Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
Another one: Many mistakes in the entry below. no time now but for starters, I DID interview Vishnudevananda in depth and had a research assistant interview Shantananda. more later, Dana Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Friday, July 1, 2005 at 11:40 AM wrote: More grist for the mill: -- Forwarded Message From: sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 15:33:04 - To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Unc. I appreciate the clarification... I'm not on your shit list now, by any chance, am I? Snicker... Never have been, man. Really. Bull. Why bring it up at all if you didn't have some need to take potshots? Certainly, if you felt a need to point out my failings, you could have either named me directly, or taken it to email. Instead, you refer to an anonymous third person who posted stuff. And the story is worth repeating. People keep claiming erroneous and specious counters to the story (like Chandola was obviously a Maharishi-ite so Swami Shantananda was pandering to him, or that Swami Shantananada owed Maharishi so, in a private conversation with someone off-the-street who didn't know MMY from Adam (hence the question), he felt the need to build him up as much as he possibly could... I merely point out their (and your) failings in your attempts to counter the story. I've just been trying to point out that you've essentially trotted out the exact same story maybe a dozen times here so far, with never any variation, and then 1) been seemingly offended that people don't immediately just say, Oh, I see now...how could I possibly have been so deluded as to doubt Maharishi, and 2) when this doesn't happen, you just keep retelling the story as if, if you repeat it often enough, they *will* say this. As several have pointed out, *no* anecdotal story about Maharishi is going to change *anyone's* mind here. Folks here, as far as I can tell, have been around the block a few times, and pretty much know what they think about things. You're *not* going to change their minds. And you're *certainly* not going to do it by repeating the same story you've now told hundreds of times (between here and a.m.t.), as if it were some kind of magic mantra that, at one point, is going to cure everyone of their doubts. People have a right to doubt MMY on many things, but they appear to illogically accept the counter to my story simply because it agrees with their biases, even though the counter is anonymous. Note that Dana Sawyer never interviewed Swami Shantananda, Swami Vishnudevananada (both disciples of Gurudev mentioned in his will) OR Swami Vasudevananda, even though he mentions he had an opportunity to interview the last, but decided not to because he didn't care to interview such a worthless person (or words to that effect). That shows bias on Sawyer's part, right there. I've told you before, I *like* you, man. But it's like you have a personal attachment to this story. Of course I do. It *means* something to you, and you keep telling it and retelling it as if it should *mean* exactly the same thing to everyone in the world. It doesn't. It never will. It only doesn't mean something to those who have already made up their mind, based on 3rd-hand interviews with people who weren't there, or were never disciples of Gurudev, or who became disciples of other people before they were interviewed (e.g. Swami Swaroopananda, who was following a different guru when he was picked, but who, interestingly enough, doesn't say much about his current guru, but says a lot about the guy he left in favor of his current guru). I suspect people here *get* it that you like Maharishi and have a great deal of gratitude for all that TM has done for you. Well, duh...so do *most* of the people here. They feel that gratitude *simultaneously* to feeling doubts about him or confusion about some of the silly-ass things he's done and continues to do. And as far as I can tell, none of these people is trying to convert you to their way of thinking. On the other hand, by harping on this anecdotal story, over and over and over and over and over and over and... well, you get the picture, it very much seems that you're trying to convert *them*. Nobody like a proselytute, man, no matter what they're proselytizing. Get it yet? Since I'm a one-trick pony, why not move on? Unc on 6/30/05 3:43 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL. Talk about making sure that you get the response you're looking for. Tell him that Anoop Chandola is a guy who learned to meditate from Swami Shantananda during the period when MMY was with the Beatles, because his
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
Dana's response: Rick, only time for a moment of response to this guy's nonsense below. He isn't offering any compelling argument in support of Vasudevananda's claim other than he said, she said. A comment from Shantananda, whether it was made or not, is only one comment in a sea of comments by direct disciples of Brahmananda. This fellow finds his source compelling simply because he wants it to be true, not because when he compares it to the large number of comments and other evidence extant he arrives at a compelling position. my advice, if he shows no real interest in the circumstances of the case is to simply let him be, Dana p.s. if he contacts my friend at Advaita Vedanta with a specific question about the lineage, he'll quickly discover that his source DOES disagree. Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 4:59 PM wrote: The guy's response: LOL. Talk about making sure that you get the response you're looking for. Tell him that Anoop Chandola is a guy who learned to meditate from Swami Shantananda during the period when MMY was with the Beatles, because his family had religious clout in Northern India (who chose to meet with Swami Shantananda when given the choice of which of the two Shankaracharyas he wanted to meet), who asked Swami Shantananda if the Maharishi who was with the Beatles was legitimate or not. Swami Shantananda's response was to laugh and say Let me put it to you this way: he would have been my first choice as my sucessor but they would allow it due to the caste laws. Any and all discussion since then about whose credentials were important is because YOU (Rick Archer) and company don't think that a conversation with Swami Shantananda 30-40 years ago has any bearing on whether or not MMY is legitimately involved with the Shankaracharya tradition. YOu were citing Dana Sawyer and I was citing Anoop Chandola's personal conversation with Swami Shantananda Saraswati about MMY (and,by extension, Chandola's family tradition about the whole thing, from the perspective of people who were involved in the selection process of Gurudev, reading between thelines about what Chandola has said). BTW, Chandola agrees with the description of the politics of the Shankaracharya sucession found on the Advaita Vedanta Homepage. The discussion wasn't about the current Shankaracharya's legal/political/religious standing, but about what the [at that time] legally recognized Shankaracharya said about MMY during that time. YOU were the one saying that Swami Shantananda's comments were of no interest because Dana Sawyer says so. I'd like to hear what Dana Sawyer says when you quote all this (plus whatever face-saving commentary you add, of course). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry I can't reply to an original post in this thread, but I've deleted it, so I'll start a new one: From Dana Sawyer Hey Rick! Let me get at this a bit at a time. Some guy is questioning your authority on the issue, siding with some guy named Anoop Chandola who favors MMY's side, and saying he's more authoritative that you because he's published a lot. Can you respond to his question below and breifly state why you're qualified to comment on the issue? His question below is simply what has Dana Sawyer published? Before I answer that question, let me first point out that lists of publications (especially publications dealing with linguistics and music) do not constitute rational arguments in support of a position. This fellow says that Anoop Chandola is the ultimate authority on the Jyoitirmath issue but stating it does not make it so. What is the grounds of his authority and what are the specifics of his argument? What research did he perform? What peer reviews has his work undergone? In academia today, the two leading authorities on Shankaracarya issues are William Chenkner and Vidyasankar Sundareshan (a scholar who has published widely and also maintains the Advaita Vedanta Homepage). Their work has been scrutinized by their peers and they argue for viable positions. I have never heard of Anoop Chandola, and that says a lot because I have been researching Dandis and Shankaracaryas for more than seventeen years. So, if my detractor will be so kind as to present the substance of his position, I will be glad to scrutinize his arguments, share them with my colleagues, and give my appraisal. OK, now to answer the question: a full list of my publications is not pertinent to the Jyotirmath dispute. What is pertinent is that I am the current leading academic authority on the Dandi samnyasins and have published several academic papers on them. In my chapter, The Monastic Structure of Banarsi Dandi Sadhus, in Hertel and Humes, eds., Living Banaras: Hindu Religion in Cultural Context (SUNY Press, 1994) I made mention of the Jyotirmath dispute, and in my forthcoming book from Pilgrim Book Trust, The
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
on 7/9/05 5:53 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another one: Many mistakes in the entry below. no time now but for starters, I DID interview Vishnudevananda in depth and had a research assistant interview Shantananda. more later, Dana Thanks for the clarification. However, did you or your assistant interview Swami Shantandanda about MMY, which is the only thing that would matter concerning the origins of this thread... I haven't interviewed anybody. Dana is not my assistant, but he has interview every living yogi and swami of significance in northern India, including many thoroughly familiar with this Shankaracharya controversy. I have no idea how credible anything Swami Shantananda said might be. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
on 7/2/05 2:35 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I haven't really been following all these pissing contest posts, and I've never been on AMT. I just want to say that aside from posts at which you snipe at one another, everything I've read by Vaj, Unc, and Judy is very intelligent. If I were you I'd let bygones be bygones on FFL and just contribute the high quality posts of which you are capable. Blessed are the peacemakers. Blessed are the cheesemakers? Ahh, what's so special about cheesemakers? Well, obviously this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products. Right. Such as Jesus Cheeses, Inc. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
