1

Ramakrishna Miscellany:
A Comparative Study

Narasingha P. Sil

2017
 2

For Sati
 3

“I have labored carefully, not to mock, lament, or execrate, but to understand human actions.”
Benedict [Baruch] de Spinoza (1632-77), A Theologico-Political Treatise
(1677/1670), Ch. 1: Introduction
 4

Contents

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Transliteration, Translation, and Calendars

Glossary of Hindu Divinities

Bibliography

Preface

Ch. 1: Ramakrishna: A Brief Biography

Ch. 2: Ramakrishna: A Brief Historiography

Ch. 3: Ramakrishna and Martin Luther

Ch. 4: Ramakrisha: A Caitanyite Vaiṣṇava Priest of

the Śākta Goddess Kālī

Ch. 5: Conclusion: Ramakrishna’s Spiritual Crisis and Its Resolution:

A Psychological Perspective

Appendices

Index

About the Author

 5

Acknowledgments

I am deeply indebted to the excellent services provided by several libraries: Hamersly

Library of Western Oregon University, longtime supporter of my scholarly activities,
the libraries of the Asiatic Society and Baṅgīya Sāhitya Pariṣad, the National Library,
Calcutta, and of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. I also thank the
editors of Asian Social Science, Religion, Religious Studies Review, and Psychohistory
Review, for their permission to use my articles “The Professor and the Paramahaṁsa:
Martin Luther and Rāmakṛṣṇa Compared” (2010), “Kali’s Child and Krishna’s Lover:
An Anatomy of Rāmakṛṣṇa’s Caritas Divina” (2009), “Ramakrishna-Vivekananda
Research: Hagiography versus Hermeneutics” (2001), and “Ramakrishna Redivivus: A
Psychobiography” (1992) published by them respectively. Last but not least, I am
beholden, as usual, to Sati for her support, understanding, critique as well as spirited
companionship over the years.
 6

Abbreviations

BE Bengali Era (Transliteration, Translation, and Calendars).

GR Svāmī Nikhilananda. The gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. New York: Ramakrishna
Vivekananda Center, 1984.
KM Mahendranath Gupta [ŚrīM]. Comp. Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇakathāmṛta. [The nectar of the
sayings of the twice-blessed Ramakrishna] 5 bhāgas [Parts]. Kalikata: Kathāmṛta
Bhavan, 1399 BE.
LP Svāmī Saradananda. Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇalīlāprasaṅga. [The divine play of the twice-
blessed Ramakrishna]. 2 vols. Kalikata: Udbodhan Karyalay, 1398 BE. Vol. I in 3 parts.:
Pūrvakathā o vālyajīvan, Sādhakabhāva, and Gurubhāva-pūrvārdha. Vol. II in 2 parts:
Gurubhāva-uttarārdha and Ṭhākurer divyajīvan o Narendranāth.

LR Life of Sri Ramakrishna compiled from various authentic sources. 8th impression.
Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1964.
VS Svāmī Prameyananda, Naliniranjan Chattopadhyay, and Svāmī Chaitanyananda.
(Eds.). Viśvacetanāy Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa. [The blessed Ramakrishna in world consciousness].
3rd ed. Kalikata: Udbodhan Kāryālay, 1398 BE.
 7

Transliteration, Translation, and Calendars

All Bengali sources appear in my own translation unless otherwise stated. I use diacritics
for Bengali and (a few Sanskrit) terms, titles of books and journals, and monastic names,
names of divinities, scholarly and spiritual titles, select personal and place names
mentioned in the scriptural texts and Bengali publishing companies and institutions. In
transliterating Bengali words (barring the Sanskritized tatsama ones) I elide the implicit
“a” after final consonants in a word as per Bengali practice. I, further, use diacritics in
spelling select names and places related directly to Rāmakṛṣṇa and crave indulgence of
my readers for this apparently idiosyncratic choice. BE stands for Bengali Era that
follows the Gregorian calendars (introduced by Pope Gregory XIII [r. 1572-85] in
February 1582) by 593 years, three months, and fourteen days. The BE was introduced
by the Indo-Persian polymath Fathulla Shirazi (fl. 1582), a councilor to the Mughal
Emperor Akbar (r. 1556-1605) for tax collection purposes replacing the lunar Islamic
Hijri calendar.
 8

Glossary of Hindu Divinities

Durgā A bright complexioned and ten handed Warrior-Goddess and an incarnation of

the Goddess Kālῑ widely worshiped, especially in Bengal.

Kālī A naked dark-complexioned Mother Goddess of eastern and southern India

depicted as a representation of Śakti, the Primal Energy and a counterpart of Brahman,
the Primal Male and Absolute Noumenon.

Kṛṣṇa A popular Hindu folk God, usually depicted as a chubby toddler (Gopāla) or a
petty adolescent playing on the flute and dallying with the cowgirls [gopῑs], or as a
mature warrior and politician [Kṛṣṇa the Black One], and an incarnation of Lord Viṣṇu or
Nārāyaṇa. Kṛṣṇa is one of the principal characters of the Hindu epic Mahābhārata.

Lakṣmī A popular Hindu folk Goddess of wealth and welfare and worshiped as the
consort of Lord Viṣṇu.

Rādhā A gopῑ is the principal lover of the Black God Kṛṣṇa and her love is being
interpreted as a symbol of devotee’s dalliance with the deity.

Rāma A green complexioned [nabadurbādalaśyāma, that is, “dark as the newly grown
durbā grass”] folk God widely popular in eastern and northern India and worshiped as an
 9

incarnation of Lord Viṣṇu. He is the protagonist of the Hindu epic Rāmāyaṇa.

Śiva Also known as Maheśvara [“Great God”], Rudra [The Terrible One] or Naṭarāja
[The Regal or Cosmic Dancer and the Cosmic Destroyer]. Along with Brahmā, the
Creator of the Universe, and Viṣṇu, the Sustainer and Maintainer of the Universe,
Maheśvara, the Cosmic Destroyer, forms the Hindu Trinity of the Principal Godheads.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AKSAYCHAITNA. Śrīcaitanya o Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa. (2nd ed.). Calcutta: Calcutta Book

House Private Limited, 1401 BE.

AKSAYCHAITANYA, Brahmacārῑ. Ṭhākur Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa (3rd ed.). Calcutta: Calcutta

Book House Private Limited, 1393 BE.

ALLEN, Douglas. (Ed). Culture and self: Philosophical and religious perspectives, East
and West. Boulder: Westview Press, 1997.

ANONYMOUS. Life of Sri Ramakrishna compiled from authentic sources. 8th

impression. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1964.

ATKINSON, James. Martin Luther and the birth of protestantism. Baltimore: Penguin
Books, 1968.

ATMAJNANANANDA, Svāmī. “Scandals, cover-ups, and other imagined occurrences

in the life of Rāmakṛṣṇa: An examination of Jeffrey Kripal’s Kālī’s Child.” In
 10

International Journal of Hindu Studies, 1997, Vol. 1, No., 2 (August), pp. 401-420.

ATMAPRIYANANDA, Svāmī. “Understanding bhavamukha: Sri Ramakrishna’s unique

state of consciousness.” In Prabuddha Bharata, January 2011, pp. 37-43.

BAINTON, Ronald H. Women of the Reformation: From Spain to Scandinavia.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977.

BAKHTIN, Mikhail M. Rabelais and his world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1984.

BANDYOPADHYAY, Brajendranath, DAS, Sajanikanta. (Ed.). Samasāmayik dṛṣtité

Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṁsa. [Contemporary views on Sriramakrishna Paramahamsa]
Calcutta: General Printers & Publishers, 1375 BE.

BAPAT, Jayant. Review of SIL, Narasingha, Ramakrishna revisited. In South Asia,

2000, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 156-158.

BARMAN, Gurudas (alias SINGHA, Priyanāth). Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇacarit. [Life of Sri

Ramakrishna]. 2 vols. Kalikata: Kalinath Singha, 1316 BE. Rpt. In CHATTOPA-
DHYAYA, Rajagopal, Hārāno kathā. [Foregotten accounts], pp. 146-341.

BASSUK, Daniel E. Incarnation in Hinduism and Christianity: The myth of the god-man.
Atlantic Heights: Humanities Press International, Inc., 1987.

BASU, Manoranjan. Ramakrishna sadhan parikrama, Ramakrishna’s spiritual

practices: A study. Calcutta: Mira Basu, 1981.

BASU, Rajshekhar (Comp). Calantikā: Ādhunik bāṁlā bhāṣār abhidhān. [Chalantika:

Dictionary of modern Bengali language]. Calcutta: M.C. Sarkar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., 1405
BE.

BAYER, Oswald. 2003. Martin Luther’st theology: A contemporary interpretation.

(Trans). Thomas H. Trapp. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

BELETSKY, Vadim, MIRSATTARI, Seyd. “Epilespsy, mental health disorder, or both?”

(Review Article). In Epilepsy research and treatment, 2012, Vol. 2012, pp. 1- 13. [cit. 6
February 2016]. Available at http://dy.doi.org/10.455/2012/163731.

BERRY, Philippa, WERNICK (Eds.). Shadow of spirit: Postmodernism and religion.

London: Routledge, 1992.
 11

in Indian sects.” In GAEFFKE, Peter, UTZ, David A., Identity and division in cults and
sects, 1984, pp. 20-27.

BHATTACHARYA, Abhaychandra. ŚrīMar Jīvandarśan. [SriM’s philosophy of life]

Kalikata: Grantha, 1397 BE.

BHATTACHATRYA, Padmanath. Rāmakṛṣṇa Vivekānanda prasaṅga [Studies in

Ramakrishna Viveknanda]. Varanasi: Kashidham Brahman Sabha, 1924.

BHUMANANDA, Svāmī. Śrīśrī Māyer jīban-kathā [Accounts of the twice-blessed

Mother’s life]. Kalikata: Shriramakrishna-Sarada Math, 1986.

BILIMORIA, Purusottama, FENNER, Peter (Eds.). Religions and comparative thought:

Essays in honour of the late Dr. Ian Kesarkodi Watson. Delhi: Sriguru Publications,
1988.

BROOKS, Peter N. (Ed). Seven-headed Luther: Essays in commemoration of a

quincentenary 1483-1983. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.

BROWN, W. Norman. The mahimna stavae: Or mahimna stotra. Columbia, MO: South
Asia Books, 1983.

CAGE, John, CHARLES, Daniel. For the birds: John Cage in conversation with Daniel
Charles. London: Marion Boyars Publishrs Ltd., 2000.

CAMUS, Albert. The plague. (Trans.) Stuart Gilbert. New York: The Modern Lbrary,
1948.

CARGILL THOMPSON, William D.J. “Luther’s tower experience and its place in his
intellectual development.” In CARGILL THOMPSON, Wiliam D.J., DUGMORE,
Charles W., Studies in reformation, 1980, pp. 60-80.

CARGILL THOMPSON, William D.J., DUGMORE, Charles W. (Eds.) Studies in

reformation: Luther to Hooker. London: Athlone Press, 1980.

CHAKRABARTI, Pranabesh. “Śrīcaitanya o Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa.” In VS, 1991, pp. 644-665.

CHAKRABARTY, Ramakanata. Vaisnavism in Bengal 1486-1901. Calcutta: Firma

KLM Private Limited, 1985.

CHAKRAVARTI, Surath. Śrīmat Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṁser prāmāṇya jīvanī hisābe

gṛhita kayaekṭi graṇther samālocanā. [A review of some proven biographies of Sri
 12

CHATTERJEE, Partha. “A religion of urban domesticity: Sri Ramakrishna and the

Calcutta middle class.” In CHATTERJEE, Partha, PANDEY, Gyanendra (Eds.),
Subaltern studies VIII, 1992, pp. 40-68.

CHATTERJEE, Partha. The nation and its fragments: Colonial and postcolonial histories.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

CHATTERJEE, Partha, PANDEY, Gyanendra (Eds.) Subaltern studies VIII: Colonial

south Asian history and society. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1992.

CHATTOPADHAYA, Rajagopal. Ramakrishna: Kali’s child and lover. Calcutta: Vyasdeb

Chatterjee, 2010.
CHATTOPADHYAYA, Rajagopal. Mythmukta Vivekananda [Vivekananda without
myths]. Kalikata: Author 1998.

CHATTOPADHYAYA, Rajagopal. “Narasingha Prosad Sil-er Ramakrishna

Revisited” [Narasingha Prosad Sil’s Ramakrishna revisited]. In Mānabman, 2003. Vol.
42, No. 3, pp. 28-33.

CHATTOPADHYAYA, Rajagopal. 1997. “Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa, Rāmakṛṣṇa maṭh o

mission.” [Sri Ramakrishna, Ramakrishna math o mission] In. Utsa mānuṣ, 1997, Vol.
18, No. 7 (July), pp. 146-150.

CHATTOPADHYAYA, Rajagopal. Śrīrāmakṛṣṇer upadeś: Utsa O udbhav. [Sermons of

Sri Ramakrishna: Their sources and origins] Calcutta: Author, 2005.

CHATTOPADHYAYA, Rajagopal. Śrῑrāmakṛṣṇa: Hārāno kathā. [Sri Ramakrishna:

Forgotten accounts] Kalikata: Sribalaram Prakashani, 2003.

CHETANANANDA, Svāmī. (Ed. & trans.). Ramakrishna as we saw him. Calcutta:

Advaita Ashrama, 1993.

COCHLAEUS, Johannes [Ioannis]. Septiceps Lutherus: Ubique sibi, suis scriptis,

contrarius in visitationem Saxonicam. Leipzig [Lypsiae]: Valentin [Valentius] Schumann,
1529.

COCHLAEUS, Johannes. “The deeds and writings of Dr. Martin Luther from the year of
the Lord 1517 to the year 1546 related chronologically to all posterity (1549).” In
KEEN, Ralph. Luther’s lives, 2002, pp. 53-352.

. COLEMAN, John A. “Conclusion: After sainthood?” In HAWLEY, John S. Saints and

 13

virtues, 1987, pp. 205-225

COOPER, Darius. “The carnivalesque in Satyajit Ray’s Nights and Days in the Forest
(1970).” Asian Cinema, 1999, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Spring/Summer), pp. 145-150.

COWARD, Harold G. Jung and eastern thought. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1985.

DAS, H.C. (Ed.). Sri Chaitanya in the religious life of India. Calcutta: Punti Pustak,
1989.

DAS, Lochan. Caitanyamaṅgal (Ed.). KĀVYA VYĀKARAṆ-TĪRTHA, Bhagavandas.

Navadvip: Budi Ambagani, 1388 BE.

DAS, Paritosh. Sahajiya Cult of Bengal and Pancha Sakha Cult of Orissa. Calcutta:
Firma KLM Private Limited, 1988.

Das, Rahul P. Essays on vaishnavism in Bengal. Calcutta: Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd., 1997.

DAS, Vrindavan. Caitanyabhāgavat. (Ed.). GOSWAMI, Atalkrishna. Calcutta: Gauḍīya

Vaiṣṇava Sammilanī, 1938.

DASGUPTA, Pranabkumar. Sādhak kabi Rāmprasād. [Ramprasad the ascetic poet]

Calcutta: Purna Prakashan, 1980.

DASGUPTA, Shashibhusan. Obscure religious cults. Calcutta: Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd.,
1969.

DASGUPTA, Subrata. The Bengal renaissance: Identity and creativity from Rammohan
Roy to Rabindranath Tagore. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2007.

DATTA, Mahendranāth. Śrīsśiīamakrishner anudhyān. [Thoughts on Sri Sri

Ramakrishna] (Ed.) BASU, Dhirendranath. 6th ed. Calcutta: The Mahendra Publishing
Committee, 1396 BE.

DATTA, Ramchandra. Śrῑśrῑrāmakṛşṇa Paramahaṁsadever jῑbanbṛttānta. [Life of Sri Sri

Ramakrishna Paramahamsadev]. 5th ed. Kalikata: Śrῑśrῑrāmakṛṣṇa-samādhi-mahāpῑṭh,
1341 BE.

DE, Sushil K. Early history of the Vaisnava faith and movement in Bengal from Sanskrit
and Bengali sources. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 19161.

DEIKMAN, Arthur J. “Deautomatization and the mystic experience.” In TART, Charles

 14

T, Altered state f consciousness, 1969, pp. 23-43.

DEV, Trailokyanāth. Atiter Brāhmo samāj. [Thr former Brahmo samaj] Centenary edn.
Kalikata: Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, 1970.

DHAR, Niranjan. Rāmakṛṣṇa anya cokhé. [Ramakrishna from another perspective] Salt
Lake, Calcutta: Rajagopal Chattopadhyaya, 2009.

DHAR, Niranjan. Vedanta and the Bengal renaissance. Calcutta: Minerva Associates,
1977.

DIMOCK, Edward C., STEWART, Tony K. (Eds. and trans.) Chaitanya charitamrita of
Krishnadasa Kaviraja. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

DIMOCK, Edward C. The place of the hidden moon: Erotic mysticism in the Vaishnava-
Sahajiya cult of Bengal. First Indian edn. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1991.

DIWAKAR, Ranganath. Paramahamsa Sri Ramakrishna (3rd rev. ed.). Bombay:

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1970.

EDWARDS, Mark U. “Sermerus: Luther’s own fanatics.” In BROOKS, Peter N., Seven-
headed Luther, 1983, pp. 123-146.

ERIKSON, Erik H. Young man Luther: A study in psychoanalysis and history. New
York: W.W. Norton, 1958.

FAGEN, Joen, SHEPARD, Irma L. Shepard. (Eds.) Gestalt theory now. New York:
Harper & Row, 1971.

FARQUHAR, John N. Modern religious movements in India. New York: Macmillan,

1915.

FRENCH, Harold. The swan’s wild waters: Ramakrishna and western culture. Port
Washington: Kennikat Press, 1974.

GAEFFKE, Peter, UTZ, David A. (Eds). Identity and division in cults and sects in south
Asia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.

GAMBHIRANANDA, Svāmῑ. Holy mother, Sri Sarada Devi. 3rd ed. Mylapore: Sri
Ramakrishna Math, 1977.

GAMBHIRANANDA, Svāmī. 1396-8 BE. Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇabhaktamālikā [Strings of

Ramakrishna devotes] 2 vols. Vol. I. 8th ed. Vol. II. 7th ed. Kalikata: Udbodhan Karyalay,
 15

1396 BE.

GAY, Peter. Freud: a life for our time. New York: W.W. Norton, 1988.

GERRISH, B.A. “Doctor: Doctor Martin Luther: subjectivity and doctrine in the
Lutheran reformation.” In BROOKS, Peter N. Seven-headed Luther, 1983, pp. 2-24.

GHATAK, Kamal Kumar. Hindu revivalism in Bengal: Rammohan to Ramakrishna.

Calcutta: Minerva Associates (Publications) Private Limited, 1991.

GHOSH, Girishchandra. 1993/1989. Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa Śrīśrīmā O Vivekānanda

[Ramakrishna, Holy Mother, and Viekananda]. Calcutta: J.N. Chakravarti & Company,
1993.

GHOSH, Shashibhusan. Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇadev. 2nd ed. Kalikata: Udbodhan Karyalay,

1960.

GIER, Nicholas F. Spiritual titanism: Indian, Chinese, and Western perspectives.

Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000.

GOLD, Daniel R. “On the aesthetics of interpreting religious life.” Rever (Revista da
Estudes da Religião, 2005, Vol. 4, pp. 1-6.

GOSVĀMĪ, Jīva. Śrī bhaktisandarbha, (Tans.). DAS, Satya Narayan, MARTIN, Bruce..
Vrindavan: Jiva Institute, 2005.

GOSVĀMĪ, Rūpa. The bhaktirasāamṛtasindhu of Rupa Goswami, (Trans.) HABERMAN,

David. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2003.

GR see Abbreviations

GUPTA, Mahendranth [ŚrīM]. (Comp.) Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇakathāmṛta. Kalikata: Udbodhan

Karyalay, 1397 BE. Single volume ed. of KM in 5 Bhāgas [Parts].

HABERMAN, David L. Acting as a way of salvation: A study of raganuga bhakti. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

HALBFASS, Wilhelm. India and Europe: An ssay in understanding. Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1988.

HAMILTON, Sir William. Lectures on metaphysics. (Ed.) MANSEL, H. L., VEITCH,

John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1865.
 16

HAWLEY, John S. (Ed.). Saints and virtues. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1987.

HAYS, Dan. Review of SIL, Narasingha, Ramakrihna revisited (1998). In Statesman

Journal (January 3), p. 7D.

HILL, Jess(ica). “Finding God in a seizure: the link between temporal lobe epilepsy and
mysticism,” 2014 [cit, 2 October 2015]. Available at www.abc.net.au/radionational/
programs/encounter/the-link-between-tem;porasl-lobe-epilepsy-and-mysticism/5956982.

HILLERBRAND, Hans J., (Ed.). The reformation: A narrative history revealed by

contemporary observers and participants. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982.

HILLERBRAND, Hans J. (Ed.). The protestant reformation. New York: Harper

Perennial, 2009.

HIRST, Jacqueline. “The place of bhakti in Shankara’s vedanta.” In WERNER, Karel.

(Ed.), Love divine (1993), pp. 117-145.

HOFFMAN, Bengt R. Luther and the mystics: A reexamination of Luther’s spiritual

experience and his relationship to the mystics. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House,
1976.

ISHERWOOD, Christopher. My guru and his disciple. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.,
1981.

JAGADISHVARANANDA, Svāmī. 1359 BE. Dakṣiṇeśvaré Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa. [Sri

Ramakrishna at Daksineshvar]. Hooghly: Sriramakrishna Dharmachakra, 1359 BE.

JAYANANDA. See MAJUMDAR & MUKHOPADHYAY (1971).

JEFFREYS, Mary Ann. “Colorful syings of colorful Luther: A sample of the reformer’s
wit and wisdom.” In Christian History, 1992 Vol. 34 [cit.3 April 2016]. Available at
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1992/issue34/3427.html

JENSEN, Timothy. “Madness, yearning, and play: The life of Sri Ramakrishna.” Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Chicago, 1970.

JENSON, Robert W. “Luther’s Contemporary Theological Significance.” In MCKIM,

Donlad K. Cambridge companion to Luther, 2003, pp. 272-288.

JOHSON, Roger A., (Ed.), Psychology and religion: Case of young Man Luther.
 17

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2003.

JUNG, Carl G. The collected works of C.G. Jung (Eds.), ADLER, Gerhard, READ,
Herbert et al., 20 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.

JUNG, Carl G. “What India can teach us?” Asia, February 1939. In JUNG, Carl G.
Collected works, 1979, Vol. 10, pp. 525-530.

KADANKAVIL, K. Thomas. “Gita and the synthesis of Hindu religious experience.” In

MAMPRA, Thomas, Religious experience 1981.

KAKAR, Sudhir. The analyst and the mystic: Psychoanalytic reflections on religion and
mysticism. New Delhi: Viking, 1991.

KARAN-NUNN, Susan, WIESNER-HANKS, Merry. (Eds.) Luther on women: A

sourcebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
.
KABIKARNAPUR. Gaurāṅganoddeśadīpikā, (Ed.), VIDYĀRATNA, Ramnarayan.
Baharampur: Haribhaktipradayini Sabha, 1329 BE.

KABIRAJ, Krishnadas. See DIMOCK, Edward C., STEWART, Tony K., 1999.

KEEN, Ralph. Luther’s lives: Two contemporary accounts of Martin Luther, (Trans.),
VANDIVER, Elizabeth, KRRN, Ralph, FRAZEL, Thomas D. Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 2002.

KENNEDY, Melville T. The Chaitanya movement: A study. New York: Garland

Publishing Company, 1981.

KHASTAGIR, Amitava. (Ed.). Brahmoism from fountainhead to confluence: An

anthology of essays. Calcutta: Brahmo Sammilan Samaj, 2006.

KING, Richard. Orientalism and religion: Postcolonial theory, India and the mystic east.
London: Routledge, 1999.

KINSLEY, David. The divine player (a study of Krishna lila). New Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1979.

KITTELSON, James M. Luther the reformer: The story of the man and his career.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986.

KM. See Abbreviations.

 18

KRIPAL, Jeffrey J. Kālī’s child: The mystical and the erotic in the life and teachings of
Ramakrishna. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

KRIPAL, Jeffrey J. The serpent’s gift: Gnostic reflections on the study of Religion.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

KRIPL, Jeffrey J. 1993. Review of SIL, Narasingha P., Rāmakṛṣṇa, 1991. In The
Journal of Religion, 1993, Vol. 75, No.3, pp. 447-449.

LE GUIN, Ursula. The left hand of darkness. New York: Ace Books, 2000.

LP. See Abbreviations.

LR See Abbreviations.

LUTHER, Martin. An open letter to the Christian nobility of the German nation, 1520.
[cit. June 9, 2010]. Available at http://www.projectwittenberg.org/pub/resources/text/
wittenberg/luther/.../nblty-07/html

LUTHER, Martin. The table talk of Martin Luther, (Trans. & Ed.) HAZLITT, William.
London: Bell & Daldy, 1872.

Mahānirvānatantram. (Ed.). TARKARATNA, Panchanan. Calcutta: Bangabasi Edition,

1333 BE.

MAHĀRĀJ, Ayon. “Sri Ramakrishna’s philosophy of vijñāna vedānta,” (2015). Draft.

[cit. 12 December 2013]. Available at academia.edu.

MAHĀRĀJ, Ayon. “Toward a new hermeneutics of the Bhagavad Gītā: Sri Ramakrishna,
Sri Aurobindo, and the secret of vijñāna.” Philosophy East and West, 2015, Vol. 65, No.
4 (October), pp. 1209-1233.

MAJUMDAR, Bimanbehari & MUKHOPADHYAY, Sukhamay. [Eds.]. Jayananda’s

Chaitanya-Mangala. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1971.

MAJUMDAR, Biman Bihari. Lord Chaitanya: A biographical critique. (Trans.)

SIDDHANTA, Jibendranath. Calcutta: K. P. Bagchi & Company, 1997.

MAJUMDAR, Rameschandra. 1960. Glimpses of Bengal in the nineteenth century.

Calcutta: K.L Mukhopadhyay, 1960.

MAJUMDAR, Rameschandra. (Comp.). Śrīramakrishner ātmakathā. (Ed.) DATTA,

 19

Kanailal, MAJUMDAR, Kamaleshchandra. Nababarrackpur: Sri Sri Ramakrishna Trust,

1987.

MALLIK, Ramendranath. (Ed.). Bhāvasamāhita Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa. Kalikata: Sahityatirtha,

1390 BE.

MAMPRA, Thomas. Religious experience: Its unity and diversity. Bangalore:

Dharmaran Publications, 1981.

MATCHETT, Freda. “The teaching of Ramakrishna in relation to the Hindu tradition and
as interpreted by Vivekananda.” Religion, XI (1982), 171-84.

MATCHETT, Freda. “The pervasiveness of bhakti in the Bhagavat Gita.” In WERNER,

Karel (Ed.). Love diine (1993), pp. 95-115.

MAX MUELLER, Friedrich. Ramakrishna: His life and sayings. New York: AMS Press,
1975.

McCUTCHEON, Russell T. (Ed.) The insider/outsider problem in the study of religion: A

reader. London: Cassell, 1999.

McDANIEL, June. The madness of the saints: Ecstatic religion in Bengal. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1989.

McDERMOTT, Rachel F. “Kālī’s new frontiers: A hindu goddess on the Internet.” Paper
presented to the Kālī Conference, Barnard College, 1996 (1 September 20-22).

McFARLAND, Kathy. “The Importance of Luther’s Anfechtung Testing.” academia.edu

(4 January 2011). academia.edu/16323009/
the_importance_of_luther_s_anfechtung_testing (accessed 11/1/2017).

McKIM, DONALD K. The Cambridge companion to Martin Luther. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2003.

McLEAN, Malcolm. Devoted to the goddess: The life and work of Ramprasad. Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1998.

McLEAN, Malcolm. “Ramakrishna: The greatest of the shaktas of Bengal?” In

BILIMORIA, Purusottama, Fenner, Peter, Religions and comparatice thought, 1988, pp.
151-172.

McLEAN, Malcolm. “A translation of the Śrī-śrī-rāmakrishnakathāmrita with

explanatory notes and critica introduction.” PhD dissertation. University of Otago, 1983.
 20

MELANACTHON, Philip. 2002. “History of the life and acts of Dr. Martin Luther, tr.
Thomas D. Frazel.” In KEEN, Ralph. (Ed.). Luther’s Lives, 2002, pp. 14-39.

MEYER, Carl S. (Ed.). Luther for an ecumenical age: Essays in commemoration of the
450th anniversary of the reformation. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1967.

MILLER, Jeanine. “Bhakti and the Rig Veda—does it appear there or not?.” In
WERNER, Karel. (Ed.), Love divine, 1993, pp. 1-35.

MITRA, Kamalkrishna. (Comp.). Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa o antaraṅga prasaṅga. [Sri Ramakrishna

and his intimate devotees]. Daksineshvar: Author, 1339 BE.

MITRA, Khagendranath, Sukumar Sen, Vishvapati Chaudhuri, & Shyamapada

Chakrabarti. (Comps.) Vaişṇava padāvalῑ. [Vaishnanva lyrics]. Kalikata: Kalikata
Vishvavidyalay, 1990.

MITRA, Satyacaraṇ. 1304 BE. Śrī śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṁsa (jīvanī o upadeś). [Sri
Ramakrishna Parmahamsa (life and logia). Calcutta: The Great Indian Press, 1304 BE.

MITTER, Partha. Much maligned monsters: A history of European reactions to Indian

art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

MOOKERJEE, Nanda. (Ed.) Sri Ramakrishna in the eyes of Brahmo and Christian
admirers. Calcutta: Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd., 1976.

MOZOOMDAR, Protapchandra. “Paramahamsa srimat Ramakrishna.” Theistic

Quarterly Review 1879 (October-December), pp. 32-39.

MRIGANANDA, Śvāmī. Yata mat tata path: Hindu aikyer bhitti. [As many views so
many avenues: The foundation of harmony among the Hindus]. Jadavpur:
Shrisatyananda Devayatan, 1994.

MUKHERJEE, Jayashree. “The Institution of Caste in the Eyes of Ramakrishna and

Vivekananda.” The Quarterly Review of Historical Studies, 1987, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.
22-35.

MUKHOPADHYAY, Amitabha. “Aitihāsiker dṛṣṭité Śrīramakrishner āvirbhāver

tātparya.” [The historical significance of the advent Sri Ramakrishna]. In VS, 1398 BE,
pp. 141-152.

MUKHOPADHYAY, Jivan. “Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa o bhāratīya navajāgaraṇ.” [Sri Ramakrishna

and the Idinan awakening]. In VS, 1398 BE, pp. 153-176.
 21

NAGEL, Norman E. 1983. “Martinus: ‘heresy, Doctor Luther, heresy!’ The person and
work of Christ.” In BROOKS, Peter N., Seven-headed Luther, 1983, pp. 25-49.

NEEVEL, Walter G. “The transfornation of Sri Ramakrishna.” In SMITH, Bardwel.

(Ed.), Hindism, 1976, pp. 53-97.

NEKI, J.S. 1975: “Sahaja: An Indian ideal of mental health.” Psychiatry, 1975, Vol. 38,
No. 1, pp. 1-10.

NELSON, David (aka Devadatta Kali). “The many faces of Kali.” The HinduSaktha
Home Page, 2008 [cit. 4 April 2014]. Available at http://hindusaktha.freeservers.com/
facesofmaa.html

NEWLAND, Thomas N., PIKE, Norman, HARRIS, Marvin (Eds.). Emics and etics: The
insider/outsider debate. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990.

NIKHILANANDA, Svāmī (Trans). The gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. New York:

Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 1984.

NIRVEDANANDA, Svāmī. “Śrīramakrishner Vaiṣṇava sādhanā.”[Sri Ramakrishna’s

vaisnavic ascetic practices]. In MALLIK, Ramendranath. (Ed.). Bhāvasamāhita
Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa, 1390 B.E., pp. 65-69.

NITYATMANANDA, Svāmī. Śrī-M-Darśan [Face to Face with SriM]. 15 vols.

Calcutta: Presidency Library & General Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1367-1381 BE.

OBERMAN, Heiko A. Forerunners of the reformation: The shape of late medieval

thought, (Trans). Paul L. Nyhus. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966.

OBERMAN, Heiko A. Luther: Man between god and devil. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2006.

OCCAM, William of. 1957. Quodlibeta [disputations] in philosophical writings, (Trans).

BOEHNER, Philotheus. London: Nelson, 1957.

ODDIE, Geoffrey A. 1995. “Old wine in new bottles? Kartabhaja (Vaishnava) converts to
evangelical Christianity in Bengal, 1835-1845.” Indian Economic & Social History
Review, 1995, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 327-343.

OLSON, Carl. The mysterious play of Kali: An interpretive study of Ramakrishna.

Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
 22

OPENSHAW, Jeanne. 1995. “The mystic and the rustic.” Review of KRIPAL, Jeffrey J.
Kali’s child (1995), In Times higher education supplement 1995 (December 15).

OPENSHAW, Jeanne. “Crucifying a saint” review of SIL, Narasingha P. Ramakrishna

Revisited (1998a.). In Times higher education supplement 1998 (December 11).

OZMENT, Steven. Homo spiritualis: A comparative study of the anthropology of

Johannes Tauler, Jean Gerson and Martin Luther (1509-16) in context of their theological
thought. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969.

PAINE, Jeffrey. Father India: westerners under the spell of an ancient culture. New York:
HarperPerennial, 1998.

PAL, Bipincandra. Saint Bijay Krishna Goswami. Calcutta: Bipinchandra Pal Institute,
1964.

PARSONS, William B. “Psychoanalysis and mysticism: The case of Ramakrishna.”

Review of KAKAR, Sudhir, Anlyst and mystic, 1991, KRIPAL, Jeffrey J., Kālī’s child,
1995, and SIL, Narasigha P., Rāmakṛṣṇa, 1991. Religious studies review, 1997, Vol. 23,
No. 4 (October), pp. 355-361.

PASCAL, Blaise. Pensées. (Trans.) TROTTER, William F., and (Intro.) by ELIOT,
Thomas S. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2003.

PATI, Biswamoy. (Ed.). Issues in modern Indian history: For Sumit Sarkar. Mumbai:
Popular Prakashan Private Limited, 2000.

PEARSON, Christian. “Line upon line: Here a little, there a little: Some letters of Martin
Luther.” In BROOKS, Peter N., Seven-headed Luther, 1983, pp. 275-310.

PRABHANANDA, Svāmī. Śrīramakrishner antyalīlā. 2 vols. Kalikata: Udbodhan

Karyalay, 1396-1401 BE..

PRABHANANDA, Svāmī. Ānandarūp Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa Rev. Second edn. Kalikata:

Udbodhan Karyalay, 1997.

PRABHANANDA, Svāmī. Amṛtarūp Rāmakṛṣṇa. Kalikata: Udbodhan Karyalay, 1398

BE.

PRABHANANDA, Svāmī. First meetings with Sri Ramakrishna. Mylapore: Sri

Ramakrishna Math, 1987.
 23

PRAJNANANANDA, Svāmī. 1398 BE/1394 BE. “Saṅgīté Śrīramakṛṣṇa.” In VS, pp.

428-441.

PURNATMANANDA, Svāmī. Untitled communication. In Udbodhana, 1401 BE, Vol.

96, No. 6, p. 284.

RADICE, William. Review of SIL, Narasingha P., Rāmakṛṣṇa, 1991. In Bulletin of the
school of oriental and african studies, 1995, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 589-590.

RADICE. William. “Atheists, gurus and fanatics: Rabindranath Tagore’s ‘Chaturanga’.”

In Modern Asian Studies, 2000, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 407-424.

RAMACHANDRAN, Vilayanur S. & BLAKESLEE, Sandra. Phantom in the brain:

Probing the mysteries of the human mind. New York: William Morrow Paperbacks,
1999.

RAMAKRISHNANANDA, Svāmī. Shriramakrishna and his mission. Mylapore: Sri

Ramakrishna Math, 1972.

RAMANUJADAS, Śrī Nrisimha. Review of SIL, Narasingha P., Ramakrishna

revisited, 1998a. In Ujjīvan, 1403 BE, Vol. 43, No. 7, p. 125.

RAMASWAMY, Krishnan, NICOLAS, Antonio, and BANERJEE, Aditi. (Eds.)

Invading the sacred: An analysis of Hinduism studies in America. New Delhi: Rupa &
Co., 2007.

RAY, Rajat Kanta. Review of KRIPAL, Jeffrey J., Kālīs Child, 1995. In The Indian
Economic and Social History Review, 1997, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 101-104.

RAY, Rajat Kanta. “Psychohistory and Sri Ramakrishna.” Review of SIL, Narasingha P.,
1998. In The Statesman, June 5, 2000, Literary, p. 2.

RINEHART, Robin. One lifetime, many lives: The experience of modern Hindu
hagiography. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999.

ROBINSON, Paul W. Martin Luther: A life reformed. Boston: Longman, 2010.

ROLAND, Alan. “How universal is psychoanalysis? The self in India, Japan, and the
United States.” In ALLEN, Douglas (Ed.), Culture and self, 1997, pp. 27-39.
.
 24

Delhi: Penguin Enterprise, 2004.

ROPER, Lyndal. 2010. “Martin Luther’s body: The ‘stout doctor’ and his biographers.”
In American historical review,2010, Vol. 115, No. 2, April, pp. 351-384.

ROY, Tapti. “Was Kali’s child a man of mystical and erotic energies?” Review of
KRIPAL, Jeffrey J., Kālī’s child, 1995. In Asian age, 15 November 1996.

RUPP, Gordon. Luther’s progress to diet of Worms 1521. Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 1951.

SAMADDAR, Ranabir. 1989. “Rāmakṛṣṇa o Vivekananda: Kalkātār

mon.” [Ramakrishna and Vivekananda as thought of in Calcutta] Ānandabājār patrikā,
1989, 28 October, p. Sig. C.

