Regarding Dadlani's Blog Entry
A Bad Job Lot
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.
My Response: Sanjay is being completely and utterly disingenous. Click Here to view my article about Sanjay that contains a selection of his posts on the SathyaSaiBaba2 Yahoo Group and the vile language he uses. Sanjay is wanting to take the focus off of Anti-Sai Activists and place is solely on SSB, with no other type of discussion or questioning regarding the motives, character, attitude or conduct of Anti-Sai Activists! It is as if Sanjay is trapped in an imaginary faeryland where he is the feudal dictator and is trying to ordain what should and should not be discussed regarding Sathya Sai Baba.
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.
My Response: As I said on the SathySaiBaba2 Yahoo Group, 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.
I do not believe that SSB is God. Nor do I believe that Sri Caitanya or Sri Krsna are God (as Sanjay believes). Whenever anyone is critical about Sanjay's beliefs (particularly his Guru, Srila Prabhupada, or the Hare Krsna movement: Reference) Sanjay is right there arguing and defending his beliefs. However, when SSB devotees do the same thing, they are wrong and misguided. One must remember that Sanjay is a Hare Krsna wannabee, whose beliefs have been classified under cult listings on the very same Anti-Sai Sites that list SSB. As a matter of fact, the Hare Krsnas have gone to great extents to justify Sri Krsna's exploits with married and unmarried women/girls, stealing and even killings. The excuse generally given is that since Krsna is "Bhagavan", and since he manifested supreme powers, he is entitled to act in a way that ordinary humans cannot (despite even the perception of immorality). Consequently, Sanjay will use one standard to defend his beliefs, yet use another to attack other's.
Even more disturbing is that the Hare Krsna sect, whose Gaudiya Vaishnava tenets Sanjay professes to practice, have had a established history of murder, sexual abuse, women degradation and child abuse (Reference). SSB, on the other hand, has not been convicted of anything and not even one alleged victim has even tried to file a court case, first-hand, in a court of law in India (despite being offered free "world-class legal resources"). This puts Sanjay in a shady position to be casting aspersions on SSB and the SSO.
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 Joè Morèno on the discussion boards, this issue seems to have reared it's ugly head yet again. To be fair to Morèno, 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 Morèno's appearance.
My Response: It is important to clarify that I have never accused Anti-Sai Activists of "drug addiction", "alcoholism" or "smoking". It is true that Robert Priddy, at one time, had a couple of pages that eulogized his euphoric, drug-induced experiences. For some mysterious reason, when Priddy became an Anti-Sai Activist, he immediately deleted those pages. Surely much to his chagrin, those pages have been saved and I am in possession of them. Regarding child pornography, I simply pointed out very disturbing information, about Reinier Van Der Sandt, on posts he made on the Yahoo Forum. Click Here to view my article about Reinier and his confession to viewing child pornography. Of course, Sanjay is trying to argue this his requests for kinky, perverse Jesus, Biblical and Disney porn should not be discussed or made known to the general public. Sanjay also wants to withhold the fact that he publicly lied about working for the IWF and received illegal porn while working for them. Why would Sanjay do that in the first place? Nevertheless, Sanjay believes that every single fault, no matter how small or trivial about SSB, should be made known to the general public. Sanjay applies one standard to SSB and excludes himself from that very same standard.
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.
My Response: Sanjay said, "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. " As discussed earlier on this page, Anti-Sai Activists have engaged in the very same behavior that Sanjay is calling "deflection". None of my points of contention are "cheap shots" or "ad hominem" tactics. They are the truth. Sanjay has launched his own "character-attack" against SSB. Now why can Sanjay attack SSB's character, but no one is allowed to discuss or point out Sanjay's character? I think the inference is crystal clear. Once again, I am not a SSB devotee. Therefore, I am not bound to act as Sanjay thinks I should act. It is clear that Sanjay does not act according to the expected behavior of a Vaishnava. So if Sanjay can "disobey" the behavior expected of him, why is he is critical of the behavior of others?
If anyone would like to see my reply to Morèno's post, you simply need to click on the heading of this blog as it is enabled as a direct link. Therein you will see many points that I make in order to answer Morèno's question as to why I have never responded to his tabloid article about me. The basic cut-and-thrust of my argument revolves around how Morèno's article was so full of inaccuracies, poor research, assumptions and sheer lack of truth, I felt that it wasn't worthy of a reply from me much less a rebuttal. And since this took place within the context of the spurious child-porn allegations, a large part of my post was naturally devoted to explaining and presenting inconsistencies (as well as some anecdotes) in the child-porn argument and how any reasonable person should find it extremely difficult to believe that I was guilty of such an association. If I may quote from it:
My Response: Sanjay said, "Morèno's article was so full of inaccuracies, poor research, assumptions and sheer lack of truth, I felt that it wasn't worthy of a reply from me much less a rebuttal". It is upto to Sanjay to prove that my article is inaccurate. Blaming me and criticizing my article, without refuting or providing any examples of inaccuracies, is an ad hominem attack. Sanjay refuses to tell me where the inaccuracies are. Consequently, Sanjay is allowing disinformation about him to be published on my site. I have informed Sanjay, several times, when he sends me any factual information to discredit the content in my article, I will promptly update my article with it. Regarding the child-porn argument, I have discussed this further down, on this page.
"Why, when I KNOW that I am wholly innocent of the "charges" brought against me by a pack of screaming banshees, should I bother to respond to such balderdash? ... Having repeatedly denied these allegations as well as reposting my direct analysis of the posts involved repeatedly, there is nothing much I can do further when the same individuals pay no attention whatsoever to my refutations but proceed to scream louder. Disingenuous indeed." Reading through my post again it strikes me as stunning that, considering the number of times I made points about inaccuracies, poor research, lack of investigation and so on, Morèno does not seem disturbed or in any concerned that his article has been labelled as more or less untruthful. However, it is definitely unrepresentative of me and my views on many subjects. This does not seem to bother Morèno at all, as we can see from his responses to my post. If anyone actually cares to view Morèno's website, the one outstanding impression that is gained is that he has a habit of leaving no stone unturned in his quest to seek information. Whether he possesses the necessary discrimination to judge the truth and veracity of such information is really a matter of opinion, but there is no denying that his analyses are often exhaustive if not pedantry extraordinaire. Therefore I was extremely surprised to see Morèno blatantly ignore all or most of the important points that I had made, only to seek my answer to a question of his regarding the spurious child-porn scenario.
My Response: Sanjay said, "Why, when I KNOW that I am wholly innocent of the "charges" brought against me by a pack of screaming banshees, should I bother to respond to such balderdash?" Why should SSB respond to the "charges" brought against him, by a pack of screaming banshees, when SSB has said he is fully innocent? Why should SSB respond to such "balderdash"? Sanjay demands a certain level of accountability from SSB, yet abides by no decent standard of accountability himself. This, in laymans terms, is "hypocrisy". Sanjay would like for everyone to believe that I did not research these matters (pertaining to him) thoroughly. Sanjay is right. The new information I have found is even more critical of Sanjay than I initially reported. As fully discussed below, I have addressed the reason why Sanjay was accused of viewing child porn. The reason is quite shocking. As it turns out, Sanjay lied about receiving illegal (child) porn while working for the IWF. These fabricated stories were the cause of child porn allegations against him. Sanjay has no one to blame, but himself.
As far as I am concerned, I was just extremely disappointed at the disingenuous nature of such a reply. It seems that his question is rendered irrelevant since I have answered such points on multiple occasions, the records of which still exist. It also occurred to me that Morèno's investigative ability was nothing special after all. This was obvious from the type of question(s) he asked; had he done the necessary investigation and research he would have known about the multiple answers I had submitted on that point, the records of which still exist. It seems that Morèno was directly proving one of the points that I had made: "[he has] jumped on the bandwagon and have proceeded to repeat the very same untruthful allegations and showing that [he has] done no independent little "investigation" of [his] own."
Oh well, what can you do? Morèno made his own position ridiculous after I informed him that I felt no need to answer the question again and since his question was made in the context of child-porn accusations, the burden of proof was on him and other accusers to prove that I am guilty of the same. He subsequently retorted: "I have not been able to find any reply where you answered this question directly. So why don't you tell me under which post you gave your reply?" Funnily enough, I do not have the time nor the inclination to trawl through hundreds , if not thousands, of posts authored by myself in order to show where I have said something on whatever subject. Again, if anyone wants to accuse me of something then the burden of proof is on them to show that I am guilty of it. In other words, despite Morèno's obvious flair for reportage and investigation, it is a wonder why he is suddenly so reluctant to find a post (rather than the multiple ons that exist) where I have de facto answered his question.
My Response: Actually, Sanjay started this discussion by accusing me of irresponsibly duplicating Lisa's arguments on my site, without researching them for myself. First and foremost, it is clear that Sanjay does not regard child pornography as being anything particularly harmful or egregious. This was confirmed when Sanjay said, "Because even if it is true that I saw child porn, so what? It's just a picture?" I guess a picture of a child being sexually abused negates the criminal act of sexual abuse that resulted in that picture being taken in the first place? As if this is not disturbing enough, Sanjay himself fed the notion that he obtained child porn because he said he received "illegal" pornography when he worked for the IWF (which turned out to be a fabricated statement). Of course, all of this pales in comparison to how Sanjay was caught, with his pants down, perusing kinky, sex fetish groups, requesting Jesus, Biblical and Disney porn!
Sanjay has not answered my questions. The questions that Sanjay answered, pertained to Lisa. Even on those answers, Sanjay simply cannot refute the fact that he requested Jesus, Biblical and Disney porn. Sanjay lied about working for the IWF and also lied about receiving and viewing illegal porn on his computer. These are facts, supported with Sanjay's own postings on the SathyaSaiBaba2 Yahoo Group. I feel I have proved my point. Now, if Sanjay is accusing me of misresenting the facts, the burden of proof is on him to disprove my conclusions. He can't disprove them. As a matter of fact, he said he won't even try!