on 7/2/05 12:44 PM, lurkernomore20002000 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ahh, what's so special about cheesemakers? Well, obviously this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products. Right. Such as Jesus Cheeses, Inc. I think it's a great concept. Of course no major would take it on. You could have it to yourself. I don't have the business acumen to raise the funding, manufacture, and market the product. I also have an idea for a line of gross-out foods based on common acronyms - MSG = Mildewed Skunk Ganglia, FDR = Fricasseed Dinosaur Rectums, etc. They would appeal to the Fear Factor crowd. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
On Jun 30, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Peter Sutphen wrote: Boy, has this turned into a massive pissing contest! Well it has raged on AMT for a while as well. I think everybody that cares needs to come to their own conclusion in this matter and recognize that any legitimate authority in one side's eyes will not be legitimate in the other side's eye. There are some answers to be found. It's an interesting history. I'm afraid though as one investigates the institution of the Shankaracharya one finds that much of what the movement tried to get people to believe, was more fantasy than fact--or at best actually buying influence--not unlike the special interests group in this country with their lobbyists buying influence and opinion in the millionaires club called congress. A matter of emotionally invested position. It is, but one created through false indoctrination of the TMO. Some are more invested in their indoctrination than others. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
On Jul 1, 2005, at 10:55 AM, sparaig wrote: MY position comes from Anoop Chandola's conversation with his meditation teacher, Swami Shantananda Saraswati, closest disciple of Swami Brahamanda Saraswati, AKA Gurudev on this forum. No account denies that Swami Shantananda Saraswati was Gurudev's closest disciple --most people here, however, prefer to think that S. Shantananda wasn't worthy of his position, and that another Swami, who was never Gurudev's disciple, was (that's who the other Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath was at the time Chandola learned meditation: someone picked by committee who wasn't even a student of Gurudev --by the committee's view NOT ONE of Gurudev's students was worthy). You seem to not be aware of a number of things 1) the Shankaracharya is not necessarily the one who chooses his successor and 2) you seem to assume the SBS's will was really his will. It had been disputed. No account denies that Swami Shantananda Saraswati was Gurudev's closest disciple No account? Hmmm. --most people here, however, prefer to think that S. Shantananda wasn't worthy of his position, and that another Swami, who was never Gurudev's disciple, was (that's who the other Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath was at the time Chandola learned meditation: someone picked by committee who wasn't even a student of Gurudev --by the committee's view NOT ONE of Gurudev's students was worthy). So you consider closeness an important criteria for succession. That's interesting. The following is what Dana Sawyer thinks: (snip) He hasn't finished responding, actually he just started with a brief intro. Let's not jump to conclusions here (again). IMO Swami Karpatri, the Shankaracharya maker, was the most qualified successor--but that is just my personal opinion based on what I know at a point removed considerably in time from the original events. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:09 PM, anonymousff wrote: I like your posts, and they often provide insight. However, on this point, your implied casting of Vaj as incorrect -- not telling the truth -- makes me ponder you may certainly have some quite different standard for truth than most. And thus your rants about Unc not telling the truth have begun to pale in my mind. I'm sorry to say this type of response I have found to be fairly common anon--and it is typically supported by the other playground bullies on AMT. Now it's happening here sigh. It's typically performed as a type of poisoning the well storm-trooping kinda tactic. It befuddles me as to why adults would want to behave this way, but there you have it... 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:16 PM, sparaig wrote: You seem to not be aware of a number of things 1) the Shankaracharya is not necessarily the one who chooses his successor So the successor is generally chosen over the wishes of the Shankaracharya? That's not what I said. Please read it again :-). The will specified several names, including Swami Shantananda's. Unless the will was ruled invalid, the will was Swami Brahmananda's wish. The response referred to succession, not the will. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:02 PM, sparaig wrote: Who is a playground bully on AMT and who is a playground bully here? I think you're smart enough to figure that out yourself in regards to AMT as you spend a lot of time there. As far as here goes, it's a different place so I don't know that the comparison is valid. (Really I probably won't be answering any more of these silly attention grabbing posts either--those games a better played elsewhere IMO). 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
