Exchange of Views with Hari Sampath

Brian Steel  21 November 2002

This exchange of letters consists of a note I posted here on 19 November, followed by Mr Sampath's detailed e-mail response of 20 November, just received.

Clarity, Accusations, and Evidence. A Reply to Mr Hari Sampath.

Brian Steel  19 November 2002

(This reply to a Reply from Mr Hari Sampath(posted on 17 November 2002 on <www.exbaba.com> is temporarily posted on my website, for one month, because I do not think it appropriate to continue our exchange of views on a site which is not a Discussion Group but a site for News and Views on SB. I hope that exbaba will allow an announcement on their site, as a courtesy to Mr Sampath, that this reply is available here. My e-mail address is listed on this Home Page if Mr Sampath, or anyone else, has further comments to make on matters of substance.)

I am grateful for Mr Sampath's updated clarification on <www.exbaba.com> of his earlier views on the Declaration. After quoting lengthy excerpts from an earlier piece, he still felt the need to add the following, perhaps for readers like me who sometimes find his highly emotional style and some of his evidence confusing (see footnote):

"1. Sai Baba never left school in 1940, he was very much in school in for a couple of years more."

2. "All this so called "avatar day" incidents were invented lies, and NEVER took place, whether in 1940, 1943 or for that matter any year, and these small discrepancies prove the larger lie."

For me these two supplementary statements throw some new light on Mr Sampath's position on the two issues and they help me to understand better the recent brief posting about Sunday/Monday and its relationship to the March posting.

As we have seen, Sampath firmly believes, and proclaims, that SB is a liar. In the matter of the (Major) Declaration his accusation may possibly prove to be accurate, but in lieu of conclusive proof, he makes assertions like , "All this so called "avatar day" incidents were invented lies, and NEVER took place, whether in 1940, 1943 or for that matter any year, and these small discrepancies prove the larger lie.[ In the preceding quotes he reminded us of his equally unproven earlier conclusion, "They could NOT have taken place." Such a method of arguing will convince very few readers.

Having also investigated SB over a considerable time, I often share Mr Sampath's apparent frustration at the difficulty in "nailing down" the real truth about SB. He does say a lot of strange things, he does make many mistakes, and he does invent details in some of his stories. Nevertheless, the only effective method I know to make any real progress in this labyrinth is to keep on looking for the facts, and then drawing the conclusions. In this way, a lot of careful, well-documented research, notably over the past year, by several researchers has uncovered an extraordinary number of discrepancies in SB's stories. The effect of such clear proofs is to weaken SB's credibility and his claim of omniscience, which in turn encourages us to hope for the appearance sooner or later, after more careful research, of some sort of conclusive proof of other serious discrepancies, including perhaps those matters covered by strong suspicions or sweeping critical assertions about SB.

Common sense suggests that, if we wish to convince others that something is true (or untrue), we must use any solid proofs we have and publicise them as much as we can, while continuing to look for more proofs, rather than trying to bombard intelligent listeners or readers with emotional accusations which they will, not surprisingly, tend to reject. A prime case of available proofs is the devotee-written book, Love is My Form, which, although apparently unmentioned in the research of Mr Sampath, has proved to be such a goldmine of proofs of discrepancies of all sorts (including the 1943 date and all that flows from it).

Because of the solid documentary evidence in LIMF that SB left school at some time in late 1943 (rather than in 1940), I have used that date in some of my writings. Since I have seen no evidence to prove the contrary, I have had no alternative but to assume that the TWO key Declarations ("Shirdi Sai Baba" and "Avatar" were also made in 1943 (contrary to the official history). Even if Mr Sampath's guess that there never was a Major Declaration eventually proves to be correct (which is a possibility I do not deny), the three-year discrepancy in SB's biography is still a very strong indictment of the veracity not only of SB but of the SSO, for maintaining the 1940 school-leaving date for so long (even after the publishing of LIMF next door to the ashram). Since this must be very embarrassing to the SSO, it is important to publicise the discrepancy at every opportunity. In addition, as Sampath himself will appreciate, that crucial difference of three years is important collateral evidence for the suspicion (which some of us feel) that the date of birth may have been 1929 as the school records appear to indicate and not 1926, with the very serious ramifications for the SB and the SSO of which we are all keenly aware. (Incidentally, in this connection, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it would also be wise to remember that until now the major, most accessible, but by no means conclusive evidence of that intriguing possibility are the TWO photostats in LIMF, supplemented by encouraging bits of anecdotal evidence from a few books of reminiscences.)

