“Some people think that people who talk about God are crazy, that it is a disease of the brain. How clever we are, they say, how we enjoy ourselves with money, fame and sense enjoyments! A crow also thinks it’s very clever but when it wakes up in the morning, it eats the excreta of others till it dies. See, how active a crow is. Very clever!” – Shri Ramakrishna

Continued from ‘Narasingha P. Sil, “Vulturous Scholarship,” and Shri Ramakrishna – Part-1’

In this part of my article I will continue my discussion on Sil-ian/Sil-ly Academic Dance-Style taking some samples from his paper “The Professor and the Paramahamsa: Martin Luther and Ramakrishna Compared” [i]– though I will not have a single word on Luther here, and concentrate on what Sil has to say about Shri Ramakrishna.

Before that, I cannot help sharing Sil’s views on my previous article (“Narasingha P. Sil, Vulturous Scholarship, and Shri Ramakrishna – Part-1”[ii] ) – after all, it is his work I am reviewing here. Here it is (I advise readers to skip this part if they wish and feel so, and go straight to the discussion on Sil’s paper):

‘I feel somewhat amused and a whole lot more indebted to dear Indranil, one of the Swami-sooners from the Indian Scholomance, the RK Mission School, noted for producing some bright boys but occasionally spawning a moron or two instructed (or inseminated?) by the devil. I love Indranil's ad hominem vituperations because they excite me to indulge in his own game, albeit I would have really loved to deal with him in the manner the sixteenth-century German Reformer Martin Luther had prescribed as a failsafe method to convince idiots who refuse to recognize reason, logic, or sheer common sense: a straight punch on the nose that draws blood (Indranil should educate himself by reading Luther's recipe prescribed in a broadside published in the wake of the Peasant Revolt of Thuringia in 1525). Bandyopadhyay is so full of fulsome filth stored in his dickhead that I would like to honor his special brand of intelligence with a moniker borrowing from his beloved Thakur's vocabulary in patois Bengali: 'raandiputir buddhi". I would ask my pedanic critic to do the translation in English. I am sure he will do a superb job as he has demonstrated his genius by his wondrous windyfoggery, that may mean either pomposity or, as Bernstein says, "a kind of wistful desire to make learned sounds" (cited from my web article "The Kripal Conundrum: A Critique). Narasingha P. Sil 12/14/2012’

In the subsequent post, Sil rectifies his mistake [iii]- thanks God to give him back his eyesight:

‘December 14, 2012
Mea culpa! Please read "Indrajit" for "Indranil" in my post just sent.
Professor Sil
Narasingha Sil’

As readers may understand, I have several reasons to feel jubilant with a peculiar sense of achievement –

1.  For making Sil go through all sorts of psycho-emotional drama – ‘amused,’ ‘indebted,’ ‘love,’ ‘excite,’ ‘honor’ etc.

2.  For making Sil acknowledge his indebtedness and gratitude to me, and also for acknowledging and recognizing my ‘genius.’

To this ‘silsila’ of Sil-ian/Sil-ly [iv] outburst of sylvan primitivism, I offered my “binamra pranam” to Sil with the request to reserve his stock of “filth stored in his dickhead" prompted by his "raandiputir buddhi" (yes readers, inspired by Sil’s Academic Dance-Style – I honoured him with his own words) - because this was only the first part of my article.

Regarding Sil’s language, one of my readers commented:

“If the comment posted in the name of Narasingha P. Sil is actually by Narasingha himself, then he has confirmed by his language used that his Buddhi is Brasht and is full of filth of the gutter sewer. Even amateur writers do not use such language that he has used. Shame on him.”

But why is Sil so angry? Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyoon Aata Hai? As evident, he does not have a single counter argument to refute my arguments against his pretentious and false arguments! In a way, Sil has acknowledged and admitted all I have to say about his false scholarship. Ah! He knows his façade his collapsing, and his anger and frustration is owing to that.

Sil’s idea of “idiots” is those “who refuse to recognize reason, logic, or sheer common sense,” and they deserve “a straight punch on the nose that draws blood” (in Lutherian style if not in Mohammad Ali style). In Sil’s above-quoted comment there is not even a tinge of “reason, logic, or sheer common sense” that he boasts of. Is Sil aiming at his own nose then to test and taste his own blood? Will he name his autobiography – “An Autobiography of an Idiot”? More than that, and we shall find enough reason to ask – if Sil aims at his own nose, then, “which nose?”

