8
8
0
0
1
1
.
.
I
I
N
N
T
T
R
R
O
O
D
D
U
U
C
C
T
T
I
I
O
O
N
N
T
T
O
O
A
A
N
N
I
I
N
N
C
C
A
A
R
R
N
N
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N
N
dition with which they come into contact (see p.267 below). But it is too strong to
conclude, as Hummel (1984:16), for example, does, that Sathya Sai Baba’s teach-
ings ‘bring forth little newness with regard to content’. Robert Elwood (1973:248)
too, summarizing Sathya Sai Baba’s teachings, states that they are ‘rather conser-
vative’ and ‘fairly general’:
he talks of re-establishing the authority of the Vedas and sounds, in Hindu terms,
rather conservative. …He emphasizes the values of vegetarianism and purity of diet
and action characteristic of the Vishnuite tradition. He talks of the central function
of the avatar, the restitution of dharma or divine law, but in fairly general terms.
And Babb (1983:117) avers that:
His views are simplistic, eclectic, and essentially unoriginal… it is very difficult to
imagine a Hindu auditor or reader of Sathya Sai Baba’s discourses reacting with sur-
prise.
But there is direct evidence to the contrary in this last case. Even Sathya Sai
Baba’s current translator, Anil Kumar—who one might think ought to be thor-
oughly familiar with, and conditioned to, Sathya Sai Baba’s ideas—reports his not
infrequent astonishment at aspects of Sathya Sai Baba’s teachings: ‘Sometimes I
even forget to translate, and instead I say, “Abba! What a statement, Swami!”’
22
.
There is also counterevidence to assertions by Babb (1983:117) and Elwood
(1973:248) that Sathya Sai Baba’s teachings are generally unimportant—eclipsed
by his miracles. H. Daniel Smith (1978:60) notes of Sathya Sai Baba that: ‘He is
certainly not loath to perform miracles, but he professes to prefer transmitting his
spiritual powers and life-giving message in the form of elevating discourses and
enlightening aphorisms’—Sathya Sai Baba himself sees his teachings as important.
Another view that Sathya Sai Baba expresses in regard to his teachings (see
p.232) and which is reflected in the opinions of devotees and academics, and even
finds its way into the published views of some of his detractors, is that his teach-
ings are simplified versions of traditional views. Anil Kumar claims that he:
can explain the most difficult things in a simple way, certain that we can understand
it. That is the purpose of the Avatar. The purpose of the Avatar is to make compli-
cated things simple…!
23
Similarly, anti Sathya Sai Baba activist Alexandra Nagel writes that: ‘His teachings
can be summarised in a few of [sic] words, epitomising five human values: truth,
tended to ‘overlook the intellectual dimensions of classical bhakti… and to reduce bhakti too quickly
to the current of Hinduism which gives predominance to affectivity and thus identifies its essence in
religious emotion’. But bhakti does do this latter too, and I will consider it in this light in Chapter 4.
22
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saidevotees_worldnet/message/1881 [19-4-2007]
23
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saidevotees_worldnet/message/1877 [19-4-2007]
1
1
.
.
4
4
I
I
n
n
c
c
a
a
r
r
n
n
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
&
&
I
I
n
n
n
n
o
o
v
v
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
8
8
1
1
right conduct, peace, love and non-violence’
24
; Hummel (1984:16) characterizes
his teachings as ‘essentially the old assertions bearing the imprint of Hinduism in a
simplified, comprehensible form’; and Palmer (2005:104) agrees, citing a devotee’s
testimony to this effect. On top of this, several sociological studies of Sathya Sai
Baba’s localized followings present similar viewpoints—Mearns (1995:268), for
example, writes that: ‘In many of Baba’s pronouncements and stipulations, the
emphasis is on discipline and the simplification of devotion’.
Bharati (1981a:55) likewise writes:
[Sathya Sai Baba’s] sermon is simple, simplistic, theologically unsophisticated, and
self-centered—he is God incarnate for the benefit of this age, in line with the state-
ment of the Bhagavadgītā, which says that God incarnates himself in every age, for
the protection of the righteous, and the destruction of the wicked. …Hindus will
accept the words of an illiterate charismatic if there is a consensus that he is indeed
a holy man, a seer. There is an oft-quoted Sanskrit saying which states that the
guru is identical with Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva, the three most powerful deities of
the Hindu pantheon, and by extension with the divine spirit.
Sathya Sai Baba, however, sometimes turns both of these specific traditional ex-
amples on their heads. Thus, he says:
The Puranas [‘ancient’ mythological traditions] and the ancient sages have declared
that the Divine incarnates to punish the wicked and protect the good. This is not
correct. The Divine incarnates to inculcate love in mankind and teach how love
should be promoted and practised [(29-7-1988) S21 21:169].
This, in the terms I am using, is an ethicization of tradition. It is also an assertion
of charismatic authority as defined by Weber: “It is written…, but I say unto
you…”. Similarly, following this pattern, Sathya Sai Baba elsewhere says:
You repeat the shloka [verse] …usually interpreted as indicating that the Guru is
Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara [Śiva] and that he is the visible Parabrahma [su-
preme spirit]. But, it is capable of a nobler interpretation: “Brahma is the Guru,
Vishnu is the Guru, Maheshwara is the Guru, really Parabrahma is the Guru.” Do not
seek human Gurus, however great their reputation. They are not gu (gunaatheetha---
beyond the Gunas [‘qualities’ of the world]… They are not ru (beyond Form)…
Themselves limited, how can they communicate to you the Unlimited? Pray to the
God within you…. Accept that as the Guru.... [(18-7-1970) S10 15:97]
This can hardly be called “simple”, as Bharati would like (although it is perhaps
simplistic); nor is it self-centred (although it might be seen as promoting self-
centredness). Sathya Sai Baba’s teachings are evidently more than merely a sim-
plified “conservative” reiteration of traditional ideas.
24
http://www.saiguru.net/english/articles/02guruaccused.htm [19–2–2006].