***

Minor note on accuracy and research:

In his latest 'Reply', Mr Sampath claims, "... I proved again with that school record that SB left school in 1943". If this is a reference to his March article which related to Balaraman's photostat, his claim is inaccurate since he only mentioned 1941 and 1942, NOT 1943 (which is shown on a different photostat in LIMF, presumably unseen by him). Even in this latest 'Reply', he seems reluctant to be more precise than "for a couple of years more" (after 1940), possibly because he still has not been able to check this now well known data source referred to by others.

***


Response from Hari Sampath

From: "Hari Sampath" <harisampath@hotmail.com> To: ompukalani@hotmail.com

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:31:41 -0600

Dear Mr Brian Steel,

I thank you for replying to my post on the exbaba site. Here are my comments with reference to the same, I leave it to your choice whether to publish them on your website edited/unedited or merely reporting content or in any manner you deem fit. I would not question your judgement should you choose not to publish it at all, as it is your right.

*****************************************************************

"I am grateful for Mr Sampath's updated clarification on <www.exbaba.com> of his earlier views on the Declaration. After quoting lengthy excerpts from an earlier piece, he still felt the need to add the following, perhaps for readers like me who sometimes find his highly emotional style and some of his evidence confusing (see footnote)."

You are free to classify my approach as an "emotional style", but if you are a seriously committed researcher as your works appear to suggest, you would certainly consider the following points. All my efforts are completely practical and action oriented. 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. I had collected legal affidavits from many victims, filed a formal complaint with the CBI, filed a complaint with the FBI, petitioned the US Dept of State based on the FBI complaint to issue a consular warning, filed a case in the Supreme court of India, have been having a website for a long time on the Sai Baba expose, stopped an effort by the Sai Baba org to get PM Tony Blair to Whitefield, acquired and published Mr Blair's letter on my website and done so many similar things ovet the past 3 years.

The purpose of me saying all these things at the risk of being thought of as blowing my own trumphet is only to suggest that I had all along been totally and completely practical, in getting the information about Sai Baba to the whole world. I have my proof, I am no longer researching as you seem to be. I also know what is the maximum level of proof one can possibly hope to get. I am also aware that for people who are completely brainwashed into being Sai Baba devotees , sometimes no amount of proof is enough ( even if they see Sai Baba molesting a young boy, they will always have an explanation). All these efforts of mine , along with the position I have taken do not tally with your perception of "emotional style" which you attribute to me.

"As we have seen, Sampath firmly believes, and proclaims, that SB is a liar. In the matter of the (Major) Declaration his accusation may possibly prove to be accurate, but in lieu of conclusive proof, he makes assertions like , "All this so called "avatar day" incidents were invented lies, and NEVER took place, whether in 1940, 1943 or for that matter any year, and these small discrepancies prove the larger lie.[ In the preceding quotes he reminded us of his equally unproven earlier conclusion, "They could NOT have taken place." Such a method of arguing will convince very few readers."

Let me explain this position by stating 2 basic facts : One. Sai Baba claims to be Omniscient , and an Avatar, which all his devotees believe . Two. Sai Baba has been elaborately describing his avatar announcement which he says he made on October 20th 1940, which he has been insisting for 61 years was a Monday.

