Yahoo! Groups Tips
Did you know...
You can set the sort order of messages? Just click on the link in the date column. Your preferences will be remembered, so you don't have to do it again when you return.
|
--- In sathyasaibaba2@yahoogroups.com, vishvarupa108 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> > I personally think that it is a reasonable expectation of pro-SB
> > people to discuss the philosophical, theological, (im)moral and
> > practical effects of Sai Baba's activities. After all, this board was
> > created to discuss Sai Baba and not anyone else.
> >
> > Judging from the recent behaviour of several pro-SBs (which is also a
> > constant), they do not appear to have much interest in discussing
> > philosophy except for this little discussion that took place between
> > Morono and O'Clery. A breath of fresh air, I'll say.
> >
> > Of course they will say that the conduct and attitude of anti-SBs is
> > "100% relevant" to the discussion, which is ridiculous. But at the end
> > of the day, this board was created in order to discuss Sai Baba and
> > pertaining issues.
> >
> > If someone wants to discuss something else, they have the complete
> > freedom to go and do it elsewhere, such as Lisa's censored yahoogroup.
> > It is not intellectualy honest to be present here and continually
> > avoid the issues egarding Sai Baba and focus on other things that are
> > ridiculous and inconsequential.
> >
> > Good night. :-)
> >
> > (Any outstanding posts I haven't responded to today will probably
> > receive a response tomorrow)
> >
>
> ***************************************
>
> The fact of the matter is that the allegations against Sathya Sai
Baba have been purposely misrepresented. Those who have done the
misrepresenting are Anti-Sai Activists. The general public is
perfectly entitled to know what has been misrepresented, who has done
the misrepresenting and the proof for misrepresentations.
>
Sure thing. But don't do it here, but elsewhere. This board is for
discussing Sai Baba and his activities. It's that simple.
>> Anti-Sai Activists have targeted not only SSB and the SSO, they
have also targeted high ranking devotees and anyone seen as being
publicly supportive of SSB. For example, Glen Meloy attacked Dr. Wayne
Dyer simply because Dyer recommended SSB's books. Barry Pittard
attacked Rabbi David Zeller simply because he spoke at Sai Interfaith
Conferences at Prashanti Nilayam. Anti-Sais have attacked me,
SaiOnline, Radiosai, Goldstein, Kalam, Kasturi, Alwe, Tigrett,
Ramanathan, Sullivan, Krystal, Hislop, Shah, Jogarao, Jagadeeshan,
Bozzani, Meyer and many others. However, when the tables are turned,
"all of a sudden" Anti-Sai Activists say they are beyond reproach and
their character, conduct and attitude should NOT be discussed!
Face-Saving Hypocrisy, clear and simple. <<
Well of course you woild like to present all of this as if it is a
totlaly one-sided affair. You clearly know nothing at all about how
prominent devotees in the SSSO as well as SB himself have attacked and
maligned us.
>
> Sanjay said, "they will say that the conduct and attitude of
anti-SBs is '100% relevant' to the discussion, which is ridiculous".
Sanjay would have us believe that his character, conduct and attitude
do NOT count (which is probably why he continually tries to shift the
focus back to SSB). <<
Oh, surprise surprise. I wonder why I try to shift the focus to SB?
Maybe it's because this board was created to discuss Sai Baba and his
activities?
>> If character, conduct and attitude do NOT count, what does count? <<
Despite the ingrained polarity of differences, the direct clash of SB
devotees and anti-SB ex-devotees is always a sight to see and an
experience to, well, experience. I say clash, which in rare cases is
not the norm and so may sound unduly harsh; debate, discussion and
conversation are also forms of interaction that rarely occur in a
peaceful and civilised manner. One would think that the subject of
such interactions would be Sai Baba himself. Whether the subject
refers to his positive works or to his negative and scandalous
activities, it is reasonable to be assured that Sai Baba is right in
the thick of things.
Unfortunately, some devotees still seem to be having trouble getting
their heads around this simple point. For some queer reason they
happen to believe that should anyone dare to point a finger of
criticism at their beloved guru, that critic must be a perfect human
being. Of course you will never catch them directly saying this since
doing so would destroy their own credibility, but the unreasonable
arguments that they bring forward, the dual standards that they apply,
as well as the pathetic standard of trumped-up counter-attack, leave
one in no doubt about the logic that seems to be at work; since Sai
Baba is an embodiment of love, purity and perfection, his critics
should also embody such qualities in their personalities and past
histories. How this is practically applicable is beyond me since it is
well-known that devotees of SB believe that he is verily God Himself,
so to ask this of his critics is tantamount to suggesting that only
God (or a godly person) is capable of criticising 'God'. It is beyond
the capacity of mortal man to judge 'God' by his own pithy standards.
