Facebook Discussions on bUDDHISM

Abdel Mannan none could get the gateway of salvation without depend upon a wise guru who is living Buddha - April 4 

Mac Haque The gateway doesn't necessarily have to be a human and bUDDHA was no gOD nor claimed that he was living or dead /\- April 5 

Abdel Mannan without gateway how to entry inside the mystry? Gautom has changed 3 guru to be a Buddha or Shiddharta.- April 12

Mac Haque The decline of bUDDHISM in Bengal started after they moved away from the teachings of bUDDHA ....he was made a deity - a 'gOD' - that he never wished for. True he changed 3 gURU which only reinforces the idea that no gURU as such is required if the gURU lives within us....- April 22

Abdel Mannan Truly, Buddha never introduced Buddhism. His some disciples done it. Now a days they are divided in 38 sects. If there are no necessity of Guru why do you called Him Buddha instead of Goutom? Is The Buddha a historical person or the Stage of higher mind? Lalon Shah said~Chirodin iccha monay/ ail dingaya ghash khaba/ Mon sohojay ki soi hoba? - April 23

Mac Haque I call him the bUDDHA because he is the figurative representation of a historical icon and importantly because he didn't want to be known either as Gautama or Siddhartha. bUDDHA never claimed to have 'attained' anything - not even nIRVANA. All he said was -'IT has left me'. When something leaves you, you cannot say you have attained - you may feel only 'elevated' because you have less of a burden to carry. He was opposed to be even considered a 'higher mind' or 'higher human' - also he did not want to be trusted or believed. There was no rigidity in bUDDHISM. Each human experience with spirituality was/is personal/private and simply cannot be explained in words or deeds.. What he did infer was anyone can be a bUDDHA with practice and diligence. He was totally opposed to gURUism in the precept we use/practice it. Since in sAKYAMUNU bUDDHISM the concept of gOD as we know it never existed - the context of gURU being a gOD-Man is also absent. gURU for all practical purpose is an object of belief - a higher power that we can attain and achieve. The limitation being no one can ever be the 'all in all' - the 'complete being' - hence the practice and praxis of how we consider 'humans' we call gURU, Murshid, Pir, Wali, Kutub etc is also non-existent in bUDDHISM.  jOI gURU /\- April 23

Abdel Mannan Who attained BODHI he is called Buddha. To me a real Buddha never could be limited in time and space. - April 23

Mac Haque True...nothing can be limited in time and space. Life itself translates to time - thus we call it a 'lifetime'. A 24/7/365 dimension that exist only in our limited imagination. - April 23

Abdel Mannan worldly people are attached with time frame, space. But Guru as Buddha is always detached from these. - April 23

Mac Haque Very unlikely - they were conscious about the real world and their spiritual journey was personal. We may only imagine it - and even if we try - there is no guarantee that we will gather the very same experience.-April 23

Fakir Lalon Shah on Makkah - The Human Temple

আদি মক্কাহ এই মানব দেহে - The Ancient Makkah is a Human Temple

Fakir Lalon Shah

আদি মক্কাহ এই মানব দেহে/ দেখনারে মন ভেয়ে

The ancient Makkah lie within the human body/ look for it O' brother in devotion

দেশ দেশান্তর দৌড়ে কেনো মরছড়ে হাফিয়ে  ||

why run in between countries and die in vain, in exhaustion.


করে অতি আজব ভাক্কা গঠেছেন সাই মানুষ মক্কাহ/ কুদরতি নূর দিয়ে

with a strange format the Lord created the Human Temple, with a spark of divine light

ও তার চার ডারে চার নূরী ইমাম/ মধ্যে সাই বসিয়ে ||

oh, on four corners are four illumined leaders, at the center is placed the wise one himself


তিল পরিমান জায়গার উপর গঠেছেন সাই আজব শহর / মানুষ মক্কায় |

On a space equal to a pulse, the Lord has built this strange city/the Human Temple

আছে শীন দরজায় একজন দাড়ি নিদ্রাত্যাগী হয়ে ||

in the penultimate doorway stands a respondent in sleep deprivation


মানুষ মক্কাহ কুদরতি কাজ/ উত্ছেরে গায়েবী আওআজ |

The Human Temple is a blessed piece of work, it sounds words from the unknown realms

সাত তালা ভেদিয়ে/ লাখ লাখ হাজী করতেছে হজ/সেই মক্কায় বসিয়ে ||

stretching the seventh stories, hundreds upon thousand pilgrims perform Hajj with Makkah at its center


দশ দুয়ারী মানুষ মক্কাহ / গুরু (মুশিদ) পদে ডুবে দেখগা/ ধাক্কা সামলিয়ে |

The ten doors within the Human Temple/ learn within deep knowledge imparted by your Guru/ learn handling hazards

লালন বলে গুপ্ত মক্কায় আদি ইমাম মেয়ে ||

Lalon says in the ancient hidden temple, the the primal priest is feminine

(C) Bauliana - The Global Bauls from Bangladesh

Re-Axe: Flaws in Religious Logic - Islam, Taslima Nasreen etc

Dear Mahasina,

While I liked your article overall, the entire purpose and thrust of your arguments have been defeated by a series of anachronism. You set out by pointed reference to the limits of 'all religion' - yet over all your selective hatred of Islam and Muslims in particular was pronounced and created a lot of unnecessary visual noise. You should have learnt from your engagement on the Internet that Islamophobia or Islam bashing is no longer fashionable. 

Having said that - I am an agnostic and in very many ways like you, do not believe in anything that any 'holy book' mentions, or an 'holy men' utters. However the quest for truth and it appears to be what you have argued about 'logically'- is not driven by religion at all - but by spirituality. 

Spirituality predates religion in it efforts at human civility. 'We were born human - and religion is secondary' is an oft argued notion in our culture but is a conjecture as flawed as the 'chicken or the egg - and what came first' debate that have raged inconclusively from times immemorial. There will be no 'logical' end to this :) 

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, but spiritual beings having a human experience. It would be a dangerously uni-polar assessment to say that only logic would explain or defeat the dilemma (and lead us to the truth) created by interference of politics into religion or vice versa. 

