Discussion:
Lying TM-exers and the Lies they Tell
(too old to reply)
willytex
2004-02-26 21:52:55 UTC
Permalink
From: ColdBluICE (***@volcanomail.com)
Subject: Re: Question for expert Doughney.
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2004-02-24 19:07:40 PST
What lying? over 50 years ago Lil MishMashi Mahesh
conspired with the ashram cook to murder his "master"
to get at the materail wealth of the ashram, and usurp
his master's authority by claiming his master's title
for himself...
Lil MishMashi Mahesh (the Addled Old Psychopath) is
a lying, thieving scum-sucking dog that has human
feces for a heart.
willytex
2004-02-27 17:59:49 UTC
Permalink
From: John Manning
Subject: To BillyG
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-10-22 10:00:24 PST

Here is the beef:

"It is said that Guru Dev was given poison.

Who gave that poison we don't know but we
know that there was poison in his body. When
Guru Dev's body became unwell, then we wanted
him to go to Kashi to rest. But he (Mahesh)
removed him from that trip forcibly and took
him to speak in Calcutta. There he died.

After that, this man spread his net. He went
abroad. First to Singapore. The expatriate
Indians there, thinking that he is the disciple
of Shankaracharya, received him well and got
him a ticket for the United States.

After going to America, he brought the Beatles
back here. It was rumored that he did
inappropriate things with them and that's why
they left him and went away.

He later opened many camps and pretended that
he could teach people to read minds and levitate.

No one, however, succeeded in learning the
things he promised. He himself does not know
or practice yoga. He does not know anything
about those things."

John Manning
Shemp McGurk
2004-02-28 06:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Willytex: you have attributed, seemingly, the following outrageous
quotes to John Manning...is this correct? I can't be sure because of
the way that the quotes are used.

If, indeed, John Manning did in fact say the things below, I would ask
him in the most respectful language possible to kindly and voluntarily
remove himsself from this forum.
Post by willytex
From: John Manning
Subject: To BillyG
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2001-10-22 10:00:24 PST
"It is said that Guru Dev was given poison.
Who gave that poison we don't know but we
know that there was poison in his body. When
Guru Dev's body became unwell, then we wanted
him to go to Kashi to rest. But he (Mahesh)
removed him from that trip forcibly and took
him to speak in Calcutta. There he died.
After that, this man spread his net. He went
abroad. First to Singapore. The expatriate
Indians there, thinking that he is the disciple
of Shankaracharya, received him well and got
him a ticket for the United States.
After going to America, he brought the Beatles
back here. It was rumored that he did
inappropriate things with them and that's why
they left him and went away.
He later opened many camps and pretended that
he could teach people to read minds and levitate.
No one, however, succeeded in learning the
things he promised. He himself does not know
or practice yoga. He does not know anything
about those things."
John Manning
Mike Doughney
2004-02-28 09:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shemp McGurk
Willytex: you have attributed, seemingly, the following outrageous
quotes to John Manning...is this correct? I can't be sure because of
the way that the quotes are used.
All you need to do is pick a phrase from the text and throw it into
the advanced search of Google News and answer your own question.

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=74c0399d.0110220900.fbbbdb4%40posting.google.com
or http://tinyurl.com/2qqvd

In this case, John quoted part 5 of "A Visit to the Shankaracharya" by
Robert Kropinski, which exists at minet.org at
http://minet.org/Documents/shank-5. As you should expect from that
basket case in Austin, the post has been edited to confuse the
attribution.
Post by Shemp McGurk
If, indeed, John Manning did in fact say the things below, I would ask
him in the most respectful language possible to kindly and voluntarily
remove himsself from this forum.
Here we see Shemp graphically displaying another one of those bad
habits that get aimed at critics and dissidents by people who follow
gurus around, by those who just can't deal with someone expressing a
differing opinion.

You are demanding banishment from a public, unmoderated forum;
something that can't possibly be enforced, so you just look completely
silly asking for it. Your outrageous demand (which is what it is,
despite your suggestion that you're doing it in "respectful language"
and making it conditional on, I'm not sure exactly what) is just
another expression of that underlying need for information control. A
need that strongly correlates with involvement in the TM movement's
programs, for whatever reason. One of those weird arrested development
things, that would be so obviously childish if I wasn't regularly
hearing it and similar whining from people past middle age who are
nostalgic for the days when there were no cynics spoiling the party,
or something.

What's even weirder is that the text in question has been up on the
net for ten years now. There's just nothing new or extraordinary about
it, certainly nothing that would justify your response. It's been
argued about for years. Get over it.
Uncle Tantra
2004-02-28 11:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Doughney
Post by Shemp McGurk
Willytex: you have attributed, seemingly, the following outrageous
quotes to John Manning...is this correct? I can't be sure because of
the way that the quotes are used.
All you need to do is pick a phrase from the text and throw it into
the advanced search of Google News and answer your own question.
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=74c0399d.01
10220900.fbbbdb4%40posting.google.com
Post by Mike Doughney
or http://tinyurl.com/2qqvd
In this case, John quoted part 5 of "A Visit to the Shankaracharya" by
Robert Kropinski, which exists at minet.org at
http://minet.org/Documents/shank-5. As you should expect from that
basket case in Austin, the post has been edited to confuse the
attribution.
Right on, Mike. It's about time someone
called Mr. All Dhoti No Spirit on his tricks!
I guess this is what passes for honesty
in Texas. :-)
Post by Mike Doughney
Post by Shemp McGurk
If, indeed, John Manning did in fact say the things below, I would ask
him in the most respectful language possible to kindly and voluntarily
remove himsself from this forum.
Here we see Shemp graphically displaying another one of those bad
habits that get aimed at critics and dissidents by people who follow
gurus around, by those who just can't deal with someone expressing a
differing opinion.
You are demanding banishment from a public, unmoderated forum;
something that can't possibly be enforced, so you just look completely
silly asking for it.
And, I might add, you look like the fascist
fool who posted the original lie. Sorta like
saying, "If you don't post the sort of things
we want to hear, you have no right to be on
this newsgroup."
Post by Mike Doughney
Your outrageous demand (which is what it is,
despite your suggestion that you're doing it in "respectful language"
and making it conditional on, I'm not sure exactly what) is just
another expression of that underlying need for information control. A
need that strongly correlates with involvement in the TM movement's
programs, for whatever reason.
One of those weird arrested development
things, that would be so obviously childish if I wasn't regularly
hearing it and similar whining from people past middle age who are
nostalgic for the days when there were no cynics spoiling the party,
or something.
What's even weirder is that the text in question has been up on the
net for ten years now. There's just nothing new or extraordinary about
it, certainly nothing that would justify your response. It's been
argued about for years. Get over it.
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

Willy's a compulsive liar with some kind of
"grudge lust" thang for John and others
here. He's willing to do almost anything
he can think of to drive them away. I can't
believe that anyone takes *anything* he
says seriously, but obviously some idiots
still do. Are you sure you don't have
ancestors from Texas, Shemp? :-)

Unc
Shemp McGurk
2004-02-28 18:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Doughney
Post by Mike Doughney
Post by Shemp McGurk
Willytex: you have attributed, seemingly, the following outrageous
quotes to John Manning...is this correct? I can't be sure because of
the way that the quotes are used.
All you need to do is pick a phrase from the text and throw it into
the advanced search of Google News and answer your own question.
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=74c0399d.01
10220900.fbbbdb4%40posting.google.com
Post by Mike Doughney
or http://tinyurl.com/2qqvd
In this case, John quoted part 5 of "A Visit to the Shankaracharya" by
Robert Kropinski, which exists at minet.org at
http://minet.org/Documents/shank-5. As you should expect from that
basket case in Austin, the post has been edited to confuse the
attribution.
Right on, Mike. It's about time someone
called Mr. All Dhoti No Spirit on his tricks!
I guess this is what passes for honesty
in Texas. :-)
Post by Mike Doughney
Post by Shemp McGurk
If, indeed, John Manning did in fact say the things below, I would ask
him in the most respectful language possible to kindly and voluntarily
remove himsself from this forum.
Here we see Shemp graphically displaying another one of those bad
habits that get aimed at critics and dissidents by people who follow
gurus around, by those who just can't deal with someone expressing a
differing opinion.
You are demanding banishment from a public, unmoderated forum;
something that can't possibly be enforced, so you just look completely
silly asking for it.
And, I might add, you look like the fascist
fool who posted the original lie. Sorta like
saying, "If you don't post the sort of things
we want to hear, you have no right to be on
this newsgroup."
Interesting that you would read such a thing into my comments.

But I could say the same thing to you: it wasn't too long ago that
you suggested to Judy that she refrain from posting on this newsgroup.
Your reasons were for the benefit of Judy's mental health.

Those were the same reasons I made the same REQUEST to John.

I don't recall accusing YOU of fascism...
Post by Mike Doughney
Post by Mike Doughney
Your outrageous demand (which is what it is,
despite your suggestion that you're doing it in "respectful language"
and making it conditional on, I'm not sure exactly what) is just
another expression of that underlying need for information control. A
need that strongly correlates with involvement in the TM movement's
programs, for whatever reason.
One of those weird arrested development
things, that would be so obviously childish if I wasn't regularly
hearing it and similar whining from people past middle age who are
nostalgic for the days when there were no cynics spoiling the party,
or something.
What's even weirder is that the text in question has been up on the
net for ten years now. There's just nothing new or extraordinary about
it, certainly nothing that would justify your response. It's been
argued about for years. Get over it.
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.
Willy's a compulsive liar with some kind of
"grudge lust" thang for John and others
here. He's willing to do almost anything
he can think of to drive them away. I can't
believe that anyone takes *anything* he
says seriously, but obviously some idiots
still do. Are you sure you don't have
ancestors from Texas, Shemp? :-)
Unc
Uncle Tantra
2004-02-28 18:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shemp McGurk
Post by Uncle Tantra
And, I might add, you look like the fascist
fool who posted the original lie. Sorta like
saying, "If you don't post the sort of things
we want to hear, you have no right to be on
this newsgroup."
Interesting that you would read such a thing into my comments.
But I could say the same thing to you: it wasn't too long ago that
you suggested to Judy that she refrain from posting on this newsgroup.
Your reasons were for the benefit of Judy's mental health.
Those were the same reasons I made the same REQUEST to John.
Sorry, but I'm not buying this.

In the case of Judy, she had basically come
to the same conclusion herself. As all have
seen, it was a sound decision she should
have followed through on, because she's
gone 'way over the top psychotic now.
Post by Shemp McGurk
I don't recall accusing YOU of fascism...
I don't recall you mentioning anything about
your suggestion being "for John's health."
I did, when applauding Judy for her decision
to leave the newsgroup to preserve what little
was left of her sanity. In retrospect I shouldn't
have said anything, because she stuck around,
and now it's too late. :-)

Unc
Judy Stein
2004-02-29 00:03:56 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com (Uncle Tantra) wrote in message news:<***@mb-m25.aol.com>...
<snip>
Post by Uncle Tantra
In the case of Judy, she had basically come
to the same conclusion herself. As all have
seen, it was a sound decision she should
have followed through on, because she's
gone 'way over the top psychotic now.
Um, I did follow through on it, and I'm no more psychotic
now than I've ever been.

(insert obligatory wisecrack from Barry and other wannabe
wits here)

As soon as you and Mike and James and Shemp get tired of
lying about me, I'll be gone again.
Uncle Tantra
2004-02-29 11:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Stein
Post by Uncle Tantra
In the case of Judy, she had basically come
to the same conclusion herself. As all have
seen, it was a sound decision she should
have followed through on, because she's
gone 'way over the top psychotic now.
Um, I did follow through on it, and I'm no more psychotic
now than I've ever been.
For the record, since declaring that she
was "leaving the newsgroup," Judy Stein
has made over 220 posts to a.m.t.

I leave it up to those who can count to
determine whether Judy's definition of
"following through" on a promise to "leave
the newsgroup" is sane.
Post by Judy Stein
(insert obligatory wisecrack from Barry and other wannabe
wits here)
Too easy. :-)
Post by Judy Stein
As soon as you and Mike and James and Shemp get tired of
lying about me, I'll be gone again.
Yeah, right. Judy was "gone" back on
November 4, 2003. It's now almost four
months later and she's racked up over
220 posts while being "gone."

Me, I'm willing to bet that four months from
today the total will be over 500 posts
since she "left" on November 4, 2003. Any
takers, or would you prefer to keep your
money? :-)

Unc
Judy Stein
2004-02-29 18:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Judy Stein
Post by Uncle Tantra
In the case of Judy, she had basically come
to the same conclusion herself. As all have
seen, it was a sound decision she should
have followed through on, because she's
gone 'way over the top psychotic now.
Um, I did follow through on it, and I'm no more psychotic
now than I've ever been.
For the record, since declaring that she
was "leaving the newsgroup," Judy Stein
has made over 220 posts to a.m.t.
I leave it up to those who can count to
determine whether Judy's definition of
"following through" on a promise to "leave
the newsgroup" is sane.
I did exactly what I said I was going to. (OK, I slipped
up maybe three times and responded to something that wasn't
assassinating my character, but I got out of those threads
as quickly as I could.)
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Judy Stein
As soon as you and Mike and James and Shemp get tired of
lying about me, I'll be gone again.
Yeah, right. Judy was "gone" back on
November 4, 2003. It's now almost four
months later and she's racked up over
220 posts while being "gone."
I've been "gone" from most of the threads I would otherwise
be participating in. That I've made that many posts is a
function of the fact that you and others can't seem to stop
your character assassination.
Post by Uncle Tantra
Me, I'm willing to bet that four months from
today the total will be over 500 posts
since she "left" on November 4, 2003. Any
takers, or would you prefer to keep your
money? :-)
If you all keep assassinating my character at the same
rate, I guarantee there will be that many posts. If you
all stop right now, I guarantee there won't be any
additional posts beyond those I've already made.
Shemp McGurk
2004-02-29 20:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Shemp McGurk
Post by Uncle Tantra
And, I might add, you look like the fascist
fool who posted the original lie. Sorta like
saying, "If you don't post the sort of things
we want to hear, you have no right to be on
this newsgroup."
Interesting that you would read such a thing into my comments.
But I could say the same thing to you: it wasn't too long ago that
you suggested to Judy that she refrain from posting on this newsgroup.
Your reasons were for the benefit of Judy's mental health.
Those were the same reasons I made the same REQUEST to John.
Sorry, but I'm not buying this.
In the case of Judy, she had basically come
to the same conclusion herself. As all have
seen, it was a sound decision she should
have followed through on, because she's
gone 'way over the top psychotic now.
Post by Shemp McGurk
I don't recall accusing YOU of fascism...
I don't recall you mentioning anything about
your suggestion being "for John's health."
Oh, I see.

So, the difference between being a "fascist" and a benevolent advisor
is whether or not the request to remove oneself from this forum is
accompanied with an expression of concern for that person's health.

Although absurd on its face, it is even more absurd when one considers
that even if you expressed concern for Judy's health, you aren't
REALLY concerned with her mental health, ARE you?
Post by Uncle Tantra
I did, when applauding Judy for her decision
to leave the newsgroup to preserve what little
was left of her sanity. In retrospect I shouldn't
have said anything, because she stuck around,
and now it's too late. :-)
Unc
Uncle Tantra
2004-02-29 21:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shemp McGurk
Post by Uncle Tantra
I don't recall you mentioning anything about
your suggestion being "for John's health."
Oh, I see.
So, the difference between being a "fascist" and a benevolent advisor
is whether or not the request to remove oneself from this forum is
accompanied with an expression of concern for that person's health.
If you *really* were thinking that when you
made your "request," I apologize. But you
weren't, were you? :-)
Post by Shemp McGurk
Although absurd on its face, it is even more absurd when one considers
that even if you expressed concern for Judy's health, you aren't
REALLY concerned with her mental health, ARE you?
Not any more. It's a done deal. She has
demonstrated that, whatever she might
have said on Nov. 4, she never had any
intention of changing. At the time I really
thought she did, and was applauding a
rare moment of clarity.

Unc
Shemp McGurk
2004-03-01 07:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Shemp McGurk
Post by Uncle Tantra
I don't recall you mentioning anything about
your suggestion being "for John's health."
Oh, I see.
So, the difference between being a "fascist" and a benevolent advisor
is whether or not the request to remove oneself from this forum is
accompanied with an expression of concern for that person's health.
If you *really* were thinking that when you
made your "request," I apologize. But you
weren't, were you? :-)
Of course not...
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Shemp McGurk
Although absurd on its face, it is even more absurd when one considers
that even if you expressed concern for Judy's health, you aren't
REALLY concerned with her mental health, ARE you?
Not any more. It's a done deal. She has
demonstrated that, whatever she might
have said on Nov. 4, she never had any
intention of changing. At the time I really
thought she did, and was applauding a
rare moment of clarity.
Unc
willytex
2004-02-28 21:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Mike Doughney
In this case, John quoted part 5 of "A Visit
to the Shankaracharya" by Robert Kropinski
I guess this is what passes for honesty
in Texas. :-)
Uncle - You Wrights have insulted the people of Texas enough. Mr. Perino,
the liar, was not born in Texas - you made that up.

Stop the lying Barry.
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Mike Doughney
You are demanding banishment from a public,
unmoderated forum;
And, I might add, you look like the fascist
fool who posted the original lie.
Maybe you should take the matter up with Mr. Doughney who is hosting the lie
on his website. D'oh!
Post by Uncle Tantra
Sorta like saying, "If you don't post the
sort of things we want to hear, you have
no right to be on this newsgroup."
Fuk you and your double-speak - just don't post anymore lies about the
Maharishi or anyone else, or you can leave.

It's that simple, Barry.
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Mike Doughney
Get over it.
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.
So, why are you here still perpetrating the lie and basing your arguments on
people's birth circumstances?
Post by Uncle Tantra
Willy's a compulsive liar
Which one? Could you be a little more specific?
Post by Uncle Tantra
with some kind of "grudge lust" thang for
John and others here.
Are you soliciting, Uncle Tantra? I have no grudge against the others - only
the liars who post here.
Post by Uncle Tantra
He's willing to do almost anything he can
think of to drive them away.
You got this all turned around backwards - it's you that's trying to drive
away all the good lookin' girls. You just don't get it do you? Get a grip
and stop wasting my time.

Whose newsgroup is it, anyway?
Post by Uncle Tantra
I can't believe that anyone takes *anything*
he says seriously,
I don't really have much to say about TM practice.

And, I don't really expect a reply to anything I say or post.

The way I see it, almost anything I could say on this forum about TM has
either been already said or it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be said,

or, it is so above your head that you can't understant it.

In your case, the latter.
Post by Uncle Tantra
but obviously some idiots still do.
You are a case in point.
Post by Uncle Tantra
Are you sure you don't have ancestors from
Texas, Shemp?
Your racial slur against 'Texans' has been noted, Sir.
Shemp McGurk
2004-02-28 18:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Doughney
Post by Shemp McGurk
Willytex: you have attributed, seemingly, the following outrageous
quotes to John Manning...is this correct? I can't be sure because of
the way that the quotes are used.
All you need to do is pick a phrase from the text and throw it into
the advanced search of Google News and answer your own question.
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=74c0399d.0110220900.fbbbdb4%40posting.google.com
or http://tinyurl.com/2qqvd
In this case, John quoted part 5 of "A Visit to the Shankaracharya" by
Robert Kropinski, which exists at minet.org at
http://minet.org/Documents/shank-5. As you should expect from that
basket case in Austin, the post has been edited to confuse the
attribution.
Post by Shemp McGurk
If, indeed, John Manning did in fact say the things below, I would ask
him in the most respectful language possible to kindly and voluntarily
remove himsself from this forum.
Here we see Shemp graphically displaying another one of those bad
habits that get aimed at critics and dissidents by people who follow
gurus around, by those who just can't deal with someone expressing a
differing opinion.
You are demanding banishment from a public, unmoderated forum;
No, I am not "demanding banishment"...how do you possibly come to THAT
conclusion????

Can you show me?????

I am asking him to "voluntarily" remove himself. Indeed, this action
ON HIS PART would be 100% consistent in keeping with the words and
memories of his alleged friend Charlie Lutes that he always invokes
here.

Since Manning did not, indeed, say those things, as you point out, it
is all moot anyway.

But thanks for the attempt at manipulating my words.

As for acting like a TM acolyte, you really need to practise what you
preach: do a google search on ME and what I have said about the TMO to
see whether your stereotype fits.
Post by Mike Doughney
something that can't possibly be enforced, so you just look completely
silly asking for it. Your outrageous demand (which is what it is,
despite your suggestion that you're doing it in "respectful language"
and making it conditional on, I'm not sure exactly what) is just
another expression of that underlying need for information control. A
need that strongly correlates with involvement in the TM movement's
programs, for whatever reason. One of those weird arrested development
things, that would be so obviously childish if I wasn't regularly
hearing it and similar whining from people past middle age who are
nostalgic for the days when there were no cynics spoiling the party,
or something.
What's even weirder is that the text in question has been up on the
net for ten years now. There's just nothing new or extraordinary about
it, certainly nothing that would justify your response. It's been
argued about for years. Get over it.
willytex
2004-02-28 21:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shemp McGurk
Since Manning did not, indeed, say those things, as you
point out, it is all moot anyway.
Shemp - It's only moot if you consider that Manning didn't attribute his
quote to Kropinsky or to Minit Org. He in fact presented it as his own
words.

http://tinyurl.com/2qqvd
Uncle Tantra
2004-02-29 13:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
Post by Shemp McGurk
Since Manning did not, indeed, say those things, as you
point out, it is all moot anyway.
Shemp - It's only moot if you consider that Manning didn't attribute his
quote to Kropinsky or to Minit Org. He in fact presented it as his own
words.
http://tinyurl.com/2qqvd
Post by Shemp McGurk
Since Manning did not, indeed, say those things, as you
point out, it is all moot anyway.
Shemp - It's only moot if you consider that Manning didn't attribute his
quote to Kropinsky or to Minit Org. He in fact presented it as his own
words.
http://tinyurl.com/2qqvd
This is simply AMAZING!

Despite his claims that he isn't originally
from Texas, Willy is obviously a product
of their school system -- he can't even
READ!

From the top (not the bottom, not lost
somewhere in the middle of other text, the
Post by willytex
Post by Shemp McGurk
Mr. Manning-Could you PLEASE respond to willytex's request that you back up
your allegations about the Shankaracaryas of India?????
I will post below, an interview with Shree Shankaracharya Swaroopanand
Saraswati, that I posted before. In context, it covers what I
expressed. Please note that you will actually have to 'read' the post
to 'get' the information.
Then he posts the article. You know, the
one that Wee Willy above says John
"presented as his own words."

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE PEOPLE:
remember this next time, and every time,
you read something posted by Willytex.
He's fuckin' delusional. He doesn't CARE
whether what he's posting is true. He can't
even READ!

Pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain. He's no wizard, and the curtain
itself is threadbare and stolen from an
Austin bordello.

Unc
unknown
2004-02-29 13:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by willytex
Post by Shemp McGurk
Since Manning did not, indeed, say those things, as you
point out, it is all moot anyway.
Shemp - It's only moot if you consider that Manning didn't attribute his
quote to Kropinsky or to Minit Org. He in fact presented it as his own
words.
http://tinyurl.com/2qqvd
Post by Shemp McGurk
Since Manning did not, indeed, say those things, as you
point out, it is all moot anyway.
Shemp - It's only moot if you consider that Manning didn't attribute his
quote to Kropinsky or to Minit Org. He in fact presented it as his own
words.
http://tinyurl.com/2qqvd
This is simply AMAZING!
Despite his claims that he isn't originally
from Texas, Willy is obviously a product
of their school system -- he can't even
READ!
From the top (not the bottom, not lost
somewhere in the middle of other text, the
Post by willytex
Post by Shemp McGurk
Mr. Manning-Could you PLEASE respond to willytex's request that you back up
your allegations about the Shankaracaryas of India?????
I will post below, an interview with Shree Shankaracharya Swaroopanand
Saraswati, that I posted before. In context, it covers what I
expressed. Please note that you will actually have to 'read' the post
to 'get' the information.
Then he posts the article. You know, the
one that Wee Willy above says John
"presented as his own words."
remember this next time, and every time,
you read something posted by Willytex.
He's fuckin' delusional. He doesn't CARE
whether what he's posting is true. He can't
even READ!
Pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain. He's no wizard, and the curtain
itself is threadbare and stolen from an
Austin bordello.
Unc
I don't get it -- are you for or against character assassination ?
If you're against it, what do you call what you've written above ?
If you're for it, why are you attacking Judy ?
Uncle Tantra
2004-02-29 14:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
I don't get it -- are you for or against character assassination ?
If you're against it, what do you call what you've written above ?
If you're for it, why are you attacking Judy ?
Oh, I'm all for it. It's fun! :-)

I'm just against claiming it's anything BUT
character assassination...

Unc
Judy Stein
2004-02-29 23:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by unknown
I don't get it -- are you for or against character assassination ?
If you're against it, what do you call what you've written above ?
If you're for it, why are you attacking Judy ?
Oh, I'm all for it. It's fun! :-)
I'm just against claiming it's anything BUT
character assassination...
Note that (A) Barry has repeatedly attacked me for using
character assassination (in the loose sense), and (B)
I've never claimed it was anything but character
assassination (in the loose sense).

And (C), Barry's own stock in trade is character
assassination.

Can you say HYPOCRISY, boys and girls?
Uncle Tantra
2004-03-01 06:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Stein
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by unknown
I don't get it -- are you for or against character assassination ?
If you're against it, what do you call what you've written above ?
If you're for it, why are you attacking Judy ?
Oh, I'm all for it. It's fun! :-)
I'm just against claiming it's anything BUT
character assassination...
Note that (A) Barry has repeatedly attacked me for using
character assassination (in the loose sense), and (B)
I've never claimed it was anything but character
assassination (in the loose sense).
Please note that recently Judy claimed
very *explicitly* that she "never indulges
in character assassination." This was
said long before the issue of *defining*
character assassination came up. If it
had *not* come up, Judy would have been
on record as having emphatically denied
it, by *any* definition. She seems to forget
this...

Unc
Judy Stein
2004-03-01 14:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Judy Stein
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by unknown
I don't get it -- are you for or against character assassination ?
If you're against it, what do you call what you've written above ?
If you're for it, why are you attacking Judy ?
Oh, I'm all for it. It's fun! :-)
I'm just against claiming it's anything BUT
character assassination...
Note that (A) Barry has repeatedly attacked me for using
character assassination (in the loose sense), and (B)
I've never claimed it was anything but character
assassination (in the loose sense).
Please note that recently Judy claimed
very *explicitly* that she "never indulges
in character assassination." This was
said long before the issue of *defining*
character assassination came up.
Barry lies *again*.

My very *first* post about character assassination
went into the definition issue.

Barry, you once again get the opportunity to invoke
the Stupidity Excuse here if you want to be cleared
of lying on this point. You can admit you just weren't
LISTENING to what I said in that first post.
Post by Uncle Tantra
You've even written whole TRACTS defend-
ing your use of the technique. But you'd
like to be seen as someone who performs
character assassination
Oh, very, very wrong. I've never, *ever* engaged
in character assassination. If I've ever criticized
someone's character *mistakenly*, it was entirely
unintentional.
Post by Uncle Tantra
Even your attempts to justify the use of
character assassination are feeble.
Again, I don't use character assassination. I point it out
when *you* do it and when the other anti-TMers do it. (Your
claim that I use character assassination, just as an example,
is character assassination, because it's not true and you know
it's not true.)
Judy Stein
2004-03-01 14:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Judy Stein
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by unknown
I don't get it -- are you for or against character assassination ?
If you're against it, what do you call what you've written above ?
If you're for it, why are you attacking Judy ?
Oh, I'm all for it. It's fun! :-)
I'm just against claiming it's anything BUT
character assassination...
Note that (A) Barry has repeatedly attacked me for using
character assassination (in the loose sense), and (B)
I've never claimed it was anything but character
assassination (in the loose sense).
Please note that recently Judy claimed
very *explicitly* that she "never indulges
in character assassination." This was
said long before the issue of *defining*
character assassination came up.
Barry lies *again*.

My very *first* post about character assassination
went into the definition issue.

Barry, you once again get the opportunity to invoke
the Stupidity Excuse here if you want to be cleared
of lying on this point. You can admit you just weren't
LISTENING to what I said in that first post.

Remember that at this point I was going by the M-W
definition of "character assassination," i.e., that
Post by Uncle Tantra
You've even written whole TRACTS defend-
ing your use of the technique. But you'd
like to be seen as someone who performs
character assassination
Oh, very, very wrong. I've never, *ever* engaged
in character assassination. If I've ever criticized
someone's character *mistakenly*, it was entirely
unintentional.

There's the first clue: if my criticisms were *false*,
it was unintentional.
Post by Uncle Tantra
Even your attempts to justify the use of
character assassination are feeble.
Again, I don't use character assassination. I point it out
when *you* do it and when the other anti-TMers do it. (Your
claim that I use character assassination, just as an example,
is character assassination, because it's not true and you know
it's not true.)

There's the second clue: character assassination refers to
*knowing falsehoods* about a person's character.
Post by Uncle Tantra
The quote Mike posted wasn't a prime example of you
performing character assassination per se
It wasn't *any* kind of example of my performing character
assassination. Everything I said was accurate.

There's the third clue: in the case of Duffy, what I said was
accurate (and therefore not character assassination, which
refers to falsehoods).

In case Barry missed all those hints, I spelled it out for
him (but he missed this too, because he wasn't LISTENING):

Like me, they probably don't give enough of a shit
Post by Uncle Tantra
about you to search for them and repost them, but
they remember them. So when you attempt to suggest
it's not part of your habitual behavior here, I can
only imagine that this creates the same gales of laughter
in others that it does in myself.
I think what you *mean* to say is that I point out character
flaws in TM critics, especially dishonesty.

Fourth clue: Pointing out real character flaws, in other words,
is not character assassination. It's only character assassination
if they're false.

I continued directly:

But I've never claimed this isn't part of my "habitual
behavior here," to the contrary. And you know it (you
just got done noting that I've posted explanations of why
I do it), which means you're continuing to try to
assassinate my character.

Fifth clue: In other words, *Barry* is engaging in character
assassination because he knows the charge of character
assassination against me is *false*. (As it turned out, he
didn't know, but he should by this time have figured out we
were using different definitions.)

I continued directly:

The technique of discrediting an opponent by exposing
his/her dishonesty in formal debate (as opposed to
character assasination) is standard and entirely legitimate.
It's even standard in a court of law to discredit a witness
by demonstrating that he or she has lied in the past.

"AS OPPOSED TO character assassination." I handed it to
Barry on a platter, but he dropped it.

If it
Post by Uncle Tantra
had *not* come up, Judy would have been
on record as having emphatically denied
it, by *any* definition. She seems to forget
this...
EVEN IF my very first post hadn't provided Barry with more
than enough to figure out how I was using the term, but had
instead simply flatly denied using character assassination,
as he falsely claims, does anybody really believe Barry
wouldn't have leaped on it, salivating and with smoke coming
out of his ears?

There's no way it would *not* have come up.

(In an earlier post responding to this false claim of Barry's,
as it happens, I had thought I *had* denied it flatly in my
first post on the subject and hadn't written what I quote
above until my second response, to Barry's immediate freak-out
response to that denial. But I checked again this time, and in
fact I made the explanatory post I quote above *first*.)
Judy Stein
2004-03-01 14:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by Judy Stein
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by unknown
I don't get it -- are you for or against character assassination ?
If you're against it, what do you call what you've written above ?
If you're for it, why are you attacking Judy ?
Oh, I'm all for it. It's fun! :-)
I'm just against claiming it's anything BUT
character assassination...
Note that (A) Barry has repeatedly attacked me for using
character assassination (in the loose sense), and (B)
I've never claimed it was anything but character
assassination (in the loose sense).
Please note that recently Judy claimed
very *explicitly* that she "never indulges
in character assassination." This was
said long before the issue of *defining*
character assassination came up. If it
had *not* come up, Judy would have been
on record as having emphatically denied
it, by *any* definition. She seems to forget
this...
Oh, and by the way, note that with this misstatement, Barry
is attempting to direct attention away from his hypocrisy.
It's a complete non sequitur.
Shemp McGurk
2004-02-29 20:19:08 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com (Uncle Tantra) wrote in message news:<***@mb-m03.aol.com>...


[snip]
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by willytex
I will post below, an interview with Shree Shankaracharya Swaroopanand
Saraswati, that I posted before. In context, it covers what I
expressed. Please note that you will actually have to 'read' the post
to 'get' the information.
Then he posts the article. You know, the
one that Wee Willy above says John
"presented as his own words."
remember this next time, and every time,
you read something posted by Willytex.
He's fuckin' delusional. He doesn't CARE
whether what he's posting is true. He can't
even READ!
Pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain. He's no wizard, and the curtain
itself is threadbare and stolen from an
Austin bordello.
Unc
"In context it covers what I expressed" writes Manning.

If it is read in context, do not those words, express Manning's mind
and, if so, is not willytex correct in presenting them as his own
words?
Uncle Tantra
2004-02-29 20:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shemp McGurk
Post by Uncle Tantra
Post by willytex
I will post below, an interview with Shree Shankaracharya Swaroopanand
Saraswati, that I posted before. In context, it covers what I
expressed. Please note that you will actually have to 'read' the post
to 'get' the information.
Then he posts the article. You know, the
one that Wee Willy above says John
"presented as his own words."
remember this next time, and every time,
you read something posted by Willytex.
He's fuckin' delusional. He doesn't CARE
whether what he's posting is true. He can't
even READ!
Pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain. He's no wizard, and the curtain
itself is threadbare and stolen from an
Austin bordello.
Unc
"In context it covers what I expressed" writes Manning.
If it is read in context, do not those words, express Manning's mind
and, if so, is not willytex correct in presenting them as his own
words?
You went to school in Texas, too, didn't
you? :-)
willytex
2004-02-28 20:46:41 UTC
Permalink
As you should expect from that basket case
in Austin,
Mr. Doughney - I do not reside in Austin, you made that up.
the post has been edited to confuse the attribution.
I 'edited' nothing and there was no attribution in Mr. Manning's post.
Here we see Shemp graphically displaying another
one of those bad habits that get aimed at critics
Lying ex-TMers are not critics.
and dissidents
Those who make false claims about others are not dissidents, they are liars,
plain and simple.
by people who follow gurus around,
You are a case in point!
by those who just can't deal with someone
expressing a differing opinion.
You are the person hosting the lies on your website, Sir.
...information control.
The information control is from Mr. Doughney and Mr. Kropinsky:

"Tranquil state of TM shaken by former meditators' charges"

Accusations that TM and its associated organizations were "organized as a
cult," "implement[ed] a fraudulent scheme involving thought-reform
techniques" and "swindled" members of their "money," "labor" and a
significant portion of their lives were typical of some of the charges made
by those suing the organization.
The Des Moines Sunday Register, Nov. 18, 1990, p. 1A.

"Man Who Said He Didn't Get to Fly Awarded $138,000"

One former member, Robert Kropinski, charged that the TM organizations
"falsely promised he could learn to fly," but in reality taught students to
"hop with the legs folded in the lotus position."
Washington Post, January 14, 1987, p. B04.
What's even weirder is that the text in
question has been up on the net for ten
years now.
Thanks for setting the record straight: Robert Kropinsky is a liar and
you're a lying clown for supporting him.
There's just nothing new or extraordinary about it
Apparently, Robert Kropinsky eventually lost his case on appeal.

He was originally awarded $137,890 by a federal court after the TM
organizations were found guilty of "fraud and negligence."
Steve Ralph
2004-02-29 15:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
As you should expect from that basket case
in Austin,
Mr. Doughney - I do not reside in Austin, you made that up.
the post has been edited to confuse the attribution.
I 'edited' nothing and there was no attribution in Mr. Manning's post.
Here we see Shemp graphically displaying another
one of those bad habits that get aimed at critics
Lying ex-TMers are not critics.
and dissidents
Those who make false claims about others are not dissidents, they are liars,
plain and simple.
by people who follow gurus around,
You are a case in point!
by those who just can't deal with someone
expressing a differing opinion.
You are the person hosting the lies on your website, Sir.
...information control.
"Tranquil state of TM shaken by former meditators' charges"
Accusations that TM and its associated organizations were "organized as a
cult," "implement[ed] a fraudulent scheme involving thought-reform
techniques" and "swindled" members of their "money," "labor" and a
significant portion of their lives were typical of some of the charges made
by those suing the organization.
The Des Moines Sunday Register, Nov. 18, 1990, p. 1A.
"Man Who Said He Didn't Get to Fly Awarded $138,000"
One former member, Robert Kropinski, charged that the TM organizations
"falsely promised he could learn to fly," but in reality taught students to
"hop with the legs folded in the lotus position."
Washington Post, January 14, 1987, p. B04.
What's even weirder is that the text in
question has been up on the net for ten
years now.
Thanks for setting the record straight: Robert Kropinsky is a liar and
you're a lying clown for supporting him.
There's just nothing new or extraordinary about it
Apparently, Robert Kropinsky eventually lost his case on appeal.
Is this so? I cannot find any reference to this - I'm sure trancenut and
others would wish to provide full information!

SR
Post by willytex
He was originally awarded $137,890 by a federal court after the TM
organizations were found guilty of "fraud and negligence."
willytex
2004-02-28 17:53:47 UTC
Permalink
...remove himsself from this forum.
Shemp - And all the other liars and cheats too! I'm sick and tired of
the these faceless anti-TMers posting all this garbage on this forum
and bashing the Maharishi and the President. I think it's time to
stand up and be counted - put your money where your mouth is or take a
hike.

Here's my comments, for anyone who's interested:

So Kindly You Say!

Uploaded for easy reading:

By all accounts
http://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva.htm

So Kindly You Sayhttp://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva2.htm

Apparently, the Swami Prakashanand Saraswati gave Robert Kropinsky a
'letter of intriduction' in order to get an audience with the Swami
Swaroopanand at Guru Dev's birtday celebration in Brindaban. But, when
the Swami Svaroop finds out that the Swami Prakash hosted a recent
VHP-America event, the Swaroop may wise up to the Prakash's game. For
sure the Prakash won't be invited to any more birthday party
celebrations at the Swaroops's house! The Swaroop is opposed to the
VHP and considers that rascally outfit to be nothing less than a gang
of terrorists and radical extremists.

I have spoken to the Maharaj Swami and he confirm this story.

So, how, exactly do you become a 'former' disciple of SwamiJi
Brahmannda, anyway? By visiting other saints and gurus, perhaps? : )

That figures - when you go visiting other Saints like the Swami
Prakashanand did, you probably feel like bashing your former guru -
you are a case in point. In some other cases, the term 'former
disciple' says it all, you know what I mean?

The 'former disciples' of Guru Dev, except the Swami Swaroopanand, are
all sock-puppits for the RSS - that's common knowledge. What the Swami
Swaroopanand was doing associating with those miscreants who support
the VHP is beyond me - Swaroop favors the Congress Party and is
staunchly opposed to your pals and their nefarious plans to turn India
into a religious, fundamentalist, Hindutva state.

There are probably two or three former disciples of Guru DevJi still
alive today - what's important is what the *current* disciples in the
disciplic lineage of Swami Brahmananda have to say.

It is a fact that the Swami Swaroopanand and the Swami Prakashanand
are no longer in the disciplic line of Guru Dev, having gone over to
adopt the teachings of other Saints, babas, and gurus. Swami
Vasudevananda Saraswati is currently the *sole representative Guru
Dev's lineage*, according to Vidyasankar Sundaresan. Vasudevananda was
present at the appointment of a Mahamandaleswara of the Mahanirvani
Akhada in 1995, according to Hinduism Today.

"Only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Shantananda) can be traced
directly to Brahmananda, without any interruptions." - Vidyasankar
Sundaresan

There is some very distressing facts related to the Swami
Prakashanand. For example, the Swami Prakash, apparently, went to
Jyotirmath, in 1950, and claims to have been initiated there. By whom
I would ask? Apparently, Guru Dev wasn't even at Jyotirmath in the
year 1950, according to Raj Varma, but was on tour in South India!
Prakash also makes the claim of having been 'offered the seat of the
Jyotirmath' in 1952 by a committee of pundits down in Kashi - a full
year before Guru Dev's untimely demise. That would have been news to
Guru Dev, who only passed away in 1953!

That would have really been something - a Shankaracharya who was only
22 years old, who had been a Sannyasi for less than a year, and who
had been in the presence of Guru Dev for probably a total of thirty
minutes in his whole life. Sounds like something a stupid committee of
politicaly motivated pundits down in Kashi would come with.

According to Mr. Sundaresan, "...although he was initiated into
Sannyasa by Brahmananda Saraswati, his personal religious philosophy
is Acintya Bhedabheda, associated with Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya
Vaishnavas. This leads me to seriously suspect his claim of having
been offered the Sankaracharya post."

It is a fact that the Kashi Vidvat Parishad has attempted to place a
political puppet on the Jyotirmath seat on at least two separate
occasions after Guru Dev's passing - Swami Krishnabodha and Swami
Swaroopanad. Mr. Sundaresan notes "...the Kashi Vidvat Parishad and
the Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha have tried to exercise a right over
Jyotirmath for the third time."

However, there is one undisputed fact - neither Swaroopanand nor
Prakashanand's name was listed in Guru Dev's will. Another fact is
that in the Kropinsky interview Swami Swaroopanand does not deny the
validity of Guru Dev's will. In fact, "...none of the civil suits in
this dispute seems to have been framed in terms of contesting the
legal bona fides of Brahmananda's will" according to Mr. Sundaresan.

Fact is, a new lawsuit was filed, on the grounds that according to
Brahmananda's will, Dwarakesananda Saraswati should have been
appointed in case Shantananda stepped down! Thus, states Mr.
Sundaresan, "...notwithstanding what was privately thought about the
will and its legitimacy, its terms were co-opted, as a strategy to
displace Vishnudevananda."

