E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
Author: Various Authors (cited in text) 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 bon_giovanni@juno.com Fri May 23 23:12:41 1997
May 23, 1997
Hi Jed,
I got your recent letter- if you'd like me to reply, let me know,
otherwise I will not intrude. (You made several points I would like to
discuss, and made some comments I take issue with, others which I would
query, but as I say, I do not want to reply if you have no interest in
corresponding with me.) Also please let me know
if I may address comments posted online which you've addressed to
others.
Sorry to hear that part of my first letter to you was truncated:
>As a note: I am concerned that I did not receive all of part one of
>the
>letter. I have until the 5th paragraph "Jed shoed in his letter w..."
>and
>noting more until the beginning of part two. Would you please foward
>me
>anything I might have missed.
Yipes! _Most_ of it was lost in your copy... Sorry to hear that, but I
do see David got his cc copy in full. (He put it online) Ok, here is what
came after, including the part that David snipped out online.
----------------------------------------begin copy from there
on------------------------
That said, ever noticed how a pickpocket sees pockets, where an honest
man sees only clothing? One's preferences determine to a
large degree what one `sees.' Jed showed in his letter what
he sees. He however also implies this and that while
presenting his experience MIXED with hearsay and assumption.
He sometimes presents facts, but often mentions fictions as
if only facts, and ever uses allusion as if what he claims were
proven already beyond question and is accepted by all.
Nevertheless in his comment about sleight of hand, Jed is
partially correct: those who are eager to see something,
(anything), can indeed talk themselves into finding evidence
of it. Thus those who want to see miracles can convince
themselves they see that, while those who want to see
chicanary, can convince themselves they see that. This is
why it is crucial that one become utterly aware of one's
preferences and repulsions, become honest with oneself-
otherwise perception is bent by expectation, and then marred
by disappointment. Jed's letter is evidence of that, but not
evidence of much more than that.
A good start toward appreciating facts, in my view, is to
learn to see clearly without distraction or interpretation or
a priori assumption. Nothing should be allowed to get in the
way of one's attention- no cameras, no tape recorders, no
distractions, just good solid Zen sitting and flat-out
attention. Only those who are that straight with themselves
can examine an event without presupposition and then describe
it accurately.
Frankly that is the whole purpose of spiritual disciplines in
all religions: to clear the intellect and intuition of
assumption so a spontaneous experience can be apperceived
directly. Those who succeed, find the truth. Buddhism calls it
enlightenment, Christianity calls it grace, Hinduism calls it
samadhi. Any who experience it, know it no matter what it is
called. Those who do not experience it, have nothing but
conjecture and would not recognize it if it were their own
breath.
Not that it matters, but for a breath of fresh air I would
like to establish a link with Jed, so I will say that like
him I too have been in interview with Swami, know Hal, and
know some of the lads Jed was friends with, including Sathya
and Pravin and Sunil. I also studied with his aunt back in '84, and
have been chums with Sam Sandweiss since '76. Finally I note
with due appreciation his apparent humour as Jed refers to
the ashram as "the Ash Ram", as if a pun on vibhuthi, the
ash which Sai gifts many devotees, with the Abrahamic
sacrificial burnt Ram of Genesis- or was it the Avatar Raama whom
you meant Jed? (If I have read more into Jed's spelling than
he meant, well-- lucky me to get more than is gifted!)
I have rings, a pictures of me with baba, and
could get more witness accounts of sleight of
hand.
I am sure Jed could get more accounts and am glad that Jed
has rings, pictures- all those experiences- and hope he
recorded them then and there exactly as the events occured.
Why? Why because among devotees, Swami is well-known to act
in a unique way with each person, and may seem another
entirely different person with others. Putting that on paper
as it happens, helps one appreciate why critics may see it as
Sai's hypocrisy, while his admirers tend to regard it as the
multifaceted nature of his personality.
For myself, I believe that every person who interacts with
Sathya Sai Baba, experiences him (and what he says and does)
differently than others do. I have seen folks who just left
his presence report entirely different acts and words. I
think that is why Swami is called a world teacher-- not that
he is everyone's recognized satguru, but that he uses whatever
guise serves the teaching function. Very often, one sees in
Sai Baba what one does not see in oneself, until such time
as one sees him in everyone.
Jed and David seem to think a teacher must however act, or
appear, only in ways they expect and approve of. If that is
the case or not, Swami certainly does not fit that mould,
since he rarely acts, or appears, as anyone expects. But then
that is perhaps exactly how he can so ably remove doubts:
unexpectedly.
That is why I feel this process Jed is now bringing to light
on the Web is not unique, nor are his complaints, nor are his
insights, nor is his disappointment or anger or excitement. The only
unique thing about Jed, is that this is Jed's story. What he
describes as sleight of hand, others describe as a miracle.
What he describes as fraud, others see as reality. The event
is the same for all, but the perceptions differ: the reaction
to the perception is the difference I will address.
Everyone who interacts with Sri Sathya Sai Baba on a personal
level experiences that, but not all realize it. To become
attached to any experience as a fraud or as divine, as
genuine or as illusory, is equally unfortunate, in my view.
All who choose to experience Sai directly however, do get to
go through the process: it is called the getting of wisdom.
What Jed seems to have overlooked is how that is done.
Sometimes Sai removes doubts directly, as expected, and other
times leads the doubter to see for oneself what obtains.
That is always unexpected. Per Jed's letter, he seems to
have seen Swami only produce small objects, and even fumble
when doing just that. Perhaps had Jed been keener to
examine the reasons for his conclusions as well as the state
of his observations, rather than to accept them as fact
without further regard, he might have asked Sai to `create'
startlingly huge objects in his open palm, not with a wave or
a movement of any kind. Folks have done so, and contrary
Jed's implications, Sai does produce much more than a ring or
a watch or a small object, and there is no sleight of hand,
in that objects requested of him do sometimes appear a few
inches over his open palm, and one can see it forming just
before it falls into his grasp.
That Jed did not experience that, is perhaps because he did
not want to.
However, Jed is correct in saying that Sai does palm objects. I
hope no one is suprised at that, since among mature students
`sleight-of-fumbled-hand' is well-known as Sai's sense of
humour. He likes to palm objects and also likes to say he will
change an item that then does not change. Where Jed is wrong
(sorry- "where Jed mis-assumes") is in deducing that is all Sai
does. As to why Sai creates as well as does sleight of hand,
or why he lets himself be seen fumbling, is in my view due
Sai Baba's method of teaching. Swami utilizes both miracles
and appearances not so much to impress, (an effect which he
clearly enjoys) but more so as to bring hidden assumptions up
into the light. It is after all only when one sees one's
assumptions clearly, that one can examine them. That is the
how the process of removing doubt begins. (Before a fact can be
recognized, misperception, i.e. doubt, must be clarified, right?)
With due respect for Jed's age and for David Lane's doubts,
folks who think Sai is only a con man or miracle maker, have mistaken
his mission. He uses one's doubts as easily as he uses one's
faith to awaken one to reality. That Jed or David or anyone
think they know better than Sai how to do that, is
perhaps why they are not awakened yet.
(I was not condescending, unless either of them claim to be enlightened.
Otherwise then I am correct to say they are not awakened yet, am I
not?)
Had Jed enquired of Sai directly about such matters, I
suggest he might have learned what those who have enquired
do soon learn: that Sai often acts for over-emotional devotees
or stuffy carpers, as if he is just a parlor magician who has
bungled a sleight of hand trick. It is one of Sai's favorite
ploys, and is a surprise only to those who mistake him for
what they have imagined a guru "must" be like. Sai does not want
folks to imagine a teacher nor to imagine spiritual life, and he seems
to enjoy sometimes looking the fool to such as do. It really does not
matter in
the least that such folks mock Sai, since it is not devotion
to Sai that matters, but is devotion to truth. Sai is very
very good at getting folks to recognize truth.
Will Jed find the truth having renounced Sai as a fraud or a
leering faggot? Time will tell. Since there is no hurry in
that journey, what is the matter? If any can say, please do.
That Jed has apparently interpreted the role he imagined Sai must
play, (as if `guru' or `avatar' or `God' or `faggot' were Sai's only
roles),
as if every action by Sai is "just sleight-of-hand", or " lust",
suggests (to me) that Jed has let his imagination get the
best of his intellect, for now. Due his descriptive letter, it is my
impression that Jed spent `four years as a devotee' simply imagining
things, and
continues even now to imagine things. Studying with or
leaving Sai seems not to have altered much in his nature, for
now, but in time... well, all will see, since Jed has gone public. He
says:
What is really striking to me is that little has
been written using Erlandur Haraldsson's book.
He has done a ton of research, mostly intended to
show that that there is compelling evidence that
Sai has some powers. However, were his thesis
that Sai does not have many of the powers which
he claims, which Haroldsen has much evidence to
support, he could show that Sai Baba is, to a
great extent, a hoax.
That is an interesting idea, Jed, and I hope you carry through on it.
( I mention the book at http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/mamvc.htm.)
As for showing that Sai Baba is `to a great extent, a hoax'
I urge you to be explicit. You assert Sai Baba is a hoax, but you have
not
said exactly what you think he should be. Who did you expect him to be?
Upon what did you base that expectation? Why?
