Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 10

Unresolved problems in Sathya Sai Baba's Article
Thatcher131, I have some examples of unresolved issues in this article
 * What’s wrong with this article? This article is full of bias and breaks every wikipedia policy of biography of living persons. Some examples are cited below.

Heading: Opposition, controversy, and allegations:
 * No Neutral point of view (NPOV): Wikipedia says “Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone”.Here are some examples:

i) The article says as follows “Dutch journalist Sacha Kester, in an article about spiritual seekers and gurus, criticized Sathya Sai Baba as a swindler”. I don’t understand how responsible editor can add such vulgar criticism quote in a biography of a living person. Such POV must be removed as it defaces Sathya Sai Baba’s page. ii) Dominic Kennedy, a journalist from The Times, described his teachings in 2001 as "a collection of banal truisms and platitudes.". Why should people’s personal quotes and opinions be expressed in this article. This is in a very offending tone. iii) Every biography talks about two groups: Followers and Critics. But in this article the opinions expressed are presented as if it is the opinion of general public, which is not true. Heading must clearly state that this is the Opposition, Controversy or Opinion by Critics. i) Sacha Kester has not seen Sai Baba, she has not visited the Ashram personally. She lives in a completely different end of world. What’s her expertise on the subject? Why she should be considered as a reliable source. If a person were to write an article about Electronics – that person must have at least minimum expertise / background on the subject. Naïve articles are never recognized. How come this rule does not apply to Baba’s article? Any article defaming Baba is linked. ii) No Verification: Every reference in this heading must be challenged and verified. Sathya Sai Baba is a very famous Guru with millions of followers. This article is a very serious one. Every author or web master who writes defaming article on Sai Baba for recognition / what ever reason cannot be quoted. There must be some filtering to make sure the author’s expertise on the subject. People question Kasturi a person who has spend decades with Baba, why is no one questioning the other authors like Nagel or Sacha Kester’s expertise on the subject. Have they seen Baba, have they visited the ashram or the sai schools / students - Sacha Kester is referring in the article?. i) In the Al Rahm incident, there is no mention that his case against Sai Baba was a self dismissed case. No charges were filed against Sai Baba. Though this is important information related to Sai Baba this information is excluded. ii) There is no link to pro Sai websites which argues against these allegations with facts. Only if this is included then readers can form un biased opinion.
 * Wikipedia: No Reliable Sources: We can take the same example.
 * Biased Article: Here are some examples.

1) Following is an example from the article: "One follower states on his website that the acts that can be interpreted as sexually intended are in fact done by SSB in order to awaken a flow of kundalini power to the energy centers in the human body".Why is this statement wrong?
 * Misconstrued reference to Very Significant Hindu terminologies:There are 2 such references in the article and these breaks Wikipedia reliable source policy.

Kundalini Shakthi / Kundalini Yoga / Kundalini Sadhana is a very advanced spiritual yogic practice / exercise prescribed in Hindu tantric sadhana for a man to achieve self realization / ultimate liberation from the cycles of birth and death. (Please see the detailed discussion on Kundalini Shakthi and how it can be awakened). The Authors naïve explanations(his point of view) shows he/she has no knowledge /expertise on the subject(Kundalini Shakthi), he is referring in his quote, otherwise he won't make such absurd / ridiculous comments. Such amateurs / naive authors with misconstrued arguments / explanations are not valid references and must be removed from this article as it compromises Wikipedia’s reliability policy.

What is Kundalini Shakthi: According to the Hindu tantric sadhanas / agamas (revelations): Kundalini Shakthi refers to a reservoir of psychic energy in every human being at the base of the spine. It is a dormant spiritual energy with 31/2 coils in the base of the spine.For the purpose of Self-Realisation, a man through his 'Sushumna' (spine) tries to uplift this Kundalini Shakti power in an upward tract and crossing all the Chakras (subtle spinal centres) tries to unite it with ' Sahasraara. '. The chakras are any of the nerve plexes or centers of force and consciousness located within the inner bodies of man. In the physical body there are corresponding nerve plexuses, ganglia and glands. The seven chakras / subtle energy centers are as follows: How to awaken / arouse Kundalini Shakthi:
 * Muladhara Chakra: located in basal region of vertebral column.
 * Swadhishtthan Chakra : located in the vertebral column just above muladhara chakra.
 * Manipur Chakra: located in the vertebral column opposite Naval region
 * Anahat Chakra located in the vertebral column opposite to heart,
 * Vishuddha Chakra: Inside the vertebral column this Chakra is located opposite the throat region,
 * Aagya Chakra: In Brahma Nadi enclosed by vertebral column this Chakra is located just opposite the mid spot between the two eyebrows also called the third eye. Its activation brings wondrous powers like clairvoyance, telepathy, power of giving curses or blessings, power to control thoughts of others and much more.
 * Sahasraara Chakra: Beyond these six Chakras at the upper termination of the spinal cord, is the thousand petalled lotus; the abode of Lord Shiva (supreme being). When the Kundalini Shakti unites itself with the Supreme Being, the aspirant gets engrossed in deep meditation during which he perceives infinite bliss.
 * Spiritual practices like yoga and meditation focuses on the raising of the kundalini from the chakra at the base of the spine to the chakra in the crown of the head.
 * The practitioners of Kundalini Yoga concentrate on psychic centers or chakras in the body in order to generate this spiritual power.
 * The first step is praying to the Guru (Expert teacher in tantric sadhana).
 * After this the Guru suggests certain Mantra Sadhanas through which the Kundalini can be fully activated.
 * It can also be activated through yogic initiation, in which the Siddha Guru transmits spiritual energy to the aspirant, thereby awakens the aspirant's dormant kundalini shakti and help the aspirant liberate himself from the corporeal bondages of life and death.
 * When the kundalini energy, residing in the first chakra at the root of the spine (muladhar chakra), is raised up through the rest of the chakras until it reaches the seventh and the highest chakra (sahasrara) located at the crown of the head - self-realization occurs. This induces the blissful state of samadhi. This is called as Kundalini awakening.

How should the aspirant prepare for awakening Kundalini Sakthi:
 * First of all the aspirant should purify his body with the aid of Neti, Dhyoti and Vasti.
 * After that, the aspirant should practice eight kinds of Pranayam (Yogic exercises).
 * Now the aspirant should learn from his Guru the essential mudras such as Mahamudra, Mahavedha, Mahabandh, Viparitakarani, Taran, Paridhan, Yuktichalan and Shaktichalani.
 * The aspirant, having perfected all Yogic exercises should concentrate his psyche on 'Chakra' according to the method of 'Raj Yog'.

Some examples of Great Masters / Saints who have mastered Kundalini Yoga:
 * Sri Swami Sivananda
 * Sri RamaKrishna Paramanandha

References:

i)Kundalini Yoga by Swami Sivananda - Available Online - http://www.experiencefestival.com/kundalini

ii) Kundalini Yoga from Siddhashram.com - Available Online - http://www.siddhashram.org/kundalini.shtml

2) Second Misconstrued reference is the Shiva / Sakthi concept:

Nagel in the article claims that Sai Baba changes from Male form to Female form and says that is because he is the incarnation of both the male and female aspects of God, Shiva and Shakti. She is referring to the Shiva Sakthi Avathar concept.

What is Shiva / Shakthi Avathar or Concept? The Shiva / Shakthi concept is integral part of Hinduism. The following are few schools of thought regarding this concept.
 * In the Saiva Siddhanta (school of thought of Hinduism): Lord Siva is perceived as all, and his divine energy Shakti is inseparable from him.
 * In Hindu temples, Lord Siva and Sakthi are worshipped as separate entities with different attributes / qualities.
 * In the tantric yoga sadhana shakthi is believed to be the divine energy and is experienced within the human body in three aspects: the feminine force, ida shakti, the masculine force, pingala shakti, and the pure kundalini shakti, that flows through the sushumna nadi.

When Sai Baba says Shiva Sakthi Avathar what does he mean?.

Sathya Sai Baba is believed to be the reincarnation of Lord Shiva and Goddess Sakthi by his followers. It means that he has the personal qualities / attributes of Shiva and Shakthi.

 Is this Shiva Shakthi reincarnation a new concept in Hinduism and What does it mean?
 * Reincarnation is not a new concept in Hinduism.
 * The great Saint like Adi Sankhara was believed to be reincarnation of Lord Shiva.
 * Another saint Lord Chaintanya Mahaprabhu was believed to be reincarnation of Krishna. He is supposed to have taken the role of a devotee (Radha). His purpose in life was to spread the message of Krishna bhakthi / devotion around the world.
 * Similarly accorging to Hindu epics Balarama and Lakshmana were believed the reincarnation of AdhiSesha / Serpent of Lord MahaVishnu.

