12-01-2005, 11:46 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->not true.
ram mohon roy was the father of modern india. way way ahead of his time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to you he is but not according to all Hindus.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->neither kesab chandra sen nor ram mohon roy became X-ian.
both manage to subtly incorporate the "+ves" of christianity into hinduism and pacakage hinduism in such a way that hindus didnt feel enamoured with christianity. read what koenraad elst has to say about this tactical move.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets see what happened to Brahmo Samaj after Ram Mohan Roy's death under the leadership of Keshab Chandra Sen:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By the time he reached Calcutta, the Brahmo Samaj had split into two. A minority consisting of those who wanted to retain their. Hindu identity had remained with the Adi Brahmo Samaj led by Debendra Nath Tagore and Rajnarayan Bose. The majority had walked away with Keshub Chunder Sen who had formed his Church of the New Dispensation (NababidhAna) and started dreaming of becoming the prophet of a new world religion. Dayananda saw with his own eyes how infatuation with Christ had reduced Keshub Chunder to a sanctimonious humbug and turned him into a rootless cosmopolitan. He also witnessed how Debendra Nath Tagore was finding it difficult to retrieve the ground lost when the Adi Brahmo Samaj had repudiated the fundamental tenets of Hinduism - the authority of the Vedas, VarNAshrama-dharma, the doctrine of rebirth, etc. The only consolation he found in Calcutta was a lecture, The Superiority of Hinduism, which Rajnarayan Bose had delivered earlier and a copy of which was presented to him.
Dayananda wrote a critique of Brahmoism soon after he returned from Calcutta. It was incorporated in Chapter XI of his SatyArthaprakAsha which was first published from Varanasi in the beginning of 1875. The Brahmos, he wrote, have very little love of their own country left in them. Far from taking pride in their country and their ancestors, they find fault with both. They praise Christians and Englishmen in their public speeches while they do not even mention the rishis of old. They proclaim that since creation and till today, no wise man has been born outside the British fold. The people of Aryavarta have always been idiotic, according to them. They believe that Hindus have never made any progress. Far from honouring the Vedas, they never hesitate in denouncing those venerable Shastras. The book which describes the tenets of Brahmoism has place for Moses, Jesus and Muhammad who are praised as great saints, but it has no place for any ancient rishi, howsoever great. They denounce Hindu society for its division in castes, but they never notice the racial consciousness which runs deep in European society. They claim that their search is only for truth, whether it is found in the Bible or the Quran, but they manage to miss the truth which is in their own Vedic heritage. They are running after Jesus without knowing what their own rishis have bequeathed to them. They discard the sacred thread as if it were heavier than the foreign liveries they love to wear. In the process, they have become beggars in their own home and can do no good either to themselves or to those among whom they live.
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/hhce/Ch11.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let us see what Arun Shourie has to say about Keshab:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Similarly, while Ram Mohan Roy is mentioned, while Keshab Chandra Sen -- in whom Max Muller had seen such hope of Christianizing India -- is mentioned, while Devendra Nath Tagore is mentioned in this "History of Civilization", Bankim Chandra is not mentioned!
http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/art...980901.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you are always talking about the poms it may interest you to know that your great Keshab Chandra Sen was a pucca loyalist who wanted British rule to flourish in India (this after having seen what was done to Bengal under the British), the following is from Elst:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian loyalists justified the British presence on the same grounds, e.g. Keshab Chandra Sen, leader of the reformist movement Brahmo Samaj (mid-19th century), welcomed the British advent as a reunion with his Aryan cousins: âIn the advent of the English nation in India we see a reunion of parted cousins, the descendants of two different families of the ancient Aryan raceâ
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ait/ch11.htm#4a<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->like i said, and koenraad elst and even bal thakeray (!!!!) had said, we should be cautious about how non-western we should be. for a bit much of it, would mean that we keep the electric bulb out of indian also !!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same Elst repeatedly points out how the so called reform movements internalised every missionary myth and then tried to build up Hinduism as monotheist when it certainly wasnt. The following is what Elst has to say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, the Christian and Muslim emphasis on monotheism and condemnation of polytheism has been interioÂrized by Hindu reform movements even as the latter were trying to counter Christian power in India. Instead of defending Hindu polytheism against the missionary vilificaÂtion of "idolatry", the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj movements claimed that monotheism was indeed right and polytheism was indeed wrong, but that Hinduism, properly understood, is more monotheist that Christianity and Islam. As the historian Shrikant Talageri has remarked, this is as if an Indian were to say: "The colonial racists were correct in assuming the superiorÂity of white skins over brown skins, but Indians have whiter skins than Europeans."
