Talk:Sathya Sai Baba

Swamis Age

The avatar was 85. Not 84 because, when God decides to incarnate in this world, it is counted diffrently. Wikipeidia is not precise. The avathars life stars before birth thats why his 85 year bithday was celeberated november 2010.

Consistently in Wikipedia, someone's age is calculated from the date his Mom gave birth being age 0. That is, the duration walking the Earth. --Javaweb (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

New York Times explains gold watch illusion

[Prime Minister] Rao's contacts with swamis have brought him embarrassment more than once. In 1993, he seemed moved during a visit to his native state of Andhra Pradesh when a well-known guru, Sai Baba, appeared to produce a gold watch out of thin air. But Indian newspapers had considerable fun at Mr. Rao's expense when film of the event that had been taped by an Indian state television team was played back in slow motion and revealed the Mr. Baba had employed sleight-of-hand techniques commonly used by magicians.

— John F. Burns (October 10, 1995). "India's 'Guru Busters' Debunk All That's Mystical". New York Times.

<-- Please keep this comment and the ref section at the end of the article -->

Experience is better than rumor

I personally experienced supernatural events on a trip to visit Sai Baba that are not part of any magicians repertoire. These include gifts of gold jewelry by total strangers on Sai Babas behalf, telepathic communication and shaktipat. This was not a trick or a ruse. I saw vibhtti manifested and could clearly see his golden aura eminating from his body. I am not trying to do anything than bear witness to the facts as I experienced them and offer that Baba's spirit is kind, his wisdom is deep and his message is pure. Sai Ram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.195.101 (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal testimony cannot be used in Wikipedia. You might imagine the mess that would arise if this were not so. We can only work with reputable sources. Rumiton (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Sathya Sai Baba → Sathya Sai – Titles and honorifics should not be used when naming an article. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose SSB is the name normally used and every word in this name is a honorific. Sathya means truth or true. Sai means originally saint, but also refers to Shirdi Sai Baba. Baba means father. Andries (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I think his real name was Sathya Narayana Raju Ratnakaram. Andries (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

But the point is, SSB referred to himself many a times as "Sathya Sai." "Baba" was only an honorific Hindu's add to show respect towards someone. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right that he called himself often "Sathya Sai", but he declared himself a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba (i.e. "Sai Baba") in the 1940s. Sai Baba was the name that stuck. "Sathya" was only added sometimes to distinguish him from Shirdi Sai Baba. Andries (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. The honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No different than Mother Teresa, Andries and Red Tiger make very good points. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Use the name the man is known by. For example, the Rock Hudson article is not titled "Roy Harold Scherer, Jr". --Javaweb (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
• Oppose Slavish imposition of Wikipedia rules in cases like this is counterproductive. Rumiton (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; it's the most common name used in high-quality sources. --JN466 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The consensus seems clear. I suggest the article be dropped from the list of suggested/contested moves. Rumiton (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Sathya Sai Baba as a controversial figure

I suggest a following edition of the first sentence of the preamble.
Śri Sathya Sai Baba (Telugu: సత్య సాయిబాబా), born as Sathyanarayana Raju (23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011) was one of the most famous and controversial Indian gurus. He was a spiritual figure, mystic, philanthropist, and educator.
My suggestion is based on the following sources:

• The Economist

Sathya Sai Baba (Satyanarayana Raju), one of India’s most controversial gurus, died on April 24th, aged 85 http://www.economist.com/node/18678803

• India Today

As India's most enduring god-man enters his 75th year, his spirituality rests uneasily with controversy.

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20001204/cover.shtml

• The Gardian

But though revered by millions around the world as a living god, he was a controversial figure, criticised by some as a fraud protected by political influence. His later years were dogged by allegations of sexual abuse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/24/sri-sathya-sai-baba-dies

• The Telegraph

Sathya Sai Baba, who died yesterday, probably aged 84, was India's most famous, and most controversial, Swami or holy man, and one of the most enigmatic and remarkable religious figures of the last century.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/religion-obituaries/8471342/Sathya-Sai-Baba.html

• The BBC

To his devotees, Sai Baba was an avatar, an incarnation of God in human form, who appeared on Earth to preach his inspirational message in one of India's poorest corners.

