Re: [brahmoconferenceorg] [brahmoconference] Re: TIES THAT BIND
- Dear Mr. Malay Sanyal ,
As far as I know , anyone who worships Brohmo(one without a second/the supreme creator) is a Brahmo . You have given a new twist to the Brahmo definition(a religion of Brahmons , by Brahmons , for Brahmons) . That implies Brahmoism ratifies the caste system , which I always thought it was against . This & your other observation that Rammohun was not the founder of the Brahmo religion & Brahmo Samaj . Very interesting indeed . Does Sarbajit endorse the above points of view ?
Now please don't come with all guns blazing at me . You have really taken our understanding of Brahmoism to a completely different level . I am not a Brahmin so I can never be a Brahmo . Is Sarbajit Roy a Brahmin ? If not , he is also not a Brahmo as per your definition .
Biswajit DuttaOn Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Malay Sanyal <malay.sanyal@...> wrote:
Dear Mr Debanjan Ray
The original members of this group are by and large fairly dedicated to Brahmoism. We have no wish or desire to interact with you people. It was only due to the malicious hacking of our group membership by your B group Moderator Mr. Asit Sarkar that many of your members were forcibly inserted or combined into our group. We have repeatedly instructed people to leave if they wish. Now we see again that Mr. Biswajit Dutta is bringing these unsubscribed people back onto this (ie. BO) group and reviving this birth date controversy on B group (from where it originated) .
Since BO group has a public record, I shall address your arguments point wise. We are also considering pursuing this matter with the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj Kolkatta
1) The mistake with Dwarkanath's portrait you committed is glaring and an affront to Brahmos. What will you do when Brahmos (more knowledgeable than you) point out subtle errors in your Googlepage - usually on points of doctrine ? Will you go crying to your "Maghotsab Brahmos" for assistance, or put up little controversy tags on your googlepage ? Come now Mr.Ray, admit freely that you are only upholding this date of 1772 because Mr.Ashit Sarkar's dubious research says so, and because Mr.B.Dutta has now chipped in. Since Mr. Biswajit will not (or cannot) say with certainty who "the first Brahmo" is, perhaps you can. Every original member of this group knows the answer and can defend it in any forum. How dare you presume to inform the world on Brahmoism if you cannot answer such an elementary query.
2) If Dwarkanath died in 1846, it is hardly likely to be a photograph is it? There is no copyright of 60 years on unpublished paintings / sketches or other artistic works. You state you know nothing of Copyright, but yet you have advised (misinformed) the President of the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj Kolkatta copyright expires after 60 years in India. [Editorial Council should proceed in terms of the 10th April emergency resolution for this]
3) If you do not know anything about Copyright laws, then you certainly know everything about piracy of intellectual property. Do you deny that you uploaded to Wikipedia/Wikisources Hemchandra Sarkar's "Religion of the Brahmo Samaj" which you pirated by scanning from the 4th edition published by Sadharan Brahmo Samaj ?
4) There is nothing to debate about Ram Mohan Roy's date of birth. It is 14-August 1774. This is fact not faith. For Brahmos it is irrelevant when Ram Mohan was born, since we do not observe such occasions, or install busts or images to worship him or solicit funds in his name. The only issue here (as Mr. Ranojit Sen has commented on elsewhere - and circulated to us by BrahmoNews) is if a day or two has to be compensated for between Gregorian and Indian calendars. We agree with Mr. Sen for the following reason, till 1839 the dates in Court records were submitted as per the Indian calendar system, the applicable court cases are from 1806, 1811, 1817, 1822 and thereafter. We dispute the view circulated by Mr Sarbajit Roy that Ram Mohan concealed his true birth date for entering the Secretarial service of Company. For us this is the date given to Brahmos by Dwarkanath Tagore and published by official Histories of Adi Brahmo Samaj, and which is fully confirmed by surviving documents from the period. This is the date suppressed by Rabindranath Tagore who secreted Dwarkanath's records in the course of the Tagore family disputes. Fortunately for Brahmoism these documents survive with Adi Brahmos.
