Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Clarifications on Shirdi Sai ...

dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:40:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
devotee : Recently, again Shri Shankaracharya (Shri Swaroopananda ji) criticized Shri Shirdi Sai Baba on the following points:
2) How can you say that Baba is the incarnation of Dattatreya? There is no power in chanting the name of Sai. Do not add the word Ram to Sai and call Him as Sai Ram?

Swami replied:

2) This Shankaracharya says that there is no proof that Baba is incarnation of Lord Dattatreya. Baba appeared as Lord Dattatreya to devotees. This point is based on the authority of experience (Anubhava Pramaana) of devotees. Hindu scriptures say that among the four authorities of knowledge (Shruti, Smruti, Yukti and Anubhava), experience or anubhava is the final authority. If he says that the experience of scholars (vidvadanubhava) alone is the authority, there should be an authority to decide who the scholar is. A person seeing two moons in the sky due to his eye-defect says that he is the scholar. Another person, who sees single moon in the sky due to lack of eye-defect says that he is the scholar.

Between these two, who decides that the first person alone has eye-defect? Only majority of people decides since majority is not having eye-defect. Now, majority of people says that Baba is the incarnation of Lord Dattatreya. This Shankaracharya alone is the only person seen now saying that Baba is not human incarnation of God Datta. Therefore, this Shankaracharya alone has the eye-defect claiming himself as the scholar! Several devotees experienced the same divinity in Rama and Baba. This person alone is seen, who contradicts such experience of majority. This person says that the name of Sai is not having any divine power. Several people have practically experienced the divine power of the name of Sai and such people alone can be the authority in such point. Several people have tasted a sweet and tell that it is sweet in taste.

This person did not taste that sweet and says that it is not sweet in taste! You neither taste the sweet nor agree to the experience of people, who have tasted the sweet! If you also utter the name of Sai for some time and still do not get the divine experience, we can think a little about your case. Even then, we cannot give weightage to your experience because you are a rare case whereas others are many. Your case does not come under this category also because you never tasted the sweet. A person having defect in the eyes may see two moons in the sky. You cannot be compared to that person having the eye-defect since you are not seeing the moon at all. You are a blind person saying that there are two moons in the sky! The person having eye-defect saying so can be excused a little because at least he is seeing the moon in the sky. In your case, you are not seeing the moon at all being totally blind and no trace of excuse can be given to you.
I don't have words even to criticize this Shankaracharya because on one side he is accepting Rama, Krishna, Adi Shankara, etc., as human incarnations of God and on the other side, he is criticising Baba since Baba is in human form (because he called Baba as ghost as in the case of all the ordinary human beings, which become ghosts after death).

If you say that there is difference between Adi Shankara and Baba, you must show the reasons for your argument. Human incarnation of God is mainly for preaching the spiritual knowledge to humanity because God is mainly characterized by spiritual knowledge as His identity mark (Prajnaanam Brahma, Satyam Jnaanam Anantam Brahma " Veda). Shankara preached the true spiritual knowledge to scholars in the scholastic language whereas Baba preached the same spiritual knowledge to ordinary human beings in their ordinary language. Both have done the same work and both are human incarnations of the same God Shiva.

God being the Divine Father (Aham bijapradah pitaa " Gita) of all the souls, He is interested to uplift all the souls. Do you want that scholars alone should be uplifted and not other ordinary people? Do you insist that every human being should become scholar to get salvation? If so, how the uneducated Gopikas got the salvation? Knowledge is, no doubt, required as the first step. But, the second step is the practice of such knowledge that alone gives the salvation. If somebody enters directly into practice, there is no necessity of the knowledge since such person attained the true knowledge in the previous birth itself and hence, entered into practice straight in this birth. Gopikas were sages in the previous birth and attained perfect spiritual knowledge already. Hence, in this birth, they entered straight into the practice.

Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa says that once you have purchased the items from the shop (practice or karma yoga), there is no need of the list containing the names of those items (knowledge or jnana yoga). Let us take the case of Adi Shankara Himself. He never studied anything from anybody. He became the saint straight in the childhood itself and entered into practice, which is propagation of the spiritual knowledge throughout His life.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 9:05:38 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:40:25 PM, dattaswami wrote:
devotee : Recently, again Shri Shankaracharya (Shri Swaroopananda ji) criticized Shri Shirdi Sai Baba on the following points:
2) How can you say that Baba is the incarnation of Dattatreya? There is no power in chanting the name of Sai. Do not add the word Ram to Sai and call Him as Sai Ram?

Swami replied:

2) This Shankaracharya says that there is no proof that Baba is incarnation of Lord Dattatreya. Baba appeared as Lord Dattatreya to devotees. This point is based on the authority of experience (Anubhava Pramaana) of devotees. Hindu scriptures say that among the four authorities of knowledge (Shruti, Smruti, Yukti and Anubhava), experience or anubhava is the final authority. If he says that the experience of scholars (vidvadanubhava) alone is the authority, there should be an authority to decide who the scholar is. A person seeing two moons in the sky due to his eye-defect says that he is the scholar. Another person, who sees single moon in the sky due to lack of eye-defect says that he is the scholar.

