39 Rabindranath Tagore

S. Abdul Sattar

Introduction:

Rabindranath Tagore was a Bengali polymath who reshaped Bengali literature and music, as well as Indian art with Contextual Modernism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Author of Gitanjali and its “profoundly sensitive, fresh and beautiful verse”, he became the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1913. In translation his poetry was viewed as spiritual and mercurial; however, his “elegant prose and magical poetry” remain largely unknown outside Bengal. He was highly influential in introducing the best of Indian culture to the West and vice versa, and he is generally regarded as the outstanding creative artist of the modern Indian subcontinent.

2. General Philosophical Standpoint:

In India, Philosophy is called ‘Darsan’, which means ‘vision’ — ‘vision of the real’. Rabindranath takes this meaning of the term ‘philosophy’ rather literally. That is why in his thought there is a very great emphasis on ‘personal realisation’. In Religion of Man he says, ‘I have already made the confession that my religion is a poet’s religion. All that I feel about it is from vision and not from knowledge. Frankly, I acknowledge that I cannot satisfactorily answer any question about evil or about what happens after death. Nevertheless, I am sure that there have come moments in my own experience when my soul has touched the Infinite and has become infinitely conscious of it through the illumination of joy.” This creates another difficulty for the student of Philosophy. He is trained to read the thoughts of a thinker in terms of certain accepted epithets and concepts. But, it may not be possible for him to apply his traditional philosophical models to the ‘personal realisation’ of a seer of truth, and therefore, a logical interpretation of such a thought, may not be very accurate. “The meaning of the living words that come out of the experiences of great hearts can never be’ exhausted by any one system of logical interpretation.” But, in spite of this difficulty, it is worthwhile to try to determine the ideas of Tagore’s philosophy in terms of accepted and academic philosophical concepts.

The greatest influence that Tagore’s thought bears upon itself is of ancient Indian thought — of the Upanisads and the Vedanta. His early education and the ways of his upbringing implanted in his mind the ancient Indian ideals. But that influence was not accepted by the poet in an abstract fashion. Naturally, therefore, he came under the influence of Vaisnavism and the teachers of the Bhakti-marga. The lyrical outbursts of the saints like Dadu, Ravidas, Nanak and Kabir touched the poetic elements of the philosopher. Finally, the Gita showed ‘the way by reconciling the abstract and impersonal nature of the Upanisadic Brahman with the personal God of the bhakta. This enables the poet-philosopher to have a vision and come out with a firm faith in a God who is also the omnipresent reality — the Brahman.

Apparently this may not appear to be self-consistent to a student of Philosophy, but in Tagore’s philosophy the apparent inconsistency of the reality, conceived as both personal and impersonal, somehow evaporates.

In the light of this, it can be said that his philosophy is a peculiar and yet a religious synthesis of Abstract Monism and a particular type of Theism. Reality, according to him, is one. He identifies this reality with personal God. This identification of impersonal reality with personal God gives interesting results.

Now, all attempted descriptions of his thought assume validity. Tagore can rightly be called ‘an idealist’ or ‘a spiritualist’ he can again be described both as a ‘monist’ and a ‘theist’. That is why many commentators on Tagore say—and say so legitimately that Tagore’s philosophy oscillates between Ankara’s Vedanta and Vaisnavism.

Different people have tried to describe the general character of Tagore’s Philosophy in different ways. Hirendranath Datta calls it the philosophy of Concrete Monism It is monism because reality is conceived as one, and it is concrete because the one reality is not an abstract principle negating completely the reality of the many, but is a concrete whole comprehending the many within its bosom. Radhakrishnan says, ‘‘We do not know whether it is Rabindranath’s own heart or the heart of India that is beating here.” He says further, that his philosophy is the “ancient wisdom of India restated to meet the needs of modern times.” It is apparent from these statements also that Tagore’s philosophy is an attempt to revive the ancient ideals of life; but then, they have been re-stated in accordance with the needs of the present times. The traditional philosophical notions of India have been brought out by Tagore from the dark abyss of abstractions, where they were lying all the time, into the open to be viewed in the light of the present philosophical beliefs. That is the reason why a philosopher like Radhakrishnan himself describes his philosophy thus, “He [Tagore] gives us a human God, dismisses with contempt the concept of world-illusion, praises action overmuch and promises fullness of life to the human soul.”

