Go to quotations page #2
"Loose" quotations #3
In this page you find a series of various quotations from Sai Baba, taken here and there, with comment. Have "fun"...
World War II according to Sai Baba
Let's a read a passage from a Sai Baba's speech, where he talks about nazist Germany which defeated France:
"Sensual pleasure is not happiness but man considers this as true happiness. Sensual pleasure indulged by man makes him equivalent to a beast. Divine happiness gives true Bliss. [...] Examine the sensual pleasures! How long does it last? At one time, Germany defeated France in the Second World War. The Marshal stated that his country was defeated because of sensual pleasure. Since that time, they encouraged control of senses."
(from a speech given at Kodaikanal, 5 April 1996)
It's foolish... it's simply foolish that a guy who claims to be omniscent could say such pieces of nonsense, and even more foolished is that there are people who are diposed to accept and believe these foolishnesses he says.
France was defeated "because of sensual pleasure"? What the hell could it mean, dash it all?! But Sai Baba, and all those who translate his speeches in the various languages, did they have ever read any kind of western history book?
It's obvious, to those who have a basical school knowledge of history and an autonomous brain to reason, that "The Marshal", i.e. Marshal Pétain, who was at the Government of France at the time of its defeat, has never stated what SB has said... and it's clear as well that, in the attempt to bring his talks an appearance of reality, SB throws himself in reasonings of an astonishing idiocy, which then are spread as "Divine Wisdom". Anyway, to whom it may concern, this was more or less the situation which brought to France's defeat:
Germany attacked Poland, thus France, which was bound to Poland in an alliance, together with England declared war to Germany onl 3 September 1939. After a period of stagnation of the conflict on Maginot and e Siegfried lines, in april 1940 Hitler started the so-called "blitzkrieg" (flash-war), which swept away Denmark, Norway, Holland and Belgium. The fall of the latter allowed the Germans to enter France and to occupy a vast part of its territory. Marshal Pétain refused to transfer in exhile his government, and preferred to sign an armistice with Germany (22 June) and Mussolini's fascist Italy (24 June), which on 10 June came into war by Hitler's side. Pétain's decision was quite not that of a "softened victim of sensual pleasures", since he practically profited the situation to estabilish a hard and authoritative régime.
(summary from "Nuovissima Enciclopedia Universale Curcio", at the item "France")
The reckless "Sai Baba style" reasonings always have interesting logical consequences; do follow this chain of simple logical successions:
let's assume "a priori", according to what SB has told us, that France was defeated beacuse sensual pleasures (though this has not any sense at all...);
thus, French were weak ones victims ot their own senses, and for this reason they were defeated;
it follows that Germans, since they defeated France, were not victims of their own senses, and also from this they had draw their strenght;
Sai Baba gives a very high value to the control of senses, he considers it one of the most important virtues of man;
therefore, the nazist Germans were virtous men able to control their senses, and to win thanks to this virtue;
thus, nazists' acts were those of virtuos men;
therefore, also the six millions of Jews annihilated by the nazists, they were nothing but poor weak ones unable to control their sensual pleasures;
the same could be said for for all direct or indirect victims of nazist régime.
The conclusion came by following the same logic used by Sai Baba for his statement, if he ever uses some logic... sometimes I get the impression that SB, as we say in Italy, talks only to give some air to mouth... and this passage is the nth example.
Regarding women
Also on this argument, Sai Baba's word is one, unique, unequivocal, coherent. Here is a couple of examples, taken froma collection of quotations:
"Women preserve the culture of this country with greater tenacity and faith. They keep men on the moral path and inspire them to follow spiritual discipline. Their hearts are tender and full of compassion for the hungry and the distressed. That is why in this land, women are adored and revered."
That's fantastic; SB has an immense esteem of women... or not? Which one of the two passages are reflecting Sai Baba's thought about women: the one already seen above, or the following?
"Women are proverbially too individualistic! There is a popular belief, born out of folk-experience, that three women cannot live in unison! There is a Telugu limerick, which says, "The world shivers before one woman. The ocean will dry up, if there are two! And if there are three, O, the stars will drop down at noon!" Why is woman so characterized? Woman is extremely deficient in Sahana, I mean ability to bear defeat, fortitude, forbearance, patience and quiet, suffering with no thought of retaliation. That is why woman is said to be the weaker sex."
