Specific issues # 1

In this section I'll indicate specifically, on the basis of the various assertions made by Sai Baba or by his supporters (seen before at the page "General issues: what is this about?"), the contradictions and/or the flimsiness of his alleged skills. It's good thing to specify that we'll not analyze his teachings related to doctrine and general principles (morality, behaviour, etc.): they don't present anything innovative and they are exactly the same teached by any of the religions which are normally mentioned by SB (but in reality, SB's doctrine is 100% hinduist). For these reasons, they are worthy of respect and since they are matter of faith they are not in discussion. For the same reasons, those SB's doctrinal teachings are not at all a proof of his claimed "divinity": many others have teached exactly the same things, and they didn't made claims as instead SB does. We will instead analyze discrepancies in the facts and words, evident mistakes, lack of any proof, alleged divine phenomenons which perhaps are not as such... and so on. Since the great quantity of material, the section is divided in three pages.

Treated arguments:

A premise

Sai Baba world personality ?

Superior knowledges ?

- Sai Baba and human knowledges

The prophecies


A premise

In truth (I say the following because I have experienced it) it's impossible to make an analysis of these things with some devotee or Sai Baba excited people. If we find any discrepancy or failure, in what he says or does, there will ALWAYS be an escape way to explain and accept the anomaly, getting rid in this way of the annoying bug of doubt... in particular, there are three classic "escamotages" of the "Sai-style logic (or un-logic)":

  1. The concept of "Lila", or Divine Play; it is a principle of the hindu philosophy according to which, being God immanent in every form and every thing, and being all the universe his manifestation, any action, any word, any act of God are considered part of this play. Since God and his play are including "the Whole", thus cannot exist any contradiction in the play itself, but the apparent yet false one. Now, since Sai Baba "is God", that's how he can afford to do and say anything he wants and nobody will worry about this, on the contrary: the anomalies of the master, will be searched for hidden "signs" or teachings. I have heard so many times of people who were told by Sai Baba, during an interview, for example: "You have to marry, I will find you a good wife (or a good husband)", while in the next interview: "No marriage, it is a worldly thing, you must concentrate yourself on God...etc.". In the most part of cases the devotee is delighted of Baba's "divine play": "see how Baba plays with our weaknesses... He's beyond all this...";
  2. Another logical way out is the one of the "level". Practically, being different the "spiritual understanding level" of everyone of us, Baba speaks and acts according to these different knowledge levels: to a certain level he says certain things (and what when are listening more different levels mixed up? What is the right understanding level?). Thus, if I don't understand Baba or I find him contradictory, it's because I AM NOT at the right level, which obviously only him knows what is! (and we start again from the beginning...);
  3. The last way out is as much simple as absurd: Baba never contradicts himeslf, he never fails, he is anyway ALWAYS right because he is God. I as a man cannot even suppose to understand him, his actions for me will always be mysterious and inscrutable, so I must give up to understand and let myself be carried by his "current of love".

In the most part of cases, the premise: "Sai Baba claims to be God" is mistaken for one of the possible consequences of the analysis of the proofs given in support of that claim: "Sai Baba is God". It's necessary, in my opinion, to use properly a minimum of logic:

  1. the allegations, the phenomenons, the quotings regarding Sai Baba, are made with the purpose of demonstrating that he is divine; so I must read all this according to this key of reading;
  2. then, only AFTER having examinated all the available material, I will conclude if Sai Baba is what he claims to be, or not;
  3. the result is that the analysis of the claims about his powers and knowledges CAN NOT BE BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE IS GOD! This last fact is the result, not the premise.

This said, we'll now go on to analyze the claims about Sai Baba, made by himself or by his devotees or supporters.




In spite of this claim, Sai Baba has not reached any world-wide importance or relevance, not greater than the relevance of other indian godmen and gurus. He is an indian who thinks, speaks and acts as an indian: the almost entirety of what he says is taken from indian usages, culture, scriptures and mythology; while as we will see later, when he quotes or uses sources from other religions or faiths, very often he "corrects" them or indicates "mistakes" and "mystifications", but he never doubts a single line of indian scriptures. He is a phenomenon with an utterly nationalist peculiarity, who has made some proselytism also in the west and in the rest of the world. This is not unusual at all: a huge number of oriental "masters", from many years to now, receive consents in our lands. Sai Baba is worldly known mainly by his devotees, that in effect are many, but their relevance is not so great at all as they claim. At the present time, in spite of what Sai Baba has said, not a single nation neither has never invited him (apart from a journey to Africa, made on invitation of a devotee, then not an official journey), nor has never given him any importance or authority. It is true that some premier or important peoples go (or went) to see him, but they do it in a private way; and often, doing so, they divert from the protocol and the opportuneness suitable for their offices. This is even more evident for indian public persons who are devotees symphatizers of Sai Baba (judges, state governors, Presidents of the Republic, etc.): these cases represents a dangerous mixture between state authority and religious faith, which harms the public interest. But let's see what does it says Sai Baba:

"Some persons, even those who have reached a certain stage of leadership and authority, have started exchanging the Vedic formulae and the principles of Bharatiya culture for lucre, selling them, in fact; and Westerners too are inclined to purchase them! These truths and discoveries are not merchandise to be sold and bought. Therefore, I am going to Western countries soon, in order to apprise them of their real worth and put a stop to this bargaining. Already, the authorities of Universities in the United States of America and the leaders of the students of those Universities have written that they are eager to welcome Me and they have drawn up programmes for Me. It was only yesterday that passports for My visit to Africa have been brought, praying that I may visit those countries soon; I am proceeding to Africa before the month of June."

(quoted from the discourse of May 17 1968, "the revelation")

As a first thing we can note that Sai Baba, complaining for the business of spiritual values in India, thinks about to admonish the westerners not to buy them, instead of teaching his compatriots not to sell them! The principal thing, anyway, is that after more than thirty years, Sai Baba has never made a single journey abroad. This is clarifying of his claiming to be "master of the world"... the usual explanation is that "the moment has not yet come", and/or that "he must first fix India, that will be the future world leader nation". It is instead true that he has gone to Africa: and during the travel in a continent tormented by so much heavy troubles(hunger, famines, illnesses, violence, overpopulation, etc...) he left a relevant message to african peoples. By following this link you can read it, and get some news about that travel. As a confirmation of what said above, Sai Baba in a very recent press interview has said:

"Have you gone abroad any time?

Yes, only once -- to East Africa, that too because of the pure love of a devotee, who is no more now. I did not go at the invitation of the government.

Do you have any plans to visit foreign nations and spread your message?

No. Where there is sugar, the ants come there; the sugar does not go chasing after the ants. My first task is to clean up our own country first, then go to other countries."

(from the interview to "The Times of India" 12th March, 1999)

Let's read something more:

"Countries all like carriages. The engine is God. The first carriage is India. The other carriages will follow. According to the Astrology of Ancient times, the change in world conditions to be brought about by [my] influence will come in about fifteen years. This was predicted 5600 years ago in Upanishads."

(quoted from "Conversations with Sathya Sai Baba", di John Hislop - 1968)

Just a note: the most ancient Upanishads (also known as the "Vedic" ones, many other Upanishads were written by various inner sects of Hinduism) are not at all so distant: according to Carlo Della Casa (see his book "Upanishad Vediche"), they date back to a period of time between 700 b.C. and 300 b.C. and not, according to what Sai Baba says, to about 3600 b.C. (5600 - 1968 = 3632). Also Madeleine Biardeau, in her book "L'induismo", locates the vedic Upanishads around 7th century b.C.

However, the quotation above is commenting by itself: over thirty years are passed, and which world changes attributable to Sai Baba's influence happened? The answer is: none. The only visible change is the increase of his western devotees, but this is not influence on world's destiny (and in fact it doesn't have anyone...), it is proselytism, a quite common phenomenon and not divine at all. Perhaps someone may want to consider "world changes" events like this (quoted from the page "Controversies on Sai Baba", which you can read at this address):

"Fifteen years ago, Sathya Sai Baba was virtually unknown even to most of the spiritually inclined people. Now most of them have heard about him. In another fifteen years, probably the whole world will hear about him. Already there are signs for it. On May 25,1996 the Perth Mint launched a set of gold coins to commemorate (with the least publicity) Sai Baba's 70th birthday. Sai Baba blessed the few specimen coins the Perth Mint made initially by producing vibhuti (ashes) onto it. [...] Sai Baba considers himself to be a switch to God and advises people to follow [...]"

All things considered, since the page quoted above is present-day, and it says about "more 15 years" for all the world to know Baba, the total years (about 15 according to Sai Baba) become about 45! There's a certain diference... considering that meanwhile nothing is happening at all. Moreover, the last quoted phrase shows how the figure of Baba is being modified by the same devotees according to the opportuneness: there Sai is defined as "switch to God", elsewhere as "channel to the divinity", master, etc... this happens when it's clear and evident that Sai Baba's auto-definition as "divine incarnation, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc." doesn't fit the evidence of facts. But Sai's statements regarding this matter are different, radical, unequivocal.

Let's go on. Regarding "world affairs", let's read what SB has to say:

"Once when I went to Bombay, the then head of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Munshi, convened a conference of intellectuals. He requested Me to address them. One person from the audience asked Me, "Swami, America and Russia are manufacturing more and more weapons. But, India is lagging far behind in this respect. Should not India too manufacture weapons?" I told him, "Dear one, what Bharat needs today is not weaponry and warfare. It needs to uphold Dharma. Dharmo Rakshathi Rakshithaha (if you protect Dharma, Dharma will protect you in return). We should not waste money in manufacturing weapons. Some countries are spending a lot of money on defence and as a result the people of those countries are suffering for want of proper food. Only divine love and grace and not the weapons can protect the nation.

You might have read in Mahabharata that Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva implicitly obeyed the command of Dharmaja, the embodiment of Dharma. Likewise, India, America and Russia can be compared to Dharmaja, Arjuna and Bhima respectively. Just as Arjuna and Bhima obeyed Dharmaja, so also America and Russia will emulate India provided India upholds Dharma. What India needs to possess is Sathyasthra and Dharmasthra, the weapons of righteousness and truth.[...]"