At times, Tagore is also described as a mystic. That is probably because Tagore does not formulate his beliefs on the strength of logical speculation; on the other hand, he comes to have them through his poetic insight, which is, more or less, the insight of a seer. In this way, Tagore’s philosophy can be described in various ways, and what is interesting about it is that all these descriptions do throw some light on the general nature of his thought

It is safe to say at the very outset that by the terms ‘reality’ and ‘God’; Tagore does not mean two different entities. Here, both these expressions are being used only as a precautionary measure against a possible misunderstanding that may wrongly be created. In metaphysical context, a distinction between ‘God’ and ‘reality’ is maintained. For Tagore such a distinction is unnecessary. Although, at times, one gets the impression that Tagore also is using the two expressions differently, but on a closer analysis it would appear that such impressions are created only because the poet cannot be philosophically precise in his writings.

There are descriptions in Tagore that create the impression that Tagore’s Absolute has been conceived almost in Sankara’s manner. He asserts that everything is a manifestation of the Absolute. In Gitanjali he says, “Thou art the sky and thou art the nest as well.” Again, there are passages in Tagore’s writings that clearly indicate that his position is fundamentally different from that of Sankara. In fact, in his lecture on ‘Universal Man’, Tagore examines Sankara’s standpoint and distinguishes it from that of his own.

Perhaps it is on account of this that Tagore rarely uses the word ‘Absolute’ for the Absolute. The expressions that have been most frequently used are: The Universal Man, The Supreme Person, The Supreme Spirit, The Infinite Personality etc. Such expressions naturally refer to a theistic God. And yet, God has also been described as formless and featureless. He is called Satyam, Anandam, Sivam and Sundaram. He is conceived as the only ONE as the only reality, as the basic postulate of everything. These descriptions are the descriptions of the Vedantic Brahman. Once again, we are constrained to believe that Rabindranath somehow is both an abstract Monist and a Theist. Let us try to amplify this idea still further.

On the basis of a comprehensive survey of Tagore’s metaphysical beliefs it can be said that the final metaphysical position of Tagore is that of a theist. Abstract Monism and also the concept of a nirguna Brahman are sometimes openly ridiculed by Tagore. That is why some critics of Tagore accuse him of falling under the influence of Christianity and of neglecting the Vedantis ideals. But such accusations are not well-founded. Tagore can never even imagine that he is in any way contradicting Vedanta, on the other hand, he is firmly of the opinion that the theistic emphasis is not so much on account of the influence of Christianity as on account of other influences. The influence of Christianity might have been there, but it is almost insignificant in comparison to the tremendous influence which philosophers like Ramanuja and saints like Dadu and Kabir had on his theistic convictions. All these influences, and above all his own realisation led him to think that there must be a Supreme Person guiding and controlling the universe. That is why he conceives God as a person. God, according to him, is not merely an abstract hunt-out of the metaphysician. HE is the concrete ideal of man’s life and aspirations.

Tagore has a very sound — a human reason for believing in a personal God. Man, he finds, cannot be interested in anything with which he cannot have an actual inter-communion. Man cannot take an active and living interest in the unapproachable Brahman because that is merely an abstract principle. He says, ”Just as the physiology of our beloved is not our beloved, so this impersonal law is not our God.”1 Tagore thus feels that God has to be brought nearer to man. The declaration of ‘that thou art’ is not enough, the throb of the ‘that’ must be felt within. ‘Man can take interest in the Absolute only when it is humanised.’ Like the Baul singers of Bengal who do not profess anything about the Brahman and sing in the glory of God, Tagore also calls his God ‘The Man of his heart’.

3. Creation

Tagore believes in the reality of creation, and so, has given a definite view on the nature of creation. His account of creation is, more or less, theistic even though it has a humanistic significance also.

God is the ultimate reality, and as such, He is the basis of the universe. Creation is, in a sense, the manifestation or the expression of the Absolute. This expression is almost necessary in the sense that there is no sense in conceiving a creation-less God — a God who just is, but does not create. God, according to Tagore, finds himself by creating.

The reason for Creation is joy. Using the Indian concept of ‘Lila’ Tagore says that creation is the ‘Lila’ of the creator. He creates in the fullness of joy —just to find himself in the play of joy. It is on account of this that the act of creation does not give rise to any kind of duality. It is in the nature of joy to create another only to absorb it finally in the consummation of joy. Creation, thus, is separate from the creator, and yet united with him. It is separate because it has been created, but it is still united because both the creator and the created are aspects of the joy of creation. Rabindranath says, “This joy whose other name is love, must by its very nature, have duality for its realisation. When the singer has his inspiration, he makes himself into two, he has within him his other self as the hearer and the outside audience is merely an extension of this other self of his. The lover seeks his own other self in his beloved. It is joy that creates this separation in order to realise, through obstacles, the union.”

Now, it can be said that there is a sense in which creation is necessary. It is necessary in spite of the fact that creation is a free act of the creator. Joy, for its fulfillment and play needs creation. These two elements appear as inconsistent with each other, how can a ‘free’ act be ‘necessary’ at the same time? Tagore is aware of this difficulty and therefore tries to escape from it in a number of ways. He would say that creation is necessary because it is the expression of joy. He says, “Our Master himself has joyfully taken upon him the bonds of creation, he is bound with us forever.” That he has willfully taken up this ‘bond’ shows that creation is a free act, but there has to be an expression of the joy inherent in the Brahman, in that sense creation is necessary. The Infinite requires the finite for the fulfillment of love. In another way also this apparent inconsistency is sought to be removed. It is said that the One wanted to appreciate its unity in diversity, and there was creation. This shows that creation is a free act. But that does not make creation something different and separate from the Creator. “The Infinite and the finite are one as song and singing are one.” That shows that creation is necessarily an aspect of the Brahman, it is inseparable from Him. In that sense it is necessary.

Such a conception of creation raises another question of a fundamental nature — Is creation real or is it merely an appearance? Passages from Tagore can be quoted to show that the world has been conceived as an illusion, more or less, in Sankara’s way. But such passages occur generally in the ethical context, they do not appear to have any metaphysical basis. Most often these passages occur when Tagore is found recommending a withdrawal from finitude and a consequent extension of one’s consciousness. From the metaphysical point of view it is fairly clear that Tagore believes that creation, although a manifestation or an appearance of the Absolute, is not false or illusory. It is real just as appearance is real.

At this point it is better to make a mention of Tagore’s idealistic conviction. According to him, “what we call nature is not a philosophical abstraction, not cosmos, but what is reveal-ed to man as nature.” In Personality he says, “It is almost a truism to say that the world is what we perceive it to be. We imagine that our mind is a mirror, that it is more or less accurately reflecting what is happening outside us.” He illustrates this with the help of various examples. If we change the focus of our mind, the forest might appear as running, the waterfall as standing still and even the painful as pleasurable. Science does not appreciate this because the scientific standards are impersonal. “She [Science] tries to do away altogether with the central personality in relation to which the world is a world.” But at this point, a doubt may be raised. The idealistic assertion may imply that whatever is perceived is merely an appearance. Tagore will accept this, but he will not be prepared to accept that the world becomes unreal on that account. The appearance is of the reality, the One appears as creation and therefore, even the appearance is real. Tagore says, “When you deprive truth of its appearance it loses the best part of reality.”

4. Doctrine of Maya

Tagore has introduced the concept of Maya also in his philosophy of God and the world. Although the concept has been taken from the Vedanta, it has been conceived in the light of Tagore’s conception of the nature of creation. Maya, more or less, in the Vedantic fashion, has been conceived as the principle that brings about the appearance of Creation. Maya, according to Tagore, is ignorance on a universal scale; it is the ‘principle of the cosmic error.’ ‘It is the mist and not the sun.’ Truth, according to Tagore, stands for unity, Maya stands for separateness.

Tagore explains the nature of Maya with the help of an analogy. A savage gets some bank notes from somewhere. He does not know their value, and so they are completely useless for him. One who knows, one who considers the bank notes in relation to the bank, that is, considers them not in their separateness, perceives a value in them. Likewise, if the creation is viewed as the creation of the creator, there would appear a value in creation. But, if the forms of the universe are viewed independently and apart from Him whose forms they are, then we would get a false picture of the universe, and then, the universe will not appear to have any significant value for us. This is Maya — the tendency to see from the wrong point of view.

This Maya is not really a separate entity. It does not exist by itself, nor does it limit God’s infinity. Tagore explains this point with the help of an analogy of the Chess-player. The Chess player puts upon himself certain restrictions with regard to the moving of the chess-counters. “It is not that he cannot move the chess-man just as he pleases, but if he does so then there can be no play.” Likewise, if God assumes his omnipotence and starts doing everything in an arbitrary or whimsical manner, then there would be no play—no game of joy. He, therefore, must willingly set limits to his will and power. This self-imposed limitation of God is Maya. “It is like a father settling upon his son some allowance within the limits of which he is free to do what he likes.”

This shows that the principle of Maya is not altogether an illusory principle or a delusion. Tagore gives to this principle a reality of its own. It is, in a sense, a power of God. Only this has to be remembered that its reality is like the reality of error. It has a reality, but it has to be superseded. “Error, by its nature, cannot be stationary, it cannot remain with truth, like a tramp it must quit its lodging as soon as it fails to pay its score to the full.”

P. T. Raju has explained this point, and in that connection, has clarified the nature of Maya itself as it has been conceived by Tagore. He says that Maya has been conceived by Tagore not exactly in the way of Sankara. According to Sankara, Maya neither ‘is’ nor ‘is not’ for Tagore it is both ‘is’ and ‘is not’. It has being because finitude which is produced by Maya, is a matter of experience, it has non-being because when infinity is realised it vanishes. Maya also gives knowledge, but that is not final knowledge, it re-,- quires a going beyond Maya to attain the final realisation. Tagore says, “The mystery is like the darkness of night, it is great. Delusions of knowledge is like the fog of the morning.” The darkness of the fog cannot be as profound as the darkness of the night. That is why Maya is called the mist and not the sun. The sun, here, is the sun of ultimate knowledge which can remove the darkness of the night of ignorance by piercing through the mysteries of creation.

5. Degrees of Reality

Talking about the mysteries of creation, we come to consider the problem of, what is called, ‘the degrees of reality’. Scholars seem to be in agreement in saying that Tagore believes in it in a general way. The Supreme has been conceived as the unity of the manifold. The most frequently used analogy for this is that of Music. Music comprehends diverse notes, it is an organised symphony — a unity of these distinct notes, and yet, each note in itself cannot be called music. Likewise, God is everything, but everything is not God. ‘God has many strings in his Sitar, some are made of iron, others of copper and yet others are made of gold.’

Thus, we see that Tagore does believe in the fact of ‘gradation’. He believes that some aspects of the world are superior and some inferior. On many occasions, for example, Tagore talks about the superiority of man over other aspects of creation. The worm is superior to the clod, the animal is superior to the worm, and man is superior to them all. Man has been, at times, described as the golden string of God’s Sitar. It is on account of his superiority that man resembles his creator in many respects and is able to organise his affairs consciously.

