On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
Hhe public * &re there informed that " this Goliath * ' " shrinks from the defence of the charges Jie has brought against Hindooism , and refuses to co-operate with" Ram Doss "in opposing * Unitarianisiri . "
A reply Co Xliis letter appeared in tke . newspaper from Dr . Tytler ; avowing tlmt be at first considered it to ha ^ e been se wr itten by some Unitarian , under a pseudonymous signature / 1 but that , judging from the last letter of the writer to the Editor .
he may have been mistaken , and therefore he informs Ram Doss , "if he be a real person / ' that he considers there is no book at present in possession of Hindus—the Mahabharat and jRaraayuna not excepted—© f higher antiquity than the entrance
of the Mussulmans into India , say about 800 years frana the present period ; and that the legends attached to the Avatars are merely corrupted copies of the Holy Scriptures in the possession of Christians . And the Doctor offers to meet Ram Doss , " if
he be a real person and wish to obtain information on these topics / ' at his own house , or elsewhere , to discuss " the rnodernness of the religious system at present followed by the Hindus /*
Not satisfied with this , nor inclined to meet such an antagonist in person , Mam Doss sent to the Hurkaru a " Second Challenge to Dr . Tytler /' calling- upon him for a direct answer to the arguments of his former letter .
In return , the redoubtable Doctor reminded the Brahmin , by means of the Miirkarw , that whilst he considered Unitarianiam to be " a system of damnable heresy p roceeding from the Devil , " he looked upon Ram Doss ' s own superstitions in the same light , and declared that it was unreasonable
to expect that he would allow this person to * ' co-operate" with him , when in fact he maintained " Unitar ianism to be nothing- more than a new name for Hindoo idolatry . "
A " Third Challenge to Dr . Tytler " was now given in the Hurkaru by his unwearied opponent , who inquired , seeing that the Doctor shrunk from entering the field with hrm against Unitarian-ism and left him " to encounter the danger and reap the ^ lory single-handed / ' whether he also fli-achod iVom justifying bis insinuations
Untitled Article
against the Hindoo religion , and from replying to $ ie letter proving Hindooism and Christianity to rest on the same sacred foundation ? The Doctor contented himself with
asserting tlaat the charge of shrinking vvas too absurd to require notice , and that the histories of Buddha , Saluvabaua and Chrisna comprised < c nothing more than perverted copies of Christianity . '
Ram Doss replied to the Doctor by inquiring " whether if any Hindoo were to make insinuations against the Christian religion , when called to defend them he would be justified in merely referring Christians to the books of the Jews ( a trjbe equally inimical to Christianity ) , or Gibbon ' s
History of the Roman Empire , or to a whole History of Jesus Christ , without adducing any particular passage ?*> He then for the fourth time challenged his antagonist to answer his arguments . The only notice Dr . Tytler took of this letter was in a Postscript to one which he sent to the Hurkaru , as follows :
€ S I request to be informed by your sapient correspondent Ram Dos ? in what manner he proves Buddha to be the head of a tribe inimical to Hindooism . " This Ram Doss in reply pronounces
to be mere evasion \ however , "to oblige the Doctor as a fellow-believer in and worshiper of Divine Incarnations , " he informs him (" although it has no bearing on the question" ) ,
" that Buddha or Booddha , the head of the sect of Boaddhus , who derive their name from him in the same manner as Christians do from Christ . That this sect is inimical to Hindooism is proved by the fact that they deny the
existence of a Creator of the Universe , in whom the Hindoos believe , and also despise many of the gods worshiped by the latter . There are hundreds of works published by them against eatii other , which are in general circulation . '
But after complying thus far with Dr . Tytler ' request , Ram Doss repeats that this has nothing to do with his arguments , which the Doctor by evading * confesses he is unable to
answer , and therefore denounces him ' a defamer of Hindooism , a religion of the principles of which he is ( or at least appears to be ) totally ignorant . " To all this , the Trinitarian champ ion complacently replies ,
Untitled Article
29 B Rmlew «~*~ Ea&i-Inma Umtnrietn Waef $ e
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1824, page 298, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2524/page/42/
-