However, it is not a fact that Guru Dev ordered the Brahmacharya
Mahesh to do anything, much less to 'go up to a mountain and never
come down'. Someone made that up - probably Joyce Collins-Smith.
However, the mere fact that the Brahmacharya Mahesh was 'called' by
Guru Dev, who was on his deathbed, says a lot about who Guru Dev
favored, does it not?

Apparently, the Brahmacharya Mahesh was with with Guru Dev at his
passing, but I don't know how *you* or anyone else would know what
Guru Dev said just before he attained Mahasamadhi. But, I doubt that a
Saint like Guru Dev would concern himself with the doings of mere
clerk, would he? In point of fact, Mahesh Yogi used to be Brahmananda
Saraswati's Ssecretary, according to my sources - so it would be
perfectly logical for Guru Dev to call for Mr. Varma (Bal
Brahmacharaya).

In point of fact, Guru Dev had composed a will over 2 years previously
and had it registered in Allahabad. But that's beside the point,
because Guru Dev's death was considered untimely, brought on by
natural causes, according to the attending physician and the coroners
report. If true, Guru Dev would hardly be calling a clerk, in the
middle of dying, in order to tell the clerk not to teach anything or
go anywhere!

Besides, how a 'mere clerk' would come to be sitting beside a dying
Saint and carrying out his last instructions doesn't make much sense
unless Mahesh Yogi was much more than a clerk. It certainly boggles
the mind to imagine how a low-level clerk could somehow get an
audience with a fully-realized Saint sitting on his deathbed, then
somehow get ahold of Guru Dev's physical body, wrestle it away from
all the other Ashram inmates, put it on a train, and make all the
arrangements for the national funeral down in Kashi, then get Guru
Dev's last will and testament out of the Jyotirmath Trust at the
National Bank, where it was registered, and then go about installing
the succussor to the Shankaracharya Seat of the North, according to a
forged will. That's a real stretch for a mere clerk!

That is, unless Mahesh Yogi was much more than a mere clerk for
thirteen years. Apparently, Brahmacharya Mahesh was the Adminstrator
of the Jyotirmath Ashram Trust and it was the Brahmacharya Mahesh who
made all the arrangements for Guru Dev's tours and yagyas. That's not
surprising to me, in light of what Mahesh Yogi has been able to
accomplish for his own program, and that was starting from scratch!
Never let it be said that Maharishi doesn't know how to organize a
yoga camp! Apparenly, it was Bal Brahmacharya who was instumental in
introducing the President of India to Guru Dev. There's a famous photo
of Brahmacharya Mahesh standing next to the President of India - quite
a feat for a mere clerk, don't you think?

Maybe Brahmacharya Mahesh went to the Upper Kashi in order to relax
and enjoy. After all, thirteen years is a long time to be sitting at
someones feet, even if they were a Saint.

Maybe Guru Dev didn't 'command' anyone to do anything - who knows? It
hasn't been established that Guru DevJi commanded Brahmacharya Mahesh
to go into isolation - but it's obvious, at least to me, that
Brahmacharya Mahesh was probably the only person alive who could keep
up with the demands of serving such a dynamic teacher as Guru Dev was!

I wasn't there of course, but it seems to me that Brahmacharya Mahesh
was distrustful of some of the other disciples, and with good reason.
Imagine what would have happened if the Swami Prakash had been
appointed and accepted to the Jyotirmath seat by that committee -
you'd have a quasi-dualistic rasavada proponent sitting on the seat of
the non-dualist Shankaracharya, espousing anti-adwaita rhetoric. Now
that would be a topsy-tuvy chain of events! It's no wonder that the
Mahesh Yogi was eager to fulfill the stipulations in Guru Dev's will
right away.

In the case of the Shakaracharya it is the usual custom to follow the
disciplic succession. According to Mr. Sundaresan, "...once Swami
Brahmananda Saraswati was accepted as the Jyotirmath Sankaracharya,
and there were no serious disputes about it at the time, further
activities of these other institutions with respect to succession
issues could be construed as unnecessary interference." I fully agree
with this, but you obviously do not.

A committee, (kashi vidvat parishad), founded by Madhvacharya?

You idoit! That's not the same Madhvaacharya, the dualist, who
composed the Sri Bhyasya. The Shankaracharya seats in India have
nothing to do with the Sri Vaishnava cult founded by Madhva which came
years later. You're confused, I think.

You are floating - this 'committee' of pundits has appointed no
Shankaracharya to any seat, ever. Pundit committees do not appoint
Saints, least of all do they declare a nobody to be a 'jagadguru', a
teacher to the world, over and above the other four jagadgurus, namely
Puri, Dwarka, Sringeri and Jyotirmath.. Get a grip!

"A few centuries ago, such problems would have
been referred to the local king, and perhaps
solved quickly. In independent India, the
dispute has been taken to the secular courts,
but these are quite different from the old
princely durbars in their procedures and rules.
The judges also lack legislative and executive
authority over religious institutions, unlike
the Hindu king of old days. It seems to me that
those who did not wish to acknowledge Santananda
as the Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath did not
sufficiently appreciate these changes in modern
times, and expected the courts to accept their
cultural, moral and religious arguments as legally
valid. Thus, none of the civil suits in this
dispute seems to have been framed in terms of
contesting the legal bona fides of Brahmananda's
will." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan

It's a moot point, since the Jyotirmath was vacant for 165 years or
more. Who knows what happened during that time? Apparently, the Rawal
(head priest) of Badrikaashram considered himself to be the
Shankaracharya. Who is to say? Certainly not a committee of pundits
down in Kashi!

With all due respect, you're full of it. The Bharata Dharma
Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha were all present at the installation of Guru Dev's
successor, Shree Swami Shantanand Saraswati. According to The Time of
India, Shantanand was installed with all due pomp and ceremony.
Apparently, Shantanand meditated for over an hour in a public
reception. Subsequently, Shantanand was present at a number of TMO
activities, the least not being the Saints Course at Ram Nagar, the
ground-breaking of Shankaracharya Nagar at Rishikesh, and at the
Maharishi Guru Poornima at Noida held in 1990.

According to Kropinsky, Shantanand was present at the bithday
celebration of Guru Dev at Vrindavan, which you cited. It is a fact
that Swami Shantanada Saraswati and his successors fully approved of
the Mahesh Yogi and the TM meditation program.

If you think that meditation is not supported by the Dasanami
Sampradya founded by the Adi Shankara, you are mistaken.

Your claim is false and is totally without merit. According to the Adi
Shankara, in his sub-commentary on Veda Vyasa's Vivarana on
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, meditation is described as the cessation of
the flutuations of the mental processes - specificaly, the meditation
on the Pranava, with instructions to meditate on it, and to reflect on
it's meaning. A clear, concise, incontrovertible and unassailable
reference to the TM program as taught by the Mahesh Yogi.

FYI: "Adi Sankaracharya (8th century) is traditionally said to have
established four mathas (monasteries) in India, and to have placed
them under the leadership of his four chief disciples. The heads of
these four and other monasteries of the Dasanami orders have come to
be known as Sankaracharyas themselves, in honor of the founder. They
are considered to be the leaders of the ten orders of the Dasanami
Sannyasins associated with Advaita Vedanta." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have responded to each and every
one of your slanderous accustaions - including your bald-faced lie
that the Maharishi murdered Guru Dev, in a conspiracy with the ashram
cook, by posioning Guru Dev's food, while the cook was at Jyotirmath
and Guru Dev was down in Calcutta. Go figure.

Once again, I have responded to your false claims and accusations,
Sir!

Namaste' and Jai Guru Dev!
Steve Ralph
2004-02-28 18:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
...remove himsself from this forum.
Shemp - And all the other liars and cheats too! I'm sick and tired of
the these faceless anti-TMers posting all this garbage on this forum
and bashing the Maharishi and the President.
And most of us are sick of your endless reposting of all this garbage.
And fuck george bush. You cannot even call yourselves a democracy
these days.


I think it's time to
Post by willytex
stand up and be counted - put your money where your mouth is or take a
hike.
I'm not. I've seen this crap before, frequently reposted by you.

SR
Post by willytex
So Kindly You Say!
By all accounts
http://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva.htm
So Kindly You Sayhttp://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva2.htm
Apparently, the Swami Prakashanand Saraswati gave Robert Kropinsky a
'letter of intriduction' in order to get an audience with the Swami
Swaroopanand at Guru Dev's birtday celebration in Brindaban. But, when
the Swami Svaroop finds out that the Swami Prakash hosted a recent
VHP-America event, the Swaroop may wise up to the Prakash's game. For
sure the Prakash won't be invited to any more birthday party
celebrations at the Swaroops's house! The Swaroop is opposed to the
VHP and considers that rascally outfit to be nothing less than a gang
of terrorists and radical extremists.
I have spoken to the Maharaj Swami and he confirm this story.
So, how, exactly do you become a 'former' disciple of SwamiJi
Brahmannda, anyway? By visiting other saints and gurus, perhaps? : )
That figures - when you go visiting other Saints like the Swami
Prakashanand did, you probably feel like bashing your former guru -
you are a case in point. In some other cases, the term 'former
disciple' says it all, you know what I mean?
The 'former disciples' of Guru Dev, except the Swami Swaroopanand, are
all sock-puppits for the RSS - that's common knowledge. What the Swami
Swaroopanand was doing associating with those miscreants who support
the VHP is beyond me - Swaroop favors the Congress Party and is
staunchly opposed to your pals and their nefarious plans to turn India
into a religious, fundamentalist, Hindutva state.
There are probably two or three former disciples of Guru DevJi still
alive today - what's important is what the *current* disciples in the
disciplic lineage of Swami Brahmananda have to say.
It is a fact that the Swami Swaroopanand and the Swami Prakashanand
are no longer in the disciplic line of Guru Dev, having gone over to
adopt the teachings of other Saints, babas, and gurus. Swami
Vasudevananda Saraswati is currently the *sole representative Guru
Dev's lineage*, according to Vidyasankar Sundaresan. Vasudevananda was
present at the appointment of a Mahamandaleswara of the Mahanirvani
Akhada in 1995, according to Hinduism Today.
"Only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Shantananda) can be traced
directly to Brahmananda, without any interruptions." - Vidyasankar
Sundaresan
There is some very distressing facts related to the Swami
Prakashanand. For example, the Swami Prakash, apparently, went to
Jyotirmath, in 1950, and claims to have been initiated there. By whom
I would ask? Apparently, Guru Dev wasn't even at Jyotirmath in the
year 1950, according to Raj Varma, but was on tour in South India!
Prakash also makes the claim of having been 'offered the seat of the
Jyotirmath' in 1952 by a committee of pundits down in Kashi - a full
year before Guru Dev's untimely demise. That would have been news to
Guru Dev, who only passed away in 1953!
That would have really been something - a Shankaracharya who was only
22 years old, who had been a Sannyasi for less than a year, and who
had been in the presence of Guru Dev for probably a total of thirty
minutes in his whole life. Sounds like something a stupid committee of
politicaly motivated pundits down in Kashi would come with.
According to Mr. Sundaresan, "...although he was initiated into
Sannyasa by Brahmananda Saraswati, his personal religious philosophy
is Acintya Bhedabheda, associated with Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya
Vaishnavas. This leads me to seriously suspect his claim of having
been offered the Sankaracharya post."
It is a fact that the Kashi Vidvat Parishad has attempted to place a
political puppet on the Jyotirmath seat on at least two separate
occasions after Guru Dev's passing - Swami Krishnabodha and Swami
Swaroopanad. Mr. Sundaresan notes "...the Kashi Vidvat Parishad and
the Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha have tried to exercise a right over
Jyotirmath for the third time."
However, there is one undisputed fact - neither Swaroopanand nor
Prakashanand's name was listed in Guru Dev's will. Another fact is
that in the Kropinsky interview Swami Swaroopanand does not deny the
validity of Guru Dev's will. In fact, "...none of the civil suits in
this dispute seems to have been framed in terms of contesting the
legal bona fides of Brahmananda's will" according to Mr. Sundaresan.
Fact is, a new lawsuit was filed, on the grounds that according to
Brahmananda's will, Dwarakesananda Saraswati should have been
appointed in case Shantananda stepped down! Thus, states Mr.
Sundaresan, "...notwithstanding what was privately thought about the
will and its legitimacy, its terms were co-opted, as a strategy to
displace Vishnudevananda."
However, it is not a fact that Guru Dev ordered the Brahmacharya
Mahesh to do anything, much less to 'go up to a mountain and never
come down'. Someone made that up - probably Joyce Collins-Smith.
However, the mere fact that the Brahmacharya Mahesh was 'called' by
Guru Dev, who was on his deathbed, says a lot about who Guru Dev
favored, does it not?
Apparently, the Brahmacharya Mahesh was with with Guru Dev at his
passing, but I don't know how *you* or anyone else would know what
Guru Dev said just before he attained Mahasamadhi. But, I doubt that a
Saint like Guru Dev would concern himself with the doings of mere
clerk, would he? In point of fact, Mahesh Yogi used to be Brahmananda
Saraswati's Ssecretary, according to my sources - so it would be
perfectly logical for Guru Dev to call for Mr. Varma (Bal
Brahmacharaya).
In point of fact, Guru Dev had composed a will over 2 years previously
and had it registered in Allahabad. But that's beside the point,
because Guru Dev's death was considered untimely, brought on by
natural causes, according to the attending physician and the coroners
report. If true, Guru Dev would hardly be calling a clerk, in the
middle of dying, in order to tell the clerk not to teach anything or
go anywhere!
Besides, how a 'mere clerk' would come to be sitting beside a dying
Saint and carrying out his last instructions doesn't make much sense
unless Mahesh Yogi was much more than a clerk. It certainly boggles
the mind to imagine how a low-level clerk could somehow get an
audience with a fully-realized Saint sitting on his deathbed, then
somehow get ahold of Guru Dev's physical body, wrestle it away from
all the other Ashram inmates, put it on a train, and make all the
arrangements for the national funeral down in Kashi, then get Guru
Dev's last will and testament out of the Jyotirmath Trust at the
National Bank, where it was registered, and then go about installing
the succussor to the Shankaracharya Seat of the North, according to a
forged will. That's a real stretch for a mere clerk!
That is, unless Mahesh Yogi was much more than a mere clerk for
thirteen years. Apparently, Brahmacharya Mahesh was the Adminstrator
of the Jyotirmath Ashram Trust and it was the Brahmacharya Mahesh who
made all the arrangements for Guru Dev's tours and yagyas. That's not
surprising to me, in light of what Mahesh Yogi has been able to
accomplish for his own program, and that was starting from scratch!
Never let it be said that Maharishi doesn't know how to organize a
yoga camp! Apparenly, it was Bal Brahmacharya who was instumental in
introducing the President of India to Guru Dev. There's a famous photo
of Brahmacharya Mahesh standing next to the President of India - quite
a feat for a mere clerk, don't you think?
Maybe Brahmacharya Mahesh went to the Upper Kashi in order to relax
and enjoy. After all, thirteen years is a long time to be sitting at
someones feet, even if they were a Saint.
Maybe Guru Dev didn't 'command' anyone to do anything - who knows? It
hasn't been established that Guru DevJi commanded Brahmacharya Mahesh
to go into isolation - but it's obvious, at least to me, that
Brahmacharya Mahesh was probably the only person alive who could keep
up with the demands of serving such a dynamic teacher as Guru Dev was!
I wasn't there of course, but it seems to me that Brahmacharya Mahesh
was distrustful of some of the other disciples, and with good reason.
Imagine what would have happened if the Swami Prakash had been
appointed and accepted to the Jyotirmath seat by that committee -
you'd have a quasi-dualistic rasavada proponent sitting on the seat of
the non-dualist Shankaracharya, espousing anti-adwaita rhetoric. Now
that would be a topsy-tuvy chain of events! It's no wonder that the
Mahesh Yogi was eager to fulfill the stipulations in Guru Dev's will
right away.
In the case of the Shakaracharya it is the usual custom to follow the
disciplic succession. According to Mr. Sundaresan, "...once Swami
Brahmananda Saraswati was accepted as the Jyotirmath Sankaracharya,
and there were no serious disputes about it at the time, further
activities of these other institutions with respect to succession
issues could be construed as unnecessary interference." I fully agree
with this, but you obviously do not.
A committee, (kashi vidvat parishad), founded by Madhvacharya?
You idoit! That's not the same Madhvaacharya, the dualist, who
composed the Sri Bhyasya. The Shankaracharya seats in India have
nothing to do with the Sri Vaishnava cult founded by Madhva which came
years later. You're confused, I think.
You are floating - this 'committee' of pundits has appointed no
Shankaracharya to any seat, ever. Pundit committees do not appoint
Saints, least of all do they declare a nobody to be a 'jagadguru', a
teacher to the world, over and above the other four jagadgurus, namely
Puri, Dwarka, Sringeri and Jyotirmath.. Get a grip!
"A few centuries ago, such problems would have
been referred to the local king, and perhaps
solved quickly. In independent India, the
dispute has been taken to the secular courts,
but these are quite different from the old
princely durbars in their procedures and rules.
The judges also lack legislative and executive
authority over religious institutions, unlike
the Hindu king of old days. It seems to me that
those who did not wish to acknowledge Santananda
as the Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath did not
sufficiently appreciate these changes in modern
times, and expected the courts to accept their
cultural, moral and religious arguments as legally
valid. Thus, none of the civil suits in this
dispute seems to have been framed in terms of
contesting the legal bona fides of Brahmananda's
will." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan
It's a moot point, since the Jyotirmath was vacant for 165 years or
more. Who knows what happened during that time? Apparently, the Rawal
(head priest) of Badrikaashram considered himself to be the
Shankaracharya. Who is to say? Certainly not a committee of pundits
down in Kashi!
With all due respect, you're full of it. The Bharata Dharma
Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha were all present at the installation of Guru Dev's
successor, Shree Swami Shantanand Saraswati. According to The Time of
India, Shantanand was installed with all due pomp and ceremony.
Apparently, Shantanand meditated for over an hour in a public
reception. Subsequently, Shantanand was present at a number of TMO
activities, the least not being the Saints Course at Ram Nagar, the
ground-breaking of Shankaracharya Nagar at Rishikesh, and at the
Maharishi Guru Poornima at Noida held in 1990.
According to Kropinsky, Shantanand was present at the bithday
celebration of Guru Dev at Vrindavan, which you cited. It is a fact
that Swami Shantanada Saraswati and his successors fully approved of
the Mahesh Yogi and the TM meditation program.
If you think that meditation is not supported by the Dasanami
Sampradya founded by the Adi Shankara, you are mistaken.
Your claim is false and is totally without merit. According to the Adi
Shankara, in his sub-commentary on Veda Vyasa's Vivarana on
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, meditation is described as the cessation of
the flutuations of the mental processes - specificaly, the meditation
on the Pranava, with instructions to meditate on it, and to reflect on
it's meaning. A clear, concise, incontrovertible and unassailable
reference to the TM program as taught by the Mahesh Yogi.
FYI: "Adi Sankaracharya (8th century) is traditionally said to have
established four mathas (monasteries) in India, and to have placed
them under the leadership of his four chief disciples. The heads of
these four and other monasteries of the Dasanami orders have come to
be known as Sankaracharyas themselves, in honor of the founder. They
are considered to be the leaders of the ten orders of the Dasanami
Sannyasins associated with Advaita Vedanta." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have responded to each and every
one of your slanderous accustaions - including your bald-faced lie
that the Maharishi murdered Guru Dev, in a conspiracy with the ashram
cook, by posioning Guru Dev's food, while the cook was at Jyotirmath
and Guru Dev was down in Calcutta. Go figure.
Once again, I have responded to your false claims and accusations,
Sir!
Namaste' and Jai Guru Dev!
willytex
2004-02-28 21:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Ralph
And most of us are sick of your endless
reposting of all this garbage.
Hey, Doctor Ralph, what happened? I thought you left the forum.
Post by Steve Ralph
And fuck george bush.
Are you soliciting?
Post by Steve Ralph
You cannot even call yourselves a democracy
these days.
The United States is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy.

FYI:

In a Democracy everyone gets to vote directly and each votes counts.

In the United States, we have elected representatives who run the Federal
Governement, but the States run their own government. That's called
Federalism - a protection for the people against the tyranny of the
majority.
Post by Steve Ralph
I think it's time to stand up and be counted - put your
money where your mouth is or take a hike.
I'm not.
Your vote has been noted! Now, take a hike.

If you have nothing to add to the conversation, then save a little bandspace
for others and shut up.

If you want to dialog here you need to get some smarts Ralph - you're
supposed to read the posts BEFORE you make your comments!

