Archive for June 5th, 2012

Subject: Re: Gurupujanam of Devashish
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:16:04 +0530
From: jitendra kumar



Thanks for highlighting this blunder and mistake by Devashish (letter below). The way he has addressed Baba is completely inappropriate, not to mention all the other errors in his book.

Really Devashish should apologise and say sorry to our AM society, as well as correct the errors in his publication. Otherwise, we will have to boycott Devashish’s book and remove it from our bookstores etc.

From now on we should be extremely careful in selecting / allowing people in making this type of publication.

Jitendra Kumar
Ranchi, India

On 06/02/2012 09:17 PM, AM-GLOBAL wrote:
Date: 02 Jun 2012, 20:44:06
From: “Giovanni Spulotto” 

To: am-global@earthlink.net

Subject: Gurupujanam of Devashish



I read the earlier letter on this tantra piit’ha thread and greatly value all that was shared – indeed a tantra piit’ha is not made by planting 5 trees and burying 5 skulls. I do not know why the writer presented such a dogmatic view in the name of Ananda Marga in his book – “[Shrii Shrii] Anandamurti The Jamalpur Years”. According to Baba, a tantra piit’ha is solely a place where great sadhakas achieved realisation. Clearly, the writer is confused.


Here I would like to raise one new point regarding this debacle. In his book, the writer completely misportrays Baba’s own Personae as well. Take a look at what the writer does.

“Out of respect for the sacred history of that particular tantra pitha [made of 5 trees & 5 skulls], Prabhat would always remove his shoes before entering.” ([Shrii Shrii] Anandamurti: The Jamalpur Years, p. 381)


Firstly, when writing about or addressing Revered Baba, either directly or indirectly, we must always use a respectful address like Shrii Shrii Anandamurti ji. As His disciples, we never are to address Him as Prabhat etc, regardless of the circumstance. This is especially true in the public arena where we are teaching others by our example.

By his expression, it is evident that the writer does not have due reverence for Sadguru Baba; this writer is just a fake margii. No true Ananda Margii – no true disciple of Lord Shrii Shrii Anandamurtiji – could ever even think to do like this. True Ananda Margiis always express the highest respect for Beloved Baba.

But see what this writer did:

“Prabhat would always remove his shoes before entering.” (The Jamalpur Years, p. 381)

This is absolutely appalling – the writer does not follow even one ounce of Guru Pujanam – reverence to Guru, which is a basic point that even beginner margiis understand.

“Trtiiyaḿ gurupújanam. I must have reverence for the guru…respect for the guru.”
(Ananda Vacanamrtam, Part 12, ‘Secrets’)

Rather, in his book which he published for all to see, the writer is treating Baba like some ordinary person on the street, or even less than that. Because even on the street one must use the address as Mister or Sir. This much the writer does not do. And this happens again, and again, and again in his book – thousands of times.


Even all the religions – whatever faults they may have – show proper regard for their preceptor.

Catholics address their leader as His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope’s worldly name is Joseph Alois Ratzinger, but no Catholic would ever consider calling the Pope, “Joey”. That would be a terrible display of disrespect. No Catholic could ever imagine doing that. Rather, they refer to him as His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. And by this way they teach others to do the same. Lay people, heads of state, newspaper reporters, indeed everyone refers to the Pope in a most respectful way. All because that is the tone and address used by the Pope’s chief followers, i.e. catholics.

As an example, here is an excerpt from The New York Times:

“Pope Benedict XVI is on Twitter, and he tweets from an iPad. His Holiness sent out an initial tweet… ” (The New York Times, Tuesday, Jun 28, 2011)

In this article, the Pope is referred to in very respectful language because that is what his followers have taught the world to do. They have set a gold-bar standard, and the rest of the world is following along. That is the main message to be learned here.

Tragically that lesson was utterly lost on the writer of the book – “The Jamalpur Years.” This person has referred to Beloved Baba in the most ordinary, mundane, even lowly manner.