Whereas this is a spiritual principle that resonates with truth, the
fundamental problem with this line of argument is Sai Baba's divinity,
or lack thereof. This argument is based on the fundamental premise
that Sai Baba is God and is also the fundamental point of
disagreement. Apart from that, how an obviously self-contradictory and
self-defeating line of argument like this can ever be applied to
reality and practical society is undetermined.
In this way, it becomes the norm to routinely attack ex-devotees for
any and every "fault" that they may or may not have. Along with these
attacks come spurious allegations relating to drug addiction,
alcoholism, smoking, right up to the very extremes of child
pornography. It is an issue of much regret that I have often been the
candidate for accusation regading this last criticism. In other words,
I am and have been routinely and falsely accused of having an
association with child pornography and other illegal and/or deviant
forms of pornography. I do not wish to get into the nitty-gritty of
these accusations here as I have dealt with it many times in the past
and thereby proving my innocence, and may even do so more exhaustively
at some time in the future, but it is in the nature of these
vindictive devotees never to let things drop. With the recent
appearance of Joe Moreno on the discussion boards, this issue seems to
have reared it's ugly head yet again. To be fair to Moreno, some other
individuals routinely bring these issues up against various
individuals in a desperate bid to deflect attantion away from the fact
that they cannot answer direct questions relating to Sai Baba's
philosophical and theological mistakes, divinity, or whatever.
Nevertheless, this issue has come up again in perfect time to coincide
with Moreno's appearance.
Before I start to discuss the issue that I wanted to be the subject of
this blog. I'd just like to point out that attempting to tarnish the
character of a critic or attempt to diminish his credibility in other
ways is well known in some cicles to be a point of deflection. It is
very easy to dismiss an argument with a cheap pot-shot about any
what-have-you, and this is classically known as 'argumentem ad
hominem'. In other words if you are stumped and cannot come up with a
clear, logical, reasonable and accurate reply to a point that has been
made, just avoid doing so by launching a personal attack against the
person who made the point. I would trust that any reasonable person
would agree that this is a backhanded way of carrying out a debate or
a discussion, and that this practice is not only morally dishonest but
intellectually dishonest too. And whenever I see a character-attack
launched by anyone against anyone, I do personally regard the launcher
as being intellectually dishonest if not ouright immoral. For me, it
seems that it is a typical trait of Sai Baba's devotees to attack and
attack frequently, no matter how ridiculous and false such accusations
may be, and thereby directly disobeying SB's order not to do so.
- http://saibabaexposed.blogspot.com/2005/10/bad-job-lot.html
>> Sanjay would also like for us to believe that his requests for
kinky Jesus porno pics is "ridiculous and inconsequntial". I disagree.
Sanjay can no longer take a moral or ethical stance against SSB since
it has now been conclusively shown that he was requesting kinky and
perverse Jesus, Biblical and Disney pornography on an Adult Google
Group. Any moral or ethical claims Sanjay makes are hollow,
meaningless and hypocritical. <<
Except for the fact that such a "conclusive" position is false since
no "conclusive" evidence has been presented by anyone at all in the
full three years since this started. This is a pity, because this is
the one thing that pro-SBs desperately need in order to prove their
position. It is a shame that they are not in possession of such
evidence, which then makes their statements hollow and meaningless. :-)
Also, I have been posting on this board since September 2000, as a
devotee who strongly defended Sai Baba against the "allegations". In
July 2001 or so I gave up this endeavour. I have been posting on this
board offering various arguments against Sai Baba and his
philosophy./theology, as well as defend myself from the most
ridiculous and asinine accusations against myself and my character,
etc, which to date have never been properly rebutted, but the lies
still continue. :-) I am not in need of these newbie upstarts telling
me that I can no longer "take a moral or ethical stance against SB"
when they were born only yesterday. All of the researched points
against SB are fully valid and, to my knowledge, have not been fully
rebutted either, which explains why pro-SBs choose to attack the
character of anti-SBs. Oh well. :-)
And by the way, Joe, I've just noticed that you've tried to post a
comment on the above blog entry with a link to your "article". I'll be
deleting this comment of yours in the next few days, not because I
favour censorship but because I do not approve of people using my blog
in order to promote their websites.
Oh yes, and since Morono is far too lazy to do some real research, and
since I am doing my own compilation and analysis of the issue, I shall
not be responding to any comments on this issue in the near future
since a exchange with Morono has also proved to be a fruitless task
thanks to his anal complex. Now, if anyone wants to discuss Sai Baba
and his deviations, physical - moral - intellectual - philosophical -
theological - whatever, stay ahere and discuss. If not, then please go
away. End of.
|
|
Offline
