Satya Sai Baba Archives

Shirdi Baba – Sathya Baba – Prema Baba – Shirdi Sai – Sathya Sai – Prema Sai

Browsing Posts in Gerald ‘joe’ Moreno

Gerald Joe Moreno Articles About Global Smear Campaigns Against Sathya Sai Baba

These updates are provided by Gerald Joe Moreno on his official WordPress Blog.

Haiti Earthquake A Prayer Of Light For All Haitians
(Click On Picture To Enlarge)

We Affirm These Prayers For Victims Of The Haiti Earthquake

We Affirm These Prayers For Victims Of The Haiti Earthquake

Haiti Earthquake 2010 – Relief Efforts, Pictures, News & Resources

Gerald Joe Moreno, Vishvarupa.com, Robert Priddy And Public Deception

Robert Priddy (a caustic critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba who once hailed the the guru as God Incarnate and thereby the Father who sent Jesus, Allah who sent Muhammad and the Creator of the Universe) wrote an article on his Anti-Baba WordPress blog accusing Gerald Joe Moreno of professing belief that Sathya Sai Baba is “vishvarupa”. Let us take a closer look at Robert Priddy’s so-called “facts”.

Because Robert Priddy and Ex-Devotees continually misrepresented Moreno and his vishvarupa.com domain (purposely misspelling it as vishwarupa: Ref), Moreno optimized his vishvarupa.com index page with relevant information and keywords about the Sai Controversy, hence the title “Sai Vishvarupa – Directory to Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba”.

Based on this webpage title, Robert Priddy raised a huge wail, gnashed his teeth and foamed-at-the-mouth, accusing Gerald Joe Moreno of saying he believes that Sathya Sai Baba is vishvarupa! Of course, Moreno never made that claim. Robert Priddy is basing his entire argument on a title description that included the domain name (i.e., “vishvarupa”)!

Robert Priddy’s Bogus Sai Organization Domain

Robert Priddy purposely withheld the fact that he purchased a domain name entitled saibaba.org.uk, which shamelessly attempted to mislead readers into thinking his Anti-Baba website was an official UK Sai Organisation domain. Needless to say, Robert Priddy was challenged legally and lost the saibaba.org.uk domain through legitimate and legal venues. Consequently, Robert Priddy created the saibaba-x.org.uk domain. Therefore, who exactly is guilty of public deception and deceit?

Robert Priddy Solicited Sai Baba As “Vishvarupa” As An Ex-Devotee!

When Robert Priddy became an Ex-Devotee, he purposely attempted to mislead unsuspecting Sai Devotees by luring them to his Anti-Baba website through a deceptive tripod webpage that superficially glorified Sathya Sai Baba as Vishvarupa! The relevant picture said “With hands, feet, eye, head, mouth and ears pervading everything, he permeates the entire universe” (which is the description for Lord Krishna’s vishvarupa darshanam)!

Robert Priddy Deceptive Tripod Site Glorying Sai Baba As Vishvarupa

Robert Priddy Deceptive Tripod Site Glorying Sai Baba As Vishvarupa


Robert Priddy’s deceptive tripod webpage stated (yes, when he was already an Ex-Devotee):

TEACHINGS AND PHOTOS OF BHAGAWAN SRI SATHYA SAI BABA, THE ONLY ONE ‘GOD INCARNATE’

THE MOST MAGNIFICENT PERSON EVER TO WALK THE EARTH RESIDES AT THE ABODE OF SUPREME PEACE IN PUTTAPARTHI, ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA. THE MOST INFLUENTIAL, POWERFUL AND RICH SPIRITUAL FIGURE IN THE WORLD SHOWS HIS SPLENDOUR. WE HUMBLY BRING YOU SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF OUR LORD GOD ON SOME OF HIS MANY THRONES AND OTHER PROOFS OF HIS DIVINE PROSPERITY AND THE WORSHIPFUL AWE HE IS HELD IN.

TEXT – UNIQUE PHOTOGRAPHS

Teachings: Swami’s mystic nature & prophesies SET 1
The Glory of Swami’s chariots SET 4
Swami’s Holy Residences
Teachings: Swami’s nature and His Organisation SET 2
The Divine reclines on His Thrones
SET 5 Swami’s Magnificent Buildings
SET 3 Swami accepts food offerings SET
6 Swami’s Own Glory

Sathya Sai Baba with his devotees, the Indian Government. Holding his hand is Home Minister L.K. Advani (Leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party) and on his left, Prime Minister Beta Vihari Vajpayee.

e avatar, our Lord, Father of Jesus Christ, Krishna, Rama, Vishnu & Dattatreya. lives at Prashanthi Nilayam, Puttaparthi, Andhra Pradesh, India, & Brindavan, Whitefield, near Bangalore

(Archive.org Reference)

Tripod caught Robert Priddy in his blatant act of deceit and deleted his page for violating their terms and conditions!

Tripod Deleted Priddy Webpage For Violating Terms And Conditions

Tripod Deleted Priddy Webpage For Violating Terms And Conditions


Using Robert Priddy’s logic (that he used against Moreno), one MUST conclude that Robert Priddy as an Ex-Devotee fully believes that Sathya Sai Baba is God and Vishvarupa. Why else would he make those claims as an Ex-Devotee?

If it looks like a snake, slithers like a snake and hisses like snake…It’s A Snake!

Robert Priddy Cannot Vindicate His Claims With Factual Information

Robert Priddy perpetuates the lie that Gerald Joe Moreno somehow duped archive.org into archiving select information on his vishvarupa.com domain. To Date: Robert Priddy cannot provide a scintilla of proof to substantiate his claim.

Robert Priddy also perpetuates the lie that Moreno published his personal experiences with Sathya Sai Baba on his vishvarupa.com domain. Needless to say, Robert Priddy also claimed he is in possession of full screencaps to Moreno’s vishvarupa.com domain that contain the alleged material in question. For reasons unknown (and which Robert Priddy adamantly refuses to explain), Robert Priddy does not publish the relevant & full screencaps to vindicate his claims. The only screencap that Robert Priddy released so far was of a fraudulent and falsified screencap.

Robert Priddy – Concluding Statement

Needless to say, LSD advocate Robert Priddy has a long and established history of distortions, lies, defamations and libels.

Of course, none of these things are surprising considering that Robert Priddy is an LSD Advocate who is thoroughly obsessed with genital oilings and who relishes projecting his homoerotic fantasies onto Moreno. Robert Priddy is allied with Bisexual & Psychic Trance Medium Conny Larsson and Child Porn Purveyor RFJ Sandt and Perverted Fetishist Sanjay Dadlani. Robert Priddy is also a staunch promoter of New Age Advocate & Reincarnator Alan Kazlev and Guru & UFO Promoter Timothy Conway (who actually believes that Sathya Sai Baba may have molested alleged victims like aliens are alleged to do through abductions!).

The only people guilty of running “massive disinformation and cover-up campaigns” are Robert Priddy and Ex-Devotees who have attacked hundreds of Sai Devotees & Non-Devotees alike and who have created hundreds of webpages to defame, libel and smear Gerald Joe Moreno. What more can one do but laugh at loud at Robert Priddy and his hypocritical finger-pointing?

Corrupt ExBaba Webmaster Defends The Hislop Letters

Reinier van der Sandt (real name “RFJ Sandt”) is the webmaster to the largest Anti-Baba domains on the world-wide-web. A lengthy article was written by Gerald Joe Moreno exposing Reinier van der Sandt for his Christian agenda against Sathya Sai Baba.

Reinier van der Sandt – The Child Porn Purveyor

Although Reinier van der Sandt has publicly defended the alleged “Hislop Letters”, it is amusing to note that despite all his rhetoric and excuses, Terry Lee Scott (the alleged “victim”) has never (ever) come forward himself describing what allegedly happened to him. Moreno has written about this in depth in his article entitled: Terry Lee Scott & Diane Scott – Are They Credible?