That in effect would be catapulting logic's to the status of a 'new religion' based on mathematical principals (if I have read you correctly) - and you could also be accused of being logically illogical! Mathematics as a science is still at its infancy - and maths known by our forefathers will not exactly be the maths  that we know today, or ones that our progeny will use in posterity.

I am surprised that in this new millennium you are still obsessed with the 80's 'fashionable' segregated picnic of the likes of Taslima and Azad - when time since have rendered them redundant. 

Taslima has done more damage to women and Bangladesh - because it was her selfish sensationalist quest to grab international headlines (which she managed to do effectively) - that led to the systematic and equally effective far-right rise of Mullahism in our country. The fight for those of us who do it frontally (as opposed to her escapism) has been made all the more perilous. 

She was indeed lucky for back in the 80's the Internet age hadn't dawned on Bangladesh - and she wasn't or couldn't be challenged by the overall liberal section of our society. Her challenge came only from the Mullahs and the politically positioned nihilist. If that was in today's world - she wouldn't make much headway given the power of information available at our fingertips. Her latest book appears to be no more than rehashed pages from her earlier works, signifying the morbidity of her creativity. You may like to read an essay I wrote on the topic in 2003 at this link.

About Azad - the least said the better. His slander on Fakir Lalon Shah in the 90's - when he termed Shaiji 'insane' - led to the collective curses of the Bauls of Bangladesh - the rest is history.

Finally I am very disappointed when you asked a commentator in your personal wall whether 'Islam has made human civilized'? This is an affront not just to Muslims but to human dignity - and display of arrogance that will never make your writing any stronger or you be taken seriously. 

Anybody can quite 'logically' question you - 'what proof do you have that you are civilized'? It will be an endless debate.

Nonetheless do keep up the good work and I look forward to read more of your writings.

Kind regards,

Mac

Fakir Lalon Shah on Shahada/Kalima

Fakir Lalon Shah on Shahada/Kalima : لا إله إلا الله

আইন ভেজিলেন রসূলাল্লাহ |

A sacred canon was called by the Messenger of Allah

মুখে পরোরে সদাই - লা ইলাহা ইল্লালাহ ||

recite, 'there is no God but Allah'.

নামের সহিত রূপ ধেয়ানে রাখিয়ে জপো |

In its truest appearance, seek him in your deepest meditations

বেনিশানায় যদি ডাকো চিনবি কি রূপ কে আল্লাহ ||

if you seek aimlessly, how will you know the appearance and who is Allah?

লা ইলাহা নফি সে হয় ইল্লাল্লাহ সেই দিন দয়াময় |

La ilaha is your base negation, Illal lah the forever benevolent 

নফি এসবাত ইহারে কয় এহি তো ইবাদাতুল্লাহ ||

This meditation is to negate affirmation, this is Allah in our prayers

লা শরিক জানিয়া তাকে পর কালাম দিলে মুখে | 

That he has no second, recite with your heart and soul

মুক্তি পাবি থাকবি সুখে দেখবিরে নুর তাজুল্লাহ ||

free yourself and live happily and see the the light of the face of Allah.

বলেছেন সাই আল্লাহ নুরি এই জিকিরের দরজা ভারী |

Said the Sai, contemplation on the Divine Light is the highest level of incantation

সিরাজ সাই তাই কয় পুকারি শোনরে লালন বেলিল্লাহ ||

Siraj Sai beseeches. O Lalon mend your ways, be with Allah.

(C) English Translation : Bauliana - The Global Bauls from Bangladesh

Facebook Discussion: Was Fakir Lalon Shah an Agnostic - Part 7

Mac Haque on 6th February :  Dear Habibur Rahman, in the second part of my response to your points earlier, I am keen on advancing my very limited understanding of the four stations as in Ilm-E-Tusawwuf (popularly Sufism) in Shariat, Haqiqat, Tarikat and Marifa. 


Over all the techniques that you have mentioned are available in the public domain and there are very many books that gives us a more or less clear idea in the ascribed road to spirituality in Islam. 


You mention them as 'path', 'journey' etc and I have no hesitation in accepting these terms, nor do I dispute that in parlance of popular communication when the topic is spirituality or mysticism they are only appropriate.


As the scope of our discussion is to examine whether or not Fakir Lalon Shah was an agnostic, I think it only makes sense to indicate a select allegorical passages from his kalaam to appreciate the Sages understanding of the same: 


"করে অতি আজব ভাক্কা গটেছেন সাই মানুষ মক্কাহ/ কুদরতি নূর দিয়ে 
with a strange format the Lord created man, with spark of the divine light 


ও তার চার ডারে চার নূরী ইমান/ মধ্যে সাই বসিয়ে ||
oh, on four corners are these four illumined leaders, at the center is placed the Lord himself


মানুষ মক্কাহ কুদরতি কাজ/ উটছে গায়েবী আওআজ 
the Man Makkah is a blessed piece work, it sounds words from the unknown realms


সাত তালা ভেদিয়ে/ আছে শীন রজায় একজন বাদী নিদ্রাত্যাগী হয়ে ||
stretching the seventh stories, in the penultimate doorway stands a respondent in sleep deprivation " 


herein - the 'four illumined leaders' are the four stations themselves and the 'center' sums up the correlation of the FOUR on the ONE - i.e that moves and as is moved - the center or hypothetical FIFTH . 


The five therefore adds up to the basis tenets of the pillars of Islam - which to my understanding follow these strict orders and flow: 1) Iman 2) Zakat 3) Siyam 4) Salah 5) Hajj and not as is popularly assigned or imagined - Iman, Namaaz, Roza, Zakat, Hajj. 


The 'five' have more significance in our culture than merely meet the eye and I will later attempt to incorporate Shonaton (Hindu) traditions of the পঞ্চবেনা - but for easier and deduce-able analysis for now, suggest and admit our 5 senses of 1. Sight 2. Hearing 3. Taste 4. Touch and 5. Smell - and it interaction with the existence of a 6th as much as as 7th sense generally understood and scientifically permitted - which Lalon Shaiji also admitted. 


