--- In email@example.com
> I will take a look, maybe I will wait for the third version of this
> book. I will also ask around to see what others think.
There probably won't be a third edition. The Ramakrishna
devotional community has made life very difficult for Kripal.
As far as he and the Academy are concerned, it's a dead issue.
But as far as others thinkif you ask devotees, they will
deny it as even as a very remote possibility. People make their
ideas of their spiritual heroes a part of their own self image.
It literally becomes a part of who they are in the world.
They just can't even imagine something that varies from that
internalized image, especially something like a preference
for young teen boys.
As horrible as that sounds, that kind of desire is hardwired.
People with those tendencies are compelled by them. People
don't decide their sexual preferences. They're mostly born
with them, IFAM.
> What do you think of his bhavamukha?
Ramakrishna was certainly a spiritual savant, much more than
many modern bigtime gurus. But he was also a queer little man.
That's why I love him, just as much if not more than for his
substantial spiritual gifts.
> And I still dont know what hagiography means. LOL I guess I learn
> something new everyday, I will look it up.
It's the package of stories that form around the biography
of a saint.
> You have expanded my understanding of the Master. Even if I dont buy
> into this. Thanks.
> I salute you.
Maybe you don't need to buy into this. But I needed to share
the fact that there's another view of Ramakrishna, one which
is seemingly diametrically opposed to what the devotees have
learned from the Math, and one which has made all the difference
in my own spiritual life.
I'm not trying to convince you, Jason. I'm just saying others,
including myself, are convinced. The lesson from my perspective
is again: saints are just like you and me. They have all the
same faults more or less, but those faults get buried in time,
replaced by idealized nonsense. That is hagiography.