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 Tue Jun 3 00:56:23 1997
Subject: Reply to Venu's Elucidated Comments
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-7,9,12-13,19-21,23,28-31,33,35-39,42-45,49-50,
60-66,73-74,77-80,82-85,87-91,96-100,108-109,112-115,121-122,
126-128,139-140,144-145,149-153,155-159,163-167,173-174,179-182,
187-191,198-202,208-209,216-217,221-222,225-231,243-244,249-251,
253-254,263-264,266-267,273-278,283-288,290-291,293-296,300,302,
308-309,311-312,319,324-325,327,334-335,339-340,342-347,349,351,
353,355-358,360,362,364,366,368,370-374,376,378,380,382-392,394,
396,398,400,402,404,406,408,410,412-414,416,418-427,429-430,432,
434,436,438,440,442,444,446-448,451-454,459-465,467,469,471-477,
479-480,482,484,486-488,490,492,494,496-498,500,502,504-507,
512-514,524,526-532,535-536,540-541,547-548,554-555,559-568,
570-582,584,586,591-592,594,598-599,607-608,613-617,627-628,
632-639,647-656,658,660,662,664,666-667,670,672-677,680,682,684,
688-694,696-702,704-705,709,712-715,718-719,723-724,732-735,737,
739,741,743,745-756
June 3, 1997
BonGiovanni@delphi.com
PO Box 6849
Beverly Hills CA 90212 USA
Pranams Sri Parthiban-ji,
I received your letter of June 2, and since it now appears online I will
not repeat it.
(Although the odds that Lane will post the reply in the same thread as
your letter, seem remote due his penchant for throwing articles about
willynilly).
Should any have not yet read your letter in this thread, I recall you
wrote me because I had noted how warmly David Lane had applauded your
earlier implications. I asked one or both of you to specify what in the
world you were talking about. Lane, as usual, did not address that
specific request in public, but you did, and so I thank you for your
sincere attempt to " clarify your 'implications':"
[Examples follow, via your quotes.]
(By the way, I reply to you so completely because you did show
sincere effort. Generally however, I find
there is
little reason to rebut such assertions as yours other than pointing
out they may be only supposition or fiction). Now however I ask that
you do evidence your so-called "facts" with specifics if you wish me to
address this matter further :
>Fact: Some alleged intruders invade the inner sanctum of sai baba.
As I understand it, facts are established via specifics, not by mere
implication.
You say that is "fact". So that I may clarify what I look for in fact,
I ask you to please do now specify these points, concisely:
fact: where that sanctum is located,
fact: when the event occurred (date plus time) and
fact: who was involved and
fact: how many people entered, telling their ages and genders,
what fact:means by which they entered, how, via what doors,
gates, etc, and
fact: why they did so, and
fact: how many left and via which exits?
At least then I could address specifics, but frankly now do not see
how any one could reply clearly to your vague generalized fuzzy
statements like, "Fact: Some one, possibly sai baba himself, call the
police".
Surely we can agree that a fact is a mite more specific than `some one
possibly'. Yes? If so, I ask you to SPECIFY exactly who called, tell why
such a call was made, and well, you know: SHOW SPECIFICS. Do tell
exactly who did call the police, when, and from where, to where.
Detail too whether the call was by phone, or via messenger, (what
specific person), or was it sent via carrier pigeon, etc-- then specify
when that call occurred, its duration, then show where that "call" was
from and to, i e, show the locations, so all can see how long it might
have taken the police to get from their station, to the so far
unspecified `inner sanctum'.
That is how one evidences FACT, is it not, Venu?
>Fact: Police storm into the ashram guns ablaze and shoot down these
>'invaders'.
Stormed, eh. GUNS Ablaze! My oh my. I urge you to please specify when
that occurred, detail the number of police, their weaponry, their path
of entrance starting with their journey from their site to the unstated
location, offering witnesses, telling too how is it so few were killed in
that 'storm of bullets flying left and right and to all sides as they
surged forward through the mists towards a bloody doom, as on, on, on
rode the six hundred', etc.
How many bullets, exactly, make for a ~storm~, Venu? (Evidence your "
facts" please, since what you have done I call but an overly dramatic
fiction, not fact in any wise.)
>Fact: These 'invaders' are accused of trying to assassinate sai baba.
What are the names of those invaders? And by whom are they accused?
Please, detail your sources, with precision.
>Fact: These 'invaders' are found to be un armed.
Who confirms that? Where are the witnesses, their names, etc? Do all
witnesses agree? Sources, please!
>Fact: These 'invaders' are also revealed to be members of the inner
>circle of confidants of sai baba
What inner circle? Says who? Composed of whom? Specifics such as *Names *
would be a sign what you say is in any way based on even so much as a
whisper of a rumour of fact, you know. So far it seems you are just
offering hypothetical fictions. (You have not even said where or when
your account is to have taken place, you know.)
