Any Sathya Sai baba fans here?

[mikethepunk]

Any one here into Sathya Sai Baba?

I have some great web info you would like.

Please refrain from any shit talk about Sai Baba because if anything you are just parroting things you have heard online, not fact.

thank you.

[relax]

I havent, but get the feeling id like to. Care to indroduce some of the material?

[cleft_asunder]

Why are people into false guru's? Is it that complicated to discern a false one from a true one? Why Sai Baba? Read Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj and be done with it.

[pilgrim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOecpMkHH0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWomaejpSkg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG3i2EwSCGs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djz5wiyYWl8

http://exposedsaibaba.blogspot.com/2009/05/expose-of-fraud.html

[shaivite]

I saw video footage of Sathya Sai Baba many moons ago showing him to clearly, without a question, fake one of his "materialisations". From that point on it was clear and no doubt that he was a fake. That is not to say that he/his organisation haven't did some goods things, such as building hospitals and improving water access. But in terms of genuine siddhis I'm sad to say that this is a case of fraud.

If anyone feels drawn towards Sai Baba go towards the original Sai Baba, Sai Baba of Shirdi, not Sathya Sai Baba.

[supertzar]

What do you think of the information contained in this documentary, mikethepunk? Do you think it shows him using fakery? What about Ayala Rahm's story? Or the older gentleman's story? True? Not true? Shit talk?

[cleft_asunder]

I saw video footage of Sathya Sai Baba many moons ago showing him to clearly, without a question, fake one of his "materialisations". From that point on it was clear and no doubt that he was a fake. That is not to say that he/his organisation haven't did some goods things, such as building hospitals and improving water access. But in terms of genuine siddhis I'm sad to say that this is a case of fraud.

If anyone feels drawn towards Sai Baba go towards the original Sai Baba, Sai Baba of Shirdi, not Sathya Sai Baba.

What does it matter if the siddhis were true or not? That neither proves nor disporves he is a guru. Therefore why do you look for siddhis? Siddhis are no more a miracle than breathing or a falling leaf, yet they are seen as miracles because of ignorance. Either everything is a miracle, or nothing is a miracle, and the former is the truth we just don't realise it because we live life through the mind. There is nothing spiritual about siddhis, and they only imply that the person has worked on mental exercises and can now perform magic tricks.

A real guru is an avatar, a personification of the absolute. He is the Self of selves manifest as human, and his message is always simple and forever the same: Find out who you are at the deepest level. When that is done, there is nothing more to do.

[shaivite]

What does it matter if the siddhis were true or not?


The question of siddhis with regards to Sathya is that much, if not most, of his fame is based upon his alledged siddhis, not his wisdom or teachings. This is the foundation of why people have been drawn to him. So I think it is important if these are genuine or not. If one is perpetuating false acts and lying to thousands, maybe millions of people that would seem to merit attention.


Therefore why do you look for siddhis?


I don't and didn't suggest I did. You appear to have over read into what I said and seem to have taken a tone in which you are speaking down to people. Mind that ahamkara friend. Though you are correct that siddhis don't prove or disprove that one is qualitified to be a genuine Guru.

Siddhis though which naturally unfold in the process of sadhana can be used as something of a milestone marker, such as in the case of Utpaladeva's Sivastotravali. Though this is not to suggest the promotion of siddhis or the intentional development. In fact to be honest I've found siddhis are just a further complication and a burden in life. Particularly when they spontaneously arise and are not under control.

[cleft_asunder]

Siddhis though which naturally unfold in the process of sadhana can be used as something of a milestone marker, such as in the case of Utpaladeva's Sivastotravali. Though this is not to suggest the promotion of siddhis or the intentional development. In fact to be honest I've found siddhis are just a further complication and a burden in life. Particularly when they spontaneously arise and are not under control.

A milestone... but what sort of progress can be made, and towards what? What is the goal?

I couldn't agree more that siddhis are just a further complication and a burden and are totally unnecessary. And the reason is that siddhis are the path of the ego, and therefore the path away from the spirit. Speaking from the highest perspective, the only choice in life is a choice between the ego or the spirit.

