Pure devotees deliver

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Madhava wrote:

<<<There is no recognized guru-disciple link between Narottama

and Krishnadas Kaviraja.>>>

 

Recognized by WHOM? Krsna Himself recognizes the kind of preachers

He empowered to spread Krsna consciousness all over the world (Gita, 18.69),

just as clearly as this link is clearly listed in Prabhupada's Introduction

to Bhagavad-gita; it's unwise to challenge such acaryas' authority.

 

The obvious implication in the claims of a few otherwise insignificant

(if not also merely envious} babajis and gosvamis is that the Sarasvata

Gaudiya line has no authority or validity. However, the dynamic preaching

work of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and even moreso the historically

unprecedented spiritual accomplishments of Srila Prabhupada (which are now

being continued even by his disciples, like H.H. Indradyumna Maharaja),

strongly suggest that they've all indeed got *something* right--since no

one can spread Krsna consciousness without being empowered by Krsna's sakti

(cf. Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 13.1 and Antya-lila, 7.11).

 

Even Vallabhacarya, who was in another sampradaya altogether,

accepts this as proof of one's spiritual authority (cf. Cc. Antya-lila,

7.11-14):

 

"The fundamental religious system in the age of Kali is the chanting

of the holy name of Krsna. Unless empowered by Krsna, one cannot propagate

the sankirtana movement."

 

"You have spread the sankirtana movement of Krsna consciousness.

Therefore it is evident that You have been empowered by Lord Krsna. There

is no question about it.

 

"You have manifested the holy name of Krsna throughout the entire

world. Anyone who sees You is immediately absorbed in ecstatic love of

Krsna."

 

"Without being especially empowered by Krsna, one cannot manifest

ecstatic love of Krsna, for Krsna is the only one who gives ecstatic love.

That is the verdict of all revealed scriptures."

 

Thus said Vallabhacarya, who was an incarnation of Sukadeva Gosvami. Those

who are subtle enough will also notice (ibid., 3-24) how very respectful

Vallabha was to such empowered preachers--as well as how Lord Caitanya in

turn humbly directed Vallabha's praise to the devotees He Himself respected

similarly.

 

Their example and hint is from Caitanya-caritamrta, so there's no

reason we all can't try to emulate it. Some may feel they know better

than even Vallabhacarya, though I haven't yet seen them quote any sastras

to support such disrespectful criticism of their empowered predecessors.

A few unscrupulous people may be crass enough to ignore their own salient

shortcomings, but they are basically just a nuisance to society (utpadaiva

kalpate).

 

Hence, again, I feel this is mainly a matter of character. A

little humility, at least, is definitely in order; let us glorify the

great work of the previous (and present) acaryas on whom we do indeed

depend--and not just pick them apart with impudent, mental microscopes.

Stupid rascals should stop criticizing the obviously empowered Vaisnavas

who are in all respects superior to any of us.

 

However, if they simply cannot some to restrain themselves from

doing what is already prohibited, then at least they should only criticize

their senior acaryas after they themselves have also turned several thousand

mlecchas into Vaisnavas.

 

Perhaps then a couple people might take their inflated talk a

little bit more seriously.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, "M. Tandy" <mpt@u...> wrote:

 

> The obvious implication in the claims of a few otherwise

insignificant

> (if not also merely envious} babajis and gosvamis is that the

Sarasvata

> Gaudiya line has no authority or validity. However, the dynamic

preaching

> work of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and even moreso the

historically

> unprecedented spiritual accomplishments of Srila Prabhupada (which

are now

 

[snip]

 

> Hence, again, I feel this is mainly a matter of character. A

> little humility, at least, is definitely in order; let us glorify

the

> great work of the previous (and present) acaryas on whom we do

indeed

 

[snip]

 

> However, if they simply cannot some to restrain themselves

from

> doing what is already prohibited, then at least they should only

criticize

> their senior acaryas after they themselves have also turned several

thousand

> mlecchas into Vaisnavas.

 

This is touching on an issue that I was up until now, reluctant to

address. Not because it is in any way inappropriate, but rather

because it is the strongest and obviously most inconvenient issue for

the babaji critics to consider.

