ON GOOD AND EVIL - BY SATHYA SAI BABA
Due to the disaffection forced on me by
facts, I became increasingly skeptical about the nature and extent of
the good supposedly done by Sathya Sai Baba. It culminated not least after
long experience and observations in Sai circles through nearly two decades.
Looking closely at his actual words, it is remarkable to see that - despite
his continual self-praise as the source of all truth, goodness and beauty
backed up by the praise of his supreme goodness by many hundreds of devotees
- he does not actually deny being behind evil in
the world.
In a public discourse in January 1995
(Sathya Sai Speaks Vol.28 new ed., p.1), Sathya Sai Baba said: "The good and evil in the world are expressions
of Divine consciousness. Man should not be misled by these expressions.
Behind all the various actions of the actors, the Divine Director is at
work."
Sai Baba has said that good and bad
are found in varying admixtures in all persons in the world today. But
conflicting with this he has recently held that some people do not even
have the spark of divinity and are but demons. (Eg. "... a hard-hearted
person cannot be called a spark of Divinity; he is verily a demon."
p. 323, Sanathana Sarathi, November 2002). At the same time,
yet more confusedly, he has sometimes also denied that anyone is either
good or bad... or that good and bad even exists at all.
Since Sathya Sai Baba has many a time proclaimed himself to be the Divine Director of everything, if he is therefore responsible in any way for anything good that happens, he must also be equally responsible for all the evil. This is the classic dilemma of those who believe in an omnipotent God... how could he (or she or it) be good and at the same time create or 'direct' evil actions? To say that whatever this avatar does is merely an expression of divine consciousness does not solve the problem by any means.
Confusing an issue, blurring it by unclear
and incompatible words, is one way of numbing the intelligence of devotees
and causing them to give up as incapable of understanding "this Divine
Mystery". Note this in what Sathya Sai Baba has also said:
"The 'bad' too is in fact 'good' in reverse.
It serves to teach what has to be avoided. It would not be 'bad' for all
time; it is ever short-lived. Neither 'good' nor 'bad' can be pronounced
as 'absolutely unrelieved' states. Knowledge (vidya) reveals and makes
clear that 'good' and 'bad' are only the reactions caused by the failings
and feelings of the mind of man." (Vidya Vahini, p.
22.)
This far-reaching claim supposedly clears Omnipotent God (qua Sai Baba)of all responsibility for anything that happens, putting the whole burden for all good and evil on mankind's "failings and feelings". This is a traditional fundamentalist standpoint, found in all pre-scientific religious belief systems. It is the kind of repressive belief (for fact it certainly cannot be shown to be!) which easily leads to the total confusion of values with anti-values and vice-versa when acting in the real world.
Sathya Sai Baba has often stated that he is a human embodiment of Divinity. As a human being, he has said, he has a body which he has said is subject to all the same influences as that of anybody. He has been said to be "very human" and at times "very divine" [both by Prof. Kasturi]. We must conclude that his acts in the human frame are his responsibility, and this applies equally to those which are judged 'good' and 'bad'. An embodied avatar can evidently just as well do evil as good.
Claiming to be an exemplary avatar and
'My Life is My Message', he set himself up as the prime example of righteousness
and goodness, one who exceeds all human beings in purity, selfless desirelessness
and truthfulness. At the same time he holds that good and evil make no
difference 'ultimately' or from the Divine viewpoint (basing this on Advaita
'philosophy')! His problem is that this makes a complete mockery of most
of his other statements about how he, the avatar, is only pure, expresses
nothing but love, is without desires and so on. Therefore, one almost
has to conclude that - even from an imagined Divine viewpoint - it makes
a lot of difference whether any human being, including the avatar, actually
does good or evil.
Even though standards of what is considered good or evil vary in scope
and detail from time to time and place to place, he would judge them according
to the five 'universal human values' promoted by him as being at the core
of his teachings.
What is perhaps most shocking about the evidence that has emerged about
Sathya Sai Baba 's active involvement in unjust and illegal matters, from
the murders' cover-up to the weighty evidence of his homosexual and pedophile
activities, is the huge gap this opens between his words and reported
actions. There is no other word but wilful deception on a grand scale
for these discrepancies. That a self-proclaimed holy avatar can condone
the unjust repression of truth and justice and even allegedly carry out
sexual acts of a sort that the Pope in 2002 eventually openly and forcible
condemned as evil requires a thoroughgoing reevaluation by followers of
what this person actually stands for.
Sai Baba has said, for example, "God
assumes a role in the dharma of the world in human form. He has to behave
as a human being only. This should be clearly understood by all."
(Sathya Sai Speaks, Vol. 26 new ed. p. 229f).
Does this indicate that he has to have human failings too? Well, if his
role is not one of the purest dharma, then the answer must be a resounding
'No!' How can serious self-contradictions, lies, broken promises, cover-up,
and complete unaccountability be reconciled to dharma?
Anyone who holds, therefore, that Sathya Sai Baba can carry out any kind of sexually-oriented interference or direct abuse on boys and young men against their expectations and despite their wishes without it affecting his purity or his truthfulness is also in denial of Sathya Sai Baba 's own words, as well as common sense and ordinary decency as these are understood in civilized and morally-enlightened society. Such is a most terrible perversion of spirituality!
One's good works - however great they may or may not be - can prove simply nothing about grave crimes of which one stands accused. It is best to clear one's name in frank and open investigation, at least - 'Why fear, if innocent?' Sathya Sai Baba 's attempts to avoid real scrutiny have long since been built into his teachings. One oft-quoted example of this is his words, "Examine yourself and leave me to myself" and many huge claims of the kind: "My truth is inexplicable, unfathomable. I am beyond the reach of the most intensive inquiry, the most meticulous measurement. There is nothing I do not see..." ( p.131, J. Hislop, My Baba and I. San Diego, 1985)
Further to help avert attention from himself, Sathya Sai Baba holds out rewards to those who have implicit faith in all he says and does, but only in an invisible world of unknown and unknowable future imaginings. In this way, he has long been able to ward off examination by his followers of what he is and does here and now!
He claims that his life is his message, and we are able to examine that, at any rate! The requirement to follow a nation's laws is on of the 10 points listed in the Sathya Sai Organization's Charter to which all members must agree and follow. Why does Sathya Sai Baba avoid following Indian law, such as in claiming to be God (which is illegal in India!)?
Why didn't he submit himself to the CBI murder incident investigations and clear up all possible doubts? Why did he confer with the Home Minister who repeated visited him privately after the murders and eventually presided over the quashing of the CBI investigation? The most obvious answer is that he wanted to protect himself from what would have come to light. Why did he run off when his two attendants were being stabbed to death? Why was an underage student [Subbappayya , who was reportedly attacked and struck by a dagger] in his bedroom with him when the intrusion occurred? Why was that boy spirited away and never interviewed? Why did he not intervene when those responsible were executed one by one in cold blood on his younger brother's intervention? Is all this a way to re-establish eternal values (Sanathana dharma)?
Do followers of Sathya Sai Baba change for the better? Writings by and about Sathya Sai Baba are full of constantly repeated talk of 'self-transformation'. (I have read the entire extant literature, not only all available texts recording what Sai Baba has said in public twice thoroughly, but over 300 other books, pamphlets and many more articles in English). The disparity between the 'great changes' most books describe and what one encounters in practice in all Sai circles eventually led me to conclude that most of the talk of personal transformation on a mass scale and 'bringing people to God' is mostly either self-induced conviction, self-enhancing belief or even sometimes pure and simple personal propaganda. As observation of such charismatic conversions the world over indicate, one may have a change of mind without any corresponding improvement in behaviour.
I was once too keen to give any credit
I could to Sai Baba, because I then had faith in his authenticity and
that his actions were completely good and selfless. I saw him as a focus
in truth and goodness, an exceptional ally. At the age of 66, after learning
more than I wished at the time, I knew without doubt that this does not
to apply to many of his actions. One learns that one has been deeply deceived!