It is easy to see that the standard of measurement we apply to these statements is that of an "avatar" and not that of a fraud. Lets us start out by assuming that Sai Baba is indeed an "avatar" for the benefit of his devotees, an approach I have taken in my "first lie" article , if you notice. Now, all I have done is accept that all those incidents did happen as mentioned by the omniscient , infallible "avatar", and try to see if the facts tally. If the facts , which in this case are a complete contradiction in terms of day/date, school, headmasters' names, age, classmates' ages etc, then we have already a situation where the "avatar" has failed the "avatar test". For a "normal human being" your explanation of a discrepancy in memory , slips of the tongue etc may well be valid explanations , but we have to remember we are dealing with an "avatar" here ( as SB claims... the most powerful one ever). Those "avataric" standards do not allow for "memory discrepancies" , especially as we are talking about the "announcement" of divinity event here. Having established that Sai Baba ( presumably the avatar) is saying things ( Oct 20th 1940 being a Monday) , that cannot possibly be true as has been proved by the calendar, we are led to the point where we start thinking "what on earth could have made him say such a thing as that". My conclusion is: I immediately throw out the "avatar theory" out of the window, and now assume that Sai Baba is NOT an "avatar", and see what would be the set of circumstances that would explain his statements as well as the facts. I am led to think that his statements and the proven facts ( about the day/date) are mutually exclusive, and hence we are faced wit two explanations now. One. Sai Baba did make a mistake ( which means he doesn't fit the "avataric" definition of infallibility we assumed, and which he stubbornly proclaims).

Two. Sai Baba is indeed lying about all those so called events and days and dates, and they never took place.

In this context, I beg your indulgence to draw upon a real incident known to me by way of analogy, something I had posted on message boards several times. Several years back, in my hometown Chennai, India, there was a bank robbery and a fired ex watchman of the bank was arrested as a suspect. The bank robbery had taken place between 9 pm and 10 pm on a Sunday, and the ex watchman the suspect had an alibi for that. He kept telling the police that he was visiting a friend between 7.30 pm and 9 pm on the given day, and was waiting at a bus stand nearby for his bus till 9.30 pm, and as the bank was nearly 45 min travel from where he was waiting he could not have possibly committed the crime. The suspect , by way of corroboration of the time and his activities, kept insisting that he was at the bus stand between 9 pm and 9.30 pm , as he could hear a popular TV serial playing in all the neighboring homes. This TV serial did really play between 9 pm and 10 pm on all days of the week , except Sunday. The suspect had recounted this as his corroborative alibi for the time in question, and upon the police zeroing in on this obvious hole in his story, he broke down and confessed to the crime on sustained interrogation. Here , there is no question of a "memory discrepancy", as the suspect was vividly recounting what he said he heard, when there was no way this could have possibly happened, and hence he was lying. The same is the situation with Sai Baba and the "avatar day", while bearing in mind we are dealing with a so called "avatar". If vividly recounted incidents to a great deal of detailed accuracy could not possibly have taken place, we are led to the inevitable conclusion that the person in question is indeed inventing the incidents ( of that day as per his version), which leads us to conclude that the person is a deliberate liar. For any normal reader, this is proof enough that there are serious issues with Sai Baba and his statements, and many would agree with me that he is a liar ( especially given the larger context of other matters). Some may try to redefine the "avatar" and say he is a "fallible" guru, and try to come up with an alternate day/date/year that fits the "avatar's" statement...as you seem to attempt while acknowledging this is just an assumption... a theory that I do not subscribe to at all.

"Having also investigated SB over a considerable time, I often share Mr Sampath's apparent frustration at the difficulty in "nailing down" the real truth about SB. He does say a lot of strange things, he does make many mistakes, and he does invent details in some of his stories. Nevertheless, the only effective method I know to make any real progress in this labyrinth is to keep on looking for the facts, and then drawing the conclusions. In this way, a lot of careful, well-documented research, notably over the past year, by several researchers has uncovered an extraordinary number of discrepancies in SB's stories. The effect of such clear proofs is to weaken SB's credibility and his claim of omniscience, which in turn encourages us to hope for the appearance sooner or later, after more careful research, of some sort of conclusive proof of other serious discrepancies, including perhaps those matters covered by strong suspicions or sweeping critical assertions about SB."

I would like to correct this notion about my apparent "frustration" in "nailing down the truth " about SB. I have absolutely no problems at all, and I certainly do not share your situation of trying to find out what SB is and what he is not etc. It is my belief that Sai Baba is a fraud, he is not a valid guru at all. I have enough proof to convince me that he has indeed sexually molested minors over a period of several years, I have enough proof that he has been involved in murders and coverups, I have enough proof (video proof too, which can be seen on <www.sathyasaivictims.com> that he cheats on so called "miracles", quite deliberately. I am not exactly bending backwards to try and accommodate all these matters, and yet try to paint a picture of a "flawed guru". In my book anyone who says he is a poorna avatar and who can be proved to have done all these things , is a damned liar, at least in the very minimum sense that he is not the poorna avatar and knows it too, which makes him a liar anyway.