 

Up until now, the babajis want to criticize Bhaktisiddhanta on the

basis of various external regulations which he did not choose to

follow - wearing of white cloth instead of saffron, foregoing

varnaashrama practices, etc. But what of the more significant

injunctions offered by our aachaaryas, such as to go forth and preach

bhakti-yoga? It is an undisputed fact that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and

the followers of his line have done this in the very spirit which

Lord Chaitanya did - to everyone near and far without consideration

of individual qualification. If the critics decry Bhaktisiddhanta's

allegiance to the Gaudiiya paramparaa on the basis of his stylistic

differences vis-a-vis his spiritual predecessors, then is it not

equally reasonable for us to criticize the babajis for ignoring Lord

Chaitanya's more sacred commandments? In this sense, this is very

much an issue of character. Not the character of the lay follower,

which is not an appropriate topic for this list, given that every

religious group has its share of sincere and insincere followers.

Rather, it is an issue of the character of the aachaaryas whose lives

are being questioned in the first place. Specifically, it is an issue

of the behavior of these aachaaryas, and which type of behavior is

more in keeping with Mahaaprabhu's teachings and example. Which is

more compatible with Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's desire - that His

followers strictly wear white cloth while remaining in Bengal in

virtual anonymity, or that they go forward as He did and preach the

glories of the holy name?

 

Of course, one could argue that preaching the essence while eschewing

regulative principles is neither justifiable nor warranted. But then

again, this isn't the point here. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta restored the

varnaashrama dharma practices in place of the previous system that

was meant for paramahamsas. There is no question of ignoring

regulative principles; it was rather a question of which approach to

follow in the execution - the Vedic one or the Gosvamis' one. I would

still argue that they are one and the same in purpose, and that

whatever the Gosvamis had intended, it was most certainly not to

challenge Vedic regulations (which would be spiritual suicide). But

some still feel that the differences in this external approach mean

that Bhaktisiddhanta isn't really a Gaudiiya Vaishnava. I find this

to be presumptuous. But I guess it boils down to what one considers

to be more true to Gaudiiya Vaishnavism - the color of one's cloth or

the propagation of the sankiirtana mission.

 

If our critics wanted to admit that they are not really Gaudiiya

Vaishnavas, and that they are criticizing on an academic level only,

then I suppose we could deal with it on that level. But the implicit

basis for their criticisms, whether they admit it or not, is that

they have access to the "real thing," the so-called "orthodox"

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. Thus it is incumbent upon us to cross examine

their approach and see if it is really compatible with that of

Mahaaprabhu. Sentimentalism will not do. If they think they are the

genuine article, then we have to see for ourselves. And so far, I am

unconvinced, and I will continue to remain as such as long as the

critics continue to ignore Mahaaprabhu's own example and put so much

emphasis on the Gosvamis' injunctions that they discard Vedic

evidence substantiating Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's approach.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

Krishna Susarla wrote:

 

>>> If the critics decry Bhaktisiddhanta's allegiance to the Gaudiiya paramparaa

on the basis of his stylistic differences vis-a-vis his spiritual predecessors,

then is it not equally reasonable for us to criticize the babajis for ignoring

Lord Chaitanya's more sacred commandments? <<<

 

Do you have a reason to believe that no babaji preaches? The babajis and the

so-called caste Gosvamis are behind creating the multitudes of Gaudiyas you

find in India nowadays. The percentage of Gaudiya Math / ISKCON followers is

utmost 10% of the entire Gaudiya samaja, which some have estimated to be as

large as 10 million adherents. Certainly the order of Sri Caitanya to preach is

not neglected. However, there are different approaches to preaching. Many great

saints sit in solitude, absorbed in bhajan and Radha-Krishna seva, teaching

others and inspiring them to go out and preach. This is no less a legitimate

approach to spreading the mission of Sri Caitanya.

 

Aside this, most Babaji are not very concerned with the Gaudiya Math at all,

what to speak of being absorbed in or even interested of critique on the same.

