Richard Williams wrote: > First, it hasn't been established that Brahmananda had a cook > with him when he died down in Calcutta. > Dana Sawyer wrote: >> I wasn't refering to Calcutta. >> According to Tilwari Swami Brahmanand passed away in Calcutta while on tour. Swami Shantanand was at Shankar Math at Allahabad. Apparently there were three people in attendance at Brahmanand's passing. None of these witnesses, to my knowledge, have ever said anything about Brahmanand being poisoned in a conspiracy between Mahesh Yogi and the Jyotrimath ashram cook.
>> In general, all parties that I interviewed >> - in both camps (including Vishnudevananda) - >> claimed that Shantananda often cooked for >> Brahmananda. >> Maybe so, but from what I've read Shantanand was a student of Brahmanand Saraswati for less than three years before Brahmanand's untimely demise - it's possible that Shantanand cooked a meal and offered some of it as prasadam to Brahmanand, at some point in time - it's even possible that Brahmanand actually ate parts of the cooked meal - but apparently Shantanand wasn't even at Jyotirmath in the three years previous to Brahmanand's passing. From what I understand Brahmanand was at Jyotirmath on only three occasions in thirteen years! So, I just don't see how Shantanand, as the "Jyotirmath Ashram Cook", could have cooked for Brahmanand when neither were even anywhere near Jyotirmath. All parties that I've interviewed all denied that Brahmanand ate cooked food. According to Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, a direct desciple, Sannyasins aren't supposed to be eating food cooked by others and they're not to be playing around with fire either. Swami Rama of the Himalayas in his book, Living With the Himalayan Masters, described Brahmanand as an ascetic that consumed small quantities of sesame seeds. It may be true that Shantanand cooked food at various times, however, when I interviewed Brahmacharya Satyanand in 1970, another direct desciple, he made no mention of Shantanand being a cook. We have a very detailed corpus of interviews with Shantanand over the years conducted by F.C. Roles, who was a student of Shantanand for many years - no mention of Shantanand being a cook here: Publications http://www.studysociety.net/Content.html or on Usenet: Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental Author: willytex Subject: The Work Date: Mon 01, July 2003 http://tinyurl.com/afwcy > These are their words, not mine. I couldn't care less - > except that it's nice to have the facts straight. > The fact is, there's not a single reference in all of the Indian press that mentions anything about Shantanand being a cook, much less a cook for the Shakaracharya of Jyotirmath. >From The Hindu, December 7, 1997: Senior Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth dead The senior Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth, Swami Shantanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, died in Allahabad on Friday night at his Alopi Bagh Ashram. He was 90. The 'jalsamadhi' of the Shankaracharya will be performed on Sunday at Sangam, the confluence of the Ganga, Yamuna and Saraswati. The body has been kept in the ashram to enable the public to pay their respects. Senior leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, including Mr. Ashok Singhal, dharmacharyas and disciples of the Shankaracharya are arriving here to participate in the last rites of the Shankaracharya. The Shankaracharya was born in Achati village of Basti district into a Brahmin family. He was the third son of Pandit Lal Bihari Tiwari. After taking to 'Vairagya' at 20, he went to Geeta press, Gorakhpur, and there he stayed from 1933 to 1939. After that, he went to the ashram of Uria Baba in Vrindaban where he remained for 14 years and studied. In 1951, he took 'sanyas' from Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati of Jyotish Peeth. After the death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, he was made the Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth on June 12, 1953. On February 29, 1980, he declared Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati his successor. > From all the accounts I've read, Brahmanada Saraswati died > of natural causes. Is there any mention anywhere about a > poisoned Shankaracharya? > >> What accounts did you read? Please be specific. >> First, there's no mention of a poisoned Shankaracharya in the Indian press or in the Indian courts; second, there's no mention of such an incident in the official biography of Swami Brahmanand, Whole Thing The Real Thing; not a mention in the only published biography of Mahesh Yogi by Paul Mason. There's no mention of a poison theory in Raj Varma's book, Strange Facts About a Great Saint. Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.meditation, alt.yoga Author: willytex Subject: Strange Facts About a Great Saint Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 http://tinyurl.com/98y4g Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Author: mdhutchinon Subject: Whole Thing The Real Thing Date: 2 Feb 2002 04:40:31 -0800 http://tinyurl.com/bqrgm Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Author: willytex Subject: The Biography Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 00:13:43 GMT http://tinyurl.com/9gugv >> Secondly, since no autopsy was performed, how can we be >> certain the causes were natural? >> So, by your logic, if there was no autopsy, there must have been poison in his body? Apparently there were three eyewitnesses, one of whom was the attending physician, who said nothing about a poisoning incident. Apparently the doctor told Brahmananda to get some rest and call him in the morning and then the doctor left the building. > So, you're thinking that a mere clerk was so powerful that he was > able to get a private audience with the Shankaracharya on his > deathbed, then commandeer the seer's corpse, put it on a railroad > car and send it to Benares, then bury it inside a coffin in the > middle of the Ganges river, then produce a will that listed > Shantanand as his succussor, and have him installed as the new > Shankaracharya, in full view of the entire nation without a single > mention in the Indian press of a murder of a Shankaracharya by a > cook who gave Brahmananda poison? > >> The Swarupananda camp has speculated that poison could have been >> invloved, >> The question is, how would a person of the Mahesh Yogi's stature, a mere clerk, obtain a privilaged seat at the Shankaracharya's bedside down in Calcutta, one of three witnesses to Brahmanand's passing, and then abscond with the body in a trunk packed onto a freight train in the middle of the night? That's one bold, privilaged and devious clerk, what with the whole population of Benares awaiting his arrival! >> but without a body of evidence and an autopsy (a body >> as evidence) they decided not to press the issue. >> The key word here is speculation, but in fact, it's just a foul rumor started by a Swami with a vested interest in obtaining dual titles. For what purpose? It's common knowledge that Swaroopanand is opposed to the VHP which supported Vasudevanand. > But, since the majority of Brahmananda's followers believed > that the will presented to the court was not consonant with > Brahmananda's wishes, they immediately challenged Shantananda's > claim on the grounds that he wasn't fit to serve (before > becoming a Dandi he had been a book binder and he had no > knowledge of Sanskrit). > So what? According to the Swami Prakashanand, he himself was asked by the pundit committee down in Kashi to become the Shankaracharya, and the Swami Prakash was only twenty-one years old and had never read a single Sanskrit text, having dropped out of school at age fourteen, (cited by Mr. Sundersan). Besides, it hasn't even been established that Brahmanand was a Sanskrit reader. So, I think the 'fit' card is a moot point. I read in the Times of India where an Indian court approved of an illiterate farmer becoming a Shankaracharya. > Since Mahesh was the clerk (no one on either side > of the issue disputes this, so I'm not sure why you > do. > How has it been established that the Mahesh Yogi was a "clerk" for the Jyotirmath Ashram? The name Mahesh doesn't appear on any of the Trust's literature and there's no mention of a Mahesh Yogi being in the will as an administrator. If you accept any of the above scenarios - the poison rumor - the clerk rumor - I just don't see how a clerk is going to be sitting on the bed of a Shankaracharya, or even the same room with one, for that matter. That is, unless you want to suggest that the Mahesh Yogi was much more than a mere clerk, much more than a secretary, which would contradict the statement by the Swami Swaroopanand in the Kropinsky interview to the effect that Mahesh Yogi was a part-time, low-level, paper pusher of low caste. If so, how did the Mahesh Yogi become so powerful that he could outsmart the Indian press and a whole committee of pundits down in Kashi? Go figure. > There are still several living witnesses to this fact). > I'm living next door to one and he says that the Mahesh Yogi was never within fifty feet of the Shankaracharya. > That would be one very powerful clerk! > >> Remember, the only claim by the Swarupananda camp is that >> Mahesh, as the secretary who presented the will to >> Brahmananda for signing, was in a position to change >> the order of the successors. >> According to the Swaroopanad in the Kropinsky interview, the will specified that Shantanand should be the succussor to Brahmanand. One