Still a nagging question remains – that invites us to take a nosedive into Sil-ian/Sil-ly psychology. And Sil should appreciate that because he has great penchant in that Game – having attempted Shri Ramakrishna’s psychological analysis (“Raamak???a Paramaha?sa: A Psychological Profile,” 1991), and even psychological analysis of Jeffrey Kripal. Among many other things, Sil wrote about Kripal:

“The homoerotic paramahamsa is a product of Kripal’s literary incompetence and personal sexual preference and his desperate attempt to cover up both by his unbridled prolixity.” [v]

At a personal level, my question is: why does Sil aim at my lovely long nose, which all my female admirers/fans till date have regarded to be the most beauty enhancing feature of my Moon-like face? And certainly, in these matters, Woman’s perspective is more important than a septuagenarian Sil’s perspective (born in 1937, Sil is 75 now; I wish him a long life). Isn’t it? Has such outburst something to do with Sil’s “personal sexual preference”?

Yes, Sil has more to say about my nose, and nothing to say about my method of unmasking him (to reveal his nose? Which nose?). In a subsequent post, he writes: ‘I also think you are gratuitously modest to declare that you "really have a long nose." I bet you can't see yourself (re your piece "Mirror") even with a mirror for I think you have no reflection. Actually you have (and I can see) a much longer nose, even longer than Ganesh's proboscis, which you're inserting into some orifice (I do not wish to identify which one but can only guess, but you do not like guesswork) of the Pagol Thakur and his beloved disciple the "Pahalwan Swami."’

Now, Sil’s bringing in Ganesa (or taking refuge in Ganesa) opens up some new and significant dimension to our present discussion, and helps revive and refresh our memory again of some almost-forgotten matters of few years back. (Yes, true and sad, public memory is really short!)

Is Sil’s perception of my nose a sort of disguised penis envy (to borrow the idea from Sil-ian/Sil-ly variety of Freudian Interpretation, as also the ‘gharaanaa’ of the Wendy Doniger school)? We remember that once Professor Paul Courtright had interpreted Ganesa’s trunk as penis!!! And we remember that Sil indeed basks in that tradition of full-time penis-consciousness.

In his "Ganesa - Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings," Professor Paul Courtright wrote: [vi]

"Its (Ganesa's) trunk is the displaced phallus, a caricature of Siva's linga. It poses no threat because it is too large, flaccid, and in the wrong place to be useful for sexual purposes." (Page 121)

So much for this brand of scholarship! Interestingly, Sil had written about it:

“If Courtright intends to insinuate impotence of Ganesha (which I sincerely doubt he does), then that may be an instance of his personal anxiety about a male organ to be ever up and ready for action.” [vii]

Now, since Sil considers my nose “even longer than Ganesh's proboscis,” with a very significant ‘guesswork’ about my “inserting (it) into some orifice,” isn’t it then “an instance of his (Sil’s) personal anxiety about a male organ to be ever up and ready for action”?

One thing is clear. Sil’s academic mind is always wet with penis consciousness, and no amount of rationality-nappy can soak it dry. Having attempted an attention to Professor Paul Courtright’s below-the-belt (- and God knows where else!), he has now – at this ripe old age (a Silurian, perhaps, in self-proclaimed experience)– understandably decided to look up to my nose – a concern for me though, because by his confessions, my “ad hominem vituperations” (a common outburst of Sil-ian/Sil-ly brand of scholarship with decaying intellect) have “excited” him (and he has not clarified the chemical composition of testosterone and adrenaline in that ‘excitement’)– and given the fact that he reads my name as “Indranil” instead of “Indrajit,” I have enough reasons to be anxious that through the filter of his “excitement” he might see something else (no guesswork please) in place of my nose!

No doubt my concern is justified because Sil thinks I am ‘inserting (my nose) into some orifice … of the Pagol Thakur and his beloved disciple the "Pahalwan Swami."’

Keeping this silhouette of Sil’s psychology in mind, let us now go straight to the discussion on his paper following the trail of my article ‘Narasingha P. Sil, “Vulturous Scholarship,” and Shri Ramakrishna – Part-1.’

Sil should be happy to know of a happy coincidence. In his response to my Part-1, he wrote to me – “I would ask my pedanic critic to do the translation (of 'raandiputir Buddhi’) in English. I am sure he will do a superb job as he has demonstrated his genius…”

Part-2 of my review-article really has something to do with that translation.

