(Sorry for the formatting. This is how Google's new sofware mangles posts.--JS)
------ Forwarded Message From: Dana Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:39:05 -0400 To: <name withheld> Subject: Re: MMY Conspiracy theories Rick, I don't know who is responding to my comments but they clearly have too much of a personal stake in this issue to see the facts clearly. First, it's important for Americans to understand that the Shankaracaryas in general have very little money or power. They are trucked out at religious fairs and on religious holidays to give a blessing or two and that's about it. These days the Shankaracarya of Puri is so poor he can barely keep his vidyapith open and all vidyapiths (the Sringeri pith is the exception that proves this rule) are in terrible disrepair. After the demise of the Rajas in India the piths have fallen on hard times (Indians are used to having their Rajas support such institutions and the Shankaracaryas have not been very lucky in finding new support). And it's important to point out here that these are not the opinions of heresay. I have been to all the vidyapiths, including the disputed Kanchi pith, and have studied these places and how they are financially supported. Also, just before I make my comments below, let me say that I am NOT a Swarupananda supporter. As an academic I couldn't care less which one of these old guys heads up the institution. My job is to understand the issue and the circumstances, not cheerlead for one side or the other. The "Shankaracaryas" loom large in the imaginations and esteem of TMers in our country but, for better and worse, they are no big deal at all. India works on a guru system; when a person gains a reputation for enlightenment (and none of the current Shankaracaryas has such a reputation) then people flock to them and a movement is galvanized. In India today, Sai Baba is rich and powerful, Ammachi is rich and powerful, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is rich and powerful, but I can take you to meet any one of the Shankaracaryas any day that you want to go because nobody cares about them. These are the facts. me: >the person's point here seems to be that it is implausible >> that a "cook" and a "clerk" other person: >First, it hasn't been established that Brahmananda had a cook with >him when he died down in Calcutta. I wasn't refering to Calcutta. In general, all parties that I interviewed - in both camps (including Vishnudevananda) - claimed that Shantananda often cooked for Brahmananda. These are their words, not mine. I couldn't care less - except that it's nice to have the facts straight. other person: > 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. Secondly, since no autopsy was performed, how can we be certain the causes were natural? other person: >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, but without a body of evidence and an autopsy (a body as evidence) they decided not to press the issue. 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). Since Mahesh was the clerk (no one on either side of the issue disputes this, so I'm not sure why you do. There are still several living witnesses to this fact). >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. Could he have done so? Definitely. Did he do so? No one will every know and almost no really cares. other person: >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. me: >> 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. other person: >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. > From what I've read, Swami Brahmananda was lucid right up >to the time of his demise. What did you read? Please be specific. 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. me: >> 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. other person: >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? me: >> 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. other person: >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. other person: >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. me: >> When the guy says that, "possession is nine tenths of the >> law" he's correct with regards to the government. The Shantananda >> group had Brahmananda's will with his signature on it and that's >> all that the government filing office in Allahabad >> cared about. other person: >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. me: >> In the meantime, it is a moot point. Vasudevananda cannot travel >> as the Shankaracarya or present himself as such. The war is over >> and Swarupananda owns the position; other person: >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. me: >> 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. other person: >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? 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. 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. 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. 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? ------------------------ 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/
