Can Sathya Sai Baba really say "good is God" OR "Whether I was Rama or Krishna or Allah ..."?
Can Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba really say, "good is God"? Can He really say, "Whether I was Rama or Krishna or Allah or Jesus or Buddha – the purpose has always remained the same. I have come for transformation of the human heart, and I continue to do that."?
[This is a slightly edited version of a Facebook post of mine here: https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1637678806448690]
The above quotes are supposed to be from Muddenahalli so-called chosen communicator's 'discourses'/'interactions'. Given below is an extract of a long comment, slightly edited, I made on another FB post (https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1636985739851330?comment_id=1637189419830962), about the above questions:
a) Saying that most of what Swami said was very simple (e.g. Love All Serve All; Help Ever Hurt Never), to justify so-called chosen communicator's words that good is God (or something like that which I read somewhere), is very unsatisfactory for a guy like me who is very fond of Hindu scripture (especially Vedanta).
I don't know whether physical Swami ever said, 'good is God'. I tried searching for it on the Internet but did not get suitable results. Neither do I recall reading or hearing Swami say that.
See the mastery of Swami's wisdom about good deeds, and God in the extracts from here, http://www.saibabaofindia.com/q_and_a.htm:
It is not God's partiality or fault. It is the human being who is responsible. His actions, thoughts and words are responsible for all good and bad. It is the mind that creates the differences. Pleasure is an interval between two pains. It is the way you look at things that matters.
[Ravi: Note how Swami talks about 'all good and bad' and emphasizes pleasure as an interval between two pains.]
...
In the same manner, good and bad actions are carried by the breath and surround you in the next birth like an invisible garland. The pattern of your life is then governed by what the garland has good or bad scent.
That is why man must understand that everything he does has a reaction, a reverberation and a reflection. It is he who writes his own destiny by his actions. It is essential for man to live a good life with good thoughts and good actions. Only through such a life can he realise the divinity in him. The concept Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahma = God) is also incorrect, since it indicates duality. Aham (I) and Brahma (God) become separate. The statement ought to he Aham Aham (I am I).
[Ravi: An emphasis on doing good thoughts and actions to realise the divinity within. But Swami does not go so far as to say good is God. For explaining God, Swami turns to Vedanta (Aham Brahmasmi) and improves on it!]
...
God is only a witness (saakshibhoota). He does not act. Man acts according to the dictates of his intellect (buddhi) and himself suffers the consequences of his actions (karma). There is neither good nor bad for God.
[Ravi: Neither good nor bad for God! God is only a witness! These are completely in line with Vedanta. It is utterly incomprehensible to me that this same Sathya Sai Baba who was a total master of Hindu scripture like Vedanta & Bhagavatam accounts, will say good is God. Surely it is somebody else with a much lesser knowledge of Vedanta, who is saying this, but using the name of Sri Sathya Sai Baba!!!]
...
Question 13:Why doesn't God make people suffer for their sins in the same lifetime? Why in other lives when they cannot know why they suffer?
Sri Sathya Sai Baba Then how would you account for the punya (good deeds) they do? They Have to enjoy the benefits of their punya, too! All that may not always be Possible in one lifetime....
[Ravi: So Swami is clearly explaining how even good deeds karmic fruits (normally) have to be enjoyed sometimes in another lifetime! That is, even good deeds can bind you to karmic effects! So how can good be God? How can Sri Sathya Sai Baba ever say, good is God? Of course, Swami and the Geetha have shown us the way to avoid karmic effects of good deeds by doing the good deed in a spirit of Nishkaama karma (offering the karmic fruit of the deed to the Lord).]
b) The quotation, "Whether I am in the body or not, the purpose is just the same. It has not changed. Whether I was Rama or Krishna or Allah or Jesus or Buddha – the purpose has always remained the same. I have come for transformation of the human heart, and I continue to do that." I had looked at it many months ago and so don't recall it exactly. For purposes of discussion let us look at what you provided (which may very well be the one that I had read in the past). The implication in the above sentences is clear that like God took the form of Rama, Krishna, Jesus and Buddha ... God took the form of Allah. Allah may be considered roughly equivalent to chaitanya (consciousness). Swami will surely not say, when I came as Rama or Krishna or consciousness or Jesus or Buddha. I think, most readers of the above quoted sentences will conclude that the reference to Allah is on the same level as reference to Rama or Krishna or Jesus or Buddha, all of whom are human-divine forms. In other words, Allah is being equated with a human-divine form, and not viewed as formless like chaitanya (consciousness). You seem to have interpreted it differently. Fine. Let's agree to disagree on this one.
