Sai Baba and Controversy!
For Sathya Sai Baba the accusations of sexual impropriety have created controversy and scandal. Sai Baba is no stranger to controversy. All aspects and actions of Sai Baba have been challenged from time to time. Sai Baba's very father, Pedda Venkama Raju, challenged him, "What are you, a ghost or a madcap?" Other miscreants attempted to burn down the hut Sai Baba was living in. Villagers refused to sell Sai Baba the land for the Prasanthi Nilayam ashram. Monks refused to allow Sai Baba to do puja to lingha in Temples. Brahmins wait to observe Sai Baba call Subbamma back from the dead in order to fulfill a promise. Academics challenge Sai Baba to materialise a pumpkin. Sai Baba is a controversial guru who provokes contention and discussion on his nature wherever he is known and spoken about.
Controversy about sexual impropriety surrounds Sai Baba on account of matters published in the Findings by Faye and David Bailey. Others have also taken up this matter, most notably by two authors of
the recent Sai Baba Victims website, placed online during autumn of 2001.
We examine several aspects of the assertions and accusations in regard to Sai Baba and sexual impropriety. Other allegations and assertions may also be considered.
Controversy, Quarrels and Avatars
Quarrels about Sai Baba and sexual impropriety have assumed that Sai Baba is not divine, but merely a human, exhibiting human characteristics, human needs and seeking to fulfil those needs. There has been little or no enquiry into the Divine nature of Sai Baba in this entire matter of The Findings. Right from the publishing of The Findings, this assumption that Sai Baba is not divine but simply a human in an ochre robe has been present. The tales of sexual impropriety have brought about disregard of any divinity or divine nature and Sai Baba for many readers of The Findings. This aspect of reaction to the Findings has not been given sufficient consideration.
What is the nature of an avatar, what is the nature of a guru, and what is the difference between an avatar and a human? Where in the Findings have David Bailey and his companions examined this comprehensively and then examined the assertions and accusations in the light of the information gleaned about Avatars, vis-a-vis Sai Baba's statements on his own nature?
God
"By the word God he (man) means someone who is the Supreme, the Divine, the Cause, the All, one of these things or all of them at once, the perfection or the possibility of all that there is, is partial or imperfect, the absolute of all these myriad relatives, the unknown by learning of whom the real secret of the known can become to him more and more intelligible." - Sri Aurobindo
"In Truth, God and the Guru are not different, Just as the prey which has fallen into
the jaws of a tiger has no escape, so those who have come within the ambit of the Guru's gracious look will be saved by the Guru and not get lost"
- Sri Ramana Maharishi
The Hindi word for God is Bhagavan, comprising 'Bha' which means light, and 'ga' which means spreading light, so Bhagavan means one who sheds or spreads light.
Meaning and Roles of Avatar
'Avatar' or Incarnation of God literally means "embodiment in flesh". In other words an Avatar is God Himself descending or coming down to earth in physical form, especially in human form.
According to Sri Aurobindo:
"The Divine inhabits the human soul and body. He draws around him and wears like a robe the human mind and figure."
An avatar is one who is conscious of the presence and power of the Divine born in him or descended into him and governing from within his will and life and action he feels inwardly with this divine power and presence. "
Attributes of an Avatar
An Avatar has 16 phases (or kalas). Five of these he shares with human and animal life, the five senses of sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing. Another four he shares with human beings - mind, heart, intelligence and
Turyavastha, transcendence of intuitive experience. These next seven phases listed are characteristics of a Poorna Avatar alone:
- Grace or reward for effort that fails to be rewarded though it has come from the deserving;
- Anugraha or special grace whether the recipient merits it or not;
- The power to create a new order of life in society, new state of consciousness in individuals or new objects;
- The power to support and sustain what is inherently good, which may happen to be defenceless;
- The power to destroy what is evil;
- The assumption of form which, whenever is recalled mentally or in the presence of a photograph, results in the immediate spiritual presence (sometimes even physical) of the Avatar himself affording a solution to the problem that the beholder has in mind;
- The assumption of a name that has similar potency;
An avatar is always at work and always at rest. His vision is world wide and it
embraces all the dimensions of time. He has an effortless command over metapsychosis,
entry into the innermost hearts of others and the power to restore life to the dead.
An avatar is one who is a physical projection of a ray from the Transcendental Plane, that aspect of God that is above the Universe; the third aspect. From that aspect there is a ray which is not subject to cosmic laws. The human being who is a God-man, an avatar, derives from the Transcendental plane. He is spirit transcending cosmic laws.
Looking at Divine Incarnations - Jesus
We take a moment here to look at how other religions view a divine incarnation and
draw from that some useful criteria that will help process parts of this
controversy.
Did Jesus know he was the Son of God? Or did he come into a growing awareness of his
divinity over a period of time, and announce himself as Son of God? Christians will
debate and declare one way or another.
This hinges on how you view Jesus and how you
experience Jesus. If you view Jesus from above, as a divine descent, then you will
opt for Jesus as a divine incarnation with full powers from the moment of his birth,
destined for crucifixion to provide redemption and reparation for the sins of humanity.
Jesus is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Knows you intimately and all your sins.
If you opt for the latter, that Jesus came into a growing awareness of his divinity
over a period of time, then you view Jesus from below, fully human and fully divine,
at one with humanity in sharing the fulness of the human condition and experiencing
all that human beings experience, need and feel. Jesus transcends ordinary human limitations
by displaying divine powers such as miracles, healing and omniscience due his awakening awareness of his innate divinity.
How you view Jesus or any other divine incarnation, from above or from below, is going to
be reflected in your understanding, experiences and the statements you make about the Divine in
question.
If you take Krishna to be a Gopala (cowherd), a man of the world
like others, then for you he will be just a cowherd! You too climb only
up to that stage. You have to take it in the yogic sense that "Go" in
Gopala means "jeeva" (living being) and therefore, Gopala means "He
who protects, guides, feeds and fosters the jeevis"; that is to say, "He
who is the protector and preserver of beings." You will have noticed
that Udava, who looked upon Krishna as his Guru, benefitted more
than Arjuna who looked upon Him as a sakha (a friend). If you have
faith that He is God, He will be God to you; if you dismiss Him as
mere man. He takes on that role and becomes useless for you.
Who do you say I am?
A famous question put by Jesus to his disciples. He received many answers.
'Reincarnation of Elijah, a prophet, John the Baptist come-back.' They were some
of the answers Jesus received. Jesus pushed on farther. Asked Peter, 'Who do you
say I am?' Peter gave the answer. Son of God. The answers given reflect the above-below continuum of understanding or experiencing divine incarnations.
The same applies to understanding Sathya Sai Baba. Before entering analysis and assessment of Sai Baba, one takes preconcieved beliefs which are quickly brought up into the light of day by the material contained in the Findings put out by David and Faye Bailey. Many are left with that central question and doubts. Is Sai Baba who he says he is?
Statement
|
State |
What is implied |
| Sai Baba engages in cultic abuse of devotees |
Sathya Sai Baba is a cult leader |
a person sees themselves as a cult victim - no divinity |
| Sai Baba sexually abuses devotees |
Sathya Sai Baba is a man |
Fallible, human guru with desires. Reflects human person with faults, desires, limits. No divinity |
| Something happens behind the 'curtain of shame' |
Sathya Sai Baba is a man |
Hearsay speculates and maintains hyperbole on what has happened to others. No divinity |
Sathya Sai Baba
is God and can do what he likes. |
Sathya Sai Baba is divine and separate |
Sai Baba is sinless, playing on devotee projections No divinity, as devotee and sadguru are separate realities |
Sathya Sai Baba
causes people to believe he engages in sexual activity |
Sathya Sai Baba is divine and separate |
creation is maya,
the devotee has to transcend mayashakti and acccept without quarrel (false surrender) |
Sathya Sai Baba does not have sex, he is above guna activity
|
Sathya Sai Baba is divine |
Sai Baba has mastery of mind and body and is above human impulses (false, Sai Baba is both human and divine at the same time) |
| Sathya Sai Baba causes devotees to think he has sex |
Sathya Sai Baba is divine |
Sathya Sai Baba provokes controversy about his nature and his actions which the individual must resolve to their own satisfaction. |
| Sathya Sai Baba causes devotees to disregard assertions about sexual activity or abuse |
Sathya Sai Baba is divine and one with devotee |
The individual devotee has experience of Sai Baba as SatGuru. Devotee attends to internal experience and internal truth only. |
|
Thesis: Sai Baba is a cult
This thesis implies that Sai Baba engages in ritual and cultic sexual abuse. In order to evaluate this thesis we must look at the characteristics of cults. We must first assess Sai Baba and the Sai Baba organisation. Is Sai Baba a cult?
A major Cult Network which has been active for many years in cult apprehension, cult awareness raising publicity and debriefing of cult victims, has the following definition:
- A living leader
- A group following him
- Who promotes new and occult doctrines and practices (not applicable)
- The new member generally surrenders reason and common sense (not applicable)
Generally the Leader
- Demands members live in community (not applicable)
- Possesses exclusive religious truth (not applicable)
- Commands absolute obedience and allegiance (not applicable)
Contemporary Cults offer:
- An emphasis on community (not applicable)
- A direct experience of the divine
- Social acceptance for individuals (not applicable)
- A value system that replaces previous habits and behaviour
Contemporary Cults have been known to:
- Require membership to isolate from family and society (not applicable)
- Practice brainwashing (not applicable)
- Practice sleep deprivation (not applicable)
- Conduct marathon input sessions (not applicable)
- Practice love bombing (not applicable)
- Sometimes requires members to contribute possessions to the group (not applicable)
Four characteristics possibly applicable out of seventeen listed by one major Cult Network do not substantiate Sai Baba and the Sai Baba Organisation as a cult. Therefore there is no Cult and hence no cultic or ritual context for abusive activity to occur. There is no cultic abuse, so the thesis fails.
Nothing can hold Me up or agitate Me or cast a shadow on Me
come in this Human Form; be certain of that. Not even a hair can be
touched by forces of calumny or distrust or ignorance. My sankalpa
(resolve) must prevail; My tasks must be accomplished. My mission
will succeed. I have come to illumine the human heart with the Light
of the Divine and to rid man of the delusion that drags him away from the
path of Peace, the perfect equanimity born of realization.
Thesis: A 'curtain of shame' veils abuse activity
This pejorative hysteria about a 'curtain of shame' intends to offend and provoke reaction. It proposes that Sai Baba is in an adjoining room, engaged in intimate activity, and is only separated from others in the next room by a simple curtain. This is tendered to scandalise. The loaded metaphor for door (the curtain has been gone many years) is simply to discredit and slur Sai Baba in the privacy of the interview room. This theory at once appeals to 'divine will' to veil other humans from perceiving what is going on behind the (curtain) and at the same time is offered in evidence that the purported divinity of Sai Baba is false.
This thesis has a self-destructing fallacy embedded within.
- It is tendered in denial of divinity
- At the same time it requires the power of that divinity to provide the "veil"
- hypothesises and scandalises any activity is occurring in the interview room"
- discards maya, the basic condition of human existence
A 'curtain of shame' veils abuse activity...
Assertions that all or any activity or interaction between Sai Baba and devotees is abuse
is based on hearsay and hyperbole (rumour and innuendo) which has built up to hysterical proportion without sufficient investigation. It presumes without evidence that all who enter are abused. Patently false. The 'curtain of shame' is a fallacy, which fails to discredit and disgrace Sai Baba. This fallacy cannot both require the 'divine power' of an avatar or godman to conceal and at the same time dispense with and deny 'divine power'. This cannot be reasonably offered in denial of the divinity of Sai Baba.