So I now work to help people avoid his snares. So I was unfortunately
also drawn into supporting these claims in my book about my experiences
with Sathya Sai Baba, attributing things to his imagined influence and
desired 'spiritual guidance' (which never really came) that either simply
occurred in the natural course of things, or which I in fact brought about
myself (by my own judgement and decision). Not that I have made anything
much in the way of claims of 'self-transformation', for I had already
believed and acted upon the values and precepts that the better and more
sensible (and realistic) parts of Sathya Sai Baba teachings convey. Not
that I am claiming to be near perfect or a saint... but Sathya Sai Baba
generalises so unreservedly in his condemnations and harangues as to underrate
many people. Some explain this by saying he is directing his discourses
at the average Indian peasant or their kind, but I do not accept this,
for he occasionally e makes it very clear he is referring to all present
and even now and again virtually all living humans. He seems to judge
everyone in the world as like those ill-disciplined and unreliable people
who make up a large part of his staff and ashram residents.
People do change when they 'convert' to a new belief, but I find mostly that it seldom implies deep or real personality changes, as far as this is put to the test (I am basing this on my long-term work as a leader of the Oslo Sai Baba centre and partakers in various international meetings and many visits to the ashrams). Beliefs about things and behavioural patterns can alter, yes, but the latter tend to remain very largely as before, I have noticed. The process of (often quite sudden) rejection of one's past identifications and acceptance of a new package is a very interesting psychological phenomena about which little has been researched in any systematic ways with long-term follow-up. In my experience, Sai devotees have not convinced me that much of their transformation is very substantial. I am aware that these matters cannot be estimated other than simple observation, life experience and intelligent investigations.
In all seriousness, the good allegedly done by Sathya Sai Baba to devotees is overwhelmingly based on anecdotal evidence, which is notoriously subjective, personally slanted towards idealistic ideas and desires, and involves all kinds of wishful hopes, wanting to make the best out of things, 'see only the good' and rosy self-evaluations. Experience shows that such claims can also easily be motivated by more devious ends. I have seen a cross-section of those who make such claims and have found most of them to be a mixed bag… many are in one way or another disturbed socially, emotionally or mentally from the outset. Many who have real sufferings hardly ever report getting much real attention or any direct, important help from Sathya Sai Baba , for often it is imagined help without any credible influence from Sathya Sai Baba . The stories of miraculous aid supposedly from Sathya Sai Baba are many, but literally none are properly researched or documented in any public, serious fashion, many get exaggerated over time beyond recognition, some are almost certainly 'planted' by interests around Sathya Sai Baba and also in interviews by Sathya Sai Baba himself (Sai Baba never sets the record straight, confirms or denies the fabulous or false in public... nor denies the most absurd fables. And why do you think?) Of course, there are many invalids who return year after year without being cured, and there are many more who come and leave disappointed.
Does Sathya Sai Baba really transform people? Sathya Sai Baba has said (to V.K. Narasimhan) that one thing he cannot do is make people be good. So the question as to whether Sai devotees undergo more sound or permanent self-transformation than usual at any 'religious conversion' or other types of life-altering event is worth pursuing. These people are almost never looked at critically by anyone who is allowed to remain within the movement because of the vague but absolute Sai 'commandment' 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' and 'see only the good in everyone'. These are self-defeating practices in real life and - taken too seriously - lead towards such states as undue self-love and self-hate, loss of proper touch with other people and the world. One problem is that the virtual impossibility of this sweeping decree in real life, for most of us who are not in some cocoon are faced with things we must - if we follow our consciences bravely - criticise, condemn (though we may choose not to speak out) and to act against. This is reflected in the selfish actions of many leaders in the Sai movement, the sheer inability to interact openly and fairly with other people or with voluntary movements having equally good or better aims. It comes out too in innumerable squabbles, let-downs, broken promises and all the detritus of life that persists in all Sai groups I know about and which I have repeatedly been told about from followers from many countries. These matters are even brought up sometimes at Sai conferences by speakers (some who deplore the standards of Sai devotees) trying to share the facts with 'their brothers' (and sometimes even their sisters too). This indicates that genuine transformations into good devotees are considerably less than is made out to be! Further, if one were to judge by the sheer venom in mails from diverse, always-hiding Sai 'devotees' that I and other critics of Sathya Sai Baba have received, one can wonder how much this movement is a refuge for what Sathya Sai Baba calls 'bad men' and worse.