>Fact: The FIR filed by the local police inspector is withdrawn by
>intervention from 'higher authorities'
So you say. I say it is therefore your duty then by all means to post the
report which you claim was filed by the local police inspector, (who by
the way is named, what?) as well as the date of that filiing, and tell
what happened to the carbon copies and say who those higher authorities
are... that is, if you wish to do more than post allegations that sound
like fictions and try to pass them off as, what did you call it, `fact' .
So far Venu you seem to present nothing more than soap-opera
vigilante-like guilt-by-annunciation fictions, not fact at all.
If you have no specifics, then do at least tell how you came by the
rather descriptive story you now relate, giving due credit to your
source(s).
>Fact: The entire case is covered up and no facts are made public.
You might as well say " the invasion by Mars which everyone knows took
place last Thursday" was also `hushed up' in exactly the same way. You
might at least offer SPECIFICS! Besides, as for covered-up, well, either
you are not `the public', or you are a grand detective, Monsieur
l'Inspecteur Clouseau, since you found the case `facts'. Unless of
course you simply made all this up,
_or_ unless you heard it or read it somewhere and then accepted it
with less than due skepticism as if `fact.' and have since added bits of
fancy to flavour the story as you passed it on, like an imaginative
gossip.
What other alternative is there?
I ask that since you offer NO SPECIFICS. None. So, if what you say _are_
facts, then by all means, post the specifics-- or at least do consider
why I say your `facts' as you call them, look very much like gossipy
pipedreams by a fellow whose idea of intellectual acumen is to post
fiction as if fact. ( In my view, not even a dime detective-thriller
fictional story could pass muster with so few specifics as you present.
No dates, no locations, no names, no witnesses, no specifics at all--
just unnamed villains and anonymous victims. Therefore I don't call your
treatise, `fact' -- but thanks to your `clarification' at least I do no
longer wonder that David Lane finds you cogent and charming.; he
examples your own "precision"!)
The way you describe things, Venu, makes it sound not so much like `the
entire matter was hushed up'-- but may rather simply have never
occurred! You might as well say that the invasion by Mars that took
place last Thursday was `hushed up' .
(I am only making a point clear. I am not saying the event you are trying
to describe never happened at all, but unless you *specify*, no one with
even a modicum of intelligence can possibly determine if you are
offering facts, opinions, or outright fictions-- so do specify, please.)
>Fact: The President of India at the time of the event was a very
>devote sai baba believer.
How refreshing: a fact; agreed. But what has that to do with your
otherwise thus far factless fantasy? Please, clarify.
>Fact: The Prime Minister of India at the time of the event was a very
>devote sai baba believer.
I see... well, do you know his name? Or am I to now deduce this tale of
yours then is not only a fiction, but is an analogy? Sorta like a
baseball game: top of the ninth, two men on base! Ok. Whatever. Two
actual facts. Next?
>Fact: The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh at the time of the event
>was a very devote sai baba believer.
Whew. Bases are loaded. Three facts in a row! If you wish to stop the
game for a cheer, you could name a few hundred other devotees and so
claim you have "hundreds of facts" . But surely, instead you will just
now step into the batter's box, and take your chances on the next pitch.
(You do not need a home run you know, even a base hit might suffice to
score).
But I see you never even approach the home base, much less take a
batswing. You instead never even show how this has anything do with an
event ( an event I remind you, about which so far you have not told
either the date, location, nor persons involved!) Instead you call TIME
OUT.
>Fact: There is no enquiry on the event.
What event? Please, tell, and then do specify what you mean by `enquiry'
and then show, via legal precedent, why such `an enquiry' was due and
what you mean by `none was made.' (Citing sources might help it at least
appear as if you had something more than mere assertion and mime
to offer, you know).
>Fact: Some months before the event sai baba presided over a public
>event attended by among other dignitaries, the Prime Minister of India.
AH, a flashback! (Is this a movie script starring sad Said and jetsam
Jed?) Meanwhile, if that `public event' has anything at all to do with
the first bloody event you started out claiming to `evidence with facts'
then please, do specify here the date, and the venue, the persons on
stage, and then show how that in any wise connects to the first stormy
issue you appeared to be addressing. (Or are you starting another
fictional story altogether?)
>Fact: sai baba receives a trophy/momento/gift from one of his close
>associates before presenting it to the Prime Minister.
"Factually speaking", Venu is it a trophy, or a gift, or what? Big?
