Sai Baba

[George-ananda]

I assume they (the Sai bhakta-s) should also start destroying mūrtayaḥ, because that's also where the Islamic religion "is at." In fact, Muhammad even incorporated the Midrāshic story of pimp Avraham destroying idols into the unholy Qur'ān and when he [the pedo-prophet, بول الله عليه وسلم] entered the Ka'aba in Makkah, he destroyed all the idols of the pagans. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to engage in adharma solely in order to "break bread" with another religious group.

Right/Wrong is always not black and white. Meat eating is one of those not so clear for all cultures and all times case of dharma/adharma. Shirdi Sai Baba was allowing this practice where it already was part of the culture. He would never condone destroying murtayah or any similar things. Satya Sai Baba prescribed vegetarianism only; grey areas can vary with the times.

Evil is evil, and in my opinion killing a female cow and/or eating it's flesh is not an activity that one can "compromise" on.

Do you realize you're a product of a culture? A westerner can easily say 'what's the moral difference between a female and male cow?'. And you're culture is not the only one in the world. Shirdi Sai Baba is a multi-culturalist both Hindu and Muslim as those were the two main groups in His part of the world.

I don't care whether it's "lawful" for Muslims, because I don't care what demon "Allah" thinks; all I know is that I'm not willing to eat the flesh of an killed animal unless placed in a situation where such an action is necessary. Perhaps I might be criticized for taking a "holier-than-thou" approach with regards to vegetarianism, but it breaks my heart when I hear of the hundreds of thousands of animals which killed in slaughter-houses as well as during religious ceremonies/festivals (including Hindu ones, such as the saptabali during Gadhimai).

I even share your sentiments about slaughter. I'm a vegetarian too.

Using your strange logic, shouldn't I also eat the flesh of my mother once she dies; I hear there are cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea so shouldn't I start "breaking bread" with them as well for the sake of "brotherhood" and "universalism"?

In the spectrum of white/grey/black, I'm sure Shirdi Sai Baba would call cannabalism black. Animal meat eating is not so clear.

I'm sorry, but I can't see myself voluntary engaging in such a heinous crime and take the view that Bhagavān is not going to hold me accountable or remove the pāpa-karma resulting from the adhārmika action. Did Śrī Viṣṇu simply allow Kaiṭabha and Madhu to engage in their adharma? Did Śrī Nārasiṃha allow Hiraṇyakaśipu to engage in his adharma? Did Śrī Rāma simply allow Rāvaṇa to kidnap Sītā (and kill Jaṭāyu) without any consequences or allow Kabandha to simply eat Lakṣmaṇa? Did Śrī Kṛṣṇa allow Śiśupāla and Kaṃsa to simply engage in their adharma?

Again I agree, but meat eating is not always so clearly dharmic/adharmic for everyone.

I never understood why people like comparing a random Sufi faqīr like Shirdi Sai Bābā (or his afro-headed "reincarnation," Satya Sai Bāb&#257 to someone as great as Śrī Dattātreya, although I guess it's not too different than how people listen to Amṛtvāṇi-s for people like Kabīr.

I personally consider the two Sai Babas Avatars. (yes the 'random Sufi faqir' and the 'afro-headed reincarnation')

Perhaps I'm being a bit too "intolerant" and/or sectarian in my beliefs, I don't know.

At least you said it, not me

 

[George-ananda]

Here is what a Hindu Shirdi Sai Baba follower has to say about this over-blown non-vegetarian controversy. Plus remember Satya Sai Baba prescribes strict vegetarianism for all. Grey area can evolve with time.


Sai Baba in His teachings had given great shocks to then current customs and beliefs. His teachings, especially those about food, were quite revolutionary and reformatory; but of course very correct and truly beneficial.

NON-VEG FOOD

In our Hindu and Jain, Buddha religions especially, there is a belief that unless one gives up eating non-vegetarian food, one cannot attain emancipation or knowledge of the Supreme Spirit. Sai Baba Himself was an emancipated soul and had full knowledge of the Supreme Spirit and was capable of giving such experiences to others. However, He not only had no objection to non-veg food; but never insisted that His devotees, used to non-veg food, should give it up. Actually, in His early days, He used to cook non-veg food Himself in a big pot and after consecrating it through a Moulvi by reciting fatia, used to send as prasad to Mhalsapati and Tatya Kote Patil before distributing to others. (Ch. 38, Shri Sai Satcharita).

There might be two reasons for this. One could be that Sai Baba for His mission of achieving unity amongst Hindus and Muslims, had adorned Muslim Fakir type of dress and style of living. Hence, accepting non-veg food was quite appropriate. Secondly, if we carefully consider the teachings of our scriptures, it will be clear that not to eat non-veg food is only one of the means to attain emancipation or knowledge of the Supreme Spirit and not a goal in itself. Most of the famous suktas in Vedas have been authored by kshatriya or warrior caste. Sages such as Vishwamitra, kings like Janaka, who were famous as Brahma-jnani or knowcr of the Supreme Spirit, were also of warrior caste and non-veg food was not taboo for them. To give up non-veg food, to avoid killing of innocent animals for the sake of one's enjoyment of tasty food or because non-veg food becomes hindrance in achieving .concentration of mind during meditation by increasing attributes of passion (Rajo-guna) and ignorance (Tamo-guna), is of course commendable.

