E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: Jed, Bon, Said, etc. Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER Publication date: May 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
From JGeyerhahn@aol.com Wed May 28 14:39:46 1997
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Re: THE NEURAL SURFER'S TOP FIVE LIST OF SCUM BAG GURUS {May Update}
Date: 97-05-28 17:37:49 EDT
From: JGeyerhahn
To: hudoyo@cbn.net.id
Greetings,
As you might imagine, it is impossible for me to suspend judgement because of
my experiences with Sai Baba. It my be difficult to make you believe my
story online, but I think in time more people, real people you can correspond
with and meet, will tell strories very similar to mine. Whem you have some
convincing evidence of wrongdoing by Sai Baba, you will have to reconsider
suspending judgement. I urge you to contact me in person if you would like.
Regards,
Jed
------------------------------
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Wed May 28 15:41:39 1997
X-Mailer: Juno 1.38
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-11,23-24,28-29,33-36,38-41,50-52,54,56-57,59,61,
66-83,93-94,100-102,104-106,110-111,120-128,151-158,168-169,
173-174,186,189-190,195-196,200,206-207,220-221,226-230,234-235,
238,240-242,252,255-257,259-261,268-273,275-276,292-293,299-300,
305-312,320-321,328-329,331-334,336,338,340-342,351-352,355-357,
359,361-362,373-376,381-382,385-386,396-397,405-406,417-418,421,
423,426-427,430-436
From: bon_giovanni@juno.com (Bon Giovanni)
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 18:18:56 EDT
Status: RO
X-Status:
May 28, 1997
Hello Jed,
I received your letter of Wed, 28 May 1997 in which you opine:
>Much of what you are trying to do is discredit me. This shows me that
>something that I'm saying needs to be discredited with ad-homonym
>remarks.
I disagree and so urge you please, do point out via specifics where I am
discrediting you, ok? At least show me, quote me, as I have done for
you, ok? Thanks. Meanwhile I reply that I am not using ad hominem nor
am I "trying to discredit" you. I am however speaking directly, and in
that directness do believe our chat rather shows Jed, why we *agreed*
it is best to speak of one's own experience. When you have instead
expressed opinions or theories based more on hyperbole (or outright
gossip), rather than your experience, I have pointed that out. I am sorry
that has offended you, and urge in turn you now point out *exactly*
where I have used ad hominem or belittled you. If you are PRECISE in your
complaints, I may amend, but if you offer no such examples, may I deduce
you erred?
For some time I have been encouraging you to offer specifics, and sent
you many many direct questions. In reply, you spent more time complaining
about my attitude, than addressing any specifics in your story. Why do
that, Jed?
I meanwhile note you replied to none of the many questions I felt were
really crucial to clarifying your position. Instead you have taken
umbrage about appearances, and did not even bother to quote what I said
that offended you.
However, I do quote you. Viz:
>You are starting to assume much about who I am. You know nothing of
>my "most personal experience", for example. You have no idea what would
>alleviate my anger or even to what extent my anger effects me.
I do not know what effects you, that is so, but I have seen what
affects you, because you described it. I
have also asked you to tell me specifics so I can understand more fully.
You have not done. Still, I based my remarks on your words, Jed. If I
have assumed overmuch, or incorrectly, I apologize. I have however in
fact asked you to detail the reasons for your anger, so that I need not
presume at all. If I err, please point out how, and pardon me, if you
will. As for your most personal experience, I repeat, I have based my
remarks on your comments. Should I have erred there , please specify, as
you do here:
>When asked, I told Sai Baba that I wanted his love. I did not say "I
>want you". There are critical differences between the two. Please try
to
>quote me correctly and use the quote within the same context that I
write.
You are quite right to insist I quote you correctly. I cannot however
quote
you "within the same context" as you write, unless you provide the
specifics in full.
I did ask for those specifics and meanwhile did address what I thought
was the context, based on my understanding of your words and my knowledge
of Sai. That very transaction, Jed, is rather common. Nothing you
described was in any way unique, you know, especially not your arrogance
or the misiinterpretation your arrogance fostered. Viz:
In interviews I gave him several oppurtunities to
talk to me, but he just asked me questions that
were way off base. I guess I was sort of testing
Sai Baba to see if he really had any idea what had
and was going on with me, and he hadn't a clue.
It was clear to me that I just didn't need him,
and that his teachings weren't working for me. He
did ask me "What do you want?", and I responded "I
want your love". This was misconstrued by him.
He sort of moved his body closer to me all smiles
and said, "Here I am, take me." If Sai Baba had
known me, he would have said with a tender face,
"Jed, I love you". What came out was something
like, "Jed, here's my body." It was disgusting to
see that his intentions were really selfish.
Re-reading your words, it now seems to me Jed that I did accurately
describe the event in context. Most folks look at the interview as their
chance to ask him questions. You however view it as his chance to `talk
to you.' Though you say you found him clueless, how is it then like some
hypocrite you said `I want your love' or were disgusted when he said
HERE I AM, TAKE ME. That does show me that he was telling all present
with ears to hear that he understood you then thought he was just a
body, and that the only "love" you could recognize, was physical. That
you still hear neither your error nor your arrogance, nor his clarity, is
noted.
However, should you be more precise in your descriptions, I will
strive to keep up. For now, I feel I hit the nail on the head: I think
you simply mistook Swami to be his body, and so he bid you a laughing
farewell, not intimidating you in any way. You were simply being
dismissed as a student, since you had shown yourself ignorant of his
most basic teaching: self-awareness free of bias. For example:
>Sai Baba claims to be that Atma, the reincarnation of Krishna. I am
>not divine in this way. My coming is not of historical significance
like
>the coming of an Atma would be.
This may be one of those times where you feel I am belittling you, but
Jed, your talk of the `coming of an Atma' does suggest you simply have
no idea what Swami teaches nor what Atma is, (Atma does not come or go,
Jed) and so again I ask, "Did you EVER even study Swami's
books? Do you really feel you had understood the Vedantic theology
he elucidates, or that you embodied any of his teaching?" If so I am at
a loss as to why you would say such things as `the coming of an Atma.'
(That makes no sense, Jed, not even a Bal Vikas second year student
would say such nonsense.) However, you have made it clear at least that
you do not feel as significant as Sai Baba, if that was your point. (Why
that is important however is not really clear, though. Please tell me
how it applies to our chat? Quotes would help, you know, to recall the
context. ) I at least do offer quotes, though you don't.
> Furthermore, anyone of this stature would
>understand how his actions would have looked in a western culture. If
>Sa were to have done what he did in the USA it would be considered
>pedophilia.
Ouch.
First, I suggest your recent correspondence with other ex-devotees is
not clarifying your thoughts. Next, Sai is not in the west but even in
the east, pedophiles are not encouraged. Frankly `his actions' as you
call them, do not deserve to be called pedophilia, in that you were not
a child and you were not sexually abused. Your suggestion then that
`western culture' is in any wise an abler judge than you of that, seems
a mite specious to me-- as well as that old `call to authority' that
such a weak logic-less but very emotionally charged argument as yours
often employs. Finally, whatever `western culture' is, I hope it
decries the slanderous exaggeration exampled by you and David Lane and
that other fellow, Said. Your current dramatic charge of `pedophilia' ,
used to describe what is in effect a non-passionate intimate baptism
with oil by a mystical father-figure in a sacred setting, is both
self-serving and false... or were you but a wee wick of a *child*, Jed, a
child whom Sai then panted over in lust as he smeared you up and down
with jelly, all the better to swallow you whole? NO, and so your remark
itself, claiming PEDOPHILIA, is why I say your own attitude belittles
you, not my comments. You are just mixing fact with fiction, for drama,
and you do so only to mock and belittle just to justify yourself, Jed.