Maybe it's time for you to take a sabbatical from this forum and reflect on
your own folly, then, in a year or two, you could return here to dialog like
a scholar or a gentleman - at present you are neither, Sir.
Steve Ralph
2004-02-28 21:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
Post by Steve Ralph
And most of us are sick of your endless
reposting of all this garbage.
Hey, Doctor Ralph, what happened? I thought you left the forum.
You are supposed to read posts, not guess their content. I said I was
taking a rest for a month or two.
Post by willytex
Post by Steve Ralph
And fuck george bush.
Are you soliciting?
Post by Steve Ralph
You cannot even call yourselves a democracy
these days.
The United States is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy.
In a Democracy everyone gets to vote directly and each votes counts.
In the United States, we have elected representatives who run the Federal
Governement, but the States run their own government. That's called
Federalism - a protection for the people against the tyranny of the
majority.
3 out of 5 is quite an impressive size for an electorate!
Post by willytex
Post by Steve Ralph
I think it's time to stand up and be counted - put your
money where your mouth is or take a hike.
I'm not.
Your vote has been noted! Now, take a hike.
Thats probably quite a good idea. However, at the moment
it is cold and dark outside.
Post by willytex
If you have nothing to add to the conversation, then save a little bandspace
for others and shut up.
If you want to dialog here you need to get some smarts Ralph - you're
supposed to read the posts BEFORE you make your comments!
Maybe it's time for you to take a sabbatical from this forum and reflect on
your own folly, then, in a year or two, you could return here to dialog like
a scholar or a gentleman - at present you are neither, Sir.
Probably not.

SR
unknown
2004-02-29 10:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
...remove himsself from this forum.
Shemp - And all the other liars and cheats too! I'm sick and tired of
the these faceless anti-TMers posting all this garbage on this forum
and bashing the Maharishi and the President. I think it's time to
stand up and be counted - put your money where your mouth is or take a
hike.
So Kindly You Say!
By all accounts
http://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva.htm
Nice website -- an antidote to the poison !
Post by willytex
So Kindly You Sayhttp://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva2.htm
Apparently, the Swami Prakashanand Saraswati gave Robert Kropinsky a
'letter of intriduction' in order to get an audience with the Swami
Swaroopanand at Guru Dev's birtday celebration in Brindaban. But, when
the Swami Svaroop finds out that the Swami Prakash hosted a recent
VHP-America event, the Swaroop may wise up to the Prakash's game. For
sure the Prakash won't be invited to any more birthday party
celebrations at the Swaroops's house! The Swaroop is opposed to the
VHP and considers that rascally outfit to be nothing less than a gang
of terrorists and radical extremists.
I have spoken to the Maharaj Swami and he confirm this story.
So, how, exactly do you become a 'former' disciple of SwamiJi
Brahmannda, anyway? By visiting other saints and gurus, perhaps? : )
That figures - when you go visiting other Saints like the Swami
Prakashanand did, you probably feel like bashing your former guru -
you are a case in point. In some other cases, the term 'former
disciple' says it all, you know what I mean?
The 'former disciples' of Guru Dev, except the Swami Swaroopanand, are
all sock-puppits for the RSS - that's common knowledge. What the Swami
Swaroopanand was doing associating with those miscreants who support
the VHP is beyond me - Swaroop favors the Congress Party and is
staunchly opposed to your pals and their nefarious plans to turn India
into a religious, fundamentalist, Hindutva state.
There are probably two or three former disciples of Guru DevJi still
alive today - what's important is what the *current* disciples in the
disciplic lineage of Swami Brahmananda have to say.
It is a fact that the Swami Swaroopanand and the Swami Prakashanand
are no longer in the disciplic line of Guru Dev, having gone over to
adopt the teachings of other Saints, babas, and gurus. Swami
Vasudevananda Saraswati is currently the *sole representative Guru
Dev's lineage*, according to Vidyasankar Sundaresan. Vasudevananda was
present at the appointment of a Mahamandaleswara of the Mahanirvani
Akhada in 1995, according to Hinduism Today.
"Only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Shantananda) can be traced
directly to Brahmananda, without any interruptions." - Vidyasankar
Sundaresan
There is some very distressing facts related to the Swami
Prakashanand. For example, the Swami Prakash, apparently, went to
Jyotirmath, in 1950, and claims to have been initiated there. By whom
I would ask? Apparently, Guru Dev wasn't even at Jyotirmath in the
year 1950, according to Raj Varma, but was on tour in South India!
Prakash also makes the claim of having been 'offered the seat of the
Jyotirmath' in 1952 by a committee of pundits down in Kashi - a full
year before Guru Dev's untimely demise. That would have been news to
Guru Dev, who only passed away in 1953!
That would have really been something - a Shankaracharya who was only
22 years old, who had been a Sannyasi for less than a year, and who
had been in the presence of Guru Dev for probably a total of thirty
minutes in his whole life. Sounds like something a stupid committee of
politicaly motivated pundits down in Kashi would come with.
According to Mr. Sundaresan, "...although he was initiated into
Sannyasa by Brahmananda Saraswati, his personal religious philosophy
is Acintya Bhedabheda, associated with Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya
Vaishnavas. This leads me to seriously suspect his claim of having
been offered the Sankaracharya post."
It is a fact that the Kashi Vidvat Parishad has attempted to place a
political puppet on the Jyotirmath seat on at least two separate
occasions after Guru Dev's passing - Swami Krishnabodha and Swami
Swaroopanad. Mr. Sundaresan notes "...the Kashi Vidvat Parishad and
the Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha have tried to exercise a right over
Jyotirmath for the third time."
However, there is one undisputed fact - neither Swaroopanand nor
Prakashanand's name was listed in Guru Dev's will. Another fact is
that in the Kropinsky interview Swami Swaroopanand does not deny the
validity of Guru Dev's will. In fact, "...none of the civil suits in
this dispute seems to have been framed in terms of contesting the
legal bona fides of Brahmananda's will" according to Mr. Sundaresan.
Fact is, a new lawsuit was filed, on the grounds that according to
Brahmananda's will, Dwarakesananda Saraswati should have been
appointed in case Shantananda stepped down! Thus, states Mr.
Sundaresan, "...notwithstanding what was privately thought about the
will and its legitimacy, its terms were co-opted, as a strategy to
displace Vishnudevananda."
However, it is not a fact that Guru Dev ordered the Brahmacharya
Mahesh to do anything, much less to 'go up to a mountain and never
come down'. Someone made that up - probably Joyce Collins-Smith.
However, the mere fact that the Brahmacharya Mahesh was 'called' by
Guru Dev, who was on his deathbed, says a lot about who Guru Dev
favored, does it not?
Apparently, the Brahmacharya Mahesh was with with Guru Dev at his
passing, but I don't know how *you* or anyone else would know what
Guru Dev said just before he attained Mahasamadhi. But, I doubt that a
Saint like Guru Dev would concern himself with the doings of mere
clerk, would he? In point of fact, Mahesh Yogi used to be Brahmananda
Saraswati's Ssecretary, according to my sources - so it would be
perfectly logical for Guru Dev to call for Mr. Varma (Bal
Brahmacharaya).
In point of fact, Guru Dev had composed a will over 2 years previously
and had it registered in Allahabad. But that's beside the point,
because Guru Dev's death was considered untimely, brought on by
natural causes, according to the attending physician and the coroners
report. If true, Guru Dev would hardly be calling a clerk, in the
middle of dying, in order to tell the clerk not to teach anything or
go anywhere!
Besides, how a 'mere clerk' would come to be sitting beside a dying
Saint and carrying out his last instructions doesn't make much sense
unless Mahesh Yogi was much more than a clerk. It certainly boggles
the mind to imagine how a low-level clerk could somehow get an
audience with a fully-realized Saint sitting on his deathbed, then
somehow get ahold of Guru Dev's physical body, wrestle it away from
all the other Ashram inmates, put it on a train, and make all the
arrangements for the national funeral down in Kashi, then get Guru
Dev's last will and testament out of the Jyotirmath Trust at the
National Bank, where it was registered, and then go about installing
the succussor to the Shankaracharya Seat of the North, according to a
forged will. That's a real stretch for a mere clerk!
That is, unless Mahesh Yogi was much more than a mere clerk for
thirteen years. Apparently, Brahmacharya Mahesh was the Adminstrator
of the Jyotirmath Ashram Trust and it was the Brahmacharya Mahesh who
made all the arrangements for Guru Dev's tours and yagyas. That's not
surprising to me, in light of what Mahesh Yogi has been able to
accomplish for his own program, and that was starting from scratch!
Never let it be said that Maharishi doesn't know how to organize a
yoga camp! Apparenly, it was Bal Brahmacharya who was instumental in
introducing the President of India to Guru Dev. There's a famous photo
of Brahmacharya Mahesh standing next to the President of India - quite
a feat for a mere clerk, don't you think?
Maybe Brahmacharya Mahesh went to the Upper Kashi in order to relax
and enjoy. After all, thirteen years is a long time to be sitting at
someones feet, even if they were a Saint.
Maybe Guru Dev didn't 'command' anyone to do anything - who knows? It
hasn't been established that Guru DevJi commanded Brahmacharya Mahesh
to go into isolation - but it's obvious, at least to me, that
Brahmacharya Mahesh was probably the only person alive who could keep
up with the demands of serving such a dynamic teacher as Guru Dev was!
I wasn't there of course, but it seems to me that Brahmacharya Mahesh
was distrustful of some of the other disciples, and with good reason.
Imagine what would have happened if the Swami Prakash had been
appointed and accepted to the Jyotirmath seat by that committee -
you'd have a quasi-dualistic rasavada proponent sitting on the seat of
the non-dualist Shankaracharya, espousing anti-adwaita rhetoric. Now
that would be a topsy-tuvy chain of events! It's no wonder that the
Mahesh Yogi was eager to fulfill the stipulations in Guru Dev's will
right away.
In the case of the Shakaracharya it is the usual custom to follow the
disciplic succession. According to Mr. Sundaresan, "...once Swami
Brahmananda Saraswati was accepted as the Jyotirmath Sankaracharya,
and there were no serious disputes about it at the time, further
activities of these other institutions with respect to succession
issues could be construed as unnecessary interference." I fully agree
with this, but you obviously do not.
A committee, (kashi vidvat parishad), founded by Madhvacharya?
You idoit! That's not the same Madhvaacharya, the dualist, who
composed the Sri Bhyasya. The Shankaracharya seats in India have
nothing to do with the Sri Vaishnava cult founded by Madhva which came
years later. You're confused, I think.
You are floating - this 'committee' of pundits has appointed no
Shankaracharya to any seat, ever. Pundit committees do not appoint
Saints, least of all do they declare a nobody to be a 'jagadguru', a
teacher to the world, over and above the other four jagadgurus, namely
Puri, Dwarka, Sringeri and Jyotirmath.. Get a grip!
"A few centuries ago, such problems would have
been referred to the local king, and perhaps
solved quickly. In independent India, the
dispute has been taken to the secular courts,
but these are quite different from the old
princely durbars in their procedures and rules.
The judges also lack legislative and executive
authority over religious institutions, unlike
the Hindu king of old days. It seems to me that
those who did not wish to acknowledge Santananda
as the Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath did not
sufficiently appreciate these changes in modern
times, and expected the courts to accept their
cultural, moral and religious arguments as legally
valid. Thus, none of the civil suits in this
dispute seems to have been framed in terms of
contesting the legal bona fides of Brahmananda's
will." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan
It's a moot point, since the Jyotirmath was vacant for 165 years or
more. Who knows what happened during that time? Apparently, the Rawal
(head priest) of Badrikaashram considered himself to be the
Shankaracharya. Who is to say? Certainly not a committee of pundits
down in Kashi!
With all due respect, you're full of it. The Bharata Dharma
Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha were all present at the installation of Guru Dev's
successor, Shree Swami Shantanand Saraswati. According to The Time of
India, Shantanand was installed with all due pomp and ceremony.
Apparently, Shantanand meditated for over an hour in a public
reception. Subsequently, Shantanand was present at a number of TMO
activities, the least not being the Saints Course at Ram Nagar, the
ground-breaking of Shankaracharya Nagar at Rishikesh, and at the
Maharishi Guru Poornima at Noida held in 1990.
According to Kropinsky, Shantanand was present at the bithday
celebration of Guru Dev at Vrindavan, which you cited. It is a fact
that Swami Shantanada Saraswati and his successors fully approved of
the Mahesh Yogi and the TM meditation program.
If you think that meditation is not supported by the Dasanami
Sampradya founded by the Adi Shankara, you are mistaken.
Your claim is false and is totally without merit. According to the Adi
Shankara, in his sub-commentary on Veda Vyasa's Vivarana on
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, meditation is described as the cessation of
the flutuations of the mental processes - specificaly, the meditation
on the Pranava, with instructions to meditate on it, and to reflect on
it's meaning. A clear, concise, incontrovertible and unassailable
reference to the TM program as taught by the Mahesh Yogi.
FYI: "Adi Sankaracharya (8th century) is traditionally said to have
established four mathas (monasteries) in India, and to have placed
them under the leadership of his four chief disciples. The heads of
these four and other monasteries of the Dasanami orders have come to
be known as Sankaracharyas themselves, in honor of the founder. They
are considered to be the leaders of the ten orders of the Dasanami
Sannyasins associated with Advaita Vedanta." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have responded to each and every
one of your slanderous accustaions - including your bald-faced lie
that the Maharishi murdered Guru Dev, in a conspiracy with the ashram
cook, by posioning Guru Dev's food, while the cook was at Jyotirmath
and Guru Dev was down in Calcutta. Go figure.
Once again, I have responded to your false claims and accusations,
Sir!
Namaste' and Jai Guru Dev!
ColdBluICE
2004-03-01 12:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Oliver Lyons <> wrote:...
willytex wrote:..
...remove himsself from this forum.
<snip>
http://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva.htm
Nice website -- an antidote to the poison !
Sir Oliver..anyone can create a "nice website"..However not much(if
any) of the content of willy's webpostings is at all based in
historical fact!!

If you care to explore the reality of Lil MishMashi Maheshs sordid
past, and that of his cohorts..then have a read of my
response..re-postted here..
wilyytex's so-called history deconstructed
So Kindly You Sayhttp://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva2.htm
How about independent confirmation of the facts.. there Texie?
see links cited below
and the President. I think it's time to
stand up and be counted - put your money where your mouth is or take a
hike.
<snip>
Apparently, the Swami Prakashanand Saraswati gave Robert Kropinsky a
'letter of intriduction' in order to get an audience with the Swami
Swaroopanand at Guru Dev's birtday celebration in Brindaban. But, when
the Swami Svaroop finds out that the Swami Prakash hosted a recent
VHP-America event, the Swaroop may wise up to the Prakash's game. For
sure the Prakash won't be invited to any more birthday party
celebrations at the Swaroops's house! The Swaroop is opposed to the
VHP and considers that rascally outfit to be nothing less than a gang
of terrorists and radical extremists.
I have spoken to the Maharaj Swami and he confirm this story.
-Ya sure...rrright..you aint spoke to anyone.. 'bout anything...
So, how, exactly do you become a 'former' disciple of SwamiJi
Brahmannda, anyway? By visiting other saints and gurus, perhaps? : )
BrahmanandaJi passed in '53... Swami PrakashanandaJi was free to move
on.
That figures - when you go visiting other Saints like the Swami
Prakashanand did, you probably feel like bashing your former guru -
-Shree SwamiJi bashed no one... He only tried to straighten out the
mess created by Mahesh Brahmachari.
you are a case in point. In some other cases, the term 'former
disciple' says it all, you know what I mean?
-no..
The 'former disciples' of Guru Dev, except the Swami Swaroopanand, are
all sock-puppets for the RSS - that's common knowledge.
Speaking of "sock puppet" for the RSS.. He is your "pretend
Shank"-Vasudevananda leading a group fo RSS Ram Bhaktas to Ayodhya.
The article is dated October 15, 2003, and it cites Swami Vasudevanada
as their leader. However no mention of Vasudevanada as being
"Shankaracharya..
see article from www.rediff.com ...cited below

..."Dwivedi warned that if Ram bhakts were harassed, they will respond
in an appropriate way.
Asked what if this entailed violence, Diwedi said it would be
'even-handed.'
"We are not satisfied with the central government's arrangements in
Ayodhya. About 1. 75 lakh Ram bhakts have been kept in inhuman
conditions...they must be treated in a dignified way," he said.
Dwivedi said around 45,000 Ram bhakts led by Swami Vasudevananda
Saraswati have left for Ayodhya from Prayag to participate in the
October 17 rally.
On VHP vice-president Giriraj Kishore's arrest in Lucknow by the state
administration, Dwivedi said it is a matter of concern that he has not
been allowed to talk to the media.
The VHP spokesman asserted that VHP activists will take part in the
rally in large numbers come what may.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/15ayo3.htm
<snip>
Swami
Vasudevananda Saraswati is currently the *sole representative Guru
Dev's lineage*, according to Vidyasankar Sundaresan. Vasudevananda was
present at the appointment of a Mahamandaleswara of the Mahanirvani
Akhada in 1995, according to Hinduism Today.
Your spurious claims based *questionable information* is as flawed as
your thinking..Vidyasankar Sundaresan is quite clear that the
so-called "lineage" of Shantiananda-Vishnudevananda-Vasudevananda is
not recognized by none of the remaining 4 *legimate Shankaracharyas*
nor the *lawful courts of India*!!
see links cited below

..."Swami Brahmananda Saraswati passed away in 1953, but he had not
clearly indicated his successor. This immediately caused a problem, as
he had initiated a number of disciples into Sannyasa. A few weeks
after he passed away, a will was found, according to the terms of
which, a disciple called Swami Santananda Saraswati was named as the
first choice for succeeding to the Jyotirmath title. However, many
followers of Brahmananda Saraswati were satisfied neither with the
credentials of Santananda, nor with the validity/authenticity of the
will. Perhaps, the doubts about the will were themselves based partly
upon the perception that Santananda was not a good choice for
successor. His quickness to take charge of the matha administration on
the basis of this will also probably raised many eyebrows. Meanwhile,
there was a widespread rumor that Brahmananda Saraswati had been
poisoned. This set a number of civil lawsuits into motion. To the best
of my knowledge, no criminal lawsuits were filed against anyone, on
the basis of the poisoning theory. However, Santananda's reputation
definitely took a blow, although the major complaint against him was
simply that he was unfit for the post of Sankaracharya, because he did
not measure up to the qualifications described in the Mahanusasana
texts..." [2]
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html

..."Karapatri Swami (Hariharananda Sarasvati), a well-known disciple
of SrI brahmAnanda, was asked to take over the Jyotirmath title, but
he declined. To resolve the dispute, another committee of pundits from
Varanasi was formed, under the guidance of Karapatri Swami and Sri
Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha of Dvaraka. Sri Krsnabodhasrama was
appointed as the new head of the matha. When he passed away in the
early 1970's, he nominated Sri Svarupananda Sarasvati, another
disciple of Sri Brahmananda, as his successor. Sri Svarupananda
continues as the Sankaracarya of Jyotirmath, and has also been in
charge of Dvaraka since 1982..."
http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html
"Only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Shantananda) can be traced
directly to Brahmananda, without any interruptions." - Vidyasankar
Sundaresan
Sorry willytex here is the same article cited above from rediff.com
from Oct. 15,2003..not five months ago Swami Vasudevananda was not
refered to as the Shankaracharya of Jyosimath..
see article below..