thing is a fact and is not disputed: neither Swaroopanand nor Prakashanand's name appear in the will of Brahmanand. So if Swaroopanand supports the will, what in the hell is Swaroopanand doing sporting dual seats, when he wasn't even mentioned in the will in the first place? >> Could he have done so? >> It hasn't been established that the Mahesh Yogi had anything to do with Brahmanand's will. >> Definitely. >> Can you cite a reference anywhere that says a Mahesh Yogi had anything to do with the will of a Shankaracharya? > Did he do so? > >From what I've read, the Mahesh Yogi has not been cross-examined concerning the will of his dead Master, so the case is still open about the will, however, I feel certain that if there was any substance to this rumor it would have been reported by the Indian press. Apparently the will of Brahmanand has never been contested by any of the different camps. > No one will every know and almost no really cares. > Very impressive, Dana. > Is there any mention in any of the Indian press at the time > that a Shankaracharya had been murdered by an ashram cook? > >> I've already explained what the Swarupananda camp (which >> then was the Swami Karpatri camp) did. Without proof, or >> even a compelling case, they made no claim to murder. >> The murder claims have been made by Mr. Perino and Mr. Manning, who claim to have insider information. From whom, I'd like to know? From: ColdBluICE Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Subject: Re: Guru Dev poison rumor debunked Date: 21 Oct 2004 http://tinyurl.com/c4e9v Common knowledge at Jyosimutt Ashram that Lil MishMAshi Mahesh and the Ashram cook conspired to poison Sri BrahmanandaJi to death. >> it is possible that Mahesh, as secretary, could have skewed the >> will and then had a less than lucid Brahmananda sign a different >> document then he thought he was signing. >> It hasn't been established that Brahmanand Saraswati employed a "secretary", or that a secretary had anything to do with his will. What would a secretary be having to do with the will of a Shankaracharya? The Jyotirmath Ashram Trust employed barristers for the signing of wills, not no-name, low-level clerks. Surely the Trust examined the will and showed it to the authorities, right? > Has it been established that a person named Mahesh was > Brahmananda's secretary? > >> Definitely and without question - as testimony from both camps >> makes clear. In fact, I've never interviewed a person who said >> otherwise. Do you know an eye witness who's making this claim? >> Vishnudevananda himself told me that Brahmacari Mahesh was the >> secretary. >> Well, I guess it all depends on what you mean by secretary - you really like to paint with a large brush. > From what I've read, Swami Brahmananda was lucid right up > to the time of his demise. > >> What did you read? >> Sorry, I get to ask the questions around here - where did you read anything about a Mahesh Yogi being the secretary of a Shankaracharya? >> Please be specific. >> The official biography of Brahmananda Saraswati? >> All eye witnesses that I interviewed in 1988, including >> six swamis, claimed that Brahmananda was not lucid during >> the last two days of his life and had been very sick for >> more than ten days. >> >From what I've read and have been told, there were only three eye witnesses to Brahmanand's passing; Swami Swaroopanad wasn't one of them and none were Swamis. But, you say one of them was a clerk named Mahesh? According to Raj Varma, Brahmanand had been in Calcutta three days when he suddenly became ill. According to Brahmachari Satyanand, Brahmanand was lucid until he took his last breath saying, "I want to sit up." >> Beyond that it's important to recognize, for good or bad, that >> those who felt the document was a forgery formed the much larger >> and more influential group. >> More influential than the Mahesh Yogi's group? Get real, the TMO dwarfs any Shankaracharya camp in all of India! Shantanand was backed by the VHP and the government of India. > Apparently the will was never contested in court and at the time > no accusations were made. > >> Contesting a signed will is difficult in any country, let alone >> India. But an immediate case was filed with the court on the >> grounds that Shantananda was a poor candidate by the very same >> people who had appointed Brahmananda to the seat. Isn't that at >> all interesting or compelling to you? >> What's interesting to me is that the Karpatri camp and the Prakashanand camp are stark raving mad Hari Krishna proponents who all support acyinta beda-beda. The Swami Prakashanand is a notorious Shankara-basher and promoter of sectarian bhakti personalism who is currently attempting to re-write Indian history. The Swami thinks that the Adi Shankara lived 500 