That is not noble, nor truthful, of you, in my view. Before you started
spouting gossip as if gospel, you at least sounded sincere. Now since you
have chatted with Said, you just sound pissed and poisonous. What a
waste.
>The larger part of your argument is that I had accepted Sai Baba as my
>guru, that I was his devotee, and thus consented to his exposing and
>touching me.
> What else had I consented to? Receiving or giving oral sex,
>receiving or giving anal intercourse? Where is the line?
The line is where one's morality, ethics, and adulthood is found, Jed,
and you would surely have known that line then had you considered that.
Still, you almost got my "argument" right, but I did not say sex was any
part of the process. Besides, you had no sex with Sai, despite what
you now call that intimacy. `Sex' among adults is more than the
passionless ritual you have described, you know. Of course you may call
that sexual, or abuse, of course-- but I don't. No one tricked you into
dropping your drawers Jed, and no one went down on you, nor vice versa,
nor in any wise encouraged lust, so your bogus claim of PEDOPHILIA, is
shameful exaggeration, in my view.
Boy I bet you wish you had thought about all this * before* you called
yourself a devotee, huh? Well, better late than never, but better alert
than late at all. Please do answer this: ***Why*** did you not simply
ASK SWAMI ANY OF THIS STUFF? You called yourself his devotee for four
years, had plenty of interviews, yet never asked him those questions.
Why? Answer that, and all may become clear soon. If instead you keep
nailing Sai Baba with your innuendos and hyperbole, implying this and
that but saying NOTHING SPECIFIC TO PROVE YOUR ALLEGATION OF PEDOPHILIA.
all that may happen is that you will never know what obtained at that
moment, Jed, never, while other folks will like you just nod their heads
and never look further neither. What good will that do, Jed? Show
specifics, speak only of your expereince, and you might yet change the
world. If you really mean to expose Sai Baba, then do it with facts, not
fantasy. Rather than take offence at me, you might see if this is good
advice:
speak of your own experience and add nor delete nothing. In your
experience as you described it to me, I say the charge of pedophilia does
not apply to you, Jed. (Prove me wrong, if you wish, via specifics.)
>What sort of sexual encounters had I consented to? Any? My belief is
that within >a religious relation one does not consent to any sexual
relations. One perhaps >consents to being told how to live one's life,
or to even guidance on sexual >issues, not, however, to encounters of a
sexual nature.
Whatever each person agrees to with their spiritual instructor is up to
them, not me, and not you, and not Lane neither. However, since you had
no sexual relations with Sai, none, I suggest you now use the phrase
PEDOPHILIA.
only to shock, only to justify your anger and to belittle Swami, and to
make emotionally confused people feel sorry for you. That is not an
uncommon tactic among gossips, but it still sucks Men like you who cry
pedophelia but never suffered any such thing are the very ones who make
others calloused about it..That is most unfortunate, and I hope you
consider that.
I find your own words, Jed, do show that your experience was not sexual.
That you wish to make it appear so now, via hyperbole and via innuendo,
is equally obvious to me. I think PEDOPHILIA says more about you, than
about Sai. When you said he was a pedophile, you imply you were but a
child raped by that dirty old man, and so you showed yourself not only
angry, but very much a fantasty filled vicious gossip. After all, he did
not jack you off Jed. He did not even get you hard. He did not even
seduce you, nor coax you, nor encourage you. He applied oil to your
loins,. period, during a mystic ritual you know nothing about. I suggest
he did so as to help you. But, if you disagree, then how is it you let
him, TWICE? How is it you did not ask him about it even ONCE? How is it
you even now prefer to paint him a wicked child molester, rather than
answer that?
Jed, to me you are but using Sai to justify your own confusion. No big
deal there, folks do it all the time in many situations they do not
wish to face, you know. BLAME IS THE NAME OF YOUR GAME.. Hopefully
however, some will see it, sooner or later. Do you see it? How could you
miss it, since it is now on the Internet, visiible to millions!
>I think that I am trying to give a candid account of what happened to
>me. If you find this account biased there is little I can do.
Piffle. For one thing you could be specific instead of using only
implications. `I knew his intentions', you say, but do not EVER say how
or what they were. You could also just check if the bias I now see in
you, is there or not.
> I think you find it diminished because I requote gossip, but that
gossip meant >little to me until I I had a first hand experience, then
it was easy to believe. In any
>event, my requoting of gossip, doesn't diminish the account of my first
hand
>experience.
For me, your account is not only diminished when you add gossip, it is
spoiled when you show you believe it. Your use of gossip is like lying,
Jed. Why dilute the purity of your experience with hearsay? Unless you
are lonely for other gossips like Said, why do that? Why change history
to fit your fantasy? That is what gossip does, you know. It eats memory,
Jed. Look at Said, and compare his earlier comments with what he says
now, after hearing from other gossips like you. He has embroidered his
tale, just as you have done. I sense the more you talk with other
gossips, the more your story will change. Good thing then it is online,
eh?
That is almost as solid as paper, you know, and can't be changed. How
many years from now will folks look at our discussion, and note your
argument:
>The argument you are making is similar to assuming that a woman who
>wears a short skirt or acts sexually in a social setting should
anticipate a
>sexual encounter.
No, it is not, and your analogy does not hold for two reasons. First, you
may see yourself as a raped woman in a miniskirt , but my view is that
you are a young fellow who is claiming to know Baba's INTENTIONS, when
your own words show you hadn't even a clue of what he was doing, nor why
you allowed him to continue, TWICE. Secondly, you are just blaming Sai
NOW for what you still do not understand about then, in my view.
Comparing yourself to a raped woman in a short skirt, is, however, noted.
> When such things happen, a woman's detractor says one of
>two things:
>1. That it didn't happen.
> -You cannot, and do not seem to want to argue with me on this
>point. In some cases, (kissing) you tell of people who had the same
experience.
But Jed of course I will not argue, and of course I will not say it did
not happen. Since I know many folks who have kissed Swami, I was not as
shocked as you apparently wanted me to be. Should I be sorry that I am
more experienced or unbiased than yourself? It is not a sign of weakness
or of effeminance that I will not argue about this-- rather I find it
odd you were shocked at being allowed to kiss him. My God, Jed, he is
like a father to many devotees of all ages from many cultures, so of
course I would not be shocked to hear anyone embraced him, kissed him,
hugged him nor would I intuit carnality if others told me they kissed or
hugged him. I also would not instantly assume lust just because he
baptised their genitals. That you see even kissing him only as dirty,
suggests to me you are bent. Have you never kissed your father? Would
you think your dad were sexual if he bandaged a wound in your privates?
Well, I would not. I would also view as odd anyone who claimed it was
carnal. That is why the more we chat, the more I view you as odd, you
know. Pedophilia, tsk.
For over 21 years I have looked closely at Sai to see if he has ever
exhibited lust, and found none. You say he was sexual with you, but you
NEVER call him lustful, nor do you describe the event as romantic, so
your remarks show me you never saw lust either. It is only now, courtesy
the doubt watered by your own fears, anger and gossipy friends, that
you `see' lust. I see rather your imagination.
