Sathya Sai Baba's Magic

Author(s): Lawrence A. Babb

Source: Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 3, (Jul., 1983), pp. 116-124
Published by: The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3317305
Accessed: 07/05/2008 14:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ifer.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org

SATHYA

SAI

BABA'S

MAGIC

LAWRENCE A. BABB
Amherst College
This paper is an excursion in the anthropology of credibility. Regarded as a living deity by his many followers,
Sathya Sai Baba is one of the most important of India's modern religious figures. Thepaper explores the role of
the miraculous in his cult. Miracles attributed to the deity-saint are shown to be vehicles for establishing and
maintaining relationships between him and his followers utilizing a transactional framework of general
importance in the Hindu world. The indeterminacy of the miracles, farfrom being viewed as a disconfirmation of
their author's claims, is understood to exemplify an unaccountability that is a necessaryfeature ofdivinity. Their
ultimate plausibility and persuasive energy derivefrom a link, established within the symbolic world of the cult,
between a devotee's belief in their divine authorship and his or her commitment to a transformed sense of identity.
To the degree that the new sense of self is valued, the miracles must be accepted as genuine.

It would be easy not to take the cult of

Sathya Sai Baba seriously. Centering on
modern India's best known deity-saint,this
cult is certainly a highly prominent feature of
the modern religious landscape in India. But
because of its veneer of jet-age modernity
and the apparent estrangement of its mostly
bourgeois adherents from "grassroots Hinduism"(Bharati 1981:87) it would be tempting
to dismiss the cult as in some sense inauthentic, a less-than-best avenue to an understanding of things Hindu. In my view, however,
this would be a mistake. Not only is this cult
deeply and authentically Hindu, as I hope to
show, but the very cultural alienation of its
main constituency sets in bold relief certain
critical features of the Hindu tradition that we
might not otherwise see as clearly.
The materials with which I am concerned
were gathered during a program of fieldresearch on Hinduism in an urban context
undertaken in Delhi in 1978-79. I was interested in every aspect of urban religious
culture that I could find, and inevitably this
brought me into contact with various gurucentered cults of middle- and upper- middle
class Delhi. One such group was the local
(Delhi) following of Sathya Sai Baba. I began
with an essentially casual interest in this cult.
However, as I began to attend cult-related
activities and talk to devotees Isoon realized
that Iwas in contact with a religious style that
is clearly very meaningful to at least some
members of a highly sophisticated and cosmopolitan bureaucratic, political,commerical and
academic elite. And I also found myself confronted with what appeared to be a puzzle, one
having mainly to do with miracles.
The cult of Sathya Sai Baba seems to invert

what common sense would lead us to expect

There is certainly nothing new about the
miraculous in the Hindu world. Indeed, in this
world the credibility of contraventions of
expectations of how the world normallyworks
is never really the main issue; what matters
most is what such occurrences, in specific
instances, actually mean. However, as many
observers have noted, the cult of Sathya Sai
Baba has a notably cosmopolitan constituency consisting of many people who at
least outwardly are as strongly attuned as
anyone to the more international cult of
scientific rationality. And yet the miraculous
is absolutely central to this religious movement. This circumstance pushes to the fore
questions that we might not otherwise ask
From what, exactly, do these miracles derive
their convincingness, a plausibility so great
that it seems to pull people into convictions
ostensibly at odds with what their own subculture deems to be common sense and
considered judgment? What is the source of
the energy of Sathya Sai Baba's "magic," an
energy that is apparently strong enough to
have life-transformingeffects on his devotees?
Does it arise merely from cunning theatrics?
Or is its true source something else?
Sathya Sai Baba was born in 1926 in the
village of Puttaparthi in what is now the state
of Andhra Pradesh in southern India. According to the literature of the movement (see
esp. Kasturi 1977) his birth was heralded by
miracles and he exhibited uncanny powers
from childhood. In 1940, at the age of
fourteen, he proclaimed himself to be a reincarnation of the celebrated Sai Baba of
Shirdi-a saint who became famous in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
116

