Banner Advertiser

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Re: [mukto-mona] নন ইউক্�



Where is the attachment?  Please post it again.

2012/8/4 Mazhar Is <mazhar.tc@gmail.com>
 
[Attachment(s) from Mazhar Is included below]

'মুক্তমনা' এর গণিত বিভাগে উক্ত লেখাটি প্রকাশের অনুরোধ জানাচ্ছি।
ধন্যবাদ।




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established



'The black meteorite' comes with a human birth canal engraved on it.  It used to represent the mother goddess.

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Dev Saha <devsaha5@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

The same is true with Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
There are very few people that are truly spiritual. Hindus may have DEVs and DEVis but Muslims and Christians got their Muhammed and Christ. These are no different from worshiping idols. What would you call the black meteorite of Kabba?
-Dev




--- On Sun, 8/5/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012, 1:25 AM

 

"SanatonDharma, as it exists today, is 80% idolatry and 20% spiritual. Could this trend be reversed through mass education?"


What made you feel that idolaters can't be spiritual?  Besides those religions claiming to have nothing to do with idolatry speaks about God's hands, mouth along with other limbs and above all voice.  Aren't the followers of those religions idolaters too?

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 


Mr. Sudhir Kumar,

I am glad that this center wants to promote open-minded intellectual deliberations about SanatanDharma. I have a proposal to all intellectuals in this center, and that is – how about promoting 'Formless-worshipping (Nirakar Upashana)' to revive the spiritual understanding of the essence of religion through yoga, meditation, etc., since SanatonDharma has a provision for that already, and does not require idolatry for religious purposes. Idolatry is merely a ritualistic act to commemorate a particular memorable scriptural event, and as such - it is much more a cultural festivity than a religious act. Idolatry breeds superstitions and prejudices; it divides community into sects and castes. It should be separated from the core religion ASAP. In my view, SanatonDharma, as it exists today, is 80% idolatry and 20% spiritual. Could this trend be reversed through mass education?

Thank you so much.

Jiten Roy
--- On Fri, 8/3/12, Sudhir-Architect <ar_sudhirkumar@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Sudhir-Architect <ar_sudhirkumar@yahoo.com>
Subject: [mukto-mona] America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established
To:
Date: Friday, August 3, 2012, 12:36 PM


 
America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established

The Center for the Study
of Dharma and Civilization
http://www.dharmaci vilization. com

After more than a decade of discussions, planning and organizing, the very first credible and professionally led Hindu think tank in America has now been formally established to serve the Hindu community.

The Center for the Study of Dharma and Civilization (CSDC) is the very first academic think tank of the Sanatana Dharma tradition ever created in American history. Established by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya in May of 2012, the CSDC brings together several of the most prominent Hindu scholars in America with the singular purpose of academically affirming the preeminence of the philosophy, practice and culture of Sanatana Dharma in the intellectual realm.

The Board of Advisors for this first ever Hindu think tank includes:

Dr. David Frawley, Professor Subhash Kak, Professor Ramdas Lamb, Professor Ramesh Rao, Professor Parmender Mehta, and Professor Daniel Wilkins.

Our goal is to reveal to the world the unique Vedic perspective on all of the most important philosophical, social, religious, political and cultural issues of the day. We will offer comparative analyses of the Dharma world-view versus every other world-view of prominence in the 21st century, thus establishing Sanatana Dharma as the philosophical system par excellence designed to solve the many crises and confusions that our world is facing today.

Seeking Paper Submissions

We are seeking papers to publish on our website, and that may eventually be published in printed form.

We are exclusively interested in papers that firmly contrast any civilizational aspect of Sanatana Dharma with any juxtaposing aspect of a non-Dharmic belief system, theological stance, philosophy, ideology, or idea. The goal of your paper must be to demonstratively establish the preeminence of Sanatana Dharma over the non-Dharmic philosophical proposition you are comparing it to. We are not interested in purely historical, hagiographical, philological, or needlessly abstract papers – but only papers that directly interface Sanatana Dharma with modernity in a polemically engaged manner.

