Copyright © Brian Steel 2001

Chapter 2

Evidence will be presented in this chapter to establish that there are aspects of Sai Baba's language which do not always live up to the trusting impression formed by devotees. Firstly, in spite of half a century of practice and of being surrounded by cultured and fluent English-speaking Indian associates, Baba's public use of English remains essentially quite basic. Secondly, Baba's personal 'omniscient' personal messages in English, so highly treasured by devotees, including (in the past) myself, for their enigmatic and 'secret' significance for the individual, may be no more than small talk (in this basic English style), or due to his misunderstanding of the devotee's English. Finally, Sai Baba occasionally deceives his audiences by capriciously mixing genuine and spurious Sanskrit etymologies in his Discourses.

As we shall see in Chapter 4, most of Baba's public pronouncements are given in his native Telugu language. He uses English to speak to individual devotees and interview groups. As reported in books, as heard during darshan (when he pauses to address a few words to a lucky devotee), and sometimes on videotapes, these spoken English comments by Baba to his devotees (like his frequent pithy aphorisms) often take the form of very short sentences, consisting of a single word, a repetition, a phrase, or a sentence with no verb, a form of English which some might term very basic English (and others less charitable, "broken English").

Hitting the nail right on the head, a writer-devotee describes the thrilling moment when, during his first interview with Sai Baba, Baba had begun to address the group: "His whole manner was suddenly exactly like some pseudo-spiritual Indian I knew, pretending to be a guru and speaking in very broken English." (R.Priddy, 1998,120)

Most frequently heard or reported darshan phrases are given below. Others may easily be found in many of the published accounts (often in excruciating and narcissistic detail) of devotees' personal experiences of Sai Baba:

In relation to the last paragraph, Baba's frequent critical or disparaging remarks about married couples to other interviewees (e.g. "They fight" and "They always quarrel") and about the institution of marriage itself always raise a laugh. However, many would view this negativity of Baba's, particularly directed at the wife, as inappropriate, blatantly sexist, and a matter of some concern coming from such a figure of authority.

The point of selecting the preceding quotations is to establish the obvious (but unacknowledged) fact that Baba frequently speaks in very basic English. A possible reason for such total obliviousness (or denial) is that devotees, in their total devotion to him as an Avatar of God and in their faith in his powers, assume that he can speak any language. More importantly for them, anything Baba says to them, or within their hearing, however obscure, cryptic, banal or amusing, is accepted with enormous joy and gratitude as a personal recognition and quite frequently as a special personal message for their spiritual or earthly development, whose meaning may take them some considerable time, ingenuity and effort to work out.

This "singling out" for special attention is always a treasured moment for a devotee, often a deeply emotional one too in the charged atmosphere of the crowded darshan hall or the small group in the interview room. However, such banal and basic English might also be no more than mere small talk! Sometimes, there even seems to be (unacknowledged) evidence in a reported exchange between devotee and Baba that the latter simply has not understood the English of the devotee, as with this example:

"In that interview Baba took us into his private room and we 'discoursed together'. He had surely played with words in the dream to make me examine my feelings. He had just signed a copy of my book and he now asked about my work, saying, "Don't worry, I will look after everything." I asked, "Should I write, Swami?" He replied, "What you are doing is right. It is not wrong." To make sure, I said, "No, Swami... write" and to illustrate the meaning I made a writing sign in the air (without realising this was just what he often does). He gazed up as if at the ceiling and replied, "Yes, write write. Go on. Very good." (Robert Priddy, private communication)
"He very often fails to understand what is said to him in English - several times he has asked me to repeat what I said in reply to his own questions, and he evidently concentrated, turning his ear towards me to hear me clearly." (private communication)

This could also explain why Baba's words, gestures and actions, although often banal in the extreme, are seen to be so cryptic by many devotees, who may puzzle over them for long periods: "One never knows exactly what Swami means or how to interpret His words. They could be symbolic or factual. An event could happen right away or in the future. His words could require deep meditation, inquiry or introspection, or they could simply be taken verbatim. Many of the things He has told me I have not understood until years later." (Baskin, 133)

In such emotionally charged moments, writers who deal in detail with their personal experiences with Sai Baba frequently inflate banal scraps or gestures and by so doing further promote Baba's claim to omniscience.

In one of the best known (but to me least convincing) accounts of Baba's omniscience, Rita Bruce, a very well known and popular writer of Baba books and an unconditional Baba supporter, gives many details of the first interview given by Baba to her and her husband (on April 24, 1979):

At a much later interview, the same author offers this snatch of dialogue as if it had some special meaning, which, if viewed objectively, it quite clearly does not have:

Far from demonstrating any opinion or advice on Baba's part, all that is displayed here is that the author has a personal problem on which she imagines Baba has just commented on in his allegedly omniscient way, as a special favour and blessing to her. Most of her devotee readers, under the same spell, seem to agree with her.