Small? What color? After saying, then kindly name that `associate.' and
detail how it is you know this to be so, and show why it is unusual
that an associate, associates. Then, I suggest you might tell if you
did you see Sai Baba receive that item from that heretofore unnamed
`associate'?
Please tell: Were you present? Did you see it on telly then? well, did
you see it on film? Well then did you read about it? where DID you learn
of it? And did the person writing or telling you about it, actually see
it himself or herself in person? or did your source only see it on
telly? or only read it? or only learn about it as you have done? Please,
do supply the specifics, thus showing the ACTUAL SOURCE OF YOUR
UNSUBSTANTIATED TALE.
That way all can see if you are presenting evidenced fact or mere
hearsay, (or just fictionalized gossip). Meanwhile Venu, I ask if you
got your notion of these `facts' from scanning the online commentary
offered by Herr
Huber, a German devotee of that greybearded so-called guru of
Indian so-called rationalists, Sri Premanand, since your version
matches his own 'report'.
>Fact: sai baba gesticulates as he normally does before materialising
>things and presents a gold necklace to the Prime Minister.
>Fact: Doordharshan, the official Indian TV makes a routine record of
>the event for showing in the evening news bulletin.
Evening news eh? Oh. Venu, the "f" in the word "fact" should surely
stick in your keyboard now since you seem to have no idea what you are
talking about. If I err, kindly show when and where that `routine record
of the event' occurred. Meanwhile, due the venal "facts" you offer,
Venu, it doth appear you are not relating facts at all, so much as
writing a drama and acting out all the parts, weaving a fiction based
only on gossip derived from hearsay which you have, (for your own good
reasons no doubt), assumed must be factual, but which you seemingly did
not confirm directly. No? Then how is it you do not specify the SOURCE
of your tale? At the very least, by all means name the date and place
where "Sai materialized that item handed to the Prime Minister which
was duly filmed by Doordarshan."
Perhaps you do not specify since you have simply made up the event,
or mistaken it with another? No wonder then you `imply' rather
than specify. Like gossips everywhere, you apparently depend only on
vague allusion and unsubstantiated hearsay to imply this and that. No?
Then do give specifics, Venu, please.
>Fact: Doordharshan officials notice in the video clip, sai baba
>clumsily take the necklace from the base of the momento before palming
it.
Fact? You seem to not know a fact from, from, well from Said's overlooked
brother, since so far the only "facts" you have shown details the
political offices of two devotees. You assert unnamed `officials' noticed
something in a clip of an event you have not specified. Where was that?
When? Who are those `officials' at Doordarshan? Surely even you are
beginning to see that you are simply relating assertions based on
assumptions, not providing facts at all.
Is that how you example
`intellectual skepticism' ? (And David Lane actually applauds your
specificity- oh what a hoot!)
>Fact: Doordharshan censors the footage by orders from higher
authorities.
If you are quite sure of that fact, then do please name those
officials and the date of their action. Also do explain why they would
censor anything from a daily newsfilm. Do tell who those `higher
authorities' are and the dates all this occurred. You have after all
claimed that the Indian National News Service is subject to political
censorship and lacks even professional ethics.
Evidence that, please.
>Fact: The associate who handed over the momento to sai baba is one of
>the four shot down by Police at Puttaparthi.
Kindly name that associate, and then tell in what report(s) you
confirmed he or she was one of the victims of the event, an event of
which thus far neither date nor location you have yet specified. Also,
specify how many bullets were taken from the corpse, so as to confirm
your claim he (or she) was killed by police gunfire.
>Fact: The footage is shown in a documentary produced by Briton's
>Channel
>Four.
Which footage? And is that tv show then the source of your so-called
`facts'?
If so I can now appreciate your inabliity to distinguish fact from mere
vigilante guilt-by-annunciation-- that is, if you are referencing
Robert Eagle's film shown on Channel Four in the fall of 1996.
Did you actually see that film? If not, then perhaps you are just
talking based on hearsay and assumption? Or do you speak instead based
perhaps on the absurd blather of that cloyed and clever
fiction-writer
Sri
Premanand?
If the latter, I point out that the claims made by Premanand, are not
SHOWN in the Eagle Film. So, if your absurd tragedy of errors is based
instead on the Eagle film, then I suggest you at least see it before
announcing as fact what is in it. (From your `description' of the action
of the associate and of the recipient, it appears you did not see even
Eagle's film.)
What then, exactly, is the basis of your `facts'? Please, do specify,
if you reply.
You see Venu, I have read Premanand and have seen Eagle's opus, (and have
discussed it among some two dozen so-called skeptics) and so note that
your description is far from accurate. Besides, Eagle's film is at best
an op-ed piece showing his editorial opinion, while at worst it is a
propaganda film in favour of the [spit] so-called Indian Rationalists
[spit because the film shows them to be a rag-tag group of
arrogant westernized atheistic rabble-rousers, not skeptics] --
but whatever they are, the film is certainly not a documentary.
