--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2006, at 10:26 PM, authfriend wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 27, 2006, at 8:03 PM, Vaj wrote:
> >>
> >>> IIRC there is also an interview with one of the Shankaracharya's
> >>> where they state that it is an assumed name and that he was not
> >>> a yogi either.
> >
> > Vaj may not be aware--or does not want readers to be
> > aware--that this interview was conducted by Robert
> > Kropinski, who had made a huge deal of suing TM for
> > all kinds of damages (his case was essentially thrown
> > out of court, and there was a private settlement on
> > the one remaining charge).
> >
> > Plus which, if you read the entire interview, you'll
> > find many misstatements of fact on the part of the
> > shankaracharya, plus an obvious very strong anti-Maharishi
> > bias.  Kropinski's intention in holding this interview
> > was to provide the shankaracharya with a platform to
> > denounce MMY.
> The important thing about His Holiness' comments on M. is that
> they represent first hand knowledge, and of course, if true, would 
> account for His Holiness' derogatory remarks on M.

Big "if."  Swaroopanand may have been in a position
to have firsthand knowledge, but that in and of itself
is no guarantee that what he told Kropinski is
accurate, given his own agenda (especially with regard
to his disputed succession to the Shankaracharya seat,
attempting to displace the candidate supported by MMY).

> Who better to comment then someone who was there and was close to 
> Guru Dev!

Someone who was there and was close to Guru Dev who
doesn't have an anti-MMY agenda?

In any case, he most certainly wasn't "there" when MMY
acquired his title, so his association with Guru Dev
is irrelevant to that issue.

> His comments have the ring of truth

If you want to believe the worst of MMY, yes indeed.

> *and* represent traditional practices in this lineage.

That's irrelevant as well, since *MMY* doesn't
represent traditional practices in this lineage.

> His comments do jive with other sources from the Shankaracharya of  
> the south and other Swamis who knew SBS personally (and probably  
> numerous others as well)--and this just as a casual observation, 

What does this have to do with how MMY acquired his

> not a full time apologist or someone who lives vicariously thru 
> However if one spent time in such a pursuit as some here do, night  
> and day, it'd be easy to get to the truth. But as it stands now,  
> there are few who care.

Actually one would most likely have to go to India
and search the archives of Indian newspapers around
the time MMY started to teach.

> What is suspicious is the second hand accounts and the mere  
> speculation, most of which comes from movement types who have a 
> long history of attempting to whitewash movement history.

Second-hand accounts and speculation is all there
*is* on this topic, of course.  So that in itself
is hardly "suspicious."

> > So this is hardly what one could consider an "objective"
> > report.
> >
> > <snip>
> >> No assembly of saints has either conferred upon him a title of
> >> Maharishi
> >
> > Did any "assembly of saints" confer the same title on
> > Ramana Maharishi?  Or did he acquire it informally on
> > the basis of the admiration of his students?
> Not sure--he's from a different lineage and unique in this way.  
> Mahesh comes from a long established institution, the Holy Shank.
> Order.

No, no.  Don't be silly.  You know exactly what his
relationship is with the "long established institution."
(You did say you've read his Gita translation/commentary,
didn't you?)

Perhaps you missed the post I made earlier about what
Ramana Maharshi's disciple and editor said about the
"Maharishi" title--that it's traditionally conferred
on one who inaugurates a new spiritual path.  The editor
says nothing whatsoever about any "assembly of saints"
having given Ramana that title; it was clearly bestowed
*by his students*, just as MMY's was.

> I think he know what Guru Dev called him, GD called him Mahesh.
> And he probably didn't change his name until after his death.

"Probably"??  Of course he didn't take the name Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi until after Guru Dev's death, after he began
to teach.  Why on earth would you express any uncertainty
on this point?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups.  Check out the enhanced email design.

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