Personally, I was just very surprised that through all of these further exchanges, he was continually avoiding the other important points that I had made in regards to the changing nature of the child-porn argument against me, as well as objective and undeniable facts and even the lack of direct evidence (as Morèno kindly asked me to define).
My Response: I have actually given a full response to this point. I will repeat it here: "Now, regarding the 'child porn' accusations, this is entirely YOUR fault. YOU said, 'I did in fact receive illegal porn pics from some newsgroups which I duly reported to my seniors, which eventually led to the shutdown of those illegal newsgroups as per IWF policy.' Of course, now you are saying this was a 'story' of yours that 'backfired'. Whether you were lying or telling the truth at that time, the fact remains that YOU claimed you received 'illegal porn pics'. Illegal porn is confined to child or teenage porn. Since you said that teenage porn was 'relatively legal', YOU fed the notion that you were sent (and which you viewed) child pornography. Consequently, all of these 'child porn' attacks against you were based on YOUR own words/stories. Especially when you made this admission and the IWF said you NEVER worked for them. Now whether you are coming clean about having lied about being a IWF employee (you refuse to make this clear), you must take responsiblity for your own 'stories' in which YOU claimed you received, and viewed, 'illegal' porn'." Consequently, it was Sanjay's "stories" that got him into trouble to begin with. Sanjay refuses to concede to this fact and resorts to blaming others for his lies, fallacious claims and the backlash that inevitably followed.
Judging by the poor standard of respnses so far, I immediately began to regret spending a large amount of time writing posts that were hardly read properly, never mind appreciated. Regarding the subject of truth and lies, this important point about Morèno's avoidance of important criticism of his articles suggests that he still believes that his writings are truthful and factual enough to remain published as the same no matter how many faces there are in the crowd who laugh at him, boo, hiss, and throw rotten eggs and tomatoes.
My Response: The grim reality is that Sanjay is trying to make the best of a bad situation. After all, it was Sanjay, not I, who was caught with his pants down trying to get kinky, pornographic Jesus pictures! I have yet to see the "important criticisms" regarding my articles. Where are they? Is Sanjay talking about his good friend, Renier Van Der Sandt? Or is he talking about Basava Premanand, Barry Pittard or Robert Priddy? None of these people have supplied any sort of "important criticism" against me or my articles. I have fully responded to these people and my opinions have only strengthened, not changed. Sanjay is trying to save face by implying that there are "many faces" who are ridiculing me and my site. This couldn't be futher from the truth. The only people who are derisive are Anti-Sais (who are naturally caustic against anyone who challenges them). I have received, and continue to receive, a tremendous amount of positive feedback in private communications.
For all the guff we constantly hear about what a crazy bunch of liars and crooks we ex-devotees are, it seems very much obvious that the vindictive devotees who make this criticism are not all that better. It becomes illogical to dispaly a self-righteous and sanctimonious attitude when there is a huge amount of inconsistency, disingenuity, and outright lies in their "analyses". Those devotees are a bad job lot.
My Response: Sanjay is a liar. Admittedly so. He went around telling people that he worked for the IWF and later rescinded his claim about working for them. Sanjay also claimed he received illegal (child) pornography. Turns out, this too (supposedly) was a lie. Sanjay said he was just telling a "story" (Sanjay's synonym for "lying") and it "backfired" on him. Once Sanjay was cornered, regarding this very disturbing information, Sanjay claimed his receipt of illegal porn and working for the IWF were a "story". One can certainly reason that taking the fall for a lie is less damaging than taking the fall for viewing illegal child porn. Since Sanjay has difficulty telling the truth, he might have weighed his options (as meager as they were) and lied again to escape his admission of engaging in illegal activity.
I just want to make it clear that I never called anyone "crazy" or a "crook". I have called Anti-Sais "liars", and with good reason. I have the screen-captured proof that they lied.
And despite the guff of Joè Morèno, his own personal situation becomes the target for even more ridicule when all of his efforts are discounted by the overriding fact that he is not a devotee of Sai Baba at all!
My Response: Despite the guff on Sanjay Dadlani, his own personal situation becomes the target of even more ridicule when all of his efforts are discounted by the overriding fact that he is a Hare Krsna wannabee whose beliefs have been lumped into the cult canister, along with SSB, by his fellow Anti-Sai banditeers! This ridicule is exacerbated by the fact that Sanjay (with his holier-than-thou facade), trying to take a moral and ethical stance against SSB, was caught, red-handed, requesting kinky, perverted and pornographic sex pictures of Jesus, the Bible and Disney Characters (Reference)! Who knows what else he looked for without leaving a record behind? As if this is not embarrassing enough, Dadlani was also caught writing kinky trash on one of his online blogs (Reference). For shame! Another person with perverse sexual interests attacking SSB. |
