Posted by: sathyasaibaba
(NOTE: All Links Located In The Following Article By Prof G. Venkataraman Were Added By Joe Moreno And Were Not Included In The Original Article)

GOD, THE AVATAR AND THE DOUBTING THOMAS
By Prof. G. VENKATARAMAN

Below is an article, specially prepared, [a bit long perhaps], which offers a detailed, strongly reasoned and emphatic rebuttal of the false and malicious allegations made recently against Swami and His Mission. This article is the result of many letters we received. We hope that devotees would not only take time to study the points made in this article, but also use them to rebuff disinformation, should they be presented with it. An appeal is also made to devotees to give this WIDE circulation, especially among the younger set, so that they become better informed about the Avatar, and what He has done and is continuing to do, for the benefit of mankind.

Unfortunately, there is not sufficient awareness of Swami's Missions as well as His teachings. No doubt Swami has come down to shower His Love. But we should not merely enjoy His Love; we are also expected to regard it as His Prasaadam and share it with as many as possible. We hope that by reading this carefully, you would get a better appreciation of the Sri Sathya Sai Avatar, His Glory, and His Mission.

» Read More

Posted by: sathyasaibaba
Alaya Rahm Admitted Being A 6-Year-Long Daily User Of Illegal Street Drugs & Alcohol

In “Response To Form Interrogatories” in Alaya Rahm’s self-dismissed lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society (Form Interrogatory No. 6.3, Set One) Alaya Rahm fully admitted that he had been a daily user of illegal street drugs and alcohol since at least 1999 - 2005. Consequently, during Alaya Rahm’s “Divine Downfall” and India Today Anti-Sai interviews and during the filming of the BBC Documentary “Secret Swami” and the “Seduced By Sai Baba” Danish Documentary, Alaya Rahm was under the influence of illegal street drugs and alcohol while relating his alleged sexual encounters with Sathya Sai Baba. This crucial information wholly undermines Alaya Rahm’s credibility and irreparably compromises the integrity of his claims. Needless to say, this information has been purposely suppressed from the general public by Anti-Sai Activists, the Rahm Family and the media.

The Big Question: Is A 6-Year-Long Daily User Of Illegal Street Drugs And Alcohol Credible?

You be the judge:
(Pic Link) Alaya Rahm In The Secret Swami - Pic 1
(Pic Link) Alaya Rahm In The Secret Swami - Pic 2

Following In The Moral & Ethical Footsteps Of Ex-Devotees:
During the filming of the Secret Swami documentary, Dr. Michael Goldstein was secretly filmed in the privacy of his home by BBC Interviewers who subjected him to a series of questions in a clearly confrontational tone of voice. Although Goldstein was composed for the majority of the interview, he answered one question with great emotion and Anti-Sai Activists (instead of portraying him in a balanced and fair way) carefully clipped specific movie frames from the Secret Swami Program and made self-serving pictures of him that are widely distributed on Anti-Sai websites and blogs, along with their typical slurs and misleading comments. See for yourself: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05.

The BBC Interviewers demanded from Goldstein that Sai Baba be subjected to a “proper legal process or a legalistic process”. However, the BBC Interviewers never asked Alaya Rahm or his family why they failed to resort to a “proper legal process or a legalistic process” in India against Sai Baba. Why should have Goldstein or the Sai Organization initiated a legal or legalistic inquiry into Alaya Rahm’s allegations when Alaya himself never filed a basic police complaint or court case against Sai Baba in India?

Therefore, since Ex-Devotees (who can often be seen boasting that they are rational, reasonable, moral, ethical, sensitive, honest, law-abiding and decent individuals) feel they can take picture frames from the Secret Swami Program and broadcast them on the internet, I see no reason why I cannot follow in their footsteps and do the same thing. Consequently, this webpage is the direct result of Ex-Devotee’s online behavior.

Referenced From SaiSathyaSai
Brian Steel - Response From Steel, Brian On Dinakaran’s Blog

On Dinakaran’s Blog Brian Steel wrote the following:
“Dear Sir:
A friend informed me that Gerald Joe Moreno (aka ‘Equalizer’ in this incarnation) is still recklessly spreading misinformation about my research into the Packaging of the Discourses of Sathya Sai Baba.

Please allow me to quote from a recent Appendix to the document which he misrepresents in his critique. This should give you and your readers at least an inkling of the reprehensible tactics employed by ‘Equalizer’ in his crusade. Better still, why not read the Appendix and its predecessor?
Namaste,
Brian Steel
(Excerpt from http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/packageapp06.htm Copyright © 2006 Brian Steel)

Both the SSO (usually obliquely) and their defenders (more brazenly) continue to turn a blind eye in public to the substantial body of clear evidence offered in my Dossier on the Packaging of SSB's Discourses.

My basic point was (and is) that there is an essential difference between what SSB says in his frequent unscripted Telugu Discourses and what is subsequently published in English and other languages for devotees to read and study. This in turn indicates that the real SSB is different in certain aspects from the officially projected version of him. Most devotees have been totally unaware of this and therefore inadvertently quote the officially published commercial versions of the Discourses as if they offered SSB's exact words (and style). His real words (insofar as we are allowed to glimpse them from time to time) show personality aspects which differ from those which have been promoted internationally, including a rambling spoken style and an even greater propensity to human error and confusion than that already visible in the official translations. Such basic comparisons of the different Discourse versions further undermine his own claim of Divine Omniscience and those made by associates and echoed by devotees.
This curious phenomenon, when pointed out with the newly available evidence at our disposal, is so evident that for three years no one offered any detailed criticism of my research. There was an understandably embarrassed silence from the SSB camp. Then an Internet campaigner, whose motives still remain obscure, suddenly materialised in late 2004, claiming a burning desire to find out the TRUTH about SSB. Over the past year, on two of his websites, he has delivered and widely publicised a torrent of dismissive pronouncements on a large number of articles which question the officially promoted image of SSB. Shortly after the beginning of his crusade, this person turned his attention very briefly to my published work on the Discourses. During a somewhat frenzied three-week correspondence (December 2004 - January 2005), he repeatedly refused my requests that he should take into account the detailed information in my Dossier, including the extracts from the literal translations. His subsequent public verdict on the Dossier and on my research was therefore based on a gross but quite deliberate misrepresentation of my work.
Those SSB devotees who may still find solace in the official SSO low-key denials of unusual editing practices may be encouraged by the provocative antics of this Internet exhibitionist. However, they - and more particularly other readers - would be well advised to take the precaution of reading the original Dossier and this Appendix of further evidence on the true nature of SSB's Discourses if they are really interested in getting closer to the truth of the matter.
***
[I should specifically point out to readers of your blogspot that I have quoted extensively in both of my articles from literal translations from Telugu made and briefly posted by SSB devotees between 2000 and 2002. Their existence and importance are ignored by Equalizer (Moreno) when making his kangaroo court judgement on my writing. These and other aspects of his wilfulness and ‘spin’ are also shown quite clearly in our brief 2005 correspondence - which, in a characteristically foolhardy way, he himself has published on his website.]

Brian”

To which I responded:
“This is exactly the problem with Brian Steel. He has not refuted my critique about him one bit. Rather, he strengthens my position while compromising his own. Remove the rhetoric about me and focus on Brian Steel’s comments about the English Translations vs. the Original Telugu Discourses and the issue is still the same.

Brian Steel said, ‘My basic point was (and is) that there is an essential difference between what SSB says in his frequent unscripted Telugu Discourses and what is subsequently published in English...’ Fair enough. However, if this is true, why does Brian Steel, and other Anti-Sai Activists, use the English Translations as reliable references to what SSB actually and literally said in his discourses? Brian Steel just claimed that what SSB said in Telugu is not what is being published in English.