“Prabhat would always…” (p.381)

That is the unfortunate and poor example the writer is putting forward for the world to see. The results are not going to be good.

Let’s take a look at another example.


Buddhists address their leader as His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama’s worldly name is Tenzin Gyatso, but no Buddhist would ever consider calling the Dalai Lama, “Tenz”. That would be a terrible display of disrespect. Rather, in their each and every syllable, gesture, statement, and publication, they refer to the Dalai Lama in only the highest, most respectful manner: His Holiness. And by their lofty example, the rest of the world follows along. The proof is that even President Obama’s office used this same reverential address:

“Statement from the Press Secretary on the President’s meeting Thursday with His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama: “The President met this morning at the White House with His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama…” (Washington Post, Feb 18 2010)

Thus the followers of the Dalai Lama, by their respectful way of addressing their chosen leader, have successfully guided everyone around the globe to do the same, including the office of the US President.

Yet in his book – “The Jamalpur Years” – the writer could not even begin to approach such a standard – rather he sank to a most lowly level when referring to our Marga Gurudeva:

“Prabhat would always….” (p.381)

Let’s take a look at one more example.


Hindus address their leader as Shrii Shrii Jagat Guru Shankaracarya. Indeed now he is known the world over by this most respectful title: His Holiness Shrii Shrii Jagat Guru Shankaracarya of Dwarka. Because that is how those followers have presented him to the rest of the world.

Indeed this “Jagat Guru” title means Guru of the whole world. Those followers give him this highest stature.

Of course this same Shankaracarya was once a boy who had a simple laukik boyhood name. When that boy grew older and became a monk then he eventually became known as Swami Shree Swaroopananda Saraswati ji. And when that same Swami Shree Swaroopananda Saraswati ji became a senior leader he was proclaimed by Hindu followers to be His Holiness Shrii Shrii Jagat Guru Shankaracarya of Dwarka.

So it was a three-step progression: (1) Boyhood name (which is no longer known) to (2) monk name to (3) His Holiness Shrii Shrii Jagat Guru Shankaracarya of Dwarka. His followers naturally refer to him by his highest appellation; so today the whole world references him by this great and magnanimous name.

Unfortunately, the writer of the book “The Jamalpur Years” went in the opposite direction. He introduced Baba to the world in the lowliest way imaginable.

As we all know as a boy He was Prabhat; as a social writer He is Shrii PR Sarkar ji; as a spiritual Sadguru He is Lord Shrii Shrii Anandamurti ji – the embodiment of divine bliss. Yet instead of using this third and highest name, Lord Shrii Shrii Anandamurtiji, the writer has introduced Baba as merely “Prabhat” to the entire population of planet earth. That is the terrible sin that this writer has done.

“Prabhat would always…” (p.381)

This type or mundane, ordinary expression is repeated countless times throughout the book.

So that is what the people around the globe are going to call our Beloved Baba – Prabhat. Because that is what this writer has taught them to do. It is nothing less than sinful what this so-called writer has done.

The Catholics have His holiness the Pope Benedict XVI; the Buddhists have His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama; and the Hindus have His Holiness Shrii Shrii Jagat Guru Shankaracarya of Dwarka; and now, thanks to the work of this writer, the world over thinks that Ananda Margiis have “Prabhat”.

Indeed. there is only one His holiness the Pope Benedict XVI – there is no room for confusion – this title does not refer to any second entity; there is only one His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama – there is no room for confusion – this title does not refer to any second entity; and there is only one His Holiness Shrii Shrii Jagat Guru Shankaracarya of Dwarka – there is no room for confusion – this title does not refer to any second entity. These appellations are totally unique; when these titles are mentioned everyone knows exactly who you are referring to.

Yet, with the simple boyhood name Prabhat, there are tens of millions of ordinary people named “Prabhat” – there is nothing unique at all about this name. So when the name Prabhat is mentioned, there will be so much confusion. Each and every person will have their own separate idea of who Prabhat is. There is nothing great or unique about this name that will alert people to know that we are referring to Sadguru Lord Shrii Shrii Anandamurtiji.

