--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
Thanks for the clarification. However, did you or your assistant interview Swami Shantandanda about MMY, which is the only thing that would matter concerning the origins of this thread... > > > > > 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: <[email protected]> > >Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 15:33:04 -0000 > >To: <[email protected]> > >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the > >20th Century > > > >--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- In [email protected], "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 [email protected], 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 [email protected], 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/
