Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Culver's complaint

[Gèrald Morèno: Taken From: http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/sathya-sai-baba-wikipedia-bias.html] --Culver 21:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems With The Wikipedia Article
On the Wikipedia article for Sathya Sai Baba, the following paragraph was added: "Additionally, the Australian ex-follower and scholar Brian Steel has documented strong indications that the original Telugu discourses by Baba have been heavily edited to improve them. Followers were given the impression, if not explicitly told, that the discourses published in the Sathya Sai Speaks series were the literal translation of what Baba said. Steel also wrote that many authors who wrote or still write positive books about Baba did not fulfill their responsibility of adherence to basic intellectual, journalistic and scholarly standards and hence may unintentionally misguide both followers and the general public. He contends that the claims of Baba about himself fluctuate and are inconsistent. He has recently discovered a trend to tone down the extraordinary claims that Baba makes about himself which Steel thinks is done to avoid embarrassment and loss of credibility." Click Here to view my article about Brian Steel and his contradictory views regarding Sathya Sai Baba's discourses and how Brian Steel refuses to clarify his wishy-washy position about the accuracy/inaccuracy of these translated discourses.

The article states: "They also claim that he has inappropriate sexual relations with young men and boys. Testimonies of these sexual molestations were published in books, and magazines since 1976 and are especially since the year 2000 also available on the Internet." There are no recorded instances of SSB sexually abusing "boys" (12 years old or younger). The youngest alleged victim, who gives a name, was 16 years old (Jed Geyerhahn). Most of the other alleged victims were over 18. Jed Geyerhahn originally claimed that all SSB did to him was rub vibuthi/oil on the side of his scrotum. That's it.

The article states: "Several uncoroborated testimonies indicate that Baba can change into a woman instanteneously. These puzzling testimonies has led some to the conclusion that Baba is a hermaphrodite." These claims were made by Alaya Rahm, Neptune and Keith Ord (who Anti-Sai Activists praise for their honesty). Tal Brooke claimed that SSB was a hermaphrodite based on alleged stories, related to him, about a man named "Patrick", among others. Of course, the only problem with Tal's stories is that if the alleged sexual abuse victims are telling the truth (they claimed seeing SSB's genitals up close), then Tal's alleged witnesses (who have never come forward in 30 years to corroborate his story) were all lying.

Interesting enough, Conny Larsson and Dr. Bhatia (despite alleged, long-term sexual involvement with SSB) never mentioned seeing anything unusual about SSB's genitals and never claimed that SSB could change his gender at will. Similarly Hans De Kraker, Afshin (Said) Khorramshahgol and Jens Sethi never said anything about SSB being a hermaphrodite or changing his gender at will. This implies that Alaya Rahm, "Neptune", Keith Ord and Tal Brooke all lied about it. If SSB is a hermaphrodite, this would imply that Conny Larsson, Dr. Bhatia, Hans De Kraker, Afshin (Said) Khorramshahgol and Jens Sethi all lied (as they claimed to see and feel, up close, SSB's body). Clearly, someone is not telling the truth. The big question is: Who is lying? Someone, somewhere, has fabricated stories against Sathya Sai Baba.

The article states: "Another critic, ex-devotee and retired researcher/lecturer in philosophy, University of Oslo, the former national coordinator of the organization in Norway, Robert Priddy, has pointed out that Sathya Sai Baba's assertions on many subjects exhibit basic ignorance of physics, geology, religious history and much more. For example, Sai Baba's 'teaching' on magnetism differs greatly from generally accepted science, being wholly incommensurate with many simple and basic known facts." This is basically repeating Brian Steel's position exactly. The same argument I use against Brain Steel is entirely applicable to Robert Priddy.

The article states: "There is a testimony by Jens Senthi who claimed to have been sexually abused by the Baba but who was treated as a criminal by the Puttaparthi police." This is a misleading statement. Click Here to view my article about Jens Sethi.

The article makes several mentions to Basava Premanand, but is absolutely mute about his lies, exaggerations and "fanatic" atheism (Premanand also believes Jesus was a fraud who deceived people with magic tricks). Click Here to view my articles about Basava Premanand.

The article makes references to David Bailey and The Findings. Click Here for a full response to The Findings.

