[INDOLOGY] Tagore, Aurobindo, and Malhotra

[Robert Zydenbos]

Howard Resnick wrote:

> Ironically, when Malhotra argues that a non-believer, or
> non-practitioner, is unqualified to analyze a religious or spiritual
> tradition, many on this list respond with an almost vicious attack on
> him.

…which is perfectly justified. One need not have broken bones oneself in
order to be a good orthopaedist. Similarly, the academic study of
religion does not necessarily require that one is a 'believer' or
'practioner', whether in a formal sense or not.

There is a difference between theology and religious studies. Religious
fundamentalists refuse to understand or acknowledge that.

> Yet when someone on the List claims that a spiritual practioner,
> and advocate, cannot be a good academic scholar, apriori, this
> apparently is acceptable.

That is not necessarily so. To have had broken bones cannot be a
disqualification for an orthopaedist. A scholar of literature can
himself be a writer, etc.

> If this is indeed the case, I will respectfully withdraw from the
> List.

Sorry, but that would be a faulty conclusion. Please go back to what I
sent to this list and see that, reportedly, Mr. Malhotra calls you and
others who in his opinion are not Indian enough frauds.

So instead of withdrawing yourself from this list, you perhaps ought to
investigate Mr. Malhotra's idea of you and your work and then decide
whether you want to withdraw your efforts at defending him.

> Best,

RZ