--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > The recognized Shankaracharya (the one most here seem to prefer) > > > > referred to MMY as an ashram clerk. The rumor was that this clerk > > > > managed to conspire with a cook to kill Gurudev. AFter the will > > > > wasproduced, this clerk was so powerful as to get the first guy > > on > > > > the list proclaimed Shankaracharya overthe protestations (if you > > > > believe what everyone here appears to) liaterally everyother > > disciple > > > > of Gurudev besides MMY and the cook. > > > > > > > > > > The cook was Shantanand, I beleive, who was first on the list, and > > > became Shankarachara -- so it was a bit more interesting, with a > > > thicker plot -- than your account suggests. > > > > > > Don't mistake this as an endorsement of all of the rumored details > > of > > > said plot. But I think that Shantanand was GD's cook is the best > > > established of the facts. And MMY was his clerk, aka secretary. > > > > > > And it appears from some testimony regarding the will, that GD was > > not > > > very lucid in his last days. Plausibly the effect of sudden poisons > > > introduced. > > > > > > I am not sure "power", as you argue, would be the issue in this > > > circumstance, tho again i am not arguing for the validity of the > > > "plot". But hypothetically, if a signed "list" appeared, it would > > give > > > enough nominal clearance during the chaos of GD's passing, to > > enable a > > > new shankaracharaya to be rushed into GD's quarters. Which is what > > > happened. Then it became a game of "possession is 9/10s of the > > law". > > > > > > And GD's clerk or secretary would be the person to prepare such a > > > list. And could have had GD sign it, at GD's request, or in the > > > confusion of his non-lucidity, if that occurred. > > > > Others have claimed that Shantayanda was NOT a cook, but whatever. > > > > As I said, making the cook the spiritual leader is traditional in > > some religions, but not the Brahmin-dominated Hindus. Of COURSE this > > caused massive protesting in some quarters. A cook???!!!? > > > I am not arguing for or against. Or for or against cooks. But by most > accounts that I have heard, Shantanand was said to be a sweet, pious > man, but with not much training in vedic literature or sanskrit. In > that aspect, he failed one of the three requirements for the job. But > perhaps I have not heard correctly, or the full story.
He might not have been, orperhaps they just assumed that a cook couldn't possibly be worthy and made up the "but he's not trained in Sanskrit" as an excuse. Recall also that the "shankaracharya maker" guy wanted to be in charge of Yet Another Shankaracharya appointment and an unknown cook wouldn't build up his reputation. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