To his critics, he was a fraudster dogged for years by controversial allegations of sexual abuse yet protected from prosecution by virtue of his powerful political sway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13153536

• Time

He was also accused of faking miracles and of being a sexual predator. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2068080,00.html

• CBS News

Sai Baba was also mired in controversies, with several news reports about allegations of sexual abuse and fake miracles.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/24/501364/main20056844.shtml

• The New York Times

Rationalist critics led campaigns against him, calling him a charlatan and his miracles fake. And several news reports accused him of sexually abusing followers — accusations that he denied, and for which he was never charged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/asia/25saibaba.html?_r=1

• India Express

From ordinary believers to the President of India, his clout spread far and wide but controversy also followed Puttaparthi Sathya Sai Baba all along.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/who-was-sathya-sai-baba/780598/

• The Los Angeles Times

After declaring himself the reincarnation of a Hindu saint in 1940 he built a loyal following, including politicians, and celebrities, despite allegations of sexual abuse.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/25/local/la-me-sathya-sai-baba-20110425

I am not an experienced Wikipedia user and I am not sure if I need to include all these links into the final text to support this statement. I will be happy if someone can do it for me.--Open 2 (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if this change would be an improvement. We already have The materializations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches by Sathya Sai Baba were a source of both fame and controversy... in the lead, and the article does not shy away from the sexual allegations. Adding...one of the most famous and controversial Indian gurus in the first sentence seems an over-emphasis. Rumiton (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, you seem to be right but on the other hand, Sathya Sai Baba's fame and controversy is not based exclusively on so called materializations. Fame and controversy can be found in practically any aspect of his life and teachings: his divine claims, his relationships with his students and devotees, his omniscience and omnipotence, his charity projects and so on. I agree that materializations are a special feature that makes SSB special among other Indian gurus. But his fame and controversy are far more general characteristic. That is why, I dare to think it might be an improvement, provided that the sentence about materializations is edited to escape repetition.--Open 2 (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The summary should state why he was controversial (mainly materializations and sexual abuse), otherwise it is not very informative. By the way, his teachings were not controversial, but it is true there were many reasons why he was controversial. Andries (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. I think the summary should give the main points which are elaborated in the corresponding sections of the article. I agree that "controversial" may be not quite correct word for his teachings. At least, they are eclectic and not coherent - a loose mixture of dvaita and advaita.--Open 2 (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of this version for the lead? Are there any objections?

Śri Sathya Sai Baba (Telugu: సత్య సాయిబాబా), born as Sathyanarayana Raju (23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011[4][5]) was one of the most famous and controversial Indian gurus. He was a spiritual figure, mystic, philanthropist, and educator.[6] He claimed to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi, a spiritual saint and miracle worker who died in 1918 and whose teachings were an eclectic blend of Hindu and Muslim beliefs.[4][7][8][9][10][11][12] The particular feature of Sathya Sai Baba was materializations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches [13] Photos of him are displayed in millions of homes and on the dashboards of cars, and lockets bearing his photo are worn by many as a symbol of good fortune.[14] He started a number of charity projects including drinking water supply schemes, schools, colleges and hospitals. His discourses are collected and published in the series of books "Sathya Sai Speaks".

The phrase "and his followers believed him to be" was omitted because it sounds like surplus information. It is quite obvious that his devotees believe his claims.--Open 2 (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I cannot see this as better than what we have. [SSB] was one of the most famous and controversial Indian gurus is not a finished sentence, and it seems to imply that guruhood in India is no longer happening. It needs to say "of the 20th century" or "of all time" or something, and only a foolish source would go out on a limb to say that as it would be quite unprovable. And if SSB was "one of" these controversial gurus, then who are the others? Also the role of "spiritual figure, mystic" and arguably, "philanthropist and educator" are parts of the guru's job description, so the terms are redundant. The sentence starting "The particular feature" doesn't make much sense either. Sorry, but quite a lot of work has gone into this lead from a number of editors, so any change needs to be a clear improvement. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the current lead is a result of a long work but I hate thinking that it is the only reason why you think that it cannot be better.
(1) I can't see why the phrase [SSB] was one of the most famous and controversial Indian gurus is not a finished sentence. And by no means it implies that guruhood is no longer happening in Inida. Rather it implies that guruhood and holiness are two different things.
(2) It needn't to say "of the 20th century" or "of all time" because both implications are quite correct about SSB. This opinion should not be proved as the terms like 'famous' or 'controversial' are mere opinions. But the fact is that this opinion is widely spread and it is worthy to be mentioned in Wikipedia as a fact.
(3) You ask about other controversial gurus. I cannot believe that you do not know any. Nevertheless, here are some examples: Blavatskaya, Osho (Rajneesh), Adi Da, Muktananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc. (to find more you can use Google search)
(4) You write that the terms "spiritual figure, mystic", "philanthropist and educator" are redundant when they are used together with the term "guru". But that is what is in the current version of the lead. It was not my addition.
(5) You write "The sentence starting "The particular feature" doesn't make much sense either". Why not?
(6) You did not mention the phrase I omitted: "and his followers believed him to be". Does it sound sensible?
Sorry, but I haven't been able to see your arguments.--Open 2 (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ad (6). I strongly agree that the phrase "and his followers believed him to be" should be removed. It is redundant and bordering on the ridiculous. A guru who is not believed by his followers is not a guru.

I think the summary/lead is too short. What should be added is the following:
a. explicit unambigous claims of divinity
b. that he was controversial, not only for materializations but also because of sexual abuse allegations
c. nearly all that is known about him is derived from Kasturi's hagiography
d. teachings: eclectic mainstream hinduism presented as ecumenical (uniting different religions) Andries (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "and his followers believed him to be" can be deleted. I will take it out now. Your other points are not so easily remedied, but we can discuss them. Rumiton (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba's claims of divinity and avatarhood

This is a collection of quotations which may help those who are editing this article. The original texts can be found by the date of the discourse in "Sathya Sai Speaks" (also on-line) or "Sanathana Sarathi" (monthly).

• I will be in this mortal body form for 59 years more and I shall certainly achieve the purpose of this Avatar, do not doubt it.

29.09.1960

• Make the best use of this chance when the Lord has come in human form to your very door and get ready to save yourself from disaster.

26.02.1961

• The establishement of Dharma is my aim, the teaching of Dharma, the spread of Dharma - that is my object.

13.12.1964

• You must convince yourselves that all forms are Sai's; all names are Sai's. There is no rest; all are he. ...

So I am teaching that no distinction should be made between the names Rama, Krishna, Iswara, Sai for they are all my names. ... You can observe me and my activities; note how I adhere to righteousness, moral order, truth and Universal compassion. That is what I desire you to learn from me. Many of you plead for "messages" from me to take to the Samithi of which you are members. Well, my life is my message. ... This is the first time that a world conference is held of persons devoted, while the incarnation is present before every one, with the body assumed for this purpose, bearing the name that is chosen for it by itself. I must tell you this fact, because ninety nine out of hundred among you do not know my reality. ... This is human form in which every Divine Entity, every Divine Principle, that is to say, all the names and forms ascribed by man to God are manifest. ... You are very fortunate that you have a chance to experience the bliss of the vision of the Sarvadaivatha Swaroopam (the Form, which is all Forms of all Gods) now in this life itself.
17.05.1968 (First World Conference, Bombay)

• I am Sarvantharyami, Sarvasaktha and Sarvajna. Nevertheless, I do not manifest these powers in any capricious manner and merely for display. For I am am example and an inspiration, whatever I do or omit to do. My life is a commentary on my message.

11.10.1970

• There can be no limit for Sai Sakthi, no hindrance, no opposition or obstacle. You may believe it or not but Sai Sakthi can transform earth into sky, the sky into earth.