..."Dwivedi warned that if Ram bhakts were harassed, they will
respond in an appropriate way.
Asked what if this entailed violence, Diwedi said it would be
'even-handed.'
"We are not satisfied with the central government's arrangements in
Ayodhya. About 1. 75 lakh Ram bhakts have been kept in inhuman
conditions...they must be treated in a dignified way," he said.
Dwivedi said around 45,000 Ram bhakts led by Swami Vasudevananda
Saraswati have left for Ayodhya from Prayag to participate in the
October 17 rally.
On VHP vice-president Giriraj Kishore's arrest in Lucknow by the state
administration, Dwivedi said it is a matter of concern that he has not
been allowed to talk to the media.
The VHP spokesman asserted that VHP activists will take part in the
rally in large numbers come what may.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/15ayo3.htm
There is some very distressing facts related to the Swami
Prakashanand. For example, the Swami Prakash, apparently, went to
Jyotirmath, in 1950, and claims to have been initiated there. By whom
I would ask? Apparently, Guru Dev wasn't even at Jyotirmath in the
year 1950, according to Raj Varma, but was on tour in South India!
-This from the so-called expert ..willytex.. who re-writes all of
history at his pleasure.
Prakash also makes the claim of having been 'offered the seat of the
Jyotirmath' in 1952 by a committee of pundits down in Kashi - a full
year before Guru Dev's untimely demise. That would have been news to
Guru Dev, who only passed away in 1953!
That would have really been something - a Shankaracharya who was only
22 years old, who had been a Sannyasi for less than a year, and who
had been in the presence of Guru Dev for probably a total of thirty
minutes in his whole life. Sounds like something a stupid committee of
politicaly motivated pundits down in Kashi would come with.
I am guessing you are referring the the same council of pudits at
Kashi..whom appointed Swami BrahmanandaJi is '41.
see links cited below

.."Jyotirmath: Also known as Joshimath, it is located near Badrinath
in the Himalayas, because of which it is also known as the Badrinath
matha. After a long hiatus of 165 years, this matha was revived in the
year 1941, under Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati, a disciple of Sri
Krsnananda Sarasvati, who was originally from Sringeri. The
appointment was made by a committee of pundits from Varanasi, and Sri
Brahmananda's accomplishments helped re-establish the Jyotirmath as an
important center of traditional advaita teaching in northern India.
When he passed away in 1953, Sri Santananda Sarasvati succeeded him at
this seat, according to the terms of a will. However, there was a
dispute regarding the capacity of Sri Santananda for the title and
also about the validity of this will..."
http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html

.."The appointment of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati in 1941 was made by
a group of monks and pundits based in Varanasi (the Bharata Dharma
Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha), with the blessings of Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha, the
then Sankaracharya of Puri. Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati of Sringeri
also endorsed Brahmananda's appointment. Thus, right from the
beginning of the Jyotirmath's revival in 1941, the opinions of the
heads of other Amnaya mathas were taken seriously into
consideration..."
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
<snip>
However, there is one undisputed fact - neither Swaroopanand nor
Prakashanand's name was listed in Guru Dev's will.
The so-called "will" of Guru Dev was viewed by many as fraud.
see links cited
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
Another fact is
that in the Kropinsky interview Swami Swaroopanand does not deny the
validity of Guru Dev's will.
Ya sure.. sorry willytex *history is NOT on your side*
see links cited

..."In 1953 itself, one Swami Krishnabodha Asrama was appointed as
the new Jyotirmath Sankaracharya, contesting Santananda's claim.
Krishnabodha Asrama was not a direct disciple of Brahmananda
Saraswati, but given the nature of Jyotirmath's revival in 1941, this
was not necessarily a disqualification. The new appointment also had
the support of the Puri matha, but it must be noted that this matha
was to have a few succession problems of its own, within a decade. [4]
When Krishnabodha Asrama passed away in 1973, he nominated Swami
Swarupananda Saraswati to the title. Swarupananda is a direct disciple
of Brahmananda Saraswati, but he has also studied under both
Krishnabodha Asrama and Abhinava Sacchidananda Tirtha of Dwaraka.."
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html

..."Jyotirmath: Also known as Joshimath, it is located near Badrinath
in the Himalayas, because of which it is also known as the Badrinath
matha. After a long hiatus of 165 years, this matha was revived in the
year 1941, under Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati, a disciple of Sri
Krsnananda Sarasvati, who was originally from Sringeri. The
appointment was made by a committee of pundits from Varanasi, and Sri
Brahmananda's accomplishments helped re-establish the Jyotirmath as an
important center of traditional advaita teaching in northern India.
When he passed away in 1953, Sri Santananda Sarasvati succeeded him at
this seat, according to the terms of a will. However, there was a
dispute regarding the capacity of Sri Santananda for the title and
also about the validity of this will..."
http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html
<snip>
A committee, (kashi vidvat parishad), founded by Madhvacharya?
You idoit! That's not the same Madhvaacharya, the dualist, who
composed the Sri Bhyasya. The Shankaracharya seats in India have
nothing to do with the Sri Vaishnava cult founded by Madhva which came
years later. You're confused, I think.
You are floating - this 'committee' of pundits has appointed no
Shankaracharya to any seat, ever.
-No willytex.. the Kashi Vidvat Parishad appointed Swami BrahmanandaJi
in 1941 to Jyosimath!

.."Jyotirmath: Also known as Joshimath, it is located near Badrinath
in the Himalayas, because of which it is also known as the Badrinath
matha. After a long hiatus of 165 years, this matha was revived in the
year 1941, under Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati, a disciple of Sri
Krsnananda Sarasvati, who was originally from Sringeri. The
appointment was made by a committee of pundits from Varanasi, and Sri
Brahmananda's accomplishments helped re-establish the Jyotirmath as an
important center of traditional advaita teaching in northern India.
When he passed away in 1953, Sri Santananda Sarasvati succeeded him at
this seat, according to the terms of a will. However, there was a
dispute regarding the capacity of Sri Santananda for the title and
also about the validity of this will..."
http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html

.."The appointment of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati in 1941 was made by
a group of monks and pundits based in Varanasi (the Bharata Dharma
Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha), with the blessings of Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha, the
then Sankaracharya of Puri. Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati of Sringeri
also endorsed Brahmananda's appointment. Thus, right from the
beginning of the Jyotirmath's revival in 1941, the opinions of the
heads of other Amnaya mathas were taken seriously into
consideration..."
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
Pundit committees do not appoint
Saints, least of all do they declare a nobody to be a 'jagadguru', a
teacher to the world, over and above the other four jagadgurus, namely
Puri, Dwarka, Sringeri and Jyotirmath.. Get a grip!
-you are confused.. see above
<snip>
With all due respect, you're full of it.
-Ya sure.. this from someone who invents history as he goes
along..LOL
The Bharata Dharma
Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha were all present at the installation of Guru Dev's
successor, Shree Swami Shantanand Saraswati.
According to The Time of
India, Shantanand was installed with all due pomp and ceremony.
Apparently, Shantanand meditated for over an hour in a public
reception. Subsequently, Shantanand was present at a number of TMO
activities, the least not being the Saints Course at Ram Nagar, the
ground-breaking of Shankaracharya Nagar at Rishikesh, and at the
Maharishi Guru Poornima at Noida held in 1990.
According to Kropinsky, Shantanand was present at the bithday
celebration of Guru Dev at Vrindavan, which you cited.
-Shantinanda was allowed to attend as he sat in seat much lower that
Swami Swaroopananda, and had- "given up this nonsense of calling
himself Shankaracharya."
It is a fact
that Swami Shantanada Saraswati and his successors fully approved of
the Mahesh Yogi and the TM meditation program.
-No not true..at all!!
<snip>
Once again, I have responded to your false claims and accusations,
Sir!
-And yet have yet tp prove me wrong...
Namaste' and Jai Guru Dev!
Post a follow-up to this message

Prev 10
unknown
2004-03-01 16:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ColdBluICE
Oliver Lyons <> wrote:...
willytex wrote:..
...remove himsself from this forum.
<snip>
http://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva.htm
Nice website -- an antidote to the poison !
Sir Oliver..anyone can create a "nice website"..However not much(if
any) of the content of willy's webpostings is at all based in
historical fact!!
If you care to explore the reality of Lil MishMashi Maheshs sordid
past, and that of his cohorts..then have a read of my
response..re-postted here..
wilyytex's so-called history deconstructed
<snip>

I find this area of the succession of Guru Dev to be a little
confusing.

However, it does seem to me that MMY followed the dictats of the
disputed will. This would be consistent with his own description of
his relationship with Guru Dev. It's also interesting to note the mess
that occurred with Guru Dev's death -- is it not a little odd that
( if the disputed will was false) no will was left ? I find that
bizarre -- given the importance of Guru Dev.

It also seems to me that politics (from your links) played a large
role in the appointment of the new Shankaracharya and that MMY ws
caught up in this.

One thing I don't understand is how you can get from those links any
Post by ColdBluICE
-What lying?.. over 50 years ago..Lil MishMashi Mahesh conspired with
the ashram cook to murder his "master"...to get at the materail wealth
of the ashram, and usurp his master's authority by claiming his
master's title for himself...
Lil MishMashi Mahesh (the Addled Old Psychopath) is a lying, thieving
scum-sucking dog that has human feces for a heart.
That's a vile and poisonous statement. And you should be ashamed.
unknown
2004-03-02 16:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by ColdBluICE
Oliver Lyons <> wrote:...
willytex wrote:..
...remove himsself from this forum.
<snip>
http://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva.htm
Nice website -- an antidote to the poison !
Sir Oliver..anyone can create a "nice website"..However not much(if
any) of the content of willy's webpostings is at all based in
historical fact!!
If you care to explore the reality of Lil MishMashi Maheshs sordid
past, and that of his cohorts..then have a read of my
response..re-postted here..
wilyytex's so-called history deconstructed
I've taken the time to look through the websites you mentioned and
also checked out other posts about the same topic.

It seems to me ( and I stand open to correction) that the followers of
Guru Dev were divided after his death. It seems also that some, those
who might focus on the more exoteric manifestations of being a
Shankacharya, were jealous of MMY's influence on Guru Dev, particulary
when he was not of the proper caste.
Post by ColdBluICE
At about the age of 28, he met Swami Brahmananda Saraswati,
the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math (Himalayas), became his disciple,
and served as one of his foremost aides for some thirteen years until
his passing in May, 1953.75 As Shankaracharya, Brahmananda travelled
throughout northern India and met with civic and political leaders as
well as other religious authorities. Mahesh made good use of his
familiarity with English, handling correspondence and accompanying his
"Guru Dev" wherever he went. Because he was not a brahmin, Mahesh
could not become a member of the dandi sannyasi order and succeed his
master as Shankaracharya; the honor passed to Swami Shantanand
Saraswati in June, 1953.76
Post by ColdBluICE
Footnote : Maharishi's years of devoted service to the Shankaracharya
and the reasons for his insufficient status to succeed him were
substantiated by the current Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math,
SwamiVishnudevanand, in an interview given in Joshimath, June 12,
1983.
Post by ColdBluICE
http://members.aol.com/drcoplin/SRMemergence.html
There was obviously a struggle for power, and MMY's side apparently
lost. Vile rumour and innuendo obviously played a part in that
campaign, and thus, the rather extraordinary charge that MMY had some
part in Guru Dev's death.

I think this makes sense, If you know of any fact that would challenge
this interpretation, I'm all ears.

I have to say that not once, in reading up on this, did I find
anything that justifies your poisonous claims. As I said already, you
should be ashamed of making them.
willytex
2004-03-03 00:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
I've taken the time to look through the
websites you mentioned and also checked
out other posts about the same topic.
Mr. Lyons - I'll save you some time and effort - there's not one
mention of Guru Dev being murdered *in all the seven major Indian
media outlets*. You'll not find a single mention of this alleged
incident in the whole of the Indian Press or in any book written about
Guru Dev or the Maharsihi, including Paul Mason's biography.

In addition, there is no record of any criminal court case in any
database in any court in India having anything to do with the murder
of a Shankaracharya, EVER. And, not a single mention of it in any
journal or report anywhere that I know of.

Apparently, Mr. Perino (ColdBluICE) made the story up out of whole
cloth, with a little help from his guru, the co-conspirator Swami
Prakashananda, the liar Robert Kropinsky, and the rumor-monger Swami
Swaroopanand.
Post by unknown
It seems to me ( and I stand open to correction)
that the followers of Guru Dev were divided after
his death.
Guru Dev left a last will and testament designating Swami Shantananda
as his successor. This will has never been challenged in a court of
law and stands to this day. Niether the Swami Swaroopanand nor the
Swami Prakashanand were listed in the will. According to the Indian
tradition of discipleship, Swami Vasudevananda is the current
Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath.
Post by unknown
It seems also that some, those who might focus
on the more exoteric manifestations of being a
Shankacharya, were jealous of MMY's influence
on Guru Dev, particulary when he was not of the
proper caste.
Maybe so, but it is a fact that the Sannyasis of the Shankara Order
are supposed to be above all caste distinctions. It may be that the
Maharsihi would never have accepted such an office anyway, since it's
obviously a political affair these days. However, it is a fact that
the Maharishi's TM movement dwarfs all the Shankaracharya Orders
combined.
Post by unknown
At about the age of 28, he met Swami Brahmananda
http://members.aol.com/drcoplin/SRMemergence.html
You should be aware that there is not one mention of Guru Dev being
murdered in Dr. Coplin's report.
Post by unknown
There was obviously a struggle for power, and MMY's
side apparently lost.
There was no struggle - Swami Shantanada was coronated with all due
pomp and circumstance, according to the Times of India. Swami
Shantanand was the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath for many years - the
others are usurpers and impostors.
Post by unknown
Vile rumour and innuendo obviously played a part
in that campaign, and thus, the rather extraordinary
charge that MMY had some part in Guru Dev's death.
There is no report in the Indian Press of such a rumor. In fact, the
rumor was first made in the interview of Swaroop by Robert Kropinsky.
According to the U.S. Press Robert Kropinsky lost his case on appeal.
Therefore, Mr. Kropinsky has been proved in a court of law to be a
liar. It is interesting that Mr. Doughney (Minit Org) has never made
this fact known.
Post by unknown
I think this makes sense, If you know of any fact
that would challenge this interpretation, I'm all ears.
Don't hold your breath - I've been demanding proof of this accusation
from Mr. Perino for over three years and he has produced none.
Post by unknown
I have to say that not once, in reading up on this,
did I find anything that justifies your poisonous
claims.
According to the coroner's report, Guru Dev died from natural causes
at Calcutta in 1953.
Post by unknown
As I said already, you should be ashamed of making
them.
Apparently, Mr. Perino is not ashamed of being a bald-faced liar and
neither is his tag-team wife, Marci. Who can forget their claim that
Shankara didn't teach Adwaita!
Post by unknown
Post a follow-up to this message.
In addition, Mr. Perino is a cheater - he owes me $200 from a wager he
posted to this list - and he has so far failed to pay up.

Below are listed the citations for my quotations:

"Only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Shantananda) can be traced
directly to Brahmananda, without any interruptions." - Vidyasankar
Sundaresan

According to Mr. Sundaresan, "...although he was initiated into
Sannyasa by Brahmananda Saraswati, his personal religious philosophy
is Acintya Bhedabheda, associated with Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya
Vaishnavas. This leads me to seriously suspect his claim of having
been offered the Sankaracharya post." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan

However, there is one undisputed fact - neither Swaroopanand nor
Prakashanand's name was listed in Guru Dev's will. Another fact is
that in the Kropinsky interview Swami Swaroopanand does not deny the
validity of Guru Dev's will. In fact, "...none of the civil suits in
this dispute seems to have been framed in terms of contesting the
legal bona fides of Brahmananda's will" - Vidyasankar Sundaresan

Fact is, a new lawsuit was filed, on the grounds that according to
Brahmananda's will, Dwarakesananda Saraswati should have been
appointed in case Shantananda stepped down! Thus, states Mr.
Sundaresan, "...notwithstanding what was privately thought about the
will and its legitimacy, its terms were co-opted, as a strategy to
displace Vishnudevananda." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan

Citations:

Vidyasankar Sundaresan
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html

Work Cited:

"Maharishi: The Biography"
By Paul Mason
Element Books, 1992

References:

1. The Case of the South Indian Big-Man
http://www.talkabouthealthnetwork.com/group/alt.yoga/messages/67249.html

2. Real history of the Kanchi math
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/alt_hindu_msg.html

Exhibit I:

His Divinity Swami Prakashanand Saraswati (Shree Swamiji) was born in
a respectable brahman family in 1929 in Ayodhya. He took the order of
sanyas in 1950. Seeing his renunciation, determination and deep
devotional feelings for God, in 1952, he was offered to become the
Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath but his heart was drawn towards
the love of Radha Krishn so he did not accept the proposal.
http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/author.htm
ColdBluICE
2004-03-03 01:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Oliver Lyons wrote:...
ColdBluICE wrote:...
Oliver Lyons <> wrote:...
willytex wrote:..
...remove himsself from this forum.
<snip>
http://www.willytex.org/archives/maharishi/gurudeva.htm
Nice website -- an antidote to the poison !
Sir Oliver..anyone can create a "nice website"..However not much(if
any) of the content of willy's webpostings is at all based in
historical fact!!
If you care to explore the reality of Lil MishMashi Maheshs sordid
past, and that of his cohorts..then have a read of my
response..re-postted here..
wilyytex's so-called history deconstructed
I've taken the time to look through the websites you mentioned and
also checked out other posts about the same topic.
It seems to me ( and I stand open to correction) that the followers of
Guru Dev were divided after his death.
-There were only two followers who could be considered "divided"
after the death of Swami BrahmanandaJi....the two of course are
Shantiananda & Vishnudevananda...

Shortly after the passing of BrahmanandaJi most of the Sanyasis had
moved on... Swami Swaroopananda & 108 Swami HiteshiJi Maharaj went to
Dwarika, and Swami Prakashananda departed for Manghur, and
Swami Hariharananda Saraswati had gone to Kashi.
And Swami Dwarakesananda Saraswati, and Swami Paramatmananda Saraswati
remained but never pressed any claim for the title.

As you are aware BrahmanandaJi followed the strict rules and
qualifications described in the Mahanusasana texts (guidelines
established by Sri Adi Shankaracharya). The guidelines established the
requirement of complete renunciation (vows of Sanyasi) for anyone to
teach His path.

So that automatically removes Mahesh from ever teaching..anything..to
anyone.

There were four whom were qualified.. and, four had declined the
offer(or never pressed any claim) to proceed BrahmanandaJi after He
had departed this earth.
see links cited

.."Still, for the record, if his claim is valid, then we have two
Swamis who have rejected offers to become the Sankaracharya of
Jyotirmath, namely Hariharananda Saraswati and Prakasananda Saraswati.
We should also not forget Dwarakesananda Saraswati, and Paramatmananda
Saraswati, who were named in a contested will, but did not really get
an opportunity to press their claims..."
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html

The issue of the validity of the "will" had become the central point
of Shantananda's claim..

However the will was *NOT contested* by the Sanyasi
Preachers/followers ..but by the council of learned Vedic Scholars &
Pundits at Kashi (Kashi Vidvat Parishad)..the very same council that
had appointed BrahmanandaJi in 1941..."

The Kashi Vidvat Parishad *DID NOT* recognize Shantananda's claim.
And, *ONCE AGAIN* appointed the spiritual head of Jyosimath.. Swami
Krishnabodha Asrama.
see links cited

.."Because of the controversy over Brahmananda's will and
Santananda's succession, the organizations involved in reviving
Jyotirmath in 1941 considered other nominations for the Sankaracharya
post. These efforts were blessed by Swami Abhinava Sacchidananda
Tirtha, the then Sankaracharya of Dwaraka. In 1953 itself, one Swami
Krishnabodha Asrama was appointed as the new Jyotirmath Sankaracharya,
contesting Santananda's claim..."
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html

And as you recall, later in life Shantananda-, "had given up this
nonsense of calling himself Shankaracharya."

..."He said, word came to me that he (Shantinand) had
requested to be allowed on the stage. I allowed him to be present only
because he has given up this nonsense of claiming title to
Shankaracharya. He said Vishnu Devanand, Mahesh's so-called
Shankaracharya, was also here in Vrindaban, he also requested to come
onto the stage, but I refused. Then, he (Vishnu Devanand) stated he
would sit on a lower, undecorated seat if I allowed him to attend. I
refused him. Then, he again begged to simply sit on the floor of the
stage at my feet, if I allowed him to be publicly present. Again I
refused. He said, if I allow him to be seen with me, and all the while
wrongfully claiming title as Shankaracharya, it will appear as if I
approve of his activity, and I do not. Therefore, he said, I have
ordered that he may not even come into the tent to sit in the
audience...."
http://minet.org/Documents/shank-1
It seems also that some, those
who might focus on the more exoteric manifestations of being a
Shankacharya, were jealous of MMY's influence on Guru Dev, particulary
when he was not of the proper caste.
At about the age of 28, he met Swami Brahmananda Saraswati,
the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math (Himalayas), became his disciple,
and served as one of his foremost aides for some thirteen years until
his passing in May, 1953.75 As Shankaracharya, Brahmananda travelled
throughout northern India and met with civic and political leaders as
well as other religious authorities. Mahesh made good use of his
familiarity with English, handling correspondence and accompanying his
"Guru Dev" wherever he went. Because he was not a brahmin, Mahesh
could not become a member of the dandi sannyasi order and succeed his
master as Shankaracharya; the honor passed to Swami Shantanand
Saraswati in June, 1953.76
Footnote : Maharishi's years of devoted service to the Shankaracharya
and the reasons for his insufficient status to succeed him were
substantiated by the current Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math,
SwamiVishnudevanand, in an interview given in Joshimath, June 12,
1983.
http://members.aol.com/drcoplin/SRMemergence.html
-There are so many inaccuracies in Dr. Coplin's thesis that i could
not address them all...

However one thing there is agreement on is this-.. Mahesh never
recieved any instructions for BrahmanandaJi to teach..
see links cited

"http://hometown.aol.com/drcoplin/introduction.html
..."After about one year of ascetic seclusion at Uttarkashi, in a
placecalled "valley of the saints," Maharishi Mahesh Yogi accompanied
his ailing aunt from Calcutta to a medical facility at Madanapalle in
the southern state of Andhra Pradesh. By his own admission, he was
responding not only to the request of his relative but more directly
to an irrepressible impulse to "go south"."..[end]

http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/edu/archive/callnomm/cnm-12.html
.."The long, informal talk I had now received was probably not
intended to be recorded at all. In it he said that he had gone out
from the Himalayan Valley of Uttar Kashi after the appointment of Guru
Dev'ssuccessor, and travelled to Madras, in South India, where he
visited monasteries and temples with no clear aim in view. He was not
at that time on a mission. He had had no instructions.... [end]
There was obviously a struggle for power, and MMY's side apparently
lost.
There *WAS NOT* "a struggle for power" as not one of Swami
BrahmanandJi's qualified Sanyasi Preachers wanted the title!!.. see
above
Vile rumour and innuendo obviously played a part in that
campaign, and thus, the rather extraordinary charge that MMY had some
part in Guru Dev's death.
No, Sir it was not "vile rumor and innuendo" that the charge was
based on.

