Reply To Yaani (“Have Truth, Will Travel”) Drucker’s Request To Remove Blog Articles
Posted by Barry Pittard on March 15, 2010
For context to this email to Yaani Drucker, who claims to be spiritually enlightened, but who (as any reasoning reader can see at once) frequently avoids many issues of substance and also confuses what clearly has been said, see the links to my series of posts, below. I have spent time on this issue because it strikes me that her many evasions – which I do not think are insincere – show aspects of the cultic mind in full flight. I quickly add, though, that Yaani Drucker in other respects is remarkably free of the viciousness of certain other key Sathya Sai Baba apologists. She is touchingly decent, and her language free of attack and put-down. Indeed she has lessons to teach her own guru, whose nastiness, whatever may be the positives, is only too well documented by countless and compelling testimonies from many countries.
I have carefully thought through your request that I take down what I have written on yourself and your husband Professor Drucker. These posts were made with genuineness, time, effort and care. You have since sent a number of documents that you say show you to be a good person. You referred to your “purity of heart”.
Yaani, I will not entertain any implication that many former devotees who have raised the issues of which I have written are not good people, too. It is you who are “not listening”. You are not listening to them – whom you once respected as your fine ‘Sai brothers and sisters’. They feel let down by you both, especially Al.
Perhaps at some time, you will be ready to answer my questions properly, instead of via emotionalism (which is very different to emotion). Should you and/or Al be ready to make out a response, I shall be glad to give your answers ample space at https://barrypittard.wordpress.com (Call For Media and Government Investigation of Sathya Sai Baba).
It is clear to me and to others – who are not afraid to criticize me if they think that I am being unreasonable – that you have reacted emotively and evasively, and taken matters personally, such as where you assume that I am saying that you are dangerous. Clearly, you have difficulty in separating what is really being said from your own upset reaction to it. In public, you have advanced your notions about self-realization. On your website and to me in an email, you have said you are glad to debate. You are a public figure, given your role as a speaker, workshop facilitator and owner of a website. You have declared on that website: “Have truth, will travel”. Naturally, sooner or later, you will find people who disagree with you, and who speak up. They have a perfect right to do so. Former devotee critics such as Robert Priddy (long-time ex-head of the Sathya Sai Organization in Norway), Brian Steel and other articulate and immensely hard-working researchers have not ducked for cover, and in fact have faced almost unimaginable attacks. Yaani, if it is too hot in the public ‘kitchen’, why enter it with undertakings to “discuss and debate”, as you have done?
In what I have written in my latest post, I have given my further reasons for not ceding to your request to take down the posts.
Perhaps at some time you will feel ready to deal with issues with reason and non-evasion of serious questions, which are of deep and genuine concern especially for many former devotees whose lives have been shattered by the terrible deeds of Sathya Sai Baba, and those of his key servitors who have cooperated in a large-scale, tragic cover up. Some of the parents of those with compelling accounts of their (then) young male children have very real concerns that your husband Al Drucker profoundly let them down when they came to him in trust at the worst period in their lives. (Not that there lack many other types of Sathya Sai Baba abuses that are also well-documented, including extensive research by the BBC and other institutions of great repute). I have stated this matter about the parents in my extended email to you, and you ignored it, except, when later again asked, but where all you had to to say was that you had heard “rumors”.
Your replies have been about you, and how you have been made to feel, and how public comment causes you to lose attendees for your workshop on handling ‘ego’. There was no compassionate engagement of yours in the former devotees’ grave and heart-stricken concerns. Or, indeed – any real engagement at all.
Previous Posts On This Issue
Robert Priddy at:
There is a Spanish version available: