Re: Theos-World Sai Baba, Blavatsky, and Daniel's Nirmankaya, versus World Avatar.
Feb 19, 2002 10:02 AM
by Morten Sufilight
Hi all of you,
Just to let you all know it:
The following is just to state my views more clearly. I am sceptical about Sai Baba. At the same time I am NOT insinuating, that Sai Baba is somethingelse - and that he can do something else than he claims. Because I really honestly don't know.
Indicies does really NOT prove any case.
Important: To be sceptical does NOT imply to avoid being concerned with, what the teachings of Sai Baba really promotes. The opposite would according to me be a biased - attitude.
Brigitte, what do you then think of the following from
"64 - Sai Baba's Comprehension of the Meanings of Scientific Terms:
Mine is no escapism but the fundamental and eternal truth. I say so not because I am unsure of my own divinity. It is my confidence in its absolute and total authenticity that makes me affirm this fact. It is the scientists who are so unsure of themselves that they indulge in escapist theories.
For example, they say that the moon is lifeless. Simultaneously, they maintain that all matter consists of moving atoms. Now isn't the moon also a conglomerate of the same moving atoms? Then how can it be lifeless? There is no matter which does not consist of atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons, which are all constantly moving. This energy, too, is God."
Sai Baba, quoted in Sandweiss, Spirit And Mind, p. 254."
Will a scientist ever be certain on paranormal activity - if the same scientist continues to be uncertain - while using research methodology, which never stand a chance of proving anything - except that the scientist is assuming a view on the case being questioned ??
I will say let science continue to assume - that will not prove anything. Ignorance abot the real facts - will never - prove anything. And there will always be ignorance when - wisdom is ruled out of the scientific paradigm.
One will have to experience, for oneself, that science based on a physical ordinary academic paradigm is for people in the 'land of the fools' - who doesn't seek - wisdom - and doesn't seek to develop compassionate feelings.
The problem with Sai Baba is, that he almost every time say no to controlled experiments - seeking to prove his paranormal capacites. Visiting parapsychologists have learned that more than one time even when being given private interviews.
Wisdom and spiritual activity is more important than - the so very uncertain scientific reaserch methodologies - which exists within ordinary science.
Sufilight with a view....and some Rugrats from India...
----- Original Message -----
From: "bri_mue" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 5:40 PM
Subject: Theos-World Sai Baba, Blavatsky, and Daniel's Nirmankaya, versus World Avatar.
> Steve: Some people would question whether thinking
> clearly, or thinking at all, is the point of this
> list, but at least you and I agree. I just recently
> encountered a couple of resources which can assist
> list members in developing their critical thinking
> skills if they are interested.
> The first is web page which discusses materializations
> and contains a canon of clear thought:
> The purpose of the page is summarized by the following
> "During three field trips to India to study claims
> suggestive of psi-phenomena the investigators were
> able to observe at close range some unexplained
> occurrences which took place in the presence of Sri
> Sathya Sai Baba."
> Now notice this comment:
> "Although no conclusions can be reached on the
> phenomena observed and described in this account
> because they occurred under informal conditions, it
> seemed worth while to report the events because of the
> challenge they offer to carry out further studies of
> this well-known Indian religious leader under
> well-controlled experimental conditions."
> Note that the researchers said "no conclusions can be
> reached on the phenomena observed and described in
> this account because they occurred under informal
> They were not discounting the possibility of unusual
> phenomena, but merely said that they and not Sai Baba
> had to control the conditions before the stories would
> have scientific validity. That standard can also be
> applied to other reputed miracle stories, such as
> those of Blavatsky. If the stories indicate that the
> conditions were poorly controlled, the miracles may be
> real, but the stories do not constitute scientific
> evidence. The Hartmann story is clearly in this
> category. So is the Ootan Liatto story. This is not
> aggressive skepticism, as has been charged, nor is it
> an effort to "bother" fundamentalists with
> uncomfortable truths or to "explain away" something
> someone else might wish to believe in. It is simply a
> canon of scientific and historical criticism which
> does not imply any judgement on the events being
> The page has some interesting stories which will amuse
> lovers of the marvellous.