(quoted from the Gurupurnima discourse of 28 July 1999)

"[...] We'll never have to harm another country because some day it could do the same with us. Any country building bombs represents a danger not only for itself, but for all the world. The Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, during a recent journey abroad, has made a similar declaration. I agree with his points of view."

(quoted and translated from an undated discouse, where SB expressed the same exact things as in the previous discourse, except for this part)

First of all we can note how, using the indian mythological symbology, Sai Baba reveals his partialness regarding America: the Pandava brothers are co-protagonists, together with Krishna, of the Mahabharata. Bhima was the most powerful of the five brothers, but he was also impetuos and with some negative qualities, sometimes bestial (especially when fighting); he is associated with Russia. Arjuna is the "container" in which Krishna, who is God, pours out his divine teaching. Arjuna represents (through Krishna's grace) the perfection in the warrior, in the devotee, in the human being, and he's associated with America. Dharmaja, who is associated with India, was the most wise of the five brothers. The passage of the discourse also shows the nationalist nature of Sai Baba's teaching. We note besides that, in spite of his omniscience, of his foresighting abilities and of his superior knowledges:

  1. Russia is represented as Bhima the powerful: Sai Baba has not foreseen the end of the eastern communist block: due to this crisis Russia (or better: the Soviet Union) has lost much of his power and authority, and it's finished the America-Russia bipolarism which SB refers to;
  2. The observations made about the nuclear weapons are self-explaining, practically SB states that: A) India must not build nuclear weapons because it has not need of them; B) India must not harm other countries; C) anyone who builds nuclear weapons is dangerous for himself and for others; D) he agrees upon with the Prime Minister on this point. As a matter of fact India, with the 1998 nuclear tests: has built nuclear bombs; has been implicitly aggressive and risked to cause a new conflict with Pakistan, which has reacted by making its nuclear test; (in effects then, in 1999, there was the nth India Pakistan conventional war); has risked to prime a new nuclear escalation, when Russia and America have abandoned the mechanism of the nuclear deterrent from long time, creating a potential hazard for the world; Sai Baba has not said a single word on the argument, although in the discourse quoted above he widely compromised himself "against" nuclear bombs in general, and against indian nuclear weapons in particular: maybe also for the Avatars the theory is different from the practice? Maybe also God judges with two (or more) different standards?
  3. It also results evident that India is quite far from that world "ideal leadership" that SB predicts; as well as it is evident that neither Russia, nor America, nor the rest of the world are "faithful to 'India", but instead they have criticized it quite hardly for the nuclear tests.

As a last quotation on the argument, let's read what Sai Baba said in 1953 regarding his "worldly mission" and the phases in which it is divided:

"The first sixteen years of this Life have been, as I have often told you, the period when Balaleela [Divine Sport] predominated and the next sixteen is being spent mostly in Mahimas [Great Miracles, manifestation of Power and Glory] in order to give Santhosha to this generation. After the thirty second year, you will see Me active more and more in the task of Upadesa or Teaching erring humanity and in directing the World along the path of Sathya, Dharma, Santhi and Prema (Truth, Duty, Peace and Love). Not that I am determined to exclude Leela and Mahima from My Activity after that. I only mean that re-establishing Dharma, correcting the crookedness of the human mind and guiding humanity back to the Sanathana Dharma will be My Task thereafter."

Let's make a quick calculation: SB's "worldly career" has started in 1940, when he has declared himself as Avatar; therefore the first phase of the mission has terminated around 1956. The second one lasted about from 1957 to around 1972; the third one has started about in 1973 and it goes on until today. The first remark is that the world had not the "fortune" of watching the "manifestations of Power and Glory" of the second phase of the mission; another remark is that the third phase, the "corrective" one, lasts from almost thirty years, without any substantial evident result. It's to be noted the evident contrast between all we have examined and this last claim:

"Let Me tell you that emphatic declarations of the Truth by Avatars were made so clearly and so unmistakably only by Krishna. In spite of the declaration, you will notice in the career of the same Krishna that He underwent defeat in His efforts and endeavours, on a few occasions; you must also note that those defeats too were part of the drama which He had planned and which He Himself directed. Now, I must tell you, that during this Sai Avatar, there is no place for even such 'drama' with scenes of failures and defeats! What I will, must take place; what I plan must succeed. I am Truth; and Truth has no need to hesitate, or fear, or bend."

(quoted from the discourse of June 9 1974, "Who is Sai?")

Finally, it seems that Sai Baba has missed some prevision; India and the rest of the world neither have taken him as a master, nor they consider him a leader or an authority. No nation follows him or ask him for the management of affairs, crisis or whatever else. The truth with which he should teach the nations is not at all cosmic and universal as it is claimed, but it is a (quite respectable) indian and Hindu doctrine that, like any other doctrine, is biased and nationalist.

This situation is furtherly confirmed by Sai Baba's speeches given on October 1999. In the speech of 16 october, which has quite nationalistic tones, SB reveals himself for what he really is: a local indian phenomena, who has a following of devotees believing that he's the "cosmic avatar" for all countries, a universal master for all people of any religion and extraction. They believe so despite their guru's words:

"For the past 60 years, the overseas devotees have been requesting Swami to come to their respective countries. On many occasions, they brought special planes. Even now they have chalked out a programme for Swami to make a world tour. But I have no such desires. That which is not present in Bharat is not present anywhere else. What is there to see in a foreign land!"

