--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2005, at 10:55 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > MY position comes from Anoop Chandola's conversation with his > > meditation teacher, > > Swami Shantananda Saraswati, closest disciple of Swami Brahamanda > > Saraswati, AKA > > "Gurudev" on this forum. No account denies that Swami Shantananda > > Saraswati was > > Gurudev's closest disciple --most people here, however, prefer to > > think that S. > > Shantananda "wasn't worthy" of his position, and that another Swami, > > who was never > > Gurudev's disciple, was (that's who the other Shankaracharya of > > Jyotirmath was at the time > > Chandola learned meditation: someone picked by committee who wasn't > > even a student of > > Gurudev --by the committee's view NOT ONE of Gurudev's students was > > worthy). > > You seem to not be aware of a number of things 1) the Shankaracharya is > not necessarily the one who chooses his successor
So the successor is generally chosen over the wishes of the Shankaracharya? The will was ignored by the committee and no-one else who was a student of Gurudev's was chosen, either. and 2) you seem to > assume the SBS's will was really his will. It had been disputed. By whom? Did they take it to court? What was the result? > > > No account denies that Swami Shantananda Saraswati was > > Gurudev's closest disciple > > No account? Hmmm. Please give reference to an account that says that Swami Shantananda was NOT the closest disciple of Gurudev... <crickets> > > > --most people here, however, prefer to think that S. > > Shantananda "wasn't worthy" of his position, and that another Swami, > > who was never > > Gurudev's disciple, was (that's who the other Shankaracharya of > > Jyotirmath was at the time > > Chandola learned meditation: someone picked by committee who wasn't > > even a student of > > Gurudev --by the committee's view NOT ONE of Gurudev's students was > > worthy). > > So you consider "closeness" an important criteria for succession. > That's interesting. Barring any other criteria mentioned, what would YOU go on? > > > The following is what Dana Sawyer thinks: > (snip) > > He hasn't finished responding, actually he just started with a brief > intro. Let's not jump to conclusions here (again). The URL was what I was referring to. That URL was referred to by Dana Sawyer in his response, and the author of that article credits Dana Sawyer with a great deal of background info in writing it. > > IMO Swami Karpatri, the "Shankaracharya maker", was the most qualified > successor--but that is just my personal opinion based on what I know at > a point removed considerably in time from the original events. Perhaps he was, but was he ever offered the position? He's apparently not mentioned in the will, nor in the article on the succession endorsed by Dana Sawyer. Was he a stuent of Gurudev's? Did the committee consider him in 1953 or later? How do you know? 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/
