Many visitors find it an exotic and new cultural experience
to visit Indian ashrams. At Sathya Sai Baba's two main residences - at Whitefield near Bangalore and Puttaparthi - the ashrams supposedly offer the chance of seeing and being helped or healed a living God man, a self-proclaimed avatar or God Incarnate. Visitors usually arrive with their minds filled with with what most often turn out to be false ideas about 'spirituality'. Many are very enthusiastic at seeing some of the ca. two million religious parasites which infest India - seers, fakirs,soothsayers, astrologers, yogis, nagas, temple priests and diverse swamis. The great majority of them are either naive believers who are practicing a traditional tradecraft (under whatever 'spiritual' pretense) or else direct but clever frauds.
People who frequent the ashrams and environs
Quiet!
Among the usual seekers, there are probably more simple, disoriented, emotionally stunted and suffering people visiting Sai Baba ashrams than anywhere else. More than any of the apparently less confused (but equally deluded) followers will openly admit
or ever write about. Prashanthi Nilayam is spoken of as a kind of social paradise, an oasis in a disturbed and evil world. That is very relative, for inside its walls there are seldom deformed and pitiful beggars, few itinerant priests, only the occasional pressing
salesmen or other such disturbances which are common on the streets throughout the land. But Prashanti Nilayam is definitely
not the alleged "Abode of Supreme Peace" for the visitor - no sanctuary from
worldly problems nor a place full of saintly people. As a retreat it is not an utopia... not by any means, for it is a place of both physical and
mental-emotional hardship for many visitors (the prices of rooms
have increased from almost nothing to very considerable sums, but one can now live in fairly luxurious hotel rooms and chalets in the area, which is the centre of a property boom like a market tornado). One elderly
Indian devotee I knew, Mr. V. Ramnath, a Vigilance Officer in the Indian Administrative Service, who knew many ashram
residents and visitors assured me that it is "a snake pit of jealousy". I have witnessed
many incidents which support this description. The previous Head of Vidyagiri Administration
for over 20 years, Mr. Kanhaia Jee, informed my wife and I that the key staff are forced to stay all year round and that they fight like dogs when Sai Baba is away or they think he is unaware of them! And the ever-present pi-dogs fight viciously and nightly within the ashram.
Apart from the hope that being
near to the self-proclaimed God will confer spiritual gifts and blessings,
there are some other attractions of ashram life for foreigners. One is the great change
of culture, climate, food habits etc. involved (until it becomes too
familiar). There is often (not always) a lack of stress and deadlines. Life
there is still slower and closer to non-industrial society.
It can also be fine to isolate oneself thus from the world, its media and constant depressing news. Part of the visiting experience is to meet culture and the people rather than suffer the usual alienation of mere tourism. It is instructive to persons who have seldom stepped over cultural boundary lines before. Despite the enormous physical and social problems in India, one can meet smiling faces
among even the poorest of Indians, who would seem to have little to be happy about - few material goods, health benefits or social compensations.
Some good, bad and indifferent followers
Since I first visited Sathya Sai Baba in 1984 I met quite a lot of good persons in the Sai movement, some fairly
prominent in their walks of life, and some of them well educated...
some were helpful, solicitous and generous minded. Unfortunately I have to say that this was definitely not true of the majority I met or observed!
Anyone can see through personal contacts that Sai Baba attracts a relatively large number of people of little spiritual understanding,
both as regards common sense and and human insight. But and also in so as far as their
behaviour spoke. One may argue that it is necessary for Sai Baba to
attract a great many who need to be changed, or to
change themselves, if the world is to become a better place.
In any crowd 'sitting at Sai Baba's feet' there'll invariably be a wide range of persons of many
shades of opinion, with conflicting attitude, opinion and also behaviour. It would be
wrong to deny that many people at the ashrams behave with strong egoism and are insensitive to others... push and shove is the norm rather than the exception! People are at all stages of development, of course, coming from a great diversity of backgrounds and conditions. It was always surprising to European devotees I knew how few people showed common decency in various ways, from personal conceit to
lack of honesty and kindness in action.
It seems fairly reasonable, in a way, that Sathya Sai's self-declared task of improving society
and the world through transformation of individuals would call for him
to permit all kinds of person to come there, not only those
who act well and for the good. Especially if he is to have any positive
influence on those in India who are its biggest problem... This might
just explain why he gives interviews both to known criminals in India
and accepts their money, but also to foreign leaders known as major
criminals (eg. Idi Amin of Uganda, Bettino Craxi of Italy). He also
emphasizes that physical proximity is no guarantee of a person's character
and nor is long residence in the ashram either. Many people's observations
tend strongly to agree with this.
Staff and treatment of visitors
Quite a few of the ashram
staff show good qualities as one would expect. However, this also serves to emphasize the deficiencies of
behaviour and understanding of many other staff or helpers there. One soon realises that visiting devotees are 'ranked' by
those of the officials who cherish warped ideas about the relative importance of
people and show it through their authoritarian or patronising behaviour. To
many foreigners, especially from well-ordered Westernised societies, it comes as an unexpected disappointment that this
occurs at all in the proximity of Sai Baba, for it seems wholly alien to
his teaching and the spirit of love. Such attitudes, however, are
really little different to those prevalent in most societies, and
not least in class- and colour-conscious India, where compensatory superiority feelings towards Caucasian people (whites) is often met [even though the lighter the colour of one's skin, the better price a female can exact on the marriage mart in India!].
Seasoned visitors have had to put up with bossy or obstructive 'servitors' patiently for years on
end. Many treat foreign visitors as subordinates or inferiors. New visitors
to the ashrams - especially all non-Indians - find themselves part of
the 'rank and file', whereby anyone who desires to be present at darshan must
sit in strictly overseen ranks and file according to the behest of the many
orderlies or security men. In a discourse published in Sanathana Sarathi for July 1996, Sai Baba read the riot act for
the ashram people and residents... accusing some staff of being
Alsatians. Some time prior to this, a lady who had been at an interview
told us how an English lady had asked Sai Baba, 'How are your dogs?' He
had replied that he had no dogs. 'Yes you do, a Rottweiler
and an Alsatian in your offices!' I would, however, add that the work done
by those who receive visitors to the ashrams is often quite demanding
and a few years of it would probably reduce almost anyone to a fox among
chickens. Some do surmount the challenge and remain courteous
and friendly at all times, which is admirable!
Most visitors soon learn to knuckle under - the threat of being side-lined or even excluded from the ashram is strong because one may have travelled half the world to try to get the opportunity of meeting Sai Baba. An attitude of humility is adopted by many, though some will not be cowed by unreasonable demands and restrictions... and they soon end up blacklisted from visiting the ashram again by the staff. There is something basically wrong in being like a rabbit frozen in the glare of
some headlight, but that feeling is induced in most visitors who want to show that they are minimizing their egos, behaving with forgiveness, and generally 'passing the guru's test' of not being defeated by adverse events.
Sai Baba plays the role of the master, turning this devotee
humility and subservience to his own ends - playing upon every kind of human
weakness to put devotees down and keep them in submission and
surrender to his unceasing demands of worship and support under all
and every circumstance, whatever it may involve. There is an other
kind of humility than fear and servility. It is inspired by
recognising one's own reality and nature as a person with conscience,
love of truth and goodness, plus one having the freedom and
responsibility to act. This does not mean conceited rejection that anyone else can know more or be better than oneself, but it requires that we retain the integrity of our autonomy - our own truth. The birthright of our supposedly God-given intelligence and autonomy - and our own potentialities - are all too often projected outwards onto some
charismatic figure who constantly demonstrates that he is certainly
not at all everything he claims to
be!
Does ashram life really increase
spirituality?
There is a basic contradiction about Sai Baba ashrams - they are supposed at the same time to be a place of refuge from worldly hardships and a testing ground for how many hardships one can overlook and withstand! It is well-known to be a place of both physical and
mental-emotional hardship for many visitors... though material conditions have improved vastly since the 1980, as billions of dollars have poured in.
The etymological origin of the word 'ashram'
is a place of 'no hardship' ('a-shrama'). So it is a intended as a refuge from the
cruel world and its many problems. Many foreigners who stay there as long as they are allowed tend mostly to laze
about and indulge themselves in doing little or nothing other than follow
the daily routines, shop, tour around and even visit cafes and restaurants outside the ashram. Contrary to this, Sathya Sai Baba proclaims that it is futile to stay there if
one is not doing service (Sathya Sai Speaks new ed. Vol. 26,
Ch. 7, p.79f), disciplining oneself and changing one's attitude (Sathya
Sai Speaks new ed. Vol. 16 Ch.28, p. 157f) while rigorously searching
for truth. How one might find truth there rather than elsewhere and
in the world is an unanswered question.
Of the many people I have met
at Sai ashrams and in Sai centres in several countries, not one has impressed me as being anywhere near 'the truth' in the sense of being an illumined person, unhindered by social or mental-emotional attachments, capable of deep insight, impressive understanding or of obvious sterling human qualities in action. On the
other hand, I have met more peculiarly confused, unrealistic and suffering
people in the Sai movement than in any comparable connection, and not least ignorant and arrogant persons who think they know a lot they clearly do not.
The 'hardships' Sai Baba recommends
Someone who once complained of
the hardness of the cement floor he had to sleep on was told by Sai Baba
that he instructs by life in the ashram, to bed early and up early keeps
the mind bright and alert and shows how little the body needs. (Conversations
with Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba by Dr. J. Hislop, new ed.,
p. 170) Since the 'bright and alert' people seem to be exceptions at
his ashrams, in what else might the 'spiritual benefits' consist? The
body's basic needs for healthy food and hygiene, some undisturbed sleep,
relief from oppressive heat and so on remain, and it takes about treble
the amount of time and energy to fulfil these needs as in any properly
equipped modern flat. So most of the time left over from following the
daily routines has to be spent struggling with simple tasks of
day-to-day living. There were continual difficulties due to a lack of
material comforts, but this improved a lot since the ashram became modernised
in the 1990s. Getting used to the different rhythm of daily doings can
be demanding, especially for elderly devotees and those suffering from
illnesses and chronic conditions. Many things done easily at home, such
as obtaining necessary items or getting correct information can become
long labours in the ashram. This is all supposed by Sai Baba to be for the
benefit of the devotee! Those who 'own' rooms (i.e. who can lock things
away in their kitchen for the 10 months each year when they are not
allowed to be there), invariably return to a worn-down apartment with
broken fittings and very often filthy conditions left behind by the
many and various guests. My wife and I have had to clean one disgusting
room after another almost every time we have stayed there. Such 'selfless
spiritual service to the Lord' is supposed to be morally elevating etc.,
but it seems more like drudgery from which the majority of those visiting
'spiritual seekers' who cannot be bothered to clear up their own dirt
will never learn anything!
