Response Series, Part Three





Response Series, Part Three

Posted: Barry Pittard, Australia, Saturday, August 2, 2003


Note:  A long letter from an SSB devotee named Seema is the basis for this series of excerpts, in which the one devotee's letter is readily seen to reflect many points scattered throughout many devotee letters received by SSB Expos activists.

Seema's remarks are in red.


I have seen people sit at the feet of great men for so long and not even an inkling of a transformation took place within them. Does that mean the Guru is bad? So what does it mean Barry?


This guru being bad (if not bad in some other aspects of his life) means that, in the face of compelling and extensive evidence, Sathya Sai Baba is a serial sexual molester of young males, and implicated in scandals such as the cover-up of the June 1993 police executions in his bedroom at Puttaparthi, and indeed many terrible anomalies. On the executions, see Robert Priddy's probings: and


It means that Sathya Sai Baba has forfeited any claim to be a divine personage, in the way that we attribute supreme qualities to Christ, Buddha, and other great spiritual masters. Questioned by the press concerning the June 1993 police killings, where the evidence overwhelmingly shows that Sai Baba stood by, having all the time and the absolute authority to act, but did nothing to stop the slayings, the world convener of the Sathya Sai Organisation Indulal Shah is reported as saying, "the matter is purely internal and we do not wish to have any law enforcement agency investigating into it" (The Hindu, June 10, 993). Are your guru (who says we should all obey the law) and his ashram above the Law? Does this mean that Puttaparthi should be some sort of medieval fiefdom - unanswerable to the laws that govern the rest of India?


It means that I do not trust that there is a conjunction between Sathya Sai Baba's words and deeds. I am satisfied that he preaches brahmacharya but does not practise it; that he preaches fearlessness, truthfulness and so on and does not practise them. I trust that you will (I mean - carefully, and frankly challenging your own presuppositions) read the analyses of Brian Steel - see his website , Serguei Badaev, Alexandra Nagel and others - see and  - on topics such as the plethora of outright contradictions, unfulfilled predictions, awesome clangers that SSB has committed, scams with the sales of apartments, lack of financial accountability, and more ... 


The fact that you use the intellectually dishonest resort of argumentum ad hominem against Robert Priddy suggests that you have not carefully gone through the critical literature that he and others are, with such vast effort and without being paid a cent, generating.

It means that I know first hand that SSB lies in calling former devotee dissenters "cawing crows," "demons," and thousands of "Judases," extensively boasting his accomplishments (actually, they are those of his devotees), and attributing to those who dare to question him jealousy and reception of money as our motivators, and invoking a terrible karmic future for us.

It means that I see his absence of Christ like, Buddha like love, compassion and forbearance. In his introductory to his Christmas 2000 discourse, he says, "Forbearance is the real beauty in this sacred land of Bharat (India)." Yet throughout this very condemnatory discourse, there is no hint of his practising what he has preached at other times: "We should help even those who have harmed us. This is the vow of Sai. No matter if some people criticise or ridicule Me (sic), I will always look at them with kindness." (Sanathana Sarathi, June 2002.

The so-called Christmas discourse does not suggest a Christ-like forgiveness. Not in the least does it breathe a Christmas spirit of cheer. In a supposedly Christmas speech, the supposed Father of Jesus Christ does not radiate wishes of Peace and Goodwill to all mankind.