Samsad Bengali-English dictionary. (Ed.) DASGUPTA, Birendramohan. (Comp.)

BISWAS, Sailendra. (Rev.) SENGUPTA, Subodhchandra. Calcutta: Shishu Sahitya
Samsad Private Limited, 1992.

SANYAL, Hiteshranjan. Bāṁlā kīrtaner itihās. [History of Bengali kirtan]. Calcutta:

K.P. Bagchi & Co., 1989.

SANYAL, Vaikunṭhanath. Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇa-līlāmṛta. [Nectar of the divine play of the

twice-blessed Ramakrishna]. New ed. Kalikata: Navapatra Prakashan, 1390 SARKAR,
Sumit. An exploration of the Ramakrishna Vivekananda tradition. Occasional Paper 1. Shimla: Indian
Institute of Advanced Study, 1993.

SARKAR, Sumit. “‘Kaliyuga’, ‘chakri’ and ‘bhakti’: Ramakrishna and his times.” In
Economic and political quarterly, 1992, 18 July 1992, pp. 1543-1566.

Sarkar, Sumit. “Kathamrita as text: Towards an understanding of Ramkrishna

Paramahamsa.” Occasional papers on history and society, Vol. 10, New Delhi: Nehru
Museum and Library, 1985.

Schneiderman, Leo. “Ramakrishna: Personality and social factors in the growth of a

religious movement.” Journal of the scientific study of religion, Spring 1969, pp. 60-71.

SEN, Akshaykumar. Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇa-mahimā. [Glory of the twice-blessed Ramakrishna].

6th edition. Kalikata: Udbodhan Karyalay, 1398 BE.

SEN, Akshaykumar. Śrῑśrῑrāmakṛṣṇa-puṅthi. [A book on the twice-blessed Ramakrishna].

Tenth ed. Kalikata: Udbodhan Karyalay, 1392 BE.
 25

SEN, Amiya P. Hindu revivalism in Bengal 1872-1905: Some essays in interpretation.

Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993.

SEN, Amiya P. “Sri Ramakrishna and middle-class religion in late nineteenth century
Bengal: Exploring some new paradigms of understanding.” In PATI, Biswamoy (Ed.)
Issues in modern Indian history, 2000, pp. 100-120.

SEN, Amiya P. Three essays on Sri Ramakrishna and his times. Shimla: Indian Institute
of Advanced Study, 2001.

SEN, Amiya P. “Sri Ramakrishna, the kathamrita and the Calcutta middle classes: An old
problematic revisited.” Postcolonial Studies, 2006, Vol. 9, No. 2 (June), pp. 165-177.

SEN, Keshabchandra. Paramahaṁser ukti. [The sayings of the paramahamsa]. Calcutta:

Bengal Library, 1878.

SEN, Sukumar. (Ed.). Kṛṣṇadās Kavirāj biracita Caitanyacaritāmṛta [The nectar of the
life of Chaitanya as composed by Krishnadas Kabiraj]. 4th printing. New Delhi: Sahitya
Academy, 2002.

SENGUPTA, Achintyakumar. Param puruṣ Śrī Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa. [Twice-blessed

Ramakrishna the great], 4 vols. in 1. 8th printing. Kalikata: Mitra o Ghosh Publishers
Private Limited, 1395 BE.

SENGUPTA, Krishnachandra. Śrī śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa-bhrātuṣputrī śrī śrī Lakṣmīmaṇi Devī

[The twice-blessed Ramakrishna’s niece the twice-blessed Laksmimani Devi]. Cuttack:
n.p., 1943. In CHATTOPADHYAYA, Rajagopal, Rāmakṛṣṇa: hārāno kathā, 2003, pp.
536-538.

SHANKARACHARYA. Shankara’s crest-jewel of discrimination, (Trans.)

PRABHAVANANDA, Swami, ISHERWOOD, Christopher. 3rd ed. Hollywood: Vedanta
Press, 1978.

SHASTRI, Sivanath. Men I have seen. Calcutta: Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, 1966.

ŚĀSTRĪ, Shivanath. Racanāsaṁgraha: Ātmacarit, Rāmtanu Lāhirī o Tatkālīn Bbaṅga

Samāj [Collected writings: Autobiography, Ramtanu Lahiri and the contemporary
society]. 2 vols. Kalikata: Saksarata Prakashan, 1979.

SHEPPARD, R.Z. Review of THEROUX, Paul. My secret history. New York: Putnam,
1989. In Time, 1989, Vol. 133, No. 21 (22 May), p. 114.

SIL, Narasingha P. “Luther, Erikson, and history: A strange encounter.” The Quarterly
 26

Review of Historical Studies, 1982-1983, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 21-35.

SIL, Narasingha P. Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṁsa: A psychological profile. Leiden: E.J. Brill,

1991.

SIL, Narasingha P. “Ramakrishna redivivus: A psychobiography.” The Psychohistory

Review, 1992, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 303-314.

SIL, Narasingha P. “Vivekānanda’s Rāmakṛṣṇa: An untold story of mythmaking and

propaganda.” Numen, 1993, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 38-62.

SIL, Narasingha P. “The status of Kālῑ in American academia.” Lecture presented to the
Institue of Historical Studies, Calcutta, 21 November 1996. Unpublished.
academia.edu [cit. 20 December 2014]. Available at www.academia.edu/5838065/the-
cyber-goddess_kali-the-dark-mother

SIL, Narasingha P. “Is Ramakrishna a vedantin, tantrika, or a vaishnava? An

examination.” Asian Studies Review, 1997. Vol. 21, Nos. 2-3 (November), pp. 212-224.

SIL, Narasingha P. “The question of Ramakrishna’s homosexuality.” Review of

KRIPAL, Jeffrey J., Kālī’s child, 1995. In The Statesman, 31 January, Literary p. 2.

SIL, Narasingha P. Ramakrishna revisited: A new biography. Lanham: University Press

of America, 1998.

SIL, Narasingha P. 1998b. “Keshbchandra Sen and Ramakrishna Paramahaṁsa.” Trans.

of English translation of CHAKRAARTI, Surath. “Yugapuruṣ Brahmānanda Keśabcandra
Sen O Mahāmānav Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa.” In SIL, Narasingha P. Ramakrishna revisited, 1998,
pp. 259-269.

SIL, Narasingha P. “Vahbhārambhe laghukriyā”. [Much ado about nothing].

Communication, Religion in South Asia [RISA] Listserv, 1998. 10 May. [cit. 5 April
2016]. Available at www.infinityfoundtion.com/mandala/s_rv_kali.htm

SIL, Narasingha P. “Ramakrishna Vivekananda research: Hagiography versus

hermeneutics.” Religious Studies Review, 2001, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp: 355-362.

SIL, Narasingha P. Divine dowager: The life and teachings of Saradamani the holy
mother. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 2003.

SIL, Narasingha P. Encyclopedia of religion. 2nd edition. 15 vols. Detroit: Thomson/

Gale, 2005. Vol. 15, pp. 10066-10068.
 27

SIL, Narasingha P. “Ramakrishna.” In KHASTAGIR, Amitava. Brahmoism from

fountainhead to confluence, 2006, pp. 573-582.

SIL, Narasingha P. Crazy in love of god: Ramakrishna’s caritas divina. Selinsgrove/

Cranbury: Susquehanna University Press/Associated University Presses, 2009.

SIL, Narasingha P. “Kali’s child and Krishna’s lover: An anatomy of Ramakrishna’s

caritas divina.” Religion, 2009, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 289-298.

SIL, Narasingha P. “Ramakrishna.” In Oxford Bibliography Online (OBO). 2012.

Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

SINGER, Milton. (Ed.) Krishna: Myths, rites, and attitudes. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1966.

SKINNER, Quentin. The foundations of modern political thought. 2 vols. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1978.

SMITH, Bardwell L. (Ed.). Hinduism: New essays in the history of religions. Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1976.

SOKAL, Alan & BRICMONT, Jean. Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals’

abuse of science. New York: Picador Books, 1998.

SPINOZA, Baruch A theologico-political treatise (1677). (Ed. & Trans.). ELWES,

Robert H.M. 1883. [cit 5 April 2016]. Available at www.yesselman.com/ttpelws1.htm

SPITZ, Lewis W. “Man on this isthmus.” In MEYER, Carl S. Luther for an ecumenical
age, 1997, pp.: 23-66.

Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇakathāmṛta [Nectar of the sayings of te twice-blessed Ramakrishna]. One

vol. ed. Kalikata: Udbodhan Kāryālay, 1397 BE.

STEWART, Tony K. “When Rāhu devours the moon: The myth of the birth of Kṛṣṇa
Caitanya.” International Journal of Hindu Studies, 1997, 1, No. 2 (August), pp. 221-264.

STORR, Anthony. Feet of clay: Saints, sinners, and madmen: A study of gurus. New
York: The Free Press, 1996.

STROHL, Jane E. “Luther’s spiritual journey.” In McKIM, Donald K. Cambridge

companion to Luther, 2003, pp. 149-164.

TAPASYANANDA, Svāmῑ. Sri Ramakrishnna: Life and teachings (An interpretive

 28

study). 2nd impression. Mylapre: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1986.

TART, Charles T. (Ed.) Altered states of consciousness: A book of readings. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1969.

ṬHAKUR, Rabīndranāth. Saṅcayitā [Collected poems]. Kalikata: Tuli-Kalam, 2002.

ṬHAKUR, Rabīndranāth. Sonār Tarī [Golden boat]. (Ed.). BHOWMICK, Shanti R.

Dhaka: n.p., 1969.

THOMAS, Wendell. Hinduism invades America. New York: The Beacon Press, Inc.,
1930.

TRAPNELL, Judson B. Review of SIL, Narasingha P., Ramakrishna revisited. In

International journal of Hindu studies, 2000, Vol. 4, No.1, pp. 101-102.

TRIPATHY, Amalesh. Aitihāsiker dṛṣṭité Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa o Vivekananda. [The blessed

Ramakrishna and Viveananda as viewed by historians]. Calcutta: Ananda Publishers
Private Limited, 1999.

TYAGANANDA, Śvāmī & VRAJAPRANA, Pravrājikā. Interpreting Ramakrishna:

Kālī’s child revisited. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2010.

URBAN, Hugh B. Review of KRIPAL, Kālī’s child, 1995. In South Asia Newsletter,
Chicago, 1996, Vol. 20, No. 1XX, 1 (Winter), pp. 1-2.

VEER, Peter Van der, LEHMAN, Hartmut. (Eds.). Nation and religion: Perspectives on
Europe and Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

VEDANTAPRANA, Pravrājikā. (Ed.) Mahimā tava udbhāsita: dharmasabhā-śatavarṣa

sṁārakgraṇtha. [Unto thy glory: Centenary volume of the parliament of religions].
Second printing. Dakshineshwar: Śrī Sarada Maṭh, 1995.

VIVEKANANDA, Svāmī. Patrāvalī. [Collected letters]. 5th ed. Kalikata: Udbodhan

Karyalay, 1394 BE.

VIVEKANANDA, Svāmī. (Comp.). Ramakrishna as Swamiji saw him. Mylapore: Sri

Ramakrishna Math, 1974.

VIVEKANANDA, Svāmī. My master. 14th ed. New York: The Baker & Tyler Co., 1912.
 29

WALLACE, Mark I. “Karl Barth’s hermeneutic: A way beyond the impasse.” The
Journal of Religion, 1988, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 396-410.

WEBER, Erwin. “Leucorea university in Wittenberg.” In Lutheran Journal, 1999, Vol.

67, No. 1. [cit. 10 May 2010]. Available at helios.augustana.edu/~ew/des/illustrated-
articles/su52.html

WEIDERMAN, Gotthelf. “Cochlaeus as a polemicist.” In BROOKS, Peter N. Seven-

headed Luther, 1983, pp. 195-205.

WERNER, Karel. (Ed.). Love divine: Studies in bhakti and devotional mysticism.
Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 1993.

WHITE, Charles. “The Sai Baba movement: Approaches to the study of Indian saints.”
Journal of Asian Studies, 1974, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 863-878.

WHITMARSH, Katherine. Concordance to the gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. Revised 2nd

ed. Hollywood: Vedanta Press. 1989.

WRIEDT, Markus. “Luther’s theology.” In McKIM, Donald K. Cambridge companion

to Luther, 2003, pp. 86-119.

PREFACE

The famous nineteenth-century Bengali saint Śrī Ramakrishna Paramahaṁsa (1836-86)

has almost universally been regarded as a Śākta (sometimes confused with a Tāntrika)
devotee of the Mother Goddess Kālī because of his association with the Kālī temple at
Daksineshvar, in the northern suburb of Calcutta. Despite such a reputation,
 30

Ramakrishna’s piety, as this study posits, had deep roots in Bengal Vaishnavism at large
and in the devotional tradition of his family in particular. This counter thesis on the
saint’s religious identity is supported by an analysis of his emphasis on bhakti [devotion]
for and biśvās [faith] in God. Additionally, my analysis is predicated on a comparison of
Ramakrishna with two religious reformers of the sixteenth century: the Bengali saint
Śrīcaitanya (1486-1533), founder of bhakti movement in Bengal and the German monk
Martin Luther (1483-1546), progenitor of the so-called Protestant movement that
foregrounded fiducia [faith] as the highway to divine grace. Ramakrishna’s Vaiṣṇava
orientation also helps us understand his sexuality. The currently influential construction
of a homoerotic Tāntrika Ramakrishna is countered by exploring the fundamental
convergence between the Hindu concept of prema and the Christian concept of agape or
caritas—both standing for love for as well as love of God.
In this connection, it should be understood that there are marked differences
among the three religious personalities, particularly between Ramakrishna and Luther.
Both are radically different individuals in respect of their cultural background, social
outlook, and theological consciousness, especially in their understanding of human-
divine relationship. Luther’s Judeo-Christian conception of God as a transcendent and
absolutely sovereign and yet a merciful deity is markedly different from Rāmakṛṣṇa’s
Vaishnavic image of God as a loving and playful companion of the devotee. Yet their
spiritual experiences in their quest for the divine show a similar reliance on faith and
devotion.
An offshoot of Ramakrishna’s Tāntrika identity has been his newfound sexual
orientation in the United States. The stereotypical understanding of Hindu Tantra as an
esoteric cult indulging in clandestine sexual orgies has dovetailed into the Master’s
“unconscious” homoerotic desires and behaviors. This book addresses both
interpretations and posits his basic Vaiṣṇava moorings and his very idiosyncratic
understanding of human sexuality. Though there are a few studies on Ramakrishna as an
incarnation of Cahitanya, notably by Svāmῑ Prabhananda, Śrī Krishnachaitanya, and
Pranabesh Chakravarti, I provide a systematic historical textual evidence and explanation
for the Master’s innate Vaiṣṇava consciousness and emphasis on bhakti as the vehicle to a
personal intimacy with God. Similarly, I discuss the interface between sexual and
spiritual consciousness in his life and teachings. This comparative exercise thus seeks to
achieve the author’s dual objective of foregrounding Ramakrishna’s innate Vaisnavic
consciousness that is close to Luther’s Protestant faith and to deconstruct the former’s
homoerotic profile by interpreting his sexuality in the context of his culture and creed.

This study also provides a review essay on the major hagiographical and
hermeneutical texts, both in Bengali and in English, and on Ramakrishna’s life and
teachings, including the academic (albeit often acrimonious) debate surrounding his
alleged homosexuality. A fuller bibliographical essay on Ramakrishna by this author has
 31

been published in Oxford Bibliographies Online.1 Additionally I include a psychological

analysis of Ramakrishna’s spiritual-mystical experiences in the conclusion.
Lastly, I wish to clarify my methodological orientation for this study. Trained in
archival research in the administrative history of Tudor England as established by Sir
Lewis B. Namier (1888-1960), Sir John E. Neale (1890-1975), and above all, Sir
Geoffrey R. Elton (1921-94), I had to reorient myself in the theoretical and
methodological tradition of scholarship in religion and theology. My personal grounding
in historical criticism thus needed to be purged of historicist determinism and tempered
and modified with hermeneutical scholarship and literary criticism, in other words, I
attempted, as far as possible, to understand the sources both historically and
hermeneutically. 2
In my earlier published works on Ramakrisahna, I made frequent use of qualifiers
that appeared to some scholar monks as “excessive drumbeat of speculative
phraseology.”3 Nevertheless, with due respect to these devotees who are not academic
scholars, I persist in my use of qualifiers because, as a historian, I place reasonable
speculation based on circumstantial evidence as well as on plain deductive reasoning next
to documented fact. As an academic scholar, I find the former more meaningful than
reliance on sheer faith. Academic history cannot be hagiography although the latter is
valorized by the faithful. However, if a faith-based statement expressed in the categorical
imperative passes for “fact” and is deemed respectable and acceptable to some, it would
be unfair to condemn or debunk any reasonable scholarly opinion or exegesis used with
appropriate qualifiers.4 I consider Luther, Chaitanya and Ramakrishna primarily as men
of God rather than Godmen. I delight in their achievements and respect them as creative
human beings whose exertions contributed to the enrichment and enhancement of human
condition. Yet as humans they all were subject to foibles and frailties, and as Freud
would have it, “there is no one so great that it would be a disgrace for him to be subject to
the laws that govern normal and pathological activity with equal severity.”5 To this
counsel let me add in all humility and sincerity that even though I am aware, a la Pascal,
that man is an amalgam of greatness and wretchedness—grandeur et misére6—I would,
rather, like Dr. Benard Rieux of The Plague, be on the side of humanity than that of
heroes or hierophants.7

1See SIL, N.P., “Ramakrishna” in Oxford bibliography online. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press,
2014.
2 See WALLACE, M. I., Karl Barth’s hermeneutic.
3 TYAGANANDA, Svāmī, Vrajaprana, Pravrājikā, Interpreting Ramakrishna, 90.
4 See RINEHART, R., One lifetime, many lives, p. 3. See also HARRIS, M., Cultural materialism.
5 Cited in GAY, P., Freud, p. vii.
6 PASCAL, B., Pensées, # 416, # 443.
7 CAMUS, A., Plague, p.231.
 32

1. RAMAKRISHNA PARAMAHAṀSA
A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY8

Śuna man sumadhur prabhu-vālyalῑlā.

Śiśurῡpῑ bhagavān yé prakāré khelā.
Karilen Kāmārpukurbāsῑ sane.
Śuna śuna śuna man śuna ekmané.

[O my heart, listen with rapt attention

to the sweet lore of our lord’s childhood
in which God enacted His dalliance
with the residents of Kamarpukur.]
Sen 1392 BE, 8.

Early Life
Rāmakṛṣṇa (birth name Gadadhar or Gadai Chattopadhyay) was born on 17 February
1836 in the home of a poor village priest Ksudiram Chattopadhyay (1775-1843) and his
wife Chandramani (1791-1876) at Kamarpukur, an obscure village, some sixty miles
northwest of Calcutta in the modern state of West Bengal. Though not totally illiterate he
was practically uneducated. He studied in his village school from the age of five till his
seventeenth year, and later, at the ṭol [primary Sanskrit school] of his brother Ramkumar
(1805-56) in Calcutta for a time. Reportedly the boy Gadai was fond of reading stories
about the holy men and bhaktas [devotees] of God Viṣṇu and even copied four religious
dramas as well as a portion of the Bengali Rāmāyaṇa [Story of Rāma] in Krittivas Ojha’s
(1381-1461 BE) translation. Possessed of prodigious memory, the boy also memorized a

8This biographical sketch is adapted from SIL, N.P., Encyclopedia of religion, pp. 10066-10068
and SIL, “Ramakrishna” in KHASTAGIR, A., Brahmoism, pp. 573-582. For further details see
SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, chs. 2 & 7 and SIL, N. P., Divine dowager, chs. 2 & 3. ,
 33

number of devotional airs [kīrtanas] and recitations of sacred poems [kathā] by the
itinerant troubadours [bāuls] of Bengal. Most of the spiritual insights of his adult years
were gleaned from this remembered religious repertoire.
Gadadhar earned a reputation in his village as an ecstatic when as a child of seven he,
reportedly, fell into a trance [samādhi] at the sight of flying cranes in cloudy sky. He
later charmed his neighbors at an open air theater by his entranced condition while
enacting the part of Lord Śiva. His reputation for momentarily losing consciousness
made people regard him as a divinely endowed child. A few years later, when the
adolescent Gadadhar was appointed as a priest of the Kālī temple at Daksineshvar, some
five miles north of Calcutta, his trances were accompanied by crazy behavior believed to
have been caused by his celibacy. His mother, his village neighbors, as well as his
employers—the dowager Rāṇī Rasmaṇi (1793-1861), widow of the great landowner
Rajcahandra Das (1783-1836) and owner of the Kālī temple, and her son-in-law
Mathuranath Bishvas (1817-1871), the temple manager—counseled marriage. The
twenty-three-year-old Gadadhar was married to a six-year-old girl named Sāradāmaṇi
(1853-1920) from the neighboring village of Jairambati, though to little effect.
Subsequently Gadadhar was diagnosed by some village naturopaths [baidya or kabirāj ]
and by a roving bhairavī [female participant in esoteric tāntric rituals] named Yogeshvari
(fl. 1860s) as having been afflicted with divine madness [divyonmattatā]. The acme of
this spiritual state was reached when he underwent nirvikalpa samādhi [undifferentiated
state of enstasis when all diversities dissolve into an undifferentiated oneness] during his
training under a Vedantic guru [preceptor] belonging to the sect of the Nāgā monks
[Gymnosophist] of the Punjab by the name of Ishvar Totapuri. Gadadhar now assumed,
probably at the behest of his mentor, his new name Ramakrishna. His various ascetic
exercises made him a popular mystic at his workplace and in the surrounding
neighborhood, even as far as the region of north Calcutta. He died of throat cancer on 16
August 1886 in Calcutta.

Essential Teachings
 34

Ramakrishna proclaimed that anyone could realize God—personal [sākāra] and

impersonal [nirākāra]—if only one could become dependent on the divine, much as a
little child is on its parents. In Rmakrishna’s terms, one need not try to realize God as a
jṅānī, that is, as one who reads the scriptures to acquire divine knowledge, but as vijṅānī,
one who is able to see, touch, and converse with God through pure devotion. His
preferred deities from the Hindu pantheon were two popular divinities of folklore—
Kṛṣṇa, the great lover-God, and Kālī, the terrible but tender-hearted black Mother
Goddess. He had been so desperately eager to see the live Goddess Kālī (sometime
during 1856-1857) that he had attempted to kill himself. During the period of his
madhura bhāva [sweet or erotic devotional state, c. 1867-1871], he felt a deep longing
for Kṛṣṇa like the God’s mythical lover Rādhā.
Ramakrishna is reputed for his religious eclecticism expressed in the famously
publicized epigrammatic phraseology yata mat tata path or “as many points of view so
many paths.”9 His another expression conveying the same idea is “ananta mat ananta
path” [“infinite are the paths, infinite the opinion].10 Though this idea was not original
with him—the Śiva Mahimna Stotraattributed it to the mythical Gandharva Puṣpadanta11
and the Bhāgavadgītā had written about unity in diversity12—yet it has been popular as
the Master’s singular contribution to religious eclecticism despite his clear qualifiers that
follow immediately his message. The relevant passage is cited hereunder in Svāmī
Nikhilananda’s translation:

There are various paths to reach God. Each view is a path. It is like reaching the Kāli temple by
different roads. But it must be said that some paths are clean and some dirty. It is good to travel
on a clean path. Many views, many paths—and I have seen them all. But I don’t enjoy them
anymore. They all quarrel.13

9KM, Vol. 2, p. 137 (GR, 567). Diary of 29 September 1884. The actual expression as recorded by ŚrīM is
“ananta mat ananta path” [infinite are the paths, infinite the opinion].
10 KM, Vol. 5, p. 21 (GR, 158). Diary of 26 November 1882.
11 BROWN, W. N., Mahimna stotra, Verse 7.
12 KADANKAVIL, K.T., “Gita and Hindu religious experience,” p. 96
13 KM, Vol. 2
 35

In Svāmī Vivekananda’s (monastic name of Narendranath Datta [1863-1902],

Ramakrishna’s principal disciple) spirited paraphrasing, his Master’s admonition in this

regard was that one must not care for doctrines or dogmas because “they count for little
compared with the essence of existence in each man, which is spirituality” and he urged
his followers to “earn that first, acquire that, and criticize no one; for all doctrines and
creeds have some good in them.”14
Ramakrishna’s dicta against kāminī kāṅcana [“woman gold” implying “lust and
lucre”] regarded women as the root of all evils and any gainful employment as degrading
slavery. He thus urged most of his devotees and disciples never to trust women nor to get
married or employed, but to devote their life to the contemplation of the divine. He ruled
that men might marry, raise a family and even earn a living for sustenance though they
must at all times remain disciplined and detached. But for those whom he considered
possessed of spiritual potentials he counseled a life of austerity and celibacy.
Rāmakṛṣṇa’s attitude to women contained an unmistakable streak of misogyny,
characteristic of his patriarchal society. Despite his verbal adoration of the woman as
Śakti or divine feminine energy, he remained suspicious of female lure and, as a celibate
husband, even expressed a measure of apprehension about his own wife’s chastity.15 He
was fearful of prostitutes and contemptuous of low caste people, though occasionally, he
expressed his liberality for them publicly. Despite the fact he owed his upbringing and
his success as a public figure to women, such as his mother Chandramani (1791-1876),
his employer Rasmani, his putative Tāntrika mentor Yogeshvari, and last but not least, his
wife Saradamani (who devoted her entire married life to cater for her husband and his
flock), Ramakrishna remained, first and foremost, a patriarchal brāhmaṇ.

Ramakrishna: A Householder Ascetic

Raakrishna personally enjoyed an epicurean life and even showed a good deal of

14 VIVEKANANDA, Svāmī, My master, p 67.

15 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 64.
 36

interest in kāṅcana [gold], both in its literal and metaphorical sense. He never gave up the
world but always lived at home like a householder in the midst of comforts without doing
any work. His delicate constitution and his frequent samādhi disabled him to carry on his
priestly chores at the Kālī temple and he had his nephew appointed as his surrogate to
conduct daily worship of the deity. He maintained a diary listing every kind of expenses,
such as defraying the cost of a horoscope for himself, paying the physicians he often
consulted for ailments, buying ornaments for his wife and even for her maidservant, and
above all, investing in landed property at his native village Kamarpukur and the
neighboring village Shihore.16 He himself admitted having felt alarmed after he had flung
some coins into the river water because he feared this action might infuriate the Goddess
Lakṣmī and cause her to stop his daily food supply. Thus, he prayed to the Goddess to
“to stay in [his] heart.”17 Yet Svāmī Vivekananda’s interpretation of his guru’s life and
logia has been propagated by the Rāmakṛṣṇa Order and consequently his reputation for
renunciation in life persists even to this day.
Ramakrishna’s popularity owed to a great extent to his personality as well as to the
serene and simple ambience of his abode. Free from the austere atmosphere of a
monastery, Ramakrishna’s Daksineshvar was a “mart of bliss” [ānander hāṭbājār]
sheltering an extended sacred family presided over by a benign father (and mother) figure
who made no demand upon his devotees, disciples, or visitors. They saw him as a
trusting friend, a compassionate counselor, and an exceedingly funny individual who
treated them as equals and kept them amused with his songs, stories, sermon, and
samādhi.18 Above all, Ramakrishna’s cultural success is grounded in the fact that he was
publicized by the Brāhmo leader Keshabchandra Sen (1838-84) and by his flamboyant
and eloquent disciple Vivekananda as a unique spiritual leader who successfully brought
the brāhmos, the brāhmaṇs, the Buddhists, the Muslims, the Sikhs, and the Christians into
one grand fold of devotionalism.

16 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 118.

17 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 117.
18 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, pp. 179-181.
 37

1. Rāmakṛṣṇa
A Brief Historiography19

“Bhāyā, Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṁsa ye bhagabāner bābā, tāté āmār sandehamātra nāi” [Brother, I

19In the text Ramakrishna will be occasionally referred to as “Gadadhar,” “Master,” or

“Paramahaṁsa.” A paramahaṁsa is an honorific title for a person who has attained the highest
spiritual state in which he is able to exercise perfect discrimination like the mythical swan
[haṁsa] capable of distinguishing the milk substance from water in liquid milk. It is not certain
exactly when and by whom Gadadhar was called Ramakrishna and paramahaṁsa. Most
accounts agree that he was thus called and regarded by his devotees in later years. There are,
however, some indications that he was called Ramakrishna and also given the appellation of
paramahaṁsa by his putative Vedantic mentor Totapuri, a naked monk from the Punjab. See
SENGUPTA, A., Parampuruṣ Rāmakṛṣṇa, Vol. 1, p. 102. Śvāmῑ Nikhilananda states that
Rasmani and Mathuranath named Gadadhar as Ramakrishna. (GR, p. 10). Ramakrishna’s
recognition as a paramahaṁsa in print first appeared in SEN, K., Paramahaṁser ukti. For a fuller
discussion of this topic see BASU, M., Ramakrishna sadhan parikrama, pp. 131-134.
 38

have absolutely no doubt that Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṁsa is superior to God [bhagabāner bābā,
literally “God’s big daddy”].”
VIVEKANANDA, Svāmī, Patrābalī, p.255: Vivekananda’s letter (1894)
from USA to Svāmῑ Shivananda (Taraknath Ghosal, 1854-1934)

Śrī Ramakrishna Paramahaṁsa the Great Master proclaimed his undying influence on
posterity with uncanny accuracy. “I shall be worshiped in every house hereafter; I say
this upon oath, so help me God,” the dying saint told his wife Saradamani. 20 Arguably,
he has become a major cultural icon of postcolonial India and as such has been the
subject of innumerable tomes produced by the Ramakrishna Order founded by his
influential disciple Vivekananda as well as by scholars, academicians, devotees, poets
and novelists within and outside of India. Like Aristotle of ancient Europe, Ramakrishna
commands the distinction of being addressed as “Ṭhākur”, that is, “Master”.
There are, however, few, indeed only a handful, of historical-critical studies on
this personality. A welcome development since the 1990s facilitating an open discourse
on Asian religion in general and Hindu religious figures in particular has been RISA
(Religion in South Asia) listserv (though this facility is available for subscribers only).
On the other hand, the Ramakrishna Order in Calcutta routinely publishes studies by
scholar monks or retired academicians and professionals on Rāmakṛṣṇa with a view to
perpetuating his divine or at best superhuman status as well as his colossal contributions
to all aspects of modern Indian society and culture. Most of these publications are highly
subsidized and written in Bengali, intended primarily for the vernacular readers.

Hagiography: Bhāva and Samādhi

Studies highlighting the Master’s samādhi and sermon could be broadly classified under
two categories: hagiographical and hermeneutical. A major chunk of the corpus on his
life and logia falls under the first category while only a handful, three doctoral

20 GAMBHIRANANDA, Svāmī, Holy mother, p. 134.

 39

dissertations21and seven monographs 22belong to the second. However, the hermeneutical

literature can be further classified into three broad subgroups. The concern of scholars
such as Timothy Jensen, Malcolm McLean, and Carl Olson is Ramakrishna’s spirituality
and his status as a Hindu saint. Sumit Sarkar argues that the Master’s popularity was the
outcome of the impact of his simple sermons on the materialistic consciousness of the
Calcutta bhadralok (genteel class). This argument has been supported by a number of
Indian and Western scholars, including Partha Chatterjee 23 and Peter Van der Veer. 24 Sil
and Kripal use Western psychoanalysis to interpret Ramakrishna’s ecstasy and sermons.
Sil’s conclusion interrogates the authenticity and sincerity of the reports on the Master’s
spiritual condition and his credentials, while Kripal sees him as an erotic saint who
channeled his libido into Tāntric homoeroticism to realize the divine.
Ramakrishna’s most popular spiritual state as a man of God, indeed as a Godman,
occurring publicly on a regular basis, was seen as his bhāva (literally, mood but implying
spiritual state). The precise meaning of bhāva is hard to ascertain, although its sacrality
was recognized by his contemporaries at large. However, a careful perusal of the
eyewitness accounts of this behavior makes it clear that the onlookers waited eagerly to
hear a naked (or sometimes half-naked) male speak and sing, or watch his dances and
trances. The impression one gets from these descriptions is that the entire experience was
carnivalesque, in Bakhtinian terms, in which “free, often improper, but at the same time
“spiritual” table talk” or Tischreden often attract popular enthusiasm.25 None thought of
Rāmakṛṣṇa’s bhāva in terms of a mystic state (in the Christian sense), though many
presumably thought of his bhāva as bhaḍ [sacred possession]. However, the famous

21 JENSEN, T., “Madness, yearnin, and play”; McLEAN, M., “Translation of the Kathāmrita”; KRIPAL,
J.J., “Kālī’s child”.
22DHAR, N., Vedanta and Bengal renaissance; SARKAR, S., “Kathamrita as text”; SARKAR, S.
“‘Kaliyuga’, ‘chakri’ and ‘bhakti’;” OLSON, C., Mysterious play of Kali; SIL, N.P., Rāmakṛṣṇa; SIL,
N.P., Ramakrishna revisited; KRIPAL, J.J., Kālī’s child.
23 See CHATTERJEE, P., PANDEY, G. (Eds.), Subaltern studies VIII.
24 VEER, P. VAN DER, LEHMAN, H. (Eds.), Nation and religion, p. 32
25 BHAKTIN, M.M., Rabelais, p. 89; SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, ch. 7.
 40

Calcutta Paṇḍit Shashadhar Tarkacūḍāmaṇi [crown-jewel among logicians] (1850-1928),

who had witnessed the bhāva on several occasions, found no scriptural sanction or
symptom in Ramakrishna’s publicly performed syncope.26 The Paṇḍit may have been
right as the Master himself admitted and even feared that his condition was induced by
some kind of a spirit possession [bhūte pāowā] but also fancied it as a special kind of
madness marking the characteristic trait of the final birth.27 As will be briefly discussed
later, this situation has now been investigated clinically and diagnosed as TLE (Temporal
Lobe Epilepsy) or a brain disorder, that is, a neural storm in the brain that induces a
heightened religious feeling.
Actually, Ramakrishna’s samādhis were popularized by his nephew and factotum
Hridayram Mukhopadhyay (1840-1899), who first suggested to his simple-hearted uncle
that he was indeed divine and that he must proclaim this “fact”. It is well known that
Hriday was far from a spiritually inclined person, but on his own admission, a regular
participant in the bhairavī cakras (ritual intercourse with bhairavīs, that is, tantric “nuns”
in their circles or cakras) around Daksineshvar, and, on Ramakrishna’s personal
testimony, a greedy and scheming character. He was in fact kicked out of the Kālī temple
by Mathuranath’s son Trailokya, when it was discovered that Hriday had performed
ṣoḍaśī pūjā (tāntric ritual worship of a young girl) on Trailokya’s little daughter.28
Thanks to a few Postmodernist scholars of South Asian religions, arguing for an
“ethnographic mediation” or a “thick description” of Ramakrishna’s spiritual behavior, it
appears that they have unwittingly perpetuated Hridayram’s agenda. According to such
postmodernist scholars as Professors Jeffrey Kripal, Richard King, and William Parsons,
or even the psychologist Dr. Sudhir Kakar, Ramakrishna must never be studied as a
common man because he is a mystic. To cite Parsons, “if mysticism has no claim to the
extraordinary, Rāmakṛṣṇa becomes but one more example of the common man’s mystical

26 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 101.

27 KM, Vol. l 3, pp. 180, 191 [GR, pp. 783, 792]. Diary of 13 June 1885.
28 KM, Vol. 2, p. 137 [GR, p. 567]. Diary of 29 September 1884).
 41

neurosis.”29 Thus “thick description” and “theological and comparativist perspectives”30

combined with anthropological-psychoanalytic personal and cultural symbols31have
validated Ramakrishna’s behaviors to construct a spiritual personality whose erotic
energy (that is, homoerotic energy) fueled his epiphany. Unfortunately, Ramakrishna’s
native culture has been ignored, his sermons and stories (often these were both) that were
culture-syntonic (in that colored by his biases and taken-for-granted verities), have been
bypassed (or understood in their literal meaning and occasionally in dictionary-defying
meaning), and all the instruments of Western scholarship--anthropology, psychoanalysis,
thick description, and what have you--have been deployed to construct the image of a
homoerotic Godman.32
The state of current scholarship in the history of Hindu religion cannot be
dichotomized easily into insider/outsider problematic in respect of analyzing or critiquing
a different culture. On the anthropologist Kenneth Pike’s terminology, I could be
classified as an emic scholar [or a cultural insider] in that I am a Bengali Hindu who is
trying to study the behavior of a fellow Bengali like Rāmakṛṣṇa.33 However, by the same
token, I could also be seen as an etic [cultural outsider] in that I do not belong to a
religious organization, especially the Ramakrishna Order, and further, by training I am
not a specialist in South Asian religion. Even more important, I have been born and bred
in a city, whereas Ramakrishna, though not a peasant as such, hailed from a
predominantly agrarian society.
I wholeheartedly subscribe to Marvin Harris’s judicious conclusion as
paraphrased by Russell McCutcheon that “the goal of scholarship on human behavior is
not to determine what the insider might mean by their beliefs or actions but, instead, what

29 PARSONS, W.B., “Psychoanalysis and mysticism,” p. 357 (see also p. 356).

30 See
PARSONS, William B., Enigma of oceanic feeling and TYAGANANDA, Svāmī,
VEDANTAPRANA, Pravrājikā, Interpreting Ramakrishna.
31 KRIPAL, J.J., Kālī’s child, pp. 34-37, 40-41.
32 See
detailed critique of KRIPAL, J.J., Kālī’s child (both 1995 and 1998 eds. in RAMASWAMY, K.,
NICOLAS, A., BANERJEE, A. (Eds.), Invading the sacred,
33 See NEWLAND, T.N., PIKE, K., HARRIS, M. (Eds.), Emics ad etics.
 42

they do” and that “etic or analytic scholarship is…constrained by the rules that comprise
rational, comparative scientific analysis.”34 Charles White has warned against apologetic
writings in respect of Indian saints and reminded scholars of South Asian religions that
“there is little biographical material that one can be certain of, while the traditions
concerning their lives…achieve the same kind of stylization that one notices in rows of
identical icons in a temple.”35
With a view to making a reasonable and sensible estimate of Ramakrishna’s
religious career and conduct, I also follow Daniel Gold’s observation that researchers and
scholars of religion, like artists, seek to communicate the depth of their materials through
some dynamics of intellect or reason [Vernunft] and imagination or understanding
[Verstand] emerging from thinking about religious life. Gold bases his judgment on
Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) dictum that (mere) “reason cannot conceive all that [mere]
imagination suggests: imagination cannot present to itself all that reason says is
possible.”36 Thus I have made a modest attempt to humanize Gadadhar and to
harmonize, historical critical rigor and imaginative hermeneutical approach. Needless to
mention, my present enterprise is informed by the above-mentioned methodological and
theoretical guidelines that need not be ignored by being labeled simply as “reductionism”
or “scientism.”

