Vaj, I've got no idea whether Coplin's comment is true, but it's the only thing I've ever read that explained the origin of the title for Maharishi. And it's not inconceivable that the honorific was given, in part at least, to reward Maharishi for his support (political and monetary) of the Shankaracharya lineage of Shantanand.
The only thing I ever heard Maharishi say about it was that "people" started using it, and he didn't object. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On May 29, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > > > Jay Randolph Coplin, in his dissertation on the history of the SRM, > > writes that in an interview with the then-Shankaracharya of Jyotir > > Math, Vasudevananda (the successor to Guru Dev's successor, > > Shantanand, and predecessor of the current Shankaracharya, > > Vishnudevananda, in Shantanand's line) -- Vasudevananda told Coplin > > that it was the Jyotir Math Peeth, itself, that bestowed the title > > "Maharishi". > > > Interesting, nothing I've read by Coplin recently includes that, nor > does it appear to be mentioned in any official movement history. Being > a hardcore TB, I consider Coplin a questionable source. It also seems > questionable for a low caste person in the Shankaracharya. It also > goes against the fact that some Shankaracharyas refused to call him > Maharishi, instead referring to him simply as "Mahesh". I suspect this > probably came from one of the "bought" Shankaracharyas. Given that the > people I've met at the Shankaracharya considered MMY some sort of > demon who was destined for hell, I have to question the utter > disparity. With no independent source to verify this, I'd have to > consider the assertion "TB tinkering" or just tinkering from the > broken and embattled lineage of the north. Certainly the most > reputable remaining Math, Srinigiri, doesn't recognize him. In fact > the Shankaracharya of the south didn't even know who he was and > commented that his mind seemed like a supermarket. None of the silence > and bliss he loved to brag about. > > It would be interesting to see this manuscript. I've notice a number > of questionable claims from Coplin on the web. It's curious that the > manuscript can be found nowhere. Perhaps someone could post it to the > files section? >