That is how I see your position, Jed. Sorry if that rankles you, but hey,
I just read what you wrote. No doubt some other folks will read your
words and see what you want them to see, but hey-- that ain't me. If you
want my attention, stop assuming, stop gossiping, stop implying, and
instead just describe your own experience.
I thought we had agreed that was best...
> Several people have written to me who have had or known others with
>experiences like my own, only they have interpretted them differently,
>which brings me to the next point.
"Several people..." I imagine so, Jed, since there are folks who do see
such events with clarity, while others see them somehow as assaulting
their sense of masculinity or manliness or moral rectitude and so read
all kinds of bent things into situations. Unlike you however I do not
interpret others' admiration or clarity or umbrage as indicative of
Sai-- their concerns are rather describing themselves, in my view. So
too, your mis-stating this event as `pedophilia' tells me about you, not
about Sai.
You say it * was* a sexual situation for you. Okay, I believe you feel
that way. But when you tell me what Sai `really meant' I choose not
to give you equal credence, since you presented no specifics that show
you are correct. What I see, is that you want to believe it was sexual
for Sai as well as for you. Convince me with specifics, not just via
guilt by annunciation. So far, however, the specifics suggest to me you
have simply misstated and misunderstood and misreported.
(Your mileage
of course may vary.)
>2. That the situation was not interpretted correctly.
> -My feeling is that the encounter was of a sexual nature. You
>can tell me that my interpretation was wrong, but you should consider
how you
>would feel if your own son or daughter had a similar experience, or the
same
>thing happenned to you. (This is not a personal request, it's a
personal
>argument).
I have considered it Jed, with more care than you have done, for some
sevaral years. Tal worked his magic on my, I assure you. If your mind is
yet alert, you may yourself reconsider your views, as I do mine, each
time I hear direct experience, with specifics, free of hyperbole or
gossip. Since neither you nor Said seem able to offer that precision,
since neither of you seems willing or able to speak without adding
fictions to your stories, I tend to consider my views as being more
accurate than yours. However, that should not affect you, since what I
think is of no importance to you, right?
If what I think does matter, then by all means present specifics, not
gossip, and I will listen with all due care. Here for example is what I
ask of you as specifics:
>The experience was awkward and uncomfortable because it
>was of a sexual nature that you want to blame on be. I am telling you
that it
>had nothing to do with me, and it is unlikely that you will believe me.
It is your experience, yes, and awkward too. Instead of telling me your
experience however, you want me to believe you also now KNOW Sai's
experience too, as well as his intent. Yet I see you did not at that
time even know your own feelings or intent-- you were NUMB, confused, and
pantless, dumb, vulnerable, confused-- so for you now to tell me you
figured out was going on, well, no, Jed, I think you are just copping
out. Since you tell me _you_ felt sexual, I will however believe you.
But I do not see how you can possibly say what Sai was feeling, since
your own description of the event suggests he was not sexual at all. I
think you have changed the past to justify your feelings in the present..
(Or did your notes of the event at the time include `pedophilia'?)
>Blaming a victim in a sexual situation is a spawning ground for abuse.
Yes I agree, but er, Jed, I am not blaming you for anything but adding
gossip. I have not called you a victim. Per your own description there
was no passion, no deceit, no speed, no lust, no force, no coyness, no
secrecy, no victimization-- so your claim that you are somehow a sexual
victim, sounds to me very self-serving of you, and quite false.
But then, since you called Baba a pedophile, you have lost much credence
in my eyes. There is not much more you can do to discredit yourself, you
know.
You of course are welcome to see yourself however you wish. Meanwhile, I
do hope you address those several questions I put earlier, with specifics
(if you wish, of course). Frankly Jed, although you have not said it in
plain words, to me it looks like you hate Swami because he broke your
heart. I say in reply that is his job, Jed, as your spiritual teacher. It
is only when the heart is broken, that arrogance erodes. Your letters
show your arrogance, show you misunderstood his teaching, show you
thought yourself special. (You are special, just not in the way you
thought, you know.) Surely you noticed that losing illusion is
essential to maturation?
I agree, the question of consent is complicated. Since you were just a
child, a kid whose parents did not even know you had been studying with
this guy for four years, a kid who never told the man you believed he was
GOD, maybe you are right. Then again, if you called yourself his
devotee, if your folks knew you were there, if you asked him to teach
you, if you went gladly, if you said he was GOD, then maybe you did
after all give him consent to awaken you. However, that you did not
understand the devotee/guru relationship
entails
consent, is clear. How come you did not know that? It is after all, part
and parcel of his teaching, Jed. If you wish, I will quote him. (When
you said `Atma is coming' I sighed to myself you may never have even
studied his books, so maybe I have to quote him, just to show you what
you claim about consent, is false, Jed. Sai ever tells students to
EXAMINE, DISCERN, STUDY. Clearly you did none of that, until now. Well,
better late than never. How is it you went through four years, with
plenty of interviews, ample books at hand, with friends who knew Swami,
yet with such misunderstanding of the guru-disciple relationship? Who is
responsible for that, Jed? Me? Him? NO!!, it is your responsibility, Jed.
Why deny that? Such experiences as you had with Sai are doors to
freedom, Jed. You slammed it shut months later and are still running
away screaming. Wanna
open
that
door? This door "hinges" on your idea of personal responsibility and
despite all chances, you want to assign it to Sai, *still*. That is what
this is about, Jed, in my view.
So, what say we both just stop yakking about appearances, and see then
what this looks like without any filters? How about presenting some
SPECIFICS, Jed, , so all can see what this means, ok?
Whatever you decide, thanks for considering my views.
*+*
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Wed May 28 16:47:47 1997
X-Mailer: Juno 1.38
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,13-16,24-40,42-44,46-55,57-58,60-69,71-81,83-99,
101-189,191-194,199-200,207-208,210,214,218-219,223,227-229,
231-235,241-242,246-249,257-258,263-265,271-272,276,278-279,283,
285-287,289,293,296,298-299,303-304,308,314-316,319,323,325-326,
328-329,332-333,336-338,343,346-347,351-352,354,358-360,364,
368-369,372-374,378,381-383,388,391-392,400-401,403,405-406,
411-412,414-415,421,423-424,429-430,434,436-516,519-575,583-585,
588-589,593-595,597-606
From: bon_giovanni@juno.com (Bon Giovanni)
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 19:45:26 EDT
Status: RO
X-Status:
May
28, 1997 Hello,
David Lane seems to add threads daily, as if he somehow feels that the
more stories he disjointedly posts about the Sai Baba genital ablution
ritual ( a rite which Sai has performed for more than 30 years in both
private and in general group interviews) the more Lane seems to think
sheer quantity somehow proves Sai is a sexual predator who, as Lane
puts it, `likes to rub young cocks.' That the ritual has less to do with
lust or masturbation than with mystical initiation, is nonetheless
implied even by some of those lads who now claim it felt somewhat
naughty. Reading their description, however, I note at the time they say
they did not feel naughty so much as mystified. That is evidenced in the
the options offered by Said, published at today at
Dr. Lane's webpage..
To me Said's story sounds similar to comments posted earlier in Usenet
fora by jkhorramsh@aol.com and by DEEPSPACE10@msn.com and by
khorram@ibm.net (plus three or four other anon email addresses in which
the writing style was identical.) If David Lane's `Said' is that same Mr
Khorramshagol, then comparing his earlier comments to his current
article at David's wepbage, may prove insightful. If however, the "Said"
writing on Lane's page is not the author of the following, the
similarities are all the more noteworthy.
