u/forwardlinksuspended

​

Disclaimer:

This post is not intended to hurt anyone’s sentiments or target any individual or group. It is written from a scientific as well as philosophical perspective. I may be wrong in my interpretation, and I genuinely invite corrections or counterarguments in the comments.

The attached video is contextually relevant to this discussion and aligns with Rule 5 of this subreddit.

---

.A Philosophical Start:-

Before science, before justification there is a simple question:

What does it mean to be sensitive to life?

Not as an idea, but as a lived reality.

If another being can feel pain, fear, or distress-

then our response to that suffering defines something fundamental about us.

Now the uncomfortable part:

When harm becomes routine, does sensitivity remain intact… or does it adapt?

. Normalization:-

Human beings are not static.

We are shaped by repetition.

When an act is culturally accepted, socially reinforced, and repeatedly practiced,

it stops feeling like a moral decision and starts feeling like a default.

Non-vegetarian consumption, for most people, exists in this space of normalization.

But philosophy asks us to interrupt the default:

Is acceptance equal to correctness?

Does tradition guarantee ethical clarity?

Or can something be normal… and still remain unexamined

. now Science Enters the Conversation:-

Cognitive science provides a mechanism for what philosophy questions.

The concept of "desensitization" explains how repeated exposure reduces emotional intensity.

Similarly, "cognitive dissonance" explains how we internally resolve contradictions between values and actions.

So when we say: “I care about living beings,”

yet participate in systems that harm them,

the mind adapts not by stopping the action, but by reshaping the feeling.

This is not accusation.

It is a psychological pattern.

.The Ethics of Distance:-

One of the most overlooked factors is distance.

We consume outcomes, not processes.

The transformation of a living being into food is hidden behind systems, packaging, and abstraction.

This distance allows participation without direct emotional engagement.

Which leads to a deeper philosophical disruption:

Is our moral comfort genuine… or is it sustained by what we choose not to see?

source which is used in video:-

Organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, World Animal Protection, and Humane Society International have repeatedly argued that large-scale animal consumption systems contribute to moral distancing, where sentient beings are cognitively reframed as commodities.

Question:-

This is not about telling anyone what to eat.

It is about asking:

Are our choices consciously examined, or passively inherited?

Does repeated participation in harm reduce our sensitivity over time?

And most importantly -

what kind of inner state are we normalizing within ourselves?

. A Personal Note ( based on my Experience)

I’ll end this not with a conclusion but with an observation from my own life.

I consumed non-vegetarian food throughout my childhood. It was normal, unquestioned, and culturally accepted.

Around two years ago, I stopped.

Not out of pressure but out of curiosity and reflection.

And over time, I noticed subtle but undeniable changes:

A heightened sense of emotional sensitivity not weakness, but awareness

A reduced internal conflict between what I feel and what I do

A deeper discomfort toward unnecessary harm, even beyond food

A shift in perception seeing living beings less as categories, more as experiences of life

This is not proof.

This is not universal.

But it raises a question worth sitting with:

If changing what we consume can alter how we feel,

then how much of our inner world is quietly shaped by what we normalize?

I’m open to thoughtful, evidence-based discussion.

​

We usually talk about milk as something pure, healthy, and traditional. But very rarely do we ask a more uncomfortable question:

what kind of system produces this milk?

In a capitalist system, everything eventually becomes a unit of productivity. Efficiency, output, and profit are rewarded above all else.

Now apply that logic to the dairy industry.

A cow produces milk only after giving birth.

So if milk is profitable, the system has a simple incentive: keep the cow producing milk continuously.

That means repeated pregnancies.

That means artificial insemination.

That means treating a living animal primarily as a biological production machine.

This isn't necessarily about individual farmers being cruel. Many farmers probably care about their animals. But systems don't run on emotions, they run on incentives.

And the incentive here is simple: more milk = more profit.

Which raises an uncomfortable question.

If human systems have historically exploited workers, natural resources, and even entire ecosystems in the pursuit of profit… why would animals be the one exception?

Before the milk revolution and capitalism, milk production in many places was small-scale.

Families kept one or two cows. Milk was limited, local, and seasonal. The cow lived largely as an animal, not as a productivity unit.(communist society)

But once milk became part of a large-scale market economy, the incentives changed.

