The Sathya Sai Baba Saga: CON side--by Said
Author: Said
Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER
Publication date: June 1997
E-mail David Christopher Lane
directly at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I
want to go back to the home base now.
From shagols@itdc.koreanair.com Fri May 30 09:36:39 1997
To: "'dlane@weber.ucsd.edu'"
Subject: My response
Hello Professor Lane, thank you for your response and support. Together =
we will help many people, no doubt about it. I was going over a part of =
my response to Bon which you posted on Neural Surfer. A part of it is =
missing. I have quoted it below. The bold area is missing.
That all devotees are "as zombie-like hypocrites" is my belief. But I =
know that all might not be as such but all of those whom I have had the =
chance to get close have been hypocrites. As far as Sai - Bon calls him =
Swami as a sign of respect, I don't respect him so I'll call him Sai or =
Baba, actually I should call him by his birth-given name since he =
neither is Sai or mother or is he Baba or father of mine - is concerned, =
he is a RAGING MADMAN. Can you prove otherwise? Please do prove it =
before you accuse me of calling Sai - aka Raju - a madman unjustly.
>That examples what gossip >does =
to gossips: it excites and then confuses them further. Said is now =
exampling that more >than even before, in my view. Encouragment seems =
to bring out his fantasy in full blown details.
Please answer this question for me:
In your opinion, the three movies, -- made by different people from =
different parts of the world - that show Sai Baba cheating can be =
considered as gossip or fact? =20
Lets see your response to the above and we will decide who has unrooted =
belief in their opinions of Baba.
>Those who have met Sai may however differ or agree with Said or with =
me, but surely those >who at least read Sai's >teachings, =
instead of only the comments by men like me or Said, might recall that =
Swami >again and again advises folks to build their lives and their =
faiths NOT ON HIS PERSON, >NOT ON STORIES ABOUT HIM, GOOD OR =
BAD, but rather on their own experience, and >to use that resulting =
basis of direct experience to develop keen attention, and with that to =
>develop unbiased insight.
And yet the Sai Organization prints many books about Baba that is just =
other people's stories about Raju - aka Sai Baba. Why doesn't Sai Baba =
tell the people in charge of printing these books to stop selling other =
people's stories and let the people come to experience him first hand? =
Because he knows the publicity factor and he supports it. For those of =
you who have some unbiased reasoning, you can understand me. If you say =
the stories are for his devotees, then Raju should tell his followers to =
never give any books to anyone who is not a Sai devotee.
Besides, if someone told you that based on his experience fire is hot =
you will say your experience doesn't count, I need to experience it for =
myself? Doesn't anyone's experience count regarding to Sai Baba, or =
just Jed and mines don't count? When Sai devotees come together they =
speak of their experiences, but bad experiences are not allowed? While =
you are at it, lets throw out history because we can't learn from =
history unless we were there to experience it first hand.
Again thanks for your support.
From: Said Khorramshahgol
To: "'dlane@weber.ucsd.edu'"
Subject: Response to Bon
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 18:32:25 -0700
Hello Professor Lane, this is a response to Bon's response to Jed's =
experiences. I hope this will benefit all.
In order to not confuse Jed's and Bon's postings with mine, Jed's =
postings will be enclosed in five stars - for perfect reasoning - and =
Bon's writings will be enclosed in double quotes. Just joking, but =
Jed's will be inside five stars
((ever noticed how a pickpocket sees pockets, where an honest man sees =
only clothing? One's preferences determine to a=20
large degree what one `sees.' Jed showed in his letter what he sees. He =
however also implies this and that while=20
presenting his experience MIXED with hearsay and assumption.))
Your story regarding the pickpocket is misleading. If Jed has seen Raju =
- aka Sai Baba - take things from his chair and also he is hiding things =
in his palm, and that the object he had made to "disappear" was sitting =
on his chair when Raju got up, then you can't say his belief that Raju =
is cheating is just a perception. It could have some truth in it, don't =
you agree. A logical thinking person would agree, but since you think =
based on your faith, then you disagree. Raju cannot be cheating right? =
How can he be cheating? Why do you always put the blame on us, why =
can't Raju be cheating? Why is our perception wrong, and not Raju's =
actions? Perhaps your own posting would clarify that:=20
((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.)) =20
((He sometimes presents facts...))
Oh, he does?!?!? Can you tell us which one of his claims you take to =
be facts? Is it the part about Raju cheating or is it the part about =
Raju molesting? Please do tell us which one of his claims you consider =
as facts.
((Frankly that is the whole purpose of spiritual disciplines in all =
religions: to clear the intellect and intuition of=20
assumption so a spontaneous experience can be apperceived directly. =
Those who succeed, find the truth. Buddhism calls it=20
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=20
breath.))
You talk to us as though you have experienced grace, or samadhi and now =
your intellect is untarnished. Is that true? If not, then could we =
come to the conclusion that your beliefs about Raju could be tarnished =
by your blurred intellect? That means you have to agree that there is a =
chance that Raju cheats on his "miracles" and that you have to agree =
that there is a chance that Raju molests young boys. Then you have to =
go out and search for answers. If you come to the conclusion that Raju =
doesn't cheat on his "miracles" and that he is not a homosexual, then =
good for you, your faith is evermore stronger. If you find otherwise, =
then you have saved yourself from a raging madman. Either way, you win. =
Agree?