But what is really perplexing is when I try to reason with the 7 is how did our great Sage deduce the same back in the 18th century - when in today's reality we are still coping with it in the domains of para-psychology? 


For future inputs in my discussion, I humbly submit that the 7 - interrelates and gives coherence to the 7 basic principals of humanity - 1. Mentalism 2. Correspondence 3. Vibration 4. Polarity 5. Rhythm 6. Cause and Effect and 7. Gender - and I will build my argument upon these principals as I go further. 


However the caveats I mentioned in my earlier posting are ones I want to sound off at this point.


1) Although we recognize the four stations in Tusawwuf, to quote your text :

On the other hand, the more s/he advances in the journey the more divine spark within her/himself becomes individualized, for that reason it is no longer possible for the self to dissolve into the Divine Self. But the Seeker now has the capacity to reflect the Divine image in his/her own self.

words and passages like 'path', 'journey', 'self to dissolve into the Divine spark','divine image' are all limited to individual - sometimes very personal experiences that are and will always remain challenging to the popular imagination. 


Part of the problem is that the 'seekers in the path' tend to dissolve their discourses into strange idioms which takes spirituality to the domain of the few, exclusive and patronizingly 'blessed' (as is often inferred by 'spiritually enlightened') making it appear as though one has to be genetically attuned - or may or may not have to seek guidance of a 'Master' to embark upon this 'journey' which only a limited understand and/or appreciate. 


This supposition defeats the egalitarian and lofty ideals of Islam and the Quran - and reduces it to an occult - that is not permissible at any rate - for Quran other than a book of 'signs' is an ever opening and wider vision of science that is yet to be discovered.


2. On the flip side, there are also certain undefined and highly perplexing 'schools of thought' that believe that the only way forward is in accepting 'spiritual transmission's' in the form of 'bayat' or 'khilafat'. 


While these may or may not have scientific premises, they nonetheless revolve around the principals of vibrations. Where the many 'shirzanama' or flow chart of spiritual transmission that I have studied fail -  is whether the construed vibration that is supposed to head back to that of Mohammad or even earlier is really verifiable? 


The much abused concepts of 'Pir-dom' originates from these very dangerous thought pattern in the public domain and again is contrary to the principals of Islam and Quran - whereby each women/man has been given the capacity to experience this individually - without any 'prescribed' human to direct/dictate the same. 


All that one has to look for is a syllabus - the ultimate Master is the Quran itself. No human intercession is at all necessary in my estimation. 


3. The four stages of Shariat, Tariquat, Hakikat and Marifa - defies imagination as they can never be quantified or are they mathematically verifiable. For all practical purpose, how is it possible to evaluate or measure what stage in the 'journey' is an individual at a precise time - and if so - who is the authority for these evaluation/s? 


We have also taken it for granted that we may swerve and careen through the four stations and will have reached Marifa - but at the point of Marifa will it then not be realistic to conjecture that all the stations are corresponding and complimentary to each other - and that even at the stage of Marifa or even Wilaya - we will need to combine forces of all four stations to make it meaningful to our entire existence as the exercise of spirituality?


4. The following is also fraught with a lot of risk and to quote your text again: 

According to Qur'an, Allah creates Human Being as His vicegerent, or representative, this idea of representativeness is not something given but something to achieve, what is given is the Divine Spark, the proper utilization of that energy gives the human being the opportunity of being the Perfect Human Being.

while you mention this exercise of assigning 'vicegerent or representatives of God' on earth is something that has to be 'achieved' - what possible scientific mechanisms are in place for anyone to evaluate who has or has not achieved the Divine Spark other than fellow man? 


If that be so, what scientific parameter of judgement does the Quran advance for us to recognize and evaluate these 'vicegerents or representatives' and their respective status? 


What possible scientific premises are available to the two of us to determine what 'stage of enlightenment' are we at the current moment and how on earth can you or I, quantify whether either of us have reached the stage to be assigned the term 'vicegerent' or 'representative of Allah' ? May Allah forgive our arrogance... 


I will conclude for the time being and advance what I believe are scientific judgement that are mensurable and verifiable than dwell on this hocus pocus words and phrases that are nothing more than a lot of sound and thunder signifying NOTHING. 


To end - you mention the 'perfect man' but I believe in the old adage NOBODY IS PERFECT, I AM A NOBODY!


Till the next post..joy be yours, peace, love and tranquility...


To be Continued.................

Facebook Discussion : Was Fakir Lalon Shah an Agnostic - Part 6

Mac Haque on 03 February: Dear Habibur, thanks you for your time and patience in your pointed reference to the vast and myriad process of Islamic mysticism and spirituality. I am grateful for your explaining the techniques associated with Tusawuf, and its relation to the principals of the four station, Shariat, Haqiqat, Tariqat and Marefot (Marifa hereafter).

Over all this has been very educative for me in clearing some of the latent and flawed perceptions I had, and yours made illuminated reading when you addressed them on terms of Faylasuf, philosophy, theology, theosophy, humanism - which I feel is exactly the way and premise by which an unfamiliar audience will be able to relate to our discussion in this new millennium.

Finally boiling it down to our original point of contention of whether or not Fakir Lalon Shah was an Agnostic, you have concluded that he was not, and would rank him in the category of a Gnostic or one in a state of Marifa. Probably by intent or purpose you have refrained from addressing Lalon directly as an Insan-E-Kamel or Wali - although in your own admission in the concluding portions of your essay - termed him the 'Perfect Man'. It could well be that in your own discernment, you refused to rank him in any known genre of world mysticism because sHAIJi personally despised the idea of raising any being, body, object or idea - to a pedestal for worship.