The article also makes reference to SSB being born in 1929. However, the crucial facts regarding this date are left out. Click Here to view my article about the Bukkapatnam School Record and how it fails, on all counts, as being a reliable source for SSB's birthday.

The article states: "One of those spiritual seekers was the Hollywood screenwriter Arnold Schulman, who wrote in his 1971 book called Baba that 'For any episode of Baba's childhood, there are countless contrasting versions and, at this point, the author discovered that it was no longer possible to separate the facts from the legend. The only thing that Baba has forbidden to his relatives and devotees is to talk about his childhood and 'all them live in terror of Baba'" This quote is selective and misleading. The part left off is as follows: "...'they all live in terror of Baba,' as one of his most devoted followers told the writer. 'When they do something wrong,' the devotee said, 'he won't look at them or speak to them for days and it's agony for them." That's right, the reason why they "live in terror" is because they didn't want SSB to ignore them! Quite a different scenario than just stopping the quote at "all them live in terror of Baba". Furthermore, Arnold Schulman related first-hand, miraculous experiences with Sathya Sai Baba. His book is not critical. As a matter of fact, Schulman's book presents a serious investigation into the powers and mysterious nature of the Guru. Schulman is described, in his book, as a "rational, skeptical product of Hollywood". That is the way that Schulman investigated SSB, in a "rational" and "skeptical" way. Consequently, it is only natural that Schulman voiced doubts and concerns about SSB.

The article states: <tt>"In 1993 four people who were armed with knives were killed after they had intruded in Sai Baba's bedroom. The main body of Indian journalists investigating the ashram murders in 1993 were unable to obtain more than very sparse information on the Central Trust's accounts and dealings."</tt> This statement is misleading. The police shootings were investigated by the CB-CID in India. They found that the police had tampered with and destroyed the evidence. Three police officers were thrown in jail. This quote also fails to mention that the 4 intruders viciously stabbed to death two of SSB's attendents and seriously stabbed two others. Anti-Sai Sites have put up a list of newspaper articles (regarding the events that transpired on June 6th 1993) and these newspaper articles divulged vast amounts of information (albeit, anonymous). Consequently, these journalists obtained lots of information (even though most of it was unsubstantiated) and published hundreds of articles in newspapers across India.

The article states: <tt>"The drinking water projects were claimed to be the result of Sai Baba's 'Divine Will'. However, they have largely failed to function in most of the villages due to a sinking water table, contractor corruption, and failure to arrange for maintenance. Due to this, the Rayalaseema project had to be taken over by the Andhra Pradesh State government."</tt> The project encountered initial hurdles and difficulties, however, the end result is that the drinking water project was successful in providing water to 750 villages. Based on the current success of SSB's drinking water project, SSB has undertaken a new scheme called the <tt>"Sathya Sai Sujala Sravanthi drinking water scheme"</tt> that will provide water to approximately 400,000 people (a majority of them tribals), in 204 villages in the West Godavari district. Instead of acknowledging these good deeds, Anti-Sai Activists choose instead to be critical and negative.

In this article, you will not find a concise and direct response about the "evidence" against Sathya Sai Baba. The "evidence against Sathya Sai Baba" can be summed up as follows: Anti-Sai allegations are made despite <tt>NO</tt> court cases ever being filed, first-hand, in a court of law in India. Not even one alleged victim has utilized <tt>FREE</tt>, "world class legal resources" to bring Sathya Sai Baba to justice. Not even <tt>ONE</tt> single affidavit has ever been made public (despite numerous claims to "20", "scores" and "over a hundred" affidavits being in existence and published on the internet). The petition signatures have <tt>NEVER</tt> been independently verified. "Evidence" is cited from mostly anonymous sources or people using a first name or a pseudonym. Anti-Sai's have slandered Sathya Sai Baba in the most vile way, yet whenever anyone questions them and their character, all of a sudden they are beyond reproach. No affidits. No court cases. No first-hand complaints filed in India. No independent agencies verifying their alleged data. No nothing! Despite these facts, Anti-Sai Activists have the audacity to attack those who question their viewpoints and unsubstantiated claims.

-

FROM ANDRIES KRUGERS DAGNEAUX:

Some quick comments on the additions made by SS108/Gerald Joe Moreno at Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/Culver%27s_complaint. I will later to address Moreno's comments in more detail. --
 * 1) I was not aware of the additional context of Schulman's reporting of terror of SSB. I had not read Schulman's book and copied the quote from Sanjay Dadlani's ararticle. I will add the context. Andries 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I think a boy/man <18 years is still a boy. I thought that Sam Young/Alaya was 15 years old, though I am not sureAndries 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) The article already states that there is no complaints in India. So what do you want add? No need for repititions. Andries 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) The article states nowhere that t he school record is a reliable source for the birth date and year of SSB. It only states that the school record is enough reason to doubt the official information about the date 23 Nov. 1926 that may not be correct, especially taking into consideration that the date of 23 Nov. suits SSB very well with regards to the Aurobindo date. Andries 08:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE:

Finally, an admission from Andries that he did <tt>not</tt> read Schulman's book, but cut and pasted selective quotes without having verified or read them, first-hand, himself. Good "researching" there, Andries.

It is abundantly clear that Anti-Sai Activists do not know how to differentiate between a "boy", a "teenager" and a "man". The same applies to Anti-Sai's improper usage of "pedophilia", which pertains exclusively to sex with children 12 years old or younger. I guess Anti-Sais are unaware of the term "ephebophilia", which would apply to teenagers. Now we have a full admission, from Andries, that he considers a "boy" the same as a "man". Also, Alaya Rahm, in his first interview experience claimed that he had an oiling but said <tt>"he didn't feel there was anything sexual about it; it was like Sai Baba was doing his job"</tt>. Later, Alaya changed his story: [http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-AlayaRahm/alaya-rahm-testimonies.html Ref. 1]

The article may already state that there are no complaints filed in India, but nowhere does the article exclusively state the case against these alleged victims. I'd suggest you delete ALL passages that refer to "no complaints filed in India" and substitute it with my comment: <tt>Anti-Sai allegations are made despite no court cases ever being filed, first-hand, in a court of law in India. Not even one alleged victim has utilized free, "world class legal resources" to bring Sathya Sai Baba to justice. Not even one single affidavit has ever been made public (despite numerous claims to "20", "scores" and "over a hundred" affidavits being in existence and published on the internet). The petition signatures have never been independently verified. "Evidence" is cited from mostly anonymous sources or people using a first name or a pseudonym. Consequently, many devotees have valid doubts about the claims made against the Indian Guru.</tt>

Making reference to the 1929 date, but not providing any contrary viewpoints about that date is biased. The article states: <tt>Other critics say that school records revealed several different birth dates for the boy (under his original name Sathyanarayana Raju) and suggest that he invented the 23 November 1926 day of birth because on 24 November 1926 the famed Hindu philosopher-mystic Sri Aurobindo said that the Divine had descended on Earth.</tt> There is an entirely valid viewpoint that refutes this claim: [http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/ssb-school.html Ref. 2]

Also, under the "Sathya Sai Baba" section, the following paragraph is listed: <tt>Critics, including former followers Basava Premanand and the Welsh pianist David Bailey, claim that these materializations are done by sleight of hand, which they say can be verified with videos available on the Internet. They also claim that he has inappropriate sexual relations with young men and boys. Testimonies of these sexual molestations were published in books, and magazines since 1976 and are especially since the year 2000 also available on the Internet. Another point of criticism is the unresolved killings of four men in Sai Baba's private quarters in 1993.</tt> That paragraph should not be listed be under the "Sathya Sai Baba" but under "Views of Sathya Sai Baba" or "Skeptics and Opponents".