Documentaries instead do employ impartial reportage, not the second-hand
filmclips and biased voiceover in Eagle's opus, you know, and not the
sly method of splicing actuality between fictions so as to make even the
honorable look cheap.
In that manner, at least, Eagle is very like you, Venu; he too shows
only a few actual facts, slyly sandwiched between innumerable innuendoes.
His opus proves that Eagle as a film-maker is but an apprentice at best,
but a master of implying guilt-by-annunciation, and I notice those who
applaud his film as `a documentary' tend to also exhibit Eagle's
penchant for that, mirroring his inability to offer specifics, mistaking
assertion for proven fact. There is nothing skeptical in their stance--
rather his admirers show willful gullibility to believe as fact what
they are fed cinematic spoonfool after spoonfool of innuendo.
As for that illegally obtained home videocopy of the edited Doordarshan
clip which Eagle shows, (which by the way, does not match in any wise
Premanand's description of that same tape) do you allege _that_ filmclip
of Swami is *raw unedited newsfilm*? Please, do say.
Also, kindly provide details to evidence your many other claims (if you
wish, of course-- and if you can).
>Deduction: sai baba is furious over the apparent betrayal by his close
>associates. The four associates enter sai baba's inner sanctum to
>apologize.
My deduction is that your hypothesis is based on so few specifics as to
merit no
rebuttal. Should you ever offer actual specifics, I can at least reply
with something
more than having pointed out your inablility to discern fact at all.
(Should anyone
else now post such vague assertions, calling them facts, and expect
any
reply from me, please do not hold your breath.)
Meantime I point out that your fictional hypothesis seems rather a flop
dramatically. Why have men killed in one' s own inner sanctum? Since
madcaps
like Said and Jed suggest a mafia is at hand, surely a late night dump
in the river
by unknown assailants in that mafia, would have served to rid the Baba
of `an
associate who betrayed him' , and so gain no attention at all. If you
are going to
write fiction, do at least offer some suspense, Venu. In your version,
everyone
sounds quite stupid, so surely, none but the abysmally stupid would
believe it.
>The events that happen after this are not very clear to me. I welcome
>clarifications.
Ok. You you say later events are "not clear" after? You mean from
then until
now you are unclear? How sad. That is a long time. Still, I needs must
remind
you, you yourself have now evidenced you were unclear well BEFORE, as
well
as after, Venu, in that you mistake `implication', innuendo and
hyperbole, for `fact'
even now.
>My question:
>
> Why did sai baba, who is revered by millions to be omniscient and
>omnipotent, who according to deciples like Bon Giovanni to have powers
>to change the stones in rings when the recipient of the rings prove to
>be sceptics, resort to calling the police, instead of trying to change
>the intruders intent?
My reply is that first you might at least actually show he did as you
assert. Else
why would any address what is only unsubstantiated assumption on your
part?
Secondly, I am not a disciple of Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Even if I were,
since you have
not evidenced he did anything which you have asserted, one need not
reply at all,
in my view . Finally, it is my experience that Swami has never, repeat
never, used
any power but his love in order to effect any change in anyone's intent.
That you
imply he *should* have used some other power, be it psychic or
supernatural or
political, to `change the intent' of any other human being, suggests
you believe
in willful interference in other's minds. I urge you to examine that,
since it
suggests you want power over others. At any rate, Swami never has done
any
such thing. I rather like that about him.
So just where did you, Venu, get the idea Sai should do as you imply?
Would you
use that power, (if you had such a power of course), to interfere in
other's intent?
If not your wish, then from where did your question arise?
Do you wish to control others, Venu?
>
>Implication 2 clarified:
>
>Fact: Some ex devotees of sai baba accuse him of apparent sexual abuse.
Apparent being the key word, in that per their own
descriptions,
there is no abuse nor any sexuality involved. (Though Lane is even now
screaming hysterically that Sai likes to fondle
erect
young cocks, as if David is somewhow envious of that, neither Jed nor
Said
describe any such arousal of their own.) Not only do both say they were
never
erect and never aroused, neither man claims he was seduced, nor beaten,
nor
coaxed, nor bribed, nor even entreated to silence. So `sexual abuse' is
not the
issue here, rather the phrase is used. I suggest, as all gossip is
utilised: to
feed confusion by gaining attention, thereby dirverting from the
actual event and
then trying to pass the gossip itself off as fact instead. Hence your
use of
`apparent sexual abuse' is apparent indeed.
As you see, calling Jed and Said's limp-dicked non-carnal non-violent
non-sexual experiences `sexual abuse' is in my view an attempt to
remove focus from the
experience AS described by the two men, in favour of the exaggerated
gossip of Lane and his ilk.