As he mentions in one of his kalaam :

প্রতিমা গড়ে ভাষ্করে, মনে প্রাণে প্রতিষ্ঠা করে |

the sculptor build deities, and does so with intent of mind and soul

আবার গুরু বলে তারে, এমন পাগল কে দেখেছে ||

but calling him the Guru? Where else have you seen another mad man

মাটির পুতুল দেখায় নাচায়, একবার মারে একবার বাচায় |

clay dolls they display and dance, kill and then rescue

সাই জেনে স্বযং হতে চায়/ লালন কয় তার সকল মিছে ||

enlightened spirits wishing to be absolute, Lalon says his every effort is in vain.

taking this forward - did he therefore believe in any 'attainment' per se - more than দিব্য জ্ঞান which I will argue is simply deep insight, understanding or wisdom?

He claims nowhere that 'he knows about the divine mystery' adding the words 'যে জন' or 'those that (who)' preceding '(যে জন).. দিব্য জ্ঞানী হয় তবে জানতে পায়'.

In other words Lalon indicated that he/or those that have a clear perception of Man in relationship to cosmological realities, which is an established branch of science and quite separate to mysticism or the metaphysical notions of the 'known and unknown world' is his ideal reference point. No words of wisdom as such would be of any service to us, if it does not relates to Man - or done without the acknowledgement of man as in the exponential experience of mankind.

You mention the limitations of the Bangla language and difficulties in the 18th Century. For an unlettered man of wisdom, did he really have a choice? Other than that, I guess he had to make do with whatever was available within the acceptable paradigms of the rich Bangla language of Nadiya district, which then - as even today is thought to be the purest of Bangla?

Where the dilution of Lalon started was when an urbanized nobility were first attracted to his work - foremost being Rabindranath Tagore. He had many of sHAIJIs kalaams published and in so doing, felt it imperative to 'urbanize' or 'Kolkata-ise' his works for the sheer 'entertainment' of an emerging educated middle class and elite of West Bengal.

In so doing, Tagore edited and 'standardized' sHAIJi's Bangla, and removed what he termed 'rural, unsophisticated gibberish and hideous misspellings' and in the process set in the innate controversies surrounding Lalon's kalaam - which in due course spiraled up as his name and fame spread, as to whether he was a Hindu or a Muslim? He claimed he was neither, so what was he, if he wasn't a Hindu polytheist or a Muslim monotheist - and there is no available evidence that he was an atheist?

Making matters more complex Lalon was a believer par excellence - yet challenged the prevailing dogmas relating to God of both Hindu purohits and Muslim mullahs!

The above may be considered as our first koan or 'paradoxical meditative statements' as practiced in Zen Buddhism.

While we do not or may not appreciate it, the concept of 'God' as we know it does not exist in Buddhism. Because it does not confirm to the conceptualized God of the Hindu, Muslim, Christians etc, we therefore prefer to ignore or shun aside Buddhism's influence in Fakir Lalon's work. কলি যুগ thus for all practical purpose could well have started before the times of the Buddha - placing Buddha within the circle and frame of reference among monotheist Prophets.

I could however not help overlook your contention that Lalon 'borrowed' কলি যুগ 'Kali Joog' from Hindu mythology'. Do you really believe that it is true? In absence of either Hejira or Gregorian calenders Hindu cosmology and not mythology attest that Kali Joog is thought to have commenced approximately 2000 years or more before the death of Christ, corresponding closely to the times of Abraham, the first among monotheist Prophets and the যুগ is set to last a total of 432,000 years. (I will get back with details of this at an opportune time for I have left some of my genealogical flow charts/date/ reference materials in the UK. )

In any case the times of Abraham changed the perceived 'many God' concept as in polytheism, at the same time propounded the proposition of 'one God'. This may have been new for the Arabia centric world of the time, but then it took thousands more years to be crystalized, perfected and its outreach codified in precise scientific terms. But it did not mean that the concept of the one God only came from Monotheist Prophets.The Quran mentions that there is nothing in the book that was not known to mankind as in 'seed truth'.

Because India and Buddhism were unknown to the Arabs (although the Quran has an apparently allegorical reference of the Buddha) the process of the contemplating Man as the center of all truth; as opposed to the prevalent hub-and-spoke notion of Man being on earth and God in a 'celestial heaven' up above - was perhaps equally unknown. The Quran is thought to have put the final seal of authority in the realms of scientific-spiritual-mystical yearnings of mankind and there were important historical precincts here. Among the 124,000 Prophets thought to have come and gone - Muhammad was the only historical personality in that he was 'recorded' with evidence.

Physical evidence of his place of birth, contemplation and meditation, his tracts and treatise, his commerce and battle records - his final resting place have all survived until this day. Although the greatest miracle of Muhammad was he was a man, the miracle he brought with him was the book. A book that would live on to be an auto-updated reference material until eternity.

What has NOT been recorded and indeed has been left to conjectures harboring on the unscientific was his contemplative/meditative techniques and practices in the cave of Mount Heera, for over 14 years.

In essence, the techniques and the four stations of Haqikat, Tariklat, Shariyat and Marifa, in attaining spirituality, or knowing the unknown world, proximity with God and more importantly the concept of 'representative of God' which you mention comes from the Quran raises a few caveat which I will expand upon later.

But before I go - I leave you with a second koan. This one from the Quran and the Shahada - "La Ilaha Illallah" - in classical translations mean 'there is no God but Allah', or 'there is no deity but Allah', or even 'there is no God but God'.

Question: if we are to contemplate on the above three translations - the overriding implication of the Shahada would also translate to mean "there is God and there is no God" or "there is Allah and there is no Allah" ?

If that be true - I believe it is not just Fakir Lalon Shah, but Islam and Muslims are patently agnostic. In that they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God - but have chosen to leave it to the middle, straight path, the entire parameter of God/Allah - of the intellect, or 'akel'.

To be continued...................

Facebook Discussion : Was Fakir Lalon Shah an Agnostic - Part 5

Habibur Rahman on 2nd February: The Seeker in his/her ultimate realization of the self finds that the nature of the journey is eternal, the ultimate objective of the journey to carry the divine spark to its source is ever unattainable, but that objective is the motive force which makes the journey possible. On the other hand, the more s/he advances in the journey the more divine spark within her/himself becomes individualized, for that reason it is no longer possible for the self to dissolve into the Divine Self. But the Seeker now has the capacity to reflect the Divine image in his/her own self. When a lover looks into the eyes of the other what does s/he see, nothing but his/her own beauty, in the same way, when the Divine Love becomes perfect, the Seeker reflects the Divine Self.

In Islamic Tradition, such persons are called Insan-e-Kamil, or Perfect-Human being, in Lalon's terminology, s/he is shahoj manus/সহজ মানুষ/মনের মানুষ/. This Perfect Human being is a potentiality in every human being, and human being's ultimate mission of life is to be the perfect human being. According to Qur'an, Allah creates Human Being as His vicegerent, or representative, this idea of representativeness is not something given but something to achieve, what is given is the Divine Spark, the proper utilization of that energy gives the human being the opportunity of being the Perfect Human Being, that does not mean Heaven is empty. Lalon also says that : মহাজনের ধন এনে বিলুলি সে ধন উলু বনে।

Anyway, to understand Lalon's message we have to recourse, at first, to linguistics analysis, because in the 18th century, when Lalon was trying to express his highly mystical message, bangla language was not so developed, and he has to borrow highly from the indigenous languages, and every word he borrowed, the word itself carrying some prevailing ideas, but Lalon tries to give them his own meaning.

Such a word is Obotar, in Hindu mythology, it means God Himself comes to the earthly world, as a human being, to live as a human, to know what is human life and to direct them. But, Lalon's meaning was, in the final stage of the spiritual journey (কলি যুগে মানুষ হইল অবতার), man becomes the perfect reflection of the divine self. The mirror and the reflection in the mirror is not the same. So, the perfect human being, though the ultimate goal of the Seeker, but he never becomes God, but he ended in being the Perfect Human Being, and that is the nature of Lalon's humanism, and the message to the Humanity, to become the true representative of God, not God Himself.

Lalon claim himself that he knows the divine mystery (দিব্য জ্ঞানী হয় তবে জানতে পায়), by this very sentence it can be prove that Lalon was not an agnostic but Gnostic and Lalon's famous song আমি অপার হয়ে বসে আছি ওহে দয়াময়, পারে লয়ে যাও আমায়.... proves that Lalon's humanism does not mean that the Heaven is empty and there is nothing above human being.

Thank you all for your patience reading, now it is your turn Mac Haque, Tarifa Najmina and all others who wants say something.

Facebook Discussion : Was Fakir Lalon Shah an Agnostic - Part 4

Habibur Rahman on 2nd February : Thank you all for your patience. Our seeker's today's journey/odyssey is now on its third stage. In Islamic Sufi Tradition this stage termed as Tariqat means the Path, and the achievement in this stage is the Theosophy, the Greek word theo means God, Sophia means wisdom, that is, Wisdom of God. We see, the seeker started his/her journey as a philosopher, died at the juncture of the two-world, re-born as a theologian and now at his/her third stage transforming into a theosophian. Note that, theosophian is not re-born but transforming. Transformation/transfiguration or metamorphosis is the primary characteristic of this stage. As a philosopher his/her primary task was knowing, as a theologian, it was doing or not-doing but as a theosohian, the primary task is becoming. And it starts with a violent turmoil.

In the Qur'an, we find a vivid description of the Dooms Day, that day all the material world will be shattered into pieces. In this stage, for the seeker the Dooms Day is not something that will happen in an uncertain future but it is something already happened in his/her psychic world. After the experiences of the Dooms Day, to him/her, the world transformed into a symbolic world. Everything starts to convey to him/her some hidden message from the Unknown World. At the theologian stage, the seeker's mind was full of fear of God, but at the present stage, his/her mind is full of love of God. In this stage, S/he encounters God/Allah in His various attributes. But among all the attributes of Allah, Love is the most contradictory attribute. Remember, God is the source of all Contradiction.

When a Human being feels Love for God, the affairs become most dangerous and destructive. We see in the world, there is attraction between similarities, and there is also attraction between dissimilarities. If there is a love affairs between dissimilarities, the affairs become not only most uncertain, adventurous and creative but also dangerous. In the same way, God is the most dissimilar, the Ultimate Other. Thats why the path for the seeker becomes most dangerous and destructive. The burning ray of the Divine Love destroys everything in the seeker which is unworthy of the Divine Love, it is like a crucible in which gold is burned to separate it from the alloy. If the Seeker can stand all the trial, turmoil, test in the path of the Divine Love then S/he becomes Lover of God, fully converse with all the attributes of Him, comes to the fourth stage, in Islamic Tradition, Haqiqat meaning the Truth. S/he now knows the reality of the reality. The task of his/her life is fulfilled. S/he now knows the purpose of his/her life. And soon S/he comes to the Last stage, in Islamic Tradition, Marifat or Gnosis, or Theophany or revelation of God.

The forgone discussion was the description of the Seeker's path. But what ultimately s/he finds? Was s/he able to carry the divine spark back to its Source? Is his/her individuality ultimately dissolved into the Divine self? If human being is carrying within his/herself the Divine spark, does it mean the Heaven is empty? Is Human Being the Ultimate Being in the course of evolution, and there is nothing above Human Being?

The answer of these questions will be discussed next to determine Lalon's message for the Humanity.

Fakir Lalon Shah on Mi'raj

( Arabic: الإسراء والمعراج, al-’Isrā’ wal-Mi‘rāğ -ascendance to Heaven, Night Journey)

ফকির লালন শাহ /Fakir Lalon Shah

নবি মেরাজ হতে এলেন ঘুরে, বলেন না ভেদ কারো তবে ||

The Prophet went to Mi'raj, and said not a word to anyone upon his return

শুনে আলী কহিছেন তখন- দেখে এলেন আল্লাহ কেমন |

On hearing the news came Ali and asked - "how is Allah in your estimation? "

নবী কয় - ঠিক তোমার মতন করো আমল 'আমি' বোলো যারে ||

the Prophet answered - 'just like you, contemplate on your 'You' and you will know"

এসে আবু বকর বলে - আল্লাহ কেমন দেখে এলে |

then came Abu Bakr and asked - "what did you make of Allah when you saw him....

রূপটি কেমন দেবেন বলে নবি বলেন - তুমি দেখো তোমারে ||

....and how would you describe his looks?" - the Prophet answered ... '"Look at yourself."

তারপর কহিছে ওমর- কেমন আল্লাহ আকার প্রকার |

then it was Umar's query - "what is the size and shape of Allah?"

নবি কয় - ঠিক তোমার আকার আইনাল হক তাই কোরান ফুকারে||

the Prophet answered -"as in the ultimate truth in - YOU as in the Quran"

পড়ে জিজ্ঞাসিল উসমান গনি - আল্লাহ কেমন বলেন শুনি |

and then came Usman Ghani - "how is Allah please tell me?"

নবি কয় - যেমন তুমি তেমন ঠিক পরওয়রে ||

the Prophet answered -"like you - so is your Creator"

নবী মেরাজে গিয়ে যে ভেদ তিনি এলেন নিয়ে |

from Mi'raj in contemplation the Prophet returned

নবিজি যা বুঝাইল চারজনা চরমত - প'লো লালন প'লো মহাগোলে ||

the Prophet explained Allah in four opinions- and Lalon received only a circular celestial 'zero'

ফকির লালন শাহ /Fakir Lalon Shah

(C) English Translation - Bauliana: The Global Bauls from Bangladesh

Fakir Lalon Shah on Aleef Laam Meem

ফকির লালন শাহ - Fakir Lalon Shah

আলিফ লাম মিমেতে কোরান তামাম শোধ লিখেছে |

In Aleef, Laam, Meem the Quran is written with all credits

আলিফ এ আল্লাজী মিম মানে নবী লামের হয় দুই মানে

In Aleef it is Allah, In Meem the Prophet and Laam has two meanings

এক মানে হয় সরাই (শারিয়াই ) প্রচার আরেক মানে মারেফতে

One is the doctrines of Sharia, the other is Marifa

তার দরমিযান লাম আছে ডানে বাম আলিফ মিম দুইজনে |

In between Laam in our right, Aleef on the left and Aleef- Meem conjoined

যেমন গাছ বীজ অঙ্কুর এইমতো ঘুর না পারি বুঝিতে ||

like trees, seeds, and buds are on a spin we cannot comprehend

ইশারার বচন কোরানেই মানে হিসাব করো এই দেহেতে

like the grammar of signs (indications) sum up the Quran in your body

পাবি লালন সব অন্নেষণ ঘুরিসনে ঘুরপাকে ||

find your yearnings, oh Lalon - do not be trapped in a spin.

English Translation (C) Bauliana - the Global Bauls of Bangladesh

Facebook Discussion : Was Fakir Lalon Shah an Agnostic - Part 3

Habibur Rahman on 28th January: Thank you Tarifa and Maqsoodul Haque for your excellent and inspiring comments. It seems, there is another point raised: Whether Lalon was a humanist or not. In the course of my discussion I will also come to this point what actually Lalon's humanism means. At the moment, I am describing the seeker's journey to clarify the necessity of method or procedure, and also to determine our own present status in the path; along with finding some appropriate epithet for Lalon. But at a later stage, we will again come to the points what at last the seeker finds. We see, at the death bed of the philosopher, born the theologian. The Greek word theo means God, Logy means discipline (শাস্ত্র). Question may naturally arise : Why theologian? We see before, philosopher died at the juncture of the two world: the Known and the Invisible Unknown World.

From the experiences of the previous life, the philosopher knows everything in the known world follows certain laws and regulations, some are static, some dynamic and some are also evolutionary. But all these laws are determined by the Unknown World. Thats why s/he born with a believe that there is a higher reality behind/beneath the phenomenal world. That believe makes him/her the theologian. And thats why Quran starts with the statement that the Book is for those persons who believe in the [existence of the] Invisible Unknown World. (Sura Baqara, ayat 2,3). There is also another more vital reason for that, and which is more relevant in relation to our present discussion, for our actual topic was about the technique, method, procedure or course of action. All the Religions stand for the Invisible Unknown World, about which every religion has not only something to say but also provides some technique, method, procedure or course of action to follow as well some Moral Codes and Ethical precepts.

And the first task of the theologian is to choose a particular tradition, here Islam proposes Shariah, and you see Maqsoodul Haque already explained in detail some of the technique of the Shariah in the previous comment. However, as a philosopher, his/her task was knowing, but as a theologian his/her task becomes doing or not doing. But why Shariah provides all these exercises? The sole purpose of the Shariah at the theological stage is to prepare the Soul of the adept/novice for the upcoming more arduous and painful journey or odyssey. To see the visible world we need to clear our vision, in the same way, to see the Invisible World we need to purify of our soul, so that the faculties of the soul may work properly.

At this stage, the soul prepare itself for the journey or odyssey, but this theological stage itself is not progressive but static because the stage is full of fear, confusion, failure, frustration and inner struggle. Most of the seekers die at this stage before getting preparation, the few who are able to continue find themselves at the Theosophical Stage, in Islamic Tradition, we can term this stage as the Tariqat. The journey begin with the realization that we are carrying within ourselves a divine spark, and to carry that spark back to its source is our ultimate mission in the world.

Thank you for the moment,

to be continued...

Facebook Discussion: Was Fakir Lalon Shah an Agnostic? - Part 2

Part 2 of the ongoing discussion on the subject :

Habibur Rahman on 26th January: Dear Maqsoodul Haque, your comment comprises with multiple topics and to address all these matters, I think; at least a thin book is required, which is beyond the scope of this forum. Still, I will try my best, if Allah permits me, to express, step by step, my succinct or precise opinion on some of the most fundamental points you raised. At the moment, with your permission, I am suspending my original contention on Lalon, with which I will conclude my discussion later.

Among other things you raised, three fundamental points on which I am going to express my opinion :

1. On technique, method, procedure to enhanced our spiritual energy/experience;

2. Nature of Truth, the relation of Truth with our experience or category of Truth; and most importantly your metaphysical proposition `All in One and One in All'. Today I am going to discuss only on the topic of technique, method or procedure.