[shaivite]

A milestone... but what sort of progress can be made, and towards what? What is the goal?

The limitations of language, particularly English in this case, makes it tricky to describe, but the "goal" would be realization of the Self/Parabrahman/Paramashiva/etc.

Progress depends on what kind of path perspective one is viewing it from. The Advaitan, the bhakti yogi, the Shaiva, the Smarta Brahmin, the Shakta, etc. are all going to have varied perspectives of what constitutes as progress and what progress the soul can make.

For many paths, particularly those of an Advaita and a higher Tantric nature, I would suggest that progress is the dropping of ignorance (paurusa ajnana/avidya/etc.), and by the dropping this it could be described as an increase of awareness/consciousness/citi and a higher resonance in both matters subtle and gross. Progress/removal of ignorance is largely of the subtle variety, particularly in the realm of the antakarana, in which manas becomes still, leading to one-pointness, which is the door way to samadhi. Progress could also be considered to occur within the open of the nadi system, particularly within the sushumna and the breaking of the various grathis.

Though progress could also be said to occur even after realization progresses from being a Vijnanakala (self-realised jiva who free from mayiya mala and karma mala but still subject to anava mala) up through the levels that correlate to the levels that correspond to freedom from the five kancukas and a re-establishment, if you will, of embiding in the pure tattvas, corresponding to the experient level of Mantra Mahesvara and Siva Pramata.

The Advaitain methods of sadhana commonly attributed to the likes Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi could be considered either Aunpaya or Shambhavopaya methods. However there are other avenues for those who don't have the stillness of manas and clarity in cit and buddhi. It is worth noting that the likes of Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi both taught other methods and practices, such as kirtan and mantra, to those who found other means such means easier or more desirable than those which are more jnana based. Within these means there is what could be considered progress, but in a way that sounds almost contradictory, for it is a letting go and a consquencial reclaiming. Within these modes of sadhana and various margas siddhis can spontaneously arise. I don't necessarily just mean siddhis as described by the likes of Patanjali, as there are many minor siddhis and modes of perception and movements of shakti that can occur along the way.


I couldn't agree more that siddhis are just a further complication and a burden and are totally unnecessary. And the reason is that siddhis are the path of the ego, and therefore the path away from the spirit. Speaking from the highest perspective, the only choice in life is a choice between the ego or the spirit.

Choosing to develop siddhis is a path of the ego, but for the sake of clarity this is not to say those in whom siddhis spontaneously arise are choosing a path of further jivahood reinforcement. particularly when they tend to be ignored for the most part. It is interesting to note that some folk believe that certains siddhis are desirable and part of their path towards the Self. While I don't doubt the honest intentions of some of these folk I do think that it does tend to reinforce the jiva identity. I've pointed this matter out to some who pursue such paths and haven't had a positive response! LOL :D

[kasalt]

You can very clearly see how he is producing the ash in this video:

Video link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omfr1TERdEs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omfr1TERdEs

[cleft_asunder]

The limitations of language, particularly English in this case, makes it tricky to describe, but the "goal" would be realization of the Self/Parabrahman/Paramashiva/etc.

I would say that the "experience" of the self is impossible to describe, but it is easy to say what the self is. It is no-thing in particular, pure awareness, that which you are right now but clouded by false identification with the mind. The Jnani can tell you the rest.

Progress depends on what kind of path perspective one is viewing it from. The Advaitan, the bhakti yogi, the Shaiva, the Smarta Brahmin, the Shakta, etc. are all going to have varied perspectives of what constitutes as progress and what progress the soul can make.

Though progress could also be said to occur even after realization progresses from being a Vijnanakala (self-realised jiva who free from mayiya mala and karma mala but still subject to anava mala) up through the levels that correlate to the levels that correspond to freedom from the five kancukas and a re-establishment, if you will, of embiding in the pure tattvas, corresponding to the experient level of Mantra Mahesvara and Siva Pramata.