22.11.1970

• This is the best time to tell you something about authenticity of this advent. I am saying this, not for establishing a claim for superiority, or importance for this body; I only wish to communicate the truth. there are many who cannot bear or tolerate the splendor that I am manifesting, the Divinity that is expressed in every act, the wonders and amazing happenings that are the result of the Grace; these people label these acts as acts of mesmerism, or miracles or fears of magic. They hope to bring them down in the estimation of people. Let me tell you this; mine is no mesmerism, miracle or magic. Mine is genuine Divine Power.

25.12.1970

• The Sai Principle, Sai Divinity can never be affected by any slander, it can never be shaken by any tactics, its progress can never be halted. Do not play heed to the barkings you hear.

10.06.1974

• As days pass, even those who are now not able to recognise the truth of Swami will have to approach with tears of repentance and experience me. Very soon, this will be worldwide. Swami is now restraining this development. When once it is allowed to manifest, the whole world will be transformed into Prashanthi Nilayam.

23.11.1982

• You will see in due course that even the blind will declare: "Swami is God".

31.07.1996
--Open 2 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Open 2 I see you are a new Wikipedia editor and this is the first article you have tried to edit. Let me say Welcome to Wikipedia, but let me also respectfully suggest you gain some experience by starting with some less disputed articles than this one. I particularly suggest you read the Guideline on sources. All the above quotes you have supplied are from primary sources, which are not acceptable to Wikipedia. We need to look at what reputable secondary sources say about the subject, not what the subject said about himself. It is especially important that what we editors feel we know about the subject or related subjects, counts for nothing. If you need any help in coming to terms with these and similar requirements, please let me know. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I share your concern about the quality of the Wikipedia articles but in this case I am afraid you are not quite correct. Primary sources are acceptable in Wikipedia.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

It is especially true for biographies. What can be a more reliable source about person's outlook, views and claims than their own words. But we should be careful with regard to OR.

The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

In our case of SSB his discourses published in the form of books are the most reliable published source for Sathya Sai Baba's claims. That does not mean we should take all his claims for the plain truth. Here independent sources are of utmost importance.--Open 2 (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no benefit in using primary sources for this article, though they may be helpful for the neglected article Sathya Sai Baba movement. Using primary sources is like opening a can of worms which should be done only if it has big benefits. Claims of divinity are also treated in secondary sources, so these quotes have no added value. These listed quotes are a good addition to be be copied to Wikiquote. Thanks for that. Andries (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Andries. SSB is no longer living, but this article still impacts on millions. To allow any editor to cherry pick quotes from primary sources to support their personal opinion would not just be a can of worms, it would be radioactive. There is no shortage of good secondary sources, and if any part of the article needs expanding, we can use them. Rumiton (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

By no means I meant to use all those quotations in the article. Rather they can be used as a reference material for evaluating secondary sources. Some secondary sources make contradictory or flawed statements on SSB's divinity claims, his mission and his teachings. They also may be used to support the statements in the article. Again I would like to emphasize the point that published discourses of SSB are not primary sources strictly speaking. His real words are. And we can be sure that those published discourses are the most reliable secondary source for what SSB's words are. But we cannot give full credit to what SSB says. Here we need the third-party opinions and views to evaluate his words. Anyway, I am glad that those quotations can be useful.--Open 2 (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary material can not, must not, and will not be used "for evaluating secondary sources." That is the job of a researcher, and Wikipedia editors are not researchers. Our job is to revue the work of researchers, assess their reliability and reputation for fact checking, and the significance of their conclusions against the work of others, and include them in the article if they are considered important enough. I can only urge you again to try to get more experience in Wikipedia editing before you step up for an article as difficult and controversial as this one. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton and Andries. --JN466 13:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Rumiton. I have repeatedly omitted using secondary sources that are clearly erroneous i.e. both contradicting primary sources and all other secondary sources. This included claims of divinity for this article. Andries (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to open old wounds Andries, but perhaps your practice of forming your own opinions from personal experience and primary sources, then rejecting secondary sources who did not agree with you might have contributed to your stormy editing history here? Rumiton (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rumiton, I humbly ask you to stop squeezing me out of this article. I have not vandalised the article, I have not even touched it until today. Is my only fault that I have made too many suggestions? I hope they have not been all useless.--Open 2 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Chaitanya Jyoti and Sanathana Samskruti

