E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: Bon Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: June 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Fri May 30 21:53:31 1997
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-110
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 00:52:21 EDT
May 30, 1997
BonGiovanni@delphi.com
PO Box 6849
Beverly Hills CA 90212 USA
Hello,
On May 30th, David Lane , wrote as
follows in response to vparthib@syd.convergent.com.au. (Dr.
Lane courteously cc'd me.)
-begin copy-
What a delightful letter!
I would even like to post it with your permission, so please do tell
me if you would consider it.
You raise many good questions and I think the answer to them
is also implied by how you raise your points.
It seems very obvious to me what is happening, but I guess it is
not so obvious (as you point out) to others.
Yes, I am familiar with the story about the murders. There are a number
of articles on the subject. If I remember correctly, even India Today
did a piece on it. I don't have any information offhand with me, though.
do write back and I think your letter would be of interest to many
people,
thanks
dave
----
dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
email for PGP Public Key
On Thu, 29 May 1997, Venu Parthiban wrote:
[=snip=]
--------------------------end copy----------------
[I have snipped Venu's letter of May 29th, since I note David
asked for permission, but since no permission is gifted me, I
of course will not quote Venu's letter. My reply to
Parthiban-ji, however, was posted by David, with my accord,
before I received David's reply.]
I therefore address only Professor Lane's remarks:
>You raise many good questions and I think the answer to them
>is also implied by how you raise your points.
>It seems very obvious to me what is happening, but I guess it
>is not so obvious (as you point out) to others.
I concur that implications of this and that are apparent in
how Venu phrases his `questions'. I note however that
neither Venu nor David say in plain words exactly _what_
those implications mean. I urge David therefore to specify
what it is that he himself finds so `very obvious.' Should he
(or Venu, or both) ever actually say, it may be possible to
address that. However since both are only implying this and
that, and then agreeing with each other over some unspecified
matter, I see nothing to point out other than their vague allusions.
>Yes, I am familiar with the story about the murders. There
>are a number of articles on the subject. If I remember
>correctly, even India Today did a piece on it. I don't have
>any information offhand with me, though.
Deja News confirms that many persons online have stated they
are `familiar with the story about the murders', and the keen
eye might notice how, like David, few rarely if ever `have
any information with them'. I also have noticed that what
folks call `the story', is on due study found to be some dozen
different stories, and that, among the `number of articles on
the subject' none agree in key specifics, while all imply this
and that, allude to this and that, but offer few if any
facts, much as Venu and David do now.
Why any two persons, much less a group, would be so imprecise
and yet imply they agree, is unclear to me. Apparently they
have not noticed they have not said anything specific to each
other. I do notice that however, and hope Venu and David
will soon offer specifics, rather than innuendoes.
Meanwhile, I recall how in the ashram, on a small chalkboard
near the accomodations office, a daily "thought" is written
by hand. This is one example:
Happiness and peace do not follow when
man is fed well, clothed well, housed
well, and educated up to a good standard
and employed under comfortable
conditions, with no injury to health or
security. There are many who have all
these in plenty but who are yet worried
or in pain or discontented. They depend
on the inner equipment of man, not his
outer skill or riches.
---Sri Sathya Sai Baba
*+*
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Fri May 30 21:53:48 1997
Return-Path: bon_giovanni@juno.com
Received: (m8.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.196]) by weber.ucsd.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id VAA28197 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 21:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bon_giovanni@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
id AKL13224; Sat, 31 May 1997 00:52:22 EDT
To: dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Cc: BonGiovanni@delphi.com
Subject: Reply to Said, Part one of four
Message-ID: <19970530.214715.4415.4.Bon_Giovanni@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.38
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-6,10,13-14,18-50,53-128,130-133,135-149,151-156,
163-228,231,234-248,250,253-299,301-466,473-671,673-734
From: bon_giovanni@juno.com (Bon Giovanni)
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 00:52:22 EDT
Status: RO
X-Status:
May 30, 1997
BonGiovanni@delphi.com
Hello,
On May 30th at 6ish on a fine California Friday afternoon in the
sun-bright eighties, I was forwarded an e-pistle addressed to me, dated
May 28, but which I had not gotten in email by the author. On further
investigation, I found I did
not receive the email any earlier because the author had not sent it to
me. Rather, it was sent to Dr. David Lane, and thus far appears only at
his
webpage, not in my email. This letter is in reply to that, yet
needs must appear in four parts, so please, note it is so long for the
most part because of Said's repeated demands therein that I address his
every complaint. Viz:
>*********************** Post this one please
>Dear Professor Lane, the following is my response to Bon. 20
>May
>28, 1997 Hello,
>
>
>Bon, we have talked before and before you would not answer my questions.
=snicker snack=
Oh dear,
As I recall, I answered you-- just not the way you insisted,
and so you have ever since claimed I never replied. (I have
included my original reply at the close of this epic epistle).
Since then it has occured to me that you may speak
and read many languages, and so that what each of us do not
understand in each other's letters may be due an inability to
comprehend each other's pithy prose-- or may be due your
unique grasp of English-- or due a bit of both.
Hence when your letter begins "May 28, 1997", it may well be
that you wrote it on, before, OR after that date-- or perhaps
only inadvertently copied that line from my letter without
noticing it. If that is so, perhaps I am beginning to
understand somewhat the way your mind works, and so will be
better able this time to communicate with you, than on our
last outing a year ago.
At any rate, we have corresponded online, yes, but I ended
that since your "questions" had all been addressed by myself as well
as many persons, but you kept repeating the "questions" over and over
anyway. I was not
alone in noticing that. For example:
-begin copy-
Subject: Re: Physicist calls Sai...Res to Bon Govani.
From: vorugant@cs.ualberta.ca (Kaladhar Voruganti)
Date: 1996/07/08
Message-Id: <4rr3dm$omg@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
[More Headers]
DEEPSPACE10@msn.com (Said Khorramshahgol) writes:
>Also, my devotion was not based on hearsay, but was based on movies.
>Nothing wrong with movies.
Said, the objective is not to suppress one's true inner
feelings. Arguments for and against Sai Baba are not going to
resolve your mental confusion and ease your pain.
If Sai Baba is not your cup of tea then don't follow him.
Follow Allah or some other Shia saint. But your trying to
convince others that Sai Baba is a fake is a futile exercise
and it will only add to your pain. I thought that posting
anti-Sai things on the net would ease your pain but it is not.
You still are continuing to display your agitated mental state
on the net. I would seriously ask you to consult a
psychaitrist.
You based your faith based upon movies. Faith should be based
upon inner strength. The faith which is based upon miracles,
movies, will go away as fast as it originally came.
Each person has to decide for himself whether following Sai
Baba is bringing in a positive inner transformation. Watching
movies and miracles is not the answer.
Arguing on the net will not resolve anything.
---------------------------end copy----
Said, I hope you now recall that since you yourself said you
had based your devotion ON MOVIES, I then concurred with Sri
Vorugant's implication that you are bonkers. Our online chat
history shows I stopped conversing with you about spiritual
matters soon after I found you were, well, less than coherent.
Your incoherence is ably shown via your many articles in
several Usenet fora in the summer of 1996 wherein again and
again you made several assertions, various allusions,
implied this and that, and ever demanded answers, all the
time ignoring any answer which showed error in how you based your
conviction [cough] on what you had seen in movies and heard
from others second-hand.
Until your first letter published by Dr. Lane in late May of
1997, you gave little indication that anything other than
movies and hearsay were your mainstays in "faith." By so
doing, you have showed you were once a fantatic as a Sai devotee,
and have since become a fanatic Sai denouncer. Nothing has
changed, really.
>Also, my devotion was not based on hearsay, but was based on movies.
>Nothing wrong with movies.
Er, as I have pointed out several times, what is "wrong"
with movies, is that they can be edited to show whatever a
producer, director, or editor wishes to show. Editors could
make Swami look like he levitated. So I say, please do not
believe movies. (Editors could make him look like he was a
bozo, too, you know. Yeah, you know.)
As if oblivious to that, you posted hundreds of articles
saying movies and hearsay PROVED fraud, but offered very
very very few specifics about your own direct experiences.
Now you insist that I address all that all over again, as if you truly
never understood what is `wrong' with movies and with hearsay.
Surely you have by now noticed that movies can be edited to
show whatever one wants, be that miracle or fraud or alien
space invaders? That is why I regard all movies as entertainment, not
fact,
*until* what they show has been proven directly.
As regards Sai Baba, one proves what is so about him by going
to see him, and/or putting his teaching into practice and
observing the results, thus comparing what the movies and
hearsay claim, to real life. (I believe Deja News archives
offers ample evidence that I have in fact encouraged that when
carpers have said `movies are enough.' ) I also note that in every
case I replied to, not initiated, discussion.
However, despite my repeated suggestion that movies do not
lead to valid spiritual questions, you kept saying look at
GOD LIVES IN INDIA. You said that over and over and over.
Since I have seen it many times, I said to you in one final
reply, in effect that `if you like movies, go see "Independence Day" but
I
will not talk about movies with you'. That was my last
letter, apparently unclear to you, saying that if you believe
movies do show reality, you might as well be watching out for
Space Invaders, since INDEPENDENCE DAY was a hit movie then.
Unlike you I have never encouraged anyone to believe anything based on
what is in a movie or on tape or on tv or in books or due hearsay or
sermons. In that way I urge all not to assume (as you have done) that
what they see in a movie, is implicitly `real.' Yet you apparently
disagree. You again and again said movies *prove* fraud. Since your
conviction seemed impervious to all counterings, I stopped mentioning
your error. Soon after, you vanished.
You say you do even now believe what you see in movies,
instead of what you see in real life. Ok. I see that is your
choice-- and as I said last year, repeatedly, I for one see
no value in striving any further to show you why I disagree.
Why then do I reply now? Why because you have told me more about
yourself. I see you had the chance to see Baba in the flesh,
and yet you chose to believe what you saw in a movie instead.
You had the chance to ask him directly, seven times, what was
going on, yet you chose seven times to maintain silence.
Since then you have assumed you know everything, based on
movies.
I call your attitude absurd.
However, now that you have told some actual specifics of your
EXPERIENCE, via Lane's webpage, I do infer somewhat the reason
why you have chosen movies over real life, and why you did
not ask Swami direct questions when you could have done:
apparently you were terrified of him.
Your extensive description of your mastubatory guilt, your mental
imbalance, your depression, your inablility to maintain focus
in present time, your shyness, your fanaticism, the `angry
face' you saw when he made ash in darshan, and of the `heavy
breathing and loudness' in one of your interviews, the way
you interpreted `don't try, do' (which in my presence Swami
has said only with smiling kindness, not anger as you
implied) suggests to me that yup, you are afraid of Baba.
If you are afraid of him, why? If you are not, are you aware
you do give the impression you were afraid to ask him questions?
In 1996 however your articles showed no fear, just arrogance,
in that that any conversation which didn't agree with you,
only aggravated you towards further insult. For that
reason I stopped chatting with you. You illustrate that
arrogance and confusion even now, viz:
> If we are going to accomplish anything, you must answer my
>questions one by one.
I "must" do no such thing, you arrogant fellow, however, I
may. You see, Said, if this were a formal debate, or even a
college argument, or even a course requirement for Logic 101
in high school, then since you are the person who initiated
the topic, via your online letter, it is rather your duty,
not mine, to confirm your claims. However because you do
appear willing to converse, I will strive to accomodate your
demands, for a while at least.
> Quote my questions and answer them, this way we can follow
> as to what answer goes to what question.
As you wish. You then quoted my reply to your first online
letter, so I will but repeat the part just before your reply.
These are my words: "...Lane seems to think sheer quantity
somehow proves Sai is a sexual predator who, as Lane puts
it, 'likes to rub young cocks.'"
Your comments are indented, as follows:
First of all, never has Sai "cleansed" the
genitals of another in public.
Another? No, not even his own! And if, by "in public" you mean at a
public meeting where thousands are present-- you are correct, to date. I
however
referred to the general interview, and said so. (The general interview
may have up to thirty or so persons present, as opposed to the one or
three or so persons in private interview.)
You are refering to another ritual which I
mentioned in my letter to Professor Lane.
That involves pushing the hand in between the
front and back sex area. He did that to me too
and I accept it as a ritual, although probably
Baba's intentions were to break the ice. Baba
would do this ceremony in front of a teenager's
parents but he would never rub his dick back
and forth in front of them.
One moment please. Are you now saying that Sai rubbed your
penis back and forth as in masturbation? Please show me where
you said that earlier, Said? In which of the seven interviews
described online do you describe * that*, Said? In your letter you said
he
massaged your `genital'. If you meant PENIS, and meant jacked you off
not massaged your testicles then please say so, and specify with
details and chronology.
