Banner Advertiser

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

I have never considered secular spirituality toxic. As we attach divinity even to a cowrie shell or other trivial things, god(s) takes over.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:35 PM, "Shah Deeldar [mukto-mona]" <> wrote:


I appreciate your wisdom. But, not completely agree with this kind of extreme view. I am not talking about adoring a Shalgram Shila but imagining certain thing in a secular way to give our minds a temporary picture of a thing that we do not understand (please ignore the God). Why this would be considered as sinful and toxic when we know that science corrects itself whether we want or not? Why this rigidity when we do not know everything as opposed to an idealist knowing everything about *his/her God and messengers?

Neurons of our brains are autonomous entities even though they work in synchrony. It would be absurd and wrong to say that we control all of them consciously all the time. We don't!! If you consider a secular spirituality is toxic, I must say we are being exposed to it every moment and we have been doing fine since the first man started to walk. Life would be totally disaster without the simultaneous existence of spirituality in our minds. Call it a hardware to function without the software.

My definition of spirituality is some what different from other forum members. I call it a deeper thinking with all doors being open all the time along the line of great Tagore. Thank you all and I stop here.

On Monday, December 8, 2014 9:33 PM, "Kamal Das [mukto-mona]" <> wrote:

Spiritualism is toxic, materialism is not. As a spiritual person, one can adore a hollow stone known as shalgram shila as Narayana. To a materialist, it is worth no more than a paper weight. Shallowness in ancient thoughts led to religious concepts. Not even the modern scientific world can get rid of them.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 9, 2014, at 2:35 AM, "Shah Deeldar [mukto-mona]" <> wrote:

Yes, however, I do not see why a materialist would not be able to practice a non religious spiritualism? It is rather an inherent property of our cognitive brain, which is a product of many million years of evolution. Is it always logical? Does it always need to seek a material basis of everything? There are plenty of things that we do not sense with our sensory organs. Does that mean they not exist? There are plenty of things that we would never see even with our fancy instruments but their existence might be proven indirectly with some math equations. Are they real?

I do not think the spirituality should exclusively be boxed with idealism.

On Sunday, December 7, 2014 8:35 PM, "Jiten Roy [mukto-mona]" <> wrote:

Use Bangla meaning of materialistic and spiritualistic to understand them.

Spiritualistic => Addhyattik
Materialistic => Bastovbadik

From: "Shah Deeldar [mukto-mona]" <>
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2014 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

I would not equalize a spiritualist with an idealist (people who believe brain being a product of idea). Both an idealist and materialist can be spiritual. I see no problem with that unless you got a different definition for spirituality? As materialist, you can be spiritual about anything and everything. Why that would be a problem, I still do not get it. Thanks.

On Sunday, December 7, 2014 5:59 PM, "Jiten Roy [mukto-mona]" <> wrote:

You bring Rabindra Nath again and again, but you do not understand if he was a spiritualist or a materialist. Do you understand where his source of inspiration came from?  

Jiten Roy

From: "Subimal Chakrabarty [mukto-mona]" <>
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2014 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God



Posted by: Kamal Das <>

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




"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