Talk:Brahmoism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article...

[edit] Hindu tags

Since you people accept Rabindranath Tagore's view on Brahmo Samaj being a part of Hinduism, you should not have any objections about Hindu project tags. There is no Brahmo peoject, nor do I see the need for one - even if it is formed it should be sub-project under Hindusim project. - Jayanta1952 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindly refer to my message on Talk:Brahmo on this. Regards. Yvantanguy (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu reform movement template

I do not see any reason why the Hindu reform movement template unless somebody is anti-Hindu. If you people are anti-Hindu then remove it again but modify the template also. - Jayanta1952 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jayanta1952.Why do you keep referring to "you people" or "circuses"? Why do you keep imputing biases like "anti-Hindu" (non-existent)? Please publish the Gayatri Mantra on Brahmoism page, we shall respect it and place it honorably. What more do you want from me? Yvantanguy (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the tags but you should allow the Kaliprasanna Singha quote to stay. - Jayanta1952 (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear jayanta, If you ask me privately (ie. not in a public forum) I freely admit the quote has a lot of truth in it. But this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper or pamphlet for satire. I was requesting you to add the Gayatri Mantra on the Brahmoism page, since Ram Mohan himself has addressed this Mantra and Sivanath Sastri has written that Keshav also fully respected this "work of Hindus" Yvantanguy (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mud slinging

Wikipedia is not meant for mud slinging. I think editors should avaoid it. You can always oppose his actions in Brahmo Samaj but personal attacks are unbecoming in a historical article like this. - Seejee (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seejee, actually I added the portion you deleted. The words were not Sibnath Sastri's own, but he had cited 3 prior reliable sources for the incident, all from Keshub C. Sen's relatives and associates. Sibnath Sastri never retracted the portions from his History which are still included in the recent (and revised) editions published by Brahmo Samaj. The incident is a crucial development in Brahmo religion and much discussed in the rival Brahmo publications of the time and many histories, to leave it out would be like wiping out "cherry trees" from George Washington's history. I don't know why you wrote that its 'mud-slinging' - it is a historically necessary fact properly cited from reputed source, But if there are any reliable historians who claim Sibnath Sastri expressed chagrin over this, I would like to know also. Not being a vandal your edit stays intact (at least from me) but I would like to discuss this aspect over Talk, as K.C.Sen's actions post 1870 are closely connected with this aspect, and many reliable scholars have said so. Lillycottage (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a vilification campaign by the Hindu relatives of Keshab Chandra Sen when he joined the Brahmo Samaj and they spread such rumours. It was filthy on the part of Shibnath Shastri, who was waging a personal tirade against Keshab Chandra Sen, to give credence to rumours. Much more filth was circulated in the battala booklets Shibnath Shastri published during the second schism of the Brahmo Samaj. Such rumours and filth is not history. Gossip such as how a Brahmo leader managed his two wives or the love affair of another Brahmo leader had with somebody’s mother and married her when his wife died, or which Brahmo leader’s wife ran away with whom adorn the corridors of Brahmo society. You can cover the walls of Sadharan Brahmo Samaj with as much mud as you have on your minds but please don’t bring it into Wikipedia. I am sure there are enough right-minded Wikipedians who would take corrective action if you insist on mud slinging. - Seejee (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seejee, Sibnath Sastri's History of the Brahmo Samaj is one of the standard references for Brahmo Samaj and prescribed at my University on the reading list. The portion I inserted was from around p.115 where he writes as follows:-

Then, all of a sudden, in a moment of regrettable thoughtlessness, there happened an unfortunate incident which cast a gloom over his nature for a longtime. Let me relate this incident in the words of his biographer, the Rev. Bhai P. C. Mozoomdar :
"When going through the Senior Scholarship Examination in 1856, now corresponding to the First Arts, a most unnatural accident befell him, which cast a gloom upon the remaining years of his college life. On the day when the Mathematical questions were set, one of the professors, who was appointed to watch the examinees, found him comparing papers with the young man who sat next to him. It is difficult to say with whom the irregularity originated, whether with Keshub or his neighbour, but he was most severely handled for it. He was not permitted to appear at the rest of the examination ; they threatened to rusticate him but on urgent and influential remonstrance took him back again. His sensitiveness, naturally great, was most deeply offended, the whole circumstance depressed him most seriously, and affected his mental development ever afterwards."
Further testimony to this incident is borne by Rai Bahadur Norendranath Sen, the editor of the Indian Mirror and a cousin of Keshub Chunder. Sibnath Sastri then also goes onto to quote from Keshab's own autobiography
"All those books and those friends who were likely to make me smile, I avoided. Gradually I became silent and spoke very little. The place in which I lived, and the room where I sat I regarded as a charnel house. The noise which the inmates made was to me like the howl of wild beasts and every scene of wickedness was like the play-ground of death. True I did not retire into any wilderness, but the world was a wilderness to me. I did not weep but lived on without a smile. Thus I rose from bed ia the morning and thus I retired to bed at night. Who was my chief friend then ? He among the English poets who could best describe this melancholy. I used to read Young's "Night Thoughts." If any book gave me pleasure it was that. I occupied myself with those things which put a painful pressure on the mind and keep away from evil and make it serious. All this took place when I was about 18, 19, or 20. I had married. My wife was coming to live with me. I was about to enter the world. Here was the prospect of danger. I thought thus : " My soul is a noble thing. Shall I subject it to the wife ? Shall I subject it to the world ? I resolved never to be over-fond of wife or of the world, because I knew that to be the cause of death to many. Thus the foundation of my life was laid in asceticism."