(from the speech of 16 october 1999)

Sai Baba has already said these things many other times, the new thing is in the fact that this time, he tries to "sell" the fact that he has never been invited abroad, and that he will never go abroad, as an act of his own will. The reality, instead, is that nobody has never invited him in any foreign country; surely some devotees may have invited him to their homes, but not in the official capacity that Sai Baba, who considers himself God, surely thinks to deserve. No state or religious leader has never, in any way, considered him. Therefore SB now tries to tell us that in reality it's him who doesn't want to travel. Children at basic schools are less capricious than him...!



The argument upholding this claim sounds like this: "Baba is God, therefore he has at his disposal any knowledge, human and not, in any field, and he trascends all them". In the field of sacred scriptures, he is considered the "First Author and Actor" of anyone of them: anything he says on these arguments, is considered Truth by his devotees.

Also this one allegation is destined to be denied by facts, even from the same words of Sai Baba; let's begin right from the sacred scriptures:

"[...] In the Gospel, Jesus expresses the same concept. At the beginning of His divine Mission, he presents himself as a messenger of God; later he attests to be Son of God. [...] Finally, in the last period of His life, he identifies himself with the Father, passing from the dualistic phase to the unity."

(taken and translated from the speech of 15 October 1988)

While after:

"Jesus considered himself an Amsha Avatara. He stated: "I and the Father are one" and, declaring this, he did not abandon the concept of Father. In the expression "I and the Father are one" there is dualism, and Jesus still lived this kind of dualistic feeling. When he was crucified and he was to give the last breath, he exclaimed: "Father, Father, Father! Have you forgotten me? Have you forgotten me?" And he repeated three times "have you forgotten me?". Still in the last moments, Jesus had conserved the feeling of being different from the Father. In this is the difference between an Amsha Avatara and a Purna Avatara [like Sai Baba...]."

(quoted and translated from the Christmas 1988 speech)

First remark: in no passage of the Gospels Jesus has never made affirmations confirming what Sai Baba says in the first quote; he always defined himself "Son of God". Second remark: Jesus has never asserted to consider himself an "Avatara" of any kind.

This is a first example of how SB contradicts himself clearly in his public speeches: on October 15 he states that Jesus went through three distinct phases during his mission, passing from the dualism (the Son of God) to the unity (identification with the Father); about three months later, at Christmas, SB states the exact contrary, that Jesus had never left the dualistic status of "Son of God". Now, being Sai Baba an upholder of the "non-dualism" or Advaita Vedanta, it is indicative the fact that he represents Jesus as an "a little limited" divine being right on Christmas day, seeming to diminish him and the christian scriptures at christian's eyes, quite in the most meaningful day. Let's read more, from the 1998 Christmas discourse:

"The term Christmas has been derived from the Roman language. Truly speaking, Christmas falls in the month of March, not in December: Since it is very cold in December and people are confined to their homes, they use this time to celebrate Christmas. Actually Jesus was born in the month of March. With the passage of time, this fact has been distorted and misrepresented in the Bible. [...] Each one interpreted Bible in his own way. Some wrote that Jesus was never born. Some wrote that it was the brother of Jesus crucified, not Jesus and that He was in Japan at that time. This is all imagination. Jesus is Truth."

As we can see the arguments are of a tremendous poverty: it's probably true that Christmas (meaning the birth date of Christ) is not on December 25; but it was moved at that date, which coincides with an important recurrence of pre-christian solar cults, right to conciliate and englobe those "pagan" cults... but surely not because "it is very cold in December and people are confined to their homes"!!!

Here again, first SB tries to demolish the acquired knowledges, then he proposes his ones... You will never see Sai Baba doing the same with Rama or Krishna: is this an example of coherence, and of universal teaching? Always regarding SB's knowledges on Jesus, look at this page about the "photos" of Christ...

But let's continue:

[someone raises the question:]

1) Did Jesus really declare that He was the Truth, the path and none superior to Him?

Enquire into the truth yourself. Jesus was never egoistic at any point of time. Never did Jesus declare that He was the Truth, the path, the savior and the redeemer. It was the work of the compilers of the Bible that led to the mistaken notion.[...]

[and more]

[...] In the beginning even Romans were Jews, not Christians. It is only after the advent of Jesus that the term Christians came into use. He (Jesus) said that He was 'Persona' meaning that He was the spark of Divine. This has been translated by the British as 'Person', which has been termed as 'Purusha' by Bharatiyas. Therefore, 'Purusha' or 'Persona' have originated from the Roman language. 'Persona' means sacredness. Since man has divinity inherent in him he is called as a person.[...]

(quotes from the discourse of 24 November 1998)

In the first quote, SB practically states that the Bible, the Gospels and the other scriptures were distorted and manipulated; the natural consequence is that their authentic sense is the one given us by him. If it is so, why we would have to take for true the indian myths and scriptures, which he never discuss but, instead, he advocates as true? These writings are even more ancient of the Bible, and for many centuries they were handed down by oral traditions: why therefore, they could not have been manipulated? Why these ones are supposed to be true, and the other scriptures are not? Only because he (who is an indian) says so? Isn't this the position of any institutional religion?

Anyway we can note the subtle logical course: first Sai Baba states (without any valid and demonstrable objective argument) that the Bible were manipulated, then he reinterprets it according to his own convenience. If he is really the author and the expert of all scriptures, he would have to bring some valid argument supporting his interpretations, and he would have to be able to do so... but it stands as a fact:

Gospel according to John (John 14,6): "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. "

Regarding the second quote, we are in the field of a total incompetence, if not of the ignorance (meaning literally "of who ignores"): what could it mean that "In the beginning even Romans were Jews"?!?!? They surely were not such as ethnic group, while the roman pre-christian religion was formed by a certain number of tutelar divinities and a pantheon of greek-mesopotamic derivation, but certainly not jewish! (on the argument see the book of Ambrogio Donini, or any other hystory of religions).

It's desolating the obviousness of the affirmation about the word "christian": how could it ever be used before Jesus Christ? Anyway, this word was adopted only after the Council of Antioch:

The Acts of the Apostles (Acts 11,26): "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

Going on, it doesn't seems that Jesus has never defined himself "person" in the sense (totally arbitrary) given by Sai Baba. Moreover, he derives the sanskrit word "purusha" (word that means, briefly, the divine creative intelligence) from the latin "persona", and he tells us that this word means sacredness. It's necessary to remark that:

  1. sanskrit is more ancient than latin, therefore "purusha" cannot derive from "persona"; (and their meaning are quite different)
  2. etymology of "persona": " from the latin persona (=mask, then character), maybe from the greek pr˛sopon (=mask) through the etruscan phersu. The etruscan phersu is perhaps related to Perseph˛ne. Among the derivates character, personal, personality, to personify. An interesting etymology of persona is from per and sonare (=to sound through) referring to the theatrical wooden mask in which the mouth was made in a way to strengthen the sound of the voice (ut personaret). (from the etymologycal dictionary of Barbara Colonna)


Now here is a passage from a speech in which Sai Baba describes an episode from the last moments of Jesus' life:

"When Jesus was being crucified, he cried out to God, "O God, why do You punish me like this?" Immediately he realised the truth and said, 'O God, let your Will Prevail. it is You who has created me, sustained me and protected me. I will not act against your will. It was a mistake on my part to blame you.' When he recognised his mistake, an ethereal vioce said, 'All are one my dear son, be alike to everyone.' "

(From the speech of 1st october 1998)

The last statement, "All are one my dear son, be alike to everyone", is totally absent in the Gospels, and it is simply the adaptation of one of the many sayings which Sai Baba constantly repeats: "All life is One, be alike to everyone". Let's now see how the Gospels describe the same episode:

Gospel according to Matthew (Matthew 27,46-50): "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [...] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. "

Gospel according to Mark (Mark 15,34-37): "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?  [...] And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost."

Gospel according to Luke (Luke 23,46): "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

Gospel according to John (John 19,28-30): After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

As we can see, Sai Baba quotes in a coarse and wrong way a Gospel's episode (When Jesus was being crucified, he cried out to God, "O God, why do You punish me like this ?"), yet adding some elements which are non-existant in any of the Gospels, but which are only fruit of his fantasies and of the distorsions which he is used to add to the scriptures of non-indian religions. Yet it is a matter of fact that Sai Baba's saying is not in accordance with any of the Gospels.


Finally, here is a lasting quote, to close the "Jesus" topic:

"Moses used to think of Jesus all the time. As a result, his face shone with divine effulgence. He resembled Jesus so much that people used to mistake him for Jesus.."

(from the speech of 25 march 1999)

It would seem almost useless to remember, as anybody who has even just a superficial knowledge of the Bible knows, that Jesus has come much, much time after Moses: the latter is, according to the Old Testament, the leader sent by the God of Israel to free his people from the Babylonian captivity and lead it to the promise land. Now, the "Babylonian captivity" of the jewish people is an historical fact, and it dates up to 6th-5th century b.C. Thus one cannot see how it could have been possible for Moses to "think of Jesus", who would have been born some 500-600 years later.

At this point it is necessary to remember that Sai Baba is regarded, by his devotees and supporters, as the First Author and Actor of every sacred scripture; his commentaries are regarded as exact "a priori", on the ground of his alleged omniscienza and of his status of Supreme Divine Incarnation (these also are claimed "a priori", and were never proved). But the documentation we have seen and that we will see, doesn't seem to confirm at all such claims.

In this page, instead, we find some interesting "incursions" of Sai Baba in the history of Alexander the Great and greek philosophers... but it's time for an argument change, let's see what happens approaching natural sciences:

"[...] Among the five elements, Earth is the primary one. It pervades all. The mountains, the rivers, the villages, the cities, etc have the earth as foundation. The scientists discovered that the earth rotates on itself. In such case, also all the objects on the earth would have to turn, but it's not so. Earth has the divine power of the gravity; it withholds the things. [...]"

(quoted and translated from the discourse of 23 November 1993)

First of all, we can see how first "earth" stands as one of the "five primary elements" (earth, water, wind, fire, ether), while immediately after, with a nice "twisting" of the meaning, Sai Baba means "earth" as Planet Earth. The disquisition on the "divine gravity " and on objects that would have to turn around is simply ridicolous... we can continue with this dialogue:

SB: At the center everything is liquid.