 

[Sb1995]

Praṇām George-ananda and Sb1995,




I never understood why people like comparing a random Sufi faqīr like Shirdi Sai Bābā (or his afro-headed "reincarnation," Satya Sai Bāb&#257 to someone as great as Śrī Dattātreya, although I guess it's not too different than how people listen to Amṛtvāṇi-s for people like Kabīr. Perhaps I'm being a bit too "intolerant" and/or sectarian in my beliefs, I don't know.

Hey watch it man. You're going too far. I don't care about what you said above but this is too much

-SHRI SACHIDANAND SADGURU SAINATH MAHARAJ KI JAI!

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Hey watch it man. You're going too far. I don't care about what you said above but this is too much

-SHRI SACHIDANAND SADGURU SAINATH MAHARAJ KI JAI!

As I said, I was just wondering why you consider Sai Baba to be holy, I wasn't necessarily trying to attack your beliefs, although I understand that my comment could be taken offensively (especially the "afro-headed reincarnation" portion). Regardless, I don't see how a question is "too much"...

 

[Sb1995]

 

[Sb1995]

Om Sai Ram​

 

[Vinayaka]

What's the first picture, SB?

 

[Sb1995]

What's the first picture, SB?

That is the Samadhi Mandir in Shirdi where Sai Baba was burried.

OM SAI RAM​

 

[George-ananda]

Sai Ram;

Regarding the anti-Sai Baba things here, I read a great quote today from an Indian:

Indians love their Gods discarnate, not incarnate.

 

[Sb1995]

O Sai Ram, bless us all!

 

[Vinayaka]

As far as the money goes, Sai Baba did not live in opulence or drive fancy cars. So if there is a money controversy, some of the organisers must have dashed off with, but that stuff isn't that hard to trace, so....

 

[Vinayaka]

95% of the Sai people I know are great people... humble, do a ton of Seva, volunteer at food kitchens, etc. , and rarely mention Sai at all. In fact you'd never know it. The 5% are the fundamentalists you find in all groups who go on and on, try to convert you, tell you he was God, and all that. Yes, they are annoying, but not inherently bad people. There is no deception, just overly enthusiastic endorsements of their Guru. Basically people who had poor training in social skills.

 

[Rohit Adhikarla]

As far as the money goes, Sai Baba did not live in opulence or drive fancy cars. So if there is a money controversy, some of the organisers must have dashed off with, but that stuff isn't that hard to trace, so....

According to a weird kind of Hinduism which believes in non-new age stuff,following is wrong:


1.A person cannot call himself god then he is fraud.

2.Any miracle then he is cheap miracle worker

3.Charities do not work either


All in all,not a even a true avatar can survive such a shallow and nonsensical scrutiny.I am thinking we have let our atheism run the better of us instead of a deep and an insightful search for true answers.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. A person cannot call himself god then he is fraud.
2. Any miracle then he is cheap miracle worker.
3. Charities do not work either.

IMHO, the first two things are totally true. As for the third, in most charities a huge part of the money is siphoned off. Only a few may be exceptions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does Shirdi Sai baba need all these things. Why do not the trust members ask people to desist from such ostentation? The money can be better utilized by the poor of India.

 

[Sb1995]

You're right, Sai doesn't need these things, the poor WANT him to have these things OM SAI RAM.

 

[iamsharky789]

Do you think so many people including ex president of India APJ Abdul Kalam are fools to go and meet SaiBaba ?

We all know the controversies surrounding Satya sai baba. Do you know why we go near him?we he seen him to walk the talk.

Maybe to further his own career? I would think slapping a liar would not advance your political career.

 

[Rohit Adhikarla]

Maybe to further his own career? I would think slapping a liar would not advance your political career.

How did you decide that he is a liar?Please let us know if you have any substaintial findings or if you are just basing on popular internet opinions from so called rationalists such as Robert Priddy.Bashing him is not Going to do a world of good to you.

Beside who is forcing you or even me,to follow someone who makes ridiculous claims of being avatar.

 

[Rohit Adhikarla]

IMHO, the first two things are totally true. As for the third, in most charities a huge part of the money is siphoned off. Only a few may be exceptions.

No unless you consider Lord Krishna to be hypocrite.Almost rishis had and used siddhi powers knowing well about their uselessness.Barring may be Gautama Buddha,all of them had their set of eccentricities /leelas.

In my opinion the whole concept of Avatar is a thing made on belief and for most normal humans any claim to avatarhood is almost impossible to prove.

 

[Rohit Adhikarla]

Didn't Sai Baba have billions of dollars in a vault when he died? The original one had some decent values but should not be worshiped but this second is a fraud. There is no way that you can claim you are god and pull gold necklaces out of your shirt sleeve.

'Original one should not be worshipped '-who are you to decide that?If you don't want to worship someone don't rather than specifying what exactly others have to do and whom they have to venerate.

Did you realize no object of veneration can become God in its entirety-a person ,idol,or even a mental image which people usually 'pray' to are just not God in its entirety by that dualistic definition.