WHAT IS THE POINT OF A 'TEST OF FAITH'?


Few devotees seem to understand what a 'test of faith' is all about, and fewer still ever really question the idea of its necessity very deeply. If it leads to the devotee doubting and falling away, they are said to have failed the test, and this can be due to 'spiritual immaturity'. There may be a case for this in some respects: some so-called tests of may be designed effectively to further development of a naive person, a weak mind or people whose self importance or egoism needs curbing.

 

However, when something one believes seems to be contradicted by facts, this causes investigation and not least reflection and self-inquiry to what is real or not, what is good or bad... and such inquiry leading to a greater understanding of oneself. Yet where this is thoroughly and honestly done, but leads only to consolidating one's 
doubts about the guru or the teaching, what then? If doubts by set tests of faith prove justified and put a person in impossible dilemmas (such as that between knowledge and faith or head and heart), how can that have any beneficial spiritual effect? All sorts of contortions of argument can defend tests of faith, but if the article of faith is genuine, one asks, why should doubts need to be provoked at all? After all, it is hard enough getting any kind of constant faith even before all that!

 

On the other hand, obviously, calling something a 'test of faith' can sometimes become a means to cover up a mistake or worse on behalf of the guru and those connected with him or her. This is part of the guru-devotee social system, a very subtle means of manipulating the minds of followers developed over centuries, by which the person is hooked into a labyrinth of uncertainties and strivings, which may bear no other fruits than keeping the guru in his fortunate, revered position.

 

The 'Wait, Wait' test: That SB does not respond to one's prayers, private questions to him or various others ways in which a person tries to contact him and obtain his assistance in some matter, is taken to mean that the time is not ripe. One of SB's most repeated 'instructions' is known to all who have visited him... "Wait, wait" And DO people wait!  Hours and more hours on end, and mostly he just walks past unconcernedly! They also wait for the fulfilment of their prayers, projects, intense needs (like healings) and any kind of desire... Whether or not SB actually says the word 'Wait!' to them, or its equivalent, it is often enough for them just to HEAR him say it to someone else to take it to heart in their own case. What then happens?

 

If the exact prayer or need is not fulfilled, there are various alternatives: one's project alters, one's prayer changes, circumstances alter... so that the original request or need is no longer relevant. Or a person finds all kinds of possible reasons for SB saying what he did, anything so as not to lose the belief in SB's omniscient care. Even when the opposite of what one wanted happens, devotees reason that it was best for one after all, only SB knew! In many cases, people doubtless simply gradually forget what was asked for.

 

The blanket believer will tell us that SB always responds (another of SB's claim 'I always respond'). However, I have met countless people who have, over very long periods of time, waited and waited without his responding in any observable way. The half-mindless follower will say 'But SB works on levels you cannot see. He always does what is necessary!' One has almost to admire such people for their unquestioning determination willingly to deceive themselves with such vague and improbable hopes... but it was ever thus.

 

Baba is said to be 'the master of maya', which means a master of deception and delusive appearances. Now, there is quite sufficient evidence that SB does employ sleight of hand when seeming to produce objects from thin air. I also know two persons who have experienced him making mistakes in this, though I have not seen a clear instance of it myself. On the contrary, I have very clearly seen manifestation of sweets in thin air underneath his hand, and have eaten some of the warm, sticky product! So why does he cheat? The study of mediumism and related phenomena shows us that many mediums assessed as genuine, later began to lose their powers and took to cheating due to the pressure to go on producing results. Madame Blavatsky is one such famous instance, and there are many more.

 

Anything SB does that causes doubts is said to be one of his inscrutable ways of testing us so as to teach us, ‘a test of faith’. So in what does the alleged ‘test’ consist?  Is it to see whether one’s faith in SB and all he says and does is sound enough for one to continue to be a follower? Is it not also a way of finding out whether you are gullible enough to believe this, and so know how committed you are and hence how well you can be used for various tasks? SB could surely not manage to continue his deceptions if there were more than a very few percipient sceptics like V.K. Narasimhan around (even though he did not speak out his real doubts in public)!

 

If you are willing to swallow the first baits and get initially hooked, you may then be tested with yet more disturbing matters, to see whether you remain faithful to the guru - on and on, until you are entirely in his power, without a will of your own to assert in the slightest thing that goes against him. Then you are really useful, for spreading stories he chooses shall go out, for telling lies (that SB has also used people repeatedly for conveying direct lies to others - to 'test' them - since his teenage days is fully described by one of his most servile of devotees, Smt. Vijayamma (in her autobiographical book 'Refuge there is none’).

