I am a total athiest, and I really like Tagore's poems.
See, Tagore not only wrote poetries and songs, he was a great essayist, as well.
Many of his essays would be highly appreciated by athiests and progressives (I mean the real progressives, not current US-style ones). Same goes for many of his novels and plays.
His romantic poems and love songs are top-notch.
I know because I have been immersed in Tagore culture from my childhood.
He was a thiest, but definitely not in the usual way. Many of his songs that belong to the "Worship" sect, can be, and is interpreted as romantic songs a lot.
Fun fact: that he was progressive and wrote romantic poems and songs irked Swami Vivekananda, and they did not talk with each other despite being from the same period.
I dont know much about Tagore, but I do know he was a progressive, champion of Indian independence, author of two national anthems (Bangladesh and India), friend of Ghandi and correspondent of Borges.
That sounds like I “know” a lot, but those are useless facts. All I really know of Tagore is the Gitanjali because its his only work I have read.
With my limited knowledge at hand, I cannot fathom how an atheist can appreciate the full depth of Tagore’s poetry. Im sure Bertrand Russel appreciated the Gitanjali as a great work of art when it was published but how could he have truly appreciated Tagore’s description of total surrender to God as a bride (representing Tagore, a heterosexual man) succumbing to her groom? An imagery we see in the Song of Songs, btw.
Perhaps instead of saying “how can an atheist appreciate Tagore”, I should written: “how can an atheist appreciate Tagore’s Gitanjali?” (Which I suspect Tagore himself would consider his greatest work?)
I feel the same way with religious art. Millions of tourists in Italy see Caravaggio’s “the denial of Peter”. Its easy for anyone who has grown out of youthful immaturity to appreciate the chiaroscuro, but how can a non-believer be moved in the way a believer is? The painting is more than the betrayal of a friend that anyone can understand - a believer (as a basic tenant of Christianity) holds that personal sin is recreating the betrayal of Peter. That is, a believer sees himself in Peter denying Jesus.
Not all “religious” art, mind you. Michaelangeo’s Il Davide is a good looking naked chap holding a slingshot.
EDIT: As a Catholic, I understand the Hindu Tagore, or muslim Sufis far better than atheists. Or, rather, we understand each other; we understand the difficulties of a faith journey.
Yes, Gitanjali can be appreciated better by theists. Although the art is of high class, and can be appreciated by athiests, too.
As I said, Tagore wrote a lot of novels, plays, songs, and essays. Tagore's body of creation is formidably vast. I would put the number of people awarded PhD each year for their work on Tagore and/or his work at 10-20.
> Which I suspect Tagore himself would consider his greatest work?
Haha, not really. We have an inside joke that more or less says that he was awarded the Nobel Prize for one of his weaker works.
And I concur. There are much better works by Tagore than Gitanjali. I have one bilingual Gitanjali sitting right on my shelf across the room where I am.
I grew up reciting poems of Tagore since I was literally 3 and a half. I still do it, but I'm special occasions.
As a literature lover, I also appreciate other forms of religious art.
I like reading poems called Vaishnava Padavalis. They are divine songs dedicated to Krishna or Chaitanya [0] with 2-3 meaning per each poem. These are among the best works of art I have ever seen.
Same goes for Charyas, poems written to propagate a special form of Buddhism, written in proto-Bengali, about 1000 years ago.
I also enjoy kirtanas.
These are all religious, and they don't stop me from enjoying them.
Many athiests enjoy religious art. But they have to be art. When it stops being art, and becomes too much about faith or devotion, I stop enjoying it.
> friend of Gandhi
They also disagreed a lot. If you read Gandhi's works, you would see that he is the king of luddites. Rabindranath was more forward-thinking.
Tagore wanted industry, education, uplifting of the masses, and admired science. He opposed Gandhi on the issue of boycotting British industries among others.
I have never really read Tagore in translation. I would not know what to suggest you. But I strongly suggest that you read other works of him.
> Hindu Tagore
Not really. He was a Brahmo [1]. They were the Protestants to Hinduism (this is oversimplified, ofc). They did not believe in statue-worshipping, caste, superstitions, etc. Brahmos were monotheistic and puritan among other things.
My study of Tagore is limited. But it is still non-trivial. I have visited his house (very well-preserved university and museum) multiple times and also Visva Bharati.
I am happy to answer if you have any other questions.
I wish I spoke Bengali just to read Tagore in the original. First poet, at the age of 33, that I have ever appreciated. Brilliant.
Of course, an atheist would have trouble appreciating him