You can submit papers online at: http://dharmacivilization.com/submissions/

We Need Your Help

The CSDC is currently operating on a limited budget. We will need further funding for larger office space rental, internet development and maintenance, possible fellowships for scholars who we would want to employ full-time, development of multimedia production capacity, etc. If you would like to donate to this important cause, please do so by visiting: http://dharmacivilization.com/donate/

Aum Tat Sat
 
Thanks & Regards,


Sudhir Srinivasan
B.Arch, MSc.CPM, Dip.ID, Dip.CAD, Dip.PM
| Architect |





__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established



Durga is a post-Vedic Goddess.  The Goddess Saraswati in the Vedas became Durga in the Puranas.  What on earth do you mean by  'being spiritual' anyway?  Is it the state you achieve by imbibing spirit? 

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

It's a valid question - if there is a religion in the world that does not use some sort of imaginary or real images or forms for prayer or meditation. Something is needed for focusing concentration. But, the idea of idolatry used by Hindus serves an additional purpose also, and that is - to commemorate scriptural event. For example, when Ram needed a blessing (boon) from Devi-Durga before going to the war against Ravan, he started meditation to communicate with the deity. Durga was pleased with his meditation and came down to earth from the heaven. This incident is now celebrated as BashantiPuja.  The regular Durga-Puja is also a commemoration of another event, when Devi Durga came back to her parent's home from her in-law's home. These types of events are optional celebrations for Hindus. What practically happens in all these occasions, Brahmins chant some mantras in front of a deity with very little contribution/participation of devotees. But, such celebrations have high entertainment value; they are very successful in that. There is no problem with these functions, as long as people understand the purpose.

 

Yes, some of those devotees may be spiritual, but majority are not, I am afraid.

 

Jiten Roy

 


--- On Sun, 8/5/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 5, 2012, 1:25 AM


 
"SanatonDharma, as it exists today, is 80% idolatry and 20% spiritual. Could this trend be reversed through mass education?"

What made you feel that idolaters can't be spiritual?  Besides those religions claiming to have nothing to do with idolatry speaks about God's hands, mouth along with other limbs and above all voice.  Aren't the followers of those religions idolaters too?

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Mr. Sudhir Kumar,

I am glad that this center wants to promote open-minded intellectual deliberations about SanatanDharma. I have a proposal to all intellectuals in this center, and that is – how about promoting 'Formless-worshipping (Nirakar Upashana)' to revive the spiritual understanding of the essence of religion through yoga, meditation, etc., since SanatonDharma has a provision for that already, and does not require idolatry for religious purposes. Idolatry is merely a ritualistic act to commemorate a particular memorable scriptural event, and as such - it is much more a cultural festivity than a religious act. Idolatry breeds superstitions and prejudices; it divides community into sects and castes. It should be separated from the core religion ASAP. In my view, SanatonDharma, as it exists today, is 80% idolatry and 20% spiritual. Could this trend be reversed through mass education?

Thank you so much.

Jiten Roy
--- On Fri, 8/3/12, Sudhir-Architect <ar_sudhirkumar@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Sudhir-Architect <ar_sudhirkumar@yahoo.com>
Subject: [mukto-mona] America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established
To:
Date: Friday, August 3, 2012, 12:36 PM


 
America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established

The Center for the Study
of Dharma and Civilization
http://www.dharmaci vilization. com

After more than a decade of discussions, planning and organizing, the very first credible and professionally led Hindu think tank in America has now been formally established to serve the Hindu community.

The Center for the Study of Dharma and Civilization (CSDC) is the very first academic think tank of the Sanatana Dharma tradition ever created in American history. Established by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya in May of 2012, the CSDC brings together several of the most prominent Hindu scholars in America with the singular purpose of academically affirming the preeminence of the philosophy, practice and culture of Sanatana Dharma in the intellectual realm.

The Board of Advisors for this first ever Hindu think tank includes:

Dr. David Frawley, Professor Subhash Kak, Professor Ramdas Lamb, Professor Ramesh Rao, Professor Parmender Mehta, and Professor Daniel Wilkins.

Our goal is to reveal to the world the unique Vedic perspective on all of the most important philosophical, social, religious, political and cultural issues of the day. We will offer comparative analyses of the Dharma world-view versus every other world-view of prominence in the 21st century, thus establishing Sanatana Dharma as the philosophical system par excellence designed to solve the many crises and confusions that our world is facing today.

Seeking Paper Submissions

We are seeking papers to publish on our website, and that may eventually be published in printed form.

We are exclusively interested in papers that firmly contrast any civilizational aspect of Sanatana Dharma with any juxtaposing aspect of a non-Dharmic belief system, theological stance, philosophy, ideology, or idea. The goal of your paper must be to demonstratively establish the preeminence of Sanatana Dharma over the non-Dharmic philosophical proposition you are comparing it to. We are not interested in purely historical, hagiographical, philological, or needlessly abstract papers – but only papers that directly interface Sanatana Dharma with modernity in a polemically engaged manner.

You can submit papers online at: http://dharmacivilization.com/submissions/

We Need Your Help

The CSDC is currently operating on a limited budget. We will need further funding for larger office space rental, internet development and maintenance, possible fellowships for scholars who we would want to employ full-time, development of multimedia production capacity, etc. If you would like to donate to this important cause, please do so by visiting: http://dharmacivilization.com/donate/

Aum Tat Sat
 
Thanks & Regards,


Sudhir Srinivasan
B.Arch, MSc.CPM, Dip.ID, Dip.CAD, Dip.PM
| Architect |





__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling



Such attitude towards the 'revealed' rubbish of assorted religions ultimately give rise to the dark age.  Let the 'mullahs' return to it and face inquisition if they will.

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:41 PM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

The specific Koranic sura related to Siraatul Mustakin is a great one. As a school student we read it's translation by Satyendra Nath Dutta and Gholam Mostafa. Although different people will make different meanings of some of the words in the sura, in my opinion the inherent message of this sura should be on the wish list of all believers irrespective of their religious affiliation and nonbelievers as well irrespective of their socio-political affiliation. The non-Muslims, skeptics, and the non-believers may see this simply as a beautiful piece of literature and a philosophical guidance. "Keep me on the right track"--can be treated as a universal teaching. Let me take one verse from Upanishads: Cause my transition from impurity (dishonesty) to purity (honesty), from darkness to light, from death to immortality. This Upanishadic verse is probably philosophically and literally more profound than the Koranic sura mentioned here, the bottom line is that both of these verses basically carry the same message for practical purposes. Perhaps Bani Basu's view about religion in general that "Dharma is a shuva sanskar" was motivated by comparative study of religions in her own fashion.
 
Now let me try to address Manab's issue. A religion is a much more complex system than a single verse. For example, the five pillars of Islam, the message of the Azaan, the messages in the suras that a worshiper recites while saying his prayers are not every thing but only tiny, although most important, parts of Islam. The prophet died before the compilation of the Koran. Innumerable Hadiths were written based on oral traditions and only a small fraction has been accepted as genuine. The same is true for the Bible and Hindu scriptures. After the death of the prophet have emerged theological theories, various commentaries, and most importantly Shariaa. The same thing has happened with other great religions. Throughout history the rulers and the clerics have shared the state power and have interpreted religion in the way that suited their purpose. There were however both easy and tense relations between the rulers and the clerics depending on the situation. This trend is still going on even in this modern world.
 
Now my question to Manab is: How would you follow Siraatul Mustakin by sidetracking the rest of the complex body of Islam that is being interpreted and used by various vested interest groups within the Muslim world? To whom would you listen: to the fanatics or the sufis? Specifically, what would you do about women's liberation, Shariaah law, Shariaah banking, separation of "church from the state"?    
 
 
      Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Manab Dharma <manabdharma@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Doubt is good. Skeptics are in line of intellectuals. But somehow comparative analysis of religion does not only depend on epistemological basis, it is more philosophical, intuition-al, simplifying and straight-lining. Islam as religion provides SIRAATUL MUSTAKIN, straight path - no racism, no cast-ism, no mumbo-jumbo, no idolatry. Intellectuals have invented racism among Muslims, but could not discover any flaws in Islam as such. Let us take non-Semitic beliefs as literary works and follow SIRAATUL MUSTAKIN for the welfare of mankind. Manab
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Unfortunately, this very term determines the life or death in some corners of the world. It's not meant to be used so broadly. If you do, there will be no room for questioning for critical analysis of religious views, and the world will be engulfed with prejudices.
--- On Thu, 8/2/12, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012, 8:50 AM

 
One of the dictionary (Mirriam-Webster) meanings of "blasphemy" is "Irreverence towards something considered sacred or inviolable". I have used my own words to decribe the term. Am I really too far fom the dictionary meaning? Are religions, religious scriptures and prophets of religion not sacred and is it not a sin to express doubts in them?  
Prof. Das is righ. Brave hearts have challenged them although not with great risks and that's why world has not stopped.
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 

