an anthropologist, sociologist, historian, or philologist-either in its specific or its general aspects, is an Orientalist, and what he or she does is Orientalism”( P.10). The Orientalism is problematic because it happened completely in the west without any exchange from the East, that the Occident possessed the intellectual authority over the orient for Orientalism. Hence, Orientalism produced its own culture, and political motivation (P.28). The West formulated their knowledge on the Orient when they occupied the land, therefore for Said “the Orientalist reality is both antihuman and persistent. Its scope, as much as its institutions and all-pervasive influence, lasts up to the present” (p.52). For Edward Said it declares unsubstantiated truth or impressions as if they are absolute without verifying or giving a second thought it may not be the truth. Following paragraph exemplifies the problem of the Orientalism:

Thus, Mohammed is an imposter, the very phrase canonized in d’Herbelot’s Bibliothèque and dramatized in a sense by Dante. No background need be given; the evidence necessary to convict Mohammed is contained in the “is” One does not qualify the phrase, neither does it seem necessary to say that Mohammed was an imposter, nor need one consider for a moment that it may not be necessary to repeat the statement. It is repeated, he is an imposter, and each time one says it, he becomes more of an imposter and the author of the statement gains a little more authority in having declared it. p.82-83

Said concludes that Orientalism cannot be separated from its uses in colonial purposes. He points out to Napoleon and says that Orientalism was for the conquest of Egypt which was a historical and geopolitically significant. p. 93-95. This way, a literary and scholarly discipline was made into a policy toward orient. Said also sees that the Orientalism fails to see the dynamism in the Orient where the west is the actor, the Orient is a passive reactor. They did not see any other Orient’s cultural, political and social historical reality other than their response to the west. (p. 121).

In Chapter 2, Edward Said shows how Orientalism and political development have reciprocal relationship. According to him, Orientalism is used to achieve a political goal at the same time Orientalism is depended on such political development to gain its knowledge about the orient (p. 132). For Edward Said, some renowned scholars such as Sacy, Renan and Mark were Orientalists in their point of view. Sacy utilized Orientalism to appreciate the Arabic poetry, Philology of Renan is the Orientalist point of view. For Marx, Said writes:

Marx was concerned with vindicating his own theses on socio-economic revolution; but in part also he seems to have had easy resource to a massed body of writing, both internally consolidated by Orientalism and put forward by it beyond the field, that controlled any statement made about the Orient (p. 170).

Even though the west tried to be the as literal and as original it could be in regard to the study of the orient language it ended of creating another form of Orientalism by making dictionaries, commentaries in the west for the west. Said terms it “necessary furniture of British Empire” (p.230).

Even now, the post-colonial period, the Orientalism is repeating itself in its original form. He writes: “Orientalism staked its existence, not upon its openness, its receptivity to the Orient, but rather on its internal, repetitious consistency about its constitutive will-to-power over the Orient” (p. 239-238). The relationship between the Orientalist and Orient was essentially hermeneutical: while trying to translate and understand it remained outside of orient. For Edward Said, Orientalism is still there which is actually diving the East for the West. (p. 261). These days Orientalism is changing its stance. The Orientalists pretend to speak for the orients as if they can’t speak for themselves. Edward Said quotes Marxt Orienalits statement to condemn them, “they cannot represent themselves; they must be represented” (p. 313). Orientalists do not see that Orients are capable of standing for themselves.

Reflection

Though Edward Said is produced long ago, and the history has changed ever since then, his writing still hits the mark when we discuss about the Orientalism.  Orientalists still speak about the Orients in their own terms and give names and meaning to the Orients. The Orientalists still influence the western governments formulate their view and relationship with the Eastern countries. However, the influence of Orientalism is far-reaching than ever, because it has infiltrated in the institution of the Orient itself. After Reading Orientalism by Edward Said, my eyes have opened up and are able to see the effects of Orientalism even upon me, who is from the Orient.

Sometimes westerners come to the east and try to represent the eastern culture people and language; try to judge / speak for their preservation and such. Though it sound a positive outcome of Orientalism, however it is the Orientalists’ move because they still view the Orients are inferior and not capable of helping themselves. They speak for their government, sovereignty, and so on. Edward Said clarified that its time to leave the Oriental affairs in the Orient hands.