However, their followers may feel prompted on occasion to discuss the subject

matter of proper siddhanta when their gurus are publicly attacked and declared

deviants, sahajiyas and so forth. I trust you understand.

 

 

>>> Up until now, the babajis want to criticize Bhaktisiddhanta on the basis of

various external regulations which he did not choose to follow - wearing of

white cloth instead of saffron, foregoing varnaashrama practices, etc. <<<

 

If you feel you still need to address "the babajis", you would do well to tell

us who the babajis are whom you speak about. There is no universal aggregate of

babajis there.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Madhava

 

 

 

 

 

-

">krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>

achintya

Tuesday, December 24, 2002 7:37 AM

Re: Pure devotees deliver

achintya, "M. Tandy" <mpt@u...> wrote:> The obvious

implication in the claims of a few otherwise insignificant> (if not also merely

envious} babajis and gosvamis is that the Sarasvata> Gaudiya line has no

authority or validity. However, the dynamic preaching> work of Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati Thakura, and even moreso the historically> unprecedented spiritual

accomplishments of Srila Prabhupada (which are now[snip]> Hence, again, I

feel this is mainly a matter of character. A> little humility, at least, is

definitely in order; let us glorify the> great work of the previous (and

present) acaryas on whom we do indeed[snip]> However, if they simply

cannot some to restrain themselves from> doing what is already prohibited, then

at least they should only criticize> their senior acaryas after they themselves

have also turned several thousand> mlecchas into Vaisnavas.This is touching on

an issue that I was up until now, reluctant to address. Not because it is in

any way inappropriate, but rather because it is the strongest and obviously

most inconvenient issue for the babaji critics to consider.Up until now, the

babajis want to criticize Bhaktisiddhanta on the basis of various external

regulations which he did not choose to follow - wearing of white cloth instead

of saffron, foregoing varnaashrama practices, etc. But what of the more

significant injunctions offered by our aachaaryas, such as to go forth and

preach bhakti-yoga? It is an undisputed fact that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and the

followers of his line have done this in the very spirit which Lord Chaitanya did

- to everyone near and far without consideration of individual qualification. If

the critics decry Bhaktisiddhanta's allegiance to the Gaudiiya paramparaa on the

basis of his stylistic differences vis-a-vis his spiritual predecessors, then is

it not equally reasonable for us to criticize the babajis for ignoring Lord

Chaitanya's more sacred commandments? In this sense, this is very much an issue

of character. Not the character of the lay follower, which is not an appropriate

topic for this list, given that every religious group has its share of sincere

and insincere followers. Rather, it is an issue of the character of the

aachaaryas whose lives are being questioned in the first place. Specifically,

it is an issue of the behavior of these aachaaryas, and which type of behavior

is more in keeping with Mahaaprabhu's teachings and example. Which is more

compatible with Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's desire - that His followers strictly

wear white cloth while remaining in Bengal in virtual anonymity, or that they

go forward as He did and preach the glories of the holy name? Of course, one

could argue that preaching the essence while eschewing regulative principles is

neither justifiable nor warranted. But then again, this isn't the point here.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta restored the varnaashrama dharma practices in place of

the previous system that was meant for paramahamsas. There is no question of

ignoring regulative principles; it was rather a question of which approach to

follow in the execution - the Vedic one or the Gosvamis' one. I would still

argue that they are one and the same in purpose, and that whatever the Gosvamis

had intended, it was most certainly not to challenge Vedic regulations (which

would be spiritual suicide). But some still feel that the differences in this

external approach mean that Bhaktisiddhanta isn't really a Gaudiiya Vaishnava.

I find this to be presumptuous. But I guess it boils down to what one considers

to be more true to Gaudiiya Vaishnavism - the color of one's cloth or the

propagation of the sankiirtana mission. If our critics wanted to admit that

they are not really Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, and that they are criticizing on an

academic level only, then I suppose we could deal with it on that level. But

the implicit basis for their criticisms, whether they admit it or not, is that

they have access to the "real thing," the so-called "orthodox" Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism. Thus it is incumbent upon us to cross examine their approach and

see if it is really compatible with that of Mahaaprabhu. Sentimentalism will

not do. If they think they are the genuine article, then we have to see for

ourselves. And so far, I am unconvinced, and I will continue to remain as such

as long as the critics continue to ignore Mahaaprabhu's own example and put so

much emphasis on the Gosvamis' injunctions that they discard Vedic evidence

substantiating Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's approach. yours,- KTo from

this group, send an email to:achintyaAchintya

Homepage: achintyaDISCLAIMER: All postings

appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be

cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views

expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not

necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya

school.

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Madhava wrote:

> MDd wrote (quoting Madhava):

> >>> <<<There is no recognized guru-disciple link between Narottama and

Krishnadas Kaviraja.>>>

> Recognized by WHOM? Krsna Himself recognizes the kind of preachers He

empowered to spread Krsna consciousness all over the world (Gita, 18.69), just

as clearly as this link is clearly listed in Prabhupada's Introduction to

Bhagavad-gita; it's unwise to challenge such acaryas' authority. <<<

>

> Neither of the two have recognized any such relationship in their writings.

 

Tatah kim?

 

How did we learn of either one of them, except by the Divine grace

of Srila Prabhupada? Along with Srila Prabhupada's parampara list, you may

feel free to dismiss the importance of this fact if you must; I'll exercise

my right not to accompany you there, since I think that this principle is

central enough to all Vaisnava siddhantas that it stands sufficient on its

own integrity--in stark contrast to that demonstrated by Prabhupada's few

critics.

 

 

 

 

<<<Narottama has mentioned Krishna Das twice in his Prarthana (3, 41)

along with other saints of Vrindavan. Krishna Das has not mentioned Narottama

anywhere in his writings. Would you like to provide historical accounts from

the acaryas' writings which demonstrate the guru-disciple relationship which

existed between Narottama Das Thakura and Krishna Das Kaviraja?>>>

 

I most certainly will not; to do so would be to ignore the very

point I've been arguing all along--which is, in Narottamadasa Thakura's

own words:

 

guru-mukha-padma-vakya, cittete koriya aikya,

ara na koriho mane asa

 

"One should make the instructions from the lotus mouth of the

bonafide guru identical with one's own heart--and not entertain any other

mental aspirations."

 

In other words, one's first concern is guru-padasraya. All we know about

our purvacaryas and their teachings is accessed through our own bonafide

guru--who is their transparent via medium, and our only sponsor within

their realm of pure devotion. As Narottamadasa Thakura (like many others)

suggests above, the verdict of one's guru must also be respected over

and above any other pratyaksa or anumana evidences; to instead introduce

a hopefully impressive array of socio-historical facts and figures is at

best missing the point altogether! At worst, it is but a shameless ruse

deliberately aimed at obscuring this real issue. And I simply refuse to

be drawn into that nonsense; sorry. In fact, I won't even discuss the

logic behind the Sarasvata-Gaudiya parampara, similarly. Trust me or not,

as you will, but ask someone else to discuss it with you, if anyone really

wants to.

 

Frankly, I have a feeling that if not simply to pick a fight by

introducing infammatory remarks guaranteed to disturb others, even those

who do so probably wouldn't be that interested in discussing it either.

 

 

 

 

<<<Bhagavad Gita 18.69 . . . does not speak of preaching all over the

world to everyone. It speaks of explaining the supreme secret of the Gita

to His devotees.>>>

 

Fair enough; I can go with Caitanya-bhagavata instead, wherein Lord

Caitanya indicates His desire that His names are to be sung worldwide

(Antya 4.126), or with Caitanya-caritamrta, in which He orders all Indians

to effect this (Adi 9.41), instructing everyone to teach whomever they see

about Krsna (Madhya 7.128), etc. Still, though everyone is actually a

devotee ultimately, these passages also make it absolutely clear what Krsna

wants most--and therefore who pleases Him most. That's always the context

in which everything must be placed. Of course, this is axiomatic, so you're

quite right that:

 

<<<We cannot take the verse out of its context.>>>

 

Srila Prabhupada CREATED the devotees to whom he then preached, and he

carefully trained them to become fit srotas, as per Gita 18.67. Others

would have just dismissed them as unfit mlecchas (and they did), but many

Vaisnavas consider Srila Prabhupada to have been empowered with Lord

Nityananda's own sakti because he didn't--and he succeeded beyond anyone's

wildest dreams. It's been pointed out that we're both therefore here

discussing this right now.