5) It is your faith which says that Ram Mohan Roy was born on 22-May-1772, when you have not a shred of COMTEMPORARY evidence for this date. The first whisper you have of this dubious date is 1880 by the equally dubious Rev Charles Dall published in your ancestor antiBrahmo Keshab Sen's New Dispensation propaganda organ. The noted Historian for Sadharan Brahmo's Pt Sivanath Sastri has rejected this date in his unique style which only Brahmos can appreciate.
6) Unlike you and your Maghotsab circle, for us the facts and History of Brahmoism is a very serious matter. If your B group claims that 22-May-1772 (the date settled by Christians) is Ram Mohan's birthday to be observed and you do nothing to clarify the point, then we must also denounce you as an unBrahmo for spreading such lies.( In this group people are not expelled for calling unBrahmos liars ). By our count, B group as expelled 7 such former members, whereas BO has expelled 0.
7) The 1830 Trust Principles are certainly not the "be all and end all of Brahmoism". It is the starting point for Brahmoism. (the Seed Principles if you prefer). It is a carefully worded document drafted by some of the best legal minds of that age - viz. Dwarkanath Tagore, Prassano Coomar Tagore, Radha Prasad Roy and of course Rajah Rammohun Roy. There is no doubt whatsoever about the authors, execution and contents of this legal document which lays the foundation for the Brahmo Samaj.
8) Ram Mohan Roy though was not the founder of either the Brahmo religion or the Brahmo Samaj. No reliable contemporary document published while he was alive describes him as such. These are fabrications of Christian and Unitarian missionaries and pseudo historians. Ram Mohun who was quick to challenge every publication against him, never disputed the London Literary Gazette of 1831 whose reporter was "introduced to and conversed with him" and which reported a) that he was a convert to Protestant Christianity and a Unitarian. b) That he was born about 1780 in Bordouan. There is not a whisper of Brahmoism or Brahmo Samaj here. Nor is there any such mention in the 1834 extensive biography on Ram Mohan published by Longmans Macmillan in London, Rammohun was the only non Briton covered in this reputed and well researched annual biography journal (a copy of which is with us) .
8) It was Dwarkanath Tagore and Debendranath Tagore who formed Brahmo Samaj and the Brahmo religion respectively. Brahmoism then (as it is today) was a Religion for Brahmons of Brahmons by Brahmons. Keshab Chandra Sen (a lower caste) was not a Brahmon and could not have been a Brahmo = just as you cannot be a Brahmo whereas you may join a Brahmo Samaj as member to prepare for your rebirth cycles.. Mere membership (or being an office bearer) of a Brahmo Samaj does not make you a Brahmo nor does it make your cousin brother a Brahmo. I hope you thus comprehend why merely studying Ram Mohan's works, teachings etc do not constitute study of Brahmoism.
9) Lastly, the reason you are on this group is because Mr. Ashit Sarkar forcibly added your name to this group via Brahmonews and nabble.com. Solely due to your uncooperative nature and refusal to cooperate with Rev Jim , many Brahmos are suffering by receiving multiple e-mails and being excluded from the truths of Brahmoism.
10) You should seriously research who "the first Brahmo" is.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Debanjan Ray <debanjanray2003@...> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Malay Sanyal,
> It is a long chain of arguments and debates, perhaps without any conclusion. So, just see few points below.
> 1)Â Â Â Â I must thank you first to point me a mistake that the picture I put in Google doc site is not of Debendranath Tagore, but of Dwarkanath Tagore. You have given me evidence with which I am satisfied. I have changed the site accordingly. The error has happened because of wrong information given at bridgeman.co.uk.
> 2)Â Â Â Â I am very little knowledgeable about the details of copyright issue. The image is easily searchable in Google image site. In general, copyright of a photograph (with reference to Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and Wikipedia) is sixty years from the beginning of the year following the year in which it was published. In case of literary work, it is sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year following the year in which the author dies.
> I really do not know whether this is a photograph, or, a painting. If it is a photograph, then there can not be any copyright issue as Dwarkanath Tagore died on 1846; (sixty is years is over); If it is a painting, you have to tell me what is the date of publication of this painting, and who is the painter. In general, painting is done by an artist when the model is alive. If you know more than me, pl. share your knowledge.