(8)

Sil: “In similar vein he admonished Krishnadas Pal (1839-84) who dared to posit that the proper goal of human life should be to exert for the betterment of the world. The Master quipped irritatingly that Pal was a nitwit possessing the intelligence of a whore’s son” (KM, 5, 168. Appendix [Parisista]; see also KM, II: 157 [GR: 605]. Diary of October 11, 1884).

Discussion on this portion has to be interesting. In his comment to the Part-I of my article (“Narasingha P. Sil, Vulturous Scholarship, and Shri Ramakrishna – Part-1” [viii]), Sil honoured me with the words: ‘I would like to honor his special brand of intelligence with a moniker borrowing from his beloved Thakur's vocabulary in patois Bengali: 'raandiputir buddhi"’ – and of course, as mark of respect for Sil-ian/Sil-ly brand of erudition and courtesy, I honoured him back with the very same words with due acknowledgment of my inspiration from him. Sil also humbly appealed to me: “I would ask my pedanic critic to do the translation (of 'raandiputir Buddhi') in English. I am sure he will do a superb job …” (I am repeating this for readers who would like to skip the introduction of my article and read on from here)

Now that chance has come, because in Sil’s above reference, Shri Ramakrishna uses that phrase about Krishnadas Pal – and Sil translates that as “whore’s son.” We have to check whether Sil’s translation is correct (after all if I am a “raandiputi,” Sil too is a “raandiputi” perhaps “inseminated (?) by the devil” (to honour Sil again with his own words), however, before that let us note how in typical Sil-ian/Sil-ly style, Sil here tries to create the impressions, that is, his construction of Shri Ramakrishna and Krishnadas Pal (Krishto Pal) –

1.  Krishnadas Pal “dared to posit” that “the proper goal of human life should be to exert for the betterment of the world” – that is, Krishnadas Pal was a benevolent soul dedicated to the welfare of mankind, while Shri Ramakrishna was not – and Krishnadas Pal had also great courage to ‘posit’

2.  Shri Ramakrishna opposed that “irritatingly” – that is, Shri Ramakrishna was not only “opposed to betterment of the world” but also he had no Self-Control over himself

3.  Shri Ramakrishna called Krishnadas Pal “whore’s son”

Needless to say, the objections against Shri Ramakrishna are terrible indeed – (particularly from the ivory-tower location of some western brand of scholarship)! Before examining whether Shri Ramakrishna was really that terrible, we cannot but note Sil’s special liking and favour for Krishnadas Pal. But who was Krishnadas Pal that Sil admires so much? Why is he so “excited” about Krishnadas Pal? Or, what “excites” him so much about Krishnadas Pal? His nose? Which nose?

In Shri Ramakrishna Kathaam?ta, Krishnadas Pal’s identity is given briefly as: “A famous and wealthy man of Calcutta, a well-known philanthropist.”

The following information is from “Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition” taken from wikipedia.

“In 1861 he was appointed assistant secretary (and afterwards secretary) to the British Indian Association, a board of Bengal landlords, which numbered among its members some of the most cultured men of the day. At about the same time he became editor of the Hindu Patriot, originally started in 1853 and conducted with ability and zeal by Harish Chandra Mukherjee until his death in 1861. This journal having been transferred by a trust deed to some members of the British Indian Association, it henceforth became to some extent an organ of that body.”

Krishnadas Pal was born of the Teli or oil-men's caste, which ranks low in the Hindu social hierarchy, but he rose to be one of the important persons of his age. Interstingly, having risen to position, Krishnadas Pal forgot his base. “His opposition, however, to the Calcutta Municipal Bill of 1876, which first recognized the elective system, was attributed to his prejudice in favour of the classes against the masses. In 1878 he received the decoration of C.I.E. In 1883 he was appointed a member of the viceroy’s legislative council. In the discussions on, the Rent Bill, which came up for consideration before the council, Kristo Das Pal, as secretary to the British Indian Association, necessarily took the side of the landlords.