Divinity
Ramakrishna’s divinity was first suggested by the adoring village women when he was a
mere child.37and by an elderly village grocer named Shrinivas or Chinu Śāṅkhārī
[conchshell cutter].38 (Tapasyananda 1986/1983, 89). His divinity during his early youth
was suggested first by his nephew Hriday and subsequently by the bhairavῑ Yogeshvari

34 McCUTCHEON, R.T., Insider/outsider problem, pp. 18-19.

35 WHITE, C., Sai Baba movement, p. 863.
36 GOLD, D.R., Aesthetics of interpreting religious life, p. 3.
37 LP, Vol. 1[Pūrvakathā o Vālyajῑvan], p. 134
38 TAPASYANANDA, Svāmī, Ramakrishna, p.89.
 43

as well as the scholars such as Padmalochan Tarkālaṅkār, Gaurī Paṇḍit (Gaurikanta

Tarkabhūṣaṇ), and Vaishnavcharan Gosvāmī, and was first publicized by his employer
Mathuranath, and next by Keshab Sen, Girishchandra Ghosh (1844-1912), the debauched
playwright turned a “born again” Hindu, and finally by the flamboyant devotee
Ramchandra Datta (1851-1899)—each for his special personal reasons, having little to do
with spirituality or mysticism.39
There are further indications in the monastic accounts of the Master that his
employers at the Daksineshvar Kālī temple—Rasmani and her son-in-law Mathuranāth—
understood the usefulness of publicizing their employee as a divinely endowed temple
priest with a view to upgrading their low caste status. A shrewd man of the world
Mathuranath also calculated the advantage of using Ramakrishna as an avatāra [divine
incarnation] to mystify and mollify his disgruntled tenant-farmers [ryots] oppressed by
mounting taxes, or sometimes by his highhanded treatment that led to deaths. Svāmī
Shivananda writes that Mathur used to take the Master to his estates in Nadiya during the
revenue collection season.40 Svāmī Prabhananda describes Mathur and Rāmakṛṣṇa’s visits
to the former’s estates at Kalaighata in Ranaghat and Sonabere in Nadiya district of West
Bengal “for collecting the payment of dues” and to Tala “to settle a long-standing dispute
among the members of Bishvas’s kulaguru [[family preceptor] Bharatchandra
Bhattacharya’s family.”41
Claiming his incarnational identity with various prophets and Godmen such as
Jesus, Muhammad, and Śrī Chaitanya (1486-1533), in particular, the Master preached the
divine purpose of an incarnation and then told his audience that he was God in human
form. “I have no hesitation in telling you who are my devotees. Presently I can’t see
God as Spirit. Clearly He now manifests in human form. Naturally, I can see, touch, and
even embrace God. I have been told, ‘You have assumed a body, and therefore have fun
through your human form’.” This claim was explained clearly to buttress his personal

39 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, pp. 45-48, 55-56.

40 CHETANANANDA, Svāmī, Ramakrishna, pp. 136-137.
41 PRABHANANDA, Svāmī, More about Ramakrishna, pp. 32ff.
 44

avatāra status predicated on divine mandate: “No doubt, God is in everything, but He
manifests Himself more through humans” [but] “in the incarnations there is greater
manifestation of God.”42
Ramakrishna’s acceptance as a Godman or an avatāra by his devotees and
admirers has to be understood in the Hindu context and concept of incarnation. As
Daniel Bassuk writes, the Hindu concept of an avatāra, meaning literally “the one who
descends,” that is, the God who crosses, passes, comes, or appears, endows the Deus-
homo or Godman with special qualities and realities. Hindus recognize certain specially
endowed individuals as incarnation—God made human—who is a perfect being or, as
Ramakrishna said, an Ῑśvarakoṭi [on the level of the divine], or a Jīvanmukta [liberated
soul]. He claimed himself to be one and his claim was a part of and parcel of Hindu
incarnational tradition.43
However, Ramakrisahna’s contemporary critics such as Paṇḍit Shashadhar, Dr.
Mahendralal Sarkar (1833-1940) and some later critics such as Mahendranath Ghosh,
Justice Amal Kumar Roy, Gopal Roy, Ashutosh Mandal, or Shashadhar’s eminent
disciple Padmanath Bhattacharya have largely gone unnoticed either because, until
recently, researchers concentrated on the most popular sources, or because they (with the
sole exception of Dr. Sarkar) have been classified as benighted slanderers by the
Ramakrishna Order and by the admiring devotees.44 Even Ramakrishna himself was
quite aware of the artificiality, even the absurdity, of his publicized incarnational identity.
During his terminal illness his Brāhmo friend Shivanath Śāstrī (1840-1919) once told him
jestingly that as with books, there are many editions of God, and “your disciples are
about to make you a new one.” To this the dying patient responded with a touch of irony
mingled with sincerity: “Just fancy, God Almighty dying of cancer in the throat. What

42 KM, Vol. 5, pp. 122-123 [GR, pp. 432-433]. Diary of 24 May 1884.
43 For
a detailed discussion of Ramakrishna as a Godman see SIL, N.P, Crazy in love of god, ch, 3:
“Ramakrishna the godman..”
44 SeeSIL, N.P. Crazy in love of god, Appendix B; BHATTACHARYA, P., Rāmakṛṣṇa Vivekānanda
Prasaṅga.
 45

great fools these fellows must be.” 45! A few months before his death on August 16, 1886,
following a hemorrhage from his cancerous throat, the Master told his beloved devotee
Naren: “Look at your avatāra’s plight! He is bleeding.”46

Critical Studies
The justice Amal Roy questioned the efficacy of Ramakrishna’s asocial devotionalism
and contrasted it with the socially activist Upanisadic spirituality. Padmanath
Bhattacharya exposed the doctored account of Shashadhar’s encounter with the Master
and cited the former’s letters in which the Paṇḍit quite frankly described Ramakrishna’s
mystical state and its various postures as a product of his psychosomatic condition and
explained how these bhāvas did not betray the scripturally recognized symptoms of God-
consciousness.47 Ramakrishna once told his devotee Girish Ghosh that “there are five
kinds of samādhi. First, the ant movement—the mahāvāyu rising up like an ant; second,
the fish movement; third, the serpent movement; fourth, the bird moveme4nt—just as the
birds fly from one branch to another; and fifth, the monkey movement in which the
mahāvāyu reaches the head with on jump, as it were, followed by samādhi.”48 He had
learned this explanation of ecstasy from an anonymous holy man in Hrisikesh, whose
samādhi matched the Master’s.49 He of course maintained judiciously that samādhis
could not be described adequately, they must be experienced. However, he considered the
experience of samādhi—whatever it was like, ant, monkey, fish, or even nirvikalpa—
unwholesome, for he admitted having prayed to Goddess Kālī to “cure” him of this so
that he could converse with people.50
A strictly rationalist and humanist approach to Ramakrishna’s life and teachings

45 SHASTRI, S., Men I have seen, p. 77.

46 PRABHANANDA, Svāmī, Śrīrāmakṛṣṇer antyalīlā, Vol.2, p. 133.
47 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, pp. 144-145, 101.
48 KM, Vol. 5, pp.142 [GR, p. 702]. Diary of 25 February 1885.
49 KM, Vol. 3, pp. 258-259 [GR, pp. 949-950]. Diary of 9 April 1886).
50 KM, Vol. 2, p. 57 [GR, p. 237]. Diary of 5 June 1883).
 46

has been provided by the late Niranjan Dhar of Calcutta followed by Narasingha Sil.51
Sumit Sarkar and Partha Chatterjee attempted an analysis of the Ramakrishna
phenomenon and of Ramakrishna as a saint from a socio-historical perspective and
argued that the Master’s popularity had to do with the impact of his simple sermons on
the materialist consciousness of the urban elites of Calcutta. 52 Their argument has been
supported by Peter van der Veer, who maintains that Brāhmo Vedantic intellectualism
failed to reach the larger Bengali society where, since the sixteenth century, Vaishnavic
devotionalism had become more popular and thus Rāmakṛṣṇa’s emphasis on bhakti fell
on a fertile soil in the second half of the nineteenth century. He even cites Partha
Chatterjee’s influential book The Nation and Its Fragments (1993) to posit that Keshab
Sen was influenced by Ramakrishna’s devotionalism and these two personalities together
constituted the “middle ground” occupied by the emergent middle class in their
anticolonial struggle.53 (van der Veer 1999: 32).54
This kind of historical-sociological interpretation of Ramakrishna has been best
illustrated in the highly readable, scholarly studies (though only mildly critical in that the
Master’s basic spiritual-mystical image yet remains unexplored) by the Indian scholar
Amiya P. Sen, whose assessment of the historical Ramakrishna is frankly apologetic but
lucid enough to merit an extended quotation:
To assess the reasons behind Ramakrishna’s emerging success with certain social groups
especially by the early 1880s, one must rely on an imaginative understanding of [the] ... many-
layered personality and the diverse possibilities latent in his life and message. In him one finds
the ingenious story-teller with fairly well-developed skills of communication; a man conservative
to the core but possessing an amazing breadth of personality; a rustic, paternal figure distinctive

51 DHAR, N., Rāmakṛṣṇ anya chokhe; SIL, N.P. (Rāmakṛṣṇa; Ramakrishna revisited; Crazy in love of god;
“Kali’s child and Krishna’s lover).
52 SeeSARKAR, S, Exploraton of Ramakrishna Vivekananda tradition; CHATTERJEE, P., “Religion of
urban domesticity.
53 VEER, P. VAN DER, Nation and religion, p. 32. The story of Ramakrishna’s influence on the Brāhmos
has been shown by the Brāhmo scholars of Calcutta to be a myth fabricated by the Ramakrishna Order. See
especially Surath Chakravarti’s influential article in the Dharmatatva (1977) translated by Sil in SIL, N.P.,
Ramakrishna revisited, pp. 259-269).
 47

for his kindness and compassion and a greatly inspiring religious teacher apparently able to
transform philosophical queries about God to tangible communication with God himself.... Many
men who otherwise remained quite sceptical of certain aspects of his life and teachings were
nonetheless drawn to him for his charming simplicity, kindness and some profound observations
about Man and God that had apparently no basis in formal bookish learning.55

The noted Indian psychologist Sudhir Kakar prefers to see Ramakrishna as a

mystic though he does not seem to have used the Bengali sources (his studies on the
Master are all based on a Hindi translation of KM). According to him, “Ramakrishna had
successfully provided the ‘higher’ Vedantic descriptors of monotheistic, soul-mysticism”
even though “he had his own personal preferences for devotional theistic mysticism of
the Vaishnava and Shakta varieties”—a statement which is neither here nor there. He
acknowledges the problematic in respect of psychoanalyzing Ramakrishna’s “primary
femininity,” but his claim, “Ramakrishna’s girl-self was neither repressed nor dissociated
but could mature to an extent where psychically he could even possess female sexual
equipment and enjoy female sexual experience,”56 though refreshingly sympathetic to
Ramakrishna’s androgyny, yet is incongruous with the Master’s arguably pronounced
misogyny. 57
Of late, Dr. Ayon Mahārāj (monastic name of Dr. Ayon Roy) of Ramakrishna
Mission Vivekananda University has uploaded a draft of his article “Sri Ramakrishna’s
Vijñāna Vedānta” in the website of academia.edu. In it, he has provided a complicated
theoretical framework to demonstrate (sadly without mining the Ur texts of Ramakrishna
literature rigorously) that the saint of Daksineshvar was actually a philosopher of Vijṅān
Vedānta, that is, Scientific Vedānta— an outlandish claim that even surpasses Svāmī
Vivekananda’s colorful construction of Ramakrishna’s Practical Vedanta. 58 More recently

55 SEN, Amiya P., Hindu revivalism in Bengal, pp. 310-311.

56 KAKAR, S., Analyst and mystic, pp. 17, 39. However, in spite of his use of the technique of Western
psychoanalysis for an understanding of Ramakrishna’s mysticism. Kakar’s “Enlightenment demystification
and secularization of religion in psychoanalytic theory” is questioned in ROLAND, A., “How universal in
psychoanalysis?” in ALLEN, D., ed., Culture and self, pp. 27-39. Kakar, in keeping with his standing as an
Indian professional (with a practice in New Delhi, the seat of the politically powerful Hindu
fundamentalists), has taken ample care to observe circumspection and caution in his interpretation of
Ramakrishna’s bhāva and bhakti.

58 See SIL, N.P., “Vivekānanda’s Rāmakṛṣṇa,” pp, 38-62.

 48

the Mahārāj has published a fuller version of his thesis on the secret of the Master’s
theory of vijñān claiming that Ramakrishna actually based his theory on the philosophy
of Shankaracharya (c. 788-820 CE) as well as on the Bhāgavad Gītā (comp. c. 5th/4th
century BCE).59
The Mahārāj’s startlingly bold claim in behalf of the Master’s erudition is made in
defiance of the latter’s admission that he never regretted his inability to read the Vedānta
and other scriptures first hand because “scriptures only give hints and therefore it is not
necessary to read a few scriptures.”60 In fact he even exclaimed on one occasion: “Mere
knowledge of Advaita! Hyāk thoo—I spit on it.”61 On the Gītā, his ruling was it need not
be read from cover to cover but its title should be repeated ten times for learning its
essence. He posited that tyāga or renunciation is the essential message of Gītā and this
wisdom would be at once revealed when repeating Gītā the word tyāgī would
automatically be sounded.62 Sadly, in view of his innocence in Sanskrit grammar,
Ramakrishna could not know that the word Gītā, repeated over and over again may sound
tāgī (Gītā reversed) which is nonsensical. Regrettably, the Mahārāj’s vocational
obligations appear to have subverted his otherwise stupendous scholarship in Western
philosophy. His both enterprises are founded upon purposive distortion of the sources for
the sake of presenting a modernized and sophisticated prophetic persona of a simple-
hearted devotee of Kālī and Kṛṣṇa—a classic case of ignotus per ignotius [the unknown

59 The KM records Ramakrishna’s six references to Shankaracharya : 15 June, 22 September, 1883, 2

October 1884, and 11 March,, and 15 March 1886. Of these, five repeat Shankara’s encounter with low
caste people and one March 11,1886) with the Master’s comment that Shankara retained the “ego of
knowledge” (purportedly for purposes of teaching people). From this textual document Ayan Mahārāj
appears to have extrapolated information of Ramakrishna’s philosophy of Scientific Vedānta! For
references to this scholar monk’s work see note 61 below.
60 KM, Vol. 4, p. 191 [GR, p. 587]. Diary of 2 Deceber 1884.
61 KM, Vol. 4, p. 43 [GR, p. 358]. Diary of 23 Deceber 1883.
62 KM, Vol. 3, p. 10 [GR, pp. 104-105]. Diary of 5 August 1882. On another occasion, by way of
debunking rational reasoning, he exclaimed: “Mere reasoning—I spit on it! Saying this he actually
spat on the ground—an incident that has been recorded respectfully by ŚrīM: “The Master emitted
oral nectar [mukhāmṛta]. KM, Vol. 1, p.94 [GR, p. 272. Nikhilananda does not provide the literal
translation]. Diary of 22 July 1883.
 49

by the more unknown]. 63

The question of the Master’s misogyny has been problematic, to say the least. On
the one hand, we have hagiographers simply bypassing the question by emphasizing
instead Ramakrishna’s counseling his followers to regard women as goddess or mother
and his liberality toward stage actresses (generally considered fallen women) and a few
female devotees. On the other hand, we read eyewitness accounts about his treatment of
his own wife (whom he had chosen himself to marry when she was but a six-year old
child) as a cook at best and a housemaid at worst always tending to her husband’s daily
comfort and culinary demands as well as to the victuals for his visitors.64 Her tribulations
were commiserated by the Master’s Brāhmo admirer Protap Mozoomdar (1840-1905),
who was outraged by what he thought the Saint’s “almost barbarous treatment of his
wife.”65 However, the Western educated monk of the Ramakrishna Order Svāmῑ
Nikhilananda (monastic name of Dineshchandra Dasgupta, 1895-1973), a disciple and
biographer of Saradamani, while equally distressed to witness Sarada’s plight, yet
mythicized her condition by observing that “She is in exile, as it were, like Sita.”66
Nevertheless, some postmodern monks of the Order and lay scholars explained away
Ramakrishna’s misogynistic behavior by observing that the saint’s case is not an isolated
example as his behavior in this regard sits four-square in the socio-cultural tradition of
the Hindus. Ironically, such an argument does neither glorify the saint’s inherited
tradition nor wash away his patriarchal condescension as well as contempt for woman as
a sexual being at par with man. 67

Ramakrishna’s Conservative Hindu Consciousness

63 SeeSIL, N.P., Crazy in loveof god, ch. 8; Mahārāj, A., “Ramakrishna’s philosophy of Vijñāna Vedānta”
and “Toward a new hermeneutic of the Bhagavad Gītā.”
64 SIL, N.P., Divine dowager, ch. 6: Saradamani’s maternal triumph.
65 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 129.
66 SIL, N.P., Divine dowager, p. 62.
67 TYAGANANDA, Svāmī, VRAJAPRANA, Pravrājikā, Interpreting Ramakrishna, pp. 239-262.
 50

Surprisingly enough, a most convincing critique of Ramakrishna’s much publicized

slogan yata mat tata path or “as many views so many venues”—that had been
propagandized by Svāmī Vivekananda and perpetuated by the Ramakrishna Order--comes
from an obscure little booklet written by Svāmī Mrigananda, a monk of Śrī Satyananda
Devayatan of Jadavpur on the southern suburb of Calcutta. This is the first ever analysis
of the historicity and real import of this central sermon of the Master. According to him,
Ramakrishna’s noble sermon was not intended to recognize the equal validity of all
religions of the world but was a statement of his realization that the various Hindu
sectarian practices and beliefs were valid pathways to realize the Advaita Brahman or (in
the Master’s personal lingo) Cinmayī Śrīśrījagadambā--the Twice-Blessed Mother of the
Universe Consciousness. 68 The Master had realized this and spoken about it before he
was initiated into Islam by his putative Muslim mentor Govinda Roy, a Hindu of the
Kṣatriya (warrior) caste turned a Sūfī. Even then, on his own admission, Ramakrishna
had developed a disdain for Hindu gods and goddesses because the Hindu divinity would
not be compatible with the Āllāh of Islam. “During that period I used to meditate on the
Āllāhmantra,” the Master deposed, “and used to wear my clothes [dhoti] just like the
Muslims. I used to utter namāj thrice in the evening, and I never had the desire to
genuflect before the Hindu gods and goddesses, nor to have a darśan [view] of these
deities as all Hindu proclivities had vanished from my heart.”69 Ergo, the Islamic path
and the Hindu path do not converge at the realization of one God.70
Similarly, Ramakrishna’s Christian experience inspired by his beholding a
polychrome reproduction of Raphael’s “Madonna and the Child” at the garden retreat of
Yadulal Mallik (1844-98) resulted in his detachment from the Hindu gods. Once again,
Judeo-Christian monotheism was a different spiritual world from the Hindu polytheist
pantheon. In fact, according to the Paramahaṁsa’s disciple biographer Svāmī
Saradananda (monastic name of Sharatchandra Chakravarti, 1865-1927),

68 MRIGANANDA, Svāmī, Yata mat tata path, pp. 9, 16.

69 LP, Vol. 1 [Sādhakabhāva], p. 309.
70 MRIGANANDA, Svāmī, p. 13.
 51

one year after that period [that of Islamic sādhanā], the Master became eager to have a darśan [“sacred
viewing”] of the Twice-Blessed mother of the Universe via another spiritual path. He had just been
acquainted with Śambhucaraṇ Mallik and had learnt about the life of the Twice-Blessed Jīśu [Jesus] and his
sect from him. No sooner had that desire [to learn about Jesus] been kindled in his heart than the Twice-
Blessed Mother of the Universe obliged him by fulfilling it in a wondrous manner. Hence he never had to
make an especial effort in that regard.71

An interesting point of the above quote is that Ramakrishna’s forays into

Christianity were in fact facilitated by the Divine Mother and only in that mood he could
grasp the truth of an alien faith by totally detaching himself from his inherited Hindu
consciousness. Christianity is different from Hinduism, though a Christian experience
(or experiment) is possible only through the magnanimity of the Hindu Mother Goddess.
Thus, concludes Mrigananda, what Ramakrishna is trying to suggest is that all religions
are each a valid pathway to the divine but each demands its adherents to follow it
systematically and sincerely.72 The bottom line is: no one can realize the divine without a
wholehearted absorption in her/his own faith. That is why the Master was helped by the
Divine Mother in his practice of the different paths with a view to proclaiming the
spiritual efficacy of each way. For Ramakrishna, God was really not the same for all.
None could possibly realize Āllāh or Jesus through the Hindu way or realize the Divine
mother or the Brahman through the Islamic or the Christian way.
Ramakrishna remained first and foremost a traditional brāhmaṇ preacher and
teacher who repeatedly expressed his undying faith in traditional Hinduism which he
considered the eternal religion. “The Hindu religion has existed and will exist for all
times,” he declared unequivocally.73 Ramakrishna even succeeded to an extent in
Hinduizing Brāhmoism, Christianity, and Islam. Thus he envisioned Kālī as a naked
Muslim girl wearing a Hindu holy sign (tilak) on her forehead or Jesus as a dignified
elderly male with a flowing beard but a bit flattened (orientalized) nose, or the Divine
Mother as a formless ray of light in order to impress his Brāhmo admirer Trailokya Dev.74

71 LP, Vol. 2 [Gurubhāva: Pūrvārdha], p. 370).

72 MRIGANANDA, Svāmī, Yata mat tata path, p. 20.
73 KM, Vol. 2, p. 185 [GR, p. 642]. Diary of 20 October 1884..

74 KM , Vol. 4, p. 2 [GR, p. 175]. Diary of 1 January 1883; LR, p.255; DEV, T, Atīter Brāhmo samāj, p. 58.
 52

Ramakrishna’s Spiritual and Sexual Consciousness

The interface between sexuality and spirituality in Ramakrishna’s life and teachings has
been explored by two researchers from two perspectives: Narasingha Sil of Western
Oregon University and Jeffrey Kripal of Rice University.75 Ironically, the researches of
Sil, a cultural insider and a native Bengali trained in the methods of historical research,
find nothing particularly spiritual or divine in the Master’s various trances in the available
vernacular sources. Yet his ecstasies, kῑrtans, and dances constituted his primary
attraction rather than his logia which impacted a handful of visitors, most of whom were
barely educated except a couple of graduate householders and traditional paṇḍits.
According to this interpretation, most of such visitors to Daksineshvar apart from the
young boys from the neighborhood hailed from the genteel class (bhadralok) of Calcutta,
though we must not regard all of them as Western educated, elite, alienated intellectuals,
or nationalist patriots. This study sees the Master primarily in human terms and, in the
context of his rustic upbringing, a fun-loving and witty gregarious male who enjoyed
having good time with good food and god-talk with his Calcutta clientele (he had actually
confessed to Kālī to his fascination for recognition from the zemindars of the country (he
meant the urban property holders of Calcutta).76 His professed renunciation of woman as
sexual partner had more to do with his personal psychosomatic condition than with his
putative world-weariness (vairāgya). 77
However, a similar scholarly concern from the Western scholar of religion, Dr.
Kripal, constructed Ramakrishna’s mystical image in the classic mode but modified

75 For a discussion of Ramakrishna’s sexuality (or the lack thereof) see SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god,
chs.3 & 4 as well as KRIPAL, J.J., Kāīs child. Ramakrishna expressed his disgust with both Vaiṣṇava and
tantric sexual rituals as he was contemptuous of heterosexual activities, if not heterosexuality per se.
Amiya Sen’s commendable effort to provide a new interpretation of Ramakrishna’s piety and spirituality as
a ‘‘practical Tāntrik” (much like his famous disciple Vivekananda’s reputation as a “Practical Vedāntist”) is
marred by his tendentious arguments supported by select evidence ignoring those that contradict his
viewpoint (see SEN, A.P., Three essays on Ramakrishna). Jeffrey Kripal’s recent mystical hermeneutic of
Ramakrishna’s tantric ontology is a marvelous mythopoesis rather than a useful reference for anyone
researching the life and teaching of the historical Ramakrishna (see KRIPAL, J.J., Serpent’s gift, ch. 3).
76 KM, Vol. 2, p., 49 [GR, p. 231]. Diary of 4 June 1883.
77 See SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god;
 53

(purportedly to recognize his non-Western cultural milieu) to accommodate another

validation of his erotic spirituality through a tāntric interpretation.78 The outcome of this
strategy has been manifold. Ramakrishna has been made comprehensible to Western
scholars and educated lay readers familiar with the stereotypical understanding of Tantra
as an esoteric erotic cult. He is thus confirmed as a spiritual personality, though of a
troubling sort, because of his heterosexual antipathy and his pedophiliac attitude
explained easily, albeit misleadingly, as his homoerotic consciousness (and even
practice). As it would be hard to come across direct evidence of Ramakrishna’s
homoeroticism in the sources, Kripal confesses that his failure to fathom the meaning of
Ramakrishna’s “physical act of defecation, ecstatic states, and homoerotic desire,” has
prompted him to locate “a pattern, but only a pattern.” He then goes on: “There is no
linear argument [probably meaning rational or deductive reasoning that is called “linear”
in postmodernist lingo] here, no clear-cut revelation. There are only symbolic visions ...
[which] possess definite meaning that can be deciphered.”79 Kripal cites Kakar as his
model and informs how Kakar has made use of Jacques Lacan’s (1901-81)
psychoanalysis (Kakar’s praise for Lacan as a mystic among psychoanalysts has also
been cited to make Lacan an authority on Ramakrishna’s ecstasy). Then Kripal tells us
toward the end of his book that he has indeed used Lacanian psychoanalysis to bring
about a marriage, so to speak, of Tantra and psychoanalysis.80 Regrettably, Dr. Kripal has
fallen into the booby trap of Lacanism and become suspect as a semiotician of the trivial.
Kripal also sees a mysterious (and by the same token mystical) concealment of
“latent or hidden themes that structured much of [Ramakrishna’s] own experience,” a
concealment caused as much by the Master’s own unawareness of it as by his biographer
ŚrīM.81 A powerful defense of Ramakrishna’s homoeroticism has been made (especially

78 See KRIPAL, J.J., Kālī’s child.

79 KRIPAL, J.J., Kālī’s child, p. 296.
80 KRIPAL, J.J., Kālī’s child, pp. 326-327. Lacan’s postmodern polemics couched in scientific jargons have
been severely attacked by two physicists See SOKAL, A., BRICMONT, J., Fashionable nonsense.
81 KRIPAL, J.J., Kālī’s child, pp. 327, 4-7.
 54

in the Introduction to the second edition [1998] of this “classic” study) by proclaiming
the book’s award by the American Academy of Religion, by marginalizing the critiques
of reviewers who are historian by training and familiar with the vernacular sources, 82 and
by pleading that “to call Ramakrishna a homoerotic mystic...is to honor, understand, and
appreciate him” as well as by classifying those who disagree with this interpretation as
homophobes. Finally, by embracing the postmodern contempt for the rational (because it
is Western and hegemonic) Kripal’s study has in fact privileged a totalizing
anthropological-psychological analysis (ironically an intellectual product of the West) as
a valid method for exploring the subconscious of an alien mystic situated in an imaginary
land of symbolism and shadows instead of the concrete world and culture of colonial
Bengal.
The attempt to view Ramakrishna as a holy homoerotic appears to be the
unrealized agenda of Christopher Isherwood (1904-86), a restless and “sex-crazed”
homosexual, who regaled in the male whorehouses of Berlin but hated the Nazis and thus
came to Hollywood to become a yogī.83 It was in California that he hit upon the idea of a
homosexual Ramakrishna about whom he probably wished to write but the project (the
author’s name remains undisclosed by Isherwood) was prevented by Svāmї
Prabhavananda (1893-1976).84 Ramakrishna’s affection for young boys was expressed
mostly verbally, poetically, innocently, and above all, publicly. His making his young
bhaktas massage his leg (not foot), followed the well-known Hindu tradition of gurusevā
(“service to the Master”). Only the wildest imagination devoid of any insight into Hindu
or Bengali culture could conceive of Ramakrishna’s foot as a “mystical phallus” seeking
to explore young men’s genitals—a variant of intercrural sex practiced by gay men.85

82 See ATMAJNANANANDA, Svāmī, “Scandals, cover-ups, and other imagined occurrences in the life of
Rāmakṛṣṇa”; Ray, R.K., “Psychohistory and Ramakrishna”; ROY, T., “Was Kali’s child a man of mystical
and erotic energies?”; OPENSHAW, Jeanne, “The mystic and rustic”; SIL, N.P. “Question of
Ramakrishna’s homosexuality”.
83 PAINE, J., Father India, pp. 209, 199.
84 ISHERWOOD, C., My guru and his disciple, pp. 247-249. See also PAINE, J., Father India.
85 KRIPAL, J.J., Kālī’s child, p. 238; SIL, N.P., “Question of Ramakrishna’s homosexuality.”
 55

Likewise, anyone having some experience with the state of health of average Bengali
villagers (and even city folks) and aware of the chronic alimentary ailments afflicting
people there then (as even now) would find the idea that Ramakrisahna’s excessive
diarrheal or constipating experiences were actually symbolic expressions of the opening
and closing of his anus for accepting or refusing sodomy86 not only incredible, but
outright bizarre. Kripal’s study demonstrates how postmodern concerns have sought to
discover in Ramakrishna a powerful spiritual weapon to further the cause of Western
ideology of human rights for all those hitherto neglected or castigated as deviants.
Ramakrishna’s secret talks [guhyakathā] contained little secrets worth investigating.
The phrase was (and still is) intended to titillate the curiosity of the young and keep them
amused and attracted to their elder but childlike Ṭhākur. In fact, Ramakriashna’s was the
most public life just like that of the medieval European monarchs. He ate, slept, and had
frolics and fun (phackimi) with devotees and admirers and even went to his daily toilets
with a companion. He was never alone. In fact, he was once queried by his village
neighbor and devotee Pratap Hazrā (1846-1900) as to his time for meditation all by
himself.87 As a stereotypical paramahaṁsa he playacted the child and treated everybody
as one.88 In fact, ŚrīM writes that the sweetmeat vendor of his neighborhood was
considered as a paramahaṁsa because he “had a smiling countenance, he sang often, and
was never sad.” 89
The real and purposive concealment of Ramakrishna’s life and teachings may
have occurred with regard to some select but landmark events. I submit that his
encounter with the naked Punjabi monk Īśvar Totapuri leading to Ramakrishna’s Vedantic
enlightenment conceals an ordinary occurrence by fabricating it into a fact of holy
reenactment. As will be discussed (with some unavoidable repetition) in chapters 2 and 3
below, the Master was regarded by his contemporaries as an incarnation of Śrī Chaitanya.

86 KRIPAL, J.J., Kālī’s child, pp. 297, 320.

87 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 82.
88 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, pp. 38-39, 114-115, 149, 176.
89 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 39.
 56

Hence his imitation of Chaitanya’s reported behavior and his hagiographers’ emphasis on
popularizing their Master’s stylized biography. It is known that Chaitanya’s
enlightenment commenced after he had emerged from the grotto of the pious Vaiṣṇava
scholar Ishvarapuri as an intoxicated devotee of Kṛṣṇa and this signaled the beginning of
Cahitanya’s ecstasy for which he became famous subsequently.90 Likewise,
Ramakrishna’s Vedāntin enlightenment, for which he was made famous by Vivekananda,
occurred following his enchanted encounter with the “naked” [nyāṅgṭā] Vedāntic ascetic
Īśvar Totāpurῑ (note the same first name “Iśvar” and the suffix “purῑ” for Chaitanya and
Ramakrishna’s mentors) at Panchavati (the grove in the compound surrounding the
Dakşiṇeśvar temple). After the Totapuri phase Ramakrishna’s experience of the highest
form of trance, the nirvikalpa samādhi, received wide publicity.91
The odyssey of Kālī’s child will not be properly grasped unless we look into the
fate of the Divine Mother Kālī—the Śakti—to whom the saint surrendered like a helpless
kitten and whom his disciple Svāmї Vivekananda invoked for the uplift of colonial India.
The Goddess has been fiercely appropriated by feminist scholars and activists and taken
as the archetype of the eternal, unbridled, spontaneous, and autonomous sexuality of
femina perennis, the eternal female, vanquisher of the parasitic and passive male, and
even progenitor of the Hindu trinity, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Maheśvara—-the primordial
male gods of the canonical tradition. Then, with the advent of the electronic age since the
late eighties and the early nineties of the past century, the Bengali Magna Mater has been
transformed into a pretty and lusty beast of the East--a naked damsel with sexy
Mediterranean features including enormous breasts and six hands (in place of her iconic
representation with four hands) holding various sex toys (instead of weapons and severed
human heads) and masturbating with an oversize dildo, instead of copulating with Śiva.92
The displacement of the deity from her original abode in the cremation ground of Bengal
to the American cyberspace and her transformation from a terrible and yet tender hearted

90 STEWART, T., “When Rahu devours the moon, pp. 222-223.

91 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, ch. 6.
92 See McDERMOT, R., “Kālī’s new frontiers and SIL, N.P., “Status of Kālī in American academia.”
 57

mother into a terrific kāminī [lusty woman] would have been unrecognizable to the
kāminī-fearing Master and his disciple Vivekananda. Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and the
Goddess Kālī have been re-imagined and re-imaged by their modern creators in the world
at large under the spell of a new mantra—postorientalism.93

2. RAMAKRISHN AND

93 See also SIL, N.P., RISA communicatio

 58

MARTIN LUTHER94

Maṇi [ŚrῑM]: “I suppose the three men—Jesus Christ, Caitanyadev, and yourself—are one and
the same person.”
Śrῑrāmakṛṣṇa: “Yes, it’s the same, same, truly the only one. Don’t you notice He (God) dwells
in it?” Thus saying, the Master pointed to his own body as if to imply that God has incarnated
in his person.
KM, Vo. 3, p. 211 (GR, p. 825). Diary of July
28, 1885.

Prolegomena
This chapter begins with two events occurring in South Asia and Central Europe—late
colonial Bengal in what would shortly be the British Indian Empire and Electoral
Saxony in the Holy Roman Empire—in two distinct and distant time periods. In 1856
at the newly built shrine of the Goddess Kālī at Daksineshvar, an obscure suburb of
north Calcutta, a twenty-year old nearly crazy Brāhmaṇ priest, presumably naked, was
seen trying to offer ritual food to the deity while feeding a feline and cajoling the stone
idol to eat. On another occasion, he was seen placing the ritual food in the mouth of
the idol and then biting part of the sacred food himself and again trying to feed the
image. 95 Sometimes he would hug the idol or climb on its shoulders or hold jocular
tête-à-tête with the idol of Śiva lying prostrate under the deity’s feet. Though the
temple owner Rasmani and her shrewd manager Mathuranath were initially
scandalized by the report of the shocking behavior of the temple priest, they later came
to terms with it deeming it an act of intense devotion. 96 He thus continued in temple
service with impunity as dismissing him would severely handicap the low caste (Śudra
caste of Kaivarta, that is, the caste of fishermen or farmers) owner and manager in
procuring another Brāhmaṇ priest to perform the daily worship of the temple deity.

94 Earlier
versions of this chapter were presented at the Scocial Science Seminar, Western Oregon
University (25 February, 2009) and at the Department of History, Calcutta University (17 September
2009). I thank Professors Mark Henkels of Western and Arun Bandyopadhyay of Calcutta for their
generous invitations.
95 LP,
Vol. 1[Sādhakabhāva], p. 121; BARMAN, G., Śrīrāmakṛṣṇacarit. In CHATTOPADHYAYA, R. (Ed.),
Hārāṇo kathā, pp. 146-341, here at p.163.
96 MITRA, S. Rāmakṛṣṇa, pp. 75-76.
 59

This eccentric and nonchalant priest is the young Gadadhar of Kamarpukur village.
Almost 350 years earlier, sometime around 1507-8, in the little university town of
Erfurt in the Electoral duchy of Saxony, Holy Roman Empire, a manic depressive but
stupendously gifted young monk named Martin Luther (or Luder), while reading at the
choir of the Augustinian monastery Christ’s cure of a young man possessed by a dumb
spirit in the Gospel of Mark (9:14-29), suffered a sudden seizure, raving and roaring
like a raging bull: “Ich bin’s nit” “Ich bin’s nit ”—“it’s not me” “it’s not me.” He had
so identified himself with the bedeviled youth of the Gospel that he turned maniacally
fearful of devil’s possession of his soul and so sought to deny his identity to save
himself from the wrath of God.97
These two instances from across time and space illustrate two radically
different experiences of human-divine encounter—in the case of Hindu Ramakrishna
an affectionate filial relationship between man and his maker while in Christian
Martin’s case a moral-legal relationship between a judge and a sinner. Although
comparison, especially facile comparison, could often be invidious, Ramakrishna’s
life, spiritual struggle, and teachings yet offer multiple parallels as well as significant
contrasts with those of the early modern German theologian Martin Luther. Both men
were born in an agrarian society—Gadadhar in Kamarpukur village in a peasant
priest’s family and Martin in the home of a modestly well-off copper miner turned
businessman of the town of Eisleben, Saxony.98 Both sought to establish direct liaison
with God, albeit in their respective culturally determined way, and both struggled to
overcome their human frailties and faults. Both also made a major impact on their
societies in a critical period of transition—Luther at the onset of early modern times in

97 ERIKSON, E. H., Young man Luther, p. 92. This “fit in the choir” episode might be a fabrication of
Luther’s adversary and hostile biographer Johannes Cochlaeus (1479-1552), who was chaplain to Duke
George of Albertine Saxony (1471-1539), cousin of Friedrich III the Wise, duke of Electoral Saxony
(1463-1525). See ROPER, L., “Martin Luther’s body,” p. 379.
98 “Iam a peasant’s son, and my father, grandfather, and great grandfather were all common peasants,”
Luther reminisced. LUTHER, M. Table talk, p. xxv. It should be noted here that Luther’s Table talk
[Tischreden] recorded by the Zwickau pastor Conrad Cordatus (1480-1546) has it analogue in
Ramakrishna’s logia recorded by his disciple Mahendranath Gupta or ŚrīM (1854-1932) in KM.
 60

western and central Europe triggered by the Renaissance Humanism and Ramakrishna
at the advent of modernity in colonial Calcutta inspired by the Bengal Renaissance.
And yet the puzzling irony of this comparative analysis is that both were so dissimilar
in their personal background, attitude to human sexuality, understanding of divinity,
and social consciousness.