SATHYA SAl
SAI BABA'S MAGIC
and who has continued to be the focus of a
cult since his death in 1918. Sathya Sai
Baba's emergence from local renown into
national prominence was completed during
the 1950s. In 1963, he announced himself to
be an avatar (incarnation, descent) of Shiva,
and is so regarded by his many followers
today. It must not be imagined that the
acclaim is universal. He has many detractors
and is frequently accused of fraud and/or
favoring only the rich and powerful. However,
the size and influence of his indigenous (as
opposed to international) following certainly
justifies rankinghimamong the most important
of modern India's religious personalities.
He is, among other things, a teacher, and
there exists an extensive literature in which
his views on a great variety of matters are
presented. However, I think it is quite clear
that Sathya Sai Baba's teachings, as such,are
not what is most important about his cult.
Devotee-informants rarely dwell on matters
of doctrine, which is not surprising, for in fact
there is relatively little to dwell upon, or at
least nothing very distinctive. His philosophical views are simplistic, eclectic, and
essentially unoriginal. His ethics are basically
common-coin, though certainly not to be
dismissed on that account. Whatever else he
might feel, it is very difficult to imagine a
Hindu auditor or reader of Sathya Sai Baba's
discourses reacting with surprise.
Rather, what is important about what
Sathya Sai Baba says is not its content,but the
fact that he is the one who is saying it. When
devotee-informants talk about him one does
not hear about theology, but about the "presence," in a variety of senses, of the deitysaint himself in their lives. What emerges as
a general theme in these accounts is the
same kindof visual,tactile, and even alimentary
intimacy that is so central to devotional Hinduism generally. His devotees long to see
him, to hear him, to be near him, to have
private audiences with him, to touch him
(especially his feet) and to receive and consume, or use in other ways, substances and
objects that have been touched by him or
that originate from him.
The most striking feature of this cult,
however, is the extremely strong emphasis
given to the miraculous. On this point let
there be no mistake: Sathya Sai Baba's
miracles are crucial to what this cult is all

117

about. One is sometimes told, I think defensively, that the miracles are but a superficial
aspect of his mission, but this is not the view
of most of my devotee-informants who took
great delight in telling of miracles they had
experienced, witnessed, or of which they
heard. Nor is it the view of Sathya Sai Baba
himself who has characterized the miracles
as "evidence"(nidarshan)of his divinity(Kasturi
1975:139) and an important means for effecting the kinds of inner changes in his devotees
necessary for their spiritual welfare. Nor
indeed is it apparently the view of non-devotee
onlookers, to whom Sathya Sai Baba tends to
be known primarilyas a miracle worker, and
who usually linkthe question of hiscredibility
to the meaning and/or validity of his miracles.
The miracles in question are quite various.
He is said to leave his body to aid his
devotees in distant places. He cures incurable
illnesses,and is even said to have raised the
dead. He has turned water into gasoline by
dipping his hand in it. His most important
miracle-style, however, is the apparent materialization of objects and substances, including
such things as images of deities, sweets,
books, pictures of himself, amulets, jewelry,
watches, and much else besides. But of all
of his magical productions, the most significant
by far is sacred ash (vibhuti), of which he is
reported to materialize an average of over
one pound per day (Kasturi 1977:140). He
usually does so with a wave of his right hand,
and the result is given to devotees which
they consume, apply to their bodies, or use in
other ways. The ash is believed to have an
active power deriving from its source.
His physical presence is not necessary
for miracles to occur. Many involve his
appearance in dreams. He has been reported,
for example, to have performed surgery on
devotees while they were dreaming. It is
believed, indeed, that he appears in dreams
only when he wills it;thus, everydream of him
is a kind of miraculous communication.
Moreover, there are several "miracle-households" in Delhi in which his magical influence
is said to be manifested from afar. Footprints
of sacred ash appear on floors, mysterious
bites are taken out of edibles, garlands over
his picture change position, writing appears
in closed notebooks, and his pictures exude
sacred ash,kumkum(a red powder) and amrit
('ambrosia,' a sweet-tasting liquid). In one

118

ANTHROPOLOGICALQUARTERLY

such household devotees deposit envelopes

containing inquiries and petitions at the family
altar. Insome of these sacred ash will appear
indicating an affirmative response.
What is the meaning of these miracles? In
the remaining pages I offer a few suggestions.
My perspective is informant-oriented. I have
never met Sathya Sai Baba,but he is not my
true subject in any case. What interests me
are his devotees and what they make of him,
themselves, and their relations with him, and
I have tried to distill from what they told me
something of the inner rationale of Sathya
Sai Baba's magic.
To begin with, it is clear that the miraculous
is often an important factor in recruitment to
the cult. Most of my informants were highly
voluble about their conversion experiences
which they tended to see as deeply important
episodes in their life histories. The religious
"alienation" noted by Bharati (1981:87) is
clear in the self-portrayal of many of these
informants. Their prior acquaintance with
Hindu practice and doctrine appears frequently to have been relatively slight, and
some characterize themselves as having been
worldly skeptics prior to their contact with
Sathya Sai Baba. Some of them were also
very troubled people, though whether or not
they were more troubled than India's higher
bourgeoisie generally is impossible for me to
say. Frequently, however, details of truly
serious life difficulties emerged in their discourse: illnesses, family problems, financial
difficulties, and - something that should
never be dismissed as trivial - the ennui of
retirement from active professional life. I am
certain that a significant number of devotees
were impelled into the cult as a result of such
difficulties.
But what seems to have been the critical
precipitating factor in many of these cases
was a direct experience of the miraculous. A
powerful theme in these accounts is that of a
passage from indifference or skepticism to
faith through a personal confrontation with
Sathya Sai Baba's powers. Thus, an exbeefeating former military officer reported
that his attitude of amused skepticism changed
completely when a picture of Sathya Sai
Baba seemed to appear in one of his wife's
earrings. For him this was the decisive break
with the past, although his faith was further
consolidated when Sathya Sai Baba materi-

alized ash on his behalf and demonstrated

an apparent ability to read his mind. Another
informant,a U.S.-educated Panjabi businessman, recalls accompanying his father-in-law,
basically as a lark,to see Sathya Sai Baba in
Bangalore. Upon seeing an ash-materialization with his own eyes he became a staunch
devotee. A Panjabi chartered accountant tells
of the anguish he and his wife felt upon being
told by the attending physician that their
soon-to-be-born child was dead in the womb.
As a last resort he prayed to a picture of
Sathya Sai Baba while his wife's mother (a
devotee) rubbed sacred ash on his wife's
body. This was the first time in his life, he
says, that he had ever "really prayed." The
child was born alive, and he and his wife
subsequently became mainstays of the Delhi
community of "Sai" devotees.
In the literature of the movement there is
a personal account of a conversion that
seems to be paradigmatic of the type. One of
India's most distinguished scientists, an erstwhile director of the All India Institute of
Science, was jolted out of what was evidently
a case of moderate scientific dogmatism
when, before his very eyes, Sathya Sai Baba
apparently produced for him a copy of the
Bhagavad Gita out of a handful of sand.
Having witnessed more occurrences of the
same kind, he reports himself as having had
to admit that he was having experiences that
were beyond the capacity of his rational mind
to explain; that, as he put it, Sathya Sai Baba
is "beyond science" (Bhagavantham, 1976:
233).
I consider this instance paradigmatic because it seems to exhibit features that are
important in many conversions to the cult.
That the subject is a distinguished scientist
is an exemplification of the worldlysophistication that seems characteristic of many of
Sathya Sai Baba's key followers. And the
attention given in his account to the tension
between his scientific training and his belief
in Sathya Sai Baba is but a particularly clear
articulation of what seems to be a widely
shared perception among devotees, namely
that scientific rationality is fundamentally
challenged and in some sense transcended
by Sathya Sai Baba's magic.
Moreover, this case also illustrates well
what appears to be the "threshold-crossing"
or"bridge-burning"character of many conver-

119
sions to the cult. For many there appears to
be a moment, though it may be a protracted
one, of intellectual surrender, after which
what is taken to be evidence of personal
experienceis accepted in a way that eclipses
what are, perhaps, less immediate and less
felt scientific abstractions about what the
world is like. Itis apparent from their accounts
of themselves that many converts were searching for something in which to believe in any
case, and for them the miraculous seems to
have been essentially catalytic in its effects.
What is probably crucial in this process is the
acknowledgement that occurs when a
changed view of things is expressed in verbal
or other forms of behavior (on this see Festinger 1964). Having said, or acted as if he
believed,that the miracles are in some sense
genuine, the believer is then held fast in a net
of behavioral and attitudinal consistency; he
cannot turn back without making nonsense
of what is now a coherent pattern of conviction
and action visible to an audience consisting
of himself and others. At this point belief may
become both stubborn and defensive in a
way that is likely to drive the believer into the
company of fellow believers.
But this does not advance matters very
much. To suggest that Sathya Sai Baba's
miracles are essentially a recruiting device
would be quite misleading. For one thing, it
would ignore the fact that it is possible to
"believe" in the miracles without believing in
Sathya Sai Baba. Many non-devotees are
quite convinced that Sathya Sai Baba can
materialize ash and all the rest, but do not
see this as evidence of divinity. Indeed, some
consider his powers to be quite sinister. But
even more important, to see the miracles
merely as a blandishment to potential converts
would be to fail to take into account the most
crucial fact of all, that the miracles have not
only to do with the inception of belief, but also
with its consolidation and fulfillment. Ifdevotees in some sense "surrender,"it isto something that is apparently very meaningful to
them, and it is to this that I now turn.
On this point it is best to begin with the
obvious, namely that Sathya Sai Baba does
not just produce impressive spectacles; he
also produces things, things that are usually
given to others. And even when physical
items and substances are not involved, his
miracles usually have a context,and this context
consists of relationships between him and

particular devotees.
As far as the things and substances as
such are concerned, it is obviously significant
that Sathya Sai Baba materializes more sacred
ash than anything else. As White has pointed
out, this is a clear link with Shirdi Sai Baba,
also an ash dispenser, whose reappearance
Sathya Sai Baba claims to be (White1972:874).
Sacred ash is also deeply implicated in the
symbolism of Shiva, and therefore, as Swallow
has shown, the ash is a vital element in
Sathya Sai Baba's sacred persona as the
"livinglingam in the yoni"(Swallow 1982:145,
147ff.).
However, what may be most important
about his miraculous productions is not what
he materializes, but what he does with it, for
almost invariably he gives it to someone,
which suggests that what matters most is not
the thing in itself but the way it connects him
with others - in short, its significance as a
vehicle for a relationship (see also White
1972: 874). Seen in this light, it is clear that
the passage of materialized objects and substances from Sathya Sai Baba to his followers
mobilizes very familiar patterns in Hindu
devotional worship. The practice of receiving
a deity's or august personage'sprasad (graceas-leavings) has been too well described to
require much comment, save to note that
among other things it seems to involve the
transfer of some desirable quality of the
donor (the deity) to the ingesting recipient
who is thereby benefitted (Marriott 1976).
Uningestible objects can have the same
properties; the garland or garment recovered
from the altar are examples. In the case of
Sathya Sai Baba the ash, the amrit, the
sweets, and all the other paraphernalia of his
magic are obviously functional equivalents
of this. Produced by his power, they in some
sense embody his power, which is then transferred beneficially, his "grace," to the recipients. Thus, the ash cures illnesses, and the
amulets and all the rest, far from being mere
souvenirs, protect the ingestors and possessors from harm.
Indeed, these items and substances seem
to be conceived as media for their donor's
actual presence. When Sathya Sai Baba
presents his devotees with materialized objects he often says that throughthem he will
be close to the recipients. One informant
recalled that when "Baba"(what he is usually
called in conversation; also "Swami") pre-

120

ANTHROPOLOGICALQUARTERLY

sented him with a materialized ring he stated

that between the ring and himself there was
a "golden thread" which would insure that as
long as the ring was worn he would always be
there. This same motif of "presence" seems
to be involved in most of his miracles. When
he transports himself to other locations it is,
of course, to be near some devotee in a time
of great need. And the real meaning of the
startling phenomena in the miracle-households - the footprints, the materializations
of ash and amrit from pictures, and so on- is
that he is really there, even if he does not
appear to be. What all this suggests is that
the power that is carried or manifested by the
substances and objects he gives to others is
not simply an impersonal force of some
kind, but arises in the context of interactions
and relations between the deity-saint and
particular others; it is not power "as such,"
but power-as-presence in the life of specific
persons.:
But I have not yet touched upon another
crucial feature of Sathya Sai Baba's miracles,
and indeed of most of his acts, and this is
their apparent indeterminacy. Though not as
evident in the literature of the cult, one of the
most striking themes in informants' accounts
of their relationships with Sathya Sai Baba is
the apparent capriciousness of what he does.
Nobody ever really knows when or for whom
he will produce ash or objects, or when or on
whom he will bestow other kinds of favors.
He often does so when least expected, "out
of the blue." He surrounds himself with an
atmosphere of surprise; he is playful and
mischievous (natkhat,a word used by a Hindispeaking informant), and even a bit of a
tease. For example, in early 1979 many
devotees believed that he would be coming
to Delhi in March. One informant, a strong
devotee, recalled to me later that he had
asked him to come and that "Baba" had told
him that he would. But he did not come, and
when my informant related this tale to some
people who are quite close to the deity-saint
they laughed and said, "You didn't actually
believe him, did you?" This remark and the
incident that occasioned it are entirely consonant with the atmosphere of the cult. Another
informant told of how during a visit to the
ashram at Puttaparthi "Baba" had refused to
allow him to touch his feet, but then later
quite inexplicably called him for that most

desirable of boons, a personal interview. This

kind of thing, he said, is "Baba's lial" (play,
sport), then adding, "he does what he wants."
Such stories are extremely common.
Of course one might interpret such instances as simplythe inevitable consequences
of the hubbub and confusion surrounding a
deity-saint with a national following - "Baba"
forgetting to whom he had said what. But this
would be to miss an important point, for within
the traditionin which Sathya Sai Baba operates
unaccountability is an extremely important
characteristic of divinity.
In the Hindu world, the gods are playful.
David Kinsley has pointed out that divine
play expresses the "otherness" of the deities.
The gods are free; they act, "...but their acts
cannot be understood simply within the structure of theological orethical systems. Intheir
complete otherness, their actions can only
be called lila...'sport,'play,'or'dalliance' (Kinsley 1979:xi). But even as the play of the gods
expresses divine otherness, it also expresses
nearness and intimacy. The gods "play with"
their devotees, and their play can therefore
define a certain kind of relationship. "Like a
love affair,to which it is repeatedly compared,"
Kinsley writes, "the devotee's relationship to
God is constantly changing, full of surprises,
hidden delights and ecstacies. Itis unpredictable and spontaneous. It is an end in itself"
(1979: 202).
Kinsley's phrasing, it seems to me, captures
well a very important aspect of Sathya Sai
Baba's demeanor as perceived by many of
his devotees. When one devotee recalled
feeling a nearly irresistable urge to "pinch his
cheek," I believe him to have been expressing
a sentiment arising from a powerful image of
"Baba" as playful child. His miracles are, of
course, evidences of extraordinary powers;
but extraordinary powers are nothing new in
the Hindu world. However, the fact that his
devotees usually refer to his miracles as his
"lilas," his sports, puts them in a different
perspective. They are not mere "wonders"
(chamatkar),norare they to be likened to the
magical "accomplishments" (siddli) of human
adepts. To understand them as lila is to raise
them to a much higher level. Their very
essence is "play" and as such they are
expressions of divine unaccountability. At
this level the very haphazardness of his acts
becomes a kind of evidence in support of his

SATHYA SAI BABA'S MAGIC

claims. Moreover, the emphasis on the playfulness of his divine character insists that his
acts be understood within a special context,
that of relations with particular others, his
"playmates."These relationships are intimate,
full of surprise and delight (though sometimes
pain as well), and, finally, ends in themselves.
But are Sathya Sai Baba's acts unaccountable in any simple sense? Apparenlty not, for
although informants portray an essentially
unpredictable "Baba," they also subject his
acts to certain kinds of interpretation, and
this strikes me as an extremely interesting
fact. For example, one informant recalled
that Sathya Sai Baba once promised him a
golden locket, but then failed to deliver. He
now realizes, this informant went on to say,
that the only reason he wanted the locket
was to "show off," and thus the apparently
broken promise was a valuable lesson in
humility. Indeed, Sathya Sai Baba himself
sometimes interprets his own acts. As everyone knows, he can cure the apparently incurable. But he does not always do so, for as he
himself said to one of my informants, it is
occasionally best that the heavy karmicdebts
of the past be repaid. Therefore,the unaccountability of his acts seems in essence to be
prospective;one can never be quite sure of
what he is going to do next (though he of
course knows). But retrospectively his acts
are at least susceptible to certain kinds of
interpretation.
His apparent capriciousness is obviously
compelled by the theodicy dilemma as it
impinges on his relationships with devotees.
Human ignorance and divine omniscience
are the essential conditions for this. Sathya
Sai Baba knows everything; we do not. "He
knows we are standing here now," one informant said to me. He therefore knows, as
devotees never tire of saying, everyone's
"past, present and future." His favors are
certainly bestowed on some whom the world
regards as virtuous, but not always; nor is it
always clear that they are withheld from the
less than virtuous. But it must be remembered
that it is not within the power of human
understanding to know who, in fact, is deserving, particularly in a world governed by
karmic cause and effect extending beyond
single earthly lifespans. Not only do we not
know what is hidden in the hearts of others,
or for that matter even our own, but we can

121

have no idea at all of the world-careers of the

selves that we are and that surround us.
Knowing nothing of these things, even a
loving Lord's favor must seem inexplicable to
us. All that we can really conclude, in fact, is
that even his apparent indifference is his
love. Stated otherwise, against the background of the misfortunes that occur even in
the lives of devotees, it is possible that
Sathya Sai Baba's favor must be unaccountable to be believable. Inthis context the very
opacity of his acts becomes evidence of his
divine omniscience.
Sathya Sai Baba's acts thus represent a
curious amalgam of determination and indetermination. It is a question of points of
view. From a limited human perspective he
seems inexplicable. But imbedded in the
discourse of his cult seems to be an assumption that there exists some frame of
reference within which his acts are but the
visible exterior of an activity that is inwardly
deeply meaningful. This does not mean that
his acts can ever be in any human sense
finally accountable. Although he may allude
to his purposes in explaining to a devotee
why, say, the illness of a child was not cured, I
do not believe that the idea that "if one only
knew what he knows then everything he does
would seem inevitable" is really at the forefront of devotees' minds. I, in any case, have
never heard such an idea deployed in talk
about him. But what is implicit in such talk is
the idea that his acts are not meaningless.
Hence, a paradox and an apparent contradiction in terms: we are dealing, it would
seem, with determined indetermination. But
somewhere in the conceptual chasm between
the accountable and the unaccountable there
is another possibility which may be (as the
writings of Clifford Geertz suggest; see esp.
1966) uniquely the domain of religious thought
and experience. It is possible, that is, for
something to be meaningful without being
fully accountable. I think Sathya Sai Baba's
play is an example of this. When an informant
says that the purpose of some instance of
apparent indifference is to demolish pride,
the point is not only that where Sathya Sai
Baba finds pride he demolishes it (though
this a major theme in his relations with
devotees), but that there is somethingabout
his acts, however obscure they may seem to
us, that permits such explications - right or

122

ANTHROPOLOGICALQUARTERLY

wrong - reasonably to be made. What we do

not know, he knows; and thus even if his play
encompasses its own ends, this does not
mean that it is pointless.
However, to present Sathya Sai Baba's
divine persona as if it were merely some kind
of occasion for abstract karmic calculations
would be quite misleading. What would then
be left out is what is most present in informants' accounts of their relationships with
him: very powerful feelings. What must be
stressed is the strong emphasis on love-inintimacy that is so characteristic of devotees'
accounts of their feelings about him, even
when such relations are to all outside appearances far from intimate; indeed, in the
ideological framework of the cult such relations can and do exist even when there has
been no physical encounter with "Baba" at
all. Sathya Sai Baba does not so much have
relationships with devotees "in general" as
he has specific relationships with particular
devotees for whom these relationships are
charged with deep personal meaning. But
what is this meaning? I believe it has in part
to do with questions of identity.
In the South Asian religious milieu questions of personal identity are, of course,
fundamental, and this, in turn, has to do with
the meaning of experience. Everyday experience, the experience of oneself as an
organic being, and as an actor and alter in
social roles, supplies the basis for a certain
conception of self. But this self, defined and
sustained through sensory engagement with
the world, is in some sense a false self, and
the aim of soteriological strategies is to
"know" the real self that lies hidden under
the detritus of normal worldly endeavor and
attachment. Such knowledge, however, is
not pure intellection, remote from experience.
Rather, it too is grounded in experience,
though of an utterly different kind, an experience that is, in many systems at least,
intensely inward and achieved through arduous cultivation of contemplative insight.
Here the real truth about the self is disclosed
in a direct, unmediated apprehension. Such
an experience ideally leaves as its residue
the conviction that this more intensely, strikingly and intuitively experienced identity supersedes the person one previously thought
oneself to be.
The fact that human ignorance and divine

