--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One more: > > God! This guy doesn't even know about the three court cases? Better to > not bother arguing with him. > > Dana >
God, this this guy can't even be boithered to direct me to a URL of the facts of the cases, and instead, posts 3rd person remarks about how I'm not worth "arguing with..." And about what? That Swami Shantananda told my friend something when Dana Sawyer wasn't present. That's the essentials of the argument. > > 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/
