Request Bro. VijaySai B.S. to kindly refrain from grandly declaring his beliefs about Madhusudhan Naidu as FACTs
22nd April 2020 Update: I had an inner urge to name-snip the names of some person(s) in this post and so have done so.
I have given below a recent comment of mine, made on Facebook post, https://www.facebook.com/sathyanarayana.raju.9/posts/743933289076491.
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (on March 1st 2016):
As I have had discussions with VijaySai B.S. on these topics in the past, I prefer to be more of an observer of this conversation. However, I felt I should make some points here regarding a few things VijaySai has said in his comments above.
1) "Madhu has naturally developed the faculties of clairvoyance, clairaudience and clairsentience." That is an interesting claim from bro. VijaySai about Madhusudhan Rao Naidu (MRN). I think it is good that such a clear claim is being made DIRECTLY about MRN without any reference to his role as so called communicator. Essentially the claim is that MRN has acquired these siddhis like similar claims made by followers of so many other spiritual & religious leaders in India today including followers of Radhe Maa of Mumbai.
2) About what Bro. Sairam Reddy wrote regarding VijaySai using this conversation to canvass for Madhu, I think bro. Rajen Rajen is trying to engage in a public debate with VijaySai on this matter (like I and others have done in the past, with Muddenahalli supporters and promoters), and I think we should be willing to let these public debates happen. My view is that it is the lack of public debate regarding Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF that allowed Narasimhamurthy and --Name1-snipped-- to HIJACK the Sai university (SSSIHL) from Jul 2011 to Nov. 2014 (when --Name1-snipped-- had stepped down as VC). If --Name1-snipped-- had PUBLICLY stated his belief first in Narasmihamurthy's dreams and then in Madhusudhan Rao Naidu's so called communicator abilities, people like me could have engaged in a public debate with him. Instead he chose to be a SECRETIVE DOUBLE-AGENT of Muddenahalli while sitting in the then all powerful chair of vice-chancellor of the Sai university, getting rid of anybody who DARED to openly question him and his actions under some academic rules pretext or the other, and thereby allowed Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF to grow from a sapling to a tree that today is a SERIOUS DIVISIVE THREAT to Sathya Sai movement WORLDWIDE. So, let us have more PUBLIC DEBATE on this as that will enable more people to know what happened after Mahasamadhi w.r.t Muddenahalli and what is happening now.
I have also noted the reference to the 1993 incident where students and/or ex-students of Sai university were involved in a MURDEROUS attack. I must say here to bro. Sairam Reddy, that I have been informed that bro. VijaySai B.S. was physically present at the incident location then and did help in opposing the attackers and even sustained an injury. So, at least w.r.t 1993 incident, bro VijaySai was LOYAL to Swami then and fought against his fellow-student/alumni attackers.
But it is also quite natural for some of us Sai devotees to view the Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF matter as similar to 1993 BETRAYAL in some respects. It seems to me that the 1993 incident being only physical could get resolved without DIVISIVE impact on Sai fraternity though there surely would have been some Sai devotees then who chose to get distant from Prasanthi Nilayam. I mean, six persons died including the very dedicated and physically close alumni-servitor of Swami, Radhakrishna, another person and the four attackers. That would have sent shock waves of fear among the congregation then. Very fortunately, the Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF matter has not created any bloodshed so far (as far as I know) - that is a matter of great credit to Sai devotees of both sides. But in terms of the confusion, chaos, emotional strain and anger that Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF has created in the Sathya Sai movement WORLDWIDE, I think this Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF matter is FAR WORSE than the 1993 BETRAYAL incident. Darshan, interview & discourses of Madhusudhan Rao Naidu (an alumnus of Sai university heavily supported by Narasimhamurthy, former Warden of Sai university) and an imagined so called subtle body next to him, USING (or rather MISUSING) THE HOLY NAME of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, are being given and publicized using video and text, on the Internet as well as in printed books (and perhaps DVDs too)!!! That is like the Sunni-Shia SPLIT in Islam which continues today to have terrible sectarian feuds even over a thousand years after the SPLIT happened, and like the Catholic-Protestant SPLIT in Christianity which resulted in horrendous violence in Europe a few centuries back, and continues to be a major DIVISION among Christians today.
3) VijaySai wrote, "It is a fact and 100% truth he is able to see Swami and communicate with Him." I VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE with VijaySai's usage of the words "fact and 100% truth". It is the BELIEF of VijaySai and other Muddenahalli followers but it is NOT A FACT NOR IS IT 100% truth. For it to be a FACT (or 100% truth), even from a judicial point of view (court of law), as against the higher standards of SCIENTIFIC FACT, UNBIASED JUDGE(S) should examine the evidence including eyewitness accounts and confirm it. I think the minimum a judge from a court of law would do, is to examine whether multiple people can see what Madhu is claiming to see, and whether they all see exactly the same thing. Of course, this would be done in such a way that each such 'seer' of so called subtle Swami gives his/her account independently, and then these accounts would be closely examined and even cross examined by lawyer(s) arguing against the claim. All this has not been done so far. That is why I have suggested that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) be filed in Karnataka High Court against Madhusudhan Rao Naidu making these claims. If somebody does file the PIL and the High court is willing to take up the case (considers it legitimate as a PIL), the court will use these procedures of jurisprudence to establish whether Madhusudhan Rao Naidu's claims are FACT(s) OR are only visions/imaginations of Madhusudhan Rao Naidu only and a BELIEF of followers of Madhusudhan Rao Naidu.
Bro. VijaySai B.S. is not a judge of a court of law in India or a scientist of repute to GRANDLY DECLARE that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu's claim of being able to see Swami and communicate with him is a "fact & 100% truth". In the interests of following the MANTRA & MOTTO of Sai university (SSSIHL) which is the ancient Sanathana Dharma teaching of "Sathyam Vada Dharmam Chara", I, as a former Visiting Faculty/Honorary Faculty/Honorary Staff of Sai university (from Jan. 2003 to Mar. 2012 offering FREE SERVICE) request Sai university alumnus and former faculty, bro. VijaySai B.S. to kindly refrain from making such incorrect GRAND DECLARATIONS. Note that if bro. VijaySai says that he BELIEVES that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu is seeing and communicating with so called subtle body of Swami, that is a fair statement.
Most of what I said above, if not all of it, applies to this statement of VijaySai too, "It is a fact and 100% truth that Swami has chosen to continue till his 96th year as He himself had promised." Once again it is a BELIEF of VijaySai and his group, and NOT a fact NOR 100% truth.
=========================================
Given below is a comment response I made to bro. VijaySai's comment on my comment (above post contents):
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Dear brother VijaySai B.S. Thanks for your comment and your polite criticism :-) . I have made many mistakes in the past and I am quite sure that I will continue to make mistakes now and in the future too. Polite criticism helps me review my statements/writings and correct myself if I find that the criticism is valid.
Now you wrote that the words I use "Muddenahalli False Belief" imply that I am stating it as fact and 100% truth. Well, my view is that my words do not imply that it is fact. Fact is a very big word in contemporary God & Science conversations, some of which I studied and also participated in, to some extent, as well as in journalism and courts of law. The Oxford dictionary states one of the meanings of the word, fact (the first listed in its web page, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fact), as "A thing that is known or proved to be true" and the example of usage as 'the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas'. The second meaning is given as "(facts) Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article" and the example given is 'even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts'.
Now when I use the term 'Muddenahalli false belief' I do so because I have advanced logical arguments to arrive at that conclusion. However, those are my logical arguments and my conclusion. I don't think I am entitled to use the word, fact, for my logical conclusion alone. So I should not and will not say, based on my current knowledge, that it is a fact that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu is NOT a communicator of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, as I (or others, as far as I know) have not proved it in a court of law or elsewhere.
But then what is my basis for my logical conclusion that Muddenahalli so called communicator and associated so called subtle body is a FALSE BELIEF? My basis is my study of "discourses" and related material of so called subtle Swami given by its so called communicator, Madhusudhan Rao Naidu, and comparison of that with Sai literature including Sathya Sai Speaks and Vahinis. I have PUBLICLY put up my analysis of such "discourses" and material, and then provided my conclusion that Muddenahalli belief related to so called communicator is a FALSE BELIEF.