[I have presumed that Sai Baba of India website, http://www.saibabaofindia.com/, will not have any objections to me sharing some of its webpage content (link given earlier) on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
[This is a slightly edited version of a Facebook post of mine here: https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1637678806448690]
The above quotes are supposed to be from Muddenahalli so-called chosen communicator's 'discourses'/'interactions'. Given below is an extract of a long comment, slightly edited, I made on another FB post (https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1636985739851330?comment_id=1637189419830962), about the above questions:
a) Saying that most of what Swami said was very simple (e.g. Love All Serve All; Help Ever Hurt Never), to justify so-called chosen communicator's words that good is God (or something like that which I read somewhere), is very unsatisfactory for a guy like me who is very fond of Hindu scripture (especially Vedanta).
I don't know whether physical Swami ever said, 'good is God'. I tried searching for it on the Internet but did not get suitable results. Neither do I recall reading or hearing Swami say that.
See the mastery of Swami's wisdom about good deeds, and God in the extracts from here, http://www.saibabaofindia.com/q_and_a.htm:
It is not God's partiality or fault. It is the human being who is responsible. His actions, thoughts and words are responsible for all good and bad. It is the mind that creates the differences. Pleasure is an interval between two pains. It is the way you look at things that matters.
[Ravi: Note how Swami talks about 'all good and bad' and emphasizes pleasure as an interval between two pains.]
...
In the same manner, good and bad actions are carried by the breath and surround you in the next birth like an invisible garland. The pattern of your life is then governed by what the garland has good or bad scent.
That is why man must understand that everything he does has a reaction, a reverberation and a reflection. It is he who writes his own destiny by his actions. It is essential for man to live a good life with good thoughts and good actions. Only through such a life can he realise the divinity in him. The concept Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahma = God) is also incorrect, since it indicates duality. Aham (I) and Brahma (God) become separate. The statement ought to he Aham Aham (I am I).
[Ravi: An emphasis on doing good thoughts and actions to realise the divinity within. But Swami does not go so far as to say good is God. For explaining God, Swami turns to Vedanta (Aham Brahmasmi) and improves on it!]
...
God is only a witness (saakshibhoota). He does not act. Man acts according to the dictates of his intellect (buddhi) and himself suffers the consequences of his actions (karma). There is neither good nor bad for God.
[Ravi: Neither good nor bad for God! God is only a witness! These are completely in line with Vedanta. It is utterly incomprehensible to me that this same Sathya Sai Baba who was a total master of Hindu scripture like Vedanta & Bhagavatam accounts, will say good is God. Surely it is somebody else with a much lesser knowledge of Vedanta, who is saying this, but using the name of Sri Sathya Sai Baba!!!]
...
Question 13:Why doesn't God make people suffer for their sins in the same lifetime? Why in other lives when they cannot know why they suffer?
Sri Sathya Sai Baba Then how would you account for the punya (good deeds) they do? They Have to enjoy the benefits of their punya, too! All that may not always be Possible in one lifetime....
[Ravi: So Swami is clearly explaining how even good deeds karmic fruits (normally) have to be enjoyed sometimes in another lifetime! That is, even good deeds can bind you to karmic effects! So how can good be God? How can Sri Sathya Sai Baba ever say, good is God? Of course, Swami and the Geetha have shown us the way to avoid karmic effects of good deeds by doing the good deed in a spirit of Nishkaama karma (offering the karmic fruit of the deed to the Lord).]
b) The quotation, "Whether I am in the body or not, the purpose is just the same. It has not changed. Whether I was Rama or Krishna or Allah or Jesus or Buddha – the purpose has always remained the same. I have come for transformation of the human heart, and I continue to do that." I had looked at it many months ago and so don't recall it exactly. For purposes of discussion let us look at what you provided (which may very well be the one that I had read in the past). The implication in the above sentences is clear that like God took the form of Rama, Krishna, Jesus and Buddha ... God took the form of Allah. Allah may be considered roughly equivalent to chaitanya (consciousness). Swami will surely not say, when I came as Rama or Krishna or consciousness or Jesus or Buddha. I think, most readers of the above quoted sentences will conclude that the reference to Allah is on the same level as reference to Rama or Krishna or Jesus or Buddha, all of whom are human-divine forms. In other words, Allah is being equated with a human-divine form, and not viewed as formless like chaitanya (consciousness). You seem to have interpreted it differently. Fine. Let's agree to disagree on this one.
[I have presumed that Sai Baba of India website, http://www.saibabaofindia.com/, will not have any objections to me sharing some of its webpage content (link given earlier) on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Comments
Post a Comment