But one thing has to be borne in mind. The question of the degrees of reality would be relevant to the realm of creation only and not to the realm of the Supreme. The Supreme is one and therefore, the question of something being less or more in it would not arise. It is in the realm of creation that something appears to be more akin to the reality proper and something as less similar to it. Thus, it is in this realm that we can talk of any kind of gradation or of something being more real than something else.

6. Nature of Man

Tagore conceives man in such a manner that without affecting the Godness of God, he gives to man also a special dignity and uniqueness. Tagore is often described as primarily a philosopher of humanity perhaps on account of the fact that in his philosophy man has been given a very key status. Metaphysically speaking, he is in many respects God-like, and yet he is very much a creature of this world

Tagore traces the history of evolution of life and shows that with the advent of man evolution itself strikes a different note. Before man appeared on earth, evolution proceeded, more or less, in a mechanical manner. The physical forces, the mechanical laws of aggregation, adjustment, co-ordination and heredity controlled completely the course of evolution. Almost mechanically the species went on entering into the realm of competition and wereselected or rejected according as they succeeded in adjusting themselves to the demands of the environment.

But, with the advent of man there appears a significant change in the nature of the evolutionary process. The responses of every other product of evolution are determined by the environmental factors and the physical forces, their patterns of response and behaviour can be rigidly determined and forestalled. But, man is not a tool in the hand of the physical forces. It is with the appearance of man that this rigidity — this pattern of behaviour changes. Man somehow has the capacity to play a part in evolution, he has the power to change the pattern of his behaviour and responses. His responses are not automatic, they cannot be pre-determined.

7. Soul and Body

Roughly speaking, ‘body’ represents the finite side of man’s existence and ‘soul’ stands for the infinite aspect of man’s nature. Just as Tagore believes in the reality of both these aspects, he believes that both the soul and the body are real.

Tagore never suggests that the body is an illusory or false aspect of man’s life. On the other hand, it has been conceived as the temple of the Divine. But, as this analogy also suggests, a distinction has to be made between ‘the temple’ and ‘the Divine’. We must not make the mistake of mistaking the temple for the Divine. The temple may have a reality of its own, but in order to realise the Divine attention has to be withdrawn from the temple to the Divine.

So, Tagore says that although body has a reality of its own, we must remember that it only represents the lower aspect of man’s nature which has to be transcended in order to attain the higher nature — that of the soul.

The body, thus, can be viewed in two ways. If we give exclusive emphasis on the body, we are imprisoning the soul in the body. The body in that sense may be compared with a ‘jewelled chain’ which may be beautiful to look at, but which is a ‘chain’ all the same’. But, if we view at the body as providing an occasion and a base for spiritual discipline, body becomes an aspect of the game of joy that man has to play. Tagore says, ‘Heaven is fulfilled in your sweet body, my child, in your palpitating heart.” The whole point can be made clear with the help of an analogy that Tagore has made use of. If we weigh a pitcher full of water we feel its weight, but the same pitcher does not appear to be heavy if we balance it in a river. What is the difference? In the former case emphasis is laid on the pitcher full of water, in the latter case emphasis is on water, the pitcher now becomes insignificant and the water inside the pitcher becomes an aspect of the great reservoir of water all round. Likewise, if we lay emphasis on the body, the soul encompassed in the body is lost sight of. But if we view at the body as an aspect of the Infinite, even the body becomes a partner in the joyous game of the Spirit.

8. Nature of Religion

Rabindranath initially was a Brahmo–Samaji . Later on he developed a religion which combined some elements of Brahmo Samaj with some elements of orthodox Hinduism. Finally, he came to believe in, what he called, ‘the Religion of Man’.

Whatever be the influences or the determinants that shaped Tagore’s views on religion, the fact remains that Tagore explicitly believes that religion cannot be confined to any group or sect or tribe or nation. Man picks up that particular form of religion that suits him, but in the final analysis religion transcends all such particular forms.