As an example, let us take something that we have discussed in the past on Facebook but which I feel is appropriate to repeat here. Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba told Hislop that Kali Yuga will last for 5000 years more (see https://ravisiyer.blogspot.com/2015/11/in-hislop-book-sathya-sai-says-in-1968.html). But on Oct. 22nd 2015, as part of a GRAND ANNOUNCEMENT by so called communicator Madhusudhan Rao Naidu and translated from Telugu to English by Shri B.N. Narasimhamurthy, it was stated that Kali Yuga will end on Oct. 23rd 2015!!! [See https://ravisiyer.blogspot.com/2015/10/does-prof-name1-snipped-ex-vc-sai.html.]
Now how can Swami say in physical form that Kali Yuga will last for 5000 years more and in subtle form change that to say Kali Yuga ends on Oct. 23rd 2015! That does not make logical sense. Therefore I draw the logical conclusion that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu is NOT speaking the words of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba of Puttaparthi. Therefore I state that the belief that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu is a so called communicator of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, is a FALSE BELIEF.
Given the above arguements I am of the view that your criticism about my using the words Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF, is invalid. Now, I repeat, I do not go to the extent of saying that it is a fact that Muddenhalli BELIEF is FALSE as that would mean that I have proven it to be false in some authoritative forum like a court of law or top body of spiritual masters/religious heads. I don't think anybody has done that, so far, and therefore one CANNOT say that it is proven or that it is a FACT that belief in so called communicator and so called subtle body of Muddenahalli is FALSE.
--------
In response to comment on the lines of: Swami has strictly said "Do not talk ill of others in front and behind their backs". This is a very strict commandment from Him. So if you truly love and respect the Master, just follow what He taught us, Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited) as follows:
[--name-snipped--], Swami has also said in public discourses and on numerous occasions that we should condemn those who claim to be mediums (and communicators) of him. So by condemning Sai university alumnus Madhusudhan Rao Naidu's actions of claiming to be a medium/communicator of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, we (the ones who write on social media to warn innocent Sai devotees about Madhusudhan Rao Naidu) are very clearly FOLLOWING Bhagavan's PUBLIC teachings & instructions. Selectively quoting Bhagavan to MUZZLE valid criticism of Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF, is not correct, in my humble view. One has to have a more complete picture and understand teachings in the right context. ... Further, Swami has also said that it is the duty of teachers and parents to CORRECT mistakes of students & their children. And that if teachers and parents do not do such criticism (and when required even punish students & their children if they refuse to change their WRONG ways) then the teachers and parents are to blame for failing in their duty. The elders of the Prasanthi Nilayam and official Sai organization like Prof. Anilkumar Kamaraju, Prof. G. Venkataraman, Dr. Narendranath Reddy (International Sai orgn. chairman) etc. are DOING THE CORRECT THING by CRITICIZING Sai university alumnus Madhusudhan Rao Naidu for going against the teachings of Bhagavan, and thereby preventing many innocent Sai devotees from getting trapped by him & his supporters like Shri Narasimhamurthy. If these elders of Prasanthi Nilayam and official Sai orgn. did not criticize Madhusudhan Rao Naidu, in my considered view, they would be failing in their duty towards Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba.
I have given below a recent comment of mine, made on Facebook post, https://www.facebook.com/sathyanarayana.raju.9/posts/743933289076491.
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (on March 1st 2016):
As I have had discussions with VijaySai B.S. on these topics in the past, I prefer to be more of an observer of this conversation. However, I felt I should make some points here regarding a few things VijaySai has said in his comments above.
1) "Madhu has naturally developed the faculties of clairvoyance, clairaudience and clairsentience." That is an interesting claim from bro. VijaySai about Madhusudhan Rao Naidu (MRN). I think it is good that such a clear claim is being made DIRECTLY about MRN without any reference to his role as so called communicator. Essentially the claim is that MRN has acquired these siddhis like similar claims made by followers of so many other spiritual & religious leaders in India today including followers of Radhe Maa of Mumbai.
2) About what Bro. Sairam Reddy wrote regarding VijaySai using this conversation to canvass for Madhu, I think bro. Rajen Rajen is trying to engage in a public debate with VijaySai on this matter (like I and others have done in the past, with Muddenahalli supporters and promoters), and I think we should be willing to let these public debates happen. My view is that it is the lack of public debate regarding Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF that allowed Narasimhamurthy and --Name1-snipped-- to HIJACK the Sai university (SSSIHL) from Jul 2011 to Nov. 2014 (when --Name1-snipped-- had stepped down as VC). If --Name1-snipped-- had PUBLICLY stated his belief first in Narasmihamurthy's dreams and then in Madhusudhan Rao Naidu's so called communicator abilities, people like me could have engaged in a public debate with him. Instead he chose to be a SECRETIVE DOUBLE-AGENT of Muddenahalli while sitting in the then all powerful chair of vice-chancellor of the Sai university, getting rid of anybody who DARED to openly question him and his actions under some academic rules pretext or the other, and thereby allowed Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF to grow from a sapling to a tree that today is a SERIOUS DIVISIVE THREAT to Sathya Sai movement WORLDWIDE. So, let us have more PUBLIC DEBATE on this as that will enable more people to know what happened after Mahasamadhi w.r.t Muddenahalli and what is happening now.
I have also noted the reference to the 1993 incident where students and/or ex-students of Sai university were involved in a MURDEROUS attack. I must say here to bro. Sairam Reddy, that I have been informed that bro. VijaySai B.S. was physically present at the incident location then and did help in opposing the attackers and even sustained an injury. So, at least w.r.t 1993 incident, bro VijaySai was LOYAL to Swami then and fought against his fellow-student/alumni attackers.
But it is also quite natural for some of us Sai devotees to view the Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF matter as similar to 1993 BETRAYAL in some respects. It seems to me that the 1993 incident being only physical could get resolved without DIVISIVE impact on Sai fraternity though there surely would have been some Sai devotees then who chose to get distant from Prasanthi Nilayam. I mean, six persons died including the very dedicated and physically close alumni-servitor of Swami, Radhakrishna, another person and the four attackers. That would have sent shock waves of fear among the congregation then. Very fortunately, the Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF matter has not created any bloodshed so far (as far as I know) - that is a matter of great credit to Sai devotees of both sides. But in terms of the confusion, chaos, emotional strain and anger that Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF has created in the Sathya Sai movement WORLDWIDE, I think this Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF matter is FAR WORSE than the 1993 BETRAYAL incident. Darshan, interview & discourses of Madhusudhan Rao Naidu (an alumnus of Sai university heavily supported by Narasimhamurthy, former Warden of Sai university) and an imagined so called subtle body next to him, USING (or rather MISUSING) THE HOLY NAME of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, are being given and publicized using video and text, on the Internet as well as in printed books (and perhaps DVDs too)!!! That is like the Sunni-Shia SPLIT in Islam which continues today to have terrible sectarian feuds even over a thousand years after the SPLIT happened, and like the Catholic-Protestant SPLIT in Christianity which resulted in horrendous violence in Europe a few centuries back, and continues to be a major DIVISION among Christians today.
3) VijaySai wrote, "It is a fact and 100% truth he is able to see Swami and communicate with Him." I VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE with VijaySai's usage of the words "fact and 100% truth". It is the BELIEF of VijaySai and other Muddenahalli followers but it is NOT A FACT NOR IS IT 100% truth. For it to be a FACT (or 100% truth), even from a judicial point of view (court of law), as against the higher standards of SCIENTIFIC FACT, UNBIASED JUDGE(S) should examine the evidence including eyewitness accounts and confirm it. I think the minimum a judge from a court of law would do, is to examine whether multiple people can see what Madhu is claiming to see, and whether they all see exactly the same thing. Of course, this would be done in such a way that each such 'seer' of so called subtle Swami gives his/her account independently, and then these accounts would be closely examined and even cross examined by lawyer(s) arguing against the claim. All this has not been done so far. That is why I have suggested that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) be filed in Karnataka High Court against Madhusudhan Rao Naidu making these claims. If somebody does file the PIL and the High court is willing to take up the case (considers it legitimate as a PIL), the court will use these procedures of jurisprudence to establish whether Madhusudhan Rao Naidu's claims are FACT(s) OR are only visions/imaginations of Madhusudhan Rao Naidu only and a BELIEF of followers of Madhusudhan Rao Naidu.
