BOYCOTT THE SAHAJIYA BABAJIS

Reflections on a lecture by Sri Narayana Maharaja

compiled by Atul Krishna Dasa

On June 10, 2001, in Den Haag, Holland, Sri Narayana Maharaja of the
Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti addressed his audience in strong words, which
were later transcribed and widely published under the title “Boycott the
Sahajiya Babajis”. In this essay, we shall review the allegations Sri Narayana
Maharaja presented to the public, and weigh their validity on the basis of
the evidence at our disposal.

Let us open the presentation with the opening sentences of Sri Narayana
Maharaja:

>>I want to explain something so that you will be very careful. I am

receiving questions about the books published by the babajis of
Vraja. They accept Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Sri Nityananda
Prabhu, and Sri Sri Radha-Krishna Conjugal. They have not written
their own books. They only take books like Stava-mala by Srila Rupa
Gosvami, Stavavali and Vilapa Kusumanjali by Srila Raghunatha
dasa Gosvami, Radha-rasa-sudhanidhi by Sri Prabhodananda
Sarasvati, and other Gosvami books.<<

To begin with, we should recognize the active concern of Sri Narayana

Maharaja. In his lecture, he does not refer to the aggregate literal
production of the Babajis of Vraja. His main concern appears to be on the
titles written by Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji of Radhakunda. It should be
obvious, since Stavavali, Vilapa Kusumanjali and Radha-rasa-sudhanidhi
are available in English with the commentaries of Sri Ananta Dasa Baba,
and many devotees have asked questions particularly on his literatures.
Needless to say, they are popular among devotees inclined to the path of
raganuga, being the only available English editions with elaborate
commentaries.

1.
Let us now review the allegations of Sri Narayana Maharaja and the actual
teachings of Sri Ananta Dasa Pandita along with our remarks. Sri Narayana
Maharaja states:

>>First of all they don’t accept that the Gaudiya Vaisnava

Sampradaya is one of the sakhas, branches, of the Brahma-Madhva
Sampradaya, although this fact has been clearly explained by Sri
Kavi Karnipura, Srila Jiva Gosvami, and then by Sri Baladeva
Vidyabhusana Prabhu.<<
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

It is a fact that Sri Kavi Karnapura in his Gaura -ganoddesa-dipika, as well

as Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his Prameya-ratnavali, have presented a
disciplic succession linked with the lineage of Sri Madhva Acarya. It is a
historical fact beyond challenge that Sri Madhavendra Puri, the parama-
guru of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the guru of Sri Nityananda Prabhu
and Sri Advaita Prabhu, was a disciple of Sri Laksmipati Tirtha, who came
from the Madhva lineage. Certainly everyone accepts this as an established
fact.

The question is on the nature of this connection – whether it is one of

substance or one of form only. What is the particular significance of the
Madhvite process of worship on the vidhi-marga in the raganuga-bhajana
of the Gaudiyas? Where is the eternal connection of internal servitude
between the Gaudiyas and the early acaryas of the Madhva line? The fact is
that most Gaudiyas are not even conversant with the lives and the writings
of the acaryas in the line of Madhva.

Though much of the Madhvite philosophy was incorporated into the

doctrines of the Gaudiyas, it is beyond argument that the concepts of
upasana (the process of worship) and upasya (the object of worship) of the
two are different. The Madhvites practice upasana on the vidhi-marga,
filled with aisvarya, whereas the Gaudiyas’ worship is one of raga-marga,
where madhurya predominates. The Madhvites worship Nartaka-Gopala
alone, whereas the Gaudiyas never desire to serve Sri Krishna without Sri
Radhaji.

Baladeva Vidyabhusana has recognized certain differences of opinion with

the teachings of the Madhva sampradaya in his commentary on Tattva-
sandarbha:

bhaktanam vipranam eva moksah, devah bhaktesu mukhyah,

virincasyaiva sayujyam, laksmya jiva-kotitvam ity evam mata-
visesah daksinadi-deseti tena gaude ’pi madhavendradayas tad
upasisyah katicid babhuvur ity arthah.