Now the question becomes:

Is the dairy industry simply doing what capitalism encourages every industry to do maximize output from every resource?

Or is there a moral boundary when that "resource" is a living being?

And more importantly:

Are we comfortable with the system that produces the milk we consume every day?

Because the real debate isn't about milk.

It's about whether profit-driven systems can ever avoid pushing exploitation to their logical extreme.

​

So in this video, what I’ve basically done is highlight a pattern that I’ve been noticing for a while now that most of the posts on this subreddit are actually coming from just one single person.

I didn’t just say it randomly, I actually went through the posts, opened them properly, and tried to show clearly that it’s mostly the same account posting again and again.

I also tried to point out how the engagement is working here like the same person’s posts are getting most of the views, comments, and shares.

And at the same time, other people who are posting are barely getting noticed, their posts just get ignored most of the time.

So it kind of creates this imbalance where it doesn’t even feel like a community anymore, it feels more like everything is revolving around just one person.

The whole point of the video was not to attack anyone, but to make people notice this pattern and think about what’s actually happening here.

​

One thing I rarely see people discuss honestly in diet debates is the scale of resources involved in producing meat.

Producing a single kilogram of meat can require thousands of liters of water and several kilograms of crops like grains or soy that could otherwise be consumed directly. Huge amounts of food are first grown, then fed to animals, and only a fraction of that energy eventually becomes meat.

So the question is not just ethical. It’s also ecological and philosophical.

If producing meat consumes far more land, water, and food than plant-based alternatives and if these resources affect the entire planet then the issue is clearly larger than just individual taste.

Yet most of us rarely explore this deeply.

Many people have strong opinions about vegetarianism, veganism, or meat consumption. But how many of us have actually read a serious book about it, studied the environmental data, or examined the ethical arguments carefully?

For most of us, the truth is uncomfortable.

We often don’t explore ideas that might challenge our habits or desires.

If a certain habit gives us pleasure especially something connected to taste, culture, or comfort then we tend to avoid investigating it too deeply. Because real investigation might lead to a conclusion that demands change.

So instead of exploring the issue fully, we frame it as a simple matter of “personal choice.”

But that raises a deeper question.

If something affects water resources, land use, food availability, and climate change, can it really remain just a personal choice?

Philosophically speaking, personal choices are usually considered private when their consequences remain private.

But when a habit contributes to global systems like environment, agriculture, climate , its consequences are no longer limited to the individual.

Which brings us back to the deeper question.

Perhaps the real issue is not just about meat or veganism.

The real issue is about how human beings deal with uncomfortable truths.

Do we investigate ideas honestly even when they threaten our habits?

Or do we quietly avoid exploring them because we already know what the investigation might reveal?

​

Disclaimer: I’ve attached a short video for context. The point of the video matches the idea I’m trying to discuss here, and it might help in understanding the argument more clearly.

Something interesting happens in debates about food, ethics, and lifestyle.

We often pretend the discussion is about logic, science, and rational arguments. But if we’re honest, a lot of the time the real driver of the debate is something much simpler: our desires.

Take diet debates as an example.

The moment someone questions our eating habits, we suddenly become experts in nutrition, evolution, biology, vitamins, B12, protein, and a dozen other technical topics.

But here’s the uncomfortable question:

How many of us have actually studied nutrition deeply?

How many of us have seriously read scientific literature on these topics?

Most of the time, we haven’t.

Yet we confidently use these arguments as if we have thoroughly examined them. Why?

Because these arguments often serve as intellectual cover for something simpler our attachment to taste, habit, and comfort.

Instead of saying something straightforward like:

“I enjoy this and I don’t want to give it up,”

we construct complicated logical frameworks to justify the same conclusion.

The result is that philosophy and logic which are supposed to question our assumptions sometimes become tools that help us protect them.

So the deeper philosophical question here may not actually be about vegetarian vs non-vegetarian diets, supplements, or “natural vs artificial.”

The deeper question might be about how human beings use reasoning itself.

Do we use logic to genuinely examine our beliefs?

Or do we use logic to defend the lifestyle we were already going to follow anyway?

How often do we actually use logic to challenge our desires, and how often do we use it simply to justify them?

There’s a strange contradiction in how we see ourselves.

Most of us like to believe we are different from the crowd. We imagine that if the entire world was wrong, we would have the courage to stand alone and say, “You’re all wrong.” We like to think we are independent thinkers with free will, people who refuse to blindly follow society.

