Saturday, January 13, 2007

Why did Babuji not become a preceptor of Lalaji?

Why did Babuji not become a preceptor of Lalaji?

This is from Elodie's blog and is a commentary and analysis by Christian to be completed after more research. Christian is a Phd in research psychology.

Christian' s Blog is:
Analyse de la SRCM at URL:

Elodie's blog:

RK Gupta's Blog:
Sufi Saints and Sufism at URL: MuMRA Stream of Sufis (Lalaji's lineage)
Sufism in India

Lalaji's Family Sites:
NaqshMuMRa Nexus (Lalaji's family Blogs) at URL:

See on NaqshMuMRa Nexus:
Epitome of Sahaj Marg  

P.S. If file, "Epitome of Sahaj Marg"  is not accessible on this site, then see it here:
Epitome of Sahaj Marg at

Babuji's letter of Feb. 14, 1963

ENGLISH (translation)

Hello Madeleine

Still some elements of reflection which came to me this morning.

Concerning Babuji’s name change, it is the kind of excess which does not astonish me. Indeed, I always wondered why Babuji’s father opposed that his son meet Lalaji. There had to be other reasons than only the association of Lalaji with Moslems. He knew his son, and certainly wanted to protect him from something, if not from outside, then from something in Babuji himself.

And isn't it interesting that Babuji, adopting the identity of another and making the total negation of himself, not in God, but in his Master, in fact one cannot be more excessive, then taught that moderation in everything is one of the essential characteristics of the spiritual life?

Still one more inconsistency to be added to the already abnormally long list we already have in this story. The puzzle is gradually being solved, and pieces that seem unimportant and isollated elements, such as the attitude of Babuji’s father, start to take show a direction.

The ISRC did not prevent me from reflecting, but strongly discouraged me when I harnessed myself to Babuji’s Shadowy Zone. I claimed on my blog that the birth of Sahaj Marg was opaque, and that it corresponded in fact to a schism, not just a break in the lineage. Such a schism could mean only 2 things: [open conflict between Lalaji and Babuji, therefore dissimulation and intellectual dishonesty] versus [real ignorance, therefore distortion of claims]. Indeed, somebody must have lied or voluntarily hidden the facts by ignorance to claim that there was a continuity between Sahaj Marg de Babuji and the sufism of Lalaji, this somebody can only be Babuji, with all the questions which implies a real ignorance…

A third possibility was however to be considered: that Babuji worked under the orders of Lalaji to create something new. It is however necessary to be able to accept this hypothesis, which implies a communication of the living with the dead, unverifiable, and thus to agree to leave the steps of rational reflection to drift into the irrational. This would amount to accepting the formless magma of the imaginary as being reality and being lost there again, i.e. to return to square one. Indeed, these alleged intercommunications could also be the fruit of the mind of Babuji, and not to be a real communication with the world of the dead. In this case, their role would have been above all to give credit to the Babuji’s activities, under cover of the authority of the master, without the disadvantages that such an authority has when it is real. Indeed, alive, Lalaji could have ordered Babuji to act differently, and, for example, not create a SRCM but to become a preceptor of his movement, perhaps even under the authority of another person. In this third case, one would be thus in an alternative more complex than the logical duality implied by the observed schism, concerned with a latent conflict of authority, and referring to what Freud called: "to kill the father" symbolically and to take his place.

Indeed, certain questions were never asked, although implicitly brought up in the blogs. Since Lalaji had other disciples, 9 preceptors, and obviously a lineage, with one of them (preceptor) for his succession, why did Babuji not continue the meetings and not accept the change of master? Did it embarrass him that another took the place of his master? If so, he acted like others later on, at the time of his own succession, and which, one said, that they "had not recognized the master where he is", or that they had an ego problem.

Did it embarrass him that it was not he who was appointed? If so, it is perhaps because he felt betrayed to find himself excluded by the one he loved so much. Like a father who would have preferred one of his children at the time of the choice, instead of recognizing him (all this story turns around a psychological problem of lineage and a father/son relationship, (and in this context, the reaction of the Babuji’s biological father is eloquent), and as well, around the suicide of the one of his sons).

To thwart this emotional suffering, Babuji would thereafter have created a universe in which he "replaced" himself in the central position, in the eyes of all, in the fires of the love of his master. And when I say to the eyes of all, it is necessary to include/understand "in a delirious and total megalomania", since the ambition of the "mission" is to reach all humanity.