The claim was based on common knowledge at Jyosimath.
I think this makes sense, If you know of any fact that would challenge
this interpretation, I'm all ears.
Yes, i had spoken two two living disciples of BrahmanandaJi years ago,
and i had known (and still know) Robert Kropinski when he had just
returned from India in 1987.. after his interview with Swami
SwaroopanandaJi.
I have to say that not once, in reading up on this, did I find
anything that justifies your poisonous claims.
Shall i make then again??.. please allow me the opportunity..
Lil MishMashi Mahesh is a *Lying, Thieving Sum-Sucking Dog* that has
*human Feces* for a heart.
As I said already, you
should be ashamed of making them.
Hardly ashamed..just happy to do my oart to end *MishMashi Mahesh
fraud* in this lifetime : )
unknown
2004-03-03 10:14:56 UTC
Permalink
<snip> I've snipped the stuff about the lineage because I need more
time to look at it -- as I said, it's confusing to me because I'm not
au fait with all the details. If it's OK with you I'll come back to it
later if necessary.
Post by ColdBluICE
Post by unknown
Vile rumour and innuendo obviously played a part in that
campaign, and thus, the rather extraordinary charge that MMY had some
part in Guru Dev's death.
No, Sir it was not "vile rumor and innuendo" that the charge was
based on.
The claim was based on common knowledge at Jyosimath.
So what you're saying is that "common knowledge" and rumour are not
the same. You weren't there when Guru Dev died so someone told you it
was common knowledge. That sounds mighty like a rumour to me.

Regarding Mr Kropinski's interview : there are a couple of puzzling
things in it. One that I recall is that he says that what MMY was
teaching can't work. This, based on my own experience, is not correct.
It seemed to me that the Shankaracharya had a grudge of some sort. Why
he would have a grudge I don't know ? Possibly jealousy of MMY's
influence on Guru Dev ? Possible jealousy of what MMY ws doing in
NOIDA ?

Also, consider : was there a police investigation and what were the
results ? What were the results of the autopsy ? Were any criminal
charges brought against the cook ? If not, why not ?


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't see any
evidence at all, let alone extraordinary evidence.
Post by ColdBluICE
Post by unknown
I think this makes sense, If you know of any fact that would challenge
this interpretation, I'm all ears.
Yes, i had spoken two two living disciples of BrahmanandaJi years ago,
and i had known (and still know) Robert Kropinski when he had just
returned from India in 1987.. after his interview with Swami
SwaroopanandaJi.
That's it ?? That's all the evidence ?? Hearsay ?? I think you'll need
more than that. How do you know that they were not just repeating
rumour ? How do I know you're not making this up ?
Post by ColdBluICE
Post by unknown
I have to say that not once, in reading up on this, did I find
anything that justifies your poisonous claims.
Shall i make then again??.
Why would you want to do that -- what 's your point ?
. please allow me the opportunity..
Post by ColdBluICE
Lil MishMashi Mahesh is a *Lying, Thieving Sum-Sucking Dog* that has
*human Feces* for a heart.
Post by unknown
As I said already, you
should be ashamed of making them.
Hardly ashamed..just happy to do my oart to end *MishMashi Mahesh
fraud* in this lifetime : )
Did you feel it was a fraud before you heard the rumours or after ?
willytex
2004-03-03 16:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
I've snipped the stuff about the lineage
because I need more time to look at it
Mr. Lyons - I have appended Guru Dev's Parampara for your
consideration - please see my thread entitled 'Guru Dev's Parampara'
on this forum.
Post by unknown
-- as I said, it's confusing to me because
I'm not au fait with all the details.
That's the confidence game with Pedro and Perino and their tag-team
spouces. They want you to be confused because they hate they
Maharishi. But, it's not really confusing:

Guru Dev selected his own successor and left explicit instructions in
a probated will. The will specified that Swami Shantanand was his
successor. It's that simple.
Post by unknown
If it's OK with you I'll come back to it
later if necessary.
You could spend years here debating with scoundrels like Perino and
Pedro! They are die-hard anti-TMers with an axe to grind. Do not
expect any accurate or truthful information from either of them. They
have both been totally discredited on this forum.

<snip>
Post by unknown
You weren't there when Guru Dev died
Neither Mr. Perino nor his guru, Swami Prakashanand, were present at
the untimely death of Maharaj Shree. Apparently, the ashram cook was
at Jyotirmath in the Himalayas, so the cook could hardly be implicated
in his death, you know what I mean?

It is a fact that Mr. Perino has never set foot in Mother India; he
does not read Sanskrit and he is not in good standing with his own
Spiritual Master.

<snip>
Post by unknown
It seemed to me that the Shankaracharya
had a grudge of some sort.
The Swami Swaroopanand is an impostor and usurper who makes false
claims to holding two Shankaracharya seats, Dwarka and Jyotirmath. He
is no longer in the disciplic lineage of Guru Dev, having gone over to
another Saint.
Post by unknown
Why he would have a grudge I don't know?
Casteism, ego, power and money?
Post by unknown
Possibly jealousy of MMY's influence on
Guru Dev?
Obviously.
Post by unknown
Possible jealousy of what MMY ws doing
in NOIDA?
What the Maharishi is doing makes their little dagobas look like
anthills.
Post by unknown
Also, consider: was there a police
investigation and what were the results?
That the Maharishi, in a conspiracy with the Jyotirmath Asharam cook,
murdered Guru Dev with poison, is a vile rumor cooked up by Mr. Perino
and his guru, the Swami Prakashanad.

There has never been a single mention of this alleged incident, in any
Indian court of law and not a single mention in any of the *seven
major Indian media outlets*, including the Times of India.
Post by unknown
What were the results of the autopsy?
According to Guru Dev's Official Biography, Swami Brahmanada
Saraswati's untimely death was due to natural causes, as reported in
the coroners report.
Post by unknown
Were any criminal charges brought against
the cook?
Mr. Perino refuses to state the cook's name and neither he nor his
guru have ever informed the police of this alleged deed.
Post by unknown
If not, why not?
Because it would make them look like laughing stocks?
Post by unknown
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Maybe Mr. Perino should put up or shut up. I vote that he just leave
this forum. He has denigrated the entire Chaitanya Sampradaya. Perino
is a disgrace to the bhakti movement.
Post by unknown
I don't see any evidence at all, let alone extraordinary evidence.
There is not one shred of evidence that Guru Dev died of poisoning.
Post by unknown
Post by ColdBluICE
Yes, i had spoken two two living disciples of
BrahmanandaJi years ago,
I have spoken to four direct disciples of Guru Dev and they all agreed
that Guru Dev died of natural causes.
Post by unknown
and i had known (and still know) Robert Kropinski
For the record, Mr. Kropinsky lost his lawsuit against the Maharishi
on appeal. He is now a legally confirmed liar.
Post by unknown
That's it?
That's it, Mr. Lyons - a rumor cooked up by a few disgruntled
anti-TMers.
Post by unknown
How do I know you're not making this up?
Because it is unconfirmed by a galaxy of Guru Dev's direct disciples?
Post by unknown
Post by ColdBluICE
Post by ColdBluICE
Lil MishMashi Mahesh is a *Lying, Thieving
Sum-Sucking Dog* that has *human Feces* for
a heart.
I rest my case.

Not only is this miscreant a liar and a cheater, he is obviously an
over-the-top fanatical Hare Krishna freak.
unknown
2004-03-03 23:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Mr Perino .

Came across something you might be interested in !

This is from the Hindunet discussion groups :

Posts: 2
Loc: Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
avatar of the week
04/20/01 08:07 PM

Our Supreme Court on "Modern Krishna"
-----------------------------------

"The Supreme Court ordered the prosecution and trial of Kripalu
Maharaj, a self-proclaimed spiritual teacher running ashrams in
Vrindavan and Mangarh, in Maharashtra on charges of allegedly enticing
and raping young girls while acting as an incarnation of Lord Krishna.

Allowing an appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the Nagpur
bench of the Bombay High Court quashing the charge framed by a trial
court against the Maharaj and several of his accomplice - disciples, a
division bench comprising Mr. Justice G.N. Ray and Mr. Justice G.T.
Nanavathi held that the High Court was “wholly wrong in discarding
material placed before the court as false and discharging the accused
on that ground.”

The apex court observed that the High Court had clearly been
influenced by the submission made on behalf of the defence that Mr.
Maharaj was a saintly old man, who had renounced the world and who was
engrossed in spiritual activity with disciples all over India. The
Judges said while the High Court had held that such a saintly man was
not likely to indulge in such illegal acts alleged against him, it had
failed to appreciate that it was not unusual to come across cases
where so-called spiritual heads exploited young girls and women.

The apex court held that the reasoning of the High Court that it also
did not stand to reason that a saintly man would commit sexual
intercourse with the pracharak of his cult in the presence of his
disciples stands vitiated because of the vice of misreading the
statements of the three girl victims."


What happened in court ??


Also :

Kripalu Maharaj and Siddeswari Devi [re: Guest]
06/26/03 05:12 AM Edit Reply


Hey people:
Both Kripalu and that Didi are crooks. Kripalu has been convicted ins
four cases of sexual abuse of young women and girls. He is one of the
worst kind of sexual pervert. He claims himself to be Krishna's
reincarnation for this century and encourages innocent girls to engage
in Rasa leela to realize god. Siddeswari Devi, aka DIDI is bitch
trying to make fast buck by luring gullible women in the name of
Kripalu and encourage them to surrender all their wealth to her. She
is a selfish broker. Get rid of them if anyone finds them. I have
first hand information on them.

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/WorldNews/26761/0/collapsed/5/o/1

Apparently this is common knowledge in India.

Any comments ??
ColdBluICE
2004-03-01 03:41:42 UTC
Permalink
willytex wrote:...
...remove himsself from this forum.
Shemp - And all the other liars and cheats too! I'm sick and tired of
the these faceless anti-TMers posting all this garbage on this forum
and bashing the Maharishi
How about independent confrimation of the facts.. there Texie?
see links cited below
and the President. I think it's time to
stand up and be counted - put your money where your mouth is or take a
hike.
<snip>
Apparently, the Swami Prakashanand Saraswati gave Robert Kropinsky a
'letter of intriduction' in order to get an audience with the Swami
Swaroopanand at Guru Dev's birtday celebration in Brindaban. But, when
the Swami Svaroop finds out that the Swami Prakash hosted a recent
VHP-America event, the Swaroop may wise up to the Prakash's game. For
sure the Prakash won't be invited to any more birthday party
celebrations at the Swaroops's house! The Swaroop is opposed to the
VHP and considers that rascally outfit to be nothing less than a gang
of terrorists and radical extremists.
I have spoken to the Maharaj Swami and he confirm this story.
-Ya sure...rrright..you aint spoke to anyone.. 'bout anything...
So, how, exactly do you become a 'former' disciple of SwamiJi
Brahmannda, anyway? By visiting other saints and gurus, perhaps? : )
BrahmanandaJi passed in '53... Swami PrakashanandaJi was free to move
on.
That figures - when you go visiting other Saints like the Swami
Prakashanand did, you probably feel like bashing your former guru -
-Shree SwamiJi bashed no one... He only tried to straighten out the
mess created by Mahesh Brahmachari.
you are a case in point. In some other cases, the term 'former
disciple' says it all, you know what I mean?
-no..
The 'former disciples' of Guru Dev, except the Swami Swaroopanand, are
all sock-puppits for the RSS - that's common knowledge.
Speaking of "sock puppet" for the RSS.. He is your "pretend
Shank"-Vasudevananda leading a group fo RSS Ram Bhaktas to Ayodhya.
The article is dated October 15, 2003, and it cites Swami Vasudevanada
as their leader. However no mention of Vasudevanada as being
"Shankaracharya..
see article from rediff..cited below

..."Dwivedi warned that if Ram bhakts were harassed, they will respond
in an appropriate way.
Asked what if this entailed violence, Diwedi said it would be
'even-handed.'
"We are not satisfied with the central government's arrangements in
Ayodhya. About 1. 75 lakh Ram bhakts have been kept in inhuman
conditions...they must be treated in a dignified way," he said.
Dwivedi said around 45,000 Ram bhakts led by Swami Vasudevananda
Saraswati have left for Ayodhya from Prayag to participate in the
October 17 rally.
On VHP vice-president Giriraj Kishore's arrest in Lucknow by the state
administration, Dwivedi said it is a matter of concern that he has not
been allowed to talk to the media.
The VHP spokesman asserted that VHP activists will take part in the
rally in large numbers come what may.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/15ayo3.htm
<snip>
Swami
Vasudevananda Saraswati is currently the *sole representative Guru
Dev's lineage*, according to Vidyasankar Sundaresan. Vasudevananda was
present at the appointment of a Mahamandaleswara of the Mahanirvani
Akhada in 1995, according to Hinduism Today.
Your spurious claims based *questionable information* is as flawed as
your thinking..Vidyasankar Sundaresan is quite clear that the
so-called "lineage" of Shantiananda-Vishnudevananda-Vasudevananda is
not recognized by none of the remaining 4 *legimate Shankaracharyas*
nor the *lawful courts of India*!!
see links cited below

..."Swami Brahmananda Saraswati passed away in 1953, but he had not
clearly indicated his successor. This immediately caused a problem, as
he had initiated a number of disciples into Sannyasa. A few weeks
after he passed away, a will was found, according to the terms of
which, a disciple called Swami Santananda Saraswati was named as the
first choice for succeeding to the Jyotirmath title. However, many
followers of Brahmananda Saraswati were satisfied neither with the
credentials of Santananda, nor with the validity/authenticity of the
will. Perhaps, the doubts about the will were themselves based partly
upon the perception that Santananda was not a good choice for
successor. His quickness to take charge of the matha administration on
the basis of this will also probably raised many eyebrows. Meanwhile,
there was a widespread rumor that Brahmananda Saraswati had been
poisoned. This set a number of civil lawsuits into motion. To the best
of my knowledge, no criminal lawsuits were filed against anyone, on
the basis of the poisoning theory. However, Santananda's reputation
definitely took a blow, although the major complaint against him was
simply that he was unfit for the post of Sankaracharya, because he did
not measure up to the qualifications described in the Mahanusasana
texts..." [2]
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html

..."Karapatri Swami (Hariharananda Sarasvati), a well-known disciple
of SrI brahmAnanda, was asked to take over the Jyotirmath title, but
he declined. To resolve the dispute, another committee of pundits from
Varanasi was formed, under the guidance of Karapatri Swami and Sri
Abhinava Saccidananda Tirtha of Dvaraka. Sri Krsnabodhasrama was
appointed as the new head of the matha. When he passed away in the
early 1970's, he nominated Sri Svarupananda Sarasvati, another
disciple of Sri Brahmananda, as his successor. Sri Svarupananda
continues as the Sankaracarya of Jyotirmath, and has also been in
charge of Dvaraka since 1982..."
http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html
"Only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Shantananda) can be traced
directly to Brahmananda, without any interruptions." - Vidyasankar
Sundaresan
Sorry willytex here is the same article cited above from rediff.com
from Oct. 15,2003..not five months ago Swami Vasudevananda was not
refered to as the Shankaracharya of Jyosimath..
see article below..

..."Dwivedi warned that if Ram bhakts were harassed, they will
respond in an appropriate way.
Asked what if this entailed violence, Diwedi said it would be
'even-handed.'
"We are not satisfied with the central government's arrangements in
Ayodhya. About 1. 75 lakh Ram bhakts have been kept in inhuman
conditions...they must be treated in a dignified way," he said.
Dwivedi said around 45,000 Ram bhakts led by Swami Vasudevananda
Saraswati have left for Ayodhya from Prayag to participate in the
October 17 rally.
On VHP vice-president Giriraj Kishore's arrest in Lucknow by the state
administration, Dwivedi said it is a matter of concern that he has not
been allowed to talk to the media.
The VHP spokesman asserted that VHP activists will take part in the
rally in large numbers come what may.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/oct/15ayo3.htm
There is some very distressing facts related to the Swami
Prakashanand. For example, the Swami Prakash, apparently, went to
Jyotirmath, in 1950, and claims to have been initiated there. By whom
I would ask? Apparently, Guru Dev wasn't even at Jyotirmath in the
year 1950, according to Raj Varma, but was on tour in South India!
-This from the so-called expert ..willytex.. who re-writes all of
history at his pleasure.
Prakash also makes the claim of having been 'offered the seat of the
Jyotirmath' in 1952 by a committee of pundits down in Kashi - a full
year before Guru Dev's untimely demise. That would have been news to
Guru Dev, who only passed away in 1953!
That would have really been something - a Shankaracharya who was only
22 years old, who had been a Sannyasi for less than a year, and who
had been in the presence of Guru Dev for probably a total of thirty
minutes in his whole life. Sounds like something a stupid committee of
politicaly motivated pundits down in Kashi would come with.
I am guessing you are referring the the same council of pudits at
Kashi..whom appointed Swami BrahmanandaJi is '41.
see links cited below

.."Jyotirmath: Also known as Joshimath, it is located near Badrinath
in the Himalayas, because of which it is also known as the Badrinath
matha. After a long hiatus of 165 years, this matha was revived in the
year 1941, under Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati, a disciple of Sri
Krsnananda Sarasvati, who was originally from Sringeri. The
appointment was made by a committee of pundits from Varanasi, and Sri
Brahmananda's accomplishments helped re-establish the Jyotirmath as an
important center of traditional advaita teaching in northern India.
When he passed away in 1953, Sri Santananda Sarasvati succeeded him at
this seat, according to the terms of a will. However, there was a
dispute regarding the capacity of Sri Santananda for the title and
also about the validity of this will..."
http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html

.."The appointment of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati in 1941 was made by
a group of monks and pundits based in Varanasi (the Bharata Dharma
Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha), with the blessings of Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha, the
then Sankaracharya of Puri. Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati of Sringeri
also endorsed Brahmananda's appointment. Thus, right from the
beginning of the Jyotirmath's revival in 1941, the opinions of the
heads of other Amnaya mathas were taken seriously into
consideration..."
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
<snip>
However, there is one undisputed fact - neither Swaroopanand nor
Prakashanand's name was listed in Guru Dev's will.
The so-called "will" of Guru Dev was viewed by many as fraud.
see links cited
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
Another fact is
that in the Kropinsky interview Swami Swaroopanand does not deny the
validity of Guru Dev's will.
Ya sure.. sorry willytex *history is NOT on your side*
see links cited

..."In 1953 itself, one Swami Krishnabodha Asrama was appointed as
the new Jyotirmath Sankaracharya, contesting Santananda's claim.
Krishnabodha Asrama was not a direct disciple of Brahmananda
Saraswati, but given the nature of Jyotirmath's revival in 1941, this
was not necessarily a disqualification. The new appointment also had
the support of the Puri matha, but it must be noted that this matha
was to have a few succession problems of its own, within a decade. [4]
When Krishnabodha Asrama passed away in 1973, he nominated Swami
Swarupananda Saraswati to the title. Swarupananda is a direct disciple
of Brahmananda Saraswati, but he has also studied under both
Krishnabodha Asrama and Abhinava Sacchidananda Tirtha of Dwaraka.."
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html

..."Jyotirmath: Also known as Joshimath, it is located near Badrinath
in the Himalayas, because of which it is also known as the Badrinath
matha. After a long hiatus of 165 years, this matha was revived in the
year 1941, under Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati, a disciple of Sri
Krsnananda Sarasvati, who was originally from Sringeri. The
appointment was made by a committee of pundits from Varanasi, and Sri
Brahmananda's accomplishments helped re-establish the Jyotirmath as an
important center of traditional advaita teaching in northern India.
When he passed away in 1953, Sri Santananda Sarasvati succeeded him at
this seat, according to the terms of a will. However, there was a
dispute regarding the capacity of Sri Santananda for the title and
also about the validity of this will..."
http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html
<snip>
A committee, (kashi vidvat parishad), founded by Madhvacharya?
You idoit! That's not the same Madhvaacharya, the dualist, who
composed the Sri Bhyasya. The Shankaracharya seats in India have
nothing to do with the Sri Vaishnava cult founded by Madhva which came
years later. You're confused, I think.
You are floating - this 'committee' of pundits has appointed no
Shankaracharya to any seat, ever.
-No willytex.. the Kashi Vidvat Parishad appointed Swami BrahmanandaJi
in 1941 to Jyosimath!