It appears to me you are now either changing your story, or
do not speak English well enough to notice the difference.
So, you are saying that Baba is cleaning the
genitals.
Er, no. I have rather said, several times, I have no idea
what he is doing, nor what it means, nor why he does it. It
appears to be some form of anointment, hence `baptism'
hence, `cleaning'. I have also said that based on all the
first-hand reports I have confirmed that there has been no
sexuality or lust or masturbation involved. If you are now
claiming Sai actually gave you a hand job, then say so, and describe
what happened, exactly, as best you can. Since until this
letter you had not mentioned masturbation, and nor has Jed,
I have remarked that when stories are told of lust, it is
not experience that is related, but implication.
However, since you described that you do masturbate, surely
you know if Sai was or was not masturbating you. Frankly
your earlier description did not sound like you were talking
about a hand job. Had you related your experience clearly
and without assumption, without hearsay, without innuendo,
with clarity and specifics, all might now know if what you
experienced is masturbation, or is due your mental state, or is due
your unique use of English.
Then please prove your point by answering the
following questions.
Since my point as you call it was that I do not know what
Swami is doing, nor why, I see no need to answer your
mis-assumptions, but suggest you do well to concentrate on
making your own points clear instead. However, because you
are at least trying to correspond coherently, I will do as
you wish, for now.
If you choose not to answer my questions here
you prove my point that Sai devotees are not
able to deal with certain questions which might
result in them coming to conclusions such as
Sai Baba MIGHT be playing with them for his
enjoyment:
Your taunt is noted Said. Had I any concern for your opinion
of me or of devotees in general, I would not reply at all, since taunts
like yours
imply you are not interested in conversation so much as
"victory". In my view this is not a matter of who is right
and who is wrong. You have your opinion, and I have mine. If
each of us will present our views coherently, perhaps folks
can see what your experience entailed and what I deduce from that.
>1. Why does he have to touch in order to cleanse the genitals? Doesn't
>he say that whatever he wills, will be done? Doesn't he claim that not
>a blade of grass moves without is will?
Since you claimed earlier that you had given your life to
Swami, I would have hoped you would then have at least read
his books and so learned for yourself that `not a blade of
grass moves without His Will' means that no matter what
happens, GOD is served. GOD is always in control, you know.
If you had studied his writings, Said, you might also know
why Swami does not just ZAP folks into enlightened radiant
beings of kindness, compassion, wisdom, and love, but rather
encourages each individual to instead transform themeselves, kindly,
thouroughly, and permanently. Since you had seven
interviews, I would have thought you might have asked him
any question you had problems answering, but most certainly
you coudl have asked *why* he was "touching" you. (Since I
am answering your question, please now answer that now, ok?)
As for _my _ idea about why Swami touches anyone anywhere, I
suggest it is because folks have bodies. That is not meant
to sound glib. I am sure that Swami can communicate via a
glance as well as a touch as well as a word or a gesture.
Why he chooses at any one time any one mode of communication
over the others is unknown to me, (since I am not him), but
may be due to the same reason you and I now type, rather
than talk aloud to each other: the medium requires this mode.
Apparently there is something communicated by touch, that is
not communicated by typed words on this screen. Whatever is
transmitted by Swami, be it by eye, hand, mouth, or mind--
is best told by him, and by the recepient, not me. See,
Said, I did read your report, and find you seem as clueless
as to why he does these things as I am-- but unlike you, I
say so. You instead assume knowledge you lack.
For that reason I again ask you: how is it with seven
chances to ask Swami directly WHAT HE WAS DOING, you did not
ask? How is it you never used any of those seven opportunities?
> 2. How can you be sure that he is not enjoying it? Are you aware of
>what he thinks or feels?
If I have indiciated that I am sure about what Swami feels,
thinks, or does, please do point it out by quoting me. If you
will not do that, your question seems based only on your
assumption, not my words, and so needs no reply. (That is in
fact why I mostly ignored your earlier demands.)
However, from your own description, it sounds like he did not
enjoy it at all-- if anything he sounds rather displeased.
Why do you supppose that is, Said? (That is a question:
please do answer it.)
>3. Since he has not done it to you - or has he - how can you
>be sure of what you say?
I repeat, if you will show where I have said I am sure about
something that Swami says, or thinks-- do quote me and I will
reply to that. Again, I point out that I based my remarks on
what I know of Swami, and on your own description. Also, had
you at least read the
links I supplied, you could have read that I have not
undergone any similar massage as yours or Jed's.
>You didn't even see the reaction on his face or the change
>in his breath speed or the noises he made.
This is quite so, but you I did read the way you described
it. Since you apparently think your description suggests
other than as I deduced, then either please explain more
clearly, or realize that your interpretation appears to me as
I said it does. What else can I say than that, Said? If you
wish others to agree with you, surely you can appreciate you
must communicate clearly enough for readers to understand as
*you* wish. Instead you often sound petulant and confused.
It is due your bizarre writing style that I pointed out the
ritual, (or whatever it is, the event, or ceremony) that
you and Jed describe so similarly and yet so differently do
seem to me to have less to do with lust than with mystical
initiation. Having read both stories I deduced it was not
masturbation. Now you imply oh but it was masturbation, yet
in your descriptions, I saw ratheryou were mentally unbalanced
and Jed was numbed. For politeness, I called it `mystified.'
I wasn't a bit mystified, and based on what
I read from Jed, neither was he. He said
that he was uncomfortable. I said that all
ideas of uncomfort were pushed out of my
mind immediately. How did you get the idea
that I was mystified?
I got the idea because seven times you allowed your `genital'
to be manipulated, but never asked why nor what it means nor
how it was supposed to benefit you, then saw a movie and
decided everything you had expereinced must be a hoax. Yes,
I call that state `mystified', Said. I reached that conclusion
due not only your current letter, but due the hundreds of articles
you posted online last year under various addresses.
Yes, this is the same Said. You know, I
did write many postings in the newsgroups
under different names. I was using my
brother's internet account which he
changed frequently after the free trial
of each one finished. In the first
posting of each name, such as
DEEPSPACE10, khorram, etc, I would tell
everyone that I am Said, the same person
as jkhorrmash for instance.
I did not notice that you told folks each time, and so ask
that you please do post `the first message from each address
you used', showing you did as you now claim, "JK". [NB:That
is a direct request that you back up your claim with those
articles, including evidential headers, showing the
message(s) where you in fact initially did identify yourself
under each new address you used.]
Unlike you Said, I will not taunt you, saying if you do not
reply, you are a coward, etc.
As for your current address, did you sign your most recent
letter? Are you the only person using that account?
No, you did not sign it and you are not the only person using
the account, but I noticed Afshin does sign his name when he
posts, so even though multiple persons may use your present
account, 1 at least makes clear he is not you.
Last year however, except for your DEEPSPACE account, as a
rule you never made clear who was writing, nor did you
regularly sign your articles with either your name or a
distinctive sig or tagline. Each time you appeared with a new
address, the style told your identity.
So, Said, by all means please do post the first message from
each address you used, showing you did as you now claim, "A-1
Steak". [NB:That is a direct request that you back up your
claim with evidence.]
So, I wasn't trying to decieve anyone by
using different names as you suggest based on
your ignorace of the matter. Do a search on
Dejanews and find the earliest posting by
each name and you will see that I have told
everyone my identity at the very beginning of
the message.
It is not my job to back up your claims for you. Do the
search yourself and prove your claim. Until you evidence your
claim I have no way of knowing if you signed them or were
trying to deceive or were just unused to netiquette, but,
since you have demanded I evidence my claims, I in turn ask
you to evidence your claim, via the messages, with headers.
*
Such tales as told by Said from his various addresses in 1996, may well
have interested men like Jed, (another ex-devotee whose story is
published by Lane), in that it appears to be Jed's very group of young
students that Said was describing as `the American students'. It was a
famous group, because the lads had such intense chances to doubt and
talked about it at length with every other doubter in the ashram they
could locate.
> 1. Why do you think that they "had such intense chances to doubt"?
Thanks for asking.
I believe that Swami has in the past called folks to him via
select individuals like Aurobindo, Krishnamurthi, and Shirdi
Sai Baba. Now I sense he is alerting other particular
individuals to his presence via such doubters as these young
men, just as he once alerted other particular individuals via
believers like Howard Murphett. Each group is called to him,
based on their own intellectual, spiritual, and educational
backgrounds, and are given the chance to directly examine and
determine if he is as you say he is, or as he says he is.
Examine the stages of the Sai movement and one finds first
he made himself available only to those in his immediate
presence. Then visitors from other states in India came as
if pulled by a magnet. There was no advertisments, no
publicity men at work. Then foreigners came. Then he visited
Africa. He then initiated a public service educational and
medical establishment that has generated a worldwide
organization, free of dues or fees of any kind, giving free
service to all.
From that history I infer that Swami is satisfied that he has
already drawn to him those whose interest was based only on
devotion, and I see he has also collected those whose
intellectual curiosity was sufficient to bring them into
contact, and the next group he brought to himself were those
whose social conscience was sufficient to seek him out for
social and educational reasons. He then drew to him all
those who had indicated any interest in spiritual
fulfillment. Who was left?
Why those whose interest manifests in doubting, disbelieving,
proving wrong, carping, nay-saying. I find Swami is now
using such young men as you and Jed to spread attention about
him worldwide to those of a more doubtful or suspicious
nature than even Tal Brooke appealed to. After all, did Sai
tell you to keep your experience a secret?
No, he did not. Thanks to men like you Said, those who
examine your story directly will determine its value and so
will either expose Sai Baba as an absolute fraud, or else
will attend his teachings with all due care, as they see fit.
Either result will suit me fine, and will I believe also suit
Sai Baba.
Those who prefer to deduce this and that without direct
experience, however, will not even notice his passing.
Everyone who heard his name however, will have been given the
chance to find out for themselves, if he is as you say, or as
he says.
> 2. Why did Baba make them doubt? I would understand if
> Baba is trying to test the faith of a long time devotee, but
> to test the faith of these kids - many of whom had come for
> the first time to see Baba and make up their minds about him
> - is kind of too hard a test!
I can appreciate what you mean by `I would understand if',
since I have said, Said, often, that Sai is a thorough
teacher. Sometimes I do not understand him at all. However,
what you call a test seems to imply a pass or fail situation,
but I view it more as an opportunity to examine more closely
what one knows, versus what one assumes. I suggest all choose
the former, gladly if albeit painfully relinquishing the
latter.
In my view, Baba is not interested in making a personality
cult based around himself, nor does he want a crowd of
miracle-mongers eager only to see some new wonder day after
day, nor does he want to have to prove his every statement
over and over and over to those who come only due curiousity.
I believe he rather wants each individual to realize the
truth and so to be free. That includes being free of Sai
Baba, who is after all, just a name and a form, nothing more.
To that end Sai Baba will encourage those who wish progress
in appreciating that, and will discourage those who prefer
assumption. He proves quite able to use every situation and
person to effect that end, effortlessly. You for example,
are serving that remarkably well, `on your own' That you have
assumed you know better than him how to accomplish what you
call "His Will", however, is noted.
>That brings me to the next question: 3. Was Baba trying to
> test the faith of these young students by pretending to be
> taking things out of the chair or was he scratching his back?
I do not know what he was trying to do, or doing, and so
suggest you ask him. Come to think of it, you had ample
chance to do that, Said. How is it then you ask me instead?
Why do that? I certainly am not your teacher or your
superiour in any wise, so please, do not ask me what you
would not ask Swami.
Still, because you did not use the chances you had to ask
him, it appear Sai-incidental you and one of those students
now should meet online via David Lane. In my view, each of
you are doing exactly what Sai wishes, by telling more and
more folks about your experience with him. You may think you
are bringing him down, but since he has already said the
ashram will soon be empty, I have a hunch he does not care
what `the world' thinks of him. It is not his mission to
bring anyone into his fold, you know: it is to bring folks
into full awareness of their spiritual identity.
I hope you would agree that purpose of every religion is to
reveal one's genuine identity, even though each religion
"defines" God per its own scripture and then claims to have
grasped Him Whole. I find, as Sai suggests, they each speak
of a part though they all assert that their vision is full
and total. In my view, the fact is as Swami says: "God, the
same God, feeds the spiritual hunger of all nations and
faiths, through the common sustenance of truth, virtue,
humility and sacrifice. It is the same God who confers upon
all mankind health, prosperity, peace and happiness... God
cannot be identified with one Name and one Form. ... All
names are His; all Forms are His. Your Names too are His; you
are His Forms. You appear as separate individual bodies
because the eye that sees them seeks only bodies, the outer
encasements. When you clarify and sanctify your vision and
look at them through the Atmic eye, the eye that penetrates
behind the physical (with all its attributes and
appurtenances), then you will see others as waves on the
ocean of the Absolute, as the 'thousand heads, thousand eyes
and thousand feet' of the Supreme Sovereign Person or Purusha
sung in the Rigveda. Strive to win that Vision and to
saturate yourselves with that Bliss."