Luther’s Devil and Ramakrishna’s Evil

Both Luther and Ramakrishn have been credited and discredited respectively with
miraculous birth, the former (b. 10 November 1483) as an offspring of the Devil, while
the latter (b. 17 February 1836) reputed to be conceived by a divine source or force. As
Ramakrishna’s mother Chandramani confessed, she felt herself heavy (pregnant)
following the forcible penetration of a draft of wind emanating from the Śiva liṅgam in
the temple sanctum she had visited for purposes of worship. At this time Chandra’s
husband Kshudiram had been away from home traveling to Gaya, a holy place in Bihar,
eastern India.99 The story of Ramakrishna’s “immaculate” conception has been
propagated by his devotees and disciples probably with a view to bringing his birth at
par with the Christian theology of Immaculate Conception and thereby establishing
Ramakrishna’s divine connection. The remarkable account of Luther’s mysterious birth
was popularized by his opponents, in particular by Johannes Cochlaeus. According to
this story, Martin’s mother Margaretha (Hanna) Luder née Lindemann (d. 1531), a bath
maid at Eisleben, was impregnated by the Devil and Martin was begotten as a result of
this ghastly union. Hence, though really human, Martin Luther was but a child of Satan
—in Cochlaeus’s idiom, “the seven-headed dragon,” interestingly somewhat akin to the

99 Thestory of Ramakrishna’s miraculous birth comes from his personal deposition, as we learn from
BARMAN, G., Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇacarit. In CHATTOPADHYAYA, R. (Ed.), Hārāṇo kathā, pp. 145-341.
Barman’s work was editorialized by Śvāmī Saradananda (premonastic name Sharatchandra Chakravarti,
1865-1927).
 61

ten-headed demon king Rāvaṇa of the Hindu epic Rāmāyaṇa.100 Thus we have both
men born mysteriously but affected differently—the Saxon an abject victim of salacious
canard of his adversaries and the Bengali an object of awe of his admirers.
In spite of such superficial resemblance (miraculous birth) and, as will be seen later,
stark contrast between the lives of both individuals, there is yet a tantalizing similarity
in their exertion for moral purity and holiness. Both Martin and Gadadhar were assailed
by an ontological guilt complex. Luther, we are told, was constantly fighting his devil,
lust, the sin of Adam, in order to make himself worthy in the eye of God. A powerful
argument has it that the Satan in fact contributed significantly to the ultimate resolution
of Luther’s spiritual crisis and thus to his theology of cross that was inspired by his
awareness of the diabolical presence of the power of anti-good and anti-God Satan. As
Heiko Oberman observes,
there is no way to grasp Luther’s milieu of experience and faith unless one has an acute sense of
his view of Christian existence between God and the Devil without a recognition of Satan’s
power, belief in Christ is reduced to an idea about Christ—and Luther’s faith becomes a
confused delusion in keeping with the tenor of his time.101

To the Devil’s demand that Luther acknowledge the “fact” that he was a sinner, the
reformer would declare at the resolution of his existential-spiritual struggle that, indeed,
he was one, but he was also a sinner who knew that all his sins belong to Christ. “This
wonderful gift of God I am not prepared to deny (in my response to the Devil), but want
to acknowledge and confess,” he averred. 102

100 COCHLAEUS, J., Septiceps Lutherus cited in OBERMAN, H., Luther, p.4. See aldo BROOKS, P.N.,
Seven-headed Luther. Though Cochlaeus accepted Peter Sylvius’s canard of Luther’s devilish origin he did
express some doubt about its veracity in his Commentaria de actis scriptis Martini Lutheri (1534-1549).
Nevertheless, “he remained convinced that as a destroyer of the Church and the German nation, Luther was
and agent of Satan himself.” WEIDERMANN, G., Cochlaeus as polemicist, p. 198.

101 OBERMAN, H., Luther, p. 104.

102 OBERMAN, H., Luther, pp. 105-106. For a psychological analysis of Luther’s spirituality see
ERIKSON, E.H., Young man Luther and an anthology devoted to a critique of Erikson see JOHNSON,
R.A., Psychology and religion. See also SIL, N.P., “Luther, Erikson, and History.”
 62

Ramakrishna constantly professed his ongoing struggle against his twin

external devils, kāminī-kāṅcana [lust and lucre], and an internal devil, the pāpapuruṣa
[sinner man or homo peccator] within him in order to realize the divine. He strove to
overcome the former while, to his utter relief, he had a vision of the pāpapuruṣa—“a jet
black person with red eyes and a hideous appearance”—emanate from his body and
killed by another apparition also coming out of his body, manifesting a veritable sang-
froid—“a serene person clad in ochre-colored robe holding a trident” 103—most probably
Ramakrishna’s intended vision of Śiva, his divine father. As to kāṅcana, literally gold
and symbolizing lucre, he had little qualms in leading a comfortable life or even buying
personal property or gold ornament for his wife, while making a public confession of
his adverse physical reaction at touching coins or sermonizing on the sheer
worthlessness of money: “money-mud, mud-money” [tākā māṭi, māṭi tākā].104 . Far from
being a case of Ramakriahna’s unique demonstration of aversion to riches, this was a
well-known medieval practice of the Hindus—“an application of the Shankara Vedāntic
formula of Brahman satyam jaganmithyā [“Brahman is real and the world an illusion”]
to acquire absolute indifference to the temptations of worldly wealth.”105

Luther’s Spiritual Crisis and its Resolution

The story of how Luther and Ramakrushna arrived at a resolution of their
respective spiritual crisis offers striking parallels. Actually Luther’s career in religion
was inspired not by any premeditated decision thoughtfully arrived at, but literally by
a concatenation of accidents. A brilliant student since his childhood, Luther obtained
the Magister Artium in 1505. Then he turned toward the study of law in April 1505, as
his father Hans Luder (1459-1530) had wished. However, during the middle of the
spring semester of Luther’s first term at the law school in Erfurt he suddenly dropped
out and entered the Order of St. Augustine (354-430) close to the university, on 17

103 LP, Vol. 1 [Sādhakabhāva], p. 128.

104 LP, Vol. 1 [Sādhakabhāva], p. 158; KM, Vol. 4, p. 255 [GR, p. 845]. Diary of 2 September 1885)
105 PAL, B., Bjay Krishna Goswami, 29.
 63

July 1505 to train as a monk. As Luther explained later, his change of mind was
prompted by his obligation to honor his vows made to St. Anne (the presiding saint of
the Saxon copper miners as well as the grandmother of God) and Virgin Mary in 1503
and 1505 respectively. On both occasions he had confronted deadly situations and
sought protection from these divine figures.
He was ordained a priest at the monastery on May 2, 1507 and in the
same year was selected by his prior Johannes von Staupitz (1460-1524) to study
theology.106 In Erfurt the Augustinian Hermits had introduced for their members a
course of studies that included the works of a number of scholars belonging to the
fourteenth-century via moderna, the last major school of medieval scholasticism. The
via moderna debunked Thomas Aquinas’s (c. 1225-74) via antiqua with its
recognition of reason as an ally of faith and instead contended, following the
Nominalist philosopher William of Occam (c. 1285-1347), that God’s existence and
attributes “can be proved in theology only under the supposition of faith.”107 Luther
was deeply influenced by the Nominalist theologian of Erfurt Johann Wessel Gansfort
(c. 1419-89), whose letter of 1489 to Jacob Hoeck condemning the practice of
indulgence, read in 1522, prompted him to exclaim: “If I had read this before, it could
well have left the impression with my enemies that I copied everything from Wessel—
so much are our two minds at one.”108 However, Augustine’s corpus proved to be
Luther’s most cherished intellectual and spiritual pabulum. As he would aver in the
Preface to his German Theology (1516): “No book except the Bible and St. Augustine
has come to my attention from which I have learnt more about God, Christ, man, all
things.”109
From fall 1508 to fall 1509 Luther was sent by Staupitz to the newly
established (in 1502) university at Wittenberg, where the latter was a professor of

106 HILLERBRAND, H.J. (Ed.), Reformation, p. 25.

107 OCCAM, W. Quodlibeta cited in SKINNER, Q., Foundation of Political Thought, Vol. 2, p. 24.
108 Cited in OBERMAN, H., Forerunners of Reformation, p. 18;
109 SKINNER, Q. Fountations of political thought, vol. 2, p. 26.
 64

theology.110 At his request Luther took up a temporary lecturer’s position to teach

Nicomachaean Ethics (350 BCE) of Aristotle (384-22 BCE). He was, however,
getting more interested in studying theology rather than philosophy. In one of his
classes at Wittenberg he remarked that theology “penetrates to the kernel of the nut,
the germ of the wheat, and the marrow of the bones.”111 In 1509 Luther was called
back to Erfurt to lecture on Peter Lombard’s (c.1100-60) Sentences (c. 1150). He
accompanied an older fellow friar on a trip to Rome in winter 1510/11, where the latter
was engaged by his order to settle some business with the curia.112 In the summer of
1511 Luther moved to Wittenberg where he received the special license to become a
candidate for the doctorate on October 4, 1512. He obtained the doctorate on October
19. Two days later he was formally received into the Senate of the Faculty of
Theology. He began teaching the Bible (Genesis) in the early hours of the morning of
Monday, October 25.113
He also continued his
ascetic practices, prayers, and penance to earn the righteousness demanded by his God
as well as his search for certainty of God’s merciful judgment. He tried all the means
at his disposal to pacify his troubled conscience. His Occamist studies taught him that

110 TheUniversity of Leucorea (Greek for German Witten Berg meaning “White Mountain”), funded
primarily by Duke Frederick III Electoral Saxony.
111 Cited in KITTELSON, J.M., Luther the reformer, p. 67.
112 Lutherhad accompanied his cohort at Erfurt to Rome on a business affecting the Saxon Augustinian
orders that had been undergoing some reforms. Stuapitz wished to unite the Saxon monasteries with a
group of Augustinian monasteries in Lombardy, Italy with a view to gaining papal privileges that would
free his monastery from Episcopal control like the Lombard orders. Staupitz’s plan was opposed by the
Erfurt monks who did not wish to join the unreformed Itaian monasteries. They selected Luther and
another monk, Johann Nathin, to appeal to the Archbishop of Magdeburg. The Archbishop denied the
appeal whereupon the Erfurt monks sent Luther to appeal to the Augustinian minister general in Rome.
Here also the appeal was denid. Luther sided with Staupitz. In order to protect the young monk from the
wrath of the disappoibted Erfurt brothers, Staupitz ordered him to Wittenberg to teach theology there.
113 KITTELSON, J.B., Luther the reformer, p. 85. It should be noted here that Luther did not write a
dissertation for his doctorate. His learning observed in classroom discussion and his debates were admired
by his teachers such as Dr. Martin Mellerstadt (d. 1513), the Leipzig physician and the rector of
Wittenberg. He was thus recognized for the ranks of the Doctor. See MELANCTHON, P., “Life and acts
of Luther.” In KEEN, R., Luther’s lives, p. 7.
 65

man’s salvation was simply the arbitrary choice of God.114 In order to overcome his
spiritual conflict he began practicing the rigors of monasticism all the more
vehemently. As he recalled:
In the monastery, I did not think about women, or gold, or goods, but my heart trembled, and
doubted how God could be gracious to me. Then I fell away from faith, and let myself think
nothing less than that I had come under the Wrath of God, whom I must reconcile with my
good works.115

He felt alienated from his God and underwent an “agonizing struggle”—Anfechtung,

or in Latin, accidie, depression and despair.116 From the winter semester of 1513-14 he
was engaged in reading, research, and reflection, concentrating primarily on the Bible
and the Augustinian corpus—a study that would continue until 17 November 1545.
The reading and re-reading of the Psalms with their familiar phrase in
justitia tua libera me [“emancipate me in your justice”] disturbed Luther profoundly.
He had been convinced that any meeting of his sinful self with God would result only
in a catastrophic confrontation. Following multiple readings the monk noticed
Christ’s Anfechtung on the cross in the twenty-second Psalm: “My God, My God, why
have You forsaken Me?”117 Why did a pious and pure personality like Jesus suffer
from Anfechtung? The only answer must be that he had taken to himself the sin of
man. Instead of a terrible judge on the rainbow Luther beheld a bleeding Christ on the
cross. This new view of Christ was also a new view of God. The divine pantocrator
now appeared as a God of mercy. Thus Luther read St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans

114 TheOccamist school specializing in Nominalism is named after the English logician and Franciscan
friar Wiliam of Occam. Luther’s Nominalist mentors at Erfurt were Jodocus Trutvetter of Eisenach (d.
1519), rector of the university and a veritable doctor erfordiensis, and Bartholomew Arnold of Usingen (c.
1465-1532), a noted humanist, under whom Martin studied the quadrivium: geometry, mathematics, music,
and astronomy, and additionally, Aristotle’s philosophy.
115 Cited in RUPP, G., Luther’s progress, p. 29.
116 BAYER, O., Luther’s theology, p. xiii; see also PEARSON, C., “Line upon line.” In BROOKS, P.N.
(Ed.), Seven-headed Luther, p. 304. For an analysis of Anfechtung see MCFARLAND, Kathy, “The
Importance of Luther’s Anfechtung Testing.”
117 TheBook of Psalms or Psalter, containing 150 hymnic verses written over a period of over 800 years,
has been the chief hymnal of Jews, and subsequently, of Christians. Psalm 22, generally attributed to David
(1040-970 BCE), has been interpreted by Christian Church as a revelation of Christ to David in the latter’s
own time of troubles. The first line of the Psalm is reported by the Apostle Matthew to have been repeated
by Jesus on the cross (Matt.27:46).
 66

1:17: “The justice of God is revealed there, from faith to faith, as it is written. The just
man liveth by faith.” 118 Luther saw the absentee deity, who had tormented him so long,
become a revealed God in the scripture—the Word become Flesh—through
intellectual reflection and mystical imagination. Overwhelmed by this epiphany the
monk wrote in ecstatic joy:

Now I felt as though I had been reborn altogether and had entered Paradise. In the same
moment the face of the whole of Scripture became apparent to me. My mind ran through the
Scriptures, as far as I was able to recollect them, seeking analogies in other phrases, such as
the work of God, by which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, by which he makes us
wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.119

Ramakrishna’s Spiritual Crisis and its Resolution

Ramakrishna’s early manifestation of spirituality was predicated on his losing
consciousness temporarily. He earned respect and accolade of his neighbors for what
was widely believed to be a rare spiritual performance—his unpredictable lapses into
samādhi—temporary loss of consciousness—since his childhood.120 Following his
father’s death in 1852, Gadādhar accompanied his elder brother Ramkumar to Calcutta
where the latter had taken up part-time jobs as priest in several households in the
northern part of the city. Ramkumar also started a ṭol or catuṣpāṭhī [traditional
institution teaching Sanskrit grammar and religious literature]. Gadai took the priest’s
chore thereby enabling his elder brother to concentrate on the ṭol. Here he elicited the
attention and adoration of the women of the neighborhood for his melodious voice and
friendly disposition. He, of course, remained impervious to education, as usual. His
ingenious plea in this respect was his protestation that he was not interested in a
priestly training for the sake of bundling up prasāda of rice and banana [cālkalā-
bāṅdhā vidyā].
Sometime in 1856, the two brothers were introduced to the owners of the

118 St.
Paul (or Saul), a Jew of Tarsus (c. 5-c. 67), quotes the Hebrew prophet Habakkuk’s (c. 7th century
BCE) dictum: “The just shall live by faith” (Habakkuk 2:4).
119 HILLERBRAND, H.J., The Reformation, p. 27; see also HOFFMAN, B.R., Luther and mystics.
120 LP, Vol. 1[Sādhakabhāva], pp., 44, 48, 53.
 67

Kālī temple at Daksineshvar, who were looking for a priest for their newly founded
temple (1855). Their low caste status was a hindrance to obtaining the services of a
Brāhmaṇ priest, but Ramkumar, pressed by the Rāṇī’s solicitations as well as by his
personal need for an income to maintain his family, agreed to accept the priest’s job. 121
After his sudden death Gadadhar was approached by the temple manager Mathuranath
who had been impressed by the young man’s devotion for the River Ganges (Hooghly
River), his expertise as a clay modeler, his musical skill, and above all, his charming
personality. Though thus importuned (he had no desire to work as a priest) he, being
totally innocent of ritual worship, needed to be initiated into the Kālī mantra by an
experienced priest.
However, when his initiator Kenaram Bandyopadhyay (1832-1928)
whispered the sacred mantra into Gadadhar’s ears, he instantly gave out a loud scream
and leapt on the idol of Śiva (lying at the feet of the Goddess) and squatted on it. 122
The maverick pūjārī showed his indifference to rituals as he was by nature averse to
any disciplined routine and he began to treat the stone idol as a living and loving
mother and hold conversations with it. Gadadhar probably figured out a strategy to
prove that he was so intimate with the Goddess that he did not have to follow any
ritualized worship. He thus made use of his repertoire of song, samādhi, and
unabashed unconventionality. The outcome of his apparently creative deviancy was
that he came to be regarded as a wacky holy man who had special access to divinity.
There is, however, a dubious (albeit popular) account of Ramakrishna’s
experience of epiphany. We are told by his disciple biographer Svāmī Saradananda that
the Master’s desire to meet his Mā (the Divine Mother Kālī) was so vehement that
once he flung himself violently on the ground, rubbing his face against it and filling all
corners with piteous wailings. He took no notice of the fact that his whole body was

121 Ramkumar was introduced to Rasmani by his village acquaintance Maheshchandra Chattopadhyay, a
clerk working in Rasmani’s estate. LP, Vol. 1[Sādhakabhāva], p. 74.
122 BARMAN, G., “Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇacarit.” In CHATTOPADHYAYA, R. (Ed.), Hārāno kathā, p. 163.
 68

cut, bruised, and bloodied.123 The Svāmї cites Ramakrishna’s personal recollection of
the incident:

I suffered intolerable agony for not being able to meet my Mā….I became very restless and
feared that I might never realize her in this life….Life seemed not worth living. Suddenly my
glance fell on the scimitar that was kept in the Mother’s sanctum. When resolving to put an
end to my life just then I jumped up like a madman and seized it, suddenly Mā revealed
herself wonderfully and I fell down unconscious….I felt a dense flow of bliss I never
experienced [before] as I realized Mā’s revealed presence….I beheld an infinite effulgent
ocean of consciousness. As far as I could see, the glittering billows were rushing at me in
great speed from all sides with a terrific roar, to swallow me up! Soon they fell upon me and
pulled me somewhere down below. I panted for breath, and collapsed, unconscious. I had no
idea of what was happening in the world outside, but inside me there was a steady flow of
undiluted and unprecedented bliss and I felt the presence of the Divine Mother.124

Ramakrishna’s realization of the Divine Mother was clearly visual, rather

than visceral, more magical and anagogical, and, a la recent scientific research,
neurological, than metaphysical or metaphorical. What is not so clear is the
authenticity of the report of his experience. In fact his diarist ŚrīM had no clue as to
its veracity. 125 Ramakrishna’s clear admission “once I had a mental derangement and I
attempted to slash my throat with a knife” makes the entire incident a veritable
hagiographical fabrication.126
Puzzlingly, even after his vision of the Goddess Kālῑ, Ramakrishna
complained to his Brāhmo visitor Trailokyanāth Dev that he was harassed by that
deity, who for a long time had been giving him a run around without pointing to the
right path. That is why, he said further, he had stopped visiting the sanctum and seeing
the effigy of the Goddess. He even called her “śālī” [somewhat akin to “bitch” in the
Western sense]. This attitude of the Master betrays his intimacy with the Goddess as
his boon companion as well as a mother figure. Ramakrishna’s belittling an idol also
could be his way of appropriating (that is, realizing) the Brāhmo concept of abstract

123 LP, Vol. 1[Sādhakabhāva], p. 131.

124 LP,Vol.1 [Sādhakabhāva], pp. 113-14. For a discussion of the veracity of this account see SIL, N.P.,
Crazy in love of god, ch. 8.
125 BHATTACHARYA, A., ŚrīMar jīvandarśan, p. 232.
126 MAJUMDAR, R. (Ed.), Rāmakṛṣṇer ātmakathā, p. 81.
 69

(nirākāra) Godhead such as Brahman with a view to endearing himself to his visitor.
In fact he told Trailokya that one night he was summoned by a voice to go to the bank
of the Ganges where he beheld an “unprecedented lighted apparition” filling his “soul
[prāṇman] with a blissful ray.” This was believed to be a perfect Brahman (or
Brāhmo) vision, and quite appropriately, Ramakrishna’s Brāhmo visitor was awestruck
and considered the paramahaṁsa a great man and a fully realized yogī [yogasiddha
mahāpuruṣ].127

Luther the Man of God and Ramakrishna the Godman

A most profound disparity between Luther and Ramakrishna is that the latter was
regarded by his devotees and admirers and above all by himself as God in human
form. The idea of a human being, the descendant of Adam as God, would have struck
Luther with horror. This difference is as much personal as cultural. A devout and
learned Christian, Luther believed in God’s immanence as well as transcendence.
According to him, there is only one being who is simultaneously fully human and
fully divine, and he is the second person of the Holy Trinity—Jesus son of God—and
the rest of the lesser beings descending from Adam and Eve may harbor God in the
interiority of their heart through faith but can never arrogate themselves to divinity.
Luther had little patience with the idea of direct personal, not to mention sensory,
experience of the divine. For him, God was the inscrutable other marked by absolute
righteousness as well as gratuitous mercy as contrasted with the finite and frail
humans. He regarded himself as but a “miserable pygmy” whom God has “deigned to
join … as a forsaken man bleeding and dying on a cross.”128 (Strohl 2003, 151). In
other words, Gadādhar was a Godman, an iśvarakoṭī [one on the level of the
divine],129 whereas Martin a man of God and a religious reformer.

127 DEV, T., Brāhmo samāj, p. 57.

128 STROHL, J.E., “Luther’s spiritual journey.” In McKIM, D.K. (Ed.), Cambridge companion to Luther, p.
151.
129 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, ch. 3.
 70

The two men also diverged in their individual intellectual background

and in their social ideas. Luther was a trained theologian and an intellectual as well as
a social activist. He was quite self-conscious about his university education. His
Doktoratsbewusstsein [doctor(ate) consciousness] obliged him to expound “the
Scriptures for all the world and teaching everybody.”130 He was not only a prolific
writer—his total oeuvres comprise over one hundred volumes—he was also deeply
and regularly involved in community work. As early as 1512 he reflected on his busy
life in Wittenberg in a letter:

It almost seems that I need two secretaries or scribes, for I do nothing all day but write
letters…I am preacher at the convent and reader during meals. I am also daily in demand as
preacher in the parish church, regent of studies, and vicar of our order. This entails the
supervision of eleven convents. I also administer the fish pond at Leitzkau and administer the
Herzberg affairs at Torgau. I lecture on Paul and collect material for a lecture on the Psalms.
In addition, there is my correspondence which, as I already mentioned, consumes the greater
part of my time. Rarely do I have time for the prayers of the breviary or for saying mass. And
besides all that I have to contend against the temptations of the flesh, the world, and the devil.
There you see what a lazy-bones I am.131

Gadadhar was sent by his father to the village school but there the boy
earned his teacher’s kudos not for his studies but for his songs and talent for
playacting and mimicry. In fact, he was often requested by his teacher to mimic his
style of teaching. Reportedly, he participated in a debate with some paṇḍits and
priests on the scriptures and provided such a powerful commentary on complex
scriptural questions that everyone was awestruck by his beauty and intellectual acuity.
However, he did never learn arithmetic because of his aversion to career oriented
education. Also, as noted earlier, he never studied at his brother’s ṭol in Calcutta, but
became very popular with the neighborhood women for his charming voice and
visage.
Svāmī Prabhananda tries to explain away the Master’s indifference to
formal learning and argue for his real knowledge of the divine arcana nonetheless.

130 GERRISH, B.A., “Doctor Martin Luther.” In BROOKS, P.N. (Ed.), Seven-headed Luther, p. 6.
131 Cited in HILLERBRAND, H.J. (Ed.), Reformation, p. 26.
 71

However, the Svāmῑ foregrounds the Master’s penmanship, melodious songs, and
sweet manners and talks as evidence of his scientific attitude [vaijṅānik driṣṭibhaṅgī]
as well as his monumental [sumeruvat] intellectual power. 132 Ramakrishna’s favorite
disciple and his veritable Saint Paul Svāmī Vivekananda declared: “It takes many,
many births to reach the pinnacle of a single bhāva [ecstatic state]. Our Master, the
prince of the bhāva realm, realized eighteen such states.”133 The Paramahaṁsa’s other
hagiographers have written about his magical power by which he subdued a couple of
leading theologians such as Padmalochan Tarkālaṅkār, the court scholar of the
Mahārājā of Bardhaman and the tantric scholar Paṇḍit Gaurikanta Tarkabhūṣaṇ of
Indesh. He secretly removed Padmalochan’s sacred brass cruet and napkin, his
magical accessories to his forensic powers, and thus stole his scholarly wind so to
speak and the Tarkālaṅkār declared the Master an incarnation of God.134 Gauri Paṇḍit
called for a public debate to test Ramakrishna’s spiritual knowledge before he could
acknowledge his incarnation status or identity. A seasoned debater, Gauri entered the
arena selected for the debate uttering “hā ré ré ré” (a ritual noise of wrestlers before
the commencement of fight), whereupon Ramakrishna uttered those syllables more
loudly than his contestant. This yelling duel went on for a couple of times and at the
end the Tarkabhūṣaṇ yielded to the Paramahaṁsa in view of the latter’s louder
scream.135
Ramakrishna had his own method of “studying” the scriptures. As he
said, “many believe that one cannot learn without reading books. But hearing it is
better than reading and seeing is even better than hearing as [for example] reading

132 PRABHANNDA, Svāmī, Ānandarūp Rāmakṛṣṇa, pp. 19-55.

133 MUKHOPADHYAY, J. “Rāmakṛṣṇa o navajāgaraṇ.” In VS, p. 154).
134 LR, p. 162).
135 LP,
Vol. 2 [Gurubhāva-Uttarārdha], pp. 36-37. There is another account by a contemporary biographer
claiming for Ramakrishna’s superiority over the Prophet Mohammed (570-632) as a spiritual personality.
The evidence adduced by the author is that although both the boy Gadadhar and Mohammed lost
consciousness while beholding the appearance of Great Energy [Mahāśakti] in the firmament, Gadadhar’s
mouth was dry while Mohammed’s frothy. MITRA, S., Rāmakṛṣṇa, p. 18.
 72

about Kāśī [Varanasi], hearing about [Kāśī] and seeing Kāśī are not the same.136 “A

mere scholar without discrimination and renunciation,” he observed, “has his attention
fixed on kāminī and kāṅcana.”137 He of course provided a powerful account of his
real knowledge. As he deposed:
Though I read nothing myself…I have heard the Vedas, the Vedānta, and the Darśanas, and
the Purāṇas from good and reliable scholars. Having heard them and understood what they
contained, I made a garland of them with a string and hung it around my neck and offered it at
the lotus feet of the Mother [Goddess Kali] saying, “Take all your scriptures and Purāṇas. Just
give me pure devotion. 138

Reportedly, the Goddess Kālῑ taught him that “the essence of the Vedānta is that
Brahman is real and the world an illusion.”139 The Goddess famously helped the
Master decipher the meaning of an apparently complicated Sanskrit śloka he was
asked by his devotees Adhar and Mahimacharan.140
Actually, Ramakrishna was acutely conscious of his lack of education in
the urban society of Calcutta where he was gaining recognition as a living Godman for
his dances, trances, and amusing talks. He once confessed to his devotees candidly: “I
am unlettered and yet educated people come here. How amazing! You must admit that
it is the play [lila] of God.” 141 “Does he call me a jṅānī [a knowledgeable and wise
person],” the Master once asked ŚrīM to find about one skeptical visitor named
Tejcandra Mitra. 142 At another time he asked his devotee: “Is there any resemblance
between me and a scholar or a monk?” He was delighted to hear M’s reassuring
response: “God has fashioned you with his own hands. He has made others

136 KM, Vol. 1, p. 216 [GR, p. 863]. Diary of 22 October 1885.

137 KM, Vol. 2, p. 45 [GR, p. 228]. Diary of 2 June 1883.
138LP, Vol. 1[Gurubhāva-Pūrvārdha], p. 67.
139 KM, Vol. 4, p. 175 [GR, p. 544]. Diary of 19 September 1884.

140 MITRA, S. Rāmakṛṣṇa, pp. 131-133.

141 Cited in DIWAKAR, R. Paramaham sa Sri Ramakrishna, p. 204.
142 KM, Vol. 3, p. 100 [GR, p. 662]. Diary of 9 November 1884.
 73

mechanically, as everything else, according to law.”143 He explained his erratic

ecstatic behavior as a special case for Īśvarakoṭis [those on the level of the divine]
bhāva. 144 He was almost dumbfounded when Ashvinī Kumar Datta (1856-1923), a
distinguished intellectual and patriot from eastern Bengal, was asked to give his
preference between Ramkumar of Kotrang and Ramakrishna of Daksineshvar as a
scholar and stated that there could be no comparison between them as Ramkumar was
a scholar whereas the Paramahaṁsa was not. Only when he was told that though not
a scholar like Ramkumar, he was a fun loving fellow, did the Master regain his usual
affable self and remark with a smile: “Well said! Well said!” 145
He was glad and gratified to learn from Vivekananda that according to
the Scottish philosopher Sir William Hamilton (1788-1836), “a learned ignorance is …
the end of philosophy, as it is the beginning of theology.” 146 In fact Vivekananda
himself provided a powerful testimony to his guru’s profound learning. In his letter to
his monastic brother Svāmī Ramakrishnananda (premonastic name Shashibhusan
Chakravarti, 1863-1911) from the United States (1895), Vivekananda wrote: “His
[Ramakrishna’s] life alone made me understand what the Shastras really meant, and
the whole plan and scope of the old Shastras.”147 The ebullient Svāmī even claimed

that “basketfuls of philosophical books can be written on each single sentence spoken

143 KM, Vol. 3, p. 34 [GR, p. 261]. Diary of 21 July 1883.

144KM, Vol. 4: p. 191 [GR, p. 587]. Diary of 2 October 1884.
145 LR, pp. 406-407.
146 KM,
Vol. 1, p. 101 [GR, p. 278]. Diary of 19 August 1883; see also HAMILTON, Sir Wiliam,
Metaphysics, Vol.1, p. 4.
147 VIVEKANANDA, Svāmī, Patrāvalī, p. 341. English as in original.
 74

by the Master.”148

Luther the Learned Theologian and Ramakrishna the Realized Saint

Another fundamental difference between Luther and Ramakrishna has to do with the
methods and sources of their spiritual insight. Luther’s “discovery” of the power of
fides, that is, his solifidianism, was as much intellectual as existential, even
revolutionary. His “Reformation Discovery [God is absolutely sovereign as well as
bestower of grace to sinful creatures] was first of all a hermeneutic insight,” Markus
Wriedt has written. 149 However, for Oswald Bayer, Luther’s theological insight could
also transcend intellection. Thus, pace Luther, the righteousness of faith is passive “in
that we allow God alone to work in us and we ourselves, with all our powers, do not
do anything.” Faith being the work of God can only be received and suffered. Faith
thus constitutes, as Bayer has it, “not knowledge and not action, neither metaphysical
nor moral, neither vita activa, nor vita contempletiva, but vita passive.”150
Ramakrishna’s emphasis on devotion to and love of God [premabhakti or
parābhakti] was derived not from reading or reflection on the relevant scriptures but
from his inherited heterodox bhakti culture of the Vaiṣṇava sects such as the
Kartābhajās, Sahajiyās, or Bāuls as well as from his boyhood memories of the
recitations of the kathaks (reciters of religious lores and legends). According to him,
his God realization was due to his inner illumination, vijṅāna [real knowledge],

148 Vivekananda’s letter to his friend Haramohan Mitra (b. c. 1862) sometime in the late 1880s cited in LP,
Vol. 1 [Gurubhāva-Pūrvārdha]. It is puzzling as well as painful to note how Indian historians make the
quasi literate Ramakrishna a learned theologian with incomprehensible disregard of the common canons of
scholarship as well as common sense. See, for example, MUKHOPADHYAY, A., “Śrīrāmakṛṣṇer
āvirbhāver tātparya” and MUKHOPADHYAY, J., “Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa o navajāgaraṇ.” In VS, pp. 141-152 and
153-176. See also the most aggressive and astonishingly native and nonchalant attempt to demonstrate the
Master as an adept in Sanskrit and the śāstras in MAHĀRĀJ, “Ramakrishna’s philosophy of vijnāna
vedānta” and “Toward a new hermeneutic of the Bhagavata Gītā;” SEN, A., “Ramakrishna, Kathamrita and
the middle classes.” In Postcolonial studies, pp. 165-177 and “Ramakrishna and middle-class religion.” In
PATI, V. (Ed.), Issues in modern Indian history, pp. 100-120.