years before the historical Buddha. Can you believe that? Mr. Sundaresan, "...none of the civil suits in this dispute seems to have been framed in terms of contesting the legal bona fides of Brahmananda's will." >> They immediately took matters into their own hands and backed >> Krishnabodhashrama as the new Shankaracarya, so for them all >> that was lost was property, not the position. >> The Jyotirmath Shankarayacharya position had been extinct for 165 years, so that's a moot point too. The point I'm making is that Shantanand is the only holder of the Brahmanand spiritual lineage. Mr. Sundersan: "Santananda and his successors trace their claim to a will of Brahmananda, but the Kashi Vidvat Parishad and the Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha have not accepted this. Interestingly, if the opinions of these bodies are to be set aside at any time after 1941, only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Santananda) can be traced directly to Brahmananda, without any interruptions." > But did they contest the will? I don't think so - according to > Svarupanand, in the Kropinsky interview, Brahmanand's will wasn't > an issue, only the fitness of the candidate, Shantanand. > >> Several errors here. First, yes, they did contest the will. In >> fact they have contested the will in court twice (and note this: >> the chief lawyer defending the authenticity of the will in both >> cases was the person now called Vasudevananda. Isn't that >> interesting? If you don't believe me, get someone to check for >> you at the district court in Allahbad). But they didn't do so >> until their ploy to dethrone Shantananda on grounds of unfitness >> failed. >> According to Mr. Sundersan: "Madhava Asrama's claim to the Jyotirmath Sankaracharya title is based on the stance that after Swarupananda Saraswati took up the Dwaraka Sankaracharya title in 1982, his title at Jyotirmath has been nullified by the passage of time. Madhava Asrama does not recognize the claim of Vasudevananda Saraswati to the Jyotirmath title, as he traces his own claim to the title through his guru, Krishnabodha Asrama, and to the decision of the Kashi Vidvat Parishad and the Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha." > I don't see any evidence that Shantanand was a suspect in the death > of Brahmanand Saraswati. If he was, no charges were ever filed. > >> Again, I've explained why no case was brought and no charges >> were filed. There was no body and no evidence. >> So there's no evidence either way, but no evidence of a poisoning either. > Brahmanand's group also had possession of the will and the > Jyotirmath property and all the accoutrements of the > Shankaracharya's office, as they do to this day. That's because > Vishndevanand was the succossor to Brahmanand Saraswati, not > Krishnabodha. > >> Well, of course, this is simply a matter of opinion; one camp >> holds one perspective and the other camps believes otherwise. >> BTW, the property that was passed along to Shantananda was >> very meager (remember this was before Mahesh had money to >> give to Shantananda), so he inherited the small ashram at >> Alopibagh and the lodge at Jyotirmath. Where not talking about >> the kind of wealth ownede by papacy. >> However, the Jyotrimath owned by Vasudevanand may be part of the original peeth established by the Adi Shankara. > But Svaruanand doesn't own the Jyotir math or the property - that > still belongs to Brahmanand's camp, right? > >> As I said, the property is next to nothing and run down. Most >> people reading this note have much more impressive homes than >> Vasudevananda. Over time, and with the support of the other >> Shankaracaryas (and note that no other Shankaracarya today >> supports Vasudevananda's claim to the position), Swarupananda's >> math has become very wealthy and their facility at Jyotirmath >> (which includes the cave where Trotaka supposedly reached >> enlightenment) is much more impressive than Vasudevananda's. >> Pilgrims today on their way to Badrinath do not even bother going >> further up the hill to visit Vasudevananda's facility and most >> actually don't even know about the controversy. >> Maybe so. >> that's the fact of the matter and its time, for better or worse, >> simply to face it and move on - as Hindus themselves have. >> > That doesn't make it right for Svarupanad to steal items from the > Jyotirmath ashram, Dana! > >> What items has he stolen? I'm not aware of such a claim. >> Has there been a court case? Which sources are you citing? >> >From the Deccan Herald: DEHRA DUN - A legal battle over the control of the prestigious Jyotirmath Peeth in Badrinath area established by Adi Shankaracharya in the eighth century has taken an ugly turn. Three Shankracharyas Swami Swaroopanand of Dwarka, Swami