Not only is there no omniscience to be gleaned from evidence such as the above cases and the numerous similar examples which could be taken from devotees' books, but they would not normally seem worthy of recording in print. The only reason they are written down (by so many devotees) and considered important by both devotee-author and devotee-readers is that devotees love to pass on anything resembling "contact" with their Divine Baba and to share other devotees' contacts; they feed on such material, as well as on other far more perspicacious or apparently "privileged" personal information revealed by Baba according to other accounts. And so the legend of omniscience grows and grows, as does the writers' illusion of a close relationship with Baba.

Robert Priddy, a writer already quoted above, was a University lecturer and is a very rigorous and clear thinker. Although for many years a convinced devotee, with close contact with Baba, he did not exactly rush into print as so many of us did, but finally published a considered and detailed account of his experiences and of the processes going on within himself. In this book (Source of the Dream), Robert takes great pains (agonises, almost) to be objective and even slightly critical. For instance, so as not to "put off" non-devotee readers of his book, he deliberately eschews the use the initial capitals when referring to Baba (His, Him, He). In this gesture he is virtually alone among Baba writers. But even this deeply thinking person offers examples of Baba's words and speculates at great length on the possible hidden meaning (or meanings) in other personally witnessed examples of Baba's exotic conversational English (in the privacy of a group interview).

For example, Priddy tells us that as Baba slipped a very snugly fitting ring on to his finger, he said: "Perfect. Not more fit." The recipient puzzles over this, thinking Baba incapable of an ungrammatical phrase (i.e. suppressing his knowledge that Baba only speaks basic English) and concludes he could also have meant "Not Murphet"(p. 132). Some time later he reads in Phyllis Krystal's important book, Sai Baba. The Ultimate Experience, that Baba had made a comment with a similar structure to her on handing her some indigestion tablets: "Indigestion. Not Indra Devi." [A reference to the dynamic Russian-American devotee and yoga teacher who became popular with Baba during the late 1960s.] Krystal tells us that she had seen this as meaning she should be less shy and retiring and more like this well-know extrovert devotee and teacher. (Since then Krystal has written many books and toured the world, giving many therapeutic workshops and also speaking about her experiences with Sai Baba.) With a memory of this precedent, Priddy was then able to conclude that Baba was telling him also to be more like the prolific Australian writer, Howard Murphet. This realisation inspired him to think of writing down his own experiences for publication. Priddy further tells the story that Baba had once stopped to speak to Murphet during darshan, patting his own stomach and saying "I'm perfect. Not Murphet." (p.134)

Let us stop a moment and reconsider these three utterances in the light of what we initially established about the idiosyncratic (basic) style of Baba's conversational English.

When looked at as a parallel series, these surely seem more in line with Baba producing a little friendly small talk (rather than "deep and meaningful" advice) by indulging in one of his favourite linguistic habits: playing with words, meanings and rhymes (or perceived rhymes) in Sanskrit and English:

Indi // Indra ; gestion // Devi ; per- // Mur ; fect // phet.

This sort of strong (and sometimes quite forced) punning is also an Indian custom, particularly beloved of Baba's English mentor, Professor Kasturi, and other academic and intellectual Indian devotees who are (or have been) close to Baba.. A personal favourite of Baba's, which crops up frequently in reports of his Discourses and personal advice to devotees, is: "The Jubilee which has to be celebrated by every individual is not the Diamond but the 'Die-mind', the occasion when through Sadhana , the mind is mastered." (Sathya Sai Speaks, V, 53: 287)

Another similar example (from the commercially available 1991 Kodaikanal Video) also demonstrates the "foreign" nature of some of Baba's wordplay. On mentioning "beggars", Baba immediately spots a new potential linguistic joke, and adds, cryptically and a propos of nothing in particular, "not biggers" - which his interpreter (who, interestingly, also interprets Baba's english words, phrases and sentences, when they form part of his Telugu Discourse) makes clear means "big men". This clarification of the English is particularly helpful, even necessary, to native speakers of English since 'bigger' is not used as a noun and we do not therefore make the same associations. So Baba's spontaneous play here is not that beggars are not big men (which would be rather disparaging!) but that the words sound similar to Baba. That's all. Nothing behind it at all. It is his play.

If the above associations appear a little odd to some readers, consider them from the perspective not of a native speaker but of a foreigner speaking basic English. This may increase and explain their exotic appeal to the speaker. Most foreigners make similar attempts to amuse native speakers of a language they know imperfectly (or even quite well). And, since this a fact, the convoluted meanings and lessons attributed to many such utterances (often seen by devotees as 'cryptic'), however ultimately beneficial to the individual, are probably more often than not merely the products of the devoted hearers' minds and fantasies rather than any wish or intention on the part of the guru to help or enlighten them.

