--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 
> > >
> > > An elitist superstition codified
> > > is no less of an elitist superstition.
> > 
> > Note that he justifies his own non-Shankaracharya-hood 
> > based on the Jyotish chart...
> I don't think I get your point, if you had one. 
> Seems to me that to claim that caste is based 
> on one's Jyotish chart (it's not...it's based
> on the caste of the birth parents) is a way to
> claim that one is *eligible* for a position open
> only to Brahmans simply because one can find an
> astrologer willing to say that the person is a
> "Brahman based on his chart."

And yet, what if MMY *was* being considered for the position until 
his chart was made? Justifying his lack of position due to his chart 
certainly gives him an out that admitting that his family name was 
recognized as "unworthy" by the Jyotishi doesn't.

> But all of this is just silly TB stuff. Who on 
> earth really *gives a shit* whether Maharishi 
> could have become Shankaracharya, other than a 
> few TBs who would *like* to believe such fictions 
> because the fantasy makes them feel more important?


> To me the most fascinating thing is that the people
> who do this -- the ones who try to construct some 
> fantasy world in which Maharishi could have or 
> should have been Shankaracharya -- are probably
> considered by Maharishi *himself* to be lower than 
> Shudras because they're not even Indian.  :-)

Again, perhaps...

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to