149 WRIEDT, M., “Luther’s theology.” In McKIM, Donald K. (Ed.), Cambridge companion to Luther, p.
91.
150 BAYER, O., Luther’s theology, p. 43.
 75

claimed to be superior to book learning, jṅāna. He insisted that he “was not in the
least sorry” for not being literate enough to study the Vedānta and other scriptures.151
He justified his scriptural innocence by arguing that “scriptures merely
give hints and therefore it is not necessary to read a few scriptures.” He exclaimed on
one occasion: “O Mā! Mere knowledge of Advaita! Hyāk thoo—I spit on it!!” [Mā!
Śhudhu Advaita jṅān! Hyāk thoo!!]. 152and on another similar context actually spat on
the floor denouncing rationality. He further observed: “A mere scholar without
discrimination and renunciation has his attention fixed on woman and gold” [Śhudhu
paṇḍit, vivek vairāgya nāi—tār kāminī kāṅcané najar thāké.]. Even bhakti or devotion
is not efficacious if it is “tinged with knowledge.” 153 Though Ramakrishna’s concept
of “realization” [upalabhdi] of the divine and vijṅān might agree with Luther’s idea of
theology as an experiential wisdom [sapientia experimentalis],154 we never get to learn
any depth or details of Rāmakṛṣṇa’s spirituality since our only source in this regard
remains eyewitness reports of his casual conversations and amusing didactic tittle-
tattle.
On the other hand, even a cursory reading of Luther’s Ninety-five Theses
(October 31,1517) inviting an academic debate on the sale of indulgences; Resolutions
(1518), that is, transcripts of disputation at Heidelberg (March 26, 1518); interview
with the papal legate Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetanus (Cajetan, 1469-1534)
(October 12, 1518); debate with the Ingolstadt theologian Johann Eck (1486-1543) at
Leipzig (July 4-13, 1519); The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ: Against
the Fanatics (1526); and above all, his celebrated treatise The Freedom of a Christian
(November 20, 1520), demonstrate his erudition and forensic skill (energized by his
humanistic learning and readings of the patristic corpus as well as Occamist
philosophy and German mystical literature) about the efficacy of faith and his

151 KM, Vol. 5, p. 191 [GR, p. 587]. Diary of 2 December 1884.

152 KM, Vol. 4, p. 43 [GR, p. 358]. Diary of 23 December 1883.
153 KM, Vol. 2, p. 45 [GR, p. 228]. Diary of 2 June 1883.
154 BAYER, O. Luther’s theology, p 30.
 76

insistence on the duties for a Christian. He repudiates the rigid Catholic morality on
the basis of the righteousness of faith and asserts that “a Christian is a perfectly free
lord of all, subject to none” and, at the same time, “a Christian is a perfectly dutiful
servant of all, subject to all.” He cites Paul’s dictum “Owe no one anything, except to
love one another” (Romans 13: 8) to conclude that “Love by its very nature is ready to
serve and be subject to him who is loved.” 155
By contrast, Ramakrishna exhibited his utter uneasiness while paying a
visit to Ishvarchandra Vidyāsāgar (1820-1891), a renowned Sanskrit scholar and social
reformer.156 He also found it embarrassing and problematic dealing with
Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay (1838-94) and could only impress the intellectual with
his dances and trances.157 His situation became truly pathetic when he came face to
face with Michael Madhusudan Datta (1824-1873), the flamboyant and the most
celebrated poet of the time. The paramahaṁsa failed to converse, lost consciousness,
and upon waking up sang a few airs dedicated to the Goddess Kālῑ.158 His plight
before the famous scriptural scholar Paṇḍit Shashadhar Tarkacūḍāmaṇi was revealed
in his effort to impress the great scholar with his tales and talks. He, however, brought
Shashadhar under control by his samādhi and song and later boasted about his
conversations with the Tarkacūḍāmaṇi by remarking how that “dry” scholar had been
“diluted” and humbled.159 In his characteristic way Ramakrishna overwhelmed a
reputed Vaiṣṇava paṇḍit of Kalna, eastern Bengal, Bhagavandas Bābājī, by standing
naked in front of the latter and rebuking him sharply for his presumption to teach
people.160

155 HILLERBRAND, H.J., Protestant Reformation, p. 33.

156 KM, Vol. 3, pp. 6-7, 10 [GR, pp. 100-102. 104]. Diary of 5 August1882.
157 KM, Vol. 5, p. 205 [GR, p. 673]. Diary of 6 December1884.
158 LP, Vol. 2 [Gurubhāva-Uttarārdha], p. 85.
159 KM, Vol. 3, p. 90 [GR, p. 488]. Diary of 30 June1884.
160 AKSAYCHAITANYA, Chaitanya o Rāmakṛṣṇa, pp. 132-33.
 77

Luther’s Activism and Ramakriahna’s Quiescence

For Luther, a Christian’s soul (“spiritual, inner, or new man”) “needs only the word of
God for its life and righteousness, so it is justified by faith alone and not any
works.”161 However, even though “a person is abundantly and sufficiently justified by
faith inwardly, in his spirit…yet he remains in this mortal life on this earth…[where]
he must control his body and have dealings with others. Here the works begin.” As
Luther explains, “a person cannot be idle, for the need of his body drives him and he is
compelled to do many good works to reduce it to subjection. 162 He proclaims further:
“The world would be full of worship if everyone served his neighbor, the farmhand in
the stable, the boy in the school, maid and mistress at home.”163 In one of his famous
Invocavit sermons delivered at Wittenberg (March 9-17, 1522) Luther proclaimed:
“Dear friends, the kingdom of God, and we are that kingdom, does not consist in talk
or words but in activity, in deeds, works, and exercises. God does not want hearers
and repeaters of words but followers and doers, and this occurs in faith through
love”164 As Robert Fischer observes, for Luther “the Christian life is a life in
community” and his “faith thus is no unbridled spiritual individualism.” 165
Nevertheless, “the works themselves do not justify him before God, but he does the
works out of spontaneous love in obedience to God.” Thus Luther concludes contra
Aristotle’s notion that good works make a good man: “Good works do not make a
good person, but a good person does good works.”166 As Hillerbrand observes,
“Luther’s tract aimed to show how a vibrant and dynamic faith makes this

161 HILLERBRAND, H.J., Protestant Reformation, pp. 33, 35.

162 HILLERBRAND, H.J., Protestant Reformation, pp. 46-47.
163 LINDBERG, C., “The Ecumenical Luther: The Development and Use of His Doctrinal
Hermeneutic.” In McKIM, D.K., Cambridge Companion to Luther, p. 166.
164 HILLERBRAND, H.J., Protestant Reformation, p. 61.
165 FISCHER, R.H., p. 78.
166 HILLERBRAND, H.J., Protestant Reformaion, p. 47.
 78

possible.”167
Ramakrishna adamantly opposed working for a living or doing social
work because, as he believed, these were distractions for man whose sole purpose and
exertion ought to be the realization of the divine. When he came to know that his
devotee Nityaniranjan Ghosh (later known as Svāmī Niranjanananda, 1862-1904) had
obtained an employment, he felt aggrieved and was heard to say, “I feel more pained
to hear that he had taken up employment than if I had heard of his death.” 168 He
thought the Vidyāsāgar was merely wasting time trying to reform society.169 When his
patron Śambhucaraṇ Mallik (d. 1877) decided to build hospitals, dispensaries,
schools, roads, and public reservoirs, his Master admonished him: “You should
discharge only those obligations which come first and are absolutely unavoidable—
and that too in a spirit of detachment.” He advised a Brāhmo devotee: “It is not good
to be involved in too many projects. You will forget God that way.” “You people talk
of doing some good for the world. Is the world a small place?” Ramakrishna asked
his audience angrily. “And who the hell are you to do some good for the world? Meet
him [God] by means of spiritual discipline. Realize him if he gives you strength, then
you can benefit everybody; otherwise not.”170
In similar vein he admonished Krishnadas Pal (1839-84) who dared to
posit that the proper goal of human life should be to exert for the betterment of the
world. The Master quipped irritatingly that Pal was a nitwit possessing the intelligence
of a whore’s son [“rāṅḍīputī buddhi”].171 On another occasion he exclaimed:
“Compassion for living creatures! Compassion for living creatures! Get the hell out,

167 HILLERBRAND, H.J., Protestant Reformation, p. 32: editor’s introduction to The Freedom of a
Christian; see also STROHL, J.E., “Luther’s spiritual journey.” In McKIM, D.K., Cambridge companion to
Luther, pp.149-64.
168 LP, Vol. 1 [Sādhakabhāva], p. 93.
169 KM, Vol. 1, p. 89 [GR, p. 267]. Diary of July 1883.

170KM, Vol. 1, pp. 50-51 [GR, p. 142]. Diary of 27 October 1882.

171 KM, Vol. 5, p.168. Appendix [Pariśiṣṭa]; see also KM, Vol. 2, p. 157 [GR, p. 605]. Diary of 11October
1884.
 79

you bugger! A tiny worm you dare show your kindness for the living creatures! No,
no, not compassion, but service to them as if they are gods!”172 However, in his
meetings with devotees and visitors, Ramakrisahna would have little qualms
contradicting himself if only to insinuate his intimacy with the divine. He is reported
to have supplicated the Goddess Kālῑ: “O Mā! Please save me from this blissful state
(samādhi). Let me remain in my normal mood so that I could do more good for the
world.” 173 Ramakriahna’s personal preference was extreme quiescence in all aspects of
life except thinking and talking about God. As to assuming the role of a preacher or
teacher he confessed to Keshab Sen that he was not interested in lecturing to people.
“l’ll eat, sleep, and shit, and that’s all. I can’t do any other things” [“Āmi tomār
khābo-dābo thākbo, āmi tomār khābo śhobo ār bāhyé yābo. Āmi o-sab pārbo-ni”], he
added emphatically.174

Luther the Married Monk and Ramakrishna the Married Celibate

172 LP,
Vol. 2 [Ṭhākurer Divyabhāva O Narendranāth], p. 240. Ramakrishna, however, literally ordered his
wealthy patron and devotee Manilal Mallik to build a pond in the village of his beloved devotee Rakhal
(Brahmananda). KM, Vol. 2, p. 27 [GR, p. 202]. Diary of 8 April 1883. Dr. Rajagopal Chattopadhyaya
argues convincingly that the Master’s phrase “Śivajñāne jīver sebā” [service to liing crearues regarding
them as God] is a fabrication and interpolation by Saradananda. Ramakrishna never used it nor is it
mentioned anywhere in the KM. CHATTOPADHYAYA, R., Mythmukta Vivekānanda, pp. 52-53.
173 MUKHOPADHYAY, J., “Rāmakṛṣṇa o navajāgaraṇ.” In VS, p. 163.

174 KM, Vol. 1, p. 261. Appendix, ch. 2 [GR, p. 1022]. Undated letter from Ashvinikumar Datta
[1856-1923] to Śrī M. The Brāhmo Samāj movement had been started by Rājā Rammohan Ray
(1772-1833) as a reformist, enlightened, and Unitarian version of the Hindu religion. Their confession
of faith is enshrined in the Samāj’s Trust Deed (January 1830). According to it, the Brāhmos worshiped
Brahman, “the Eternal Unsearchable and Immutable Being who is the Author and Preserver of the
Universe.” They excoriated Hindu idolatry and caste system, though their sacred scripture was the
collection of Hindu philosophical treatises known as the Vedānta and the Upaniṣads. The real organizer
of the movement was Maharṣi Devendranath Tagore (1817-1905), the scion of the house f Tagore at
Jorasanko, Calcutta, and father of the poet Rabindranath (1861-1941). In 1868 Keshabchandra Sen
deparated from Tagore’s Brāhmo Samāj and thereafter the Brāhmo movement was split into Ādi
[“Original”] Brāhmo Samāj led by Tagore and the Brāhmo Samāj of India or Navabidhān or the New
Dispensation Society of the Brāhmos under Sen. A further schism took place in 1878 after Keshab, in
violation of Brāhmo canons, had married his underage dauther off to a wealthy faily of Cochbihar.
Now Sen’s New Dispensation was separated from a new splinter group called Sādhāraṇ Brāhmo Samāj
or the General Brāhmo Samāj. Despite these internal dissensions, “the immediate effect of the Brahmo
movement in Bengal was the checking of the prostytizing activities of the Christian missionaries.”
NIKHILANANDA, Svāmī, “Introduction” to GR. See also DASGUPTA, S., Bengal Renaissance, ch.
3.
 80

Following the resolution of his spiritual dilemma, Luther abandoned the monastery in
1524, married a former nun (Katharina von Bora, 1499-1552) on June 13, 1525, and
led a most contented family life. He in fact maintained that human sexuality is a gift
from God. “Whoever is ashamed of marriage is also ashamed of being and being
called human, tries to improve on what God has made,” Luther averred.175 He loved
the simple pleasures of life. He would have avoided the later Puritans with horror and
disdain. He was noted for his physicality, especially “the materiality of his body.” In
a letter of February 1, 1546 to his wife, the dying reformer unabashedly admitted to
“his inability to be sexually aroused by the sight of prostitutes and blamed Jews for his
illness.”176 Though as a trained monk Luther could consider “sex as sinful…he
nonetheless had a remarkably frank attitude toward it, and to flesh itself.” Thus he
could assert “If you want to reject your body because snot, pus, and filth come out of
it, you should cut your head off.” 177 He loved his wife, sired six children, and raised a
number of nieces and nephews and maintained a large and busy household comprising
servants, university students, and very often guests from out of town—a noisy and
crowded homestead—an unlikely abode for a famous theologian.178 Despite his
multiple health problems and physical discomfort (especially constipation and kidney
stone), he lived a contented conjugal life, happily surrounded by students, professors,
admirers and followers.
For his time, Luther had an elevated estimation of women. He declared
unequivocally: “One has to have women. If one did not have this sex, womankind,
housekeeping and everything that pertains to it would fall apart; and after it all worldly
governances, and order. In sum, the world cannot dispense with women even if men
by themselves could bear children.”179 He could very well have sung the popular

175 OBERMAN, H.A., Luther, p. 272.

176 ROPER, L., “Martin Luther’s body,” p. 353. Emphasis added.
177 ROPER, L., “Martin Luther’s body,” p. 383.
178 ROBINSON, P., Luther, pp. 78-79.
179 KARANT-NUNN, S. & WIESNER-HANKS, M., (Eds.), Luther on women, p. 125.
 81

German couplet “Who loves not women, wine, and song will stay a fool his whole life
long.”180 His encouragement for women’s active role in the life of the church elicited a
bitter invective from his contemporary Catholic scholar and his hostile biographer
Cochlaeus:

Lutheran women, with all womanly shame set aside, proceeded to such a point of
audacity that they have even usurped for themselves the right and office of teaching
publicly in the Church, despite the fact that Paul openly speaks against this and
prohibits it. Nor were they lacking defenders among the Lutheran men, who said that
Paul forbade the right of teaching to women only in so far as there were sufficient men
who knew how to teach and were able to do so. 181

After his vision of the Goddess, his realization of the divine,

Ramakrishna continued to caution his young devotees, those pure souled
[śuddhasattva] boys, against marriage and encourage them to lead an ascetic life.
Though himself a married man, he dreaded and despised the idea of or a suggestion
for consummating his marriage. As he confessed to his physician Dr. Sarkar: “If my
body is touched by a woman I feel sick. The touched part aches as if stung by a horn
fish” [“Strīlok gāyé ṭheklé asukh hai; yekhāné ṭheké sekhānṭā jhan jhan karé, yena
śiṅgi mācher kāṅṭā biṅdhlo”].182 He was paranoid about procreating children. 183
Ramakrishna thus remained a married celibate. He also harbored a misogynistic
attitude toward women—quite typical of his class and caste in his time. According to
his niece Laksmimani Ghatak (1863-1926), her uncle strongly objected to his brother
Rameshvar’s (1825-1873) installing a window facing the street at the latter’s home lest
the women of the family might be attracted to or even seduced by good looking men
passing by. He was suspicious of young mendicants taking advantage of young
women. He even frowned upon his wife Saradamani’s (1853-1921) closeness to his

180 OBERMAN, H.A., Luther, p. 310 Luther maintains that this saying does not exist in Luther’s writings.
181 COCHLAEUS, J., Deeds and writings of Dr. Luther. In KEEN, R., Luther’s Lives, p. 2.
182 KM, Vol. 2, p. 231[GR, p. 965]. Diary of 22 April 1886.
183 GAMBHIRANANDA, Svāmī, Holy mother, p. 34.
 82

nephew Hriday who, reportedly, plucked some grey hair from her head at her
request.184

Luther and Ramakriahna: Somatic Consciousness

Unlike Ramakrishna and the stereotypical saints and clerics noted for their emaciated
frame as renunciants and austere ascetics, Luther’s somatic solidity was projected by his
admirers as a magisterial reformer like the massive Moses (1513-14) sculpture by the
Renaissance artist Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564) or the magnificent Henry VIII
as in Hans Holbein’s (c. 1465-1524) popular portrait. In a significant way, moreover,
Luther’s monumental stature made him like a Renaissance St. George, the vanquisher of
the dragon-like devil, “the most embittered enemy of the human being, who attacks
and oppresses … human beings … everywhere.” 185 In fact, as Lyndal Roper observes
astutely, Luther’s “monumentality [was] part of the positive image of Lutheranism.” It
was also meant to project a preternatural powerful patriarchal figure—an amazing
amalgam of the spiritual and the somatic.186
Even though Ramakrishna claimed to be a chubby and cuddly child in his
younger days who was completely possessed by the Divine Mother,187 he grew to be a
sickly male suffering from chronic alimentary ailments (due perhaps to his unbridled
gluttony) and nervous disorder, manifested in his frequent bouts of samādhi or seizure.
The description of his physique as sabal o suṭhām [“strong and well-built”] by his
admirers is a well-intentioned hyperbole at best.188 He also appeared to be a victim of
functional impotence such as premature and involuntary ejaculation, exacerbated, most
probably, by ritual masturbation in his youth.

184 See SENGUPTA., K., “Laksmimani Devi.” In CHATTOPADHYAYA, R. (Ed.), Hārāno kathā, 536-38).
185 BAYER, O., Luther’s theology, p. 210. As Beyer points out, “there is hardly a page in Luther’s works
where Luther does not do battle against the devil.” “Luther’s theology,” p. 210. See also ROPER, L.,
“Martin Luther’s body,” pp. 371-10. Even his portrait of earlier years by Lucas Cranach the Elder
(1472-1533) shows him as a “gaunt, hollowcheeked” but powerfully built young man. .
186 ROPER, L., “Martin Luther’s body,” p. 361.
187 KM, Vol. 4, p. 201 [GR, p. 593]. Diary of 5 October 1884.
188 PRABHAANDA, Svāmī, Antyalīlā, Vol. 1, p. 129.
 83

As one can glean from the aging Ramakrishna’s account of his weird
[adbhut] God-vision [īśvardarśan] of a naked boy paramahaṁsa emerge from his body
and Ramakrishna deriving great amusement touching [the boy’s] penis [Ekjan nyāṅgṭā
saṅgé saṅgé thakta—tār dhané hāt diyé phackimi kartum. Takhan khub hāstum. E
nyāṅgṭo mūrti āmāriy bhitar theké beruta. Paramahaṁser mūrti,--bālaker nyāy].
Moments later, he related that during his Tantra sādhanā [Tantric ascetic practices] under
the bel [aegel marmelos] tree he felt an irresistible impulse for worshipping the boys’
cocks with flower and sandal paste [Beltalāy anek tantrer sādhanā hayechila….Sei
abasthāy cheleder dhan phul-candan diye pūjā nā karlé thākté pārtum nā].189
Nikhilananda) omits parts of the sentence). Less than two weeks earlier, he had spoken
about his mad state as a paramahaṁsa, when he worshipped his own phallus by
decorating it with a pearl, deeming his own organ as Śivaliṅga [phallic icon of Lord Śiva]
something he confessed being unable to do now [“Yakhan unmād hala, śibliṅga bodhé
nijer liṅga pūjā kartām. Jībanta liṅgapūjā. Ekṭā ābār muktā parāno hato. Ekhan ār
pārinā”].190
According to Ramakrishna’s wife Saradamani, her husband “suffered very
much from digestive disorders at Daksineshvar and said ‘Pooh! The stomach is a store of
filth which keeps on flowing out!’” “All this made the body repugnant to him,” she
continues, “and he took no further care of it.”191 Ramakrishna’s diarist ŚrīM as well as his
acquaintances such as Shivanath Śāstrī, Protap Mozoomdar (1840-1905), and
Keshabchandra Sen considered his body “naturally frail,” “pitifully pale and shrunken,”

189 KM, Vol. 4, pp. 231-32. [GR, pp. 813-14]. Diary of 15 July 1885.
190 KM, Vol. 4, p.106. [GR, p. 491]. Diary of 3 July1884. Nikhilananda omits a complete sentence in his
translation). I consider the reference to “pearl” something quite an unlikely object for the poor rustic boy
to come by as a hagiographical artifice to transform what cold actually have been the case—a drop of
semen teased out of the penis through manipulation.
191 GAMBHIRANANDA, Svāmī, Holy mother, p. 35. This flatly contradicts Romain Rolland’s observation
that Ramakrishna was “very particular about perfect health.” ROLLAND, R., Prophets of India, p. 180
note 17.
 84

and “delicate.”192 Saradananda writes that “the Master’s body became very tender like
that of a child or a woman” as a result of his frequent ecstatic states.193 Ramakrishna’s
most popular photograph shows his pronounced gynecomastic development, that is, quite
well-formed and firm breasts. Vivekananda’s younger brother Mahendranath Datta, who
had seen his Paramahaṁsamaśāi [Mr. Paramahaṁsa], remarked about some men
harboring “both male and female features—beard as well as breasts—in the same
body.” 194 Ramakrishna quite candidly described his feminine behavior and attitude.195 In
fact, he considered “effeminate and clumsy movements” as the hallmark of
paramahaṁsa behavior.196 His androgynous attitude, as the Indian psychiatrist Sudhir
Kakar observes, illustrates “the respect and reverence Indian society pays to the
ontogenetically motivated, religiously sublimated femininity in a man,” and
Ramakrishna’s behavior, “when viewed culturally and historically, [is] an accepted,
representative phenomenon in the tradition of Krishna worship.”197
Ramakrishna maintained that “knowledge of Brahman is impossible
without the destruction of body-consciousness.”198 He in fact regarded his own body as
quite separate from the Self.199 There is a vague parallel between Ramakrishna and
Luther in this respect. Luther maintains that “the Spirit cannot be with us except in
corporeal things such as the Word, water, and Christ’s body and in his saints on earth,”
though he also believes that “there are spiritual and fleshly acts, not spiritual and fleshly

192 ŚĀSTRĪ,S., Racanāsaṁgraha, Vol. 1, p. 98; DIWAKAR, R., Ramakrishna, p. 266; KM, Vol. 5, pp.
9-10. Diary of 2 April 1882. Translation of this diary appears in GR, p. 464 with another date:25 June
1884.
193 LP, Vol. 1 [Gurubhāva-Pūrvārdha], p. 193.
194 DATTA, M., Rāmakṛṣṇer anudhyān, p. 149.
195 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 40.
196 KM,Vol. 2, p. 67 [GR, p. 297]. Diary of 26 September 1883; Vol. 2, p. 14 [GR, p. 188]. Diary of 11
March 1883; Vol. 4, p. 214 [GR, p. 798]. Diary of 13 July 1885.
197 KAKAR, S., The inner-world, p. 112.
198 KM, Vol. 1, p. 141 [GR, p. 468]. Diary of 25 June 1884.
199 KM, Vol. 4, p. 26 [GR, p. 870]. Diary of 23 October 1885.
 85

things.”200 Curiously enough, Ramakrishna disparaged and debunked his own physicality
but claimed to have real-ized the abstractly conceived divinities such as Brahman and
Saccidānanda or the anthropomorphic gods Kālῑ and Kṛṣṇa as well as prophets such as
Christ, Chaitanya, or Muhammad as material and physical human beings conversing,
cavorting, or playing with them. He stated firmly: “It is my nature to see the form of
God, to touch and embrace Him. God is saying to me ‘You have assumed a body;
therefore enjoy God through His human form.”201 He saw Kālīi’s “entire form as She

spoke to him and directed him in his daily work.” He even “saw Her partake of the food
even before it was offered ritually. Formerly, he regarded the stone image of Kālī as

possessed of consciousness; now the image disappeared, and in its stead there stood the
Living Mother Herself, smiling and blessing him. ‘I actually felt her breath on my hand,’
the Master used to say later on.”202 Reportedly a male God laughed and played with him,
popped his knuckles, and “then He talked.”203
We are told that “during his practice in Islam the Master first had the
vision of an effulgent, impressive personage with a long beard”—presumably Āllāh or
Mohammed of popular Hindu imagination.204 Seeking identification with Gautama
Buddha (563-483 BCE), he wanted his disciple Narendranath to tell him about the
Buddha’s teachings. After listening to his disciple’s peroration he came out with a
single query: whether Narendra had seen a tuft of hair on the Buddha’s head. Then he
inquired about the Buddha’s eyes and was told that they were fixed.205 Likewise, upon
beholding a reproduction of Raphael’s Madonna and the Divine Child (1505) at his
patron Yadulal Mallik’s home, Ramakrishna had a vision of Jesus come out of the

200 Cited in EDWARDS, M.U., Suermerus, p. 141. In BROOKS, P.N., Seven-headed Luther, pp. 123-146.
201 KM, Vol. 5, p. 122 [GR, p. 432]. Diary of 24 May 1884.
202 LR, p. 75.
203 KM,Vol. 4, p. 238 [GR, p. 830]. Diary of 9 August 1885.
204 LP, Vol. 1 [Sādhakabhāva], p. 309.
205 KM, Vol. 3, p. 257 [GR, p. 949]. Diary of 9 April 1886.
 86

canvas and enter his body. 206 To his query about Christ’s physical features he was told
that as he was of Jewish extraction he must have been fair complexioned with large eyes
and an aquiline nose. Whereupon the Master remarked: “But I saw that his nose was a
bit flat—who knows why!”207 The Semitic (or, as in popular polychrome, European)
features of Jesus was thus modified if he was to be identified with his Bengali
incarnation!
Reportedly, Ramakrishna’s idiosyncratic somatic insights accounted for
his ability to discern human character. He in fact claimed to possess an expertise in
some sort of moral phrenology. Thus he could figure out the maternal and moral
potential of a woman, particularly a widow, by the size of her breasts (in Saradananda’s
lexicon, “ye indriyabiśeṣer sahāyye ramaṇīgaṇ mātṛtvapadagourab lābh kariyā thāken,
tāhār bāhyik ākār” [the outward shape of that particular organ with the help of wgich

women acquire the glory of motherhood] ) and buns or by the style of her hairdo.208 In
his ecstatic state he once had as vision of a prostitute aged “about forty” or “thirty-five”
with enormous buttocks lifting her sārī squatting with her back on him and “pooping

profusely and noisily,” thus signifying to him the truth that occult powers are nothing
but whore’s shit.209 But he acquired a reputation for the magical power of his touch.
His touch was reputed to function as a cleanser and purifier of men’s mind and
vision. 210 Aksay Sen (nicknamed Śāṅkcunni or female goblin) created the popular
mythology of the Master as the saint whose touch tamed turbulent souls such as the
college educated young skeptic Narendranath, the arrogant Paṇḍit Shashadhar, the
famous Brāhmo leader Keshab Sen, or the flamboyant and temperamental playwright

206 KM, Vol. 3, p. 212 [GR, p. 826]. Diary of 28 July 1885.

207 LR, p. 255.
208 LP,
Vol. 2 [Ṭhākurer Divyabhāva O Narendranāth], p. 163; KM, Vol. 5, p. 46 [GR, p. 240]. Diary of 10
June 1883).
209KM, Vol. 3, p. 140[GR, p. 745]. Diary of 12 April 1885; KM, Vol. 4, p. 261 [GR, p. 871]. Diary of 23
October 1885.
210 GR, p.47: Nikhilananda’s Introduction.
 87

Girish Ghosh.211 Ramakrishna, however, was quite disinclined to demonstrate that he

could overcome the pain from his cancerous throat by projecting his concentrated
thought on it. His reason was that his mind was too preoccupied with the thoughts of
Saccidānanda to be diverted to his body that was a “dilapidated cage of bone and
flesh.”212
Ramakrishna’s ascetic identity was predicated upon his public expression
of contempt for carnality. As he stated: “I see the body to be like a pumpkin with the
seeds scooped out. Inside this body there is no trace of passion or worldly
attachment.”213 He disparaged lust through his plea for eschewing kāminī-kāṅcana that
became the leitmotif of his spiritual and moral sermons. For him, the female body is
made up of nothing but “such things as blood, flesh, fat, entrails, worms, piss, shit, and
the like.”214 Interestingly enough, he created a very personalized moral anatomy of the
female physique indicative of women’s sexual proclivities such as their oversize
breasts and bulging buttock (steatopydia). 215 A contemporary account describes
Ramakrishna’s sexual arousal after staring at the curves of a full-figured young
woman on the bank of the Ganges in wet sārī through which “the beauty of her body

had become acutely accentuated [soundaryer prakharatā vardhita]” and then his
bolting back to the temple like a madman and praying to the Goddess Kālī to calm

him down. 216 It is to be noted that in the GR the phrase kāminī-kāṅcana becomes a
veritable cantus firmus occurring about 224 times with twenty-one references to sex
and sexual organ.217
He also claimed to have an insight into men’s mental attitudes and their

211 SEN, A. Rāmakṛṣṇapuṅthi, pp. 3ff.

212 KM, Vol. 2, p. 115 [GR, p.550]. Diary of 21 September 1884.
213 KM, Vol. 2, p. 237 [GR, p. 969]. Diary of 21 April 1886.
214 KM, Vol. 3, p. 19 [GR, p.113]. Diary of 24 August 1882.
215 LP, Vol. 2 [Ṭhākurer Divyabhāva o Narendranāth], p. 163.
216 MITRA, S., Rāmakṛṣṇa. In CHATTOPADHYAYA, R. (Ed.), Hārāṇo Kathā, p. 85.
217 WHITMARSH, K., Concordance.
 88

character by studying their physical features. As he said: “I can see everything in

people’s mind like articles in a glass case.” 218 Thus “a fraud has a heavy hand. A flat
nose is not good. Pigeon-breast is not a good sign. The same goes for one who is bony
with protruded elbow-joints and unshapely hand, and having light brown eyes like a cat’s.
Mean nature is marked by lips shaped like a ḍom’s” [a ḍom belongs to the scavenger caste
in Hindu society]. He had little qualms in considering his patron Shambhu Mallik a
crook because his nose was flat. He also suggested that a circumcised penis, like that of a
Muslim, is a sign of bad character. 219 The Master took special interest in examining the
chests and even the genitals of a few devotees and at least in one instance the chest of the
Brāmo leader Devendranath Tagore at the first meeting.220

Luther and Ramakrishna: Scatology

Both Luther and Ramakrishna bore the distinct stamp of their unsophisticated rustic
characteristics. Both had a penchant for scatology in their expression—words such as
shit, piss, fart, wit of a whore’s son, swine, ass, and the like. “But if that is not enough
for you, you Devil,” Luther roared at the Satanic fiend in his celebration of Christ as
the bastion of Christianity, “I have also shit and pissed; wipe your mouth on that and
take a hearty bite.” He regarded a slanderer as the Devil incarnate and hurled his
verbal venom at him. “A slanderer does nothing but ruminate the filth of others with
his own teeth and wallow like a pig with his nose in the dirt. That is also why his
droppings stink most, surpassed only by the Devil’s.” 221

On hearing that a pastor of the Ādi Brāhmo Samāj (founded by

218 LP, Vol. 1 [Gurubhāva-Pūrvārdha], p. 78.

219 KM,Vol.4, pp. 206-207 [GR, p. 597; Nikhilananda omits the reference to Muslim’s penis]. Diary of 5
October 1884.

220KM, Vol. I, p. 177 [GR, p. 651].Diary of 26 October 1884; LP, Vol. 2 [Ṭhākurer Divyabāva o
Narendranāth], p. 166; GHOSH, G., Rāmakṛṣṇa, p. 191; see also pp. 79-80, 184-186.

221 Cited in OBERMAN, H. A., Luther, p. 107.

 89

Devendranath Tagore) had married for the second or third time, Ramakrishna called
him a “shit guru” [“hego guru”] and his flock “gassy disciples” [“pedo śiṣya]. 222 He
once admonished an unsuspecting young man who refused to wash his feet after the
toilet: “If I pee standing, you buggers have to do it dancing around. You must do my
bidding for your own good” [“āmi yadi dāṅḍiyé muti, to śālārā pākdiyé mutbi”]. 223
He was so irritated by some educated and independent minded Brāhmo women
visitors “talking like men” that he burst out: “When I see your behavior and hear you
speak, I feel that God had made a terrible mistake. It would have been proper for him
to have endowed you with penis rather than vagina.”224 Ramakrishna in fact
considered curse words [“kheyuḍ” or “khisti”] as meaningful as the Vedas and Pūrāṇas
and was particularly fond of performing japa [ritual counting of rosary] by muttering
the word “cunt.” He told his devotees: “The moment I utter the word ‘cunt’ I behold
the cosmic vagina, which is Mā Brahmamayī, and I sink into it” [“yoni balileyi
Jagadjananī Mā Brahmamayīké dekhé tāṅté dubé yāi”].225
He was also an adept at rendering his allegorical sermons salacious and
saucy, such as his fox-and-bull anecdote, in which the sly fox craving for the big
bovine’s sumptuous and succulent balls befriends the latter and becomes his constant
companion hoping they would drop off any moment, but leaves in despair as he never
gets to have a bite of his tasty windfall. The point of Ramakrishna’s parable was to
teach his devotees about the cautious and shrewd strategy of the rich but parsimonious
patrons to frustrate the demands of their covetous clients and cronies, though its
impact on the listeners was instant roaring laughter.226 On noticing a devotee’s
enlarged testicles (most probably a hydrocele condition) he sang merrily “It’s
something that swings without a shove” and drove his devotees into a swooning

222 KM, Vol. 4, p. 182 [GR, p. 580]. Diary of 2 October 1884.

223 LR, p.59.
224 MITRA, S., Rāmakṛṣṇa, p. 93.
225 LR, p. 79.
226 KM, Vol. 5, p. 93 [GR, p. 349]. Diary of 18 December 1883.
 90

laughter.227 Even Protap Mozoomdar, who admired the paramahaṁsa’s “child-like

tenderness” and “unspeakable sweetness of expression,”228 observed in his letter to
Max Müller in 1895 that Ramakrishna’s “speech was abominably filthy.”229
Both Ramakrishna and Luther were also innately conservative. In spite
of his defiance of the Pope and the traditional practices of the Church Universal (i.e.,
the Catholic Church), Luther was a social and political conservative in general.
Lyndal Roper observes that “Lutheranism owed more than it cared to admit to older,
Catholic varieties of religiosity, to magic, and even to cults of the saints” (2010: 383).
He denounced the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525 (Against the Robbing and Murdering
Hordes of Peasants, 1525) and professed his loyalty to the secular authority for
maintaining law and order in society (To the Princes of Saxony concerning the
Rebellious Spirit, 1524). Luther also found extreme reformism including iconoclasm
of some of his associates and colleagues, in particular Andreas Karlstadt (1486-1541)
and Thomas Müntzer (1488-1525), and the followers of the Zurich reformer Huldrych
Zwingli (1484-1531) troubling and thus unacceptable. He despised the Swiss Brethren
(Anabaptists) for their blatant egalitarianism, communal living, and anti-statist
outlook, not to mention their belief in adult baptism. Truly, Luther was, to quote his
most recent biographer, “a product of the late Middle Ages, benefited from early
humanism, and introduced ideas and emphases new to sixteenth-century society.” 230
Likewise, despite his eclecticism popularized in his dicta, “yata mat tata
path,” Ramakrishna remained a diehard religious conservative, a firm believer in the
efficacy of sanātana [traditional] Hinduism. “The Hindu religion has existed and will
exist for all times,” he declared unequivocally.231 Even though the saint questioned
the authority or legitimacy of the brāhmanical priest craft and held some Hindu

227 LR, p. 111.

228 MOZOOMDAR, P. “Ramakrishna,” pp. 72-73.
229 MAX MṺLLER, Ramakrishna, p. 62.
230 ROBINSON, P., Luther, p. 89.
231 KM, Vol. 2, p. 185 [GR, p. 642]. Diary of 20 October 1884.
 91

scholars such as the Tarkacūḍāmaṇi232 and even the Vidyāsāgar in benign

contempt,233 he was a caste conscious Brahmin who was quite vocal about caste
discrimination. “Do you know what it means for an ascetic to accept money or to
succumb to temptation?” he once asked his devotees. “It’s like a brāhmaṇ widow
keeping a bāgdī [a low caste Śūdra] paramour after having undergone penance for
long time.” The reporter of this statement records: “Everyone is struck dumb.”234 His
caustic caste-ridden remarks such as calculating and dim-witted often offended his
Śuvarṇbaṇik [caste of gold merchant] patrons such as Manilal Mallik, Shambhu
Mallik, Yadulal Mallik, Adharlal Sen (1855-85), as well as Manimohan Sen, a telī
[caste of oil merchant]. 235 The Master’s public view of casteism was reported by the
Brāhmo newspaper:

The venerable Ram Kissen of Dakhineswar paid a visit to Pandit Sasadhar Tarkachudamani on
Friday last week. In the course of conversation the Pandit asked the Paramhamsa’s opinion
about the caste system—whether it ought to be abolished or not. The Paramhamsa replied
—“When the fruit is ripe it falls from the tree of itself. To wrench the unripe fruit is not
good.” 236

Luther and Ramakrisha: Aesthetic Predilections

Both Luther and Ramakrishna also displayed their artistic predilections. Ramakrishna
was a skilled clay modeler, actor, and singer. He first attracted the attention of the
manager of the Daksineshvar temple Mathuranath by his expertise in sculpting the
images of Rādhākānta [another appellation for Kṛṣṇa] and Śiva. 237 He was a
consummate impersonator and actor. He could easily and entirely lose himself in and

232 AKSAYCHAITANYA, Brahacārī, Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa, pp. 367-369; KM, Vol. 3, p. 90 [GR, p. 488]. Diary of
June 30, 1884).
233 KM, Vol. 3, pp. 3, 6-7, 10 [GR, p. 104]. Diary of 5 August 1882.
234 KM, Vol. 5, p. 182 [GR, p. 580]. Diary of 2 October 1884.
235 KM,Vol. 2, pp. 27-28 [GR, p. 202]. Diary of 8 April1883; KM, Vol. 1, p. 249 [GR, p. 901]. Diary of 27
October 1885.
236BANDYOPADHYAY, B., DAS, S. (Eds.), Samasāmayik dṛṣṭite Rāmakṛṣṇa, p. 31.
237 BARMAN, G. Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇacarit. In CHATTOPAHYAYA, R. (Ed.), Hārāṇo kathā, p. 161.
 92

identify completely with the character he assumed. In his childhood he had organized
a dramatic club in his village and rehearsed devotional plays in the mango grove
belonging to a wealthy neighbor Manikchandra Bandyopadhyay. 238 He once acted the
part of Lord Śiva in an open air opera in his native village at the residence of a local
worthy Sitanath Pyne.239 While meditating on Rāma, he donned a tail like Hanuman
[Rāma’s simian devotee and factotum].240 He was an expert in dressing up as a
female. Once one of his women visitors was so startled by seeing the Master imitating
feminine and she commented to Ramakrishna’s devotee Saradananda that the imitation
was perfectly accurate.241 In fact Ramakrishna considered mimesis as an essential
spiritual exercise for an ascetic or a devotee.242
For Martin Luther, God is the deity of delight. He knew from his
personal experience how depression and dark thoughts are vulnerable to Satan. As he
wrote on music: “It has often revived me and relieved me from heavy burdens” 243 He
enjoyed singing as a youth. He could also play the lute and the flute. He revived
music as part of his liturgical reforms, especially the priestly chants, the chorals by the
choir, and hymns sung by the congregation. At least he set music to ten hymns. He
also composed simple melodies. As he wrote:

Music is a fair and lovely gift of God which has often wakened and moved me to the joy of
preaching. St Augustine was troubled in conscience whenever he caught himself delighting in
music, which he took to be sinful. He was a choice spirit, and were he living today would
agree with us. I have no use for cranks who despise music, because it is a gift of God. Music
drives away the Devil and makes people gay: they forget thereby all wrath, unchastity,
arrogance, and the like. Next after theology I give to music the highest place and the greatest
honor. I would not exchange what little I know of music for something great. Experience
proves that next to the Word of God only music deserves to be extolled as the mistress and

238 See BASU, M. Ramaktishna.

239 LP, Vol. 1 [Pūrvakathā O Vālyajīvan], p. 115.
240 KM, Vol. 4, p. 17 [GR, pp. 543-544]. Diary of 19 September 1884.
241 LP, Vol. 1 [Gurubhāva-Pūrvārdha], p. 36.
242 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p 38.
243 Cited in OBERMAN, H.A., Luther, p. 310.
 93

governess of the feelings of the human heart.244

Luther also enjoyed good food and heady potions. “If our Lord is
permitted to create nice, large pike [a species of succulent fish] and good Rhine wine,”
he remarked, “presumably I may be allowed to eat and drink.”245 Like Luther,
Ramakrishna was a gourmand his preferred fare being fried flatbread made of refined
white flour, farina pudding, and sweet cream, though unlike the German, the Bengali
was a total teetotaler.246 He would even eat a juicy plum while squatting for
evacuation.247 Indeed, his idea of an authentic paramahaṁsa was a naked boy eating
with ass full of shit and after washing offering his bare bottom to people for
inspection. 248 The Master’s gluttony is interpreted by his hagiographers as his skill in
demonstrating the power of human mind to regulate “the functions of the body to meet
the demands of the situation.”249 His wife happily looked after all his daily mundane
needs, cooked for him and his flock every day, and nursed him during his terminal
illness. His celibate married life did not seem to bother her. As a pious Hindu woman
she regarded her husband as divine, an attitude that was reinforced by his reputation as
a Godman.
However, both Luther and Ramakrishna suffered from painful illnesses,
their zest for life notwithstanding. Like Luther, Ramakrishna passed his days in the
company of devotees, disciples, and scores of visitors singing, dancing, and dining
together in the communio sanctorum at Daksineshvar. Unfortunately, however, this
“pigeon of pleasure” [sukher pāyrā] died of throat cancer (detected since 1884) on
August 16, 1886 after having endured incredible pain and suffering.250 Though Luther

244Cited in BAINTON, R., Women of Reformation, 266-67).

