Last updated on 8th June 2017
Now we Sathya Sai devotees will have to deal with the upcoming reality after the bhoomi pooja function tomorrow in Karnataka for Muddenahalli group's "Sri Sathya Sai UNIVERSITY for Human Excellence" (see my Facebook post, https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1915637765319458). I have also given the invitation pic for the event below.
I wonder whether Madhusudan Rao Naidu will fly to that destination in the helicopter that he is said to have used for flying to today's event somewhere else in Karnataka.
How will we Sathya Sai devotees deal with two Sathya Sai universities in future:
1) One going by physical form Sathya Sai discourses and teachings - Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
2) Another going by a mix of convenient-to-them selection of physical form Sathya Sai discourses and teachings which excludes Sathya Sai instructions to never believe mediums and communicators claiming to communicate his words, and additional discourses and teachings from Madhusudan Rao Naidu, the FALSE CLAIM so called communicator of Sathya Sai - Sri Sathya Sai UNIVERSITY for Human Excellence.
Imagine hundreds of students graduating out of each of these two universities and getting into the real world as Sai students. One set of students will not believe Madhusudan Rao Naidu and another will probably swear by him!!! Are we going to get into an epic sectarian divide even among Sathya Sai students in future??? I think that's what may happen.
What can SSSIHL do to alleviate the situation? SSSIHL should do a THOROUGH & PUBLIC INVESTIGATION of the doings from after Mahasamadhi till Nov. 2014 of its former vice-chancellor, Prof. Sashidhara Prasad and its former warden, Shri B.N. Narasimhamurthy both of whom seem to be the main moving forces behind the new "Sri Sathya Sai UNIVERSITY for Human Excellence". This investigation should involve questioning of all SSSIHL top administrators like Registrar, Controller of Examinations, Director & Joint director of campuses as well as HODs, who served in SSSIHL in this period and are accessible to SSSIHL authorities for questioning.
The objective of the investigation should be to ascertain the truth of what happened in SSSIHL under Sashidhara Prasad and Narasimhamurthy as so called dream instruction Swami, from after Mahasamadhi till Nov. 2014 when Sashidhara Prasad stepped down. The objective should not be to punish people. Truth and reconciliation should be the goals. Let those who believed in Narasimhamurthy's claim and/or collaborated with Narasimhamurthy and Sashidhara Prasad, share what happened then with the Sathya Sai fraternity.
Why was Prof. Anilkumar Kamaraju asked to resign from SSSIHL sometime in 2012 by Sudhir Bhaskar, then director of Prasanthi Nilayam campus? Did Narasimhamurthy play any role in the matter? What role did Registrar Naren Ramji play in this matter?
Was Sudhir Bhaskar providing regular reports to Narasimhamurthy about happenings in Prasanthi Nilayam campus in this period (after Mahasamadhi till Nov. 2014) ??
Was Naren Ramji in touch with Narasimhamurthy and receiving instructions/advice from him?
Joint director of Prasanthi Nilayam campus, Gangadhara Sastry offered Visiting Faculty position to Prof. Anilkumar Kamaraju (decades of service to SSSIHL) after he was forced to resign. Did Gangadhara Sastry receive instructions on this from Narasimhamurthy?
Prof. Krupanidhi (decades of service to SSSIHL) was deemed a "runaway" and subjected to horrific treatment by SSSIHL administration after he had decided to part ways with it, due to bad treatment of him by SSSIHL administrators and perhaps other reasons as well. What were the roles of Sashidhara Prasad and Narasimhamurthy in this? What instructions did they give to Naren Ramji, Registrar, who sent those horrific letter(s) to Prof. Krupanidhi?
Did any SSSIHL faculty oppose Narasimhamurthy's claims of being dream instruction Swami? Or were all SSSIHL faculty not willing to challenge Narasimhamurthy out of FEAR of both Narasimhamurthy and Sashidhara Prasad?
These are the kind of questions the THOROUGH PUBLIC INVESTIGATION should engage in. Once again, I say that the objective should be the sharing of the truth of what happened in SSSIHL under former vice-chancellor Sashidhara Prasad, with the Sathya Sai fraternity, followed by reconciliation (not revenge).
If this is done, I think it will significantly help Sathya Sai fraternity in coming up with effective ways and means to deal with the upcoming reality of two Sathya Sai universities in India with differing Sathya Sai discourses & teachings.
Some of my comments from my Facebook post, https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1915773268639241, associated with this blog post, are given below:
In inner-thread response to comment from --name-snipped-- "Start with acceptance we are not the doer.":
I (Ravi) wrote (slightly edited): Well, --name-snipped--, very unfortunately I have seen such high spiritual principles being misinterpreted in Prasanthi Nilayam system itself by some persons in office bearer positions to abdicate responsibility for their actions or inactions, and say it is all 'Swami Leela'. Well, the negative karmic consequences for Asathya-Adharma actions and inactions that office bearers of Prasanthi Nilayam system have done after Mahasamadhi while Narasimhamurthy and Sashidhara Prasad and others damaged Prasanthi Nilayam systems, including the Sai university, is also part of 'Swami Leela', when viewed in this manner!
In response to comment having partial content, "I am not acquainted with MDH matters, but get the impression the efforts being carried out are being done in line with Swami's teachings.
Why run each other down when both seem to be on the same path? Let Swami and Karma dictate what is dharma and what adharma.", I (Ravi) wrote:
Thanks for your response sir. You are entitled to your view which is different from mine.
I am curious to know whether you believe in Madhusudan Rao Naidu's claim to be a so called communicator of so called subtle body of Bhagavan, which is audible and visible only to him (for all practical purposes).
As you may be aware, I have written rather extensively on social media (blog & Facebook) on why I view Madhusudan Rao Naidu's claim to be a FALSE CLAIM.
In response to comment with partial content, "I am a Hindu and as such try not to be a 'Believer', but rather approach all spiritual matters as a 'Seeker'.
Wherever I feel the presence of S, D, P, S and Ahimsa, as expounded by many great masters including Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, I gravitate to.", I (Ravi) wrote:
Sairam sir, noted your response.
My stand is that Madhusudan Rao Naidu is now a spiritual leader (with global following) in his own right. I wish him all the best in his spiritual leader role barring one aspect of it to which I take very, very strong objection.
Let Madhusudan Rao Naidu give his darshan, speeches and interviews using his own name or a new name like Madhu Baba. But where I have a serious problem is when he gives his darshan, speeches and interviews, as darshan, speeches and interviews through him of my beloved and revered Guru, Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba!!! Madhusudan Naidu is diluting and distorting the legacy and memories of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba.
I find it to be very tragic that so far, to the best of my knowledge, no individual or organization in India or elsewhere has challenged Madhusudan Rao Naidu in a court of law on him using, or rather misusing, the name of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba for Madhusudan Naidu's darshan, speeches and interviews. I am quite sure that if such a legal challenge is made to him even in India, the court will order Madhusudan Naidu to STOP using the name of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba for Madhusudan's darshan, speeches and interviews.
I presume that you, sir, do not mind Madhusudan Rao Naidu doing the abovementioned actions. If so, you certainly have a right to take that point of view. But I have a different view on this. Thanks.
In response to comment with partial content, "If M is 'masquerading' as B, whose responsibility is it to expose M? Ultimately the truth will out Sir.", I (Ravi) wrote:
I consider it to be my duty to Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, my beloved and revered Gurudev, to expose the false claim of Madhusudan Rao Naidu, in the light of public discourses and public writings of Bhagavan. So I am doing my duty to the extent I can.
About the 'ultimately truth will out' bit, my view is that it does not imply that everybody should stay silent on this matter and leave it to Swami to sort out. Your view may be different. That's fine sir.
Here's a blog post of mine related to the topic of staying silent on such matters, which you may want to view (feel free to ignore viewing it if you are not interested): Krishna/Sai Baba on silent witnesses to injustice, and on Yadavas claiming Krishna as theirs; My interpretation in after Sai Mahasamadhi context, http://ravisiyer.blogspot.in/2015/04/krishna-viewed-those-who-having.html, April 2015.
Ultimately I think it depends on our (body-mind) nature. I chose to do what I did in contributing to expose the false claim of Madhusudan Naidu, based on my body-mind nature. Perhaps your body-mind nature is different and so you have taken a different decision. Thanks.
At outer comment level, in response to comment, "Unfortunately there is no law codified yet, to regulate such pseudo divine acts.
This is absolutely immoral but every wrong action is not covered under law to be declared illegal.
Very very sad and unfortunate for all true sai devotees.", I (Ravi) wrote (slightly edited):
My view on Madhusudan Rao Naidu and legal action is that I find it to be very tragic that so far, to the best of my knowledge, no individual or organization in India or elsewhere has challenged Madhusudan Rao Naidu in a court of law on him using, or rather misusing, the name of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba for Madhusudan Naidu's darshan, speeches and interviews. I am quite sure that if such a legal challenge is made to him even in India, the court will order Madhusudan Naidu to STOP using the name of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba for Madhusudan's darshan, speeches and interviews.
Due to certain limitations that I have, I am not in a position to file that challenge in an Indian court of law myself.