Those are key questions. Please, do address them. I believe
when you reply, insight will result for both you and your
reader. At any rate, Jed then adds:
Haroldsen's work shows that Sai Baba is not God,
is not Omnicient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent.
To show this puts other aspects of Sai Baba's
life in question. If he's not God and nearer
human, and furthermore claims his life is his
message, then his followers should start
collecting Mercedes Benzs and aquiring
servants. There is much that is very
questionable about Sai Baba's life, however
devotees do not question it because they
believe him to be God, as he claims the like.
That is certainly a paragraph that could take pages to
address! To begin, I suggest Jed utilize the book he
mentions, via specifics. Show what you mean Jed, using direct
quotes from the book, compared with Sai's words or your own
expereince. Build your case on the solid foundation of fact.
Secondly, as for what omnipresence, omniscience, etc _mean_,
I request Jed now tell if his definition of those terms is based
on his own experience, or a book, or on his imagination. (How do you
know what omniscience is, if you have nothing but the letters
on a page as a definition?) As for Baba being closer to
human, stop: there is Jed's imagination in full evidence. Of
course Sai Baba is human, Jed. That you assumed otherwise is
your choice. Sai has ever said his body will die, you know.
For four years you called yourself a devotee. How is it then
you missed his teaching that "God is Man minus desires"? The
idea that God is something other than human, is surely due theology or
imagination, in that one never experiences such an entity,
save in imagination or in books. (At least that is my view, at this
time,
in this place. Your mileage may vary.)
Finally as to Baba's life being his message, I suggest Jed
has simply misunderstood what that means. Baba's life is his
message, and my life is my message, and so is yours. When
Jed appreciates the way one lead's one's own life is the
*only* message anyone can present with authority, perhaps he
will understand.
Finally, as for Jed's claim that devotees do not question
Baba because they think he is God, or that Baba encourages
devotees to not question him, I urge Jed to look at his
assumption now. Jed talks like he knows what everyone else
thinks and believes and does. That is nothing but his
arrogance, and it helps no one but does lead to assumption of
the worst kind. Please, stop it. (Jed is welcome to speak for
himself, and to describe any specific person he knows, but to
imply *all* devotees are as he says, or that Baba is as he
says, is simply his own prejudice, nothing more.) He is not
authorized to speak for any `devotee' other than himself and just
because he was privileged with interviews and gifts does not
excuse his presumption. Fortunately he shows better sense
when he writes:
My first witness account of sleight of hand was in
Brindaven. I saw Baba come out of the personal
interview room and sit down. As he was sitting
there I noticed a large gold watch under his small
hand, which he was unsuccesfully trying to hide.
A moment later he made the familiar circular
motion with his hand as if he were materialising
the object, and then gave a student the watch.
That Jed assumes himself to be omniscient (to know how the
watch got into Sai's hand even before Jed saw it) is telling
of his state of mind, and is why I suggested his ideas about
what omniscience means may be based in imagination, not
experience. You see, prior to the moment Jed saw Baba come
out of the inner room, another person, a Spanish devotee, was
present who saw Sai manifest that watch. He also saw Swami
later palm it for the student. Yet Jed assumes Sai was
`unsuccessfully trying to hide it.' Why assume anything?
Apparently Lane and Jed both think that Sai is limited to
their understanding of what a spiritual teacher or miracle man is
supposed
to be like. That error is paramount in their perceptions, and
colours their every assumption. It is in fact mostly what
they talk about, over and over.
Sai's job is to reveal habits like theirs so as remove
spiritual doubts in all who ask him for guidance. Jed
examples that process, but does not see how Sai with one
action brought ample hidden doubts to light in two
overzealous young men, leading them to question, which is
part of the teacher's function, you know. That you fellows
now think you know better how to perform that function, is
perhaps why you are neither spiritual graduates nor teachers
in your own right.
-- or did you think Sai's function was to be what you want a
holy man to be like? At any rate, if Sai can create whatever
he wishes, what difference is there between creating it in
front of you, or prior your arrival, or behind your back, or
even via PRESENT sleight of hand after having made it
earlier? I suggest that to him, there is no difference. To
Jed, clearly there is a difference. To Lane there is not only
a difference, BUT fraud is the only possibility. It is good
then that Jed at least questioned the matter, but not good
that he did not examine it beyond his assumptions.
In my view, assumption seems to be the major block in Jed and David's
vision. I urge them to examine, not assume.
On another occasion I saw Sai Baba reach
between the cushions of his chair for
something, and then moments later he made
the circular motion and showed everyone a
small container filled with vibhuti, the
gray ash. I then noticed that behind the
cushion in his chair there was something
shiny, and he paid careful attention to
correct the position of the cushion to hide
the object. Another time I saw him take a
worn bracelet from a man, then with his hand
cupped blew on it three times at the same
time moving his hand up and down. On the
final movement, he tossed the chain into the
side of his chair so it slid down between
the inside of the chairs large arm and his
leg. He then discreetly took took something
from his other hand and made the circular
motion and gave the man a new bracelet.
What is really funny about that situation
is that Sai Baba forgot to take the old
bracelet from his chair when he left, so
when he got up, there it lay in plain view
for everyone in the room. A student I was
with, and who was very devoted to Baba,
picked it up and looked at it, confirming
that it was the old bracelet. When Baba
returned and noticed his mistake, he scolded
this student, who was sitting right at the
foot of Baba's chair and could not miss the
bracelet. Then Baba sat and in a flash
picked up the bracelet and very discreetly
tossed it into the outside upper corner of
the arm of the chair. There were no visible
pockets there, but there is a very large
seem, and the arms of the chair are huge
enough to store lots of things.
That was a long detailed description, and I am happy that
Jed saw so many times how Sai fumbled, and rejoice that Jed
used his noggin' to figure out what and where Sai hid trinkets from less
astute guests. The amount of time given him by Sai is extraordinary,
and shows (me) that Jed was given ample chances to really think about
these things,
and so by definition was also given ample chances to ask
Swami directly what was going on. Apparently, Jed never did
ask Sai, but that may be because Jed did not want to ask him.
Apparently he got so many chances to see Sai be a fumbling
dull-minded dolt, only due Jed being obviously in need of more
than one example to get his noggin' functioning critically.
See how Sai provided chance after chance for the lad to say
HEY WHAT IS GOING ON HERE BABA!? Would that Jed had asked
Sai the direct question he has even now yet to put forward.
Instead of examining the implication directly, Jed chose to
not ask, but to seek direction elsewhere, and to seek it via
assumption and hearsay. I note then that given direct experience, Jed
sought hearsay.
No wonder then the direction he sought elsewhere, led him
elsewhere than to the truth. He sought, and he found what he sought. Why
be
surprised at that? (As long as he benefits from that, I see
no problem. If you see a problem, please detail it.)
However, because Jed did not ask Sai himself to clarify, I am
not suprised Jed is yet less than spiritually alert to what
his experiences suggest.
For example, it may be a surprise to those who are not familiar with the
teachings of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, but it is clear to his post
grad students that Sai Baba really does not want fans or
devotees to remain in that stage. Jed spent four years with
Sai, but seems never to have gotten much beyond the phase of
the `interview please' devotee. (It is the sweet phase in which
one depends more on the outer form, than the intuitive
conscience.) Attention from Sai via interview and gifts is
helpful in developing devotion early on, but not helpful if
it keeps one stuck in the trinket and interview phase, a phase
which is gifted with compassion by Sai to all who lack the
confidence or will to enter spiritual life directly, but is one from
which
Sai ever weans those who show that ability, and ever corrects those
who avoid it.
Of course, not all like the way he does that, but since he is
the one teaching, it is not really up to them. Those who do
not like that, can graduate or can leave. Jed left. Is there
anything unusual in that? No, but Jed seems to think so. He
says:
The student, in the first account, who received
the watch is an American who emigrated from
India. He came from a very wealthy family in
India who were big contributers to the Sai
cause. What I came to realise, is there is
a system in India similiar to our mafia.
Oh Jed, please, HOW exactly is it that `similar to the
mafia'? Oy vey. Please offer specifics and think things through. (I
snipped a bit
more of similar absurd quotes from Jed, because I saw so
little in them to rebut, until I came to this:).
Of course I don't have any evidence for all this,
but in my conversations with students at Sai's
University, this was explained to me.
Of course you have no evidence, since it is just unfounded
gossip, and of course you accepted what was `explained'
to you since it is what you chose to believe. However, at least
your `explanation' shows there are students who are clearly
not in favour of Sai. For the attentive, that evidences
there is more freedom at the school than critics imply, in
that Jed's report implies no official insistence that all
students be kowtowing fawners of The Parthi Sai Baba. That
Jed sought out the critics of Sai among the students is
understood. Would that he had instead directly asked Swami
about those matters, since that would have shown Jed was the
devotee he himself claimed to be. (Four years is a long time
to not ask your teacher direct questions, Jed, especially
when he gave you so many chances.)
Why did you ask students who did not like him, instead of
Sai? Is it perhaps because you had already decided?
[end part one of two]
to be continued...
*+*
http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/carp.htm
-------------------------end copy----------
PS to David: I'd appreciate it if you do leave my tag lines intact. (You
have been snipping them out when you put them on your URL). Please edit
nothing.