 

To ignore the objective reality of what Krsna asks for--and who

has best complied with His request--is just as shallow as trying to

question or deny Prabhupada's self-effulgent credentials on the basis of

some mundane reasoning or legalistic technicalities. That's beyond just

cavalier in my book; it's downright tamasic as well.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Madhava wrote:

> If you feel you still need to address "the babajis", you would do well to

tell us who the babajis are whom you speak about. There is no universal

aggregate of babajis there.>>>

 

I disagree. Not only would such a discussion sink to personal

attacks, but as I've quoted Srila Prabhupada on this, there are fairly

generic characteristics which he criticized in these groups. That's valid

too, because they also represent fairly universal tendencies we all need to

avoid. Just as Srila Prabhupada pointed out the flaws in the mayavadis

and sahajiyas without naming individuals, so he did with the babajis and

caste gosvamis. We can all do likewise, unless of course we're actually

just trying to provoke a fight.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote:

> But I guess it boils down to what one considers

> to be more true to Gaudiiya Vaishnavism - the color of one's cloth or

> the propagation of the sankiirtana mission.

 

Well put.

 

 

 

> If our critics wanted to admit that they are not really Gaudiiya

> Vaishnavas, and that they are criticizing on an academic level only,

> then I suppose we could deal with it on that level.

 

Yes, and doing that misses the whole point, of course.

 

 

 

> But the implicit

> basis for their criticisms, whether they admit it or not, is that

> they have access to the "real thing," the so-called "orthodox"

> Gaudiiya Vaishnavism.

 

While your observation about the character of the acaryas is

appreciable, the above is why I say it's also a question of character of

their critics; I think it's essentially unethical to enter a forum in

which members of any given sect dominate--if one deliberately plans to

post inflammatory or insensitive remarks about their revered acaryas.

It's frankly just crass and uncultured, if not also simply immature. If

it gets a fairly hot response, it's probably because such was desired in

the first place.

 

However, I think we all have more productive ways to spend our time.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Madhava" <harekrishna@s...> wrote:

 

> Do you have a reason to believe that no babaji preaches? The

babajis and the so-called caste Gosvamis are behind creating the

multitudes of Gaudiyas you find in India nowadays. The percentage of

Gaudiya Math / ISKCON followers is utmost 10% of the entire Gaudiya

samaja, which some have estimated to be as large as 10 million

adherents. Certainly the order of Sri Caitanya to preach is not

neglected. However, there are different approaches to preaching. Many

great saints sit in solitude, absorbed in bhajan and Radha-Krishna

seva, teaching others and inspiring them to go out and preach. This

is no less a legitimate approach to spreading the mission of Sri

Caitanya.

>

 

No, no, no, I'm afraid you are not paying attention. We are debating

about which aachaaryas truly represent the spirit of Lord Chaitanya's

sampradaaya - Srila Bhaktisiddhanta or the babajis who criticize him.

Whether or not the babajis "preach" (however they define it), is not

the issue. The issue is whether or not they preach as Lord Chaitanya

did, and as He expected His followers to do. That is a perfectly

reasonable course, since we are being made to believe that they are

more "orthodox" in their Gaudiiya Vaishnavism than Srila

Bhaktisiddanta and his followers. I will not take issue with saints

who spend their lives sitting in solitude, absorbed in Radha-Krishna

seva. I will take issue when someone tries to imply that this is what

Lord Chaitanya expected of us. First follow Lord Chaitanya's example,

then presume to criticize others who allegedly do not. It is a simple

and very reasonable request.