Avoidance of all unnecessary contacts, friendships etc.
Sathya Sai Baba does not at all favour social contacts while staying at his ashrams. One is supposed to keep to oneself, observe silence whenever and wherever it is not essential to speak. However, his warning is ignored totally by the great majority of visitors - unless during darshan, when servitors stand by to shush anyone who talks aloud. Learning what one can and cannot do is difficult for newcomers, because there are notices all over the ashrams which hardly anyone heeds, there are many unspoken rules which one learns mostly through offending against them (where to walk, when on can go here or there, what one can or cannot wear (eg. sandals, insufficient coverage of ladies etc.) It is a trial and error affair. Sai
Baba has spoken out strongly and often against making contacts or
friendships at his ashrams - especially between the sexes. That one cannot demonstrate maritial affection in public or be seen to hold hands with anyone of the opposite sex is fair enough, since the extremely traditional views on the relations
between the sexes Sai Baba propagates is held dear by many of the regular ashramites.
Why quash social contacts and
reduce friendships?
It is clear that Sathya Sai Baba wants to exert maximum control over his servitors and, partly through the and partly through his 'teachings', also of his visitors. There are unstated reasons for his trying
hard to reduce open social contacts to a minimum and require silence whenever
feasible within the ashram. He gives constant warnings against against talking unless strictly
necessary and especially against talking much or often! It is only evident to those who have much experience of India and ashrams, and especially of the Sathya Sai movement, that these attempts to stop fraternizing, sharing information and telling what one knows to others about events, and even about Sai Baba himself aim to censor anything that is untoward and cover up as best they can anything that may get out to the public about crimes and deceits, which take place just as much (or more) than in the Indian environment generally. Only by happenstance do alarming discoveries cause anyone to question anything (questions of anything questionable are almost never answered, or are avoided. One may even be told strictly to mind one's own business, or words to that effect!) Few people can begin to know from their own experiences - which remain very limited as to the workings of Sai Baba's set-up - the depth
of the deceits practiced by him and his officials. This is one reason for this website, of course.
Most devotees tend to see the
world mainly in black and white terms.... and demonstrate their ignorance of' the colours'. This trait is clear also in
Sai Baba , as all acute observers who read his discourses will quickly learn. Most
followers in the experience of my wife and myself become
- under Sai Baba's long-term
influence - gradually much more religiously fundamentalist (and are all too often moralistic despite Sai's advice not to criticise others) In
his discourses he constantly propounds moral
values at a simplistic level and to suit the mentality of people
lacking in a good upbringing, normal fellow-feeling, personal integrity and common
decency. That fact speaks its own story! Oddly, people of that kind are also quite often given privileges and high
positions by Sai Baba, not least in
his selection of unpleasant and domineering higher office-bearers in the Sathya Sai organisation.
Some persons introduced as 'professors'
by Sathya Sai and invited to hold a talk at his educational institutions are not professors at all, but he gratifies them by calling them that. (They usually make donations and most probably even more when they are flattered thus!). Others are actual professors - and of highly variable quality, one must conclude. Whether
Indian or from abroad, academics are not usually at all known names in their specialities. I have met a number - not least Radio Sai's Mr. Venkataraman - and they have not impressed me in any
way (I was already professionally acquainted with too many unimpressive
academic professors anyhow). To give just one example, Sai Baba personally
introduced me in an interview in 1986 to a history professor at his university,
a Mr. Krishnamurthi. This man turned out to be highly impressionable
who believed some of the Indian myths in the Mahabharata to be
literal factual accounts (which he was trying to get Sai Baba to explain in detail - but without success). He had a very superficial idea of
European philosophy, thinking Hegel was great for having predicted the end of history and believing this was fulfilled by the birth of Sai Baba! He was completely silent when I told him that Hegel actually considered his own work to represent the end of history!
It is not irrelevant to point out here that Indians have a very exaggerated belief in the value of letters before and after their names, and many such degrees and positions have in decades past been obtained by the traditional right of high castes of good family to pass examinations (or else the professors will suffer for it!) or also by outright nefarious means (I have been on a committee at the University of Oslo to try to decide on cases of suspected fraud by foreign students applicants, and Indian degrees were sometimes 'home-made' on bogus paper with slightly awry printed headings etc.) |