on 7/1/05 2:36 PM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 1, 2005, at 1:02 PM, sparaig wrote: Who is a playground bully on AMT and who is a playground bully here? I think you're smart enough to figure that out yourself in regards to AMT as you spend a lot of time there. As far as here goes, it's a different place so I don't know that the comparison is valid. (Really I probably won't be answering any more of these silly attention grabbing posts either--those games a better played elsewhere IMO). I haven't really been following all these pissing contest posts, and I've never been on AMT. I just want to say that aside from posts at which you snipe at one another, everything I've read by Vaj, Unc, and Judy is very intelligent. If I were you I'd let bygones be bygones on FFL and just contribute the high quality posts of which you are capable. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
on 6/30/05 3:43 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to hear what Dana Sawyer says when you quote all this (plus whatever face-saving commentary you add, of course). I won't add any, since I don't have a vested interest in this debate and know little about it. I'll just forward your comments to Dana and post his response, which will probably come in a day or two. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
Boy, has this turned into a massive pissing contest! I think everybody that cares needs to come to their own conclusion in this matter and recognize that any legitimate authority in one side's eyes will not be legitimate in the other side's eye. A matter of emotionally invested position. And by the way, Sparaig, you are embarassing yourself by not knowing who Dana Sawyer is. In the world of academia, within his field, he is well-published and well-known. You also have to get up real early in the morning to argue with him. He's got a great, sharp mind and can back-up any position he takes. In short, I think you're about to get blown out of the water! Good luck! --- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL. Talk about making sure that you get the response you're looking for. Tell him that Anoop Chandola is a guy who learned to meditate from Swami Shantananda during the period when MMY was with the Beatles, because his family had religious clout in Northern India (who chose to meet with Swami Shantananda when given the choice of which of the two Shankaracharyas he wanted to meet), who asked Swami Shantananda if the Maharishi who was with the Beatles was legitimate or not. Swami Shantananda's response was to laugh and say Let me put it to you this way: he would have been my first choice as my sucessor but they would allow it due to the caste laws. Any and all discussion since then about whose credentials were important is because YOU (Rick Archer) and company don't think that a conversation with Swami Shantananda 30-40 years ago has any bearing on whether or not MMY is legitimately involved with the Shankaracharya tradition. YOu were citing Dana Sawyer and I was citing Anoop Chandola's personal conversation with Swami Shantananda Saraswati about MMY (and,by extension, Chandola's family tradition about the whole thing, from the perspective of people who were involved in the selection process of Gurudev, reading between thelines about what Chandola has said). BTW, Chandola agrees with the description of the politics of the Shankaracharya sucession found on the Advaita Vedanta Homepage. The discussion wasn't about the current Shankaracharya's legal/political/religious standing, but about what the [at that time] legally recognized Shankaracharya said about MMY during that time. YOU were the one saying that Swami Shantananda's comments were of no interest because Dana Sawyer says so. I'd like to hear what Dana Sawyer says when you quote all this (plus whatever face-saving commentary you add, of course). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry I can't reply to an original post in this thread, but I've deleted it, so I'll start a new one: From Dana Sawyer Hey Rick! Let me get at this a bit at a time. Some guy is questioning your authority on the issue, siding with some guy named Anoop Chandola who favors MMY's side, and saying he's more authoritative that you because he's published a lot. Can you respond to his question below and breifly state why you're qualified to comment on the issue? His question below is simply what has Dana Sawyer published? Before I answer that question, let me first point out that lists of publications (especially publications dealing with linguistics and music) do not constitute rational arguments in support of a position. This fellow says that Anoop Chandola is the ultimate authority on the Jyoitirmath issue but stating it does not make it so. What is the grounds of his authority and what are the specifics of his argument? What research did he perform? What peer reviews has his work undergone? In academia today, the two leading authorities on Shankaracarya issues are William Chenkner and Vidyasankar Sundareshan (a scholar who has published widely and also maintains the Advaita Vedanta Homepage). Their