“Only a brahmana devotee is eligible for liberation, the demigods are

foremost among devotees, Brahma attains sayujya-mukti (merging
in Brahman), and Laksmidevi is included among the jivas – these
are differences in opinion. Nevertheless Madhavendra Puri and
some others from Bengal became his followers.”

Moreover, we find the following words spoken by Sriman Mahaprabhu

Himself to an acarya of the Madhva sampradaya in the Caitanya
Caritamrita (Madhya-lila, 9.273-276):

suni’ tattvacarya haila antare lajjita

prabhura vaisnavata dekhi, ha-ila vismita

acarya kahe – tumi yei kaha, sei satya haya

sarva-sastre vaisnavera ei suniscaya

tathapi madhvacarya ye kariyache nirbandha

sei acariye sabe sampradaya-sambandha

prabhu kahe karmi, jnani, dui bhakti-hina

tomara sampradaye dekhi sei dui cihna

2
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

sabe, eka guna dekhi tom ara sampradaye

satya-vigraha kari’ isvare karaha niscaye

Hearing these words of Sriman Mahapbrahu, the the acarya of the

Tattvavada sampradaya became ashamed, and was struck with
wonder upon seeing His degree of Vaishnavism.

The acarya said, “Whatever you have told, that is the truth
proclaimed in all scriptures, and the firm conviction of the
Vaisnavas. However, whatever Madhva Acarya has firmly
established, that we practice due to our sampradaya connection
with him.”

Prabhu said, “Karmis and jnanis are both devoid of bhakti. In your
sampradaya, I can see symptoms of both. All in all, the only
qualification I see in your sampradaya is your firm acceptance of
the truth of the Lord’s form.”

Hence it should not be a surprise that a majority of the Gaudiyas have little
or no identification as members of the Madhva sampradaya.

2.
>>Secondly, they think that Sri Prabhodananda Sarasvati and
Prakasananda Sarasvati are the same person, although there is so
much difference between them. This cannot be so. Will a person of
the Ramanuja sampradaya go down to become a mayavadi like
Prakasananda Sarasvati, and then again become Prabhodananda
Sarasvati, who was so exalted that he became the guru of Srila
Gopala Bhatta Gosvami? This idea is absurd. Prabhodananda
Sarasvati and Prakasananda Sarasvati were contemporaries. Will the
same person go back and forth, being a Vaisnava in South India,
then becoming a mayavadi, again becoming a Vaisnava in
Vrndavana, and again becoming a mayavadi?<<

Sri Narayana Maharaja presents a simplistic refutation with little evidence

to back up his idea. His argument would be very strong if it was proven that
the Prabodhananda of South India – the uncle and guru of Gopala Bhatta –
was the same person as the Prabodhananda Sarasvati of Vrindavana, the
author of Vrindavana Mahimamrta. The fact is that not much is known
about Prabodhananda, or either of the Prabodhanandas, given that they are
likely not the same individual.

There is no historical record of Prabodhananda’s moving from South India

to Vrindavana. To the contrary, according to the Anuraga Valli (AD 1696) of
Manohara Dasa , Gopala Bhatta left for Vrindavana after the death of
Vyenkata Bhatta and his two brothers, one among whom was
Prabodhananda. Hence it is clear that according to this account,
Prabodhananda did not spend the later part of his life in Vrindavana.
Anyone may contest the authority of this scripture as well as that of the
earlier Prema Vilasa, in which similar accounts are related, but the fact
remains that there is no evidence to prove that the Prabodhananda of South
India and the Prabodhananda of Vrindavana were the same person.

3
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

The similarities between the lives of Prakasananda Sarasvati and

Prabodhananda Sarasvati is yet another subject matter, but we shall not
discuss it here, since it is not foundational to the argument of Sri Narayana
Maharaja.