Jed/Said had certainly intimate private Sai exchanges but when its
called `apparent sexual abuse', I think the reason is more apparent
than hoped for by carpers, and is a ploy found among those who seek to
discredit others via innuendo, often based just on unsubstantiated
hyperbole. (If I err, please correct
me via quotes from the two fellows own previous online accounts).
>Fact: Bon Giovanni states that this 'ritual' is being carried out by
>sai baba for over thirty years, but disputes the notion that this may be
>of carnal intent.
Dispute? No, rather I pointed out that reading the reports by those with
the
experience, (Jed and Said), do show no carnality. If you can
quote them
and instead show carnal intent, please do so. If you cannot, how then is
carnality,
_your_ deduction?
>My questions:
> Why doesn't this 'ritual' which Bon Giovanni compares to Swami
>Ramakrishna anointing Narendra, get any publicity?
I reply: First I did not compare the two as you assert. (Should you
bother to quote,
rather than claim, that would be evident.)
Secondly I think you mean, "get any publicity before now"; is that
correct? If so,
then kindly show me who in the past has done _any_ publicity at all for
Sai
Baba? Surely it is intelligent to ask those who have publicised him
earlier, why
they did not also publicise this matter.
Have you heard of Sai Baba from sources other than Premanand? He
publiciizes
Sai Baba, you know. Have you head of Sai Baba other than via Robert
Eagle's
film? He publicisizes Sai Baba, you know. Have you heard of this matter
from Tal
Brooke? He publicizies Sai Baba, you know. Have you heard of this matter
from
David Lane? He publicises Sai Baba you know.
So I suggest you instead ask those who in the past have publised him, why
they
did not mention this until now. How about the press? India Today? The
Deccan?
The Times? Do they publicize Sai Baba? Then by all means, ask those who
did
that publicity.
Too, if you will now show where I have issued publicity packages,
or press releases, or news stories or advertisements, or can evidence
where and when the Sai Organization has released any such item of
publicity, then do so, and you may of course then also rightfully then
ask me or any press officers in the Sai Organization, how is it none did
publicise this in the same way other material
was publicised.
Instead of offering such specifics, like some coy gossip columnist you
instead *imply* that Sai has a PR firm at hand who purposefully and
regularly publicises him. As far as I know there is no such publicity
office. In fact, in the entire United States there have been in the
last seventy-one years exactly two public notices issued by the Sai
Organization, both small paid advertisements placed in newspapers, both
detailing one free public lecture about Swami. The only other
intentional publicity than that named above, as far as I know, has been
due individual persons asking individual devotees for information. Should
I err, specifiy it. If you offer no specifics, please do explain
why should I
reply?
>
>So If this 'ritual' is not carnal in nature, why doesn't sai baba
>conduct
>this in public?
How neat to phrase it as a negative. That is like saying "Well, if you
have nothing to hide, why do you not dine in open public view at every
meal, Venu?"
Families dine every day in the privacy of their own home; do you suggest
they do so only in public, so that you can see they are doing it properly
and not as food fetishists? So too, when the family invites a guest for
dinner, that is also in private.
In similar wise I believe this ceremony has the same status. Because
matters of a private nature, (meaning what transpires between Swami and
his invited private guests) is among family as it were, it is not a
public matter, and so frankly it is simply none of your business. (I do
not say that to sound uppity, but frankly, it is not anyone's business
except those present, you know.)
Any guest however may of course then make public whatever passed between
themselves and Sai in private. That is their right. I note that neither
Jed nor Said have claimed they were sworn to secrecy. They certainly say
no such thing in their letters thus far. (So why Lane rants that Sai
"wants it kept secret", examples why I find Lane
less than factual.).
As I was saying, should a guest wish to speak to anyone of any matter
that was private, it is of course their right to speak, but it is
however not _your_ right to demand to know any private matters. None at
all. That you lack such knowledge and lack such manners, is noted.
> Has sai baba ever spoken or written anything about this ritual and
>the benefits thereof to the devotees?
Yes.
>
> Does he carry out this ritual to young girls as well as young boys?
Your question seems absurd, unless of course you know of any girl with a
scrotum.
> Can a devotee opt out of this ritual and still be considered a
>devote
>person?
Yes
>
> How many Vivekananda's have been produced by this ritual?
How many can you point out?
My point is that if you can recognize none now, what difference does it
make if they
are all around you, while if you can recognize a Vivekananda, then look
for
yourself. You see, in my view, discerning a sage is not something
gift-able, Venu. You either gots it, or you ain't. If you gots it, there
is no reason to ask me, and if you don't gots it, you could not
appreciate why. That is perhaps why such things as are private, are not
broadcast to all and sundry like a soap-opera, per the Gita.
