Another one: Many mistakes in the entry below. no time now but for starters, I DID interview Vishnudevananda in depth and had a research assistant interview Shantananda.
more later, Dana Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Friday, July 1, 2005 at 11:40 AM wrote: >More grist for the mill: > >------ Forwarded Message >From: sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> >Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 15:33:04 -0000 >To: <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the >20th Century > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Thanks Unc. I appreciate the clarification... >> > >> > I'm not on your shit list now, by any chance, am I? >> > >> > Snicker... >> >> Never have been, man. Really. > > >Bull. Why bring it up at all if you didn't have some need to take >potshots? > >Certainly, if you felt a need to point out my failings, you could have >either named me >directly, or taken it to email. Instead, you refer to an anonymous third >person who posted >stuff. > > >And the story is worth repeating. People keep claiming erroneous and >specious counters >to the story (like Chandola was obviously a Maharishi-ite so Swami >Shantananda was >pandering to him, or that Swami Shantananada "owed" Maharishi so, in a >private >conversation with someone off-the-street who didn't know MMY from Adam >(hence the >question), he felt the need to build him up as much as he possibly >could... > > >I merely point out their (and your) failings in your attempts to counter >the >story. > > I've just been >> trying to point out that you've essentially >> trotted out the exact same story maybe a dozen >> times here so far, with never any variation, >> and then 1) been seemingly offended that people >> don't immediately just say, "Oh, I see now...how >> could I possibly have been so deluded as to >> doubt Maharishi," and 2) when this doesn't happen, >> you just keep retelling the story as if, if you >> repeat it often enough, they *will* say this. >> >> As several have pointed out, *no* anecdotal story >> about Maharishi is going to change *anyone's* mind >> here. Folks here, as far as I can tell, have been >> around the block a few times, and pretty much know >> what they think about things. You're *not* going >> to change their minds. And you're *certainly* not >> going to do it by repeating the same story you've >> now told hundreds of times (between here and a.m.t.), >> as if it were some kind of magic mantra that, at >> one point, is going to "cure" everyone of their >> doubts. > > >People have a right to doubt MMY on many things, but they appear to >illogically accept the >counter to my story simply because it agrees with their biases, even >though >the counter is >anonymous. Note that Dana Sawyer never interviewed Swami Shantananda, >Swami >Vishnudevananada (both disciples of Gurudev mentioned in his will) OR >Swami >Vasudevananda, even though he mentions he had an opportunity to interview >the last, but >decided not to because he didn't care to interview such a worthless person >(or words to >that effect). That shows bias on Sawyer's part, right there. > >> >> I've told you before, I *like* you, man. But it's >> like you have a personal attachment to this story. > >Of course I do. > >> It *means* something to you, and you keep telling >> it and retelling it as if it should *mean* exactly >> the same thing to everyone in the world. It doesn't. >> It never will. > >It only doesn't mean something to those who have already made up their >mind, >based on >3rd-hand interviews with people who weren't there, or were never disciples >of Gurudev, or >who became disciples of other people before they were interviewed (e.g. >Swami >Swaroopananda, who was following a different guru when he was picked, but >who, >interestingly enough, doesn't say much about his current guru, but says a >lot about the >guy he left in favor of his current guru). > >> >> I suspect people here *get* it that you like Maharishi >> and have a great deal of gratitude for all that TM >> has done for you. Well, duh...so do *most* of the >> people here. They feel that gratitude *simultaneously* >> to feeling doubts about him or confusion about some >> of the silly-ass things he's done and continues to do. >> And as far as I can tell, none of these people is >> trying to "convert" you to their way of thinking. >> >> On the other hand, by harping on this anecdotal story, >> over and over and over and over and over and over and... >> well, you get the picture, it very much seems that >> you're trying to convert *them*. Nobody like a >> proselytute, man, no matter what they're proselytizing. >> >> Get it yet? >> > > >Since I'm a one-trick pony, why not move on? > >> Unc > on 6/30/05 3:43 PM, sparaig at [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, >> >> Dana >>> >>> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >>>> on 6/18/05 12:47 AM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> >>>>>> If I am >>>>>> missing relevant info on Chandol, plese provide it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Done. >>>>> >>>> "Discovering Brides by Anoop Chandola" >>>> >>>> That settles it. He's the ultimate authority on the > Shankaracharya >>>> controversy. >>> >>> Plus 8 scholarly books on linguistics and music. What has Dana > Sawyer >>> published? > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- Rick Archer SearchSummit 1108 South B Street Fairfield, IA 52556 Phone: 641-472-9336 Fax: 815-572-5842 http://searchsummit.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/