RB: Does Swami mean the world?

SB: Yes, everything is melted. No temperature.

RB: No heat, Swami?

SB: No temperature. Everything is liquid. Like water. Gold, iron, silver, gems, all are liquid. Next there is solid. Then trees.

JH: Trees, Swami? Trees like we see around us?

SB: Yes, trees. Then human beings and animals. At the very center is the Divine. It is the support of everything. First is liquid, chemistry. Then solid, physics. Then trees, botany. Then man, the pinnacle of life. But at the center, supporting all, is the Divine. Without the Divine, where is chemistry, physics, botany? Like this will be the teaching of all courses at the University. The students will understand the full picture.

(Dialogue quoted from "My Baba & I" by John Hislop)

SB's university teachings are really like this? WOW! Nice ones! A part from the confusion between phisycal states (liquid, solid), natural kingdoms (botany/trees) and living species (man/animals), here it's astonishing the statement: "everything is liquid, everything is melted, THERE'S NO TEMPERATURE". There's no "absence of temperature"! We could have high, low, very high, very low temperature (and if all is melted it will be very high), or at the absolute zero, but never the LACK OF TEMPERATURE! These affirmations show a total ignorance of the most elementary physics. Maybe are these the superior knowledges? And scientists and experts worldwide would go to Sai Baba to hear thing as such? But there's something else:

"For example, they [the scientists] say that the moon is lifeless. Simultaneously, they maintain that all matter consists of moving atoms. Now isn't the moon also a conglomerate of the same moving atoms? Then how can it be lifeless? There is no matter which does not consist of atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons, which are also constantly moving. This energy, too, is God."

(taken from the 1976 "Blitz Interview")

The difference between animated and inert matter, between the living and the not-living is not so clear to: for him the molecular motion or the electron's motion in the atom means life. Finally a last quotation:

"[...] All the nature is formed of a mass of energy in combustion. Inside and outside of this mass there is fire.[...] In all human beings there are divine spirits, just like the air pervades every point of the etherical space. For the air the support is the sky: this one is like its shelter.[...]"

(quoted and translated from the speech of 23 November 1988)

Energy doesn't burns; the "etherical space" was demonstrated as false some decade ago; the "sky as a support" some century ago... and what is the limit of the etherical space? Is it where the air ends? Therefore, out of earth's atmosphere there is no ether? But this one, in his own old shaping, is a "medium" which pervades all the universe. Then, if air pervades all the etherical space, it would have to exist air also in the external space of the Earth and in the intergalactic void... and now a lasting "lollipop":

"[...] Earth, the first element, is the basis for mountains and hills, rivers and oceans, villages and cities, jungles and forests. You can very well imagine the immense power of the earth, which supports all these. The earth is endowed with infinite power. Scientists have discovered that the earth rotates. True. Logically speaking, the rivers, oceans, mountains, villages and the cities should also rotate when the earth, the basis, rotates. It is not so in reality. It is only the earth that rotates. [...]"

(from the discourse of 14 January 1999)

Wow again! That's also nice! SB thinks that only the core of the planet rotates, while things on the surface don't rotate, maybe since he doesn't perceives any rotation... THAT'S TERRIBLE. Centuries of human thought and scientific discoveries to still hear things like that, FROM AN "ALL-KNOWING ONE"... does Sai Baba has ever heard something about that strange thing called "force of gravity"...? Yet even very recently SB has stated again the same stupidities (notice, I define them as such because they are pronounced by a guy who claims to be "God Omniscient and Omnipotent", who therefore simply cannot afford to to say such things), if possible in an even worse shape:

"In nature there are mountains, forests, cities, villages, rivers and oceans. Mother Earth bears all its weight. Those who have no familiarity with scientifical disciplines could have a doubt. 'If Earth does rotate, then mountains, forests and rivers which are on it would have to rotate too. Therefore, if Earth rotates at such a great speed, then what will ever be of all the things which are on it?' Earth is not autonomous. It depends on the Divine Energy contained in it. And it is this Divine Energy which maintains the equilibrium. It is this energy (God) to prevent all these things from rotating with the Earth. When a train moves rapidly, what would be of the passengers if the binary would move too? Earth rotates, but the five elements don't rotate. Because of the gravitation force, mountains, trees, rivers and oceans absolutely don't undergo to the rotating motion."