Et voila! Now women become weak, rowdy, unstable.. quite the "weaker sex" (Sai Baba's words...). What could it be the real SB's opinion on female gender? Here is another couple of examples, from two different speeches:
"For example, today both men and women go to work and earn salaries. They keep a cook, a driver and servants. Thus, the salaries to these staff are more than their earnings. If the woman stays at home, she can take care of all the matters. Since she goes to work, the entire family is disturbed. LISTEN TO THIS POINT CAREFULLY. [...] Nowadays, the husband and wife are fighting (at) the dining table. The reason is that the impurities of the cook causes all these disturbances. The cook cooks for a salary. The housewife cooks with purity. It was the same in the royal families also. The queen alone should serve the members, and not the servant. [...] Women are not to be looked upon as cheap. A house without the woman is like a forest. When a woman is present it is "for rest". Respect them like that and give them all the comfort. If a woman sheds tears, no prosperity will stay. So do not make women suffer. Woman stands for love and devotion."
(from a speech given at Kodaikanal, 19 April 1996)
Thus: the woman must be concerned with the house. She has not to go out to work. Notice how, in the above passage, SB is referring to wealthy families: how many families (especially in India) could afford to have a cook, a driver and servants...? What to say then of the very poor families of the villages, which are the communities that SB loves best (according to his own words)? And, always according to SB's words, it would have to disappear the profession of cook, since "The cook cooks for a salary."; then what? What there's so bad in cooking to earn the living? What shall we do, we'll close all the restaurants and refectories of the planet? Finally, where and when Sai Baba has seen a queen serving at table in place of the servants? And attention, SB points out this as a custom... so the message is clear: women, even if very high on rank, must stay at home, serving the family. Now all is clear. Maybe.
"Since ancient times Bharat has given birth to many noble women who set an ideal to the world with their exemplary character and devotion. You might have heard of Savitri [...] Chandramati [...] Sita [...] Damayanti [...]. All these noble women have brought name and fame to this sacred land of Bharat. Not only Bharat, the whole world will progress because of women of character and nobility. So never look down upon women. [...] Such devotion and sincerity are present more among women than men. In fact, women symbolize Bhakti (devotion) and men stand for Jnana (wisdom). The one with devotion has the right to enter even the inner chambers of the Divine palace, whereas the one with wisdom has the access only to the audience hall of God. [...] Most of the men who have assembled here today are here only because of the inspiration of their women. Women are responsible for men to tread along the path of devotion. [...] Mainly by the effort of women will the country progress. Not only Bharat, the whole world should progress. [...] Girls generally have less freedom than boys. If only women had been given the level of freedom that is allowed for men, the shape of society on the face of the earth would have been changed. They are constrained by husbands, fathers and children from all sides. In spite of severe pressures from all sides they are advancing."
(from the Christmas 1999 discourse)
As a first thing, we notice that, in oorder to bring example of symbolic women, SB mentions "mythological" female figures taken from sacred scriptures, and not real contemporary women's figures. We also must consider, then, that all these female personages are carriers of traditional values so much dear to Sai Baba: they are virtuos, devoted, submissive, subjected, obedient; perfect mothers, wives and sisters, never going out of their own role, even if subjected to inhuman injustices.
But then here is that Sai Baba has a surge of modernity: women become even God's preferred ones; the woman would have to be more free, would have to have world's destinies in her hands, would have to enjoy the same rights as men... then SB says: "If only women had been given the level of freedom that is allowed for men, the shape of society on the face of the earth would have been changed. They are constrained by husbands, fathers and children from all sides.". This is the role assigned to women by the traditional culture from which SB itself comes, and it's the culture that he adores and of which he stated to be the carrier and protector, being him "God". It's a culture that SB regards as perfect, unchanging and eternal, and still now valid and good. Here is an example of the place that women must really have. As you maybe know, in India is still traditional for marriages to be arranged by the two families, basing on considerations about caste, social rank, income, settlement, etc.; this is one of the many marriage advertisements which I've casually found on a site dedicated to arranged marriages (any personal data of the advertisement has been omitted):
"brother invites alliances for 2 sisters we are looking for well settled professionals - Doctors and Engineers - sister 1: (list of educational qualifications) very good as homemaker, never married, age xx, very affectionate. sister 2: (list of educational qualifications), age xx, never married, good as home maker and at work. We are Telugu brahmins and devotees of Bhagawan Sri Satya Sai Baba. Baba has promised to perform marriages. Well to do family (snip). correspond with brother on e-mail or call father (father's name) (snip)"
Every country has its own traditions, and I will not discuss here if this one of arranged marriages is right or wrong. But however it may be, this advertisement is an expression of a caste, class, male-centered and (even if the word is not so nice) retrograde culture. In this culture, the young girl or the unmarried woman is the subject of negotiations with other families, obviously from the appropriate rank, caste and income. It is exactly this traditional culture, the brahminic-vedic culture, the one which Sai Baba loves best.