3.
As his next concern, Sri Narayana Maharaja presents the following:

>>Thirdly, they don’t give proper honor to Sri Jiva Gosvami, and
this is a very big blunder. This is a vital point. They say that Jiva
Gosvami is of svakiya-bhava, that he never supported parakiya-
bhava, and that he is against parakiya-bhava. They say that in his
explanations of Srimad Bhagavatam and Brahma-samhita, in his
own books like Gopala Campu, and especially in his Sri Ujjvala-
nilamani tika, he has written against parakiya-bhava. This is their
greatest blunder. We don’t accept their statements at all.<<

In his commentary on Visvanatha’s Raga Vartma Candrika (2.7), Sri Ananta

Dasa Babaji examines in depth the various statements of Sri Jiva Gosvami
on the subject matter of svakiya and parakiya-vada, and concludes his
analysis:

“All the learned and wise devotees will admit without hesitation that
Sri Jiva Gosvamipada, who established the eternality of all of the
Lord's pastimes in his Sri Bhagavat Sandarbha, could never have
described those most elevated pastimes that are filled with
extramarital love as being non-eternal. Therefore it can be easily
understood that when he ascertained the parakiyabhava-maya
pastimes as being non-eternal, he did not speak out his own
philosophical conclusions.

Therefore he wrote at the end of his commentary on the verse

laghutvani atra yat proktam of Sri Ujjvala Nilamani's Nayaka Bheda
Prakarana: svecchaya likhitam kincit kincit atra parecchaya. yat
purvapara sambandham tat purvamaparam param – ‘In this
commentary I write some things according to my own wishes and
some things according to the wishes of others. Any conclusion that is
filled with consistency from the beginning to the end is written
according to my own wish, and that which is not filled with
consistency from beginning to end is written according to the wish of
others. Thus it is to be known.’”

Hence the teachings of Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji should not be an object of
concern for Sri Narayana Maharaja in this regard. Perhaps Sri Narayana
Maharaja has misunderstood something Panditji has written, or perhaps he
aims to boycott some other babajis, although he mentions the writings of
Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji in the beginning of his lecture.

Sri Narayana Maharaja goes on to state:

>>For some unqualified persons he [Jiva] has written in that other

way, but the babajis of Vraja cannot reconcile this. They are ignorant

4
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

persons. They became opposed to Srila Jiva Gosvami and took the
side of Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, even though in fact
there is no dispute between Jiva Gosvami and Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakura.<<

Perhaps Sri Narayana Maharaja may now feel some peace in his heart, since
we have demonstrated that there is at least one babaji in Vraja who agrees
with him in this regard. Baba, like Sri Narayana Maharaja, also states,
“Thus it is thought by those who cannot understand the deepest purport of
Sri Gopala Campu.”

4.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then returns to the issue of the Gaudiyas’ doctrinal
connection with the Madhva tradition:

>>The babajis say that we are not a branch of the line of

Madhvacarya. They say Madhvacarya is of a different opinion than
the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. But this is quite wrong. We have so many
specialties that are there in the line of Madhvacarya.<<

If Sri Madhvacarya and the Gaudiyas were of one opinion, where would
there have been a need for Baladeva to compile the Govinda Bhasya as the
Gaudiya commentary on the Vedanta in the famous meeting at Jaipur? Why
did the commentary of Madhva not suffice, if the Gaudiyas were one in
opinion? Certainly there is much in common in the doctrines of Madhva
and the Gaudiyas, and there are also numerous parallel conceptions with
the teachings of the other sampradaya-acaryas. However, this does not
make the Gaudiyas completely one in opinion with acarya Madhva.

As we have mentioned, there are significant differences between the two

lineages in their conceptions on the process of upasana and on the object of
upasana. Sri Narayana Maharaja himself admits in his Prabandha
Pancakam (3.5):

>>Although there is some slight difference of opinion between

Gaudiya Vaisnavas and Sri Madhva in regard to Brahman, jiva and
jagat, this simple difference of opinion is not the cause of a
difference of sampradaya. The difference between Vaisnava
sampradayas has been created on the basis of a difference in
upasya-tattva (the object of worship) or on the basis of gradations
of excellence between aspects of para-tattva. Even if there is some
slight difference in regard to sadhya, sadhana and sadhaka-tattva,
this is rarely considered to be the cause of a difference of
sampradaya. Actually, it is the difference in realisation of para-
tattva or upasya-tattva (the worshipful Supreme Truth) which is
the main cause of distinct sampradayas.<<

Nevertheless, Sri Narayana Maharaja then goes on to quote the following

passage from the “Sriman Mahaprabhur Siksa” by Sri Bhaktivinoda
Thakura:

“There is a technical difference between the philosophical ideas

which the previous Vaisnava acaryas have propagated because there

5
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

some slight incompleteness in those philosophical ideas. The

difference in sampradaya is due to this technical difference.”