Whoever wanted to be a philosopher, scientist or a spiritualist, following a particular tradition, discipline, technique, method, procedure or a course of action is sine qua non or essential to achieve the desired end. But it should be kept in our mind that they are not end in-itself but only means to some certain ends. In the spiritual journey, these means have two objectives, one is immediate and the other is ultimate. The immediate objective is to achieve Unity/Tawhid within ourselves, i.e., unity of our Mind, Body and Soul along with our mission, vision, feelings, thought and action. When every parts of these elements works in harmony with all the other parts then we can say we achieve the Unity/Tawhid within ourselves. But remember it is not the ultimate objective.

3. The ultimate objective of our spiritual journey is to carry the divine spark, pure and unadulterated; to its source. Now let me allow to describe some stages of the spiritual journey.

A spiritual journey usually starts with the awareness of the fact that we are living in a world full of deception, delusion and illusion. When an adept/novice becomes aware of the fact, he starts his quest for the Truth. This is philosophical stage. in this stage, he examines his life, the things he encounters in his material, social, political and environmental settings; carefully to know the real structure of the things. But soon he finds there are absolute barricade or limitation beyond which his senses, intellect, reason and understanding cannot transcend. S/he comes to know: s/he is living a life between two ultimate ignorance, i.e., what was before his/her birth and what will be after his death. In the material world s/he finds organic beings gush forth from inorganic material and return to it without leaving any trace or mark. S/he don't know what is the nature of life (the force by which the living beings are as such), what is the source/destiny/purpose of life. Here is the death of a philosopher and if s/he continues, then s/he gives birth within his/herself, the Theologian.

Thank you for the moment, to be continued...

Mac Haque on 26th January: Dear Habibur....what a beautiful posting.. I am simply spellbound! I have absolutely not one word in disagreement or contentions to add. Please proceed - I am anxiously waiting for what you will say next. Thanks a million.

Habibur Rahman on 26th January: Dear Maqsoodul Haque, before I proceed further, would you please be kind enough to let know whether I am correct in selecting the three points you raised, especially on the Metaphysical proposition : `All in One and One in All', about which I am not certain, because you said actually : `ONE in ONE, our ALL in ALL', in this point, I think, I misread, please give some explanation on this point.

Mac Haque on 26th January : Dear Habibur - I will get to the Metaphysical proposition [...in more details] after you have finished. Trust me, the 3 points you have to so lucidly embarked upon, makes me feel that you have many gems to offer during your discourse. Your approach is so fresh and original that in the 24 years spent as a Lalonist, I seem to be able for the very first time to connect and have a clearer concept. It would be a shame to interrupt your flow at this stage.

[..briefly] The ONE in ONE ( I and I) and the ALL in ALL comes from the Rastafarai religion of Jamaica, you can say they are the South American Bauls. Its biggest exemplar was the Late Richard Nesta ( Bob) Marley and in very many ways I meant what he said in his epic song Get Up Stand up ( 'Dont Give Up the Fight') :

"Preacher man don't tell me heaven is under the earth

I know you don't know what life is really worth

Is not all that glitters is gold and

Half the story has never been told"

and then the real punch line which shook the world:

"We're sick and tired of your ism and skism game

Die and go to heaven in Jesus' name, Lord

We know when we understand

Almighty God is a living man"

This I thought connected well with what Lalon Shaiji had already said over two hundred year ago.

"যেজন দিব্য জ্ঞানী হয় / সে জানতে পায়

Only they that have deeper knowledge know

কলিযুগে হলো মানুষ অবতার/

In the era of 'Koli' - man evolved to Avatar

মানুষ গুরুর নিষ্ঠা যার/

The gOD in mAN is in the yearning of those

ভবে মানুষ গুরুর নিষ্ঠা যার

those that live in the in the aura of the gOD in mAN

I will surely expand on this at a later stage.

Kind regards and jOI gURU /\

Facebook Discussion: Was Fakir Lalon Shah an Agnostic? - Part 1

Thread from an ongoing Facebook discussion on Fakir Lalon sHAH and agnosticism.

1.Tarifa Najmina: 23rd January - "For Bangladeshthe year 1991 passed uneventfully in our willful exclusion of an epochal eventof historical significance. It was the death centenary of the agnostic sage FakirLalon Shah......." from the book, Bauliana by , Maqsoodul Haque.

2. Tarifa Najmina: 23rd January - habibur rahman , abdelmannan, mac haque ,is Lalon Fakir an agnostic sage ?

3.Habibur Rahman: 23rd January - Dear MaqsoodulHaque, It seems you epithet Lalon as Agnostic (অজ্ঞেয়বাদী). I wonder whetherit is deliberate or unintentional mistake with the epithet Mystic (অতিন্দ্রীয়বাদী).If it is deliberate, would you please give us some explanation about what doyou mean by the term `Agnostic', and why do you think it is applicable forLalon?

4.Mac Haque ‎: 24th January - Dear Habibur...itwould all depend on what your perception of an agnostic really is? অজ্ঞেয়বাদীdoesn't precisely describe agnosticism in its spirit - at least not in theEnglish language, where it would mean more or less a 'vague-ist' .Perhaps youwill care to tell me. …and I will take it forward from there.....thanks

5.Habibur Rahman: 24th January - Dear Maqsood Haque and Tarifa, we were talking about whether Lalon was an Agnostic or not. Let me place my understanding of the term Agnosticism. In the epistemological branch of philosophy, grossly we can divide the subject matter of our knowledge intotwo classes: things that we can know by our senses i.e., the book on my tableand things that we can know by our reason, i.e., the sum of two sides of atriangle is greater than the third side.

There are also some ideas we use in our everyday life such as Allah, Soul, and Humanity. The question is whether we can assert that we know Who/What is Allah(God) in-himself or Soul in-itself? Relating to these matters the questionarises whether a person is agnostic or gnostic. Now, an Agnostic believes thatin the present existential condition of the human being, in this present fourdimensional time-space boundary, Human Being cannot assert that he knows Allahor philosophically speaking the Absolute Truth, because in the present situation we cannot prove or disprove such assertion.