Those who win that vision and live in that bliss do realize
their identity, and frankly could care less what folks "say".
To such folks, your complaints and taunts, are like children
bickering for attention... or so I have heard.
Besides, Said, the getting of that vision is not like
choosing which movie to see- it can involve much
soul-searching, doubt, and even fear.
Yes, spiritual gain involves conquering many
things such as doubt and faith. But neither
Jesus or any other Prophet lied, agree?
No, I do not agree, and you cannot say neither, since
neither of us knew Jesus, nor spent years with Him in the
flesh, nor did we walk with Mohammed, to determine if He,
Blessings On His Head, `lied.'
It is because you however seem to think you KNOW such
things, that your current confusion persists, in my view.
It is my direct experience however that Sai Baba does lie.
On one occasion he lied to help someone, and another time,
he lied as a joke. I have never however found him lying in
order to harm someone or to trick them into giving up
something of value, as you imply.
Now, if Baba is not using his will and power
to create things out of thin air as he says he
is, don't you think that he is telling a lie?
As I have said, Said, whether Sai produces an object under
one's nose, or palms it, or produced it before he came into
my view and then palms it, is best determined there and then,
directly. On one occasion he might create a statue of solid
gold 15 inches high, and in the next moment palm some candy.
In all the times you saw Baba in person, did he bungle or
palm or hide any object, or did he make any appear from thin
air? I ask you to specify, if you reply at all.
Oh you have told about `the movies', but I ask for you to
detail what you yourself saw in real life.
If he is telling a lie, the fact that he
touches certain male's dicks, could mean that
he is doing it for his own enjoyment, right?
Could this & could that can go on til you die. How is it since it
was your dick, you did not ask him? Perhaps you do not know,
but Swami has been asked directly if he does this stuff for
carnal reasons, and has said no, that he acts only selflessly
to benefit everyone. Not just any one person, everyone. If
he is telling the truth, or is lying, is thus clearly left to
the decision of each person. I do not tell you how to decide,
and am annoyed that you presume to tell anyone other than
yourself how to decide.
There are other things within the human mind
that raise fear and doubt, which need to be
conquered, it doesn't apply to this situation,
unless you want it to. For example, the
disapointment of the devotee's desires might
result in him/her to lose faith in the
teacher.
Yes, that is so. I believe you example that rather well
and so wonder why you suggest it is in any way beneficial
to imply things now which you did not ask the teacher
directly about when you could have done so. That seems cowardly to
me.
What you said does not apply to Sai
Baba. Another point is better understood if
you can step out of your ideas for a short
while. Imagine a devotee of some teacher.
The teacher is a crook but the devotee keeps
having faith even in the face of overwhelming
proof that the teacher is a crook. He thinks
to himself that I need to have faith based on
my inner experiences that I have received.
I am delighted to step out of my ideas, and do so
regularly, as daily baths. What matters however is not
imagination, not what-if stories, but reality, Said, and
reality is frankly based on one's own experience, not on
what-if conjectures like those you now posit. Conjecture
such as you offer is but mental masturbation, in my view,
and serves no purpose but that. If you want spiritual
insight, stop playing with yourself in public, please.
Faith itself is not what you posit. Faith when based in
experience, not conjecture, opens a part of the mind to an
understanding of reality, an aspect which doubt covers
utterly, and one which logical thought cannot penetrate
nor describe. When that faith manifests in action,
thought, word and deed, "the teacher" is no longer a body.
It appears you have not experienced that, and until you
do, I regret that all explanations will not succor you.
But then, that is why he advises one not just "try, but
actually do". When one lives Swami's teaching, rather than
tries to live them, such things as do confound now, become
clear, and lesser matters become of but secondary concern,
having as much importance as a tv show. If you watch it,
the time is passed pleasantly, and if you miss it, the
world continues.
Would that make sense to throw out all these
proofs and concentrate on inner experiences
the origin of which is not known. Could it be
the play of the mind or imagination? Could it
be that God showed him/her mercy because of
their hard work or their inner longings, etc?
You ask if that would make sense, yet since you now appear
somewhat insensible, I suggest you are only confusing
spiritual experience with imagined options. I have employed my own
direct experience, and I do not mean `inner experiences'
exlusively, as the basis of my current understanding.
Whenever I have had an inner experience, I have seen it
confirmed in concrete reality, as have those around me.
Whenever concrete reality differed from my inner experience,
I found I was suffering from hysteria. Swami is quite able at
helping folks determine that distinction. All one need do is ask him.
Here ends part one.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
[More Headers]
DEEPSPACE10@msn.com (Said Khorramshahgol) writes:
>Bon Govani writes:
>>Said Khorramshahgol writes:
>
>>>Amongst innumerable miracleswhich have emanated from >>Bhagavan all
>>>these years,the following are worthrecording.
>
>
>>the hearts ofthose whose lives are transformed into loving servants
>>of Man.
>
>>All other miracles pale beside that.
>You certainly act like"all other miracles pale beside that."If his
>"miracles" arenot a big deal to you, why do you keep arguing that
>they are real. You should actlike who cares if they are real, I
>have been transfromed,saved, and thats whats important and real.
>Also, the statement you make above, as beutiful as it sounds, is not
>true.I spoke with anex-devotee yesterday. He stoped going to
>bhajans a few months ago. He told me that for 16 years he was very
>active with the center. He used to sit up front and sing with all
>his heart, etc. But nobody from the center has called him to say how
>are you? are you feeling sick? can we help? etc. Another
>ex-devotee became a homeless afew months ago--this man spent all he
>had based on baba's teachings,he spent thousands of dollars on
>travels to baba. He has a problem with the nerves in his hands and
>was trying to get someone to help him put his things in a storage.
>But nodevoteecame tohelp him. He called his devotee friends and
>they didnt help him, iguess because he is an ex-devotee.
>
>The point of the matter is a few baba devotees really do service from
>the heart. I am an insider to baba centers invarious places and i
>know that most devotees dont do any service. They just go to bhajans
>once aweek. Some do very little service. The christian ministeries
>whose Leader is long dead do more service thanthe SaiBaba movement
>whose "God" is alive.Also, most baba devotees do service because
>they want to realize God. They dont give a damn about the other
>person's pain,they want to besaved.If I was in pain and someone
>tried to help me for their ownsake, i wouldn't want it.
I initially responded to Said's posts thinking that I can genuinely help
him with his problems. But, now I am convinced that by responding to his
posts one is simply giving him more fuel for his fire.
As evident in the above note, he is making too many generalizations
regarding Sai Baba devotees and he has lost objectivity regarding Sai
Baba. As in any organization there are both good and bad people in Sai
Organization.
I would strongly recommend Sai Baba devotees to not get into arguments
with Said. By responding to his provocative letters one is giving him
more importance than he really deserves. I also believe that Sai Baba
devotees should not try to force Sai teachings down other people's
throats. It is important to note that Sai Baba doesn't need us to defend
him.
Unfortunately Said had bad experience with Sai Baba, and by prolonging
arguments with Said, one is not giving him time to heal.
It doesn't matter what we all post on the net because, Sai Baba's fame
and popularity is growing at an exponential pace all over the world.
It is important for Sai followers to not argue with Sai non-believers in
order to strengthen their own faith in Sai Baba.
Sai followers should realize that they are unnecessarily wasting their
time by stubbornly arguing with people who have lost their sense of
reason.
I sincerely and humbly hope that Sai followers do consider my advice.
-----------------------------end copy------------
The pain and confusion and anger and hysteria expressed in
the assumptions exampled by Said, noted above, is certainly worthy of
care
and compassion, but the words he uses to express those ailments are not
particularly cogent, articulate, accurate or even factual, as he so
often examples over and over (What I mean by that is shown in his first
post at soc.culture.indian, availble via Deja News archives via a search
on any of his many addresses, as well as in his article quoted above by
Vorugant-ji.) Said told the world he was an ex-devotee of Sai Baba who
"had given all his life to Sai". Later he explained that 'lifetime' had
rather been a few years of cult-like confusion, fanaticism and
mental instability.
First of all, if you quote, quote right. I
wouldn't call myself as his as in "had given
all his life to Sai". It would have been
right to say "had given all my life to Sai".
Wrong Bon, search again, my first post was
called "Sai Baba and Bon Govani, one and the
same".
Ok. Your version is close enough. Here as you say, is your FIRST post.
I note how although it was your first post, your misunderstanding of
Swami's teaching, set out in crude manners, ill will and arrogant
presumptions, were then, as now, your most noble qualities.
-begin copy-
Subject: BON GOVANI & SATHYA SAI BABA: ONE AND SAME
From: jkhorramsh@aol.com (JKhorramsh)
Date: 1996/06/18
Message-Id: <4q6k1u$66p@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
[More Headers]
Bon Govani, you talk too much.I have read your postings for over five
months. You speak of godly people speaking softly and then in the next
paragraph or two, you become offensive. As an ex devotee of SaiBaba, I
know what Baba says about criticism. He says, you should forget about it
and go on your way right? But you, the perfect devotee, always tend to
take things into "yourself" and make it a personal problem. But you are
not any different from those who are closest to Baba and who are long
time
devotees. In Prashanti or Whitefield, you see these old Indians, who are
devotees for 40+ years acting like assholes from another level of
consciousness.I have come across some of the rudes people there. If
Baba has workedon these people"in so many different levels" as his
devotees believe, and after allthis hard work of Baba's part and after
all this time, if thesepeople are still assholes, its no surprise that
you areon the same path to perfection. Follow the master right? Get a
life Bon Govani.
_________________________________________________________________
That post itself shows you calling your elders `assholes',
you know, though you denied it.
And wrong again, I am sure you
understand what I meant by saying that I had
given all my life to Sai. Meaning, while a
devotee, I had given all my life to Sai. It
show that I have since I felt so guilty for
not living life as Sai wanted.
Actually now that you say it that way, it almost makes sense.
Gosh but I wish you would have been at least that clear
earlier. Then one could have pointed out the reason you "felt
guilty", may be do yourself, not Swami. Since you have however
ever made clear that guilt is your major thing, next to anger, not much
was lost.
Your above
comment shows that you play with the
meaning of words when to your benefit. You
are a man who knows every meaning and
discusses all those meanings to your
opponents. How did you not get my point
there?
Perhaps because you are by and large incoherent? It is rather
difficult to `get your point'. After all, it is only now, a
year after the fact, after you had posted hundreds of other
articles, that you have explained how `given my life to Sai'
does not mean you had in fact given your life to him, nor even
surrendered your ego. Instead you were intent on making clear how you
judged your elder devotee brothers as 'assholes'. No wonder
you are confused, Said. You maintain your arrogance intact.
Wrong, I
never called them assholes, I was probably
saying that towards Sai devotees in general
without remembering that my brother is a
devotee.
Wrong, in the post I quoted, you do call your elders
assholes. Besides that, again your incoherence is noted when you say
you `forgot' your brother is a devotee. (how does one forget a
brother?) As for the
`assholes', check it out, dude: you did call your elders `assholes.'
And for your information, Sai teachings
are a combination of mostly hinduism, other
religions and some BS which he added
himself, like just do, never say I'll try.
That's a BS added by Sai Baba. In that
light, Sai has many BS degrees. The exact
quotes of Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharishi, and
Islamic teachings are found in his sayings.
I came across that a few times. 20
For your information, Said, Swami makes clear his teaching
is ancient, not new, and of course can be found in every religion. As
for quotes, if you are implying he is a plagiarst, then you
could do everyone an important service by actually supplying
the passages where he plagiarised, proving your claim. Or
are you just implying and will furnish no evidence but your
say-so? Surely, you can support your claim, with specifics?
If you do supply them, then I may deduce you are not simply
a bozo, after all. But then, I am not alone in such
conclusions, since aparently after having corresponded with
others like yourself Said, I see you now describe ALL
devotees as zombie-like hypocrites and Swami as a raging madman.
That all devotees are "as zombie-like
hypocrites" is my belief. But I know
that all might not be as such but all
of those whom I have had the chance to
get close have been hypocrites.
Thanks for saying so; that is why I say you are incoherent.
You say `all' does not really mean all, after all. Duh.