work has been scrutinized by their peers and they argue for viable positions. I have never heard of Anoop Chandola, and that says a lot because I have been researching Dandis and Shankaracaryas for more than seventeen years. So, if my detractor will be so kind as to present the substance of his position, I will be glad to scrutinize his arguments, share them with my colleagues, and give my appraisal. OK, now to answer the question: a full list of my publications is not pertinent to the Jyotirmath dispute. What is pertinent is that I am the current leading academic authority on the Dandi samnyasins and have published several academic papers on them. In my chapter, The Monastic Structure of Banarsi Dandi Sadhus, in Hertel and Humes, eds., Living Banaras: Hindu Religion in Cultural Context (SUNY Press, 1994) I made mention of the Jyotirmath dispute, and in my forthcoming book from Pilgrim
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
on 6/19/05 7:26 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words--it's a lot deeper that simple meditation this path, and yogic siddhis will block the path. So do you think MMY knew this and wanted to block people's CC, or disagreed with it and felt the sidhis would culture CC? 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
On Jun 19, 2005, at 12:03 PM, Rick Archer wrote: on 6/19/05 7:26 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words--it's a lot deeper that simple meditation this path, and yogic siddhis will block the path. So do you think MMY knew this and wanted to block people's CC, or disagreed with it and felt the sidhis would culture CC? No, I seriously doubt that Rick. What was needed was something that would titillate and sell. You've heard the discussions here where those privy to the creation the TMSP said so. M. even states clearly in an early lecture that the means to CC was nirvakalpa samadhi. When we hear of people going into samadhi for hours or days at a time and then THAT becoming permanent then it will become believable. The truth of the matter is, such depth in practice takes great skill and personal attention from a teacher. That level of personal attention simply isn't generally available in mass-meditation movements. And also progressing rapidly for some people, to reveal enlightenment in one lifetime can be very dangerous. You think there were lawsuits in the past? Try giving truly skillful methods en masse to untested groups of people. Then you'd see some real lawsuits as groups of unprepared people went utterly insane. Not that that hasn't happened already... The samkhya teaching which forms a kind of preface to the Patanjali tradition is clear--you must collect and maintain certain virtues and then the attainment siddhis (not the yogic siddhis) are naturally accomplished. Eventually you will gain the capacity for seedless meditation which will dissolve the kleshas and the samskaras. Then real turiyatita/CC can become apparent. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
on 6/19/05 11:34 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 19, 2005, at 12:03 PM, Rick Archer wrote: on 6/19/05 7:26 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words--it's a lot deeper that simple meditation this path, and yogic siddhis will block the path. So do you think MMY knew this and wanted to block people's CC, or disagreed with it and felt the sidhis would culture CC? No, I seriously doubt that Rick. What was needed was something that would titillate and sell. You've heard the discussions here where those privy to the creation the TMSP said so. M. even states clearly in an early lecture that the means to CC was nirvakalpa samadhi. When we hear of people going into samadhi for hours or days at a time and then THAT becoming permanent then it will become believable. I once heard a story, possibly from someone who witnessed the incident (but I'm not sure) that Maharishi and a few of his disciples were visiting another guru and a few of his. The other guru told one of his disciples to go into samadhi. After he had done so, the guru instructed his disciples to try to disturb him. They made noise, pushed him around, etc., but he was oblivious. The other guru asked M, can any of your disciples do that? M replied, Not yet. The samkhya teaching which forms a kind of preface to the Patanjali tradition is clear--you must collect and maintain certain virtues and then the attainment siddhis (not the yogic siddhis) are naturally accomplished. Eventually you will gain the capacity for seedless meditation which will dissolve the kleshas and the samskaras. Then real turiyatita/CC can become apparent. I like the idea that moral development must precede higher spiritual attainments. Otherwise those attainments can be misused. I wonder whether this is a recommendation or a requirement. We see so many examples of people who apparently have attained enlightenment doing screwy stuff (literally). Are they really enlightened, having skipped the requisite moral development (i.e., moral development is merely a recommendation) or self-deluded, misinterpreting a higher state as the ultimate one (i.e., moral development is a requirement)? Or is moral development too subjective a value to make such a determination? 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
