Banner Advertiser

Thursday, December 11, 2014

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



Sure, you don't need to concentrate on breathing, you can concentrate on a 'frog.'
 
Oh yes, about the need for spiritual divine idol. Let's think about it. What did Rabindra Nath do with his spiritual idol? He created thousands of poems, songs, literary assays centering him. What did Sufis do? They brought profound knowledge and wisdom for ordinary people. What did ancient Rishis do? They brought knowledge and enlightenment for people. Instead, if you go to the spiritual world with a 'blank' mind, you will come back with a 'blank' mind; it will be a feel good meditation.
 
Spiritualism without divinity is incomplete. Divinity, by itself, cannot bring toxicity, toxicity comes from politics with divinity.
Jiten Roy
 
From: "Subimal Chakrabarty subimal@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

 
Mind itself is not a metaphysical construct although we use mind to construct metaphysical entities. Higher level thinkers like poets and philosophers use this tool. My understanding is that 'atma', 'paramatma', 'purusha', and 'prakriti' are metaphysical constructs. The learned in the trade may not quite agree with me. Mind is not tangible but it is very much real. It has been studied extensively and scientifically as well over the last hundred years or so. The prominent ones include Freud, Jung, and Erickson. I guess Deeldar can shed more light on it. 

The terms 'good' and 'bad' are relative. Therefore the conscious or absolute conscious---whatever we call it has to subjective. It cannot be universal. Rabindranath's 'jeebon debota' (for the sake of argument let us call it a metaphysical construct although probably it is not) or his 'religion of man' is based on the Upanushads. A metaphysical construct like a physical construct must have building blocks and the relationships among the same so that the construct becomes a unified whole. 

For concentration it is not necessary that to concentrate on one's breathing. That is old fashioned yoga. Modern psychology does not need any thing like this. Then who is that superior tour guide? Is it the absolute conscious? It sounds so vague. What does it do as a guide? I know those who practice yoga reach a stage of mind when enjoys the touch of absolute bliss of happiness and truth. Sufis experience this. Their mystical experience is so profound that they feel like having part of it. Then one says: 'I am Shiva'. 
I have no evidence that Rabindranath ever reached that stage although he loved to call himself a baul. As a matter of fact he portrayed himself as a baul in one drawing. 

Sent from my iPhone



On Dec 10, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
One of the materialistic thoughts is - something that does not exist physically does not exist at all. But, that's not always correct. There are entities which do not exist in the physical world, but exist in the meta-physical world. Our mind does not exist physically, but exists in the metaphysical space; it controls most of the things we do. Our consciousness is another superior trait in us that has no physical existence, but exists in the metaphysical space, and guides us to sort out good and bad. There are many such entities that exist only in the metaphysical space, and have practical implications in our lives.
 
Deeldar said his spirituality is in line with Poet RN Tagore. The existence of a spiritual-idol is present in most of Tagore's works. His spiritual idol as the creator of the universe.
 
Now, let's think about meditation. You will see it requires a focal-point of thought. During simple meditation routine, instructor will ask participants to concentrate on his/her breathing. Why is that? It is to concentrate on the breathing, which occupies the focal-spot of the thought, and help participants to concentrate. Meditation can take us to the gate of the spiritual world. But, once you are at the gate, then what? You need a superior tour guide to achieve something meaningful in the spiritual world. Tagore had spiritual idol, so does everybody. Otherwise, it will be simply unproductive meditation.
Jiten Roy
 
From: "Shah Deeldar shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

 
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.
-SD
 



On Monday, December 8, 2014 9:33 PM, "Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> 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 shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> 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.
-SD
 





On Sunday, December 7, 2014 8:35 PM, "Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Use Bangla meaning of materialistic and spiritualistic to understand them.

Spiritualistic => Addhyattik
Materialistic => Bastovbadik
 
From: "Shah Deeldar shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
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.
-SD
 



On Sunday, December 7, 2014 5:59 PM, "Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> 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 subimal@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2014 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God
 

 
I agree with Mr. Deeldar. Again we can use Rabindranath as an example. Was he exclusively a materialist or a spiritual man? He wrote devotional songs and songs and poems of love. At the same time he wrote essays including essays on science. You will not smell any spirituality in the latter. In his personal life he maintained two distinct entities within himself----spiritual and materialist. We all more or less are like this. 

Spirituality is real and human brain---to repeat Deeldar---is a product of our brain. The concept of God or ghost one has in his mind is nothing but a subjective reality. This subjective reality can have a big impact on the life of one who believes in God or ghost. But it is not only intangible, in reality it does not exist, or at least one cannot form a refutable hypothesis based on the existence of God or ghost. 

As we know people need God for various reasons. It can even simply be a prejudice instilled by the society in one's mind. Some people through rational thinking and scientific judgement can shake it off, some cannot. Some cannot because they do not want any disequilibrium in life. Some cannot because of fear. Some cannot because of the sense of uncertainty.

 Rabindranath never said any thing against the atheists. He rather praised them at one point. But he used his jeebon debota as his Polaris to which maintained a continuous journey throughout his life. He never boasted of it nor advised any one to follow his unique path. He was not a preacher, but he had innumerable informal followers or disciples. Even Abu Syed Ayub, apparently an atheist, wrote Panthojoner Sakha (Friend of the traveller). We are all traveling and we probably need a friend to guide so that we are in the right track. 

Sent from my iPhone



On Dec 7, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
It is almost impossible for a strict materialistic to be spiritual. Your definition of spirituality as an open minded attitude towards life and its surroundings is also impractical, because spirituality requires a focal point of thought, just like you require in the meditation. When you do that, you are no longer an open minded people. Most people put God at the focal point of spirituality, as Rabindra Nath did.     








__._,_.___
Posted by: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>


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




__,_._,___