On Jul 1, 2005, at 11:46 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
So the successor is generally chosen over the wishes of the Shankaracharya?
That's not what I said. Please read it again :-).
and 2) you seem to
assume the SBS's will was really his will. It had been disputed.
By whom? Did they take it to court? What was the result?
I believe it was one of the Akharas.
--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.
Barring any other criteria mentioned, what would YOU go on?
The traditional criteria, modified for the current political nature of the position.
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.
Perhaps he was, but was he ever offered the position? He's apparently not mentioned in
the will, nor in the article on the succession endorsed by Dana Sawyer. Was he a stuent of
Gurudev's? Did the committee consider him in 1953 or later? How do you know?
He was originally offered it BEFORE Sw. Brahmananda Saraswati originally since he was best suited.
"Also, in 1953, Swami Hariharananda Saraswati (popularly known as Karapatri Swami), another disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati, was seen as the more deserving candidate to become the Sankaracharya, but he didn't want the title. In fact, as the head of the Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha, it is said that Hariharananda had been the first choice for the Sankaracharya post in 1941, but he had declined and proposed his guru's name (Brahmananda) instead. It is also said that it was Hariharananda who convinced his guru to accept the position. Hariharananda Saraswati passed away recently, and avoided the Sankaracharya title for himself, but the opinion of his followers is reflected in the title they have given him - Abhinava Sankara." --The Jyotirmath Sankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
I've also heard the above from independent sources.