As far as Sai - Bon calls him Swami as
a sign of respect, I don't respect him
so I'll call him Sai or Baba, actually
I should call him by his birth-given
name
Sure, by all means call him whatever you think apt. If
Sathyanarayana Raju is more comfortable for you than Swami
or Sai, do as you wish, but since you do so only out of
dis-respect, as you say, I will note your bad manners.
Doesn't anyone's experience count
regarding to Sai Baba, or just Jed and
mines don't count? When Sai devotees
come together they speak of their
experiences, but bad experiences are
not allowed?
Each person's experience is valuable to that person and to
those who care for that person. That said, any who know his
teaching will recall that Swami encourages ALL persons to
speak of their own experience, and so of course good or bad is
included,
as long as it is described with specifics and without adding
hearsay or hyperbole. Speaking freely is what folks do at the Los
Angeles Sathya Sai Baba Center, and is why all members know
about this topic. (By the way, since David Lane calls it a
`secret', yet neither Jed nor Said nor anyone I know have
said they were ever told by Swami to "SHH!!! keep it a
secret," then David's public claim of a secret cabal leads
me to suggest David is only as factless as Said.)
Assumption, not fact, rules their minds, apparently.
While you are at it, lets throw out
history because we can't learn from
history unless we were there to
experience it first hand.
Your `logical deductions' like that are often too silly to
address, Said. When you confuse educational topics like
history, based on objective stories, with spiritual topics like wisdom,
based on one's own experiences, you show yourself absurd. No, one need
not throw out history. One however does well to notice one's own direct
experience. Without that, life is death.
Discerning history of ancient days and applying gthe lessons to one's
own insight based on experience is required, Said, for the spiritual as
well as for the secular student. That you fail in that requirement is
not my responsibility. It is no secret that keen attention and
integrity is the basis for sadhana, or spiritual discipline. Experience
however that results in understanding why that is
crucial is best realized while *living* a teaching, not dwelling in
imaginary states or assumed relationships as
Said
examples.
It is the doing, you see, which clarifies. Said has told in
detail of his depression over that, before, during and after
his exerpience with Swami, and while I am sad for him, I do
not agree with any of his incredible sweeping generalities.
Here ends part two.
*+*
------------------------
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Sat May 31 00:46:36 1997
Subject: Reply to Said, part 3 of 4
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,5-15,17-80,83,86,88-114,116-124,133-180,182-197,
200-329,331-420
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 03:46:10 EDT
As I was saying, (this is part three), and as ever it is the doing, you
see, which clarifies, not the talking about spiritual teaching. Said
has told in detail of his depression over that, both before, during
and after his experience with Swami, and while I am sad for him, I do
not agree with any of his incredible sweeping generalities.
And you know something, the "God" who is
here to save the world, who claims to be the
One who sent Jesus, who claims to be the
chosen one that the Moslems are waiting for,
couldn't help me. I was confused before I
became a devotee of Raju and I am more
confused now as a result.
I agree, you are now more confused, but suggest you look
again at why that is, ( consider for example you find movies more proof
than real life).
And you know something, apparently he hasn't
helped you much since he says that you
should look the other way if someone
criticizes him.
You said that last year, and I pointed out then that Swami
does not say as you claim. Rather he says one ought thank
all one's critics, and so in way of gratitude, Said, I
addressed you then, even though your first article showed
your mind was already concretized in bias against me. That
you did not appreciate my attention any more than you appreciated
Vorugant's, is noted:
"Said, the objective is not to suppress one's true inner
feelings. Arguments for and against Sai Baba are not
going to resolve your mental confusion and ease your
pain.
"If Sai Baba is not your cup of tea then don't follow him.
Follow Allah or some other Shia saint. But your trying
to convince others that Sai Baba is a fake is a futile
exercise and it will only add to your pain. I thought
that posting anti-Sai things on the net would ease your
pain but it is not. You still are continuing to display
your agitated mental state on the net. I would seriously
ask you to consult a psychaitrist.
"You based your faith based upon movies. Faith should
be based upon inner strength.The faith which is based
upon miracles, movies, will go away as fast as it
originally came.
"Each person has to decide for himself whether following
Sai Baba is bringing in a positive inner
transformation."
"Watching movies, and miracles is not the answer.
"Arguing on the net will not resolve anything."
__end copy____
But you don't listen to Baba and don't
follow Baba and write page after page of
sometimes nasty replies to those who think
Raju is BS. Also, your nasty replies prove
another point that you are upset, instead of
in peace and tranquility. And the fact that
you do write so many letters in a negative
tone implies that you are not happy very
much. So, why hasn't Sai helped you with
that? I already know the answer, because its
your duty to change. I agree, but then why
should people go and see Raju if he can't
help you and you have to overcome a basic
problem such as not looking for criticism of
Baba on the net? That is the exact
hypocrisity that I am talking about, which is
found in all Sai devotees.
I listen to my conscience and then do as I think best. Swami has
assured me that is apt. Why you deduce he advises otherwise, may
example why you are confused. As to what you call my `nasty
replies', I do not initiate
conversation with men like you, and so when I am spoken to rudely, as
you did speak to me in your first online letter to me, I make it
clear I do not brook
bad manners, knaves, gossips or villains who draw my attention. I
again point
out that you addressed me first, bubba, not the other way around.
I am however glad we agree that it is not the duty of Swami
to effect change in persons, but rather is the
individual's. As for why folks `should' go and see
Sathyanaryana Raju, aka Sathya Sai Baba, why that too is up
to the individual. (Or did anyone _make_ you go, Said?)
As for hypocrisy, your understanding of the word is
somewhat unique, in that it apparently means any devotee.
Counter your claim, Said, not ALL (nor even many) devotees
are as you assert. I suggest you simply see in others, what
you have not understood in yourself, or worse, that what
you hate in yourself, you project unto `all the Sai
zombies.' Since you have described yourself as a zombie, I
am not surprised you at hate. For myself I find your
situation unfortunate, but not laudable. I also find you
in no wise eager to change your situation.
What kind of studies have you done
since you don't even examine the
movie "God lives in India", which is
probably sitting on your VCR box?
Said, my studies can be found in more than nine thousand
online articles between October 1990 and December 1996.
hey include confirming what I see in a movie, via real life. Your
studies
appear to be based in negating real life in preference for movies.
And what kind of truth seeker are you
if you don't even examine something
that is to be a major proof? Tell us
how you went about getting your
"experience and study"?
"Us?" You say `tell us', as if you were a biblical demonic legion or an
appointed spokesman for some group. (How many people are you, Said?.
How many people use your account?) At any rate I will tell you how I
examine and get experience and do study: by living what I believe in,
consciously, day by day, and by examining my every assumption and
conclusions as it arises in the light of my conscience and intellect. In
terms you might understand that means when I am angry with Sai, I tell
him about it, and when I have doubts, I tell him about it, and when I
understand, I find he knew that long before I did.
However, those who wish to examine Sai for character flaws
or for virtues, without ever meeting him, based only on a
movie or a story online or gossip, may certainly do so if
they find that beneficial. For myself, I suggest reality is
better served by seeing him directly, studying his teaching,
seeing how he examples that, so as to fully examine one's own
day to day life in his presence, and to note his day to day
life, both in outer appearance as well as in regard to his
teaching, to see if that has value or not.
Good idea, go and see Sai Baba but look at the
movies which show Baba cheating before you go to
India. Then see if he does the same thing
there. Then if you get an interview,
concentrate on his hands and see if he gets
something from the chair.
I concur: `good idea!' Get all the information one can, pro
and con, and then go see him up close and personal, before
deciding anything about him. That would be intelligent, and
honest too.
Apparently, Bon is suggesting that you shouldn't
listen to me and go to India and see Baba.
Not at all, Said. I am however ever suggesting you be
specific. Since you almost never are specific, I appreciate why you
are so offended with me. It must be quite a bother, having to
actually think through what you assumed so long ago and now
no longer will even look at.
However, he takes every chance to publicize
Baba, even over the internet where he has a (or
many) web page .
Every chance to publicize? huh? What a cruel and despicable
wretch you are. If devotees keep silent, varmints like you
claim they are silent because they are afraid.
" If you choose not to answer my questions here
"you prove my point that Sai devotees are not
"able to deal with certain questions which might
"result in them coming to conclusions such as
"Sai Baba MIGHT be playing with them for his
"enjoyment:
YOU said that., so if devotees however do reply to online criticism of
themselves
or of Swami, as I replied to your first snotty note to me Said, or
if scoundrels like Lane post slanderous drivel based only in
hyperbole, gossip or falsehood, if any devotees reply then like Said
the rascals claim devotees are `publicizing the Baba.'
See how since I put my opinions on *my* own webpage, the
fellow claims I am a publicist for Sai Baba! Said, either you
are very very stupid, or mean, or your vanity sucks. NO, that
is not so: you are vain, stupid, mean _and_ you suck.
So there.
Any who do as you have done, Said, any who pay attention to
stories, or to movies, or to hearsay or imaginings, as you
yourself brag you have done-- gets no actual experience, no
understanding, and no insight. Rather one gets what Said has:
'opinion', but I see his opinion is frankly more hysteria than anything
else, but bubbles up from such a depth of delusion that it strives to
present itself as if
"objective fact". Let me rephrase that: Said, you are a dolt.
Well, your opinions are facts, but mine
have no ground, they are just opinions,
right?
No you complete bumbling babbling bozo that is not what I
said. I said that each person does well to get direct
experience, not depend on my views or on yours, not on
movies for or against Swami, not on stories for or against
Swami. (I have made that clear, I hope?)
Your logic there is as twisted as it has
been throughout this reply. Let me make
one thing clear. Let everyone go and
see Sai Baba but let them hear both
sides, agree?
Of course. I go even further: let all request specifics,
not hearsay, of both sides. Let each person tell of
their own experience, adding nothing, deleting nothing.
Gossips however should be pointed out and then ignored.
That has always been my stance but of
course, I always argue that he is a
charleton.
Always been your... you are joking. Your stance has not been
to go and see him. Your stance has been that all `must watch
three movies because that is the truth.' No? Then please
tell me what you yourself experienced in his presence that
led you to deduce he is a charlatan. Please explain why
what you saw *in person* led you to deduce he was a holy man,
and how what you saw in a movie, led you to deduce he was a
charlatan.
I think Said errs terribly and grotesquely because he ignored
his own experience and instead believed a movie and then
never even asked Swami to explain. (If a skeptic were now to
read that a person did not believe in GOD until seeing the
movie called The Ten Commandments, I think this would be
clear why I say Said errs in choosing a movie over life.) I
suggest that for spiritual as well as social maturity, it is
helpful when each person EXAMINES one's own experience, not
others', and does not depend on movies for God's sake.
However I (again) don't say one should ignore men like Jed
or Said, only that one consider whether their experience and
conclusion is universal or particular. Their experiences are
clearly their own, clearly particular, and certainly deserve
attention. What also gets attention though, is how they have
flavoured their histories with assumption, hyperbole, and gossip.
I provide full proof fact that Raju is
cheating on "materializations" which
makes it irrelevant if other things
are universal or not.
_You_ have provided nothing, Said. You have instead yelled
again and again, 'hey look at this movie'. What about what
happened in front of your very eyes when Swami made your
ring? (By the way, did you appraise it?) How is it you choose
to believe what you see in a movie, rather than what you saw
in real life? As for calling a movie proof: do you know the
tv show about the medical team in a hospital emergency room?
Suppose I say to you, `I have seen that drama, and THAT IS
PROOF ALL SURGERIES ARE FAKE!!!'
In just that way, I find your `full proof fact' a sign you
are mad.
One thing, you are the one who
said that spirituality should be
examined individually and they
shouldn't care for anyone's story.
No, fellow, no, rather I said other people's experiences
should not be the basis of one's own faith. To me, the
worthwhile question is not so much whether Said or Jed are
accurate in their assessments of Sai's character, (since
opinions are just that, not universally agreed on as fact, so
while one person may find him selfish another might find him
selfless) but rather the question of value is "Why believe
or doubt anyone's character or teaching or life based on
hearsay in the first place?"
The more you talk, the more you mess
up. So, Raju's character is not
important.
No, you bumbling dolt, that is not what I said. I said that
what you or I say about his character is not what someone
else should base their decision on-- rather each person
should pay attention and determine his character directly,
via first-hand experience. You example why I say that, you
dolt. You are not only a gossip, but one of its victims, a
very crippled victim, unfortunately, but you chose it. Now
how would you like it if I insisted everyone think of you as
I do? Not fun, huh. Then why do you insist everyone think of
Sai in the way you do? Tell your story, add nothing, and
folks will make up their minds, then check him out and see
if what you say holds true for them as well, or not.
