Texts for Modern Indian Religion: Canon Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his memoir Childhood Days , the filmmaker Satyajit Ray remembers growing up amidst the austerity of the Brāhmo Samaj in early twentieth-century Calcutta. He presents the lack of any fun and festivity as a counter to what children normally would enjoy. The Brāhmo Samaj, significant for Ray's life given his family's membership in the group, as well as a large swath of prominent intellectuals, writers, and artists in twentieth-century India, is sometimes seen as the origin point for modern Indian religion, based on its broad and all-encompassing engagement with a variety of textual sources regarding religion and philosophy. How did a broad appreciation of different texts and comparative understandings of religion and philosophy transform into an organization with specific rituals, scriptural references, and the trappings of a new religion? Ray mentions how Brāhmo ācārya s (ministers) would enunciate Sanskrit prayers and hymns in an elongated, monotonous way. As he notes, they would say “asato ma sadgamaya” in English, using elongated enunciation familiar to anyone who has attended a Brāhmo service: “Le-e-ad us from/Untr-u-uth into Tru-u-th/Le-e-ad us from Da-a-arkness into Li-i-ght/Le-e-ad us from D-e-ath into E-e-ternal Li-f-fe!” This mantra is often included in published editions of the Bṙhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad , as the Pavamana Mantra. How did mantras like this become associated with Brāhmo Samaj members and austere religious rituals? From the late 1830s after the death of Rammohan Roy, the Brāhmo Samaj continued to deepen its emphasis on Upaniṣads like the Bṙhadāraṇyaka , buil
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".