Bro. VijaySai B.S. is not a judge of a court of law in India or a scientist of repute to GRANDLY DECLARE that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu's claim of being able to see Swami and communicate with him is a "fact & 100% truth". In the interests of following the MANTRA & MOTTO of Sai university (SSSIHL) which is the ancient Sanathana Dharma teaching of "Sathyam Vada Dharmam Chara", I, as a former Visiting Faculty/Honorary Faculty/Honorary Staff of Sai university (from Jan. 2003 to Mar. 2012 offering FREE SERVICE) request Sai university alumnus and former faculty, bro. VijaySai B.S. to kindly refrain from making such incorrect GRAND DECLARATIONS. Note that if bro. VijaySai says that he BELIEVES that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu is seeing and communicating with so called subtle body of Swami, that is a fair statement.
Most of what I said above, if not all of it, applies to this statement of VijaySai too, "It is a fact and 100% truth that Swami has chosen to continue till his 96th year as He himself had promised." Once again it is a BELIEF of VijaySai and his group, and NOT a fact NOR 100% truth.
=========================================
Given below is a comment response I made to bro. VijaySai's comment on my comment (above post contents):
Ravi S. Iyer wrote:
Dear brother VijaySai B.S. Thanks for your comment and your polite criticism :-) . I have made many mistakes in the past and I am quite sure that I will continue to make mistakes now and in the future too. Polite criticism helps me review my statements/writings and correct myself if I find that the criticism is valid.
Now you wrote that the words I use "Muddenahalli False Belief" imply that I am stating it as fact and 100% truth. Well, my view is that my words do not imply that it is fact. Fact is a very big word in contemporary God & Science conversations, some of which I studied and also participated in, to some extent, as well as in journalism and courts of law. The Oxford dictionary states one of the meanings of the word, fact (the first listed in its web page, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fact), as "A thing that is known or proved to be true" and the example of usage as 'the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas'. The second meaning is given as "(facts) Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article" and the example given is 'even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts'.
Now when I use the term 'Muddenahalli false belief' I do so because I have advanced logical arguments to arrive at that conclusion. However, those are my logical arguments and my conclusion. I don't think I am entitled to use the word, fact, for my logical conclusion alone. So I should not and will not say, based on my current knowledge, that it is a fact that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu is NOT a communicator of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, as I (or others, as far as I know) have not proved it in a court of law or elsewhere.
But then what is my basis for my logical conclusion that Muddenahalli so called communicator and associated so called subtle body is a FALSE BELIEF? My basis is my study of "discourses" and related material of so called subtle Swami given by its so called communicator, Madhusudhan Rao Naidu, and comparison of that with Sai literature including Sathya Sai Speaks and Vahinis. I have PUBLICLY put up my analysis of such "discourses" and material, and then provided my conclusion that Muddenahalli belief related to so called communicator is a FALSE BELIEF.
As an example, let us take something that we have discussed in the past on Facebook but which I feel is appropriate to repeat here. Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba told Hislop that Kali Yuga will last for 5000 years more (see https://ravisiyer.blogspot.com/2015/11/in-hislop-book-sathya-sai-says-in-1968.html). But on Oct. 22nd 2015, as part of a GRAND ANNOUNCEMENT by so called communicator Madhusudhan Rao Naidu and translated from Telugu to English by Shri B.N. Narasimhamurthy, it was stated that Kali Yuga will end on Oct. 23rd 2015!!! [See https://ravisiyer.blogspot.com/2015/10/does-prof-name1-snipped-ex-vc-sai.html.]
Now how can Swami say in physical form that Kali Yuga will last for 5000 years more and in subtle form change that to say Kali Yuga ends on Oct. 23rd 2015! That does not make logical sense. Therefore I draw the logical conclusion that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu is NOT speaking the words of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba of Puttaparthi. Therefore I state that the belief that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu is a so called communicator of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, is a FALSE BELIEF.
Given the above arguements I am of the view that your criticism about my using the words Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF, is invalid. Now, I repeat, I do not go to the extent of saying that it is a fact that Muddenhalli BELIEF is FALSE as that would mean that I have proven it to be false in some authoritative forum like a court of law or top body of spiritual masters/religious heads. I don't think anybody has done that, so far, and therefore one CANNOT say that it is proven or that it is a FACT that belief in so called communicator and so called subtle body of Muddenahalli is FALSE.
