Many of
us are like Sathya Sai Baba in looking on our detractors with kindness,
sympathy etc., there is really nothing so amazingly unique about this.
Some cannot even help their ignorance and bad feelings, and we may pity
them. But can we be sure that Sathya Sai Baba 's
words about his kindness are not empty - for once again he advises what
can often prove a form of deception, "You cannot always oblige, but you can always speak obligingly". At the same time, he clearly takes pleasure in pointing out how much
his critics will suffer, in this instance for example, by saying "Hurting someone
who has helped you will result in losing your eyesight". The whole context of this
makes it clear that he is implying that critics are hurting him, even
though he later says, "none of it will reach
me".
But much of it did get to him most certainly, rousing him into making
awful threats against his detractors in his angry discourse on Christmas
Day, 2000. He called his accusers Judases and demons! (SSB believes in
demons, as well as literally in 14-feet high men like Rama,
as he told John Hislop!) Such unforgiving talk
from this self-promoting 'God the Father' on the birthday of the all-forgiving
Jesus Christ! Was this conscious insult to Christians or mere ignorance
of their creed? Forgiveness is not a concept that finds much expression,
if any, in the traditional Indian spiritual value system as far as I can
discover. We see how Krishna
was for war and blood at
Kurukshetra.
So Sathya Sai Baba continues
to speak with two tongues, and still within one and the same discourse.
This is not so surprising from a dual entity with a Janus-faced personality
- a man (S.N. Raju) who is 'very human' (Kasturi's
remark) with all kinds of failings (admitted by many close servitors) -
and then a self-proclaimed deity ('Sai Baba')
from some other realm with what he has called his 'very fast helpers' and
who tells us that the whole of humanity working together could never understand
him! A person whose oft-reputed unmastered
lust makes him much more like Ravana than Rama, believe what you will!
Incidentally,
I am not 'ridiculing' Sathya Sai Baba . I am truly only pointing out his self-contradictions,
and many discrepancies between his words his actions and his actual observable
behaviour. The fact is, Sathya Sai Baba talks so exaggeratedly
and acts so otherwise in so many things, that he provides all the ridicule.
I also comment critically on all the secrecy and cover-up surrounding much
of what he does, and the consequences it all has or can have for truth,
good people and social justice. If my deepest conscience did not demand
of me to do this difficult service, I would be only to
happy to desist. Moreover, I exert considerable efforts to write nothing
that is untruthful or unconsidered about Sathya Sai Baba , and I will willingly swear
it before God (not Sathya Sai Baba ) .
"Ever
be grateful even for a small help. Do not be ungrateful. Ingratitude is
utter cruelty." (ibid p.166-7). For the n'th
time, one must ask what is wrong with Sathya Sai Baba 's sense
of proportion (or control of his tongue)? Grateful
as I was for some things in which Sathya Sai Baba has apparently helped me, I cannot
but help think that – had I his opportunities - I would help everyone with
the greatest pleasure. What does it cost to do his leelas
and miracles? Time, his energy… but what kind of a sacrifice does this really
involve, one can but ask? It is sometimes difficult indeed - frankly quite
pointless or even evil-minded - to be grateful for much of what happens
to people (by Sathya Sai Baba 's will?) Meanwhile, it is quite
possible to have gratitude to Sathya Sai Baba for some things he did (or may have done,
if we have proof of it) for some of us, and at the same time require accountability
from him for other things we have discovered about him since then. To be
grateful for some things does not mean that one should have to give the
helper a carte blanche to neglect justice and truth. To remain grateful
everlastingly for some uncertain favours does not remove the right to question
the same person about his deceits and involvement in other harmful actions
like executions in his own apartments.