In the section about the ashrams two different museums are presented as one. The first museum is Sanathana Samskruti or Eternal Heritage Museum which was built in 1990. It is devoted to different religions and is sometimes called the Museum of All Religions. The second one is Chaitanya Jyoti Museum. It is devoted exclusively to the life and teachings of Sathya Sai Baba. It was built in 2000. http://www.srisathyasai.org.in/pages/ashraminfo/interested_places.htm Could those editors who supervise this section make necessary corrections?--Open 2 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be correct. Thank you for pointing that out. Rumiton (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

I have decided to start a new topic as I cannot see that Rumiton really understand my point about primary and secondary sources. As I see it, according to the Wikipedia rules primary sources are of restricted use and the article should not rely on primary sources. Rumiton believes that primary sources are unacceptable in principle. Rumiton believes that published SSB's discourses are a primary source and cannot be used in the article . I believe they are a secondary source for SSB's words and are very reliable to see what his claims were but very unreliable to take those claims for being true. Even if they are primary sources they can be used in the descriptive manner as it is formulated in the Wikipedia policy. And from this point of view published discourses of SSB can be used to check other secondary sources.

Here is an example. In the discussion section "Sathya Sai Baba's claims of divinity and avatarhood" the first quotation is the following:
I will be in this mortal body form for 59 years more and I shall certainly achieve the purpose of this Avatar, do not doubt it. (that means that he predicted his death in 2019 at the age of 93) 29.09.1960 Sathya Sai Speaks v.1 http://www.sathyasai.org/discour/sathyasaispeaks/volume01/sss01-31.pdf (see the very end of the discourse)

But in the article we have the following statement:
Sathya Sai Baba had predicted that he would die at age 96 and would remain healthy until then. Babb, Lawrence (1986). Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 166. ISBN 1577661532. http://books.google.com/books?id=B8bMjUt6AqIC. "His present incarnation, he says, ... He will die at the age of ninety-six, but his body will stay young until then."

How would you suggest solving this contradiction? Would you discard SSB's words based on the words of Lawrence Babb or vice versa?
--Open 2 (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just write over 90 years old. (Of course, there is an explanation behind the discrepancy and I think Robert Priddy has written about it. I have my own opinion about it.) Andries (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is not how to write it but which source is more reliable. In my opinion, officially published discourses are the most reliable source for the actual SSB's words and everyone can refer to them and check. I don't know what the source was for Lawrence Babb's statement. It is quite unprobable that he himself heard that from SSB. Rather he read it somewhere or was told it. As the third party he is much more reliable in his analysis of SSB than SSB himself because SSB had a special interest to promote himself. But when it comes to the exact SSB's words, the published discourses are much more reliable, I think.--Open 2 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are going far beyond the job of a Wikipedia editor. If you want to write a book on Sai Baba or any other subject based on your original research, then go ahead and do so. If your book gets published and you establish a reputation in the field then you may be accepted as a reputable source, but until then you will have to rely on the other accepted sources that we already have. For example, neither you nor any of us know which version of that prediction is correct, it is just speculation. Maybe on this occasion the translator made a mistake (SSB never wrote or spoke in English), maybe SSB mumbled and was misheard, maybe he rethought it later and made a different prediction or retracted what he had said. The point that will not go away is that we are not qualified to write an analysis of the subject based on selected (by us) quotes. Lawrence Babb is. He has a track record of accurate and well thought-out commentary and a reputation to lose if he gets it wrong. We do not, we are anonymous editors. So, unless he is proven wrong on an important point, we stick with his version. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Babb was an anthropologist who studied the SSB community in New Delhi. He wrote down popular beliefs. One such belief was that SSB had said that he would die at 96 years. Babb is no expert in the claims by SSB. Andries (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No source is perfect, but they are still better than us, trying to interpret primary material for ourselves. Rumiton (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I do not consider this an important question. I understand that the age of death of 96 comes from the popular book by Conversations between SSB and John Hislop. This was a private converstation. Andries (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)