Sanjay Kishore Dadlani
Middlesex University Student Residing In The UK
Regarding my former post
about Lord Krishna's inability to protect his devotees, Sanjay (the Hare Krishna Wannabee
) immediately frothed at the mouth, pulled out his hair and sprung into action defending his chosen savior with a rambling diatribe, replete with inherent contradictions, spiritual justifications and half-baked arguments that wholly and utterly
compromise his critiques against Sathya Sai Baba as a perceived Avatar (incarnation of God).
Let me reiterate the basic premise made in my previous post: When it comes to violence, suffering, disease, famine, torture, terrorism, poverty, natural diasasters, violence, injustice, war and death, Anti-Sai Activists blame Sathya Sai Baba because he claims to be God (just as Sanjay did for Baba's alleged failure to warn his country of terrorist attacks and just a Robert Priddy
did in regards to how devotees die). Needless to say, Anti-Sai Activsts do not
believe Sathya Sai Baba is God. Consequently, violence, suffering, disease, famine, torture, terrorism, poverty, natural diasasters, violence, injustice, war and death are placed squarely on the shoulders of whomever Anti-Sai Activists do
believe is the "real"
God (i.e., Krishna, Shiva, Jesus, Allah, etc.).
I could go on, but why should I when Sanjay made a strong argument for
Sanjay argued that Lord Krishna, as God, allows
all different types of miseries to occur because:
- Vedanta philosophy does not blame God for calamities and catastrophes.
- Devotees attain God at the time of their deaths, and thus the way they die is irrelevant in the greater spiritual schema.
- Lord Krishna (as God) is detached and a neutral observer.
- Natural disasters occur independent of God's will and as such, devotees and non-devotees alike are subjected to these entirely natural events that cause mass suffering and death.
- Natural disasters are caused by personal and mass karma along with karmic repercussions.
- Environmental catasrophes are the result of man's misuse of natural resources.
At first glance, Moreno's argument appears to have some merit but it is a person with only a cursory understanding of Hinduism/Vedanta who would attribute any such merit. Contrary to Moreno's strongly-held ideas, Vedanta philosophy does not agree with the premise of God being "blamed" for any calamity and catastrophe that occurs leaving alone the fact that much mainstream criticism of God for being "unconcerned" with world affairs and personal tragedies is unwarranted in the overwhelming majority of cases. To understand this further, let's take a look at Lord Krishna's words in India's best-loved scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita: "After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogis in devotion, never return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because they have attained the highest perfection. From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again." (8.15-16) Elsewhere: "O Dhananjaya [Arjuna], all this work cannot bind Me. I am ever detached, seated as though neutral." (9.9) Readers should please bear in mind that I am presenting these quotes in an extremely reductionist form and that the topic is certainly more complicated than to be restricted to just three verses, but it is possible to say that these three quoted verses represent the bare bones of the doctrine as a whole. Essentially speaking, the material world is intrinsically a place of misery and suffering whereby personal and environmental tragedies occur from time to time as a matter of course. It is in the nature of things to rise and fall, suffer upheaval and enjoy calm, and such happenings occur via the mechanisms of personal and mass karma too. Whereas God's involvement can be invoked, the general situation is that nature is like a self-actuating machine that functions according to it's intrinsic blueprint while God is seated detached and neutral. Personal tragedies are usually the result of man's inhumanity to (or interaction with) man, a favourite saying of Sai Baba's. Environmental catastrophes are almost always believed to be the result of man's misuse of natural resources. There is essentially a karmic repercussion behind every occurrence, good and bad. With all of these karmic connections interacting with each other on a personal, national and worldwide scale, this idea gains credence among spiritual aspirants as a workable method of understanding the problems of life.
So what does all this mean? Sanjay offers perfectly valid (spiritual) reasons why Sathya Sai Baba does not avert acts of terrorism, prevent natural disasters and why his devotees die just like everyone else! Thank you Sanjay.
Sanjay just made a strong
spiritual argument for devotees and proponents of Sathya Sai Baba
! For those who believe Sathya Sai Baba is God, the spiritual explanations that Sanjay just provided (to defend Lord Krishna with) are entirely applicable
to Sathya Sai Baba who is perceived to be an Avatar and incarnation of Lord Krishna by his devotees. Therefore, Sanjay inadvertently
vindicated Sathya Sai Baba by resorting to the very same
spiritual explanations that devotees use to defend Sathya Sai Baba with on why he acts the way he does and why devotees die the way they do!
Once again, Sanjay flip-flops, belly-flops and sticks his big foot in his big mouth.Update: September 14th 2006:
Since Sanjay whined about me not including the following paragraph, I will include it here. As far I am concerned, it is just more jibberish. Nevertheless, I will respond to it.
In the context of terrorist incidents, Sai Baba himself is noted for his frequent meetings with Indian politicians at the highest levels, occasionally meeting with the heads of state of other countries. After all, his devotees boast about these events often enough! In a deceptive bid to selectively quote me, Moreno attempted to do away with this prickly political clause in a misguided attempt to deride me and which backfired spectacularly. The point stands: "For this atrocity to happen ... casts doubt upon the ability of Sai Baba to warn and protect his own country from terrorism, despite his frequent meetings with Cabinet ministers and other government representatives.
Funny enough, Sanjay already solved this problem. Karma!
lol Using Sanjay's spiritual explanations, Baba did not warn them because of their karma
. Remember, there are "karmic repercussions"
and "karmic connections" everywhere
Put aside that debate that Baba is God. Lord Krishna cannot protect anyone anymore or any less than Sathya Sai Baba. Enough said :-)
Furthermore, Sri Krishna and Sri Balaram got personally
involved in a failed
diplomacy attempt that resulted in (if true) the bloodiest war
in recorded history in which millions
of men were said to have died in a matter of 18 days and rivers of blood
flowed from the carnage! Needless to say, both Krishna and Balaram were directly
involved with the diplomats of the day and could not
avert the war. As a matter of fact, devotees of Lord Krishna (like Sanjay) actually try to justify the Kurukshetra war by resorting to the same "spiritual"
mumbo-jumbo that Sanjay blithely ranted about.
For such an atrocity to happen casts valid doubts on Lord Krishna's ability to warn or protect his country despite his personal involvement
with the diplomats of the day and despite the claims that Lord Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead from whom an atomic particle supports and sustains the entire Universe! Apparently, according to religious texts, God acts in mysterious ways that cannot be perceived by ordinary mortals. An excuse that devotees happen to use with Sathya Sai Baba, exactly
as Sanjay does with his own beliefs.