 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
>> >Mr. Tandy
>> > My girlfriend is a true believer of Sai Baba and basis everyday
>> >decisions on how she is guided by him. IS this another cult? Is their
>> >validity to the accusation?
Mr Tandy is a wellknown devotee of ISKCON, but did not reply. Another
supporter of that sect however, in reply, (susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu
"H. Krishna Susarla") did share his experience:
>
>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.
Pranams,
I did send this some 96 hours earlier, but as it still did not
appear online am resubmitting now. Should the earlier version
appear with this one, kindly overlook it.
Doctor in training "H. Krishna Susarla"
<susarla.krishna@tumora.swmed.edu> in message
<ghenE2E8DA.7BG@netcom.com> briefly described his impressions
of Dr Prasad, (a man with whom I have enjoyed frequent
satsangh in person and online). In describing his
impressions of Dr Prasad, Sri Susarla aptly exampled a
quality well known in spiritual company: one sees what one
wishes, until one wishes to see only Him.
The former might make for stimulating chat, but the latter
ever makes for a kind eye and loving speech.
>He held up his hands and started shaking his head and muttered "No no no no
>no" like a used car salesman.
Is that seeing the man with a kind eye and loving speech? I
leave that to Susarla to tell, but in like manner as he has
apparently done with Dr Prasad, I suppose there are folks who
first met Swami Bhaktivedanta, and instead of seeing a pure
illumined devotee, rather saw a shriveled fundamentalistic
ranting old man,
so perhaps one sees what one wishes, until one sees Him? At
any rate, I know no used carsalesman of the fine moral
character, genuine good manners, spiritual insight, selfless
service or mundane intelligence of Dr. Prasad, but delight
that Susarla has encountered such. No doubt any vehicle
transferred via such a salesman ran trouble free for many long
years.
>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.
I note well when men who call themselves bhakthas, or speak
of bhakthi as the summum bonum for good men, demand that GOD
be logically explainable. Still, one can appreciate why those
who identify themselves as bodies might wish it were
possible. Frankly I believe it is the now stated belief of
Susarla, that `we are the controllers of these bodies', which
is the unexamined maintenance of his current state of
spiritual understanding in that it appears to me that what
Susarla calls `we' is in fact but an aspect of the five
sheaths and is therefore in the physical, not the spiritual
realm (or planet as he might call it).
Besides which, I find that `we' do not control these bodies;
GOD does. (I believe scripture supports me.) Now since, as
Susarla aptly reminds, GOD is not known to make mistakes when
one looks at the whole picture, I suggest all who agree with
Susarla do well then to examine the `we' he thinks is in
control of these bodies, for I find that under examination,
that we not only submits to Him entirely, even if not
immediately on all occasions, but in a sense, loses its sense
of wee-ness to "become" the I known as ATMA, which is not
physical, and not a we and is not logical neither.
But I will not say more, since such matters are rarely
resolved in usegroup fora, but become clear rather via
sadhana, seva, and satsangh, all of which manifest in Grace.
>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.
When Susarla is able to enunciate *Absolute* Truth, I will
surely attend His every word with utter surrender. Until then
however I suggest were he to at least define what he means by
the word GOD, then others might understand why his personal
experience is other than as Prasad encouraged. As long as
Susarla expresses only his opinions based only on his
assumptions, there is little to say other than, "thanks for
sharing."
>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.
In part I agree with that, in that a cult is often a young
"spiritual" movement, but I then note a cult is most easily
identified not by its age nor by its teacher (whose level of
holiness is like any person's- known only to himself and
GOD), nor by his title-- be it acharya, minister, mullah,
guru, or Bhagavan-- but is best determined by how he (and
especially in how his students) live and interacts with
others in society,
rather than in what the founder, acharya, guru, minister,
mullah, bhagavan, leader "says", in my view.
I find that cults ( meaning as a horror and not the word cult
used as Swami Bhaktivedanta used the term) tend to produce
fundamentalistic antisocial uppity folks who preach a dogmatism
of exclusion with arrogance and violence, while genuine
spiritual movements tend to produce good neighbours who abide
other views with respect and affectionate concern. By their
fruits shall ye know them, it is said. Disciples are an apt
fruit to determine if a cult is good, as Swami Bhaktivedanta
used the word, or evil, as Beasely apparently means it.