Between these two, who decides that the first person alone has eye-defect? Only majority of people decides since majority is not having eye-defect. Now, majority of people says that Baba is the incarnation of Lord Dattatreya. This Shankaracharya alone is the only person seen now saying that Baba is not human incarnation of God Datta. Therefore, this Shankaracharya alone has the eye-defect claiming himself as the scholar! Several devotees experienced the same divinity in Rama and Baba. This person alone is seen, who contradicts such experience of majority. This person says that the name of Sai is not having any divine power. Several people have practically experienced the divine power of the name of Sai and such people alone can be the authority in such point. Several people have tasted a sweet and tell that it is sweet in taste.

This person did not taste that sweet and says that it is not sweet in taste! You neither taste the sweet nor agree to the experience of people, who have tasted the sweet! If you also utter the name of Sai for some time and still do not get the divine experience, we can think a little about your case. Even then, we cannot give weightage to your experience because you are a rare case whereas others are many. Your case does not come under this category also because you never tasted the sweet. A person having defect in the eyes may see two moons in the sky. You cannot be compared to that person having the eye-defect since you are not seeing the moon at all. You are a blind person saying that there are two moons in the sky! The person having eye-defect saying so can be excused a little because at least he is seeing the moon in the sky. In your case, you are not seeing the moon at all being totally blind and no trace of excuse can be given to you.
I don't have words even to criticize this Shankaracharya because on one side he is accepting Rama, Krishna, Adi Shankara, etc., as human incarnations of God and on the other side, he is criticising Baba since Baba is in human form (because he called Baba as ghost as in the case of all the ordinary human beings, which become ghosts after death).

If you say that there is difference between Adi Shankara and Baba, you must show the reasons for your argument. Human incarnation of God is mainly for preaching the spiritual knowledge to humanity because God is mainly characterized by spiritual knowledge as His identity mark (Prajnaanam Brahma, Satyam Jnaanam Anantam Brahma " Veda). Shankara preached the true spiritual knowledge to scholars in the scholastic language whereas Baba preached the same spiritual knowledge to ordinary human beings in their ordinary language. Both have done the same work and both are human incarnations of the same God Shiva.

God being the Divine Father (Aham bijapradah pitaa " Gita) of all the souls, He is interested to uplift all the souls. Do you want that scholars alone should be uplifted and not other ordinary people? Do you insist that every human being should become scholar to get salvation? If so, how the uneducated Gopikas got the salvation? Knowledge is, no doubt, required as the first step. But, the second step is the practice of such knowledge that alone gives the salvation. If somebody enters directly into practice, there is no necessity of the knowledge since such person attained the true knowledge in the previous birth itself and hence, entered into practice straight in this birth. Gopikas were sages in the previous birth and attained perfect spiritual knowledge already. Hence, in this birth, they entered straight into the practice.

Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa says that once you have purchased the items from the shop (practice or karma yoga), there is no need of the list containing the names of those items (knowledge or jnana yoga). Let us take the case of Adi Shankara Himself. He never studied anything from anybody. He became the saint straight in the childhood itself and entered into practice, which is propagation of the spiritual knowledge throughout His life.

What do you think, was Sai Baba Hindu or Muslim?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
keithprosser
Posts: 1,974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 3:08:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Obviously I am talking out of an orifice not usually associated with speech, but it seem to me that Baba seems to have been purely Hindu and thought of Allah only as an avatar of some Hindu god. He seems to have little knowledge or interest in Islamic theology and borrowed only the barest miniumum of their practice.
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 12:17:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
He was Hindu. But, God is beyond religion and so He has come down to establish unity of religions to achieve world peace. Ofcourse, Basically He is a Hindu.

At 11/4/2016 9:05:38 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
What do you think, was Sai Baba Hindu or Muslim?
dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 12:33:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Saibaba was a bramhin born in Hinduism. He always worshipped Hindu Gods and encouraged the worship of Hindu devotees. When the rain was falling, He sat on the lower step facing the rain because the statue of Hanuman was on the higher step. Devotees asked Him to sit on the higher step to avoid the rain. But, He replied that Hanuman is the master and He is the servant and the servant should not sit along with the master in the same level.

When a Muslim got child on His blessing, the Muslim came and thanked Saibaba. He asked the Muslim to go and distribute sweets in the temple of Hanuman saying that once Hanuman won in the fight with Allah. This shows His superior devotion on Hindu Gods. He showed the holes on His ears indicating that the thread marriage was performed to Him since He was a bramhin of Hinduism.

Just one year before His last day (Dussehra), He came very furious and naked shouting that people should examine Him to confirm the Sunti of Islam in His body to prove whether He was Hindu or Muslim. All these incidents show that He was basically Hindu, but, followed certain cultural habits of Islam only to bring unity between Hinduism and Islam. In His next incarnation as Shri Satya Saibaba, He tried to bring the unity between Hinduism and Christianity. The dress habits of both these incarnations indicate the two different efforts.

At 11/4/2016 9:05:38 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

What do you think, was Sai Baba Hindu or Muslim?