omniscience are implicated in the question

of what Sathya Sai Baba's acts mean, together with the highly personal dimension
these acts seem to possess for many devotees,
suggests to me that similar questions of
identity may be involved, though somewhat
differently modulated. Who is the devotee?
The point is, the devotee himself cannot
really know. He knows neither the worst
about himself, nor in a kind of inversion of
Puritanism, the best. But Sathya Sai Baba
does know. He knows the real devotee,
"past, present and future," that bundle of
motives and inclinations embarked on a transtemporal world career. Or, rather, when he
interacts with his devotee the relationship in
some measure defines a self, as all social
interactions do, but because of his unique
character, and especially his omniscience,
the self so defined cannot be the evident
one. The self known to, watched over, and
loved by"Baba" is more inclusive, less partial,
and in some sense truer than the one of
which the devotee- and all human others are normally aware.
Interaction with "Baba" is an experience,
and a highly vivid one, or at least so the
accounts of informants suggest. And given
its context, such interaction has the potential
to be an experiential basis for a devotee's
confidence that he is somehow more than he
seems to be, that the identity with which he is
familiar is not, after all, the one that matters
most. But here the revelation is apparently
not, as in other instances, something arising
from a cultivated experience of the self, but
rather occurs by indirection, borrowed from
what the devotees believed to be the
reactionto the self of a very special other. I am
certainly not suggesting that the result of this
is something as simple as mere self-esteem
buttressed by apparent divine approbation.
"Pride,"as we have noted, can be demolished
by encounters with "Baba." Indeed, what is
remarkable about relationships between the
deity-saint and his devotees is that even his
apparent indifferenceor neglectcan be seen as
somehow positive in implication. Informants
speak of what is apparently a very common
experieFnce of new devotees: strong affirmative reactions from "Baba" at first, followed
by coolness and neglect. But this does not
matter, for his indifference is only apparent,
and never a matter of neglect. The point is,

SATHYA SAI BABA'S MAGIC

beyond mere pride or self-esteem there is

something else that devotees, through "Baba,"
can come to feel about themselves something
that, for those who pass the test of his
apparent neglect or indifference, is seemingly
more valuable than self-esteem.
But what is it? Or rather, who is this
person who is in some way "completed"
through a relationship with "Baba"? It is not
easy to say; indeed, I am far from sure that
devotees themselves have very coherent
ideas about this, and in any case the ultimate
rewards of devotion to Sathya Sai Baba are
certainly idiosyncratic, depending on highly
specific features of individuallife-experiences.
At the level of general symbolism, however,
certain broad themes are evident, at least in
outer contour. Such a person is certainly a
safer person, being under the Lord's direct
protection; but of course this does not mean
that such a person is unaffected by the often
painful vicissitudes of life as it must be in this
world. Such a person is also in some sense a
more valuable person; but the worth in question is not necessarily visible on the surfaces
of things, for it is fully realized only in the
knowledge of an all-knowing other. This is a
knowledge the devotee cannot ever share;
his only possible communication with it
comes from a sense of that divine other's
intimate, personal presence in his life. Such
a person is also a more loved person, for this
love, being all-knowing, is all-forgiving. Certainly too, such a person may have a basis for
heightened salvationary expectations, but I
must add that there was very little talk of
soteriological matters in the discourse of my
informants.
In fact I believe that many of his devotees
are more serene persons as a result of their
relationship with "Baba." This would be
consistent with Sathya Sai Baba's own emphasis on "courage" (Kasturi 1977), and perhaps also with his promise that the sincere
devotee will have his darshan (sight) at the

