Ramakrishna Miscellany: A Comparative Study

Book excerpt: Despite Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṁsa’s (1836-86) reputation as a Tāntrika in view of his being a priest of the Kālī temple at the village of Dakshineshvar in the northern suburb of Calcutta, this study posits that his piety had deep roots in Bengal Vaiṣṇavism (cult of Viṣṇu) at large and in the devotional tradition of his family. His family deity Lord Raghuvῑra (Lord Rāma) was considered as an incarnation of the Vedic-Purāṇic God Viṣṇu and thus a Vaiṣṇava deity by extension. 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. My analysis is predicated on a comparison of Rāmakṛṣṇa 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), the intellectual child of the twin movements of Humanism and Devotio Moderna, and the progenitor of the so-called Protestant movement that foregrounded fiducia [faith] as the highway to divine grace. Rāmakṛṣṇa’s imitation of Caitanyite Vaiṣṇavism, and thus his reliance on devotion and faith appear almost similar to Luther’s reliance on a merciful and yet a just God through fides [turst or biśvās]. Such a cross-cultural comparative study has not been attempted by any other scholar. Rāmakṛṣṇa’s Vaiṣṇava orientation also helps us understand his sexuality. The currently influential construction of a homoerotic Tāntrika Rāmakṛṣṇa 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. Admittedly, there are marked differences among the three religious personalities, particularly between Rāmakṛṣṇa and Luther. Both are radically different personalities 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 an absolutely sovereign and yet a merciful deity is markedly different from Rāmakṛṣṇa’s Vaiṣṇavic 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. I also discuss the interface between sexual and spiritual consciousness in Rāmakṛṣṅa’s life and teachings, especially because of his Tāntrika identity in the West. The understanding of Tantra as an esoteric cult indulging in clandestine carnal orgies has dovetailed into the saint’s imagined “unconscious” homoerotic desires and behaviors. This comparative exercise thus seeks to achieve the author’s dual objective of foregrounding Rāmakṛṣṇa’s innate Vaiṣṇavic 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. Needless to mention, I use vernacular sources on Rāmakṣṇa throughout with my own translation. This has the unique advantage of getting at the facts as recorded by the actors personally or perceived and experienced by the contemporaries and eyewitnesses directly.