Friday, January 13, 2006

The Sathya Sai controversy

I have written about Sathya Sai Baba in my blog. The first was 'The other side of SSB' and the second was on the response to my blog. There were several comments, two of which needs mention.
The first was by 'SaiBaba Exposed', who has a blog in which he discusses the allegations against SSB. He has done quite a good job in detailing the allegations. He says "The examination of Sai Baba's inconsistencies in regards to his philosophy, theology and personal behaviour has received sparing treatment.In this regard I have attempted to make some headway on my blog, where I discuss such inconsistencies as and when I come across them.As of today (Dec 20th 2005) I have just posted the second part to an essay that shows how Sai Baba himself discounts the explanation that his senior followers give as a justification for his practices of homosexuality and paedophilia."

The second was by 'Equalizer' who said, "The person who posted just prior to me, soliciting his blog "SaiBabaExposed", is Sanjay Kishore Dadlani. People are completely unaware of his very disturbing online behavior, lies and attacks against Sathya Sai Baba. Be prepared to be thoroughly shocked:" and gave a link to a site dedicated to exposing Sanjay Dadlani.

Sanjay Dadlani seems to have a one-point agenda. Discredit SSB. He does a good job of it. His blog reads well and he has taken pains to prove his points.

The site mentioned by Equalizer throws lot of mud on Dadlani with enough proofs. Though it manages to nail Dadlani to some extent, it fails in convincingly replying to the allegations.

Responding to Dadlani's quoting of a few English books published by the SSB organisation, it says the English translations are not accurate because of heavy editing. And to know exactly about SSB, one must refer to the original Telugu versions, it says.

I find this arguement stupid. It means only those who can read Telugu can understand the 'real' teachings of SSB. But then, what about the millions who can't read Telugu? Does it imply that what they have read is wrong? Which means what they really know about SSB is wrong.

And why doesn't the SSB organisation take pains to publish 'correct' versions? It is idiotic to publish books and then say they are wrong.

Will explain?