--------
In response to comment on the lines of: Swami has strictly said "Do not talk ill of others in front and behind their backs". This is a very strict commandment from Him. So if you truly love and respect the Master, just follow what He taught us, Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited) as follows:
[--name-snipped--], Swami has also said in public discourses and on numerous occasions that we should condemn those who claim to be mediums (and communicators) of him. So by condemning Sai university alumnus Madhusudhan Rao Naidu's actions of claiming to be a medium/communicator of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, we (the ones who write on social media to warn innocent Sai devotees about Madhusudhan Rao Naidu) are very clearly FOLLOWING Bhagavan's PUBLIC teachings & instructions. Selectively quoting Bhagavan to MUZZLE valid criticism of Muddenahalli FALSE BELIEF, is not correct, in my humble view. One has to have a more complete picture and understand teachings in the right context. ... Further, Swami has also said that it is the duty of teachers and parents to CORRECT mistakes of students & their children. And that if teachers and parents do not do such criticism (and when required even punish students & their children if they refuse to change their WRONG ways) then the teachers and parents are to blame for failing in their duty. The elders of the Prasanthi Nilayam and official Sai organization like Prof. Anilkumar Kamaraju, Prof. G. Venkataraman, Dr. Narendranath Reddy (International Sai orgn. chairman) etc. are DOING THE CORRECT THING by CRITICIZING Sai university alumnus Madhusudhan Rao Naidu for going against the teachings of Bhagavan, and thereby preventing many innocent Sai devotees from getting trapped by him & his supporters like Shri Narasimhamurthy. If these elders of Prasanthi Nilayam and official Sai orgn. did not criticize Madhusudhan Rao Naidu, in my considered view, they would be failing in their duty towards Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba.
Sairam sir, in the 'Afternoon Satsang' (on 'Rama Katha Rasa Vahini') of 25th February hosted by bros. Prem and Aravind of Radio Sai, Aravind mentioned what Prof. Bhagia of the Sai University had told him once.
ReplyDeleteProf. Bhagia had said, “When Swami tells you something seriously, pay attention to it. When He says something casually, enshrine it in your heart for it contains great words of wisdom and truth.”
Prf. Bhagia further said “The sin man accrues by disobedience to God's direct words is very huge. And so, He tells directly only to those who will accept what He says completely without a doubt and do whatever is necessary. For the others, He tells the same in a casual manner, as a joke or a passing statement. Then, if the person catches the hint and has faith in the words he is benefited. If he does not, then Swami will not allow any sin to accrue to him because He takes the blame upon Himself for not communicating properly!"
So Aravind said that with regard to the matter of 'Swami speaking through X or Y', Swami has repeatedly and directly told in His various public discourses over the past so many decades that He always communicates directly and never through another person.
Aravind said that when such is the clear instruction from Swami, why should we disobey Him and incur such a huge sin?
He also mentioned that one brother had been thinking of going to MDH to just check out for himself about the subtle body phenomenon. That night, Swami came in his dream and ripped him apart and blasted him very badly and finally said "Do not go to MDH!"
I really feel that when Swami's words are so clear, the people who are outrightly disobeying them will incur great sin.
Sir, I request you to please go through this blog post by Aravind.
ReplyDeletehttp://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Every-word-of-Sathya-Sai-is-as-true-as-the-Veda-an-experience-of-a-Sai-Student
I am sorry but in my earlier comment, I made one mistake. The 1st quote was by Prof. Nanjundiah and only the 2nd was by Prof. Bhagia.
Sairam Aarthi! Went through the article. Interesting experiences.
DeleteNow I cannot comment much on the casual words of Swami with respect to me personally, as I had very limited oral interaction with Swami. The only time he spoke to me was when he gave me a pair of cloth pieces sometime in 2003, if I recall correctly, when he told me, 'very happy'. For me it was facial gestures of Swami when we had eye contact with each other during Darshan that was the primary means of individual interaction between Swami and me. To be very frank, as I was focused more on my spiritual journey (as I had retired from commercial work) I actually preferred to keep a little distance from Swami as I did not want to get too caught up in Bhagavan's mission then (besides the Seva activity I did in the Sai university as mainly a teacher of software lab. courses).