Although the logic of presentation in Sri Narayana Maharaja’s works

remains veiled to us due to our poor fund of understanding, we nevertheless
deducted the main cause of distinction between the sampradayas from his
own statement as follows:

“A difference of conception in upasya-tattva, the worshipful

Supreme Truth, is the main cause of distinction between the
sampradayas.”

Also, we understand the following from what Sri Narayana Maharaja said:

“The difference between Vaisnava sampradayas has been created on

the basis of gradations of excellence between aspects of para-
tattva.”

Hence it is certainly clear that there is a distinction between the Gaudiya

sampradaya and the Madhva sampradaya, since the Gaudiyas regard Sri
Sri Radha-Krishna Yugala of Vraja as their upasya, whereas the Madhvites
regard Sri Aisvarya Krishna as their upasya. In regards to whether they are
the same upasya or not, Sri Laghu-bhagavatamrta (1.5.461) states:

krsna ’nyo yadu-sambhuto yah purnah so ’sty atah parah

vrndavanam parityajya sa kvacin naiva gacchati

“The Krishna who appeared in the Yadu-dynasty is different from

the Krishna who never goes away from Vrindavana.”

If anyone was to argue that the difference in upasya is not so specific, it is

only a consideration in terms of tattva, not of rasa, then for this argument
Sri Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.2.59) states:

siddhantatas tv abhede ’pi srisa-krsna-svarupayoh

rasenotkrsyate krsna-rupam esa rasa-sthitih

“In terms of philosophical consideration, Visnu and Krishna are

nondifferent in nature, but in terms of rasa the form of Sri Krishna,
the reservoir of rasa, is superior.”

Thus Sri Narayana Maharaja would have to accept all the Vaisnava
sampradayas as one sampradaya, since they all worship Visnu-tattva.
Indeed, the members of Nimbarka sampradaya even worship Radha-
Krishna, yet we still regard them as a separate sampradaya – due to slight
differences in sadhya, sadhana and sadhaka-tattva.

We shall not delve into the numerous philosophical differences between Sri
Madhva and the Gaudiyas in fear of making this document too lengthy.
Some of them have already been described in the first section of this
document. Let it suffice that Madhva taught the concept of dvaita, or
absolute duality, whereas Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu presented the refined
concept of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, the doctrine of simultaneous
oneness and difference.

6
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

5.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then presents another allegation:

>>Also, they say that because Caitanya Mahaprabhu took sannyasa

from Kesava Bharati, a mayavadi, He, Himself, must be a
mayavadi. We don’t accept this. Mahaprabhu’s actual guru was
Isvara Puripada, He only took vesa, red cloth, from Kesava Bharati,
and there is no harm in this. Madhvacarya also did this, and
Ramanujacarya as well. Sannyasa can be taken in this way.
However, Mahaprabhu took gopala-mantra and other mantras
from Isvara Puripada.<<

Firstly, we would appreciate if Sri Narayana Maharaja would specify “who

says” and “where says”, since after all, he presents several allegations,
which add up to his designating these babajis as avaisnavas in the latter
half of the lecture. It should not be the habit of a senior spiritual leader to
make blanket statements on spiritual communities or their representatives.
Nevertheless, for some reason Sri Narayana Maharaja tends to generalize
his allegations, which in turn leads to numerous false accusations, as will be
shown in this document.

It would be interesting to know which are the other mantras Sriman

Mahaprabhu received from Sri Isvara Puripada, since the kama-gayatri is
not given in the Madhva-line.

6.
Sri Narayana Maharaja proceeds with the case:

>>Another point is that the babajis don’t accept that Srila Baladeva
Vidyabhusana is in the Gaudiya Vaisnava line. They are vehemently
opposed to this understanding. However, if Baladeva Vidyabhusana
Prabhu is out of our Gaudiya sampradaya, then who is our savior?
He went to Galta Gaddi in Jaipura and defeated the Sri Vaisnavas.
He told them that Srimati Radhika should be on the left of Krishna.
He wrote a commentary on Vedanta-sutra called Govinda-bhasya,
and that commentary has been accepted as the Gaudiya-bhasya
(commentary representing the Gaudiya Sampradaya). If Baladeva
Vidyabhusana Prabhu is not in our sampradaya, then what
sampradaya is He in? All his commentaries are in the line of Srila
Rupa Gosvami and our Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas. If Baladeva
Prabhu is out of our sampradaya, everything will be finished. This is
a vital point.<<

We shall now proceed to quote the words of Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji from
his commentary on the Prema-bhakti-candrika, in regards to how he views
the position of Baladeva, who wrote the Vedanta -bhasya of the Gaudiyas to
establish the authenticity of the Gaudiya-sampradaya.

“I will constantly study the commentaries on the Bhagavata, like

Vaisnava-tosani and Krama-sandarbha, plus the series ‘Six
Sandarbhas’ that explain the purport of the Bhagavata, plus the

7
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

commentaries by the Gosvamis’ followers Srila Visvanatha

Cakravartipada and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Mahodaya.”
(Sudha-kanika-vyakhya commentary on verse 11)

Moreover, Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji states in his commentary on the 94th
verse of Vilapa Kusumanjali:

“According to Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas like Srila Jiva Gosvami

and Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, bhakti means attachment or
constant attraction to God.”

Thus Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana is accepted as a follower of the Gosvamis

in the Gaudiya sampradaya. In addition to the statement above, anyone
who studies the works of Sri Ananta Dasa Baba ji, may discover how he
quotes the authoritative statements of Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana on
numerous occasions.

We request Sri Narayana Maharaja to specify the babajis who are

vehemently opposed to Baladeva’s being in the Gaudiya line. Otherwise the
public may misunderstand this vital point.

7.
>>Also, these babajis say that if anyone wears the saffron cloth of
sannyasa, he is not in the Gaudiya Vaisnava line. They have no
correct idea. It is stated in Caitanya Caritamrta:

kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya

yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei ‘guru’ haya

[“It does not matter whether a person is a vipra (learned scholar in

Vedic wisdom) or is born in a lower family, or is in the renounced
order of life. If he is master in the science of Krishna, he is the
perfect and bona fide spiritual master.” (Madhya-lila 8-128)]

Krishna dasa Kaviraja Gosvami has written ‘kiba nyasi’. Nyasi

means sannyasi. Isvara Puripada, Madhavendra Puripada, and all
renunciates in their line were sannyasis in saffron cloth. There are
so many associates of Caitanya Mahaprabhu who wore saffron cloth.
Svarupa Damodara also wore saffron cloth. What harm was there?
Saffron cloth is the sign of renunciation. It is the color of anuraga,
attachment for Krishna. Because it is a color, it is worn by sadhvis.
Sadhvi means a married lady, a lady who is not a widow. ‘Married’
means having Krishna as one’s beloved. We are not widows, but
those who wear white cloths are widows.<<

Sri Narayana Maharaja gives numerous examples of Gaudiya sannyasis

contemporary to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, but he fails to present any
follower of the Gosvamis who would have adopted saffron cloth and
tridanda. Indeed, all of the examples he gives are of ekadandi-sannyasis,
not tridandi-sannyasis as is the custom among the followers of
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

8
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu ordered the Gosvamis to establish the Vaisnava

sadacara for the future times to come, and we are to follow the codes of
behavior they set for us to follow .

