The Shankaracharya Lineage of Jyotirmath
steve_...@my-deja.com
The Jyotirmath Sankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
This page was first born in response to the INDOLOGY listserv
discussion (January 19, 1998) about the Sankaracharya of the North, and
has been updated a few times since then. Barring fresh developments in
future, this version (July 2000) will be final. There is also another
version of this page, which uses standard diacritical marks.
There is currently a succession dispute at the Jyotirmath Sankaracharya
seat, the origin of which dates back to the year 1953. Till recently,
the two major rivals were Swami Swarupananda Saraswati (who is also the
Sankaracharya of Dwaraka in the west) and Swami Vasudevananda
Saraswati. Since 1993-4, another Sannyasin named Madhava Asrama has
been a third claimant to the Jyotirmath title.
(*1).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.
(*2).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.
Beginnings of Conflict -
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.
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.
Divided Lineage -
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.
(*2-)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.
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.
In the year 1980, Santananda stepped down from the title, in favor of
Swami Vishnudevananda Saraswati, another disciple of Brahmananda.
However, Vishnudevananda Saraswati passed away in 1989/90, while
Santananda Saraswati was still alive. Following this, one Swami
Vasudevananda Saraswati was named as the successor. Santananda passed
away in late 1997, and Vasudevananda Saraswati is currently the sole
representative of this lineage.
Vasudevananda was present at the appointment of a Mahamandaleswara of
the Mahanirvani Akhada in 1995 (according to Hinduism Today, August
1995). Adding to the complexity of this dispute is the fact that
according to the terms of Brahmananda's contested will, one Swami
Dwarakesananda Saraswati was supposed to have been the second choice
after Santananda. There is no indication that Dwarakesananda ever
claimed the Sankaracharya title, or that it was ever formally offered
to him. A similar situation obtains with a Swami Paramatmananda
Saraswati, who was also named in the will, but as the next choice after
Vishnudevananda.
Some official Sringeri accounts mention that the new Swami met
Santananda Saraswati during his first northern tour in 1956/7, but this
may not indicate that the Sringeri authorities differed from the Puri
and Dwaraka authorities, with respect to endorsing Santananda. It
remains unknown whether the Sringeri Sankaracharyas tried to mediate or
took sides in the Jyotirmath dispute in this early period.
(*2). However, in 1979, when a conference of the Sankaracharyas of the
four Amnaya mathas was held at Sringeri, Santananda and Vishnudevananda
were not invited. It was Swarupananda Saraswati who represented
Jyotirmath. There is no indication that the rival lineage of Santananda
and his disciples was endorsed at this time by any of the other
Sankaracharyas.
Accounts written by Swarupananda's followers do not mention
Krishnabodha Asrama very prominently, probably because he was not a
direct disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati. [7] Swarupananda, being a
direct disciple of Brahmananda, traces his lineage directly to the
ascetic who was the first Sankaracharya of the revived Jyotirmath.
Needless to say, the list of Sankaracharyas of a matha must be
distinguished from the Guru-Sishya lineages of the Sannyasins who
become Sankaracharyas. In an ideal situation, the lineages are
identical, but circumstances often dictate otherwise.
In contrast, or perhaps because of this, Santananda, Vishnudevananda
and Vasudevananda have all had the support of the "Hindutva"
organizations. Vasudevananda is usually present at major VHP and RSS
events, where he is introduced as the Jyotirmath Sankaracharya.
Santananda and Vishnudevananda have also had close connections with
Mahesh Yogi, who used to be Brahmananda Saraswati's secretary. In fact,
the earliest doubts about the will left by Brahmananda Saraswati were
linked to suspicion of the motives and actions of Mahesh Yogi (then
called Mahesh Brahmachari).
(*2) These TM connections probably did not endear Santananda and
Vishnudevananda to the predominantly Brahmana following of the various
mathas. I have also heard rumors that when Santananda stepped down in
favor of Vishnudevananda, there was the hand of Mahesh Yogi behind it.
However, the connection of Mahesh Yogi to Santananda and his lineal
successors is not without its own complications. For example, Deepak
Chopra, the popular New Age author, who used to have intimate ties to
Mahesh Yogi and his organization, has now broken his connections to
him, and claims acknowledgement directly from Vasudevananda Saraswati
instead.
Other Candidates -
Another Swami has claimed that he was once offered the Jyotirmath
Sankaracharya title, which he respectfully declined. This is
Prakasananda Saraswati, who has set up an "International Society of
Divine Love" and a Rasesvari Radharani temple, known as Barsana Dham,
in Texas, USA. Although he was initiated into Sannyasa by Brahmananda
Saraswati, his personal religious philosophy is Acintya Bhedabheda,
associated with Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya Vaishnavas. [10] This
leads me to seriously suspect his claim of having been offered the
Sankaracharya post. 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. And if we dig deep
enough, we will probably unearth more disciples of Brahmananda
Saraswati, who were all potential candidates for the Sankaracharya
position at one time or the other, which they all rejected.
(*3). As an aside, a few relatively unknown, early Indian publications
of the Transcendental Meditation movement claim the Sankaracharya title
for Mahesh Yogi himself, but this is not to be taken seriously. While
Mahesh Yogi was indeed one of the followers of Brahmananda Saraswati,
he has never formally become a Sannyasin. Moreover, his international
following probably obviates any need for him to claim the Sankaracharya
title for himself now.
Swarupananda at Dwaraka -
A further complication was introduced in 1982, when Abhinava
Sacchidananda Tirtha, the Sankaracharya of Dwaraka, passed away,
leaving a will with a few names as possible choices for his successor.
Among these was Swarupananda Saraswati of Jyotirmath. The others either
declined or were eliminated from consideration for one reason or the
other. Swarupananda was then coronated at Dwaraka, in a ceremony
presided over by Swami Abhinava Vidya Tirtha of Sringeri. Swarupananda
Saraswati's Dwaraka title is undisputed, and he is routinely described
in press reports as the Sankaracharya of Dwaraka.
刪 However, it should be noted that while his status as the head of two
principal mathas is somewhat unusual, and also confusing for the lay
public, it had not been insisted that he relinquish his position at
Jyotirmath, before taking charge at Dwaraka.*
刪 Swarupananda had attended the 1979 meeting of the Sankaracharyas at
Sringeri, in his capacity as the Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath. He also
attended the funeral ceremonies of Swami Abhinava Vidya Tirtha at
Sringeri in 1989. In June 1993, a joint statement was issued by the
Sankaracharyas, in connection with the Babri Masjid demolition, which
Swarupananda Saraswati signed twice, in his dual capacity as the head
of both Dwaraka and Jyotirmath.
刪 (*2). And as Jayendra Saraswati of the Kanchi matha has also signed
the 1993 statement, I assume that he too accepts Swarupananda at both
Dwaraka and Jyotirmath. Swarupananda has publicly stated that the
Kanchi matha is only a branch of the Sringeri matha, [11] but he did
attend the birth centenary celebrations of Chandrasekharendra Saraswati
of Kanchipuram in 1993.
刪 It must be noted that the Kanchi matha is a very influential
institution today, and although it is not one of the four original
institutions,* the opinion of its head counts for something in these
controversies.*
刪 (*2). [12] Indeed, the very presence of Jayendra Saraswati along with
the heads of the four Amnaya mathas is a marked change from the absence
of the Kanchi matha in the 1979 meeting of the Sankaracharyas, and is
an acknowledgement of the current political importance of this
institution. Clearly, at least in the eyes of these others,
Swarupananda Saraswati is the Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath, and also the
Sankaracharya of Dwaraka.
Madhava Asrama's claim to the title  (see interview below)
There is a third claimant to account for, named Swami Madhava Asrama,
who is also a leading light of the Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha. This
Sannyasin is a disciple of Krishnabodha Asrama, whose name has been
noted earlier. Madhava Asrama's name crops up routinely in Nepali
newspapers like The Kathmandu Post and The Rising Nepal. He visited
Nepal in 1997, for the 25th anniversary celebrations of King Birendra's
accession to the throne. He also attended the Kumbha Mela in 1998,
where he was injured in a riot. [14]-* The Shankaracharya Madhwashram
Kumbh Mela Leaders
Swami Madhwashram is a Shankaracharya.
Actually Madhwashram is only one of three renouncers who claim to be
the Badri Shankaracharya. Each rejects the claims of the other two, and
the 1998 Kumbh Mela has been witness to disreputable spectacle of press
conferences called by one of the Shankaracharyas to attack the other
two. And the attacks may not have been limited to verbal barbs.
(*3) Madhwashram was badly injured in the Caitra Amavasya riot, and he
has filed a charge of assault against *Swami Vasudevanand,* who also
says that he is the Badri Shankaracharya. When I interviewed
Madhwashram he wore had a cast on one arm and one leg, a bitter
reminder of this controversy.
¨. His initial response was that there is always decline going on, and
improvement, too. But then he did add that there has been a certain
loss in religion in this age of science, as people have turned their
attention to the material pleasures that science offers and have
neglected the greater religious questions. Human beings are naturally
subject to vices. They need religion to teach them how to control
themselves and rise above these things. That is what religion is. There
are many competing religions, but there is only one Religion,
Madhwashram said, the eternal truths preached in the Vedas.
Sources: Interview with Swami Madhwashram at Keshav Ashram, Hardwar on
8 April 1998
Madhava Asrama's claim to the Jyotirmath Sankaracharya title is based
on the stance that after Swarupananda Saraswati took up the Dwaraka
Sankaracharya title in 1982, his title at Jyotirmath has been nullified
by the passage of time. Supporters of Vasudevananda's claim have also
offered an identical argument.
(*3)Madhava Asrama does not recognize the claim of *Vasudevananda
Saraswati* to the Jyotirmath title, as he traces his own claim to the
title through his guru, Krishnabodha Asrama, and to the decision of the
Kashi Vidvat Parishad and the Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha. According
to his followers, in 1982 itself, Niranjanadeva Tirtha of Puri had
requested Swarupananda to give up his Jyotirmath title in favor of
another Sannyasin before taking up the Dwaraka Sankaracharya post.
However, for more than a decade after assuming charge at Dwaraka,
Swarupananda Saraswati had continued to retain his Jyotirmath title. It
is said that in 1993-4, the Kashi Vidvat Parishad and the Akhila
Bharatiya Dharmasangha decided that this was creating much public
confusion, and decided to appoint Madhava Asrama as the Sankaracharya
of Jyotirmath. The coronation ceremony is reported to have been
conducted in Varanasi itself. [15] To summarize, the three competing
Jyotirmath lineages are -
1. Brahmananda Saraswati (1941-1953; revived the matha after a vacancy
of 165 years)
2. Santananda Saraswati
(1953-1980, d. 1997)
3. Vishnudevananda Saraswati
(1980-1990;
disciple of Brahmananda;
predeceased Santananda)
4. Vasudevananda Saraswati
(since 1997 [1990 ?];
disciple of Santananda) 2. Krishnabodha Asrama (1953-1973; not a direct
disciple)
3. Swarupananda Saraswati
(since 1973;
disciple of Brahmananda) 3. Swarupananda Saraswati
(1973-1993/4 [1982?])
4. Madhava Asrama
(since 1993/4; disciple of
Krishnabodha Asrama)
Not including - Hariharananda (Karapatri), Dwarakesananda,
Paramatmananda and Prakasananda (?)
The Role of Other Traditional and Modern Institutions - [16]
The above discussion has dealt only with the cultural and religious
aspects of the Jyotirmath dispute. 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.
Consequently, although one judge did acknowledge the merits of the
claim that Santananda was not properly qualified, he found no legally
valid reason to give a verdict voiding Santananda's claim to the title.