.."Jyotirmath: Also known as Joshimath, it is located near Badrinath
in the Himalayas, because of which it is also known as the Badrinath
matha. After a long hiatus of 165 years, this matha was revived in the
year 1941, under Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati, a disciple of Sri
Krsnananda Sarasvati, who was originally from Sringeri. The
appointment was made by a committee of pundits from Varanasi, and Sri
Brahmananda's accomplishments helped re-establish the Jyotirmath as an
important center of traditional advaita teaching in northern India.
When he passed away in 1953, Sri Santananda Sarasvati succeeded him at
this seat, according to the terms of a will. However, there was a
dispute regarding the capacity of Sri Santananda for the title and
also about the validity of this will..."
http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar4.html

.."The appointment of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati in 1941 was made by
a group of monks and pundits based in Varanasi (the Bharata Dharma
Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha), with the blessings of Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha, the
then Sankaracharya of Puri. Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati of Sringeri
also endorsed Brahmananda's appointment. Thus, right from the
beginning of the Jyotirmath's revival in 1941, the opinions of the
heads of other Amnaya mathas were taken seriously into
consideration..."
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
Pundit committees do not appoint
Saints, least of all do they declare a nobody to be a 'jagadguru', a
teacher to the world, over and above the other four jagadgurus, namely
Puri, Dwarka, Sringeri and Jyotirmath.. Get a grip!
-you are confused.. see above
<snip>
With all due respect, you're full of it.
-Ya sure.. this from someone who invents history as he goes
along..LOL
The Bharata Dharma
Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha were all present at the installation of Guru Dev's
successor, Shree Swami Shantanand Saraswati.
According to The Time of
India, Shantanand was installed with all due pomp and ceremony.
Apparently, Shantanand meditated for over an hour in a public
reception. Subsequently, Shantanand was present at a number of TMO
activities, the least not being the Saints Course at Ram Nagar, the
ground-breaking of Shankaracharya Nagar at Rishikesh, and at the
Maharishi Guru Poornima at Noida held in 1990.
According to Kropinsky, Shantanand was present at the bithday
celebration of Guru Dev at Vrindavan, which you cited. It is a fact
that Swami Shantanada Saraswati and his successors fully approved of
the Mahesh Yogi and the TM meditation program.
If you think that meditation is not supported by the Dasanami
Sampradya founded by the Adi Shankara, you are mistaken.
Your claim is false and is totally without merit. According to the Adi
Shankara, in his sub-commentary on Veda Vyasa's Vivarana on
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, meditation is described as the cessation of
the flutuations of the mental processes - specificaly, the meditation
on the Pranava, with instructions to meditate on it, and to reflect on
it's meaning. A clear, concise, incontrovertible and unassailable
reference to the TM program as taught by the Mahesh Yogi.
FYI: "Adi Sankaracharya (8th century) is traditionally said to have
established four mathas (monasteries) in India, and to have placed
them under the leadership of his four chief disciples. The heads of
these four and other monasteries of the Dasanami orders have come to
be known as Sankaracharyas themselves, in honor of the founder. They
are considered to be the leaders of the ten orders of the Dasanami
Sannyasins associated with Advaita Vedanta." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have responded to each and every
one of your slanderous accustaions - including your bald-faced lie
that the Maharishi murdered Guru Dev, in a conspiracy with the ashram
cook, by posioning Guru Dev's food, while the cook was at Jyotirmath
and Guru Dev was down in Calcutta. Go figure.
Once again, I have responded to your false claims and accusations,
Sir!
Namaste' and Jai Guru Dev!
unknown
2004-03-01 10:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by ColdBluICE
Meanwhile,
there was a widespread rumor that Brahmananda Saraswati had been
poisoned. This set a number of civil lawsuits into motion. To the best
of my knowledge, no criminal lawsuits were filed against anyone, on
the basis of the poisoning theory.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html


ColdBluICE
Wed, 25 Feb 2004
Post by ColdBluICE
-What lying?.. over 50 years ago..Lil MishMashi Mahesh conspired with
the ashram cook to murder his "master"...to get at the materail wealth
of the ashram, and usurp his master's authority by claiming his
master's title for himself...
Question for ColdBluICE : in the context of the first quotation, how
would you describe the second ?
willytex
2004-03-01 22:48:59 UTC
Permalink
ColdBluICE
Post by unknown
Lil MishMashi Mahesh conspired with the ashram
cook to murder his "master
in the context of the first quotation, how
would you describe the second?
Oliver - A bald-faced lie from a quasi-bhakta chronic liar and his lying wife Marci?
Pedro
2004-03-02 22:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ColdBluICE
Post by ColdBluICE
Meanwhile,
there was a widespread rumor that Brahmananda Saraswati had been
poisoned. This set a number of civil lawsuits into motion. To the best
of my knowledge, no criminal lawsuits were filed against anyone, on
the basis of the poisoning theory.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
ColdBluICE
Wed, 25 Feb 2004
Post by ColdBluICE
-What lying?.. over 50 years ago..Lil MishMashi Mahesh conspired with
the ashram cook to murder his "master"...to get at the materail wealth
of the ashram, and usurp his master's authority by claiming his
master's title for himself...
Question for ColdBluICE : in the context of the first quotation, how
would you describe the second ?
It is called his belief in the rumor. Do you have a problem with his
acceptance of it?
unknown
2004-03-03 09:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedro
Post by ColdBluICE
Post by ColdBluICE
Meanwhile,
there was a widespread rumor that Brahmananda Saraswati had been
poisoned. This set a number of civil lawsuits into motion. To the best
of my knowledge, no criminal lawsuits were filed against anyone, on
the basis of the poisoning theory.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
ColdBluICE
Wed, 25 Feb 2004
Post by ColdBluICE
-What lying?.. over 50 years ago..Lil MishMashi Mahesh conspired with
the ashram cook to murder his "master"...to get at the materail wealth
of the ashram, and usurp his master's authority by claiming his
master's title for himself...
Question for ColdBluICE : in the context of the first quotation, how
would you describe the second ?
It is called his belief in the rumor. Do you have a problem with his
acceptance of it?
Pedro -- he didn't post it as a rumour. He stated it as a fact. That's
different. Entiendes ?
Pedro
2004-03-03 18:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by ColdBluICE
Post by ColdBluICE
Meanwhile,
there was a widespread rumor that Brahmananda Saraswati had been
poisoned. This set a number of civil lawsuits into motion. To the best
of my knowledge, no criminal lawsuits were filed against anyone, on
the basis of the poisoning theory.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
ColdBluICE
Wed, 25 Feb 2004
Post by ColdBluICE
-What lying?.. over 50 years ago..Lil MishMashi Mahesh conspired with
the ashram cook to murder his "master"...to get at the materail wealth
of the ashram, and usurp his master's authority by claiming his
master's title for himself...
Question for ColdBluICE : in the context of the first quotation, how
would you describe the second ?
It is called his belief in the rumor. Do you have a problem with his
acceptance of it?
Pedro -- he didn't post it as a rumour. He stated it as a fact. That's
different. Entiendes ?
That is called faith, my friend. Just because you don't have any faith you
are willing to stand on, does not mean that others don't either.
unknown
2004-03-03 20:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Question for ColdBluICE : in the context of the first quotation, how
would you describe the second ?
It is called his belief in the rumor. Do you have a problem with his
acceptance of it?
Pedro -- he didn't post it as a rumour. He stated it as a fact. That's
different. Entiendes ?
That is called faith, my friend. Just because you don't have any faith you
are willing to stand on, does not mean that others don't either.
So Jesus was just a rumour ?
Pedro
2004-03-03 21:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Question for ColdBluICE : in the context of the first quotation, how
would you describe the second ?
It is called his belief in the rumor. Do you have a problem with his
acceptance of it?
Pedro -- he didn't post it as a rumour. He stated it as a fact. That's
different. Entiendes ?
That is called faith, my friend. Just because you don't have any faith you
are willing to stand on, does not mean that others don't either.
So Jesus was just a rumour ?
??? Is you brain a rumor?
unknown
2004-03-03 22:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Question for ColdBluICE : in the context of the first quotation, how
would you describe the second ?
It is called his belief in the rumor. Do you have a problem with his
acceptance of it?
Pedro -- he didn't post it as a rumour. He stated it as a fact. That's
different. Entiendes ?
That is called faith, my friend. Just because you don't have any faith
you
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
are willing to stand on, does not mean that others don't either.
So Jesus was just a rumour ?
??? Is you brain a rumor?
So if you have faith in something that makes it true ?
Pedro
2004-03-03 23:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Question for ColdBluICE : in the context of the first quotation, how
would you describe the second ?
It is called his belief in the rumor. Do you have a problem with his
acceptance of it?
Pedro -- he didn't post it as a rumour. He stated it as a fact. That's
different. Entiendes ?
That is called faith, my friend. Just because you don't have any faith
you
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
are willing to stand on, does not mean that others don't either.
So Jesus was just a rumour ?
??? Is your brain a rumor?
So if you have faith in something that makes it true ?
Sigh. Of course it can make it true to the believer. Did we not go through
this in the past? Are you that short of memory? Is that a byproduct of
doing TM or your religious indoctrination?

Just because all you have is faith in something does not make it false. You
just can not prove it true to others using either scientific, judicial
evidence.


Cold Blue, do you believe MMY poisoned GD?
unknown
2004-03-04 10:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Question for ColdBluICE : in the context of the first quotation,
how
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
would you describe the second ?
It is called his belief in the rumor. Do you have a problem with
his
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
acceptance of it?
Pedro -- he didn't post it as a rumour. He stated it as a fact.
That's
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
different. Entiendes ?
That is called faith, my friend. Just because you don't have any
faith
Post by unknown
you
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
are willing to stand on, does not mean that others don't either.
So Jesus was just a rumour ?
??? Is your brain a rumor?
So if you have faith in something that makes it true ?
Sigh. Of course it can make it true to the believer. Did we not go through
this in the past? Are you that short of memory? Is that a byproduct of
doing TM or your religious indoctrination?
Just because all you have is faith in something does not make it false. You
just can not prove it true to others using either scientific, judicial
evidence.
In this case, Mr Perino is propagating a rumour as fact. There ought
to be judicial evidence -- a court case. There ought to be scientific
evidence -- an autopsy. There was no judicial case. The autospy
revealed no poison. Mr Perino was not there. He heard about this from
two people who claimed to be there. He heard about it also from a
Shakaraharya who has an axe to grind.

According to your attitude, one can have faith in anything that either
doesn't have scientific or judicial evidence, or contradicts that
evidence.

OK -- I believe you're gay. That's why you're defending Mr Perino.
He's your boyfriend. It's all clear now. Your big secret is out !
Post by willytex
Cold Blue, do you believe MMY poisoned GD?
Pedro
2004-03-04 18:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
In this case, Mr Perino is propagating a rumour as fact. There ought
to be judicial evidence -- a court case.
There was not, from what I understand. Thus we have no judicial verdict on
the judicial evidence. Then it is left up to the individual to weigh the
evidences.
Post by unknown
There ought to be scientific
evidence -- an autopsy. There was no judicial case.
Remember the attampt of murder with the pen by Sem at MUM? Why was that not
reported to the authorities? That could have possibly saved Levi's life.
Why was it not reported? Because it would effect the image that MUM wants
to keep up. Same here. There could be many reasons that the ashram did not
want to involve authorities. When you are seeped in believing Karma, you
know the perpetrator wont escape their karma anyway.
Post by unknown
The autospy
Well there were many spies but not much automation in those days.
Post by unknown
revealed no poison.
Do you have the autopsy handy by any chance? If not what is your source
documentation for the fact that the autopsy did not reveal poison?
Post by unknown
Mr Perino was not there.
And neither were you. It is just like the life and death of Christ. Most
people accept the commonly accepted theory that Christ was crucified and
rose on the third day to pay for the sins of the world. Yet there are some
that do not believe that. I believe it is a historical fact. We have good
reason to believe if Christ died on the cross, the autopsy declared Him
dead. Yet many do not believe that He dies on that cross.

ColdBlu does not believe that GD died of natural causes. I do not see any
convincing evidence either way. Thus you do not have any scientific
evidence (unless you can come up with that autopsy and know it was performed
by an truly independant person who was aware of the poison claim) and there
is no judicial verdict. Then all you have left is religious truth level. -
He said, she said, in this case. Just because you do not agree with the
conclusion Cold blu came to, does not invalidate his conclusion of what he
considered to be true in the case.
Post by unknown
He heard about this from
two people who claimed to be there. He heard about it also from a
Shakaraharya who has an axe to grind.
You mean there is an eyewitness, in a position of status and respect, to the
account? Which makes it a stronger case when it comes to judicial truth. I
might have to swing my vote to the eyewitness account then. Has MMY ever
talked about this poisoning subject?
Post by unknown
According to your attitude, one can have faith in anything that either
doesn't have scientific or judicial evidence, or contradicts that
evidence.
No. That is not what I say. For example the ME has evidence that
contradicts it. I would not have faith in it. But if there is no
contradicting evidence on the scientific or judicial levels you have
religious faith. I say that if you have no scientific evidence and you
have no judicial verdict on the judicial evidence in the GD case, then you
are left with nothing but faith in the occurance. You have faith in MMY.
Coldblu does not. You can not prove ColdBlu wrong. ColdBlu can not prove
you wrong. That is the essence of faith. ColdBlu can set it forth as
truth, because he believes it to be true. You can claim it to be a rumor
only, but you can not accuse ColdBlu of lying. Lying would indicate that
Coldblu knows the accusation he makes is wrong. I don think ColdBlu
believes his accusation is wrong.
Post by unknown
OK -- I believe you're gay. That's why you're defending Mr Perino.
He's your boyfriend. It's all clear now. Your big secret is out !
That is the problem with your fuzzy thinking. You can believe something you
have absolutely no proof for, and you condemn others for believing something
*you* can not prove either. The sad thing is that you can not see it.
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Cold Blue, do you believe MMY poisoned GD?
unknown
2004-03-04 20:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
In this case, Mr Perino is propagating a rumour as fact. There ought
to be judicial evidence -- a court case.
There was not, from what I understand. Thus we have no judicial verdict on
the judicial evidence. Then it is left up to the individual to weigh the
evidences.
Post by unknown
There ought to be scientific
evidence -- an autopsy. There was no judicial case.
Remember the attampt of murder with the pen by Sem at MUM? Why was that not
reported to the authorities? That could have possibly saved Levi's life.
Why was it not reported? Because it would effect the image that MUM wants
to keep up. Same here. There could be many reasons that the ashram did not
want to involve authorities. When you are seeped in believing Karma, you
know the perpetrator wont escape their karma anyway.
I have attended three different universites. In two, the police needed
special permission even to come on campus. Calling in police is a last
resort. It's so easy to be wise after the event. It's obvious you've
never been involved in management.
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
The autospy
Well there were many spies but not much automation in those days.
Post by unknown
revealed no poison.
Do you have the autopsy handy by any chance? If not what is your source
documentation for the fact that the autopsy did not reveal poison?
I'm sure that if your boyfriend had an incriminating result from the
autopsy, he would be delighted to publish it. BTW did you see my post
about his guru -- a convicted rapist no less. You should choose your
partners better.
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Mr Perino was not there.
And neither were you.
(Yawn )
Post by Pedro
It is just like the life and death of Christ. Most
people accept the commonly accepted theory that Christ was crucified and
rose on the third day to pay for the sins of the world.
Pauline interpretation -- I'm surprised at you.
Post by Pedro
Yet there are some
that do not believe that. I believe it is a historical fact. We have good
reason to believe if Christ died on the cross, the autopsy declared Him
dead. Yet many do not believe that He dies on that cross.
I've never heard of an autopsy declaring someone alive -- strange !
Post by Pedro
ColdBlu does not believe that GD died of natural causes. I do not see any
convincing evidence either way. Thus you do not have any scientific
evidence (unless you can come up with that autopsy and know it was performed
by an truly independant person who was aware of the poison claim) and there
is no judicial verdict. Then all you have left is religious truth level. -
He said, she said, in this case. Just because you do not agree with the
conclusion Cold blu came to, does not invalidate his conclusion of what he
considered to be true in the case.
Use your reason, Pedro. When you use your faith you end up supporting
Perino and Doughney. With friends like those ............
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
He heard about this from
two people who claimed to be there. He heard about it also from a
Shakaraharya who has an axe to grind.
You mean there is an eyewitness, in a position of status and respect, to the
account? Which makes it a stronger case when it comes to judicial truth. I
might have to swing my vote to the eyewitness account then. Has MMY ever
talked about this poisoning subject?
You're the expert -- you claim to know more about MMY than I do. You
tell me.
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
According to your attitude, one can have faith in anything that either
doesn't have scientific or judicial evidence, or contradicts that
evidence.
No. That is not what I say. For example the ME has evidence that
contradicts it. I would not have faith in it. But if there is no
contradicting evidence on the scientific or judicial levels you have
religious faith. I say that if you have no scientific evidence and you
have no judicial verdict on the judicial evidence in the GD case, then you
are left with nothing but faith in the occurance. You have faith in MMY.
Coldblu does not. You can not prove ColdBlu wrong. ColdBlu can not prove
you wrong. That is the essence of faith. ColdBlu can set it forth as
truth, because he believes it to be true. You can claim it to be a rumor
only, but you can not accuse ColdBlu of lying. Lying would indicate that
Coldblu knows the accusation he makes is wrong. I don think ColdBlu
believes his accusation is wrong.
Do you think he believes this is wrong ??

Lil brahmacahri mahesh" will die in exile
- thousands of miles from his former Ashram &
- Fallen in the material ditch of Maya
- when he dies there is a very special Celestial HELL waiting for
him...
-where he will be bound to a large iron pole..
- his mouth held open
-standing barefoot on *red hot coals*
-every time he attempts to speak a large raven will descend upon him
-ripping out his tongue
-the tongue will take 10,000 earth years to grow back
-again he will attempt to speak
-again the demon raven will descend and rip out his tongue
-all the while bound to a stake and his feet slowly burning
-for 250K+ years!!

Do you think someone who has such fantasies needs help ??


The problem with your "observations" is that they justify anything --
anyone can believe anything because of course anyone can deny the
validity of judicial knowledge ( you and Roe vs Wade) and scientific
knowledge ( you and any science after the 17th century) and then all
debate is debased. Knowledge loses its objective value and rumour and
invective dominate the search for truth and accommodation. Get some
smarts.
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
OK -- I believe you're gay. That's why you're defending Mr Perino.
He's your boyfriend. It's all clear now. Your big secret is out !
That is the problem with your fuzzy thinking. You can believe something you
have absolutely no proof for, and you condemn others for believing something
*you* can not prove either. The sad thing is that you can not see it.
Ah, so you don't deny it it's true ! Are you going to get married ??
Or would you have a problem with a non-christian ??
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Cold Blue, do you believe MMY poisoned GD?
Pedro
2004-03-05 18:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
I have attended three different universites. In two, the police needed
special permission even to come on campus.
I find that hard to believe.
Post by unknown
I'm sure that if your boyfriend had an incriminating result from the
autopsy, he would be delighted to publish it. BTW did you see my post
about his guru -- a convicted rapist no less. You should choose your
partners better.
I don't choose partners. I just point out your lack of reasoning.
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
ColdBlu does not believe that GD died of natural causes. I do not see any
convincing evidence either way. Thus you do not have any scientific
evidence (unless you can come up with that autopsy and know it was performed
by an truly independant person who was aware of the poison claim) and there
is no judicial verdict. Then all you have left is religious truth
evel. -
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
He said, she said, in this case. Just because you do not agree with the
conclusion Cold blu came to, does not invalidate his conclusion of what he
considered to be true in the case.
Use your reason, Pedro. When you use your faith you end up supporting
Perino and Doughney. With friends like those ............
Unlike you, I don't choose issues based on who my friend are or are not. I
am just showing your lack of intellectual honesty.
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
He heard about this from
two people who claimed to be there. He heard about it also from a
Shakaraharya who has an axe to grind.
You mean there is an eyewitness, in a position of status and respect, to the
account? Which makes it a stronger case when it comes to judicial truth.
I
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
might have to swing my vote to the eyewitness account then. Has MMY ever
talked about this poisoning subject?
You're the expert -- you claim to know more about MMY than I do. You
tell me.
I take that that you do not know. Even further undermining your point of
reason and strenghtening ColdBlu's case.
Post by unknown
Do you think he believes this is wrong ??
Lil brahmacahri mahesh" will die in exile
- thousands of miles from his former Ashram &
- Fallen in the material ditch of Maya
- when he dies there is a very special Celestial HELL waiting for
him...
-where he will be bound to a large iron pole..
- his mouth held open
-standing barefoot on *red hot coals*
-every time he attempts to speak a large raven will descend upon him
-ripping out his tongue
-the tongue will take 10,000 earth years to grow back
-again he will attempt to speak
-again the demon raven will descend and rip out his tongue
-all the while bound to a stake and his feet slowly burning
-for 250K+ years!!
I think those are his sincerely held religious beliefs.
Post by unknown
Do you think someone who has such fantasies needs help ??
Are you showing us your intolerance of his beliefs?
Post by unknown
The problem with your "observations" is that they justify anything --
anyone can believe anything because of course anyone can deny the
validity of judicial knowledge ( you and Roe vs Wade) and scientific
knowledge ( you and any science after the 17th century) and then all
debate is debased. Knowledge loses its objective value and rumour and
invective dominate the search for truth and accommodation. Get some
smarts.
It is you who needs to take a good look at the "established" pool of
"knowledge".
unknown
2004-03-05 20:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
I have attended three different universites. In two, the police needed
special permission even to come on campus.
I find that hard to believe.
So what ?
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
I'm sure that if your boyfriend had an incriminating result from the
autopsy, he would be delighted to publish it. BTW did you see my post
about his guru -- a convicted rapist no less. You should choose your
partners better.
I don't choose partners. I just point out your lack of reasoning.
Perino is your boyfriend -- you chose him -- live with the
consequences.
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
ColdBlu does not believe that GD died of natural causes. I do not see
any
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
convincing evidence either way. Thus you do not have any scientific
evidence (unless you can come up with that autopsy and know it was
performed
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
by an truly independant person who was aware of the poison claim) and
there
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
is no judicial verdict. Then all you have left is religious truth
evel. -
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
He said, she said, in this case. Just because you do not agree with the
conclusion Cold blu came to, does not invalidate his conclusion of what
he
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
considered to be true in the case.
Use your reason, Pedro. When you use your faith you end up supporting
Perino and Doughney. With friends like those ............
Unlike you, I don't choose issues based on who my friend are or are not. I
am just showing your lack of intellectual honesty.
You're showing that you twist and deceive. There's big difference
between believing that someone is gay and believing that someone is a
murderer. You think there's not. Extraordinary claims require
extraodinary evidence. Put up or shut up.
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
He heard about this from
two people who claimed to be there. He heard about it also from a
Shakaraharya who has an axe to grind.
You mean there is an eyewitness, in a position of status and respect, to
the
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
account? Which makes it a stronger case when it comes to judicial truth.
I
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
might have to swing my vote to the eyewitness account then. Has MMY ever
talked about this poisoning subject?
You're the expert -- you claim to know more about MMY than I do. You
tell me.
I take that that you do not know. Even further undermining your point of
reason and strenghtening ColdBlu's case.
What does what MMy said have to do with it ?
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Do you think he believes this is wrong ??
Lil brahmacahri mahesh" will die in exile
- thousands of miles from his former Ashram &
- Fallen in the material ditch of Maya
- when he dies there is a very special Celestial HELL waiting for
him...
-where he will be bound to a large iron pole..
- his mouth held open
-standing barefoot on *red hot coals*
-every time he attempts to speak a large raven will descend upon him
-ripping out his tongue
-the tongue will take 10,000 earth years to grow back
-again he will attempt to speak
-again the demon raven will descend and rip out his tongue
-all the while bound to a stake and his feet slowly burning
-for 250K+ years!!
I think those are his sincerely held religious beliefs.
Where's the source of your boyfriend's belief ?
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Do you think someone who has such fantasies needs help ??
Are you showing us your intolerance of his beliefs?
Questioning is intolerance ? Or are we talking about the fiction on
unstress4less ?
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
The problem with your "observations" is that they justify anything --
anyone can believe anything because of course anyone can deny the
validity of judicial knowledge ( you and Roe vs Wade) and scientific
knowledge ( you and any science after the 17th century) and then all
debate is debased. Knowledge loses its objective value and rumour and
invective dominate the search for truth and accommodation. Get some
smarts.
It is you who needs to take a good look at the "established" pool of
"knowledge".
Why quotation marks ? Why qualify ? Why not answer the points I made !
Then again, there's a lot you won't answer, isn't there ?
Pedro
2004-03-05 20:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Perino is your boyfriend -- you chose him -- live with the
consequences.
You are a sick pup.
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Has MMY ever
talked about this poisoning subject?
You're the expert -- you claim to know more about MMY than I do. You
tell me.
I take that that you do not know. Even further undermining your point of
reason and strenghtening ColdBlu's case.
What does what MMy said have to do with it ?
You are showing your lack of reasoning again. MMY is the suspect in this
accusation. Can you say Do'h
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Do you think someone who has such fantasies needs help ??
Are you showing us your intolerance of his beliefs?
Questioning is intolerance ?
No it is your judgment that ColdBlu's sincerely religious beliefs are
fantasies and that because of them he needs help.

