Is SB's teaching really universal or sectarian?
What is "universal religion"? Is it possible? SB's answer to this is that the essence of all true religions express the same basic human values and the same faith in the existence and benevolence of divinity, in whatever form it may be represented or worshipped... or as it is thought to be as formless.
SB's teaching can be distinguished from SB's rationale for that teaching. The moral teaching is one thing, the grounds he gives for it's alleged truth are another. The difference is the fundamental one between morality and knowledge (i.e. between 'ought' and 'is'). SB teaches what we ought to do or not to do, how we best should live and behave for our own good and that of all others. The teaching itself may still be accepted as morally right by many for whom SB's account of man and nature are not even half-believable, consistent or even understandable. Faith in the teaching is strengthened if one can accept the explanation of its background - the order of all things including the laws of human life (karma).There is much of value in it, vague though it often is. But he explains and justifies his teaching as valid by giving an account of how everything is constituted... the make-up of the human being, the nature of the cosmos and of the Divine reality or God - as universal being of infinite love and super-consciousness. All this, without notable exceptions, is very traditional Indian thought and much of it is highly questionable, while much of it has been shown by science to fall far short of the truth.
Whatever else one may think about SB, and however one may judge his actions to be for good or ill, there is a moral basic in his teaching, which is as full of high ideals and good intentions as one will find in the established religions or mass spiritual movements. He is versed in Indian scripture, but very evidently not in any other major religious scriptures (see for example analysis of this made by Brian Steel). The Vedas and Vedanta, plus the generalised Hindu Indian tradition is where almost the entirety of his teaching originates. SB has said that he his teachings are not new, they are the ancient Sanathana Dharma (Perennial Philosophy). His chief aim, stated through seven decades, and often quite poignantly, is to see the reestablishment of ancient Indian values, which include moral conscience, unselfish service to others and the community, non-violence in all walks of life, due respect and care for all living beings and nature, and non-discrimination as to race, colour, and faith. He teaches his Hindu world-view but, in accordance with it, insists on respect for all the various approaches to God in other religions or sects. No one should argue with that. But these values have very largely been lost very long ago in most of India, as current events keep demonstrating to the full. One can only hope that a world renaissance of values will take place, and as soon as possible, whether or not one believes that SB is the motivating force, or just a more or less fallible part of it.
Sectarian tendencies in the teaching and its practice:
In the face of incongruous beliefs and warring sects, SB always asserts the Vedantic view as the most inclusive and ultimate. This is itself an implicit denial of universal religion, for it ignores the fact of basic differences in both the conceptiona and practices of even the major religions. However, that he insists that he alone is the God Avatar, God in human form who has come down to redeem the world, makes him one contender among the many claimants and faiths. Such a claim - of divine embodiment - is flatly and fundamentally rejected by Islam and mainstream (mahayana) Buddhism. Islam regards the idea of God having any form whatever as sheer blasphemy. Even the human form, because it is of divine origin, cannot be portayed in Islam. Little wonder, then. that only a mere handful of Muslims are ever seen near SB, and these are from peripheral sects with unconventional ideas, like the Sufis.
In the detail of his teachings, the difference of what he teaches from what
is believed in other mainstream religions becomes evident on many controversial
points. Just compare his accounts of Jesus' boyhood and many subsequent travels
and spiritual education in
An 'avatar' is an exclusively Hindu concept not compatible with universalism: SB is set up by his devotees in public as the one and only supreme teacher, his teaching representing the truth of all religions and himself being the actual full embodiment of the God to whom anyone prays, however they may themselves conceive Divinity. This is, of course, what SB has himself asserted! One cannot conceive of a more tremendous claim than this, however much one may try! SB refers to himself as the God of all Gods, the one whom all prayers to whihever deity must end up at, only One behind all divine forms, "all gods rolled into one"! This implies strongly that he is really the one whom all should follow, even while denying that he wishes everyone to worship him. This cannot be other than a divisive religious claim... a most disrupting and tradition-ignoring social and political idea. It is about as exclusive of other faiths and as misguided as all those Christians who wrongly insist that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ and that all others are misguided, even calling them 'unredeemed', 'lost souls' and so on. It is the kind of stuff of which inquisitions and holy jihads have been made.
An English friend who has visited SB twice and had an interview in 1986, and who has since joined the Sufi movement, wrote to me recently after hearing about the accusations of paedophilia by SB: "I have always had a problem with the Avatar concept, as we have discussed several times - it is not in my repertoire of concepts. I worship God, and I cannot worship a human being. I have great respect, and wish to learn from the God-realized, whether they reach this realization during life, or are born in this state. For me, every human is fallible and can make mistakes." SB virtually admits this himself sometimes, as in: "God assumes a role in the dharma of the world in human form. He has to behave as a human being only. This should be clearly understood by all." ( Sai Speaks - Vol 26. New ed., p. 229f) An English friend who has visited SB twice and had an interview in 1986, wrote to me recently after hearing about the accusations of pedophilia, "I have always had a problem with the Avatar concept, as we have discussed several times - it is not in my repertoire of concepts. I worship God, and I cannot worship a human being. I have great respect, and wish to learn from the God-realized, whether they reach this realization during life, or are born in this state. For me, every human is fallible and can make mistakes."