Begin copy:
RE: LUNATIC: SATHYA SAI BABA
_______________________________________________________________
>From jkhorramsh@aol.com (JKhorramsh)
Organization America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Date 20 Jun 1996 14:10:22 -0400
Newsgroups soc.culture.indian
Message-ID <4qc46e$hve@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
_______________________________________________________________
Dear Kaladhar, thank you for responding and open mindedly feeling bad for
me. Well, I wish I could say the things I posted are jokes, but they are
not. Furthermore, they are very sincere. First, I believe that Baba's
Org. is a cult because I don't believe in his divinity anymore. Second,
any ex-member of any cult can post messages on the net and so, when I
post
messages does not make Baba's Org. above cults. Third, you wrote:
"...there are hundreds of videos which show hi materializing vhibuti,
rings, etc, and these illustrate the point that he is not a FAKE." One
of
the movies I watched is widely watched by devotees. It is called "God
lives in India". As a devotee I watched this movie at least 10 times and
so also watched the parts which Baba is cheating. But because of my
faith, I never realized the odd moverments in Baba's hands. Even up to
this day, many devotees have watched this movie and not seen what I have
seen. Faith is a funny, powerful thing. If you want to watch the movie,
it is the part where the commentator says something like "we prefer to
call them[the materializations] rituals". In summer of 92 or 93 I was in
Whitefield and 20 American students came there. In an interview, Baba
"materialized" rings for almost all of the students. But at least half
of
the students saw Baba take and put stuff to his back when he was sitting
on the chair inside the interview room. Many of them don't believe in
him
anymore. Later, in a darshan, Baba walked up to one of the students who
was more critical of what he saw in the interview room and "materialized"
vhibuti and threw it on the student's face. I was there and Baba had a
very angry face on. I thought to myself later, is this Baba's message of
my life is my message? Why did Baba react that way in the face of
criticism? Also, when I was in Whitefield, 2 oriental people, who were
there with cameras and you could tell they were not devotees were there
taking films of Baba and talking to people. Interestingly enought, they
cought Baba on tape faking a materialization of a necklace for a student.
And even more interestingly enought, my Korean sister-in law saw that
film
on cable, here and taped it for me. Even though I did not understand a
word of the
movie,
Baba's hands were circled as to point out the time when
he is cheating. That was the first time I saw Baba cheat and I realized
how he does it. To prove it to myself, I started watching
"God lives in India".
Now that I knew how Baba cheats, I picked up on the part of "God
lives in India" where he is cheating materializations of Vhibuti. I did
not bother to watch any other movies though. That was enough evidence
for
me. However recently The Learning Channel aired a program called
"Guru
Busters" and
there they show Baba so the same trick. Could all these
movies from different parts of the world been on to get Baba and frame
him. Could the companies behind these moveis been in on it? Could the
students have mistaken about what they saw in the interview room? My
other brother and his wife are still devotees. My brother has 2 rings
"mterialied" by Baba. They both are big for him. My sister-in-law has
a ring from Baba, and that also is big for her. I had a ring from Baba
and that too was big for me. Could the devotees, including Kasturi, been
lying about how all the rings fit correctly? Could other stories in
Sathyam, Shivam, Sundram and other books on Baba been a lie or
exaggerated? I already know the answer to these questions and I believe
all of Baba's devotees have to question these things. If the answers are
in Baba's favor, then they will have more faith in him which is good
righ?
If Baba has nothing to hide, he should answer such questions and not act
in outrage and anger as he did with the 20 American students.
Peace.
_________________________copy 2 ______________
RE: PHYSICIST CALLS .... RESP. TO BON GOVANI.
>From DEEPSPACE10@msn.com (Said Khorramshahgol)
Organization The Microsoft Network (msn.com)
Date 5 Jul 96 17:25:26 -0700
Newsgroups soc.culture.indian
Message-ID <00002112+0000f1c7@msn.com>
_______________________________________________________________
Bon Govani writes:
>> Can Shri Satya Sai Baba materialize a pumpkin?
Imagine the person you most admired was to visit you. Would you ask such
a question? If so, I suggest that is a waste of time, and as you know,
`time wasted is life wasted'.
Why does Baba circle his hands with the palm down to materialize
things? Why not will it to fall from thin air into his hands? why
all the circular show? He says that his powers are for his devotees.
Thats just a method of brain washing you. if he is God, then we are
all his children. In baba's philosophy, all is one and so there is
no differences between devotee and a non devotee. Why doesn't he
live what he preaches: that all is one. Why not go under a
scientific examination to prove to the world who he is rather than
keeping people on the edge and bringin such good devotees as you--Bon
Govani--on the net and waste your time: you could be saying Om Sai
Ram instead?
Also, Bon mentioned that if Baba has some people helping him with
bringing him the jewels then why they have not been busted yet and no
one knows about them. I was in India when the 3 or 4 students
marched into baba's room. The police were looking for 2 more people
who were the masterminds behind the attack. The journalists caught
up with them before the police and interviewd them. These 2 said
that there was a mafia involved in the ashram and that the students
had marched in to get baba on their side and change things. That
may explain why they killed anyone that tried to stop them but they
did not do anything to the Baba. Also, i think that Baba ordered the
police to kill the students because if Baba was not going to take
their side, then they would have found Baba out--that he is involved
with the mafia--and maybe they would let the word out; also, if they
were dead, this would send a message to people supporting the
students and others who had any idea of doing anything to him. Now,
this is inside news on the mafia that is involved in the ashram. any
questions? Know, Bon, i think you are a reasonable man, wouldnt you
say that unless you are, like God, knowledgable about all things,
then you cannot for a hundred percent say that there are no people
taking jewls to Baba. If you think about it, some of the people that
work for baba in his ashrams, are very nasty people, completely the
opposite of a spiritual adherent. The fat guy that walks behind baba
in Puttaparti looks very mean at all times--even when you see him
outside he has a big attitude and never ever smiles to anyone. The
people that work in the accomodation office are assholes all the way,
etc. dont you agree? i dont think that i am wrong because these
people are the talk of a lot of foreigners there. My sister-in-law
was present in an interview with the baba, and a foreigner raised the
question "why are these people that work here so rude?" baba
answered, "can you imagine if they were somewhere else, its good that
they are here." what a politician and a brain washer he is. his
answer means that if they were in some other place, they would be bad
publicity for the organization and of course himself, dont you think?
is baba after positive popularity? is baba living his teachings. i
know what your answer is to the last question: no, he is not because
he tells us not to publicize him. but those are his words, is he
living his message? and the devotees, they try to bring the subject
to baba eventually or if that is not their goal, then they wait until
aske about baba, then they go crazy and start talking about baba this
and baba that, big perverts. this problem has not come to the baba's
attention because he has not said anything about this--as far as i
know. of course, like i proved, he likes publicity, but he uses the
same tecnich as the cigarett companies: smoking can be hazardous to
your health or in other words, dont publicize me. Baba uses his
teachings, and charity to get more devotees and money. all those
rich people see his teachings and that he is giving away jewlery--and
a lot of ash--to others, he must not be into making money for
himself, and they give him their money. Baba says that he doesnt own
properties or buildings, thats bs. when i was there, i went to this
govt. office and i saw the records and he is the owner of a building.
but the businessmen and the rich and all other devotees are not
aware of such things because they have full faith in him and so dont
put the time to search for such things, and not to mention, give
their money to baba.
