On the back cover of this book's dust jacket, there are blurbs from three distinguished scholars that appear to endorse the book. After reading the book, what strikes me about the three quoted assessments of the book is the commonly used term “balanced.” If this book were a balanced assessment of scholarly studies of Ramakrishna, I would hate to think what an unbalanced account would resemble because this book is rather a systematic attack on the work of various Western scholars of Ramakrishna (1836–1886), Bengali saint and/or incarnation and inspiration for the Ramakrishna Math and Mission and Vedanta Society. According to the authors, Western scholars writing after the 1970s went astray in their interpretation of Ramakrishna, although the pre-imminent distortion of Ramakrishna revolves around the study of Jeffrey Kripal's book Kali's Child (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition 1998). What is impressive about the book under review is its rigorous and systematic attack on Kripal's portrait of Ramakrishna, but what is regrettable is the additional ad hominem criticism.

Before focusing on Kripal's book, the authors provide historical context for readers with a brief survey of Ramakrishna scholarship from the 1880s to the present time. The authors point to a rupture between the scholarly community and the Ramakrishna tradition that they attribute to the application of a hermeneutic of suspicion. After this brief historical survey of scholarship, Chapter 2 begins their focus on Kripal's interpretation. The authors continue their attack in Chapter 3 with a review of the history of the debate over the interpretation of Ramakrishna, which is followed by a discussion of the problems associated with interpretation within a cross-cultural context in Chapter 4, problems presented by the translation of texts in Chapter 5, and concludes with a look at the future of Ramakrishna studies. The book is characterized throughout by a conflict between faithful insiders and skeptical scholars outside of the devotional orbit armed with their hermeneutic of suspicion, suggesting that critical scholars, who are products, ultimately of Enlightenment thinking, are not more qualified than native insiders to interpret Ramakrishna.

Nonetheless, the focus of this book is an impressive attempt to systematically dismantle Kripal's thesis and interpretation of Ramakrishna. Without getting into all the particulars of their attack on Kripal, there are tactics that the authors use repeatedly: 1) claims of faulty translations that lead to confusion and erroneous interpretations; 2) lack of cultural sensitivity; 3) ignorance of Bengali language and culture; 4) rejection of the application of psychoanalytic analysis, a method of Western origin with no applicability to Indian culture; 5) denial of any possible hint that Ramakrishna is homosexually inclined; 6) ad hominem arguments. The application of this criticism makes for some tedious reading, but it is also revealing because the bulk of the mistranslations are related to Ramakrishna's sexuality. And the authors find all potential references or innuendo pertaining to Ramakrishna's homosexuality especially offensive. If one assumes for the sake of argument that Ramakrishna was in fact gay, one might ask: What does it matter? Contrary to their disclaimer in the book, an unintended homophobic attitude pervades the text, which can be attributed in part to the authors’ outrage of Kripal's portrait of their holy man.

This scenario gives rise to another question: Why do the authors insist orimply that Ramakrishna was not interested in sex? Any discussion of Ramakrishna's sexuality stands in sharp conflict with the traditional portrait of a celibate figure. There is a not too subtle inference that outsiders—Western scholars and Indians corrupted by Western ideas and methods—cannot possibly grasp the significance, character, and life of Ramakrishna. This is a typical insider strategy for repelling the possible validity of any external interpretation.

If Kripal presents a sexually conflicted individual from his outsider position, the authors’ insider position give readers a traditional portrait of a wise, pure, ideal celibate, and asexual incarnation who comes to bring light to confused people hungry for answers to the important questions of life. Which party is right? The authors’ portrait of Ramakrishna represents a faith based ideal figure, whereas the former viewpoint creates a person subjected to the rigorous of rational skepticism. These two approaches to grasping the religious subject are going to clash by necessity. My guess is that the real Ramakrishna lies somewhere between the ideal, faith based portrait espoused by the Vedanta Society and Kripal's interpretation. This entire controversy serves as an instructive lesson in the problems associated with the dilemma of the insider verses the outsider. Therefore, this book and Kripal's work could be used fruitfully in a college level course related to the insider-outsider problem and issues related to cross-cultural understanding and interpretation.