In 1980, after Santananda abdicated in favor of Vishnudevananda, a new
lawsuit was filed, on the grounds that according to Brahmananda's will,
Dwarakesananda Saraswati should have been appointed in case Santananda
stepped down. Thus, notwithstanding what was privately thought about
the will and its legitimacy, its terms were co-opted, as a strategy to
displace Vishnudevananda. However, the proverbial judicial delays in
India played their role, and before this case was even heard,
Dwarakesananda passed away. After Vishnudevananda also passed away, and
Vasudevananda took charge, a fresh round of litigation was begun.
刪 The latest development from this angle is that on February 22, 1999,
the court at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, has passed an interim order,
prohibiting *Vasudevananda* from using the title of Sankaracharya to
collect any donations, till the legal case gets resolved either way.
The reasons cited for this order are that his installation is suspect,
and that Swarupananda has the better claim to the Jyotirmath title,
both for historical reasons and by virtue of being acknowledged by the
other Sankaracharyas. Thus, notwithstanding the previous legal standing
of Santananda at Jyotirmath, his disciple and successor seems to have
suffered a legal setback at present.
刪 And this from The Times of India:
Court upholds installation of Shankaracharya
ALLAHABAD: The additional district judge of Allahabad has held that
Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati has prima facie proved his valid
installation as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeetha Badrikashram.
The judge dismissed the appeal of a rival claimant Swami Vasudevanand
challenging the validity of an order passed by civil judge junior
division Allahabad, whereby Swami Vasudevanand had been restrained from
proclaiming himself as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth Badrikashram.
The ADJ Arvinda Kumar Tripathi, delivered a judgment of 96 pages,
rejecting the appeal of Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati has said that
Swami Swaroopanand Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth is prima facie
validly installed Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth Badrika shram.
The judge said that Swami Swaroopanand has also proved that if Swami
Vasudevanand Saraswati is not restrained from proclaiming himself as
Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, he will suffer irrepa rable loss.
The ADJ (Appellate Court) Allahabad, has said in the judgment that the
judgment delivered by the IInd civil judge junior divi sion restraining
Swami Vasudevanand from proclaiming himself as Shankaracharya of
Jyotishpeetha, is perfectly valid, based on the evidences and papers on
record.
Upholding the judgment under challenge of civil judge, who had said
that "Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati is validly installed Shankaracharya
of Jyotishpeetha and Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati does not possess the
requisite qualifications for Shankaracharya and therefore installation
of Swami Vasudevanand as Shankaracha rya of Jyotishpeeth is not valid."
He, therefore, can not pro claim himself as Shankaracharya of
Jyotishpeeth, the judge said that judgment is valid and need not be
interfered.
It may be recalled that the civil judge junior division Allaha bad, on
the application of Swami Swaroopanand had restrained the Swami
Vasudevanand from proclaiming himself as Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth
Badrikashram. Against this order the present appeal was filed, but the
same was dismissed in favour of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati.
刪
Footnotes
(*1) Appears the; pundits based in Varanasi,(the Bharata Dharma
Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad, and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha) have much to say, as to whom is placed in the Seat at
Jyotirmath. This same body approves Swami Swaroopananda claim.
(2*) It shows that the approval of; all the four Jagadguru
Shankaracharya Peetham is a requsite for holding the Seat. Interesting
this also includes; Swami Jayendra Saraswatji of Kanchi Kamakoti Peeth
( see www.kamakoti.org ). Which all approve of Swami Swaroppananda
and His Teachings; and not of Satyananda and Vishnudevanada and
Vasudevanada.
(3*) This characteristically demonstrates; the methodology employed
by; all the Lineage of Satyananda.
Including: ¨Yogi〃 falsely claiming to be a successor to the Seat;
Satyanada and ¨Yogi〃 altering the, ˉWill of Shree Guru Devaˇ; and
Vasudevanada hiring thugs to break the arm of another Shankaracharya
Madhashram.
Best Regards
Steve Perino
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Judy Stein
in his posting of this essay (the one whose URL I provided in an
earlier post as an authoritative source concerning the Jyotirmath
succession controversy), WITHOUT indicating that he has done so.