Secondly I have pointed out that counter your misassumption, I did not
say this
ceremony of manifesting oil and applying it to especial male loins was
the same as Ramakrishna touching Naren. Rather, I said some things can be
communicted best by touch. I add (a number of times) I have no idea what
it all means nor why Swami does many things, much less this ceremony.
I did however indicate one tenuous theory that it may involve the future
offspring of such men, based on knowing several such men and getting to
know their children, all of whom are kind, noble, calm, and rather
intelligent. Note please I am but guessing Swami's manipulation of the
genitals in some wise literally affects future human beings arising
from that anointed sperm sac, so will not conclude my theory with any
deduction at this time. I instead look forward to seeing the character
of the children of those children, due at the time of Prema Sai.
That said, I note I have four times asked Jed and Said to example how, in
their presence, Sai manifested oil for that anointment. They have not
replied. They both say it is all sleight of hand but do you know any
magician who can manifest oil, yet leave no tell-tale trace on his hands,
gown, sleeves, clothing, etc, nor a burst gel wax container?
>My other sundry implications and questions:
[=snicker snack=]
Since that has nothing to do with me or this topic, I suggest you
address those sundries to the site's webmaster where
your quote was taken from. (In fact, you might have included that point
in another letter altogether.) Meanwhile I point out that in all of
the United States Sai Centres it is implicit in membership that each
devotee ought obey his or her own conscience and there is no middleman
between oneself and Swami, period. For that reason among others, center
officers worldwide are selected by anonymous unanimous vote of
membership, as willing
servants of the membership, and so don't "issue orders", period.
(I will however investigate the quote you supplied, to find its source
and context, *if* you wish further discussion about it. That was helpful
of you to supply the specific URL, thereby allowing all to pursue due
follow-up; thanks.)
>Here is an extract from an article *What is Fascism?* by the NLG Civil
>Liberties Committee, giving the hallmarks of Fascism and Nazism:
>
>* Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally
>responsible to an electorate.
Sigh. No doubt every Swami, Acharya, Yogi, Roshi, Minister, Priest and
also the Pope, will take due note. (My point is that spiritual
establishments are not political entities, and one-pointed focus in one
is not like narrow-minded obedience in the other.) That you lack such
knowledge and ridicule such discernment, is noted. Ok, so now your
attempted implication appers to be that the Sai Organizaton is, as Said
says, a zombie-like mafia cult. Is that it? If so, it suggests you have
never attended any Sai Centre.
>
>* Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
>
>* Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk to join
>voluntarily in a heroic mission (often metaphysical) and romanticized
>in
>character.
Voluntary being the key word, please detail why you point this
out.
Meanwhile I agree there is of course a chance around any charismatic
figure
that he or she will be idolized to such a degree that cultic stupidity
among his or
her followers (and danger to the general public) may ensue. I suggest
that all
due examination, personally and directly, by anyone concerned about
that in the
Sai Organization, is apt, and so I encourage all to visit Sai
Centers
and meetings, at local and national and international levels, so they
can see for
themselves if there is any cultic worship or fasicistic leadership, or
if the Org. or
Sri Sathya Sai Baba or his students examples any ill-will to anyone.
>* Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy -- seeing the enemy as
>an inferior.
Do you imply that obtains about me-- or whatever person or organization
your implication is addressing? One thing I wish to add then is that
just as
faith can blind, so too can doubt. It is best to look with no filters
whatsoever,
neither for nor against, so as to miss nothing. Thus when one sees
madness or
saintliness, one can say without `seeing enemies' or "friends" or high
or low, but simply as folks are. In that way, one can respond
appropriately, if at all. (Sometimes it is best to simply ignore some
persons, you know).
>
>* The self image of being a superior form of social organization.
>
>* Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for power.
>
Since that one seems far out in left field, I have no idea what point
you are getting to. Details?
>My questions:
>
>Is the sai baba movement a fascist organization, requiring blind faith
>and devotion to the leader?
Please, do show more courage; do not simply ask for, nor take,
anyone's
word on the matter . I urge you and every interested person to
examine the Sai Organization for yourself, directly at first hand, in
order to determine what obtains. You might start by going to three
different Sri Sathya Sai Baba
Centers to see if they are identical, or how they differ. Then you might
attend the regional meetings, and then attend the international
meetings. There is never a fee, nor dues of any kind.
>Is this a desired thing in this day and age?
I say, "Find out first and then let your readers know, if you wish, via
specifics"-- but do not reply only with still more innuendo or cloyed
coyness, please, Venu.