Why is Nagel wrong?

Nagel has no idea what the term “Shiva Sakthi Avathar” means and has written ridiculous (her Point of View) explanation on this concept. Why did she write about something which she does not understand? Such misconstrued reference of a very important concept makes you question the author’s expertise /her credentials and her other claims? Such misconstrued quotes by authors must be removed from the article.

Thatcher131, some editors are not open to unbiased arguments. Whenever Some user writes unbiased positive views on Sai Baba it is immediately refuted or reverted or the user's talk page is filled with angry emails for refuting a particular anti sai reference. How to deal with such editors who do not agree on even valid arguments. You have seen the edit wars. What's your suggestion on that for the future? Wikisunn 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Heading: Opposition, controversy, and allegations:
 * Response to No Neutral point of view (NPOV): Wikipedia says “Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone”.Here are some examples:


 * i) The article says as follows “Dutch journalist Sacha Kester, in an article about spiritual seekers and gurus, criticized Sathya Sai Baba as a swindler”.
 * No, the view that SSB is a charlatan or swindler is widely held and sourced to a reputable source. What can you expect what people say about someone who is doing miracles that every magician can do too? As a comparison, Uri Geller who does the same is described as a con artist.


 * ii) Dominic Kennedy, a journalist from The Times, described his teachings in 2001 as "a collection of banal truisms and platitudes.". Why should people’s personal quotes and opinions be expressed in this article. This is in a very offending tone.
 * Because there happens to the be quite a lot of truth in this opinion and it sourced to a reputable source. I have heard similar statements. Though even I will admit that it is a simplification.


 * iii) Every biography talks about two groups: Followers and Critics. But in this article the opinions expressed are presented as if it is the opinion of general public, which is not true. Heading must clearly state that this is the Opposition, Controversy or Opinion by Critics.
 * It is untrue that the opinions are expressed as if it is the opinion of the general public. If so, where? No, the heading does not have to state that the öppositions etc. by critics because the word critics is redundant.


 * Response to Wikipedia: No Reliable Sources: We can take the same example.
 * ad i) How do you know about this? Kester was a correspondent in India or Pakistan for de Volkskrant. Kester, like most people, found the allegations convincing. Why should be we exclude this? She was by the way misquoted. I have yet to find a professional journalist who interviewed victims who expressed the opinion that the allegations were probably untrue. This article should reflect this widely held opinion among reputable sources.
 * ad ii) Narayana Kasturi wrote a book that was labelled a hagiography by two independent sources i.e. by the Telegraph and by the scholarly article by Lawrence Babb. I do not think that hagiographic sources can serve as a basis for a Wikipedia biography. In addition, some assertions in Kasturi's book are contradicted by other sources e.g. the Cobra incident is contradicted in the book by Arnold Schulman. If you question Nagel as a source then this means that you have not studied the subject, because Nagel was in the ashram as described on various websites and is one of the few who have published peer reviewed articles with a substantial content about SSB that is not merely based on Kasturi's hagiographic material


 * Response to Biased Article: Here are some examples.
 * ad i) primary source court document not reported by reputable sources. Agreed to exclude with an RFC.


 * ii) Websites that defend SSB tend to extremely unconvincing and in addition make ad hominen attacks on critics
 * Andries 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Nagel not reliable sources?
 * Response to Wikipedia: No Reliable Sources:

1)Contradictory Statements / Point of View of Nagel: Nagel keeps contradicting herself. She does not accept Sai Baba’s date of birth as Nov 23rd 1926 though claimed by Baba and also claimed by his parents. Nagel does not believe in the super natural powers behind Sai Baba’s miracles. If she does not believe in these claims of Baba why does she believe the fact that he has the supernatural power to change himself from male to female form. Why is she ambiguous and inconsistent? These contradictory views are confusing and make you question the author’s credibility / reliability and the truth of her claims.

2) Misconstrued opinion on Shiva Sakthi concept: She does not stop with that but further gives explanation with misconstrued point of view on the Shiva / Sakthi concept. Her explanation further proves her lack of expertise / knowledge on these subjects. (See more details in the misconstrued reference section).

3) Untrue Claim / Fake Claims: Her account from Brooke about a man named Patrick who claimed about Baba changing from male form to female form sounds ridiculous / unscientific and untrue. Any neutral / unbiased person reading these absurd claims and illogical explanations will definitely doubt Nagel’s claims and her expertise on the subject. Every probable way you analyse the statement sounds ridiculous and unscientific.

Why is Kester not reliable source?


 * She says “Sai Baba faked materializations by taking objects out of his chair”

1)Incorrerct Statement: Anybody who has visited Parthi would have seen Baba materialising Vibhuthi (Ash) and it happens mostly during Sai Darshan. (I will explain below what that means) and he is not always near his chair when he materialises objects. These incorrect statements makes you question the author's knowledge of the subject.

2) Wrong Fact Why?:
 * Kester also says "that followers who make large donations are given preferential treatment":


 * Every day on an average 3000 people visit Parthi to see Sai Baba. Neither students nor teachers nor devotee making large contribution is allowed to see Sai Baba other the darshan hours. In fact, even the President of India or Prime Minister of India can only see him during darshan hours. Nobody is even allowed to walk very near Baba residence.
 * Any body visiting Parthi to see Baba no matter whether they contributed any donations or not has to first wait in lines to see Baba and then after being seated in Kulwant Hall he / she has to wait another 3 – 4 hours seated on the floor  to see Sai Baba walk (now he uses golf cart) during Darshan.
 * There is no guarantee on where a person visiting Baba will sit in the Kulwant Hall (Capacity 20,000 people). He / She may be sitting anywhere among the 3000 people. There is no guarantee whether a person can even see Sai Baba close enough to talk or give a letter.

Pictures of Devotees seated in Kulwant hall during Darshan: http://www.radiosai.org/pages/20050803/index.html

3) Why is this statement untrue?
 * Kester also says and expressed belief in the allegations of sexual abuse by him of young boys:
 * Students passing out of Sathya Sai schools and colleges speak about Sai Baba with lot of respect and admiration. The software engineers and doctorate ex-students passing out of these Sai colleges speak in Sai retreats / Sathya Sai Centers praising Sai Baba.
 * They have denied all these allegations as baseless and untrue. In fact every year these ex-students visit Parthi to pay their homage and respect to Sai Baba. Sai Baba is their role model.
 * During their stay in Parthi, they also undertake service projects – arrange free eye camps / medical camps for the poor villagers in Parthi. They also participate in the “Gram Seva” / Service for the Villagers programme and also in the Narayana Seva / free distribution of food and clothing for the poor.
 * Anybody who visits parthi can see for themselves the services rendered by these ex-students and also will see their admiration and respect for Sai Baba. In fact some ex-students are working as teachers / lecturers in the Sathya Sai Schools and colleges and some of them work in the Sathya Sai Hospital.

Hence Kester and Nagel cannot be accepted as reliable sources because their statements / quotes are contradictory to the true facts / reality in Sai Baba's ashram and hence their references must be removed from the article to make it comply with Wikipedia reliability policy.

What is Sai Darshan / Appearance?

Darshan:
 * Sai Baba comes out of his room to meet people only twice in a day. He comes out in the morning anytime from (9:00 - 10:00 A.M) and in the evening around (3:00 - 4:00PM).
 * He walks (now he moves around in wheel chair / golf cart) from his residence into the kulwant hall and then into prayer hall on the red carpet and back to his residence and the people seated in the kulwant hall can see him this is called Sai Darshan.

How many people visit Parthi / How do they see Sai Baba

Pictures of Kulwant hall during Darshan: http://www.radiosai.org/pages/20050803/index.html
 * 3000 people visits Sai Baba daily and on festive days the number of visitors even touches 15,000 - 20,000.
 * The lines for seeing Baba starts around 6:00 am in the morning. On festive days, it even starts around 4:00 am in the morning. Based on a token system, people are made to sit in blocks of around 400-500 people in the Kulwant hall which has a seating capacity of 20,000.
 * Men sit on one end of the hall and the women sit on the other end of the hall. In between there is a red carpet for Sai Baba to walk. People are seated on the floor of kulwant hall They have to wait at least 4 – 5 hrs to see Sai Baba arrive and wait for another 1 – 2 hours to see him walk back to his residence.
 * Sai Baba after entering into kulwant hall enters into the Prayer hall and sits on the chair. Prayer hall is not big as kulwant hall but can seat more than 200 people.
 * All these rooms are open so that people can see Sai Baba where ever he walks. He sits in the prayer hall and listens to bhajans. He calls a few people for Group / Personal Interviews. Then after bhajans he goes back to his room

Interviews:


 * Interviews are more of question / answer sessions.
 * Sai Baba speaks only Telugu (his mother tongue) so there is a translater to translate the questions and answers during the interview.
 * It is surprising that Sai Baba is able to call people by their names for the interview from the 3000 – 15,000 (during festive days) seated people in the Kulwant hall.
 * Another surprising fact is that he also seems to know their family histories, their personal problems though they have never mentioned it to anybody.
 * People walking out after the interview, will walk back to their seats in the kulwant hall and join the rest of the 3000 people patiently waiting for Baba to walk back to his residence.
 * People after interview look very happy and they even share their experience with others on how Baba materialized gifts for them and how Baba answered their spiritual questions / personal problems / questions they never asked but had in mind. Anybody visiting Parthi can talk to these people, usually they are very happy to share their interview experiences with Sai Baba.