The Hari-bhakti-vilasa (4.147 & 152) states in lucid language in regards to

the Gaudiyas’ dress:

nagno dviguna-vastrah syan nagno raktapatas tatha

“Wearing red cloth is like walking naked.”

sukla vasa bhaven nityam raktam caiva vivarjayet

“Always wear white and give up red cloth.”

Even if anyone was to argue that rakta-vastra means only the red cloth of
mayavadi-sannyasis, it should be noted that the very cloth Sriman
Mahaprabhu wore was a rakta-vastra, and so were those of His sannyasi
associates. At their time, the Hari Bhakti Vilasa was not yet written.
Besides, sukla vasa bhaven nityam, wear white cloth at all times, is a
strong positive injunction for the future times.

Moreover, there are no positive injunctions for accepting saffron cloth and
tridanda in the writings of the Gosvamis. Hence some have disapproved of
the new ly founded sannyasa tradition. Additionally, it is noteworthy that
the customs of sannyasa embraced by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and his
followers were largely adopted from the Ramanuja sampradaya, not from
the Madhva sampradaya they claim to follow – and certainly not from the
Sankara sampradaya in which the associates of Sriman Mahaprabhu
mentioned by Sri Narayana Maharaja accepted sannyasa.

Should there be exceptions to the rule, it does not in itself justify the
establishment of a new rule.

8.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then proceeds to question the term babaji:

>>From where has this word ‘babaji’ come in our line? From whom
has it come? Isvara Puripada, Madhavendra Puripada, Sri Caitanya
Mahaprabhu, Nityananda Prabhu, and after Him, Sri Rupa Gosvami,
Sri Sanatana Gosvami, Srila Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami, Sri Jiva
Gosvami, Sri Gopala Bhatta Gosvami, and Sri Raghunatha dasa
Gosvami. After them, Krishna dasa Kaviraja Gosvami and
Vrndavana dasa Thakura, and then Narottama dasa Thakura,
Syamananda dasa, Srinivasa Acarya, and Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakura. Where is the word babaji? Was anyone known as babaji?
From where did this word babaji come? The babajis have no reply.
These Vaisnavas were all paramahamsa, not babaji.<<

According to Sri Narayana Maharaja, the Jaiva Dharma of Sri Bhaktivinoda

Thakura is not a fictive book, but a historical account, as he stated on a
lecture on September 21, 2001, in Mathura:

9
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

“In Jaiva Dharma he presented tattva in such an interesting way

that it appears like a novel. It is not a novel, however. Everything in
it is true history.”

Anyone who is acquainted with this title knows that practically every
renunciate saint there carries the title “babaji” after their name. The events
of the title date back to the times of Gopala Guru Gosvami, which is soon
after the disappearance of Sriman Mahaprabhu. Thus it appears that the
concept “babaji” is not a novelty at all. But where did the term come from?
Sri Narayana Maharaja himself explains on this very same lecture:

>>In Vraja, the Vrajabasis all used to call Sanatana Gosvami ‘baba’.
They called Sanatana Gosvami bara-baba, elder sadhu, and Rupa
Gosvami chota-baba, younger sadhu. After them, others in their line
took white cloth; but then, after the time of Visvanatha Cakravarti
Thakura, they deviated. Some, like Jagannatha dasa Babaji,
Madhusudana dasa Babaji, and Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji, took this
babaji name out of humility, and everyone used to call them that.<<

Thus it is evident that the term “babaji” has been an affectionate address
for ascetics dedicated to a life of devotion at least since the time of the
Gosvamis. In the course of time, the term “babaji” has naturally evolved
into a concept applied to the renunciates of the Gaudiya tradition. This
should not be a reason to boycott anyone – particularly not so because even
in the Gaudiya Matha babaji-vesa is given.

9.
Then Sri Narayana Maharaja descends from the realm of philosophical
discussion into the realm of generalized personal attacks:

>>Presently, those who are bogus persons, but were previously in

the Gaudiya Matha, have become lusty and have thus been kicked
out from the Gaudiya Matha. Now they have become babajis.<<

We invite Sri Narayana Maharaja to prove his theory valid by presenting

several practical examples, for otherwise his claim is not a valid principle,
but rather meaningless name-calling based on isolated incidents.

