SB's Discourses. More Nonsense.
By: Brian Steel
Date: 02-25-02Document date: February 24, 2002
The more one digs ...
My recent posting of 'Fresh Light on SB's Discourses' showed clearly (and with evidence posted by devotees) that the hypotheses and suggestions put forward in my Web-book 'SSB - God or Guru?' are well founded: That SB's discourses are carefully packaged by the publishing branch of SB's Organisation and often bear little resemblance to what he actually said (in Telugu).
That posting was prompted by correspondence from two readers of SSBGOG, to whom I am grateful. I have now had time to sift through other evidence sent to me in the past 3 months by correspondents and I wish to share that too, because it seems to indicate that, although we have all been mesmerised and bamboozled over the years, some individuals have managed (at least recently) to extract bits and pieces of evidence of the real TRUTH about SSB but they have tended to keep it to themselves (for a variety of reasons) even though they would have liked to reveal their discoveries. I also hope to expand on this one day in another short paper on the unseen bulk of this particular iceberg of information.
One of my aims in offering this new and important information is that all individuals who have managed to glean clues to the TRUTH about SSB should be encouraged to share it with the rest of us - and with those current SB devotees who are sufficiently open to take such important evidence into serious consideration.
What I offer below is further strong evidence that the Telugu Discourses as given by SB (often or always) contain alarming elementary errors of fact and confused thinking, as well as a language style so basic that, if heard in English, it might be much less impressive than Baba's charisma and devotees' total acceptance of all his actions seem to make it.
Even though we have all been far too mesmerised by SB's persona and charisma and by the mountain of hagiographical books written about him by adoring and well-meaning devotees (mea culpa too!) for so many years, the mounting evidence, which has been spilling out in the past two years (and there seems to be plenty more for others to dig out and reveal!) is that the edited and printed Discourses are no more than a mirage.
Intriguing and extremely relevant questions spring to mind (and are reinforced by the examples below):
1. Have the printed Discourses always been so distant from the original spoken versions in both style and content?
2. How did the SB Organisation (and SB himself) imagine that they could get away with such a smokescreen INDEFINITELY? (Doesn't this display a contempt for the average devotee's intelligence?)
3. Why did SB and his Organisation allow James Redmond to video so many Discourses, some with such potentially damaging information as that contained in example 1 below, which is now freely available (beyond the Organisation's control) for us (and later scholars) to study?
4. Since the 'discrepancies' appear to be increasing nowadays, is there any possibility that Sai Baba is suffering from a degenerative aging disease which might have an effect on his thinking and speaking?
5. Why didn't WE and others (particularly SB's critics, like the Indian Rationalists and a few other pioneering individuals) spot ALL THIS EARLIER?
6. Why do today's devotees continue not only to tolerate and swallow this sort of rambling gobbledegook but also to revere it as profound and edifying (or even 'poetic' )?
TWO MORE EXAMPLES
1. Christmas 1996
What follows is a series of short extracts from the simultaneous English translation of the Christmas Discourse, 1996, as captured on the James Redmond Video (See Bibliography).
The extracts were transcribed and sent to me by a friend, Dhyani Jo. Although I have not yet been able to locate a copy of the video, I have implicit trust in this friend. Moreover, it is a sad fact that the extracts now fit in very convincingly with the pattern of my previous revelations (and of others which will follow if other people can now be persuaded to take a close look at the evidence available).
NONE of this astonishingly confused information was finally printed in the official version in Sathya Sai Speaks, XXX, but in a note on page 393 we learn that:
"[Bhagavan gave a brief account of the Jewish concept of the creation of the cosmos and referred to the birth of Jesus as the son of Mary and Joseph.]"
Doubtless, the editors saw that SB had had a 'bad day', but readers of their version will never know that.
Here, then, are my excerpts from the longer text sent by Dhyani Jo, to whom I am also grateful for some expert editing advice:
1. "Three hundred and fifty years B.C., before Christ, Jews lived. However, among Jews, there were religions such as Islam and Christianity. People of that land, they are all Jews. That land is the birthplace of both the religions, Islam and Christianity. The Hebrew language was very prominent. This Hebrew language is more or less equal to our Sanskrit. ..."
2. "Christianity is not just 2,000 years in its origin. It was there even before Christ, 350 years. There the divinity is explained very clearly."
3. "The name and the fame of Jesus Christ have spread far and wide. Here, at this moment, there are two schools of thought. The first group of thought - Roman Catholics. There is another group that fought with this group. This group is called Protestants. As they protested, they are Protestants. So among Jews there are these two groups: Catholics and Protestants. The difference of opinion has increased day by day. This led to Jesus, whose life was in danger. Jews there in Jerusalem did not permit Jesus to go there. Like this, religious conflict and fighting was ever on the rise. There were 250 schools of thought, divisions there. They also monopolized certain countries."
"Because of so many groups there, they all attempted even to harm Jesus. Romans on one side. Catholics on the other side. Luther on another side. There were so many groups that went on changing. All these differences are based on violence, and that led to madness. Because of this attachment to group affiliations, naturally there was conflict and fighting."
"Religious affiliation leads to ego. This led to confusion among them as to what Jesus said right or wrong."
When one recovers from one's utter surprise, a reading of the above evidence shows quite clearly that the person capable of making such astonishingly inaccurate and clumsily expressed pronouncements can in no way be seen as 'omniscient'. The whole passage sounds uncannily like a parody of a young schoolboy's muddled history essay.
More seriously, perhaps, such idiosyncratic pronouncements cast a very heavy shadow over SB's general credibility and even his thought processes - whatever his other powers and characteristics.
2. Ladies' Day Discourse, 19-11-01
Please pay special critical attention to this example. This is NOT just a funny bedtime story. All is not as it SEEMS!
This recent example has been brought to my notice by a fellow researcher. The following italicised piece of an official EDITED version of Sai Baba's 'Ladies' Day discourse on 19 November 2001 contains additional padding which appears to be utter NONSENSE! The extract from the official versions is so astonishing that it raises even more questions:1. Why did the SB Organisation, which, as we have seen, amends much of what SB says without any qualms, allow this extraordinarily damaging evidence of totally muddled thinking to appear (in slightly different versions) in print (Sanathana Sarathi, January 2002, and on internet www.eaisai.com
2. What were Baba's original words? Could they have been even more nonsensical? How can we tell? The recently announced 'Premsai' Internet version was originally not available when I searched on several occasions ("Page not available") but it has appeared in the last few days.
(A propos of Premsai and its valuable literal versions of recent Discourses, my fear is that perhaps with the unwelcome publicity, the whole site may be closed down, by order from above. So, please copy as many of the Premsai discourses now available - in several languages - for later study and comparison with the official versions! http://www.internety.com/premsai)This is the short passage from the Ladies' Day Discourse (first in the www.eaisai.com version).
"So be happy in the present. Swami expects all parents to achieve fulfillment in their lives by moulding their children into virtuous persons. They should always aspire for the goodness and well-being of their children. It is a good boy who becomes a god boy.
"How did the term good boy get modified? During the British regime, they used to say good boy. Later it became good-bye. Thereafter, the word 'good' vanished and 'bye' has remained. In this way, with the passage of time, various words have become perverted. But what we should accomplish is being a good boy. Give up selfishness and become selfless. Self is lovelessness and love is selflessness." [Italics added.]
For comparison, here is the very slightly different version printed in Sanathana Sarathi, for January 2002 (p. 22).
"It is a good boy who becomes a god boy. A bad boy can never become a god boy. How did the term good boy get modified? During British times, they used to say good boy. Later it became goodbye. Thereafter the word 'good' disappeared and 'bye' has remained. In this way, with the passage of time, changes occur in words and their meanings. But what you should accomplish is to become a good boy. From good boy you will gradually become a god boy."
So, any reader will immediately see what is wrong here and point an accusing finger: nonsensical! Right? WRONG!
Here is the literal translation from the Telugu original by 'Premsai', just released in the last few days:
"Good boy, good boy, good boy. Only that good boy will become a God boy. But a bad boy will not become a God boy. Others should think of your child as a good boy, good boy. How did it come in the past? In the past, when all the British people were here, they all used to say, "Good boy!" But afterwards they said, "Good-bye." Afterwards, this 'good' went away and only 'Bye-bye, bye-bye' was said. (Laughter)
Due to time changing in this way, all words have changed. But what we should achieve is good boy. Become a good boy and I am hoping that finally you will take the form, of a God boy."
What has happened, and we can only tell because of this Premsai literal version (which most devotees may not see), is that Baba's characteristically feeble pun on the English (good boy and good-bye) has not even been understood by his EDITORS, who have interpreted his padding, or 'waffle', if I may use that term, as yet another factual error of his! If you look at the italicised bits above, you will see that they are NOT in the (Premsai) original. They are characteristic ADDITIONS or 'enhancements' by Baba's editors. Except that this time they have got him INTO trouble, not OUT of it! It is the editors who have made this section of the Discourse sound like nonsense! Red faces all round, I guess, and some more recipients of SB's famous wrath.
Go to "Fresh Light on SB's Discourses"
Back to Brian Steel's Home Page