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/book.../section10.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->hinduism, with the DEEP caste system as it used to be back than at least (and continues to be in up and bihar), was anything but democratic, even less egalitarian.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly no religion is egalitarian, at that time in your so called egalitarian England there were tremendous class differences and great poverty among lower classes (and white xtians were practicing slavery and were justifying it using the Bible), atleast in India all castes were allowed to educate themselves as pointed out in Dharampals writings, it is time Hindus stop self hating themselves and their religion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the weaknesses of hinduism are preciselyt the strengths of islam and christianity, which is why people are attracted to it. for all muslims pray together and 'dalit muslims" are not asked to keep away. for all christians can read the scriptures and go for education and not just the brahmins amongst them.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You read too many missionary websites it seems, your dalit saviour Ambedkar pointed out the contempt with which low caste Muslims were treated, Dalit Christians have separate burial grounds and churches to this day and what is preventing non Brahmins from reading the scriptures in this day, there are several english translations available of scriptures and anyone can read them, if they are too lazy to read then why blame Brahmins, if Brahmins can open their own schools for teaching Vedas then why can't other castes do the same instead of blaming Brahmins (exactly the approach Sri Narayan Guru tried successfully in Kerala).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ram mohon roy, apart from being the father of modern india, was also one of the fathers of the bengal renaissance. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For you he maybe but to me he is a half xtianised Hindu just like Gandhi was.
ram mohon roy was the father of modern india. way way ahead of his time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to you he is but not according to all Hindus.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->neither kesab chandra sen nor ram mohon roy became X-ian.
both manage to subtly incorporate the "+ves" of christianity into hinduism and pacakage hinduism in such a way that hindus didnt feel enamoured with christianity. read what koenraad elst has to say about this tactical move.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets see what happened to Brahmo Samaj after Ram Mohan Roy's death under the leadership of Keshab Chandra Sen:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By the time he reached Calcutta, the Brahmo Samaj had split into two. A minority consisting of those who wanted to retain their. Hindu identity had remained with the Adi Brahmo Samaj led by Debendra Nath Tagore and Rajnarayan Bose. The majority had walked away with Keshub Chunder Sen who had formed his Church of the New Dispensation (NababidhAna) and started dreaming of becoming the prophet of a new world religion. Dayananda saw with his own eyes how infatuation with Christ had reduced Keshub Chunder to a sanctimonious humbug and turned him into a rootless cosmopolitan. He also witnessed how Debendra Nath Tagore was finding it difficult to retrieve the ground lost when the Adi Brahmo Samaj had repudiated the fundamental tenets of Hinduism - the authority of the Vedas, VarNAshrama-dharma, the doctrine of rebirth, etc. The only consolation he found in Calcutta was a lecture, The Superiority of Hinduism, which Rajnarayan Bose had delivered earlier and a copy of which was presented to him.
