--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Jun 17, 2005, at 9:17 PM, akasha_108 wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Regardless, as I have understood it, Shantananda was asked to
> step  down due to his lack of qualifications. Which he did. And his
> successors have been banned from using the title Shankaracharaya. 
> > His linneage does not appear to have much power or respect other
> than  from the TMO.
> 
> > > I believe what you describe is accurate. The letter from one of
> the Kaplans also mentions that M. had a particular Shankaracharya--
who 
> was not the real Shankaracharya--
>  
> > Who says? No-one disputes that Shantananda was Gurudev's oldest 
and 
> > most favorite student amongthe Sanyasi.
> 
> I think people do dispute that. Swararoopa (sp) for one. 
> 

Well, yes, but he wasn't one of Brahmananda's on-going students. He 
left Swami Brahmanada for a different guru years earlier.

> Dana Sawyer -- a prof of Asian Studies, fluent n Hindi, and former
> TMer, is a good, if not definitive source on this. He has 
interviewed
> many directly on these issues, and had dug through original court
> documents. He has had some of his comments posted here -- and they
> should be in the archives. Perhaps Rick has copies in his personal
> archives and can repost.




>  
> > that he sent students to. I am assuming he 
> > > was referring to Shantananda and possibly his successor. So 
there 
> > was   some deception going on regarding this trip.
> 
>  
> > I see, so the courts agreeing that Swami Shantanada was the 
genuine 
> > Shankaracharya should be ignored?
> 
> The current courts have rejected the current head of Shantananda's
> lineage and have denied him use of the term Shankaracharaya. So your
> reference to the courts I believe goes back to the 50's and is not
> current. 

I believethat you are incorrect.

Also:

http://www.hindu-
religion.net/showflat/cat/hinduism/31454/53/collapsed/5/o/1

Divided Lineage -

Because of the controversy over Brahmananda's will and Santananda's 
succession, the organizations involved in reviving Jyotirmath in 1941 
considered other nominations for the Sankaracharya post. These 
efforts were blessed by Swami Abhinava Sacchidananda Tirtha, the then 
Sankaracharya of Dwaraka. In 1953 itself, one Swami Krishnabodha 
Asrama was appointed as the new Jyotirmath Sankaracharya, contesting 
Santananda's claim.

Krishnabodha Asrama was not a direct disciple of Brahmananda 
Saraswati, but given the nature of Jyotirmath's revival in 1941, this 
was not necessarily a disqualification. The new appointment also had 
the support of the Puri matha, but it must be noted that this matha 
was to have a few succession problems of its own, within a decade. 
[4] When Krishnabodha Asrama passed away in 1973, he nominated Swami 
Swarupananda Saraswati to the title. Swarupananda is a direct 
disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati, but he has also studied under both 
Krishnabodha Asrama and Abhinava Sacchidananda Tirtha of Dwaraka. [5] 
Meanwhile, Santananda had not relinquished the Sankaracharya seat, so 
that by this time, the two major claimants of the title were 
Swarupananda and Santananda.

In the year 1980, Santananda stepped down from the title, in favor of 
Swami Vishnudevananda Saraswati, another disciple of Brahmananda. 
However, Vishnudevananda Saraswati passed away in 1989/90, while 
Santananda Saraswati was still alive. Following this, one Swami 
Vasudevananda Saraswati was named as the successor. Santananda passed 
away in late 1997, and Vasudevananda Saraswati is currently the sole 
representative of this lineage. Vasudevananda was present at the 
appointment of a Mahamandaleswara of the Mahanirvani Akhada in 1995 
(according to Hinduism Today, August 1995). Adding to the complexity 
of this dispute is the fact that according to the terms of 
Brahmananda's contested will, one Swami Dwarakesananda Saraswati was 
supposed to have been the second choice after Santananda. There is no 
indication that Dwarakesananda ever claimed the Sankaracharya title, 
or that it was ever formally offered to him. A similar situation 
obtains with a Swami Paramatmananda Saraswati, who was also named in 
the will, but as the next choice after Vishnudevananda. [6]



> 
> (And as i remember vaguely, the ealier court ruling was not as black
> and white as you indicate.  The will was in dispute in that  SBS 
never
> had it registered. It suddently appeared after his death. Suspicion
> was that it was created or doctored up after the fact. Can you cite
> the specific ruling you are referring to -- all its parts. ) 
> 
> None of the other Shankaracharayas will sit with the current 
personage
> representing that linneage. And I believe they would not sit with
> Shantananda or Vasu ...  Not being able to sit with the "quarum" of
> Shankaracharayas is viewed as the ultimate rejection, in my
> understanding. 
> 
>  
> > > >
> > > > But he was I sweet man I hear.
> > > 
> > > Yeah I heard many good stories and his writings are very nice.
> > 
> > So what is YOUR problem with Shantananda's "qualifications" if 
you 
> > like what he writes? That he supprted MMY?
> 
> Lots of people can be very sweet, write nice things, but that does 
not 
> necessarily qualify them to be Shankaracharaya. My understanding 
that
> Shantananda was never viewed as qualified, but took on the seat,
> similtaneously while another "candidate" also took over the seat, 
and
> they fought it out in the courts for decades, with the recent 
decision
> being the definitive one: denying the validity of the Shantananda
> lineage.  And in time Shantananda agreed that he was not qualifed 
and
> stepped down. Indeed he was alive for some years after he stepped 
down.




To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to