The Findings includes the following accusations by more than one person. We will deal with these one by one:
All five major religions of humanity assert omniscience as one of the three distinguishing characteristics of divine incarnations. Sathya Sai Baba has exhibited omniscience; after the descent of divinity into his body at Uravakonda when he was 14 years, witnesses told that he:
-was comatose in a house lying on a pallet, on the 9th of March, 1940. Baba's brother reported that some persons had offered prayers at the Sunkalamma temple and broke a coconut. From his bed, his eyes closed, Sathya said the coconut had been broken into five pieces, two on one side and three on the other. Later this was verified to be so.
- "In another event at Uravakonda, shortly after Baba's parents arrived, he asked:"Call Narayana Shastri. He is giving an absurd exposition of the Bhagawatham. He has to be corrected." Pundit Narayan Shastri was staying across the street. ....When he finally agreed to see the young Raju ...at the sight of the Pundit, Raju began to expound the most complex passages from the 'Hamsa Gita' in the most simple and lucid language. Sri Narayan Shastri was not only humbled but also overwhelmed. ... He prostrated at the feet of Raju and pleaded for forgiveness.
Dr. Hislop speaks of Swami exhibiting what appears to be human fallibility:
"Swami says that you should develop the ability in doubtful situations - not to lie - but to evade. You avoid the precise situation where you have to say the unpleasant truth or the precise situation where you have to say the pleasant untruth. You have to develop the subtlety and the flexibility so that you do not have to say a harmful truth. He gives some illustrations of some sages in the ancient past who did that. You are saying that Swami seems to have human fallibility. He may tell you that you are going to win the lottery and you do not win it. Or He tells a lady that she will have a boy child--and maybe there is no child at all! Or He tells a man that a potential wife is waiting for him back home, he will meet her right away-and he does not meet her. So it raises questions of what does this mean? The sages have looked at this question and they have concluded the following: The Avatar comes as a human being. That is, when Swami says, "I come as a human being, so you can relate to Me," that is not just a way of saying something. He is stating the exact truth. "I have come as a human being so you can relate to Me ... now the sages also say that any exhibition of human fallibility on Swami's part will never affect dharma. He will never be unrighteous. These fallibilities could be manifested to a certain extent, but never to a point where it would violate dharma, because Swami is the very soul of dharma. (J. Hislop, Seeking Divinity, page 184)"
For further discussion on Sathya Sai Baba and lack of omniscience, please go here.
This is an poorly-thought-through assertion that conveniently overlooks nearly 70 years of eyewitness accounts of materialisations and miracles by witnesses and devotees. Many of these were simply calling cards used by Sai Baba to draw people toward devotion.
WHOM are the authors and the anonymous persons in The Findings going to cite as a false witness to nearly 70 years of materialisations? What of the verbatim records of challenges and retractions? There are none, for these are simply allegations that have not encountered the heart of the matter.
Materialisation is Sathya Sai Baba's play, a play he has been doing since long before 1940. Not materializing is also Sathya Sai Baba's play. He was born with these powers. Read further discussion here
The following is taken from the Sai Debates, in the Essays section at David Lane's website.
One party has made an assertion:
Reply given:
Apparent being the key word, in that per their own descriptions, there is no abuse nor any sexuality involved. (Though Lane is even now screaming hysterically that Sai likes to fondle erect young cocks, as if David is somehow envious of that, neither Jed nor Said describe any such arousal of their own.) Not only do both say they were never erect and never aroused, neither man claims he was seduced, nor beaten, nor coaxed, nor bribed, nor even entreated to silence. So 'sexual abuse' is not the issue here, rather the phrase is used. I suggest, as all gossip is utilised: to feed confusion by gaining attention, thereby diverting from the actual event and then trying to pass the gossip itself off as fact instead ...
Read further discussion of this controversy here