 

Of course, many of the apparent tests of faith that arise are not designed as such at all by the guru, they are simply compromising facts that leaked out or could not be covered up! The ideology takes precautions in advance against all the unfortunate facts and the gurus future blunders by insisting on total, unquestioning faith at all times, never 'seeing or hearing evil', thinking and saying only good things... and so on.

 

Some examples that raise doubts: When I visited Prashanthi Nilayam in 1992, I met devotees who had been present there about six weeks previously when a man had put his arms around SB’s legs during darshan. The result,  SB fell full length on what was then the compound’s concrete ground. SB got up and continued his round, but the attendant male Seva Dals manhandled the foolish Indian man and bashed his head forcibly and repeatedly on the concrete. (Is this called 'Service to the Lord'?) Baba retraced his steps told them to desist, but not until well after the damage was done. Now was this a test by the omniscient SB, who allowed himself to be felled, and allowed the violent consequences?

 

The Times of India (14-11-1994) reported: Satya Sai Baba of Puttaparthi vomited while distributing laddus to dignitaries including Home Minister S.B. Chavan and Andhra Pradesh Governor Krishnan Kant seated on the dais, at the Purnachandra auditorium at Prashanthi Nilayam here. The dignitaries were seen trying to lend a helping hand to the Baba who was seen rushing behind the back a drop curtain on the dais. He returned after changing his robes. Thousands of devotees had gathered there as part of his 69th birthday on Wednesday. The Baba resumed distribution of laddus. What kind of a 'miracle' might this have been, one wonders? One of the unfortunate kind, perhaps? It tends to bear out the unconfirmable reports by Indian devotees that SB has been the object of a series of life-threatening attacks in recent years, including being sent deadly cobras in a basket.
 
The devotee will, of course, without any knowledge of the facts or other information immediately turn such incidents into proofs of SB's all-knowing omnipotence in that he survived. What we would not accept as a valid or relevant answer from other people, many devotees will immediately accept as profound when it comes from the one they believe to be omniscient.  For example, when asked by a Jewish friend of mine why it was that Jehova (i.e. God, i.e. Sai Baba) had not told the Jews about reincarnation, but asserted the contrary, Baba did not understand the question and asked to hear it again. My friend then said that the question was about reincarnation. Without waiting to hear the actual question again, Baba replied, in so many words, "Reincarnation. You cannot understand it. Do not try to think about it. It is like the seed and the fruit." I felt that this answer was no answer at all, but afterwards my friend claimed that it was a perfect answer! His view was that, because the question was one that his Jewish wife considered very important, Baba was telling that they should rather concentrate on other more important things.

 

This is not untypical of Baba's way of answering questions. He frequently replies to questions very obliquely, or changes the subject unexpectedly, or brushes it aside and the person concerned often takes whatever comes as a significant teaching or even a spiritual directive. This does not build confidence in Baba's supposed omniscience for some of us... for it may also suggest Baba's inability to handle the question. This all depends, doubtless, on what you happen to believe or are determined to rationalise?

 

Incidents that back this up were related by Al Drucker, a prominent US Jewish devotee who lived at the ashram, he was granted an interview for a group of Jewish devotees visiting the ashram. Baba referred to them as Christians, and when questioned, asked them if there was any difference between Jews and Christians. There is some reason to believe another report - circulated among some  Westerners at the ashram - of a person who was present at that interview  (and was shocked) - though not made public for fairly obvious reasons if Baba really said it. He was asked about Hitler and replied along the lines that Hitler had (also?) done good things, brought about positive changes and had repented of his sins just before suicide. One reason among many others why this would be shocking is that Hitler's last testament to his people, a rabidly hateful document dictated and signed hours prior to his suicide makes crystal clear that he regretted nothing whatever and regarded the greatest failure of his 'bungling' staff to be not completing the elimination of all Jews.

 

Though the report on Baba's view of Hitler remains undocumented and is not confirmed by others, suspicion that it is basically right lingers, due to the frequent Indian-anchored naivety shown by Baba about many straightforward matters well known to all in the West. Such blunders are often stifled by the very strong tendencies to self-censuring and the suppression of any unpalatable facts about Baba and the ashrams, in this case by Al Drucker himself.

 

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

 

MORE TESTS AND TRIALS - SELF-TRANSFORMATION  OR SELF-DECEPTION? 

    There are those who say that persons can learn much about themselves - their limitations and real potentials - from some of the painful experiences handed out by SB. Asking Baba for his advice and then following it, however much it clashes with present longings and wants, is supposed to be the best way of self-development.

    The big problem with this belief is that there is no sound way of testing the validity of such claims, for all that happens is viewed exclusively on the ingrained assumption that SB is the best and only all-knowing 'spiritual' teacher. Almost any problem that arises is taken as a 'challenge from the guru to become more detached from everything'. If the outcome of following his supposed or imagined 'will' or 'inner advice' is personal loss, suffering, unhappiness or even death, it is said to be the best that could have happened, while much worse could have taken place without SB's guidance!