Bhagavan's discourses were very important to me and I, like many others, would get answers and directions to some queries I had in these discourses. Listening to these discourses live, sitting in Sai Kulwant Hall, I now realize, had a great impact on my spiritual journey. Of course, I would also be observing how Bhagavan would interact with devotees and that too helped in my journey as I understood how much emphasis Bhagavan gave to Love. It is one thing to read about Bhagavan's teaching of Love All Serve All and quite another to have seen Bhagavan give so much of himself so lovingly to his devotees. Even when he would discipline somebody, one realized later on that the basis of that disciplining was the love that he had towards that person - a fatherly love that corrects the faults.
However, over the years I have interacted with many persons who have had fair amount of physical proximity to Bhagavan. Bhagavan must forgive me if I am saying something improper but I must say that while I have never heard (as far as I can recall) any of these persons being critical of Bhagavan's spiritual teachings, a few persons have expressed disappointment about the material problems they faced and which they expected Bhagavan to solve. My view is that ashram life can be quite challenging on the money front to family persons, especially in today's India where raising children and paying for their higher education (say, engineering or medicine) can be a huge burden. If the family persons are willing to lead simple lives and be content with ashram associated educational facilities, then it tends to work out, unless the children become rather ambitious.
I hope people don't get disturbed by what I have written above. But that's my view of the matter, especially today in post-Mahasamadhi Prasanthi Nilayam system. Essentially, for middle class well educated Indians type of people, I think it boils down to a choice of happy & quite peaceful spiritual kind-of life but with ceiling on material desires OR a regular city life with decent money but fair level of stress typically.
Sairam Sir....Just one question from my side if you can ask to bro. Vijay Sai...If we proceed with the arguments of bro. Vijay Sai then why not the subtle body staying in local or regional "Saimithis" implies we'll stop to visit Prashanti/Kulwant Hall or completely break or destroy PN as per Vijay Sai's arguments??The kind of "X~Y~Z" methods adopted by Loka Seva group especially as I've witnessed in my state respecting in an ordinary way to Swami(Sathya Sai)on a public stage inviting influential reputated people from politics/Socialism then making an impression of Swami(Sathya Sai) collecting fundzzz???Why members of Vidya Vahini or other SSCT(PN) projects are leaving gradually to join MDH(High salary) also in my state???sir it's a wrong notion that they're using Madhu directly in every case to capture people's mind...1st they are making full use of Swami(Sathya Sai)'s image(Legacy) to influence people then start their drama to take advantage of people's emotions or sentiments...I suspect what they mention as themselves before going to any powerful politician or Social activist & later make a paid news...Immediate steps really needed to be taken as told by "Anil Kumar Sir"....Sairam
ReplyDeleteI think those people who have faced some negative aspects of Muddenahalli group (e.g. any improper fund collection or improper poaching of staff from official Sai orgn by Muddenahalli group) should provide details of such matters with names, and then ask Muddenahalli group social media persons about it. Without details and without persons involved directly coming forward, it is easy for Muddenhalli group to dismiss such allegations as false! Evidence (proof) with proper level of details is absolutely necessary to make such charges stick. That's my view. Thanks.
DeleteI think you are absolutely true Sir in saying that through Bhagwan's discourses we can get many answers...Hence my humble request to bro. Vijay Sai to go thoroughly through Bhagwan's discourses which he had given at "Institution Alike in late 70s' or 80s' or other times(25/01/1979)"....And one particular discourse along with advice to some particular fellows at Muddenhalli(Who are now in MDH) on 14/02/2009 so that he can get the answers properly of justifying their activities in collecting fundzz...Another important thing coming to my mind is if people feel so much blissful in watching,observing Madhusudan's walking,leelas,discourses,etc then why not be it allowed at other SAI centres all across India(Brindavan+Dharmakshetra+Shivam+Sundaram,etc)if we proceed by respected bro. "Vijay Sai's" arguments so that others' can have the blissful experience of subtle body(Madhusudan you MDH group may please)...Hence I think supporters of MDH group should come openly to have the concept of subtle body cleared before everyone...Sairam
ReplyDeleteWell, official Sai orgn. will completely reject any possibility whatsoever of Madhusudhan Rao Naidu darshan!!! Those who want to become followers of Madhusudhan Rao Naidu will have to go to Muddenahalli or other places he visits.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find the above comment to be too strong in its language for my blog, and so plan to delete it, shortly. Hope you don't mind brother Swagat Sahu.
