- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted August 8, 2013
The trouble with Kripal is that he does NOT understand Bengali a
The trouble with Kripal is that he does NOT understand Bengali and sees sex in everything. I am a bengali and have read the original kathamrita from where kripal supposedly sources most of his material. His translations of commonly used bengali words are horribly wrong. His conclusions are not what bothered me so much, what bothered me was that he has used serious mistranslations and non-bengali westerners have not been able to understand that and treats his sources as authentic. This is grossly inaccurate result. Furthermore, he claims that he has discovered secret writings. How can a hugely popular and widely read bengali book be secret at all? The fact that Kripal understands nothing of bengali culture is another hindrance. He keeps assuming things and drawing his own interpretations, yet claims that this is a serious scholarly book. Before promoting this book, the concerned editors, foreword writer, review writers acclaiming this book should bother to find out if the sources mentioned as references actually say what kripal claims they say. Considering his fake and shoddy scholarship, he should not have got a doctoral degree for his thesis on this work. I am a doctoral student in Physics and if use such dubious interpretations in my work, my guide will see to it that i never graduate! All in all, a trashy sensationalist book NOT based on factual evidence.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 10, 2000
Integrity of Britannica
Promoting deconstruction of any saint is well within the right of an author in the name of freedom. I am not sure if it is deconstruction or religious pre-occupation? Disappointed to see the poor choice by Britannica in promoting a controversial book as the primary source with no mention or link to much known, well acclaimed book,' Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna'. I did not expect EB to be so unscholarly. Deconstructionism is the way of the day but the readers should also have a chance to know what is being deconstructed. Britannica has failed to provide that!Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted September 25, 2000
A FALSE REPRESENTATION
The author's imagination and wishful thinking permeate this book. His claims that Ramakrishna was homosexual are totally unfounded. This book was the author's thesis and was an attempt to gratify his thesis adviser, Wendy Donniger, whose jaundiced eye sees sex in every area of religion. It's like writing a book about the homosexuality of Jesus Christ, deducing this from the relationships that Jesus had with his Disciples...travelling together, sleeping together, and Jesus' incessant talk of love. There is no evidence, not even implied, for this premise. Ramakrishna is highly revered in India and by many of his Western followers. He was a teacher of the highest truths. The trend towards deeming notable people homosexual, e.g., Emily Dickinson, Jack Kerouac, Michelangelo, etc., is prevalent and popular today. But this is carrying it a bit too far. The BEST authority on Ramakrishna is, 'The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna', written by 'M', who recorded his every word and deed over a period of many years. In the interest of TRUTH/INTEGRITY I suggest this book be labeled for what it is...TRASH!!!Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.