    This is all sheer conjecture and rationalization, of course… but the convinced devotee will invariably ignore all other interpretations. This kind of dependency of thought and action is DEFINITELY NOT what most of the great spiritual teachers of all traditions indicate to be a sign of personal or 'spiritual' development, but one of a static condition of self-delusion. It is inculcated by the guru for obvious reasons of his self-enhancement and control of others.

From where does all this talk about 'test of faith in the guru' come? It is a timeless Indian tradition, but in SB's case it has been one of his stated methods... and an explanation he has sometimes given for great unpleasantness and trials to which his behaviour has put persons close to him. He has frequently spoken of the need for people to have the impurities burn away, like gold in a crucible, or to be worn down like a diamond to be made into a jewel. Some say that this process is stronger and faster when one gets closer to SB's person. They use this to explain anything SB does that seems wrong and heartless, and lie he tells or promise he breaks. All these common qualities observable in him are excused as a necessary part of his divine plan... no one dares to point out that they could possibly be fault and impurities in SB. A number of close followers, especially Indians, have written - and some have privately told me - that it becomes very difficult indeed when one gets close to Sai Baba. What they are led to believe are 'spiritual tests' and 'tests of faith in SB' can be intolerably hard. I shall recount some of these tests shortly. Instead of viewing these incidents in the way that committed believers do, as well-intentioned and consciously-designed circumstances for their eventual 'spiritual growth' by an all-knowing and wholly benevolent holy person, I shall instead carry out the test of viewing them as mere ordinary occurrences, much in the way that anyone would tend to, and also to regard them with a more critical eye as possible manipulations to further interests and purposes quite other than the good of the devotees who are thus 'tested'.

 

Another example of 'testing' of a close devotee: The person who led and developed the ladies' Brindavan Mandali (bhajan singing group), Sridharan Prabha, was in many people's opinion the best bhajan leader in the whole Sai movement. She had in the beginning been instructed - often note for note- in long lessons at very frequent interviews by SB, who had sung along with her. Thereafter she regularly offered the public arathi flame to SB after bhajans at Brindavan for many years. She had, as all devotees have, a number of stories about SB's graces and powers to relate. Once, she was invited to lead the bhajans at the wedding of a prominent devotee, which SB had said he would attend. She was the natural choice, for she alone was able to urge the bhajan singers to work together in duo etc. so as to produce a truly harmonious, fully audible and tuneful result. When the bhajans were over, she sat at the rear among the guests who were all served a rich meal. While she was eating this, SB came wandering past and, in the hearing of all around her said, "Fat pig. Why are you here? For eating!" She replied to Baba there and then that this was not so, and he knew it to be untrue and she would not eat another bite! He just walked on. She was severely criticized by other devotees for not accepting his judgment and answering back to SB! She was shocked and offended, naturally, for she had in fact been prevailed upon to come to lead the bhajans, not always an easy task with the competing singers and the egos sometimes involved. As a result she ate nothing. After some time, SB came over and said "Why are you not eating?" She replied, “No, Swami, I don't want to”; and continued her fast. Twice more he came round and said she should eat something, at least. But she would not. All this she told us herself when we visited her and her family at their apartment in Bangalore in 1996. She related this incident to us to explain how extremely difficult and inexplicable trying it is when one becomes at all involved with SB. To be almost blackballed in public for something of which one is not guilty is not an uncommon experience with close servitors. Kasturi relates several similar incidents in his autobiography (Loving God), but he plays down both the degree of SB's deceitful unpleasantnesses and the intensity of his feelings and fear. I know this because I heard him relate these incidents in person in a much more detailed and dramatic fashion. I also know for a fact that people such as Dr. Sandweiss and several other lecturers and writers purposely leave out the more serious and revealing instances of SB's so-called “tests” when relating their own experiences with SB.

    Ms. Prabha had much worse than this to tell. On one occasion, at some time before a World Conference in the 1970s, Prof. N. Kasturi had been asked by SB privately to solicit donations for some purpose from people he met. Kasturi asked …… whether she, being a lady able to talk to ladies as men were not, could help him out by making some approaches too. This she willingly did, until - one day at darshan in Brindavan - SB stood in front of her and said loudly that she had been illegally soliciting donations and that this was a sin! She answered back in a loud voice that she had been asked by Kasturi, but she was emotionally and mentally shattered. SB even repeated this libellous accusation at another darshan shortly afterwards. This went on for the whole of three months! Soon there was hardly anyone of all those who had been her friends before who would even speak to her. She became a kind of pariah in the ashram. SB ignored her and all her pleas for an explanation etc. sent through various persons. At last she was gruffly called to an interview, where she was answered by SB: “It was just to test you". That was all... no other explanation. She passed the test, evidently, and thereafter could be presumably be relied on to take the greatest of care not to offend SB in any way, however indirectly. This is evidently what SB's tests achieve, seen from his point of view... a person's ego crushed and spirit cowed!