R.F.J. Sandt openly admitted to looking at child porn websites to see how easy they were to find on the internet. Reinier van der Sandt said (yes, this is an actual quote):

“I found lots of kiddy porno-sites with very much child porn pics, but…, but… it was impossible for me to watch it for very long, because when I was clicking on an image to enlarge, other pages were popping up so fast on my computer screen, that I could not open such a site, in fact, all kiddy porno sites – as what I have seen of it – have multi pop up techniques, which makes it difficult for the kiddy porno watcher to watch easily…” (Ref)

Why would Reinier van der Sandt want to peruse any porn site and enlarge thumbnail pictures of children being sexually abused? As if this isn’t disgusting enough, Reinier said:

“Only in the opening pages I saw some kiddy porn, when I wanted to continue and see more, I had to suscribe and/or pay.” (Ref)

Reinier then tried to justify viewing illegal child pornography websites by saying:

“Internet kiddy porno can be obtained, I have to correct myself on what I was previously writing on this board, I have been looking for kiddy porn on the internet – NOT AS A CUSTOMER, BUT BECAUSE I WANTED TO FIND OUT WHETHER ONE CAN OBTAIN EASILY FILTHY KIDDIE PORNO!!!” (Ref)

Apparently Reinier found the “filthy kiddie porno” he searched for. But that was not enough! Reinier found lots of kiddie porno sites”, “wanted to continue and see more” and even tried to enlarge pictures of children being sexually abused. Reinier Van Der Sandt justified his behavior by saying what he did was alright because he was “not a customer”. Reinier Van Der Sandt (a caustic Sai Critic and the primary webmaster for the ExBaba domains) believes it is OKAY to view child pornography as long as you are not a “customer”.

Of course, none of this is surprising considering that Reinier van der Sandt openly revealed that the Christian website settingcaptivesfree.com helped him (allegedly) overcome his addiction to pornography (particularly, child pornography)!

Reinier Van Der Sandt Endorses Sanjay Dadlani

Reinier Van Der Sandt has widely promoted Sanjay Dadlani on his ExBaba Domains.

Reinier van der Sandt sees absolutely nothing wrong with Sanjay Dadlani’s homosexual-fantasizing slurs, perverted Jesus-sex fetish and deviant boot-sex fetish. Sanjay Dadlani secretly stalked innocent women at Middlesex University (calling them “bitches” and “sluts”, saying “they want it”, calling Mothers “MILFs”, photographing females and teenagers up their dresses and under tables and published these photos on his streetbitches blog).

Sanjay Dadlani even posted on the QuickTopic Forum (using multiple fake names, including female names) and made disgusting posts under the name “Marquis de Sade” about a large penis for anal sex, a feces-covered anus, bestiality, people vomiting into each other’s mouths and a Priest ejaculating on the face of a little girl as related by her brother. Sanjay even posted under the name “kick his head in” and said that someone should murder Sathya Sai Baba (of course, this is the same guy who rejoiced when a Sai Baba temple was bombed). This is the type of sleazy and slimy character that Reinier van der Sandt associates himself with and whose blog (saibabaexposed) he shamelessly promotes and advertises.

And to top it all off, Reinier van der Sandt was caught using multiple fake names (including Moreno’s name) on the SSB2 Yahoo Group. After Moreno exposed RFJ Sandt for his blatant deceit and dishonesty, RFJ Sandt came clean and admitted he used 11 known pseudonyms (even having imaginary conversations with himself)!

This is the same guy who wants everyone to believe him and his unsubstantiated stories about the Jack Hislop Letters. Ridiculous!

Hislop Letters – Relevant Links

Ineffective Propaganda Campaign Against Sathya Sai Baba

(Click On Image Below To Enlarge)

Anti-Baba Propaganda Takes A Nose Dive

Anti-Baba Propaganda Takes A Nose Dive

As one can easily see, the number of Anti-Baba propaganda articles (put out by critics, skeptics and ex-devotees) has been steadily declining year by year since 2002. This objective information proves that Ex-Devotees Of Sathya Sai Baba are waging a lonely & losing battle against Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba and the Sai Organization.

Graph To Critic’s Articles – Facts & Information:

The graph numbers include:

  1. Multiple and repetitive Anti-Baba articles with different links but having the same content.
  2. Anti-Baba articles taken from other online media sources (casually referring to Sathya Sai Baba).
  3. Anonymous Anti-Baba postings made on internet forums or discussion groups.
  4. Anti-Baba email correspondence pages.
  5. Anti-Baba “page harvesting” articles. “Page harvesting” is when one article (which is located on one page) is divided into multiple anchor-links (an “anchor-link” being ascribed to a new paragraph or section on the page), making it appear as if there are 5-20 articles, when in fact there is only one.
  6. Prior to 2006, Anti-Baba blogged articles were included in the number tallies. Post 2006, blogged articles are no longer being counted because ex-devotees have created many blogs through which they repackage and regurgitate their same outdated, repetitive and obsessive stalk material against Sathya Sai Baba (almost on a daily basis).

All of the Anti-Baba articles (going back to 2000) deal with superficial attacks against Sathya Sai Baba and do not further any of the unsubstantiated and ridiculous allegations of ‘Human Trafficking Rings’, ‘Murder’, ‘International Racketeering’, ‘Terrorists Ties’, ‘Terrorism’, ‘Bribery’, ‘Serial Sexual Abuse’, ‘Fraud’, ‘Fakery’, ‘Deceit’, ‘Pedophilia’, ‘Pedophile Rings’, ‘Drug Cartels’, ‘Assassinations’, etc. (the list of gutter accusations goes on and on).

To Date: Sathya Sai Baba and the Sai Organization have never (ever) been charged with any crime. Consequently, critic’s Anti-Baba articles are simply Anti-Baba propaganda overflowing with Anti-Baba rhetoric.

The graph numbers were taken from the ExBaba “News Section”, which contains all of the links (in English) pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba. The “News Section” also referenced links to articles published on other Anti-Baba websites and internet sources. Therefore, the graph numbers represent the totality of English articles published against Sathya Sai Baba by former followers, critics, skeptics and those holding an unfavorable view about the Guru.

Year 2009 In Review:

In 2009, only one Anti-Baba news broadcast was aired on NineMSN – A Current Affair in Australia. The online video was fully withdrawn from Channel Nine MSN’s official website after a scathing response was publicly released by Gerald Joe Moreno. Read the full article: NineMSN A Current Affair (ACA) Cult Accusations Against SWARA.

In Conclusion:

Anti-Sai Activists are waging a lonely and losing battle against Sathya Sai Baba. Because Anti-Sai Activists have made no legal leeway against Sai Baba since 1997, they have become more desperate, obsessive and bold in their defamations against him. Nevertheless, the objective facts speak for themselves:

  • Sathya Sai Baba has never been proven to be a “charlatan”.
  • Sathya Sai Baba has never (ever) been convicted of any crime.
  • Sathya Sai Baba has never (ever) been charged with any crime.
  • Sathya Sai Baba has never had even one single complaint lodged against him by any alleged victim, first-hand, in India. As a matter of fact, not even one alleged victim has even tried to file a basic police complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India (the only place where courts would have jurisdiction over Baba as an individual defendant).

These are the cold, hard facts and no rationalist, critic, skeptic or ex-devotee can provide a scintilla of verifiable evidence to the contrary (Ref).

Kevin R. D. Shepherd Left School At 15 But Thinks He’s A Scholar

Kevin R. D. Shepherd actually wrote the following blurb about himself in his self-published book “Pointed Observations”:

Kevin R. D. Shepherd: People often do look at the author data to be convinced of a scintillating career with due status honours. Do not buy this book, therefore, as you will be disappointed on that account. The author data can be given here instead of being placed enticingly on the opening page or back cover. In an attempt to beat the obituary, here it is:

Born a Brit in 1950. Left school at the age of fifteen. Lived in the town ghetto of Cambridge. Entered Cambridge University Library in 1981 as an unpaid and entirely unofficial researcher. Became an upholder of citizen initiative. Has written a number of minor books, none of them official, and only some of them having achieved publication (the missing books have never been seen by any publisher). Is getting old now, but still alive in 2003.

Is it any wonder why Kevin R. D. Shepherd was deemed non-notable on Wikipedia?

Kevin R. D. Shepherd castigated numerous people because of their lack of academic credentials (a well known tactic of his against various proponents of the Finhorn Foundation). Kevin R. D. Shepherd even said he would dismiss the PhD or M.D. status of anyone who holds New Age beliefs and boasted “The credential of M.D. can signify Mind Damage”! Kevin Shepherd even criticized the research and associations of MIT, Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge Universities.

Kevin Shepherd is in the same boat as all those non-academics he belittles and bemoans! As a matter of fact, Kevin R. D. Shepherd emphatically stated he is not an academic!

Kevin R. D. Shepherd is therefore a self-serving and duplicitous critic.

Sathya Sai Baba Birthday Debate

Sanjay Dadlani recently published three blogged articles pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba’s birthday date and stated that there is conclusive proof that Sathya Sai Baba was not born on November 23rd 1926, but rather was born on October 4th 1929. As will be shown, Sanjay’s conclusive proof is not conclusive at all.

First and foremost, Sanjay’s critiques and criticisms about Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate are not unique. Sanjay heavily relied on Brian Steel‘s past research regarding this matter and re-packaged it, trying to pass it off as something new. It isn’t.

Sanjay believes that he has conclusively proven that Sathya Sai Baba was born on October 4th 1929 based exclusively on the following four “proofs”:

  1. One Kamalapuram school transfer certificate that showed Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as “October 4th 1929″.
  2. One Bukkapatnam school record that showed Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as “October 4th 1929″.
  3. One Uravakonda school record that showed Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as “October 4th 1939 (which was corrected to “October 4th 1929 33 years later by some unknown person).
  4. One quote from the book “Anyatha Saranam Nasthi” – by Smt. Vijayamma Hemchand (aka Kuppam Vijayamma), a Sai Devotee.

That’s it.

Now, let us take a look at Sanjay’s four “proofs”.

KAMALAPURAM TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DETAILS:

Transfer Certificate

Transfer Certificate

*Name of the school which the pupil is leaving: B.M. School Kamalapuram
*Name of the pupil: Ratnakaram Satyanarayana
*Date of birth as entered in the admission register: 4.10.1929 (Fourth October Nineteen Twenty Nine)
*Class or form in which the pupil was [unintelligible] at the time of leaving (in words): First Form
*Date of admission or promotion to that class or form: 11.6.40
*Date when the pupil actually left the school: 22.4.41
*Date on which application for transfer certificate was made on behalf of the pupil by the parent or guardian: 20.6.41
*Date of transfer certificate: 20.6.41

It is my contention that Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate was incorrectly recorded on the Kamalapuram school record, which was transferred to Sathya Sai Baba’s subsequent school at Bukkapatnam, and the incorrect birthdate was copied from it. Sanjay attempted to refute this contention by stating the following:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, Moreno’s argument is changing with the wind! Stop talking bullshit, Moreno, LOL! The earliest (English) record is the Kamalapuram transfer form, which has the same birthdate as the Bukkapatnam record. Whaddya know? The same birthdate occurs in the Uravakonda school records. And Moreno wants us to think that these records were copied from each other at a time when it was very difficult to travel by bullock cart, let alone by foot.

Since the earliest record is a transfer certificate, this record was required to be presented to the next school in order for the admission to occur. The information on the Bukkapatnam school record was copied from the Kamalapuram transfer certificate. Sanjay poorly attempted to argue that this was not the case because “it was very difficult to travel by bullock cart, let alone by foot”. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Kamalapuram transfer certificate was required as proof that Sathya Sai Baba passed his previous schooling and qualified for promotion to the Bukkapatnam school. How else was the Bukkapatnam school to ascertain whether or not Sathya Sai Baba passed his previous schooling? Therefore, contrary to Sanjay’s claims, this record was shared between schools and information was copied from it.

BUKKAPATNAM SCHOOL RECORD DETAILS:

Full Bukkapatnam School Record

Full Bukkapatnam School Record


Click Here For The Full Image (And Text Transcription) To The Bukkapatnam School Record

The Bukkapatnam school record is extremely important because it shows:

  1. How poorly birthdates were recorded.
  2. The apathy and lack of importance given to valid birthdates.
  3. How early Indian school-records from rural villages are wholly unreliable means of ascertaining someone’s birthday.

The LIMF image to the Bukkpatnam school record shows the names to the following 16 students who were admitted in July 1941:

  1. 462 Gludappa 1-7-34 (7 years old)
  2. 463 Adeppa 1-7-35 (6 years old)
  3. 464 Gangappa 1-7-35 (6 years old)
  4. 465 Ganganna 1-7-34 (7 years old)
  5. 466 Sathyanarayana 4-10-29 (12 years old)
  6. 467 Narayana Mulu 1-7-34 (7 years old)
  7. 468 Venkatesh 1-7-33 (8 years old)
  8. 469 Nanjuda Rao 1-7-34 (7 years old)
  9. 470 Frakrodeem 1-7-35 (6 years old)
  10. 471 Modeen Sab 1-7-26 (15 years old)
  11. 472 Ranganna 1-1-30 (11 years old)
  12. 473 Narayana Ganta 1-7-25 (16 years old)
  13. 474 Venkataramulu 30-1-28 (13 years old)
  14. 475 Mohammad Peer 1-7-35 (6 years old)
  15. 476 Narayana
  16. 477 Sallappa

Only 14 of these students have their birthdates showing. As one can clearly see, 11 out of the 14 students are listed as being born on exactly July 1st. This is wholly and completely improbable. These 11 students have different last names and different fathers (therefore, none of them are brothers, twins, triplets, etc.).

Out of these 11 students: Frakrodeem, Mohammad Peer, Adeppa and Gangappa were allegedly born on July 1st 1935. Gludappa, Ganganna, Narayana Mulu and Nanjuda Rao were allegedly born on July 1st 1934. Venkatesh was allegedly born on July 1st 1933, Modeen Sab was allegedly born on July 1st 1926 and Narayana Ganta was allegedly born on July 1st 1925.

These utterly improbable birthdates (defying lottery odds many times over) prove that the Bukkpatnam school record is inaccurate and did not record valid birthdates.

Looking at the ages, we also see that we have children and teenagers all in the same 8th standard class ranging between 6 – 16 years of age! This simply is not possible. There are four 6 year olds, four 7 year olds, one 8 year old, one 11 year old, one 12 year old, one 13 year old, one 15 year old and one 16 year old. Half the class (on this school-record page) was composed of 6 and 7 year olds.

Consequently, this Bukkapatnam school record does not provide proof to conclusively support any speculation that Sathya Sai Baba was born on October 4th 1929. The only proof that this school record provided is proof to the apathy and lack of concern for recording valid birthdates by Indian school officials in the late 1930′s and early 1940′s in rural villages in India. The Bukkapatnam school record solidifies the perception that Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate is just as unreliable as the other birthdates listed on the school record.

Funny enough, Sanjay said:

Due to the pre-Independence situation of not keeping records correctly, is it at all surprising that that ten students share the same birthdate with differing years? Who knows whether the families of the students were not in posession of the knowledge, or whether it was down to a lazy school clerk who just rubber-stamped the papers and put them in his outbox?

That’s right:

**Who knows “whether it was down to a lazy school clerk who just rubber-stamped the papers and put them in his outbox” when it came to Sathya Sai Baba’s alleged birthdate?

**Who knows if the “pre-independence situation of not keeping records correctly” would account for an inaccurate birthdate given to Sathya Sai Baba?

Sanjay just fully conceded to the inaccuracies and significant discrepancies in the Bukkapatnam school record! Nevertheless, Sanjay flip-flopped (as he often does) and argued that this very same flawed Bukkapatnam school record indisputably recorded Sathya Sai Baba’s genuine birthdate! Sanjay’s arguments are wholly absurd and contradictory.

Sanjay also tried to pull the wool over his reader’s eyes by making the following comment about student 470, whose name is listed as “Fakrodeem Puttaparthi”. “Puttaparthi” is not a last name, but a village name. Sanjay said:

Is it really that important if Frakrodeem’s surname is ‘Puttaparthi’, the name of the village? Perhaps Frakodeem and/or his family wished to be known as in ancient times according to the land of their birth; ‘Frakrodeem of Puttaparthi’, as exists in classical literature.

Sanjay’s response is utterly preposterous. As if resorting to a “classical literature” explanation from “ancient times” is not embarassing enough, Sanjay apparently overlooked the simple fact that Frakrodeem is not from Puttaparthi. He is from Bukkapatnam. Sathya Sai Baba is the only student listed from Puttaparthi on the Bukkapatnam school record. All the other students are from Bukkapatnam, without exception. If Frakrodeem is from Puttaparthi, then one is left to wonder why his village name is listed as Bukkapatnam. Either way, the entry is incorrect. So once again, why is Frakodeem’s last name listed as “Puttaparthi” when Puttaparthi is not a last name but a village name? Why would an accurate and reliable school record make this glaring mistake and fail to correct it?

URAVAKONDA SCHOOL RECORD DETAILS:

Full Uravakonda School Record

Full Uravakonda School Record


Uravakonda School Record

Uravakonda School Record

*Student Number: 422
*Name in full: R. Satyanarayana
*House or village name: Rathanaharam
*Parent: R.P. Venkappa
*Residence: Puttaparthi
*Ocupation of parent or guardian: Teacher
*Date of admission: 1-7-43
*Date of birth: 4-10-39 (October Thirty Nine)
*Religion: Hindu
*Caste: Rajapuri
*Class on admission: III F.

As one can see, the Uravakonda school record documented Sathya Sai Baba as being born on October 4th 1939 (and even spelled it out as “October Thirty nine”). This error was left in place for 33 years before an unknown person corrected it on August 11 1976, after comparing it to other school records.

The first correction reads:

Fourth October Nineteen Tweny Nine (signature unintelligible) 11-8-76 (August 11th 1976)

The second correction reads:

Compared with the original (unintelligible) register & date of birth corrected as 4.10.1929. (p. 32 of the register regs.) (signature unintelligible) 11-8-76 (August 11th 1976)

Despite the fact that the official Uravakonda school record documented Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as being October 4th 1939 (and it stayed that way for 33 years), Sanjay had the audacity to state that the Uravakonda school record is an “independent piece of evidence that confirm Sathyanaraya Raju’s birthdate as October 4th 1929! Talk about denial, desperation and true-believer syndrome! The Uravakonda school record does not provide proof to conclusively support any speculation that Sathya Sai Baba was born on October 4th 1929. The only proof that the Uravakonda school record provided is a another contradictory date as to when Sathya Sai Baba was allegedly born.

VIJAYAMMA’S “ANYATHA SARANAM NASTHI” CITATION:

The following quote was cited from Vijayamma’s book to support a 1929 birthdate:

In 1945 the little girl’s cousins were strolling in the affluent Bangalore suburb of Malleswaram when they heard bhajans being sung and entered the house to listen. Sai Baba, who was present there, invited them to go to Puttaparthi (whose name they had never heard). When they returned to their town of Kuppam (south-east of Bangalore, but in today’s Andhra Pradesh), the cousins told the girl’s mother about their meeting. The latter was keen for them all to go, but the idea was vetoed by the father, who said: ‘You tell me He is sixteen years old and claims to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai. This is all humbug’. (p. 12)

This quote did not say anything about when Sathya Sai Baba was born. The quote indirectly implied that Sathya Sai Baba was sixteen years old in 1945. If this is true, Baba’s year of birth would be 1929.

First of all, Vijayamma’s notes were never written from a historical perspective. Although these stories were taken from Vijayamma’s notes, the above story reads as if Vijayamma was repeating a story told to her in which she was not personally involved. Therefore, these quotes do not provide any proof that Sathya Sai Baba was born in 1929. There are other devotees who indirectly claim that Baba was born in 1926. Does this mean that one can conclusively state that the majority opinion is correct? Since when is one indirect quote from a devotee’s book conclusive proof for a 1929 birthdate?

Furthermore, if Vijayamma honestly, reliably, accurately and objectively gave information that supported Sanjay’s conclusions (as he contends), then this must mean that Vijayamma also honestly, reliably, accurately and objectively related first-hand miracles that she personally experienced with Sathya Sai Baba (which even included the alleged resurrection of her own father). Nevertheless, Sanjay adamantly refuses to accept the writing of Sai Devotees (who he often bashes and trashes as “liars” on the internet) and even stated about them:

…any amount of self-serving reasoning by Ganapati or other authors favourable to Sathya Sai needs to be taken with a pinch of salt…

Therefore, Sanjay’s reference to “Anyatha Saranam Nasthi” (authored by a Sai Devotee “favorable to Sathya Sai”) needs to be taken “with a pinch of salt”.

Sanjay also said:

Sensible and rational people who are logical and down-to-earth do not believe in things like reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materialisations and the like.

Since Sanjay feels this way, his reference to Vijayamma’s book cannot be believed by “sensible”, “rational”, “logical” or “down-to-earth” people because it talks about reincarnation, spirit possession, miraculous materializations and the like.

Of course, this is not the first time that Sanjay flip-flopped regarding books authored by Sai Devotees. Click Here To Read My Article About Sanjay’s Acceptance Of LIMF (a book he later bashed and trashed as “bullshit”).

BRIAN STEEL’S OBSERVATION:

Brian Steel made the following observation:

As for the possible day of birth, in the school Register photostats in LIMF it is given as 4 October (1929). But maybe it WAS 23 November after all, as has been celebrated, at least since 1946 when we find the first reference in LIMF to an official birthday. It was also celebrated on 23 November in 1950, as Vijayakumari notes, with the Inauguration of Prasanthi Nilayam: “Till that day, prominence had not been given to Swami’s Birthday. But that day we prayed to Swami to permit us to celebrate it” (Vijayakumari, p. 161) (In the Discourses recorded in Sathya Sai Speaks, the first to be labelled as a Birthday Discourse is the one for 1960.)

Therefore, Sathya Sai Baba‘s November 23rd birthday was known as far back as 1946 when he was 20 years old (if born in 1926) or 17 years old (if born in 1929). Furthermore, LIMF records a first-hand account where a fellow classmate of Sathyanarayana Raju (Sai Baba) stated that Sathya was one year senior to him in school (meaning Sathya would have been born in 1926). Read the following clarification from LIMF.

LIMF’s (Love Is My Form) CLARIFICATIONS:

On pages 68 & 69 the LIMF editors stated (about Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate):

“Sathya’s date of birth in school records, however, is recorded as the 4th of October 1929 – and not the traditionally recognized date of the 23rd of November 1926. Talipineni Kesappa, son of Talipineni Ramappa maintains that Sathya was one year senior to him at school; therefore, Kesappa’s date of birth being 11th of June 1927, Sathya’s year of birth definitely is 1926. It has long been a practice in the schools to record a date of birth as being much later than the ‘actual’ date of birth – in order to facilitate career prospects. Sathya’s parents wanted Sathya to become an educated officer. This, possibly could be the reason for the discrepancy. In addition, in 1926, people in remote villages like Puttaparthi, in pre-independent India, were not very particular about dates and birth registration was done much later.”

Sanjay responded to LIMF’s explanation by saying:

Plenty of other evidences have proved the 1929 birthdate. LIMF’s ‘reason’ is bullshit, and they have made many more bullshit explanations, all of which have been discussed and dismissed in my exposé series. I personally do not care, it is a problem for devotees not for me. LOL.

Sanjay did not think LIMF was “bullshit” when he heavily relied and cited from it (admittedly) to make his pathetic “Sai Baba Shirdi Lies” series (See my responses: 0102 -03). I would also like to see the “plenty of other evidences” which prove the 1929 birthdate. For some mysterious reason, Sanjay can only cite 3 inaccurate school records and 1 statement from a book authored by a Sai Devotee. That’s it! Where are the “plenty of other evidences” that come from neutral, non-devotee sources?

