I agree a great deal with what was written in posts below by Member Bain and member Subimal. Maybe my knowledge of Rabindranath is not as rich as some others members but I know enough to respect him as a poet, philosopher and a teacher. However when I wish to learn things about Hindu religion ( Albeit we should call it sanatan Dharmo), I read about Rammohan Roy, Swami Bibekananda etc. I do not look at Rabindranath or his philosophy to learn about religion.
Ramakrishna Paramhansa Deb expressed his annoyance when he found Brahma men and women were praying together.
Since RamKrishna Paramhansa Dev was a religious leader, it is only natural he would object to such practice.
Albeit personally I studied in with women all my life (Co-ed environment), I UNDERSTAND ( And respect) people who think it should be separated. This is the view of most global religions in spite of place of origin.
>>>>>>> Sharing a space with women or men does not make a religion "modern" or authentic. The strength of it's teaching has to be in the scriptures and founders of the religion. Our concerns should be how religious values are applied in our societies.
Obviously he did not want to see a religious movement as a political movement.
>>>>>>>>>>> To be fair to Rabindranath and us, he was NOT in a position to dictate how political movements with evolve in the then Indian sub-continent. Those of us who came from non-Hindu backgrounds, we know religion influence was always there. Thank fully back than most political leaders were smart enough to exploit and promote good authentic religious values but did not allow religion to dictate our political processes. However attempts from religious groups were there are Mahatma Gandhi were murdered for taking non-Hindus in political considerations. His crime was he equated lower caste Hindus and non-Hindus as "People". In our times Itzhak Rabin (Israeli PM) was murdered for attempting to make peace with "Native non-Jewish Arabs" (After signing Oslo accord).
In theory you can have many opinions about religions. Reality is in our sub-continent you cannot divorce religion from politics. Our people are spiritual people and we can gain a lot if we take the positive aspects of religions ( There are plenty of them!) and move forward. The "Minus religion formula" is an old one and has proven to be a mantra for failure in recent past.
Shalom!!
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: mukto-mona <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Nov 12, 2011 7:19 am
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?
__._,_.___
****************************************************
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
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
__,_._,___
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Re: [mukto-mona] Are some religious people menaces in the society?
Despite all the good things I have said about this relatively modern religion
-----Original Message-----
That's right. The Brahma religion did not come into my mind when I was writing my little response to Dr. Bain's observation. Rabindranath inherited Brahma religion, he wrote prayer songs, he prayed as a Brahma religion follower---these are all true. But as one delves more and more into his thoughts expressed in his writings, he can easily see that Rabindranath was really above all institutional or organized religions. Brahma religion was mostly a spiritual movement launched by a highly enlightened and progressive Hindu group. Compared to the mainstream Hindu religion of which it was an offshoot, it was liberal in all respects. It does not believe in casteism and it believes in liberation of women. Ramakrishna Paramhansa Deb expressed his annoyance when he found Brahma men and women were praying together. To him this free mixing in a religious congregation was like a goat that would eat the plant (the new religion) itself nipping in the bud all it's possibilities. Brahma religion has contributed greatly to enlightening the Hindu society and Hindu mind in the then Bengal. Despite all the good things I have said about this relatively modern religion (probably it would be more appropriate to call it a sect or cult like the Vaishnavism within the Hindu religion), I must repeat that Rabindranath was more than a Brahma. His religion (as has been elaborated in his Religion of Man) is founded not only on the Upanishads, it seems to have been enriched by ideas of many Indian spiritual leaders. He was a big fan of the Bengali bauls and he loved to call himself Rabi Baul. Obviously he did not want to see a religious movement as a political movement. Nor he wanted to see a religion as a complete code of life as that kind of belief would be too fanatical. He was a seeker truth---poetic and spiritual let alone scientific.
I can name many great people whose religions were not meance for the society. Nazrul and Lalan Fakir are two more examples.
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
S. Chakrabarty: I would not say that religion of Rabindranath (just one example) is a menace.
Q. A. Rahman: My guess is you are more familiar with "Religion of Rabindranath" so you do not see it as "Evil". Your view of other religions are only reflects "Your perceptions" of those religion not religion itself. Before you can come up with an educated conclusion, you (Or anyone) needs to have some basic ideas about other religions. Otherwise it would be a guessing game only.
Comments from S. Bain: I am sure Mr. Chakrabarty did not mean Brahma religion when he wrote "religion of Rabindranath." He meant "how Rabindranath viewed/practiced religion." Rabindranath was a sensible philosopher. He had his spirituality, which was no dogmatic prescription from the perceived almighty, who had to be pleased. His prayer to his God was like "shshu jemom ma'ke, namer neshay dake; bolte pare shei sukhete ma'er nam se bole" ("calling you like how a child calls his mother; he is happy to be able to talk, and saying 'mother' is what gives him most pleasure). There is no bootlicking of the most supreme power here; there is no greed of getting favors from the one who is most powerful; there is no nonsense of helping the almighty spread his religion on earth. (Imagine, how ridiculous it is that millions of people think that their almighty has asked them to help in establishing his rule here on earth! These millions of idiots do not realize that they are actually downgrading their almighty (making him less than almighty) when they are thinking of helping him!)
Let me add that, aside from great philosophers like Rabindranath, there are actually sensible regular people with spirituality who do not believe in the nonsense parts of their forefaters' religions; although they officially did not give up their inherited religious identity.
Sukhamaya Bain
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional