From a site of a greek devotee, which address is at the links page, we read some "interesting" digressions of Sai Baba about the history of Alexander the Great and greek philosophers:

The historical reality is quite different, and consulting any book of history one can read it: when he was very young, Alexander th Great conquered all the conquerable at that time, with many wars in which he was always the winner; about in 327 b.C., he started the campaign in India: he crossed the Indo river, fought on the indian ground defeating king Poros and then, reached the Ifasi river, he was planning to reach the Indian Ocean. He had to give up the conquest of India for various reasons: dissents inside his suite due to factors such as the divine invistiture, the introduction of genuflexion before his person, ecc.; and most of all because the discontent among the macedonian troops which were exhausted from the long campaigns. An historical source, CURZIO RUFO, tells the soldier's refusal to follow Alexander:

"Alexander the Great king of Macedon: son of Philip II and Olimpia, he had Aristotle as master, who tought him rhetoric, literature, science, medicine and philosophy. Alexander came to the throne at the death of the father, Philip II, murdered in 336 b.C. After the taming with great energy of the rebellions of inner and outer enemies, he dedicated himself to an ambitious project of conquest which after about ten years brought him to subjugate Greece, Egypt and the Persian Empire and to rule over the most part of the territories known to the ancient world. He introduced everywhere the study of greek culture and language; his army was one of the most trained ones: it is said that he had 30,000 young macedonians to study military tactics and greek language, and that only after that training he enlisted them. On 332 b.C. he founded the city of Alexandria, in Egypt, which became the literary, scientifical and commercial center of the ancient world. In 331 b.C. he made a pilgrimage to the temple of Amon-Ra, seat of the oracle of the egyptian sun's god, that the Greeks identified with Zeus, and he made himself to be recognized as a son of that divinity. Then, on the same year, he reorganized his troops and defeated the persians; the city of Babylon surrendered and Alexander captured Susa, seizing its enormous treasures, and then Persepholis, the persian capital, which he sacked and set on fire. But his thirst of conquest still seemed not to be quenched: according to many historians he aspired to reunite the East and the West in a world empire. Proclaimed king of Asia, he undertook the conquest of India reaching the Indo river, but the rebellions exploded inside the troops obliged him to quit that enterprise. The macedonian army, infact, roused in rebellion and refused to advance further. The discontent also originated from the complex eastern-styled ceremonial that the emperor pretended to estabilish, after the claiming of divine birth. Alexander died at the age of 33 in 323 b.C., at Babylon." (personal translation)

Finally let's read a lasting passage on that argument, this time drawn from "Sanathana Sarathi", the official periodical publication of Sai Baba's organization ("Sanathana Sarathi" means "Eternal Charioteer", and it's one of Krishna's attributes, which SB took possession of):

"...By following the advice of one country or other India has made a hash of its economy and finances. In ancient times, India served as an example to other countries. A king from Greece came to India to study the conditions here, especially in regard to education and religion, after visiting other countries in Asia. He was impressed by the gurukula system of education and the kind of relations that existed between the guru and the sishyas. The ashram of every guru was a veritable university, without any of the paraphernalia of modern universities. The students were prepared for all kinds of hardship to acquire knowledge from the gurus. He noted also the discipline and high character of the students. He collected books like the Upanishads and the Gita and realised what values Indians attached to truth and integrity. He made a study of the Bible, the Quran and Buddhist texts and found that all of them laid emphasis on Truth. [...] He [...] recognised that in Bharat there was religious toleration and harmony as part of the people's code of ethics. He decided to follow India's example in Greece. Alexander the Great, who came to India at the behest of his teacher, on his way back to Greece took with him a lump of Indian earth, a vessel full of Ganges water, copies of the Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata and the blessings of an Indian sage."

(from a speech of 21 August 1986, reported in Sanathana Sarathi September 1986)

Here again we find the same fanciful elements that we have already seen and discussed before. In addition, here we find also other SB's characteristic elements:

• the nationalistic character of his speeches: India for him is always the reference point to which he brings back all things and all nations; it's the example to be followed by everybody. Anyway the India he dreams of is the past one and certainly not the present one. Attention: there's nothing bad in this, but one then would have not to pretend to show SB as universal "avatar", for all people, of any country, of any religion. As I already noted, he thinks, acts and speaks as an indian in all he does, always trying to bring back everything to his uses, customs and knowledges.

• the propagandist character of his discourses : the above passage is nothing more than propaganda for the guru power system and for his students, his universities and his educational system, compared to the public system described as made of "paraphernalia". If the indian public educational system has troubles, maybe the responsibility is also of the various "swamis" feeding people's faith in the guru system, instead of stimulating trust and share to the State and public structures.

Moreover, other considerations of historical and temporal nature arise:

• Alexander the Great had already conquered all the conquerable before arriving in India; therefore he already had been in Middle East and other lands. Why then he would have had to go on India to study the Bible and the Quran? But most of all:

• The historical period of Alexander the Great is 4th century b.C.; now, since the Bible which normally SB refers to is the christian Bible (thus formed of Ancient Testament and New Testament), it appears clear that simply it was still not existing, since four centuries still had to pass before Jesus birth. And the same is for the Quran, which dates back to 7th century A.D.; eleven centuries separate it from Alexander the Great! It would be useful to SB to think more, before speaking...

• Finally, SB tells us that Alexander has been in India to study all we have seen in the quoted passage, ascertaining that there is unity between all those scriptures and philosophies. But when he goes back home, he brings with him only "a lump of Indian earth, a vessel full of Ganges water, copies of the Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata and the blessings of an Indian sage" (i.e. one like Sai Baba: and how could it be otherwise?!?!?!?). Just for changing, for SB all is one, all is valid, there's unity in all things, but then he mentions only indian things. Perhaps there's universality of action and intentions in all this?