But when you look at real life, something interesting appears.

Almost everyone follows very similar life patterns.

We argue about things like vegetarian vs non-vegetarian diets, marriage vs not marrying, having children vs being childfree, traditional careers vs unconventional ones. Yet despite all these debates, most people end up living lives that look remarkably similar to everyone else’s.

It’s almost as if every individual secretly believes:

“I will escape the rat race. I will live differently.”

But the paradox is that millions of people think this but still end up in the same race.

This raises a deeper philosophical question.

Do we truly think independently, or do we simply feel independent while quietly conforming?

Maybe the biggest illusion isn’t conformity itself.

Maybe the biggest illusion is our belief that we are not conforming.

And this leads to an even deeper question.

If society is already right about how life should be lived, then why does philosophy exist at all?

Why have philosophers throughout history questioned morality, tradition, religion, and social norms?

If the crowd already has the answers, philosophy becomes unnecessary.

But philosophy continues to exist precisely because the crowd is not always right.

Yet here is the irony:

Even when we admire philosophers and celebrate independent thinking, most of us still end up living according to the same social script.

So the real question might be this:-

Are we genuinely free thinkers, or are we simply members of the crowd who like to imagine we are different?

And if we truly value independent thought, how often do we actually live according to it instead of just talking about it?

I’ve been noticing a pattern in how we often treat philosophers and spiritual teachers.

Take Osho for example. He gave thousands of talks covering a wide range of subjects—texts like the Bhagavad Gita, Ashtavakra Gita, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, along with Sufism, Taoism, Zen, and mystics like Meera Bai. Even lesser-known works like the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra became widely known partly because he spoke about them.

Yet today, the conversation around him is mostly reduced to one theme: sex.

This makes me question a certain tendency in us.

When a thinker discusses the full spectrum of life—birth, death, meditation, suffering, enlightenment—it’s expected that sexuality would also be part of that exploration. But somehow, that one aspect becomes the dominant identity in public discourse.

Why does this happen?

Is it because controversial topics are easier to remember? Or because they resonate with something already present within us?

At times, it feels like people don’t just misunderstand such figures—they selectively interpret them. They highlight the parts that align with their curiosity, bias, or preferences, while ignoring the broader context of their work.

And this isn’t limited to Osho. A similar pattern appears with many philosophers, prophets, and teachers throughout history. Their teachings are vast, but over time, they often get reduced into simplified and selective narratives.

I’ve been reflecting on how we approach philosophical discussions.

Often, it feels less like a search for truth and more like a selective process—where ideas are accepted, rejected, or reshaped based on what already aligns with our existing worldview.

Instead of allowing philosophy to challenge our assumptions, we sometimes “use” it as a tool to defend positions we are already comfortable with. The reasoning then becomes secondary to the conclusion we prefer.

This raises a question:

Are we genuinely engaging with philosophy as a method of inquiry, or are we unconsciously bending it to validate our biases, emotions, and practical constraints?

If philosophy is meant to expand thought, then at what point does selective interpretation limit that very expansion?

Curious to hear how others perceive this tension between open inquiry and selective reasoning.

Disclaimer:

The attached video is included to provide additional context and clarity to my points. I hope the moderators consider it with the intended perspective of the discussion.

We often criticize Europeans by saying they don’t know how to cook - they just boil everything and eat it. But here’s the catch: in many ways, that approach is actually practical.

During the Industrial Revolution, both men and women were working 12–13 hours a day. In that kind of lifestyle, if they followed time-consuming cooking habits like many Indian households, most of their day would be consumed just preparing and eating food. That would leave very little time for rest, work, or anything else.

Now this might seem like a random point at first, but it starts connecting when you look at lifestyle patterns.

Just observe around you your mother, your father, and yourself. You may notice that your father and you are often engaged in work, responsibilities, and external tasks, while household roles especially cooking take up a large portion of your mother’s daily routine.

The question then becomes:

If someone’s daily life is heavily occupied with repetitive household work, do they get the same exposure to diverse challenges that shape critical or philosophical thinking?

In European contexts historically during the Industrial Revolution and even today both men and women generally participate in similar kinds of external work. This means both are exposed to structured, demanding, and productivity-driven environments.