When Sanjay is trying to advance an argument against Sathya Sai Baba, he has no problem citing self-serving quotes from Sai Devotees that he considers reliable, accurate and objective. When it comes to other quotes made by these same Sai Devotees (that Sanjay considered worthy enough to reference before) Sanjay trashes and bashes them as “liars” and calls their explanations “bullshit”. Sanjay is such a wishy-washy, hypocritical and duplicitous critic, one must take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

SATHYA SAI BABA’S BIRTHDAY – IN CONCLUSION:

Since no one has been able to produce Sathya Sai Baba’s original birth-certificate (or a copy to it), there is no conclusive proof as to which date or year he was actually born. Even though Sathya Sai Baba has a passport (from his visit to Africa in 1968, which would have required legitimate documentation for a date of birth), Sanjay said he would reject it because he claimed that someone in his family has an inaccurate date of birth in his/her passport. Therefore, Sanjay will accept nothing less than the original birth certificate to accept Sathya Sai Baba’s birthdate as being November 23rd 1926 (and more than likely he would reject that as well).

Ironically enough, although Sanjay’s standards are extremely rigid when it comes to a 1926 date of birth, his standards are extremely flaccid when it comes to a 1929 date of birth. Just more proof that Sanjay is a self-serving hypocrite who cannot take a rational, sober, fair or consistent stance against Sathya Sai Baba.

Although many Sai Devotees have written extensively about Sathya Sai Baba’s early years, none of them ever mentioned that Baba changed his birthdate. Both Ganapathi and Kasturi had full access to Sathya Sai Baba’s parents, relatives and old devotees. Based on their early interviews with Baba’s parents, relatives and old devotees, it was ascertained that Baba was born on November 23rd 1926. Even LIMF was able to trace the earliest reference to Baba’s November 23rd birthday back to 1946.

And to put the final nail in the coffin (to Sanjay’s dead-in-the-water arguments) there are no government, official or reputable organizations, institutions, corporations, agencies or offices that accept school records as proof for one’s date of birth. Not even one!

As a matter of fact, on the Littler Mendelson Legal Corporation website, there is definitive legal information regarding birth certificates and how school records cannot be substituted for them:

Birth, Marriage, Divorce Certificates: India:
Birth Certificates:
Birth Certificates are available to any applicant born after April 1, 1970, on payment of nominal fees to the appropriate government agency. Prior to 1970, however, reporting of births was voluntary. Therefore, if you are unable to obtain a birth certificate from the appropriate government agency or if the information on the birth certificate is insufficient, alternative documents may be submitted.

Two sworn affidavits executed by parents, siblings, aunts, or uncles (blood relatives) may be presented in lieu of a birth certificate when a birth certificate is not available. The affidavits should set forth the relationship between the deponent and the applicant, the date and place of the applicants’ birth, the names of both parents and other related facts. The affidavits must be witnessed and stamped by an advocate/notary. In addition, these affidavits must be accompanied by a document from a competent governmental authority stating that the certificate did not exist or no longer exists.

NOTE: School records and “birth records” issued by a hospital or church are insufficient substitutes for birth certificates. (Reference)

Consequently, Sanjay comical citations to school records as conclusive proof (supporting an October 4th 1929 date of birth for Sathya Sai Baba) is not only absurd, it is wholly without merit or legal substantiation.

Theist Timothy Conway Referenced Atheist Basava Premanand

PhD Timothy Conway said the following about Basava Premanand (an Atheist, Rationalist and Skeptic who published the Indian Skeptic tabloid):

Timothy Conway: “Though I disagree strongly with his atheist philosophy and rationalist-skeptic approach, the Indian former SSB devotee (1968-74) turned India’s most notorious ‘guru-buster,’ Basava Premanand, a decades-long critic of Sathya Sai in his periodical Indian Skeptic, also deserves acknowledgment here as one taking a firm and enduring stand for accountability and justice, not just in the case of SSB but with other problematic figures as well. (On the case against SSB, see Premanand’s bulky books, including Murders in Sai Baba’s Bed Room, 2004, and, most recently, Failed Sabotage by SSB through Gerald Moreno, 2007, etc., published by the author at 11/7, Chettipalayam Rd., Podanur 641 023, Tamil Nadu, India)”

First and foremost, Basava Premanand was never a Sai Devotee as erroneously alleged by PhD Timothy Conway. Click Here to view screen captures to SaiPetition.net, Robert Priddy’s Ex-Office Bearers Page and the BBC text to the Secret Swami Documentary. Basava Premanand personally made a submission to SaiPetition.net (which was subsequently replicated on Robert Priddy’s Ex-Office Bearers Page) stating that he was a follower of Sathya Sai Baba from 1968 to 1974 and was the “best worker in the SSB Org., Podanur”. However, in the Secret Swami Documentary, Basava Premanand claimed he was never a follower of Sathya Sai Baba and had been trying to investigate the Guru since 1968 itself. Premanand joined the Sai Organization in an attempt to infiltrate it and expose Sai Baba.

In both the GuruBusters Documentary and the The Independent Article Premanand was said to have been exposing Gurus for nearly 50 years (since the age of 21-22). This means that in 1968 (at the age of 38, or 16 years after he was a rationalist) Premanand was not a follower of Sathya Sai Baba when he joined the Sai Organization in Podanur. Premanand lied about being a Sai Devotee (just as he lied about Moreno being sexually abused by Sai Baba, lied about an anonymous letter being written by a Sai Student, among numerous other blatant untruths).

One will also notice how the moralist PhD Timothy Conway cited Premanand’s book against Moreno on his “biggest and best website on spirituality”. Don’t expect Timothy Conway to divulge the fact that Basava Premanand shamelessly libeled Moreno in that book and that it contains numerous unsubstantiated defamations mostly from Robert Priddy (with citations to Brian Steel, Conny Larsson, Sanjay Dadlani and Alan Kazlev). Moreno discussed this issue in his article entitled Is Basava Premanand Senile, Confused, A Liar Or All Of The Above? and on his Indian Skeptic Page.

This is the type of sleaze, slime and defamatory material that PhD Timothy Conway cites against his detractors. PhD Timothy Conway is a pseudo-moralist and pseudo-spiritualist who must reference sleaze, slime and defamatory material because there is absolutely no verifiable, credible or legal information to support any of the criminal allegations made against Sathya Sai Baba. The fact that no one has even tried to file a basic police complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India is proof enough that the allegations against Baba lack substance and credibility. Neither Sathya Sai Baba nor the Sai Organization have ever been charged with any crime, sexual or otherwise (Refs: 0102).

The burden of proof is on those making the allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. Those making the allegations (including Timothy Conway) have miserably failed to make any leeway against Sathya Sai Baba in a court of law in India despite their loud protests and cry-baby whining to the contrary.

Furthermore, Timothy Conway’s reference to Basava Premanand has amusing repercussions against him, his beliefs and his advocacy of Gurus, Enlightened Masters, Mystics, Hinduism and Eastern Philosophies because Basava Premanand believes that people who believe in these things are Guru promoters, blind believers, brainwashed devotees, cult advocates and superstitionists with weak intellects!

This is even more the case when considering that PhD Timothy Conway is a gullible true believer in Gurus [3], Mystics [3], Enlightened Masters [3], psychics [1] [2] [4], levitation [5], bi-location [5], miracles [5], remote-viewing [4], elementals, meditation [2] [6], paranormal powers [5], aliens [4] [10], rebirth [1] [7], reincarnation [1] [7], karma [8], oracles [2], I-Ching [2], sensitives [1] [2], channelers [1] [2], astrology [2], astrologists [2], palm-reading [2], non-duality [9], etc. (the list goes on and on).

Timothy Conway also attempted to argue that if Sai Baba possesses paranormal powers, he could easily “warp spacetime” by creating an “insular interdimensional environment” where he could engage in abuse without easy detection. That’s right, Timothy Conway believes that it is possible that Sai Baba molested alleged victims on another dimension, which is why it is so difficult for them to prove their allegations and why there is an abysmal lack of witnesses supporting their claims (Ref: Conway Email No. 10).

Attempting to sling mud at Sathya Sai Baba and his detractors, Timothy Conway ended up slinging mud on himself, his Gurus, his belief system and on innumerable religious and spiritual adherents whose beliefs were ridiculed and criticized by atheist Basava Premanand.

These are the types of three-ring circus clowns who are trying to “expose” Sathya Sai Baba.

Robert Priddy Attended Sathya Sai Baba’s 670th Birthday Celebration!