What the above evidence strongly suggests is that with Baba's words (as with his actions and reported actions), adoring devotees may often be too hasty in accepting them as oozing with significant meaning, wisdom and omniscience when, in fact, none is intended. So the "miraculous" omniscience may well be a product of their own perception. Seen in this light, it is possible that even some of Baba's coinages of aphorisms may make less sense than many think. For example, "I and you are we. We and we are one." (Kodaikanal, 1991)

With this firmly in mind, let us now examine more critically some more English comments whose significance may have been inflated by devotees in a heightened state of spiritual fervour. In some cases, what some take as evidence of omniscience (and what Baba may possibly wish to be so taken) may simply be a bland generality, precisely like those we shall see when discussing Baba's Yugadi "predictions" in Chapter 5, which have tended to be over-rated for the same reason: excess of fervour and enthusiasm for the guru.

Sometimes, an objective re-reading of a quoted "omniscient" pronouncement by Baba. reveals that Baba simply has not understood the English question or comment to which he is replying (and that he may be "filling in"). "And how is our Center [in America], Baba?" He replied, "Very good Center. Many good people. Some jealousy, though." (J.Thomas, 1991: 160) Could this not be said of any Baba Centre, with its personality clashes, and so on? Is it really omniscient, or even wise?

The following is a reply to someone who asks Baba about her son who has been in a coma for two years. "Your son is in mind.". (R.Selby, My Trip to Sai Baba, pp.135-6) This is interpreted by the writer as meaning "Don't worry. I am taking good care of him."

Frequently devotees record in their books Interview repartee in which Baba contradicts them - to make them think, they say - and also usually to make the other interviewees laugh at them, which is part of normal group dynamics ("wrong-footing" the speaker's interlocutor to create a light effect, to break the ice, etc. - or even to silence a person).

An example, once again from Robert Priddy:

Neither the writer nor his wife thought this at all accurate, but because Baba made the remark, (which appears no more than banter, or pique at being contradicted), the writer feels obliged to give the comment serious consideration.

Finally, a well documented favourite Baba wordplay, which fits in with the "basic English" patterns established above, is the following exchange reported by Phylis Krystal:

Baba: "Where is the band?" Silent surprise. Baba: "Hus-band" as ( a foreigner's) play on words. Baba uses this often as one of his little (ice-breaking?) interview jokes. Another well-known Baba writer, R. Lowenberg, tells the same story of another devotee's experience: "Where is your band?" I knew he meant husband, so I said, "But Swami, You know I am not married." "Yes, yes," He said, "Your husband is over there" and he pointed vaguely in the direction of the West." (R.Lowenberg, 1997, p. 15) (Since this woman eventually married someone from South Africa - to the West of where she lived, this is taken as an omniscient prophesy by Baba.)

The Sai Baba devotee literature and devotees' ashram conversations are full of countless similar cases of wishful inflation of banalities and bits of basic small talk like those just offered. Such subjective fantasies merely inflate the impression, rather than the reality, of Baba's omniscience about his devotees' lives. As we shall see in the final section of this chapter and in other chapters, there are many other instances in his Discourses where Baba's alleged omniscience is even more patently lacking.

Sanskrit Etymology

In Section 67 of Chapter 3 of his Internet publication, which studies many alleged inconsistencies in Sai Baba's statements and actions, Dale Beyerstein gives a 6-line quotation from Lawrence Babb (1986b: Redemptive Encounters):

"One of his most characteristic rhetorical devices is the ad hoc (and often false) etymology."

Babb then refers without clear comment to Baba's etymology for the word 'Hindu': "one who is non-violent by himsa (violence and dur 'distance')." He adds that this device has become very frequent over the years, As indeed it has, but the full story is worth presenting since it sheds more light on another of Baba's disconcerting practices where the truth does not seem to matter so long as the Discourse is effective. The attitude at times seems so cavalier that no knowledge of Sanskrit is really needed to detect the invention, as we shall see below.

In one of his early Discourses, Baba had made a very disparaging remark about speakers who, to illustrate a point, pretentiously use references to etymology. He (with the self-consciousness, perhaps, of someone new to public speaking) complains of a previous speaker:

"... saying Na meant this and Ra meant that and so on; it all sounded very learned and is really very clever; but no one can go on endlessly in this way, saying Na means either this or that ..." (Sathya Sai Speaks, II, 21:105) So in this early phase, the high-falutin' academic way is not the Baba way. Baba prefers simple, clear and direct language for his mainly uneducated Indian audiences.

But, in fact, as a study of the Discourses demonstrates, Baba quite quickly adopted and adapted the device of etymological references. He then went on to makeup etymologies to suit his theme or message. "If you can't beat them, join them!" Here are some of what appear to be wilful twistings of language facts.

There is a further apparent discrepancy regarding Baba's language use in J.Hislop's important and much-quoted Conversations with Sathya Sai Baba. The reader assumes, because nothing is stated to the contrary in the book, that all Baba's answers are in English, as printed in the book.

All that is stated in the Foreword in this connection is "The questions and answers included here date from January, 1968, through February, 1978. The first two interviews were taped and are reproduced in full. Thereafter, notes were made from memory immediately after each conversation." But why in that case is a translator mentioned twice in both Dialogue 1 and Dialogue 2 (the tape-recorded ones), and why does it say on p. 17 (Dialogue 1):