How can anyone claim that Babuji was unaware of all the organization installated by Lalaji? My opinion is not that, of course, but obviously, he did not accept it. Lalaji had, like all gurus, a debt towards his master, which was to transmit the torch, and there was thus somebody, for sure, ready to take it. But it was not Babuji. Why didn't Babuji respect the order established by his master by continuing his abhyas under the direction of the successor of Lalaji? Was this a sign of his love and submission to his master? Wasn't this rather a sign of conflict, probably latent and perhaps even unconscious?

But, even though, even with the supreme excuse that Babuji would have been unaware of certain facts, would he not have sought to know, taking into account the importance of his master in his life? It is not logical. Or rather, yes, all is extremely and humanly logical.

Narayana pointed out to me recently that there was perhaps a fault in my logic, because Babuji had waited until 1945 to found the SRCM, i.e. he had awaited until after the death of the successor of Lalaji to act. One can thus think that this successor had failed to set up his own successor and that it was necessary that Babuji take the charge, but it is obviously an partisan assumption. One can also think that it was now or never, and that Babuji, not having recognized the successor named by Lalaji, however had not dared to go openly against the will of his master. Now, he did not go against the will of his master by creating a new line, since the new representative of Lalaji was not designated by Lalaji but by his successor. The fact that he waited until this precise moment to launch out also reveals that he was informed of what occurred with the disciples of Lalaji, therefore that he had preserved the contacts with the satsangh of Lalaji.

Of course, these are only assumptions, suggested to explain these facts. I must still read the biography of Babuji, the "true one", which has been just published by his son, and in which I could find more elements confirming or "infirming" my model. I admit that several points must still be clarified, which could result in explaining the Babuji’s behavior differently and in washing away these suspicions. But for the moment I am not there. With all these elements, I thus claimed that there is once again something to clarify. According to the myth from ISRC, Babuji being the special personality, my remarks are inadmissible, and my blog have thus caused a great concern.

After being received positively as having worked to publicly restore the truth on the drifts of the SRCM under Chari, the attitudes became more distant because I now attacked the myth of the ISRC. Deification of the human beings… or how to give birth to a religion, how to give birth to a myth and to lock people up there. It is a true problem of public health which the sects and the religions pose, and I think that there is a difference between the two only on the degree of institutionalization, not of nature. Because it is institutionalized, it is acceptable? And because it is not, it is opposed? Because, how does one preserve one’s balance while being taken into a system which introduces an obnubilation (obfuscation) on a myth, to the point of leading to a diverting of perception such as the imaginary becomes reality, to the point leading to people killing out some other in the name of a belief?

How to remain free and mentally healthy?

Which brings me again to to my friend Gupta. Madeleine, you probably read (scanned) his Web site. There you could see that the sufism which it describes resembles like 2 water drops the teaching of Sahaj Marg. However, of what I could in addition read on the sufism, the sufism of Gupta would be a particular sufism, all the same. The question is thus: did this teaching integrate the developments of Babuji, or are these developments of Lalaji? I think in particular of the 10 commands, of which Babuji said that it was his masterpiece! But with the facts… 10 commands, a biblical inspiration? The expression of a sub-ajacent religious scheme? Babuji could consider the 10 commands as a masterpiece because it succeeded in extracting the essence from the teaching of his master, a difficult exercise, thus offering to all the secrects of the spiritual development in a food recipe that all can post in the living room. Or he could consider the 10 commands as a masterpiece because he invented its contents. In the first case, he did nothing but formalize something which existed already in the teaching of Lalaji, a codifying which obviously was the animating point of his work, probably to do like Patanjali, another figure of reference in Babuji’s symbolic system, and one saw it on the blogs through the intervention of the abhyasis. In the symbolic system of SRCMtm (Babuji = reincarnation of Patanjali (PS: Chari = reincarnation of Muhammed?… He thus ended up perceiving a soufie lineage of his spiritual ascent).

In any case, Babuji, once again, would have introduced a mist while letting his disciples believe he was the author of all, god to some extent, i.e. the special personality, a manner of subjecting them forever, since there exists nothing better than the special personality. In the second case, the problem relates to the knowledge conveyed by Gupta. Is it from a synthesis made by him starting from books that he would have read, or from a synthesis made by an old abhyasi of Babuji which would have changed to crème in the course of the journey? Having explored other ways, and having thought of many aspects relating to the SRCM and Sahaj Marg, do you have any idea? That is the problem with the Indians, all is fuzzy and opaque because they believe without ever raising questions, and because humans are what they are. At the end of 3 generations, it is an impossible brothel. How can one have confidence under these conditions?


No comments: