Talk:Sathya Sai Baba movement/Archive 2

Sorry
Sorry
 * apologies accepted. the confusing title should have been changed much earlier. Andries 13:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Beliefs_and_practices_in_the_Sathya_Sai_Organisation for old discussions. Andries 13:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) See Talk:Sathya Sai Baba movement/Comments. Andries 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See here for the history of this article

Proposal for renaming this article into Sathya Sai Baba movement
See    Andries 10:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below, and per naming conventions. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Title should be Sathya Sai Baba movement
The title should be Sathya Sai Baba movement. Not The Sathya Sai Baba movement. See Title. Andries 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Agree, "the" must go. If Kkrystian will agree, I'd say go ahead and move it back. However, looking through the history, I see that this article has already had many name changes, is there anyone supporting a third option? -- Groggy Dice   T|C 09:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Sathya Sai Baba movement sounds ungrammatical to me Kkrystian 19:01 (UTC+1) 4 Jan 2007
 * I think Krystian's argument is suspect because s/he is not a native English speaker. Andries 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - per naming conventions. We simply don't use "the" in at the beginning of the title. -Patstuarttalk 18:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Ekantik talk 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge from Sathya Sai Baba

 * The result was No consensus to merge. -- Jreferee  (Talk) 04:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See talk:Narayana Kasturi. Please comment here. Andries 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not support a merge. The person is not the same as the movement, and the movement is evidently pro-Sai Baba, whilst there may be people who are interested in him as a being (whether avatar or human), but not into the movement around him. Keeping separate allows for different points of view. In religion and faiths in particular there is also a tendency for the movement to evolve into a different creature over time (especially after the leader/founder's death) which may not be compatible with the teachings of the originator of that religion. Just as Jesus Christ and what he taught is not the same as the teachings of Catholic chruch for example, which has evoved a much more complex system of religion, many aspects of which one would find difficult to relate to any atributal teachings of Jesus. The term Christianity however is a direct reference to that man. In this same way, it is possible that the "Sai Baba Movement" may diverge from the teachings of Sai Baba, who is already a perticularly syncretic guru, and an apparent reincarnation of an earlier Muslim saint, Shirdi Sai Baba.

Organizations section
I copied the organizations section from Sathya Sai Baba because they are better suited here. I still have to check some of the sources that strike me as doubtful e.g. chennai online. Andries 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Sathya Sai Organization

 * The result was No consensus to merge -- Jreferee  (Talk) 04:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Organization. Please discuss here. Andries 15:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comments in the proposed merge above - same principles apply. Beverley.

Still contains some original research/personal interpretations
I am busy removing the remaining original research and personal interpretations from the article. I hope that I will be finished before I get banned by the arbcom that will most probably lead to a complete stand still of this article. Andries 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am bold in editing, but I want to improve the article before I get banned, because the history of the article shows that only I am interested in the article. It will probably remain in its somewhat sorry state for a long time if I abandon it. Andries 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I made some mistakes in citations with Bowen, Babb, Nagel, and Kent. I also have possibly misinterpreted their works. I hope that I will be able to fix it before the ban take its effect. In the meantime I will give a warning on the article page. Andries 21:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My assessment of sources: Kent, Bowen, Swallow
Andries 09:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Kent:
 * found only minor inaccuracies.
 * Hardly information about the life of SSB.
 * Book was published in 2005 but research took place between 1996-1998
 * Book has an index
 * Bowen:
 * throughout the whole book SSB's paranormal powers are described as siddhis, though SSB denied in the 1976 Blitz interview that his powers are siddhis.
 * compares and explains Shiva and hence SSB with Dionysos in his conclusion. Implausible and unpractical; it is like explaining contemporary cars with chariots from Ancient. The conclusion is not or hardly suppported by his other writings.
 * Gives a timeline of SSB's life and the movement
 * Lengthy and no index
 * Swallow
 * Implausible theoretical speculations about the meaning of SSB's claim to be an incarnation of Shiva

Fair use rationale for Image:Sathya Sai Organisation official logo.jpg
Image:Sathya Sai Organisation official logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorted. Ekantik talk 22:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Kent "wrongly" describes the Sathya Sai Baba movement in Malaysia as a "Hindu Revitalization movement."

 * Kent wrongly describes the Sathya Sai Baba movement in Malaysia as a "Hindu Revitalization movement." Whilst local Hindu practices have indeed been encouraged, it would be wrong to use this term because Sai Baba has encouraged people of all religions to adhere to their own religions and has often quoted from the Bible and the Koran in his discourses. Furthermore, the official symbol of the Sai Baba organisation has the symbols of the five major world religions in each of the lotus petals so it is clear that it does not merely promote Hinduism.

sources please for the word "wrongly". Even if there are sources this cannot be written down as fact. I am aware that most (or many) devotees would disagree with Kent, but Babb disagrees with the viewpoint of the devotees on page 174 of Redemptive Encounters he writes that "this cult [is] deeply and authentically Hindu". Andries (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The viewpoint of devotees is already in the article, properly attributed and sourced, (but with bad grammar)
 * "According to Kelly, they [ Sathya Sai Organization ] see its founder as the "living synthesis of the world's religious traditions" and prefers to be classified as an interfaith movement."

