--- In [email protected], coldbluiceman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "sparaig" <spare egg / Lawson English> wrote: > "Jeffrey" <initiate22000@> wrote: > > > > > > HOw could Maharishi be run out of India? > > Did he commit a crime? > > > <snip> > > Namaste Lawson Ji, > > The same tired *OLD ANOOP CHANDOLA STORY* you rely so very heavily > upon. > It truly is something that after 35 years.., all you have is just one > conversation with "Anoop Chanodla" that has shaped your entire > *Belief System* which soley based on Anoop Chandola's spuroius claims. > That is truly sad! > > The "Anoop Chandola Story" has been dis-proven by court documents and > yet you ignore them! > > The spurious claims made by "Anoop Chandola" regarding-, "Guru Dev's > hand-picked successor" are easily disproven Lawson. > > Simply by a review of historical facts of two items.., thereby > nullifing your arguement of the legitmacy of Lil Mishmashi Brahmachari > Mahesh. > As you entire *Blind Faith Belief System* is based upon the supposed > relationship of- Shantinanda / Mahesh to Sri BrahmanandJi. > > It is a fact that Swami Shantinanda made false claims in his book- > 'Shri Jyothirmath' for example.. > > Item #1). A fully executed will of Sri BrahmanandJi was deposited in > Allhalabad on December 18, 1952. (1st paragraph page 2 of 'Sri > Jyothirmath)
Could be a misprint, obviously. The court found that the will was valid regardless of when it was executed. It also found that Shantannada wasn't competent in Sanskrit, but that seems odd. What criteria does a secular court use to determine such things? The REAL question is: did Gurudev have a right to name someone as his sucessor even if he wasn't a Sanskrit scholar? You and the scholastic community that wanted the other guy say no, apparently. I'm minded of the cook who became the Buddhist patriarch over the objections of everyone else. Just how dusty is your mirror, dude? http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html The District Court found that Brahmanand executed the will while he was in sound disposing state of mind, that respondent Nc. I being one of the nominees under the will having the prior claim would have been entitled to succeed as the Head of the Math but for the fact that lie was not learned in Sanskrit and the Vedas which was a necessary qualification for holding the headship of the Math. It further found that the allegations with respect to the breach of trust by respondent No. 1 had not been proved, that Krishnabodhashram was validly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math but that the suit as it was brought for the vindication of the right of Krishnabodhashram to the headship of the Math, was not maintainable under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the suit was incompetent under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
