--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2006, at 12:55 AM, jim_flanegin wrote: <snip> > > Perhaps you should just refer to Maharishi as His Holiness as you > > do the Dalai Lama, since you are using equivalent terms anyway. Or > > continue to refer to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as Lord Shiva or Lord > > Indra. Your choice... > > In the case of the Dalai Lama, this name is conferred based on > accomplishment and conferred by living Buddhas. It has a specific > meaning.
FWIW, it's fairly common for Indian teachers to refer to their own masters as "His Holiness." > In the case of Mahesh, "Maharishi" is an assumed name, as > is "yogi". These were never conferred by the Shankaracharya > tradition he originally came from, nor are they indicative of > accomplishment. What tradition conferred the title "Maharshi" on Ramana Maharshi? Who conferred the title "His Holiness" on SSRS? > Since SBS and current Shankaracharyas refer to him as "Mahesh", it > is probably respectful to the tradition to follow this tradition > (rather than the spin). Certainly it would be respectful to the orthodox hierarchy that claims to represent Shankara's tradition to go along with its disrespect of Maharishi, just as it would be respectful of the Catholic tradition to consider Martin Luther an excommunicate and apostate. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that calling MMY "Mahesh" is anything but overtly and deliberately disrespectful to MMY. As I've noted before, according to the editor of "The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi," the title "Maharshi" (or "Maharishi") is conferred on a teacher who has inaugurated a new spiritual path. That seems to indicate it is not a title that is conferred by the hierarchy of any particular tradition; it's given to someone who essentially starts a new tradition. In MMY's case--according to him, at least--he has *revived* a tradition, believing the current version of that tradition has been corrupted--very similar to Martin Luther's stance vis-a-vis the Catholic version of the Christian tradition. Naturally the hierarchy of Catholicism isn't about to accept Luther's revival as the legitimate version of the Christian tradition; neither should we expect the representatives of the "official" Shankaracharya tradition to accept MMY's revival as legitimate. In other words, that the Shankaracharyas disrespect MMY doesn't tell us anything except that they resent his efforts at reform. The real issue with regard to his use of the "Maharishi" title is whether his attempt to reform the tradition is authentic with regard to the original version--what Shankara actually taught. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/zAINmC/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