Mt. Everest is the highest peak in the world and situated well into the East in the Himalayas. However, the name is not an Oriental, but a western. The original name is Sagarmatha. This is what the Orientalists do; they give their own name and properties to the things that do not belong to them. With their power and technology they popularize them and force the orientals to abide by their norms.   

               However there are many negatives exposed about the Orientalism throughout the book.

Can we say Orientalism is always wrong should be avoided? Can Orientalism be utilized to learn the truth and find a common understanding between the East and the west? Can Orientalism be seen as one of the point of view in this post-modern era of the twenty first century? These are the question I would like to be discussed.

Review: Is there a God?

Book Review

-Review by: Pabitra M. Bhandari

Richard Swinburne, Is there a God? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996)

Richard Swinburne is considered as a one of the most distinguished philosophers of Religion, who has been teaching Philosophy of the Christian religion in Oxford University, before that he was a professor of Philosophy at Keele University. He has penned down on several works on Philosophy of Religions in general and Philosophy of Christian Religion in Particular. In this particular book, "is there a God, he turned the argument against the existence of God to prove that there is God. He philosophically explained/reasoned the scientific formulas to present his argument for existence of God.

"Is there a God?" offers a powerful response to modern doubts about the existence of God. The world is publicized by scientists that there is no proof of god's existence. They reasoned after their investigation of the human, nature and universe. But Swinburne made his argument like this: using the criteria (data) of historian, scientist and detective, we find the view that there is a God explains everything we observe, not just some narrow range of data in which all the above mentioned discipline concentrate. For Swinburne, "the very criteria, which scientists use to reach their own theories, lead us to move beyond those theories to a creator God who sustains everything in existence."  

He opens his arguments, by clarifying the very concept of "God" according to the claim of theism. He not only gives various attributes of God but he explain what the very concept mean. For example: he introduces God as a person but he further more logically explains that as a person God has individual power, purposes and beliefs. In a same way, he makes clear that there is a God who is essentially eternally omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly free. Than he raises a question why should we believe them? From this point onward Swinburne is using the criteria which scientists, historians and others use when they put forward their theories about the causes of what they observe. He leaves the very concept of God at this moment and goes after the way of explanation.

The world is consists of objects, called substances which have properties to cause events. And such events are explained in human terms. Events are explained basically in two ways, i.e. the inanimate causation, and there is intentional causation. The first explanation is in terms of powers and liabilities, is inanimate explanation, the second is in terms of beliefs and purposes, is intentional and also called personal explanation. Physics and Chemistry provide inanimate explanations and so much history, psychology, sociology provide personal explanations. Swinburne is not satisfied with mere various explanations but he is seeking the justification of the explanation the criteria to determine the explanation (theory) is true or not. He presented four criteria to judge the explanation (theory) of an observed event. The first one "it leads us to expect many and varied events which we observe;" i.e. the explanation should explain the event in various occurrences. "What is proposed is simple" "it fits in the background knowledge" i.e. it means the theory should work in neighboring area; the last one is that "we would not otherwise expect to find these events; i.e. it should be relevant to the whole system. If all these four criteria are satisfied with a explanation only then it can be considered as a true sentence. After giving the mere criteria to explain events author jumped to explain God, how simple is it to explain.

He continues to argue and present his opinion on the explanation. Not everything has an explanation, to explain something one needs to depend on others we will have to acknowledge something as ultimate and there seems to have three possibility of ultimate explanations: materialism, humanism and theism. His position is that materialism just give inanimate explanation which fails to achieve the personal matter, and it can be explained by humanism, but it fails to give the explanation concerning existence and operation. From there Swinburne points to theism which tends to explain the very existence of the matter and operation of it. Therefore, he is arguing that theism is the ultimate explanation. Following this, author is moreover trying to exemplify the evidence how does it works rather than how it is proved. He is not longing to find out that how world shows God exist but how it explains the world and its order.