Students and Teachers:
 * Only time anybody (including the students studying in Sai schools / colleges) is allowed to meet Sai Baba is during the Sai Darshan.
 * All the students are seated in the same kulwant hall as big group / block along with their teachers and hostel wardens and many other staff members.
 * People seated in the kulwant hall can see Sai Baba talk / interact to his students (as it is an open huge hall), he answer their questions, takes letters from these students and also encourages them to do well in studies and sports.
 * They also present dramas, cultural programmes in the Kulwant hall.
 * Students also participate in a number of service activities, inspired and encouraged by Sathya Sai Baba. One of them is Gram Seva(Serving the poor people in villages around Parthi).
 * Students also participate in Annual Sports Meet and display unimaginable acrobatic feats. Sai Baba inspires and guides them to excel in both studies and games.
 * On most festive occasion they speak before the huge gatherings of people in kulwant hall.

Pictures - Baba interacting with students: http://www.radiosai.org/pages/20050303/index.html

Pictures - Unimaginable feats by Sai Students: http://www.saibabalinks.org/pictures/2005/jan11/S-a-i.htm

Pictures of Gram Seva 2005: http://www.sssbpt.org/Pages/Prasanthi_Nilayam/gramaseva_05_Photos.htm

Facts about Darshan:
 * People who waited to see Baba don’t complain for waiting long hours and also there is silence through out the darshan and nobody talks. (Inspite of 3000 seated people).
 * Also after darshan everybody seems happy even though many of them were not even able to see Baba clearly from where they sat. People are happy and many say they experienced inner joy, peace and happiness just seeing Sai Baba walk around that hall.
 * These people keep coming again and again day after day, month after month and some even stays permanently in parthi and wait for hours together to see Sai Baba walk or move around during the darshan hours.

Wikisunn 4th January 2007.


 * Response to No Neutral point of view (NPOV):

Sathya Sai Baba is a famous Guru with millions of followers around the world. He is not just any person. Remember, when you defame the article writing vulgar quotes / criticism on Sai Baba, you are also offending the centiments of millions of his followers. As a responsible editor and following Wikipedia's NPOV you must adhere to some writing standards. This article was not created in wikipedia to defame Sathya Sai Baba. That's my understanding. Correct me, if I am wrong. That's the reason, I am even writing back to you. I am talking about not breaking NPOV in this article. You are justifying on why there should be no neutral point of view in this article with the example you have quoted. You are totally missing my point here. Such vulgar criticism and improper quotes are totally unacceptable and must be removed. Wikisunn 22 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Of course I am aware that negative information about Sathya Sai Baba hurts thousands of people. To quote a famous apostate.
 * "Truth is extremely painful especially if one has been accustomed to lies all his life. [..]It is like telling a child that his father is a murderer, a rapist and a thief. This might be true yet the child who adulates his father will not be able to accept it. The shock would be so great that the first thing he will do is to deny it. He will call you a liar and he will hate you for hurting him. He will curse you; hold you as his enemy and he may even discharge his anger at you and physically attack you.
 * This is the stage of denial. It is a self defense mechanism. If pain is too big, denial will take that pain away. If a mother is informed that her child has died in an accident, her first reaction is often denial. In a moment of great catastrophes usually one is overwhelmed by a weary sense that this is all a bad dream and that he eventually would wake up everything would be okay. But unfortunately facts are stubborn and they will not go away. One can live in denial for a while but s/he must accept the truth sooner or later."


 * It took myself years to recover from the experience. Of course, I am aware of NPOV, but I do not see how the changes that you propose will lead to a more NPOV article for reasons that I stated hereabove. Andries 06:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Response to No Neutral point of view (NPOV):

In both your responses, you have given your Point Of View(POV) of Sai Baba. In your first response you said "What can you expect what people say about someone who is doing miracles that every magician can do too?" , Your view of Sai Baba is that of a magician and you believe in the allegations. These are your POV on Sai Baba. Everbody does not agree with your POV that's why we have the edit wars. Defending your POV does not entitle you to write vulgar comments / quotes on Sai Baba in Wikipedia. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales: "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example.These vulgar quotes and comments in Sai Baba article must be removed to make this article comply with Wikipedia NPOV.

Response to your quote: It is a deviation from the original discussion, anyway I will still respond to it. That quote implies your POV on Sai Baba. Followers of Sathya Sai Baba especially in India do not believe in these allegations and infact the number of followers are increasing every year. Why? There's simple answer. Unlike in West, where people have to go to website to find out about Sai Baba, Sai Followers in India can just visit Parthi (Baba's Ashram) any time they want, visit Baba's schools and colleges, talk with students / ex-students, teachers and find the truth for themselves. I know some of the Sai followers (India) on a personal level. Many of these followers children or relative's children or friends study in Sathya Sai Baba's school and colleges. These students have alot of admiration and respect for Sai Baba. They address him as "Swami" (Reverend Sir). He guides them in their studies, encourages them to do well in Sports. The institute conducts Annual Sports Meet every year. The ex-students from these Sai institutes speak regularly in Sai retreats praising Sai Baba and they have denied all these allegations on Sai Baba.

Sai Institute: Sathya Sai Institute is one of the premier institutes in India and offers very high quality free education even for Post Graduate courses and even professional courses like MBA in finance, Masters in Technology. These students are selected based on merit. They have yoga / meditation and sports as part of their curriculum. These Students are also involved in service projects. The students adhere to a very strict disciplined life. Their day starts with meditation. The institute is viewed as a role model in India and students from this institute are treated with great respect across the country. They have a panel of lecturers and Professor who are from premier institutes of India like the IIT. Every year this institute graduates software engineers and PhD’s and number of these ex-students occupy prestigious positions around the world.

iii) Every biography talks about two groups: Followers and Critics. But in this article the opinions expressed are presented as if it is the opinion of general public, which is not true. Heading must clearly state that this is the Opposition, Controversy or Opinion by Critics.
 * It is untrue that the opinions are expressed as if it is the opinion of the general public. If so, where? No, the heading does not have to state that the öppositions etc. by critics because the word critics is redundant


 * The section Opposition, Controversy is basically Point of View of Critics on Sai Baba. Sai Followers don't believe in these allegations so if we give a generalised title like "Opposition, Controversy and Allegation" its confusing for the readers. If we look at other Biographies like Prem Rawat or Gandhi there is a separate heading called "Criticism". We should follow the same for Sathya Sai Baba article. Have a seperate heading called Criticism and write all the NPOV of Critics on Sai Baba.Wikisunn Dec 25 2006.
 * So re-naming criticism is all you want. Fine for me, but I think that the article should treat each subject comprehensively. E.g. the section miracle should treat both SSB's claims about his miracles as well as skeptic's view. The skeptic's view should not be treated in the criticism section. Andries 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Sacha Kester's article in de Volkskrant newspaper, I have to admit that I do not know what her sources are and this cannot be derived from her article, but the newspaper has a history of covering the dispute about Sathya Sai Baba. See here for some articles about SSB in that newspaper that I copied from Alexandra Nagel's 1994 university press article, De Sai Pardox about SSB. I had read many of these articles and letter to the editors in the newspaper in the early nineties
 * Vreeken, Rob
 * 1993 A Indiase rationalisten proberen alle yogi's te ontmaskeren. In de Volkskrant van 14 January
 * 1993B Alarm Sai Baba. In de Volkskrant van 12 July
 * Vroon, Piet
 * 1992A Vreemd, column Signalement van de Volkskrant van 15 August.
 * 1992B Cultuur, column Signalement van de Volkskrant van 28 November.
 * 1992C Sinterklaas in India. In de Volkskrant van 5 December. (also available in English online under the title Santa Claus in India)
 * 1992D Baba, column Signalement van de Volkskrant van 19 December.
 * 1993A Schanddaden, column Signalement van de Volkskrant van 13 February.
 * 1993B Goddelijk, column Signalement van de Volkskrant van 27 March.
 * 1993D Beslissen, column Signalement van de Volkskrant van 17 July.
 * 1993E Wondergenezing, column Signalement van de Volkskrant van 4 September.
 * Waas, Wim van
 * 1993 Bokshandschoen, tv-column van de Volkskrant van 7 May.
 * Weerts, W.
 * 1993 Sai Baba. Ingezonden brief in de Volkskrant van 26 February