Thanks.
*+*
http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/eagle.htm
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Sat May 24 12:32:59 1997
Hi,
As I was saying, surely you noticed that unless each of us
changes via our own effort, there is no change in society.
So how do his powers have anything to do with it? I am
starting to wonder if in your four years as a devotee or as
a philosophy student in college, you ever actually examined
any of his teaching, much less put any of them into
practice, since this stuff about "why does he have to do anything?
Why doesn't he just snap his fingers to effect change" is usually
only brought up by those who have no knowledge of Vedanta,
much less as many interviews as you have had. But then I recall how
you were given a last interview, but instead of asking him
questions, you said you `waited' for him to tell YOU what
you wanted to hear. You sure were arrogant, Jed. No
wonder he played Bozo for you. You saw him as a clown, so
you got what you asked for: a bozo for a teacher. Even if
that now sounds off the wall, please, later on, do think
about that? I find Swami does reflect what we think, sometimes.
I realise his intentions when I
see that he is not divine, and
that he is human.
I think you have no clue as to his intentions, and do not
know much about your own, because I notice that almost everything
you say, Jed, shows you cling to justifying your perspective.
By that I mean you do not deliver facts free of bias, and
since anger is built into your bias, your anger and
recrimination is not surprising. I agree that Swami is
human. I however find his human-ness, divine, but I also find
your humanness divine, just sort of a divine comedy just now.
(I do not mean yuk yuk three stooges funny comedy. This ain't funny,
but then you know Dante's work is not a tv sitcom, right?)
The divine comedy is that you mistake anyone's humanness or
divinity for other than what it is. Your interpretation of
that is what this is all about, in my opinion.
(This I realised when I saw him use
sleight of hand, on occasions I've
named in other letters on or soon to
be on the web page, and when I
realised he did not know my thoughts
in occasions described in letters on
the web page).
I read those letters yesterday, online, and now appreciate
your conclusion, having endured them myself, due a similar
arrogance and impatience. But you say Sai uses sleight of
hand. Ever see him actually create something without sleight
of hand? For example, that oil he rubbed on your crotch?
I agree that Swami does at times look a bumbler, but add that
he also sometimes looks more miraculous than anyone can
imagine. He does sometimes seem a simpleton, and other times
seem wisdom incarnate. He does sometimes act clueless, and
other times acts omniscient. I find he is always more than
he appears to be, and unlike you Jed, I know that who I
think he is at the moment in no way defines him-- if anything it defines
me, Jed. So too, when you explain who you think he is, it
tells me more about you, than about him. (If folks would
consider that, maybe all of us would stop presuming quite so
much about each other). Heck Jed, you presume all over the
place. You seem to think you not only have pegged Sai
Baba, but that no other conclusion is possible. Seems to me
you're going to a lot of trouble just to avoid taking
responsibility for yourself.
We don't wonder what the intentions are of
someone we don't trust when he asks a
youth to pull down his pants to touch him.
Why would anyone be around someone they don't trust? If that
someone were a nurse, would you wonder about the intentions?
or if a shaman said `drop em' would you wonder? or a drill instructor
top
sergeant? or a guru? I think you are painting this with a
broad brush only to hide your responsibility. When he said `drop em'
you could have said no, period.
My point is that you called yourself a devotee. That gave
him the right to treat you like a devotee, and so to teach
you in any way he saw fit-- or you could say no. Now you seem intent on
making Sai look as naughty as possible, as if making him look vile
will
thereby make you less responsible for having chosen him as
your teacher and for not saying ANYTHING. It is clear you went against
your own
conscience. Did he make you do that? Did he make you call
yourself a devotee? Did he make you choose him as guru? Did
he make you go into the interview room? Then who made you to
stand there and say nothing, TWICE?
I don't trust Sai Baba because I found he
lies about his powers and who he is.
Then it is very intelligent of you to no longer call yourself
his devotee. Had you examined him thoroughly BEFORE you
called yourself a devotee, you could have avoided all this.
He does say, in plain words Jed, that you should check the
guru out fully, before committing yourself to his
program. You either did not check, or you bailed. Why blame him for
that?
I realise his intentions when I think about
the time that it seemed very strange to me
that Sai Baba was breathing very heavily as
he pulled me close to hug and then kiss him.
I am sure you have not realized his intentions even now,
mostly because you have never specified them. To you this may
sound bizarre, but I know many folks who have kissed him,
and some who have then wept in his arms like a child, and
many who are grateful for his embrace. That you imply it was
carnal, is, well, noted. (You were there, so of course you
can say what you experienced. All I can do is note, you see.
I also note you keep saying you know his intentions, but
never specify.)
He turned his head for me to kiss him on the
cheak, but it was nonethless very awkward to
me, and I had never heard of and was not
prepared for such situations.
This is very important: Jed, you mentioned awkwardness and
the unexpected. That is a sign something important is
happening, something that could generate insight, something
that the personality has not incorporated, something in
which there is no ego defence at hand. Now, Jed, please tell
exactly how anyone can be be prepared for the unexpected?
How? Why, by being honest. Were you honest, you could have
either said " whoa dude, no thanks", or kissed him as a
father, or held him as your Lord, or asked what was going on.
Instead you exampled exactly what he had said to you: `you
are very weak.' Earlier you were asked, "What do you want?"
You replied, "I want you Swami." He said, `Here I am-- take
me!' Your reaction shows you did not understand. He was
showing you that you think he is just the body. Your error
about that is what this is all about, Jed.
Nothing wrong with error, nor with being weak, you know. It
is after all what leads one to exercise, diet, will, insight, and
strength. In your case, it seems to have led to anger and
recrimination instead, but hey, you might yet decide on
another route. Time will tell.
I was never erect with Sai Baba and I
never ejaculated. I also did not check
him out, and I'm glad I wasn't thinking
to. I don't think that this is
necessary to discern this situation.
I think it is necessary Jed, to discern, since you have led David Lane
to conclude Sai is a faggot who abuses his students in
all-night orgies and wanted nothing of you but to fondle
your goods. Now since you yourself say you were not erect
and did not climax, it sure looks like your claims of `his
intentions', or of orgies and abuse, are just your way of
blaming him for what you do not wish to look at in yourself.
(I am not saying you are gay. I am saying you are blaming
him and will not look at why.)
I disagree that Sai Baba has to have been
"all hot and heavy pawning at the boy
like some street hooker." The fact is
that what his intentions were is not even
necessary to pinoint Sai Baba's
wrongdoing. Sai Baba exposed and touched
a minor without the discression of his
gaurdian. This is a crime. I wish I
still had that innocence.
I wish you had that innocence too. But still, you have
claimed that Sai is a sexual predator, yet showed that in
your own case, he was not seducing you, not raping you, not
threatening you, not paying you, not swearing you to
secrecy, not inviting you back for secret rendezvous, not
even giving you an erection-- so when you say `the fact' of
his intentions, it shows you have no fact at all as to WHY
he was doing that, much less a clue as to what you were
doing. You are speaking from anger and confusion, period. As for
touching a minor, a doctor touches a minor without blame--
but you nor he are neither in that category, since you yourself
described yourself as his devotee, and so in effect gave
him permission to instruct you as he saw fit. You may say
that rubbing ash on your privates is in no way apt,
but look at yourself! It is the most personal experience you
have ever had, and it is the basis of your every assumption
in all the letters you post. You hate Sai Baba for making you consider
that.
You have not said it in plain words, but to me it looks like you hate
him because he broke your heart. I say in reply that is part of his
job. It is only when the heart is broken, that arrogance
erodes. Your letters show your arrogance. You thought you
were special. He broke your illusion.
Surely you noticed that losing illusion is essential to maturation?
The question of my consenting is more
complicated. I would say that I did not
consent, but I must admit that I didn't
try to stop him.
I agree, the question of consent is complicated. Since you
were just a kid, 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, then maybe you did after all give him consent. However,
that you did not understand the devotee/guru relationship
open that door?
The main point is that anyone that
understands the guru devotee relationship
knows that saying no to the guru is not
an option.
I disagree. I do understand the guru devotee relationship,
and so understand that saying no to the guru is ESSENTIAL. I
said no and climbed a mountain. Why didn't you say no, Jed? I
now understand you do not know that, and so again I ask how
and where you got your so-called "understanding"? What has led you to
say `there is no saying no to the guru'? Sai states over and
over that aspirant MUST ASK QUESTIONS and so certainly can say
no. It is the student's job to present all his doubts, and
the guru's job to remove those doubts. ONLY WHEN ALL DOUBTS
ARE GONE is the devotee instruceted to be free of matters about yes and
no. You seem to have misunderstood that, so I ask you: who
told you other than as I have said? Where? When? Why did you
accept it? Tell, please. (I ask you what I consider crucial questions,
not flip and not meant to embarrass you, so please do address them, ok?)
To that extent, I certainly did not
consent. Given the choice at the time,
I would not have wanted Sai Baba to
touch or expose me if it could have been
avoided.
Jed, in my opinion, you had choice, but not the presence
of mind to use it. Perhaps now at least you will always
have both as well as the courage to do what you know is right, or to
at
least _say_ what you do or do not know or want.
It seems to me this whole argument
hinges on whether Sai Baba is divine
or not.
I disagree. First, this is not an argument. Secondly, Sai
is as divine as you are, so that is not `what this is about'.
This "hinges" on your idea of personal responsibility. You
want to give it to Sai, still. That is what this is about, Jed, from
my view
If he is divine, I am completely
discredited. If he is divine then
his intentions could only be good and
this fiasco is some lesson to me.
That is called a strawman argument, Jed. Even if you are
not divine, even if Sai is not divine, this fiasco is a
lesson for you and for me and for everyone who bothers to
really consider what it means, not what it `appears' to be about.
For, I am certainly not divine and
far too human.
Why in the world you called yourself a devotee for four
years is unclear, since devotees soon learn that being
human is what spiritual life is all about. It is after all
ONLY by being human, one can realize the divine. The
dichotomy you posit is not part of Sai's teaching. (Did
you embody anything that Swami teaches, Jed?. So far you
seem to have misunderstood even his simple teachings, like
EXAMINE THE GURU BEFORE ACCEPTING HIS AUTHORITY, and MAN IS
GOD WITH DESIRE.)
If Sai Baba is fallable, i.e. human, than
my story should sound very suspicious.
That is another strawman. Besides that, your story DOES sound
very suspicious, in that a lot of it seems to be about you,
not Sai Baba, and you offer no specifics to explain your conclusions.
Perhaps on my final trip I had decided that
Sai Baba was human and that is exactly what I
saw.
Gee, do you think so? Sorta like when you had decided he was
divine, that was exactly what you saw? Why not just stop
"deciding", and see then who he looks like without any of your
filters? Why not just stop blaming him, or praising him, and
just see? Sai Baba is a teacher, a vehicle, an instrument, a
guru, an avatar, a man, a unique figure, a friend, an enemy,
an idea, a person, a focal point, a tool, a servant. Why pay
more attention to him than to yourself, Jed? Please, do tell.
This does not seem to me a very good
argument. I may be convinced that a
circle is square, but that does not make a
circle square.
Huh? You say you went through Fordham with a philosopher's
stone around your neck? People ain't geometric forms, Jed. If you
think a fellow is a standup guy, you treat him differently
than if you think he is a shyster. Your imagination about
what GOD is led you to imagine things about Sai Baba, and vice versa.
Why not just stop imagining, stop filtering, and see then who he looks
like?
> This is similarly a question of truth.
Yes, and thanks for allowing me to respond. So far however,
it a question of truth in a way you have not yet specified,
but please, keep going. I am confident the truth will be made manifest.
BonGiovanni@delphi.com
*+*
http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/avatar.htm
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Sun May 25 17:06:18 1997
-------------------------------------please do not edit this one,
David----------------------
May 25, 1977
BonGiovanni@delphi.com
PO Box 6849
Beverly Hills CA 90212 USA
Hi Jed,
Sorry for the delay in sending part two. (I thought I had sent this
earlirer.)
In part one I remarked about the ring you imply you appraised, Jed,
and mentioned some others I have seen that were appraised.
(I was referring to the white diamond rings and to the `green-diamond'
stones, both always set in gold, both of which are always mega-karets,
but some
of which are larger and are real diamonds, with one which proved
to be "just" an `American diamond'. In your opening letter in this
thread, were you talking about those big rings, or about the smaller
ones with smaller stones, usually gifted in solitare or in rows of
three? At any rate, I do hope you specify what the appraisal value was
of your own ring(s), and tell if the examination was before or after
you renounced Sri Sathya Sai Baba. (Specifics help.) I am asking if it
was before or after because, you guessed it, I wonder if Swami would have
changed your stone, as you changed your mind. I can offer examples of
times he did that, if you wish.
Also, as I was saying in part one, your argument about why Swami did
not use his "powers" instead of physical contact, seems to me not to
the point. When Swami built the Water Project, it did not zap appear
overnight, so why you demand your character to be changed any faster,
without `touching you', is juvenile, in my view. Surely you noticed
that unless each of us changes via our own effort, there is no change
in society.
Due such arguments from you, I am starting to wonder if in your four
years as a devotee or as a philosophy student in college, you ever
actually examined
any of his teaching, much less put any of them into practice, since
this stuff about "why doesn't he just snap his fingers to effect change"
is usually only brought up by those who have no knowledge of Swami (or
of Vedanta), much less by someone who has had as many interviews as you
have had. Karanjia
for example asked the same question as you in headlines in his Indian
version of NATIONAL ENQUIRER, and Swami answered him in interview,
because he asked.( Did you read that history?
It is online, linked at my page.)
But then I recall how you were given a last interview, and instead of
asking him
direct questions, you said you `gave him plenty of chances to talk
you.'
Wow Jed, most folks look on the interview as THEIR chance to talk to
him, not the other way around! You say you however `waited for him to
tell YOU what you wanted to hear.' You sure were arrogant, Jed. No
wonder then he played Bozo for you. You saw him as a clueless clown, so
you got what you asked for: a bozo for a teacher. Your letter about
that last interview is so clear an explanation of your arrogance and
doubting state of mind, I am surprised you do not see it explains why
Swami played the role you assigned him. Thanks for posting it online.
(Even if that now sounds off the wall, please, later on, do think
about that?)
I realise his intentions when I
see that he is not divine, and
that he is human.
You `realise'? Whoa dude! I think you have no clue as to his intentions,
since you
apparently do not know much about your own, in that that almost
everything
you say, Jed, shows you just cling to justifying your perspective no
matter what the events as you describe them suggest to other readers.
By that I mean you do not deliver facts free of bias, as a rule, and
since anger is built into your bias, your anger and recrimination is not
surprising. You invoked anger in Lane, too, since you both assume stuff
sans specifics. Both of you are reacting based only on your own
assumptions based on the hearsay you present, Jed, not on any facts you
have specified. Nonetheless, I agree that Swami is human. Unlike you I
find his human-ness, divine, but I also find your humanness divine, just
sort of a divine comedy just now.
(By divine comedy I do not mean yuk yuk three stooges funny. This ain't
funny,
but then you know Dante's work is not a tv sitcom, right?)
The divine comedy came to mind because you still mistake Swami's
humanness or divinity for other than what it is. Your interpretation of
that is what this is all about, you know.
(This I realised when I saw him use
sleight of hand, on occasions I've
named in other letters on or soon to
be on the web page, and when I
realised he did not know my thoughts
in occasions described in letters on
the web page).
I read those letters Friday, online at David's site, and now appreciate
your conclusion, having endured similar things myself somewhat, and
with a similar arrogance and impatience. But you say Sai uses sleight of
hand, and imply that is all he does. Ever see him actually create
something without sleight of hand? For example, that oil he rubbed on
your crotch? What seat cushion did that come from, Jed? See, I think
you still think he can create stuff, doncha?
At any rate, I agree that Swami does at times look a bumbler, but add
that
he also sometimes looks more miraculous than anyone can
imagine. He does sometimes seem a simpleton, and other times
seem wisdom incarnate. He does sometimes act clueless, and
other times acts omniscient. I find he is always more than
he appears to be, and unlike you Jed, I know that who I
think he is, in no way defines him-- if anything it defines
me, Jed. So too, when you explain who you think he is, it
tells me more about you than about him. (If folks would
consider that, maybe all of us would stop presuming quite so
much about each other). Heck Jed, you presume all over the
place! You seem to think you not only have again pegged Sai
Baba, this time correctly, but that no other conclusion is possible.
Seems to me you're going to a lot of trouble to avoid taking
responsibility for yourself, by blaming him for *more* than he did, and
for
reading into all the events with him, only what you NOW wish to be
true.
Did you keep notes at the time? Do they support your current theory?
We don't wonder what the intentions are of
someone we don't trust when he asks a
youth to pull down his pants to touch him.
But why would anyone be pantless around someone they don't trust? I
know, I know, you mean you did trust Baba, but look at how you viewed him
then-- as a kind of spiritual doctor, right? So if someone were a nurse,
would you wonder about the intentions when they said, "lower your
trousers"?? or if a shaman said `drop em'? or a drill instructor top
sergeant? or a guru? See, I think you are painting this with a broad
brush only so as to hide your responsibility. You chose to be there, and
you did not say no, and you did not even ask Swami for an explanation--
so why blame him NOW for doing what he clearly thought apt?
My point is that you called yourself a devotee. Why not admit that
gave
him the right to treat you like a devotee, and so to teach you any way
he saw fit.
Instead you seem intent on making Sai look as naughty as possible, as
if making him look vile will thereby make you less responsible for
having chosen him as your teacher. Look, it is clear you went against
your own
conscience, but did he make you do that? Did he make you call
yourself a devotee? Did he make you choose him as guru? Did
he make you go into the interview room? Then who made you stand there
and say nothing, TWICE?
Why are you so angry for finding that out? Seeing it, does at least now
allow you to change, right? Then why be so `enraged at Sai and all his
devotees'?
Tell me, please, why you are so angry.
I don't trust Sai Baba because I found he
lies about his powers and who he is.
Then it is very intelligent of you now to no longer call yourself
his devotee. Had you examined him thoroughly BEFORE you
called yourself his devotee, you could have avoided all this.