DeleteSorry Sir I oughtn't have mentioned that word just before the last line(Humbly withdrawing it) but if rectified they are more dangerous than who are cheating people in the name of "GOD/astrology" if I'm correct...Because what I'm stating that as a regular viewer of programmes going at Prashantinilayam online in which we observe all the events with Bhajans,Swami(sathya Sai)'s discourses along with glimpses of darshan from earlier periods...But MDH group want to bring up children in which direction means the conditioning of mind that they want to put the "Leelas(false claim) of Madhusoodan" implies what terrible their intentions you may imagine hence they're showing more respect to so-called subtle body(Madhusoodan) than Swami(Sathya Sai) or his image which we worship with deep "Shradha"...I'm urging you don't misunderstand my words Sir after all it's the question of innocent "people+children+students,etc" who are on this evil trap of worshiping Madhusoodan & observing his day to day activities which has been continuing with a purposefully nothing else than commercial motive...I hope adequate steps would be taken soon if we all SAI believers be united against it...Sai Love
DeleteBrother Swagat Sahu, thanks for deleting your previous comment.
DeleteIn response to your above comment, I tend to agree with most of your comment. However, I am not sure about words like evil trap and only commercial motive with regard to Muddenahalli group, as I don't think clear evidence has been provided for such allegations. I mean, they are only allegations as of now. I mean, if any donor, even a non-Indian donor, makes a serious police complaint with evidence that his or her donation money was siphoned off for purposes other than the service projects for which they had donated the money, then I am quite sure that the police will make an investigation into the complaint, and if that investigation proves the donor's complaint to be true, they may file suitable CRIMINAL charges against the associated persons. That's the law in India. I have been informed of a case of one donor who turned against Muddenahalli group and was really mad at them and may even have wanted to file a police complaint but then Muddenahalli group used the money he donated for a school as they had told him when they got/asked for the donation! So that seems to be completely legal. The issue of him donating the money because he believed in the so called subtle body of Muddenahalli and later turned against that belief, is not an illegal matter, as far as my knowledge of Indian law goes.
Perhaps Muddenahalli group is more of a case of FALSE BELIEF rather than DELIBERATE FRAUD. Perhaps the leaders of Muddenahalli group as well as Madhusudhan Rao Naidu really believe that Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba is communicating through Madhusudhan Rao Naidu. I am convinced that is a FALSE BELIEF and I have given my reasons for saying so in this blog post (comment exchange with VijaySai). But Indian law, as I understand it, would permit them to hold this FALSE BELIEF. [But what Indian law may not permit is them PUBLICLY using/misusing the name of Sri Sathya Sai Baba for darshan, interviews & discourses of Madhusudhan Rao Naidu. However, Indian law will come into the picture only if Muddenahalli group is DIRECTLY CHALLENGED on its usage of Bhagavan's name in an Indian court of law.]
It is clear that Madhusudhan Rao Naidu has emerged and established himself as a cult-leader type of figure in Muddenahalli group using the concept of so called INVISIBLE-TO-OTHERS subtle body of Bhagavan. My view is that he has trapped many Sai devotees into this FALSE BELIEF. The danger of students studying in Muddenahalli group educational institutions being BRAINWASHED into this FALSE BELIEF is a very real danger. However, one can seriously raise this aspect/issue of students being brainwashed ONLY if there are reports from students or parents or even teachers from Muddenahalli group who complain about it. Without such reports, these concerns are only possibilities which may or may not be happening.
One may say that from the public videos of Muddenahalli group one can see that students have also got trapped into this FALSE BELIEF. But in these matters, until somebody complains and sticks to the complaint when pressure is put on them to withdraw the complaint, one really cannot do anything except to put out warnings about Muddenahalli group (which is what I do via my social media posts about Muddenahalli group).