Strengthening my case, once again, Brian Steel said, ‘Most devotees have been totally unaware of this and therefore inadvertently quote the officially published commercial versions of the Discourses as if they offered SSB’s exact words (and style).’ What is amusing about this comment is that Brian Steel himself quotes the ‘officially published commercial versions’ offering them as SSB’s ‘exact words’ when it comes to perceived factual discrepancies made by SSB (something done by other Anti-Sai Activists as well)! Why does Brian Steel adhere to two different standards? He tries very hard to make the case that the English Translations are not SSB’s actual and literal words, yet (at the same time) uses these same English Translations as inerrant references to what SSB literally and actually said in Telugu, when it comes to discrepancies and perceived errors!

This brings us to Brian Steel’s reference to accurate ‘literal translations’. Brian Steel is referring to translations that were published on internety.com/premsai. This site was run by devotees who published ‘thoughts for the day’ and discourses in 9 languages. Brian Steel does not know who made these ‘literal translations’. Brian Steel knows nothing about these devotees, including their names. Brian Steel cannot say, with any certainty, that these translations were accurate. Brian Steel believed these translations were accurate based on the word of devotees! How does Brian Steel not know that these devotees may have enhanced or edited the translations to reflect their devotion in SSB? How can Brian Steel accept the word of devotees when he considers them mislead, belonging to a cult and being brainwashed?

Since Brian Steel does not speak, write or understand Telugu, he is basing ALL of his conclusions on speculations, probabilities and on the word of others.

Since SSB’s Telugu discourses are recorded on audio cassettes (and easily obtainable by the general public), it should not be difficult for Anti-Sai Activists to hire a neutral, professional translator (as they have done in the past) and compare the translations. No one has even attempted to do this. That’s probably because Anti-Sai Activists (including Brian Steel) have found errors in about 60 discourses, out of 1,600 (or 0.04%)!

Brian Steel Deception

Also See:
- An Open Critique Of Brian Steel
- Email Correspondence With Brian Steel - Page One
- Email Correspondence With Brian Steel - Page Two
- Critics Of Sathya Sai Baba - Brian Steel
Posted by: sathyasaibaba
World-class tennis stadium at Puttaparthi (Sathya Sai Baba Ashram)
Archive: Saturday, Jan 12, 2008

(Pic Link) Tennis Stadium At Puttaparthy -Sathya Sai Baba Ashram

- Setting new standards: A view of the centre court of the new tennis complex to be inaugurated in Puttaparthi on Saturday.
- The facility has four courts, including a centre court, on the lines of the US Open. The stadium with players room, gymnasium etc. can seat 3,000 spectators.

Puttaparthi: Another sports facility has been added to the host of existing ones in Puttaparthi by Sri Satya Sai University. The new Sri Satya Sai International Tennis Complex will be inaugurated on Saturday by Satya Saibaba and the stadium will host the inaugural match between India and Philippines.

The inaugural match will commence in the complex at 4.45 pm in the presence of Saibaba.

The new tennis stadium has been constructed to provide the best of facilities to the budding talent in the State.

The tennis facility has four courts including a centre court with a nine-layered Sport Master Ultra Pro Cushion surface as used in the US open.

The flood-lighting is compatible for telecast of matches on television as per the international standards.

Complex
The complex also features players’ rooms, lounge facilities, press enclosures and seating capacity for 3,000 persons. An attached fully-equipped multi-station gymnasium and physiotherapy unit make it a splendid sports facility in this spiritual and pilgrimage township.

The first singles match in the event will be played between Ashutosh Singh, national grass court champion of 2007 and John Patrick Tierro, Phillippines national runner-up in 2007.

The doubles event will feature Vishnuvardhan and Sharan Divij from India and Arcilla Johnny and John Patrick Tierro from Philippines.

The event to be played under floodlights will be telecast live by Doordarshan, according to the university officials.

Reference
Category: Sai Baba Moon
Posted by: sathyasaibaba
Robert Priddy’s Moon Madness

Robert Priddy wrote a blogged article about a Sai Devotee he erroneously accused of making a “bogus image of Sai in the Moon”. The image in question is below:

- (Pic Link) Darpanes Obvious Composite Image Of The Moon

As anyone with clear eyesight can see, Darpan Rane’s image of Sai Baba on the Full Moon is an obvious composite picture. Darpan’s composite image of Sai Baba:

  1. Does not look like the Moon.

  2. Does not include any features (craters, surface textures, shades, etc.) of the Moon.

  3. Is simply a circle of white light with a faded image of Sai Baba on it.


Further sticking his foot in his mouth, Robert Priddy said:
“However, the falsifier who put together the deceptive image presented a completely circular moon. A wholly transparent fraudulence, in fact a wilful, and outright lie! Of course, had this occurred (except perhaps in the over-heated imagination of some devotees), it would have been global news story No. 1!”

Although Robert Priddy’s numerous lies have been fully documented and exposed by me, he continues to fraudulently and shamelessly lie about others unapologetically. This type of vicious behavior proves that Robert Priddy is mentally unstable and is in need of orthodox psychological help.

Since Robert Priddy (the alleged and self-professed “scholar”) is totally incapable of conducting even the most remedial and elementary or research, let me supply the general public with verifiable facts.

First of all, Darpan Rane (the “Sai Devotee” referred to by Robert Priddy) fully admitted that the image was not real. Darpan said:
“Sairam,Dear all,
this is not a real image, but im sending what i could see and visualise, what we all saw yesterday looking at the moon. there was not need to imagine a shape or make a guess the visual on moon was as clear as the image im sending now. HIS hair, eyes, nose and even HIS smile was very clear.

Sairam,
enjoy! HIS blessings.
yours sincerley,
darpan” (Reference)

Secondly, the SaiBabaOfIndia website linked the image directly to the post above. Click on the image for yourself (Reference). Anyone with any semblance of visual and mental acuity can see that the image in question was a composite image and was not the Full Moon. Therefore, Robert Priddy’s entire article is based on lies and fradulent information that he never cared to research or verify for himself (which he can often be seen doing in relation to Sathya Sai Baba).

Robert Priddy loves to jump to the worst case conspiratorial view because he cares more for sensationalism and sleaze and cares less for accuracy and the truth.

Robert Priddy also said:
“It is noteworthy how far devotees will go to try to deceive others that they have experienced Sai ‘miracles’ Why they bother can be explained, for example, by the extra popularity and respect they hope to gain from other blind followers for being ‘blessed by Svami with a special darshan’ and for other selfish reasons.”

Needless to say, Robert Priddy wrote an entire book praising Sathya Sai Baba as God Incarnate and the Avatar of the Age when he was a Sai devotee for 17 - 26 years.

In Robert Priddy’s Pro-Sai book (Source Of The Dream) he claimed he shared a telepathic bond with Sathya Sai Baba (which he similary claimed he had with Eric Steadman when he tripped on LSD) and that the Indian Guru cured him of a chronic neck and spinal ailment that no one else (including doctors) could help.

Robert Priddy still believes (to this day) that Sathya Sai Baba can materialize apports, is psychically sensitive and is not an ordinary human being. Therefore, one is left to wonder if Robert Priddy is admitting that his alleged miraculous experiences with Sathya Sai Baba were attempts to sell more books and make money, gain extra popularity and respect from other blind followers or for selfish reasons?

Although Robert Priddy published Darpan’s email, he apparently never contacted him to get his facts right. Robert Priddy also published Darpan’s picture on his blog. What is strange about this is when I published Robert Priddy’s public-domain picture on my website (Reference), he whined and hissed that I violated his copyrights. Although Robert Priddy continues to whine and hiss about the publication of his picture on my website (and how it violates his copyrights), he hypocritically published Darpan’s picture (without obtaining his permission) and saw absolutely nothing wrong with copyright issues. More shameless, self-serving hypocrisy from Robert “The Liar” Priddy.

Robert Priddy should immediately delete his defamatory post filled with numerous bold-faced lies and publicly apologize to Darpan Rane. After all, this is exactly the type of behavior that critics demand of me when I make a mistake. They should practice the precept they wish for others to follow.