The word 'blasphemy' is being thrown around recklessly. It should not be used so callously and broadly as Mr. Chakraborty did.--- On Wed, 8/1/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 1, 2012, 9:22 PM

 
Religious scripture is the product of the minds of the under class of a society.  Consider the Jews as the underdogs of the ancient Egyptian Pharaonic culture, Christians as the same of the Romans,
and the Muslims as that of the Quaraishis.  Religion is authoritative and there is nothing divine in it.  Historically, it has always been challenged and reformed to meet the need of the day.
There is nothing blasphemous in exposing the truth about anything, those who can't stand the heat should leave the kitchen.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
Asking question and questioning are two different things. Religion is divine and authoritative and hence beyond questioning or challenge. Questioning or challenging a religion, a religious scripture, and a religious prophet is blasphemous.
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Only an inquisitive mind can question his faith.  Ain't it forbidden in religion?
>>>>>>>>>>> Asking questions is not "Forbidden" in Islam. In fact the Qur'an asks the readers to think, ponder and verify the message it gave. Then it also challenges the readers as well. However making fictional false tales, libel, slander is not exactly "Questioning religion". That is what you call "Disturbing Obsession with religion". For example, there are many institutions, websites openly seeks "Questions" about Islam. Now a days scholars of Islam encourages followers to know reasons behind rituals of Islam. I think it is a good thing and people are reacting well to this. Shalom!
-----Original Message-----From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>Sent: Sat, Jul 28, 2012 8:19 pmSubject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
My observation was based on history from the point of view of a believer.  Only an inquisitive mind can question his faith.  Ain't it forbidden in religion?
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
I would not turn the observation of "it is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith" by Dr. Das into an advice to be followed.
 
I would rather turn George Bernard Shaw's observation of "all great truths begin as blasphemies", as quoted by Mr. Deeldar, into an advice. That is, commit blasphemies, if you have to, to uncover the truths.
 
However, since blasphemy is such a sensitive matter for the believers, I think rational people could avoid publicly questioning beliefs that look innocent. Proactive attacks on hateful beliefs can also be avoided. However, actual acts of hatred should be corrected and/or punished; there arguments like, "oh I (or we) did it because my (or our) religion taught me (or us) to do it" should not be accepted.
 
Sukhamaya Bain
 
=======================================
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith."
 
I think that is a great advice!
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Dr. Roy, even the big bang theory is outdated long ago.  In cosmology, a theory is created every six months.  All those disciples of Moses, Jews, Christians and Moslems who believe that the Universe was created in six days should first explain what days they are talking about.  Isn't a day the time required for the earth to complete a spin, or apparently the time taken by the Sun to circle around the earth? So the Genesis story falls apart right away.  Let Mr. Rahman be in peace with his revealed stories of the Holy Quran, let him be happy with the Islamic version of Ariyan heresy that Allah created the Universe with advice and instruction from Nur Muhammad.  It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
You are right initially some power was needed to get the process going. That was the big-bang, the instigating force behind all these. This power did not create Mother Nature; it happened long after the big-bang through many evolutionary cycles.
 
You probably will admit that God is not a human, because – in order to be 'omnipresent,' God has to possess infinite dimension, which Mother Nature has. Almightiness of Mother Nature is demonstrated during the thunderous lightning in the storm or during hurricanes or earthquakes. When religious scripture says God is 'forgiving,' it refers to the same nature, that accepts everyone indiscriminately (good, bad, religious, non-religious, and, yes, atheists). What it means is - we are too insignificant in the eye of the omnipresent, almighty, and all-forgiving God.
 
Unfortunately - most people, educated and uneducated alike, envision God as a human-like object, and that's where we go wrong. Following that notion, people do all sorts of crazy things to please Him.  They do things assuming - God has eyes, and He will see what the heck they are doing; they talk to him, hoping - He has ears, and He will listen to and understand what they are asking for in their weird languages. Even people sacrifice their lives, assuming - God is noticing and He will reward them in the after-life. The whole thing is out of whack and crazy. What they forget is – we are insignificant creatures in the wide universe.
 
Therefore, religious scriptures may be correct, but our interpretations may be all wrong.
 
Jiten Roy
--- On Tue, 7/24/12, qar <qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 5:06 AM
 
You want to know who created the Mather Nature. It's like the Chicken-and-Egg story. Who created what? 
>>>>>>>>>>> Member Roy, I do know who created "Mother nature". I was making a comment about it. The chicken or egg don't fall from the sky on their own. Some power had to start the cycle at one point of time. Now, you will probably ask – who created the explosion?
>>>>>>>>>> Again I am not asking anything. Simply offering an alternative view to the topic. I am comfortable with my findings and it does not contradict with what modern science accepts. Sharing a little here. ...
"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.'   So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.   
(The Noble Quran, 41:11-12)"

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? 
(The Noble Quran, 21:30)"

Let me ask you - who creates thunder, storm, rain, etc? They are naturally created phenomena.

>>>>>>>>> They are natural phenomena. However at some point of time, some power had to get the process going. For example: just because you need a cell phone, your Nokia does not come up "Naturally". Someone had to think of it, design it and produce it. Once it is produced, it works according to some set "Programs". Similarly ever mother nature has some "Rules" and it works according to the design.


If you still – want to go back to Quran for explanation, you can. Many Hindus will also go to Brahma,

>>>>>>>>>> I can only speak for myself here. I did not "Go back to the Qur'an" as part of some "Blind faith". I have provided many references to establish/support my point of view. My views may have some religious leaning but my methodology is as secular and scientific as you can get.
The religious explanations about creations appear to me as fairy-tale stories >>>>>>>>>> I think the sources and references have to be visited before you accept it or reject it. There are world known scientists who work on these issues and they don't go by blind faith. Since our "Mother nature" theory is also a "faith based" phenomenon, I guess the Qur'an based explanation made more sense to me (personal opinion!). I respect your point of views and your freedom to pick what sounds right to you. Thank you for taking part in the discussion. Shalom! -----Original Message----- From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 24, 2012 7:04 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Q. Rahman: "I just think my praises are reserved for the power who created "Mother nature".
 
You want to know who created the Mather Nature. It's like the Chicken-and-Egg story. Who created what? 
 
According to scientific explanation - Universe was created out of an explosion. Now, you will probably ask – who created the explosion?  I would say it's an accident; nobody creates accident; it just happens. 
 
Let me ask you - who creates thunder, storm, rain, etc? They are naturally created phenomena. They happen under right condition. Thinking about this – Harold Urey, Nobel Laureate Scientist, Columbia University, mentioned to one of his students, Stanley L. Miller, to organize an experiment to procreate these natural phenomena. They set up a container with right mixture of gases (to represent early stages of the earth's surface) and subjected them to an artificial electric spark to simulate lightening. In a week, little red liquid started to form. They analyzed it, and found that it contains amino acids, the building blocks of the organic life-form (DNA). Thus, it is believed that life begun in shallow pools on the earth's surface, known as organic soup.
If you still – want to go back to Quran for explanation, you can. Many Hindus will also go to Brahma, the creator. Actually, it is up to the aptitude of each individual to believe in any of these stories. The religious explanations about creations appear to me as fairy-tale stories. Hence, I will stick to the scientific explanations, until further plausible explanation comes along.  Thank you.
Jiten Roy
 
I know - this scientific explanation is not convincing to you; so you have referred to the Quran.   --- On Mon, 7/23/12, qar <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=qrahman@netscape.net> wrote:
From: qar <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=qrahman@netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 23, 2012, 8:43 AM
 
How can I deny the existence of God in the Moher Nature?
>>>>>>>> Absolutely. No one can deny mother nature. I just think my praises are reserved for the power who created "Mother nature". Your cell phone did not make itself, it needed a maker (RIM, Apple, Nokia, Samsung...etc). Similarly the wonderful nature we see around us needed a "Maker" as well. A chapter in the Qur'an talks about it. It consistently ask readers the question, " Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?"Indeed our Maker gave us so many gifts. Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: Jiten Roy <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jnrsr53@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thu, Jul 19, 2012 5:05 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Religion was once a shuva-sanskar (positive reform) for the primitive societies, not any more. With the advent of the scientific and psychological advancement and understanding, the role of religion in the society is diminished. This is because - many of those good religious virtues are already adopted as norms in the society.  What's left to be adopted is the anti-modernity ku-sanskar (negative reform). Religionists are constantly fighting with pro-modernity forces to implement those anti-modernity ku-sanskars. As a result, religion has been a drag for the advancement of the modern societies now.
 