Again,
"See how much help
Swami is giving to the poor and needy. It is all for their welfare. But
some people are not at all realising the value and are not grateful for
it." (ibid
p.166). How can one who boasts that he
owns nothing, give anything? It was given via Sathya Sai Baba by many well-meaning,
good people, and not by him as such. But he has to boast and rub
it in again and again. Why? Instead, he berates foreigners for giving
indiscriminately, as follows (in original discourse, edited out of Sanathana)."Today all the foreigners are distributing money,
distributing money, distributing money, and they are making the country
of Bharath very low. " This is yet another preposterous
sweeping false statement about India by Sathya Sai Baba ! In the original discourse
he also waffles on about someone who became the US
President, but without
naming him, Lincoln
is evidently intended.
But what he says about Lincoln
's politics towards the
black population demonstrates very basic ignorance of the facts.
Further,
I have not seen anywhere in his thousands of discourses - or any books about
him - that Sathya Sai Baba has expressed his gratitude to anyone for the help he personally
receives! As usual, Sathya Sai Baba claims "I do not accept anything from anyone" (p. 168). How can he really
not receive ANYTHING, just like everyone else alive does? Does he grow and
harvest his own produce (‘ragi’ grain
and watermelons, coconuts, rice and wheat for chapattis etc.)? Does he make
his own robes? (Or is the Emperor without clothes?). Does he make his own
furniture, build his own rooms, decorate his own showy thrones or does he
receive the hundred and one things necessary even to his subsistence from
the labour of others? He remarks too, while telling how he totally ignored
for three days a would-be donor to him of car replacements (i.e. shining
example of divine ingratitude?), that "I already have a sufficient number of cars" (p. 168). So HE does HAVE
some! How many does one man need? If everyone in the world followed his
divine example with up to 5 cars per person, the atmosphere would soon kill
us! Moreover, I have never heard of him saying 'thank you' to anyone for
any favours received, and many he certainly does accept! Sathya Sai Baba has to pretend
he wants nothing, as follows: "Take My cars if you need them! I don’t like
to travel in very big cars. However, they have sent them from foreign countries.
After they send it, it is not possible to do anything else with them." How transparently deceitful can one talk ... he could donate them all
to hospitals or whatever, and get one small one for himself!
What does
it cost Sathya Sai Baba to do 'his' leelas and apparent miracles?
His time, his energy - what kind of a sacrifice is this, one can but ask?
It is sometimes difficult indeed to see why one should be grateful for much
of what happens to people, and even oneself! None of this is really explained
by Sathya Sai Baba - human birth he calls a tremendous gift, like it or not, and one
must have gratitude (to him?)! He also speaks of life as the one thing to
avoid (next time round), for it leads to 'a life sentence'. So he can hardly
claim to be very convincing as a teacher there. It seems from what he says
about himself that he is ever in bliss, nothing troubles him or gets to
him in any way… so his birth doesn't seem to be such a burden to him. He
has even insisted that he has no real idea what suffering is because he
is every the same, untouched. So he may even have more reason to be grateful
than others. These kind of obvious thoughts are regarded as blasphemous,
certainly by his convinced followers, and by him not least.
Ah, some
know-alls will say, "you must understand that Swami is in everyone,
in everything - he has countless hands, eyes..." and all the rest of
it. Don't we all, ultimately then, all of us being nothing less than Atma? Besides, is it not a weird and confused proposition...
that this person Sathya Sai Baba is necessarily as much 'in' every victim and perpetrator
of every evil deed as in everything else? He is physically-embodied who
thus shows all the outward signs of being like many others, for better and
worse, with many self-expressed likes and dislikes, anger and sympathies.
Doesn't it seem a bit removed from the facts and quite sane considerations
for him to pretend he is not personally involved in anything he does? Evidently
not to many unworldly, life-despising, liberation-yearning,
unfulfilled, suffering or dissatisfied devotees. The omnipresence claim
has nothing whatever to do with questions like gratitude, possessions, kindness
towards critics on which Sathya Sai Baba propounded. For, if we are really to take the
advaitic view at all seriously, then who is to
feel grateful to whom?