--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter Sutphen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Boy, has this turned into a massive pissing contest! I > think everybody that cares needs to come to their own > conclusion in this matter and recognize that any > legitimate authority in one side's eyes will not be > legitimate in the other side's eye. A matter of > emotionally invested position.
Of course, but since Dana Sawyer never had anything to say about MMY's legitimacy in the eyes of Swami Shantananda, it's moot anyway. And by the way, > Sparaig, you are embarassing yourself by not knowing > who Dana Sawyer is. In the world of academia, within > his field, he is well-published and well-known. You > also have to get up real early in the morning to argue > with him. He's got a great, sharp mind and can back-up > any position he takes. In short, I think you're about > to get blown out of the water! Good luck! > Doubtful, since neither I nor Anoop Chandola ever disagreed with him on anything. You obviously didn't read the entire thing I wrote below. > --- sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > LOL. Talk about making sure that you get the > > response you're looking > > for. > > > > Tell him that Anoop Chandola is a guy who learned to > > meditate from > > Swami Shantananda during the period when MMY was > > with the Beatles, > > because his family had religious clout in Northern > > India (who chose > > to meet with Swami Shantananda when given the choice > > of which of the > > two Shankaracharyas he wanted to meet), who asked > > Swami Shantananda > > if the Maharishi who was with the Beatles was > > legitimate or not. > > > > Swami Shantananda's response was to laugh and say > > "Let me put it to > > you this way: he would have been my first choice as > > my sucessor but > > they would allow it due to the caste laws." > > > > Any and all discussion since then about whose > > credentials were > > important is because YOU (Rick Archer) and company > > don't think that a > > conversation with Swami Shantananda 30-40 years ago > > has any bearing > > on whether or not MMY is legitimately involved with > > the > > Shankaracharya tradition. YOu were citing Dana > > Sawyer and I was > > citing Anoop Chandola's personal conversation with > > Swami Shantananda > > Saraswati about MMY (and,by extension, Chandola's > > family tradition > > about the whole thing, from the perspective of > > people who were > > involved in the selection process of Gurudev, > > reading between > > thelines about what Chandola has said). > > > > BTW, Chandola agrees with the description of the > > politics of the > > Shankaracharya sucession found on the "Advaita > > Vedanta Homepage." The > > discussion wasn't about the current Shankaracharya's > > > > legal/political/religious standing, but about what > > the [at that time] > > legally recognized Shankaracharya said about MMY > > during that time. > > > > YOU were the one saying that Swami Shantananda's > > comments were of no > > interest because Dana Sawyer says so. > > > > I'd like to hear what Dana Sawyer says when you > > quote all this (plus > > whatever face-saving commentary you add, of course). > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry I can't reply to an original post in this > > thread, but I've > > deleted it, > > > so I'll start a new one: > > > > > > From Dana Sawyer > > > > > > Hey Rick! Let me get at this a bit at a time. > > > > > > > Some guy > > > >is questioning your authority on the issue, > > siding with some guy > > named > > > >Anoop > > > >Chandola who favors MMY's side, and saying he's > > more authoritative > > that > > > >you > > > >because he's published a lot. Can you respond to > > his question > > below and > > > >breifly state why you're qualified to comment on > > the issue? > > > > > > His question below is simply "what has Dana Sawyer > > published?" > > Before I > > > answer that question, let me first point out that > > lists of > > publications > > > (especially publications dealing with "linguistics > > and music") do > > not > > > constitute rational arguments in support of a > > position. This > > fellow says > > > that Anoop Chandola is the ultimate authority on > > the Jyoitirmath > > issue but > > > stating it does not make it so. What is the > > grounds of his > > authority and > > > what are the specifics of his argument? What > > research did he > > perform? > > > What peer reviews has his work undergone? In > > academia today, the > > two > > > leading authorities on Shankaracarya issues are > > William Chenkner and > > > Vidyasankar Sundareshan (a scholar who has > > published widely and also > > > maintains the "Advaita Vedanta Homepage"). Their > > work has been > > > scrutinized by their peers and they argue for > > viable positions. I > > have > > > never heard of Anoop Chandola, and that says a lot > > because I have > > been > > > researching Dandis and Shankaracaryas for more > > than seventeen > > years. So, > > > if my detractor will be so kind as to present the > > substance of his > > > position, I will be glad to scrutinize his > > arguments, share them > > with my > > > colleagues, and give my appraisal. > > > > > > OK, now to answer the question: a full list of my > > publications is > > not > > > pertinent to the Jyotirmath dispute. What is > > pertinent is that I > > am the > > > current leading academic authority on the Dandi > > samnyasins and have > > > published several academic papers on them. In my > > chapter, "The > > Monastic > > > Structure of Banarsi Dandi Sadhus," in Hertel and > > Humes, eds., > > Living > > > Banaras: Hindu Religion in Cultural Context (SUNY > > Press, 1994) I > > made > > > mention of the Jyotirmath dispute, and in my > > forthcoming book from > > Pilgrim > > > Book Trust, The Dandi Sadhus: History, Philosophy, > > and Practice, I > > make > > > greater mention of it. However, my work in > > general focuses more on > > the > > > Dandis than the specific dispute. Having said > > that, my field > > research has > > > often brought me in direct contact with the > > principle protagonists > > of the > > > dispute and I have carefully researched the > > history of the court > > cases > > > related to it. I am, to my knowledge, the only > > person who has > > copies of > > > the court transcripts of the various cases and I > > have shared my > > analysis > > > of these with scholars whose research is centered > > more on the > > dispute. > > > For instance, if you view the long discription of > > the Jyotirmath > > dispute > > > on the "Advaita Vedanta Homepage," you will see > > that he is taking my > > > research into account. And, BTW, I believe this > > is the clearest > > > description of what is going on - it actually > > helps provide insight > > into > > > why the Shankaracaryas of the other Amnaya > > vidyapiths do not side > > with MMY > > > and Vasudevananda. > > > > > > So, anyway, please forward the arguments to me and > > I'll check them > > out. > > > > > > much love, > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