On Jun 19, 2005, at 1:05 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I like the idea that moral development must precede higher spiritual attainments. Otherwise those attainments can be misused. I wonder whether this is a recommendation or a requirement. We see so many examples of people who apparently have attained enlightenment doing screwy stuff (literally). Are they really enlightened, having skipped the requisite moral development (i.e., moral development is merely a recommendation) or self-deluded, misinterpreting a higher state as the ultimate one (i.e., moral development is a requirement)? Or is moral development too subjective a value to make such a determination? Well spontaneous virtue is one of the qualities of the primordial state. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
On Jun 19, 2005, at 1:22 PM, Rick Archer wrote: I once heard a story, possibly from someone who witnessed the incident (but I'm not sure) that Maharishi and a few of his disciples were visiting another guru and a few of his. The other guru told one of his disciples to go into samadhi. After he had done so, the guru instructed his disciples to try to disturb him. They made noise, pushed him around, etc., but he was oblivious. The other guru asked M, can any of your disciples do that? M replied, Not yet. I want to add that there are numerous stories of Ammachi, in her younger days, going into samadhi like this. Even breath would stop and no pulse would be detected for hours. People thought she had died. In light of this, and your comments, I wonder again about the possible distinction between the enlightenment attained by this type of person and that attained by folks around Fairfield. The latter insist that theirs is essentially the same, but that a saint such as Amma just has a different role to play, and thus manifests powerful darshan, siddhis, extraordinary energy, etc. Different job description. Kind of like light bulbs of different wattage all plugged into the same power source. All experience the same electricity subjectively, but some are designed to emanate brighter light. Ammachi fits the classic description given in the Upanishads. The question I would ask is can the enlightened you have met go into samadhi for extended periods AT ALL? I have asked at least one of them a few questions--without telling them WHY I was asking them--and these seem to indicate that this level of attainment in simply not there. I've also found it puzzling that when I have mentioned some obscure element of attainment, although there was initially no recognition--a couple of weeks later several were making such claims. While it's impossible to say for sure, I have to consider there may be some involvement of the ego in these processes. But then again, my perception could be wrong. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
--- sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 6/19/05 7:26 AM, Vaj at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words--it's a lot deeper that simple meditation this path, and yogic siddhis will block the path. So do you think MMY knew this and wanted to block people's CC, or disagreed with it and felt the sidhis would culture CC? On the inward stroke, these are obstacles to samadhi; On the outward stroke, they are perfections. My own belief is that full attainment of CC may be slowed down by practice of the Siddhis, but that they also culture Unity... People have lots of thoughts 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
on 6/18/05 12:31 AM, akasha_108 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dana Sawyer travels to India almost yearly, and interviews 100s of swamis, teachers, shakaracharas regularly. Sorry I haven't weighed in on this discussion. I'm now 462 posts behind. I feel like that guy in Master and Commander who fell overboard and watched helplessly as the ship sailed away. If there are some specific questions you'd like me to forward to Dana, post them here, but also email me directly, otherwise I might miss the post. (Although his comments on this issue have been posted here before, if anyone can find them.) He just returned from another extended stay in India, although I doubt that visit shed any new light on this issue, which is far too complex for my feeble brain. I always recollect Maharishi saying that Guru Dev didn't even want to be Shankaracharya. Seems to me like an important qualification for the job. I wonder about these guys who fight over it. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
on 6/18/05 12:47 AM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I am missing relevant info on Chandol, plese provide it. Done. Discovering Brides by Anoop Chandola That settles it. He's the ultimate authority on the Shankaracharya controversy. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Jyotirmath Shankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
on 6/18/05 1:19 AM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 6/18/05 12:47 AM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I am missing relevant info on Chandol, plese provide it. Done. Discovering Brides by Anoop Chandola That settles it. He's the ultimate authority on the Shankaracharya controversy. Plus 8 scholarly books on linguistics and music. What do linguistics and music have to do with the Shankaracharya controversy? What has Dana Sawyer published? I just emailed your question to him and will post his response. 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/