Andries 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming the heading 'Opposition, Controversy, Allegation' to 'Criticism': Summarizing all the NPOV of critics under one heading, just like other Wikipedia Biographies will solve only part of the problem. We have to address every Unresolved issue in this article, to make this article comply with wikipedia policies. Below are the issues. We have discussed only the NPOV issue so far. We have to implement all these proposals to make this article comply with wikipedia standards. This article is about the Biography of a Living Person and cannot be taken lightly. Miracles Section: Once we are done with the Opposition section then we can start working on the Miracle section. Even here we need to follow standards. We have to stick with references of followers who have personally witnessed the miracles and who have published their research on those miracles, rather than saying something like this miracle was witnessed by many followers. Similarly when referencing critics view of miracle we need to follow the same standard. Only those references where the critic have personally witnessed the miracle can be treated as valid. Wikisunn 4th January 2007
 * Make the article comply with Wikipedia NPOV: We have to remove vulgar quotes / comments on Sai Baba by kester and Dominic Kenedy (See the discussion under Response to no NPOV).
 * Comply with Wikipedia Reliable sources: I know there are alot of authors / Webmasters either praising or defaming Sai Baba. But they can be treated as reliable source only, when the real facts / reality matches with their claims. By that what I meant is, if there is no truth in their statements and there is no connection between what they are saying and what is really happening in Baba's ashram then they are not reliable sources. Kester and Nagel are not reliable sources? Why? (Please see new discussion under Response to Wikipedia: No Reliable sources).
 * Remove the Incorrect / Misconstrued references from the article: Please see new discussion under "Unresolved issues in Sathya Sai Baba's article.

Hi Thatcher131, You would have seen all the above discussions related to “Unresolved Problems in Sathya Sai Baba’s article”. Following are the proposals, I would be incorporating to make this article comply with wikipedia policies in the next couple of days, please give me your inputs / suggestions for further improving this article.

1)Renaming the heading 'Opposition, Controversy and Allegation ‘to’ Criticism': Summarizing all the NPOV of critics under one heading, just like other Wikipedia Biographies.

2)Make the article comply with Wikipedia NPOV: Remove vulgar quotes / comments on Sai Baba by kester and Dominic Kenedy (Please see the detailed discussion related to this under Response to no NPOV).

3)'''Make this article comply with Wikipedia Reliable sources: Thanks for all your efforts and help in improving this article. Wikisunn 10th January 2007
 * Removing unreliable references related to Kester and Nagel. (Please see the detailed discussion under Response to Wikipedia: No Reliable sources).
 * Remove Incorrect / Misconstrued references from the article related to the very significant Hindu terminologies. (Please see the detailed discussions related to this in the above article).
 * Remove references related to absurd / false claims of Sai Baba changing from Male to Female forms by Nagel and Keith Ord (I have discussed about these illogical / unscientific claims under the misconstrued reference section).

Questions to Andries: About pushing POV and breaking every Wikipedia Policy:

Andries you need to show more ethics and respect for other editors. The above discussion has been going for a couple of weeks.

1)	 How come you did not answer to the above questions, when posted to you and you suddenly have problems when implementing this proposal

2)	You never argued that you have not broken NPOV by citing vulgar quotes / criticism on Baba

3)	You never argued why Nagel or Kester are reliable sources?

4)	You never argued about the misconstrued references in the article?

5)	 Why do you have a problem when I try to implement this proposal and make this article comply with wikipedia’s policies.

6)	You need to present a strong case of why you want to push your POV and break every Wikipedia policy

Don't keep reverting the article unless you discuss and convince other editors and administrators on why it is right on your part to break every wikipedia policy. Why do you want to continue double standards in Sathya Sai Baba article compared to other wikipedia biography articles. You need to do some explaining? Wikisunn 13th January 2007


 * ad 1) Because answering questions is a lot of work and I will only do that when it is easy and necessary. I consider it necessary when unanswered questions lead to bad edits.
 * ad 2)	Untrue, read my replies on this webpage
 * ad 3) I had extensively argued that Nagel is a reliable source in the mediation by user:BostonMA. In short, Nagel wrote a peer reviewed article published in University press magazine about religious movements. With regards to Kester, I had argued here, on the Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, and on talk:Sathya Sai Baba that Kester in de Volkskrant was/is a reputable source.
 * ad 4) I do not know what you mean
 * ad 5) Because you are removing contents sourced to reputable sources
 * ad 6) I do not think that you have provided convincing arguments that I have broken Wikipedia policies.


 * Wikissunn, I do not feel inclined to give detailed rebuttals to your arguments why the reputable sources are wrong (e.g. salon.com about Kundalini awakening and Nagel about the sex change related to Shiva Shakti ) when they write about SSB. Again, Wikipedia reports only what reputable sources have written, so I do not have the duty or moral obligation to give you detailed rebuttals to this kind of reasoning. You, I, and others can best discuss this outside off Wikipedia e.g. at the infamous yahoo group sathyasaibaba2.
 * Nevertheless, I want to state that if you want to hear the truth about the sexual abuse allegations then it is necessary that these young men trust you enough to tell you the truth. They will generally not tell this to all and sundry. You have to show some sensitivity before they will tell you.
 * Andries 09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Question related to Keith Org and Nagel:

I want to ask you very straight forward simple questions and I want sincere answers from you these answers can be easily written with out referring to a website or newspaper.

1) Do you believe that Sathya Sai Baba can change from male to female from one instant to another as claimed by Keith Ord and Nagel? Now if you believe so. Answer my second question sincerely.

2) Do you think it is humanly possible for anybody to change oneself from one gender to another from one instance to another? If you look for answers from Science no scientist has ever accomplished such a feat till this day? If you look at histories of Prophets or Saints from any religion, nobody has accomplished this feat of changing themselves from one form to another? Please let me know if you differ with me. I want an answer to this question? I can quotes of such an instance from Hinduism, where Lord Krishna (Who is worshipped as God) changed his form to Lord Vishnu and gave the vishwaroopa darshan to all kauravas. If this a feat which can be accomplished only by God,

3) Then, do you agree that Sathya Sai Baba is God? If you agree, then none of the allegations will hold true. Only man / mortals are attached to senses and sensual pleasures or sexual feelings. Great prophets and great Saints are detached from the worldly pleasures. God who is the creator is in a realm above the prophets and saints.

4) If you believe that human being cannot possibly change from male to female in any instance of time, which sounds logical and scientific at least agree that such absurd statements by Keith Ord and Nagel are false and untrue. I wonder how Keith Ord and Nagel can even think about such unscientific / irrational claims in the first place and publish in a newspaper. Is it because people don’t question their claims and believes every claim blindly, though the claims makes no sense.

Please answer my questions and in spite of all these logical analysis if you say you will continue to believe blindly every word editors, write in newspapers then, I will have to start doubting your judgement of issues.

Questions related to Kundalini Shakthi Awakening: I have already discussed in great detail what is Kundalini Shakthi, how it can be awakened. Please refer to the arguments under Misconstrued reference to Very Significant Hindu terminologies.This advanced spiritual yogic practice has been specialized by great indian masters like Sri Rama Krishna Paramahamsa and Swami Sivanandha. Comments by the editor from Salon.com: Editors comments show he has no knowledge related to the topic and is writing ridiculous stuff (His / her Point of View). Again I am asking you the same question? Why do you blindly believe every webmaster who is defaming Sai Baba. Isn’t our responsibility as good editors to quote correct references, which makes sense to every body reading the article. I am sure every unbiased responsible editor and administrators will agree with me that writing reference which makes no sense is unacceptable. Wikipedia has higher standards. Readers who read the articles are not expecting ridiculous unscientific claims / naïve authors’ views. Please don’t add references which do not make any logical sense or where authors have no clue of what they are talking about.

