There's this yogi thing I've read and heard about a number of times that even if the yogi is celibate a poor woman can approach them to father a child. Apparently part of that covenant is the woman can say nothing but in return she gets a bright child who she hopes will be able to take care of her later in life.
Mike Dixon wrote: > I did think about it... often and that was my justification for not believing > it > for so long. But, M was never married and that doesn't mean he couldn't have > been sowing some *vedic oates* as he did with *out caste*schicksa women, > allegedly, on courses. Not sure if there is a vedic injunction about > Shankaracharyas being *legitimate*, birth-wise. At the time of his birth, M > would have had enough money to take care of the mother and her child for > life, > along with his Guru who replaced Shantinanda. If the child took his mother's > last name, would he not be considered a Brahmin?M has never had a problem > taking > care of his own, be it family or Shankaracharyas. > > > > ________________________________ > From: Vaj <vajradh...@earthlink.net> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 11:59:00 AM > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divindra and Sattyanand > > > > > On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Mike Dixon wrote: > > > >> I hate to say this, but when I was in India, at Jyotir Math, the friend I >> was >> with, swore to me the monk baby sitting the place, told him that the current >> Shankaracharya, forget his name, was M's son! At the time, I laughed it off >> as a >> missunderstanding, but in light of what I've read on FFL, I have to wonder >> if >> it's not true. He, the current Shank, does resemble a younger M. What a Soap >> Opera that would make! >> > > > Think about it Mike: there's a huge caste problem with that theory. Indians > are > extremely caste-conscious. The second you utter your surname, you're > "pegged". > The Shankaracharya Order is extremely Brahmin-centric. No other castes need > apply. No other castes would be teaching in that tradition, let alone > standing > as one of it's line-holders. > > > > >