123

moment of death. When informants speak,

as they often do, of the "peace of mind"they
get from Sathya Sai Baba I think they are
referring to a genuine inner sense of security
which the deity-saint's presence, in whatever
medium, confers.
In any case, I hope that these points may
in some measure help to explain what may
seem at first glance to be a mere credulous
innocence in people who ought to know
better. That such people seem to be the ones
who "ought to know better" has at least
provoked our query, and if nothing else we
have learned that while Sathya Sai Baba's
magic is certainly in tension with scientific
rationality, it engages with it only obliquely.
The so-called miracles seem to derive their
real energy from their role as media for deitydevotee relationships. This being so, it is
finally these relationships for which the miracles are "evidence," and therefore it is on
the basis of a devotee's feeling about such
relationships that his final assessment of the
"validity"of the miracles is likely to be formulated. Put differently, the deity-saint's
acts, of which the miracles are considered by
devotees to be quintessential examples, have
as much to do with a devotee's feelings about
himself as about Sathya Sai Baba and the
things he can or cannot do; or, rather, in this
context his feelings about himself and about
"Baba" are conflated. This is Sathya Sai
Baba's true magic. Whatever the devotee's
inner understanding of himself may in the
end turn out to be (and here we must be
agnostic) to the degree that this understanding
is valued by the devotee, he must believe that
the miracles are genuine. Therefore, as good
as Sathya Sai Baba's theatrics may be, and
by all accounts they are very good indeed,
the true source of the verisimilitude of his
self-presentation lies only partly in physical
appearances. At least as important is his
devotees' assent to their own hopefulness
about themselves.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

124

NOTES
The research on which this paper is based took place
in Delhi between July 1978 and May 1979, and was
supported by an Indo-AmericanFellowship. Iwould like to
thank colleagues at the Department of Sociology, Delhi
School of Economics, forthe hospitality,help and intellectual
companionship so generously given during my stay in
Delhi. I would also like to thank the many devotees of
Sathya Sai Baba who aided me in my inquiries. A previous
version of this paperwas delivered to a panel at the annual
meetings of the AmericanAcademy of Religion in New York,
December 1982.

To this I must add, however, that the worship of Sathya

Sai Baba has collective, communitarian dimmensions too,
as does the worship of any Hindudeity. His devotees are a
community of believers, and the ties that bind them can, at
least in principle, transcend social boundaries of other
kinds. On this point see White (1972:875).
I think the principle of "borrowed"points of view may
be more important in Hindu religious culture than is
generally realized. See Babb (1982).

REFERENCES CITED
BABB, LAWRENCEA.
1982

Glancing: visual interaction in Hinduism. Journal of Anthropological Research 37:387-401.

BHAGAVANTAM,S.
1976

Lord of miracles. In Sai Baba and His Message: A Challenge to Behavioural Sciences.
D. Robinson, eds. Delhi: Vikas, pp. 228-235

S.P. Ruhela and

BHARATI,AGEHANANDA
1981

Hinduviewsand waysand the Hindu-Musliminterface: an anthropologicalassessment.

Manoharlal.

New Delhi: Munshiram

FESTINGER, LEON, H.W. RIECKEN,and S. SCHACHTER

1964

When prophecy fails. New York: Harper and Row (Torchbook Edition).

GEERTZ,CLIFFORD
1966

Religion as a cultural system. In Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion. M.Banton, ed. London:
Tavistock, pp. 1-46.

KASTURI,N.
1975
1977

Sathyam, Sivam, Sundaram (Part III). New Delhi: Bhagwan Sri Sewa Samithi.
Sathyam,Sivam,Sundaram(PartI).AmericanEdition.4th Edition.Whitefield(Bangalore Dist.):VrajBrindabanPress.

KINSLEY,DAVIDR.
1979

The divine player: a study of Krsha Lila. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

MARRIOTT,McKIM
1976

Hindu transactions: diversity without dualism. In Transaction and Meaning: Directions in the Anthropology of
Exchange and Symbolic Behavior. B. Kapferer, ed. Philadelphia: Ishi.

SWALLOW,D. A.
1982

Ashes and powers: myth, rite and miracle in an Indian God-Man's cult. Modern Asian Studies 16:123-158.

WHITE,CHARLES S.J.
1972

The Sai Baba movement: approaches to the study of Indian saints. Journal of Asian Studies 31:863-878.

Anthropological Quarterly

July 1983, Vol56:3