After all, he does say, in plain words Jed, that you should check the
guru out fully, before committing yourself to his
program. You either did not check, or you bailed. Why blame him for
that?
I realise his intentions when I think about
the time that it seemed very strange to me
that Sai Baba was breathing very heavily as
he pulled me close to hug and then kiss him.
Meanwhile I sense you have not "realized his intentions" even now,
mostly because you have never specified them. To you this may
sound bizarre, but I know many folks who have kissed him,
and some who have then wept in his arms like a child, and
many who are grateful for his embrace. They love him. You imply it was
carnal, and only carnal, in your case. Ok, noted. (You were there, so
of course you can say whatever you experienced. All I can do is note
that you keep saying you know his intentions, but never specify.) You
also say he never gave you an erection or swore you to secrecy, so I do
not see why you say it was carnal, and unlike you I see what your words
lead David Lane to say. Your innuendo is spreading like wildfire among
dry grass, so at least show the specifics, unless your `exposee'
causes nothing but more confusion, not less, about Sai Baba, ok? Please,
do start giving specifics, Jed.
He turned his head for me to kiss him on the
cheak, but it was nonethless very awkward to
me, and I had never heard of and was not
prepared for such situations.
Thanks; that is specific and is very important, Jed. You mentioned
awkwardness and the unexpected. That is a sign something important is
happening, something that could generate insight, something
that the personality has not incorporated, something in
which there is no ego defence at hand. Now, Jed, please tell
exactly how anyone can be be prepared for the unexpected?
How? Why, by being honest. Were you honest, you could have
either said " whoa dude, no thanks", or kissed him as a
father, or held him as your Lord, or at least asked what was going on.
Instead you exampled exactly what he had said to you earlier : `you
are very weak.' Remember when you were asked, "What do you want?"
You replied, "I want you Swami." He said, `Here I am-- take
me!' Your reaction shows you did not understand. He was
showing you that *you* think he is just the body. You mistake
spirituality for bawdy consciousness. Your error about that is what
this is all about, Jed.
Nothing wrong with bawdy consciousness, nor with error, nor with being
weak, you know. Finding that out is after all what leads one to
exercise, diet, will, study, strength and insight. (In your case, it
seems to have led to anger and recrimination instead, but hey, you
might yet decide on another route, as you think things through.) Time
will tell.
Note please I am not saying that just anyone can goose you into
enlightenment, (which is David's snide argument). But since you once felt
Sai Baba was not just anyone, you obviously submitted to his will, right?
If you had then gone to the next step of the process, which is ASKING HIM
TO EXPLAIN, you could have found out directly what `his real intentions
were.' I see that you never asked, so am not surprised you are now
assuming this and that. It is after all, just the process at work, Jed.
Sorry, but it is. Since you did not care for the process, it is good you
quit. Or rather, that you want to quit. Since you are continuing, it
seems you have not quit at all, just left the privacy of the classroom in
a huff.
Wow, big audience now.
I was never erect with Sai Baba and I
never ejaculated. I also did not check
him out, and I'm glad I wasn't thinking
to. I don't think that this is
necessary to discern this situation.
I think it is necessary Jed, since you have led David Lane
and countless other readers to conclude Sai is a faggot who abuses his
students in all-night orgies and who wanted nothing of you but to
fondle
your goods. You imply Sai does all the service projects only to get
little boys around him. Now since you yourself say you were not erect
and did not climax, it sure looks like your claims about `his
intentions', especially of orgies and abuse, are just your way of
blaming him for what you do not wish to look at in yourself.
(I am not saying you are gay. I am saying you are blaming
him and will not look at why.)
I disagree that Sai Baba has to have been
"all hot and heavy pawning at the boy
like some street hooker." The fact is
that what his intentions were is not even
necessary to pinoint Sai Baba's
wrongdoing. Sai Baba exposed and touched
a minor without the discression of his
gaurdian. This is a crime. I wish I
still had that innocence.
I wish you had that innocence too. But still, you have repeatedly
implied
that that Sai is just a sexual predator cum prestidigitator , yet
showed that in
your own case, he was not seducing you, not raping you, not
threatening you, not paying you, not swearing you to
secrecy, not inviting you back for secret rendezvous, not
even giving you an erection-- so when you say `the fact' of
his intentions, it shows you frankly have no fact at all as to WHY
he was doing anything, much less a clue as to what you were
doing standing there numbed and pantless. You are now speaking from
anger, period.
As for touching a minor, a parent touches a minor without blame to
change diapers, as does a doctor touch a patient without blame--
but should you say you nor Sai are not in either category, recall you
yourself
described yourself as his devotee, and so in effect you gave
him permission to instruct you as he saw fit. Baba in his role as GURU
does act as parent and as guru, and does so with persons of all ages,
and you surely know at least that, no matter what else you do not know
about his teaching or his teaching style. You may say that rubbing ash
on your privates is in no way spiritual,
but look at yourself! It is the most personal experience you
have ever spoken of in pubic, and it is the basis of your every
assumption
in all the letters you post online. Ok, so you hate Sai Baba. You have
not said it in plain words, but to me it looks like you hate
him 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. You
thought you
were special. He broke your illusion. Welcome to the club, Jed.
Surely you noticed that losing illusion is essential to maturation?
The question of my consenting is more
complicated. I would say that I did not
consent, but I must admit that I didn't
try to stop him.
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, then maybe you did after all give him consent.
However,
that you did not understand the devotee/guru relationship
open that door?
The main point is that anyone that
understands the guru devotee relationship
knows that saying no to the guru is not
an option.
I disagree. I do understand the guru devotee relationship,
and so understand that saying no to the guru is ESSENTIAL. I
said no and climbed a mountain. Why didn't you say no, Jed? I
now understand you do not know that, and so again I ask how
and where you got your mis-understanding? What has led you to
say `there is no saying no to the guru'? Sai states over and
over that aspirant MUST ASK QUESTIONS and certainly can say
no. It is the student's job to present all his doubts, and
the guru's job to remove those doubts. ONLY WHEN ALL DOUBTS
ARE GONE is the devotee to be free of matters about yes and
no. You seem to have misunderstood that, so I ask you: who
told you other than as I have said? Where? When? Why did you
accept it? Tell, please.
To that extent, I certainly did not
consent. Given the choice at the time,
I would not have wanted Sai Baba to
touch or expose me if it could have been
avoided.
Jed, in my opinion, you had choice, but not the presence
of mind to use it. Perhaps now at least you will always
have the presence of mind and the courage to do what you know is
right, or to at
least _say_ what you do or do not know or want. That is certainly an
improvement, is it not?
It seems to me this whole argument
hinges on whether Sai Baba is divine
or not.
I disagree. First, this is not an argument. Secondly, Sai
is as divine as you are, so that is not what this is about.
This "hinges" rather on your idea of personal responsibility. You
want to assign it to Sai, still. That is what this is about, Jed.
If he is divine, I am completely
discredited. If he is divine then
his intentions could only be good and
this fiasco is some lesson to me.
That is called a strawman argument, Jed. Even if you are
not divine, even if Sai is not divine, this fiasco is a
lesson for you and for me and for everyone who bothers to
really consider what it means, not what it `appears' to be about.
For, I am certainly not divine and
far too human.
Why in the world you called yourself a devotee for four
years is unclear, since devotees soon learn that being
human is what spiritual life is all about. It is after all
ONLY by being human, one can realize the divine. The
dichotomy you posit is not part of Sai's teaching. (Did
you embody anything that Swami teaches, Jed?. So far you
seem to have misunderstood even his simple teachings, like
EXAMINE THE GURU BEFORE ACCEPTING HIS AUTHORITY, and MAN IS
GOD WITH DESIRE.)
If Sai Baba is fallable, i.e. human, than
my story should sound very suspicious.
That is another strawman. Besides that, your story DOES sound
very suspicious, in that a lot of it seems to be about you,
not Sai Baba, and you offer no specifics to explain your conclusions.
Perhaps on my final trip I had decided that
Sai Baba was human and that is exactly what I
saw.
Gee, do you think so? Sorta like when you had decided he was
divine, that was exactly what you saw? Why not just stop
deciding, and see then who he looks like without any of your
filters? Why not just stop blaming him, or praising him, and
just see? Sai Baba is a teacher, a vehicle, an instrument, a
guru, an avatar, a man, a unique figure, a friend, an enemy,
an idea, a person, a focal point, a tool, a servant. Why pay
more attention to him than to yourself, Jed? Please, do tell.
This does not seem to me a very good
argument. I may be convinced that a
circle is square, but that does not make a
circle square.
Huh? You say you went through Fordham with a philosopher's
stone around your neck? People ain't forms, Jed. If you
think a fellow is a standup guy, you treat him differently
than if you think he is a shyster. Your imagination about
what GOD is led you to imagine things about Sai Baba. Your
imagination about what GOD is not, led you to imagine things
about Sai Baba. Why not just stop imagining, and see then who he looks
like?
This is similarly a question of truth.
Yes, and thanks for allowing me to respond. So far however,
it a question of truth in a way you have not yet specified,
but please, keep going.