Yet it is this common name that the writer has used thousands of times in his book. What the writer has done is scandalous and sinful.


Some give the bogus logic that since this book – “The Jamalpur Years” – was written in English for a more western audience, then it was appropriate to refer to Baba in that way; because that is how it is done in the west.

However, that is nothing but bogus logic.

The Pope is also a western figure but no one calls him as “Joey”. Rather they use the term His holiness. So then why should the writer stoop to such lowly levels when addressing Beloved Baba as merely “Prabhat”. It seems then the writer did like this because he has absolutely no reverence in his heart for Baba. That is why the writer portrayed Baba in such a dishonorable fashion. One other reason is that he could be a paid stooge – in the hands of enemies – to downgrade Baba. The CIA, CBI, ISI, or KGB – or who knows who – could have paid him to put down Baba. The writer may be involved in covert operations. Otherwise what could be the reason – why is he denigrating Beloved Baba in this way.

Indeed, this writer does not even have social regard for Baba. Writers in the west will honourably refer to the current US President by his family name, Obama. They may precede that with the respectful title, President or Mr, in which it is President Obama or Mr Obama. But no one ever refers to him by his simple name, Barack. Nor were prior US presidents ever referred to as George or Bill. Rather their family name – Bush or Clinton – was used in order to pay respect. The world knows these people as President Clinton, President Bush and President Obama, not by Bill, or George, or Barack. No one says that “Bill did this”, or “George did that”, or “Barack did this.” Referring them by the first name / simple name is not done.

Yet the writer of “The Jamalpur Years” just used the simple name “Prabhat” when writing about Baba. Not an iota of social regard was afforded to Baba in this publication. There is no reasonable or decent explanation for this other than the writer has no inner love and no outer regard for our Sadguru Baba.

The writer cannot make the claim that what he has done is in sync with the western tradition. Because that is not at all the case. Spiritual and social leaders in the west are given proper appellations. Just look at how the Pope is addressed; the Pope is a western institution, but look at the reverence with which the Pope is addressed. Indeed, even on the street one must address the common person with Mister or Sir. But the writer did not do even an ounce of this with Baba.

So no one can say that the writer is following the tradition of the west. Rather the only logical explanation at this point is that the writer did this due to his own pitiful devotional standard and the blackness of his own heart. Or he may be a stooge in the hand of spy agencies like the CIA, CBI, ISI, or KGB – or who knows who – in order to ruin the image of Ananda Marga. The writer may be involved in covert operations. Otherwise what could be the reason – why he is denigrating Beloved Baba.

Ganesh Deva
(Giovanni Spulotto)


I was walking my dog and met up with my neighbor recently – he is not someone I know very well – then suddenly out of the thin air he says, “I know you are an Ananda Margii, so then Prabhat must be your guru.” I was totally shocked and speechless. I wondered how this guy is referring to our Sadguru Baba in this base manner. I certainly never refer to Baba in this way – neither in my own home nor in public. Then it flashed in my mind that this fellow got this lowly idea by reading Devashish’s book. It was then that I first truly understood that this book must – absolutely must – be removed from the shelves. This book should not be available to the public or even to anyone at all. This book should be tossed aside and a more qualified sadhaka with proper devotion should take up the task.


By now everyone certainly knows that the book being referred to in the above letter is “Anandamurti: The Jamalpur Years” by Devashish (Donald Acosta). Even the title he got wrong; it should be Shrii Shrii Anandamurtiji.

May we always remember, the entire aim in writing such a book is to glorify Guru and His teachings; but Devashish’s book moves in a totally different direction – a negative one. I too wholly believe this publication should be removed from the shelf. From the front cover to the back page, this entire book utterly fails to properly represent Revered Baba and His teachings.

Best will be if Devashish offers a formal statement of apology and correction, and withdraws the book.


Here following is a link the previous letter about Devashish’s book.


Read Full Post »