Now, as far as atheists are concerned - they are still fighting the conceptual battle over the existence of God, which is leading them to many psychological and conceptual conflicts. How can I deny something that is unknown? To me, it's a needless battle. God exists only in our concept. I am sure most people, except religionists, will agree that - all living-beings are the offspring of the Mother Nature. Spiritual songs of Rabindra Nath Tagore are all devoted to the Mother Nature. That was his conceptual God, I believe. Your conceptual God lives in your aptitude and imagination. How can I deny the existence of God in the Moher Nature?
 
Jiten Roy --- On Tue, 7/17/12, subimal chakrabarty <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: subimal chakrabarty <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subimal@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 8:41 AM
 
Yours may be one of some possible explanations. I still remember what Bani Basu, a novelist from West Bengal and wife of a Buddhist scholar, has written in the introduction of her "semi-historical" novel "Maitrya Jatak": "Dharma is a shuva sanskar". This "sanskar" (can we trnslate it into "superstition"? Probably not.) is the result of religious beliefs of thosands of years of our forefathers. To this has been added the strong religious environment the atheist is living in. It's foundation in our subconscious mind is so splod that even a "confirmed" atheist fails to escape it completely. And this manifests itself in an atheist's love for devotional or spiritual songs of  Rabindranath and others.  
 
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:55 PMSubject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"Is it not fascinating that even the educated and culturally advanced atheists and skeptics love devotional songs written by our great lyricists? Why is it so? "

Very interesting observation!
Here is my two cents:
No matter how much we know about the nature and its laws, it will still be a mystery for us for many millions years to come. We will never be able to attain the absolute knowledge that we might need to predict a future incident like a plane crash in the sky or say, us facing certain deaths on certain dates. That insecurity might be a factor why we still do not mind to sing the hallelujah hymn to yield that undefined mysterious power to a greater power than ours own? 
-SD   
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:46 AMSubject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
1.Use of drug has been an integral part of the culture of many secretive and semi-secretive cults. The "sati" had sometimes to be drugged to persuade her to walk onto the burning pyre of her dead husband. I have seen smoking of "ganja" by people (male) of all ages during the religious event called "trinather mela". In urban religious practices of Hinduism, this (smoking ganja) has been greatly marginalized or probably has vanished. Many Hindu sadhus cannot do without it. Drug opens spiritual window for the truth seeker. In my young life I have seen disciples (fans) sitting around the master (male or female) to get engaged in profound spiritual talks while smoking ganja.  
2. There has always been uses of the religion by the exploiters as the opiate of the masses. But it has other uses too. Think about a typical Indian Hindu mother with little education and who was born 80 years ago. Religion has taught her to completely devote herself to the service of her husband. This is exploitative part. On the other hand religion gives her God or gods and goddesses to be worshiped for piety and spiritual and mystical experiences and pleasure as well. Also observance of religious rituals is a part of her daily routine. Obviously fear factor is a motive force behind her religious behavior. But what about the 100-year old educated and highly religious father who sees same one God in every god and goddess and who has no belief in hell or heaven or in piety? Yes, at the times of hardships and distress he prays and tears roll down his cheeks while he is praying. Here religion provides him with a drug free comfort. Here I see a great utility of religion in the personal life of a believer. When he is in total despair, he completely submits himself to God.   
3. There is hardly any one who chose his own religion. He already has it by default and it is now his duty to practice it believing that it is a great thing and he should be proud of it. While practicing it and knowing more and more about it questions may however arise in his inquiring mind. 
4. Being proud of one's own religion and considering the same as the best one is typical of the educated and socially and politically conscious class. Common toiling and economically struggling people do not have time to engage in such a luxury. Even he has hardly any time to observe all the recommended rituals. 
5. Is it not fascinating that even the educated and culturally advanced atheists and skeptics love devotional songs written by our great lyricists? Why is it so?                        
 