>Since Sai Baba is considered to be God by his followers,
Stop. Pardon Susarla, but you seem to have assumed that and
not said why or how.
Please note that Sai followers as you call them, do not ALL
consider Sathya Sai Baba to be GOD, and since your idea of GOD is as
yet undefined, and as you have but assumed you know how every
Sai follower defines GOD, I suggest you reconsider your
statement, as it does not apply. Apparently your thesis is
based on false a prioris
However, the balance of your thesis is good, were the
basis not tumbling...
>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).
... good up to that point. The philosophy of Sai surely might
better be determined by the study of the philosophy *directly*
via Sai's own views on the subject,
rather than through any middleman. Surely that is clear. (Or
would Susarla suggest that folks interested in finding if
ISKCONite philosophy were "flawless", determined that by
listening only to Swamiji's students, INSTEAD of via His own
Writings?) Even if Susarla would prefer that, I suggest any
interested in Sai's philosophy, study it via Sai's life and
Sai's words and deeds, directly. Sai you see does not
authorize gurus, teachers, nor zonal acharyas to represent
him, so any who listen to other than *him* on such matters,
err.
That is pointed out rather often in all Sai literature. Would
that Susarla avail himself of such lit-- (ample sources obtain at
http://people.delphi.com/bongiovanni/books.htm).
>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.
Ah now that is apt! Would that all attended such sage advice.
>When I spoke to Dr. Prasad that day, I got the sense that
>questioning in his "religion" was most unwelcome and
>generally unheard of.
I do not speak for either of the
two men, but suggest that sincere
questions are welcome, while
taunts to convert, are of little
utility to either. Whether either
was sincere or taunting cannot be
known by any but those two men,
and GOD.
>It was obvious that he had no clear answers to anything I
>asked.
Obvious eh? In that case it is wise to instead go to the
source for answers, as I ever suggest. (Why Susarla assumed
that Dr Prasad Is An Authority On All Things Sai, is unclear,
but were someone else to approach an ISKCONite and not find
his doubts removed, I wager Susarla would suggest a study of
ISKCON's BGAII (Bhagavad Gita As It Is) would be apt rather
than continued mocking of the poor ISKCONite who was not
acceptable to the doubter.) In similar wise I suggest a
reading of Sai's "Gita Vahini" might help resolve doubt in
this case-- IF the doubts are sincere and the questions are
not meant to mock.
There is no way to remove doubt that is insincere or cagy or
based on second hand tales or apriori dogmatic belief.
So Susarla (or any who endure sincere doubts), might well
study Gita Vahini for answers to his queries put forward
here, or visit Sai directly for answers rather than complain
about middlemen's worth. Sai after all is rather well
known as being able to remove sincere doubts, as his many
Vaishnava students might confirm, were one to seek any out in
the ashram. As a rule, due their shining foreheads and such,
it is not hard to find them. Such devotees however in and
out of the ashram do not detail Swami to non-devotees unless
asked directly and appropriately, as such matters are
well, the reason is rather well explained in Gita...
>I very much got the impression that he was simply trying to
>sell me something, rather than being concerned for my
>spiritual welfare.
Then Susarla should avoid the man. Or perhaps what one puts
out, is what one gets back? Whatever, since I was not there,
I can but note Susarla's perspective, and suggest it is his
experience, period. If he cherishes the impression, no doubt
it will maintain. If he wishes to be free of it, no doubt it
will change accordingly. After all, what one puts one
attention on, grows.
Jai Ganesh.
>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.
Sometimes that is sadly so. It depends on how the "flaw" is
pointed out, I believe; when one is corrected with loving
concern, rather than with meanness, fervor, or arrogance, one
tends to appreciate such report cards. Rarely does losing an
intellectual argument serve as the basis of genuine
spiritual conversion, in my view.
>Again, it is up to you. Please feel free to judge for
>yourself.
The finest thing I have ever read from Susarla, those words.
Amen.
Hare Krishna.
*+*
More of my views can be found at http://bbs.gaianet.net/bongiova/
|=========================================================|
| "A golden ring, an ornament of the finest gold, is a |
| wise rebuke to an attentive ear. -Proverbs 25.12 |
+=========================================================+
*+*
--
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|