Baba's amazing compassion and love: As to the 'amazing compassionate love' and so on that Sathya Sai Baba is said to emanate and dispense, I have heard many talk about it, but it always seems so doubtful because the feeling is generated by the person describing it more than I can detect anything from Sathya Sai Baba. Actually, looking back, I can recognise that I never simply felt real openheartedness or genuine warmth from him - even in long interviews or private interviews... nor in several hundred darshans. Attention, smiles, 'soft' words etc. yes, but I noticed how his undoubted ability to charm and give the appearances of being caring and loving (mostly without actually doing anything) are used very cleverly by him to attract followers (and especially likely donors of money or persons of status and influence).
I have also observed how Sathya Sai Baba is most definitely not very insightful or full of genuine understanding when talking to people even, in my experience, because he invariably answers obliquely or even fails to understand what he is being asked. Most of what he says are phrases heard many times by many others, whether nice or nasty ones (i.e. I have heard him tell various clients: "you argue a lot", "you fight your wife/husband"; "you have a (mad) monkey-mind"; "you're a mad girl; crazy man"; "I will see you"; "you are (very) depressed"; "where is your husband/wife/daughter/son?";"when did you come"; "when are you leaving?"; "Very happy" and many another well-known Sai phrase book-like saying. Meanwhile, all this is interpreted in terms of his great cosmic pretensions and is twisted and turned in the hope of getting some clue as it its 'divine' meaning or import. This becomes an obsession among the more frequent interviewees, while those who get little or no interviews do just the same with daily events in their lives... attributing them to Sathya Sai Baba 's hidden influence and stretching their own credibility far beyond what could possibly be so or even can accord with what Sathya Sai Baba has taught many times! A sad scenario!
Sai Baba has a fall-back to use when people seem disappointed (as so many eventually confide they were some time after interviews, because they learned almost nothing and got no real response that helped them). It is to give some trinket - whether perhaps manifested - or more likely palmed! Oh such love, they all say! But I can't see it. Trickery is hardly genuine love, I'd say... and I have established beyond all conceivable doubt that the 'green diamond' he claimed to materialise and gave me was an almost worthless fake with silver paper behind it! Even when Sathya Sai Baba does listen a bit to someone, I have often seen him brush the questioner or the concerns aside with some quip or some facial expression that tells one nothing (except that it tells he then gives nothing). Is all this love, then? To pretend it is anything special or at best anything more than usual among people, one must doubtless become a complete human chameleon, or a 'mental 'boneless wonder' contortionist'. It is truly remarkable how many people achieve this!
The alleged healings by Sathya Sai Baba have not been and most likely cannot be satisfactorily proven. This is the same with nearly all supposed healing by charismatic 'spiritual' persons and others. It is only natural to compare this undoubted phenomenon to the same in other sects like the evangelicals, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Pentecostals and hundreds like them where 'miraculous healings' are supposedly regular occurrences and are attributed to whoever is seen as the instruments of God (Jesus, Allah etc.) - and add to this African healers and Latin American voodoo, shamans around the world etc. etc. All this shows how little importance need be attached to the person involved, or to which 'ishta', 'ikon' (idol?) one appeals. One can project one's energies towards anyone and even anything - it appears - and genuine results can be achieved in some cases. It is in this context I see Sathya Sai Baba 's alleged 'miracles of healing', along with all healings that are attributed to people of both the profane and sacred sort.
The whole construction of a 'spiritual dispensation', so widely claimed to be built on the sands of much firmly alleged sexual abuse - and being an accomplice to cold-blooded executions (i.e. involvement in the cover up, at least) - will most certainly topple over like a tower struck by lightning in the glare of any future world opinion.
Please go to the Public Petition for Official Investigations of Sathya Sai Baba and His Worldwide Organization
(Spanish version PETICIÓN PÚBLICA PARA INVESTIGACIONES OFICIALES DE SATHYA SAI BABA Y SU ORGANIZACIÓN A NIVEL MUNDIAL)