Yeah but the whole path towards liberation is absurd because all the dogma and complexity and the methods and techniques are necessary only to teach the soul (i.e. the body that reincarnates) that all of it was nonessential. Yet paradoxically the nonessential was essential. All these schools and religions are created by the mind for the mind. The seeker likes to seek rather than find. The truth is that enlightenment isn't hard, and the most direct way to reach it is to stop thinking and just focus on 'I am.' When the mind is put aside, you live from consciousness instead, and eventually you go beyond consciousness all together into pure being.

The Advaitain methods of sadhana commonly attributed to the likes Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi could be considered either Aunpaya or Shambhavopaya methods. However there are other avenues for those who don't have the stillness of manas and clarity in cit and buddhi. It is worth noting that the likes of Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi both taught other methods and practices, such as kirtan and mantra, to those who found other means such means easier or more desirable than those which are more jnana based. Within these means there is what could be considered progress, but in a way that sounds almost contradictory, for it is a letting go and a consquencial reclaiming. Within these modes of sadhana and various margas siddhis can spontaneously arise. I don't necessarily just mean siddhis as described by the likes of Patanjali, as there are many minor siddhis and modes of perception and movements of shakti that can occur along the way.

The Jnani's always speak on a level equal to the seeker, as you know.

Choosing to develop siddhis is a path of the ego, but for the sake of clarity this is not to say those in whom siddhis spontaneously arise are choosing a path of further jivahood reinforcement. particularly when they tend to be ignored for the most part. It is interesting to note that some folk believe that certains siddhis are desirable and part of their path towards the Self. While I don't doubt the honest intentions of some of these folk I do think that it does tend to reinforce the jiva identity. I've pointed this matter out to some who pursue such paths and haven't had a positive response! LOL :D

Ramana Maharshi had certain powers that surprised him, such as out of body experience. He was able to communicate with animals, and most profound was that he found a method of liberating an individual upon death and did so with his mother and the cow Lakshmi. That is the problem I have with Ramana Maharshi. Not with him personally, but with the way seekers see him.

They believe he is more significant than other Jnani's because of his powers. It is the mind that places importance on the insignificant, and proclaimed him as "the whitest spot in a white space" based on those powers. How silly! Do they mean to say that one Jnani is more pure than another? Do they not see that that implies there is more than one Self behind a single Jnani, one Self being higher than another? But the truth is that Ramana Maharshi, Buddha, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Jesus and anyone else are all avatars of the same one Self. Therefore how could one be "whiter" than another?

The actions of the Jnani cannot be judged. They are always from the highest perspective and for the highest good.

Isn't it the Yogi's who say that one can retain their individuality after liberation? Ramana Maharshi reproached them for this.

[kasalt]

Here's another video, this one has the audio:

Video link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWIi7ch_KUM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWIi7ch_KUM

[cleft_asunder]

So many people in his audience. Amazing.

[marpat]

What does it matter if the siddhis were true or not? That neither proves nor disporves he is a guru. Therefore why do you look for siddhis? Siddhis are no more a miracle than breathing or a falling leaf, yet they are seen as miracles because of ignorance. Either everything is a miracle, or nothing is a miracle, and the former is the truth we just don't realise it because we live life through the mind. There is nothing spiritual about siddhis, and they only imply that the person has worked on mental exercises and can now perform magic tricks.

A real guru is an avatar, a personification of the absolute. He is the Self of selves manifest as human, and his message is always simple and forever the same: Find out who you are at the deepest level. When that is done, there is nothing more to do.

But why use trickery if he has a genuine message?

[eternal_spirit]

But why use trickery if he has a genuine message?
Because he's a bloomin fake, he has to hook as many people in as he can maybe? What's his genuine message, all I see is a bloated greedy looking chimp with bad hair who ate to much honey who uses slight of hand like any good con man does.

Blimey first time I read and seen his pics was 24 years ago or so in "the unexplained magazines", they had some great storys at the time.
Days before internet

[krakhead]

But why use trickery if he has a genuine message?

That would be his selling point wouldn't it? His advertising 'hook' as it were - "Look at me, I produce ash from nothing! Now, while I have gained your attention with my little parlour trick, listen to what else I have to say......"