Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 > >It is generally accepted that Srila Babaji Maharaja . . . sent (possibly > >dictated) letters > >to apparent disciples; so he was not wholly unscholarly. > > How does this square with the common idea that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta > Sarasvati was his only disciple? > > Babhru das It seems he dealt with some devotees as disciples although maybe they were not formally so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2003 Report Share Posted October 11, 2003 At 08:31 PM 10/10/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >It is generally accepted that Srila Babaji Maharaja . . . sent (possibly > >dictated) letters > >to apparent disciples; so he was not wholly unscholarly. > > How does this square with the common idea that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta > Sarasvati was his only disciple? > > Babhru das It seems he dealt with some devotees as disciples although maybe they were not formally so. That was what I was thinking. Thank you, Maharaja. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Mukunda Datta prabhu? Babhru das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2003 Report Share Posted October 11, 2003 On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Bill Reed wrote: > >It seems he dealt with some devotees as disciples although maybe they were > >not formally so. > That was what I was thinking. Thank you, Maharaja. Does anyone else have > any thoughts on this? Mukunda Datta prabhu? > Yes, otherwise it would not have been possble for so-called followers to claim his body after his disappearance. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.