Divisive teaching on avatarhood As soon as SB is set up by devotees in public as the supreme teacher whom all should follow, it becomes a divisive social and political idea. To hold that SB is the only existing divinity - as so many Sai followers do even after decades of listening to his denials of this in discourses - is about as exclusive of other faiths and as misguided as all those Christians who wrongly insist that the only way to God is through Jesus Christ and that all others are misguided, even calling them 'unredeemed', 'lost souls' and so on.
The way the SB doctrine turns out in actual practice in the various Sai organisations around the world indicates some of the fundamental contradictions inherent in the claim of avatarhood combined with an ideal of universal spirituality. (See my participation/observation-based sociological analysis of the Sai Organisation) The organisation has to be steered centrally, and in this case it is led by Indian Hindus. It therefore invariably takes on the character of Hindu religion, however many efforts are made to ameliorate this and incorporate other beliefs and persons of different spiritual inclination. In all countries where I have observed attempts to 'universalise' the SB teaching, the groups soon gravitate towards an exclusive membership, of which the first requirement is belief in SB and at least the basics of his teaching. Non-members are tolerated, but room is never made for them within the heavily Hindu-oriented doctrine that prevails in both the Charter, in the nature of all central conferences and festivities and in devotional gatherings … however much one tries to involve other faiths. There is also an inbuilt inertia towards Indian rituals rather than those of any other faith. This is not an inclusive practice, though it is highly natural and probably unavoidable in any culture… one sticks mainly to one's own time-worn symbols and behaviour. The only persons of other faiths who interact with the Sai organisation are those who also accept or tolerate silently the claim that SB is nothing short of the Divinity Itself. One does not have to be much of a deep thinker to see what limitations this sets upon the spread of the doctrine preached by SB, though faith also can have great power in clouding sensible judgements… and such beliefs can and do often stultify human moral conscience.
SB's religious fundamentalism: Though SB allows that some agnostics and atheists may be good people, he often ridicules their lack of belief in any god. In emphasising the supposed existence of an universal core of values and truth in all religions, and in stating these values and this truth in a definitive fashion, SB puts himself firmly among religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is based on the belief and fear that modern secular society wants to wipe out religion and deny the existence or authority of God. A godless world is what fundamentalists fight against. As such, there are always elements of anti-secular and anti-democratic values present. Justice is something only God can dispense, so human justice would be disregarded whenever a conflict between the two sets of values arose. This is seen very clearly in the attempts at introduction in Muslim communities of fundamentalist sharea law, where human values and sharea justice are tremendously at odds. The same conflict between secular human values and 'divine justice' has been demonstrated in SB's ashrams, where justice for anyone who claims to be an injured party is denied a hearing and is ostracised, physically threatened or even killed. The 1993 murders in SB's bedroom episode illustrates this most clearly (see Premanand's book). Further, as SB has said, "one cannot bargain with God" (quote source). According to his own previous close official, Dr. Bhatia, this was what SB said him when he tried to defend an injured party - a child of 8 years old who had been medically examined and found to have been anally raped by SB.
Though overwhelmingly Hindu-oriented in its cultural content and examples, it stands up well among world spiritual teachings as regards its respect for all the various approaches to God, and even towards agnostics and atheists. SB repeatedly exemplifies and insists upon magnamity to those of all faiths, and towards all people. He regards diversity of faiths as the spice of life and a necessity in a world where everyone is placed differently. SB holds education high on his agenda for world change, especially moral and spiritual education. He repeatedly speaks against the kind of intellectualism that is mere theory or is without adequate practice. He evidently dislikes scholastically book-oriented intellectualism and constantly and firmly rejects the claims of science to be the be-all and end-all of knowledge, not only of human life and its meaning but also sometimes of material nature too. Yet in all his negative judgements of the world and its leaders, he also virtually rejects much of what is best about it too, from the human rights movement to the defence of workers' rights through strike action.
Though SB criticises India's leaders, politicians and corruption in hefty general terms, he clearly avoids provoking specific interests. Doubtless, his policy is not confrontation with vested powers and traditions but stimulating gradual change. His antipathy to human rights is evident, unfortunately, as he never has a good word to say about them, only but criticises that movement on the grounds that what people need to have is a better sense of their duties instead. Thus, he never speaks in support of the moderating influence that the activities of the educated and intellectuals can have on social injustice, rigid ideologies and rabid religious dogmas, nor of their analysis and criticisms that help to uncover beliefs, policies and doctrines of all kinds - religious or secular -that can wreak psychological and social damage. This is really and truly a backward-looking traditionalism. It is seen also in his ambivalence towards women and his preference for the traditional female role which has always been bound up with their suppression through the ages. (See A Few of SB's Confused and Traditional Views on Women)
These omissions are reinforced by his complete avoidance of mentioning major and widespread social horrors in India, such as bonded labour (i.e. lifelong unpaid, enforced slavery), child labour servitude or the selling of slaves into prostitution, all of which is practiced on a larger scale in India, Pakistan and Nepal than anywhere else. Nor does SB ever speak in public of the suppression of women, which is also massive in India where many wives are burnt by husbands or their families for financial gain. Again, he does not publicly criticise any specific caste discriminations which still are a major scourge in India, though he does at the same time, of course, have a general teaching of non-discrimination due to colour, creed, caste & religion. Meanwhile, he often speaks favourably of the four-caste system (as it was in ancient India at least), which tends strongly to support the basic religious underpinning of the present caste system too. All this avoids confrontation with any oppressive and evil social systems in favour of placing the burden on individuals to change themselves.