Jeffrey J. Kripal

"Kripal failed to take seriously the duty of the interpreter to question his own suppositions and prejudices and to seek the historical, cultural and linguistic horizon of the texts he interpreted.” Freedholm concurs with several other critics of Kali’s Child, that “it is entirely plausible and probable that Kripal’s interpretation has far more to do with his own ‘life-world and categories’ than it does with that of Ramakrishna.” Adding, “In any case, I don’t think it is possible to appeal to Gadamer as a justification for such a hermeneutical methodology . . . I think Gadamer and any serious student of hermeneutics would find Kripal’s methodology to be seriously flawed.”"

"I find it refreshing that Kripal acknowledges the validity of Ramakrishna’s spiritual experiences, something missing from the traditional Freudian reading of mysticism. I would certainly agree that Ramakrishna was to a considerable extent a Tantric from memories of reading The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna some fifty years ago. I am not surprised that Vivekananda and other disciples presented him more as a Vedantist given the British colonial/missionary attitudes toward Tantra as the epitome of depravity."