Robert Priddy (a caustic critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba who once hailed the Guru as God Incarnate and thereby the Father who sent Jesus, Allah who sent Muhammad and the Creator of the Universe), claimed he attended Sathya Sai Baba’s 670th birthday celebration!

Robert Priddy Claimed He Attended Sathya Sai Babas 670th Birthday Celebrations

Robert Priddy Claimed He Attended Sathya Sai Baba’s 670th Birthday Celebration


Robert Priddy is the same guy who boasts he is mentally sound with unimpaired memory. Gerald Joe Moreno has written extensively about Robert Priddy’s not-so-Priddy blunders, defamations and libels that seriously compromise his self-professed integrity.

For interested readers, Sathya Sai Baba is celebrating his 84th Birthday Celebration this year (2009), not his 684th Birthday Celebration (as would be alleged by Robert Priddy).

Gerald Joe Moreno Responds To PhD Timothy Conway About The Jack Hawley Letter

Introduction:
At enlightened-spirituality.org/Sathya_Sai_Baba_my_concerns.html, Timothy Conway published a particularly confrontational response to a letter that Jack Hawley wrote in December 2000 about the Sai Controversy. This webpage contains Gerald Joe Moreno’s response to Timothy Conway’s critique of Jack Hawley’s letter. Since this article is long, it has been divided into four pages (links for pages 1, 2, 3, 4 are located at the bottom of the page).

Letter From Jack Hawley Ph.D About The Sai Controversy:

WE DON’T KNOW!
“Unless you brighten your vision with Love, you cannot see the Truth.” – Sathya Sai Baba

Every decade or so negative rumors arise here in Prasanthi. It seems to be a Western thing. Indians just ignore them. Many things arise here that shake spiritual aspirants to their roots. This latest round of hearsay seems more virulent because e-mail now transmits gossipy rumors to the whole world in the blink of an eye. Hysteria rises with the rumors. People face a crisis of faith. Some of them leave, some stay. How one fares in this crisis depends on one’s “capacity” (an important spiritual term for the strength of one’s faith and love).

The big question, of course, is “is it true?” And the truth is that we (all of us) don’t know! Many think they know, but they don’t really know. But I do — at least I know some things (as I’m sure many others do also). I will not talk about all I know, but I can say this: It is NOT what some minds have leaped to.

It is the worldly function of the mind to reach conclusions. When the mind doesn’t know the answer to a question it becomes psychologically distressed. Then it grabs at answers and stretches for concepts that might help it feel better. It readily accepts simplistic analogies, buzz words, and labels — anything that alleviates its puzzled state. Most of the “answers” it comes up with are wrong, but the mind doesn’t care! Worse yet, once it latches onto an “answer,” the mind stops receiving new information. In effect it says, “Sorry, this issue is closed. I will no longer accept anything that could upset my tenuous equilibrium.”

Regarding the recent rumors:

  1. They are definitely not “the truth” as people so carelessly use the term truth (They may seem “true” to some, but they are not “The Truth.”)
  2. They are also not any of the other modern, quick-stick labels aimed at grabbing our attention, frightening us, and disgusting us.
  3. What is (or is not) happening at Prasanthi Nilayam is unrelated to current worldly level buzz words and ideas to which the mind so quickly leaps. This is not about a “character flaw” in a mere old man, for example; it has nothing to do with analysis or the so-called “medical model,” or with “scientific” thinking. (The mind sees, or even creates, what it looks for. In this sex and violence obsessed Kali Yuga [era] of today, the mind leaps to obsessive conclusions. Unable to truly understand, yet ever ready to leap, the mind shrouds Divinity with worldly illusions and comes up with wrong conclusions.)
  4. What is happening here in Prasanthi is beyond the meager human mind and its ability to “figure out.” It is beyond maya (mind-created illusion). Many things happen here that involve deep, mysterious energies, far beyond what our minds can grasp.

We do have some quite clear hints about what’s happening here:

  • It has to do with Love so deep, so Divine that nothing can stand in its way — not even the threat of misunderstanding or calumny.
  • It has to do with healing, not harming.
  • It has to do with the Avatar’s mission here on earth (which, of course, has to fit this crazy Kali age).
  • It has to do with the purity of our own minds, not someone else’s. The impurity is not in the Avatar, who is purity itself, it’s in the world, in our minds. Few of us can see Divinity, and fewer yet understand it.

Those who go into their hearts for answers during these crises of faith fare better. Those who go into their minds and seek answers outside, struggle the hardest and ache most.

12/2000, Jack Hawley, Prasanthi Nilayam

Moreno’s Comments About Timothy Conway’s Critique Of Dr. Jack Hawley’s Letter: Hawley’s comments are in blue, Conway’s are in light grey and Joe Moreno’s response follows.

——————————————————————————————————————

Timothy Conway: Allow me here to critique Hawley’s fine-sounding essay on an extensive, point-by-point basis, because there are so many violations of logic and acceptable use of language, as well as problems with the specific content in what he states. I will identify his writing with “JH:” and italicize them, and preface my comments with “TC:” and use regular font, with occasional italicization and boldfacing for emphasis.

To begin with, Mr. Hawley’s opening quote from Baba implies that those who are authentically living in Divine Love will see the Truth as Hawley and Baba want people to see it. It is apparently inconceivable to Mr. Hawley that mature, longtime spiritual aspirants could be living in Love, aware of the Divine Truth (e.g., God is seated in the hearts of all beings; only God ultimately, nondually exists; etc.), and yet disagree with Hawley over the meaning and lawfulness of Baba’s sexual activities and other improprieties.

Moreno’s Response: Allow me to critique Timothy Conway’s extreme and unfounded responses to Jack Hawley’s letter on a point-by-point basis because there are many “violations of logic”, unacceptable use of language, as well as serious “problems with the specific content in what he states”.

To Date: Sathya Sai Baba has never (ever) been formally charged with any crime, sexual or otherwise. Ex-Devotees wage vicious smear and hate campaigns against Sai Baba on the internet because they have failed to make any leeway against him in a court of law in India. After 10+ years, not even one alleged victim has been able to obtain legal representation despite the offer of free “world-class legal resources” from ex-devotees and despite the lucrative prospect of a successful suit against Sai Baba in India (where the guru’s “empire” is alleged to be worth billions of dollars). Therefore, Timothy Conway’s accusations of “Baba’s sexual activities and other improprieties” are not supported with credible, verifiable or legal documentation.

——————————————————————————————————————

JH: Every decade or so negative rumors arise here in Prasanthi.

TC: This is typical of the obfuscation (fog) technique that Mr. Hawley perpetrates throughout his essay. The truth is that rumors about sexual improprieties by Baba have been circulating among residents and visitors to the ashram since at least 1980, when I first got the most remote whiff of them. They began to come into clearer focus and wider distribution with the publication of Tal Brooke’s “Avatar of Night” book in 1982, reprinted in 1984. And the stories (“rumors”) have been circulating throughout the 1980s and 1990s, especially since 1995 with the widespread advent of the Internet. The stories undoubtedly go back in oral story-telling form and certain persons’ private notes to the early 1970s, when the alleged activities in Tal Brooke’s book are declared to have taken place.

Moreno’s Response: Robert Taliaferro Brooke (an extreme fundamentalist and evangelical Christian) was the first person to make accusations of sexual impropriety against Sai Baba. Tal Brooke published his first Anti-Sai book in 1976 under the title “Lord Of The Air”. It was republished in 1979 as “Sai Baba, Lord Of The Air”, renamed “Avatar of Night” in 1982 with a reprint in 1984, was renamed “Lord Of The Air: Tales of a Modern Antichrist” in 1990 and reprinted again as “Avatar of Night” in 1999. Timothy Conway was not aware that Tal Brooke originally published his Anti-Sai book in 1976 and displayed continued ignorance (in his email correspondence with me) about the book’s original publication date.

99% of the allegations and rumors circulating against Sathya Sai Baba can be directly traced to Tal Brooke and his religiously-fueled Anti-Sai propaganda, which started in 1976 and continues to the present day through expensive internet ad campaigns soliciting his Anti-Sai book.