As ever, I suggest the reader makes one's own direct investigation, and
not rely on the words on a screen or the story in the ear or the images
on a telly screen. Life is the best teacher, and your own life will
convince you of the true as well as the false.
But then, why any two persons like Venu and Lane , much less a group
calling themselves skeptics, would be so imprecise as Lane and Venu are,
and yet imply they not only know and agree on truth or falsehood, is
unclear to me. Apparently they have not noticed they have not said
anything specific to each other in public. (Or is Lane offscreen
offering counsel to Said and Jed and their admirers, on how to reply?)
At any rate, I do notice when they agree in public and so hope Venu and
David will soon offer specifics, rather than further innuendoes.
>I hope have been more specific in this letter.
Sadly I must dash those hopes, since if you call that parade of
hyperbole and
innuendo `specifics', we have very very little more to discuss. But
hey, thanks for
trying. I mean that. While I disagree utterly with your odd way of
implying
this and that, and do not at all agree with your idea of what makes for
fact, nor
what you example as intellectual skepticism, I do appreciate you are
doing
the best you can, and so send you
All best wishes
BonGiovanni@delphi.com
*+*
-----------------------------
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Tue Jun 3 10:59:44 1997
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-6,8,10-29,37-39,42,48-54,56-70,72,74,76,78,80,
82-83,85,87-90,92,94-96,98-103,110-111,119-120,123,126-156,
158-160,166-190,197-198,205-213
From: bon_giovanni@juno.com (Bon Giovanni)
June 3, 1997
BonGiovanni@delphi.com
PO Box 6849
Beverly Hills CA 90212 USA
Hello,
In the thread entitled
SAI BABA AND THE MURDER MYSTERY, Venu Parthiban introduced another
topic:
[...]
My other sundry implications and questions:
To a question raised by a Malaysian Sai devoteeas a result of conflict
within a Sai Centre as to whether the SAI Movement is a
democracy or dictatorship - Brother Jega replied (in Sai Pages
http://bestweb.com/prom/index.htm) as follows :
"It is neither - it is a benevolent dictatorship"
Subsequently, when asked to define and clarify,he offered following
clarification:
Bhagawan Baba has said that in a Sai Centre there must be ONE WORD ONE
ROAD "You must implicitly follow the directions of the State President
and the District President, who nominate the Convenors.
[snip]
Venu went on to imply that quote showed the entire International Sai
Organization to be dictatorially fascistic. Knowing that not to be the
case, I was nonetheless surprised to read that quote taken from a
well-known Sai devotee's homepage, since any `implicit obedience' is
nothing like what obtains in the USA Sri Sathya Sai Baba Centers, and
is even counter the official guidelines for the International Sai
Organization. Thus when asked by Venu to comment, I suggested he rather
address his "sundry queries" instead to the
webmaster of that URL.
I did so myself, piqued by the curiosity Venu had encouraged in his
diatribe against Sri Sathya Sai Baba, and so by visiting directly I
discovered the link is not as Venu posted, but rather is
leader.htm. Venu
certainly did quote the text accurately however-- although not fully.
To show how important full context is, I now post from that site the
portion posted online by Venu earlier , as well as what he
snipped. I hope you will agree that when read in full, the text
permits a somewhat different meaning than the one Venu implied.
==========================begin site quote===============
SAI LEADERSHIP
J. Jagadeesan
To a question raised by a Malaysian Sai devotee as a result of conflict
within a Sai Centre as to whether the SAI Movement is a democracy or
dictatorship - Brother Jega replied as follows
"It is neither - it is a benevolent dictatorship"
Subsequently, when asked to define and clarify, he offered following
clarification:
Bhagawan Baba has said that in a Sai Centre there must be
ONE WORD ONE ROAD
"You must implicitly follow the directions of the State President and
the District President, who nominate the Convenors. When you are tempted
to
question them, remind yourself that their words have come through the
Grace
and Blessings of Bhagawan, who has nominated them. Be polite, humble and
sweet in your responses to the commands you receive. It is imperative to
have strict discipline; no exception, or concession can be tolerated,
One
word, one road - that should be the motto. "
Sathya
Sai Speaks,
Vol. VII Page
268
The expression ‘benevolent dictatorship’ is a metaphor and not to be
taken
literally! Benevolence means - "wish to do good; activity in doing good"
-
and ‘Benevolent means "kind and helpful". So a "benevolent dictator’
refers to a strong leader who is able to lovingly motivate his followers
who wish to do good and is kind and helpful to all. He is the "number
one
servant" (to quote Baba) of doing good to all.