Questions related to Kester: In the previous discussion related to Kester you mentioned that you do not know what her sources are and quoted all the newspaper article related to Kester. After that discussion, I had discussed on why Kester is not reliable? If every thing she says is contradictory to reality or to what’s happening in Sai Baba’s ashram then tell me how can she be considered as reliable source? Also, you are not sure of her source. Then why is she a reliable source? As responsible editors, we cannot just write anything and every other claim by webmaster / authors defaming Sai Baba. Wikisunn 14th January 2007


 * Question related to Keith Org and Nagel:
 * Answer 1) I do not know what to believe, but I also consider it irrelevant. It may be one of SSB's many tricks. I know that the stories of SSB changes instantaneously into a woman are many, are well documented, and written down in reputable sources and as such should be included in the article. Andries 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A 2) Irrelevant. My personal belief is irrelevant for this article, but no, I do not believe it is scientifically possible. Andries 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A 3) Irrelevant. See above. Andries 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A 4) See answer 1.


 * Questions related to Kundalini Shakthi Awakening

Comments by the editor from Salon.com:
 * Salon.com was 100% right in this matter. Andries 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Questions related to Kester:
 * Answer: Her statement was voiced in a reputable source (i.e. in de Volkskrant that has a history of covering the debate about SSB, see list hereabove) and I believe that there is a lot of truth in what she wrote which is also corroborated by other sources and as such I will insist in including it in the article. In many cases newspaper articles do not explicitly mention their sources, but they are often fine to use as sources for Wikipedia. Andries 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to discussion on Keith Org and Nagel:

The main purpose of this discussion between editors who don’t agree over a controversial subject is to analyze the reference and come to logical conclusion. That was the purpose of the above assignment. If you are closed to logical discussions or wants to blindly believe everything you read from a newspaper, although the article does not make sense, then I cannot help you. Just blindly defending your Point of View with out valid logical explanation or valid argument does not make your reference right.

Response to discussion on Kundalini Shakthi Reference:

I have already discussed why this reference is wrong. We cannot add a wrong content to wikipedia just because you think it is 100% right.

Response to discussion on Kester: Breaks Reliable source policy

I have already discussed about Kester earlier on how she is not a reliable source. Please refer to the following Wikipedia policy that talks about poorly sourced references which cannot be used.

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source."

Wikisunn 15th January 2007

Question to Thatcher regarding Wikipedia Policy:

Thatcher, you would have seen all the above discussions, I have some questions related to wikipedia rules:

1) Can an editor add a reference in the article of biography of living person just because the reference was published in a newspaper but the reference does not make any sense or it raises questions like this cannot be true as it sounds ridiculous?

This question is related to the reference discussed under “Questions related to Keith Org and Nagel, please see the above discussion.

2) Can an editor add a reference by naïve author who has no clue or knowledge on the subject he is talking about or gives his ridiculous perspective on the subject? This question is related to the discussions under “Questions related to Kundalini Shakthi. What is Wikipedia’s policy on such references?

I have seen a general rules under Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons” which states "We must get the article right. [1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives."

Can you help with the policies related to references / claims which are ridiculous and makes no sense. Thanks.

Wikisunn 15th January 2007


 * Wikisunn, again, the fact that you consider the statements in reputable sources as ridiculous and untrue is insufficient reason to remove contents sourced to these reputable sources. Again, I think that the article in the Volkskrant by Kester is a reliable source. Again, discussing the veracity of the statements in reputable sources is beyong the scope of Wikipedia and I will only do it here to some extent because I find it very tedious. Again, Wikipedia only reports what reputable have written about a subject. Andries 21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, in your previous discussion with me, the following was your comment related to Kester.

"Regarding Sacha Kester's article in de Volkskrant newspaper, I have to admit that I do not know what her sources are and this cannot be derived from her article, but the newspaper has a history of covering the dispute about Sathya Sai Baba ".

Now you are taking a different stand on this issue, please don't keep changing your arguments and point of view from time to time. The same Wikipedia you are quoting also says: '''Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source.'''

This reference has been challenged and does not have a source, and also Kester uses vulgar biased comments on Sai Baba and her views from the article are wrong and are contradictory to the realities happening in Sai Baba's ashram. (I have discussed this issue in detail before). We cannot irresponsible add this poorly sourced article defaming Sai Baba as it is against Wikipedia principles of publishing the right contents and maintaining high standard references.

Also, since both of us are differing on this controversial issue and are not able to agree and come to a conclusion, I would suggest we should wait for reply / comment from Thatcher. Meanwhile, don't keep reverting the article as this is an ongoing discussion we have n't arrived at any conclusion.

Wikisunn 15th January 2007

Howard Murphet

 * I am upset by Wikisunn's insistence on this talk on reliable sources from someone who was there while at the same time adding contents about SSB's youth from Howard Murphet's book who was not present during SSB's youth. I am not aware that Howard Murphet has seriously researched SSB's youth: it seems that he simply talked to SSB and read Kasturi's books. I cannot see how Wiksunn's statement here and her/his behavior on the SSB article can be reconciled. Andries 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. Kkrystiantalk 16:04 (UTC+1) 21 Dec 2006


 * Andries, it's no different when you cited Steel citing Balu. You got upset when Wikisunn cited Murphet citing Kasturi, yet think nothing when you cited Steel (who was never present during Baba's youth) to cite Balu (who was present during Baba's youth). Murphet, Hislop and Kasturi are well known writers pertaining to SSB, whereas Steel is not. You don't think anyone has seriously researched Baba's youth. You have often criticized Kasturi's hagiography as being "poorly researched", etc. I assume Wikisunn's statements and behavior can be reconciled once you reconcile your statements and behavior. SSS108 talk-email 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, after all the detailed discussions in the above page, it must be clear what I meant by reliable sources. Only those authors / webmasters whose claims match with the realities happening in Sai Baba's ashram can alone be considered as reliable sources. Using references with false claims / untrue statements by authors does not make sense in this context related to Sai Baba. If you want more clarification, we can have a detailed discussion on Howard Murphet. Wikisunn 10th January 2007
 * Thanks for the explanation, but I noticed that you are new to Wikipedia and the arguements that you use are at variance with policies. In short the policies demand that Wikipedia reports only what verifiable reputable sources have written about a subject. The fact that that you do not agree with what those reputable sources wrote is not enough reason to remove sourced contents. On the other hand, if contributors consent that a reputable source is seriously flawed then we can agree not to use it. For example both current and former followers will agree that the New York Times blundered when it wrote that SSB does not say much in public. And I gues we can agree not to write that in the article. In contrast you removed statements sourced to reputable sources only because you and only you do not agree with what the the reputable sources write. This reason for removing sourced contents is generally frowned up in Wikipedia. Please take the time to read and study the policy and try to get involved in other articles than just the Sathya Sai Baba set of articles. Andries 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith / Bad Faith
Thatcher131, thank you kindly for boldly stepping forward and making decisions regarding the Sathya Sai Baba article that other's have not been willing to make.

There is an important issue that needs to be addressed and I am uncertain how to address it. Ekantik (aka Gaurasundara) is a vicious defamer and critic of Sathya Sai Baba who has made literally thousands of defamatory, libelous and unsubstantiated allegations against him (for the past 5 years) that accuses him of being a "homosexual paedophile", "faggot" (used in conjuction with numerous other slurs) and a "murderer" (among numerous other bold-faced lies and defamtions). As a matter of fact, even as of yesterday, on the QuickTopic forum, Ekantik was calling Sathya Sai Baba a "murderer". This is the person who keeps claiming he has a NPOV and his concern is only in cleaning up the Sathya Sai Baba article and providing "correct information"!

Ekantik not only created a blog the specifically attacks me and my involvement on Wikipedia (as well as making numerous derogatory comments about me on public internet forums about my involvment on Wikipedia), he relentlessly libels me on the internet.

How am I supposed to work in good faith with such a person? Ekantik engaged me in debate on the SSB article incongnito and immediately began accusing me of using Wikipedia as a battleground and a soapbox, etc. Now that his identity has been revealed, how am I supposed to accept his edits and propositions in good faith in light of his pervasive extra-Wikipedia smear campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba and me? All of his edits on the SSB article (except grammar and spelling) pertain to the Sai Controversy. I think this is more than just coincidence. What advice can you offer on how to proceed? Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 18:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thatcher, in order to avoid repetition I have already answered many of these points in a good number of places. Please let me know if you need any clarification on this matter. For obvious reasons, I thoroughly disagree with SSS108's misrepresentations above. Ekantik talk 02:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * SSS108, are you the owner of http://www.saisathyasai.com, http://robert-priddy-exposed.blogspot.com, http://sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com, http://sanjay-dadlani-references.blogspot.com and http://martinalankazlev-exposed.blogspot.com?


