Talk:Debendranath Tagore

Untitled
OK, I've made a few edits here. based on

David Kopf		The Brahmo Samaj and the Shaping of Modern India Julius Lipner		Brahmabandam Upadhyay Manilel Parekh	       The Brahma Samaj (A short history)

The Brahmo Samaj article needs a LOT of work.

I am dubious about saying Keshub 'rose to power, causing a split'. I would say that he split from the Brahmo Samaj with large numbers of followers. The current way of writing suggests Keshub became leader to me. I will change this if no-one objects...

Reference to Keshub Chunder Sen
The negative reference to Keshub Chunder Sen in this article is uncalled for. One should read Keshub Chunder Sen's parting letter to Debendranath Tagore and the views of Satyendranath Tagore before making such a comment. I quote a portion of the latter below:

“As regards social reformation he (Devendranath) was for adopting a slow and cautious policy, a policy of reconciliation; he was in favour of leaving such reforms as were rally required to the influence of time, and to the effect of the teachings of a pure religion. Keshub, on the other hand, was reformer of a more pronounced type. Though for many years he sat at the feet of the Maharshi, a time came when he could no longer pull together with his conservatism. Inter-marriage, remarriage of widows, abolition of caste distinctions, all these questions of radical reform were started and discussed. On these questions, it would seem, my father yielded as far as his conservatism would permit, but when he thought that Keshub’s disciples were going too far, he drew back in alarm. Then, again, there were other differences between the two. My father, as I have said, was intensely national in his religious ideal, whereas Keshub’s outlook was more cosmopolitan. While not exactly denationalised he was better fitted by his training and education to assimilate the ideas and civilisation of the West. Indeed, his whole character was moulded by Western culture and Christian influence. He drew much of his spiritual store from the New Testament in a manner which made his missionary friends cling to the hope of his conversion to the new faith.” (Introduction by Satyendranath Tagore to the English edition of the Autobiography of Maharshi Devendranath Tagore)

The entire history of the Brahmo movement need not find a place in a biography and references should be made in more positive light. One has to be careful about comments on debatable issues. The page needs further revision.

-- P.K.Niyogi 03:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Template boxes
I am unable to understand the need for the use of templates - Part of a series on Hinduism and Indian philosophy. The templates neither have a reference to Debendranath Tagore, nor do they carry any reference to his philosophy and thoughts. The templates may be okay in some of the other pages but it has no relevance here. I feel that unless there is a proper expalnation for the use of these templates on this page, they should be deleted. -- P.K.Niyogi 04:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Religion Section is wholly unclear
Appears highly far-fetched to imply/suggest that Brahmoism is a variant/offshoot of something called Hasidism, or was even influenced by it - is there a reference to the latter in any Brahmo literature? While there may be similarities or even identical philosophies in the two, it appears odd to use the term to describe Brahmoism.

Rammohun explicitly acknowledges Upanishadic influence in Brahmoism, and like him, Debendranath was also well-versed in the Upanishads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.196.9 (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Family history
The section on the family history is identical in the articles of Rabindranath, Dwarkanath and Debendranath Tagore and uses the same reference, suggesting that it was written by the same person or was copied. It was also badly written. Unfortunately I do not read Sanskrit so I can not verify the reference but I have changed this section in all three articles so that they are consistent. IMHO the article needs to be looked at by somebody who is familiair with both subject matter and Sanskrit. JHvW 06:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

EVs
Hi 2405:204:1012:1B13:784E:5AC9:61B6:9431 (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)