> 3)Â Â Â Â I have mentioned earlier that the date of birth of Rammohun is debatable. We can only give references towards multiple documents, which depict various contradicting dates. But this does not prove authenticity of those documents. So your statement â€œWe shall however rely on the solid evidence available to us which states Rajah's birth date to be "August 14, 1774".â€ seems to stand on an axiom, which you yourself might ask that â€" why do I rely? If you cannot answer, then you are stressing more on your own faith or belief rather than logic. So, it cannot be further debated, as I cannot comment anything on your faith.
> 4)Â Â Â Â An extremely valuable point has been raised by Mr. Biswajit Dutta. Why are we wasting our energy on debating accuracy of Rammohunâ€™s birthday, rather than understanding and promoting his teaching? Do you gain anything except that satisfying your own personal ego, if it is proved that 14-Aug-1774 is the actual birth date of Raja?
> 5)Â Â Â Â Let me review some of your statements: a) â€œMr. Keshab Chandra Sen was an antiBrahmo.â€ Â â€œThe principles of Brahmoism are contained in the Trust Deed of 1830.â€ While we all can enter into endless jungle of debates about what is Brahmoism, and what not, we, most of our Brahmos mostly agree that we do not believe on infallible scriptures. If you look back what Rammohun did, he not only searched the truths in Vedas and Upanishads, but he searched truths in all other religious scripts across the world. The same was with Keshub Chandra Sen. You can find the same common property in other leaders like Sivanath Sastri, Sitanath Tatwabhshan etc. who have deeply studied various philosophical thoughts around the world and tried to include in Brahmoism. All the thoughts attributed our religion with â€œOpennessâ€ . Now, those Brahmos who advocate us that Brahmosim is only written in the Trust Deed of Samaj laid down in 1830, shall only prove
> themselves to be narrow minded andÂ dogmatic, as they shut the door of accepting othersâ€™ views. This reminds me of a brand of un-Islamic intolerant Muslims (not sufi Muslims), who thinks that Quran is the only religious truth and it contains eternal laws; it cannot be changed and non-believers in Quran are Kafer.
> I pray to God to enlighten (Tamoso Ma Jyatirgamayo) those unfortunate souls.
> 6)Â Â Â Â Regarding â€œhacking/cracking/ spamming/ creating cyber dummies/compelling us to receive unwanted e-mails/invading our privacy/threateningâ€ , I can only point to the truth that today I am writing to you in a group about which I was never aware before. It is true that many members are forcibly dragged into this group. There are many evidences. Today only, I received an email from my cousin brother Mr. Arup Kumar Das (Secretary of Delhi Brahmo Samaj), who expressed his surprise about getting mails from this BO group and Brahmo News. Can you really force anyone? Â Â Â Â Â Â
> This is my last mail on this issue, as I find it wasting my time and energy in discussing further.
> I, however, shall appreciate if someone :
> a) points outÂ mistakes in the Google pages giving reasons
> b) contributes with articles and information towardsÂ the site.
> - Regards,
> Debanjan Ray
(Management & Financial Consultant)
Phone : (033)25214443/27062201
Fax : (033)25214443
Mobile : 09830224246
- Dear Mr. Biswajit Dutta
Actually, the word "Brahmo" being coined, we prefer to call ourselves Brahmas (equally coined but more traditional).
1) The Trust Deed prohibits us from "worship". We are to worship AND adore. Worship by itself is insufficient.
2) We are not allowed to W+A "God" or "Brahma" or "Brohmo" or "Sat" or "OM" or "Allah" or "any other name designation or title peculiarly used for and applied, to any particular being or beings by any man or set of men whatsoever".