Tal Brooke purposely exaggerated when he claimed he was Sai Baba’s number one Western follower (at best, a dubious and subjective claim). Those who met Tal Brooke in the early 70’s at Sai Baba’s ashram immediately recognized him as a fanatic Christian (contrary to his claim that he converted to Christianity post-Sai Baba). Tal Brooke wrote that Sai Baba is a hermaphrodite based on an alleged story related to him by an unidentified person named “Surya Das” who in turn related a story told to him by another unidentified man named “Patrick”. It was alleged that “Patrick” claimed he had coital (vaginal) sex with Sathya Sai Baba. Because of “Patrick’s” alleged story, Tal Brooke perpetuated the idea that Sathya Sai Baba is a hermaphrodite. The only problem with all of Tal Brooke’s tall-stories is that none of the alleged witnesses he cited (who have never been identified as real people) have ever come forward in 30+ years to corroborate his stories.

The scholar Lawrence A. Bapp wrote in his book “Redemptive Encounters – Three Modern Studies In The Hindu Tradition” (which was critical of Sai Baba), “The animus of Brooke’s book (1979) is too strong for one to have much confidence in its accuracy.”

It is also perplexing that Timothy Conway (a true-believer in Gurus, Enlightened Masters, Mystics, Hinduism and Eastern Philosophy) cited Tal Brooke as an authority and reference against Sai Baba. In Tal Brooke’s book “Riders Of The Cosmic Circuit, The Dark Side of Superconsciousness”, he attacked Hinduism, suggested that enlightenment is an evil path and that God-Men and Gurus are in a state of perfect demon-possession. Therefore, Timothy Conway’s reference to Tal Brooke has amusing repercussions against him, his beliefs and his advocacy of Gurus, Enlightened Masters, Mystics, Hinduism and Eastern Philosophy.

One could similarly cite Tal Brooke as an authority and reference against Timothy Conway’s promotion of demon-possessed God-Men and Gurus and the evil paths of enlightenment they promote through sinful Eastern Philosophies. Since Tal Brooke heavily relied on subjective, fanatic and religiously-based arguments to draw his conclusions that Gurus are in a state of perfect demon possession and that enlightenment is an evil path leading to Satan, what does this say about the integrity and objectivity of his claims against Sai Baba?

How all this information about Tal Brooke escaped Ph.D researcher Conway is unknown.

——————————————————————————————————————

JH: It seems to be a Western thing. Indians just ignore them.

TC: This is patently untrue. Yes, Westerners have talked more openly about these things, because of our more psychologized culture, influenced in recent decades by “truth-telling” approach of the Recovery movement, the Oprah Winfrey show, the John Bradshaw work, and also the “tell-all” approach of the tabloid newspapers, sensationalist celebrity autobiographies, Jerry Springer show, and other brutally explicit venues.

But India is now openly talking about Baba’s improprieties: just read the 3-part series published in Dec. 2000 in the widely read India Today newspaper, and read the several articles exposing Sai and the organization in other Indian newspapers and magazines. (Note: many of these articles are available at the website www.exbaba.com.)

Evidently Baba’s improprieties around sexual activity and faked materializations have been an “open secret” discussed among his college boys for some time, as related in “SATHYA SAI BABA: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY,” posted to the Internet in 1993 on the discussion site soc.culture.tamil [see www.exbaba.com] by Meenakshi Srikanth, a former student at the Sai Institute of Higher Learning, Whitefield campus. (Meenakshi’s piece only became more widely known as part of “The Findings” compilation presented in July 2000 by David and Faye Bailey, posted at www.exbaba.com.)

Moreno’s Response: REGARDING INDIA TODAY: Did Timothy Conway read the India Today article? It appears he did not. For starters, India Today is not a “newspaper” (as erroneously stated by Conway). India Today is a news-weekly magazine. What Timothy Conway conveniently forgot to mention is that the India Today article was entirely slanted with an Anti-Sai viewpoint and was the direct result of unremitting propaganda from Ex-Devotees.

Hari Sampath (an Ex-Devotee) boasted:

bdsteel.tripod.com/More/evidence.htm“I had initiated and organized about 70 % of the major media stories on Sai Baba , including The Times, India Today, the Danish documentary, Salon.com and several others.”

Barry Pittard (an Ex-Devotee) boasted:

home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/articles/saislurs8.html“In 2000, I was a member of a small international group of former devotees which ran a number of potent exposure operations. In one of these, we got a 10-page cover story (December 4, 2000) in the prestigious mass circulation weekly magazine India Today.”

Ex-Devotees have similarly boasted that they accomplished various negative media against Sai Baba by waging unremitting “e-bombing” campaigns (flooding various media agencies and organizations on a day-to-day basis with hundreds to thousands of emails containing Anti-Sai propaganda). Even India Today reported this behavior and said, “In the US, disillusioned devotees are ‘e-bombing’ Foreign Secretary Madeleine Albright’s office every day.”

REGARDING MEENAKSHI SRIKANTH: Shri Unni Krishnan was a student at the Sri Sathya Sai Institute Of Higher Learning and personally knew all the details regarding See: Meenakshi Srikanth. Meenakshisundaram Srikanth was expelled from the Institute in 1989 during the final year of his Bachelors degree. Several other students in Meenakshi’s circle of friends were permanently expelled for propagating defamatory rumors and gossip against Sathya Sai Baba (mostly taken from Tal Brooke and Basava Premanand). After Meenakshi Srikanth tearfully pleaded not be expelled, the Institute authorities allowed him to complete his degree (so that his career prospects would not be jeopardized and his parents would not be shamed) under the agreement that he would cease talking ill of Sathya Sai Baba. Meenakshi agreed. Meenakshi Srikanth was provided three years of quality education free of cost at Sai Baba’s College.

After Meenakshi Srikanth graduated from Sai Baba’s institute, he vengefully wrote his articles against Sai Baba and purposely withheld the fact that he had been expelled for spreading the very same rumors and gossip he decided to repeat on the internet. Meenakshi Srikanth now lives a prosperous life in Virginia with his family due to the free education and Bachelor’s degree he received at Sai Baba’s College (which opened the door for him to receive further studies in the USA). In a clarificatory post, Meenakshi Srikanth admitted that he was expelled from the Institute on Republic day 1989 and was taken back into the institute the next day. Meenakshi Srikanth withheld this information because he felt it was not his “motive” and “felt it was irrelevant to the discussion”.

All of Meenakshi Srikanth’s allegations against Sai Baba were based on rumor, gossip, hearsay and unsupported and unverifiable second-hand stories. Meenakshi was never sexually abused but he interpreted everything students said about their interviews with a perverse sexual slant (which Ex-Devotees are notorious for doing).

Although Meenakshi Srikanth originally made his posts on the soc.culture.tamil group in 1993, they were actually published on and referenced to rense.com in 2000 (because Said Afshin Khorramshahgol’s website was deleted for some unknown reason). David Bailey (author of The Findings) contacted Jeff Rense and had him post Meenakshi’s story on his rense.com website (Ref). Rense.com is a website that celebrates Ernst Zundel (calling him a “modern day Galileo”). Ernst Zundel had run Samisdat Publishers, one of the largest distributors of Nazi and neo-Nazi propaganda and memorabilia in the world. Why David Bailey would contact a purported Anti-Semite to push Anti-Sai material is unclear. Probably for the same reason why Tony O’Clery had David Icke post The Findings on his conspiracy and paranoia website. For those who do not know, David Icke believes in a secret society called the “Illuminati”, which is composed of shape-shifting reptilian-hominoid aliens from another planet that suck blood from babies. David Icke believes that George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie (among others) are reptilian-hominoid shape-shifters from another planet. Call it coincidence, but white supremacists also posted their propaganda in a Sathya Sai Baba Yahoo Group (Ref).

Timothy Conway blindly believed Meenakshi Srikanth’s story without even properly researching it and used his hearsay “grudge” stories as “evidence” that many Sai Students secretly know about allegations of sexual impropriety and faked materializations (which was inadvertently refuted by Reinier Van Der Sandt, a caustic critic of Sai Baba). It is exactly this type of shabby research and gullibility that reflects so badly on Dr. Timothy Conway.