(from a speech of 15 may 2000, personal translation from italian edition)

First of all, in nature there are no cities and villages... since these are an artificial product of human activities. Then the sentence: "Mother Earth bears all its weight" shows that probably SB considers the planet Earth as a pre-existant and indipendent "supporto", on which "someone" later has put "mountains, forests, cities, villages, rivers and oceans", and thus the Earth has to bear its weight. In reality the Earth doesn't "bear the weight" of anything, because all that in SB's opinion is "on the Earth", it is instead part of the Earth itslef, and part of the same Earth's weight. Nobody has ever added anything of which "bearing the weight". Then SB says: "Those who have no familiarity with scientifical disciplines could have a doubt": is perhaps him thinking to clear us such doubts, with those "divine knowledges" he has shown? And truly quite him, who is totally ignorant in scientifical matters (and not only that), has such doubts. Let's analyze these statements:

In short, maybe SB would have to go back to school for a while... right him, who is the founder of a "superior educational system"! Closing this part: from Sai Baba's own words, he doesn't seems to show neither relevant, nor superior knowledges, in the examined fields; and this alone would be enough to invalidate his claim to be "all-knowing"; in fact, he shows manifestly wrong knowledges. Finally, it is not known of any scientist or specialist, in any branch of human knowledge, who has received useful advice from SB, or who has affirmed, for example: "I have made this discovery [even useful for the human kind], thanks to Sai Baba advising".


Sai Baba and "human" knowledges

It is interesting to know Sai Baba's attitude towards "human" knowledge (meant as opposed to the "divine" one), which he often defines with many qualities: worldly, bookish, material... his vision, in my opinion, is extremely generical and vague, to say nothing (as we have seen above) of the lack of any kind of competence; his position can be summed up (more or less) as follows:


reading from Sai Baba's own words:

"[...]What all that has been revealed by spiritual investigation and scientific truth as all the energy present in an atom. All that is seen and heard in the physical world is present within an atom. It is only the combination of the atoms that has taken the shape of the world now. The five elements represent the combination of the atoms. All the food that we take, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the sound we listen to is a result of the atom. There is no world without an atom. The whole world is nothing but expansion of an atom. [...] The field of science has taken about a thousand years to prove the fact that the atom is present all over the world. But, thousands of years ago Prahlada, a little boy, could know and reveal the mystery of an atom. The teaching of Prahlada is this that the divine principle is present right from microcosmic atom and spread to the macroscopic universe.[...] This energy is present everywhere. All that is heard and seen is full of energy. To know this vast expanse of ever spreading energy, spirituality has given us certain paths."

(quoted from the discourse of 21 November 1995)

and in this other excerpt:

"[...] In every man there are numerous latent potencies of which he is not aware. The scientists have given different names to the different energies such as "psychotronic energy" and "bioplasmic energy".[...] It took the scientists one thousand years to discover that what was present in the whole universe was made up of atoms. But many aeons earlier, in the Krita Yuga itself, this truth was recognized by Prahlada.[...]"

(quoted from the discourse of 20 July 1997, Gurupurnima festival)

(A note: in the official experimental sciences, the only ones shared, approved and verifiable by any scientist around the world, there's nothing such as "psychotronic energy" and "bioplasmic energy"! Maybe it's findable in the "Sai-style sciences"...)

Elsewhere SB has even heavier hand towards science and material knowledges; the scientific method is often disliked by personages like him because they, when putted to test and required to give proof of their claims, THEY CAN NOT GIVE ANYONE. In fact, putting aside the hypothesis of fraud or trick, the "sages" and mystical ones, according to SB:

A) are very difficult to be found

B) even if you find them, they will be reluctant to speak to you because:

C) the mystical wisdom and knowledges cannot be communicated with words.

And this all is also an excellent excuse. The result is, or better would be, a total knowledge reachable only by the same mystical man who perceived it, a wisdom that however is totally useless for the rest of human kind. If it's true that human Se e' vero che le knowledges are often dangerous and/or they are used in bad ways, and if it is true that the "ancient sages" know everything from thousand years, what have they done for the humanity? Why they have not warned it from the dangers and the possible errors? The "after-time" mystical ones "knew already everything"; where are they when they can be useful to the human kind? The same Sai Baba with his "Divine Wisdom", by his own admission (we'll see ahead) is not able to intervene in human history. Personally I don't know what do of those divine wisdoms which are unusable, incommunicable, given only of afterwit and of a certain arrogance.

Let's read again:

"How can science which is bound to a physical and materialist outlook investigate transcendental phenomena beyond its scope, reach or comprehension? This is a fallacy on the face of it. One belongs to the material and the other to a spiritual plane. Science must confine its inquiry only to things belonging to the human senses, while spiritualism transcends the senses. If you want to understand the nature of spiritual power you can do so only through the path of spirituality and not science. What science has been able to unravel is merely a fraction of the cosmic phenomena; it tends, however, to exaggerate its contribution.."

(taken from the 1976 "Blitz Interview")

It is the exact contrary! Science occupies hitself with Sai Baba (and similar phenomenons) because he invades the field in which science has the language, the technique and the instruments to check a phenomenon and say if it is true or not, if it is regulated by some laws or it is result of trickery or illusion, and to communicate this all making it available to others, to be verified or denied.

It is Sai Baba who claims to produce phenomenons and materializations in the material field, kingdom of the human senses and science, denying to subject himself to control methods and instruments. What moral smack it would be if science which "... tends, however, to exaggerate its contribution", would subject Sai Baba to a controlled experiment and then would have to admit that he is right... but he refuses to do so, adducing ridicolous and haughty excuses, and so giving many good reason to his detractors to believe that his phenomenons are not genuine, or that they are not "phenomenons" at all.

"[...] The very fact that science is changing all the time proves its incapacity to investigate the ultimate and absolute truth. Some time ago, scientists maintained that the atom cannot be broken, but recently they succeeded in breaking it. They are still ignorant about the realities of the pranic force behind the atom, which is the least of its components."