The man claims to be God, and yet it
doesn't matter if he lied!?!?!?
The man claims to be God and it
doesn't matter if he is a sexual
predator??!?!?
*If* is the key word, and yes of course it matters, which is
why I urge folks to find out, directly, *if* what you claim
is so, or *if* it is but your interpretation. I have also
encouraged folks to find out, directly, *if* what I claim is
so, or is just my own viewpoint. Why you bust my chops over
that, is well, weird.
And also, I am offering proof here,
movies, but then different movies,
made by three different producers
from India, South Korea, and
Netherlands is not proof to you.
Since you mistake movies, which can be edited to show a
miracle or a space invasion or sleight of hand, I suggest you
deserve your state of mind. Should you still not see your
error, then post the names of the movies and how one can
obtain them. I have linked all such
films, pro and con, at my webpage for some time, just so folks
can get em and see for themselves. But movies are not real
life, Said, and are not proof of anything, pro or con=-=they are just
aids.
Good going Bon, you convinced them
that they shouldn't listen to
anything anyone has to say and just
go and visit Baba for yourself and
later you convinced them that movies
are not the test of spirituality and
that in the spiritual realm, it
wouldn't make a difference what kind
of movie you see.
Hopefully the only thing I have ever convinced anyone of is
the importance of paying attention for long periods of
time. Anyone who reads my essays, hones that skill, I
assure you. But then, you seem to watch movies as if
scripture, while I watch movies for entertainment, Said. That
you watch them as a basis of your theology, is noted.
Why would anyone accept what Jed or Said or I say, is so?
Why not find out for oneself? I suggest one must find out
if one means to seriously examine such matters, rather than assume.
And I suggest to you and all
that they should look at these
three movies if they mean "to
seriously examine such
matters".
Since those films came out, I have linked those movies
at my webpage, Said, and had you ever looked, you might
have realized that is why I did not answer you. Time and
time again I signed off with my webpage address, and
various pages confirm at that site evidence I not only
have seen the movies, but encourage others to see them
too. That you did not read what I offered, then
complained I had not answered, then asserted I had not
seen the movies, convinced me you were just bonkers.
I think majority of non-devotees
who read this will agree with me
that the movies are a source of
investigation, but of course, to
you they don't prove anything
since they don't prove what you
want.
I have no concern what the majority or the minority agree
with. I am concerned however that you repeat over and over
what "Bon thinks" or what "everyone thinks", without in any
way showing how you arrived at your bogus conclusion. You
say I do not regard the movies as worth investigating, but I
say no such thing. Rather I say they can prompt further
study but ought not be considered as `full proof'. You
however call them `full proof', which tells me, again, you
are bonkers. Movies are not proof of anything, bozo. That
includes movies about `miracles' as well as about Space Invaders.
Clearly it is Said's stated view that Sai is a fraud. Yet
does that make it a fact? No. I say he is who he says he is,
but that is just my say so. Said speaks of his experiences
as if he had been in a sex-mad secret mafia cult of greed,
power and intrigue. Since I have been active in the same
organization for several decades, and have examined it and
the people involved in maintaining it very thoroughly,
directly, often, I am confident Said is deluded.
And your opinion is that Sai is not a
quack and his organizaition is not a
mafia? That's an opinion too and not
fact.
Yes, my opinion is as of much value as yours Said, until such
times as it is confirmed or denied, directly by the reader.
It is my direct experience that there is nothing "real" about
Said's claims about the ashram mafia and there is nothing
cultlike in Sai's organization- even though there may
certainly be nuts like Said around for a brief time, as there
are in any large spiritual organization. Due his own
description, it is clear that Said's "state of mind" is not
due the organization nor Sai, so much as due sad Said
himself. After all, Said describes very well his state of
mind, and I note he said he was "that way" long before
approaching Sri Sathya Sai Baba.
Here ends part three.
*+*
----------------------------------
From BONGIOVANNI@delphi.com Sat May 31 01:33:15 1997
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 04:33:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: reply to Said, part 4 of 4
Hello Said,
How is it you composed a 32k letter addressed to me, but did
not send it to me? Why send it only to Lane, if you expect me
to reply? For whatever reason you did that, I replied in
kind, and so sent my reply also only to David, as you did.
(By the way, this is part four of that four part reply.)
And your opinion is that Sai is not a
quack and his organizaition is not a
mafia? That's an opinion too and not
fact.
Yes, my opinion has exactly as much value as yours Said,
until such times as it is confirmed or denied, directly.
Meanwhile, I repeat that it is my direct experience that
there is nothing "real" about Said's claims about an ashram
mafia and there is nothing cultlike in Sai's organization-
even though there may certainly be nuts like Said around for
a brief time, as there are in any large spiritual
organization. I suggest therefore that Said's "state of
mind" is not due the organization nor Sai, so much as due sad
Said himself. After all, Said describes very well his state
of mind, and I note he said he was "that way" long before
approaching
Sri
Sathya Sai Baba. However, mad as Said is, this
`loin anointment' that Sai does, deserves frank open
discussion. (Should you wish, you could write Sai himself, and
ask him. He alone reads his mail, then burns it afterwards.)
Sri Sathya Sai Baba
Prashanthi Nilayam
Anantapur District
Andhra Pradhesh
India, 515134
If the Heaven's Gate followers thought
that they were in a cult, they would
not follow. Your claim that Raju's
organization is not a cult is good as
zero. You are brain washed to the
point that you have somehow convinced
yourself that the three movies - and
prehapse more - movies which show Raju
cheat are not important and that you
found the answer in yourself.
Said, what would you have others do? Be like you?
God forbid! If one sees day by day over decades that one's
father is a good man, then together we see a movie claiming
he is a bad man, would you want me to believe that movie
without asking my father about it? Would you want me to just
walk away from him and then mock him behind his back,
giving him no chance to explain?
Yet that is exactly what you did: you met the man and
believed he was holy, then saw a movie and believed he was a
hoax. You did not ask Swami to explain and did not even
bother to confirm your assumption. Now you mock him and scorn
all who admire him. Why you do that is of no concern to me,
but be assured, I will not be like you. No thanks. When I
have doubts, I ask those whose lives I admire to help me
understand. So far, that has served me well. Why in the
world then would I instead choose assumption as you have
done, when I can obtain specifics?
All you offer, Said, is assertion that he is evil, with
nothing specific to show how he is evil. I believe you
believe he's fake, but since you appear quite mad, goners,
insane-- then what you believe is of little value to me. (If
you mean to win folks over to your side, you might try
appearing at least sane, you know. Good manners too could not
hurt.)
That reminds me of another cult whose
leader raped the women and the
followers knew it.
Raped? That is horrible. If you have specifics, specifics
which prove rape and prove all the followers knew it was
rape but said nothing, then post them. If however your proof
is only some movie or blather you picked up on the net or a
yellow journalism tabloid, take your gossip somewhere else,
please, you absurd twit.
Thanks to Said's own words, I hope it is clear why I feel
that neither Sai Baba's character nor his teaching is the
cause of Said's bizarre state of mind. So what? So, each
of us must come to our own conclusion, and what I or Said or
Jed *say* is not of much real value in _your_ decision, that
is, it is not _if_ you use your noggin'. However, one may
of course deduce based on hearsay and appearances, instead
of direct observation and experience, if one wishes, or if
one must.
Three movies are heresay
to you? I think all can see your
twisted thinking. You prove my point.
Thanks. I feel the same way about you, fellow. Frankly I
think Said now examples his confusion rather so clearly that
no one need point it out further, and so I hope each reader
of this online Odyssey will use Said's example to avoid such
calamity.
Believe me they wont. Not
after your replies.
Er, will not learn from your example? Surely no one thinks
Swami is only what Said, or I, or Lane, (or you, dear
reader) think him to be. Any who do think that, need not
advise me, since I have no interest in such folks, save to
avoid them.
Your opinion above is nothing but
twisted thinking based on faith.
So you say, yet since I am not urging anyone to be like
me, so what? Besides, it appears to me that your own
Saidistic version of "twisted thinking" is based on
nothing so much as utter mental madness, Said. You are
bonkers, boyo, and you show it in plain view, over and
over, like a chained bear.
As an ex-Raju devotee I know what you
are thinking. It is the belief of
Raju followers that Raju is beyond all
people's comprehensions and so Bon
says "Do you think _____ is only what
Said, or I, (or Lane, or you) think
him to be?"
You clearly do not know what I am thinking, since you are
not able to report it with any accuracy at all. If you
would consider what _you_ do know, and stop assuming `what
all followers' believe, you might find solace as well as
insight sooner rather than later. However, if you keep
yourself hyped up and speeding along on mainlined
assumptions cooked up in ignorance from movies and gossip,
as you now do, you will only go further into madness with
that brand of addiction, fellah.
You yourself can find out if Sai Baba is or is not as Said
or Jed or I describe him, since he ever keeps his home
open to those intent on examining his teaching or his
person. Why not go and see before deciding? Isn't it
better to base a decision on research and observation
than blind faith like the Heaven's Gate comet heads or the Said thingee?
Raju is hiding things and he is
scared of people judging him.
Otherwise why wouldn't he let
Cameras and Camcorders to the place
he walks - darshan?
You assume Sai Baba is `hiding things', and you do not say
exactly what it is he is hiding. That implies you are
guessing, trying to pass it off as fact. In my view, he does
not allow cameras, tape recorders, binoculars, etc, because
he wishes those who come for darshan to sit in meditation,
waiting for him to come to them in silence, without
distraction. He does come to those who do sit silently in
meditation, you know. Also, since movies about him in the
past have led to a great many curiousity seekers coming to
gawk at miracles, sometimes even crowding out the spiritual
aspirants, and since all who were called by miracles have
now come, another chapter is opening, and a new group is
arriving daily: one that wants to see for themselves what
spiritual life looks like 24 hours a day, day in and day
out, after 71 years.
Recently Cameras are not
allowed after the Korean crew
exposed him.
By all means, tell the title of the Korean film, tell how to
obtain it, so all can see for themselves what you are on
about. Mumbling over and over without
specifics about the video, however,
serves nothing but your confusion, and is just another
public display of your mental masturbation, in my view.
They were fully
aware that the Koreans were
there and they must have gotten
some bad news from the Raju
followers in Korea so they
decided to not even let Cameras
in.
They "must have", eh? Piffle. Your guesswork shows you are
so accustumed to mistaking assumption for fact that you do
not even notice when you do it.
By the way the Korean crew
visited Whitefield where you
could use a Camcorder to tape
Raju, but now that's not
allowed either!!!!
That is correct. You also can no longer just walk up to
Swami and chat. (Things keep a changin', huh?). Guests in
his home long ago however could do many things that are
now long since ended. I call myself lucky to have known
him them. All however who persevere do find that what
does not change is Swami himself and the way he teaches
each devotee directly, one to one. One can confirm now as
I found then that one way Swami teaches is to bring doubts
*forward*, INTO EXPERIENCE, so they can be examined.
Bringing doubts to light is part of his job as a TEACHER,
as even Jed and Said example, albeit grudgingly. (Why Jed
and Said chose to not examine their doubts in his presence
and so enlist his aid, but to instead apparently privately
deduce instead Sai was at fault, is what Lane's page
serves to focus on.)
Is that supposed to justify
everything? Brigning doubts
forward? Is that supposed to
justify Jed and my position
now?
Said, it appears to me you are trying to justify your
confusion by blaming it on Sai or on me or on anyone who
does not cater to your frenzy, but no, I was not trying to
justify anything. I was replying to the fact both you
fellows let assumption determine your views, even though
you both had repeated chances to ask Swami directly what
obtained. Yet you both chose to *not* ask him, and you both
chose to blame him for your own resulting confusion and
assumptions. I have asked you both to explain why you did
that. In reply, you both waffle.
I have a new theory, a
teacher could give their
followers peace of mind - as
suggested by all religions - so
that doubts will not have a
chance.
Yes, lazy boys like you have ever said to GOD, `hey, do this
my way, or piss off!' Perhaps that arrogance is why Jed and
Said and Lane view their articles as exposees of Sai Baba,
but I see it as exampling their inability to consider
personal responsiblity. After all, no one made Said or Jed
seek out Sai Baba. No one made them study with Swami. No one
charged them any fees or dues, and no one made them go into
interview, or stay, or leave-- yet they blame Sai as if he
somehow tricked them. Rather I see they tricked themselves,
and now they are angry to find that out. They seem
convinced a spiritual guide can act only as they wish, poor
fellows. No wonder then they are furious with Sai Baba, for
he fits no mould whatsoever.
Very irrelevant and baseless,
try again.
No, since your mind is so set in concrete taking you ever
deeper feet first to the bottom of the sea of samsara,
trying is not my choice, Said; I will instead, do.
You say "No wonder
then they are furious with Sai
Baba, for he fits no mould
whatsoever", and you are so sure
that you have found why we are
furious, which is nothing but
twisted thinking again, based on
faith.
On the contrary, I am unsure why you are furious, but have
asked, many times, for you to say. I notice however you do not.
'Sai is God, so he couldn't
have done anything, so the
problem must be coming from Said
and Jed.
You have called on that argument many times. I however have
not.
Now lets see how they
got to be how they are! They
are pissed, because, because,
beca, oh I got it, they are
pissed because their
expectations were not fulfilled.
Or, they fulled themselves into
believing in Raju and now they
are really, really pissed about
it. I have to prove this point
to everyone and at the end I 'll
say "No wonder then they are
furious with Sai Baba, for he
fits no mould whatsoever." Try
again Bon.
There is no reason for me to try. The fact you do not say
why you are angry, suffices to deduce you cannot say, due
your ignorance or shame or both. Unlike such men I find
that just as the teacher brings
doubt into light, so it is the student's job to deal
with such doubt, and to ask the teacher directly to help in
all ways whenever needed. I have done so, which is why I
posit that spiritual students do well to ever examine doubt, not
flee it, and so will of course themselves come to see the
ORIGIN of doubt, and thus develop strength of character and
independent thinking. Such sincere students blame no one,
and complete their education.
OK, so you are saying that when we
see three movies, we just go to
Raju and kiss his feet and cry and
ask him to help us overcome our
doubts about him cheating and ask
him to "help in all ways whenever
needed"?
Why do you go overboard like that, Said? I did not say
anything about kissing feet or crying, but even that may be
applicable for those who feel it valuable. What I said
however, is that I found it useful to ask him directly. You
however only complain behind his back.
Of course he will scorn
you for having doubts and will
tell you of a way of controlling
your doubts.
Was that your experience? If so, say so. Even if it were,
why do you assume it will be so for all? Sometimes Swami
has gently corrected me, sometimes he has explained
patiently, and sometimes he has growled at me as if I were
too stupid to deserve an answer. All his replies helped
me, and I am grateful, accordingly. I found early on that
placing blame on others, does not lead to insight or
independence. However, when Swami was responsible for my
confusion, I pointed that out to him and demanded he
resolve it. At one point on one key issue I spent twelve
years arguing with him, so when you Jed or anyone asserts
`noone can say no to the guru' I wonder where they got
that idea. I notice Jed did not say where, though I asked.
It appears to me that you lads seem to have not only not
read Swami's teaching, you also never used him in the way
he said devotees were to use him: as a servant. Why you
did not do as I have done, is not my concern, nor do I
suggest any do as I have done. Each devotee has a unique
relationship with Sai, and must find that out directly. I
do suggest however you explain why you did not ask him,
directly, but only for your own insight.
Do you get the point Bon? What if
one day we see the teacher killing
someone and we just leave and come
back and ask for his help to
overcome our doubt?
If one day you see anyone commit a crime or an immoral
act, respond accordingly, as best you can. Do not however
come online and complain about it when you did nothing
at all at the time, please. You had seven chances to ask
Swami what was going on, yet asked him nothing at all
about what you now complain of. Why is that, Said?
It is much harder to see those
movies and face your feelings and
all the thoughts than try to find
a reason to justify what you have
seen.
Yes, I agree, confronting doubt in the mind is hard, but
not as hard as letting assumption salve one and then not
looking any further. I prefer the truth, and so suggest
all leave off assumptions of all kinds. The best way to
do that, is first, stop gossiping.
It is much much harder than your
experiences with doubt and ORIGIN
of doubt. The way you deal with
doubt is to suppress it if you
can't answer it, you call that
strength of character and
independence thinking?
I have never suggested anyone suppress doubt. On the
contrary, Said, I have urged all to examine doubt and its
origin. Since you instead are ever misstating my words,
that suggests you are, well, bonkers. Facing one's doubts
with integrity and courage is how one becomes free. It is
not easy, not a joy ride, but is essential among those who
have doubts. This voluntary transformative process itself
leads to real tapas, or the heat of insight. That in
turn provides genuine growth towards independence and
confidence and maturity and wisdom. Neither Said nor Jed
seem to appreciate that, (in fact, they rebel against it
and seek to blame Swami for _their_ refusal to ask him
about it). How is their conclusion, about him? I say it is
rather about them. If they had talked about their
experience with him, expressed their doubt to Sai, he
could have helped them. They chose instead this course.
That stubborness of theirs is for the most part the cause
of their pain, and is what they show in their anger, in my
view. I also notice they prefer to cover it with claims of
sexual abuse by Sai, but since they appear more captives
of hyperbole, innuendo, and gossip than actual victims of
fraud or sexual abuse, I look more closely than their
emotional cries might lead others to do. Your mileage of
course may vary.
More twisted thinking based on
faith. How can you be sure that
Raju didn't touch us in a sexual
way?
Why, based on your own descriptions! Neither of you
claims to have been aroused sexually, you know.
Did you read his mind or did
you feel his feelings? Has he
ever done it to you? Or are you
talking from 'Sai is God,
therefore he has no sexual
feelings'?
Sages read minds, but only in order to serve others, not
to confuse them, Said, but no, I did not read his mind or
his feelings, rather I read _your_ description. Your words
do not suggest lust in Sai, so much as delusion in you.
Answer these questions
also, specially the last one and
prove to everyone that you are a
man of clear judgement!
Your way of corresponding and daring is so trite, I have to
really call on my manners just to even insult you; I have
no concern for what `everyone thinks', you silly fellow.
In effect I find such men as you who chose for your own
ulterior motives to stop looking inwardly as Swami urges
his students, but "chose" to look out at movies instead,
then start blaming others based on your assumptions, to be
but moral cripples.
The same can be said about you but
to a much higher degree. Lets see
you accuse us of having assumptions
about Sai but yet you wouldn't
investigate the movies. If you are
the man of facts, look at the
movies.
It is true I am a cripple. The difference however is that
unlike you I do not blame anyone for that, and do not
parade my wounds, nor do I ask to make others crippled, as
you do. As for the movies you are ever chanting about, I
have seen 'em bubba, but hey, I thought "Spitfire Grill"
was better.
And oh, I had to deal with
a lot of inner turmoil while with
Raju and after Raju. I have dealt
with a lot of inner turmoils. If
your definition of dealing with
inner feelings doesn't match with
mine, then don't accuse me of not
looking inward.
I appreciate that, Said, and it is because you have finally
made clear your inner turmoil, that I have now addressed
you at all.
Your idea of
looking inward is to look at the
clear blue sky and say that since my
teacher says it is black, then it
is. You have no reasoning.
Since you have never shown me saying any such thing, but you
have called on that argument dozens of times, I deduce you
are not replying to what I actually say, but only what you
want to mock. Why then would I continue? My point has
been that any so-called judgment which is more dependent on
what one ASSUMES, as Said has ever implied his decision was
based, rather than on one's own experience, is not conducive
to spiritual insight, (and in Said's case is also not
particularly sane).
I also notice that Said's description of the 'Hindu ritual'
he endured SEVEN times at Swami's hands, yet which he never
asked Sai even ONCE to explain, makes him sound like he is
built like an Arabian horse, and almost as smart. (To
wit, I don't believe Said's description. To me it sounds way
"embellished".)
Self explanatory. Bon is
brain washed and only sees
what he wants to see. The
ritual, of which he is aware
of has nothing to do with
the dick.
Nothing to do with dick, eh. Sorta makes you wonder what
Lane is on about then, when he talks about `why Sai is rubbing dick'?
But Bon has decided to think
of it as a ritual.
Said, I call it a ritual, you call it a ritual, sometime
you call it a ceremony. Is there so vast a distinction? I
think not.
In my first private interview, Baba did a
ceremony which is supposed to be sacred in
Hinduism and is done to all the followers by
their gurus. This practice involves the guru
putting oil on his hand and pushing his hand
upward between the front testicle and the back
area. That area is supposed to be a special
area which is very important to spiritual
practice of the devotee. This action is
supposed to awaken this area, which is
supposedly full of energy, which will then play
an important role in the thought of the
devotees. In my case, it was more of the
opposite and my thoughts were never changed for
the better. I was getting worst as time
passed.
Yes, you are getting worse, that is so, but perhaps your
children will not inherit it. Gee, do you suppose Sai was
killing varmints in your sperm sac, Said?
And what
made you think that I or
Raju - whomever you are
refering to - is built like
an Arabian horse? Do
Arabian horses turn you on?
They sure have lots of
muscles. But a sick mind
doesn't care if its an
Arabian horse or an ass.
Sick? Gosh Said, I was ribbing you about how _you_ claimed
your "thing" is so big!
"He couldn't get me hard so all of a
sudden with anger and an angry face he
threw my thing up against my stomach
and with an angry face he turned his
back to me."
Wow. Big limp "thing" you got there, fellow, surely as big
as a horse for him to heave ho, swing up your flacid member
and somehow hit your belly. (Must be enlarged due all that
single-hand exercise you gave it, eh?) So why did you
include that little, sorry-- that *massive* stud-like detail
about yourself, if not to brag? Well, bragging deserves
being ribbed about, ya know, so there.
That levity over however, it is important to note that both
Jed and Said have described themselves as flacid, not erect
during this ceremony Sai performed. I ask the men and
women reading this who are familiar with adult sexuality,
where one can witness a hand job that leads to no erection
on hot teen age boys?
How about in a doctor's office? Sounds to me like Said
experienced all the carnality of a doctor's exam, which he
later has interpreted to be lust, but with no erection. As
for why Said nor Jed NEVER ASKED SWAMI TO EXPLAIN, who can
say? Maybe there were not only flacid, but tongue-tied
too. (Unlike those fellows, I urge all to ask the teacher
to explain any action they do not comprehend. I notice even
they say they were given ample chances to do just that,
BUT DID NOT ASK).
Good suggestion. Watch to
movies, then take them to
him, and ask him. You well
know how Raju will react,
the same way he did to the
one American student.
Said, why do you assume that? Did seeing Swami appear angry
when he made vibhuti one day in darshan, lead you to decide
never to risk facing that anger? If there is some other
reason please tell it. Meanwhile I will note that spiritual
life requires great integrity and courage. If you run from
Swami in fear based on what you saw him do with another
person in public, I regret to inform you are a coward.
Sorry, but heroes only can succeed in spiritual life.
But then, this chat helps folks learn to discern that, by
showing how we each see fact and fiction. It sure shows that
that spiritual life with Sai Baba is not a Charleston Heston
movie. This online back-and-forth then is useful if it leads
the reader to consider such things with care.
I thought you didn't
like Professor Lane's
web page where these
chats as you call them
are posted. You
criticised his
postings and what he
is trying to do but
now... What
hypocrosity!
Your use of the word hypocristy, Said, examples that you
have no idea what it means, nor what I think. I have
corresponded earlier with David on this very matter he is
now hyperventilating about, and deduced then he is but a
spiritual surfer, and is a man intent on mocking all paths
save his own. I have a hunch he wants to be able to write
like Peter McWilliams, but cannot.
Because of exactly the same kind of outrageous nonsense
such as Dr. Lane now posts in Usenet fora, utterly
fabricated assumption based on innuendo, not fact, I gave
up all chat in usenet. Folks were using anon accounts to
post lies, and dolts like Lane were quoting them as if
gospel. So, no, I do not "like" David Lane in that I do
not admire his scholarship nor his zany gossip. I do
however appreciate his willingness to use all controversy
to draw readers to his site, but then I believe he does so
only in hopes visitors will read his own tirades. I think
that is why he places these threads between Eckankar and
the other pet peeves he has, without any chronoligical or
thread order.
Should you wish to consider more views of Said, I offer
them below, content they example his insight and balance,
and so require little further comment from me.
Subject: Re: Does Sai Baba's Life Fulfill Ancient Prophecies?
From: DEEPSPACE10@msn.com (Said Khorramshahgol)
Date: 1996/07/29
Message-Id: <00002112+0000ff95@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
[More Headers]
Bon Govani writes:
>Said Khorramshahgol writes:
>>so far as one already believes that Sai Baba is the >>reincarnation of
>>Jesus Christ or the Omnipotent Supreme Being >>Incarnate, one will have
>I do not know anyone who `believes' Sai is the >reincarnation of Jesus
>of Nazareth, and I suggest that Beyerstein has not >understood what is
>meant by an incarnation of the Omnipotent Supreme >Being. Those with
>due study of Indian theology, might find that every >person in an incarnation
>of the Omnipotent Supreme Being, if one obtains >Adwaithan
experience that is.
>Having stuided Beyerstein's book, I find that he >suffers from the same
>disease that mant True Believers endure: he looks for >one point of view,
>and finds that, then deduces that view is the only one >that obtains. Thus
>those who look for the good, see good- and those who >look with doubt as
>their primary illumination, find ever more doubt. >Better than that is to
>see what is. That means one does well to let go of >hagiography AND of
>suspicion, and just observe, sans assumption, sans >presumptions, sans
>expectation.
>To those who have done so, Sai has proven himself to be >more than assumed,
>presumed or expected. That does not mean one must bow >to him, or even
>acknowledge him- it does mean one must examine him and >his teaching
and his life
>first hand.
I like to suggest that baba said that he was the second coming of
which Jesus talk of. However, he says that Jesus said "He who sent
me will come" which is contrary to what is believe: that Jesus
himself will come. But then he says Jesus was God. There is a big
contradiction here.
Also, isn't it that if Jesus is God, and baba is God, then baba is
Jesus? So, Bon, your argument is not valid.
> Those with
>due study of Indian theology, might find that every >person in an incarnation
>of the Omnipotent Supreme Being, if one obtains >Adwaithan
experience that is.
If one does not obtain Adwaithan experience, then you are not really
one with the OSB?
>Having stuided Beyerstein's book, I find that he >suffers from the same
>disease that mant True Believers endure: he looks for >one point of view,
>and finds that, then deduces that view is the only one >that obtains.
Actually, you are wrong Bon. He has many points in his book. You
seem to not have read his book or if you have, you look for one point
such as:
>>so far as one already believes that Sai Baba is the >>reincarnation of
>>Jesus Christ or the Omnipotent Supreme Being >>Incarnate, one will have
and try to attack his whole book by that. Plus, what makes you so
sure that you are a true beliver since you cannot even put to
practice such a simple teaching as forget about criticism of me as
baba preaches? Plus what makes you think who you are following is
the real teacher? So, your point above is just your opinion and not
a fact.
>Thus
>those who look for the good, see good- and those who >look with doubt as
>their primary illumination, find ever more doubt.
Actually, many have given a chance to baba, tried to find something
good, then found something shity. If these people would have stayed
with baba trying their best to see something good, then they would
have fooled themselves. They could stay and stretch their minds to
limits and find something good to something like why did baba touch
me in seven private interviews. But that would be fooling
themselves. They could stay in face of all information like movies
that show baba cheating and many american students who saw him
cheating. But that would be fooling themselves. Some things are not
worth the faith. Sorry to say, you have taken that path:
>Better than that is to
>see what is. That means one does well to let go of >hagiography AND of
>suspicion, and just observe, sans assumption, sans >presumptions, sans
>expectation.
If you want to "observe, sans assuption, sans presumptions, sans
expectaion", then watch "God Lives In India" and go to india with an
open mind and watch to see if Baba is really cheating or not. I
think you should since you say:
That does not mean one must bow >to him, or even
>acknowledge him- it does mean one must examine him and >his teaching
and his life
>first hand.
And in the light of new information, you should really examine him.
__
Subject: Re: Need help/information
From: "Wolseley B. Shoninger"
Date: 1996/07/23
Message-Id:
Newsgroups: alt.self-esteem
On 18 Jul 1996,Said Khorramshahgolwrote:
> I have been through alot forthe past 2 years, and so i am
> struggling with self esteem.I used to be very bad to the point that
> i couldn't look at people's eyes and worst, their direction.I felt
> very bad about myself. Hasanyone been through self esteem
> problems or has anyone any suggestions for me? Please let meknow.
> Thanks.
>
Forgive yourself. Forgive the past. What has gone before is
not important, See the potential of who you may become, as
youdesire. Know and accept yourself as you are - we all fall
shortof our true potentials, - it is in the striving that we
are fulfilled.
Yet, your worth to the universe is incalculable, as you are.
- As you are, you are enough
- WBS
Subject: Re: SATHYA SAI BABA: A CHEAT
From: Kabeer Punjabi
Date: 1996/06/29
Message-Id: <31D60DE3.27AA@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
[More Headers]
Said Khorramshahgolwrote:
>
> SAI BABA IS ACHEAT.NEW MOVIES ARE OUT WHICH SHOW HIM CHEATING HIS
> MATERIALIZATIONS.
Gentleman,
I am not his follower, either. Did he ask you to follow him?
Provide details and others will stop following him but mere
accusations do not mean anything in this world!
Kabeer
Subject: Re: Can Sai Baba Perform Miracles?
From: Bon_Giovanni EarthSpirit.org
Date: 1996/07/28
Message-Id: <55ENHDZ.bongiovanni@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
[More Headers]
Said Khorramshahgol writes:
>88 - Sai Baba's Excusefor Refusing ScientificTests:
One's choice of words, and presentation, can reflect intent. Calling
an explanation, for example, a REASON, suggests one agrees; calling
an explanation an EXCUSE, suggests one does not accept it as valid.
88 is an artillery weapon of the Second World War, and
Beyerstein is not peacefully presenting facts sans bias, but
is active in trying to inculcate doubt in the reader.
I posted my views of one of those chapters (the one about
materializations) in the thread itself.Any who wish to
entertain my views on the balance of Beyerstein's acrobatics,
might note I have discussed such matters for several years in
another thread in one newsgroup, and so may attend there or
not as they wish. I am ever open to discussion about Sai or
his teaching, at soc.culture.indian, in the thread entitled
SANDEHA NIVARINI Sathya Sai Baba Dissolving Doubts
Any who wish conversation on this topic, may address the
issue there.
By the way, the topic is not new; those who have accessed
either of my home pages, have found a link to Dale
Beyerstein's book.
All best wishes
*+*
http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/index.htm
Subject: Re: Physicist calls Sai Baba a Transcendental Phenomenon.
From: Bon_Giovanni EarthSpirit.org
Date: 1996/07/28
Message-Id:
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
[More Headers]
Said Khorramshahgol writes:
>I don't think you are looking for evidence Bon. If you were, you
>would look at the evidence that i gaveyou before. I told youto
>look at "God Lives in India".You still haven't gotten back to me.
- --
I have not gotten back, because you base your entire argument
on a movie. If you believe what you see in movies, good for
you. If you doubt what you see in movies, even better.
I did not come to believe in Sai because of any movie showing
him create this or that, or say this or that. I came to
believe he is who he says is, based on my own direct
experience.
If you believe in movies, or want to discuss movies, try
INDEPENDENCE DAY. I have ignored your frequent requests
because you have shown yourself to be not only upset, but
(in my view) silly.
I trust that is clear.
Now, since you have posted
Dale's books, at least there is something to discuss!
Thanks for the opportunity.
http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni
http://www.atmapress.com
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
Evenas the spider creates its web from within and
withdraws itinto self when needed, even as the vast
diversity oflife supportingplants and herbs grow
abundantly on the earth, even as cranial andbody hair
grows on theliving human, the universe arises from the
Immutable Divine.- Mundaka Upanishad
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
*+*
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Sat May 31 06:23:37 1997
To: JGeyerhahn@aol.com
Subject: Re: Dave loves. Bon basques.
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-9,12-22,24-31,35-36,38-40,47-55,57-58,61,
63-64,69-75,78-93,99-106,109-116,123-130,135-146,152,154-163,
165,167,170-187,191-198,200,202-221,223,227-236,238,240-241,
245-251,253-272,276-284,286-307,310,313-318,320-327,331-337,
340-355,358-363,365,367-372,376-383,392-397,403-412,416-422,
430-437,440-446,450-455,459-462,465-476,478-482,489-503,505-515,
517-534,536-548
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 09:22:25 EDT
Status: RO
Hiya
Jed, I received your letter of Sat, 31 May 1997, and immediately took
to heart your caveat:
> Beware, I am charged up. I have not seen propaganda like this since
>being a
>Sai Devotee, and it is truly a test of my own faith to pay it any
>esteem.
Yes I will take care, but even then I am duty bound to thank you for
taking the time and effort to reply, since it riled you so much and you
overcame that. "Thanks, Jed".
>[...] I will try to agree with him
>for the
>sake of debate and allow that "the whole purpose of spiritual
>disiplines in
>all religions: (is) to learn to clear the intellect and intuition of
>assumption so a spontaneous experience can be apprerceived directly."
>Those
>who succeed, find the truth." Bon, this is a marvel of a sentence.
Aw shucks, t'weren't nutthing special, [kicking up dirt] ba duh ba duh,
but thanks Jed.
> However, to apperceive, is to
>take in
>and understand in the light of what is already known. (I'm quoting
>Webster's
>Dictionary)
Really? Well then no wonder you do find it silly, fershure dude,
especially since "to apperceive" does not mean "to perceive with the
bias of knowledge" at least not according to The Random House Unabridged
Dictionary, pge 72, 1966 edition.
" 1: to be conscious of perceiving; comprehend.
2: to comprehend [a new idea] by assimilation
with the sum of one's
previous knowledge and experience."
Seems to me that rather than comprehending WITH any bias, apperception
is instead to be conscious of the perception, sorta like a witness, and
is also like unto cognizing without bias an occurrence in such a way
that it aligns frictionlessly with one's previous knowledge as a whole,
ie not as divergent or unrelated parts, and not in confusion or need for
distinctive confirmation. But hey, you are the philosophy graduate with a
classic '96 Fordham Fairlane 500 degree, so feel free to correct me.
>[...] You write we should see "without a priori assumption."
>Something that
>is a priori, is not an assumption. You should really brush up on your
>Kantian
>literature, and perhaps ustilise a dictionary from time to time.
Good idea. op cit page 74:
"1: from cause to effect; from a general law to a
particular instance; valid
independently of observation.
2: existing in the mind prior to and independent of
experience, as a faculty or character
trait.
3: not based on prior study or examination;
nonanalytic
So, dumb as I was to say it Jed, I suggest an a priori assumption, is one
that is not based on experience or study or analysis, but is based in
unexamined habit, , period. ( Sort of like using an adjectival noun, ya
know, that apriori assumption stuff). But hey, thanks for explaining I
was wrong.
>Anyway, you
>seem to want to say that we can alter our perceptions, and that I have
>in the
>case of Sai Baba.
Really, you thought so? Actually I thought I was suggesting that folks
tend to see in him what they want, until they want nothing at all, and so
see him rather more clearly then. Of course, your mileage may vary.
>You leave the possiblilty open that I have seen
>what has
>actually taken place.
Sure.
> However, you inform us that different people
>seeing
>Sai Baba simultaneously report different perceptions. I have heard
>this
>before in Sai circles. It's as if Sai Baba were doing two different
>things
>at once.
Heard it? Hell Jed you example it. Maybe it is Sai doing different things
at once, , but maybe too it is just that folks are so taken with their
own prefences and repulsions, those affect their judgments so they focus
on different aspects, and miss others. Getting rid of those filters
proves helpful, doncha think? At any rate, I hold that is how one
apperceives, ya know-- better without ragadwesha, Jed.
(Er, you do know what
ragadwesha is, doncha?)
>One thing for one person, and another for someone else. I'd
>love
>to see some evidence for this.
Again that implies you have never experienced it. Ok. Noted. Next time we
are in person together, I will look around for any evidence of that at
hand, and say HEY JED, 'DJA SEE THAT? Until then, well, what?
> Or is it perhaps like when 3 people
>see an
>automobile accident and report three different stories.
Yeah. Sorta. For example there was this
GURU BUSTER film on telly, and the next few weeks in sci.skeptic
(cool huh, sounds just like sai.skeptic) all these maha super-rational
[cough] skeptics wrote about how great the film is and what they saw, yet
each of them writes different `facts'. When I pointed out they did not
agree, apparently because they each saw different things in the same
film, they fried me for eight months. Wonder why? Must be that old razzle
dazzle ragadwesha, huh?
> Now I don't
>think
>you would want to argue that the automobiles do one thing for one
>person, and
>something else for the other.
Since this is somewhat a familiar subject to me Jed, and since all the
trees in that particular forest were cut down long ago to make room for
NASA, and every single damn tree vanished in utter silence, I have no
wish to picnic there, but thanks for the offer Jed. (That is my way of
saying this holds no interest for me.)
> Here the problem is simply a mistake of
>facts
>by someone. The accident did take place, somehow. Determining how is
>not so
>simple. You seem to be implying that either A. I misperceived the
>sleight
>of hand of Baba, or B. that Sai Baba somehow acted one way in front of
>me and
>another way in front of someone else simultaneously.