245 See JEFFREYS, M.A., “Sayings of Luther.” In Christian History, Vl. 34 (1992). Online.
246 KM, Vol. 3, p.100 [GR, p. 661]. Diary of 9 November 1884; LP, Vol. 1 [Gurubhāva-Pūrvārdha], p. 35.
247 JAGADISHVARANANDA,.Svāmī, Dakṣiṇeśvare Śrīrāmakṛṣṇa, p.189.
248 KM, Vol. 1, p. 214 [GR, p. 861]. Diary of 22 October 1885. The GR omits part of the sentence.
249 LR, p. 294.
250KM, Vol. 5, p. 45 [GR, p. 240]. Diary of 10 June 1883.
 94

lived a contented conjugal life, happily surrounded by students, colleagues, admirers,

and followers, his health began deteriorating from 1527, when he was stricken with
tightness of chest caused by “a rush of blood to the heart” accompanied by painful
ringing in his ears. In 1537 he suffered from severe kidney stones.251 As his physician
Matthaus Ratzeberger (1501-59) reports (Historia Lutherus, 1555), Luther “could but
pass no water.” His whole body became so bloated “that one could do nothing for him
but expect the end.” On February 27 next year, the stone was dislodged and “he
almost drowned in his own water.” 252 Ratzeberger’s account gives the impression that
the reformer’s entire adult life was tormented by agonizing physical pain and
suffering.

Luther’s Fides and Ramakrishna’s Bhakti

In a substantive sense, however, both Luther of Renaissance Europe and Ramakrishna
of renascent Bengal claim our attention for their preaching and practice of caritas—
their love of God—through fides and bhakti. Luther realized that all anthropological
resources are utterly powerless before God. Only the intellectus and affectus of faith
and hope can substantiate and confirm man’s life in the midst of sin and death. Hence
he declared: Homo spiritualis nititur fide [“The spiritual man is born in faith”]. 253
Though Luther has often been accused of undermining human dignity by denying the
efficacy of anthropological resources, he actually did not debunk the merits and power
of man. As he wrote in his comments of Genesis 2:7, the fact of creation is the
primary basis of human dignity: God creates him….He does not leave it to the earth to
produce him, like the animals and the trees. But he himself shapes him according to
His image as if he were God’s partner and one who would enjoy God’s rest. 254 It may
be argued that Luther, in recognizing God’s potentia, actually reaffirmed the ultimate

251 OBERMAN, H.A., Luther, p. 320.

252 OBERMAN, H.A., Luther, p. 330.
253 Cited in OZMENT, S., Homo spiritualis, p. 215.
254 Cited in SPITZ, L., “Man on Isthmas.” In MEYER, C. (Ed.), Luther, p. 37.
 95

possibilities of man. Luther’s sickness of the soul stemmed from his vision of God’s
absolute power “in the dread and terror of the Deus nudus, the fearful Majesty that can
wipe us out, and before which we cannot stand.” But “in Christ the word God has a
new meaning. ‘The Son is the perfect image of God’” 255—whom Luther came at last
to view as all-merciful and accessible by virtue of faith alone. In fact, the mature
Luther maintained that “everything [Christ] is and does is present in us and there
works with power, so that we are utterly deified, so that we do not have some part or
aspect of God, but his entire fullness.”256
Even though Ramakrishna was a priest of the Śākta deity Kālῑ, his
spiritual orientation and identity were clearly Vaishnavic. The peasant society of his
native village of Kamarpukur was deeply influenced by Chaitanyite vaisnavism. 257
Svāmῑ Prabhananda described Ramakrishna’s Harilīlā [devotional play of Lord Hari]
at the village of Shihore sometime in 1880 that inspired even the conservative and
puritanical Vaiṣṇava gosvāmīs of the region in the spontaneous outburst of devotional
eroticism.258 Three years later, he performed a frenzied dance at Peneṭi kīrtan in praise
of Lord Hari.259 Ramakrishna grew up in this pietistic milieu and in a family devoted
to the worship of Raghuvῑra or Rāma (considered as an incarnation of Lord Viṣṇu).
According to Saradananda, Ramakrishna was especially devoted to his family deity
Rāma and he worshiped this god every morning with flowers before taking his first
meal of the day. 260 He even believed that “the One who in past ages had incarnated

255 NAGEL, N.E., “Martnus.” In BROOKS, P.N., Seven-headed Luther, p. 46.

256 Cited in JENSON, R. “Luther’s significance.” In McKIM, D. (Ed.), Cambridge Companion to Luther, p.
281.
257 LP,
Vol. 2 [Gurubhāva-Uttarārdha], p. 285; see also SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, pp.169-74.
Krishnachaitanya (1486-1533), also known as Śrīgaurāṅga [“Blessed Fairbody”] or Mahāprabhu [“Great
Master”], started the devotional Vaiṣṇava movement of Bengal. The appellation of Mahāprabhu was first
coined by Chaitanya’s associate in Nilachal, Svarup Damodar. See SANYAL, H., Bāṁlā kīrtaner itihās, p.
63. For Chaitanya see ch. 3 below.
258 PRABHANANDA, Svāmī rabhananda, Amṛtarūp Rāmakṛṣṇa, pp. 112-135: “Harilīlāy yena bhelkī lege
gechila” [The divine play appeared to be miraculous”].
259 KM, Vol. 5, p. 23 [GR, pp. 253-254]. Diary of 18 June 1883.
260 LP, Vol.1[Pūrvakathā O Vālyajīvan], p. 33.
 96

Himself as Rāmacandra, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Śrīgauāṅga, and others, descended on earth in his
own person.”261
As a Vaiṣṇava, Ramakrishna was enchantingly personal, in fact quite
intimate, in his relationship with the divine. Free from the constraints of ratiocination
and intellection, his clarion call as man of God was not sapere aude [“dare to know”],
but ludére aude [“dare to play”]—a wonderful imitation of the divine līlā or divine
dalliance so admired and adored in Hindu spirituality. Ramakrishna, the “mad
Master” [“pāgal Ṭhākur”], lived in the serene and charming atmosphere of the temple
precinct at Daksineshwar in superb comfort, thanks to his caring and trusting
employers—singing, dancing, eating good food, and being ecstatic to everybody’s
wonderment. He maintained that “a man of perfect knowledge and a perfect idiot
betray similar external characteristics” [“Pūrṇajṅānī o pūrṇamūrkha duijaneryi
bāhirer lakṣaṇ ek rakam”]. 262 Hence his spiritual battle-cry: “Be mad! Be crazy with
love of God!” [“Pāgal hao, Īśvarer premé pāgal hao”].263
Epilogue
Both Luther and Ramakrishnaa flourished in a time of transition relative to their time
and location: the European Renaissance of the Quattrocento and the Bengal
Renaissance of the nineteenth century. The European phenomenon signaled a time of
renewal of the classical heritage—the Greco-Roman artistic, intellectual, and literary
culture of antiquity. The Bengal Renaissance was triggered by colonial contact and
impact, especially English education, economy, and administration. British education
had kindled a keen desire among the youths of Bengal as well as other cities of India
to learn about the history and culture of their native land. At the same time the
Christian missionary activities of the time brought home the need to separate the grain
of Hinduism from the chaffs of Brahmanical misrepresentation and malpractice.
Luther was formally trained in scholastic as well as humanist learning

261 LP, Vol. 2 [Gurubhāva-Uttarārdha], p. 122.

262 KM, Vol. 3, p. 191[GR, p.792]. Diary of 13 June 1885.
263 KM, Vol. 2, p.169 [GR, p. 615]. Diary of 11 October 1884.
 97

and was the inheritor of the reformist tradition of the fourteenth century (the Lollard
movement of John Wycliffe, c.1330-84, and the Hussite movement of Jan Hus, c.
1370-1415) and the pietistic movement (devotio moderna) of the fifteenth.
Ramakrishna, on the other hand, never completed elementary education either in his
native village or in Calcutta and was thus innocent of the Hindu holy books. He,
however, imbibed the simple piety of Chaitanyite vaisnavism, the Hindu devotio
moderna of the fifteenth century, from his village, but could not absorb the urban
reformist influence of the Brāhmo Samāj movement of Rājā Rammohan Ray and the
Young Bengal movement begun by the students of the young Eurasian teacher of the
Hindu College (later the Presidency College), Henry Louis Vivian Derozio (1809-31)
in the first half of the nineteenth century. Luther’s spirituality harked back to
Apostolic Christianity whereas Ramakrishna’s devotionalism was a continuation of the
folk Vaisnavic bhakti tradition of the fifteenth century that remained untouched by the
cerebral, enlightened, and modernist neo-Hindu movement (the Ādi Brāhmo Samāj) of
his day. While the Ādi Brāhmos remained somewhat lukewarm about Ramakrishna’s
ecstatic devotionalism, the renegade faction of the Brāhmos, the New Dispensation
[Navavidhān] under Keshab Sen’s charismatic leadership appropriated the
paramahaṁsa’s incarnationist model that attracted a mass following because of its
moorings in Hindu culture and thereby conferring a respectable identity on the
colonial subjects with which to negotiate with the modernity ushered in by a powerful
alien authority. Thus, a section of Calcutta’s bhadralok society—the Keshavite
Brāhmos and a handful of educated folks mostly from the middle or lower middle
class—showed some enthusiasm for the paramahaṁsa phenomenon.
And yet one must recognize Ramakrishna’s posthumous reputation as a
saint and prophet. During the Master’s lifetime, his popularity owed to a great extent
to his personality and performance (song, samādhi, story-telling, and dance) as well as
to the ambience of his abode. Ramakrishna’s Daksineshvar was a veritable “mart of
bliss” [“ānander hāṭbājār”] where the young found in their older mentor a trusting
friend and a compassionate councilor and in his “nurturant environment” a
 98

psychologically stable and safe asylum from the demands of the adult world for
education, work, or marriage.264 The Master was a charismatic religious leader with
an extraordinary capacity for persuasion and control. A la Agehananda Bhāratī,
Rāmakṛṣṇa could be classified as a “saint,” that is, an “institutionally unaligned
‘leader’… a ‘product’ of the so-called Little Traditions” who became religious leaders
due to their personal charisma.265 Ramakrishna’s stature and significance were
reconstructed, in fact reinvented, by his charismatic disciple Vivekananda, the
“Cyclonic monk” and a veritable spiritual superstar. Vivekānanda’s Rāmakṛṣṇa was
transformed from a devotional ecstatic into a trend setter for subsequent Hindu
spiritual leaders who achieved renown as global gurus.266
Though, admittedly, he had his shortcomings—lack of education,
conservatism, casteism, superstition, apathy to work for a living, indifference to social
service, apolitical quiescence, stubborn self-pity, and pronounced misogyny—
Ramakrishna yet made some real contributions to the cultural history of fin-de siècle
Bengal as well as to that of post-independence India at large. Appearing at a time
when Hinduism, weakened by centuries of inertia, faced a two-pronged assault from
the Christian evangelical enterprise and the reformist secessionist group, the Brāhmos,
he reversed the process by popularizing traditional Hindu eclecticism in a simple
vernacular idiom: “yata mat tata path.”267 The core of Ramakrishna’s spiritual
message is startlingly simple. As he said, “the divine could be apprehended through
sincerity irrespective of any religious path” [“Īśvarer kāché nānā path diyé pouṅchāna

264 SCHNEIDERMAN, L., “Ramakrishna.” In Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, Spring, 1969, p.
69.
265 BHARATI, A., “Charisma of office.” In GAEFFKE, P., UTZ, D.A. (Eds.), Identity and division in
cults, p. 21; see also STORR, A., Feet od clay, pp. xiv-xv.
266 SeeSIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, ch. 9; SIL, N.P., Rāmakṛṣṇa, Conclusion. For a frankly apologetic
attempt at projecting Ramakrishna’s image as a spiritual titan see TRIPATHY, A., Aitihāsiker dṛṣṭite
Rāmakṛṣṇa and the two papers of Mahārāj, A. referenced in ch. 1 mentioned in ch. 1 above.
267 It
must be noted that this universally acknowledged and acclaimed maxim of the Master as it stands does
not really represent his actual words which are “ananta path ananta math” [infinite are the paths and
infinite the opinions]. KM, Vol. 5, p. 21[GR, p. 158]. Diary of 26 November 1882. See also GHATAK,
K., Hindu revivalism, chs. 1, 2 ,4, 5, 10.
 99

yāy”].268 He thus brought the Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs in one grand

fold of devotionalism and, like Luther, announced a simple formula for attaining
mokṣa or salvation: “sola fide, sola gratia” [“by faith only, by grace only”].
Luther in fact defied four patriarchal/authority figures: his biological
father Hans, his intellectual father-figure Aristotle whom he labeled “damned,
conceited, rascally heathen” sent by God “as a plague upon us for our sins,”269 the
Holy Roman Emperor, and, above all, the father of Christian Church, the pope of
Rome, whom he famously called Antichrist. Especially, his defiance of the
supranational authority of the papal Church proved to be an ideological adjunct to the
incipient nationalism in Europe and led directly or indirectly to the emergence of
sovereign nation states in countries such as England, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, and
Scandinavia. Lutheranism in fact effectively weakened the two traditional symbols of
universal authorities of Europe—the Holy Roman Empire and the papacy—that would
never be the same after the events beginning in the 1530s through the Treaty of
Westphalia ending the Thirty Years War (1618-48). The post-Tridentine (that is,
following the Council of Trent, 1545-63, convened by Pope Paul III [r. 1534-49])
Catholic Church reformed its hierarchy, put an end to its abusive practices,
reformulated its doctrines, clarified its dogma, established censorship (Inquisition and
Index) against heretical opinion, and thus saved itself from further decline.
Nevertheless, the papal claim to Petrine inheritance270 henceforth would be honored
more in theory than in actual practice.
In conclusion, despite multiple social, cultural, intellectual, and historical
dissimilarities, there is one unmistakable and undeniable parallel in the spiritual and
theological experiences of both the Christian and the Hindu religious personalities and

268 KM, Vol. 2, p. 19 [GR, p. 191]. Diary of March 11, 1882.

269 LUTHER,M. “Open letter to Christian nobility (1520).” [cit. 7 June 2011]. Available at http://
www.projectwitenberg.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/.../nblty-07/html
270 Petrine theory is the basis of the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. This theory is based on
the \biblical account of Christ’s bestowing the keys of Heaven on Peter (the first pope according to Roman
Catholic tradition) and partly on Christ’s words: “And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek: Petros] and on this
rock [Greek: patra] I will build my Chirch” (Matt. 16: 18).
 100

it is to be found in their quest for the divine. Luther’s Christ the Son of God and
Ramakrishna’s Kālῑ the Dark Mother or Kṛṣṇa the Dark Lover are no distant deities
who demand of humans their ritualized prayers, supplications, and sacrifices but are
adorably accessible to the devotees through sheer faith and love. Norman Nagel
reminds us that “when Luther came to know God gracious and near in Christ, he cried
God is not far but near, so near he could not be nearer.” 271 The Indian Nobel Laureate
Rabindranath Tagore’s poem “Vaiṣṇavkavitā” elegantly encapsulates the quintessential
human-divine relationship in a single epigrammatic verse: “Devatāré priya kari,
priyeré devatā” [“We endear God as well as endow our dear ones with divinity”]. 272
Both Martin and Gadadhar would have concurred with Tagore, albeit in their own
characteristic understanding. Thus contrasted with the childlike Gadadhar the
paramahaṁsa who playacted with the iconic image of the popular Hindu god Rāma,

his beloved doll Rāmlālā, we recall Dr. Martin’s sermon in 1530, in which this
German professor and preacher reminded his audience, particularly those naïve
adorers of the Gospel as “a fine, pleasing, friendly and childlike doctrine,” the odyssey
of St. Christopher (d. 251), who thought he could easily cross the river carrying the
child Jesus on his back, but found out “how heavy the little child was [when] he had
entered the deepest water.”273

3. RAMAKRISHNA
A CHAITANYITE VAIṢṆAVA PRIEST OF THE ŚĀKTA GODDESS KĀLĪ 274

That day when Harish was with me I saw Saccidānanda emerge from this sheath [referring to his
own body] and said: ‘I incarnate myself in every age.’ I thought I was talking to myself in my
imagination. I kept quiet and heard Saccidānanda speak again: “Chaitanya, too, worshipped
Śakti.”
Ramakrishna to ŚrῑM in KM, Vol. 3, p. 21 (GR, p. 720). Diary of March 1885.

Introduction

271 NAGEL, N.E., “Martinus.” In BROOKS, P.N., Seven-headed Luther, p. 44.

272 TAGORE [Thakur], R., Sonār Tarī, p. 147.
273 STROHL, J.E., “Luther’s spiritual journey.” In McKIM, D.K., Cambridge companion to Luther, p. 151.
274 Based on SIL, N.P., Kali’s child and Krishna’s lover.”
 101

Ramakrishna Paramahaṁsa has been hailed throughout India as a respectable eclectic

who preached the oneness of all religions and the equal validity of the various ways—
Vedantic, Tantric, Vaisnavic, Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, and Śikh. As he said: “I have
practiced everything—I accept all paths. I defer to the Śāktas, the Vaișṇavas, and
moreover, the Vedantists…and the Brāhmos even.” 275 However, he has acquired a
reputation in the West as an ecstatic Tāntrika, a member of the esoteric Śākta sect
practicing various erotic rituals with a view to realizing Śakti, the cosmic feminine
principle, of which Kālῑ is the most popular divine exemplar. At the same time, we note
that in his public and even private behavior and lifestyle he strove to be what
Shankaracharya (c. 788-820) had described as a holy fool, an ātmavettā or ‘knower of
ātman.’276 Ramakrishna painstakingly projected this image of a holy fool (in the context
of his culture).277 This image has been reaffirmed in the century of biographies beginning
with Ramchandra Datta down to Narasingha Sil. Ramakrishna’s reputation as the
delirious child of Kālī the Divine Mother not only endeared this mad mystic of
Daksineshvar to many of his contemporaries as well as to millions of Indians even to this
day, who respectfully regard him as god—bhagavān.278
This chapter argues that Ramakrishna’s eclectic spirituality is informed primarily
by Bengali Vaiṣṇava traditions, despite the widespread tendency to associate him
primarily with (tantric) Śākta traditions. Even then he could not be associated easily with
any Vaiṣṇava sect.279 Ramakrishna’s family and village background, his devotional

275 KM, Vol. 4, p. 167 [GR, p. 538]. Diary of 19 September 1884.

276 SHANKRACHARYA, Crest-jewel of discrimination, pp. 122-123.
277 KM, Vol. 3, p. 190 [GR, p. 792]. Diary of 13 June 1885; KM, Vol. 4, pp. 175-176 [GR, p. 544]. Diary of
19 September 1884; KM, Vol. 5, pp. 55-56 [GR, p. 248]. Diary of 17 June 1883; pp. 113-114 [GR, p. 248].
Diary of 9 March 1884.
278 See n. 19 above.

279 See SIL, N.P., “RamakrishnaVivekananda research.” Religious studies review , pp. 355-362. It ought to
be noted that the Vaishnavas never constituted a homogeneous community. There were numerous sects,
subgroups, and sampradāyas or goṣṭhῑs, who often engaged in cantankerous contentions and claims. See
SANYAL, H., Bāṁlā kīrtaner itihās, chs.7, 9, and 14. Bengal, traditionally, was a Vaiṣṇava stronghold.
Nineteenth-century observers such as William Ward (1769-1823), Walter Hamilton (1856-79), and
Bholanath Chandra (1822-1910) commented on the widespread presence of Vaiṣṇava influence in the
region. See CHAKRABARTY, R. Vaisnavism in Bengal, p. 385.
 102

behavior, and his logia were informed by Vaiṣṇava bhakti even when it was directed to
Goddess Kālῑ or Cinmayī Śrīśrījagadambā [Twice-Blessed Mother of the Universe
Consciousness]. In fact, his disciple biographer Svāmī Saradananda and subsequent
monastic scholars of the Ramakrishna Order all uniformly regard their Master [Ṭhākur]
as the incarnation of Kṛṣṇa as well as Śrī Chaitanya. My thesis addresses, inter alia, two
anomalies. At one time the saint assumed the iconographic posture of Kālῑ to indicate
himself as the Goddess in human form.280 More importantly, in his early youth, as a caste
conscious brāhmaṇa, Ramakrishna harbored a benign contempt for the Vaiṣṇavas of his
village who were mostly low caste folks. As he confessed later, “I…used to think what
sort of avatāra is this Chaitanya! He is the creation of the neḍā-neḍīs’ [the shaven headed
erstwhile Buddhist mendicants converted into Vaiṣṇava faith].281 Nevertheless, it is
important to bear in mind that Bengali folk culture essentializes simple fiducia and that
Ramakrishna, an untrained and unread temple priest (though initiated in Śakti or Kālī
mantra by a professional priest named Kenaram Bandyopadhyay), cannot be pigeonholed
neatly in any one sect formally. In other words, he was basically a lover of god.

Ramakrishna’s Tāntrika Reputation

Ramakrishna’s devotee Satyacharan Mitra claimed, albeit without any substantial
evidence or argument, that the Master was a consummate Tāntrika (ghora Tāntrika). He,
however, concluded his biography by claiming that the Master’s līlā was the reenactment
of Śrī Chaitanya’s four centuries earlier.282 Saradananda informs us that his Master had
been visited by a roving bhairavī named Yogeshvari shortly after Rāṇī Rasmani’s death
on February 19, 1861, whom he regarded as a mother figure and who in turn showered
her maternal affection on the young priest. Prior to this meeting between the two,
Gadadhar had been behaving crazily and the bhairavī, referred to as bāmnī (that is,
brāhmaṇī) by him, diagnosed the young priest’s apparently crazy state as divine madness

280 KM, Vol. 3, p. 239-240 [GR, p. 928]. Diary of 6 November 1885.

281 LP, Vol. 2 [Gurubhāva-Uttarārdha], p. 131.

282 MITRA, S., Rāmakṛṣṇa, pp. 72, 192.
 103

which described Chaitanya’s ecstasy (mahābhāva), and even before him, of Śrī Rādhā,
Lord Kṛṣṇa’s lover.283 Reportedly, Yogeshvari decided to cure Gadadhar’s mad state
[unmāder avasthā ] supposed to have been caused his spiritual austerity and continence
by inducting him in the ways of Tantra.
Of his Tantra sādhanā with the bhairavī we read about his delight in wearing silk
clothes (garader kāpaḍ), his practices under the bel [marmelos or wood-apple] tree,
during which he did not discriminate between the basil (tulsī) and horseradish plants, his
eating foods left by jackals, riding a stray dog and feeding it luci [deep-fried flatbread of
refined wheat flour], and washing himself in muddy water collected on the ground. He
also told his devotees how he licked a piece of rotten flesh as part of the ritual of
pūrṇābhiṣeka and performed other “rituals too numerous to remember.”284 He was
innocent of the tantric anatomy of the mystical body containing six centers or nerve-
plexuses [ṣaḍacakra] and once queried a Tāntrika visitor about it but the complex
symbolic meaning of the mystical body made little impression on the Master.285
However, there is also an eyewitness report of his intimate knowledge of Tantra. Once
Ramakrishna’s favorite householder devotee Adharlal Sen asked him about the meaning
of a Sanskrit verse of Tantra, oblivious of the fact that the Master had no clue as to what
it was. On listening to Adhar’s recitation of the śloka, he remained silent and, on sighting
the kīrtan [devotional melodies] party from the town of Konnagar, rushed to join the
singers and began dancing to the tune of the kīrtan. Reportedly, later, following a round
of samādhi, the Master treated Sen with a lengthy peroration on the śloka. It is not
known what it was but the latter, reportedly, was awestruck by the Master’s visage in
mahābhāva, and he began to shiver and weep in sheer devotion, thinking he was
beholding the Goddess Kālῑ Herself when the saint stared at him.286

283 LP, Vol.1[Sādhakabhāva], p.189.

284 LP, Vol.1[Sādhakabhāva], p. 206.
285 KM, Vol. 4, p. 56 [GR, p. 374]. Diary of 2 January 1884.
286 MITRA, S., Rāmakṛṣṇa, p.132.
 104

Ramakrishna also clearly recalled how the bhairavī made him witness ritual
intercourse, the so-called heroic rite [vīrācāra] marking the culmination of his Tantra
sādhanā, though he could not perform the rite itself nor drink the ritual alcohol
[kāraṇabāri]. Yet, on his own admission, the Master savored the sight of the heroic rite
and was entranced.287 This initiation into beholding human lovemaking might have
induced his later vision of cosmic coitus performed eternally by Śiva and Śakti through
“men, animals, trees, and plants—male and female.” 288 However, Saradananda writes
that Ramakrishna’s apathy to perform the heroic rite together with his attitude toward
women (including his wedded wife) as a mother figure made him equal to Lord Ganeśa,
as the Master claimed himself.289 The Svāmῑ provides no annotation or scriptural source
for Ramakrishna’s claim except that it was explained by the latter through a tale he told
his devotees. Saradananda further writes that Ramakrishna’s success in tāntric training
without following two (maithuna and madya) of the required five sacraments, the five Ms
or paṅca-makāra (madya, matsya, māṁsa, mudrā, and maithuna) was a mark of his
unique spiritual genius and an unmistakable proof that the two rituals in question were
not really indispensable part of tantric practices.290 Ramakrishna in fact told a bāul
[mystic troubadour] of the Kartābhajā sect of Ghoshpara village (adjacent to the town of
Kalyani in Nadia district of West Bengal), that sādhanā is realized only after
overpowering the genital (indriyajaya), thus making one a jitendriya, that is, one who has
achieved complete control of lust. He further explained that if and when a man’s genital

287 MITRA, S., Rāmakṛṣṇa, p. 132.

288 KM, Vol. 4, p. 56[ GR, p. 376]. Diary of 2 January 1884.
289 Rāmakṛṣṇa related to his intimate [antaraṅga] associates the Purāṇic story [Paurāṇik kāhinī] of
Gaṇeśa’s mother-consciousness. According to it, in a sudden fit of rage the child Ganeśa once tortured a
female feline physically. The injured cat somehow survived the ordeal and escaped. Thereafter Gaṇeśa
went to see his mother, the Goddess Pārvatῑ, and was pained to notice marks of wounds on her body. On
being asked by her son the causes of her bruises, the Goddess told him that he was the cause of her injuries,
because she is present in all the female creatures [strīmūrtiviśiṣṭa jīvas] of the world. Hence, by thrashing
the animal Gaṇeśa had unwittingly wounded his mother. Hearing this, the guilty child resolved never to
marry, as marrying a woman would mean marrying his mother. He thus remained a celibate [bramhacārī]
realizing that the entire world is a part of Śiva (progenitor of the world’s pungmūrtidhārī, that is male) and
Śakti –Śivaśaktyātmat jagat]. Rāmakṛṣṇa claimed to share Gaṇeśa’s attitude to women and so never
consummated his marriage but worshiped his wife as the World Mother. See n. 286288 below.
290 LP, Vol.1[Sādhakabhāva], pp. 206-210.
 105

becomes limp, “like a leech gone limp following the administration of lime,” he is able to
live “with a woman without copulating with her—ramaṇīr saṅgé thāké nā karé
ramaṇ.”291
There is a further problem in respect of Ramakrishna’s tantric orientation. His
idea of Śakti and Brahman was quite confused, even contradictory. He once claimed that
“Brahman alone is real and this world of names and forms illusion.”292 He even
complained to his devotee Bhavanath that his village neighbor Pratap Hazra could never
understand the truth that Śakti and Brahman were “one and the same thing—
undifferentiated.”293 He also told a preacher of the Ādi Brāhmo Samāj, Ācārya
Becharam, that saguṇa Brahman [Brahman with attributes], nirguṇa Brahman [Brahman
without attributes], and Ādyāśakti [the Primal Śakti, an appellation of Kālī] are one and
the same.294 And he regarded Ādyāśakti as Mahāmāyā [Great Illusion, another
appellation of Kālī].295 However, he taught Girish Ghosh that Mahāmāyā is actually an
impediment to the realization (or vision) of “Tāṅr” [“Him”], that is, of Brahman.296
Hence she needs to be propitiated.297 The implication is clear and unmistakable: Śakti
and Brahman are different.
In fact, there are indications that the Master became disenchanted with, even
defiant of, Śakti. Trailokya Dev writes in his Atīter Brāhmo Samāj that, when once he
requested the paramahaṁsa to show him Kālῑ’s ārati, that is, ritual with a lighted lamp,

291 KM, Vol. 4, p. 134 [GR, p. 513]. Diary of 7 September 1884.

292 KM, Vol. 1, p. 61 [GR, p. 150]. Diary of 28 October 1882.
293 KM, Vol. 2, p. 137 [GR, p. 567]. Diary of 28 September 1884; see also KM, Vol. 1, p. 41[GR, p. 134].
Diary of 27 October 1882.
294 KM,Vol. 5, p. 37 [GR, p. 218]. Diary of 22 April 1883.
295 KM, Vol. 2, pp. 44-46 [GR, p. 226]. Diary of 2 June 1883. Puzzlingly, part of this diary is missing in
KM, but appears in GR. The entire diary may be found in the single volume edition of the KM titled
Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇakathāmṛta, p. 223.
296It is not surprising that a scholar sincerely but misleadingly believes that Ramakrishna, along with the
eighteenth-century poet Ramprasad Sen, “tried to articulate Kālī’s inexpressible mystery when they
declared that she and the highest Brahman are one, that she is both immanent and transcendent reality.”
NELSON, David ,“The many faces of Kali,”p.7. http://hindusktha.freeservers.com/faceofmaa.html
297 KM, Vol. 3, p. 112 [GR, p.681-682]. Diary of 14 December 1884.
 106

at Daksineshvar, the Master responded: “I no longer look at that bitch, you go alone and
see for yourself” [“āmi ai śālīr mukh ār dekhinā, tui eklā giyā dekhiyā āy”]. When
Trailokya insisted on hearing the cause of his disaffection, Rāmakṛṣṇa exploded: “That
bitch has been giving me a run around without pointing to the right path for a long time.
That’s why I no longer look at her face” [“anek din dhariyā ai śālī āmāké path ghurāiyā
laiyā beḍāitechila. Āmāké ṭhik path dekhāiya dei nāi, sei janya āmi ār or mukh
dekhinā.”].298 Evidently, Ramakrishna’s disaffection for Kālῑ was meant to endear
himself to his Brāhmo admirer as he continued his conversation to relate his spiritual
experience. The Master told Trailokya that one night he was summoned by a voice to
come to the bank of the Ganges and sit there with his eyes closed. When told to open
them he beheld “an unprecedented lighted apparition” filling his “soul [prāṇman] with a
blissful ray.” Trailokya later commented admiring the Brahman vision of this great man
who was a realized yogī [yogasiddha mahāpuruṣ]. 299

Ramakrishna as a Bhakta
Ramakrishna was primarily a bhakta—that is, a devotee of the divine par excellence.300
The general refrain of his sermons or counsel was bhakti and biśvās [devotion and faith]:
“Quit studies and discourses, stick to bhakti, it is the quintessential stuff” [jṅāncarcā
chāḍo—bhakti nāo—bhaktiyi sār].301 As he averred: “Without a simple childlike faith
none can realize the divine” [“saral biśvās, bālaker biśvās nā hale bhagavānké pāoā yāy
nā’].302 According to his characteristic insight, “too much knowledge is called ajṅāna,
ignorance. To know only one thing is jṅāna, knowledge—that is, God alone is real and
exists in all beings. To converse with him is vijṅāna. To love him in different ways after

298 DEV, T., Brāhmo samāj, pp. 56-57.

299 DEV, T., Brāhmo samāj, p. 58.
300 Evena Rāmakṛṣṇa scholar’s determined effort to consider the Master as “the greatest of the Shaktas of
Bengal” ends up acknowledging him as a “Shakta bhakta” McLEAN, M.D., “Ramakrishna.” In
BILIMORIA, P., FENNER, P. (Ed.), Religions and comparative thought, p. 170.
301 KM, Vol. 3, p.120 [GR, p. 719]. Diary of 7 March 1885.
302 KM, Vol. 2, p. 137 [GR, p. 568]. Diary of 29 September 1884.
 107

realizing him is vijṅāna.”303 He considered himself a vijṅānī—one who had frequently

conversed with Kālῑ.
Ramakrishna also argued that Jṅāna [theoria in Greek], “mere knowledge of
God,” is male and bhakti [phronema in Greek], the quality of vijṅāna [theosis in Greek],
is female. “Jṅāna being a male is obliged to stand and wait in the outer court of Divine
Mother’s home, whereas bhakti being female goes direct to the inner apartments, to the
very presence of the Mother.”304 Maudeline Biardeau has aptly observed that “Bhakti
appeared as a new reading of Vedic Revelation and of its most narrow brāhmaṇical
interpretation, a reading in which the world of desire came to be rehabilitated in its
relation to salvation.”305 For Ramakrishna, bhakti became “one overarching formula by
which he attempted to demonstrate his moral purity, spiritual excellence (ability to
converse with Kālῑ and commune with Kṛṣṇa), and intellectual strength.”306 A la
Chaitanya, who had advised Murari Gupta “ādhyātmacarcā tabe kara parityāg/
Guṇasaṁkīrtan kara Kṛṣṇa anurāgé ” [“give up all exertions for spiritual realization/
sing the glory of love for Kṛṣṇa”]307and for whom Vrindavan Das (1507-1589) wrote
“dhané kulé pāṇḍityé caitanya nāhi pāi/ Kebal bhaktir baś Caitanya Gosāiṅ” [“we don’t
get to know Chaitanya (also implying a pun with caitanya or god consciousness) by
being attached to riches, caste, or learning/ He is to be realized only through
devotion”],308 Ramakrishna clearly postulated that “the path of bhakti [bhaktimārga] is
good for Kaliyuga” because “it’s easy.”309 Ramakrishna’s foregrounding devotion and
faith comprehended all sectarian beliefs and practices, most notably those of the
Tāntrikas and the Vaiṣṇavas.

303 KM, Vol. 4, p. 209 [GR, p. 598-99]. Diary of 5 October1884.

304 MOOKERJEE, N., Ramakrishna in the eyes of Brahmo and Christian admirers, pp. 21-22.
305 BIARDEAU, M., Hinduism, p. 90.
306 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 132.
307 DAS, Lochan, Caitanyamaṅgal, 2/2/105.
308 DAS, Vrindavan, Caitanyabhāgavat, 2/10.
309 KM, Vol.1, p. 141 [GR, p. 468]. Diary of 25 June 1884.
 108

Vaisnavism and Tantricism Interface

Admittedly, there is a world of difference in the lifestyle of a Tāntrika and a Vaiṣṇava.
Ramakrishna was perfectly aware of the distinction between a Śākta and a Vaiṣṇava. He
once reported an encounter between Paṇḍit Vaisnavcharan, the devotee of Keśava
(Kṛṣṇa), and Mathur Bishvas, the worshipper of Bhagavatī (Śakti or Kālī), in which the
latter was terribly upset with the paṇḍit’s preference for Kṛṣṇa and abused him. The
Master understood the cause of his irate employer’s reaction and observed: “Sejabābu
[the third bābu, Mathur’s designation in view of his marriage to Rasmani’s third daughter
Jagadamba] is a Śākta, worshipper of Bhagavatī.”310 Nevertheless, Tantra is
symbiotically allied to bhakti and thus to the religion of devotion, that is, vaisnavism, it
being somewhat confused in the practices of the marginal Vaiṣṇava sub sect, the
Kartabhajas (or the Sahajiyas), which provided a paradigm of salvation radically
different from the upaniṣadic ideal of mokṣa [liberation or salvation].
The Upanisads emphasized renunciation as the path to mokṣa at the expense of
kāma [desire], but bhakti reversed the perspective by overcoming the antinomy between
kāma and mokṣa. This is what tantra sought to achieve. Conceiving the Absolute
(Brahman) as the Puruṣa into which all—including its feminine Energy or Śakti—is
reabsorbed, Tantra provided the vision of a cosmic couple—Brahman “in a permanent
and happy union” with Śakti.311 Tāntric ideal, then, glorifies amorous heterosexual love
—kāma. Ramakrishna’s tāntric orientation thus ought to have made him a practitioner
of the tantric vīrācāra. But, because of his personal phobic aversion to normal sex, he
would have nothing to do with it and even regarded the ways of tantra as defiled and
dirty—the passage of the latrine [“pāikhānā”].312 But he was relieved to hear from a

310 KM, Vol. 4, p.104. [GR, p. 489]. Diary of 3 July1884. In spite of some tāntric influence on the
Vaiṣṇavas of Bengal, the Śāktas (a Tāntrika by definition is a Śākta) and the Vaiṣṇavas follow distinctly
different religious calendars (śāktamat or the opinion of the Śāktas and vaiṣṇavamat or the opinion of the
Vaiṣṇavas) even to this day.
311 BIARDEAU, M., Hinduism, p. 150.
312 KM, Vol. 4, p. 134 [GR, p. 513]. Diary of 7 September 1884.
 109

Tāntrika that faith in guru’s teachings is the hallmark of Tantra sādhanā.313 As a matter
of fact, as a Tāntrika initiate, he felt that the world is full of Viṣṇu—sarvam Viṣṇumayam
jagat.314—something he would rephrase from time to time as “Tini sab hoyechen sakaleyi
Nārāyaṇ” [“He (Brahman) has become everything all are Nārāyaṇ”].315316 On another
occasion he counseled Narendranath to meditate on Rāma (or Raghuvῑra, considered as
an incarnation of Viṣṇu, was Ramakrishna’s family deity) because “that Rām is the
primeval provenance of everything” (“Ore, sei Rāmyi sakaler mūle”).317
This sort of devotional eclecticism was not of course Ramakrishna’s innovation; it
in fact followed the pre-Chaitanyite tradition of bhakti [bhaktidharma]—an unconditional
and unqualified surrender to a personal god (prapatti). The Ṛgvedic hymns expressed a
profound feeling of devotion.318 The great Hindu philosophies of Vedānta, Sānkhya, and
Yoga emphasized jṅāna [enlightenment] as much as devotion.319 The bhakti movement
of medieval India centered on Viṣṇu, one of the Hindu trinity (the other two being
Brahmā and Maheśvara). The figures of Rāma and Kṛṣṇa, especially the latter as

incarnation of Viṣṇu, achieved a central position in Viṣṇu worship or vaisnavism.

However, the most popular variety of vaisnavism had nothing to do either with Viṣṇu or
with the Kṛṣṇa of the Bhāgavadgītā but Kānu (cowherd Kṛṣṇa) or Gopāla (baby Kṛṣṇa),
famous for his dalliance with the cowgirls [gopī] of the Braja country (region of Mathura
and Vrindavan in northern India). The Gopāla-gopī saga was developed in the
Harivaṁśa, Viṣṇupurāṇa, and above all, in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (or Śrīmadbhāgavata),

313 KM, Vol. 5, p. 103 [GR, p. 374]. Diary of 2 January 1884.

314 KM, Vol. 4, p. 175 [GR, p. 544]. Diary of 19 September 1884.
315 KM., Vol. 4, p. 175 [GR, p. 710]. Diary of 1 March 1885.

317 PRABHANANDA, Svāmī, Śrīrāmakṛṣṇer antyalīā, Vol. 2, p. 66.

318 See MILLER, J., “Bhakti and Rig Veda.” In WERNER, K. (Ed.), Love divine, pp. 1-35.
319 See HIRST, J., “Place of bhakti in Vedanta.” In WERNER, K. (Ed.), Love divine, pp. 117-145).
 110

written probably in the ninth or tenth centuries CE, but attributed by tradition to Vyasa at
the outset of the Kaliyuga (c. 3100 BCE). 320
It must, however, be noted that Vaisnavism, too, propagated the efficacy of erotic
love for God.321 In particular, The Chaitanyite Vaisnavism arose from the soil of Bengal,
long noted for an interface between tantric and vaisnavic eroticism that antedated
Caitanya of the fifteenth century.322 As he taught, of all the paths to the divine, that of
erotic love characterized by unqualified surrender to God is the most important. The
paradigmatic erotic love is that which was felt by Lord Kṛṣṇa’s cowherd consort Rādhā
and it was manifested by the latter sharing in the Lord’s līlā [divine play]. This divine
play is eternal and trans-spatial and remains invisible. It is only by dint of “correct”
methods that a devotee can participate in this hidden līlā by transposing oneself into his/
her innermost counterpart, that is, by taking up the counterpart’s personality (āropa).
Ramakrishna, of course expressed his open disgust with both vaisnavic and tantric
sexual rituals as he was contemptuous of hetrerosexual act, if not of heterosexuality per
se. Amiya Sen’s commendable effort to provide a new interpretation of Ramakrishna’s
piety and spirituality as the hallmark of a “practical Tantric”—much like his famous
disciple Vivekananda’s reputation as a “Practical Vedantist”—is marred by his
tendentious arguments supported by select quotes ignoring those that contradict his
contention.323 Likewise Kripal’s mystical hermeneutic of Ramakrishna’s Tāntric ontology
is a marvelous mythopoesis rather than a useful reference for researching the life and
logia of the popular priest of Daksineshvar.324
It should, however, be understood that the vaisnavic eros is more like agape, the
spontaneous divine love of the gopī—‘kāmagandhahīn svābhāvik gopī prem.’ As Hitesh
Ranjan Sanyal explains, the Vaiṣṇava Sahajiyās clearly distinguish between kāma [lust]

320 DE,S.K.., History of vaisnava faith, p. 6; see also MATCHETT, F., “Bhakti in Bhagavat Gita,” pp,
95-115).
321 See DAS, R.P., Vaishnavism in Bengal, pp. 23-38.
322 See SANYAL, H., Bāṁlāā kīrtaner itihās, pp. 21-30, 119-138.
323 See SEN, A.P., Three essays on Ramakrishna.
324 See KRIPAL, J.J., Serpent’s gift, ch. 3.
 111

and prema [love]. Carnal contact between a man and a woman is kāma. But the Sahajiyā
practitioner strives at all times to transcend kāma and attain prema. This transcendence
or transition is achieved through meditation or bhāvasādhanā predicated on devotion to
Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. 325 As the Caitanyacaritāmṛta has it: “ātmendriya prīti-icchā tāre bali
kām/Kṛṣṇendriya prīti-icchhā dhare prem nām” [self-centered desires make for lust
(kāma) but theo (Krishna)-centered ones constitute love (prem)].326

Ramakrishna: A Sahajiyā?
The Vaiṣṇava Sahajiyās, Edward Dimock writes, are a kind of social deviants like their
Tāntrika counterparts. But while the former flaunt the accepted social values, they
continue to live within society. “Tantrism does not affirm the basic social order,” Edward
Dimock, Jr. reminds us, “it rather provides an alternative to it.”327 Shashibhusan Dasgupta
has noted how the esoteric yogic practices [guhya sādhanā] as part of the brahmanic
Hindu subculture came to be allied with “the speculation of the esoteric vaisnavic cult,
known as the Vaiṣṇava Sahajiyā movement.”328 The Vaiṣṇava Sahajiyā could live in
society when his personal ideals coincided with those of the society. But he would
always harbor his “unofficial self,” his Sahajiyā self, which will remain as “not only its
own moral arbiter but which … goes against all normal standards.” His personality is
thus somewhat schizophrenic.329
The Sahajiyās believe in the unity of macrocosm and microcosm and thus in the
existence of the Cosmic Principle in human body represented by a male and a female

325 SANYAL, H., Bāṁlā kīrtaner itihās, pp. 122-123.

326 SEN,S. (Ed.), Caitanyacaritāmṛta, p. 7. My translation. See also SANYAL, H., Bāṁlā kīrtaner itihās,
pp. 122-125.
327 DIMOCK, E.C., STEWART, T.K. (Eds. & trans.), Chaitanya charitamrita. Introduction and pp. 108, 105.
For a detailed history and doctrines of the Sahajiyās see DAS, P., Sahajiya Cult of Bengal and Pancha
Sakha Cult of Orissa.
328 DASGUPTA, S., Obscure religious cults, pp. 33-34; PRABHANANDA, Svāmī, Amṛtarūp Rāmakṛṣṇa,
p. 11.
329DIMOCK, E.C., Place of hidden moon, p. 109.
 112

principle in divine dalliance.330 Anyone capable of combining both principles in his own
body becomes identical with the Cosmic Principle itself. The method for uniting the two
components of the Cosmic Principle consists in the male practitioner’s ritual copulation
with a parakīyā partner, that is, a woman other than one’s wife. We know that one of
Ramakrishna’s intimate friends and admirers was a Kartābhajā Vaiṣṇava and the
acknowledged leader of the Vaiṣṇava community named Paṇḍit Vaisnavacharan
Gosvāmī, who had once taken the young priest of Daksineshvar to a secret Kartābhajā
hangout at Kachhibagan in north Calcutta to make him participate in ritual sex with the
Navarasika women.331 These women were not whores but came from regular families of
the city. However, as we learn, the paramahaṁsa underwent instant samādhi when an
unsuspecting parakīyā sucked his toe. She was embarrassed and duly apologized to the
august visitor.332
Ramakrishna, never a doctrinaire or a pedant but a believer in simple fiducia, does
fit the profile of a Sahajiyā Vaiṣṇava, even though he did not always display fully or
clearly the Sahajiyā psychological traits such as a sense of illumination, equipoise,
spontaneity, freedom, and harmony or the Sahajiyā attitude to sex (an exception due most
probably to his personal antipathy to heterosexual behavior).333 It is noteworthy that
ŚrīM once observed that the paramahaṁsa displayed the state of sahaja. The Master did
not contradict his disciple but referred to the Sahajiyās of Ghoshpara village who
preached that “one cannot recognize sahaja unless one becomes a sahaja.” 334
Ramakrishna’s Sahajiyā orientation explains his freewheeling attitude toward
piety. His dictum of yata mat tata path (indicating that all Hindu sectarian paths lead to

330 SANYAL, H., Bāṁlā kīrtaner itihās, pp. 228-29.

331 LP, Vol. 2 [Gurubhāva-Uttarārdha], pp. 6-33.
332 DATTA, R., Jīanbṛttānta, p. 37.
333 See
SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, pp. 172-174; see also NEKI, J.S., “Sahaja.” In Psychiatry, pp., 6-7;
ODDIE, G.A., “Old wine in new bottles?” Indian economic & social history review, pp. 327-343.
334 KM,
Vol. 4, p. 122 [GR, p. 505]. Diary of 3 August 1884; see also KENNEDY, M.T., Chaitanya
movement, pp. 210-215).
 113

God)335together with his insistence on bhakti as the only path to realize the divine
allowed him to endorse the efficacy of all sects without, however, compromising his
personal antipathy to rigorous rituals, especially those involving sexual practices, as well
as to theological and philosophical discourse (jṅānamārga). He considered the tantric
vīrācāra [ritual copulation] or the Vaiṣṇava parakīyā rati unnecessary and undesirable
and knowledge of Vedānta as the knowledge of the householder to be spat and pissed
on.336 At the same time he had no qualms in being a priest of the Śākta Goddess Kālῑ or
participating in the Brāhmo prayers and preaching or experimenting with Islam and
claiming identity with the Christ. Freda Matchett concludes judiciously that Rāmakṛṣṇa’s
spiritual experience and teaching cannot be identified with any one Hindu tradition,
because they were derived from and “shaped by a tradition where much synthesis had
already taken place.”337 Matchett reconfirms what Ramakrishna’s contemporary, Dr.
Shashibhusan Ghosh observed about his Master: “Judging from his talk we realize that he
associated with several sects like the Kartābhajā, Bāul, and others, and appropriated and
assimilated the spiritual moods of their adepts.”338 Another scholar remarked astutely
long ago—and this is of signal importance—that Rāmakṛṣṇa’s eclecticism was informed
by his responsive and childlike mind. “In this way,” wrote Wendell Thomas,

our saint became in turn a Śaivite, Viṣṇuite, and an Advaitin, a follower of yoga, bhakti, and
jṅāna, in short, an epitome of Hindu tradition. He held all cults to be true, because each one
seemed to lend itself to his familiar travel, which as a typical Hindu he regarded as the highest
realization of God. He would harmonize every Hindu cult with his simple logic of emotion
because they were already in fundamental or structural accord.339

Ramakrishna: Uneducated Master

335 Foran astute interpretation of this popular saying of the Master that its underlying eclecticism concerned
only the various sectarian paths within the ambit of Hindu faith see MRIGANANDA, Svāmī, Yata mat tata
path. See also DATTA, R., Jībanbṛttānta, pp. 58-73.
336 KM, Vol. 4, p. 43 [GR, p. 358]. Diary of 23 December 1883; Majumdar 1987, 81).KM, 4: 43 [GR, 358].
Diary of December 23, 1883; MAJUMDAR, R., Ātmakathā, p. 81.
337 MATCHETT, “Teaching of Raakrishna,” In Religion, p. 177.
338 GHOSH, S. Śrīśrīrāmakṛṣṇadev, p. 166.
339 THOMAS, W., Hinduism invades America, p. 60.
 114

In this connection it must be understood that Ramakrishna’s lack of formal education,

even at an elementary level, rendered him incapable of studying the scriptures of any
religion. All his insights, if any, into the various religious practices were culled from
what he learnt during conversations with paṇḍits, kathaks, kīrtanīyās, and pilgrim
mendicants. However, as we have noted already, he claimed to have learnt the essence of
the Vedānta direct from the Goddess Kālī and from a young sannyāsī with a trident that
emerged from his own body (hinting at his identification with Śiva perhaps). Therefore,
“the Brāhmaṇī, Totāpurῑ, and others…told [him]…what [he] knew already.”340 He in fact
told his nephew Hriday that he had made that bare bodied bloke [nyāngṭā-phyāngṭā]
Ishvar Totapuri his guru merely “to honor the injunctions and instructions of the
Vedas.”341
It appears that the wacky priest of Daksineshvar does have a spiritual identity,
which is on the wholeVaiṣṇavic. It should be recalled that Ramakrishna was a product
of a society deeply influenced by Chaitanyite Vaiṣṇavism. 342 The simple Vaiṣṇavic piety
was easily accessible to the hardworking agrarian laborers who had little education and
who enjoyed the devotional stories recited by the kathaks or enacted by the yātrās that
had tremendous entertainment value as contrasted with dry sermons or complex and
costly rituals. Ramakrishna grew up in a family devoted to the worship of Raghuvῑra or
Rāma. And, as noted earlier, most members of the Master’s family had “rām” as part of
their first name.
As has already been observed, it was by sheer accident that young Gadadhar
became a reluctant priest of Kālī at the temple of Rasmani, most probably because of a
hassle-free living, thanks to the loving insistence of Rasmani’s son-in-law Mathuranath.
As he was born and brought up in a non-Śākta family, Gadadhar had to be initiated into
Kālī worship rituals (śaktimantra) by the Paṇḍit Kenaram. However, his preferred
personal deities appear to be both Kālī and Kṛṣṇa (an incarnation of Viṣṇu and/or Rām).

340 LP, Vol..1[Sādhakabhāva], p. 161.

341 BARMAN, G. Rāmakṛṣṇacarit, Vol.1, p. 77.
342 LP, Vol. 2 [Gurubhāva-Uttarārdha], p. 285.
 115

Indeed, like most Bengali Hindus, his Vaiṣṇava consciousness never separated
Kṛṣṇa from Kālī. He often sang a few favorite lyrics of the mystic poets and devotees of
Kālī, Ramprasad Sen (1718-75) and Kamalakanta Bhattacharya (c. 1769-1821) as well
as danced almost every morning and evening chanting Viṣṇu/Kṛṣṇa’s various names
“Jai Govinda, Jai Gopāl, Keśava Mādhava dīna dayāl. Hare Murāre Govinda. Vasu-
Daivakīnandana Govinda. Haré Nārayaṇa Govinda hé. Haré Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva.” 343 In
his ecstatic mood on the day of Navamī (the ninth day of the full moon phase of the
Bengali lunar month of Āśvin corresponding to the month of October) marking the third
day of the four-day long Durgā Pūjā celebration at Daksineshvar, Ramakrishna prayed to
the Goddess as Kṛṣṇa, son of Yaśodā, as Rādhā, the gopī of Braja, and as Pārvatī, the
mountain-daughter [Girijā], consort of Śiva.344 On the same day he also sang in praise of
Śrī Kṛṣṇa and Śrī Chaitanya.345
In one sense, like Chaitanya’s principal associate Nityananda (1478-c. 1542),
Ramakrishna was an avadhūta, that is, one who rejoices in as well as renounces creature
comforts at the same time by exercising or exhibiting total detachment and a
demonstrably uxorious habit. The Mahānirvānatantra (1333 BE, 8) maintains that the
avadhūtas are the only sannyāsīs [renunciants] in Kaliyuga. Some avadhūtas are called
bhaktāvadhūta [devotional avadhūta] who are further subdivided into two groups:
parivrājaka [peripatetic ascetic] and paramahaṁsas [ascetic possessing the power of
discrimination like the mythical haṁsa or swan].346 As a paramahaṁsa, Ramakrishna
never observed traditional discrimination in food, lived the life of a married householder
spending his time dancing and singing merrily with his devotees and associates.

Gadai and Nimai

343 SIL,
N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 174; SIL, N.P., “Kali’s child Krishna’s lover.” In Religion, 5; MTRA,
K., Rāmakṛṣṇa, p. 5; PRAJNANANANDA, Svāmī, 1394 BE, 428-41).
344 Foran explanation of Durgā Pūjā calendar, see [cit. 3 April 2016] www.durga-puja.org/durga-puja-
timing.html

345 KM, Vol. 5, p. 79-82 [GR, pp. 302-304]. Diary of 10 October 1883.
343 SANYAL, H., Bāṁlā kīrtaner itihās, p. 152,151.
 116

Ramakrishna’s hagiographers claimed multiple similarities between his birth, childhood,

spiritual illumination and those of Śīichaitanya. Their enterprise in this regard was no
doubt prompted by Ramakrishna’s own rethinking about his Chaitanya paramparā or
incarnation. As noted earlier, though in his infancy Gadai was worshiped by the women
of his village as an embodiment of Kṛṣṇa and Chaitanya, he grew up as a caste conscious
young brāhmaṇ who held the vaisnavas and Chaitanya in particular in utter contempt.
However, following the diagnosis of his burning sensation by the bhairavī Yogeshvari as
Chaitanya’s mahābhāva [superconscious state], and later, his sojourn to Navadvīp in
1870, Ramakrishna changed his outlook on the Vaiṣṇavas and their leader Chaitanya.
Especially after his vision of two handsome youths (presumably Chaitanya and
Nityananda) descend from the sky and disappear into him, Ramakrishna, on the basis of
the bhairavī’s interpretation and imprimatur, was convinced of his identity with both
Vaiṣṇava stalwarts.347
Jayananda’s (b.c.1512) celebrated biography of Chaitanya’s earlier years,
Caitanyamaṅgala (c. 1550-60), claims that Chaitanya’s aging mother Shachi Devi dreamt
Lord Jagannāth (one of the several appellations of Viṣṇu) extend his hand to sit on her lap
and when she recounted the dream to her husband, Jagannath Mishra, he was
overwhelmed with delight in divine love and told her all about it that in his home “Lord
Jagannāth himself will be born to her” [“Śacī ṭhākurāṇī dekhé Śrījagannāth/Śacī kolé
samāila prasariyā hāth/Ei svapna dekhé tabé Śacīṭhākurāṇī/Miśra Jagannāthé svapna
dekhilā āpani/Svapna śuné premānandé pulakita haiā/Hriday prakāś taré kahila
bhāṅgiyā./Kon mahāpuruṣ āsi kaila garbhabās./Āmār mandiré Jagannāther prakāś”].
After hearing this Shachi “blossomed doubly beautiful” [dviguṇ sundarī hailā Śacī
ṭhākurāṇī].348 Similarly, we have Gadadhar’s mother Chandramani being impregnated by
the forceful penetration of a ray of light emanating from the Śiva temple of her village.
At the time her husband Ksudiram was away at Gaya where he was told by Lord

347 LP, Vol. 1[Sādhakabhāva], p. 162.

348 MAJUMDAR, B., MUKOPADHYAY, S. (Eds.), Jayananda’s Chaitanya Mangala. Trans. SIDDHANTA,
J. Calcutta: The Asiatic Sociey, 1971, p. 16.
 117

Raghuvῑra in a dream that the god wished to be born in Ksudiram’s household. Like
Shachi, Chandramani, too, looked lovely during her divine pregnancy in her mid-
forties.349
Chaitanya’s birthname was Vishvambhar (literally, “Sustainer of the World,” an
appellation of Viṣṇu) and his nickname Nimai (having the quality of the nīm plant), while
Ramakrishna’s birthname was Gadadhar (literally, “Bearer of Mace,” another appellation
of Viṣṇu) and nickname Gadai. Both Nimai and Gadai were apples of their neighbors’
eyes because both were reputedly very pretty.350 Both were also reputed to be fair-
complexioned. However, though Ramakrishna’s disciples and devotees considered him as
very handsome and despite his own conviction that he looked like a beautiful woman
whom “people used to stare at,” in actuality, Rāmakṛṣṇa’s complexion, though not very dark,
was slightly darker than that of the average Calcuttan. 351

Both Gadai and Nimai were pranksters during their boyhood, though the former
“was never a rowdy boy”352 and the latter “a very real boy.”353 The boy Nimai used to
tease the village women by hiding their sārī left on the bank while they were bathing in
the pond or spraying sand dust on their body after they came out of the water, or even
importuning some with his persistent demand to marry him. 354 Gadai, on the other hand,
used to peek at the naked women bathing in Haldarpukur, the largest pond of
Kamarpukur village. He was even admonished by a female bather who also complained
to his mother about his behavior. The boy, however, told his mother with disarming
candor that he felt no reaction at the sight of the bare bodied belles.355

349 LP, Vol.1[Pūrvakathā O Vālyajīvan], pp. 68, 70.

350 AKSAYCHAITANYA, Caitanya o Rāmakṛṣṇa, p., 2.
351 LP, Vol.1[Gurubhāva-Pūrvārdha], p. 191; LM, p. 54; DATTA, M., Rāmakṛṣṇer anudhyān, p. 29.
352 SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 29 (emphasis added).
353 DE, S.K.., History of vaisnava faith, p. 70.
354 AKSAYCHAITANYA, Caitanya o Rāmakṛṣṇa, p. 3.
355 LP, Vol.1[Pūrvakathā O Vālyajīvan], p. 92.
 118

As a student of Paṇḍit Gangadas of Navadvip, Vishvambhar exhibited his mastery

of Sanskrit grammar and power of memory and was even reputed to have defeated a
famous poet and rhetorician Digvijayī (literally, “world conqueror”) Śrī Mukunda in a
public debate.356 He was in fact extremely egotistic [ātmaślāghī] and cantankerous
[kalahaparāyan] whom his biographer Vrindavan Das describes as a uniquely arrogant
man: “teman uddhata ār nāhi Navadvīpé” [“no one was such arrogant in Navadvip”].357
Gadadhar, while not as brilliant as his forbear, yet triumphed over the veteran scholar
Gauri Paṇḍit by cowering latter with a loud yell. He also won kudos for his prodigious
memory, and his musical and acting talent. Like Nimāi, he even scored over formidable
scholars in debates on complex issues.358 Both men also experienced madhura bhāva (the
emotional state of divine love) during their respective sādhanā. Both were afflicted with
divine madness.359
Vrindavan Das writes that Chaitanya chose his first wife Laksmi: “Nija-Lakṣmī
ciniyā hasita Gaurcandra/Lakṣmīo bandilā mane prabhu padadvanda/Henamate doṅhā
cini doṅhā gharé gelā” [‘Gaurcandra recognized his Lakṣmī and smiled. /Lakṣmī, too,
meditated on the Master’s feet. /Thus both acquainted themselves and went home’]. 360
Gadadhar’s marriage was also based on choice rather than paternal initiative and
arrangement. According to traditional accounts, the five-year old Saradamaṇi chose
Gadadhar for her husband when the infant girl sighted him in a musical soirée in Shihore,
her parental village. Gadadhar is also reported to have told his mother, who was
searching for a suitable bride for her son, that he would marry only that child who had
chosen him as her husband. At the time of marriage (May 1859) Ramakrishna was
known to have been afflicted by some sort of mental derangement caused, purportedly, by
his kaṭhor tapasyā [severe ascetic exercises]. Stories of his eccentric and ecstatic

356 DIMOCK, E.C., STEWART, T.K. (Eds. & trans.), Chaitanya charitamrita, pp. 306-308.
357 DAS, Vrindavan, Caitanybhāgavat, 1/8 cited in SANYAL, H., Bāṁlā kīrtaner itihās, p. 27.
358 LP, Vol.1[Pūrvakathā O Vālyajīvan], p. 113; SEN, A., Rāmakṛṣṇa-puṅthi, pp. 21-22.
359 LP, Vol. 2 [Gurubhāva-Uttarārdha], pp. 7-14; SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, ch. 6.
360 Caitanyabhāgavat, 7 cited in CHAKRAVARTI, P., “Caitanya o Rākṛṣṇa.” In VS, p. 650.
 119

behaviors at Daksineshvar had reached his home at Kamarpukur. His employers as well
as his widowed mother Chandramani hoped that his mental condition, an outcome of
severe continence, would be cured if he got married. Finding a suitable girl from a
compatible caste family for a “mentally deranged” young man proved problematic and
hence Ramakrishna’s mother decided on the only available match (on which the intended
groom himself insisted), even at the cost of paying the girl’s father a hefty bride price
[kanyār maryādā] of three hundred rupees. 361
Ramakrishna’s androgynous attitude and behavior since his childhood mirrored
Chaitanya’s habit of cross dressing and behaving as the Great Mother or Yaśoda, Lord
Kṛṣṇa’s mother, or Śrīrādhā, Kṛṣṇa’s devotee and lover. We learn from Vrindavan Das
that Mahāprabhu [the Great Master] once “mātṛbāvé…sabāré dhariā/Stanpān karāy
param snigdha haiā/…/Ānande vaiṣṇav sab karé stan pān,/Koṭi koṭi janma yārā
mahābhāgyavān” [“in a maternal mood suckled everybody with great affection….The
Vaiṣṇavas who suck (his) breasts with great delight are blessed in million births”].362 On
the other hand, Chaitanya’s male identity is pronounced in the Brajabuli texts where he is
depicted as an attractive “lady killer” urban playboy [nāgarika] to admiring and
swooning women.363 He is also reported to have cohabited with his dear friend and
namesake, the learned Gadadhar or Gadai Paṇḍit whom he considered as his divine
wife.364 This apparent anomaly could be explained by the supposition of the
hagiographers that Chaitanya is “Krishna in fair form (akṛṣṇāṅga),” that is, Chaitanya is
the double incarnation of Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā.365—a powerful representation of acintya
bhedābheda, “the theory that postulated simultaneous and incomprehensible difference
and non-difference between human and divine.” 366 Toward the end of his life Chaitanya

361BHUMANANDA, Svāmī, Māyer jīban-kathā, p.10.

362 DAS, Vrindavan, Caitanyabhāgavat, 2/18 cited in AKSAYCHAITANYA, Caitanya o Rāmakṛṣṇa, p. 27.
363 McDANIEL, J., Madness of saints, p.169.
364 AKSAYCHATANYA, Caitanya o Rāmakṛṣṇa, p. 36.
365DE, S.K., History of vaisnava faith, p. 424 ( see also pp. 422-47).
366 DIMOCK, E.C., Place of hidden moon, p. 43. See also SANYAL, H., Bāṁlā kīrtaner itihās, p. 165.
 120

always experienced Rādhābhāva:“Rādhikār bhāvé prabhur sadā abhimān/Sei bhāve

āpanāe hai Rādhājṅān” [“Prabhu always experienced the bhāva of Rādhikā, and in that
bhāva he knew himself as Rādhā”]. 367
Although there is no reference to Ramakrishna’s actually living with another male
devotee or disciple as a married couple (except an allusion to his teenage love [praṇay]
for Shriram Mallik, a neighborhood boy of his village.368 Saradananda describes
Ramakrishna’s penchant for being reborn as a widow devotee and lover of Kṛṣṇa as well
as showing himself in public as a well-dressed enticing woman fanning the deity with a
cāmara (a hand-held fan made of the tail of chamri cow, a yak-like quadruped) during
ārati in the Kālī temple. One of Ramakrishna’s contemporaries writes about the Master’s
maternal love for some of his boy devotees, especially Rakhalchandra Ghosh (later Svāmī
Brahmananda, 1863-1922), whom he suckled publicly (“Rākhāler ki sundar svabhāv.
Khelté khelté douḍé esé āmār kolé basé māi khāy” [What a beautiful childlike nature
Rakhal has! While at play, he would come running to me, sit on my lap, and suck my
tits].369 Ramakrishna’s habit of touching his disciples with his foot in his bhāva or ecstasy
or having his feet massaged by them mirrored Chaitanya’s similar behavior: “Yakhan
khaṭṭāy uṭhé prabhu Viśvambhar, caraṇ arpaye sabār upar” [Whenever the Master got up
on the bed he stepped on everybody].370 Ramakrishna’s behavior was regarded by his
devotees as the Christ-like touch of divine compassion for the sinful humanity, although,
as we shall late later, not everybody thought so. But Ramakrishna’s intrepid devotee
Girish Ghosh proclaimed that his Master ‘touches others for their own good. Sometimes
he thinks that he might be ill by taking others’ sins upon himself.’371

367 DIMOCK, E.C., STEWART, T.K. [Eds. & trans.), Chaitanya charitamrita, p. 927; SEN, S. [Ed. &
trans.], Chaitanyacharitamrita, p. 220.
368 KM, Vol. 3, p. 184 [GR, p. 787]. Diary of 13 June 1885.

369LP, Vol.1 [Gurubhāva-Pūrvārdha], p.197; LM, p.159; see also SIL, N.P. Crazy in love of god, ch. 2.
370 Śrīcaitanyabhāgavat, Madhyalīlā, 16 cited in CHAKRAVARTI, P. “Caitanya o Rāmakṛṣṇa.” In VS, p.
652.
371KM, Vol. 1, p. 254 [GR, p. 905]. Diary of 27 October 1885.
 121

Ramakrtishna’s reputation as Chaitanya needed an analogue for Jagai and

Madhai, the two wayward winos, whose boisterous behavior was tamed by Chaintanya’s
almost Christ-like compassion, admittedly through the intercession of Nityananda.372
Thus we have the parallel story of the alcoholic and abusive Girish Ghosh.373 Girish, a
noted socialite and a prominent personality in the world of Calcutta theater, became the
most vocal and forceful proclaimer of the Master’s Chaitanya and Christ connections.

Ramakrishna and Chaitanya’s Divine Connection and Claims

Both the Mahāprabhu and the Master claimed divinity. Toward the end of his life
Ramakrishna announced that he had received an imprimatur from no other than
Saccidānanda [Brahman or Absolute conceived in abstraction of qualities and states: sat,
cit, and ānanda, that is, truth, being, and bliss] Himself that he was Śrī Chaitanya and, to
further demonstrate a Kālī priest’s incarnation as a Vaiṣṇava prophet, and added that
Saccidānanda also declared that “Chaitanya, too, worshiped Śakti [i.e., Kālī or the
Female Godhead].”374 His deathbed assertion “He who was Rām and Kṛṣṇa is now, in
this body, Ramakrishna”375 echoed Chaitanya’s “mui Kṛṣṇa, mui Rām, mui Nārāyaṇ” [“I
am Kṛṣṇha, I am Rāma, I am Nārāyaṇa”].376 Once in his childhood, Chaitanya gorged the
ritual food for Gopāla worship three times and when confronted by the exasperated cook
showed him his four-armed form (that is, the iconic image of Lord Viṣṇu).377 Similarly,
as a full-grown adult, he showed Kashi Mishra of Puri, Orissa “his four-armed

372 DIMOCK, E.C., STEWART, T.K. (Eds. & trans.), Chaitanyacharitamrita, Ādilīlā, 17, p. 251.
373 KM, Vol. 5, p. 143. Diary of 25 February1885; see also KM, Vol. 3, p. 133. Diary of April 6, 1885; 2:
227. Diary of April 16, 1886).
374 KM, Vol. 3, p 121[GR, p. 920]. Diary of 7 March 1885.

VIVEKANANDA, Svāmī (Comp.), Ramakrishna, pp. 127-28)375

376 Śrīcaitanyabhāgavat, Antya Khaṇḍa, 1 cited in CHAKRAVARTI, P. “Chaitanya o Rāakṛṣṇa, p. 652.
377 DAS, H.C., Sri Chaitanya, pp. 22-23.
 122

form” [“Kāśīmiśra paḍilā āsi prabhur caraṇé/…Prabhu caturbhuja mūrti tāṅré

dekhāilā’].378
Both also expressed humble disclaimers in respect of their respective divinity.
Lying in his deathbed Ramakrishna responded to his visitor Shivanath Śāstrī’s
(1847-1919) report on the Master’s devotees comparing him to god: “Just fancy, God
Almighty dying of cancer in the throat. What great fools these fellows must be!”379
Chaitanya once slapped an overenthusiastic bhaṭṭācārya paṇḍit, who told how people
beheld Lord Kṛṣṇa in the waters of Kalidaha, and admonished him: “You are a paṇḍit, but
you have become a fool because of your foolish talk. Would Kṛṣṇa give darśan in this
Kali age?” [“Lok kahé Kṛṣṇa prakaṭ Kālidaher jalé/…Bhaṭṭācārya tabé kahé prabhur
caraṇé. /Ājṅā deha yāi kari Kṛṣṇadaraśané/Tabé tāhé kahé prabhu cāpaḍ māriyā/
Mūrkher vākyé mūrkha hailā paṇḍit haiā/Kṛṣṇa kené daraśan dibé kalikālé/Nijabhrame
mūrkha lok karé kolāhalé’]. When some people told Chaitanya that he was the
incarnation of Kṛṣṇa in Vrindavan, the Lord [Prabhu] said, “Viṣṇu, Viṣṇu! Do not speak
so. Do not mistake a low jīva for Kṛṣṇa” [“Lok kahé…Vṛndāvané haile tumi Kṛṣṇa
avatāra…Prabhu kahé Viṣṇu Viṣṇu ihā nā kahio/Jīvadhāmé Kṛṣṇajṅān kabhu na
kario”].380
The most influential spiritual behavior of both Ramakrishna and Chaitanya
consisted in song, dance, and trance revealing their divyonmattatā (divine madness).
Chaitanya was noted for his saṁkīṛtan381 and frenzied dance [uddaṇḍa or tāṇḍava
nṛtya] 382 as was Ramakrishna for his ecstatic shivers (mahābhāva) and his dancing like a

378 DIMOCK, E.C., STEWART, T.K. (Eds. & trans.), Chaitanyacharitamrita, p. 483; SEN, S. (Ed.),
Caitanyacaritāmṛta, p. 83.
379 SHASTRI, S., Men I have seen, p. 77.

380DIMOCK, E.C., STEWART, T.K. (Eds. & trans.), Chaitanyacharitamrita, p. 603; SEN, S. (Ed.),
Caitanyacaritāmṛta, p. 129.