Andries (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

cult versus religious movement
From what I understand Lawrence Babb prefers the term cult over religious movement because he asserts that the focus is on SSB's miracles, not on doctrine or teachings as he thinks should be the case for a religious movement. (I have my doubts about whether Babb's set of definitions will yield useful classifications and explanations. By the way, it is not my experience that there is less emphasis on teachings than in the Roman Catholic Church). Andries 01:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the article says that he says that he will reincarnate in this century. Which one? 20th or 21st? Larry R. Holmgren 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 21stAndries (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly the Sai Baba movement is too diverse and global to be termed a cult as there are no consistent teachings. One of the things that Sai Baba teaches in fact is that you shouldnto change your religion to follow him. If you are a Hindu, then remain a good Hindu, if you are Christian, then be a good Christian etc. There are Sai Baba Devotees all over the world who identify themselves as other religions, and see no conflict in his teachings (largely common sense goodness rather than doctrine) with their prescribed faith.

In terms of the his 3rd incarnation, as Prema Sai Baba, this is in the 21st century. I do not know if a date is given, but he has given the age that he will die at. A reincarnation may not be immediately after this though - there could be an interval. Does anyone have the references?

Explanation of edits
Andries 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Replaced syncretism with eclecticism.
 * Syncretism is denied by Morton Klass, though I cannot write about that because I do not have the book by Klass. Eclecticism is supported among others by Kent and Bowen though I still have to find the page numbers
 * Meditation shortened
 * I cannot find third party peer-reviewed articles for this, so I have used the devotee compendium by Steel and shortened this.
 * Removed some redundant statements treated already elsewhere in the entry

The bibliography section is incomplete; few listings have the year of publication. This context is needed. Larry R. Holmgren 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Books by the Sathya Sai Baba movement often do list their publication year. Andries (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed {noncompliant} and {totally disputed} tags. Please be reminded that this article belongs to the WikiProject Religion. Just imagine tagging the article on the Christian Church with tags that read "...must not include unverifiable or unsuitable material" and/or "...factual accuracy of this article are disputed." Preposterous. This article, as it stands now, is objective enough and verifiable enough. --AVM 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the references?
I have many references at home, so I can quote some of them here. According to arbcom, I have a conflict of interest so they do not allow me to edit this article anymore. Andries (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed from Sathya Sai Baba could be merged here
Information about organizations was removed from Sathya Sai Baba and could be merged here Andries (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Central trust
Baba's World: A Global Guru and his Movement by NORRIS W. PALMER om Gurus in America edited by Thomas A. Forsthoefel Published by SUNY Press, 2005 ISBN 079146573X, 9780791465738 page 114 Sathya Sai Central trust is locus of power of the movement. Andries (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Untitled
Attention, please, Wiki monitors and supervisors!

This is a blatant advertisement for an Organisation. It lacks a balancing reference to the Wikipedia article on the controversial guru Sathya Sai Baba and it offers a very low level bibliography on the subject. Compare this with the relevant entries in the Wikipedia articles Bibliography of books about Sathya Sai Baba and Bibliography of Sathya Sai Baba. (Do we need TWO?)

Also erroneously listed as a devotee is the late Hollywood screenwriter Arnold Schulman. He was not a devotee, as a reading of his 1971 book, Baba, will clearly show.

All in all, a very substandard Wikipedia contribution in its present incarnation.

Ombudswiki (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make corrections and improvements. I admit that a "Reception" section is missing that should mention the main criticisms and controversies, but the main focus of controversies is the person of Sathya Sai Baba. So most of the controversies and criticisms should be treated in the article Sathya Sai Baba, not here. Re-enchantment due to conversion could be mentioned. Andries (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This encyclopedia has more than 2.7 million articles in English and this article has been hardly edited since I was topic banned, so any call for attention to " Wiki monitors and supervisors" whoever that may be is unlikely to be successful. Andries (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

beliefs and practises of devotees
moved the section from the Sathya Sai Baba page to this article as per discussion on the Sathya Sai Baba discussion page

J929 (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You did not have authority to do that. As I said, "Moving this information to another part of Wikipedia does not solve the problem." Leave it here now, but the problem of sourcing has to be addressed, sooner rather than later. Rumiton (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Rumiton, but I propose reverting. I worked so harded to make this article well-sourced and J929 made the sourcing of this article much worse. Now we have two article that have bad sourcing instead of just one. Andries (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not for long. Rumiton (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fulfilling prophecy of passing away at 96 lunar years
I think the statement that user:Iceblade7 inserted that Sathya Sai Baba fulfilled his promise of passing away at 96 lunar years, instead of failing his prophecy at 84 calendar years, is a (small) minority view and should either be removed or stated as a minority opinions as per the Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV. Andries (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sep 2012
Power Struggle over Sai Empire. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

sai baba movement - not considered Hinduism
This is not considered Hinduism. Should clearly state in the article even if Hindu scriptures are used. It is only corrupting Hinduism and creating confusion. And may be blasphemous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.150.167 (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources please? --Neil N  talk to me 00:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Vibhuti manifestation
Recently found a vibuti manifestation in my prayer room on a artificial lotus flower. The ash was whiter in colour and had a different taste to the normal vibhuti we use at home. Its visible different and I 100% certain its a manifestation. I believe it comes from Sathy Sai Baba, who doesn't not want to interfere in peoples lives with these manifestations. With trying times and he being happy with the virtue of people, these manifestation occurs. 18 November 2014.

'''The Sai baba faith can be considered an "original" work by wikipedia standards as Hinduism already has an established collection of authentic books. remove sai baba from wikipedia hindu references as per wikipedia standards please and also other faiths like  iskcon claiming to be hindu faiths. please ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.129.133 (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Not Hindu
Any claim from the Sai Baba movement that it is a branch of Hinduism should be considered false. Hinduism does not preach unity in religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.209.165 (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Hinduism" doesn't, you're right - Hinduism's very varied. However, many Hindu teachers and traditions, including that to which I adhere, do. I am not a follower of Sathya Sai Baba, just to note. - --89.197.1.50 (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)