Ah now that is interesting. Since I did not imply that about you, it is
somehow grand you came up with it on your own. Who do you suppose that
`someone else' who perceived the event diffferently, is? I certainly
never mentioned any such person, so since this is your hypothesis, wanna
flesh it out? See, Jed, I was not implying you personally misperceived
or apperceived, just that you assumed a great deal.
For example, you assumed the watch was not materialized in the other
room.
>If B is the way
>you
>suggest, then the goals of religion have a problem. How can one
>perceive
>truth correctly if it's not even clear that it is same for two
>different
>people.
A, B, Blah blah. How can one perceive truth correctly, is your question,
right?
If it is, then first please define `correctly' . The point is, look at
your assumption.
Then determine the subject of that assumption, for that is how one
perceives truth correctly: directly, personally, immediately-- and
without prediction, ie without
a priori assumption.
> If the wind blows west for one person and east for the other
>all at
>once, which way is it actually blowing?
Depends on _you_, don't it? (Or were you expecting a weather report?)
> Maybe Sai Baba is the
>exception of
>the rule. Yah, that works.
> This would explain how Baba would show "what one does not see in
>oneself" and what the other person doesn't see in his or her self.
>The
>implication here is that my turning on Sai Baba is turning away from
>myself.
Er no, the implication rather was that you assumed this and that, then
convinced yourself your assumptions had to be correct, then added fiction
and gossip to that fabricated false hypothesis, and came up with your own
private forest of matchsticks, Jed.
So, ever thought about sitting Zen for a few years?
> I show that I don't want to see that I am a con-artist by turning on
>Sai
>Baba because I perceive he is one when he uses sleight of hand.
Did you see him do anything that could not have been sleight of hand,
ever?
Did you ever ask him why he does sleight of hand? Do you care? If not,
why all this hullaballoo masked in rational argument like:
> Ok
>Bon, I
>follow. I'm a con-artest trying to fool all the readers of this
>letter that
>Sai Baba is fake when in he is in fact true. He shows me this by
>being a
>con-artist when he really isn't. Yah, I can start to feel that
>religious
>enlightenment coming on that you tell me about. What is really nifty
>about
>this is equation is that Sai Baba can do no wrong. Hell, he could run
>around
>naked and we'd all be learing about ourselves. He could start raping
>people,
>and those people would learn that they're rapers and that they don't
>want to
>face that about themselves. That's a good one Bon. Works every time.
Your eagerness to go from hypothesis A directly through warp drive to
conclusion, is noted.
None of what you posit, holds, however, and none is what I suggested.
You seem either intent on building strawman arguments so you can play
with matches, or I have not been sufficiently clear, or you just are
stoked with ragadwesha, methinks.
Either way, your attitude does not prompt me to reply in depth.
> By
>the way, showing that I have misperceived/seen Sai Baba doing
>something that
>reflects my shortcomings is discrediting me; it is an ad-homonym
>statement.
Er, no: op cit, p18
"1: appealing to a person's prejudices, emotions, or special
interests rather than to his intellect or reason
2: attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his
argument."
Since your argument is based on what you call your vision and which I
call your assumption, pointing that out does not malign your character
but does address your argument, hence, per the dictionary, is not ad
hominem, Jed.
(But thanks for pointing out I was wrong.)
> I didn't think that I would have to show you this because you claim
>such
>insight to your own alterior motives.
Frankly I had to strain a bit to even find that blasted alterior mirror,
so please, help me out and _do_ show it, Jed.
> I am still very confused on an issue Bon.
You are conf--- er, no I will not say it.
>You write in one
>paragraph "I
>believe that every person who interacts with Sathya Sai Baba,
>experiences him
>(and what he says and does) differently than others do." Two
>paragraphs
>later you write "What he (Jed) describes as sleight of hand, others
>describe
>as miracle. What he describes as fraud, others see as reality. The
>event is
>the same for all, but the perceptions differ:" If the event is the
>same for
>all, how can everyone experience it differently?
But, er you already offered an answer: how is it three witnesses see an
auto accident, yet report it differently? How can everyone experience it
differently? How can keen-eyed skeptics see a tv show, then each one
report `facts' none of the others saw?
Ain't it just a marvel? I call it ragadwesha. What do you call it Jed?
> Doesn't it seem sort
>of
>strange that an event that is actually the same for all, would be
>experienced
>differently by everyone?
No. What would be strange would be to be among a group of people who
all agreed in their descriptions, to a T. Spooky, and way cool.
> In what way do you mean that it is the same
>for
>everyone? The only thing about the same event that is the same for
>everyone
>is that it is different for everyone. How close are you to the truth
>on this
>one Bon? You seem a little confused to me. Oh, I remember. I'm
>young and
>immature. You've managed to move further down the spiritual path and
>are
>"enlightened". Excuse me for my biased misperceptions. I must be
>just
>experiencing this argument differently than someone else reading this
>will.
Ok.
> Bon, you write that I am arrogant to say that Sai Devotees don't
>question Baba.
That is correct. You created a mental set in your mind, which does not
reflect reality, then built your deductions on your false hypothesis.
Better then to say
SOME devotees don't question Baba. Best however to say, you did not until
you busted loose in the opposite direction, action equal but opposite
reaction, etc.
> That doubting is a process through which one rid his
>or
>herself of of his or her doubts "to awaken to reality".
Yup, you got it! Alternatively some folks never exprience doubt at all,
lucky creatures.
>To go through
>with
>this process that Sai Baba has instigated, one has to trust that Sai
>Baba has
>instigated it, and that it is for his or her own good.
Piffle. All one has to do is examine the doubt, see whether it arose
from one's own consciousness, via experience (apperception, ya know) or
arose via the ear, ie, per gossip, or via the mind, ie imagination, then
follow the trail to the source.
> Bon, I ask
>you, how
>is one to doubt Sai Baba and rid his or herself of these doubts
>simultaneosly.
What a bitch, huh? Took me about 12 years to get that one, Jed. Would you
like me to hand it to you now, polished and juicy, or would you like to
earn it by your own efforts. or not have any at all?
>To doubt Sai Baba is to wonder if Sai is instigating
>the
>perception his bumblings and other shortcomings, and to wonder further
>that
>it is for one's own good.
Yup, you got it!
>To rid oneself of these doubts, one can't
>even
>doubt at all; one has to have the faith that it is the will of Sai
>Baba and
>his good heart.
Nope, you blew it. That is not `ridding oneself of these doubts', Jed;
that is ignoring them or painting them orange and calling them easter
eggs or lingams.
> I'm not quite sure that I undestand how one doubts
>and
>believes the same things simultaneously.
Of course not, since that is your hypothesis, not mine, and yours makes
no sense.
Making no sense is not a big deal, but what really sucks in your
hypothesis, is that it accomplishes nothing.
> I am arrogant for saying
>that
>devotees don't doubt Baba?
Sure, cuz if you were not arrogant, you would speak about yourself, not
ALL devotees-- and if you were at least not so assumptive a fellow, you
would speak of SOME devotees whom you actually know , but not the
artificial set `all devotees.'
> You say it yourself.
> You write that sometimes Sai Baba is a bumbler, using sleight of
>hand,
>but that when he produces larger objects he does not. Does he usually
>materealise just the big things and use magic for the smaller things.
I find there is no "usually" Jed, no set pattern as regards Sai, Jed.
none. Sometimes he makes miracles, sometimes he plays bozo. I dunno why.
I just know that everything he has done around me, has helped me pay
attention real good. Course, now that the Alzheimer is cranking up more
and more often, (and I had a stroke in 95, and it seems to have dulled me
brain somewhat as well, oh yeah, and I am going blind, and am told I
probably have an inoperable cancer) sometimes I cannot even remember my
name, but hey, right now I am keen enough to note your illogical fancy
footwork, fellah.
>wonder what the stats are and under what criteria he materialises or
>just
>uses magic.
Stats? As in records, reports, studies? Oh you are a kidder. No wonder
you are confused. YOU my good man have mistaken Swami for your Sociology
101 class instructor! The only stats around Swami, Jed, is what you
gather yourself. Even then, no one else will show any interest in them,
promise. ~stats" oy you are such a kidder, and if not a kidder, then
foolish. ( No wonder you liked
MODERN MIRACLES).
>You write "sometimes (objects) appear a few inches over
>his open
>palm, and one can see it forming just before it falls into grasp."
>I'm sure
>I've seen this before my desires bent my perceptions.
THEN GET THEE TO A DIFFERENT DESIRE DOCTOR IMMEDIATELY JED, but please
have someone else drive you there, AND GET A DIFFERENT RX!. Straighten
those perceptions before writing me again, please, and see if you can
remember what happened before you assumed you forgot!
> You admit that
>Sai
>Baba uses sleight of hand; it's only "sometimes" that he shows that he
>doesn't.
No, rather I *find* that swami does miracles and does sleight of hand,
and that there is no telling when he will do either, or why, in my view.
Sometimes it seems to be his sense of humour, other times it is high
drama, and sometimes he does just look a doddering Alzheimer victim. Yet
every time, I have learned something about reality and perception I did
not understand before, and each time he has confirmed that was the idea.
His role-playing skill is simply unique and superb, in my view, (but
hey, don't hesitate to show I am wrong, Jed).
> I'm going to assume that these sometimes, everyone perceives
>the
>situation differently, and that some people, the doubters like myself,
>are
>able to see how Baba performs this trick.
Oh piffle. Why concern yourself with what `everyone perceives, or even
with what some perceive? What a waste! Focus on what _you_ perceive, and
you may yet grok, Jed.
> I mean, I don't know how he
>would
>do such a thing, but according to you, everyone would see this
>differently,
I see you don't know, but remind you that I did not say, according to me,
that everyone WOULD see it differently. I said folks have reported it,
hence, SOME may. If you see no difference between some may and all would,
let me know, ok?
>and I would imagine that anyone who thinks Baba is a trickster would
>see Baba
>like that.
Sometimes. However, do not push it since I did not say one sees ONLY
what one wishes. Sai sometimes reflects, sometimes directs, sometimes
implies, sometimes examples. That you would like to peg him, predict him,
set him aside in a glass jar, then brag about it, is noted.
> I'm only trying to follow your logic.
Really? Seems to me no, you are not. You appeaer eager to establish a
set, so you can assume this and that in comfort about your own mental
fabrication, you arrogant rascal.
> You write that I did not experience a materialisation because I
>did not
>want to.
I thought I asked if that was the reason. Did I?
>Let me tell you Bon, I wanted more than anything in the
>world to
>see Baba materialise "something".
Got any rings on you, Jed? Ever ask him to make hot laddus appear in YOUR
hand? Ever say, I WANT THIS, BABA?
>This would have cleared up my
>doubts.
No no no, it would not. Doubts are not like Kleenex tissues. They do not
go away poof, with a sneeze. Doubts have to be examined, their force
understood, their roots located, and then , after one sees how closely
they are connected to one's own sense of reality and of identity itself,
only then one can begin to address them. Do not play about as if you can
remove doubts with a miracle from Swami Jed. It does not work like that.
Ever read SANDEHA NIVARINI?
> It
>seems to me a bad tactic of Sai Baba to create doubts to remove them,
>but he
>knows best.
Don't be snide. It only wastes both our time, Jed.
> You write that in the situation of the watch, where I saw Sai
>Baba
>hiding it, that I assumed that Sai Baba was hiding it wrongly. Let me
>explain myself. I assumed Sai Baba was hiding it because he made the
>familiar motion he makes when he is materialising something.
Earlier you said you saw it in his hand before that motion. At what point
did you cognize your doubt?
> Ok, Bon.
> I
>assumed wrongly. This was one of those sometimes that Sai Baba opted
>for
>magic because he had altready materialised it, but still wanted to put
>on a
>show like he was producing the watch right in front of our eyes. I
>buy that.
If you keep that snideness up, it might make things so dark I will not
even notice you.
> I can picture Sai Baba as a razzle dazzle sort of guy. "Why assume
>anything?" you ask. I don't know Bon, just seems sort of fishy to me.
Assuming nothing seems fishy to you? No wonder you are arrogant.
> You
>know, I'm one of those damned doubters. Hell, why should I assume
>that a
>hurricane that I perceive approaching is actually approaching. That's
>sort
>of dumn isn't it. I'm so unspiritual it's probably just a
>misperception.
Ever see a hurricane, vanish? Ever see any of your assumptions, vanish?
Wull then, do ya want to, pilgrim?
(The rest of your comments were so silly as to merit no comment., save
one :)
> Why didn't I ask Sai Baba Bon? BECAUSE I'M NOT THAT STUPID.
I see: "not THAT stupid." Ok. Buh bye.
(Again, thanks for the upfront warning. )
*+*
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