In contrast, in India, a significant portion of household responsibilities, especially for women, is centered around domestic work. While this work is important, it often limits engagement with broader, externally driven, productivity-based activities.

And here’s the core idea:

A lifestyle that consistently challenges the brain through problem-solving, deadlines, and diverse responsibilities may contribute to more analytical or philosophical thinking over time.

So the argument is not about superiority or inferiority. it’s about environment and exposure shaping thought patterns.

If Indian women (and men, in general) were equally engaged in structured, demanding, productive environments, their cognitive habits and philosophical outlook might evolve differently.

Am I going off-topic or is this a valid connection between lifestyle and thinking patterns? Would love different perspectives.

​

So firstly I want to tell the moderators that I’m not going to break Rule No. 2. I will be respectful. The fluctuations you’re going to see are just my anger + awareness.

Let’s start:

First thing I noticed in this sub — posts with pure writing (no image, no video) don’t get engagement or attention.

But posts with WhatsApp-forward type “mango philosophy” easily get attention.

That’s why I had to step in and try to make this sub more interesting.

(I even made a video post highlighting this situation)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/lx6l4sYigt

People in the comments agreed with me.

They gave genuine answers — saying most people here got introduced to philosophy through Instagram reels, phonk edits, and memes.

That’s exactly why I shape my posts in a similar engaging format.

I would honestly say this subreddit feels biased towards Hinduism.

When you try to post about other religions (especially ones not socially accepted or originated in India), people just don’t engage.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/3X9GLt5lcq

You all never understand the purpose of my posts.

When I highlight crowds at temples, I’m not attacking but I’m questioning:

Do they actually feel something?

Do they understand anything?

They see, they visit, they talk but still spread hate.

We don’t even know if the (mythical) stories are real or not.

But when a living human teaches you, guides you, answers your questions and someone shows gratitude , suddenly it’s called a “cult”?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/R4AOVKgMay

Look at this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/l4AfxwF446

How can you call this “AP worship”?

People here are becoming extremists. First they went after AP and Osho, now they’re just looking for more targets to feed their ego and hatred.

You can’t even talk about AP or Osho anymore.

People don’t argue - they just spam hate.

6. ( ignored)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/cXfRCEoO6c

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/rP8Lblc3XZ

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/3CyS8Ab7BC

If you hate me — okay.

If you hate this sub — also okay.

Call me whatever you want.

But at least listen:

I’m trying to discuss real issues — like how women are shaped by society.

How they’re made to feel they can’t live without makeup.

Look at philosophy, media, journalism , you’ll see the imbalance.

But instead, people pick 1–2 examples and say I’m generalizing everything.

Ask your mother about global issues. Ask your father the same. You’ll see differences.

I’m not justifying myself — I’m pointing out a problem in YOU. 🫵

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/dea6zarvSK

And still — this post got 527 shares. Doesn’t that show it sparked real discussion?

About anime posts — seriously, where are you all going?

You’ve generalized that:

anime = teenagers

teenagers = no life experience

So now anything with anime gets ignored?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/7QN8HB3Mic

When did I even talk about veg vs non-veg?

I don’t care what you eat.

I’m asking why you eat what you eat.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/tEZvH7wK45

https://www.reddit.com/r/Philosophy\_India/s/Q7dLvtyGKU

Read the title and body properly — then tell me where I’m doing a veg vs non-veg debate.

At last — for moderators:

u/abovethegod — I hope you don’t remove this post “mistakenly” 🤞

u/Impressive_coat — I’ve heard you like banning people.

So please, ban the ones who are actually abusing in comments.

​

Right now, we eat animals and eggs and justify it easily.

Why? because :-

“It’s nutritious”

“We need protein”

“It’s part of our diet”

And yes, that’s true to some extent.

You still have to fulfill your daily nutrition.

But let’s change one variable.

What if animals could:

Talk 🗣️

And

Express emotions clearly

with

Think with higher cognitive ability 🧠

Not just sounds… but actual communication we understand.

Now imagine this:

You’re about to eat chicken or eggs…

And the animal says:

“Please don’t kill me”

“I want to live”

“I feel pain just like you”

Now ask yourself honestly:

Would nutrition still feel like a strong enough justification?

Because right now, it’s easy.

They don’t speak our language.

They don’t argue.

They don’t question us.

So we separate: “Food” vs “Life”

But if they could express themselves like us…

That separation would break.

Then it’s not just “protein” anymore.

It becomes:

A conscious being

A voice you understand

A life you’re choosing over your need

And yes, you still need nutrition.

But then the question becomes:

Would you look for alternatives?

Would you reduce consumption?

Or would you still eat them the same way?

Another point:

We often say:

“They don’t have human-level intelligence”

But is intelligence the criteria for life?

If tomorrow, a human has lower cognitive ability…

does their life become less valuable?

So maybe the real question is:

Are we eating animals because we need to…

or because it’s convenient and socially normalized?

Not judging anyone.

Just questioning something we all take for granted.

​

So before I start:

I’m attaching a reference of Erwin Smith’s last speech from Attack on Titan for better understanding of this idea.

Please comment and let me know does it match the context of this post or not? I’m a bit unsure and don’t want this to get removed by moderators.

Now coming to the actual point.

This verse from the Bhagavad Gita:

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।

मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥ (2.47)

English Meaning:

You have a right to perform your actions, but never to the fruits of those actions.

Do not let the results be your motive, and do not fall into inaction.

Most people read this and think:

“Okay, just do your work, don’t worry about results 🙂”

But it’s actually way more brutal than that.

Let’s imagine a scenario (purely imaginary for understanding):

We are in British India 🇮🇳 (colonial period).

You’re a revolutionary.

There’s an officer who is exploiting and torturing people.

And you decide:

“I’m going to kill him.”

Now look at your mind carefully.

You’re not just acting.

You’re thinking:

I’ll kill him

People will be free

Things will change

I’ll feel fulfilled

This is action + attachment to result

Now twist:

You start walking towards him.

He’s 10 km away.

And suddenly…

You die on the way.

No result.

No success.

No impact.

Now answer honestly:

Was your action meaningless?

Most people will say yes.

Because the result didn’t come.

But this verse is saying something dangerous:

• Your control was only over action

• Result was never yours

• If result defines your action, you’re dependent

This is exactly like that speech:

Moving forward without guarantee.

Acting even when death is certain.

Not because you’ll win,

but because that’s what must be done.

Same in real life.

People say:

“I’ll do something big”

“I’ll prove myself”

“I’ll succeed”

Even in extreme cases:

“Before I die, I’ll do something meaningful”

But “meaningful” = result.

Karma Yoga breaks this.

* Act because it is right

* Not because it will reward you

* Not because it will succeed

* Not because it will complete you

So in that same scenario:

You kill him -- fine

You die on the way -- still fine

Because your action was not dependent on outcome.

And that’s the hardest truth:

We are addicted to results.

Marks

Money

Validation

Success

---

So the real question is:

Would you still act…

if there was no guarantee of success?

​

If I claim to be free from social conditioning, then why do certain patterns in my life still exist that I never consciously chose?

1. Why is my handedness fixed? I didn’t decide to be right-handed - it developed naturally through early development, environment, and practice. It raises the question: how much of what we consider “personal choice” is actually shaped before conscious awareness begins?

2. Why is my hair the way it is? Its texture, growth pattern, and even how it behaves are not something I chose. I may style or maintain it, but the underlying structure is inherited and influenced by biological factors rather than conscious decision.

These observations suggest that not everything in our identity is a result of deliberate choice. Some aspects are biological, some are environmental, and some are shaped through early conditioning before we even become aware of ourselves as decision-makers.

So the question isn’t just about being free or conditioned, it’s about understanding which parts of us are chosen, which are inherited, and which are simply formed over time without conscious control.

The paradox remains: if parts of me were never consciously chosen, then what does it truly mean to be “free” from conditioning?

​

I don’t know why, but ever since the lockdown, it feels like philosophical books from Indian authors have almost disappeared from book stalls and libraries.

Around 8–10 years ago, it was easy to find books by authors like Osho in almost any bookstore. But now, in many places, not only are these books harder to find, but even their new print editions seem to have reduced or stopped.

And this doesn’t feel limited to just one author. it seems to extend to a broader range of Indian philosophical literature. Meanwhile, book stalls today are mostly filled with foreign titles and Western-oriented self-help or finance books like Rich Dad Poor Dad or “how to make money” types.

Is it just a shift in demand, or has the publishing landscape itself changed?

Are Indian philosophical works being replaced, or simply not marketed as much anymore?

Would love to hear your thoughts or if others have noticed the same.

This video is very important for this subreddit. I hope we have a good debate in the comments

Original academic publications aren’t the only way to understand or define a philosopher. Acharya Prashant may not fit into the conventional academic mold of philosophy that demands peer-reviewed papers or entirely new theoretical systems, but that doesn’t make his contribution any less meaningful.

His work focuses more on taking timeless philosophical traditions especially from Indian schools like Advaita and presenting them in a way that directly connects with everyday life. Instead of building abstract theories that remain limited to books and institutions, he emphasizes clarity, self-inquiry, and practical understanding that people can actually apply in their lives.

For many individuals, philosophy is not just about creating new systems, but about transforming how one sees oneself and the world. In that sense, his role is closer to that of a guide or interpreter, someone who helps bridge the gap between ancient wisdom and modern confusion. The value lies in how effectively those ideas reach people, challenge assumptions, and encourage deeper reflection.

So even if someone doesn’t classify him as a philosopher in the strict academic sense, his impact as a communicator and interpreter of philosophy is still significant for those who engage with his teachings and find them meaningful.

?

​

Luke 14:26 says:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters yes, even their own life, such a person cannot be my disciple.”

At first glance, this sounds extreme.

Like why would Jesus Christ say something like this?

Is he actually telling people to hate their family?

I don’t think so.

“If anyone comes to me”

From here, I think Jesus is talking about genuine seeking.

Most people pretend to be close to God.

We go to temples, churches, religious places like it’s a checklist or a side quest.

Especially in India, people literally maintain lists of places to visit.

It becomes more about completion than connection.

So maybe what he’s saying is:

if you truly want to come to me… not just pretend.

“and does not hate father and mother…”

I don’t think “hate” here literally means hate.

It’s more about detachment and priority.

Every human lives with commitments.

You can’t escape commitment.

The problem is most people unknowingly give their primary commitment to family, relationships, or comfort.

And that limits them.

Maybe the idea is:

Your first commitment should be truth, not relationships.

Only then can you actually see clearly.

Example:

If you are fully attached to “your people”,

you start becoming partial.

You protect your own,

but ignore or harm others.

There’s a quote:

“Jab tum kisi specific ko apna maan lete ho, tab puri duniya parayi ho jati hai.”

When you limit your identity to a few people,

you unconsciously separate yourself from the rest.

But if your commitment is to truth first,

then your actions become universal, not selective.

You don’t just care about “your people”

you act with a wider sense of responsibility.

“even their own life”

This probably points to going beyond even self-preservation.

Not in a negative way,

but in the sense of not being controlled by fear or attachment to your own existence.

“such a person cannot be my disciple”

So maybe the real meaning is:

If you are still attached ,

to family, identity, ego, even yourself

then you’re not ready to walk a path of truth.

Not saying this is the correct interpretation.

Just trying to see it beyond the literal meaning.

Open to other perspectives.

​

so here we are going to talk about Sai Baba of Shirdi, not considering him as hindu or muslim, just as a fakir.

so first we start from 2022, where internet (youtube shorts) suddenly gave a lot of attention to sai baba.

some religious extremist channels started making videos about him being muslim, and they presented facts in a twisted way.

most people believed it, and till now many are stuck in that same mentality.

so here we are trying to see the real face of sai baba and his philosophy.

1. sai baba was a man who had no clear identity.

he just appeared in a village called shirdi in maharashtra, and he never talked about his origin.

he knew that people (especially in india) are very quick to find someone’s background and then create an image of them.

so maybe this shows that he was completely free from caste, religion, and hierarchy.

2. sai baba used to eat anything which people offered him.

it may sound like a small or stupid thing, but think about it.

it shows that if people give you love, you accept it.

if they give you hate, you also accept it — but you don’t return anything.

because both love and hate are learned through social conditioning.

and maybe the only way to be free from it is to not react, just accept and not become like it.

hate spreads more when you give attention to it.

3. most hindu people or brahmins at that time didn’t allow him to stay in temples because he never revealed his identity.

so he spent most of his time in a masjid.

and interestingly, both hindu and muslim people used to come and meet him there.

after youtube shorts, even tv serials have created a very different image of him, which may not be accurate.

pls make it a peaceful discussion,

i’m open to questions and different views.