------------------------end
copy------------------------------------------------
Sai Ram
Such tales by Said, whatever address he uses, 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. It was a famous group, because the lads had such intense
chances to doubt they talked about it at length with every other
doubter in the ashram they could locate.
It appears more apt than co-incidental they should meet again
courtesy David Lane, in that all three of them example how the getting
of wisdom is not like shopping for shoes- it can involve much
soul-searching, doubt, and even fear. These can manifest as suffering,
especially when addressing specifics. That may explain why the fellows
offer but few specifics, then usually embroider the facts with
hyperbole, resulting in their frequent assumptions.
The pain expressed in the assumptions detailed by Khorramshahgol, aka
Said,
is certainly worthy of care and compassion, but the words he uses to
express that pain are not particularly cogent, articulate, accurate or
even factual, in my view. (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.) In that first article he had 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. In a still
latter post he called his elders `assholes' and finally concluded that
the problem with Sai is
not his teachings, but his character. Apparently since having
corresponded with others in his similar state of clarity, I see he now
describes ALL devotees as zombie-like hypocrites and Swami as a raging
madman. That examples what
gossip
does to gossips: it excites and then confuses them
further. Said is now exampling that more than even before, in my view.
Encouragment seems to bring out his fantasy in full blown details.
Those who have met Sai may however differ or agree with Said
or with me, but surely those who at least read Sai's
teachings, instead of only the comments by men like me or Said,
might recall that Swami again and again advises folks to build their
lives and their faiths NOT ON HIS PERSON, NOT ON STORIES ABOUT HIM,
GOOD OR BAD, but rather on their own experience, and to use that
resulting basis of direct experience to develop keen attention, and with
that to develop unbiased insight.
That is the basis for sadhana, or spiritual discipline. Experience
like that you see does example how understanding itself 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. Counter his claim, not ALL nor even
many devotees suffer as he has asserted, nor do I agree with him that
`get close and you'll find all devotees are cruel hypocrites'-- nor do I
agree that Sai is the demon Sai paints him to be. Clearly, our
experiences differ.
I suggest one reason for that is because I have based my views only on
my own experience and study, not on guesses, stories, movies, or
hearsay. Those who prefer rumour to fact, are welcome to appluad Said as
a sage if they wish. For myself I find his situation unfortunate, but
not laudable.
However, those who wish to
examine Sai for
character flaws may certainly do so if they find that beneficial,
but surely might do well then to at least go and see him directly, so as
to fully examine their day to day lives and 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.
Instead, if they do as Said suggests, if one instead pays attention to
stories, or to movies, or to hearsay or imaginings, as he himself brags
that he has done, one gets no actual experience, no understanding, and
no insight. Rather one gets
what Said has: `opinion' which is frankly more bias than
anything else, but opinion which masks itself as if "objective fact".
I think Said errs terribly and grossly, and suggest that for spiritual
as well as social maturity, it is helpful when each person EXAMINES
one's own experience, not others'. However I don't say one should
ignore men like Jed or
Said, only that one consider if their exeperience is universal or
particular.
That process is the getting of wisdom, in my view, and that
PROCESS is what Jed and Said example, even as they blame Sai for failing
it,
rather than accepting responsibility for their own conclusions about
that process. To me, the worthwhile question is not whether Said or Jed
are accurate in any of their assessments of Sai's character or the Sai
organization, nor whether any
opinion that Sai is a sexual predator or a saint is factual, (since
both are clearly opinions, not universally agreed on as fact), 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?"
Why accept that what Jed or Said or I say, is so? Why not find out
for yourself? I suggest one must find out, if one means to seriously
examine such matters, (instead of read webpages as if they were gossip
columns or lynching parties).
It is Said's stated view that Sai is a quack. Yet does that make it a
fact? Said speaks of his experiences as if he had been in a sex-mad
secret mafia cult of greed, power and intrique. That means for him it
was a cult, but it is my direct
experience that there is nothing "real" about Said's claims, nothing
cultlike in Sai's organization-- even though there may certainly be
cult-followers like Said around, 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 Said himself. After all, Said
describes very well his state of mind, and I note
he said he was that way before approaching Sai Baba.
In my view then, neither Sai Baba's character nor his teaching is the
cause of Said's 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' and so
examine your own experience. If one succumbs to other than that, one
avoids clear thinking in my
view. However, one may of course deduce based on hearsay and
appearances, instead of direct observation and experience.
Frankly I think Said examples that rather clearly, and so hope you will
use his example to avoid such calamity.
Why be surprised at that? Do you think Swami is only what Said, or I,
(or Lane, or you) think him to be? You yourself can find out if Sai 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, and
at the same time effortlessly keeps those intent only on second-hand
stories at
somewhat of a distance.
Students who persevere do find 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 so much as
to instead apparently deduce instead Sai was at fault, is what Lane's
page serves to focus on, if one wishes. Of course David's page also
offers the chance to mindlessly gloat over gossip, if one wishes that.
Perhaps Jed and Said and Lane view their articles as exposes of Sai
Baba, but I see it as exampling their inability to consider personal
responsiblity. After all, 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 are angry to find that out. They
seem convinced a teacher can act only as they wish, poor fellows. No
wonder then they are furious with Sai Baba, for he fits no mould
whatsoever.
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 so ask
the teacher directly to help in all ways whenever needed. I have done
so, and so have many chums,
which is why I say that in my experience spiritual students will ever
examine doubt, and so will of course themselves come to see the ORIGIN
of doubt, and thus develop strength of character and independent
thinking and blame no one for that.
It is how one becomes free. It is this voluntary transformative process
itself that 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). That rebellion is for the most part 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, gossip than
actual victims of fraud or abuse, I look more closely than their
emotional cries
might lead others to do. Your mileage of course may vary.
In effect I find such men chose for their own reasons to stop looking
inwardly as Swami urges his students, and chose to look out at Sai,
based on their assumptions, not facts. Throwing up your hands and saying
"oh he is all fake", might make the process seem easier, but in effect
it only accords Swami
responsibility for one's own disappointment and mental state. How is
that in any wise useful or responsible or freeing? If you know, please
tell.
My point is that any so-called judgment which is more dependent on
what one sees on tv movies, as Said implied his decision was based, than
on one's own experience, is not conducive to spiritual insight-- and in
Said's case is also not particularly intellectually acute. I also notice
that Said's description of the `Hindu ritual' he endured so many times
at Swamis hands 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".)
That said however, it is important that every student ask crucial
questions in
front of the teacher, not behind his back. Those who face their doubts
like that will certainly mature into self-confident
graduates.
Of that I am sure, since I know literally thousands of examples and
there is ample evidence of that among Sai's post-grads for any who check
directly. Those who do not ask such questions or don't check, may,
however, as Jed and Said example, then mistake second-hand stories or tv
shows or embellished
histories for `actual experience' or even blame others for their own
mis-understanding-- but how is that about the process or about the
teacher?
Still, even though any student who leaves school before graduation is
not a cause of rejoicing, my hunch is that God would not have it any
other way. After all, this chat helps folks learn to discern fact from
fiction. This online back-and-forth then is useful if it leads the
reader to consider such things with care. I would encourage any
spiritual aspirant, to very carefully examine one's teacher,
*before* you call yourself a devotee. That neither Jed nor Said did so,
is my deduction.
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. However, I do find his current views are more
specific than he offered before, and do seem to have been embellished
courtesy other correspondenct's stories.
