Last updated on 20-Jun-2017
Terry Reis Kennedy's post, https://www.facebook.com/terry.reiskennedy/posts/10213505788817915 dated June 16th 2017, had earlier stated that Muddenahalli group DID NOT MENTION name of Sathya Sai at the Harvard campus non-academic event on June 14th. She has since changed the post contents to say that HUGE MENTION of the name of Sathya Sai was made by Muddenahalli group! A video was shown of both official Sathya Sai orgn. institutions as well as Muddenahalli group Sathya Sai institutions like Sanjeevani hospital(s) without explaining that they are different set of institutions managed by two distinctly different groups which do not see eye-to-eye, and are fighting a court case in India.
Now I had not noted the changes in the above mentioned post (of Terry). I came to know of it only a little while back through some other message from somebody else.
I came to know from this other source that the Muddenahalli group speakers at the event INCLUDING Prof. Anantaraman, former MBA faculty of Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, gave the impression to the participants of the event that there was only one Sathya Sai orgn. and that they represent it. One participant, however, in the limited time given to that participant to ask a question, did inform the participants that the Muddenahalli group (Sanjeevani) hospitals are NOT part of (official) Sathya Sai orgn. hospitals, but that they are being portrayed that way (including at this event). They were also informed about Mr. B.N. Narasimhamurthy earlier claiming that Swami was coming into his dreams saying that certain persons were to donate money, and that (some) people believed him (implying that they donated money to him).
So Muddenahalli group speakers including Prof. Anantharaman SEEM TO NOT HAVE HAD THE COURTESY to inform the participants about the presence of a separate OFFICIAL Sai orgn. and trust which were set up by (physical form) Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, and that the official Sathya Sai orgn. does not have anything to do whatsoever with their (Muddenahalli group) organizations/trusts. If this is the case then I think it can be said that Muddenahalli group have MISLED participants at this non-academic event on Harvard campus (even if the event simply rented out a Harvard campus facility) to believe that Muddenahalli group is the official Sathya Sai orgn. group!
As far as I know, one saving grace is that Madhusudan Rao Naidu did not speak at the event claiming to be a communicator/medium of Sathya Sai. But it is confirmed that he did attend the event (but not as a speaker, it seems).
Hmm. So Muddenahalli group has IGNORED the legal notice Attorney Robert Baskin sent them. Perhaps they are daring him and the USA Sai orgn. he represents to challenge them (Muddenahalli group) for UNAUTHORISED USAGE of name of Sathya Sai in a USA court of law. Let us see whether Attorney Baskin does that.
Now the question that pops up for me is whether I should write a protest letter to senior academics of Harvard Divinity School. My initial thinking is that as Madhusudan Naidu, as per the available reports, did not do his communicator act by giving a speech (or Darshan) at this event held in Harvard campus, I don't think there is enough ground to write protest letters to academics of religion at Harvard Divinity School.
Given below are some of my comments from my Facebook post,
https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1924222507794317, associated with this post:
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
--Name-snipped-- sir, I think this is where our views differ. And we can agree to disagree amicably. I am all for legal challenge being issued in USA court of law from official Sai orgn. to Muddenahalli group for UNAUTHORISED usage of HOLY NAME of Sathya Sai by so called communicator Madhusudan Rao Naidu for his Darshan, discourses and interviews.
I have a similar stand for India, and if I recall correctly, have publicly stated that stand on Facebook in 2015 itself!
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
Terry Reis Kennedy, Thanks for your comment. Glad you liked my post. About understanding your earlier action (of deleting my comment as it had become 'obsolete') - well, I have a better understanding now of why you did that but I would have done it differently. However, we perhaps have different styles of interaction and further we are all under stress, whether we realize it or not, due to the unfortunate incident in PN some time back as well as Muddenahalli group brazenly continuing its marketing activities in the USA despite the legal notice issued to them by official Sai orgn. attorney. So I don't want to dwell on minor matters of different interaction styles :-).
I think it is appropriate for me to say some general stuff before I get to other points in your comment.
Terry, you and I have been fighting publicly on Facebook, our primary public network interaction platform with Sathya Sai fraternity at large, against Muddenahalli group's efforts to misguide thousands of Sathya Sai devotees worldwide with the false claim of Madhusudan Naidu, for over two years now. Perhaps in your case, it is more like three years but I started my involvement on this matter on Facebook sometime in March 2015, if I recall correctly. Our styles are different. There are areas where I am more tolerant of some aspects of Muddenahalli group than you. But I think there is no doubt that we both share a common goal as social media writers, of exposing the FALSE CLAIM of Madhusudan Rao Naidu of being a so called communicator of a so called subtle body of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba. We are both OUTRAGED at the dilution and distortion of the legacy and memories of our beloved and revered Gurudev, Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, by Madhusudan Rao Naidu who is being promoted and supported by Muddenahalli group.
As part of this fight, both you and I have been viciously targeted (trolled) by some anonymous Muddenahalli group supporters on Facebook. But we did not let them silence us. So we have that in common too :-).
Surely, we will continue to co-operate in this fight against Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF being spread worldwide. However, as my articulation of my nuanced stand against Muddenahalli group on your Facebook post created some unpleasant discussions with people who may perhaps be intolerant of those who hold such stands, I think I need a break from commenting on your posts for some time. Please do not be disturbed by that.
Regarding Madhusudan Rao Naidu ALLEGEDLY materializing a pendant for Kevin Sheehan and any other similar actions of Madhusudan Naidu with others: I need evidence that such incidents happened and that they happened on Harvard campus. That is vital. Without that evidence, I do not have a proper basis to write to senior academics of Harvard Divinity School, including Prof. Diana Eck whose scholarly knowledge of some aspects of Hinduism as well as of India, I have found to be amazing and wonderful.
Further, please note that the Professors of religion at Harvard Divinity School may view Sri Sathya Sai Baba as a spiritual master from India and not as an Avatar of God, not as Rama and Krishna come again as Shirdi Sai and then Sathya Sai. So "to let them know who Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba actually is" would not be an activity I would want to engage with them on my own initiative, unless they show particular interest in knowing my views about it.
What the professors may note with concern, if we provide appropriate evidence to back our statements, is Madhusudan Naidu IMPERSONATING ON HARVARD CAMPUS a recently passed away (physical form/body wise) spiritual master, Sathya Sai Baba, and using that IMPERSONATION to misguide USA citizen(s) on Harvard campus about him (Madhusudan) being a so called communicator of Sathya Sai Baba. And if they get concerned enough with the matter they may raise it to the executive head(s) of Harvard (I guess it is Harvard president who is the executive head here) who then may investigate the matter and take suitable action to prevent its recurrence.
Noted your comment about --name-snipped-- and her extensive work on this subject. Thanks.
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
--Name-snipped-- sir, I do not know enough details of the USA legal situation vis-a-vis Muddenahalli group. But, in my view, official Sai orgn. has a duty to protect Swami's HOLY NAME from misuse/abuse by others including Madhusudan Rao Naidu. As Muddenahalli group is unwilling to listen to reason, it is appropriate to approach the court for this CIVIL matter (NOT CRIMINAL) and seek the court's valuable view. Jai Sairam!
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
--Name-snipped-- sir, there surely is a possibility that if the case does go to the courts in the USA (and elsewhere), the courts may rule that Muddenahalli group and Madhusudan Rao Naidu are free to claim their communicator act to be the truth. Note that this is different from the courts ruling that Madhusudan Rao Naidu's very weird claim is true - I doubt any court in any country in the world that has a decent legal system, would do that.
About leaving it to Swami to resolve in due course, I prefer to follow Bhagavan's instructions conveyed in public discourses, that his devotees should reject mediums. Note that Bhagavan has used some strong words in this context.
Muddenahalli group is not exactly promoting Swami's message but they are promoting a mixture of Swami's message and what the leaders of Muddenahalli group like Narasimhamurthy and Madhusudan Naidu think. It is distortion of Swami's message to suit their thinking and their agenda.
I have previously suggested publicly that Madhusudan Naidu can propagate his messages as Madhu Sai Baba messages instead of Sathya Sai Baba messages, following spiritual leaders like Bala Sai Baba (of Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh) and Sanjay Sai Baba (of Nepal). Then this dilution and corruption of Sathya Sai messages will not be there.
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Thank you --name-snipped-- sir. I would just say that I will NOT characterise my DIRECT KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE of what happened in Prasanthi Nilayam systems after Mahasamadhi as "weight". It is DIRECT KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE.
You, sir, do not have that knowledge and experience in this particular matter (but surely would have knowledge and experience in other areas). And so you have a significantly different viewpoint from that of mine on this matter. That's fine by me. We can agree to disagree.
When people like you, sir, ask me questions on the matter, I view it as my duty to Bhagavan and the Sathya Sai fraternity, in gratitude for all that I have received from them, to express my view on it, based on my DIRECT KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE of what happened in Prasanthi Nilayam system after Mahasamadhi.
I do hope that you do not get too attracted to Madhusudan Rao Naidu as I have investigated the matter enough to ***KNOW*** that his claim of being a communicator of an invisible and inaudible to everybody else (for all practical purposes) of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, is a FALSE CLAIM. He is doing Asathya & Adharma. And if you get too attracted to him, you too might get involved in his Asathya & Adharma activities. I should also say that he does seem to have some paranormal powers which makes it easy for him to trap people to believe his false claim.
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
--Name-snipped-- sir, I don't think I have much to add on the current topic. I have noted your above comments. I am glad to know that Madhusudan (claim) does not have much attraction for you.
MDH group service activities are quite astonishing. The question is whether they will be able to sustain such rapid growth. Time will tell the answer.
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Yes, I prefer Madhu Baba over Madhu Sai Baba. But given that we already have Bala SAI Baba and Sanjay SAI Baba, I am willing to compromise and accept Madhu SAI Baba name for Madhusudan Naidu. BUT NOT SATHYA SAI BABA!!!