A comment on Kunjabihari Das Babaji's biography -

Perhaps Madhavanandaji will want to move this post to another of the forums, but I'm putting it here for now as I am inquiring about some text in the above post.

Obviously, Indian and Western devotees will have different expectations about how devotees present themselves. I was struck by a couple of lines in the above description of Kunja Bihari Das, originally written by Ananta Das Babaji, and I am hoping that the devotees here will be able to help me focus my thoughts on their import.

Imagine how most of us would react if (for example) Tamal Krishna Goswami had written the following in a description of Bhaktivedanta Swami:

"Bhaktivedanta Swami's most celebrated disciple, Tamal Krishna Goswami, is a great scholar in his own right, who has published numerous works from the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust."

From everything else I have read about Ananta Das Babaji, it is hard for me to envision him describing HIMSELF as the "most celebrated disciple" of his guru, or as "a great scholar in his own right" -- even though these descriptions are surely quite accurate.

Jagadananda, in his translation, attributes this information as coming from Ananta Das Babaji, but I wonder whether it may actually have been written by another devotee and somehow misattributed (e.g. the comments about Ananta Das Babaji might not actually be "based on" the pamphlet that he wrote, though the attribution seems to indicate that they are)?

Or perhaps the original language didn't convey exactly the same tone as the translation (I can easily imagine the original text stating, for example, "His prominent disciple, Ananta Das Babaji, is himself engaged in serious scholarship..." which wouldn't have the same self-glorifying tone as this translation).

If indeed he wrote this himself, about himself, and the translation accurately conveys the tone of the original, it's an interesting reminder that some of our Western sensitivities about gurus' 'self-glorification' may not be held by Indian devotees who haven't shared our Western experience of the last 25-35 years.

Thoughts, anyone?

There has been a misunderstanding. Though I based the biographical sketch of Kunja Bihari Dasji on Ananta Das's booklet, he did not himself write anything about himself. This was entirely my addition. Please excuse me. Madhavaji, take note for the printed edition.

Might the last few paragraphs have been intended to look something like the following instead, with the glorification of Ananta Das Babaji moved down a bit in the document so as to be separated from the content of his own booklet?



Does that convey all you had intended, while helping to indicate that the deserving glorification of Ananta Das Babaji is not coming from his own pen?