Vasudevanand of Jyotirmath and Swami Madhavashram of Badrinath have taken a legal recourse to settle scores against one another. "It is virtually a triangular battle," said Ashok Tamta, Superintendent of Police (SP) of Chamoli District in Uttaranchal where the Jyotirmath is located. Sensing the issue of religious sentimental value, political parties have also entered into the fray. While BJP is supporting Swami Vasudevanand, Congress is lending its support to Swami Swaroopanand, a known opponent of VHP on Ayodhya issue. Uttarakhand Kranti Dal (UKD), a powerful regional party, has also chipped in to back Swami Madhavasharam, who hails from Uttarakhand region only. The issue stems from the recent decision of the Congress government to declare a lockout on the Jyotirmath premises in an apparent bid to oust Swami Vasudevanand, a move allegedly chalked out by Swami Swaroopanand. Soon after the lockout on February 16 this year, Swami Vasudevanand got a reprieve from a local court against the government's decision. And on March 1, the control of the Jyotirpeeth was handed over to Swami Vasudevanand in the face of BJP's agitation over the issue. Upping the ante, Swami Vasudevanand, who claims to be real Shankracharya of Jyotirmath Peeth, also filed an FIR against some followers of Swami Swroopanand accusing them of carrying out theft in the Peeth premises. Swami Vasudevanand claimed that he was the real Shankaracharya and that the recent decision of the local administration to declare a lockout at the Peeth was politically motivated. On the other hand, Swami Madhavashram, who is backed by UKD, has also fired a salvo stating that the ownership of Jyotirpeeth be handed over to him since he was the real Shankracharya of Badrinath. 'Jyotirmath Peeth: 3 Shankaracharyas enter into legal battle' Deccan Herald, Wednesday, March 30, 2005 http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/mar302005/n2.asp >> Today Swarupananda, as the recognized Shankaracarya of two >> vidyapiths, is more wealthy and the most powerful dandi in >> the north (but remember, this doesn't really add up to >> much. The Shankaracaryas are not nearly as wealthy as the big >> gurs). Swarupananda doesn't need to go begging at the door or >> a destitute Vasudevananda. >> Well, if as you say, the TMO and the Mahesh Yogi are backing Vasudevanand, then we can assume that Vasudevanand has the backing of a billionaire, many times over! If the Mahesh Yogi wanted to, he could build the world's tallest building right in the middle of Mother India and put Vasudevanand on the topmost floor surrounded by Yogic Flying punduts. If he wanted to, the Mahesh Yogi, with all his wealth, could make the Swaroopanand's camp look like an ant hill. But, I don't think the Mahesh Yogi cares what happens to the Jyotirmath or the seat of the Shankaracharya. Why would he - who needs them? >> My prediction is that now that Vasudevananda can no longer >> publicly claim to be a Shankaracarya he will quickly outlive >> his usefullness to the TMO and his bank account will quickly >> run dry. >> I've never heard the TMO make any references to Vasudevanand or to Shantanand, and I'm a frequent flyer at Fairfied, Iowa. Can you cite any? Most TMers aren't even aware that there is a Shankaracharya succussion dispute since 1953. Most TMers haven't even heard the name Shantanand or Swaroopanand. >> In one more generation, no one will actually remember that >> there had been a controversy. History supports this view, >> since all the vidyapiths have had lineage disputes in the >> past fifty years. >> Maybe so, but for sure the Shankaracharya of Kanchi will certainly be in the news a lot in the days to come! 'Godman In The Dock' http://rwilliams.blogspot.com/ >> Bottom line: whether the will was genuine or not, and >> whether Shantananda was fit to fill the post of not, >> Swami Swarupananda is the Shankaracarya of Jyotirmath. >> Period. The court mandates it, the other Shankaracaryas >> support it, and the public agrees. It's time to let it go. >> What's at stake? >> Frankly, I'm not very interested in the comings and goings of the Shankaracharya's - but I am interested in who and why the Mahesh poison rumor got started. It just seems, on it's face, to be totally absurd and without any redeeming merit. That you'd even consider such rumors is beyond me, Professor Sawyer. Mahesh Yogi conspired with the Jyotirmath Ashram cook, Shantanand, to murder Brahmanand, so they could get their hands on the Alopibagh and the lodge at Jyotirmath? For what purpose, might I ask? 'The Jyotirmath Sankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century' by Vidyasankar Sundaresan http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html ------------------------ 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/