Unless you repent of that, that makes you a bigot.
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
The problem with your "observations" is that they justify anything --
anyone can believe anything because of course anyone can deny the
validity of judicial knowledge ( you and Roe vs Wade) and scientific
knowledge ( you and any science after the 17th century) and then all
debate is debased. Knowledge loses its objective value and rumour and
invective dominate the search for truth and accommodation. Get some
smarts.
It is you who needs to take a good look at the "established" pool of
"knowledge".
Why quotation marks ? Why qualify ? Why not answer the points I made !
Then again, there's a lot you won't answer, isn't there ?
Don't answer a fool according to his folly...
unknown
2004-03-05 21:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Perino is your boyfriend -- you chose him -- live with the
consequences.
You are a sick pup.
No, no .. you believe I am a sick pup. What level of faith is that on
?
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Has MMY ever
talked about this poisoning subject?
You're the expert -- you claim to know more about MMY than I do. You
tell me.
I take that that you do not know. Even further undermining your point of
reason and strenghtening ColdBlu's case.
What does what MMy said have to do with it ?
You are showing your lack of reasoning again. MMY is the suspect in this
accusation. Can you say Do'h
No, no..........Your boyfriend is the suspect, and so are you.
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Do you think someone who has such fantasies needs help ??
Are you showing us your intolerance of his beliefs?
Questioning is intolerance ?
No it is your judgment that ColdBlu's sincerely religious beliefs are
fantasies and that because of them he needs help.
Unless you repent of that, that makes you a bigot.
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
The problem with your "observations" is that they justify anything --
anyone can believe anything because of course anyone can deny the
validity of judicial knowledge ( you and Roe vs Wade) and scientific
knowledge ( you and any science after the 17th century) and then all
debate is debased. Knowledge loses its objective value and rumour and
invective dominate the search for truth and accommodation. Get some
smarts.
It is you who needs to take a good look at the "established" pool of
"knowledge".
Why quotation marks ? Why qualify ? Why not answer the points I made !
Then again, there's a lot you won't answer, isn't there ?
Don't answer a fool according to his folly...
Always the descent into cliche ... don't you have anything original to
say ?

1 Is this your church ?

http://www.landoverbaptist.org

If you don't deny it, I'll assume it is.

2 What happened with the missionelkgrove gig ?

3 When are you going to remove the false figures from your website ?

4 When you're taken in the rapture, will you remember your friends
in a.t.m ?
Pedro
2004-03-05 21:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
You are a sick pup.
No, no .. you believe I am a sick pup. What level of faith is that on
Its called assumption. Not a faith level. I am praying that God would be
so kind to give you a brain.
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Do you think someone who has such fantasies needs help ??
Are you showing us your intolerance of his beliefs?
Questioning is intolerance ?
No it is your judgment that ColdBlu's sincerely religious beliefs are
fantasies and that because of them he needs help.
Unless you repent of that, that makes you a bigot.
No reply. Then we are safe to assume he is a bigot.
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
The problem with your "observations" is that they justify anything --
anyone can believe anything because of course anyone can deny the
validity of judicial knowledge ( you and Roe vs Wade) and scientific
knowledge ( you and any science after the 17th century) and then all
debate is debased. Knowledge loses its objective value and rumour and
invective dominate the search for truth and accommodation. Get some
smarts.
It is you who needs to take a good look at the "established" pool of
"knowledge".
Why quotation marks ? Why qualify ? Why not answer the points I made !
Then again, there's a lot you won't answer, isn't there ?
Don't answer a fool according to his folly...
Always the descent into cliche ... don't you have anything original to
say ?
Wisdom transcends originality.
Post by unknown
1 Is this your church ?
Why?
Post by unknown
http://www.landoverbaptist.org
If you don't deny it, I'll assume it is.
You have many time proven to be an ASSumer.
unknown
2004-03-05 22:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
You are a sick pup.
No, no .. you believe I am a sick pup. What level of faith is that on
Its called assumption. Not a faith level. I am praying that God would be
so kind to give you a brain.
You have many times proven to be an ASSumer.
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Do you think someone who has such fantasies needs help ??
Are you showing us your intolerance of his beliefs?
Questioning is intolerance ?
No it is your judgment that ColdBlu's sincerely religious beliefs are
fantasies and that because of them he needs help.
Missed this before : no, no........... you believe it's my judgement
-- that's different. What level of belief is that ??
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Unless you repent of that, that makes you a bigot.
No reply. Then we are safe to ASSume he is a bigot.
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
The problem with your "observations" is that they justify
anything --
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
anyone can believe anything because of course anyone can deny the
validity of judicial knowledge ( you and Roe vs Wade) and scientific
knowledge ( you and any science after the 17th century) and then all
debate is debased. Knowledge loses its objective value and rumour
and
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
invective dominate the search for truth and accommodation. Get some
smarts.
It is you who needs to take a good look at the "established" pool of
"knowledge".
Why quotation marks ? Why qualify ? Why not answer the points I made !
Then again, there's a lot you won't answer, isn't there ?
Don't answer a fool according to his folly...
Always the descent into cliche ... don't you have anything original to
say ?
Wisdom transcends originality.
2 cliches -- are they on special offer ?? Why don't you just admit
that you and Stevie are an item -- come out of the closet. I believe
it's all quite legal in Holland. Nothing to be ashamed of.
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
1 Is this your church ?
Why?
It seems to fit your beliefs and this
http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp should be of interest to
you and your boyfriend.
Post by Pedro
Post by unknown
http://www.landoverbaptist.org
If you don't deny it, I'll assume it is.
You have many time proven to be an ASSumer.
Where have the rest of the questions gone ?? Here they are again in
case you missed them :

2 What happened with the missionelkgrove gig ?

3 When are you going to remove the false figures from your website ?

4 When you're taken in the rapture, will you remember your friends
in a.t.m ?
willytex
2004-03-03 00:32:30 UTC
Permalink
How about independent confrimation of the facts...
Mr. Perino - The burden of proof is on you, Sir. There is not one
single mention *in any of the eight major Indian outlets* of Guru Dev
being murdered.

CHAPTER - VI
THE CONDUCT OF THE NARASIMHA RAO GOVERNMENT: CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO
THE KAR SEVA AND DEMOLITION ON DECEMBER 6, 1992

iii. Then came a letter from the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Shri
Shantanandji Maharaj, in which he had said that the Prime Minister
wanted Rama Mandir to be built by the Sants, so politicians must be
excluded and only Sadhus should be involved.


iv. After seeing the letter of the Shankaracharya who was an elderly
Sant, Swami Paramahans felt that perhaps the Prime Minister was
seriously thinking of getting the Mandir built only through the Sants.
http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/ch6.html

Excerpt from the VHP Hindi Home Page Arhives

Second World Hindu Conference

"The Second World Hindu Conference was held on 25th, 26th and 27th
January 1979 at Prayag. It was inaugurated by the Excellency Shri
Dalai Lama, the great religious leader of Buddhists and was presided
over by Shri Bhagawat Singh, Maharana of Mewar. This was attended by
more than a lakh of representatives from India and abroad."

Apparently, H.H. the Dalai Lama of Tibet was accorded a "rousing
reception" by the Jagatguru Shankaracharya Shri Shantanandji, the
successor to H.D. Brahmanand Saraswati.

"This in itself was a historical event, because it was a symbol of the
unity and identity of Sanatana Hinduism and Buddhism. Such was the
origin and spread of great idea, which today stands as a mighty
Ashwatha Vriksha, Symbolic of Hinduism and the great Hindu Society."

Source:

VHP Hindi Home Page
http://www.vhp.org/englishsite/a-origin_growth/idea.htm
willytex
2004-03-03 17:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ColdBluICE
How about independent confirmation of the facts..
Mr. Perino - Here is the information that you requested.

"Only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Shantananda) can be traced
directly to Brahmananda, without any interruptions." - Vidyasankar
Sundaresan

According to Mr. Sundaresan, "...although he was initiated into
Sannyasa by Brahmananda Saraswati, his personal religious philosophy
is Acintya Bhedabheda, associated with Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya
Vaishnavas. This leads me to seriously suspect his claim of having
been offered the Sankaracharya post."

However, there is one undisputed fact - neither Swaroopanand nor
Prakashanand's name was listed in Guru Dev's will. Another fact is
that in the Kropinsky interview Swami Swaroopanand does not deny the
validity of Guru Dev's will. In fact, "...none of the civil suits in
this dispute seems to have been framed in terms of contesting the
legal bona fides of Brahmananda's will" according to Mr. Sundaresan.

Fact is, a new lawsuit was filed, on the grounds that according to
Brahmananda's will, Dwarakesananda Saraswati should have been
appointed in case Shantananda stepped down! Thus, states Mr.
Sundaresan, "...notwithstanding what was privately thought about the
will and its legitimacy, its terms were co-opted, as a strategy to
displace Vishnudevananda."

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
willytex
2004-03-03 18:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by willytex
I have spoken to the Maharaj Swami and he confirm this story.
...you aint spoke to anyone.
Mr. Perino - I'm talking to you - you're a person right?
Post by willytex
'bout anything.
About the rumors and lies you're spreading against the Maharishi.
Post by willytex
So, how, exactly do you become a 'former' disciple of SwamiJi
Brahmannda, anyway? By visiting other saints and gurus, perhaps? : )
BrahmanandaJi passed in '53. Swami PrakashanandaJi was free
to move on.
Yea, move on to a Baba or another Saint. That's why the Swami Prakashananda
is no longer in the direct disciplic succession of Guru Dev. Prakash was not
listed Guru Dev's will.
Post by willytex
That figures - when you go visiting other Saints like the Swami
Prakashanand did, you probably feel like bashing your former guru -
Shree SwamiJi bashed no one.
He sent you instead to do his bashing for him. You are a shill for the Hare
Krishna movement - that's a fact.
Post by willytex
He only tried to straighten out the
mess created by Mahesh Brahmachari.
By advertising falsely that he was "once offered the seat" of the
Shankaracharya?
Post by willytex
you are a case in point.
In some other cases, the term 'former disciple'
says it all, you know what I mean?
no.
You went over to another Saint, the Swami Prakash, and became a stooge for
him. Now you're passing out leaflets promising "Divine Love Conciousness" in
about 5-7 days.
Post by willytex
The 'former disciples' of Guru Dev, except the Swami Swaroopanand,
are all sock-puppits for the RSS - that's common knowledge.
Speaking of "sock puppet" for the RSS.
So, you admit you're a sock-puppet!
Post by willytex
He is your "pretend Shank" - Vasudevananda leading
a group fo RSS Ram Bhaktas to Ayodhya.
Swami Vasudevananda is the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath. Case closed.
Post by willytex
The article is dated October 15, 2003, and it cites Swami
Vasudevanada as their leader.
Is there an echo in here?
Post by willytex
However no mention of Vasudevanada as being "Shankaracharya.
You are supposed to read the messages here BEFORE you make your comments!

With all due respect, you're full of it. The Bharata Dharma Mahamandala,
Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha were all
present at the installation of Guru Dev's successor, Shree Swami Shantanand
Saraswati. According to The Time of India, Shantanand was installed with all
due pomp and ceremony. Apparently, Shantanand meditated for over any hour in
a public reception. Subsequently, Shantanand was present at a number of TMO
activities, the least not being the Saints Course at Ram Nagar, the
ground-breaking of Shankaracharya Nagar, and at the Guru Poornima at Noida
at in 1990.
Post by willytex
Vasudevananda Saraswati is currently the *sole representative Guru
Dev's lineage*, according to Vidyasankar Sundaresan. Vasudevananda was
present at the appointment of a Mahamandaleswara of the Mahanirvani
Akhada in 1995, according to Hinduism Today.
Your spurious claims based *questionable information*
Hinduism Today does not publish spurrious information, Sir.
Post by willytex
is as flawed as your thinking.
I don't think so.
Post by willytex
Vidyasankar Sundaresan is quite clear that the so-called
"lineage" of Shantiananda-Vishnudevananda-Vasudevananda
is not recognized by none of the remaining 4 *legimate
Shankaracharyas*
It is the usual custom to follow the disciplic succession. According to
Vidyasankar Sundaresan, the committee down in Kashi, having appointed Guru
Dev and "...once Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was accepted as the Jyotirmath
Sankaracharya, and there were no serious disputes about it at the time,
further activities of these other institutions with respect to succession
issues could be construed as unnecessary interference."
Post by willytex
nor the *lawful courts of India*!
The Indian civil courts have no authority over any Shankara matha.
Post by willytex
"Only the lineage of Vasudevananda (through Shantananda) can be
traced directly to Brahmananda, without any interruptions."
- Vidyasankar Sundaresan
Sorry willytex
Tell it Mr. Sundaresan!
Post by willytex
There is some very distressing facts related to the Swami
Prakashanand. For example, the Swami Prakash, apparently,
went to Jyotirmath, in 1950, and claims to have been
initiated there.
By whom I would ask?
Apparently, Guru Dev wasn't even at Jyotirmath in the
year 1950, according to Raj Varma, but was on tour in
South India!
This from the so-called expert Willytex...
Thank you.
Post by willytex
Prakash also makes the claim of having been 'offered the
seat of the Jyotirmath' in 1952 by a committee of pundits
down in Kashi - a full year before Guru Dev's untimely
demise. That would have been news to Guru Dev, who only
passed away in 1953!
That would have really been something - a Shankaracharya
who was only 22 years old, who had been a Sannyasi for
less than a year, and who had been in the presence of
Guru Dev for probably a total of thirty minutes in his
whole life. Sounds like something a stupid committee of
politicaly motivated pundits down in Kashi would come with.
I am guessing you are referring the the same council of
pudits at Kashi, whom appointed Swami BrahmanandaJi in '41.
Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was not "appointed" by any committee down in
Kashi!
Post by willytex
However, there is one undisputed fact - neither Swaroopanand
nor Prakashanand's name was listed in Guru Dev's will.
The so-called "will" of Guru Dev was viewed by many as fraud.
You are lying again - the will is accepted by all parties.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot-ascii.html
Post by willytex
Another fact is that in the Kropinsky interview Swami
Swaroopanand does not deny the validity of Guru Dev's will.
...*history is NOT on your side*
From the Times of India:

ALLAHABAD: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad shall hold its dharmacharya sammelan at
the ashram of Jagatguru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand ji Maharaj on
August 24 at Alopibagh where the seers are to decide upon the final date of
Ram temple construction date at Ayodhya.

Senior VHP activist Triveni Mishra said the Sri Ram Janambhoomi Nyas has
completed preparations for temple construction and final decisons to this
effect will be taken at the sammelan.

The dharmacharya sammelan was held on Monday, August 20, 2001.

From the Vishwa Hindu Parishad:

"The Deli chapter of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) had organized a function on
the topic of caring for cows. The main speaker
was Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Sri Swami Vasudevananda Saraswati of Jyotir
Math, Badrikashram Himalayas.

After the main Vaidya for VHP reviewed the Ayurveda Encyclopedia he invited
Swamiji to the function to present a copy of the book to the Shankaracharya.
The Vaidya also kept the book for himself."

A photo of Swamiji with Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Vasudevananda Saraswati:
http://ayurvedahc.com/ayphoto2.htm
Post by willytex
Pundit committees do not appoint Saints, least of all do
they declare a nobody to be a 'jagadguru', a teacher to
the world, over and above the other four jagadgurus,
namely Puri, Dwarka, Sringeri and Jyotirmath. Get a grip!
you are confused.
I don't think so.
Post by willytex
With all due respect, you're full of it.
Ya sure..
Ya sure..
Post by willytex
The Bharata Dharma Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and
the Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha were all present at the
installation of Guru Dev's successor, Shree Swami Shantanand
Saraswati.
According to The Time of India, Shantanand was installed with
all due pomp and ceremony. Apparently, Shantanand meditated
for over an hour in a public reception. Subsequently,
Shantanand was present at a number of TMO activities, the least
not being the Saints Course at Ram Nagar, the ground-breaking
of Shankaracharya Nagar at Rishikesh, and at the Maharishi Guru
Poornima at Noida held in 1990.
According to Kropinsky, Shantanand was present at the birthday
celebration of Guru Dev at Vrindavan, which you cited. It is a
fact that Swami Shantanada Saraswati and his successors fully
approved of the Mahesh Yogi and the TM meditation program.
If you think that meditation is not supported by the Dasanami
Sampradya founded by the Adi Shankara, you are mistaken.
Your claim is false and is totally without merit. According to the Adi
Shankara, in his sub-commentary on Veda Vyasa's Vivarana on
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, meditation is described as the cessation of
the flutuations of the mental processes - specificaly, the meditation
on the Pranava, with instructions to meditate on it, and to reflect on
it's meaning. A clear, concise, incontrovertible and unassailable
reference to the TM program as taught by the Mahesh Yogi.
FYI: "Adi Sankaracharya (8th century) is traditionally said to have
established four mathas (monasteries) in India, and to have placed
them under the leadership of his four chief disciples. The heads of
these four and other monasteries of the Dasanami orders have come to
be known as Sankaracharyas themselves, in honor of the founder. They
are considered to be the leaders of the ten orders of the Dasanami
Sannyasins associated with Advaita Vedanta." - Vidyasankar Sundaresan
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have responded to each and every
one of your slanderous accustaions - including your bald-faced lie
that the Maharishi murdered Guru Dev, in a conspiracy with the ashram
cook, by posioning Guru Dev's food, while the cook was at Jyotirmath
and Guru Dev was down in Calcutta. Go figure.
Once again, I have responded to your false claims and accusations,
Sir!
Namaste' and Jai Guru Dev!
Loading...