 

A further incident of SB's "testing": A very close young friend of my wife and I (Irene) spent long periods at SB ashrams and worked for months in the foreigner canteens etc. She came to know a student of one of SB's colleges, a young prince who lived at Brindavan. He told her how he had been present when SB had arrived in a hall where many students awaited him. In the hall, luggage was piled up high and SB told the students to find “my suitcase”. They began to search, and there was soon a chaos of suitcases. SB was vague as to which it could be - none brought to him satisfied him. He grew angrier all the time. Students began to look further afield, in the kitchen, upstairs etc. just so as to get away from him. He then said he had some clothing in it. They found one containing dhotis, but he only grew angrier. At last, they found one full of saris, in the kitchen. That was the one. Baba became cheerful again, smiling and laughing. This description - noted exactly by me at the time - would probably have brought out all kinds of guilt feelings in the boys. That this kind of intimidation by SB is widely practiced, and has been since his early days, is becoming more and more evident. That he is not subject to human emotions is disproved again and again by his actual behaviour. In her book, “Other than You refuge there is none” (Anyatha Saranam Nasthi) the elderly Indian woman devotee, Smt. Vijaya Kumari, who was with SB already in the 40s when SB was in his teens, we read: “Swami shows as much intense affection as anger. The slightest oversight with regard to arrangements for his meals would provoke Him into a fit of anger. Sometimes He would fling His plate at the wall opposite Him with such force that it would rebound and come back to Him. Sometimes that anger was unleashed on us. He would box our ears. Due to pinches from His nails, our ears would always be red. Boys would be pinched on their thighs, while to the girls, he gave “Prasadam” of raps on their heads. Do you find it hard to believe? When He looked the picture of wrath, verily like Lord Parama Siva, we would hide behind doors like so many scared rabbits.....”  These actions seem more like the classic symptoms of psychopathic behaviour, acts of someone who has always had his own way and which are intended to dominate and control others. This is backed up by the author's own description of SB's treatment of her own three year old son. A photograph of this boy - with a cowed and deadened expression - sitting on a bed beside a harsh and arrogant-looking SB, is a favorite illustration on websites that expose SB as a sexual deviant.

 

“Everyone used to call him “Chota  Baba” (little Baba). He had a full head of crinkled hair. Swami made the boy sit in His lap and asked him, “What is your name?” “Have you drunk milk?” “Would you like to eat rice?” “Do you want to be naughty?” The boy gave replies in a cute way. Everyone was laughing.The boy was then three years old. Suddenly, Swami made him lie face down in His lap and began beating him hard on the back. None of us knew what to make of it. We were all stunned, and staring at Swami. Who among us had the courage to go near Swami and question Him? The boy’s face looked jaded. He was yelling and crying. “Go, go away from here.” Saying so, Swami pushed the boy away from Him. The poor little boy! He came running to me sobbing. The sobs did not subside even after one hour. Every week, Swami would treat the boy like this, three or four times. The minute I took him out of the cradle my son would say pathetically, “Don’t take me to Swami, mother”, and break into tears. I would feel very pained. But when Swami ordered me to bring the boy, how could I say no? Further I had full faith and confidence in Swami.... On the days when Venkamma garu happened to be with us, she would take my son from Swamis lap, saying “That is enough, Swami”.  My son was by no means mischievous. He was so quiet that none was aware of his presence in a room. But we do not know which “evil power” Swami had to drive away from him. So, on top of being a sexual molester, SB was very clearly a violent physical molester of children... of a mere baby! No one dared to intervene on behalf of a helpless baby, not even his own mother!

    Did SB also demonstrate his “motherly love” in this too, the compassion of which he so often boasts? He even made the defenceless child the butt of his humour, raising laughs for his own benefit. He gave no reason for his relentless beatings either, because he has never been made to answer to anybody. The Sai movement's chorus of ba-ba-ing sheep will reply: “Ah, but he is God Himself, you see and has a right to be inscrutable”.  Or: “You can’t understand the ways of the Divine”. Decent people can evaluate the behaviour of SB all too well, it is the bewitched devotee that has resigned all powers of understanding anything. These things were done by a male human being (if he is so human) to another human being - unless the famous SB only a mere empty apparition. When will he be held to answer for his worst crimes by Indian lawmakers, who have until now and are still been acting as lawbreakers in his favour? This is a 'test of faith' for the Indian judiciary and government... will they pass it or go down in history with their current record!