Moreover,an Agnostic can be believer or disbeliever. Socratics says: `What I know is that I know nothing'. He was an agnostic and referring his ignorance concerning the ultimate matter about which he asserts his believe.

Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason elaborately explained that by our reason we can only know which are within the time-space, but God is God, who creates the time-space also, and what is not within the time-space, reason cannot know it.Kant is also agnostic but believer.

Thank you for the moment, I will try by best tomorrow insha Allah, why Lalon was not an agnostic but indeed he was aGnostic, in Arabic equivalent of the term is `Arif'.

6.Mac Haque: 25th January - Dear Habibur, thank youfor your kind inputs on agnosticism. I am very impressed by the depth of yourknowledge and am sure have lots to learn in the process. My thirst forknowledge is insatiable and now that I have a brother who knows Arabic (I don't) - I am really excited!

To the course of our debate/inquiry in the loftiest tradition of Ijtehad, I like Socrates would submitthat 'What I know is that I know nothing'. I agree in totality your understandings of Agnosticism which are classical - but in the realms of spirituality – we all know are not above inquiry or questions. I am a novice student in the new domain called Contemplative Science - which I have coined in Bangla - তপস্যা বিজ্ঞান (Tarifa please help correct my usual faulty Bengalee!)

To begin my first port of call will be the concept of truth as we know it.

Clearly for an agnostic there is no such thing called truth and Lalon sHAIJi in my limited understanding personified it himself in the Great NO - or 'La'. So what may be - or is there anything at all called the Great YES?

Truth for AN agnostic is a perception, and as we all know (and not that you have to agree) perceptions are what they are, perceptions: they do not or cannotindicate TRUTH. In Bengalee I have often used the term অনুমান কখনো প্রমান বলে গন্য হতে পারে না. Trut has I am inclined to believe is dynamic, re-creative and pro-creative with interaction and pro-actions its driving wheel. It goes beyond the principals ofcause and effect.

What our ancestors knew as the truth has by now been rendered obsolete - even redundant. As an Honorable Advocate of Law, you will agree that Courts have historically hanged men to death under the premise of what they thought then, that the evidence suggested strongly a mans unqualified guilt. Yet over time; time itself has recorded that the entire process of gathering evidence was flawed, even unscientific - and a perfectly innocent man has been 'killed' in the gallows.Here TRUTH as we know it was/were the evidence - and the evidence then wasbeyond any sphere of doubt the TRUTH, yet today we know they were not.

Likewise,try as we may to convince each other, posterity may (or may not) judge our verysincere engagement on Facebook as sheer wastage of time and space :)

Agnosticism as I know it, is neither believing nor disbelieving. It’s like an open safety pin - sharp and vulnerable when open, safe and rounded when in unison of circularity. It is acknowledging and appreciating our left and right - andknowing that cohesion comes only when the two meets up with the one - our intellect - or 'akel'. It is neither stereophonic nor monophonic - but quadraphonic.

It is the surrender of the center by the dual. It is our physical supplication as demonstrated in 'sajood', in that we understand our left and right - but not our center, the head, that must be grounded (as in electricity) for current to flow its full course. It is inconfirming within our physical being that wherever they are in pairs - ear,eye, nostril, hands, legs, lungs, kidney, down to our testicles- there areusually nothing that would be a consistent bother of any kind in the short run.

Itis wherever they are in singular that we have to handle insurmountable obstacles.

Starting with our mouth, oesophagus, liver, stomach, genitals, and orifice - we do know and live with the issues on a day-to-day basis. It is only in aligning pluralswith the singular over the center - with the spine and the two great organs,the brain and heart that have multiple chambers, to the global axis of poles(as in magnetism) that our equilibrium our ONE in ONE, our ALL in ALL - aLLAH, Bhagwan,Iswar, gURU, Boddhisatava – whatever - can be positioned - the importance of Sajood, Bhokti or prostration is defined.

The hypothetical ONE therefore is the sum total of the combined plurals on the singulars.

Like a ship has constantly to check its coordinates to North/South/East and West via the stars up above, so has man in his day to day existence. The process of surrender is exemplified for as we kneel and prostrate 'due West' (in case ofthose of us living in the East) - its is only to appreciated that as per thefundamental principals of polarity and rhythm juxtaposed with the principals ofmentalism - equilibrium to the great YES 'maybe' discovered in exercise of ourlimited free will. That however is an individual experience and defiesexplanation, for each experience then is very private, unique and personal. ‘Sacredand secret’ starts here quite unnecessarily for one simply cannot explain it orput in pen or paper (keyboards in these enlightened times!).

It is precisely for the above, in my argument and conjecture that I prefer to useand interpret 'Salah', from one amongits many meanings in Arabic - CORRECTION. Merely hitting our forehead hard on thefloor and leaving ugly scars in our forehead denoting our 'Naamazi' status is not at all the intention of ‘Salah’ in my reckoning!

It is possibly the 'straight path' mentioned repeatedly in the Quran...and two'insane' thoughts for everybody's simpler rumination:

1.The straight path is not being on either side of traffic - but walking on thetraffic divider! In as much as we can see clearly the left and right - we canwalk anywhere from North to South/East to West or vice versa - without anyinterruptions or - importantly 'traffic jams' of any kind!

2. Unlike trees and plant we are upside down creations. Our 'roots' are in ourhair - that comes out of our skull...our brain?

Ending right here before it gets to bore everybody - as and when we eventually move to Lalon sHAIJi and whether or not he was agnostic- in my limited understanding ofGnosis in the realms of Arabic etymology, I would prefer to use the word 'Ihsan' and perhaps you can correct me?

I have also reasons to believe that we need to understand Lalon sHAIJi in the domains of 'Maarifa' (Marefot) whichI prefer to use the term 'extelligence' - as also the so-called 'super-Maarifa' or 'Walaya' from where the word 'Wali' possibly emanated?

Thank you for your time and patience Dear Habibur.

jOIgURU /\