The failure of science, history, humanism, psychology to explain the very nature and reason of the existence of world, animal, human beings, evil etc. are explained by very concept that "God Exists." Author started with the nature of Universe, there are very particles which composed to form the universe, naturally there should not be anything, but there is something. The varieties of things are composed of certain amount of these small particles (neutron, proton, and electron) and form to have certain regular behavior. There are certain kinds of regular behaviors in things and in the world produced by the composition of certain amount of particles. And those regularities can be observed and science makes some rules and laws. Because there are regularities science can predict that there will be rain, the day will be sunny, plant grow, etc. but science is never able to explain that why there is regularities in the universe. This thing is explained by theism. Because Omnipotent God exists; he is able to make everything regular. The regularities are not in the universe and physical world itself but in human and animal bodies. He also point out the fact that the chance would never throw up such beautiful organization. There are order and regularities in human and bodies and the animal world so that they can survive themselves. In this chapter Swinburne is not arguing that because there is order in the universe therefore God exists; his argument is also not that the universe exists therefore God exists, but his argument is that only "God exists" can explain the orderliness and existence of the universe.

The next chapter he jumped unto the human being itself. Human is more than just a body, he is conscious of many things which never be produced by electrons, protons, and neutrons. It is different than body and is also called soul. This is never be explained by evolutionary theory of Darwin. Human has inanimate and mental properties. He eats, walks, talks, which can be explained in inanimate explanation but there is happiness, pain, grief, and cannot be explained in inanimate terms. Therefore he concludes there is mental or immaterial part, soul is in man. Science cannot explain anything about the immaterial things therefore Swinburne pointed out theism explanation about this. God being omnipotent, is able to join soul and body and he has good reason to join it. Human is different from other animals and living things, Human has immaterial part soul which only can be explained by theism that "God exists".

Swinburne explained everything under the claim "God exists". But for this existence of evil is problematic. Every one agrees that there is evil in this universe whether natural or moral. For natural evil Swinburne also argued the free and responsible choice of man that causes the evil to himself and to the others. For natural evil, he pushed his view that Natural evil operates to give human those choices first to let them know the effect of their evil action and t give them freedom to choose more choices. At last he closes his argument saying that God would be justified in bringing about the evils for the sake of the good which they make possible.

The issue of miracles which is seen specially the violation of the natural laws is also to be explained. There is historical evidence for the occurrence of violations of natural laws of a kind which is indirect evidence for the existence of God. By all these explanation of the events in the point of view of theism, Swinburne is able to present the probability of existence of God.

Overall the entire book is able to present good argument for the explanation of the theism is the best among others, but it is very weak to answer the question raised in the title of the book "Is there a God?" the whole book centered on that "God exists" is better than "God doesn't exists." The arguments he used to show the usefulness of "God's existence" are similar to the classic arguments of God's existence, i.e. Teleological argument. Thomas Aquinasstarted with the view that all there is order in the universe therefore God exists but in this book Swinburne is arguing that "God exists" explains the orderly universe better than science. The explanation of the human being, and human soul is also of same theme in another title. His argument against the issue is similar with other theodicy; i.e. his argument against the moral evil he connects with the free will of human as Augustine' theodicy; and against natural theodicy is moreover like Iranean theodicy; that God may utilize the evil for his Good purpose. Since author seems to be very neutral in his religious position (specially in this book), he is struggling to convince the problem of evil. Historicity of violations of natural laws is taken as the proof of God's existence, which clearly seem illogical.

Finally, the book seems to be very useful to speak against the attack of scientism. But in this postmodern time more people argue that there are several ways to reach God, i.e. pluralism is the main opponent. And author did not touch any issues concerning knowing God. Author seem to be protecting himself from the attack of theist and pluralist. The God author talking about seems to be very abstract rather than personal. He seems to be presenting argument for the "existence of God" the concept of God as in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam but this book is not enough to explain the match point of their belief i.e. Monotheism. To create an orderly universe like he explained in this book, there is no necessity of only one God, i.e. there can be many gods working for this universe. The book also lacks to explain personal/relational experience with God. The book seem to pointing to agnosticism, "the possibility of God's existence". The book can be used to argue against the atheism. But after reading his book, one has to agree at his argument that theism can explain everything in the universe.