One last comment from Dana on this issue: Rick,
So many errors in the comments made below but unfortunately I'm too busy preparing for a talk at Oxford to respond. This fall I would be glad to get specific. Dana Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Friday, July 1, 2005 at 11:19 AM wrote: >More entertainment for you: > >------ Forwarded Message >From: sparaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: <[email protected]> >Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:55:45 -0000 >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the >20th Century > >The Crux of this issue is found at the very end. If you can't stand my >ranting, at least read >the last paragraph or two at the end of my response. > > >--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Jun 30, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Peter Sutphen wrote: >> >> > Boy, has this turned into a massive pissing contest! >> >> Well it has raged on AMT for a while as well. >> >> > 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. >> >> There are some answers to be found. It's an interesting history. I'm >> afraid though as one investigates the institution of the Shankaracharya >> one finds that much of what the movement tried to get people to >> believe, was more fantasy than fact--or at best actually "buying >> influence"--not unlike the special interests group in this country with >> their lobbyists buying influence and opinion in the millionaires club >> called "congress". >> >> > A matter of >> > emotionally invested position. >> >> It is, but one created through false indoctrination of the TMO. > >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). > >> >> Some are more invested in their indoctrination than others. > >And some are invested in the indoctrination that MMY and Gurudev's cook >conspired to kill >Gurudev and create a handwritten will that illegitimately placed Swami >Brahmananda >Saraswati, Gurudev's foremost student, in Jyotirmath, and that no other >student of Swami >Brahmananada Saraswati was worthy, so the committee broke Gurudev's >lineage >in favor >of someone else's student in 1953. > >The following is what Dana Sawyer thinks: note who was the only student of >Gurudev who >was claiming Jyotirmath during the time that Anoop Chandola was learning >to >meditate. >The current alternate lineage involved someone who was NOT a student of >Gurudev, so >anyone who expected to hear anything approaching Gurudev's side of things >HAD to go >with Anoop Chandola's teacher during that time: > >http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html > >According to Anoop Chandola, there was a political power play by the head >of >the >committee that had selected Swami Brahmananda Saraswati in 1941: he wanted >to >establish a precedent where EVERY Shankaracharya (at least in Jyotirmath) >had to kowtow >to his authority. > >If you consider the fact that none of the names mentioned in Gurudev's >will >were "deemed >acceptable" and that no other student of Gurudev's was selected by the >committee for the >position to replace Gurudev in 1953, this makes sense. > >Just how many disciples of Gurudev found Swami Brahmananda Saraswati (and >by >extension, all other dsicples of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati) to be >unacceptable? All of >them? The committee destroyed the entire lineage in 1953. > >And THAT is what people who reject Swami Shantananda Saraswati are faced >with: Either >none of Gurudev's students were worthy to replace him in 1953, or there >was >a political >power play going on. > >BTW, isn't that committee STILL involved in selecting all the new >Shankaracharyas? Amaing >that all the Shankaracharyas that are beholden to the committee agree with >it on all >succession matters... 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/
