 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Once when I was attending the 1996 American Telugu Association conference
in Houston, I had an opportunity to meet in person a very active follower
of Sai Baba. I think his name was something like Raghunath Prasad. He was a
medical doctor speaking in front of a Vedic Panel Discussion conference.
The panel discussion featured a number of very traditional looking smaartha
pandits. Dr. Prasad was the only odd one there; while others wore dhotis
and traditional markings, Dr. Prasad was wearing a t-shirt and pants.
Anyway, his turn came to speak, and as a representative of the Houston Sai
center, he talked about how the Vedas teach that everyone is God, and
quoted some Upanishadic statments to that effect, like "aham brahmasmi" and
"tat tvam asi." After he spoke, there was a recess, and I took the time to
approach him.
I politely brought up the issues on which he had lectured. Specifically, I
clarified that he meant what he said when he thought "aham brahmasmi" means
that we are all God. I also clarified with him that he accepted
Bhagavad-Gita as having been spoken by God and thus scripture. I then
pointed out that the statements he had quoted could not mean that we are
all God, and I quoted "param brahma param dhaamo..." from Bhagavad-Gita. At
this point, it was pretty obvious that he did not expect to be challenged.
He held up his hands and started shaking his head and muttered "No no no no
no" like a used car salesman. I told him that it was illogical to think
that we are all God; God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent,
whereas we are none of these. He then responded that we are not these
bodies, but that which is inside the body (the soul). I said that was fine,
but the fact remains that we as controllers of our respective bodies make
mistakes, and are thus subject to illusion. He simply muttered "no no no no
no no..." I pointed out that there were no statements in the Gita which
unambiguously stated that we were all God. He then responded that my
approach (by which he meant quoting from scripture) was like the Christian
fundamentalist approach. I asked him how he could have the nerve to say
such a thing when five minutes previously he admitted that he accepted the
Bhagavad-Gita as scripture. Apparently, what he really meant by that is
that he would venerate scripture as long as he could make it seem that it
supported his views, but would reject any contrary opinion based on the
same scripture as fundamentalism. I then pointed out to him the obvious
mistake in rejecting scripture in favor of one's own personal opinions. He
kept trying to ascertain what religious tradition I was coming from. I
simply sideswiped such inquiries and said that I was simply putting forward
my doubts about his teachings; one need not come from a particular
religious tradition in order to have doubts about beliefs which are
inherently illogical and inconsistent. He then claimed that he was not
lecturing or teaching, but was simply giving his own ideas based on
personal experience. I then said that my personal experience was that I am
not God. He then went on and on about how there is no right or wrong, and
that my "beliefs" were right for me while his beliefs were right for him. I
pointed out that *Absolute* Truth means that it is beyond subjectivity.
Anyway, the reason I am going on like this is as follows. I think cult is
often used to refer to any spiritual movement which is still in its infancy
and is centered around a particular spiritual leader and his teachings. The
reason something is called a cult is because it rejects, either implicitly
or explicitly, accepted scriptural sources in favor of the leader's
teachings. Often some divinity is ascribed to the cult leader as a
justification for his teaching of ideas which are contrary to those of
other, more established religions. Also, the claim that one's leader is God
is a useful means of discouraging careful scrutiny of his beliefs.
Ultimately James, I think it is up to you to decide whether or not Sai is a
cult. As the good Dr. Prasad taught me, we each have our own beliefs, and
one person might believe Sai is God (which is right for her) while another
might believe that Sai is simply a cult leader (which might be right for
him). I think you should judge for yourself, and this is how I propose that
you do that:
Since Sai Baba is considered to be God by his followers, then it is
reasonable to assume that his philosophy must be without flaw. God is
beyond defects, so it is reasonable to assume that when He claims to speak
about the Absolute Truth, then His teachings should also be without defect.
So, I suggest you accept those assumptions temporarily and ask Sai
followers questions about what they believe and why they believe that
(emphasis on later part). In my opinion, a religion which cannot stand up
to polite scrutiny of its beliefs is probably not one that is worth
practicing. At the very least, one would expect that a belief system should
make some sense based on its assumptions, and that it would stick to its
assumptions (like accepting or not accepting something as scripture) rather
than simply teaching what others want to hear at that time. I would expect
that members of a religion would at least try to give me intelligent
answers to relieve me of doubts, while a cult follower would simply tell me
what he thinks I want to hear in an attempt to get me to join.
When I spoke to Dr. Prasad that day, I got the sense that questioning in
his "religion" was most unwelcome and generally unheard of. It was obvious
that he had no clear answers to anything I asked. I very much got the
impression that he was simply trying to sell me something, rather than
being concerned for my spiritual welfare. Everytime I put forward a
different doubt, he would try to pin me down into some kind of religious
stereotype and then say that my doubts were simply based on that. I think
that one need not be a part of any religion in order access one's
intellectual faculties. I got the impression that Dr. Prasad simply
expected me to accept his beliefs without question. That I think is a
characteristic of a cult. Cultists will go on believing what they believe
in spite of the fact that you have pointed out obvious flaws in their
beliefs which they cannot reconcile.
Again, it is up to you. Please feel free to judge for yourself.
warm regards,
-- K
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|