His bit about Sai moaning aloud over and over, for example, is rather
odd, in that all that separates the private interview room from the
general interview room filled with other people, is about eight feet and
one thin cotton curtain. Why
Said described such moans as LOUD, that no one outside noticed, is
significant,
in my view, as the Saga of Said of Iran unfolds:
Jai Ganesh
.
*+*
*%*%*%*%*%%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*
When wisdom enters the heart, and knowledge is pleasant to the soul;
Discretion shall preserve you, understanding shall keep you: Pr 2:10,11
*%*%*%*%*%%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
-----------------------begin copy-----------------
RE: PHYSICIST CALLS SAI BABA....RES TO BON GOVANI
_____________________________________________________________
>From DEEPSPACE10@msn.com (Said Khorramshahgol)
Organization The Microsoft Network (msn.com)
Date 9 Jul 96 16:09:50 -0700
Newsgroups soc.culture.indian
Message-ID <00002112+0000f3b5@msn.com>
_______________________________________________________________
From: BonGiovanni@delphi.com
Sent: Monday, July 08, 1996 7:24 PM
To: Said Khorramshahgol
Subject: Calm
Sai Said,
Three men armed with knives and spears entered in the dark of night
and butchered two unarmed students.
They then claimed to have Swami hostage inside. When Swami
came on the scene, the police broke down the door. They were
in the interview room, where you had once sat with Sai. The
floor was running with inches of blood from their victims.
They lunged at the police, knives raised, ande were shot.
How is it you are more concerned with the death of those three
villains, than with their murder of two unarmed victims?
*+*
My reply to Bon Govani's letter:
sai said? please dont do that.
Also, how do you know that the three attacked the police? were you
there or did you
hear that? there were about 500 people surrounding baba's home, of
whom mostly were
the puttaparthi vilagers. i dont think those students were thinking
that they were going to
get away somehow and maybe by killing the police they were able to
get away easier? i
dont think so. and if they attacked the police it seems like either
they were crazy or high,
which i dont think so, after all they were "baba's students".
Let me ask you a question now. Why is it that of all the questions
which i asked you, and
all the problems that i brought up, you choose to only respond to
this problem? Is it
because the others were hard to answer?
Also, i think you put your faith too much on baba's majick tricks.
Otherwise why would
you care to make us believe that sai baba is not cheating. I think
that your faith and belief
is dependent on what others think and that all the reasons that you
come up with in order
to prove that baba is actually "materializing" stuff is to convince
yourself--and others--of
the miracles. its as though you are trying to hang on to your faith
in this way. Answer my
other questions. Also, what did you think of my answer to your last
e mail? i posted it on
soc.culture.com as i will do to this one.
Have you seen the parts in "God Lives In India" which i mentioned before?
Path:
news!news-master!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news-m01.ny.us.ibm.net!news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net!Default.ibm.net!khorram
news!news-mas
From: khorram@Default.ibm.net
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: SAI BABA: Expaination required
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:17:52 GMT
Organization: ADVANTIS
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <1996Aug12.151752.2050966@Default.ibm.net>
Reply-To: khorram@ibm.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: slip129-37-247-83.md.us.ibm.net
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader 3.0
An ex devotee of baba said something like "what looked like
the gates of heaven turned out to be the gates of hell." This
pretty much explains what we went through with the baba. Baba
wants you to surrender to him. This means, you have to not
think for yourself. This means that you have to see him cheat
on movies and yet ignore it and still have faith in baba.
This means that you have to empty yourself of all your
intelligence and certain aspects of discrimination and be a
robot. Thats exactly what i felt like. And thats exactly
what my fellow ex devotee friend felt like too. We had no
feelings whatsoever, except
pain and fear. There was no light
at the end of the tunnel. My friend and i talked about this
quit often. We just had a silly hope: that baba has drained
us of ourselves and will soon put something else inside us.
Something love. But there was no light at the end of the
tunnel. We were left in the dark and no light there in any
way shape or form. My friend who was a devotee for 16 years
felt like this for many many years. And there was no light
for him, no peace, no vision, no direction. We were
completely left alone. We tried to process every day things
to best of our knowledge. But we knew so much about
philosophy and other things that each situation seemed to have
10 answers. Many times the answers would contradict
themselves. So, we were not able to make decisions and were
very confused, scared and alone. You want to know that
truth about the baba, my suggestion is to wait and see the
developments. don't be taken in by what looks like a miracle.
If baba is really the christ which he claims to be, then
sooner or later we will all know that. And don't hurry.
Remember what Jesus said, "the last shall be first". Baba's
devotees also claim that the baba is the Imam Mehdi which some
Muslims are waiting for. Prophet Mohamed said that 20 years
before Mehdi passes away, he will be the king of the world
with 2/3 of the people of the world believing in him. 20
years before baba passes away would be the year 2002. Wait
and s see if 2/3 of the people of the world will believe in
him or not. Baba has some supernatural powers but in my
opinion he is an evil spirit.
--------------------end copy-----
That examples Said's earlier comments online. If he is not the same Said
now appearing as this morning's star on Lane's webpage, one can yet note
that so many details are similar. Jed has introduced similar topics into
his own story as are found in Said's version. (Th ashram ~mafia~, for
example-- a fantasy of such silliness only such lads as Jed or Said
could buy into it. Should you disagree, kindly supply specifics, since
they offered nothing but `belief'). When Jed and Said correspond, the
result of their chat shows up in each others's versions, it
appears. What an example of the gossip feeding the gossip!
To me both Said and Jed are spiritual, intellectual, and moral cripples,
amputees from an imaginary
war they never even fought in, men who now appear with begging
cups asking for you to agree they are victim/heroes. I find they are on
crutches begging for justification not by any accident nor by Sai's
design- rather they have openly chosen their state and have ensured its
duration by mixing their
war-stories with willful gossip, hyperbole, fictions and suppositions.
Should you wish to view comments by those who have chosen otherwise, I
encourage you to visit
more healthful sites than Lane's spiderweb.
At any rate, thank you for considering my view.
5/28/97
BonGiovanni@delphi.com
*+*
----------------------------
From shagols@itdc.koreanair.com Wed May 28 22:42:23 1997
*********************** 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. =
If we are going to accomplish anything, you must answer my questions =
one by one. Quote my questions and answer them, this way we can follow =
as to what answer goes to what question. Please do the same for your =
comments as I have, makes things a lot easier to follow.=20
>David Lane seems to add threads daily, as if he somehow feels that the =
more stories he >disjointedly posts about the Sai Baba genital ablution =
ritual ( a rite which Sai has performed for >more than 30 years in both =
private and in general group interviews) the more Lane seems to >think =
sheer quantity somehow proves Sai is a sexual predator who, as Lane =
puts it, 'likes to rub >young cocks.'
First of all, never has Sai "cleansed" the genitals of another in =
public. 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.
So, you are saying that Baba is cleaning the genitals. Then please =
prove your point by answering the following questions. 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:
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?
2. How can you be sure that he is not enjoying it? Are you aware of =
what he thinks or feels?
3. Since he has not done it to you - or has he - how can you be sure of =
what you say? You didn't even see the reaction on his face or the =
change in his breath speed or the noises he made.
>That the ritual has less to do with lust or masturbation than with =
mystical initiation, is >nonetheless implied even by some of those lads =
who now claim it felt somewhat naughty. >Reading their description, =
however, I note at the time they say they did not feel naughty so >much =
as mystified. That is evidenced in the the options offered by Said, =
published at today at >a =
href=3D"http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/surfer.htm"> Dr. Lane's =
webpage..