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 8:21 PMSubject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
"it is a mere drug free comfort for our mind!"  In reality, the psychedelic drugs had a great role in the development and propagation of religions.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Shah Deeldar <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
"Religion is one such belief also. But, it brings some sort of pride in people."
I call it the last resort to belong to a huge cult. I would rather look at it from a Freudian angle. It is far easier to become a religious man than a true knowledge gatherer. It brings pride to people who have nothing else to proud of! Why would a criminal be interested in converting to born again in something after five consecutive murders? What would be a better choice for him/her? Learning more about how celestial objects are faithfully orbiting around other stars and planets? Or, take a new religious attire and demand respect from others? No doubt, the later sounds far easier! Look, my words are harsh but that is what I feel about religions. If anybody thinks that the God being on their side, I say, keep dreaming on brothers and sisters. To me, it is a mere drug free comfort for our mind! No more and no less! -SD  
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
People believe in many things; not all those beliefs are revealed to others. We all have our own prejudices/superstitions. Exposing one's prejudices is like exposing one's 'stupidities.' As a result, people rarely talk about them. How do you express that you believe in something that does not exist? Is it a sign of smartness or what?
Religion is one such belief also. But, it brings some sort of pride in people. So  they feel the need to show their religiosity to others in their religious attires and/or appearances to stir up otherwise nonexistent resentment and hatred. There is no end in sight to end these types of cultural disturbance in our societies.
 
Jiten Roy --- On Fri, 7/13/12, Shah Deeldar <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Shah Deeldar <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, July 13, 2012, 9:53 AM
 
How you feel about your own faith and belief is not anybody's concern unless you impose your values and standard on others. To me, it is more important to see whether a belief takes people to the dark ages or enlightenment of a verifiable truth. I can tolerate your belief but may not respect your belief. If you are a free thinker, that should be totally OK with you as I would follow the same rule.
-SD 
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:18 AMSubject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
If religious people can keep their religion private and stop boasting about their religion being the best, there would not any problem.
>>>>>>>> I agree. Actually arrogance is bad for all people. It eats up best qualities from our personalities. However, if you ask me about my faith and how I feel about it, you should be able to tolerate my "Opinion" on MY faith matters. I have seen people have some preconceived notions about religious people and often go with it. Having tolerance and rejecting/reducing arrogance are "Best practices" for any peaceful communities. No matter if you want to view it from religious point of view or secular point of view. Shalom!
-----Original Message----- From: Shah Deeldar <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tue, Jul 10, 2012 6:47 am Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
Only thing I can add here is that the people, who are truly spiritual and never stop asking questions about our origin and our relation to the universe should not have any problem with little critic.  If religious people can keep their religion private and stop boasting about their religion being the best, there would not any problem. But. that is not happening in practice and hence, they do deserve critic now and then. Any belief should be challenged now and then before it gets transformed as an universal truth. The next thing you will find that people will be demanding the religiously adjusted science in the public schools. Who would want that? How would reach to the next frontier with such compromised science?
-SD
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:32 PMSubject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
 
I have thought about the question also - as to why people get offended by the criticism of their religions; why can't they leave it to God.  This is what I found.
People are interested in religion not only for the eternal rewards, but - also they are also interested in the brand name of the clan. Religion is no different from other commercial commodity. It needs to be sold for continued expansion, and criticism is not good for the business, and also for the reputation of the clan.  As a result, people cannot wait for God's punishment.
Now, the tolerance level of criticism varies from followers to followers. Some followers may care more about eternal rewards than expansionism. They will have more tolerance to criticism. Some followers could be totally indifferent of criticism. It's a matter of priority.
Having said that, I have to recognize that, while protecting the brand name is discouraged in some religions, it is mandatory in others. 
Jiten Roy --- On Tue, 7/3/12, Sukhamaya Bain <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Sukhamaya Bain <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 3, 2012, 4:36 PM
 
