--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > <snip> > > But even if he had said It has "'raged on' 'in AMT' for a while, I > > dont see that that connates either currently or continuously. > > "Has raged on AMT for a while" does indeed > suggest that it's ongoing there.
It may suggest that, but also suggests other interpreations. To figure out which interpreation Vaj intended, one needs to use context, and be clear about their own possible "biases" or at least presumptions about Vaj. > But in any case, the real issue is *what* has > been raging there, now or in the past, as I > pointed out in my previous post. If Vaj meant > there have been raging debates in the past on > alt.m.t concerning the Jyotir Math Shankaracharya > succession, he's quite right, and I take back my > correction. If he was referring to the current > "pissing contest" on FFL, as he appeared to be in > context, concerning what Anoop Chandola reported > about Shantananda's view of MMY, then he's > mistaken. "What vaj meant" I think highlights to the larger point of this discussion between us (my post, your prior comment on my post). Whenever indirect reference are use, e.g., "he", "it, "this" "that" etc, there can be multiple possible meanings, depending what is assumed the "this" is referring too. Often one can define a single statement as both true and false, depending on how one interprests the indirect references. It depends on context, and ones assumptions about the speaker. I take Vaj at face value, not that I agree with all he says. So when he said "THIS has been raging on AMT" my mind quickly found a contenxt by which this statment was true. I had seen debates about the JM Shank linnage "raging" or being discussed at least on AMT on several occasions over the years. Its clear at least one meaning came to your mind for "THAT", that is, "[current] pissing constest." In looking at the Ooiginal post upon which you [Judy] commented (se below), its hard to believe that you did not also see the possibility that "THAT" referred to the larger issue of JM shank linneage. If you did not see that interpreation [JM shank ...], it says something to me about the breadth of your view. If you did see that, and saw that this interpretation made Vaj's statment correct, but choose to focus on a more limited interpreation of Vaj's "that" [pissing contest], then that tells me about your possible biases. Why would one choose an interpreation that made the speaker appear to be speaking falsely, if there was also another major / obvious interpretation that made his statement true. In either case, whether you saw both interpretations for not, my original point still holds: I now have a clearer understanding of your style, and a broader context from which to evaluate your comments about other's veracity. [And by the way, my characterization of your comments about Unc as "ranting" was indeed a bit strong (though I think acceptable in the loose conversationa use of the word). I apologize for the characterization and its possible more formal interpretation.] ----------------------------------- Original post upon which Judy commented. From: Peter Sutphen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:57 pm Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century drpetersutphen Offline Offline Send Email Send Email 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. 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! --- 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/