BonGiovanni@delphi.com
*+*
http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/avatar.htm
PS to Dr Lane: please do not edit this in any way. Thanks. By the way,
because you do not link related documents coherently into threads, I
have suggested a sequence at my site,
http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/surfer.htm. Even that however does
not include ALL the other disjointed threads about Sai which you post
online, but at least it keeps this discussion intact.
---------------------------------
From hudoyo@cbn.net.id Sun May 25 22:19:13 1997
Hi,
I know of you from the exchanges between Professor Lane, Bon Giovanni and
you, which was cc-ed by Bon to me. I was the one who instigated the current
flagrance. Hereby I send you my first two messages to Professor Lane and
his responses for your information.
Regards,
Hudoyo Hupudio, Indonesia
--------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 18:24:23 +0700
From: Hudoyo Hupudio
To: dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
You based your sweeping vilification of Satya Sai Baba on the following
accusations:
(1) that he is a pedophile, "having molested 'many' young boys in his
private quarters over two decades or so";
(2) that the vibhuti he produced is in fact "burnt cow dung";
(3) that his materialization of small objects is in fact "sleight of
hand," of which "he has been caught several times."
That is all I can glean from the torrent of abusive language in your
piece of writing. I wonder what kind of proofs you can produce to
support your allegations: what their credibility is as contrasted to
those statements made to the contrary by reputable scientists like Dr.
Karlis Osis and Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson ("Modern Miracles") and the
millions of respectable persons all over the world who have seen him in
person.
I am not an exclusive devotee of Satya Sai Baba, but I am awed with the
whole phenomenon around him. He towers far above all other gurus, and
the story of his saga has not finished yet. One very important
difference from all other gurus -- in my experience -- is that he does
not encourage dependence on the person of the guru among his devotees:
"Call me by any name and form that is dearest to your heart, and I will
answer... For I am in you, and you are in me; you and I are one."
Regards,
Hudoyo Hupudio
Indonesia
------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 23:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lane
To: Hudoyo Hupudio
cc: bon_giovanni@juno.com
Subject: Re: THE NEURAL SURFER'S TOP FIVE LIST OF SCUM BAG GURUS {May Update}
thanks for your note.
Read LORD OF AIR by Tal Brooke (Vikas, India)
Read the series of essays/letters I have received (that will be put online)
by several ex-devotees (some of whom have been personally "handled"
by Sai).
See the skeptical exposes' of Sai Baba in Indian journals, including
India Today.
I wouldn't mind being wrong, but when does handling a kid's genitals
constitute enlightenment?
keep in touch,
dave
----------------------------
To: David Lane
From: Hudoyo Hupudio
Date: 19/05/97
Thank you very much for your response to my letter.
>Read LORD OF AIR by Tal Brooke (Vikas, India)
Sorry, the book is not available here, so I could not evaluate it.
>Read the series of essays/letters I have received (that will be put online)
>by several ex-devotees (some of whom have been personally "handled"
>by Sai).
Thank you for intending to post them; I'm looking forward to reading them.
Again, whatever is said in them, there is no way for me to judge the
truthfulness or otherwise of the accounts and the credibility of the
authors: what their mental integrity is, what their sexual inclinations and
habits are, whether they have ever felt "betrayed" in any way by Sai Baba
(maybe their wishes or requests -- good or bad -- were not fulfilled), etc.
I am also aware that in the past authentic spiritual leaders have often
been accused of all sorts of sexual deviation: Jesus is said to be a
homosexual or sexually promiscuous, the Buddha was accused of making a
woman pregnant, etc. I am also aware that religious and spiritual
establishments are favorite places for unbalanced people and/or sexual
deviants to come to (I do not say that _all_ people who come to such places
are unbalanced or sexual deviants).
BTW, will you also put online essays/letters from believers? In short, will
you present a balanced view on Sai Baba, considering that no conclusive
proof either way could be established at the present time? Or do you have a
set opinion on this matter and have resolved to pursue it relentlessly
(which of course is not a scientific attitude)? But of course your abusive
language on Sai Baba betrays your ulterior motives and your unconscious
fears and anxiety in relation to this phenomenon, you being a rationalist
and skeptic.
>See the skeptical exposes' of Sai Baba in Indian journals, including
>India Today.
So, it comes to a matter of the skeptics versus the believers. Most of the
skeptics, though, have never bothered to meet Sai Baba in person or to
conduct a systematic observation for that matter, the latter of which is a
scientific prerequisite before anyone could scientifically pronounce
anything on that matter. Those who have visited him usually did not present
a detailed account of their observation; rather, they made a sweeping
statement of what they saw to support their preexisting prejudices.
In another page of your website you reviewed a book by John Hislop, a
staunch believer in Sai Baba, which IMO is a rather poor choice for a
rational skeptical website like yours. I would suggest that you review the
scientific account by Drs. Karlis Osis and Erlendur Haraldsson, who visited
Sai Baba, not once, but __several times__ with the express purpose to
observe and study his reputed miracles. Although they could not come to any
definitive conclusion either way (this is the appropriate scientific
attitude in this circumstance) because Sai Baba refused to participate in a
controlled experiment (and he did explain the reasons for his refusal,
which are perfectly understandable), they did report their findings in a
balanced,detailed and careful way (which again is in keeping with the
scientific spirit) and left to the reader to make his/her own judgement.
(See "Modern Miracles") The report, coming from two seasoned researchers in
paranormal issues (who, in other instances, have exposed a lot of frauds),
is a far cry from the opinion of other skeptics and from your opinion for
that matter. So, try to review this scientific book if you care. (Would you
say that both persons have become covert "believers" in Sai Baba? :-)) IMO,
it is those skeptics (who _think_ they are being scientific in refuting Sai
Baba claims) who are much less scientific than the authors of "Modern
Miracles" are.
>I wouldn't mind being wrong, [...]
But you did not mention it (the possibility of being wrong) in your
writing; there you appeared so confident of your being right, albeit a
little bit over-confident. ;-)
>[...]but when does handling a kid's genitals
>constitute enlightenment?
I agree with you it is not IF (and it is a big IF) the incident(s) really
happened. IMO that is the real crux of the matter: did the alleged
misconduct really happen or not? I have no way to materially prove it one
way or the other. But my hunch is that it is a slander; you may categorize
me a "believer" for that matter. This hunch of mine came from a spiritual
frame of mind, and considering the _whole_ aspects of the phenomenon of
Sathya Sai Baba as support.
Regards,
Hudoyo
--------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lane
To: Hudoyo Hupudio
thanks for your note.... Would you consider having your note put on the
neural surfer? I like to put both pro and con positions.
Frankly, however, I think your position is quite naive.
Here's a letter I received that takes a different view.
to be attached in my next letter.
dave
----------------------------
From bon_giovanni@juno.com Sat May 24 12:12:46 1997
On Sat, 24 May 1997 11:44:26 -0400 (EDT) JGeyerhahn@aol.com writes:
>Dear Don,
>I am interested in your comments.
>Regards,
>Jed
Interested enough to at least get my name right, Jed? (I'm kidding, you
can call me Vaughn or Don or Bon or whatever you like-- since I know who
you mean).
In another part of Lane's URL, your letter about the ring and its value
is published. You imply you had yours appraised, and imply you know as
fact that all the rings Sai gifts are not really valuable. Please,tell
who appraised yours, and its value, and the metal, and the stone. I ask,
because I find the rings do vary. One turned out to be worth 18,000
bucks, US$, and was set in 24 caret gold. Another, that looked like it
was identical however, was set in 18 caret gold and the stone was valued
at only three grand. Another was cubic zirconium valued at $120. So, for
you to announce `they are all fake' seems to suggest you did not mean
`all', at all.
Too, you might consider that in India among jewelers, cubic zirconium is
referred to as `American diamonds.' Since I work with fine jewelry, I
can usually tell the difference by sight, and so when I see cz on a
devotee's finger, or a diamond, I intuit something more about them, than
about Sai, if you catch my drift.
That said, I now address our own earlier correspondence: I regret my
replies are so long, but frankly Jed, when you say one sentence that is
based on so much
unstated background, such as `they are all fake', I feel that my reply
has to include the specifics. That takes time, and is why my replies are
epic [cough]. Here then is part one, of two:
From: Bon_Giovanni
To: JGeyerhahn@aol.com, et al.
Subject: reply to your letter of 5/23/97 02:58am EDT
References: <970523025823_520163153@emout05.mail.aol.com>
May 24, 1997
PO Box 6849
Beverly Hills, California
USA 90212-6849
On Friday, 23 May 1997 at 02:58:23-0400 (EDT)
JGeyerhahn@aol.com wrote to me saying:
Your comments are very helpful. It would be
best that I relate my own experience and be
more specific about that experience. My own
experience, without the stories I heard from
others, was enough to convince me to leave
Sai Baba. However, when I have heard the
allegations of others, my experience has made
it easy for me to believe them.
Thanks for writing to me, Jed. I am glad we agree that
speaking one's truth from one's own experience is best.
Frankly that is what Swami is ever advising his students, you
know. I wish more folks would example your courage. Insight
which arrives from experience, direct experience, is
certainly key to
understanding spiritual, moral, and ethical values. How
one interprets that experience, of course, is what makes for
wisdom (or foolishness). I hope our chat will lead to more of
the former than the latter.
Speaking of which, earlier I had noted your experiences were
often colored by hearsay and innuendo, so as a result your
points were often less than specific. I appreciate why you
believed hearsay, but suggest they weaken your credibility.
The letter you responded to was
emotionally charged. I am furious with
Sai Baba and with Sai Devotees. My
experience with Sai Baba is very
upsetting to me.
Jed, I know you are upset: it shows. Your letter is way
crisp. I've felt more than a little furious with Baba myself
now and again, so I know what you mean. At one point in '76
when I was following all the guidelines to a T, I was
nevertheless thrown out of the ashram 13 times in four months
by the accommodations office. Man but that bummed me out.
What was worse is that each time I was ejected, Swami would
come right to me in darshan and smile so sweetly and say (as
if amazed), `Village? No, no, not good. You stay in ashram.'
and then move on before I could complain or explain. Finally
I got so p.o'd one fine dawn after Suprabhatham that I
climbed that mountain over in the eastern valley, you know
the big one at Parthi. Argh. I thought it would be tops
maybe four hours up and down, but there are big valleys
between, and so it took me all day to reach the crest, but it
was beautiful. I had no idea that Parthi was so green. It
is surrounded by dots of reservoirs, lakes, and green lush
crop fields. At the top of the mountain, someone long ago
had erected a tall wooden cross, hewn of unfinished wood. The
wind was so strong there was a natural clearing all around
it. (With binoculars you can see it from the mandir.) Anyway,
the climb let me work out some bad energy, but it was only
towards dusk I realized I had brought no food, water,
shelter, or flashlight. I had thought I would just zip up
the mountain and down in a few hours. Now I realized there
were plenty of snakes and wild animals all around me, and the
sun was going down.
Anyway, my point was, yeah, I see you are furious. Been
there. What I don't see though, (maybe because you have not
told me) is why you are equally furious with Sai devotees.
You mad at _all_ of 'em Jed? at me too? how come? what did I
do to deserve your rage?
I am very happy that you are couciling
people to not hide such experiences.
Thanks, Jed. As I said earlier, I would have hoped more Sai
folks whom you know would have encouraged that, and I am
sorry to hear none besides me have done. Heck, all your
Sai buds, especially elders, certainly should have been
encouraging all folks to speak of their own direct
experiences with Swami-- first because it really
does free the mind of fantasy, and secondly because speaking
of one's own experience is what Sai teaches. When we talk
about what we ourselves have experienced, it ends not only
imaginary concepts not based in reality, but also ends
gossip and ends hagiographic hyperbole based on
hearsay.
Yes, at the time this was very
embarassing, because I felt that Sai
Baba was unhappy with me, and that was
embarrassing.
Ouch. I realize how that feels, and empathize. Still,
finding out what embarrassment is caused be (shyness, ego,
or ignorance), helps one become confident, so that sooner
or later one can act appropriately anywhere without
embarrassment. (I guess you have found that out now, the
hard way. Right?) Well, hard way or not, it is good you
found out that it's better to be honest with oneself and
embarrassed, than submissive and feeling guilty about it.
Right?
It was also embarassing that I had
sexual desire. Sai Baba denounces
sexual desire, and I was working hard
to rid of it.
I have two questions on that Jed. Do you mean you were
embarrassed because you felt you were not living up to his
expectations or because you thought it was wrong to be horny,
or what? At any rate, I do ask you to cite the source
wherein "Sai Baba denounces sexual desire" because frankly
I do not find that to be so.
Did he tell you that directly, or did you read it, or did
someone else tell you that, or did you assume it, or what?
Please be specific. I ask because he has never "denounced
sexual desire" around me, nor did I do recall seeing that in
his books, nor did any devotee or elder ever try to make me
think Swami `wants all folks to renounce sexual desire', nor
even that one should feel guilty for feeling sexual desire.
He does advise that students do well to be celibate for
that period of their lives, so as to study without
distraction-- but I hope you agree that is NOT "denouncing
sexuality". It is not even saying that sexual desire is
yucky--- it is mostly about training the mind to discern,
freeing the intellect from fantasy, via self-control in
student-days.
While you may or may not agree now, I bet in a few decades
you will feel that sex among teenagers is (and I speak from
experience) a fantasy that fills the mind night and day. It
makes sense to me then that teen-age students do well to
concentrate on study, not their sexual desires. That
concentration is what Sai teaches, not `renouncing sexual
desire' as you claim (in my view). As I see it,
Sai teaches that *lust* is a distraction which prevents
clarity. Since most of his students do learn to concentrate,
and those who graduate do marry, I think they have not
interpreted `denouncing sexual desire' in the same way you
did.
Finding oneself get a hard-on is one thing, but lust is
another, and it is the latter that is to be eschewed by the
spiritual aspirant, as I understand it.
Tell me if I have misinterpreted, please.
Now it does not bother me because I know that
it was natural that I had sexual desire, and I
see that it wasn't out of the ordinary.
Right on. I wish you had known that then. (Ever talk to
Sebastian? He was called unexpectedly into his first
interview carrying a Penthouse magazine! He later became a
student, and yet he had not deduced Sai was "denouncing
sexual desire", so maybe that was your own call? If not,
show me were Sai `denounces sexual desire', please.) I think
you misinterpreted. Too bad your study circles never covered
that. You did go to study circles, right?
I see that Sai Baba wanted to make me feel
that I was bad and embarrassed for having
normal youth sexual desire, by doing this I
would be embarassed to relate the means by
which he told me this.
Sounds to me like you are copping-out, Jed. "I see" that you
wish to blame Sai Baba and you will not accept
responsibility for your own actions nor for your own
interpretation of events. (Hope that does not offend you,
but hey, that is _my_ interpretation, based on how you
present your experience.)
I also see that you think he was trying to "make you feel
guilty" only so he could do things that would make you feel
even more guilty. (Wow, you really hate that guy.) I however
do not agree with you. Based on what you have said, I don't
think he wanted you to feel bad, nor that he meant to
embarrass you, nor that he made you keep any secrets. Seems
to me you might think about that.
However, it seems to me there could have
been a less scandalous way of telling me
that I had sexual passion. Now I
understand that he wanted to touch and
look at me.
So far you have shown only that you seem to feel Sai
told you to denounce your sexual passion. You say you felt
bad. At the time you were, what, 16? 19? What you have not
shown is in what way he is responsible for your feelings.
Please, do show in plain words where and when Sai told you
about your sexual passion, or how he made you reach your
conclusion, or why you tried to stifle your desires. After
you do that, it would be great if you explained, exactly and
calmly, what comments or actions led you to decide the only
thing he wanted from you was to `touch and look at you.'
I see you assert "what he wanted", and I appreciate that is
your interpretation. However, you have never said in plain
words what that was, and since you have said you never got an
erection, either time he touched you, it does not sound like
he gave you a hand job or did anything to arouse you
sexually. So, exactly what is it "that he wanted", in your
opinion? If it was sex, then how is it you did not get erect?
If it was voyeurism, how is it he was not panting in heat or
that you let it happen twice, or that he did not ask to see
you really alone, like late at night or something?
As I said
earlier, I have no idea what Sai is doing when he applies ash to
a forehead, much less do I know what he is doing when he
swabs genitals with ash or oil, but since you yourself say
the experience was not a panting sex party, and that you did not get
erect, I do not deduce that he did it `just to touch and look at you.'
Besides, Sai has been performing that ritual, or whatever it
is, for more than 30 years, and he does it not only in
private but in group interviews. Sometimes a parent or
guardian is present, and sometimes not. You see, I have
spoken with lots of folks about this Jed, but I have never
heard any anointee say that Swami seduced them or beat them
up, or jacked them off, or swore them to secrecy, or
threatened them if they told anyone, or anything like that.
Now that does not mean I understand it or even condone what
he does. This thingee with the oil and genitals is certainly
odd, but I have not heard anything to suggest it is carnal.
Besides, since Swami is forever telling folks TO SPEAK OF
THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES, I see no big deal when you or me or
anyone talks about it, Jed. I do however notice where you
assume stuff.
I didn't keep Sai Baba from touching me
because I trusted him and believed that
his intentions were good.
I believe you. It is really tough to know how to act or how
to distinguish what is in line and what is bent, what is
right and what is wrong, especially between junior and
elder, or in a power differential situation like employee
and boss, until one knows for sure what is going on as well
as what one really believes. My hunch is you have the
chutzpuh now that you would speak up right away, whenever
anything feels less than kosher, right? Well, at least
that is one good thing that came out of this. I am sorry
you feel your trust was betrayed. I know the sick depressed
feeling and the anger that entails. All I can say is, `get
over it.' It is after all part of the process, Jed. Sorry,
but it is. When you can forgive him, you will get over it. I
suggest it is only after you have forgiven him, that you can
start to understand what this is all about. He is a tough
teacher, but a thorough one. Ask his graduates.
During these situations I was confused
because I felt that he was breaking that
trust, however I had faith, and I seem to
have let him do as he pleased.
One second, please. `Seemed to have let him?' It is clear you
were confused, but I think you are still confused, because
you did not `seem' to have let him, Jed-- you DID
let him. Once you accept that and can say so in plain words,
the rest will get clearer, I think. But if you keep blaming
him or anyone else and saying stuff like `seems', I have a
hunch you might just build a callous so thick you will never
see clearly what happened, nor why. (I hope that does not
sound rough or mean or condescending: I am telling you from
my experience what worked for me in getting over my anger at
Swami for breaking my illusions: it helps to blame no one.)
You put yourself there as his devotee. You interpreted
whatever he did as spiritual. One find day you did not like
it and so left the class. You were not expelled. You did not
graduate. When you can say with no anger, `I ASKED HIM TO
TEACH ME AND THEN I RENOUNCED HIM', things will get clearer,
honest.
I realise his true intentions now,
because I see that there is something
very strange about the situation.
I agree there is something strange about the situation, but
while you say that you realize his true intentions, you
simply never come out and say what the intentions are, nor
how you reached that conclusion. To me you did not reach it,
so much as grabbed the conclusion. Your anger and resentment
suggest to me that you do not see anyone's true intentions,
since you do not yet acknowledge your own. It is no good
just blaming Sai, Jed, if you wish to actually be free.
There is something strange in the situation, I agree, but it
is not going to get any clearer if you just keep guessing
what he means or blaming others. (In my view, but hey, your
mileage may vary.)
With all Sai Baba's supposed
powers, he could have done whatever
he needed to do to me without
touching or exposing me.
Maybe so, Jed, but then if he just thinks it so, or say,
snaps his fingers and cures all ignorance and doubt, he
could also just think it or snap them again and make us all
forget we had been enlightened, or like in the movie 2001
we could go from young man to old geezer in the blink of an
eye. (My point is Jed that your argument is not really to
the point. Since you are in a body and since he is in a
body and I am in a body, we all do stuff that involves
bodies and actions and TIME and results, so powers shmowers
has nothing to do with it). With all Sai Baba's supposed
powers, he does actions the same way we do: with a body. We
experience him, via this body. Your argument about powers
seems to me not to the point. Wait. Since you are a
philosophy Fordham graduate, I will add that your argument
is not only not to the point, it is juvenile. Surely you
noticed that unless each of us changes via our own effort,
there is no change in society. So how do his powers have
anything to do with it? When he built the hospital, it did
not zap appear overnight, so why you demand your character
to be changed instantly, without `touching you', is juvenile.
[Continued in part two..].
BonGiovanni@delphi.com
*+*
http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/whoissai.htm
PS to David: please do include that, and all, URL's. Thanks.
----------------------------
From hudoyo@cbn.net.id Sun May 25 22:19:09 1997
Dear Professor Lane,
At 13:50 21/05/97 -0700, you wrote:
>thanks for your note.... Would you consider having your note put on the
>neural surfer? I like to put both pro and con positions.
Yes, you may use all my letters as you see fit in your website. I
appreciate your scientific attitude of putting both pros and cons, so that
your readers (most of whom I presume are skeptics, but one or two, like
myself, may be otherwise.)
>Frankly, however, I think your position is quite naive.
I advocate for suspended judgment; I advocate for a careful consideration
of the whole of Sai Baba phenomenon -- not only the one aspect brought up
by Jed's letter, but also the extent of Baba's social impact on India and
the world community, and also his psychological and spiritual impact on
untold number of individuals all over the world; and I advocate for a
careful consideration of all testimonies, pros and cons, most of which are
not found on this site. If you call that naive, it's OK.
When I mused over the relationship between sexuality and spirituality,
forget it. I have very little information to make any conclusion at the
moment.
>Here's a letter I received that takes a different view.
>to be attached in my next letter.
Thank you for the copy; but since Bon Giovanni has responded to the letter
extensively and much more aptly than I would have had, I will comment on
another letter of Jed I found on your website. (I also sent Jed a copy of
my previous messages to you.)
Jed:
>>>>
So I went about making the changes in my life that made me feel a
whole lot better, even though it meant that I had to stop following Sai
Baba's teachings and follow my own reasoning, and, to an extent, the
promptings of our western culture. These things included having a
girlfriend, whom I loved dearly, enjoying food, talking to people regularly,
and allowing myself to joke and have fun and not be a super spiritual
advanced soul that devotees and Sai Baba encouraged me to be. These simple
pleasures in life made me happy, and they are precisely the pleasures, i.e.
the fulfilling of desires, Sai Baba wants us to starve. I tried, but I was
miserable, and I couldn't take it any longer.[...]
<<<<
This part of Jed's letter is very revealing. At least it shows starkly a
culture clash between the ideals of a western youth and eastern
spirituality. So it all comes back to one's preformed ideals. Jed's ideals
are very different from the many westerners -- who are much maturer of age
and experience of life and are able to bridge the culture gap -- to discern
the truth behind Sai Baba's teachings. Of all those westerners who wrote of
their experience, out of the thousands who have had similar experience, I
can point to Samuel Sandweiss (cf: *Sai Baba, the Holy Man and the
Psychiatrist*, *Mind and Spirit*). I don't think Sandweiss arrived at the
same conclusion as Jed:
>>>>
[...] I could no longer believe that
life was all illusion, because it meant that love wasn't real, that the good
that I found in the world wasn't real. If that was the case, I didn't want
to live any more.
<<<<
And I suspect this culture gap and clash is the real basis of all Jed's
experience with Baba, including the sexual part which has been blown up out
of proportion in these webpages.
>>>>
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.
<<<<
Again a culture clash. Because of what has already existed inside Jed's
mind, he construed Baba's gesture as "selfish" and he felt "disgusted". His
thought was of sex and He saw sex in Baba's gesture. If I were in his
place, being brought up in eastern spirituality, I would have interpreted
Baba's gesture differently, i.e. a friendly gesture with a deep spiritual
meaning. I would have been won over by such a gesture. So it appears to me
that Jed's preset prejudices brought about by his western upbringing and
young tender age acted as barrier to perceiving and understanding Baba as
he really is.
>>>>
This was very upsetting, but if I had the impression that Sai Baba actually
loved me, it would have been tolerable.
<<<<
The right impression was prevented from arising because of the cluttering
of prejudices in his mind.
>>>>
I
then also put my previous encounters of Sai Baba touching me into the context
of Sai Baba not being divine, and I became disgusted and very hurt.
<<<<
Again, this most unfortunate conclusion and feeling came from a preexisting
notion of the dichotomy between what is divine and what is nondivine, a
typical western dualistic thinking. He expected Baba to behave and act
according to some model that he has entertained from the beginning, and he
was disillusioned when his expectations were not realized.
>>>>
Sai Baba has been tender and loving to me in person. This was how I, and
many others, became attached to him. But the way of life he advises is
cruel.
<<<<
See what I mean by cultural clash? This time it caused an ambivalence
towards Sai Baba in the person of Jed. On the one hand, he felt that "Sai
Baba [had] been tender and loving to [him] in person," but on the other
hand, he did not (and does not) want to part with his "western" notions of
a good life.
>>>>
When you then approach him as a being that is not divine and
is without power over you, it is apparent that he doesn't have that power.
<<<<
What does he really mean here? :-) As the statement stands, _it is so
really true_: You approach Baba with a certain preexisting notion, then you
will find your notion corroborated... Is that what he really means?
Anyway, regardless of what he really means here, IMO it is not really right
to say that Baba has any power over anyone. It is _the divinity inside one_
that has any real power over one, and Sai Baba has stressed over and over
again that this divinity inside one -- that one does not usually realize --
is in reality identical with the divinity inside Sai Baba.
>>>>
He asked me what was wrong
and I didn't respond. He then said "You have spiritual problems." This is a
typically vague remark [...] It sounds good in retrospect, and it may
even sound like Sai Baba knew what was going on then, but I needed to here
something more specific so that I knew he knew what was happening to me. At
the moment, spiritual matters weren't on my mind, the only thing on my mind
was that I no longer trusted him. He probably should have known that I was
questioning him from the tone of the conversation, but he said nothing of it.
He just wrapped the whole thing up quickly and we were out of there.
<<<<
I don't know whether Jed really has this exactly in mind _at the time of
his interview with Baba_, or whether he made it up only afterwards in
retrospect.
Anyway, if he did have that in mind during the interview, he acted like
those skeptics who challenged Sai Baba to a controlled experiment. Of
course, likewise I could understand Baba's refusal to bow down to such
challenges. Of all the skeptics, I know only Drs. Karlis Osis and Erlendur
Haraldsson who have been granted interviews more than once in relation to
their purpose to ask Baba to participate in controlled experiment. (IMO it
was because of their sincerity that they were granted extensive interviews
-- cf: *Modern Miracles*) Even then Baba consistently refused the
controlled experiment. (I have asked Professor Lane for his comments or
review of the book, but not one word so far.)
In conclusion: as I see it, Jed's narration could not refute in the least
all other testimonies to the contrary by other individuals who have met Sai
Baba in person. (How many other testimonies similar to Jed's tone are there
extant?) As such, Jed's story will only be cherished by skeptics and
devotees-turned-skeptics, but Sai Baba devotees -- which will certainly
keep growing in number despite all these detractions -- will continue with
their lives, realizing the divine within. Let's wait and see what will
happen to Jed after, say, twenty, or forty years from now.
Regards,
Hudoyo Hupudio, Indonesia
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