We are to W+A only the "Eternal Unsearchable and Immutab1e Being who is the Author and Preserver of the Universe ... " (a.k.a "the nameless One")
There is a interesting reference in Debendranath's "autobiography" concerning the worship of "Om Tat Sat".
a) When we use words like "God" or "Brohmo" there is an implicit bias which poisons our W+A. Our foes encourage us to use / focus on such poison words.
b) We prefer using the term "Author" in place of "Creator". The Theological distinction is profound and involves "free will" and other concepts. The term "Creation" is loaded with theological implications, the term "Author" expresses some Vedic (Rig-Vedian) concepts better.
c) In place of "One without a second" we now use a different term "Singularity", which conveys the concept so much better. Language is one of the biggest obstacles to communicating religious concepts. Translations from Sanskrit to Bengali to English etc cause more confusion, especially if the translators are suspect.
d) Ram Mohan used the term "Supreme Being" in his English works. He was not of course describing "God" but something Higher and more fundamental.
In Adi Brahmo school, we summarise all of this as the "Mul Mantra"
"There is always infinite Singularity".
This covers all the essentials, for eg.
a) "There is" = Existence (Tantra)
b) always = Eternal
c) "Infinite" = formless, boundless, immanent, "all X all Y all Z etc".
d) "Singularity" = One, Oneness, the "point" where Infinity folds back on itself to create infinite possibilities, unlimited new worlds. The concept of transcendance is embodied in this term.
Brahmoism is one of the few religions which claim both immanance and transcendance for "Being", and it was Debendranth's genius in Brahmo Dharma to extract this from Ram Mohun's guidemap, by his Vedic studies and his research on Sikhism.
Debendranath has shown us the path beyond the limitations of say "Ek Onkar Satnam Kartapurakh" ("One Universal God, the name is Truth and Creation personified").
3) Enough of basic theology (we are likely to disagree ) and lets see what else you wrote. Aaah ...
a) "caste". The Trust principles refer to "all sorts and descriptions of people without distinction" This is not a prohibition against caste. It admits that people are of all sorts and description. It denies "distinction" among them. In other words people can be "sorted" into caste but the people within the "caste" cannot have distinctions. This Brahmic concept has even been incorporated into India's Constitution as a fundamental right.
"Every person is equal, but if people can be reasonably classified then some classes can be more equal than others".
This Brahmic concept which polarises India is to be fully understood and exploited to our advantage.
b) Sarbajit Roy is no longer a member of this group. He had unsubscribed himself some time back to refine his Brahmoness.
c) "Brahmoism = by Brahmons for Brahmons .." is an old twist.
Sivanath Sastri's History of the Brahmo Samaj is quite clear on this. Caste and religion are two separate things entirely. Brahmoism is quite comfortable with retaining caste classifications "in" our religion as distinguished from "within" our religion (which religion is separate and legally distinct from Hinduism) and there is no contradiction.
To save you the bother, let me explain this further. Brahmos constitute a "clan". Being a minority, preservation of the distinctive identity of the clan is paramount. Caste within the clan is almost always patriachal, so a female Brahmo Brahmin who marries a Brahmo Kayasth becomes a Brahmo "Kayasth" . If somebody is admitted to the clan (say by marriage or adoption) then equivalency of caste enters the picture to safeguard the clan. An example could be "its OK for a Brahmo Brahmin to marry a Catholic Brahmin but not a Protestant Shudra". Which is also why Kulinism basically existed only amongst Bengali Brahmins and Kayasths, and why Brahmoism evolved against certain evils of Kulinism and not against Kulinism per se.
--- In email@example.com, "biswajit dutta" <bis.dutta@...> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Malay Sanyal ,
> As far as I know , anyone who worships Brohmo(one without a second/the
> supreme creator) is a Brahmo . You have given a new twist to the Brahmo
> definition(a religion of Brahmons , by Brahmons , for Brahmons) . That
> implies Brahmoism ratifies the caste system , which I always thought it was
> against . This & your other observation that Rammohun was not the founder of
> the Brahmo religion & Brahmo Samaj . Very interesting indeed . Does Sarbajit
> endorse the above points of view ?
> Now please don't come with all guns blazing at me . You have really taken
> our understanding of Brahmoism to a completely different level . I am not
> a Brahmin so I can never be a Brahmo . Is Sarbajit Roy a Brahmin ? If not ,
> he is also not a Brahmo as per your definition .
> Biswajit Dutta