Along with making a little correction in my post below, let me put forth my thoughts on one of the terms that I have used.                                                                                                                     Abusing Religion:   From time to time, many religious people accuse non-religious people and people of other religions of abusing their religion. Example: if someone were to open up the Bible and criticize something in it, he/she would be accused by some Christians of abusing their religion. I said "some" (as opposed to "many") for Christians, because I believe this group has progressed significantly for a lot of them to ignore such criticisms.   However, let us try some logic. What can be more abuse for God (Allah, Bhagaban, whatever else in other lanugages) than the so-called believers to think that He is not almighty, and that He needs help from them? What can be more doubting of God's power than thinking that He needs humans to fight for Him (or for His religion) in this world?   The way I see it, if someone actually insulted God or His messenger, a true believer could feel pity for the insulter. Because, according to the belief, the insult was against the most powerful, and the insulter might have invited big trouble for himself/herself in the form of punishment from God. If God knew best, the believer would have no business prescribing a punishment for the insulter. The most civilized and caring action for the believer would be to pray to God to change the insulter's mind, the power of which God certainly has according to his/her true belief.   The bottom line is, if religion was really for believing in the almighty God (Allah, Bhagaban, whatever else in other lanugages), as opposed to forming/maintaining/expanding a clan, there should be no reason for humans to fight, or to hate, for maintaining or promoting it.  Sukhamaya Bain   ================================================= From: Sukhamaya Bain <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subain1@yahoo.com>To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:32 AMSubject: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling   Indeed, I believe most of us in this forum are opposed to religion-peddling, as Ms. Majid wrote. As I wrote before, there is no point in opening up religious books for criticism, even when that might look scholarly.   I am opposed to the use, misuse and abuse of religions, all of which have caused a lot of division, hatred and injustice in the world. While I do not follow any religion, I am not unwilling to do something just because if was found in a religious book. In other words, I am perfectly OK to implement in my life anything that is good in the Koran, for example.   To me, all religious books are part of my history. None of them are "my religion" or "someone else's religion." I am open to follow anything good in any book. I have no animosity toward any religion. For me, no religion needs to have cadres of defenders.   However, I am certainly for discarding anything bad in any book. And I am unwilling to dig for contexts by which a seemingly bad teaching can be interpreted to be OK or good. Nor do I have time for overly-brainwashed 'scholars', who try to sustain and promote nonsense in what they think is 'their religion'.   The bottom line is, we should fight division, hatred and injustice that are promoted via use, misuse and abuse or religions.   Sukhamaya Bain   ==================================== From: subimal chakrabarty <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=subimal@yahoo.com> To: "http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:35 PMSubject: Re: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People   There is a gray area between religion itself and the way it is used by vested interest groups. In a God fearing society it is unproductive and sometimes catastrophic to bluntly criticize a religion. It antagonizes common people and the reactionary forces get an excuse to pull them on their own side. But can a society really progress without pointing out the weaknesses in a religion? Obviously, No. But if we do so, religious feelings of the believers cannot but be hurt. It is a dilemma indeed. When Dipa Mehta shows in her film "Water" the quote from Gandhi and Manusanhita side by side, the Hindutvabadis do not like it. But we come to know that Gandhi did not endorse all of sage Manu's sacred pronouncements.   ====================================== From: Farida Majid <http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=farida_majid@hotmail.com>To: http://us.mc1427.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:55 AMSubject: RE: [mukto-mona] Voice of the People                     Do we all agree, on this one point, that we are all opposed to religion-peddling? I fervently hope that the answer is: YES.                 If so, then it is our solemn duty to understand the matter of 'religion-peddling'.                          In this business of religion -peddling it is the 'peddling' part that should command our attention.  And that requires certain in-depth and close attention to politics. Religion is a very powerful cultural artifice, and since both politics and religion deal with a community of people, there has been a mix of the two from time immemorial.  But we are constantly talking about religion-related  social symptoms, and mis-diagnosing them as 'religion'.  Why? There are several reasons.  One, mental laziness.  It takes a lot more patience and astute observation to do a political analysis. It needs historical information.              Throughout the 16th century in Europe , for instance, the Catholic Church was fighting an intense political battle with the breaking up of the Church.  The execution of the Nolan Magus and poet, Giordano Bruno, who was not a scientist or mathematician like Nicholas Copernicus, and the persecution of astronomer Galileo, a couple of decades later are indicative of the Church's political authority under severe pressure.  It is silly to cite this as the paradigmatic 'science v. religion' struggle.  It is a singular historical event within the context of Europe .               Both Dawkins and Hitchens are being totally dishonest in their discussions against religion. Dawkins is addressing the Creationists exclusively, and Hitchens's arguments apply to the Jehadists only.  Neither has the courage and intelligence of Karen Armstrong who discards the construction of the binary opposition of 'science v. religion' and refuses any hierarchical positioning of the two branches of knowledge.               Two, critiquing religion is a mask for communalism.  More on that later.                               Farida Majid   ==============================




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___