old Theistic Review, 1 have frankly and warmly expressed my estimate of that saintly man and our obligations to him. But there was another side of his character, which of course one could not take up, because it was not edifying.' Here we see another ingredient of the Dialogic Process.
Ramakrcshaa's Language.
c His speech at times was abominably filthy. For all that, he was, as you say, a real Manxman, and I would not with- draw a single word I wrote in his praise. Rdmaknsha was not in the least a Vedntist, except that every Hindu uncon- sciously imbibes from the atmosphere around some amount of Vedintism, which is the philosophical backbone of every national cult He did not know a word of Sanskrit, and it is doubtful whether he knew enough Bengali. His spiritual wisdom was the result of genius and practical observation.'
There is a ring of truth and impartiality about this, and there is no sign of jealousy, which often breaks out, even in India, among religious reformers and their followers. As to his filthy language, we must be prepared for much plain speaking among Oriental races. In a country where certain classes of men are allowed to walk about in public places stark naked, language too is not likely to veil what with us requires to be veiled. There is, however, a great difference between what is filthy and what is meant to be filthy. I doubt whether the charge of intentional filthiness or obscenity, which has been brought against writers like Zola, could be brought, or has ever been brought, against
