> sparaig wrote: > Here I am, assuing that ColdBlueIce is able to read, > and I accepted without question, his > claim that the High Court had found that > Swami Brahmananda Saraswati wasn't a good > enough Sanskrit Scholar to be Shankaracharya.
Naamste Sir LawsonJi.., i must politley agree with you-, you are an "IDIOT". But that goes without saying (or typing).. i never said (not one time) Sri Vibhuushiit Jyosimutt Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati was unfit!! i said Swami Shantinand was unfit as he could not read/understand sanskrit.. Get on your meds and, stop making stuff up!! Here go look for yourself.., "Idiot".. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/116827 .."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..." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/116864 .."in case you are interested this is what i said (which you will ignore..again. But *Blind Faith* allows that sort of thing)...."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..." Namaste Sir Lawson, The validity of the "will" means exactly this.. there were five names on a piece of paper that was *Published after Sri BrahmanandJi passed away*..,that is an *Undisputed Legal Fact* by the Lower Court and Supreme Court and by both parties-, the Resondent/Ramji Tripathi-Shantinand, and the Plaintiffs. http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html The plaintiffs in the court case suggested to the court the order had been reversed, as Swami Shantinand was the last choice and the poorest choice..,as it was *Factually Established* Shantinand/Ramji Tripathi could not comprehend nor read sanskrit http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html and - http:// www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg20687.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/116924 .."That being said lets, look again at the *Facts* that Sir LawsonJi continues to ignore(as that is afforded by *Blind Faith*). It is a Historical Fact that Ramji Tripathi aka Swami Shantinand fabricated a story and published his *Om Sri Jyotirmath*. Now my question to you- Sir Lawson Ji is.. *Why was it nessaccary for Swami Shantanand to LIE about his past*??.. And, what would motivate Swami Shantinand to *LIE*?... (Although to his credit Swami Shantinand quit his charade and-, "gave up this nonsense of claiming the title of Shankaracharya".) Herewith are the *lIES* (and the facts you ignore).. a. *legal Fact* the publication of the "will", which surfaced weeks after Sri BrahmanandJi's passing. Inspite of Swami Shantanand'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 Shantinand was a poor choice because of the *Legal Fact* he could not comprehend sanskrit nor the Vedas. Inspite of Swami Shantinand'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 Professor of Religion and Philoshpy at Maine College of Art has pointed out. Inspite of Swami Shantinand'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 e. From the Kropinski interview of Oct. 1986 with the *ONLY LEGIMATE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED* Shankaracharya of Jyosimutt. ..."He said, word came to me that he (Shantinand) had requested to be allowed on the stage. I allowed him to be present only because he has given up this nonsense of claiming title to Shankaracharya. He said Vishnu Devanand, Mahesh's so-called Shankaracharya, was also here in Vrindaban, he also requested to come onto the stage, but I refused. Then, he (Vishnu Devanand) stated he would sit on a lower, undecorated seat if I allowed him to attend. I refused him. Then, he again begged to simply sit on the floor of the stage at my feet, if I allowed him to be publicly present. Again I refused. He said, if I allow him to be seen with me, and all the while wrongfully claiming title as Shankaracharya, it will appear as if I approve of his activity, and I do not. Therefore, he said, I have ordered that he may not even come into the tent to sit in the audience...." http://minet.org/Documents/shank-1 Another my final question to you Sir LawsonJi-, ..If nearly every statement in Shantinand's book 'Om Sri Jyothirmath" was a *LIE*, and the fact Swami Shantinand eventually gave the nonsense of claiming title of Shankarcharya, was there ever any statement made by Swami Shantinand from June 1953 to 1980 that was true? As, i said.., i have no interest in this matter other than to show you the fallacy of your- "Tired Old Anoop Chandola Story". As it is a fact your pal Anoop Chandola intentionally took advantage of a gullible western. Pranams, Stephen Perino > What the High Court did was to dismiss > the lawsuit. No ruling whatsoever was made > about anyone's competency or anything else. > Any reference to S. Shatananda's compentency > was in the context of what claims the > plaintiffs made, NOT what the High Court > or the Supreme Court decided. Sir LawsonJi.., as you pointed out.., to the court's satisfaction it was factually established that Swami Shantinand could not comprehend sanskrit. > The only thing > both courts DECIDED was to dismiss the lawsuit > as being improper under the law that was > used to justify the lawsuit in the first place: > > http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1974/153.html > [...] > The trial Court, after reading the allegations > in the plaint and after looking into the entire > evidence in the case, came to the conclusion > that the suit was primarily one for declaration > [1] that Krishnabodhashram was duly installed > as the Shankaracharya of the Math on June > 25, 1953 and > [2] that respondent No. 1 had no right to be nominated as > the Head of the Math by > Brahmanand as he did not possess the > requisite qualification and > [3] that his possession of the trust property > was only in the capacity, of a trustee de son > tort, > and so he must be removed from the headship of the Math. > The High Court saw no reason to differ from that finding > [...] > We think that the High Court was right in dismissing > the suit on the ground that it did not > fall within S. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. > We, therefore, dismiss the appeal but, in the > circumstances, without any order .is to costs. V.P.S. > Appeal dismissed. So, Sir LawsonJi.., i must politely inquire as to what this to do with the nearly 30 years of lies perpetrated by Swami Shantinand? > 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/