——————————————————————————————————————

JH: Many things arise here that shake spiritual aspirants to their roots.

TC: Aspirants need to be shaken at their roots. It’s called radical (“at the root”) transformation. We need to be shaken up so much at our egoic roots that these ego tendencies fall off and we are free in God, our original Identity as Spirit. Yes, this news about Sathya Sai is shattering, but we need to be shattered to a certain extent.

All sacred mystical traditions speak of this need for ego death, for undergoing what St. John of the Cross (Juan de al Cruz) called the “Dark Night of the Soul,” wherein, as Juan puts it, one is completely un-made and re-made in God. Zen and Vajrayana [Buddhist] masters speak all the time about the need for this ego-death. And for the illustrious Advaita Vedanta [Hindu] masters, this is none other than the “manonasa” or death of the egoic mind that is called for so that the Atman [God-Self] can shine clearly, without egocentric delusion.

Having one’s exclusive, one-sided views about Sathya Sai exploded with revelations that his behavior is not so seemly can have a most liberating effect, if not resulting in perfect “death of the ego-mind.” Some have even thought that the revelations about Baba are specifically, divinely intended to shake people up, to wean them from their attachment to the name and form of Sathya Sai.

Moreno’s Response: Strange enough, it appears that Timothy Conway just made a strong argument why Sai Baba might act in ways that would disenfranchise and disillusion various individuals. As Paul William Roberts pointed out in his book “Empire Of The Soul” (which contained positive accounts with Sai Baba in the early 70’s), the perverse and baffling actions of many Zen masters and spiritual teachers tend to defy our expectations for them. They may act in ways that can be deliberately off-putting (the alcoholism of Chogyam Trungpa) or repugnantly antisocial (the cruel humor of George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff). Roberts stated that our own expectations for spiritual teachers are yet more conditioned baggage from which their teachings and actions are designed to liberate us. Therefore, this particular response from Timothy Conway seems to hold validity among various thinkers and philosophers.

——————————————————————————————————————

JH: This latest round of hearsay seems more virulent because e-mail now transmits gossipy rumors to the whole world in the blink of an eye.

TC: The use of the word “hearsay” is strategically used to minimize the authenticity of molested victims’ accounts of what Baba has done to them. We should realize that, strictly speaking, everything you have ever heard about Baba outside your own direct experience is also “hearsay,” that is, second-hand information. This includes the official 4-volume biography by [Prof. N.] Kasturi, everything that is published in Sanathana Sarathi [the official journal of the SSB organization], everything that your friends tell you at Sai Centers after they return from India, etc.

Obviously, some forms of hearsay are more reliable, some are not. Many of Baba’s victims have been willing to sign legal affidavits about their unsavory experiences, giving their accounts much more reliability than many of the “beautiful” stories you’ve heard about Sai.

Mr. Hawley also uses the phrase “gossipy rumors” — another tactic that, deliberately or not, marginalizes and minimizes the heart-wrenching accounts of Baba’s sexual abuse and deceitful manipulation told by victims or their anguished family members. Hawley is verging on the use of an ancient, sinister debate strategy employed by those of little integrity: attack the person, not the person’s legitimate viewpoint. Hence this low-level tactic is called “ad hominem” — attack the man (e.g., as a “gossip”) rather than address his legitimate concerns and grievances.

Moreno’s Response: It is completely true that most of the allegations against Sathya Sai Baba are based on hearsay, “gossipy rumors”, second-hand stories and anonymous accounts. Many sexual abuse allegations have obviously been faked by mentally unstable defamers of Sai Baba (such as UsedByBaba, Tony O’Clery, Sanjay Dadlani and Barbara Dent). It is also true that the allegations against Sathya Sai Baba are primarily disseminated by non-victims who were never sexually abused themselves and who never witnessed an incident of alleged molestation themselves. Therefore, the observations and arguments made by ex-devotees for alleged victims are entirely hearsay, speculative and could never be used in a court of law.

Timothy Conway attempted to con readers into thinking that there are “signed legal affidavits” against Sathya Sai Baba. This claim is wholly unsubstantiated and based (ironically) on “gossipy rumors” that Conway blindly believed. As a matter of fact, Timothy Conway fully acknowledged to me (via e-mail) that he never saw an alleged affidavit for himself but blindly believed the “affidavits” claim based on information relayed to him by the late Glen Meloy. Then (in a subsequent email) Timothy Conway flip-flopped, changed his story and said he based his “affidavits” claim on the India Today article (which stated that Jens Sethi and Hans de Kraker submitted “signed affidavits” to them).

India Today’s relevant extract from Jens & Gurprit Sethi’s account was duplicated (verbatim) from their signed letter to David Bailey (who, since the year 2000, never referred to Sethi’s story as an “affidavit”). Jens & Gurprit Sethi’s signed letter to David Bailey was deceptively called a “signed affidavit” by India Today even though no Anti-Sai Activist ever specifically referred to Sethi’s story as an “affidavit”. India Today’s relevant extract from Hans de Kraker’s account was actually taken (verbatim) from a private letter he wrote to the French journalist Virginie Saurel. Hans de Kraker told me (via e-mail) that much of his private correspondence was made public without his permission. Hans de Kraker’s signed letter to Virginie Saurel was deceptively called a “signed affidavit” by India Today even though no Anti-Sai Activist ever specifically referred to Kraker’s letter as an “affidavit”. Even Michelle Goldberg (who cited the same letter in her salon.com article) did not refer to the letter as an “affidavit”. Therefore, Jens & Gurprit Sethi and Hans de Kraker’s signed letters were not actual “signed affidavits” sworn before a notary as fraudulently claimed by India Today (who were working exclusively in collaboration with critics and Ex-Devotees). Furthermore, Jens Sethi and Hans de Kraker were both adults (not minors) when they had their first alleged encounters with Sai Baba.

Ex-Devotees have revealed that they cannot distinguish between affidavits (which are sworn before a notary or other officer authorized to administer an oath) and stories that were never sworn before a notary or other authorized officer (Ref). Even Robert Priddy said that abuse stories were “recorded in various of the affidavits on the internet (totally confusing online stories with affidavits). Timothy Conway never saw the alleged affidavits (with a stamp from a notary or signature from an authorized officer) for himself even though he had the audacity to claim the alleged “affidavits” were signed, legal and in existence.

It is very perplexing why Ex-Devotees would continually make reference to “affidavits” when they and alleged victims have never initiated any kind of legal action against Sathya Sai Baba in the past 10+ years. It appears that Ex-Devotees are attempting to legitimize their smear-campaigns with disinformation in a brazen attempt to deceive the general public.

After several years of silence, Hari Sampath (using his known Yahoo name of “delta_108”) came out of hiding on August 2nd 2007 and I was able to directly question him about the alleged “affidavit” claims, which originated from him (Reference). Although Hari Sampath expressed a willingness to answer my questions in “half an hour” (Reference), he instead chose to flee the group and went back into hiding. It is important to note that all of these “affidavit” claims against Sathya Sai Baba originated with Hari Sampath and were later passed to Ojvind Kyro, Glen Meloy, Robert Priddy, et al. Despite this fact, Mr. Sampath could not answer basic questions about the alleged affidavits he worked so hard to obtain and chose instead to hide rather than give answers. These are the types of deceivers that have misled so many people about Sai Baba and the Sai Controversy for so many years.

Despite six non-anonymous and alleged victims being very vocal on the internet and though various media, all of them never filed a basic police complaint against Sai Baba in India and all of them refused Barry Pittard’s offer of free “world-class legal resources”. Alleged victims can no longer file a court case against Sathya Sai Baba because the Indian statute of limitations has expired for them (the allegations are many years old). Alleged victim’s highly questionable tactics and defenses are very unusual and their unique approach to addressing their alleged abuse (through selective and one-way venues rather than legal venues) is highly indicative of deceit.

Although Timothy Conway hypocritically castigated Jack Hawley for ad hominem attacks, he fully engaged in them with bitter, deep-seated ill will. Timothy Conway, with his holier-than-thou facade, miserably fails to practice the precept he can often be seen advising others to follow.