October 26th 2007 Update:
After I published my page exposing Robert Priddy’s easily verifiable and psychotic lies about Darpan Rane, he changed the wording (but still made no retractions) on his article and added the following sentence:
“Why would any devotee make such an image of Sai Baba on the moon and circulate it unless it was to create the delusion - one sustained independently by numerous claimants at this location - that Sai Baba DID actually appear on the face of the moon?”

Robert Priddy can whine, snivel and drivel about this as much as he likes, it won’t change the fact that Darpan explicitly stated that the image was not real. Darpan created the image to give others a better idea on what he claimed he saw. How difficult is this to understand?

Why would Robert Priddy publish an image on his blog showing the similarlity between Sathya Sai Baba and the outline on the moon if there were not some truth to these claims? Is Robert Priddy engaging in creating “delusions” as well? The following link shows Robert Priddy’s picture (as posted on his blog) attempting to show the similarity between Sai Baba and the Full Moon:

- (Pic Link) Robert Priddy Sees Sai Baba Outline On The Moon

Also see: Is Sai Baba The Man On The Moon?
Sathya Sai Baba’s Birthdate - Year Of Birth

Sanjay Dadlani published three blogged articles pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba’s birthday date and stated that there is conclusive proof that Sathya Sai Baba was not born on November 23rd 1926, but rather was born on October 4th 1929. As will be shown, Sanjay’s conclusive proof is not conclusive at all.

First and foremost, Sanjay’s critiques and criticisms about Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate are not unique. Sanjay heavily relied on Brian Steel’s past research regarding this matter and re-packaged it, trying to pass it off as something new. It isn’t.

Sanjay believes that he has conclusively proven that Sathya Sai Baba was born on October 4th 1929 based exclusively on the following four “proofs”:

  1. One Kamalapuram school transfer certificate that showed Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as “October 4th 1929”.

  2. One Bukkapatnam school record that showed Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as “October 4th 1929”.

  3. One Uravakonda school record that showed Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as “October 4th 1939 (which was corrected to “October 4th 1929 33 years later by some unknown person).

  4. One quote from the book “Anyatha Saranam Nasthi” - by Smt. Vijayamma Hemchand (aka Kuppam Vijayamma), a Sai Devotee.


That’s it.

MENU (click on link to go to relevant section)
- Kamalapuram Transfer Certificate Details
- Bukkapatnam School Record Details
- Uravakonda School Record Details
- Vijayamma’s “Anyatha Saranam Nasthi” Citation
- Brian Steel’s Observation
- LIMF’s (Love Is My Form) Clarification
- Sai Baba Birthday - In Conclusion

Now, let us take a look at Sanjay’s four “proofs”.

KAMALAPURAM TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DETAILS:
Return To Menu

- (Pic Link) Sai Baba Kamalapuram Transfer Certificate
*Name of the school which the pupil is leaving: B.M. School Kamalapuram
*Name of the pupil: Ratnakaram Satyanarayana
*Date of birth as entered in the admission register: 4.10.1929 (Fourth October Nineteen Twenty Nine)
*Class or form in which the pupil was [unintelligible] at the time of leaving (in words): First Form
*Date of admission or promotion to that class or form: 11.6.40
*Date when the pupil actually left the school: 22.4.41
*Date on which application for transfer certificate was made on behalf of the pupil by the parent or guardian: 20.6.41
*Date of transfer certificate: 20.6.41

It is my contention that Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate was incorrectly recorded on the Kamalapuram school record, which was transferred to Sathya Sai Baba’s subsequent school at Bukkapatnam, and the incorrect birthdate was copied from it. Sanjay attempted to refute this contention by stating the following:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha, Moreno’s argument is changing with the wind! Stop talking bullshit, Moreno, LOL! The earliest (English) record is the Kamalapuram transfer form, which has the same birthdate as the Bukkapatnam record. Whaddya know? The same birthdate occurs in the Uravakonda school records. And Moreno wants us to think that these records were copied from each other at a time when it was very difficult to travel by bullock cart, let alone by foot.

Since the earliest record is a transfer certificate, this record was required to be presented to the next school in order for the admission to occur. The information on the Bukkapatnam school record was copied from the Kamalapuram transfer certificate. Sanjay poorly attempted to argue that this was not the case because “it was very difficult to travel by bullock cart, let alone by foot”. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Kamalapuram transfer certificate was required as proof that Sathya Sai Baba passed his previous schooling and qualified for promotion to the Bukkapatnam school. How else was the Bukkapatnam school to ascertain whether or not Sathya Sai Baba passed his previous schooling? Therefore, contrary to Sanjay’s claims, this record was shared between schools and information was copied from it.

BUKKAPATNAM SCHOOL RECORD DETAILS:
Return To Menu

- (Pic Link) Sai Baba Bukkapatnam School Record
The Bukkapatnam school record is extremely important because it shows:

  1. How poorly birthdates were recorded.

  2. The apathy and lack of importance given to valid birthdates.

  3. How early Indian school-records from rural villages are wholly unreliable means of ascertaining someone’s birthday.


The LIMF image to the Bukkpatnam school record shows the names to the following 16 students who were admitted in July 1941:

  1. 462 Gludappa 1-7-34 (7 years old)

  2. 463 Adeppa 1-7-35 (6 years old)

  3. 464 Gangappa 1-7-35 (6 years old)

  4. 465 Ganganna 1-7-34 (7 years old)

  5. 466 Sathyanarayana 4-10-29 (12 years old)

  6. 467 Narayana Mulu 1-7-34 (7 years old)

  7. 468 Venkatesh 1-7-33 (8 years old)

  8. 469 Nanjuda Rao 1-7-34 (7 years old)

  9. 470 Frakrodeem 1-7-35 (6 years old)

  10. 471 Modeen Sab 1-7-26 (15 years old)

  11. 472 Ranganna 1-1-30 (11 years old)

  12. 473 Narayana Ganta 1-7-25 (16 years old)

  13. 474 Venkataramulu 30-1-28 (13 years old)

  14. 475 Mohammad Peer 1-7-35 (6 years old)

  15. 476 Narayana

  16. 477 Sallappa


Only 14 of these students have their birthdates showing. As one can clearly see, 11 out of the 14 students are listed as being born on exactly July 1st. This is wholly and completely improbable. These 11 students have different last names and different fathers (therefore, none of them are brothers, twins, triplets, etc.).

Out of these 11 students: Frakrodeem, Mohammad Peer, Adeppa and Gangappa were allegedly born on July 1st 1935. Gludappa, Ganganna, Narayana Mulu and Nanjuda Rao were allegedly born on July 1st 1934. Venkatesh was allegedly born on July 1st 1933, Modeen Sab was allegedly born on July 1st 1926 and Narayana Ganta was allegedly born on July 1st 1925.

These utterly improbable birthdates (defying lottery odds many times over) prove that the Bukkpatnam school record is inaccurate and did not record valid birthdates.

Looking at the ages, we also see that we have children and teenagers all in the same 8th standard class ranging between 6 - 16 years of age! This simply is not possible. There are four 6 year olds, four 7 year olds, one 8 year old, one 11 year old, one 12 year old, one 13 year old, one 15 year old and one 16 year old. Half the class (on this school-record page) was composed of 6 and 7 year olds.

Consequently, this Bukkapatnam school record does not provide proof to conclusively support any speculation that Sathya Sai Baba was born on October 4th 1929. The only proof that this school record provided is proof to the apathy and lack of concern for recording valid birthdates by Indian school officials in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s in rural villages in India. The Bukkapatnam school record solidifies the perception that Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate is just as unreliable as the other birthdates listed on the school record.

Funny enough, Sanjay said:
Due to the pre-Independence situation of not keeping records correctly, is it at all surprising that that ten students share the same birthdate with differing years? Who knows whether the families of the students were not in posession of the knowledge, or whether it was down to a lazy school clerk who just rubber-stamped the papers and put them in his outbox?

That’s right:

Who knows: “whether it was down to a lazy school clerk who just rubber-stamped the papers and put them in his outbox” when it came to Sathya Sai Baba’s alleged birthdate?

Who knows: if the “pre-independence situation of not keeping records correctly” would account for an inaccurate birthdate given to Sathya Sai Baba?

Sanjay just fully conceded to the inaccuracies and significant discrepancies in the Bukkapatnam school record! Nevertheless, Sanjay flip-flopped (as he often does) and argued that this very same flawed Bukkapatnam school record indisputably recorded Sathya Sai Baba’s genuine birthdate! Sanjay’s arguments are wholly absurd and contradictory.

Sanjay also tried to pull the wool over his reader’s eyes by making the following comment about student 470, whose name is listed as “Fakrodeem Puttaparthi”. “Puttaparthi” is not a last name, but a village name. Sanjay said:
Is it really that important if Frakrodeem’s surname is ‘Puttaparthi’, the name of the village? Perhaps Frakodeem and/or his family wished to be known as in ancient times according to the land of their birth; ‘Frakrodeem of Puttaparthi’, as exists in classical literature.

Sanjay’s response is utterly preposterous. As if resorting to a “classical literature” explanation from “ancient times” is not embarrassing enough, Sanjay apparently overlooked the simple fact that Frakrodeem is not from Puttaparthi. He is from Bukkapatnam. Sathya Sai Baba is the only student listed from Puttaparthi on the Bukkapatnam school record. All the other students are from Bukkapatnam, without exception. If Frakrodeem is from Puttaparthi, then one is left to wonder why his village name is listed as Bukkapatnam. Either way, the entry is incorrect. So once again, why is Frakodeem’s last name listed as “Puttaparthi” when Puttaparthi is not a last name but a village name? Why would an accurate and reliable school record make this glaring mistake and fail to correct it?

URAVAKONDA SCHOOL RECORD DETAILS:
Return To Menu

- (Pic Link) Scan Of Sai Baba Uravakonda Record
*Student Number: 422
*Name in full: R. Satyanarayana
*House or village name: Rathanaharam
*Parent: R.P. Venkappa
*Residence: Puttaparthi
*Ocupation of parent or guardian: Teacher
*Date of admission: 1-7-43
*Date of birth: 4-10-39 (October Thirty Nine)
*Religion: Hindu
*Caste: Rajapuri
*Class on admission: III F.

As one can see, the Uravakonda school record documented Sathya Sai Baba as being born on October 4th 1939 (and even spelled it out as “October Thirty nine”). This error was left in place for 33 years before an unknown person corrected it on August 11 1976, after comparing it to other school records.

The first correction reads:
Fourth October Nineteen Tweny Nine (signature unintelligible) 11-8-76 (August 11th 1976)

The second correction reads:
Compared with the original (unintelligible) register & date of birth corrected as 4.10.1929. (p. 32 of the register regs.) (signature unintelligible) 11-8-76 (August 11th 1976)

Despite the fact that the official Uravakonda school record documented Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as being October 4th 1939 (and it stayed that way for 33 years), Sanjay had the audacity to state that the Uravakonda school record is an “independent piece of evidence that confirm Sathyanaraya Raju’s birthdate as October 4th 1929! Talk about denial, desperation and true-believer syndrome! The Uravakonda school record does not provide proof to conclusively support any speculation that Sathya Sai Baba was born on October 4th 1929. The only proof that the Uravakonda school record provided is a another contradictory date as to when Sathya Sai Baba was allegedly born.

VIJAYAMMA’S “ANYATHA SARANAM NASTHI” CITATION:
Return To Menu

The following quote was cited from Vijayamma’s book to support a 1929 birthdate:
In 1945 the little girl’s cousins were strolling in the affluent Bangalore suburb of Malleswaram when they heard bhajans being sung and entered the house to listen. Sai Baba, who was present there, invited them to go to Puttaparthi (whose name they had never heard). When they returned to their town of Kuppam (south-east of Bangalore, but in today’s Andhra Pradesh), the cousins told the girl’s mother about their meeting. The latter was keen for them all to go, but the idea was vetoed by the father, who said: ‘You tell me He is sixteen years old and claims to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai. This is all humbug’. (p. 12)

This quote did not say anything about when Sathya Sai Baba was born. The quote indirectly implied that Sathya Sai Baba was sixteen years old in 1945. If this is true, Baba’s year of birth would be 1929.

First of all, Vijayamma’s notes were never written from a historical perspective. Although these stories were taken from Vijayamma’s notes, the above story reads as if Vijayamma was repeating a story told to her in which she was not personally involved. Therefore, these quotes do not provide any proof that Sathya Sai Baba was born in 1929. There are other devotees who indirectly claim that Baba was born in 1926. Does this mean that one can conclusively state that the majority opinion is correct? Since when is one indirect quote from a devotee’s book conclusive proof for a 1929 birthdate?

Furthermore, if Vijayamma honestly, reliably, accurately and objectively gave information that supported Sanjay’s conclusions (as he contends), then this must mean that Vijayamma also honestly, reliably, accurately and objectively related first-hand miracles that she personally experienced with Sathya Sai Baba (which even included the alleged resurrection of her own father). Nevertheless, Sanjay adamantly refuses to accept the writing of Sai Devotees (who he often bashes and trashes as “liars” on the internet) and even stated about them:
...any amount of self-serving reasoning by Ganapati or other authors favourable to Sathya Sai needs to be taken with a pinch of salt...

Therefore, Sanjay’s reference to “Anyatha Saranam Nasthi” (authored by a Sai Devotee “favorable to Sathya Sai”) needs to be taken “with a pinch of salt”.

Sanjay also said:
Sensible and rational people who are logical and down-to-earth do not believe in things like reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materialisations and the like.

Since Sanjay feels this way, his reference to Vijayamma’s book cannot be believed by “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because it talks about reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materializations and the like.

Of course, this is not the first time that Sanjay flip-flopped regarding books authored by Sai Devotees. Click Here To Read My Article About Sanjay’s Acceptance Of LIMF (a book he later bashed and trashed as “bullshit”).

BRIAN STEEL’S OBSERVATION:
Return To Menu

Brian Steel made the following observation:
As for the possible day of birth, in the school Register photostats in LIMF it is given as 4 October (1929). But maybe it WAS 23 November after all, as has been celebrated, at least since 1946 when we find the first reference in LIMF to an official birthday. It was also celebrated on 23 November in 1950, as Vijayakumari notes, with the Inauguration of Prasanthi Nilayam: “Till that day, prominence had not been given to Swami’s Birthday. But that day we prayed to Swami to permit us to celebrate it” (Vijayakumari, p. 161) (In the Discourses recorded in Sathya Sai Speaks, the first to be labelled as a Birthday Discourse is the one for 1960.)

Therefore, Sathya Sai Baba’s November 23rd birthday was known as far back as 1946 when he was 20 years old (if born in 1926) or 17 years old (if born in 1929). Furthermore, LIMF records a first-hand account where a fellow classmate of Sathyanarayana Raju (Sai Baba) stated that Sathya was one year senior to him in school (meaning Sathya would have been born in 1926). Read the following clarification from LIMF.

LIMF’s (Love Is My Form) CLARIFICATIONS:
Return To Menu

On pages 68 & 69 the LIMF editors stated (about Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate):
"Sathya’s date of birth in school records, however, is recorded as the 4th of October 1929 - and not the traditionally recognized date of the 23rd of November 1926. Talipineni Kesappa, son of Talipineni Ramappa maintains that Sathya was one year senior to him at school; therefore, Kesappa’s date of birth being 11th of June 1927, Sathya’s year of birth definitely is 1926. It has long been a practice in the schools to record a date of birth as being much later than the ‘actual’ date of birth - in order to facilitate career prospects. Sathya’s parents wanted Sathya to become an educated officer. This, possibly could be the reason for the discrepancy. In addition, in 1926, people in remote villages like Puttaparthi, in pre-independent India, were not very particular about dates and birth registration was done much later."

Sanjay responded to LIMF’s explanation by saying:
Plenty of other evidences have proved the 1929 birthdate. LIMF’s ‘reason’ is bullshit, and they have made many more bullshit explanations, all of which have been discussed and dismissed in my exposé series. I personally do not care, it is a problem for devotees not for me. LOL.

Sanjay did not think LIMF was “bullshit” when he heavily relied and cited from it (admittedly) to make his pathetic “Sai Baba Shirdi Lies” series (See my responses: 01 - 02 -03). I would also like to see the “plenty of other evidences” which prove the 1929 birthdate. For some mysterious reason, Sanjay can only cite 3 inaccurate school records and 1 statement from a book authored by a Sai Devotee. That’s it! Where are the “plenty of other evidences” that come from neutral, non-devotee sources?

When Sanjay is trying to advance an argument against Sathya Sai Baba, he has no problem citing self-serving quotes from Sai Devotees that he considers reliable, accurate and objective. When it comes to other quotes made by these same Sai Devotees (that Sanjay considered worthy enough to reference before) Sanjay trashes and bashes them as “liars” and calls their explanations “bullshit”. Sanjay is such a wishy-washy, hypocritical and duplicitous critic, one must take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

SAI BABA BIRTHDAY - IN CONCLUSION:
Return To Menu

Since no one has been able to produce Sathya Sai Baba’s original birth-certificate (or a copy to it), there is no conclusive proof as to which date or year he was actually born. Even though Sathya Sai Baba has a passport (from his visit to Africa in 1968, which would have required legitimate documentation for a date of birth), Sanjay said he would reject it because he claimed that someone in his family has an inaccurate date of birth in his/her passport. Therefore, Sanjay will accept nothing less than the original birth certificate to accept Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as being November 23rd 1926 (and more than likely he would reject that as well).

Ironically enough, although Sanjay’s standards are extremely rigid when it comes to a 1926 date of birth, his standards are extremely flaccid when it comes to a 1929 date of birth. Just more proof that Sanjay is a self-serving hypocrite who cannot take a rational, sober, fair or consistent stance against Sathya Sai Baba.

Although many Sai Devotees have written extensively about Sathya Sai Baba’s early years, none of them ever mentioned that Baba changed his birthdate. Both Ganapathi and Kasturi had full access to Sathya Sai Baba’s parents, relatives and old devotees. Based on their early interviews with Baba’s parents, relatives and old devotees, it was ascertained that Baba was born on November 23rd 1926. Even LIMF was able to trace the earliest reference to Baba’s November 23rd birthday back to 1946.

And to put the final nail in the coffin (to Sanjay’s dead-in-the-water arguments) there are no government, official or reputable organizations, institutions, corporations, agencies or offices that accept school records as proof for one’s date of birth. Not even one!

As a matter of fact, on the Littler Mendelson Legal Corporation website, there is definitive legal information regarding birth certificates and how school records cannot be substituted for them:
Birth, Marriage, Divorce Certificates: India:
Birth Certificates:
Birth Certificates are available to any applicant born after April 1, 1970, on payment of nominal fees to the appropriate government agency. Prior to 1970, however, reporting of births was voluntary. Therefore, if you are unable to obtain a birth certificate from the appropriate government agency or if the information on the birth certificate is insufficient, alternative documents may be submitted.

Two sworn affidavits executed by parents, siblings, aunts, or uncles (blood relatives) may be presented in lieu of a birth certificate when a birth certificate is not available. The affidavits should set forth the relationship between the deponent and the applicant, the date and place of the applicants’ birth, the names of both parents and other related facts. The affidavits must be witnessed and stamped by an advocate/notary. In addition, these affidavits must be accompanied by a document from a competent governmental authority stating that the certificate did not exist or no longer exists.

NOTE: School records and “birth records” issued by a hospital or church are insufficient substitutes for birth certificates. (Reference)

Consequently, Sanjay comical citations to school records as conclusive proof (supporting an October 4th 1929 date of birth for Sathya Sai Baba) is not only absurd, it is wholly without merit or legal substantiation.

Return To Top Menu
Category: Shirdi Sai Baba
Posted by: sathyasaibaba
Sathya & Shirdi Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 1

Anti-Sai Activists (including Sanjay Dadlani) love to create controversy about Shirdi and Sathya Sai Baba and cite dates, events and personal testimonies taken from books and publications by Sai Devotees. Here is “my take” regarding all these “controversial” issues:

Anti-Sai Activists (including Sanjay Dadlani) ceaselessly and unremittingly accuse Sai devotees of being:
cult members, brainwashed, unreliable, idiotic, dishonest, deceitful, subjective, inaccurate, biased, minions, ignorant, repressed, prejudiced, projectors, exaggerators, escapists, weak in intellect, easily influenced, highly impressionable, in self-denial, irrational, illogical, embellishers, in turmoil, misguided, cultish, one’s who lack common sense, one’s having personality problems, one’s who hallucinate, one’s who possess neuroses and psychoses, one’s who lack self-confidence, etc. (the list or slurs and aspersions goes on and on).

After making all these accusations against the integrity and credibility of Sai devotees, Anti-Sai Activists then attempt to build their case against Sathya Sai Baba by citing the words of and comments and books written by SAI DEVOTEES!

Anti-Sai Activists are a bunch of flip-floppers who are incapable of making a consistent and sober argument against Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. This is also evidenced in the article I wrote about Brian Steel in which he loquaciously prattled against the integrity and accuracy of English discourse translations, yet then flip-flopped and cited these same inaccurate English discourse translations as accurate and factual references against Sri Sathya Sai Baba!

Fully exposed perverts, deviants and pathological liars (like Sanjay Kishore Dadlani) fail to understand that they fully compromise their own arguments and positions against Shree Satya Sai Baba. If we are to believe Anti-Sai Activists, then we must believe that Sai Devotees are honest, truthful, accurate, factual and objective. Why cite devotee’s books, words or publications otherwise?

Needless to say, Anti-Sai Activists refuse to accept these things about Sai devotees. Therefore, Anti-Sai Activist’s arguments and defenses are all based on “lies” and speculations (by their own admission). They do not have any conclusive evidence (from any neutral source) to support their conspiracy theories because there are no non-devotee biographies written about Baba. They must depend on the words of Sai devotees. But alas, Sai devotees are not “reliable” according to Anti-Sai Activists. Hence the irony.

Sanjay recently wrote no less than 5 blogged articles about Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba and poorly attempted to make the argument against the latter being an alleged reincarnation of the former. In my next blogged article, I will discuss the Love Is My Form (LIMF) book, which is the primary source that Sanjay referenced regarding the Sathya/Shirdi Sai Baba controversy.

Shirdi & Sathya Sai Baba Imbroglio - Part 1
- (Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 1)
- Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 2
- Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 3
Category: Shirdi Sai Baba
Posted by: sathyasaibaba
Sathya & Shirdi Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 2

The primary source that Sanjay Dadlani used (admittedly) to advance the argument that Sathya Sai Baba was aware of Shirdi Sai Baba in his early childhood (before claiming to be his reincarnation) is the Love Is My Form book, Volume 1, by Dr. R. S. Padmanabhan, ISBN: 8186822771.

For starters, Dr. Ranganathan Padmanabhan (also spelled “Padmanaban”) is a long-time and ardent devotee of Sathya Sai Baba (SSB). Padmanabhan considers SSB to be God Incarnate and has openly declared this in person, in writing and in LIMF. He also published the book “Sri Sathya Sai Baba Life Story for Children”. Padmanabhan’s introductory note in LIMF can be viewed here. A miraculous experience that Padmanabhan attributed to Sathya Sai Baba can be viewed here.

LIMF is a hagiography that documents the incredible and amazing miraculous events that dominated the landscape in the first 25 years of the Sathya Sai Avatar. In LIMF, numerous accounts of early followers and relatives are related that all share the common themes of miracles, manifestations, on-the-spot requested materializations, visions, dreams, experiences, cures, healings, operations, levitations, bilocations and other astounding paranormal phenomena.

LIMF is the same book that Sanjay used as an authority to support his argument that the young Sathyanaranaya was aware of Shirdi Sai Baba in his early childhood (before making the proclaimation that he was a reincarnation of the famous Maharashtran saint, Sai Baba). If all the quotes (taken from LIMF) about the Shirdi Sai Baba controversy were to be compiled together, it would not amount to more than one page. That’s it. However, since Sanjay thinks that LIMF is a reputable and reliable source to formulate his arguments with, he is thereby directly advocating for the integrity, honesty, objectivity and reliability of the contents in the book!

Read the article that appeared in The Hindu about the Love Is My Form (LIMF) book. Keep in mind that this is the same book that Sanjay extensively cited from and considered to be an reputable and reliable source on the Sathya/Shirdi Sai Baba imbroglio:
A Living Phenomenon: July 31st 2001

LOVE IS MY FORM Volume I (The Advent) - Documented Biography of Sri Sathya Sai Baba: R. Padmanaban - Editor; Sai Towers Publishing, 23/1142, Vijayalakshmi Colony, Kadugodi, Bangalore- 560067. Rs. 2,500.

THIS, THE first volume of a uniquely definitive biography of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, covers the first 25 years (1926-1950) of his life. The plan is said to be to follow the story with five more volumes (already in preparation) stretching the account to the year 2000 A.D. Each of these volumes would cover only a decade of his life. In this well- documented edition, the authenticity of each event reported is testified to by actual witness, whom the editor has chased to wherever they may be living at present. This extreme degree of authentication would, even if not required by devotees or general readers, satisfy the suspecting skepticists, regarding their credibility. Such a highly objective and fully attested biography is indeed necessary to convince posterity that once such a transcendent figure walked on earth in this period of history, that he defied a definition except perhaps as an incarnation of God. This is a Hindu concept, of course.

The book opens with an introduction by Dr. R. S. Padmanabhan, who has since become a long-time devotee of Baba. He had an occasion, as a fresh dental graduate, to sit in a Bhajan session of Baba in Bangalore in 1944; Baba, 18 years old at that time, materialised Vibhooti, blessed the youth and said he would get married in February 1945. To the demurring dentist, Baba said that it would surely occur and he would come and bless him. He had, in the same period, told the prospective bride elsewhere in a similar vein; she was just 15 years old. The partners had not known each other and the marriage did occur in February 1945.

Such mysterious phenomena abound in page after page throughout. There have, of course, been quite a few books on Baba, some having been noticed in these columns by the present reviewer. There are also masterly biographies by Ra. Ganapathy and by N. Kasthuri, which are frequently cited in this book. But this present edition is the first systematic chronology, recording events almost as a day-to-day diary.

As a very young boy Raju (as Baba was then known) told the neighbour, Karnam Kamalamma, an astounding truth: “You think I am a human being? No, I am God. I am Easwara himself. You will see my glory in the coming years. Believe me!” From then on, all events that unfolded every day, have only confirmed the veracity of that self-assessment. While at school, he used to materialise Vibhooti, Lingams, photographs of Shirdi Sai Baba and other items. On October 21, 1943, he made a declaration that has since become history: “I am Shirdi Sai Baba in a new life.” Almost the next day, an old lady, a daughter of a district collector in the then Nizam Domain, came in. Raju greeted her with an astounding remark: “My child, you have arrived at last!” She had been a regular visitor to Shirdi; having lost all her four sons, she had once prayed to Shirdi Sai Baba to grant her relief from the pains of worldly life, to which he had replied (before his samadhi that occurred in 1917): “I will be born in Andhra and you will stay with me forever!” This he had told the lady on her oath that she would not divulge it till the time came.

Even when he was at school, he had once dumbfounded an angry teacher who was to give a cane-lash at his palm, because the teacher saw Shirdi Sai Baba’s picture on it. A classmate who had offended him by throwing stones was denied food in the hostel. In the next Thursday Bhajan session, Raju called for Abdul Khader standing somewhere unseen in the rear-end of the queue. He asked him: “You came to plead for Hanumanth Rao! It was I who made the headmaster punish the wrong-doer. Now you can tell the headmaster to resume feeding him!” To this classmate’s query (in 1944) as to when India was likely to achieve independence, Baba had answered “The 15th of August, 1947”. We should remember that neither leaders nor the foreign rulers had any notion not to speak of an agreement about this date.

In January 1948, when Baba was supervising the Mandir construction at Puttaparthi, on one evening, he became uneasy, went into a room and shut himself. When he came out at 7-30 p.m. he announced to the people around: “A great soul has passed away!” The village people in those days could know the news, only a day later, from TheHindu that Mahatma Gandhi had been shot dead. So also he had a peculiar vision and experience on 14th April, 1950 when Ramana Maharshi attained Samadhi.

The events narrated belong to class of “Leelas” of Lord Krishna, especially as Balakrishna. A few are worth mentioning: when the car of the I.G. of Police, in which Baba was travelling got exhausted of petrol, he made it run on water. While at Karur, he forbade a cameraman to take a snap; when it was not heeded, the film roll coolly slipped into Baba’s hands over a long distance. He once brought Ganga floods into the Mandir for all to see and worship. He could often arrange to feed any number of unexpected guests when there were only empty utensils (reminiscent of the Akshaya-Patra episode of the Mahabharata). Reports of his performing surgery on patients (R., T. and others, names omitted herein) without an operation theatre and anaesthesia are vividly presented, convincingly to the non- believer too. An atheist driver was reminded of his accident in the kitchen when he was eight years old; he was told where the boiling oil had caused an injury and left a permanent scar. The stupefied driver fell on all fours, when he was handed over a driving licence of that date with Baba’s photo affixed!

Even at school, he has once given a full-time dance performance without any formal training at that, when the lady artiste fixed had failed to arrive. He enjoyed singing, in tandem, with a famous Chennai vocal duo, many compositions of Thyagaraja. He could invariably read anybody’s thoughts as God alone can. Once he performed a transcorporeal journey (22- 10-1946); his body was in Mysore; but as a cobra, he witnessed the Deepavali celebration in Puttaparthi. Nevertheless he would not grant everybody every wish of his. For example, he once declined to help a badly handicapped child recover normalcy, saying; “It is by past Karmas; if cured, he will suffer in the next life”.

Some 17 rulers of princely states met him on the 29th September, 1947 to seek his godly intervention for retaining rulership against Sardar Patel’s edict. He merely said: “It will all happen as time goes by!” But hours later when a grand feast was to be had in their honour, the princes were asked to serve the commonality, the devotees and the like. As it was going on, Baba said with a winsome, even mischievous, smile, “Times have changed!”

The successive volumes will speak of his welfare projects, but his “Leelas” (that is perhaps the correct description) will continue to enliven, educate and elevate the devotees. The volume is printed in superior art paper; it is heavy, materially and spiritually; over 950 photographs and 10 pages of index are provided. There is practically no typographical error. One would, however, suggest that a usage such as “the devotees performed Padanamaskar to Baba” would be a happier form than the one used at present (that is, “the devotee took Padanamaskar”). Also, the Thyagaraja composition in the list on p. 429 should spell as “Broche- varevare”. It is in Sriranjani raga.A book that would prove a treat and treasure to every Sai Bhakta, it is also useful to historians, parapsychologists, spiritual seekers and the layman.

V. N. VEDANTA DESIKAN (Reference)

Therefore, the primary souce that Sanjay cited against Sathya Sai Baba is taken from a hagiography written by a Sai Devotee. Since Sanjay thinks that LIMF is objective, reliable and honest enough to cite against Sathya Sai Baba, then LIMF must also be objective, reliable and honest enough to cite in favor of Sathya Sai Baba’s astounding paranormal and psychic abilities. Needless to say, Sanjay believes that Sathya Sai Baba is a fraud and that Sai Devotees are liars. Consequently, Sanjay’s reference to LIMF actually contradicts his position.

As a matter of fact, on the QuickTopic forum, Sanjay explicitly called SSB’s sister, Venkamma, a “liar”. Sanjay said (original emphasis used):
I can do anything I want since I am dealing with a bunch of confirmed liars. :-) Raju is a lair and Venkamma is a liar too.

Since Sanjay just conceded that Venkamma is a “liar”, then one is left to wonder why Sanjay cited her as an authority (using LIMF) on what really happened to Sathya Sai Baba? If Sai devotees and relatives are liars, then where is Sanjay getting his accurate & truthful information from? According to Sanjay, none of these devotees and relatives are trustworthy. Therefore, all these citations from LIMF are useless in revealing objective truth because there are no non-devotee biographies written about Sathya Sai Baba. Sanjay’s citations from LIMF are thereby wholly and irreparably compromised. Sanjay must rely exclusively on the words, books and testimonies of Sai Devotees he ceaselessly bashes and trashes on the internet.

Furthermore, LIMF heavily depends on and frequently cites the biographical works of Ra. Ganapathy and Narayana Kasturi. Strangely enough, Sanjay flatly rejects the works and commentaries of Ganapathy and Kasturi, thereby rejecting a majority of LIMF! As a matter of fact, Sanjay repeatedly claimed that Kasturi “couldn’t even get one fact right”, had “poor research skills” and indulged in “poorly-researched fairy stories that are self-contradictory”. Needless to say, Sanjay cannot tell us who got the facts right about SSB. The only people Sanjay cited against Kasturi were other Sai devotees who he claims are untruthworthy and “liars” as well. As a matter of fact, Sanjay attempted to refute Kasturi and said (emphasis added by me):
The real truth is very different. Raju’s elder sister, Venkamma, left behind her unpublished diaries where she had described all of these incidents and which were consulted during the research phase for LIMF.

Yes, this “Venkamma” is the same Venkamma discussed earlier that Sanjay called a “liar”. According to Sanjay, the “real truth” comes from a “liar”.

Sanjay (the hypocrite extraordinaire) even had the audacity to say:
Sensible and rational people who are logical and down-to-earth do not believe in things like reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materialisations and the like.

Needless to say, Sanjay is a Hare Krishna Congregational Member who fully believes in the divine authority of the Srimad Bhagavatam that promotes belief in: A geocentric universe, reincarnation, demons, black magic, ghosts, hobgoblins, miracles, manifestatations, shape-shifters, the Sun being closer to the Earth than the Moon, a demon’s head floating in outer space as the cause of eclipses, the Sun being the only star in the universe and all other twinkling stars are similar to the Moon, the Himalayas are 80,000 miles high (they are actually 4.92 miles high), the diameter of the Earth is 807,780 miles (it is actually 7,800 miles), the entire universe ends just prior to Pluto, Lord Krishna literally manifested 16,000 human forms, married 16,000 women and procreated with each one of them and many other simply unbelievable stories (Refs: 01 - 02)!

According to Sanjay, he, his Hare Krishna Gurus (Srila Prahbupada & Srila Gour Govinda Swami) and billions of Christians, Hindus, Gaudiya Vaishanvas and Buddhists are not “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because they believe in either miracles, manifestations, reincarnation, possessions and the like!

According to Sanjay, scriptures like the Bible, Koran, Vedas, Puranas, Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Upanishads, Ramayana, Dhammapada, Tanakh, Talmud, Kabbalah and others cannot be believed by “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because these scriptures discuss and promote belief in either miracles, manifestations, reincarnation, possessions and the like!

It is also amusing to point out that Sanjay cited passages from LIMF (which promotes belief in and documents testimonies about miracles, manifestations and reincarnation) as a reputable and reliable source against Sathya Sai Baba! Sanjay contradicts himself so often, it is of little wonder that no one takes him seriously.

In Conclusion:
Sanjay said:
...any amount of self-serving reasoning by Ganapati or other authors favourable to Sathya Sai needs to be taken with a pinch of salt...

Since LIMF was authored by Sai Devotees who advanced their wholly favorable views on Sathya Sai Baba, Sanjay needs to practice what he preaches and take the comments in LIMF “with a grain of salt”.

Sanjay also had the following to say about LIMF:
LIMF’s ‘reason’ is bullshit, and they have made many more bullshit explanations, all of which have been discussed and dismissed in my exposé series. I personally do not care, it is a problem for devotees not for me. LOL.

Therefore, Sanjay just refuted, out of his own mouth, the primary reference for his “Sai Baba Shirdi Lies” articles as being “bullshit”. Need I say more?

Shirdi & Sathya Sai Baba Imbroglio - Part 2
- Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 1
- (Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 2)
- Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 3
Category: Shirdi Sai Baba
Posted by: sathyasaibaba
Sathya & Shirdi Sai Baba Imbroglio - Part 3

I would like to preface this article with two quotes from Sanjay Dadlani. The importance and relevance of these quotes cannot be underestimated and wholly compromise Sanjay’s lamentable, wishy-washy and contradictory arguments:
...any amount of self-serving reasoning by Ganapati or other authors favourable to Sathya Sai needs to be taken with a pinch of salt...

Sensible and rational people who are logical and down-to-earth do not believe in things like reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materialisations and the like.

Sanjay poorly supported his arguments in his “Sai Baba Shirdi Lies” series by citing the following references:

REFERENCE ONE:
Citations From: Narayana Kasturi
Source(s): Sathyam Shivam Sundaram; Easwaramma - The Chosen Mother
Sanjay’s Position: REJECTED: On the QuickTopic Forum, Sanjay repeatedly claimed that Kasturi “couldn’t even get one fact right”, had “poor research skills” and indulged in “poorly-researched fairy stories that are self-contradictory”.

REFERENCE TWO:
Citations From: Ra. Ganapathi
Source(s): Baba: Sathya Sai
Sanjay’s Position: REJECTED: Sanjay said, about Ganapathi’s commentaries, “this is a very obtuse, tangled and unsatisfactory explanation for why it is possible for the powerful spirit of Shirdi Sai Baba to take possession of the young Raju and continue his works through him”, “any amount of self-serving reasoning by Ganapati or other authors favourable to Sathya Sai needs to be taken with a pinch of salt” and “there is very little evidence that Ganapati performed any independent research except for that which serves the cause of propagating the name of Sathya Sai”.

REFERENCE THREE:
Citations From: Various Sai Devotees and Sai Relatives
Source(s): LIMF (Love Is My Form) Volume 1
Sanjay’s Position: ACCEPTED: Read My Article About Sanjay’s Amusing Acceptance Of LIMF despite the fact that LIMF heavily relied on (and frequently cited) the works of Ganapathi and Kasturi, both of whom Sanjay rejected as unreliable (what does that make LIMF?). Sanjay also accepted LIMF despite claiming “...any amount of self-serving reasoning by Ganapati or other authors favourable to Sathya Sai needs to be taken with a pinch of salt...Sensible and rational people who are logical and down-to-earth do not believe in things like reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materialisations and the like.” LIMF was authored by Sai Devotees who held/hold wholly favorable views on Sathya Sai Baba. Then why did Sanjay cite a “self serving” book written by authors “favorable to Sathya Sai”? Why would Sanjay cite LIMF when it cannot be believed by “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because it talks about reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materializations and the like? Sanjay cherry picks his criticisms and cites entirely self-serving quotes as reliable, while dismissing everything else as unreliable.

REFERENCE FOUR:
Citations From: Dr. Satya Pal Ruhela
Source(s): Sai Baba And His Message
Sanjay’s Position: ACCEPTED: This is an amusing reference that Sanjay accepted about a man from Hyderabad named “Naranayana Baba” who is a trance medium who claimed that the disembodied soul of Shirdi Sai Baba not only talks to him, but that Sai Baba also puts items into his closed hand that instantly materialize when he opens his fist! Because this trance medium is allegedly in contact with Sai Baba’s “disembodied soul”, Sanjay used this reference to support his argument that Shirdi Sai Baba did not reincarnate as Sathya Sai Baba! Sanjay said, “...any amount of self-serving reasoning by Ganapati or other authors favourable to Sathya Sai needs to be taken with a pinch of salt...Sensible and rational people who are logical and down-to-earth do not believe in things like reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materialisations and the like.” Then why did Sanjay cite a “self serving” book written by an author “favorable to Sathya Sai”? Why would Sanjay cite a book that cannot be believed by “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because it talks about reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materializations and the like (including trance mediumship)? What gullible and naive audience is Sanjay attempting to address?

REFERENCE FIVE:
Citations From: His Holiness B.V. Narasimha Swamiji
Source(s): Life Of Sai Baba; Sri Sai Baba’s Charters & Sayings
Sanjay’s Position: ACCEPTED: His Holiness B.V. Narasimha Swamiji (henceforth referred to as “Narasimha”) is an ardent devotee of Shirdi Sai Baba who considers him to be God (literally). Narasimha Swami said:
My hunger for spiritual food was not satisfied, till I came to Shirdi. At Shirdi, I was given more than I could lake. I had at last discovered my Sadguru. He is Samartha Sadguru and I live in constant communion with him...

But these have occasionally been mentioned in the columns of the ‘Sai Sudha’ or other papers and invariably on investigation, it has been noted that any person, claiming to be Sai Baba, does not show even a very small fraction of Baba’s nature. Mere power to read thought, mere clairvoyance, mere production of articles from empty box and hands and mere devotion to Sai or God, will not constitute one into an Avatar of Sai. So, we might conclude this chapter by saying that Sai left no successor to his seat, that there was no seat to succeed to, (as God’s seat can never be vacant) and that there is no person living who can be recognised by all as having the entire Sai spirit or Soul in his body, that is, who can be regarded as the Avatar of Sai...

Therefore the question of our finding any person now who is the Avatar of Baba need not be further discussed. It is sufficient to say that those who are anxious to benefit by Sai Baba will be very wise if they confine themselves to the well known history of Sai Baba; and if they adopt the usual and well known methods for contacting Sai Baba of Shirdi, who is now no other than God himself, they would succeed, and they need not be panting to discover if there is any Avatar of Sai Baba or anyone who is entitled to call himself the successor of Sai Baba for the Shirdi Gadi. God’s seat we repeat is never vacant. Sai Baba was and is God always immersed in the God idea, and carrying out God’s lilas when he was in the flesh. His Ritambhara Prajna or Antarjnana, as it was called, his control over men’s minds and material objects at any distance, his power to appear and do anything anywhere, can only be called divine. These powers we read of in his lilas before 1918, and we read of the same also after 1918...

Because Narasimha voiced the opinion that there are no successors to Shirdi Sai Baba, Sanjay immediately cited Narasimha as an authority and stated, “We couldn’t have put it better.” Nevertheless, one is left to wonder why Sanjay would cite and agree with Narasimha when Sanjay does not believe anything (except self-serving quotes) that Narasimha has to say? For starters, Sanjay is a Hare Krishna Congregational Member who does not accept or believe that Shirdi Sai Baba is God. Since Narasimha’s comments and arguments are derived soley from his perception of Sai Baba’s Godhood, why would Sanjay cite and agree with Narasimha? As a matter of fact, Sanjay said, on Google Groups (using the name “SANJAY DADLANI” and “Dark Knight”):
Shirdi Sai Baba can go to hell (View Thread or View Single Post)

If you knew the amount of damage that this “religious teacher” has caused to so many lives, you may understand the curse. DK (View Thread or View Single Post)

Sanjay’s reference to Narasimha is deflated. Sanjay does not believe or accept anything that Narasimha has to say except his comments about Shirdi Sai Baba having no successor. That’s it. It is exactly this type of self-serving hypocrisy that thoroughly compromises all of Sanjay’s arguments and critiques.

Furthermore, why would Sanjay cite Narasimha’s books when they cannot be believed by “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because they talk about reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materializations and the like (including Sai Baba’s alleged ability to control other’s minds, create objects at any distance and his power to appear and do anything anywhere)?

REFERENCE SIX:
Citations From: V. & Shakuntala Balu
Source(s): Divine Glory
Sanjay’s Position: ACCEPTED: Once again, why did Sanjay cite a “self serving” book written by authors “favorable to Sathya Sai”? Why would Sanjay cite a book that cannot be believed by “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because it talks about reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materializations and the like (including bilocation, psychic phenomena and healings)?

IN CONCLUSION:
All (without exception) of Sanjay’s references are wholly compromised by his contradictory statements and personal beliefs. Sanjay’s arguments against Sathya Sai Baba are one huge farce.

Sanjay cannot cite any reputable, reliable or neutral sources to formulate his flimsy contentions against Sathya Sai Baba. Sanjay exclusively relies on the books & publications of both Shirdi and Sathya Sai Devotees. Sanjay argued that one must take the “self serving reasoning” of “authors favorable to Sathya Sai” with a “pinch of salt”. Strange enough, ALL of Sanjay’s references (except one reference from a Shirdi Sai Devotee who believes Sai Baba is God) is taken from “authors favorable to Sathya Sai” whose “self serving reasoning” must be taken with a “pinch of salt”. Sanjay refuted his own references from his own mouth.

Not only did Sanjay cite “authors favorable to Sathya Sai” whose “self serving reasoning” must be taken with a “pinch of salt”, he also claimed:
Sensible and rational people who are logical and down-to-earth do not believe in things like reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materialisations and the like.

As stated before, Sanjay is a Hare Krishna Congregational Member who fully believes in the divine authority of the Srimad Bhagavatam that promotes belief in: A geocentric universe, reincarnation, demons, black magic, ghosts, hobgoblins, miracles, manifestatations, shape-shifters, the Sun being closer to the Earth than the Moon, a demon’s head floating in outer space as the cause of eclipses, the Sun being the only star in the universe and all other twinkling stars are similar to the Moon, the Himalayas are 80,000 miles high (they are actually 4.92 miles high), the diameter of the Earth is 807,780 miles (it is actually 7,800 miles), the entire universe ends just prior to Pluto, Lord Krishna literally manifested 16,000 human forms, married 16,000 women and procreated with each one of them and many other simply unbelievable stories (Refs: 01 - 02)!

According to Sanjay, he, his Hare Krishna Gurus (Srila Prahbupada & Srila Gour Govinda Swami) and billions of Christians, Hindus, Gaudiya Vaishanvas and Buddhists are not “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because they believe in either miracles, manifestations, reincarnation, possessions and the like!

According to Sanjay, scriptures like the Bible, Koran, Vedas, Puranas, Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Upanishads, Ramayana, Dhammapada, Tanakh, Talmud, Kabbalah and others cannot be believed by “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because these scriptures discuss and promote belief in either miracles, manifestations, reincarnation, possessions and the like!

Sanjay has effectively disgraced himself, his belief system, his Gurus and his God concept. The hypocrite extraordinaire has succeeded only in revealing his duplicity, self-serving agenda and hypocrisy.

Shirdi & Sathya Sai Baba Imbroglio - Part 3
- Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 1
- Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 2
- (Sai Baba Imbroglio: Part 3)
Serguei Badaev (aka Sergei Bedayei - badaev57@mtu-net.ru) was the former President of the Moscow Sathya Sai Centre and Coordinator of the Education in Human Values in Russia. He alleged that he was disqualified from his positions after voicing concern about the allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. Although I initially found Sergiy Badaev to be very forthcoming and honest, I have subsequently changed my opinion about him due to his utter lack of concern regarding very disturbing behavior among his Anti-Sai associates.

Sergi Badaev was obviously resentful about his disqualification and has since written thoroughly biased articles against Sathya Sai Baba. Sergei Badayev casually dimissed Reinier Van Der Sandt’s shocking admission to viewing child pornography and also ignored (and continues to ignore) the vulgar online behavior of various Anti-Sai Activists. Therefore, Serguei Badaev is not as impartial as he tries to present himself.

Responses To The Anti-Sai Activist: Badaev, Serguei:
- Serguei Badaev: A Response
- Serguei Badaev and the Questionability of SSEHV
- A Scathing Response To Serguei Badaev About Sai Baba’s University

(Pic Link) Serguei and Dinara Badaev with children
Older items