Please Shridi Saibaba is a Dharmaguruvu only ...

Shirdi Saibaba

 There are staunch devotees of Shirdi Saibaba. He lived in Shirdi Village of Maharashtra, India some 2 centuries back and his influence is felt by crores of his staunch devotees worldwide.

For his devotees he is everything, some call him Saibaba, some call him Sainath and others Sairam. In fact, he was a muslim who came to Shirdi and the local Pujari named him 'Saibaba'. Saibaba loved life and he helped a lot of people who were destitute. People worshipped him for he was a good man who helped people and who respected the devotion that people had towards Dieties.
Eventhough he was a muslim, Hindhu Rituals were performed on him, and he was very adored and worshipped. When i say Hindhu Rituals, it means the Rituals associated with the Dieties of the Sanathana Dharma, like Rama, Krishna, Pandharinath, etc.

A clear demarcation is evident in the segregation of his devotees, who are a majority of Hindhus. Clearly, the words Saibaba, Sainath and Sairam are Sanskrit words used by the Sanathana Dharmi, that is, the Hindhus.

Which essentially means, that the belief that they are worshiping a person who happens to be a muslim, with Hindhu Rituals means that its Hindhu Belief that we are talking about, and all the Hindhu Names with which he is worshiped are essentially part of Hindhu Belief, and hence such people follow Hindhu Dharma and are Hindhu Dharmi.

It is quite evident from the life history of Shirdi Saibaba, that he had the deitine experiances some of Hindhu Gods and Goddesses. But it is utterly wrong to consider and equate him to dieties like Sri Mahavishnu, Vinayaka or Durga.

Surely, being a person who is a Dharmaguruvu, he was himself fortunate to have the divine visions of deities like Sri Mahavishnu, Datatreya, Vinayaka or Durga, but painting pictures or equating him as themselves would be utterly folly, and factually he was a dharmaguruvu, the name with which we hindhus call a Religious-Teacher.

Certainly, belief is a very important thing, but the factual incidents in his life have to be considered for one to come to a conclusion about his real identity.

It should henceforth be construed that he was a dharmaguruvu, and should be seen as such only, with his pictures and statues, and he should not be depicted as any of the dieties, either in pictures or statutes or in any other manner.

Deities are deities and Dharmaguruvulu are Dharmaguruvulu. There is no doubt about it.

Vamsinath.
07FEB2014.