The wealth of biographical and autobiographical detail that we possess about the saints and savants of modern Hinduism stands in sharp contrast to the dearth of such material when dealing with similar figures in medieval and ancient Hinduism, whose achievements are known to us, but their lives barely so. In the case of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836–86), the material is almost overwhelming. One would imagine that, with such a solid and comprehensive evidentiary resource base at their disposal, scholars would have achieved unanimity, or at least consensus, about the biographical and ideological profile of such a major figure; but this is not what seems to have happened. The connection between history and biography, between public achievement and private life, has proved elusive. Nowhere is it more evident than in the case of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

While such wealth of detail enables a stable biographical reconstruction of Ramakrishna's life (although with some reservations, see the book's appendix B), the same cannot be said about the ideological profile. Despite the abundance of material regarding Ramakrishna's life and religious experiences, he has been variously identified as a Vedantist, a Tantrika, a Shakta, a Bhakta, and even an Avatara, on the one hand, and a psychopath or a crypto-homosexual, on the other—with the latter interpretation making such a splash in academia that its ripples have not fully subsided even now.

In this book, Narasingha P. Sil tries to steer clear of both hagiographical and reductionist excesses. He insists on depicting the humanity of Ramakrishna, warts and all, earlier almost overwhelmed by claims to his divinity, and sets out to accomplish two sets of goals on the basis of meticulously documented research. The first is to seriously and persistently question attempts to portray Ramakrishna as a latent homosexual. He writes forthrightly in the preface, “My contribution constitutes a historian's intrepid endeavour to call attention to this deliberate agenda based mostly on half-understood (due to linguistic shortcomings) and partly on deliberately concocted interpretation of the sources in Bengali” (p. 10). The second goal has three parts to it. First, “What I endeavour to accomplish in this study is to articulate his [Ramakrishna's] fundamental theological orientation as Vaisnavic even though as a priest of the Kali temple he achieved publicity as a Shakta… . Secondly, I seek to establish by comparision with Martin Lither, the nexus between sexuality and spirituality … and finally, I explain the social and cultural factors leading to Ramakrishna's celebrity status” (pp. 22–23).

Sil is a well-known scholar of Ramakrishna, so it is worth noting that, in his own assessment, “My own understanding of Ramakrishna as a homo religiosus has also undergone some change which may be seen in comparing him with the German reformer Martin Luther (see Appendix A) and to the Vaisnava reformer Srichaitanya (see chapter 3). I find the Bengali saint an unread but natural (sahaja) devotee of the divine as contrasted with Luther, who was a trained and erudite theologian in his own right” (p. 10).

These goals are achieved with reasonable success in the book. But the conclusions should probably be considered plausible rather than compelling in view of the polyvalent nature of the mass of data involved. Some readers might feel that there is too much information on the sexual and scatological dimensions of the sage's life in the book. However, if the claim is made that someone may be an incarnation of God, then is one not entitled to full disclosure, by virtue of the mere fact that the stakes are so high?

My reservations are of a different order, namely, that with so much information, facts can become the enemy of truth. For example, it is possible to cite statements of all kinds regarding Muslims made by Mahatma Gandhi, given the enormous corpus of his work, but can these facts dislodge the truth that he was assassinated for being pro-Muslim? The book nevertheless provides fascinating material for those pondering such issues as the following: Is the essence of religion itself religious or nonreligious? Is language merely expressive of mystical experience or constitutive of it? Are we so close to the modern Hindu religious figures that we alternate between seeing them in shining light or blinding glare? Are certain mystical states occasioned by psychological factors or caused by them?