Sathya Sai Baba and the Murder Mystery: a rebuttal by Bon

Author: Bon
Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER
Publication date: June 1997

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.

From  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,

                                    June 3, 1997
                                    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

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
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

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

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

>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

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

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

>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

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

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

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
*+* ----------------------------- From 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) June 3, 1997 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 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===============



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. "

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

I want to go back to the home base now.