Banner Advertiser

Thursday, August 9, 2012

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



Is it a fact or myth that scientists have been able to create life in the lab using chemical reactions? Was not a recent Nobel in Chemistry linked to it? We have been told that Hargovind Khorana had some pioneering works in this field. I hope Kamal Das, Sukhamaya Bain, or some one else can enlighten us with this. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

 

I am a student of Chemistry and spent most of my years teaching it in the class.  I would like to know, which reaction you are referring to that happened in the past.  Are you talking of the earth alone or the whole of Universe?

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Life did come from random chemical reactions unless you invoke a creator into the equation. A favorable chemical reaction did happen in the past and that does not mean nature's law was ever broken. 
-SD
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 8:23 PM

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

 
Life or Nature didn't appear from randomness.  Scientific laws were never broken.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
"It is illogical to think, they just appeared for "Randomness"."

 
So, if life is to be found in another planet, what would you call it? Ordered creation? How can that be a logical argument?
Can you rule out life does not exist beyond earth? Why only earth when there are probably millions of earths orbiting around many millions of stars?
-SD

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS
Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2012 4:52 PM

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

 
I think you got wrong end of the stick. With your flawed logic, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and our inventors would be considered as Gawd like creators. Maybe, they are to some people, who believe in stories and fables.


>>>>>>>>>> I beg to differ. My logic is very simple and easy to understand. All the gadgets we use today required many years of research and inventors. Our body, the universe and Eco-system is FAR more COMPLEX than any computer.

It is illogical to think, they just appeared for "Randomness".

There are plenty of roads in Bangladesh that needs repairs and many places need new roads. They don't appear out of nothing. Why the heck, I am asked to accept the "Theory" that, we (With billions of cells in our body) appeared from "Randomness"??

As always, I have shared plenty of sources to support my ideas. Hope curious people will take the time to verify my ideas with an open mind. Just calling me "Wrong" is an easy escape (But within your right!).

Take care.


Shalom!

-----Original Message-----
From: Dev Saha <devsaha5@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 4:59 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 
I think you got wrong end of the stick. With your flawed logic, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and our inventors would be considered as Gawd like creators. Maybe, they are to some people, who believe in stories and fables.

-Dev Saha



--- On Tue, 7/31/12, 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 31, 2012, 4:10 PM

 
Stop smoking, brother! Our universe was created from total randomness! It is a pure fluke that we exits

>>>>>>>>> Yup. The smartphones, computer, Big screen TV, sky scrappers just appeared from "Randomness"!! 


 The interesting thing to note that, our body is more complex than stuff I mentioned.

Yes, you are right. New planets are being created and destroyed in the universe. Who knew about it thousands of years ago???

The Qur'an spoke about it as well. Please click here


Those who are brave enough to really understand a different point of view, please click here.


Shalom!

-----Original Message-----
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Jul 25, 2012 5:30 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 
Stop smoking, brother! Our universe was created from total randomness! It is a pure fluke that we exits. There are probably many more earth like planets are being created or destroyed as we speak. And, they might contain  different forms of life than ours. We do not even know. Religious books were written by people, who had only vague idea about math, physics, chemistry and biology. Not enough knowledge to think beyond our earth. Only thing, that they were capable of doing is to eat and poop. Do not tell me that people like Galileo and others only reinvented the wheels. That is a pure crap!
-SD 
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

 
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 <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <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 <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: 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.  
 
From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:55 PM
Subject: 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
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: 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?                        
 

From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 8:21 PM
Subject: 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 <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 <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <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
From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:18 AM
Subject: 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 <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> To: mukto-mona <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
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:32 PM
Subject: 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 <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <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 <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: [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 <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:35 PM
Subject: 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 <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:55 AM
Subject: 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

__,_._,___

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



Good diagnosis, indeed!
-SD

 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established

 

You know - I have been following conversations of different groups of people in this forum for a long time. This is what I found.
There are three types of people in the forum – 1) politically-incorrect freethinker, 2) politically-correct thinker, and 3) psychologically-enslaved thinker.
Those who are politically-incorrect freethinkers, their conversations are blunt, meaning without B.S.
Those who are politically-correct thinkers – their conversations are full of B.S.
The last category – the psychologically-enslaved thinker; these people always make sure that their thoughts never go ouside the boundary set forth by their ideology. As a result, their thoughts are undeveloped. They are psychologically-enslaved thinkers.
Jiten Roy
 

--- On Thu, 8/9/12, Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, August 9, 2012, 7:53 AM

 
Mr. Roy makes a great point! Only problem is that him and 'apostate' Saha are more blunt with their words.

"Will that really make a qualitative difference and help bringing communal harmony in the world? "

Was/is there any harmony ever in the world? When was that?
-SD
 
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS

From: Subimal Chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] America's First Hindu Think Tank Now Established

 
I disagree with Jiten Roy as under:

Spirituality or mysticism have nothing to do with understanding for which one needs logic, science, and rational thinking. Both these terms are about realization and spiritual or mystic experience. Although these do not have to be religious, but in most of the cases they are. Communication if there is any at all has to be virtual. 

I am wondering which "religious cults" require intermediaries between followers and God. I need help. 

Also I need help in understanding how the "intermediary figure" can be taken out. If Buddhism is a religious cult and if Gautam Buddha is the intermediary figure, then of the three "mantras" "Buddhang shoronong gochchhami, dharmang shoronong gochchhami, sanghang shoronong gochchhami", the first one has to be omitted. Will that really make a qualitative difference and help bringing communal harmony in the world? 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:52 PM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

Cult is formed around a religious leader, who presents himself as the intermediary between his followers and God. Such image of the religious leader is needed for domination and control of the cult.  If you take out the intermediary figure from religion, cult will not be formed, and the demarcation between different religious views will slowly fade away, giving rise to a unified religion for all humankind. Until then, fight between cults continues.
 
If you believe in the non-existence of God you are ahead of the game. But, how many people can jump off the plane holding the parachute. 
 
Jiten Roy 
 

--- On Wed, 8/8/12, 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: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 1:11 AM

 
"I believe, one should strive to communicate with the higher-power only after spiritual self-enrichment. The medium of communication to the higher power is the self-meditation."

Such belief leads to religious cults. 

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

I did not imply 'spirituality' as being devoted to worshiping deities, if you are thinking that way.  
 
By 'spirituality,' I meant understanding the existence of 'higher power' or lack thereof through knowledge. Such knowledge can be acquired through analysis of religious scriptures and philosophical resources. Vedic-era could be used as a model for this purpose. I believe they made substantial progress towards the goal. But, with the advancement of scientific knowledge, attention has been diverted to science and technology. This created a spiritual-knowledge gap. Through that weakness - various simplistic diversions have been introduced and implemented to fill the gap.  
 
I believe, one should strive to communicate with the higher-power only after spiritual self-enrichment. The medium of communication to the higher power is the self-meditation. The line is direct, and there is no other intermediary between God and yourself. Just 'blind-faith on God' is not going to take you anywhere, even though many spiritual leaders feed that idea to their followers. In my view - they do so to keep followers' blind-faith alive onto themselves. As a result, followers start to worship spiritual leaders instead. That's the end of the way.
 
Jiten Roy
 
--- On Mon, 8/6/12, 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: Monday, August 6, 2012, 1:14 AM


 
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] Re: Fwd: Can a Non muslim marry a muslim girl; Question...



Manu is the worst of the patriarchs. If you follow my language, you would know that I myself do not mean that Manusanhita is a sacred book. It is the general opinion of the orthodox Hindus. 
Thanks for asking clarification. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2012, at 7:06 AM, kanu parmar <kanuparmar420@hotmail.com> wrote:

 

Dear Mr chakrabarty,
 
 Quote:
 
" Manusanhita is patriarch and discriminatory in this respect.It is OK for sperm of a higher caste man to be ejaculated  in to the vagina of a lower caste woman but not vise versa ".
 
 If you have read all chapters of this book how can you call it a SACRED book ? To me it is an EVIL book, nothing less.
 
kanu parmar
 

To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
From: subimal@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 20:33:34 -0400
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: Fwd: Can a Non muslim marry a muslim girl; Question...