(quoted from the Blitz Interview)

The first phrase shows Sai Baba's ignorance refarding the scientific method: he mistakes its flexibility for incapacity. The scientists elaborate many theories, and the one which better fits the practical observation is adopted, until a better one is proposed; if this last one shows a better adherence with the examined natural phenomenons, only in this case it will substitute the old one. All this process requires: discussion, examination, communication, sharing, collaboration; all aspects that are extraneous to the mystical experience. Immediately after SB, as a good pseudo-scientist, uses the scientific language: "the pranic force behind the atom, which is the least of its components.", yet without giving any rigorous and verifiable definition of it... again, is the mystical man that deals inopportunely with things out of his competence, and not contrary.

A frequent cliche' in the Sai environment is the one of the "cold man of science": I've read and heard this sentence very often: "even the cold man of science, when approaching Sai Baba, understands and recognizes the divinity...etc...", and similar sentences. I support instead that there is much more enthusiasm and love for truth (the one demonstrable and shareable with everybody) in an honest scientist, rather than in certain cheap mysticism. That cliche' is needed by the spiritual ones to denigrate science (of which however, they every day take advantage of), and then to propagate their alternative pseudo-realities. Shall we want to discuss about the iciness that there is on the eastern view of the world? A "nullistic" vision, where all is karma, all is unavoidable, and there's always someone who "already knew everything" (but has never told it to you)? A vision in which any our aspiration, knowledge, desire, decision, is in reality false and deceptive? Is there something colder than this? Yes, it is true that instead of all this, Sai Baba proposes to us the "merging with the Divine Principle", but it happens that it's an extremely difficult thing to obtain, even after countless lives, and who obtained it doesn't tells...

A lasting consideration: if science and technology are such cheap things to Sai Baba, who has the millennary and divine knowledge in his hands, he would have to avoid also the use of its products, such as: the car and the helicopter to move, the computers, internet, the medical devices in his hospital, the audiovisuals, the audio diiffusion systems in the ashram, the weapons of the policemen that defended him (and they have killed some) when he was attacked, the metal detectors in the temple... (God really needs them?) Why don't him makes everything by means of his "Sankalpa shakti" (divine will and power)?

"The teaching of arrogant people has this particularity: they don't know how to expound with humbleness what they teach, and even the right things they know, they are not able to impart them correctly. When they theach they give the impression of regarding themselves as on very high levels and from there looking down to the listeners, to which they seem not sending advises, but rather imperious orders".

(Saint Gregory the Great)




This is one of the more quoted and less discussed aspects of Sai Baba's apologetical literature. He would be the fulfillment of a certain number of prophecies which (some more, some less), with great precision, would have announced "the advent" of SB in the world. The principal ones are:

The most part of these prophecies is quoted by Giancarlo Rosati in his book "Il Cristo e' tornato". But now let's see the words that Sai Baba himself attributes to Jesus Christ, announcing his own "coming":

"[...]There is one point that I cannot but bring to your special notice today. At the moment when Jesus was emerging in the Supreme Principle of Divinity, He communicated some news to his followers, which has been interpreted in a variety of ways by commentators and those who relish the piling of writings upon writings and meanings upon meanings, until it all swells up into a huge mess.

The statement itself has been manipulated and tangled into a conundrum. The statement of Christ is simple. "He who sent me among you will come again!", and He pointed to a lamb. The lamb is merely a symbol, a sign. It stands for the Voice -- Ba-Ba; the announcement was of the Advent of Baba. "His Name will be Truth," Christ declared. Sathya means Truth. "He will wear a robe of red, a blood-red robe." (Here Baba pointed to the robe He was wearing!) He will be short with a crown (of hair). The lamb is the sign and symbol of Love. Christ did not declare that He will come again, He said, "He who made me will come again." That Ba-Ba is this Baba, and Sai, the short, curly-hair-crowned red-robed Baba is come. He is not only in this Form, but he is in every one of you, as the Dweller in the Heart. He is there, short, with a robe of the color of the blood that fills it. [...]"

(quoted from the discourse of Christmas 1973, and present in "Sai Baba, God Incarnate", di V.Kanu)

Here again the same: SB starts throwing mud on christian scriptures, but the nice thing is that he then quotes the nonexistent! Jesus has never said nothing similar to what is above; but the most part of the signs, wrongly mentioned by Sai Baba in that excerpt belong instead to the Revelation of St. John.


The revelation of St. John.

For a more legibility, I placed on a separate page the material related to this prophecy. Click here to go reading this page.


The prophecy of Muhammad.

Also this part is on a dedicated page. Click here to go visiting it.


The prophecies of Pope John XXIII.

Also this part has its page. Click here to go reading it.



Go to the Next page, go back to the Opening page, or choose another page:


General issues: what is this about?

The travel to Sai Baba, and my personal experience

Specific issues # 1

Specific issues # 2

Specific issues # 3

Specific issues # 4



Glossary of terms

Related links (pro and con !!!)


The "Golden Age" of Sai

"Loose" quotations

Sai Baba - the "Bad Side"

Links to the thematic pages