 * Ekantik, are you the owner of Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception, Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception On Wikipedia and Sai Baba EXPOSED!? Thatcher131 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, here is: My Response. It looks like you are going to have to add more links to the ArbCom page about who owns what websites, etc. Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 00:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your detailed response. I have some sympathy for your question above, How am I supposed to work in good faith with such a person?  But it appears you are doing the same thing.  It would be nearly impossible to sort through all the history on the web to decide "who started it", and not really my role anyway since I am not the web police, merely an admin on this web site trying to do his best.  It appears that a large group of SSB activists (pro and anti) with a long running history of fighting on other areas of the web has brought their fight to Wikipedia.  Just as I am not sure how you are supposed to work in good faith with them, I am not sure how they are supposed to work in good faith with you.  It has been four months since the first case was settled with the assumption that some advice and guidance about policies would be enough, but it clearly hasn't been enough, and in fact, things may be getting worse with the addition of Freelanceresearch and Ekantik to the party.  There is nothing wrong with being a committed believer (or unbeliever) and activist on another web site, as long as a person can behave like a responsible editor here, but I'm not sure the parties can do that. Right now there are only two groups of editors, pro and anti, and you don't work well together. (The Priddy dispute goes back to May, for example.)  If there was a third group of really neutral editors, it might be possible to show that some activist editors can work well with neutrals but others can't, and make that the basis for a sanction of some kind.  But I don't see how to do that at this point. Thatcher131 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Thatcher, thanks for informing me about this. I realise that you are not the "wiki-police" as you say, but I have to say that I admire the way you stepped in to provide an urgent remedy to a long-standing problem. Regarding your question, yes I am the owner of those blogs. I'd also like to state (for the record) that even though I am a critic and apostate of Sathya Sai Baba, I have every intention to edit the SSB article as fairly and neutrally as possible. For example, I have full intention to include (or introduce a section) featuring the Baba's major accomplishments and milestones in his life. I do not think I have been treated fairly (by SSS108 in particular) who has no complaint to make about my edits/behaviour anywhere on Wikipedia, and whose complaints about me stem completely from off-wiki disputation. His recent disruptive editing on the SSB page is nothing new and he has been engaging in the same for months with Andries. I have recently joined Wikipedia (August 2006) and many of my edits and work have been on pages connected to Hindu religion and WP:INCINE, the SSB article figures low on my priority list as it is not even listed on my userpage (yet). Believe it or not, I am not here to continue off-wiki disputation but solely to contribute to the Wikipedia project, which may include editing the SSB page since I have every right to do so? I am certainly not here to engage with SSS108 beyond the confines of the article talk-page. I have no intention to carry on disputes and am strictly interested in improving the article, I certainly assume good faith in him though I am concerned that he is unwilling to extend the same courtesy. The only complaints about any editing I've done on Wikipedia are brought against me by SSS108, for obvious reasons of bias and partiality. I've also taken a look at SSS108's subpage-answer to your question and have already spotted a couple of blatant lies. Since you have named me as a party to the Arbitration request, I may be able to outline my position with more detail over there as and when the opportunity arises. Thank your for keeping me informed anyhow. Ekantik talk 02:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may want to review the earlier case. There is an evidence and workshop page that may have useful information, and give you an idea of how arbitration works.  If this new case is accepted, there will be an opportunity to present evidence and make your case that (for example) you are willing to allow the article to contain positive as well as negative information but that other editors have obstructed this goal.  I haven't looked in detail at anyone's contributions so I can't begin to guess how a case would turn out. Thatcher131 02:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that very quick clarification, as I was just about to start researching evidence to prepare my statement. Now it looks like I can briefly state my position just as everyone else has done, and can provide evidence where necessary. Spekaing of which I'll fully admit that, as yet, I haven't had a chance to insert positive balance information into the article (because my edits were getting reverted) and any edits I have done are consistent with my edits on many other pages I work on, namely removal of POV, reverting vandalism, and general cleanup. Thanks for the advice about workshops and all, I'll look into it, and I'd like to congratulate you again for your active participation in this issue. it is so refreshing to have an impartial voice such as yours. Ekantik talk 04:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thatcher, I would like to add some comments here. Because we share similar interests, I have corresponded with Kazlev on metaphysical matters and the interactions between followers/apologists and ex-followers/critics of NRMs. Kazlev includes a wide variety of topics on his site, SSB is a tiny part of that. The potrayal of Kazlev as a co-conspiritor to defame SSB is actually false, although I can see why SSB would see it that way by assuming that to be the case. In fact it is as Kazlev says, Kazlev sees some value in SSB, and in general, he encourages differing views including his critics to be posted on his sites. He even changes his opinions based on evaluating the comments that he gets, but still allows differing views. Unfortunately, some SSB advocate(s) who misinterpret his approach and operate on polarized presumptions assume a conspiratorial bias that is not the case. Regarding the article, I think it should consist of an agreed upon factual part, and then summarize the supporting and critical positions so that readers understand the basic issues (they can do their own detailed research). The WP guidelines specifically state that the claims of religious groups and their critics should both be treated with caution. Unfortunately, the nature of such groups and their structure is that neutral observations are difficult to come by, so what you are left with is evaluation of competing POVs, and as I've pointed out, there simply isn't any a priori reason for assuming memhers are more or less reliable than critics, it all depends. Partisan statements should be identified by stating which position says xxx is true, and keeping rebuttals in the respective pro/con sections. --Dseer 05:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, anyone who is new to this controversy can very well be confused by so much information. It takes time and research to understand it. The fact remains that Ekantik/Gaurasundara is the most vocal critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba on the internet (even to this day). He engaged me in debate incognito and now that I know who he is, it is obvious that neither of us can work in good faith with each other. Since I have dealt with Ekantik/Gaurasundara for so long (and been directly involved in exposing him for very serious offenses at his University), I know what kind of person he truly is. It is not possible for me to believe any of his comments of being neutral and not having a POV to push, etc. I found out his sockpuppet within a few days of his arguing with me and this will probably work against me because he had not developed a history with the article. At any rate, when someone has to monitor a Wiki-page for so long, with so much debate, something is seriously wrong. SSS108 talk-email 07:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there are a number of serious issues here, just as an example, the debate over Priddy's web site has been going on essentially unchanged since May. Or the fact that it has not been possible to even clean up the language, grammar and style without getting into content arguments.  That's a sign that the wiki process is not working well.  At this point I think only arbitration can deal with the situation effectively.  I would just like keep the level of personal comments and edit warring on Wikipedia to a minimum while the arbitration process grinds forward. Thatcher131 12:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Thatcher, just to let you know I've submitted my statement. In all honesty I don't really see the point of that RFA because the substance of it is a long-running dispute between SSS108 and Andries that hasn't been resolved since the previous RFA, so maybe this is really a question of enforcement? Anyhow, do you think Pjacobi should be listed as an involved party if Robert Priddy's page is under the purview of the SSB issue? I also need to speak with you urgently on a serious matter that is not appropriate for discussion on Wikipedia pages, if you could kindly send me an email please as I don't know how to contact you off Wiki. Thanks. - Ekantik talk 06:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, the dispute between SSS108 and I will never be fully resolved unless SSS108 is an attractive young man and hence gets a private interview with SSB. It seems that all other evidence is unconvincing to SSS108. Andries 17:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No connection with Reality: Many people may not be aware of this. Sathya Sai Baba is 81 years old. In 2003, he fell broke his hips and since then underwent multiple surgies. Anybody who has visited Parthi from 2003 will know this fact that Sathya Sai Baba cannot even walk a few steps on his own with out assistance and he is using Wheel Chair and golf cart to move around. There is no connection between actual facts / reality and these ridiculous comments on Sai Baba. Please stop writing untrue / irresponsible comments (like the above) on Sai Baba just because most of the people involved are living on the other end of the world and may not know the facts. Wikisunn 25 December 2006

Robert Priddy Article
Thatcher, Pjacobi is blatantly violating the ArbCom ruling as it pertains to critical links on the Robert Priddy article. The ArbCom decision does not say anything about only Andries and me adding content. It says any negative content added to these pages composed of original research and critical material can be removed.