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? =20
>To me Said's story sounds similar to comments posted earlier in =
Usenet fora by >jkhorramsh@aol.com and by DEEPSPACE10@msn.com and by =
khorram@ibm.net (plus three >or four other anon email addresses in which =
the writing style was identical.) If David Lane's >'Said' is that same =
Mr Khorramshagol, then comparing his earlier comments to his current =
>article at David's wepbage, may prove insightful. If however, the =
"Said" writing on Lane's page is >not the author of the following, the =
similarities are all the more noteworthy.
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. 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.
>Such tales by Said, whatever address he uses, 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. It was a famous group, because the lads had such =
intense >chances to doubt they talked about it at length with every =
other doubter in the ashram they >could locate.=20
1. Why do you think that they "had such intense chances to doubt"?=20
2. Why did Baba make them doubt? =20
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! 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?
>It appears more apt than co-incidental they should meet again =
courtesy David Lane, in that all >three of them example how the getting =
of wisdom is not like shopping for shoes- 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? 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? 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? 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. 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. 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?
> These can manifest as suffering, especially when addressing =
specifics. That may explain why >the fellows offer but few specifics, =
then usually embroider the facts with hyperbole, resulting in >their =
frequent assumptions.
In the past I offered you proof and told you to watch a certain movie. =
You didn't. You never answered me as to if you have seen the movie. =
You argued that movies are stupid, faith should be above any movie - =
three of them. You argued that your inner experiences have proved Baba =
to be holy or God. Now, since you have decided that the inner =
experiences are the only thing that matters and that the inner =
experiences are the only way to decide if Baba is right or wrong, then =
what kind of proof are you asking for. I can't come to your inner =
consciousness and somehow prove the holiness of Baba, why don't you =
decide what kind of proof you want and we will see if we can give it to =
you.
>The pain expressed in the assumptions detailed by Khorramshahgol, aka =
Said, is certainly >worthy of care and compassion, but the words he =
uses to express that pain are not particularly >cogent, articulate, =
accurate or even factual, in my view. (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.) In that first article he had told the world he >was an =
ex-devotee of Sai Baba who "had given all his life to Sai". =20
>Later he explained that 'lifetime' had rather been a few years of =
cult-like confusion, fanaticism >and mental instability.=20
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". 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. 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?
>In a still latter post he called his elders 'assholes' and finally =
concluded that the problem with >Sai is not his teachings, but his =
character.
Wrong, I never called them assholes, I was probably saying that towards =
Sai devotees in general without remembering that my brother is a =
devotee. 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
> Apparently since having corresponded with others in his similar =
state of clarity, I see he now >describes ALL devotees as zombie-like =
hypocrites and Swami as a raging madman.=20
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. 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 since he =
n't count, I need to experience it for myself? 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? 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.
>That is the basis for sadhana, or spiritual discipline. Experience =
like that you see does >example how understanding itself is best =
realized while *living* a teaching, not dwelling in >imaginary states =
or assumed relationships as href=3D"http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/ss10a.htm"> 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. =20
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. 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. 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.
>Counter his claim, not ALL nor even many devotees suffer as he has =
asserted, nor do I agree >with him that 'get close and you'll find all =
devotees are cruel hypocrites'-nor do I agree that Sai >is the demon Sai =
paints him to be. Clearly, our experiences differ.
No need to counter my claim. I have already suggested to everyone to =
get close to Sai devotees, very close, and study them. Counter claims =
are grounds for more discussions which won't prove anything about their =
hypocrisity.
>I suggest one reason for that is because I have based my views only =
on my own experience >and study, not on guesses, stories, movies, or =
hearsay. Those who prefer rumour to fact, are >welcome to appluad Said =
as a sage if they wish. For myself I find his situation unfortunate, =
but >not laudable.
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? =
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"?
>However, those who wish to
> examine Sai =
for character flaws >may certainly do so if they find that =
beneficial, but surely might do well then to at least go and >see him =
directly, so as to fully examine their day to day lives and 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. Apparently, Bon is suggesting that =
you shouldn't listen to me and go to India and see Baba. However, he =
takes every chance to publicize Baba, even over the internet where he =
has a (or many) web page . =20
>Instead, if they do as Said suggests, if one instead pays attention to =
stories, or to movies, or to >hearsay or imaginings, as he himself =
brags that he has done, one gets no actual experience, >no =
understanding, and no insight. Rather one gets what Said has: =
'opinion' which is >frankly more bias than anything else, but =
opinion which masks itself as if "objective fact".
Well, your opinions are facts, but mine have no ground, they are just =
opinions, right? 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? That has always been my stance but of =
course, I always argue that he is a charleton.
>I think Said errs terribly and grossly, and suggest that for =
spiritual as well as social maturity, it >is helpful when each person =
EXAMINES one's own experience, not others'. However I don't >say one =
should ignore men like Jed or Said, only that one consider if their =
exeperience is >universal or particular.
I provide full proof fact that Raju is cheating on "materializations" =
which makes it irrelevant if other things are universal or not.
One thing, you are the one who said that spirituality should be examined =
individually and they shouldn't care for anyone's story.
> To me, the worthwhile question is not whether Said or Jed
>are accurate in any of their assessments of Sai's character or the =
Sai
>organization, nor whether any
>opinion that Sai is a sexual predator or a saint is factual, (since
>both are clearly opinions, not universally agreed on as fact), 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. 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??!?!? 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. 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.
>Why accept that what Jed or Said or I say, is so? Why not find out =
for yourself? I suggest one >must find out, if one means to seriously =
examine such matters, (instead of read webpages as if >they were gossip =
columns or lynching parties).
And I suggest to you and all that they should look at these three movies =
if they mean "to seriously examine such matters". 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.
>It is Said's stated view that Sai is a quack. Yet does that make it a =
fact? Said speaks of his >experiences as if he had been in a sex-mad =
secret mafia cult of greed, power and intrique. =20
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.=20
>That means for him it was a cult, but it is my direct experience that =
there is nothing "real" about >Said's claims, nothing cultlike in Sai's =
organization-even though there may certainly be cult->followers like =
Said around, 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 Said himself. >After all, Said describes very well =
his state of mind, and I note he said he was that way before =
>approaching Sai Baba.=20
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. That reminds me of another cult whose leader raped the women =
and the followers knew it. They convinced themselves that since the =
teacher was all pure, then his intentions were that the women had too =
much sexual energy in them which they were holding in - as a result of =
teachings of celibacy. They needed to release that energy so that they =
could get on with their spiritual work and so the all pure teacher raped =
them to release that energy. During the time of rape, of course they =
thought that the teacher had no sexual feelings. Instead he had love =
for that follower and was just thinking about their spiritual progress. =
Can you relate?
>In my view then, neither Sai Baba's character nor his teaching is the =
cause of Said's 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' and so >examine your own experience. If one succumbs to other =
than that, one avoids clear thinking in >my view. However, one may of =
course deduce based on hearsay and appearances, instead of >direct =
observation and experience.
Three movies are heresay to you? I think all can see your twisted =
thinking. You prove my point.
>Frankly I think Said examples that rather clearly, and so hope you =
will use his example to avoid >such calamity.=20
Believe me they wont. Not after your replies.
>Why be surprised at that? Do you think Swami is only what Said, or I, =
(or Lane, or you) think >him to be?=20
Your opinion above is nothing but twisted thinking based on faith. 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?"=20
>You yourself can find out if Sai 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, and at the =
same time effortlessly keeps those >intent only on second-hand stories =
at somewhat of a distance.
