Banner Advertiser

Thursday, December 11, 2014

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



The quotation attributed to Charvak mentioned below was actually an objection on his philosophy by his adversaries.  They thought since Charvak does not believe in spiritual life after death and all seeing god, his philosophy will end up like this.  The underlying assumption of this objection was that unless people believe in all seeing god and justice after death they will not lead virtuous life.  As the quotation attributed to Charvak was fake, so is the logic faulty.  Belief in god or after life does not assure virtuous behaviour nor the lack of belief in such things lead automatically to sinful life.  

Sanjeev

From: "Subimal Chakrabarty subimal@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2014 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] God does not need religion, religion needs God

 
Materialistic view of life can also be toxic. "Rhinong kritwa ghritong pibet, jabojjebon sukhong jibet" ( I am sure there wrong spellings) is used essentially as Charvak philosophy although there is a conspiracy theory behind this. There is a good book by Ramakrishna Bhattacharyya on it. The conspirators (led by Brahmins) tried to prove that Charvak preached over materialistic view of life. Borrow, drink, eat, and be merry. No moral or ethical standards needed. 
My point is that we have people who are over materialistic. This is not only toxic, it is infectious too. I value high taste. But how many pairs of shoes do you need for example? 

Excesses are always bad let alone use of it for evil politics or evil purposes. Many cults have been so evil although the spiritual gurus showed the disciples the path of liberation and we know many disasters happened. 

Sent from my iPhone



On Dec 10, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
Life long atheist Robert Owen changed faith at 84, after attending a few spiritual sessions. Spiritualism leads to supernaturalism, and finally to blind faith. Primitive thinkers needed gods, demons, and spirits to explain natural events. In recent past, even Prince Charles donned a round white cap to attend a Muslim gathering and lectured on high grade miracles like rain fall. Toxicity of spiritualism has been discussed amply by reputed authors. Anyone interested can find it in relevant literature.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 10, 2014, at 4:40 PM, "Subimal Chakrabarty subimal@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
That is analogous to "Mrinmoy majhe Chinmoy" (Inside the earthen idol lives God). It has also been illustrated in the well known four liner poem of Rabindranath: neither the ratha nor the path nor the idol is the real God. 
I am not sure in what sense spirituality can be toxic. It is true that nobody can ignore the material world, but it is his choice what portion of his time he will spend in his spiritual world. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:36 PM, Kamal Das kamalctgu@gmail.com [mukto-mona] <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 
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 shahdeeldar@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> 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.
-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:


 




__._,_.___
Posted by: sanjeev kulkarni <jeevkulkarni@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




__,_._,___