Pjacobi keeps adding these prohibited links despite your warning:. SSS108 talk-email 22:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Thatcher131, I've explained my reasoning in detail on the talk page.
 * I've just seen, that you volunteered to watch and moderate the SSB article and also have an eye on Brahma Kumaris. Good luck and patience with all this. I've done my term at SSB, Prem Rawat, Criticism of Prem Rawat, List of groups referred to as cults, Local churches in irregular intervals, but I can't stand the frustration any more and only jump into these issues now and then. IMHO these articles only show, that unfortunately the Wiki method doesn't work that good for articles on NRMs.
 * Pjacobi 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What I'd like to know is why does every NRM eventually get hit with sex abuse allegations. Even Jack Hyles, which I worked on many moons ago, has since been to arb over disputed inclusion of sex abuse allegations.  Is it something about the power trip of being the leader of a NRM, or something in the psychology of the discontented, or is it because people who get disillusioned and leave over the teachings don't get the kind of sympathy they do if they claim sex abuse?  Or all three? Thatcher131 04:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd think that's obvious. All of us humans have impulses to have sex with anything that attracts us, but for the most part we accept the universal constraints on human conduct that stop us from acting on those impulses.  But if someone thinks he's a god rather than a human, then obviously the constraints don't apply.  It shows up all the time in cult leaders.  (And not even just NRM's: look at the problems of the Catholic Church).  In my view the sex stuff is just about the least surprising and least interesting aspect of the SSB saga.  I'm much more interested in the financial allegations and the relationship between the SSB movement and the Indian government. 67.117.130.181 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Celebrities and other people who are in the public eye tend to draw a lot of mentally unstable people to them. Unfortunately, there are a lot of liars in the world, often precipitated by drug/alcohol abuse. Also, most liars learn they can get away with it without too many repercussions so they are emboldened to continue as long as there are no consequences and even get benefits in terms of attention, and sometimes money if related to bribery schemes.

BTW, Thatcher, do you have to subscribe to LexisNexus search or is it a free service? Maybe you could leave a link to it on my talk page. Thanks.:)Freelanceresearch 06:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a subscription service, although I have free access through a university library that I am affiliated with. Thatcher131 12:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can only say that I am surprised at this phenomenon too. In many cases sex abuse allegations are found to be true, I suppose this is only possible because the leader of said NRM is definitely on a power trip. As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Case in point: Children of God, a blatantly sexually abusive cult that institutionalised abuse. Ekantik talk 04:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Ekantik that it has something to do with the power that leaders of NRMs have over their followers. May be also with boredom or tension resulting of always having to play God or the enlightened Master. Andries 06:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Followers of NRMs give the founder/leader an enormous amount of trust due to the claims that the founder/leader makes. From the article guru where I had inserted the following summary from the book the The Guru Paper, "Alstadt and Kramer assert that gurus are likely to be hypocrites because, in order to attract and maintain followers, gurus must present themselves as purer than and superior to ordinary people and other gurus.". Andries 06:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The nature of the groups drives it. There is lots of literature on the subject. I have seen the pattern over and over. You have strong leaders and those who see themselves as dependent followers, power struggles are common, and a herd mentality sets in. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The same charismatic effects and practices that hold the group together have a sexually stimulating effect, and how one responds can change one's position. And members begin to think they have a special status or understanding compared with non-members, so that all is not what it appears, the leadership really does have clothes when they may not. Then if one sees the Emperor as having no clothes, their whole world is turned upside down, the feeling is like being spiritually raped. If there was, and experience shows there usually was, sexual activity, the feeling of being spiritually raped can either result in wallowing in it or can add anger to the feeling of sexual manipulation. The latter tend to be vocal and charges can be exaggerated while having some truth, or they may be totally accurate. In some cases, true, the feeling of being spiritually raped or others being sexually abused can be transferred into a claim of sexual abuse where there may not have been any in that person's case. Assessing the climate of the group is useful in weighing credibility. --Dseer 06:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's get a grip on actual numbers here. On the ExBaba site, there are a total of 16 people who have made allegations against Sathya Sai Baba (only 7 use real names). All of them, without exception, are contradictory and despite several of them being very vocal on the internet, none of them have even filed a basic police complaint or court case in India. No alleged victim has even tried. When one reads all the different articles, one is left with the impression that there are "many" sexual abuse victims. There are not. They are simply re-hashing the same allegations and adding the voices of ex-devotees who were never sexually abused in any way. Even Thatcher said on the SSB Talk Page that there appeared to be "many" allegations. Go through the articles and count the actual victims and you will be in for a surprise. Read the alleged victim's stories and you will be in for more surprises. SSS108 talk-email 07:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it is indeed interesting how leaders of NRMs end up getting carried away by power even though they may have started off with good intentions. I'm sure people David Koresh really did want to save the world until they realised just how much could be taken by way of personal gain. In some cases these leaders have been found to possess sociopathic or even psychopathic personalities, which could account for wilful mistreatment of followers and general abuse. Ekantik talk 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The "number" of abuse testimonies on critical sites does not at all reflect the true nature of the situation. Sathya Sai Baba is believed to have engaged in sexual relations since the 1940s, and at least one report of child maltreatment dates from that period. The "true number" of people in any way mistreated by SSB is impossible to count. Ekantik talk 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You know nothing about the "true nature" of the situation, Ekantik. It is all hearsay and defamatory accusations for which neither you or anyone has any proof. (which is probably the reason why Sathya Sai Baba has never been charged with any crime). Nothing. No one has even tried. And I am glad that you made the post you did. Your clear-cut bias is finally coming to the foreground. SSS108 talk-email 05:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What bias? In case you didn't already figure it out, SSS108, people are trying to have a discussion in response to Thatcher's question about sex abuse in NRMs. We are not necessarily talking about SSB, you have a one-track mind as far as this is concerned. No bias on my part. Also, please refrain from making assumptions about what I know and don't know, because you know nothing of what I know or don't know. Ekantik talk 05:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-read your comment that I responded to. Your comment was entirely about SSB and you responded to my post about SSB and alleged victims. Now you are telling me that my responses are "one-track". All along you have been trying to feed the perception that you are do not have a POV to push and are neutral. The earlier comment you made is an excellent example that you are not neutral and have a definite POV in regards to SSB. Thank you. Now I have a diff. SSS108 talk-email 16:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Diff all you like, it doesn't change the fact that there have been reports of maltreatment by SSB since the 1940s. This is not a POV, this is a verifiable fact. Of course your participation is one-track, you relate everything to SSB even though people are discussing cults in general. Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't use Thatcher's talk page to carry on a battle; this is just the latest example of your participation on a tlak page that has degenerated due to your personal remarks. It would not be wise for you to continue like this when you have a second ArbCom pending. Ekantik talk 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are POV. You didn't see any maltreatement when you were a devotee for 9 years, even though you claimed you were not brainwashed and believed in Sathya Sai Baba's Godhood based on "direct experience". If you don't like what I have to say ignore me and take the higher path by refusing to argue with me. Simple. Practice before precept. SSS108 talk-email 16:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected Template, SSB Article Talk
Thatcher, I am not familiar with how to make comments on a protected talk page, too bad it reached that point. Can you explain further? Below is the text of a proposal for discussion that the section about SSB's unusual aura needs revision, which I've tried to make NPOV based on the best source I could find:

Claims about SSB's Aura

The article currently has a section under Miracles that reads: "It has also been reported that Frank Baranowski, who specialized in kirilian photography, analyzed Sathya Sai Baba's aura and concluded that Baba was not a human being but a divine personality because his aura was unlike anyone he had seen before using a kirlian camera. Whereas auras normally emanate about 6 inches from the body, Baranowski claimed that Sathya Sai Baba's aura was so extensive, it appeared to extend beyond the horizon and contained silver and gold bands that he had not observed before."

A more complete account from states that these quotes from Dr. Baranowski are all from Face to Face with God, p. 176-178:


 * A scientist named Dr. Baranowski, Professor of Physics at the University of Arizona and a specialist in Kirlian photography, once came to see Sai Baba. (Kirlian photography, or ‘biomagnetic field radiation photography’, is done with a special camera which photographs the energy bands around living beings; different colors in the biomagnetic field correspond to different emotional qualities. To quote Baranowski, “When a person is full of love the aura around him is blue and when the love is pronounced, it becomes pink.”)  Baranowski had scientifically trained himself to see auras, and with this trained vision was investigating the various holy men of India.  Some years ago he gave a talk at the Prashanti Nilayam ashram on his experiences with Sai Baba.  Some excerpts:


 * “I have met over a hundred holy men in India. Too many of these holy men are involved in their own personal egos.  Their auras show mostly concern for themselves and their institutions.  So [their auras] are only a foot broad or perhaps two feet.


 * “I am not a devotee. I have come here as a scientist, to see this man Sai Baba.  I saw him on Sunday, on the balcony giving darshan to the devotees singing below.  The aura Baba projected was not that of a man.  The white was more than twice the size of any man’s, the blue was practically limitless, and there were gold and silver bands beyond even those, far behind this building right up to the horizon.  There is no scientific explanation for this phenomenon.