 
Good wonderment. Actually I don't have definite answer. Probably Jasimuddin would not write such a story to make many people unhappy. You probably know Dr. Kaniz Siddiquey, sister of Dr. Kamal Siddiquey. She has written a novel titled Sonar Shikol in which she shows deep love between a Hindu boy and a Muslim girl. She told me that there has been a TV drama based on this story. She gave me a story for Ogrobeej edited by me. She is a feminist writer. 

A patriarchal society sees woman as a commodity and a subhuman being. It is unthinkable that she will choose a partner who is not of her own religion, caste, race, or who belongs to a socioeconomically "inferior" group. Loss of her chastity to such a partner hurts the ego of the patriarchs who think that some thing exclusively his or theirs has been snatched away from him or them. The irony is that It is not that he always properly values this "commodity". 

Bankim has a bad reputation that in his stories Muslim girls fell in love with Hindu boys. It has also been said that Mir Mosharaf Hossain retaliated by writing a story showing an affair between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman. I have so much respect for these two great writers that I want to believe that only the social conditions of the time made them write such stories. 

Manusanhita is pretty patriarchal and discriminatory in this respect. It is OK for sperm of a higher caste man to be ejaculated into the vagina of a lower caste woman but not vise versa. There are some more interesting lessons in this sacred book. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 7, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote:

 

You should ask Late Jasimuddin about what would happen if the boy is a Hindu and the girl is a Moslem, as the case had been with Ramendu - Ferdousi, Bamadas - Gulshan Ara Puspa etc.  Caste impediments in marriage among Hindus are  comparatively recent and has creeped in after the Turkish Invasion, according to Ronald Inden.


On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:58 AM, subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Thanks. So both state and Islam can stand between young persons when they are deep love. Don't get me wrong. Hindu system is worse--not only the religion, even caste may act as the villain. There are also non-religious factors that may be an obstacle in case of marriage. My point is if it is possible to make a religion more humanistic. After all religions are for human beings and not the vice-versa---as a humanist that's what I believe.

In Jasimuddin's "Sojan Badiyar Ghat" a Muslim boy named Sojan and a Hindu girl Duli are in love with each other. They elope and marry secretly. They are religious. They respect each other's religion. For example, Sojan buys and brings vermilion and conch bangles for Duli and Duli draws Kaaba on a piece of cloth to decorate the room. Can't we say that humanist Jasimuddin has elevated religion at a higher level?



From: qar <qrahman@netscape.net>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
taken
Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: Fwd: Can a Non muslim marry a muslim girl; Question...

 
I thought in Islam there is no compulsion on one's religious belief.


>>>>>>>>> Zakir Naik is not running for political office. It is true there is NO compulsion in religion. At the same time, religions have their own sets of rules. Islam or Dr. Naik did not say, these kids cannot get married but he said, it would NOT be accepted by Islam. Specifically, Islam allows limited inter-faith marriage between Muslims, Jews and Christians. But as an monotheistic religion, it differs with groups who add "Partners" to God.

If an Indian girl want to marry a Bangladeshi man, they have to go through some formality. If an African man want to marry a Chinese girl, they have to make some compromises (Where to live and how to raise the family, what values etc). Similarly Islam supports monotheistic ideology (Core of our faith) and those who want to remain Muslim have to agree to the concept. I know quite a few people who married Hindu partners but they are not religious. As far as I know they are living their lives nicely.

So Zakir Nail or Islam did not stop them from getting married but Islam does have some rules we have to follow. For example, just because I love India or Pakistan, I cannot walk into those countries without required papers. If someone want to practice Islam, they have to follow some rules of Islam.

Hope this will help you to understand the topic.

Shalom!


-----Original Message-----
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 4:16 am
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: Fwd: Can a Non muslim marry a muslim girl; Question...

 
 
I thought in Islam there is no compulsion on one's religious belief. Now I see from Zakir Naik's khutba that Islam can stand between two young persons--one Muslim and the other one Hindu--when they are in deep love with each other. Is Zakir Naik a true Islamic scholar? If Mr. Naik is right, then love has to be conditional. That is pretty pathetic. 
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: "Biswajit Dey Bablu (Google+)" <noreply-c21d9c5f@plus.google.com> To: mohiuddin@netzero.net Subject: Can a Non muslim marry a muslim girl; Question... Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:22:48 -0700 (PDT)


__._,_.___


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

__,_._,___