> Now consider this page, also on Sai Baba:
> This page announces itself as an "abridgement" of
> claims which "will be useful for assessing the claims
> made about Sai Baba's psychic powers." Now notice
> this statement, which contains an important message:
> "It will be helpful to have these writings [containing
> paranormal claims] detached from the theology. If the
> theology is sound, it will stand on its own. But the
> psychic claims also stand on their own, in the sense
> that we can raise the question whether these miracles
> ever occurred independently of discussing what they
> illustrate about Sai Baba's theology."
> Hear, hear. This criterion also applies to those who
> say that Blavatsky's miracles or the identity of the
> mahatmas and so forth are somehow inextricably tied to
> the validity or non validity of her philosophical
> theories. The truth is, both can be considered
> separately. That is just one of the illogical
> statements in David Pratt's paper. Pratt's paper is
> well worth reading as an exercise in learning to spot
> Those who have followed the career of The Amazing
> Kreskin for any time know he does not claim mysterious
> abilities but is a performer. Some time ago one of
> his performances was video taped and examined by
> professional magicians, who were unable to figure out
> how he did the trick, despite their special skills.
> After playing the tape again and again they were
> finally reduced to studying it frame by frame. Then
> they caught him. That they had to go to such lengths
> is a testimonial to this performer's amazing degree of
> skill. It is also a testimonial to the ability of
> video tape to unmask a trick, however skillfully it is
> Unfortunately, it also says we should keep the issue
> open, no matter how carefully we observe something
> which appears to be paranormal.
> Magician Doug Henning claims he can reproduce every
> one of Sai Baba's miracles by non miraculous means.
> Apparently he is right. Like Kreskin before him, Sai
> Baba has been unmasked using video tape. The
> difference is that Kreskin is an honest trickster.
> Did Blavatsky materialize objects out of thin air? I
> am quite convinced she believed, based on what she
> came to believe during her spiritualistic years, that
> it was possible in theory. Nobody would have written
> an entire book on it, disguised as a cosmological
> theory, who did not believe it was possible.
> I am furthermore convinced that she was sincere when
> she said demos of materialization were demonstrations
> of the validity of her theories.
> I am also convinced that she was familiar with certain
> yoga practices which are almost unknown in the west,
> and which are described in certain Indian texts, which
> relate to this. Some of the comments she made
> indicate clearly that this is true. How diligent she
> was in practicing it or whether she practiced at all
> is unclear. She seems to have spent all her time
> entertaining or writing and not meditating.
> What is not clear, except to True Believers, is
> whether she had any success at it or if she did
> whether she succeeded consistently enough that she did
> not have to supplement her real phenomena with sleight
> of hand. True Believers will say we must believe
> whatever they believe. More objective observers will
> refer back to the quote at the beginning of this post:
> "No conclusions can be reached on the phenomena
> observed and described ... because they occurred under
> informal conditions."
> If herbs were burning in the room, as they were during
> the Ootan Liatto incident, and there is clear evidence
> of drug influence, it is not reasonable to steadfastly
> conclude that things were being materialized in the
> The only way to know for sure if Blavatsky could
> materialize dishes is to materialize your own dishes,
> either in your cupboard or buried in your front yard.
> When you can do that, then you will know that it is
> possible. Unfortunately, going to see Sai Baba is not
> As we have seen with Sai Baba, some people are so good
> at sleight of hand and some witneses are so dishonest
> that even seeing is not believing. The only way to
> prove that dishes can be materialized out of thin air
> is to do it yourself. That was you can absolutely
> rule out sleight of hand and every sort of other
> nonsense. Once you prove it possible, then you prove
> the plausibility of claims made in the past.
> One thing is for sure: figuring where the baloney ends
> and the truth begins is an excellent exercise in
> developing critical reasoning ability which serves one
> well in aassessing other issues in other areas of
> Brigitte: "Do you think that the fact so many Theosophists since
> Blavatsky is dead, go over to Say Baba is because they believe he
> would have learned his materialisation tricks from the same school as
> Blavatsky ?
> However I tought Blavatsky learned it from the Spiritualists in Paris
> and the US ?
> Of course Daniel Caldwell claims that Blavatsky was a "Nirmankaya" ,
> but that is still behind the claim that Say Baba is the
> current "World Avatar" with the authority as the universal teacher, I
> ques that sounds like he could be ther reincarnated teacher of
> Blavatsky then, what do you think ?
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application