07 November 2005

Baa-baa on Baba's boo-boo

Continuing with the topic of my recent blogs, 'Sai Baba makes another boo-boo' and 'Baba's Bhagavata Boo-Boo continued', the responses from SB devotees has proven to be highly amusing indeed. One adherent in particular seems to believe that the biographies of Krishna as recorded in scriptural accounts is somehow redundant in the face of Internet articles. In order to refute my point about gopikas residing in Dvaraka, she posted an extract from an article at ChennaiOnline:

"At the same time, 1,108 Gopikas were longing for the grace of Krishna in Dwaraka. Krishna simultaneously entered the houses of all the 1,108 Gopikas. It is in this context that he taught them that all the forms which exist everywhere are the forms of God."

Given that I've provided scriptural references for my arguments in the aforementioned blogs, as well as selected quotes from Bhagavata Vahini, it still amazes me how anyone can consider a poorly-informed website as evidence. And when we see who is the author of this article, it appears to be none other than Venkatachalam 'Bombay' Srinivasan! Srinivasan happens to be a longtime devotee of Sai Baba and had made frequent contributions to the old Sai-Net in the form of discourse publication, anecdotal reportings and general discussion. Last I heard, he is the All-India Seva Convenor for the SSSO in India although his ChennaiOnline profile states that he is an active member of the Sri Sai Padhuga Trust, founded by Srinivasan Chettiar. In any case, this serves as an example of dismissing scriptural evidence and even Sai Baba's own words in favour of a online magazine article penned by a Sai devotee! How curious.

When I presented this point, I also made a mention of how Krishna was reputed to be the husband of 16,108 wives, and not 1,108 as reported by Srinivasan. This, of course, is confirmed in most scriptural accounts. Unfortunately the adherent who posted a magazine article as evidence took exception to this large figure by stating:

"Where to start with such a dunderhead. Krishna wasn't married to 16,108 people literally idiot. It's a SPIRITUAL marriage (to the diety). It's obvious from listening to you that you have NO clue what you are talking about."

Hmmm. So in one sense this adherent seems to be agreeing that Srinivasan's figure of 1,108 is a fiction, and yet in another sense the scriptural references to 16,108 is symbolic and not literal?Unfortunately for this adherent, and for all other adherents, we are all too aware of how they love to interpret just about every account has having a "deep underlying spiritual significance" that sometimes has nothing to do with the intent and purpose of the story at all. Sometimes it seems as if one can be driven mad by contemplating all of these inner significances all the time!If one wishes to argue that this incidence of Krishna's marrying of 16,108 wives is symbolic of some higher significance, then the onus is on them to provide the meaning of this significance and explain it's relation to the broader narration. One who has spent some time studying the story of Krishna from various scriptural accounts would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing symbolic about this episode and that it is quite literal. The role of the 16,108 wives figures prominently in other later episodes of Krishna's story; what is the "inner significance" of those stories?

We should also note here that Sai Baba has remarked about the "16,108 wives" concept on several occasions within his discourses, although in all fairness he presents the rounded figure of 16,000 wives. Considering this, where did V. Srinivasan get his figure of 1,108? And where did this adherent get the queer idea that this "symbolic" marriage between Krishna and 16,108 damsels involved a deity?

As for having no clue what I am talking about - I can only say that, in my vast ignorance, I refer to universally-accepted source material to provide information in order to help me and other people make their conclusions. The same cannot be said of regarding poorly-informed online magazine articles written by SB devotees as any kind of authority.
The adherent further stated:

"And since Krishna was considered the Lord of Gopikas, and FOUNDED the city of Dwaraka, Why wouldn't there be gopikas living there? Cowherders are confined to living ONLY were you the clown designate they can live?"

In response; it isn't really a question of where we clowns decide they can live, but the question of their respective residences is a matter of record in the scriptural accounts. In order to make any sense of the story we must analyse the scriptural accounts.

That said, I must point at the extremely fallacious logic that has been employed here. Just because Krishna was considered to the Lord of the gopis and then founded the city of Dvaraka, it doesn't automatically follow that the gopis should live there. As previously noted, anybody who has actually read the story of Krishna would know that the gopis and cowherds are the residents of Vrindavana. The departure of Krishna for Mathura (and subsequent founding of Dvaraka etc) is a major component of His story, which entails the profound and undending grief of the residents of Vraja (Vrajavasis) and their mournful pleas for Him to come back. When Krishna goes to Dvaraka and marries His wives, Dvaraka then became the residence of Krishna and His Queens, not the gopis who are the residents of Vrindavana. Krishna supposedly meets the Vrajavasis again years later when both parties are on a pilgrimage on the battlefield of Kurukshetra in order to witness an auspicious solar eclipse.

Again, it would be proper for any challenger(s) to fully apprise themselves of the events of Krishna's life before attempting to debate about it. Such a half-baked approach does no one any favours except to highlight the ignorance of such a poor objection. Just like sheep, the devotees do not engage in any form of research and rational thinking, but invariably follow Baba blindly with their agreeable bleating of of 'Baa Baa'.

Copyright © Sai Baba EXPOSED! 2005-2007. Discuss this post!

Return To Main Page


  • Leave alone her the 'points'she has mentioned. Her language itself is sickening. Which shows the calibre of SSB devotees

    By Blogger Unknown, at 01 January, 2006 15:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home