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 Dandi Sadhus: History, Philosophy, and Practice, I >make >> greater mention of it. However, my work in general focuses more on >the >> Dandis than the specific dispute. Having said that, my field >research has >> often brought me in direct contact with the principle protagonists >of the >> dispute and I have carefully researched the history of the court >cases >> related to it. I am, to my knowledge, the only person who has >copies of >> the court transcripts of the various cases and I have shared my >analysis >> of these with scholars whose research is centered more on the >dispute. >> For instance, if you view the long discription of the Jyotirmath >dispute >> on the "Advaita Vedanta Homepage," you will see that he is taking my >> research into account. And, BTW, I believe this is the clearest >> description of what is going on - it actually helps provide insight >into >> why the Shankaracaryas of the other Amnaya vidyapiths do not side >with MMY >> and Vasudevananda. >> >> So, anyway, please forward the arguments to me and I'll check them >out. >> >> much love, >> >> Dana >> > >> > >> >--- 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 has Dana >Sawyer >> >published? 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 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 Dandi Sadhus: History, Philosophy, and Practice, I > make >> greater mention of it. However, my work in general focuses more on > the >> Dandis than the specific dispute. Having said that, my field > research has >> often brought me in direct contact with the principle protagonists > of the >> dispute and I have carefully researched the history of the court > cases >> related to it. I am, to my knowledge, the only person who has > copies of >> the court transcripts of the various cases and I have shared my > analysis >> of these with scholars whose research is centered more on the > dispute. >> For instance, if you view the long discription of the Jyotirmath > dispute >> on the "Advaita Vedanta Homepage," you will see that he is taking my >> research into account. And, BTW, I believe this is the clearest >> description of what is going on - it actually helps provide insight > into >> why the Shankaracaryas of the other Amnaya vidyapiths do not side > with MMY >> and Vasudevananda. >> >> So, anyway, please forward the arguments to me and I'll check them > out. >> >> much love, >> >> Dana >>> >>> >>> --- 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 has Dana > Sawyer >>> published? > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- Rick Archer SearchSummit 1108 South B Street Fairfield, IA 52556 Phone: 641-472-9336 Fax: 815-572-5842 http://searchsummit.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/