=============== -end site quote-=========================
I notice that showing the parts which Venu had snipped does somewhat
affect the impression he gave that all Sai devotees were officially
ordered by Sai to be automatons-- and more importantly, the text in full
shows the SOURCE of Bro. Jegan's quote. Those who then actually look
to that source (which Venu had expunged), may appreciate the
meaning with even greater insight than the excerpts shown at the
webpage itself.
The speech en toto not only clarifies the meaning, but also evidences
that Bro. Jega applied Swami's suggestion to a quite dissimilar
situation, in that Swami was not speaking to Center members at
all. Rather Sai was addressing Seva Dals at an especial public
function. (In respect of Bro Jegan, I note he, unlike Venu, did supply
the SOURCE, so any interested reader could certainly check, showing that
clearly Jegan was not out to deceive.) Nevertheless, I note even his
interpretation of Swami's intent, does not match my own.
The attentive reader may of course decide one's own interpretation
directly by reading what Swami actually said, shown in full in context.
To that end here are
direct quotes by Swami, from Sathya Sai Speaks, Volume 7, chapter 4.
[NB: On key words in this matter Bon has added stress or has inserted
italicised parenthetical elucidations]
==================begin quote=============
"The need to surrender was mentioned by some one. Who offers?
Who receives? You are yourself God, to whom then are you
offering? Yet, you use the word, Arpana, Atmarpitham. The
problem is epochal; the solution is dismissed by the use of a
word! When you discover that you are God, there is no Arpana,
no Atmarpitham. Wisdom wipes out all; God alone remains.
"Once there was a long fight between Wealth (Dhana) and Wisdom
(Jnana), to decide who was more praiseworthy. Wealth said that
it is wanted if you must travel from your place to
Puttaparthi, for example; it is essential to spend some money
for attending a cinema, for having a meal. The world cannot
spin even a second, without the spin of a coin! Wisdom said,
no one can distinguish between a tenner or a single rupee
note, unless he has intelligence; no one can discriminate
between ruinous ways of spending money, or beneficial ways.
Like the two cats that chose a monkey to arbitrate, they
approached a Guru and laid before him their problem. The Guru
said, both are good, equally good, provided each is used for a
good purpose. It is the use that decides the good and bad of
the two. Being a man, is itself the greatest wealth you have.
Use it to the best advantage. Have wisdom enough to recognise,
not only that you are a man, but also that you are no longer
an animal, a beast or brute. That makes Wisdom complete; or
else, it is only partial.
"A word about the Rules and Restrictions for Seva Dals.
You must implicitly follow the directions of the State President and the
District President, who nominate the Convenors. When
you are tempted to question them, remind yourself that their
words have come through the Grace and Blessings of Bhagavan,
who has nominated them. [NB: The sevadals are all volunteers, some of
whom are elders, some of whom are wealthy, and so to show the chain of
command at this event, Swami elucidates who at this function is elder
and who is junior, regardless of social status elsewhere] Be polite,
humble and sweet in your responses to the commands you receive. It is
imperative to
have strict discipline; no exception or concession can be
tolerated, One word, one road - that should be the motto.
"In some Sanghas and Samithis, as a result of the ambition of
one individual or the greed of one group, factions have
sprouted and the spiritual atmosphere has been fouled. The
infection of politics has infiltrated into these
Organisations. This is because some people have started the
Samithis for their own aggrandizement. These will soon be
eliminated, do not worry. You must carry on your service,
regardless of what the elders are doing to earn name or fame.
Serve, because you must, because your inner impulse asks you
to do it, because you get Ananda out or it. When you find that
a patient can be cured by a drug that he is too poor to
purchase, if the Doctor says that it is urgent and essential
to save his life, do not hesitate to borrow or lend the money.
Ask a member of the Samithi or any one else, for the life is
more precious. Service at the time when it is most needed is
most beneficial. Try to get milk powder and supply milk and
fruits to the poor who are suffering neglect in hospitals. God
likes to be worshipped with the flower of Compassion."
=======end full quote from Sathya Sai Speaks, Volume 7, Chapter 4===
The highlighted phrase Bro. Jega extracted is thus shown to be about
Seva Dals, men and women who are volunteer ushers and security personnel
during an especial public event at which Swami appears, or at a State's
annual voluntary two-week tour of duty at the ashram, and so the
injunction `to obey officers' applies only to those volunteer's term of
duty while serving, and is *not* addressing regular membership nor
Centers.
I therefore appreciate Venu's having pointed out how the quote instead
appeared to him to detail a cultic fascistic leadership throughout
the entire Sai Organization. To encourage clarity I am therefore
bringing this matter to the attention of the website owner and to the
Malaysian Sai Organization, so that any chances of future
mis-interpretations of excerpted quotes at websites might be duly reduced
via full context
hyperlinks.
Again, thanks to Venu for drawing the world's attention to this matter.
*+*
----------------------
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