 

Then of course, there is the issue of following Lord Chaitanya's

injunctions. If Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is to be blasted by some for

wearing saffron instead of white, then it is only reasonable to judge

Gaudiiyas by their willingness to accept Mahaaprabhu's own

instructions:

 

ataeva aami aaj~naa dilu.n sabaakaare |

yaahaa.n taahaa.n prema-phala deha'yaare taare || CC, aadi, 9.36 ||

 

Therefore I order every man within this universe to accept this

Krishna consciousness movement and distribute it everywhere. (shrii

chaitanya charitaamR^ita, aadi-liila, 9.36)

 

ataeva saba phala deha'yaare taare |

khaaiyaaha-uk loka ajara amare || CC, aadi, 9.39 ||

 

Distribute this Krishna-consciousness movement all over the world.

Let people eat these fruits and ultimately become free from old age

and death. (shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, aadi-liila, 9.39)

 

jagat vyaapiyaa mora habe puNya khyaati |

sukhii ha-iyaa loka mora gaahibeka kiirti || CC, aadi, 9.40 ||

 

If the fruits are distributed all over the world, My reputation as a

pious man will be known everywhere, and thus all people will glorify

My name with great pleasure. (shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, aadi-

liila, 9.40)

 

bhaarata-bhuumite haila manuShya janma yaara |

janma saarthaka kari'kara para-upakaara || CC, Aadi, 9.41 ||

 

One who has taken his birth as a human being in the land of India

[bhaarata-varsha] should make his life successful and work for the

benefit of all other people. (shrii chaitanya charitaamR^ita, aadi-

liila, 9.41)

 

Mahaaprabhu is ordering His followers to distribute this "prema-

phala" to everyone and anyone: "yaare taare." It is abundantly clear

from the verses and from context that pure devotional service should

be spread all over the world. It is also clear from history that

there is a line of Gaudiiya Vaishnavas that have done this, and many

others who have not. Is it unreasonable of me to question the

babajis' authenticity as Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, when they have not even

carried out Mahaaprabhu's instruction to carry Krishna-consciousness

to everyone, everywhere? Last time I checked, these babajis never

managed to get out of India, or even Bengal for that matter.

 

> Aside this, most Babaji are not very concerned with the Gaudiya

Math at all,>

 

And such dismissal is very disappointing indeed. Other Vaishnava

sampradaayas, who have even less in common philosophically with Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta, are very vocal in their support and their regard for

Srila Prabhupada's efforts. I would expect that, as a matter of basic

culture, that the babajis would at least be appreciative of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Bhaktivedanta.

 

>

what to speak of being absorbed in or even interested of critique on

the same. However, their followers may feel prompted on occasion to

discuss the subject matter of proper siddhanta when their gurus are

publicly attacked and declared deviants, sahajiyas and so forth. I

trust you understand.

>

 

Yes, yes, I understand that everyone likes to claim that they

represent the innocent party, who never fired first and was always on

the receiving end until now. I'm not buying it. I can only speak for

myself, but I had never even heard of these babaji critics until

their followers appeared on the internet and started criticizing

Srila Prabhupada. Prior to that, I was only aware of a few veiled

references in some of Srila Prabhupada's recorded conversations to

individuals whose conduct he did not approve of, and only that too

after some of his disciples brought it up with him.

 

In India, even Maadhvas and Shrii Vaishnava leaders are full of

praise for Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada's efforts, regardless of

the many philosophical differences (which they are only too happy to

point out if given a chance). As someone who was born in an Indian

and caste brahmin family, I find it very unnatural that the "Gaudiiya

Vaishnava" babajis cannot be similarly generous. One can respect

someone even if one disagrees with their presentation. But like I

said, that's my experience only. Although I'm pretty convinced at

this point as to who the guilty parties are, I don't really care

right now who started what. I would rather discuss the philosophical

issues, and see objectively who is and who is not following Lord

Chaitanya.

 

> >>> Up until now, the babajis want to criticize Bhaktisiddhanta on

the basis of various external regulations which he did not choose to

follow - wearing of white cloth instead of saffron, foregoing

> varnaashrama practices, etc. <<<

>

> If you feel you still need to address "the babajis", you would do

well to tell us who the babajis are whom you speak about. There is no

universal aggregate of babajis there.

>

 

I have already indicated who I mean by "babajis." Isn't it now time

that you start addressing some of the points I brought up?

 

yours,

 

- K