One more: God! This guy doesn't even know about the three court cases? Better to not bother arguing with him.
Dana Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Friday, July 1, 2005 at 12:44 PM wrote: >more > >------ Forwarded Message >From: sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: <[email protected]> >Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 15:46:48 -0000 >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the >20th Century > >--- In [email protected], 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 > > > > > > > >------ End of Forwarded Message > > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message 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/