Thus it's useless for SB to say "If only women had been given the level of freedom that is allowed for men..." Why SB himself doesn't start giving the good example, by designating many women at the management of his own trust?
Gods and dogs
We read this from "the Randi Hotline", on James Randi's JREF Website:
"A friend has forwarded me this news item:
---------------------------
Bombay, India: A Hindu cult near Bombay is worshipping a pet dog as the "reincarnation" of a holy man who died many years ago, a newspaper said Wednesday. The "Asian Age" said a two-year-old white Pomeranian, named "Sai" after the holy man, was the object of worship at Panvel town. On Thursdays, devotees gather for "blessings" from Sai, who is fitted out with saffron cloth. The Age said the dog worship had its roots in a legend, according to which Sai Baba, the Hindu holy man, appeared before his devotees in the form of a dog in order to test them. Sai, the dog, sleeps in an air-conditioned room. His teeth are brushed once in five days with a special, soft bristle-brush and toothpaste imported from London. Twice a week he is bathed with soap and an assortment of 22 shampoos also brought from London. There are special towels for his use. The dog is fed imported vegetable "bones", butter and chocolates from a silver bowl, the Age said.
---------------------------
An observation: The present Sai Baba (born Sathyanarayana Ratnakaru Raju, 1926) adopted that name when he decided he was the re-incarnation of the original Sai Baba of Shirdi, 1856-1916. There will surely be an outcry from the ashram at this usupation of the god-man title by a dog.
I predict that all this bathing, tooth-brushing, and vegetable diet will cause the transition (transmutation, transubstantiation?) of this canine into yet another form, very soon. Chocolate, in particular, can do in a dog, and butter will widen his girth rapidly. I wonder whether Sai has ever been taught to "play dead". This may be the best improvisation on record.
During my upcoming visit to India (if it actually occurs) I may get to meet this tubby pooch. I may be able to obtain top-degree blessings by sneaking in a T-bone steak...
More on Sai Baba and Jesus
The following are some quotes, regarding the "true story" of Jesus Christ, taken form collections of Sai Baba's speaks; each of them is followed by a comment. Let's see:
"The name Jesus itself is not the original one."
(from Sathya Sai Baba: Embodiment of Love, p.66)
"[His] original name was Isa which, when repeated, is Sai. Isa and Sai both mean Isvara, God, the Eternal Absolute, the Sath-Chith-Ananda."
(from Sathya Sai Speaks, vol. X, pp. 292-3)
Again we see how Sai Baba tries at all costs to estabilish a connection, a continuity between himself and Jesus (the name Isa, which if repeated becomes Sai...); it appears evident that this is another of his very frequent jokes of words, another of his "ad hoc etymologies" which he uses to square the circles in his speeches.
Needelss to say, then, a possible etymology of the name Jesus has nothing to do with Isa, but rather with e.g. Yeshua, which means "the Lord is salvation". This name carries a concept deriving from a dualistic religious vision where, "above", there is the Trascendent Absolute, the God heavenly father who has a certain kind of relationship with the people of his sons, the chosen people of Israel. This was Jesus' religious vision, the one in which he recognized himslef; the Gospels give wide documentation of this fact. In this context, it is clear that putting Jesus' name side by side with "Isvara ... Sath-Chith-Ananda", which mean the Immanent and Impersonal absolute of the vedantic philosophy (the only one that Sai Baba knows), it hasn't any sense; it's simply an attempt by Sai Baba to frame the figure of Jesus into an indian context, which is the only one where Sai Baba can move without making coarse mistakes.
"For eight [of those] years following his 16th birthday, he travelled in India, Tibet, Iran, and Russia. He was variously regarded as a beggar or as a sanyasi [an ascetist, author's note]. Jesus had no money. His parents were very poor and practically abandoned him at an early age."