Ordinary religions, according to Tagore, are just aimless wanderings. The aim of true religion is the realisation of one’s kinship with everything. Religion, according to him, is a sort of homesickness. Like a flock of homesick cranes flying night and day back to their mountain nests, the religious man is also on his sacred voyage to his eternal home. In the Gitanjali the poet bursts out in a religious fervour, “No more sailing from harbour to harbour with this my weather-beaten boat…now I am eager to die into the deathless.”

That is why Tagore does not favour asceticism. Man has to realise his kinship with everything, he has to cultivate a universal feeling of love. How can this be possible if he runs away from the world? He says, ‘Deliverance is not for me in renunciation. I feel the embrace of freedom in a thousand bonds of delight… No, I will never shut the doors of my senses. The delights of sight and hearing and touch will bear thy delight.” In the Gardener he is still more explicit when he says, “No my friends, I shall never be an ascetic, whatever you may say no friends, I shall never leave my hearth and home and retire into the forest solitude if its silence is not deepened by soft whispers. I shall never be an ascetic.”

Religion, thus, is not an escape; it is life and existence. But, Tagore insists that true religion must not be confused with, what is called, ‘Institutional religion’. A particular person may be a Hindu or a Christian — it is a matter of accident. In fact, the forms and ways, in which these religions are practised, mislead the believers. Tagore says, “It. should be remembered that religions or churches or religious organizations are not the same. They are to one another as the fire is to the ashes. When the religions have to make way for religious organization it is like the river being dominated by sand beds, the current stagnates and its aspect becomes desert-like.”

Tagore sincerely believes that religious organizations have almost debauched religion. They take away from religion their life-spirit and instead, emphasise only the superficialities of religions. True religion preaches freedom, whereas religious organizations make religions a slave of their own institutions. Ridiculing the attitude of the religious organizations of the Hindus, Tagore says, “The same blindness which impedes them to rush to bathe in a particular stream, renders them indifferent to the sufferings of their unknown fellowmen. God does not appreciate this prostitution of his most precious gift.”

Thus, the institutional religions, according to Tagore are dogmatic and false. What distinguishes the true religion from the false ones? The true religion must have the qualities of Spontaneity and naturality in it. There cannot be any compulsion about it, there are no fixed limits set around it. It is free and spontaneous in every individual. Tagore says, “In dogmatic religion all questions are definitely answered, all doubts are finally laid to rest. But the poet’s religion is fluid, like the atmosphere around the earth where light and shadow play hide and seek…it never undertakes to lead anybody anywhere to any solid conclusion; yet it reveals endless spheres of light, because it has no walls around itself.”

From this it follows that religion expresses the essential element of all things. There is a sense in which even physical objects have a religion. “Dharma is the innermost nature, the essence, the implicit truth of all things”, as for example, “only when the tree begins to take shape that you can come to see its dharma.” Tagore says, ”In my language the word religion has a profound meaning. The wateriness of water is essentially its religion, in the spark of the flame lies the religion of fire. Likewise, man’s religion is his innermost truth.

What is the innermost truth of man ? Man’s religion has been described as the spontaneous expression of the essential and inner aspect of man. What is the essential aspect of man ? Tagore says, *’Man possesses an extra-awareness that is greater than his material sense — this is his manhood. It is this deep abiding creative force which is his religion.”*

Now, this can be said that, according to Tagore, religion consists in man’s capacity of self-transcendence. Man has a self-awareness, which reveals to him the fact that he has a capacity of going beyond himself — of constantly pushing himself ahead towards higher and higher regions. This is a distinct and essential peculiarity of man. Therefore, his religious life must consist in a constant exercise of this capacity. That is why Tagore clearly says, “If there is any philosophy of religion in my writings, it amounts to this: to realise the relationship of perfect love between the Supreme Soul and the souls of all created beings is indeed true religious sense — this love that holds duality on one side and non-duality on the other, union as well as sepa¬ration and bondage along with freedom.”