 * “His aura is so strong that it is affecting me standing by the chair on which He is sitting. I can feel the effect and I’ve to wipe my arm, off and on, as you must have noticed.  It is very difficult for me to admit.  I am a scientist.  I have given over six thousand lectures in all parts of the world but for the first time, believe me, my knees are shaking.  The aura that emanates from Baba shows His Love for you. . . .  If ever I can use the phrase that I have seen ‘love walking on two feet,’ it is here.”


 * At this point Dr. Baranowski concluded his talk, and Sai Baba then delivered a discourse. When Baba had finished, Baranowski asked for permission to address the audience again.


 * “I have been watching Baba, while He was addressing you. The pink aura that was manifesting was so vast and strong that it went even beyond the hall behind this chair.  It filled this big hall, embracing all of you gathered here. . .    I have watched Him for a week now, as He walked among you, morning and evening.  I have seen His aura, pink in colour, go into the person He is talking to, or touching and returning to Him. . . His energy seems to be endless. . .  In my estimation, He is exactly what He appears to be - LOVE.  That is what He is.”

So, in fact the apparently more complete and sourced story states that Dr. Baranowski sees and feels this unusual aura with trained vision and sensitivity, that is subjectively, not Kirlian photography, which would produce an image others could see. Auras are not, as claimed, accepted scientifically, see aura. But, presuming Dr. Baranowski states that normal auras only extend six inches, that opinion is not shared either by a large number of clairvoyants, who see the complete aura as being much larger than that even around normal people, and does not take into account similar stories by others of being enveloped in large energy field around other spiritual figures. Thus, I suggest this portion should read something like this, as follows:


 * Dr. Baranowski, a Kirlian photographer who said he trained himself to see auras, is quoted in "Face to Face with God, p. 176-178", as saying after watching Sathya Sai Baba: "The aura Baba (SSB) projected was not that of a man. The white was more than twice the size of any man’s, the blue was practically limitless, and there were gold and silver bands beyond even those, far behind this building right up to the horizon. There is no scientific explanation for this phenomenon...I have seen His aura, pink in colour, go into the person He is talking to, or touching and returning to Him...His energy seems to be endless...In my estimation, He is exactly what He appears to be - LOVE. That is what He is.”"

This accurately and concisely summarizes the story about alleged miracle as seen by Dr. Baranowski, without making specific scientific claims or assuming facts about the aura that are not widely accepted. --Dseer 07:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I happen to own the book in question and, as can be seen by the title of it, is a wholly devotional book. Besides that, there are numerous other (devotional) sources that retell this aura experience in the same exact words: It all boils down to whether the inclusion of this information would be of benefit to the article? Auras are unscientific, but then again we are talking about "miracles". I still do not think that the Sri Lankan article is a credible source for this claim much less a devotional book. This is probably too much information to include in the article anyway which will make it lengthy, but we can put that on hold for later I think. Ekantik talk 07:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We have to rely on the published secondary source. These books cannot be used in the article. That is why we must attribute the source to the author or as Thatcher said, the newspaper itself. The fact remains that the information about Baranowsky comes from a published source. The dispute really focuses on whether he is a professor or not. Of course, when it comes to the Trouw article and the poorly sourced information that Baba bans devotees from looking at the internet (a claim I have not found in other secondary sources), no one says anything. This is self-contradictory because Baba has blessed and allows around 6-10 official websites for devotees to read on the internet. Once again, the controversy focuses away from the critical content. SSS108 talk-email 16:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And as I've said before, the published secondary source in this instance is not a reliable source in that the article promotes pseudoscience as scientific truth, and the tone of the article is openly biased. For this reason I do not regard the source as reliable despite it being a "secondary source". This is the main problem with Wikilawyering; it may not be useful for Wikipedia even though it fulfils policy. Ekantik talk 05:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * SSS108, there is a world of difference in reputability between an ordinary devotee book and quality newspapers like Trouw or the magazine India Today that stated "The devotees are also countering the Internet war on two fronts. First, everybody is encouraged to shun the Internet. Explains Hal Honig, a senior Sai official in New York: "Swami tells us not to look at the Internet but at the inner net."  " in the front page article A God Accused (December 04, 2000) By Vijay Jung Thapa with Lavina Melwani in New York and Syed Zubair Ahmed in London available online Andries 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, repeat yourself as much as you like. Sathya Sai Baba has blessed (and continues to bless) websites for his devotees to look at on the internet. There are no less than 6-10 official websites. That doesn't sound to me like Baba is banning devotees from looking at the internet. SSS108 talk-email 02:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * SSB's actions in this matter are popularly viewed as a contradiction. It should be noted that several prominent discussion groups closed down at the time SSB made his comments, and there was even talk of shutting down the official homepage of the Organisation. It was only later that all of these "official sites" came into being, and that is why SSB's behaviour has been viewed as self-contradictory. I have noticed that this issue is open to twisting so the facts should be known, especially as SSB's original words are available for all to see and have been reported in reliable sources. Ekantik talk 05:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ekantik, what you say is wholly untrue. I would like to see any proof for the claim you made about "talk of shutting down the official homepage". This is a prime opportunity for you to show everyone here how you rely on verifiable facts and not rumor-mongering. Show us the proof. As a matter of fact, the claim you just made is the very first time I have heard you say this. Please tell us the names of these "prominent discussion groups" while you are at it. Even your discussion group closed down because it was so inactive.

If SSB was so intent on preventing his devotees from reading the internet, why would he allow his devotees to create websites after the allegations were made against him? Again, these arguments are POV. They do not belong in the article because the proof shows that SSB has never banned devotees from reading the internet, he actually encourages devotees to read the internet because of all the websites he has allowed and by the fact that his esteemed A++ University is connected to the internet as well. SSS108 talk-email


 * This is a talk page and not a soapbox, so I do not have to provide proof where it is not required. By your own logic you do not have the qualification to say that my claims are untrue because you just admitted that you didn't even know about it. SSB's words are recorded for posterity and his direction for followers not to use the Internet was reported in reliable sources. As I said, SSB's subsequent behaviour of "blessing" several websites is popularly viewed as an example of self-contadictory behaviour, and it is also open for twisting.


 * One of the prominent discussion groups that shut down as a result of SSB's words was the famous 'SAI-Net', which was very active upto that time and which explicitly stated the reason for closure: SSB's words. You did not know about this. Ekantik talk 01:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This talk page is not a soapbox. So why did you use it as one? The fact remains that you cannot provide any proof to support your earlier erroneous claims. You do the same outside Wikipedia. Until you can back up your claims with verifiable information, I suggest you refrain from engaging in your rumor-mongering and using this page as a soapbox for your baseless speculations. SSS108 talk-email 04:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A complaint about Ekantik's behaviour
I wish to complain about Ekantik's behaviour. He is unfairly criticising and attacking me and my Wikipedia edits to Sathya Sai Baba-related articles. This is what he wrote on the User_talk:Mel Etitis:


 * "Re the Category of Famous Anti SSB Activists, have you tried looking into whether such a category should even exist on Wikipedia? Shouldn't it be deleted or even renamed, given that the creator of the category (Kkrystian) has de facto admitted that he is a follower of SSB? Perhaps a COI consideration should be looked into?" Ekantik talk 04:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do something about this matter. Thanks in advance. Kkrystian 22:31 (UTC+1) 26 Dec 2006


 * Huh, what? Where did I "unfairly criticise" or "attack" you? I merely questioned your dividing of Category:Sathya Sai Baba (into 'follower' and 'opponent' categories) because I do not think that such a division is justified. I am surprised how you are making this frivolous complaint even after you have explained your rationale on my talk page (diff) and which I agreed with (diff) and made further suggestions about renaming. The question about your COI has been addressed there in line with WP policies and guidelines. However, it not looks like there are two other editors who are generally disagreeing with your recent category activity and your behaviour (See your talk page), and for the record, I'm uncomfortable with the way you don't take responsibility for your own edits by constantly constructing your arguments by referring to the what other editors (in this case SSS108) say. It also turns out that you have been making edits to renaming proposals and modifying my own comments on my talk page (diff), which is a strict no-no. Your activity has even led to other editors mistaking your edits for my own (See my talk page).


 * Perhaps you should take a small refresher course by taking the time to read WP:5, WP:T, and WP:NCH. You may also like to read WP:EQ. I'd also appreciate it if you could inform me on my talk page the next time you register a complaint or do anything where my response is required. I am copying this to your talk page and my own. - Ekantik talk 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for check user
Dear Thatcher131,

Here you have the links for requests at different points in time: 





None of them have been acknowledged. Thank you, avyakt7 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)