Comment below:

**

--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
**snip** 
> 
> Shatananda was declared "unqualified" because he was a cook,
basically. The fact that he 
> was Gurudev's oldest disciple didn't matter to the scholars.
> 
**snip to end**

Shantanand was initated into sannyas by Guru Dev in 1951; he had been
with another guru, Swami Purnanand Tirth Ji Maharaj (Shri UDhiya Baba
Ji Maharaj) in Vrindaban prior to that, according to research done by
Paul Mason (and posted on his site).

Apparently (and not surprisingly), after Guru Dev was installed as
Shankaracharya, he attracted and accepted a lot of new disciples. 
Some, like Maharishi, seemed particularly adept in their practice and
rose quickly in Guru Dev's favor.  Perhaps that was Shantanand's
story, too; and if so, would help explain some of the older
disciples', like Karpatri Swami and others, discomfort with the
favoritism shown Shantanand (and some of the other new chelas) and his
quick ascent in what was had become the Shankaracharya's Organization
(the "SO").  

That, and whatever other issues they may have had with the selection,
legitimate or not.  The other successor to Guru Dev's position, Swami
Krishnabhodashram (who in turn nominated Swami Swaroopanand to succeed
him), was also on the short list of successors found after Guru Dev's
mahasamadhi.  Krishnabhodashram's nomination was advanced by Karpatri
Swami, who had previously been the person to push Guru Dev's
candidacy.  Karpatri Swami used the list with both Shantanand's and
Krishnabhodahram's name on it as one basis for his endorsement of
Krishnabhodashram's candidacy, even though he questioned the
legitimacy of the list itself, arguing that the order of names on the
list had been reversed, (Shantanand's name should have been last
rather than first on the list, and Krishnabhodashram's name first). 

It's probably not too different than what many of us "old-timers" feel
about the direction of the movement we used to be a part of.  The TMO
does not, in my mind at least, represent the "movement" that I worked
for and remain dedicated to even today.  Maharishi seems to have made
all sorts of decisions that I can neither fathom nor explain.  His
organizations hold little interest to me other than curiousity to
watch their (to me) peculiar evolution.  

Reply via email to