After his death on 24th of July 1884 from diabetes, Lord Ripon said: "By this melancholy event we have lost from among us a colleague of distinguished ability, from whom we had on all occasions received assistance, of which I readily acknowledge the value. . . . Mr. Kristo Das Pal owed the honourable position to which he had attained to his own exertions. His intellectual attainments were of a high order, his rhetorical gifts were acknowledged by all who heard him, and were enhanced when addressing this council by his thorough mastery over the English language."’ [ix]

Let us note two facts here about Krishnadas Pal (Krishto Pal) –

1. His opposition to the Calcutta Municipal Bill of 1876, which first recognized the elective system, was attributed to his prejudice in favour of the classes against the masses

2.  He took the side of the landlords

Now, it is becoming clearer to us why Sil has such terrible love and favour for Krishnadas Pal (Krishto Pal), and why he is a propagandist scholar against the rustic Shri Ramakrishna that prompted him to mention Shri Ramakrishna to me as “his (i.e. mine) beloved Thakur.”

Ok. Information on Krishnadas Pal (Krishto Pal) from wikipedia aside (I know of academic snobbery that cannot accept even the best of wikipedia yet), let us gather some information from another authentic source – a book titled “Kristo Das Pal; a sketch of his life and career” published in 1890. [x]

I will here note some excerpts about Krishnadas Pal (Krishto Pal) from that book along with page numbers and leave Krishnadas Pal (Krishto Pal) to the readers’ judgment:

• “Kristo Das was a born politician. After the Mutiny was suppressed in 1857, he suggested to his Club that they should send their congratulations to the Government through the British Indian Association. He drafted the letter and took it to Raja Issur Singh, the Secretary of the Association, who was highly pleased with the letter, thanked the Club for its valuable suggestion and promised to carry out the proposal speedily.”

• “When he left college he was very well acquainted with the English language and literature. He was not interested in Sanskrit or Bengali, Mathematics or philosophy, and scientific education had not come into vogue. P-4-5

•  “He published on his own responsibility three Pamphlets …one of which was a vindication of the loyalty of the people of India. The title of Rai Bahadur was conferred upon him at the Imperial Assemblage held at Delhi on the 1st of January, 1877. In the following year he was invested with the insignia of a Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire.” P-10

•  “Kristo Das Pal came to be recognised as a political leader of Bengal, not because he had the required mental and nnoral qualities, but because he was the editor of a zemindari paper and Secretary of a Zemindari Association, and because he had influence both with wealthy men and the Government.” P-15

•  “We gratefully acknowledge that Indian commerce has greatly developed under British rule, but whenever English interests have come into collision, the people of India have gone to the wall." “Our countrymen,” he said, “should be up and doing." P-17

• “Kristo Das was ever watchful of public rights and those of the Zemindars in particular.” p-17

•  “Kristo Das lived and died a Hindu ; but he was keenly aware of the evils that are devitalizing us. Like most educated Indians he had an enlightened toleration for men professing other religions. He had no hatred to the work of the missionaries where their methods were not objectionable. Though he mixed freely with Europeans he never dined with them.” p-28

• ‘''Loyalty to the Crown and Justice to the People" was the inspiring motto of bis life, and he lived up to it to the end.’ p-31

•  ‘He wrote – “Loyalty to the Throne and Justice to the people ought to be the battle-cry of every champion of his country's cause. If we remain faithful to that cry, our enemies however spiteful and powerful can do us no barm." P-31

•  “He belonged to a caste below that of Brahmin and was the editor of the Hindoo
  Patriot newspaper, published in English. This paper was the organ of the Bengal Zemindars, and was in the main sustained by them, but it had a large circulation otherwise both among Europeans and Natives being conducted with independence, loyalty and learning." P-32

It does not take long to understand that Krishnadas Pal was basically Pro-British, Pro-rich, and anti-Indian, though maintaining a façade of orthodox Hindu. We should further note that Krishnadas Pal later came to be known as “Kristo Das Pal” – the change of Krishna to Kristo is certainly an attempted identification with Christ – and via Christ, with the British – or the Christian West!

Now that we are nearing the context of Shri Ramakrishna’s dialogue with Krishnadas Pal (Krishto Pal), it would not perhaps be too early to opine that if Shri Ramakrishna busts the ego of this base-forgetting, landlord-loving and British-loving Intellect who was prejudiced “in favour of the classes against the masses,” we can only admire with awe at what Shri Ramakrishna tells him – even if it is “whore’s son,” for arguments sake. And for that, Shri Ramakrishna is really “my beloved Thakur.”