"Intellectual Dishonesty"
FROM ANDRIES KRUGERS DAGNEAUX

Because of Gerald Joe Moreno's insistence of adding his version of the controversy in this article, I am afraid that I have to follow Wikipedia's guidelines very strictly. I will remove all information from personal website, (like the ones by Priddy and Steel) and only from notable books, media articles and academic sources. The only recent detailed academic source are the articles by Alexandra Nagel, who had published a 1994 article in Dutch in an academic magazine and later an unofficial Dutch article for the university of Amsterdam. An English updated version of her article is A guru accused. I do not think that the strict adherence to Wikipedia's policy will improve the article but I feel that there is no other fair way to keep Gerald Joe Moreno's endless rationalizations and intellectual dishonesty out of this article, though I have to admit that he occasionally makes a good point. If Moreno succeeds in getting his website cited as a reliable source in a notable media article or academic article then, of course, Moreno's view can be added to this article, as per the Wikipedia policy. I will also attribute all opinions and if I can't will remove them as per Wikipedia policy. Andries 03:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE:

Andries refers to my <tt>"endless rationalizations and intellectual dishonesty"</tt> without providing any examples of such or refuting any of my viewpoints. This points directly to Andries ad hominem tactics and his utter inability to refute my viewpoints. This also points to Andries bias and his determination to control the content to the Sathya Sai Baba article. Andries would like other viewpoints (that counter his unsubstantiated accusations against Sathya Sai Baba) from being publicly exposed.

Nowhere does Wikipedia state that one must have their site or articles published in academic magazines in order for a point of view to be expressed. Alexandra Nagel is an Anti-Sai Activist and just because she wrote articles for school term papers does not give her articles any more merit than anyone elses. Nagel has openly stated that she is active in the "expose" and is an Anti-Sai Activist. Consequently, her viewpoints are not neutral, nor can they be regarded as such.

Despite the alleged "scholary" nature of Nagel's article, <tt>"A Guru Accused, Sai Baba, from Avatar to Homo-paedophile"</tt>, it is abundantly clear that despite Nagel's education she doesn't even know the proper definition of "paedophile" (having sex with children 12 years old or younger, which never applied to SSB). This significant bias is evident in the title itself. Even more so in her article. Like Andries, Nagel has no clue that Alaya was 16 at the time of his first interview. Nagel, in true "scholarly" form, cites a questionable and anonymous letter from Basava Premanand (as <tt>"evidence"</tt> against Sathya Sai Baba)[http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/News/july-2001-basava-anon.html Ref. 1] The list goes on and on.

After pointing out the selective quotes attributed to Schulman, and even providing the full quote, Andries continues to misrepresent the quote. Andries modified the quote as follows: <tt>For any episode of Baba's childhood, there are countless contrasting versions and, at this point, the author discovered that it was no longer possible to separate the facts from the legend. The only thing that Baba has forbidden to his relatives and devotees is to talk about his childhood and ‘all them live in terror of Baba’ [..] [Schulman] was brought to believe that it was not Baba's intention to suppress some information because he didn't wanted them to be revealed. On the contrary, that was the better way to prevent that Baba's followers, even the good-determined ones, could distort the truth.''" Schulman wrote that the reason of the fear of Baba was because devotees were afraid that Baba would ignore them.</tt>

The actual quote is: <tt>For any episode of Baba's childhood, there are countless contrasting versions and, at this point, the author discovered that it was no longer possible to separate the facts from the legend. The only thing that Baba has forbidden to his relatives and devotees is to talk about his childhood and 'they all live in terror of Baba,' as one of his most devoted followers told the writer. 'When they do something wrong,' the devotee said, 'he won't look at them or speak to them for days and it's agony for them.</tt> One will notice Andries changed the quote and context by adding a description at the end of the paragraph instead of providing the quote in full (which would significantly alter the interpretation of the quote). I think this clearly shows who is guilty of "intellectual dishonesty".

Furthermore, the quote: <tt>"[Schulman] was brought to believe that it was not Baba's intention to suppress some information because he didn't wanted them to be revealed. On the contrary, that was the better way to prevent that Baba's followers, even the good-determined ones, could distort the truth."</tt> is not from Schulman's book. Someone distorted it and changed it significantly. The actual quote reads: <tt>"At first the writer was suspicious about the reason why Baba had imposed such severe restrictions against his followers relating stories about his childhood, but he later came to believe that it wasn't Baba's intention to suppress information he was afraid might be revealed. Instead, the writer decided, it was the simplest way to keep Baba's well-meaning devotees from distorting the truth. A slight exaggeration here, an embellishment there could ultimately contaminate his entire reservoir of credibility."</tt> (taken from the original first edition in 1971).

Finally, Andries removed these quotes and used a different quote from Schulman. SSS108 02:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)