You seem to believe that you can highlight his discrepancies and convince people he is not an avatar. What is people accept your theory of "mistakes", "discrepancies" etc and still say he is an "avatar" ? What will you offer by way of proof ? And coming to discrepancies, that exactly is what I had originally done ( Oct 20, 1940, Sunday/Monday)... only that I am carrying it one level further to draw what I believe are valid conclusions There have been a million instances where his "omniscience" has been disproved, his miracle tricks witnessed, and even shot on video. If all this is not going to be enough, then what else is "careful research" going to turn up. In any case who is your target audience ? The die-hard SB devotee ? The people who know him to be a fraud and working with him ? The common man who has little time for sai baba one way or other ? those who even without all this do not consider Sai baba an avatar ? Who are you targetting ? On my part, I am targetting those still unaffected by Sai Baba, and also those who are raising questions about him, and in that sense, I think my views, proofs and theories are eminently acceptable and reasonable.

Talking of several serious academic type researches on Sai Baba, which seem to abound on various sites lately, my feeling is they all focus on issues like " SB said this... said that.... this hasn't hapened, this is not real hinduism or spirituality, no transformation" etc.. which while totally true, is nonetheless subjective opinion, and for devotees willing to rationalise concrete video proof of trickery , what is all this going to do ? Convince them ? I don't think so.

"Common sense suggests that, if we wish to convince others that something is true (or untrue), we must use any solid proofs we have and publicise them as much as we can, while continuing to look for more proofs, rather than trying to bombard intelligent listeners or readers with emotional accusations which they will, not surprisingly, tend to reject. A prime case of available proofs is the devotee-written book, Love is My Form, which, although apparently unmentioned in the research of Mr Sampath, has proved to be such a goldmine of proofs of discrepancies of all sorts (including the 1943 date and all that flows from it)."

Here again, you do not define "proof", and yet again you seem to feel that my charges are "emotional accusations" to an intelligent reader. I have no other choice than to disagree with you on this. It is me , in fact , who has provided the most concrete proofs to date, about Sai Baba. Whether it is statements, affidavits and accounts of sexual molestations, video evidence of miracle trickery which can be seen by the naked eye, or even the logical proofs thet testify to Sai Baba being a fraud, like how Oct 20th 1940 cannot possibly be true, I have supplied ample proofs on these matters. On your part , you seem to stick to so called "discrepancies" alone and I am yet to see any serious work on analysing the charges of sexual molestations , miracle tricks etc. These are all practical means to show a person is not what he says he is, and in this matter I am of the opinion that your efforts are too academic , and run the real risk of being negated equally academically by SB devotees. I mean, how many more discrepancies do you need to show for Sai baba devotees to accept he is not the avatar ? One video clip showing he is hiding a vibuthi tablet in his hand , posted on my website and seen on an average of 68,000 times a month has made thousands of SB followers leave him, and I had received hundreds of emails about this. Do I need further proof of what is effective in exposing Sai Baba ?

Mr Steel, you are still researching and analysing and attempting to explain. I am not. I have seen, heard, and thought enough, and decided and I have been active for 3 years at the least, in exposing Sai Baba to be a fraud. It is natural that my position and yours( at this time) are different, and hence our approaches towards our respective goals would be different too.

My goal is simple : To tell as many people as possible that Sai Baba is a fraud, and to try to take charges against him to their logical conclusion. I know I will do it.

I have the greatest respect for your works as well as your spirit of inquiry and motives of helping others, in fact I was the first to publicise your initial paper on Sai Baba's discourses on my discussion board.

I wish you the very best in your efforts and would be pleased to be of any assistance to you in this regard should you think it necessary.

Thank you,

Hari Sampath.

****************************************************************</P>

Mr Steel, Please allow me to thank you for indulging your time and attention to this rather long email. It is only my intention to provide as honest a response as possible that clears doubts on my perspective of the issue, and no personal motivation towards you or anyone else is present. I would leave publishing of the above reply to you, as well as announcing it anywhere, as you think fit.

Best Regards,

Hari Sampath.


Back to Brian Steel's Home Page

Back to Beginning of this article