No doubt, Sil identifies himself with Krishnadas Pal’s ‘Western-love’ – after all, Sil himself, having completed M.A in History from Calcutta University, cried “Westward Ho!” Sil’s favour for Krishnadas Pal (Krishto Pal) is also understandable from his confessional statement: ‘nobody in our family ever took up any service or profession; they all were "experts" in collecting rents from their inherited urban properties.’ (Sil’s comment to my ‘Narasingha P. Sil, "Vulture-Lila," and Shri Ramakrishna’) [xi]

Aha! With that “expertise” in his veins, and with unique capability to be “excited,” how cannot Sil side with landlord-loving Krishnadas Pal (Krishto Pal) or feel for him?

Now let us come to the crucial part of Sil’s above reference. Why does Shri Ramakrishna ‘discourage’ Krishnadas Pal’s high-sounding philanthropy? Or, does Shri Ramakrishna really do so?

Let us check the reference Sil cites from its original source:

‘Sri Ramakrishna asked Krishnadas Pal, “Well, what is the aim of life?” Krishnadas said, “In my opinion it is to do good to the world (jagater upakaar karaa), to remove misery from the world (duhkha duur karaa).” Thakur was irritated (birakta) and responded, “You have the intelligence of the son of a widow! (raandiputi buddhi) Why, how much can you save the world from its trials and tribulations? Is the world so small? Do you know that there are crabs in the Ganges in the rainy season? In the same way, there are innumerable universes. He who is the Master of this universe takes care of all of them. The goal of life is to know Him first. Then you may take up anything you like.”’ (KA, 5.Appendix I. 4; Diary of 11 October 1884)

Sil’s focus is on Shri Ramakrishna’s language which no one can deny was rustic (and we know Shri Ramakrishna never signed any contract with Sil or any one of his 20th-21st century critics to acquire Sil-ian/Sil-ly syllables of urban vocabulary – the like of which he used against me – to please Sil or Sil-likes), however, with the Shri Ramakrishna stated prominent “Vulture-Syndrome” what Sil obviously misses is the content of Shri Ramakrishna’s words. (None would claim that Shri Ramakrishna was a Pandit in science, however, it is interesting to note that Shri Ramakrishna speaks about multiple universes that recent science has only learnt to confirm. Here, Shri Ramakrishna is in tradition of Upanishadik thoughts.)

From the mentioned Shri Ramakrishna-Krishnadas Pal dialogue, we see that Krishnadas Pal uses the word “jagat” and Shri Ramakrishna refutes that egoistic Thought.

We get some interesting information about Krishnadas Pal’s visit to Shri Ramakrishna from Svaamii Maadhavaananda’s interview with Shrii M:

“Swami Madhavananda: Did Krishnadas Pal (a national leader and the editor of Hindu Patriot) visit the Master?"

M.: "Yes, he did .The Master said about him, Krrishnadas observed the Hindu custom. He entered my room after leaving his shoes outside.' I asked him: 'What is the goal of human life?' He replied , 'It is to do good to the world .'I told him: 'You see this world? Have you seen innumerable crab eggs floating in the Ganges during the rainy season? As many eggs so many worlds. They are numberless. Who are you to do good to the world? You better try to help yourself. God dwells in every being. Be blessed by serving Him in all beings. The owner of the world will look after his own affairs. You look to your own path."' [xii]

In another place in Shri Ramakrishna Kathaamrta, Shri Ramakrishna says:

“Krishnadas Pal came here. I saw that he had rajas prominent in him. Since he was a Hindu, he took his shoes off outside. After a short conversation with him, I realized that there was not much substance in him. I asked him what he thought the duty of a man was. He said, ‘Doing good to the world.’ I said, ‘Who are you that you can do good to the world? Is the world so small that you can do good to it?’” (KA, 2.19.2; Diary of 11 October 1884)

Sil often cites Svaami Nikhilaananda’s “Gospel of Shri Ramakrishna,” however, he obviously hushes up the details of this second reference though cleverly cites it only for affecting academic honesty:

“"Krishnadas Pal came here. I found him full of rajas. But it must be said that he observed the Hindu customs. He left his shoes outside before entering the room. After a little conversation I discovered that he had no stuff inside. I asked him about man's duty. He said, 'To do good to the world.' I said: 'My dear sir, who are you? What good will you do to the world? Is the world such a small thing that you think you can help it?' “(GR: 662)

This reference entirely changes the reading of the Shri Ramakrishna and Krishnadas Pal dialogue. Here we find, Shri Ramakrishna is irritated with Krishnadas Pal because of his Rajah Guna dominance.