((Jed and David seem to think a teacher must however act, or appear, =
only in ways they expect and approve of. If that is=20
the case or not, Swami certainly does not fit that mould, since he =
rarely acts, or appears, as anyone expects.))
So, what you are saying above implies to the following: "If Raju says =
that his creations are due to his will and power and later you find out =
that he is palming things, then think how Raju does not fit any mould =
and that how you shouldn't ask him to act the way I think he should. =
Who can say for sure that God cannot tell one lie? One lie doesn't hurt =
anyhow. One is still less than two and two is less than three and ...."
You should rethink your philosophy. There are certain things that are =
sure about God. If God could come to earth and walk among the people, =
he wouldn't lie, he wouldn't steal, he wouldn't murder, etc. Raju lied, =
so that makes him not God, understand or do you still want to hold on to =
your faith and fantacies? Or are you just in this childish game of not =
wanting to accept? Because it is a very simple concept Amigo, accept =
it.
((What he describes as sleight of hand, others describe as a miracle. =
What he describes as fraud, others see as reality. The event=20
is the same for all, but the perceptions differ: the reaction to the =
perception is the difference I will address.))
No, it's the other way around: what Raju followers describe as a =
miracle, we rightly describe as sleight of hand. And I am sorry that I =
have tried to awaken your sorry little twisted mind, but perception has =
nothing to do with this. I have seen some very clear shots that =
clearly, clearly show that Raju is cheating. Are you saying this is my =
perception? That what I saw was a perception? The pictures are very =
very clear. I think before accepting that Raju is cheating, you will =
tell me that the guy with the huge afro and the orange dress who circles =
his hands is not Raju but an impersonator. Why not say that its an =
animal. Why not say that it's a documentary on the sexual life of the =
king of the beasts? After all, if you take the concept of perception to =
extreme as you have, God knows what reality will become. Do you follow? =
((Perhaps had Jed been keener to examine the reasons for his =
conclusions as well as the state=20
of his observations, rather than to accept them as fact without further =
regard, he might have asked Sai to `create'=20
startlingly huge objects in his open palm, not with a wave or a =
movement of any kind. Folks have done so, and contrary=20
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,=20
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.))
The only story of Raju which I have heard where supposedly he was asked =
to create something big without circling his hand, has been written in a =
few books. In one of the books its been written that the person who =
asked for this kind of creation was a non-believer. After seeing this =
miracle, he became a believer and went straight away to an office inside =
Raju's ashram to call his devotee wife to tell her the story. The =
devotee who worked at the telephone station overheard his story and =
spread it and everyone knows about it now. The problem is this person =
was never heard of again. He was never invited to speak about his =
experience in front of Raju devotees. After all, its not everyday that =
Raju creates a live monkey that jumps around the room and even eats a =
banana which Raju creates for him and then sits on Rajus hand and Raju =
places his other hand on top of the monkey's head and brings his palms =
together and the monkey is gone just as he came. Believe me, its not =
everyday that Raju does such great miracles and if such a thing had =
happened, the gentleman that requested it or the other people that were =
present would be speaking to large community of Raju devotees. But no =
such thing happens. Did the devotee that worked at the telephone =
station make the story up? You be the judge of that.
((However, Jed is correct in saying that Sai does palm objects. I hope =
no one is suprised at that, since among mature students=20
`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=20
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.))
Somehow I fail to see the fun in palming things. To me, after seeing =
close-up shots of Raju cheating materializations, it looks as though =
Raju makes it look like he is trying to do a humorous thing after he =
realizes that someone has seen him palming. The movies together with =
your statement above make me think that perhaps Raju acts out on these =
humorous things. Very humorous, specially looking at those who think =
that Raju has superpowers and give him their lives. If you are claiming =
that what Jed saw, was just a humorous thing Raju was doing, then why =
did Raju proceed to circle his hands and give it to someone as if he had =
just created it?
This reminds me of a story which I was told by a disabled woman. She =
could not walk and had come to Raju hoping that he would heal her. =
While crying, she told me that once in front of the people who had =
attended Raju's darshan - a few hundred - he asked her to get up. They =
had been called for an interview and this happened in front of the =
interview room. She couldn't. Then he asked her to get up. She got up =
using her hands and somehow stood on her legs at the same time getting =
support from Raju. Everyone started clapping their hands thinking Raju =
had healed this woman and Raju looked at them with the look of pride on =
his face. I swear to God, that is exactly what she told me, in front of =
the other Iranian group members, who were there when this happened. Why =
did Raju put on a face of pride? Why did he support the wrong belief of =
the people by putting on a face that yes, I have done it? Plus, why =
should he feel proud for doing something like that? Doesn't he say that =
pride is bad?
((Had Jed enquired of Sai directly about such matters, I suggest he =
might have learned what those who have enquired=20
do soon learn: that Sai often acts for over-emotional devotees or =
stuffy carpers, as if he is just a parlor magician who has=20
bungled a sleight of hand trick.))