Why not? Isn't better to have faith based on research and observation =
than blind faith like the Heaven's Gate people did? I think 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? =
Recently Cameras are not allowed after the Korean crew exposed him. =
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. By the way the Korean crew visited Whitefield =
where you could use a Camcorder to tape Raju, but now that's not allowed =
either!!!!
>Students who persevere do find 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 so much as to instead apparently deduce instead Sai was at =
fault, is what >Lane's page serves to focus on, if one wishes. Of =
course David's page also offers the chance >to mindlessly gloat over =
gossip, if one wishes that.
Is that supposed to justify everything? Brigning doubts forward? Is =
that supposed to justify Jed and my position now? 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. =20
>Perhaps Jed and Said and Lane view their articles as exposes of Sai =
Baba, but I see it as >exampling their inability to consider personal =
responsiblity. After all, 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 are angry to find that =
out. They seem convinced a teacher 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. 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. 'Sai is God, so he couldn't =
have done anything, so the problem must be coming from Said and Jed. =
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.
>Unlike such men I find that just as the teacher brings href=3D"http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/carp.htm">doubt into =
light, so it is the student's >job to deal with such doubt, and so =
ask the teacher directly to help in all ways whenever >needed. I have =
done so, and so have many chums, which is why I say that in my =
experience >spiritual students will ever examine doubt, and so will of =
course themselves come to see the >ORIGIN of doubt, and thus develop =
strength of character and independent thinking and blame >no one for =
that.=20
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"? =
Of course he will scorn you for having doubts and will tell you of a way =
of controlling your doubts. 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? 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. 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? =20
>It is how one becomes free. It is this voluntary transformative =
process itself that leads to real >tapas, or the heat of insight. That =
in turn provides genuine growth towards independence and >confidence and =
maturity and wisdom.
As was shown by you. =20
>Neither Said nor Jed seem to appreciate that, (in fact, they rebel =
against it). That rebellion is for >the most part 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, gossip than actual victims of fraud or 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? 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'? Answer these questions =
also, specially the last one and prove to everyone that you are a man of =
clear judgement!
>In effect I find such men chose for their own reasons to stop looking =
inwardly as Swami urges >his students, and chose to look out at Sai, =
based on their assumptions, not facts. =20
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. 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. 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.
>My point is that any so-called judgment which is more dependent on =
what one sees on tv >movies, as Said implied his decision was based, =
than on one's own experience, is not >conducive to spiritual insight-- =
and in Said's case is also not particularly intellectually acute. I =
>also notice that Said's description of the 'Hindu ritual' he endured =
so many times at Swamis >hands 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. But Bon has decided to think of it as a ritual. 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.
>That said however, it is important that every student ask crucial =
questions in front of the >teacher, not behind his back. =20
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.
>After all, this chat helps folks learn to discern fact from fiction. =
This online back-and-forth then is >useful if it leads the reader to =
consider such things with care.=20
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!
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. However, I do find his current views are more =
specific than he offered before, and do seem to have been embellished =
courtesy other correspondenct's stories.=20
>His bit about Sai moaning aloud over and over, for example, is rather =
odd, in that all that >separates the private interview room from the =
general interview room filled with other people, is >about eight feet =
and one thin cotton curtain. Why Said described such moans as LOUD, =
that >no one outside noticed, is significant, in my view, as the Saga of =
Said of Iran unfolds:
Wow, I like that Bon, "as the Saga of Said of Iran unfolds". It's the =
attitude of a person who feels they have conquered their opponent by a - =
twisted - reply. You shouldn't have such feelings, or talk as such. =
Instead what Raju says you should be doing is to say Raju Ram, Raju Ram, =
Raju Ram, ... untill you feel as dizy as I did. Except you wont get out =
of it.
And Wrong again Bon, there is a curtain and a door between the private =
and public interview rooms. I know because once I wanted to close the =
door for him and didn't let me and closed it himself. Pay close =
attention, you will remember. You took my mention of loud and thought I =
mean "LOUD". Wrong Bon, he moaned loudly, not mumbling, he sure wasn't =
moaning "LOUD". Don't try to confuse the thinking of the readers by =
putting it in uppercase. Here is a word by word quotation of my =
posting:
"He rubbed my hand there for a short while and this time he was making =
loud noises of ...."
and
"As I said before, he was making loud voices while he was doing that."
And
"In almost all of such interviews, Baba would breath harder and =
sometimes he would make noises too."
Why did you write loud in uppercase? Also, if the notion that Raju was =
shouting loud sounds rather odd to you is because you haven't =
experienced it for yourself. It is odd to me too, but in a different =
way.
And don't forget to answer all my questions.
>That examples Said's earlier comments online. If he is not the same =
Said now appearing as this >morning's star on Lane's webpage, one can =
yet note that so many details are similar. Jed has >introduced similar =
topics into his own story as are found in Said's version. (Th ashram =
~mafia~, >for example-a fantasy of such silliness only such lads as Jed =
or Said could buy into it. Should >you disagree, kindly supply =
specifics, since they offered nothing but 'belief'). When Jed and >Said =
correspond, the result of their chat shows up in each others's versions, =
it appears. What an >example of the gossip feeding the gossip!
Lets see, Jed says the same thing as Said, then what fantasies and =
silliness these two - before one - believe in. Before there was just =
Jed, now there is me, later there will be more, believe me. I know of =
two other ex-devotees. I once talked to a lady at a clinic for treating =
cult members and she said that a lot of people call her who were =
devotees of Raju. Sooner or late Raju will be exposed and more devotees =
will be ex-devotees. You will see.
>To me both Said and Jed are spiritual, intellectual, and moral =
cripples, amputees from an >imaginary war they =
never even >fought in, men who now appear with begging cups asking for =
you to agree they are >victim/heroes. I find they are on crutches =
begging for justification not by any accident nor by >Sai's design- =
rather they have openly chosen their state and have ensured its duration =
by mixing >their war-stories with willful gossip, hyperbole, fictions =
and suppositions.
Say Raju Ram you biggest hypocrite there is. Doesn't Raju say that all =
is God, you should only see the good in all, you should only see God in =
all, etc.? Hypocrite Bon, gets yourself straight first before you =
judge.
>At any rate, thank you for considering my view.
Another hypocritical statement, I thought you didn't like Professor =
Lane's web site. The way you write about him, it seem you don't like =
him. And also, the way you talk to all seems like we have no other =
choice than to accept your points. You never give us a chance to accept =
your OPINIONS, which you have convinced yourself are facts.
>
5/28/97
>BonGiovanni@delphi.com
>
>*+*
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Wed May 28 23:42:41 1997
X-Mailer: Juno 1.38
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,7-8,13-18
From: bon_giovanni@juno.com (Bon Giovanni)
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 02:42:20 EDT
Status: RO
X-Status:
Sri Parthiban-ji,
Pranams,
Thank you for cc'ing me as regards your recent letter to Dr. Lane. I
have read it with care, several times, and so have duly considered your
viewpoint (and your wry humour within your queries cum assertions, as
well as your pointed allusions). That you credit the elder Sri
Premanand as a skeptic of integrity and fact, is noted, I assure
you. Yet, since you have expressed your perspective so concisely, I feel
nothing I could now say would in any way further your insight or my
viewpoint, and so offer no reply other than this "thank you" for having
included me in your correspondence.
All best wishes
*+*
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7284
-----------------------------------------------
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