Regarding Shri Ramakrishna’s meeting with Krishnadas Pal (and other stalwarts of the age), I would like to note here Prof. Somnath Bhattacharyya’s observations:

“In the Kathamrita when M. finds Ramakrishna pacing like a lion (KA 1.36, GSR 92), when we find him displaying "leonine strength" at dance (GM 801), or engaging in persuasive conversation with well known intellectuals, scholars, and social leaders of his days like Keshab Sen, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Krishnadas Pal and Iswarachandra Vidyasagar, asserting his will viv-a-vis his teachers (like the Bhairavi and Tota Puri), preaching to varied audiences and closely guiding his disciples, we are actually witnessing what would be classified as a masculine role not only in the then Bengal, but also in the present day USA.” [xiii]

Now, lets us address another important point - Does Shri Ramakrishna really call Krishnadas Pal or compare him with– a “whore’s son”?

In Bengali rustic (or vulgar) dialect, raand means ‘widow,’ ‘prostitute,’ and ‘concubine’ (upapatni). Sil of course takes the farthest possible meaning of “whore” to create false impression about Shri Ramakrishna.

Once upon a time, Sil charged Kripal:

"Jeffrey is very adept at using Bengali-English dictionaries and picking the most appropriate synonyms for words (disregarding the primary, secondary, tertiary meanings) he feels could make his point." [xiv]

Here we find Sil doing the same. Sil also charged Kripal as an intellectual “driven by an uncontrollable urge to say something salacious, scandalous, and scintillating.” [xv]

Indeed, we find the same quality in Sil! That reminds me of a Bengali proverb – “Haandi bole dechki tor pichhan kalo” (untranslatable in English though, let me try – “one cooking pot tells another, ‘your butt is burnt black.’”)

To understand in what sense Shri Ramakrishna uses the word ‘raand’ we have to see how he uses the word elsewhere.

In Svaamii Saaradaananda’s “Shri-Shri Ramakrishna Liilaaprasanga” we find that Shri Ramakrishna uses the word in the sense of “widow.” (LP, 1 [Saadhakbhaava]:36)

Thus, Sil’s translation of “raandiputi” as “whore’s son” is a mistranslation – and I am happy that salvages Sil from a “whore’s son.” All my respects for Sil’s mother, I don’t see any difference between his mother and my mother. And oh! Since Sil is of the age of my father, his wife is my mother too.

Since Sil’s mother and wife are my mothers, I don’t think Sil would no more think to have meant anything offensive when he called my intelligence “raandiputi buddhi" – or that, he is perhaps on the verge of rectifying his manipulative mistranslation (just as he rectified his mistake about my name).

Now, “raandiputi buddhi" means “intelligence of the son of a widow”– a reference to the socio-economic condition of a village widow who has to bring up her son in a difficult way. By no way it means “whore”- though that is only a possible (consequential) meaning (as in a rare case when the widow has to take to prostitution for living and bringing up her son – even then it is a case that deserves sympathy), but never absolute. However, Sil’s misogyny is evident in that by sticking to his mistranslation, he considers all widows as whores – a generalization not expected from a serious scholar. Shame on Sil that he views widows thus.

From elsewhere too we learn that Sil is a confirmed misogynist – and we shall see that he brings that charge against Shri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekaananda – a clear case of ‘Projection.’ In his university website, [xvi]  Sil mentions the complicated role of his father in his life (and I will psychoanalyze Sil for that later), but makes no mention of his Mother. Interestingly, with three M.A degress, Sil’s nameplate seems to sound like “MA-MA-MA” (Mother-Mother-Mother).

I made a passing reference of this non-mentioning of his mother in response to one reader’s comment on my present article (Part-I), and regarding this, Sil noted in his comment to my “Narasingha P. Sil, "Vulture-Lila," and Shri Ramakrishna”: [xvii]

‘Indrajit further quips: Sil does not mention his mother and infers that he must be a misogynist who has no right to call anyone misogynist!! Ha, ha!! This is the way the "English department Sir" of his Mahavidyalay reads and comprehends.’

“OK, Prof. Sil, may be you forgot to mention your mother, but the inference of your misogyny from the omission of your mother’s role in your life has a solid confirmation. I did not mention that in my response (you refer to) because that was not relevant there. Have you forgotten your own writing elsewhere?”