Sastri has Quoted from 3 other publications which appear to be sympathetic to Baboo Keshab Sen. The text added by me was not from any battala booklets (I am sorry but I dont read Hindi and cant find this word anywhere except in a Banglapedia reference describing it as cheap comic book published from Kaleeghaut). As an advanced student of history, I am simply unable to reject Sibnath Sastri's narration of this incident as either unreliable or biased. In fact I posit that the low jibes you are hurling against Brahmo leaders of a particular Brahmo Samaj branch are undignified and require to be supported. The Hindu relative of Baboo Keshab Sen ie. Rai Bahadur Norendranath Sen, the editor of the Indian Mirror is ex facie a Brahmo too being editor of the Brahmo journal which Sastri later describes at p.135 as being the organ for Keshab Sen's party and subsequently a political daily. I eagerly await your views on these aspects. Lillycottage (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I had not spoken against the veracity of the statement made, but emphasised that all statements and facts do not make history particularly for a concise encyclopaedia. I still maintain that if somebody wants to engage in such mud slinging trying to focus on scandals they can go ahead and do it. What is being added in general is one sided POV and more of such mud slinging will not only make the article a fit case for POV and also unfit for Wikipedia’s high standards. Merely adding numerous references, reliable or otherwise, does not make an article neutral. All biased points of view everywhere are supported by references but that is not neutrality. I gave some examples of Brahmo scandals, not for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would be the first to oppose it, but I wanted to show the bias in the matter. Choosing and picking particular scandals for inclusion leads to lack of neutrality. What Shibnath Shastri wrote was great history, except for the parts dealing with Keshab Sen in person, because he was a party to a dispute with him (for many years, he was also his follower and supported him against Devendranath Tagore). I am surprised that that a great student of history has not read the comments of other historians (particularly those not attached to the Brahmo Samaj) on this point. Anyway that is another case and I will have to study a little bit more in details before I take it up.

Editors developing this article are clearly working as a group and are following double standards. I find there was some controversy about one satirical quote of Kaliprasanna Singha. One group man says, ‘I freely admit the quote has a lot of truth in it. But this is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper or pamphlet for satire.’ It is on this page itself (right above). Now, on one hand, this group wants the Kaliprasanna Singha quote deleted from an encyclopaedia but on the other, adds scandals about Keshab Chandra Sen and tries to justify it. This clearly is double standards in trying to project a sectarian point of view. It does not matter that different editors are involved but in the end they all add up to a particular point of view.

I once again appeal to this group not to bring in muck and scandals into Wikipedia. Tons and tons of argument by a student of history distorting history as much as practicable do not make such scandals and muck fit for Wikipedia. There is no need to argue further. If you want to go ahead with mud slinging, not only in this case but elsewhere also, go ahead. - Seejee (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a great student of history but just a researcher poring through Brahma culture in Canada for a long delayed project on Theosophy. The cheating incident is the first of the 3 decisive events in Keshub Sen's religious evolution. Modern historians (Indians) also publish this, Romila Tharpar for one. You are correct that encyclopedias are concise, this means rigorous referencing so only verifiable material is published and not emotions. I am in agreement with the editor above who agreed with you but asked you not to publish unencyclopedic material. The result is you believe we are acting in group. In warm climate people are warm and trusting, in cold places the requirement for encyclopedia is of cold logic and hard fact. I must reinsert the material inserted, but shall place most of it in the citation itself for researchers like me who dont trust Wikipedias except as sources for further exploration. Lillycottage (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting fellow, student of history, working on theosophy in Canada! Must be from the progressive Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, with a sense of humour, as his dummy name suggests. It is wonderful to note that even in the 21st century, when every youngman worth his salt is running after things like IT and management, young members of the almost defunct-Brahmo Samaj still specialise in things like theology, which the progressive world think of as dead and gone. Well done. Congrats. I would love to follow through some of your research work, as it sounds very interesting. In fact, I checked in just for that. Otherwise I am not keen on editing and just love to browse Wikipedia for interesting information. I believe that Brahmo Samaj has a number of websites and I happened to glance through one on Brahmo Conference. You must have put up something on this subject somewhere on one of these websites. Please provide a link so that I can access it. Or are you just a green horn trying to find your way into the world through Wikipedia? - Notun (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting this "Love"-fest, but this is so hilarious that I just had to leave my darbani at the Brahmo Samaj article and butt in. There are not too many interesting "young men" of Brahmoism , let alone the one's writing about "Battala books" and also "Kaliprasanna Sinha’s book Hutom Pyanchar Noksha." and in the same paragraph too. Try starting here - http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070311/asp/calcutta/story_7479142.asp
We really had to dig this one out of the Sonagachhi sub-district Police records ;-)
BTW, it is just (remotely) possible that Dr.Lily Cottage (note the actual spelling - u SBS dummies!!) is indeed who he claims to be, ie. a 60+ year Malaysian "researcher" settled in Konnoda (with his son) after retiring from various Soviet Era Steel Plants which deserve to be scrapped and with an abiding interest in Scotland, Jharkhand, Nobabidhani notables, Wiki photo imagery etc. and like most Bengalis non-veg (in the sense of liking) all kinds of meat (puppets) along with his fish and chips. "Alas Poor Henry thou wert born [to die so soon with a (new) "Notun"(e)]??, to cheer a "mother" most forlorn Landirenzo (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Renzo. I cannot see any humor in this. I am not Malaysian or Indian or a doctor. I cannot understand what you are writing. Poor Henry is from Henry the Sixth by William Shakespeare. Lillycottage (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)