The aim of Tagore’s religion, therefore, is the realisation of onenesss of the individual soul with the Supreme Soul, and this realisation has to be a realisation in love and joy. Explaining this point, P.T. Raju says that just as wateriness is the religion of water, the Supreme Man is the religion of the finite man. Another point to be taken note of in this connection is that the Supreme Self with whom union is sought to be established is not an abstract principle. He is the ‘God of Humanity’ the Supreme Personality. Thus, we find that the innermost essence of man is the presence of Divinity in him. Therefore, religion is nothing but an attempt to realise this Divinity.

That is why a religious life means a life of ‘self-denial for self-realisation’. Tagore is never tired of using the analogy of ‘the oil and the lamp’. So long as the lamp keeps its oil confined in its store, there is no light. The lamp sacrifices the store of its oil and thereby is able to realise its function, in fact, in that sacrifice lies the justification and the reality of the lamp. Likewise, religion demands a sacrifice of the narrow aspects of the individual self in order to gain its true aspect — its Divinity. Thus, “Religion consists in the endeavour of man to cultivate and express these qualities which are inherent in the nature of man, the eternal, and to have faith in them.” In such a religious life the human personality finds its worth and essence. The modern man has forgotten this, and, therefore, is miserable. If one loses sight of this, if one forgets the religious sense, his life loses the sense of direction and purpose. Tagore says, ”Upon the loss of this sense of Universal Personality, which is religion, the reign of machine and of method has been firmly established and man, humanly speaking, has been made a homeless tramp.”

Now, it can be said that in Tagore’s thought it is difficult to distinguish between religion and philosophy, they have the same /end to realise. Philosophy is the ‘vision of the real’ and the aim of religion is to realise ‘man’s unity with the Divine.’ Both mean one and the same thing. That is perhaps the reason why Tagore calls his religion the Religion of Man’. It can very well be described as universal religion also, because it throws its gate open to every individual

There is a danger inherent in the excessive use of the expressions like ‘realisation of one’s true nature’, ‘unity of the self with the Divine’ etc., such descriptions tend to make religion abstract and un-practical. Tagore is conscious of that, therefore he recommends the rule of love in religion-. The realisation of the Infinite cannot be brought about at once. One should begin with love and in love itself would lie the consummation of his efforts. Tagore feels that one should try to give up the narrow outlook of life that merely feeds his ego. The individual should extend his consciousness in love to nature and to men, and in this act of love itself he would come to the realisation of unity.

Love, sacrifice, sincerity, innocence—these constitute a religious life. Tagore is so impressed by the powers of ‘innocent love* that he thinks that in the useless wisdom of institutional religions religion loses itself. Speaking analogically he says, “From the solemn gloom of the temple children run out to sit in the dust, God watches them play and forgets the priest.”

Web links

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindra_Jayanti
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagore_family
• https://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Literature/Authors/T/Tagore%2C_Rabindranath/
• http://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/2013/04/rabindranath-tagore/
• http://www.saadigitalarchive.org/entity/rabindranath-tagore

Bibliography

• Tagore, Rabindranath; Mukerjea, D. (translator) (1914), The Post Office, London: Macmillan
• Tagore, Rabindranath; Pal, P. B. (translator) (2004), “The Parrot’s Tale”, Parabaas (1 December 2004)
• Tagore, Rabindranath; Radice, W. (translator) (1995), Rabindranath Tagore: Selected Poems
• (1st ed.), London: Penguin (published 1 June 1995), ISBN 978-0-14-018366-5
• Tagore, Rabindranath; Radice, W (translator) (2004), Particles, Jottings, Sparks: The Collected Brief Poems, Angel Books (published 28 December 2004), ISBN 978-0-946162-66-6
• Tagore, Rabindranath; Stewart, T. K. (translator); Twichell, C. (translator) (2003), Rabindranath
• Tagore: Lover of God, Lannan Literary Selections, Copper Canyon Press (published 1 November 2003), ISBN 978-1-55659-196-9