Dayananda wrote a critique of Brahmoism soon after he returned from Calcutta. It was incorporated in Chapter XI of his SatyArthaprakAsha which was first published from Varanasi in the beginning of 1875. The Brahmos, he wrote, have very little love of their own country left in them. Far from taking pride in their country and their ancestors, they find fault with both. They praise Christians and Englishmen in their public speeches while they do not even mention the rishis of old. They proclaim that since creation and till today, no wise man has been born outside the British fold. The people of Aryavarta have always been idiotic, according to them. They believe that Hindus have never made any progress. Far from honouring the Vedas, they never hesitate in denouncing those venerable Shastras. The book which describes the tenets of Brahmoism has place for Moses, Jesus and Muhammad who are praised as great saints, but it has no place for any ancient rishi, howsoever great. They denounce Hindu society for its division in castes, but they never notice the racial consciousness which runs deep in European society. They claim that their search is only for truth, whether it is found in the Bible or the Quran, but they manage to miss the truth which is in their own Vedic heritage. They are running after Jesus without knowing what their own rishis have bequeathed to them. They discard the sacred thread as if it were heavier than the foreign liveries they love to wear. In the process, they have become beggars in their own home and can do no good either to themselves or to those among whom they live.
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/hhce/Ch11.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let us see what Arun Shourie has to say about Keshab:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Similarly, while Ram Mohan Roy is mentioned, while Keshab Chandra Sen -- in whom Max Muller had seen such hope of Christianizing India -- is mentioned, while Devendra Nath Tagore is mentioned in this "History of Civilization", Bankim Chandra is not mentioned!
http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/art...980901.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you are always talking about the poms it may interest you to know that your great Keshab Chandra Sen was a pucca loyalist who wanted British rule to flourish in India (this after having seen what was done to Bengal under the British), the following is from Elst:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian loyalists justified the British presence on the same grounds, e.g. Keshab Chandra Sen, leader of the reformist movement Brahmo Samaj (mid-19th century), welcomed the British advent as a reunion with his Aryan cousins: âIn the advent of the English nation in India we see a reunion of parted cousins, the descendants of two different families of the ancient Aryan raceâ
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ait/ch11.htm#4a<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->like i said, and koenraad elst and even bal thakeray (!!!!) had said, we should be cautious about how non-western we should be. for a bit much of it, would mean that we keep the electric bulb out of indian also !!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same Elst repeatedly points out how the so called reform movements internalised every missionary myth and then tried to build up Hinduism as monotheist when it certainly wasnt. The following is what Elst has to say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, the Christian and Muslim emphasis on monotheism and condemnation of polytheism has been interioÂrized by Hindu reform movements even as the latter were trying to counter Christian power in India. Instead of defending Hindu polytheism against the missionary vilificaÂtion of "idolatry", the Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj movements claimed that monotheism was indeed right and polytheism was indeed wrong, but that Hinduism, properly understood, is more monotheist that Christianity and Islam. As the historian Shrikant Talageri has remarked, this is as if an Indian were to say: "The colonial racists were correct in assuming the superiorÂity of white skins over brown skins, but Indians have whiter skins than Europeans."
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/book.../section10.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->hinduism, with the DEEP caste system as it used to be back than at least (and continues to be in up and bihar), was anything but democratic, even less egalitarian.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly no religion is egalitarian, at that time in your so called egalitarian England there were tremendous class differences and great poverty among lower classes (and white xtians were practicing slavery and were justifying it using the Bible), atleast in India all castes were allowed to educate themselves as pointed out in Dharampals writings, it is time Hindus stop self hating themselves and their religion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the weaknesses of hinduism are preciselyt the strengths of islam and christianity, which is why people are attracted to it. for all muslims pray together and 'dalit muslims" are not asked to keep away. for all christians can read the scriptures and go for education and not just the brahmins amongst them.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You read too many missionary websites it seems, your dalit saviour Ambedkar pointed out the contempt with which low caste Muslims were treated, Dalit Christians have separate burial grounds and churches to this day and what is preventing non Brahmins from reading the scriptures in this day, there are several english translations available of scriptures and anyone can read them, if they are too lazy to read then why blame Brahmins, if Brahmins can open their own schools for teaching Vedas then why can't other castes do the same instead of blaming Brahmins (exactly the approach Sri Narayan Guru tried successfully in Kerala).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ram mohon roy, apart from being the father of modern india, was also one of the fathers of the bengal renaissance. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For you he maybe but to me he is a half xtianised Hindu just like Gandhi was.