(from Sathya Sai Speaks, vol. X, p. 11)
Even here, the Gospel's documentation openly denies Sai Baba: while it's true that Jesus and his family were very poor, it's totally false that his parents "practically abandoned him at an early age". It's well known that Joseph died quite soon, since he was already advanced in age when Jesus was born, while from the Gospels one can see that, if ever, it was Jesus who "abandoned" the family in order to fulfill his mission (see for example Matthew 12,46-50; Mark 3,31-35 and 6,3; Luke 8,19-21). In truth, in the evangelical narration, witnessing the fact that she had not abandoned him at all, one can find various traces of the presence of Mary during Jesus' mission; for example (I mention the episode, and the Gospel's passages where it is narrated):
Let's read now this other quote:
"Let us pay attention to the sacrifice that Jesus made while free, out of His own volition. He sacrificed His happiness, prosperity, comfort, safety and position; He braved the enmity of the powerful."
(from Sathya Sai Speaks, vol. VIII, p. 141)
Now, in the previous quote Sai Baba told us that Jesus was regarded as a beggar or as an ascetist, that he had no money, and that he was abandoned at early age; would Sai Baba please explain us what "happiness, prosperity, comfort, safety and position" Jesus would have sacrificed? This is as well one of the concepts that SB mechanically repeats in his speeches, and he tries to confirm it by combining it with the life of Jesus.
Here is a lasting quote:
"[He] was honoured by the populace as Christ, for they found in his thoughts, words and deeds, no trace of ego. He had no envy or hatred, and was full of love and charity, humility and sympathy."
(from Sathya Sai Speaks, vol. X, p. 231)
Reading this passage, Sai Baba seems to point out that "Christ" is an honour title given to those who show no traces of ego, and who have all those virtues indicated in the passage itself. Truly it isn't so: the term Christ derives from the Greek Christos, which translates the Jewish mesciah, and their meaning is "the Messiah, the Chosen One, the Anointed of the Lord", and not "the one who has no ego, who is without envy and hatred, etc.".
Well, as usual Sai Baba doesn't give ani source, or historical-literary reference, or reliable documentation to support the "audacious" (!!!) statements that he makes on arguments differing from Indian philosophy, which is the only argument that he's able to deal with, without saying foolishnessess. Each time he faces differents thematics, he shows himself to be plainly incompetent, if not even ignorant. This all despite his claimed, and never demonstrated, "omniscience and omnipotence"; absurd prerogatives basing on which the devotees, without saying a single word, accept any extravagance Sai Baba tells them.
Santa Claus according to Sai Baba
"The season of Christmas is associated with Christmas Grandpa or Santa Claus. Tokovan was his original name. He was born in Turkey. He began his career as a priest and gradually began to attain spiritual heights. How did he become a spiritual giant? By the spirit of sacrifice. He used to give a chocolate or a doll or a gift to any child he met. All his life he kept on giving continuously. When Christmas was approaching, all the children used to run behind Santa Claus. He used to carry all the gifts in a bag and distribute to all the children. In what manner did he distribute? He said, "Here is a token of God's Love. Here is a token of God's Love," and thus distributed them. Eventually he came to be called Christmas Grandpa, and his original name was forgotten."
(from the discourse of Christmas 1995)
Here is another instance of how SB is used to quote, out-of-topic and in a wrong way, facts and knowledges which are already acquired. To get other examples of this, you can take a look at "Sai Baba's miracles: an overview". Sai Baba does approriate of already existant and known stories, myths and facts, and he alterates and modifies them according to his fantasy, however without being able to give any proof or evidence confirming his versions of facts. But since he claims to be an "Omniscient and Omnipotent Being" he would have to be able to do so. Obviously any Sai Baba's devotee or follower, believing in SB's divinity and omniscience, will accept anything he says as "Divine Truth". But this doesn't change the fact (and not the faith) that Sai Baba is often and abundantly wrong. Nothing wrong in it, we all make often some mistake, apart from the fact that, as we know, SB claims to be "God Omniscient and Omnipotent".
Coming to the above quoted passage, it doesn't seem to me that Santa Claus is ever pictured as somebody who attained "spiritual heights", who became "a spiritual giant ...by the spirit of sacrifice"; on the contrary, Santa Claus' figure is quite a "pagan" and material one, and much little "ascetic". Regarding his name ("Tokovan"?):
Go to quotations page #4