10.
Then Sri Narayana Maharaja levels yet another unfounded allegation:

>>The babajis especially criticize Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura,

saying that he didn’t have a guru. This is a bogus idea. Srila
Bhaktivinoda Thakura preached the name and the glories of Sri
Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya to the
whole world. He wrote hundreds of books. Still, the babajis say he
did not have a proper guru, and that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati
Prabhupada also had no proper guru.<<

10
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

To the best of our knowledge, the only one to discredit the guru-parivara of
Sri Bhaktivinoda Thakura was his son Bimal Prasad, or Bhaktisiddhanta
Sarasvati, as he was later known, who refused to recognize the authenticity
of Bhaktivinoda’s diksa-guru Sri Vipina Vihari Gosvami despite
Bhaktivinoda’s praise of the same in his voluminous writings. Indeed, in his
autobiography Svalikhita-jivani, Bhaktivinoda relates how Prabhu Gaura
Himself led him to the Gosvami.

Also, it is unknown to us that anyone would have challenged the

authenticity of Sri Gaura Kisora Dasa Baba. The question is in regards to
whether Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati received diksa or not, and
consequently whether he was authorized to initiate in turn or not. The
reasons for concern are as follows:

1. In the presence of several witnesses, Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

himself admitted to Pandita Ramakrishna Dasa Babaji having only received
initiation in dream from Gaura Kisora Baba.

2. There is no mention of Sarasvati’s receiving initiation from Gaura Kisora

Baba in any of the Baba’s authorized, objective biographies, nor do others
outside the Gaudiya Matha related with the Baba know of this. Also the
brother of Sarasvati, Sri Lalita Prasada Thakura, denies his having received
initiation.

3. Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati did not reveal the diksa-parampara of Sri

Gaura Kisora Baba. In fact, even the name of Baba’s diksa-guru was not
revealed by Sarasvati to his followers. Traditionally a guru reveals his
parampara to the disciples. Instead, Sarasvati created a parampara of his
own design, which he entitled bhagavat-parampara.

4. At the time of initiation, the guru gives the disciple the specific tilaka
markings of the parivara he represents. Baba came in the Advaita
parivara, which has a very distinctive tilaka-svarupa among the various
Gaudiya parivaras. If Sarasvati indeed received diksa from the Baba, why
did he not adopt the external signs of lineage accordingly, but instead
applied a tilaka of his own design?

11.
Onwards to the next allegation:

>>Those in the babaji line say that our Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhakti
Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja, and even Srila Bhaktivedanta
Swami Maharaja, were not in the proper disciplic line, and that they
have no guru-parampara. But it is actually the babajis who are not
in the guru -parampara.<<

Here Sri Narayana Maharaja presents a reversed counter-argument with no

actual substance. Will he now demonstrate to us how the babajis are not in
the guru-parampara? Will he first specify which babaji he means? Then
we could see whether this particular babaji belongs to a certain unbroken
diksa lineage dating back to the associates of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu or
not, and whether his teachings are in allegiance to the sampradaya's
precepts.

11
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

12.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then presents us with a piece of fabricated history:

>>I saw in France that so many devotees have given up Srila

Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and they have become babajis.
They took babaji-vesa, dor-kaupin and so on. Then, after two years,
they fell down with mataji-babajis. They accepted and lived with
divorced ladies.<<

On a lecture in Germany, dated December 14 th 2001, Sri Narayana

Maharaja supplied us with more details on this incident:

“Some of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja's disciples once came

to me asking, “Please help us! Please give us siddha-pranali.” I
replied, “I cannot help myself. How can I help you?” These disciples
then went to the sahajiya babajis at Radha Kunda. Those sahajiya
babajis then gave them siddha pranali for five anna paisa, although
they never knew the meaning of siddha-pranali. Real siddha-
pranali has been explained by Bhaktivinoda Thakura. I was
searching for these new babajis, and I have now heard that they are
married.”