Here is a confessional ‘proof’ in Sil’s own words:

‘I have been noticing for the past several years that the BSPL (Bangiya Sahitya Parisad Library) main reading room is regularly crowded with women "researchers" (a common enough nondescript sight), but a close observation will make it abundantly clear that these putative "researchers" are not reading or making research notes, but engaged in wholesale copying of the document at hand. Not one or two but almost all of them; once I counted ten. They are copying, taking rest, talking to each other, and then going about their business.’ [xviii]

Let us note how Sil puts the word researcher within quote mark.

In other words, Sil is a prominent misogynist, and thinks no Woman can be serious “researcher” and is only apt at “copying, taking rest, talking to each other, and then going about their business.” What idea about Woman! Let pious feminists take note of this!

Let us revert to Sil’s “whore’s son” matter again.

If Shri Ramakrishna really meant “whore’s son” by “raandiputi," the abuse is actually hurled to the mother. Could Shri Ramakrishna – who regarded God as Mother - ever abuse a human mother? Could Shri Ramakrishna abuse Krishnadas Pal’s mother for no fault of hers?

One reference will suffice to show Shri Ramakrishna’s startling Liberality and high respect for the Human Mother.

“Shri Ramakrishna: “The mother, even if she is of easy virtue, should not be forsaken (maa dvicaarinii haleo tyaag karbe naa). …No spiritual or other effort can be achieved if they are not pleased (taan?raa prasanna naa hale dharma-tarma kichui hay naa)…There are certain debts a man must pay: the debt to the deity, to the rishi, to the father, to the mother and also to the wife (Strii-rn). Till you pay back the debt to your parents, you can achieve nothing (maa-baaper rn parishodh naa karle kon kaaj hay naa). “You have to pay back the debt to the wife too. Harish has left his wife to live here. Had there been no provision for her (khaabaar yogaad naa thaakto), I would have called him wicked and a rascal (dhyaamnaa shaalaa).”(KA, 2.13.4; Diary of 5 April, 1884)

Shri Ramakrishna also tells Shrii M: (To M., reprimanding him)

“And I tell you, your parents have reared you. And you have so many children. Yet you have left home with your wife (maag) and children. ‘Leaving behind the father and mother (phaan?ki diye), the baul becomes a Vaishnava and comes away with his wife (maag) and son.’ Your father is well provided for. Were it not so, I would say, ‘Shame on you!’ (dhik!) (Everybody in the room is silent.)” (KA, 2.13.4; Diary of 5 April, 1884)

This dialogue is important for our present discussion on another count – Shri Ramakrishna’s uses the word “dhyaamnaa shaalaa,” and as we will see, Sil and Kripal try to make much “Mashaalaa” (spice) of Shri Ramakrishna’s frequent use of the word "shaalaa"

Now, the original question - what does Shri Ramakrishna actually mean by "raandiputi buddhi" when he uses that word to Krishnadas Pal (Krishto Pal)? We have seen from evidence of Shri-Shri Ramakrishna Liilaaprasanga, he does not mean “whore’s son.” Does he mean “widow’s son”? If so, in what sense?

Shri Ramakrishna has an interesting anecdote that explains what he actually means by "raandiputi buddhi.” Let us read that anecdote in context:

“Shri Ramakrishna: There is a lot of enjoyment in the householder life (Sa?saara-AAsrama bhoger AAsrama). But what is the enjoyment of ‘lust and greed’? Once you swallow sandesh (galaa theke neme gele), you don’t remember if it was sweet or sour.

“Anyway, why should everybody renounce ‘lust and greed’? It isn’t even possible to renounce before the time is ripe (samay naa hale). When the desire for enjoyment is over, the time for renunciation comes (Bhogaanta haye gele tyaager samay hay). Can you do it by force (jor kare keu tyaag karte paare – can anyone renounce by force)?

“There is a kind of renunciation called monkey renunciation (“Markat-Vairaagya”). It is the renunciation of people of little understanding. A widowed mother supported herself and her son by spinning. The boy lost the small job that he had. As a consequence he felt he should renounce the world. He put on ochre and went to Kashi. But in a few days he wrote to say that he had found a job paying ten rupees a month. He tried to buy a gold ring, a dhoti and a shirt with it. How could he get rid of that desire for enjoyment?” (KA, 5.Appendix V. 1; Diary of 3 December 1881)

So, this is what Shri Ramakrishna actually means by "raandiputi buddhi" – that is, false renunciation or false sacrifice or false Vairaagya like the widow’s son in this anecdote.

Now, we understand (having known about pro-British landlord-loving Krishnadas Pal’s character) why Shri Ramakrishna uses that word about him. Let us read the Shri Ramakrishna and Krishnadas Pal dialogue again:

‘Sri Ramakrishna asked Krishnadas Pal, “Well, what is the aim of life?” Krishnadas said, “In my opinion it is to do good to the world (jagater upakaar karaa), to remove misery from the world (duhkha duur karaa).” Thakur was irritated (birakta) and responded, “You have the intelligence of the son of a widow! (raandiputi buddhi) Why, how much can you save the world from its trials and tribulations? Is the world so small? Do you know that there are crabs in the Ganges in the rainy season? In the same way, there are innumerable universes. He who is the Master of this universe takes care of all of them. The goal of life is to know Him first. Then you may take up anything you like.”’ (KA, 5.Appendix I. 4; Diary of 11 October 1884)

In other words, by "raandiputi buddhi" Shri Ramakrishna actually means “Markat-Vairaagya” – Krishnadas Pal’s philanthropic mask, in this case - because Shri Ramakrishna has already noted the “hujuge” nature of kolkata people – and philanthropy, without the true Heart behind it, is nothing but “hujug.”

Needless to mention, things are same in our time too.

Sil undoubtedly identifies himself with Krishnadas Pal – hence the special “excited” liking for him (it is no more necessary to hazard a guess like “which nose”) – and as an excuse for Shri Ramakrishna bashing. To paint Shri Ramakrishna Black, Sil needs to paint Krishnadas Pal White – that’s the Sil-ian/Sil-ly strategy.

Interestingly, Sil – in his characteristic style – unawares, continues to bust his own façade of High Morality and High erudition in the very next citation and thereafter, though he intends otherwise.

Could it be regarded – “the revenge of the nose”?

To ponder over the question and more … I will come back with that in the next part …

Previous Page

To be continued …

References:

i. Sil, Narasingha P. The Professor and the Paramahamsa: Martin Luther and Ramakrishna Compared. Asian Social Science Vol. 7, No. 5; May 20110
ii. https://www.boloji.com/articles/12979/narasingha-p.-sil-vulturous-scholarship
iii. https://www.boloji.com/articles/12979/narasingha-p.-sil-vulturous-scholarship
iv. If ‘kingly’ is from ‘king,’ then ‘Sil-ly’ is from ‘Sil’ – that is my logic. Lest some readers read it as ‘silly,’ I have taken care to place the good hyphen, and hope no careless reading drop it again
v. Sil, Narasingha P. The Kripal Conundrum: A Critique of Ramakrishna’s Holy Homoeroticism
vi. Department of Religion, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. First Edition in USA published in 1985 by Oxford University Press, Inc. First Indian Edition, Published in 2001 by Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Ltd., with a nude cover picture and insulting interpretations directly from the book
vii. Malhotra, Rajiv. RISA Lila - 2 - Limp Scholarship and Demonology
viii. https://www.boloji.com/articles/12979/narasingha-p.-sil-vulturous-scholarship
ix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristo_Das_Pal
x. Kristo Das Pal; a sketch of his life and career (1890)
Subject: Pal, Kristo Das, 1838-1884, Publisher: Madras G.A. Natesan
Language: English, Call number: AHQ-1517
Digitizing sponsor: University of Toronto, Book contributor: Robarts - University of Toronto
xi. http://rivr.sulekha.com/narasingha-p-sil-vulture-lila-and-shri-ramakrishna_593308_blog
xii. Svami Cetanananda. The Gospel of Shri Ramakrishna: A History.
xiii Bhattacharyya Somnath. Kali's Child: Psychological And Hermeneutical Problems
xiv. Svami Tyagananda. Kali's Child Revisited, or Didn't Anyone Check the Documentation?
xv. Sil, Narasingha P.. The Kripal Conundrum: A Critique of Ramakrishna’s Holy Homoeroticism
xvi. http://www.wou.edu/las/socsci/faculty/sil2.html
xvii. http://rivr.sulekha.com/narasingha-p-sil-vulture-lila-and-shri-ramakrishna_593308_blog
xviii. Sil, Narasingha P. Silent Traffic in India's Intellectual Property