381 DAS, H.C., Chaitanya, p. 32.

382 SEN, S., Caitanyacaritāmṛta, p. 101.
 123

“mad elephant” [matta mātaṅga] in his intoxicated mood [mātoārā bhāva].383 It is known
that Chaitanya’s enlightenment commenced sometime between December 1508 and
January 1509 after he emerged from the grotto of the Vaiṣṇava scholar Ishvarpuri at Gaya
(in the state of Bihar) as an intoxicated devotee of Kṛṣṇa; this signaled the beginning of
Chaitanya’s conversion from a scholar into an ecstatic devotee.384 Likewise,
Ramakrishna’s Vedānta enlightenment (which he would later deemphasize), for which he
was made famous by Vivekananda,385 occurred following his enchanted encounter with
the naked ascetic Īśvar Totapuri at Panchavaṭi (the grove in the compound of the
Daksineshvar temple. After the Totapuri phase, Ramakrishna’s skill in the highest form of
trance, the nirvikalpa samādhi, received wide publicity.386 In fact, Saradananda
proclaimed his Master as the unparalleled prince of bhāva. As he observed, “Bhāvarājyer
ata baḍa rājā mānabsamājé ār kakhanao dekhā yāy nāi” [“Human society hasn’t seen
such a majestic prince of the kingdom of bhāva ever again”].387
Interestingly enough, both Ramakrishna and Chaitanya were quite aware of the
pathology of their phenomenal ecstasies. Ramakrishna confessed candidly that his
ecstasy turned him crazy. His touching the devotees with his foot brutalized his physician
and devotee Dr. Sarkar who admonished his ecstatic patient: “It’s not nice that you place
your foot on others’ bodies in ecstasy.” To this Ramakrishna responded: “This is due to

383KM, Vol. 1. p. 159 [GR, p. 632]. Diary of 19 October 1884; KM, Vol. 5, p. 41-42 [GR, pp. 223-24].
Diary of 27 May 1883.
384 KENNEDY, M.T., Chaitanya movement, p. 18.
385 See SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, ch. 9.
386 SIL,N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 97. Accounts of Ramakrishna’s early samādhis were recounted by
the Master himself (LP, Vol. 1 [Sādhakabhāva], pp. 44, 48, 53). Nirvikalpa means without vikalpa, that is,
the confusion induced by “cognitive inferences based upon the conceptual meaning which the perceptionof
the object evokes in our mind” (COWARD, H.G., Jung and eastern thought, p. 137). There is no
corroboration of Totapuri’s actual presence at Daksineshvar. Most probably “Totapuri” was just one of
the many roving holy men who routinely halted at Daksineshvar on their pilgrimage to Purī (Orissa), the
home of Lord Jagannāth. As a child Gadai had often been attracted to them (Sil 2009, 31). The story
about Totāpurī comes from Rāmakṛṣṇa and his nephew Hṛdayrām. While the latter was an unreliable and
garrulous witness, Ramakrishna was, like most Bengali storytellers, capable of imaginative invention for
the sake of making a point [cf. Ramakrishna’s story of the legendary ascetic king Janak and the historical
Sikh religious leader Nanak (1469-1539)] (SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, p. 141).
387 LP, Vol. 1 [Gurubhāva-Pūrvārdha], p. 90.
 124

madness, what can I do? Divine ecstasy makes me mad.”388 Chaitanya had admitted:
“Mṛgī-vyādhité āmi hai acetan” [“I become unconscious because of epilepsy”].389
The late David Kinsley rightly observed that “Ramakrishna, like Chaitanya, was a
great actor and frequently recommended the technique of rāganugā to his disciples.”390
Rāgānugā is formed of rāga [spontaneous and deep attraction for the desired object] and
anugā [following] and thus means “a following after passion, in a manner of passion, the
transformative process that leads to a condition of ragātmikā” [spontaneous and
inseparable (ātmikā) passion].391 By the seventeenth century the famous Vaiṣṇava scholar
Vishvanath Chakravarti (1656-1708) enjoined the male devotees to imitate such divine
models as Rādhā or the gopīs only with “the meditative perfected body.” Physical
imitation with the sādhaka’s actual body had to refer not to the divine but to the
paradigmatic imitators of the divine model. In other words, for a Vaiṣṇava it was not
necessary to behave like a real Rādhā or a real gopī (presuming, of course, that they
existed in real life!), but to behave like the Vaiṣṇava Masters of the past such as
Chaitanya or Rupa Gosvāmī (1489-1564), who were the spiritual models.
Ramakrishna did imitate Chaitanya but did not rest there. He actually sought to
become woman in his grand act of mimesis.392 The Master once advised a young visitor:
“A man’s character can change through āropa [imposition or imitation]. Lust can be
destroyed by imitating prakṛti. Genuine feminine behavior can thus be acquired. I have
seen those men who take female parts in the yātrā [open air theater popular in the villages
of Bengal] talk and clean teeth like women while bathing.”393 The Master appears to be
blissfully unaware of contradicting his lifelong notion of kāminī the Eve-like seducer of

388 KM, Vol. 1, p. 254 [GR, p. 905]. Diary of 27 October 1885.

389 DIMOCK, E.C., STEWART, T.K., Chaitanyacharitamrita, p. 607; SEN, S., Caitanyacaritāṛta, p. 130.
390 KINSLEY, D., Divine player, p. 220.
391 DIM OCK, .C., STEWART, T.K. (Eds. & trans.), Chaitanya charitamrita, p. 703. See also DE, S.K.,
History of vaisnava faith, p.176; KINSLEY, D., Divine player, p. 211; DAS, R.P., Vaishnavism in Bengal,
p. 2-5; HABERMAN, D. L., Acting as a way of salvation, pp. 9-10.
392 See HABERMAN, D.L., Acting as a way of salvation, pp. 94-108.
393 KM, Vol. 4, p. 4 [GR, p. 176]. Diary of 1 January 1883.
 125

men, especially holy men, the so-called “pure pots” [“śuddhasattva”], and his advice for
his male followers to imitate kāminī as prakṛti the tamer of lust. More egregious than

contradiction, Rāmakṛṣṇa’s denial or debunking of woman as a sexual being like man

reveals his innate albeit unconscious misogyny.
To reiterate a point made earlier, as a Vaiṣṇava, the paramahaṁsa opted for the
spontaneous path—the path of sahaja. This path of course deviated from the natural path
of the Sahajiyā belief, that is, the path of natural heterosexual delight. But as a Sahajiyā
Vaiṣṇava, Ramakrishna was enchantingly personal and informal, in fact quite intimate, in
his relationship with the divine. Free from the constraints of ratiocination and
intellection, his clarion call as a man of god was not sapere aude [“dare to know”], but
ludére aude [“dare to play”]. Apparently, Ramakrishna’s temple at Daksineshvar was a
veritable haven of bliss, ānanda niketan, as it were. The nahavat [tune from windpipe
called śānāi in Bengal] used to play various melodies in the early hours of the morning,
in mid-morning, at noon, in the early afternoon, and in the evening, in short throughout
the day. Scores of devotees and itinerant mendicants visited the place every day.394
Ramakrishna lived in this charming and serene arcadia in superb comfort singing,
dancing, savoring good food, and being ecstatic to everybody’s wonderment, thanks to
the generosity and devotion of the temple proprietress and the temple manager. “This
world is a hunk of fun. I eat (and drink) and make merry”—“ei saṁsār majār kuṭi, āmi
khāi dāi ār majā luṭi”—he loved to recite often after the legendary Vaiṣṇava poet Aju
Gosvāmῑ who had ssung this doggerel in a poet’s duel [kabir laḍāi] with the Śākta

Ramprasad Sen at the royal court of Nadiya in Bengal.395 He proclaimed that his “is the
attitude of a child” 396 and claimed that even “God has a boyish nature.”397 In fact, he was

394 KM,Vol. 1, pp. 14-15. Diary of February 26, 1882. No entry in the GR as it begins with the diary of
March 1882 on p. 77.
395 KM,
Vol. 5, pp. 72, 134 [GR, p. 696]. Diary of 22 February 1885. For the Aju-Ramprassd episode see
DASGUPTA, P., Rāmprasād, pp. 86-91; McLEAN, M. Devoted to goddess, p. 40.
396 KM,Vol. 3, p. 24 [GR, p. 116]. Diary of 24 August 1882; KM, Vol. 3, p. 50 [GR, p. 284]. Diary of 9
September 1883.
397 KM, Vol. 4, p. 3 [GR, 176]. Diary of 1 January 1, 1883).
 126

initiated in Gopālamantra (which is the same as Rām mantra , that is, worship of Gopāla

the baby Kṛṣṇa(or Rāmlālā the baby Rām.398

In his characteristic crazy way he told his Brāhmo admirer Keshab: “Why should
I cry ‘Brahman Brahman’! I’ll call on Him in every bhāva—śānta [calm], dāsya
[service], vātsalya [childlike naiveté], sakhya [companionship], and madhura [sweet
love]—I’ll have fun with God” [“Śudhu ‘Brahma Brahma’ kena karbo! Śānta, dāsya,
bātsalya, sakhya, madhur sab bhāve tāṅké ḍākba—ānanda karba bilās karba”]. 399 “This
world is a hunk of fun. I eat (and drink) and make merry,” he loved to repeat this
doggerel often. 400
Ironically and tragically enough, the saint who was an innocent and fun-loving
bon viveur of sorts, died a painful death, afflicted with throat cancer. His scribbling and
doodles made a few months before his death (August 16, 1886) invoked the name of
Rādhā—“Jai Rādhé pumamohī” [premamayī]—instead of Kālῑ.401 Ramakrishna, the
child of Kāiī, died as he was born, a Vaiṣṇava. It is not surprising that Svāmῑ
Prabhananda, a distinguished scholar monk of the Ramakrishna Order, called him a novel
incarnation of Śrī Chaitanya—Navagaurāṅga [Neo-Gaurāṅga]—while providing a
graphic account of his mātoārā bhāva (intoxicated mood) and ecstatic dance during
Harilīlā [enacting Śrī Chaitanya’s devotion for Hari or Viṣṇu] at Peneti or Panihati (a
suburban town some seven miles north of Calcutta) in 1858 and at Phului-Shyambazar
and Beldiha or Belte villages (adjacent to Shihore and close to Ramakrishna’s native
village of Kamarpukur) in 1875. Ramakrisha’s masterful performance inspired even the
conservative and puritanical Vaiṣṇava gosvāmῑs of the region in the spontaneous outburst
of devotional delight.402

398 LP, Vol. 1 [Sādhakabhāva], pp. 236-237.

399 KM, Vol. 5, p. 210 [GR, p. 1010]. Diary of 1 January 1881.
400 KM, Vol. 3, p. 177 [GR, p. 478]. Diary of 30 June 1884.
401 PURNATMANANDA, Svāmī, Untitled in Udbodhana, Vol. 96, No. 6 (1401 BE), p. 28. Explanation of
the sketches and scribbles of Rāmakṛṣṇa done on 11 February 1886.

402
PRABHANANDA, Svāmī, Amṛtarūp Rāmakṛṣṇa, pp. 74-93; see also AKSAYCHAITANYA, Ṭhākur
Rāmakṛṣṇa, pp. 189-94.
 127

Ramakrishna has been famous and popular as the Pāgal Ṭhākur, “Mad Master” of
Daksineshvar. His so-called madness has nothing to do with our clinical concept of
mental illness or lunacy, but it is an acceptable and respectable erratic and often funnily
crazy behavior culturally associated with the state of a mystic in direct liaison with the
divine.403 In other words, the madness of a religious personality is divine madness or
divyonmattatā. The Bhakti movement has produced numerous saints who appear from
the standpoint of society crazy, but they represent an indifference to or transcendence of
the phenomenal world. Ramakrishna consciously and forcefully imitated the reported
ecstatic behavior of Śrī Chaitanya. He told Keshab Sen that he borrowed his ideas of the
five sthāyī bhāvas [permanent emotional state or mood] from Caitanyite Vaiṣṇavism.404
Chaitanya emphasized Rādhā’s madhura bhāva as the lover of Kṛṣṇa.405 An expert
mimic, Ramakrishna, too, impersonated the Rādhā of folklore and in fact frequently
recommended the technique of rāgānugā bhakti to his disciples. In fact Krishnadas
Kabirāj argues that Chaitanya was a double incarnation of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa
wished to have a dalliance with Rādhā by being Rādhā and so Caitanya was the
incarnation of Kṛṣṇa as well as Rādhā (“Rādhā Kṛṣṇa ek ātmā dui deha dhari./Anyānyé
bilāsé rasa āsvādan kari./Sei dui ek ebé Caitanyagosāiṅ./Rasa āsvādité doṅhé hailā ek
ṭhāiṅ.”406
As “Chaitanya’s beauty, dancing, and ecstasy marked him as special and implied
his divinity,” Ramakrishna’s reputed beauty, kīrtanas, dances, and trances led to his

403 See McDANIEL, J., Madness of saints, chs. 3, 4 & 6.

404 Foran explanation of the Vaiṣṇava concept of rasa see MITRA, K. et al. (Comps.), Vaiṣṇava Padāvalī,
pp. 14-20.

405 SeeDE, S.K., Bengal’s Sanskrit literature, pp. 123-28; see also Jīva GOSVĀMĪ, Jiva[d. 1618],
Bhaktisandarbha [The Essence of Bhakti] and GOSVĀMĪ, Rupa [1489-1564], Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu [The
Ocean of Bhaktirasa].

406 SEN, S., Caitanyacaritāmṛta, p. 5. Both Ramakrishna and Chaitanya also attempted to embrace the
image of Lord Jagannāth in the attitude of madhura. KM, Vol. 4, pp. 227-28 [GR, p. 810. Diary of 15 July
1885; Śrīcaitanyabhāgavat, Antyakhaṇḍa, 2 cited in CHAKRAVARTI, P., Caitanya o Rāmakṛṣṇa. In VS, p.
651.
 128

phenomenal popularity.407 According to the Master, madness as world weariness is the

outcome of meritorious acts of past life and is the characteristic trait of the final birth.408
He further maintained that a man of perfect knowledge and a perfect idiot betray similar
characteristics. 409 Hence his spiritual battle-cry: “Be mad! Be crazy with love of
God!”410 This is caritas divina or what Ramakrishna, following the Vaiṣṇavas, labeled
parābhakti or premabhakti.411 Nearly a century ago, the Protestant missionary and
scholar John Nicol Farquhar (1861-1929) observed: “The character of Ramakrishna was
singularly simple. He seemed to be capable of only a single motive, namely a passion for
God that ruled him and filled him.”412 More recently, Kinsley wrote: “The lesson of
Ramakrishna is that man must approach the divine without guile—openly, in wonder,
with the simple faith of a child,” that “in man’s love affair with the divine he is free to
behave…like a child;’ ‘and finally…that God is like a child,” who needs to be amused “in
superfluous sport and aimless dalliance.”413 Indeed, Ramakrishna Paramahaṁsa, like the
mythological prince Prahlad, the intrepid child devotee and tamer of Lord Viṣṇu as the
terrible Narasiṁgha whom he adored,414 was a puer aeternas—the eternal child—in love
with his mother Goddess, the terrifying Kālῑ, or his lover God, the terrific Kṛṣṇa.

407 KINSLEY, D., Divine player, p. 220.

408 KM, Vol. 3, p. 180 [GR, p. 688]. Diary of 13 June 1885.
409 KM, Vol. 3, p. 191 [GR, p. 792: Nikhilanada’s translation with modification]. Diary of 13 June 1885.
410 KM, Vol. 2, p. 169 [GR, p. 615]. Diary of 11October 1884.
411 KM,Vol. 2, pp. 45-46 [GR, p. 229]. Diary of 2 June 1883; NIRVEDANNDA, Svāmī, “Rāmakṛṣṇr
Sādhanā.” In Mallik, R. (Ed.), Bhāvasamāhita Rāmakṛṣṇa, p. 66.
412 FARQUHAR, J.N., Religious movement, p. 195.
413 KINSLEY, D., Divine player, pp. 236-237.
414KM, Vol. 4, p. 28 [GR, p. 340]. Diary of 15 December 1883; RAMAKRISHNANANDA, Svāmī,
Sriramakrishna, p. 10.
 129

CONCLUSION
RAMAKRISHNA’S SPIRITUAL CRISIS AND ITS RESOLUTION:
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE415

“When there is a conflict between emotional life and active life, there is neurosis….But when
both power and sensitivity are working in coordination, there is genius….The empty mind in
Eastern philosophy is worthy of highest praise. So lose your mind and come to your senses.”
Fagen and Shepard (1971), 38.

From two major sources—the KM and the LP—there emerges the unique figure of
Ramakrishna—half-formed, emotionally and physically. We discover a precocious village
boy of delicate disposition and possessing a natural talent for playacting being adored by
the village women. Based on his recorded reminiscences and analyzing them in light of
his other comments, asides, and innuendos, it is also possible to suggest that he had some
sort of unsavory and unusual sexual experiences, though it would be arrogantly partisan
and frankly conceited to debunk reasonably framed speculations by insisting on direct
evidence. Most probably these experiences, half understood at the time, caused a psychic
trauma in his childhood and adolescence and induced in him a sense of sexual apathy as
well as gender identity confusion resulting in his conviction that he was not a man but a
woman. Also his upbringing in the vaisnavic tradition and folklore as well as his peculiar
physiognomy (gynecomastia) might have reinforced his conviction.416 However,
Ramakrishna devised ingenious ways to make a meaning out of his condition and
experience. He began to consider himself unique and uniquely endowed with the power
to realize God.

Ramakrishna would de-emphasize normal sex and instead endorse what he called
divine sex. The closest parallel to his divine sex, in the context of Western culture, is
perhaps the mystical agape, that is, God’s love for mankind, or the Dionysiac love of
Mycenaean mythology. As we learn from the myth of Dionysus, that lover-God had the

415 AlthoughI borrow the theme of “crisis and its resolution” in Ramakrishna’s emotional-spiritual life from
NEEVEL, W.G., “Transformation of Ramakrishna,” my own interpretation of it has no conncection or
concurrence with Neevel’s.
416 See SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, ch. 2.
 130

ecstatic maenads [the village belles] crazy for his love, which was unending and eternal.
Unlike carnal love, that is love-making, in which male passions are cooled by transient
moments of possession, divine or Dionysiac love is ecstatic and binds a person to his
loved one for all eternity. Ramakrishna’s prescriptions were almost similar although he
couched divine love in the most (human) erotic phraseology conceivable: “When a man
attains ecstatic love of God all the pores of the skin, even the roots of the hair, become
like so many sexual organs, and in every pore the aspirant enjoys the happiness of
intercourse with Ātman.”417 He in fact claimed to have knowledge of an esoteric spiritual
anatomy—eyes, ears, and genitals of “sacred love” [prem].418

As has been noted earlier, the phrase kāminī kāncana became the cantus firmus
of his sermons. From a psychological standpoint, this is a classic example of “negative
fascination.” Most probably the saint’s phobia of human sexuality partly enshrined in the
phrase remained inhibited and repressed physiologically as well as psychologically and
thus could not be experienced by him in normal male sexuality. Hence he totally
deemphasized it by trying to become a female psychically and emotionally.

Ramakrishna constantly urged his devotees to get out of the mundane world of
māyā, become crazy with God’s love, and abjure all other attachments of life. Every day
he participated in frenzied singing and dancing—bhajanānanda or kīrtan—with scores of
men and during dance he would lapse into his ecstatic trance. In fact, he catapulted into
fame because of his performances during these sessions. He earned the celebrity of a
realized saint who died and came back to life seven times—a clear reference to his state
of total stillness during trances and then his recovery from them into normalcy.

However, he was quite conscious of the people around him, and he carefully
studied their reaction to his behavior. He used to inquire of his disciples about their
assessment of his samādhis and sermons. He invented a handy explanation for the

417 KM, Vol. 4, p. 17 [GR, p. 220. Diary of 2 May 1883; for fuether explanation see SIL, N.P., Crazy in
love of god, p. 224 n.79.
418 KM, Vol. 3, p.22 [GR, p. 115]. Diary of 24 August 1882.
 131

apparent incongruity of his remaining perfectly conscious while in ecstasy, which was
supposed to be a condition of pure unconsciousness (or Consciousness). He called this
situation bhāvamukha or mystical threshold—something only a divine incarnation was
capable of maintaining. He of course had no scriptural source or grammatical derivatives
for his Sanskrit sounding term, but his devotees and admirers accepted his claim for the
great Goddess Kālī’s command to him to “reamain in bhāvamukha.”

Even present day academics such as Dr. Parsons (as well as a few others) who
does no seem to have done researches in the vernacular primary and secondary sources
on Ramakrishna—except reviewing Kripal (praising him for his sympathetic treatment of
the Master) and Sil’s (debunking him for his reductionist “positivist” analysis of a
religious leader) books and writing a monograph on the “enigmatic” mystical experience
of the “oceanic feeling”—has posited that the very inscrutability of a mystical state
constitutes its holy arcana above and beyond human rationality. Parsons’ neo orientalist
perspective419 is echoed by the vice-chancellor of the Ramakrishna Mission
Vivekananda University of Belur, Howrah, Svāmī Atmapriyananda, who cites Svāmī

Tapasyananda’s exegesis that Ramakrishna’s concept of vijṅāna abiding in bhāvamukha

may be called “alogical mysticism” which is non-logical without being illogical and
hence “can only be understood, if at all, through a divinely based supersensory
perception.”420

Ramakrishna, a natural actor, at times compared his ascetic and ecstatic behavior
to a good theatrical performance. He imitated the ascetics of yore, and his imitation was
an enactment of their authentic role as he understood it. He even went to the length of
resembling a monkey, complete with tail, eatng fruits with husks, and sleeping on tree
branches, in imitation of Hanumān, the simian factotum and devotee of the Hindu folk

419 See
SINGH, A., “An introduction to Edward Said.” [cit. 17 April 2016]. www.lehigh.edu/∼amsp/
2004/09/introduction-to-edward-said.html
420 ATMAPRIYANADA, Svāmī, “Understanding bhavamukha,” pp. 37-43.
 132

God Rāma, and as Lord Raghuvῑra, the presiding deity of his family.421 His playacting
was so intense and sincere that he often identified himself with the role he was enacting.
Imitation of divine model, however, is a characteristic of some Hindu sects, and this
behavior has a respectable tradition.422. Ramakrishna was surely acting within that
tradition; however, the impact he created was tremendous.

While singing, dancing, and getting ecstatic, he earned the reputation of a

perfectly realized saint, he never demonstrated his ascetic exercises, for example, those of
a yogī, that his frail frame was utterly incapable of performing. His popular reputation
for experiments with other religions and sects, notably Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism,
or Tantricism, gives absolutely no indication of his ever having read the holy books
or learnt their theologies except his vague understanding of their faiths on the basis
of hearsay accounts and his imitating some of their behaviors. He learned about
Gautama Buddha (c. 563-483 BCE) by quering the latter’s hair style and eyes but
not his tenets. He was told by his disciple Narendranath the Buddha’s statuary
shows his matted hair [jaṭā] and his eyes show a fixed stare (which resemble the
Master’s fixed stare during samādhi).423 He did not just practice Chistianity, he did
even better. He became Christ’s Bengali incarnation. He was told by an admiring
Christian visitor that the utivision of Christ emerge from a reproduction of
Raphael’s (1483-1520) portrait of the “Madonna and Child” and disappear in the
Master’s body.424

The most remarkable and apparently ridiculous claims for Ramakrishna’s

Islamic sādhnā is the wearing of his dhuti (Hindu male’s loincloth a part of which is
slung between the legs and tucked behind) as a luṅgī (Muslim male loincloth
wrapped around the lower body and worn like a bath towel) and eating onion

421 JAGADISHVARNANDA, Svāmī, Dakṣiṇeśvare Rāmakṛṣṇa, p.120.

422 See HABERMAN, D.L., Acting as a way of salvation.
423 KM, Vol. 3, p. 25 (GR, p. 949). Diary of 9 April 1886.
424 KM, Vol. 3, p. 212 (GR, p. 826). Diary of 28 July 1885.
 133

(considered as a Muslim vegetable and impure by the orthodox Hindus of his day).
And, just like his consummating experience with the Bengali Jesus, he reportedly
had a vision of “an effulgent, impressive personage with a flowing beard”—
presumably Allah or his paigambar [messenger] Muhammad (c. 570-632) .425 He was
considered as an incarnation of the Sikh guru Nanak (1469-1539) by his Sikh
devotee Koar Singh.426 The Master, of course returned the compliment by
proclaiming an identity between Nanak and King Janak of Hindu mythology.427

Even when he recounted his austerities and yogic practices of his younger days
to his visitors, he claimed the status of a jīvanmukta and īśvarakoṭi, that is, a liberated
soul and a divine incarnation, who did not have to prove his spiritual merits. In short,
Ramakrishna arrogated to himself the exalted status of a titan when he insisted that he
had become a God-realized personality or an īśvarakoṭi. 428 He in fact told ŚrīM: “I am an
avatāra. I am God in human form.”429

In the ultimate analysis, Ramakrishna’s personal identification with God is

nothing more and nothing less than his habitual claim for seeing and conversing with
divinities as concrete anthropomorphic figures. His understanding of “spitirual” or “God
realization” amounts pretty much to visiting and socializing with a living and breathing
real-life anthropomorphic divine being. To examine the value and validity of his various
visions in rational and commonsensical terms is bound to invite counter arguments from
the religious studies scholars as well aaccusations from the scholar monks that scptics are
trying to trespass into the arena of the arcane and the transcendent.

425 LP, Vol. 1 (Sādhakabhāva), p. 309.

426 KM, Vol. 4, p. 241 (GR, p. 833). Diary of 9 August 1885.
427 MOOKERJEE, N., ed., Sri Ramakrishna in the Eyes of Brahmo and Christian Admirers, p. 122.
Note the neat alliteration used by the imaginative Master.
422GR, p. 52: Nikhilanada’s Introduction; for an explanation of spiritual titanism see GIER, N.F., Spiritual
titanism, pp. 145-155.
429 NITYATMANANDA, SvāmĀ, ŚrīM-darśan, Vol. 6, p. 224.
 134

Father Coleman has reminded us of the difficulties of analyzing saints inasmuch

as they are both “like us and above us, and because they offer a strange wholeness and
integrity—a coincidentia oppositorum.430 These most certainly are important
admonitions, perhaps justifiable in any literary enterprise—to adore, rather than to
analyze, saintly behavior. However, knowledge must not, indeed cannot, be situated in
the realm of the affect only; it also has a provenance in the rational faculties of the human
mind. Analyzed rationally and psychologically, Ramakrishna’s odyssey suggests a
compelling hypothesis. It is that Ramakrishna discovered, wittingly or unwittingly, a
unique formula to deal with his personal crisis. The most significant crisis in his life
appears to be his ambivalent situation in respect of his sexual identity and entity. He
would have loved to be a woman—indeed as a young boy he earnestly desired to be born
as a girl in his next birth—but for his unalterable gender identity. The situation was at
once precarious and pathetic because of the need on his part as a male to act out his
appropriate role in society. And here he could not playact. The outcome was the
development of a pathological fear and distaste for the sexual act.

Yet Ramakrishna very thoughtfully and successfully circumvented the need to act
as husband to his young wife. Despite her demur, he ultimately convinced her of
preempting the hassles of being a mother. He told her about the agony of motherhood
when the children die and of the beatific state of an unsullied life without carnality. She
was so thoroughly indoctrinated that she, an uneducated rustic girl, came to believe that
her husband was in fact none other than the Divine Mother herself. Ramakrishna finally
set a seal on his marital relationship by actually worshipping his wife, as we have referred
to earlier. Thereafter, there was little problem. He did never have to contend with the
crisis of a husbandly or manly conscience. He had built around him the necessary
protective wall by invoking the image of God.

Since the publication of his first short biography in the Brāhmo journal
Dharmatatva (14 May 1875), readers have been familiar with Ramakrishna’s awesome

430 COLEMAN, J.A., “After sainthood?” In HAWLEY, J.S. (Ed.), Saints and virtues, p. 211.
 135

figure of a spiritual personality, who established a direct liaison with the divine and
preached the most enlightened spiritual eclecticism in simple vernacular. All subsequent
studies on the Paramahaṁsa have been predicated on the monastic Vedantic
interpretation of his character and career, pioneered by Svāmī Vivekananda in his lectures
in New York (23 February 1896) and in Madras (11 February 1897).431 Nevertheless,
enough evidence are extant, though some of them unexplored by researchers and scholars
prior to the decade of the 1990s, that help us discover the colorful and playful personality
of the Paramahaṁsa hitherto trapped in the glasshouse of hagiography and devotional
literature.

Unlike his disciple who earned celebrity in the West as a world famous Vedantin
and a hypercosmologial Hindu renunciant from India, the saint of Daksineshvar emerged
as a simple, gregarious, semiliterate but witty rustic with a complex sexual dilemma and
spiritual hunger, who sought a solution to his troubled psyche in an eclectic piety of faith
and fun. Part of the reasons for the Master’s success as an urban guru lay in his methods
of spiritual mentoring. He declared that one does not need training, learning, or a sudden
illumination to reach or realize the divine. What one requires is devotion [what
Christianity celebrates as fiducia]. As he taught, “the path of bhakti blossoms in the heart
of a devotee spontanelously and easily—it’s that easy or sahaja. Love of of God is
possible in this world which is a “hunk of fun,” “majār kuṭi.” Here one could live and
love and yet remain detached from crass worldliness—like the mud fish [pāṅkāl māch]
that swims in dirty water without getting muddy—and take a dip in the ocean of
Saccidānanda singing and dancing in the name of God both sākāra [“with form,”
personal] and nirākāra [“formless,” impersonal].432 He averred: “To see is better than to
hear. Actual vision dispels all doubts. Admittedly many things are recorded in the
scriptures; but all is futile until God is realized, or devotion to His lotus feet aroused, or

431 See SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, pp. 224-25; Sil 2009a, 153-55).
432 SIL, N.P., Crazy in lo e of god, p. 18.
 136

mind purified.”433 This is the message of Godmad Gadadhar, Carl Jung’s classic Indian,
who “does not think,” but like a worthy primitive, “perceives the thought,” and who “has
transformed…his gods into visible thoughts based upon the reality of the instincts,” and
thereby “rescued his god[s],” who “live with him.”434

From a psychological perspective, however, Ramakrishna’s divine madness and

his claim that he was God were part of his resolution of an inner crisis. The real world—
the world of the male in his male role, the world of disease and death, the actual state of
his own body coupled with his weak health made him impervious to reality. He sought
refuge and found it in romantic escape to a divine arcadia (much like the fictional frozen
planet Gethen in Le Guin435), that mythical meadow where the Lord Kṛṣṇa plays on his
flute, where the rustic dairymaids [gopīs] rush out of their homes to make love to him,
and where, in fact, the breasted as well as bearded Ramakrishna imagined himself to be
one of those gopīs in love with her lover-God. His ecstasies and visions had this world
of love as their core content.

Nevertheless, his ecstatic visions and trances as reported by him and witnessed by
devotees and admirers did have a clinical or neurological, though not necessarily or
entirely pathological, basis. Professor Arthur Deikman who has done pioneering
scientific study of meditation and mystical experiences, maintains that mystical
experience is produced by two basic techniques—contemplation [non-analytic
apprehension of objects] and renunciation of mundane pleasures (vairāgya or, in
Ramakrishna’s lingo, giving up kāminī-kāṅcan)—that induce “deautomatization” of the
psychological structures leading to the obliteration of the distinction between self and
object and between objects (phenomenon of Unity). Deikman provides five
characteristics of mystic vision: (i) intense realness (thoughts and images becoming real),
(ii) sensory translation (illumination from an actual sensory experience following a

433 KM, Vol. 3, p. 75 [GR, p. 476]. Diary of 30 June 1884.

434 JUNG, C.G., Collected works, Vol. 10, pp. 527, 529.
435 See LE GUIN, Ursula, Left hand of darkness.
 137

resolution of unconmscious conflict and the resultant experience of peace), (iii) sense of
unity (we are at one with the world and with God—a flatus complex associated with a
narcissistic religious personality, (iv) incommunicability or ineffability), and (v) a state
of fana or “dying to self” (undermining of logical consciousness).436 A la Deikman, we
can appreciate Ramakrishna’s personal testimony of his bhāvasamādhi:

Houses, doors, temples—everything seemed to disappear altogether—as if ghere was nothing

anywhere! And I beheld a boundless infinite illuminated sea of consciousness! However far in
whatever direction I looked, I saw a continuous succession of effulgent waves surging forward,
raging and storming from all sides with great speed. Very soon they fell on me and drowned me
to the unknown bottom. I panted, struggled, and fell unconscious.437

On another occasion the Master reminisced on his days of sādhanā:

When I sat to meditate I had, in the beginning, the vision of particles of light like group of fire-
flies; sometimes I saw masses of mist-like of mist-like light covering all sides; aqnd at other times
I perceived that everything was pervaded by bright waves of light like molten silver. I could see
these with my eyes sometimers shut and sometimes open. I did not understand what I saw, bor
did I know wheter it was good or bad to have such visions.438

Studies of some neurologists, notably of Professor Vilanayur Ramachandran of

the University of California San Diego, demonstrate a direct connection between neural
disorder in the temporal lobe resulting in epilectic seizures (samādhi) and “oceanic”
feeling (cosmic consciousness or vision of the divine) and not necessarily what is
traditionally considered as mental illness. Ramachandran posits that religiosity has a
definitive link to the temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). The TLE subjects seem to have a
wired brain, especially the limbic sytem, those clusters of nerve cells or nuclei covered by
large C-shaped fiber tracts deep in the brain, that directly affects the septum located near
the front of the thalamus in the middle of the brain. Persons “zapped” in this region
report an experience of the presence of God and of intense pleasures, “like in thousand
orgasms rolled into one.”439 Here we may recall how Ramakrishna, while disparaging

436 DEIKMAN, A.J. “Deautomatization.” In TART, C.T. (Ed.), Altered State of Consciousness, pp. 30, 32.
437 LP, Vol.1 [Sādhakabhāva], p. 114.
438 LP, Vol.1 [Sādhakabhāva], p. 117.
439 RAMACHANDRAN, V.S., Phantom in brain, pp. 125-126 and 123; see also HILL, J. “Finding god in
sdeizure and BELETSKY, V. & MIRSATTARI, S., “Epilepsy.”.
 138

human carnality vehemently and thus revealing some sort of hyposexuality [reduced
libido], yet eloquently described his Seligkeit [divine euphoria] experienced during his
mahābhāva, transforming “all the pores of the body, even the roots of the hair” into “a
great vagina, mahāyoni,” leading to a feeling of “pleasure of intercourse with ātman.”440

Ramakrishna’s neurosis—especially the neurosis caused by his physical

disabilities and diseases, together with his vision of the abstract Saccidānanda as an
embodied male God,441 as well as that of the anthropomorphic folk deities Rāma,
Kṛṣṇa or Kālī [who, reportedly came so close to Her dear child as to let him feel Her
breath442], during his fugue state popularly believed to be his samādhi or
mahābhāva or divyonmattatā—explains his God mania, his theosis. 443 Perhaps his
God mania as well as his fragile health and physical pain and suffering he had endured
most of his adult life, especially during his last years as a victim of excruciatingly painful
cancer of the throat, had a therapeutic effect on him. He thus loved to soar blissfully in
the high heavens away from and above his sordid painful reality. Like Andrew Parent, a
character of Paul Theroux’s novel, “he had no fear of flying; he was afraid of landing.”444

A natural actor from his childhood, Ramakrishna described his colorful

encounters with the Divine in vivid concrete terms. He dressed and became a female
Rādhā to his beloved Kṛṣṇa, a mother to the doll Rāmlālā, a little child to the Goddess
Kālī (in fact he once assumed the iconic posture of the goddess), a singing and dancing
bhakta of Viṣṇu like Śrī Chaitanya and he the divinities of other faiths such as a bearded
Mohammad or Allah and Jesus the Son of God with a snub nose. He was at once a self-
proclaimed and self-described devotee of God and a living Godman. And, as has been
noted earlier, he was equally adept at donnig the garb of a monk or a monkey with equal

440 KM, Vol. 4, p. 36 [GR, p. 346]. Diary of 17 December 1883.

441 KM, Vol. 5, p. 182 (GR, p. 720). Diary of 7 March 1885.
442 LSR, p. 75.
443 See RAMACHANDRAN, V.S., Phantom in brain, pp.122-138; SIL, N.P., Crazy in love of god, ch. 10.
444 SHEPPARD, R.Z., Review of THEROUX, P., Secret history. In Time, p. 114.
 139

felicity. Such dramatic feats along with his performative talents for singing, dancing, and
aboe all, his nectar-like anecdotes and didactic tales [kathāmṛta] constitute his spiritual
repertoire that is celebrated by posterity down to this day. It is his artistic acumen,
especially his dramatic feats of a an itinerant polymorphic showman of rural Bengal who
entertains his audience by assuming various forms, that had been the unacknowledged
but real secrets of his success in the world of the Calcutta babus, especially the neo
Brāhmos of Keshab Sen’s sect.

Sadly, the Paramahaṁsa’s syncope together and his description of the vision of
the divine as materialized human figures do not seem to convey any lofty and consciously
conceived spiritual or aesthetic core, so to speak, but, as suggested above, his prolonged
episode of cosmic or divine vison and encountrer during an upsurge of his TLC indicate
the neurological origin of his ecststic vision and his spiritual gnosis or enlightenment.
However, as Ramachandran cautions, “religion, the quintessential human trait, is an
unsolved mystery of human nature” and “in seeking brain centers concerned with
religious experience and God,” scientists have entered a “twilight zone of neurology.” His
judicious conclusion is that although “there are circuits in the human brain that are
involved in religious experience,” yet “it is not fully known if these circuits evolved
specifically for religion.” In other words, though we are still not sure about the existence
of a “God module” in the human brain, it is clear that scientists have “begun to address
questions about God and spirituality scientifically” rather than remaining satisfied with
human despair expressed poetically by Omar Khaiyyam (1048-1131):

Then to the rolling Heav’n I cried,

Asking, “what Lamp had Destiny to guide

Her Little Children stumbling in the Dark?”

And---“A blind Understanding!” Heav’n replied.445

445Cited in RAMACHANDRAN, V.S., Phantom in brain, p. 132.

 140

It must, nevertheless, be admitted that Rāmakṛṣṇa’s syncope, its divine vision and
spiritual gnosis notwithstanding, yet lacks the calm grandeur of a truly sublime ecstatic
experience expressed elegantly in the lyrics and poems authored by his younger
contemporary, the Nobel prize winning (1913) poet laureate of the world [Biśvakabi],
Rabindranath Thakur [Tagore] (1861-1941), who describes in one exemplary piece
(composed during his terminal ailment) his imaginative aesthetic vision in the “twililight
tinge of his weary consciousness” [abasanna cetanār godhūlibelāy] of his body being
carried away by the surging dark [kālo] waves of the [sacred] Kālindī into a vast void of
dark gloom under the starry firmament and his lone supplication with folded hands to the
Sun God [Pūṣan], who has withdrawn His net of rays, to reveal His most benevolent mien
[kalyāṇtama rūp] so that the poet could behold the Person who is the same between him
and his God:

Dekhilām—absanna cetanar godhūlibelāy

deha mor bhese yāy kālo Kālindīr srot bāhi

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

chāyā haye, bindu haye, mile yāy deha

antihīn tamisrāy. Nakhṣtrabedīr tale āsi

eka stabdha dāṅḍāyiyā ūrdhve ceye kahi joḍhāte—

He Pūṣan, saṁharaṇ kariyāchha taba raśmijāl,

ebār prakāś karo tomār kalyāṇtama rūp,

dekhi tāre ye puruṣ tomār āmār mājhe ek.446

The popular Ramakrishna is a respectable teacher [guru], the great renunciant [tyāgī], a
fully realized ascetic [yogī], the lover of humanity [premer ṭhākur], and “a veritable
colossus of mystical experience” (Choudhary 1965, 557)—credited with all the usual
qualities of a hagiographical hero. But the popular Ramakrishna is not the authentic
Godmad Gadadhar. The real man was a bundle of contradictions, who could be

446 THAKUR, R. Saṅcaitā, p. 711.

 141

compassionate and cantankerous, a paragon of humility in public but capricious and

relentless at home at times, and who was a sterling renunciant with his celebrated crusade
against kāminī kāṅcana and yet displayed a marked penchant for creature comforts. His
pronounced gynephobia despite his lifelong dependence on women’s nurture and care, or
precisely because of it appears in an amazing amalgam. He was greatly influenced by his
mother whom he once described as hābā [dumb or idiot]’ and adored and petted by the
village women in his childhood as their “spiritual lover.” He was employed by a rich and
famous woman thus gaining an opportunity to live in Daksineshvar, and reportedly
received instructions in the esoteric science of tantra from a roving nun, and on his own
admission, consummated his sādhanā by worshipping his late teenage wife as the Divine
Mother. The enigmatic and ecstatic Ramakrishna might appear a bit weird and wacky,
but never dull. He in fact was a most colorful mystic.