> "sparaig" <spare egg/Lawson English> wrote: > Y'know, maybe I can't read the stilted > language of the Indian Courts properly, > or maybe I > simply can't understand your points >(or both),
Namaste Sir Lawson, Then please allow to clarify, and give you the gest of the tired "Old Anoop Chandola Story", and the fabrications of truth contained in Swami Shantanand's book -'Om Sri Jyothirmath'. First of all: (1) Regarding the "will" of Sri BrahmanandJi. None of the civil lawsuits were framed around the vaildity of the "will". .."Thus, none of the civil suits in this dispute seems to have been framed in terms of contesting the legal bona fides of Brahmananda's will..." http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html The original lawsuit was brought by the founding trust of ashram the- Bharata Dharma Mahamandala in Swami Paratmanand's name disputing Shantanand's fitness to hold the seat, and mal- adminstration of the ashram trust. The side issues as the court stated-, "particulars as regards the defect in the machinery for administration which had crept in under custom or rules which required rectification," were somewhat addressed. The court ruled that Swami Shantinand could not in fact understand Sanskrit language. And, this is not a "secular" issue as you tried to point out. As, the sanskrit language was used outside of the "religious" connation you suggested so this issue was decided by the court. Apparent to the court Swami Shantinand lacked demonstrable skill of sanskrit language ruled as such. And, the Court upheld the assertions of the Bharata Dharma Mahamandala. However, by the *extensive current research* by Dana Sawyer Profeesor of Religion and Philoshpy at Maine College of Art and Vidyasankar Sundaresan at issue was- the fact Sri BrahmanandJi never clearly indicated his successor. This fact was based upon few issues and *Legal Facts*- a. *legal Fact* the publication of the "will", which surfaced weeks after Sri BrahmanandJi's passing. Inspite of Swami Shantand's claim-, > > Item #1). A fully executed will of > > Sri BrahmanandJi was deposited in > > Allhalabad on December 18, 1952. > > (1st paragraph page 2 of 'Om Sri Jyothirmath') b. Swami Shantanand was a poor choice because of the *Legal Fact* he could not comprehend sanskrit nor the Vedas. Inspite of Swami Shantand's claim-, > > He was completely qualified the hold the > > seat as he was literate in > > Sanskrit and the Vedas". > > (2nd paragraph page 2 of 'Om Sri Jyothirmath') c. At issue was the fact that Swami Shantanand was installed in Sri BrahmanandJi's gaddi by "Brahmachari Mahesh and few friends that thought the will could be credible". As, Dana Sawyer Profeesor of Religion and Philoshpy at Maine College of Art has pointed out. Inspite of Swami Shantand's claim-, > > Item #2). He was installed in Varansi > > in the presence of hundreds of > > scholars from all over the country > >(2nd paragraph page 3 of 'Om Sri Jyothirmath') d. At issue were the suspicious behavior and motivations of Brahmachari Mahesh at about the time of Sri BrahmanandJi's passing. .."In fact, the earliest doubts about the will left by Brahmananda Saraswati were linked to suspicion of the motives and actions of Mahesh Yogi (then called Mahesh Brahmachari)..." http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html > but it seems to ME that you're arguing > something that isn't supported by what > the court actually SAID as I quoted at the bottom > of this article... The court did not rule on the question of the validity of the "will" that is your mis-understanding. .."Thus, none of the civil suits in this dispute seems to have been framed in terms of contesting the legal bona fides of Brahmananda's will..." http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html >> > coldbluiceman wrote: > > > > > "sparaig" <spare egg/ Lawson English> wrote: > > > > coldbluiceman <sperino> wrote: > > > > > "sparaig" <spare egg / Lawson English> wrote: > > > > > > "Jeffrey" wrote: > > > > > > <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. > > > > Namaste Sir Lawson Ji, > > I must politely take exception with your > > assessment regarding the > > remote possibilty that the contents of > > Swami Shantinand's book- 'Sri > > Jyothirmath' are simply just mis-prints. > > So you are saying just .. > > Item #1). A fully executed will of > > Sri BrahmanandJi was deposited in > > Allhalabad on December 18, 1952. > > (1st paragraph page 2 of 'Sri > > Jyothirmath) > > > > In regards to this statement regarding > > (paraphasing)-, > > > > And, you did not address > > Item #2). He was installed in Varansi > > in the presence of hundreds of > > scholars from all over the country > >(2nd paragraph page 3). > > > > With regards to Item #2 (above)a claim > > made Swami Shantinand, it has > > been confirmed by- Professor Mr. Dana Sawyer > > of Maine College of Arts > > that-, "Swami Shantinanda was installed > > in Allhalabd by Brahmachari > > Mahesh and a few friends who thought > > the will could be credible". > > These are eyewitness accounts and > > ashram records that dispell the > > lies of Swami Shantinand that Professor > > Dana Sawyer has reviewed > > > > > The court found that the will was valid > > > regardless of when > > > it was executed. > > > > Lawson the "validity" of the "will" was > > not the issue, never was. > > > > The issue was from the beginning > > "mal-adminstration of the ashram > > trust". > > From the court case, page 796.. > > > > .."The High Court was of the view that since > > the plaintiffs did not > > plead facts and particulars as regards > > the defect in the machinery > > for administration which had crept in > > under custom or rules which > > required rectification, > > the prayer for direction was a mere pretense > > to bring the suit under S. 92. > > A direction cannot be given by the > > Court unless it is shown that it is necessary for the proper > > administration of the trust..." > > http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html > > > > .."The case was appealed to the High court > > at Allahabad in 1962 > > (Civil Appeal No. 385), and received > > the same judgement, that > > is "the High Court found that there > > was no evidence to substantiate > > the allegations of breach of trust > > against the first respondent. No > > reasons were given in the plaint > > for asking the directions of the > > court for the administration of the trust. > > (court case, p.791) > > http://www.mail- > > archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg20687.html > > > > > It also found that Shantannada wasn't > > > competent in Sanskrit, but that > > > seems odd. > > > > Why does that seem odd? > > Did Anoop Chandola tell you Shantinand > > could read Sanskrit? > > Because, Shantinand claimed in > > 'Sri Jyothirmath', he could. > > > > > What criteria does a secular court > > > use to determine such things? > > > > Well just maybe, the legal counsel for > > the plaintiffs handed Swami > > Shantinand a text written in Sanskrit, > > and in court Shantinand could > > not read from it. > > Much the same if any court in the USA > > someone handed you a text in > > Sanskrit and asked you to read from it, > > and you could not. We could > > then determine you could not read sanskrit. > > > > > The REAL > > > question is: did Gurudev have a right > > > to name someone as his sucessor even if > > > he wasn't a > > > Sanskrit scholar? > > > > (1) Questions regarding the authenicity of the will arose, for > > instance, why hadn't Brahmananda published the will while he was > > still alive? > > (2) Why hadn't he made clear then who he wanted to follow him? > > http://www.mail- > > archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/msg20687.html > > > > > You and the scholastic community that > > > wanted the other guy say no, > > > apparently. > > > > No Lawson I could care less. > > I was pointing out the pathos of your > > fetish with- "Anoop Chandola Story" > > and there is no "other guy". > > > > > 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 No.1 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/