This is just how brain washed devotees think. Remember what I was =
thinking when he got angry at me for not getting horney and not getting =
a boner? I was thinking that he is angry at me because he knows all my =
problems - I was telling of some problems while he was rubbing my dick =
and so my dick didn't stand up and he got angry and threw it up and =
turned away from me with an angry face. I was thinking that he is angry =
at me because I don't have enough faith in him, if I had enough faith, =
then I would not be telling him my problems because he knows them and =
plus if I had enough faith that he is always with me and taking care of =
me, then I wouldn't ask him for help. The followers of any cult think =
that way. Your idea above results from your brain washed mind.
And also you are telling me that Raju had responded to people who had =
seen him palm things by saying that he was just acting like a magician? =
And sometimes to others he will say that he is just trying to create a =
humorous situation. Any other reasons that might have satisfied Jed's =
doubts? Your suggestion is like going to ask a theif who was seen in =
bright daylight stealing, if he has stolen. Of course he would say no. =
If you are that stupid to ask him such a question after seeing him in =
bright daylight stealing, then he will think, well, this guy is stupid =
so I'll just say no. The difference between you and Jed is that you =
would believe the thief and he wouldn't. You might say that if you saw =
a thief steal, you wouldn't believe him if he told you he hadn't steal. =
Well, then why do you give such importance to what Raju says? Why do =
you give him the benefit of the doubt? Because you have faith in him =
then you reason by saying that God cannot be cheating, so when he says =
he is creating a humorous situation or that he is acting for =
over-emotional devotees, etc. he must be telling the truth. Wrong.
Also, why should he act like he is palming things for over emotional =
devotees? I don't get the point.
((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.))
Please cut the crap and have some respect. After all you are not =
talking to stupid people, OK? If you are going to say what matters to =
Raju, at least quote him and don't throw any of your interpretations in =
there as Raju's beliefs. The point that you say above is completely =
misleading. Since Raju says and perhaps believes that he is God, he =
emphasizes devotion to him. He also emphasizes that you should have =
devotion to any name or form of God you want. But since 99.999% of his =
devotees believe he is God, then their devotion to any God reflects =
their devotion to Raju. It is the firm belief of all Raju devotees that =
Raju is God, the One that cannot be seen. They say that the physical =
body with the afro is just the form he is using and that the inner being =
that talks and acts through the form is God. So, when praying to Allah =
for example, they have faith that this Allah is the same Being that =
speaks through the form of Raju. So, all devotion comes back to that =
form. If that form tells you to shut up, you will, if he tells you to =
stand still, you will, etc. So, Raju never had said anything like "it is =
not devotion to Sai that matters, , but is devotion to truth." Never. =
He has however said things like you must have full devotion to me, and =
the things of such content. So, please don't try to brain wash the =
readers by giving them false information due to your beliefs.
((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.))
OK, I will. I am not a spiritual person anymore, but I know quite a bit =
about it. Many teachers and prophets and even Raju say that God wants =
his children to come to Him very badly. That makes me believe that He =
wants us close to him very soon - perhaps you should ask God, what is =
the hurry? And the children are to long for God with all their hearts, =
wanting to see him very bad - in a hurry. But the journey Raju puts you =
on is fake and one shouldn't hurry to be on that journey.
Also, Jed called Raju a homosexual, "leering faggot" is your words. =
There is a big difference between calling someone a homosexual and a =
"leering faggot". How can you call your God that? Its in your nature =
to talk nasty.
((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?
=20
Upon what did you base that expectation? Why?))
Easy question, easy answer. Jed believes that Raju should be God, since =
he says he is! He expected him to be God since he says he is! He =
based that expectation upon Raju saying he is God! Why? Because Raju =
said he is God! Dumb question indeed!!!!! Jed expected a God who will =
cure his testicle problems without touching him. Jed expected a God who =
would not palm things and then circle his hand and pretend that he has =
just created something. =20
((Those are key questions. Please, do address them. I believe when you =
reply, insight will result for both you and your
reader.))
And I gave you some key answers. I would like you to show me where you =
wanted to take the answers to your questions.
((As for Baba being closer to human, stop: there is Jed's imagination =
in full evidence. Of=20
course Sai Baba is human, Jed. That you assumed otherwise is your =
choice. Sai has ever said his body will die, you know. =20
For four years you called yourself a devotee. How is it then you missed =
his teaching that "God is Man minus desires"?))
Wait a minute, not so fast Bon, you'll pull a string. Be nice to Jed, =
speak to him as he speaks to you, with respect. If you can't even speak =
softly to those who speak softly to you, how can you put Raju's teaching =
of "ignore criticism and say Raju Ram" into practice? I talk to you the =
same way you talk to me, I don't take crap from you, but Jed is nice to =
you, why do you talk to him like an asshole?
I fail to see Jed's imagination in full evidence? Perhaps its your =
imagination that is raging, ever doubted yourself instead of trying to =
put doubts in other people's minds? God is man minus desires still =
leaves the body. How is it that after over twenty years of devotion to =
Raju, you fail to see that? Over twenty years of waste indeed.
((Finally as to Baba's life being his message, I suggest Jed has simply =
misunderstood what that means. Baba's life is his=20
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.))
I agree with the last part of your statement, namely, the way you live =
your life gives a message. But Raju means it as Jed said. Raju has =
said that his devotees should look at his life and take example. So, =
how come after over twenty years of devotion to Raju, you have not =
realized it? Over twenty years gone down the drain. So, your reasoning =
above is false and all Raju devotees should go out and get Mercedes =
Benzes. Follow the leader and live life large.
***** 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?))
Can you be more illogical? You are saying that since Jed doesn't know =
where that watch came from, then he can't tell that Raju didn't create =
it before Jed saw it in his hands. How stupid, give us a break. Let me =
show you why it is so stupid:
Well, if Raju created the watch out of thin air before Jed saw it in his =
hand, then why did he hide it in his palm and then circle his hand and =
then pretend that he had just created it? You know that all Raju =
devotees think that his when he is circling his hand he is about to =
create something out of thin air. Then why did Raju have to palm the =
watch and later circle his hands to make people think he is creating =
something? Couldn't he simply give the watch to the student and say I =
created this before for you? His devotees would have surely believed =
him, so knowing that why did he have to circle his hands? Also, he =
could have made the student happier if he would have told him that he =
had created the watch for him before. It would have made the student =
feel like Raju was thinking about him and created something for him and =
kept it and gave him an interview and gave him a watch. Raju didn't =
think of that otherwise he would have done it!
((That was a long detailed description, and I am happy that Jed saw so =
many times how Sai fumbled, and rejoice that Jed=20
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,=20
and so by definition was also given ample chances to ask Swami directly =
what was going on. Apparently, Jed never did=20
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=20
dull-minded dolt, only due Jed being obviously in need of more than =
one example to get his noggin' functioning critically.=20
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=20
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."
Even if Jed had asked Raju about what he saw, then it wouldn't matter =
because Raju's reply would have been stupid based on what you said his =
response has been before. And also, If a devoted student finds the =
article to be the same one as before, it would make Raju's actions very =
suspicious. You can't claim that for a fact it didn't happen since you =
weren't there. Aren't you the one who is an all out supporter of =
experiencing? And also, if you direct your attention to Raju's hands, =
you will see a lot and no ample time is needed. He is a terrible =
magician. Another thing is that other people in the room didn't ask =
Raju about the incident, so don't come down hard on Jed for not asking. =
Why don't you ask Raju about these claims the next time you go and see =
him. Should you experience our experiences to be able to ask him? Why =
can't you at least have a little trust in us - just a grain - and ask =
Raju about our claims and see what he says.
((Jed spent four years with Sai, but seems never to have gotten much =
beyond the phase of=20
the `interview please' devotee.))
And you spent over twenty years with Raju and you still haven't overcome =
"don't you dare say that, you idiot, stupid. Raju is not like that he =
is God, you idiot, stupid." Your attitude is the worst. Anyone who had =
gained any spiritual insight would not have your attitude, which leads =
me to believe that you haven't gained anything at all from over twenty =
years of devotion to Raju. Also, I am sure that we agree there are many =
big obstacles in spirituality and that it is very hard to overcome them. =
How come you haven't overcome your ways as to not get angry if someone =
criticizes Raju? A simple thing like that you cannot overcome, you must =
have been stuck in the first stages of spirituality. So, don't scorn =
Jed about his problems, besides, putting down someone is bad according =
to any religion and Raju too. You have many flaws to work on yourself. =
And I want to bring another thing to light, this is what I meant by Raju =
devotees being perverts.=20
If you go to Raju's ashram, there are these old people who take care of =
things. They have been devotees of Raju for longest time, some were =
there when Raju was just 15 years old. They are some of the biggest =
assholes that you will ever see. I saw so many instances of them being =
rude that its unbelievable. I heard of stories that some people had =
complained about them to Raju in interviews. One gentleman who =
complained to Raju was told by him that Raju had brought them there =
because if they were outside among other people, they would be bad =
examples to Raju. It wasn't exactly like that but what Raju meant was =
what I said. It is true that if these old, rotten people were outside, =
they would be bad examples, but that is not the point. The point is =
that after 40 - 50 years of following Raju, they are still assholes, in =
my opinion more than they would have been if they weren't following =
Raju. Now, if these people who have reached past the 'interview phase' =
and supposedly have reached higher spiritual realms, are acting like =
assholes, why is Bon asking you to follow Raju? Why does he emphasis =
getting past the 'interview phase'? Surely, Bon is on the same path as =
these elders and just because the majority of the elders are like that =
makes me believe that he will achieve that goal.
***** 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=20
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'll tell you how, the prime minister visits Raju two days before the =
elections. Why do you think so? With the number of Raju devotees who =
are Indian nationalities, it would be of great help to them in =
elections. I cannot give you specifics since I haven't investigated =
ashram bank accounts or the various politician's accounts. And neither =
have you. I haven't been in any of the meetings between the politicians =
and Raju. And neither have you, so you wouldn't know if his claims are =
right and you CAN'T talk the way you do to Jed. You think that there is =
no mafia because you believe that he is God and we believe that he is =
directing a mafia because we think Raju is a madman. Do you understand =
that? However, seeing Raju cheat and molest will make you think what he =
does with a bunch of liares such as politicians.
((Of course you have no evidence, since it is just unfounded gossip...))
Apparently you don't understand what I have said above. If you still =
don't understand it, read it again. Its how logical people think. Its =
how people whose judgement is based on their faith do not reason.
((However, at least your `explanation' shows there are students who are =
clearly not in favour of Sai. For the attentive, that evidences=20
there is more freedom at the school than critics imply...))
So do you suggest that they should put a gun to those student's heads =
and force them to believe in Raju? Do you understand what you said =
above? I don't think so. If they don't believe in Raju, then they have =
too much freedom. WOW.
While in India, I was sitting with some friends and having tea or doing =
something else. It was outside of Raju's ashram and it was night. The =
students who had been in the ashram for some function were going back to =
their lodge. The last two students had some space between them and the =
other students. Before you knew it, a girl came from behind a house =
where she was hiding and together they ran away. I couldn't believe it. =
After all these were Raju's students, the same one's that he claims to =
spend over 70% of his energy - spritual energy - on. If they are dating =
girls right next door to Raju, if some students are criticizing Raju, =
don't you think that there might be something to complain about? Why =
should we be at fault always? Why should we blame ourselves for =
doubting? By the way, having read a couple of books on cults, always =
blaming oneself for "possible" shortcomings of the teacher is a sign of =
a cult.
((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=20
to not ask your teacher direct questions, Jed, especially when he gave =
you so many chances.) ))
Don't you think Jed was asking or looking for Raju to prove himself? =
Didn't Jed go to the private interview room asking - without verbally =
asking - for Raju to prove himself. To prove that all he has seen is =
wrong? To prove that he is aware of Jed's condition and what is in his =
mind and what is bothering him? In his won way Jed did ask Raju his =
questions Bon, but he didn't get it. He was clueless. Or was he acting =
clueless? I know this is your answer. As an ex-devotee I know what =
your answer is. If Raju was acting clueless why did he have to do that? =
Being all-knowing, didn't he know that Jed would leave him? Didn't he =
know that Jed was not ready for these "tests"? He is clueless. =
Actually he will be the star in the movie Clueless 2, starting Raju Afro =
- a large afro to cover what is not there --, and Bon. =20
((Why did you ask students who did not like him, instead of Sai? Is it =
perhaps because you had already decided?))
No, because its good to hear both sides of the story. In the court, =
they never judge based on one person's story. Besides I am sure he had =
heard and read enough from Raju devotees and now he was researching the =
other side in order to make up his mind. You see that Bon? He did that =
to make up his mind, that means he hadn't already decided on Raju yet.
((Er, ok. So what? It is equally well-known that when prominent figures =
in the Indian government come to see Sai=20
in an election year, they usually LOSE!))
Prove it. You are way wrong and you are talking without facts.
I think everyone can see where both Bon and Raju come from so I wouldn't =
waste our time anymore. You all get the idea. Thanks for your time.
--------------------------
From shagols@itdc.koreanair.com Sun Jun 1 00:34:23 1997
From: Said Khorramshahgol
To: "'dlane@weber.ucsd.edu'"
Subject: Response to Bon
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 13:52:23 -0700
Hello Professor Lane, the following is another response to Bon's =
response to my first posting.
As to not confuse the readers between Bon's writings and my own, Bon's =
writings will be inside double parenthesis. =20
((These can manifest as suffering, especially when addressing =
specifics. That may explain why the fellows offer but few specifics, =
then usually embroider the facts with hyperbole, resulting in their =
frequent assumptions.))
I would like everyone to see what I have based my based my opinion of =
Raju - aka Sai Baba, his last name - so that they can choose if they are =
facts or assumptions as Bon claims. They are the following:
1. I have seen three movies with some very clear, close shots of Baba =
cheating on "materializations" of "holy" ash, a necklace, and either =
another necklace or a rings, I don't remember which one.
2. I have had Raju touch my testicle some five or six times. He has =
hugged me while touching me. He has breathed hard and made sexual =
noises. So, I have concluded that he was touching me in a sexual way.
3. Raju has directed me to touch his testicle by taking my hand and =
rubbing it against his testicle. Further, he made loud sexual noises. =
So, I have come to the conclusion that he was sexually aroused and =
enjoying it.
I would like Bon to answer the following:
1. If Raju was healing something in my testicle, why did he hug me? Why =
did he have to hug me to do so?
2. If Raju was healing something in my testicle, why did he make sexual =
noises?
3. If Raju was healing something in my testicle, why did he breathe =
harder?
4. Why did Raju have me touch his testicle?=20
5. If Raju was trying to perhaps teach me something or whatever other =
answer you have come up with, why did Raju make sexual noises while he =
directed me to touch him?
6. Can you point out what assumptions I have made?
7. Can you point out how I have embroidered the facts with hyperbole?
((Those who have met Sai may however differ or agree with Said or with =
me, but surely those who at least read Sai's teachings, =
instead of only the comments by men like me or Said, might recall that =
Swami again and again advises folks to build their lives and their =
faiths NOT ON HIS PERSON, >NOT ON STORIES ABOUT HIM, GOOD OR =
BAD, but rather on their own experience, and to use that resulting =
basis of direct experience to develop keen attention, and with that to =
develop unbiased insight.))
It might not be wise to listen to others views at times, but you can't =
generalize and say you should never listen to other's views regarding =
someone else. So, Raju, the all knowing, is wrong when it comes to this =
point. You are thinking based on your faith in Raju. You have accepted =
that he is God and you are thinking that each person has a different =
experience and belief regarding Raju, a belief which is strong within =
Raju's followers. So, as a result you are saying no one should judge =
Raju based on anyone else's experiences solely based on your belief that =
he is God and his teachings are the Truth. But to me and to a major =
majority of people he is just a human being and not what you think he =
is. We, as logical human beings can listen to other people's =
experiences regarding Raju. To everyone who is not a Raju follower, it =
becomes more clear that Raju is a homosexual and a charlatan if two =
people have the same experiences with him. Try all you want to convince =
them to forget our experiences, but we, they won't be able to forget =
about similar accusations of sexual abuse, specially if they have kids. =
I just wanted to give you a report of how we think down here. =
Apparently you are too high and your mind too twisted and you need us to =
clear how logical thinking can be.
And also, doesn't Raju say that the character of the guru is important. =
I have read his teachings regarding the characteristics of a guru. He =
mentions many things about recognizing the qualities of the character of =
the guru. So, why does Raju and you not want others to examine the =
character of Raju? I will tell everyone why you and Raju want people to =
go there and see Raju up close. It is about Raju wanting people to be =
mesmerized with the idea of seeing miracles and seeing the source of =
these miracles and wanting to talk to him, etc. In the next few =
pragraphs I will explain how a person feels and why they feel that way =
when they go to see Raju the first time.=20
((That [experiencing Raju first hand] is the basis for sadhana, or =
spiritual discipline. Experience like that you see does example how =
understanding itself is best realized while *living* a teaching, not =
dwelling in imaginary states or assumed relationships as a =
>href=3D"http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/ss10a.htm"> Said =
examples.))
Bon, there are two kinds of experiences, inner and outer. The outer is =
also important, even in cases such as studying Raju. Outer experiences =
can be even good for your spirituality, don't you agree? It can even =
save you from fraud teachers who can ruin your life, don't you agree? I =
am sure you agree, and so how can you ask non-devotees to go and see =
Raju without considering my side of the story? If I am right about =
Raju, then their lives are ruined, agree? I am sure you agree, so how =
can you make such a suggestion? I know how you make a suggestion like =
that, you are high and your mind is twisted, you don't think logically =
as we do down here. You base your reasoning on your faith. You think =
that what Raju says is the Truth and most beneficial - as Raju devotees =
believe. So, your logical mind which would tell you "what if I am wrong =
and Raju is a fake" does not function. All your reasoning is shadowed =
by your faith, I am not saying you don't have reasoning. Reasoning is a =
sequence of if...then...else statements. But your if statement starts =
with the supposition that Raju is God. Can you undrestand?
I would like to tell everyone how one feels when one goes to see Raju =
for the first time and why you feel as such. Imagine being told that =
someone has many millions of follower, he has risen the dead, many =
times, he can read your mind, tell of your past, your future, AND HE =
PERFORMS MIRACLES DAILY by creating holy ash, which is supposed to heal =
the sick and help those in need. Wouldn't your mind boggle over that? =
Even if you are very skeptical at first, after hearing about his many =
miracles for a while or hearing them from a couple of people, you might =
agree to check it out for yourself. You have also been told that this =
person not only claims to be God, he also claims that you are God. The =
effect this kind of statement has is shown by the following:
When he says you are also God in order to calm your mind over his claim =
to be God; the claim that you are also God, also makes you feel like =
there must be something I don't understand about his philosophy, how can =
he and I be God? So, you leave it alone for the time being.
So you go to see Raju. You are very excited because this person is =
supposed to be a very special person indeed - the great miracles that =
you have been told comes to your mind. This is apparent in many books =
about "experiences" of people when they met Raju for the first time. I =
have read many stories where the people are thinking about so many =
different things while they are going to see him. You get excited and =
you can't help it. This kind of excitement can be very soothing just =
like a spiritual experience and ecstasy. Also, you are very excited =
because you are waiting for that very first time that you will see a =
miracle. This is also evident in "experiences" of people who went to =
see Raju for the first time. Many write about looking for that first =
miracle. So your mind is boggling over the prospects of perhaps meeting =
a holy person who can do great miracles. Another thing is that on the =
first trip, if not everyone, a major majority of people want Raju to =
notice them and be so very kind to them. These people could be pure =
skeptics, but they feel that way anyhow. So, you also want a great deal =
of attention from Raju. You go there, and Raju doesn't pay any =
attention to you for a while. This is also what many devotees have =
claimed or written in their books. After a week or two of waiting for =
Raju to notice you, you are becoming very upset and at the same time =
more excited. After living within thousands of devotees and constantly =
being told of Raju's miracles, you are getting very excited - after all =
it could be true that he is doing miracles, that he is God - and you =
want him to notice you more. Another thing that could be nice is for =
you to talk to Raju face to face, which is only possible in an =
interview. You ask for it and you want it so bad. And finally, one day =
Baba looks at you or starts to notice you or talks to you. You feel =
like you are in heaven. Truly, you feel in a kind of spiritual ecstasy. =
You know why because anytime, anyone wants something so bad and they =
get it, they get very happy. In your situation, while the thought that =
Raju might be God is in the back of your head -- and most probably it =
has strengthened after two weeks of waiting and conversing with Raju =
devotees --, this feeling of happiness gets a kind of spirituality in =
your high. You will say and I have "WOW, this person who might be God =
-- and whom I wanted so much to notice me -- has finally noticed me!" =
If you observe your emotions and thoughts while you are there then you =
will see it for yourself. Unfortunately, the high and the ever =
increasing and intensifying idea that Raju might be God and the fact =
that we really would love to see God face to face makes it hard to face =
our real emotions and makes it hard to think about it logically. =
Wouldn't it be great to see God face to face - specially after you have =
been there for two weeks and the idea that he might be God is getting =
stronger day by day? This is the feeling that Bon wants you to get. I, =
as a devotee, used to tell everyone that to see Raju is to love Raju, =
for this very reason. All Raju devotees think that way, because we used =
to talk about the first meetings with Baba, the first time he looked at =
us, etc. Bon is a pervert, he doesn't want you to go there to examine =
Raju, he wants you to go there and get high and illogical. I am sure Jed =
would agree with me on this. Bon is a liar. So now you know Bon's =
intentions and his personality. Every Raju devotee believes that their =
first visit to Raju is their best. That is because the first time they =
go there, they want to see miracles and Raju palys mind games with them =
by not paying attention to them for a while, etc. All that I have said =
above applies to the first trip. The next trips become more normal. In =
the second and consequent trips you feels very high for the first week - =
after all you are going to see your God, someone you are dedicating your =
life to, and someone whom you love - and then wears off.
((However, those who wish to examine Sai for character flaws may =
certainly do so if they find that beneficial, but surely might do well =
then to at least go and see him directly, so as to fully examine their =
day to day lives and his day to day life, both in outer appearance as =
well as in regard to his teaching, to see if that has value or not.))
My reasons why you feel the way you do when you go to see Raju explains =
why Bon is asking everyone to go and see Baba without trying to examine =
Raju for character flaws. Bon wants everyone to go there and get high =
and not deal with Raju's character. Isn't it better to also test the =
character of someone who says he is God? Shouldn't that be the first =
step in your research on Raju and his claim to be God? I would =
appreciate it if someone else, a third party could respond to this =
question.=20
((Instead, if they do as Said suggests, if one instead pays attention =
to stories, or to movies, or to hearsay or imaginings, as he himself =
brags that he has done, one gets no actual experience, no =
understanding, and no insight. Rather one gets what Said has: =
'opinion' which is frankly more bias than anything else, but =
opinion which masks itself as if "objective fact".))
Well, your opinions are facts, but mine have no ground, they are just =
opinions, right? Your logic there is as twisted as it has been =
throughout this reply.
Also, Bon's problem here is that he puts too much emphasis on the plays =
of his mind. Within the Raju devotees, it is very popular to "get =
within" and experience things within. All the "bad" emotions are =
destroyed, all "good" emotions are placed there, if possible, all =
thoughts and emotions are not only watched but are directed, so instead =
of letting your thoughts and emotions to come out, you suppress all =
thoughts and emotions and only try to have "good" emotions and thoughts. =
In this process, you have to deal with so many difficulties and you =
gain experience as to how to control your thoughts and emotions, if you =
are strong enough. This can be seen as spiritual to those who follow =
that path. And these are the experiences which Bon speaks of. When I =
first became a Raju follower, I used to read and hear of getting within, =
after a while, I was so involved with controlling my thoughts and =
emotions, I was constantly, by the second, by the thought watched and =
tried to control my thoughts and emotions. Before I knew it, I was only =
aware of my thoughts and emotions, I had gone within. But suppressing =
all thoughts and emotions is not true spirituality. It will just make =
all the suppressed thoughts stronger and they keep coming back. True =
spirituality is supposed to be constant, not fighting all thoughts. So, =
Bon is living within himself fighting emotions and thoughts and he feels =
good for overcoming some - although they come back later - and he feels =
bad for losing. For him this is a reality and a spiritual path of =
"cleansing". All else is non reality, the outside world is non-reality =
as they have been told by Raju. So, movies that show Raju cheat are not =
important, what is important is that they are fanatically trying to =
fight their thoughts and emotions and that is important and that is =
reality. It is hard for me to explain it to you. Unless you have lived =
this kind of life, you wouldn't understand. I tried my best to explain =
it to all and show where Bon is coming from. I welcome all those who =
have lived this kind of life and understand, to respond.
(( .... I have based my views only on my own experience and study, not =
on guesses, stories, movies, or hearsay.))
Can you please share some of these experiences with us. Ever since the =
first time I talked to you, you keep telling me and everyone else that =
your faith comes from inner experiences and that nothing else matters. =
Please share some of your experiences with us so that perhaps some of us =
will be able to benefit from them. If your experiences are strong =
enough to keep you a devotee after semi-accepting that Raju cheats on =
his miracles, then it must be strong enough to at least change someone =
else's mind. If you can save one person's life by taking them to Raju, =
then your life has been worthwhile, so please share your experiences =
with us.
((That means for him it was a cult, but it is my direct experience that =
there is nothing "real" about Said's claims, nothing cultlike in Sai's =
organization-even though there may certainly be cult-followers like =
Said around, as there are in any large spiritual organization.))
Why should people believe you that Raju's organization is not a cult? =
You haven't given them any proof. I have at least told them of my =
"opinion", or "imaginations" as you call them, namely three movies which =
they can watch. What have you given as proof that Raju is not a cult =
master? All you have said is my experiences are that he is God and you =
expect all to believe that first of all you are saying the truth and =
second of all your experiences are not a play of your imaginations. =
Give proof Bon and stop telling us we have opinions and imaginations =
until you yourself give some proof.
((However, one may of course deduce based on hearsay and appearances, =
instead of direct observation and experience. Frankly I think Said =
examples that rather clearly, and so hope you will use his example to =
avoid such calamity.))
Bon, I was a devotee of Raju for three years and I had seven interviews =
and many private ones both with my group and Raju, with me and Raju and =
also, once he called me in with another group of people for a private =
interview. I have had many direct observations and experience. More =
than you have. I just remembered something. Once even Raju kissed me =
on the cheek while he was hugging me, has he done that to you? Has he =
ever played with your dick? Has he ever hugged you? He hugged me at =
least 5 times. As you see, I have had experiences and I found out that =
under the cake, there was a large pile of shit in the bucket, which =
examplifies what people will find in Raju. And you are right, I hope =
that people will take my example to avoid such calamity, I really hope =
so. =20
((Do you think Swami is only what Said, or I, (or Lane, or you) think =
him to be? ))
Your opinion above is nothing but twisted thinking based on faith. As =
an ex-Raju devotee I know what you are thinking. It is the belief of =
Raju followers that Raju is beyond all people's comprehension and so Bon =
says "Do you think _____ is only what Said, or I, (or Lane, or you) =
think him to be?" It is their belief that no one can understand Raju's =
reality since a finite mind cannot understand the infinite. They also =
believe that Raju and his actions are a mystery to all as is written in =
a book by Hislop, a devotee of Raju. So, if Raju's personality and his =
actions are a mystery, why should we go and see him since you, who have =
been with Raju for twenty or more years believe that he is a mystery? =20
Here I am going to explain to all as to why Raju followers find him a =
mystery. For example, Raju tells a devotee something. The devotee =
starts thinking why did Raju tell me this? Could it be that he loves =
me? Could it be that he saw something in me and he wants to change it? =
Could it be that he saw something in my future which is threatening to =
my life? As a devotee of Raju I used to think this was and so did my =
Raju friends. We used to talk about this sometimes. So, with all these =
questions, Raju's intentions remain a mystery as he also stays a =
mystery. Also, this kind of thinking made me feel that Baba might be =
killing a bird with one stone. Could there be more than one answer to =
the above questions? If so, then Raju is operating in many different =
levels as is also believed by Raju followers. So, as you see, this kind =
of faith is all based on their ignorace. If Bon disagrees, let him give =
at least two instances of his experiences which proved to him that Raju =
operates on different levels.
))Students who persevere do find that one way Swami teaches is to =
bring doubts *forward*, INTO EXPERIENCE, so they can be examined. =
Bringing doubts to light is part of his job as a TEACHER, as even Jed =
and Said example, albeit grudgingly. Why Jed and Said chose to not =
examine their doubts so much as to instead apparently deduce instead Sai =
was at fault, is what Lane's page serves to focus on, if one wishes. Of =
course David's page also offers the chance to mindlessly gloat over =
gossip, if one wishes that. ))
You are suggesting that after seeing three movies that expose Raju's =
"miracles" as frauds, and after being molested by him, I should have =
fought all doubts and held on to faith? Isn't that what the followers =
of the raping guru did? So, since they fought their doubts and found =
the "truth" about why their guru raped those women - they came to =
believe that the guru who had no sexual desires or feelings, was out to =
release the sexual energy of those women who were suppressing them; this =
way they could concentrate on their spiritual exercises - then are you =
suggesting that they are more spiritual people now? Also, are you =
suggesting that the guru is always pure and we have to se all shit and =
overcome doubts? As you see your reasoning works as I have said. It =
goes as "Raju is God, then he is pure and couldn't have lied about his =
powers, couldn't have molested those kids. His intentions are always =
pure. So, these doubts are unfounded and should be destroyed and =
replaced by faith." BY KILLING DOUBT, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE Raju A =
GOD OR PURE.
((No one charged them any fees or dues, and no one made them go into =
interview, or stay, or leave-- yet they blame Sai as if he somehow =
tricked them.))
We didn't go to India or interviews on our own accord, we were brain =
washed.
((They seem convinced a teacher can act only as they wish, poor fellows. =
No wonder then they are furious with Sai Baba, for he fits no mould =
whatsoever.))
If Raju doesn't fit the mould of a teacher, a pure person, or God, then =
most probably he is not a teacher, a pure person or God! Can your =
twisted mind understand this?
Also, please read my account, explained above, of how Raju's devotees =
believe that Raju is a man of mystery and why they think that way about =
Raju. It will give you a lot of insight in Bon's twisted thought =
patterns as expressed in his above statement.
Thanks for your time. E-mail me with any info, questions or =
suggestions. Thank you.
E-mail The Neural Surfer directly
at dlane@weber.ucsd.edu
I want to go back to the home base now.
