[INDOLOGY] Tagore, Aurobindo, and Malhotra

[Robert Zydenbos]

Howard Resnick wrote:

> [...]
> Unfortunately, you got the Indianzing backward. Here is my quote from
> the article you sent us:
> 
> “We were trying to do something which could not be done, and that is
> trying to Indian-ize the world in the name of Krishna,” Resnick said. 

My impression is that you are still trying to Indianize, but partially;
not so much in externalities, but in thought, Weltanschauung. Otherwise
there would be no point in your Krishna West.

And here I want to point out what can be read in one of the comments to
that online article:

"This kind of "Hindu evangelism" is what scholar-practitioner Rajiv
Malhotra refers to as a "U-Turn." These people benefit enormously from
Hinduism and basically proceed to turn their backs on it while they go
mainstream. They should be exposed for the frauds that they are."

I only know this from this online comment by a person I do not know, and
I have no idea just where and how Malhotra has stated that people like
you are 'frauds'. (But I think we recognize the style.) If this is
correct, then it looks like he wants to 'take back' Hare Krishna too.
(So better take care.)

> [...] My concern with
> meta-epistemological issues as they manifest in insider and outsider
> perspectives, and subsequently impact Indology, and the general study of
> sacred traditions, is not really ‘nit-picking.’

Sorry, I think we have a little misunderstanding here. My remark about
'nit-picking' referred to your reaction to Dominik in the thread, which
I left quoted at the bottom of my post. But I see that Dominik himself
already responded in the same spirit.

> All the best,

RZ


-- 
Prof. Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos
Institut für Indologie und Tibetologie
Department für Asienstudien
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU)