On Jul 13, 2010, at 3:33 PM, 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.
It's definitely a colorful idea, but it seems to me to be a pretty patriarchal system. I always thought the "Maharishi bought himself a Shankaracharya" was at least somewhat tenable; heck you can't even get a landline in India without paying off someone, monthly. As colorful as the idea sounds I seriously doubt he could have fathered a Shankaracharya and have gotten away with it. Are you sure he didn't mean Mahesh was his spiritual father? Now that would be a little more believable. I think it's also helpful to realize, Mahesh was and is not held in the same high esteem in India that he was in the west. (Before someone states they recently flew to India and know darn well hordes of people fawn over Ole M's personage, yes I know, he has some followers there.)