Nevertheless, the historical fact is that only one disciple of Sri

Bhaktivedanta Swami has ever accepted babaji-vesa and dor-kaupina at
Radhakunda in the 1980’s. He indeed left the life of an ascetic, but he has
never met Sri Narayana Maharaja. Thus it is unclear to us why Sri Narayana
Maharaja relates such obscure, imaginary stories to an innocent audience.

13.
Sri Narayana Maharaja then labels the babajis whom he boycotts:

>>If you read their books this poison may come.

avaisnava-mukhodgirnam putam hari-kathamrtam

sravanam naiva kartavyam sarpocchistam yatha payah

(Padma Purana)

[“One should not hear anything about Krishna from a non-vaisnava.

Milk touched by the lips of a serpent has poisonous effects. Similarly,
talks about Krishna given by a non-vaisnava are also poisonous.”]

Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami’s Vilapa Kusumanjali, and other

books like Krishna Bhavanamrta, Radha-rasa-sudhanidhi, and
Stava-vali are all good books. They are amrta, nectar. However, you
should not hear them from non-vaisnavas; otherwise the bogus
ideas of such non-vaisnavas will come, and you will be deviated. Be
very careful about this.<<

12
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

In other words, after presenting a vast number of invalid accusations, he

now designates the unspecified babajis as non-vaisnavas, from whom the
poison of deviation emanates. Needless to say, even if he boycotts a
particular individual to whom his strong criticism may apply, the public will
misunderstand the object of his critique, because he keeps mentioning titles
by Sri Ananta Dasa Babaji, to whom his allegations do not apply, as we have
clearly demonstrated.

14.
There is yet another allegation Sri Narayana Maharaja has in store, a
popular one:

>>Another point is regarding bhajana-pranali. Instead of giving the

proper process to the appropriate persons, without giving proper
training, without considering whether a person is qualified or not,
these babajis give their own version of bhajana-pranali. Their so-
called disciples do not know who is Krishna or what is bhajana. They
don’t know any definition of bhakti, and they don’t even know how
to clean themselves after passing stool. They don’t know anything.
What will become of them?<<

We wonder whether Sri Narayana Maharaja has actually acquainted himself

with the standards and procedures of the unnamed babajis whom he
boycotts, or does he simply say whatever he likes, based on hearsay? We
request him to present to us the babajis who give siddha-pranali to people
who do not know how to wash their hands after passing stool. Moreover, we
request him to present to us the babajis who give siddha-pranali to people
who are not conversant with the basic truths of Gaudiya siddhanta. On the
day when he does this, we will ask him whether they are the same people
who publish the books he boycotts.

15.
Then Sri Narayana Maharaja goes on to present the final tale of victory :

>>About ten years ago I went on Vraja Mandala Parikrama with

Pujyapada Janardana Maharaja. We went to Radha-Kunda, and
there we challenged the babajis. We had a discussion for three
hours, but no one came. I have also challenged those babajis in my
book, Five Essential Essays, but no one responded. After reading
that book they wanted to take us to court, and I challenged them,
“Yes, we will see you in court.” But they never came. Their lawyers
had advised them not to go to court, as they would have lost
everything.<<

It is beyond our imagination how one can have a discussion for three hours
without having anyone to speak with, and then claim to have successfully
and victoriously challenged someone. Perhaps it would be good for Sri
Narayana Maharaja to remember how he refused to address the questions
of this humble self, because he saw that the inquirer was not in a fully

13
 Reflections on the Lecture “Boycott the Sahajiya Babajis”

submissive state, and consequently unable to comprehend the answers he

would have given.

Onwards to the concluding sentence of Sri Narayana Maharaja:

>>I have come to tell you these things only to make you all careful.
Don’t be bewildered. Try to be very strong, knowing all these
points.<<

Indeed, we became careful as a result of attending this speech, and

moreover, by studying the transcript of the same. In fact, we even became
fearful over what would happen to our devotional lives, should we continue
to wholeheartedly adopt the abundantly unfounded criticism cast forth by
Sri Narayana Maharaja and his followers.

14