A NEW SERIES OF REGULAR EXPOSÉ POSTINGS BEGINS NOW:No. 5: SB EXPOSES HIMSELF FURTHER IN DISCOURSE
Date: 07-19-02By: Robert Priddy From: Website: http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/
"We should help even those who have harmed us. This is the vow of Sai. No matter if some people criticise or ridicule Me, I will always look at them with kindness." (Sanathana Sarathi June 2002, p. 166). He also now admits that, "There are many who are hostile towards Me. Many ridicule or criticise Me." (ibid, p. 168.) Note that the 'Me' in the above is always with a big 'M', as per usual! As in 'Me and Mine'!
Many of us are like SB in looking on our detractors with kindness, sympathy etc., there is really nothing so amazingly unique about this. Some cannot even help their ignorance and bad feelings, and we may pity them. But can we be sure that SB's words about his kindness are not empty - for once again he advises what can often prove a form of deception, "You cannot always oblige, but you can always speak obligingly". At the same time, SB clearly takes pleasure in pointing out how much his critics will suffer, in this instance for example, by saying "Hurting someone who has helped you will result in losing your eyesight". The whole context of this makes it clear that he is implying that critics are hurting him, even though he later says, "none of it will reach me". But much of it did get to him most certainly, rousing him into making awful threats against his detractors in his angry discourse on Christmas Day, 2000. He called his accusers Judases and demons! (SB believes in demons, as well as literally in 14-feet high men like Rama, as he told Hislop!) Such unforgiving talk from this self-promoting 'God the Father' on the birthday of the all-forgiving Jesus Christ! Was this conscious insult to Christians or mere ignorance of their creed? Forgiveness is not a concept that finds much expression, if any, in the traditional Indian spiritual value system as far as I can discover. We see how Krishna was for war and blood at Kurukshetra.
So SB continues to speak with two tongues, and still within one and the same discourse. This is not so surprising from a dual entity with a Janus-faced personality - a man (S.N. Raju) who is 'very human' (Kasturi's remark) with all kinds of failings (admitted by many close servitors) - and then a self-proclaimed deity ('Sai Baba') from some other realm with what he has called his 'very fast helpers' and who tells us that the whole of humanity working together could never understand him! A person whose oft-reputed unmastered lust makes him much more like Ravana than Rama, believe what you will!
Incidentally, I am not 'ridiculing' SB. I am truly only pointing out his self-contradictions, and many discrepancies between his words his actions and his actual observable behaviour. The fact is, SB talks so exaggeratedly and acts so otherwise in so many things, that he provides all the ridicule. I also comment critically on all the secrecy and cover-up surrounding much of what he does, and the consequences it all has or can have for truth, good people and social justice. If my deepest conscience did not demand of me to do this difficult service, I would be only to happy to desist. Moreover, I exert considerable efforts to write nothing that is untruthful or unconsidered about SB, and I will willingly swear it before God (not SB) .
"Ever be grateful even for a small help. Do not be ungrateful. Ingratitude is utter cruelty." (ibid p. 166-7). For the n'th time, one must ask what is wrong with SB's sense of proportion (or control of his tongue)? Grateful as I was for some things in which SB has apparently helped me, I cannot but help think that had I his opportunities - I would help everyone with the greatest pleasure. What does it cost to do his leelas and miracles? Time, his energy but what kind of a sacrifice does this really involve, one can but ask? It is sometimes difficult indeed frankly quite pointless or even evil-minded to be grateful for much of what happens to people (by SB's will?) Meanwhile, it is quite possible to have gratitude to SB for some things he did (or may have done, if we have proof of it) for some of us, and at the same time require accountability from him for other things we have discovered about him since then. To be grateful for some things does not mean that one should have to give the helper a carte blanche to neglect justice and truth. To remain grateful everlastingly for some uncertain favours does not remove the right to question the same person about his deceits and involvement in other harmful actions like executions in his own apartments.
Again, "See how much help Swami is giving to the poor and needy. It is all for their welfare. But some people are not at all realising the value and are not grateful for it." (ibid p. 166). How can one who boasts that he owns nothing, give anything? It was given via SB by many well-meaning, good people, and not by him as such. But he has to boast and rub it in again and again. Why? Instead, he berates foreigners for giving indiscriminately, as follows (in original discourse, edited out of Sanathana)."Today all the foreigners are distributing money, distributing money, distributing money, and they are making the country of Bharath very low. " This is yet another preposterous sweeping false statement about India by SB! In the original discourse he also waffles on about someone who became the US President, but witout naming him, Lincoln is evidently intended. But what he says about Lincoln's politics towards the black population demonstrates very basic ignorance of the facts.
Further, I have not seen anywhere in his thousands of discourses - or any books about him - that SB has expressed his gratitude to anyone for the help he personally receives! As usual, SB claims "I do not accept anything from anyone" (p. 168). How can he really not receive ANYTHING, just like everyone else alive does? Does he grow and harvest his own produce (ragi and watermelons, coconuts, rice and wheat for chapattis etc.)? Does he make his own robes? (Or is the Emperor without clothes?). Does he make his own furniture, build his own rooms, decorate his own showy thrones or does he receive the hundred and one things necessary even to his subsistence from the labour of others? He remarks too, while telling how he totally ignored for three days a would-be donor to him of car replacements (i.e. shining example of divine ingratitude?), that "I already have a sufficient number of cars" (p. 168). So HE does HAVE some! How many does one man need? If everyone in the world followed his divine example with up to 5 cars per person, the atmosphere would soon kill us! Moreover, I have never heard of him saying 'thank you' to anyone for any favours received, and many he certainly does accept! SB has to pretend he wants nothing, as follows: "Take My cars if you need them! I dont like to travel in very big cars. However, they have sent them from foreign countries. After they send it, it is not possible to do anything else with them." How transparently deceitful can one talk ... he could donate them all to hospitals or whatever, and get one small one for himself!
Ah, some know-alls will say, "you must understand that Swami is in everyone, in everything - he has countless hands, eyes..." and all the rest of it. Don't we all, ultimately then, all of us being nothing less than Atma? Besides, is it not a weird and confused proposition... that this person SB is necessarily as much 'in' every victim and perpetrator of every evil deed as in everything else? He is physically-embodied who thus shows all the outward signs of being like many others, for better and worse, with many self-expressed likes and dislikes, anger and sympathies. Doesn't it seem a bit removed from the facts and quite sane considerations for him to pretend he is not personally involved in anything he does? Eviently not to many unworldly, life-despising, liberation-yearning, unfulfilled, suffering or dissatisfied devotees. The omnipresence claim has nothing whatever to do with questions like gratitude, possessions, kindness towards critics on which SB propounded. For, if we are really to take the advaitic view at all seriously, then who is to feel grateful to whom?