He has left out many parts of it but has failed to mark the
deletions with ellipses, and he has interpolated other material,
including his own remarks, without making it clear that it is not
part of the original essay.
Such behavior is unethical in the extreme.
In some cases the deletions are significant, because they contain
important information, and in at least one case an unmarked
omission results in an apparent connection between the previous
quoted section and what follows, when in fact the connection in
what follows is to the omitted material. I've noted a couple of
examples below. Readers are urged to consult the original essay
at--
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/shank-jyot.html
--for the complete story, including the material Steveperino
"silently" deleted, and without Steveperino's unmarked
interpolations.
On the other hand, Steveperino has left in material from the
essay that demonstrates the confusion and inaccuracy of a number
of Steveperino's previous assertions about the succession story,
but he has failed to acknowledge his errors. Several of these
are noted below as well.
Worst of all, Steveperino has highlighted a portion of the essay
referring to a recent judgment of the Indian courts against
Vasudevananda's and in favor of Swaroopananda's claim to the
Jyotirmath seat *without noting that this judgment was
subsequently overruled*. Steveperino posted the report of the
first decision from the Times of India but did not post a
followup report--which John Stanley then obtained and
posted--concerning the decision being overruled.
In article <8l9ijn$aij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
steve_...@my-deja.com wrote:
[quoting from the essay by Vidyasankar Sundaresan:]
<snip>
> Beginnings of Conflict -
> 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.
Steveperino omits here, without ellipses, the following:
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.
(It would be interesting to know what the qualifications were to
which Sanatanand was said not to have measured up.)
<snip>
> In 1953 itself, one Swami Krishnabodha Asrama
> was appointed as the new Jyotirmath Sankaracharya, contesting
> Santananda's claim.
In earlier posts, Steveperino had claimed that Swaroopanand was
appointed Shankaracharya to replace Santandanda after Santananda
was forced to step down. In fact, as this essay reports,
Santananda stepped down of his own accord in 1980, appointing
Vishnudevananda as his successor; and this was some years after
Krishnabodha (whom Steveperino has never mentioned) had been
appointed to the post by committee on a competing basis with
Santanand, and well after Swaroopanand had succeeded to that
competing seat. Swaroopanand did not take over from Santanand
but rather assumed the competing seat after the death of
Krishnabodha, on the latter's recommendation, in 1973.
Steveperino's inaccurate version of the story was misleadingly
designed to portray Swaroopanand as triumphing over Santanand, as
if any controversy had been settled and Santanand's lineage
definitively discredited by the appointment of Swaroopanand.
<snip>
> Vasudevananda was present at the appointment of a Mahamandaleswara of
> the Mahanirvani Akhada in 1995 (according to Hinduism Today, August
> 1995). Adding to the complexity of this dispute is the fact that
> according to the terms of Brahmananda's contested will, one Swami
> Dwarakesananda Saraswati was supposed to have been the second choice
> after Santananda. There is no indication that Dwarakesananda ever
> claimed the Sankaracharya title, or that it was ever formally offered
> to him. A similar situation obtains with a Swami Paramatmananda
> Saraswati, who was also named in the will, but as the next choice after
> Vishnudevananda.
Here Steveperino has deleted, without ellipses, the following:
It is difficult to ascertain the opinions of the heads of other
institutions about this course of events. After the nomination of
Krishnabodha Asrama, the Puri and Dwaraka mathas do not seem to
have been involved in Jyotirmath affairs to any significant
extent. In the south, Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati of Sringeri
had been succeeded by his disciple, Swami Abhinava Vidya Tirtha,
in late 1954.
> Some official Sringeri accounts mention that the new Swami met
> Santananda Saraswati during his first northern tour in 1956/7, but this
> may not indicate that the Sringeri authorities differed from the Puri
> and Dwaraka authorities, with respect to endorsing Santananda. It
> remains unknown whether the Sringeri Sankaracharyas tried to mediate or
> took sides in the Jyotirmath dispute in this early period.
<snip>
> Needless to say, the list of Sankaracharyas of a matha must be
> distinguished from the Guru-Sishya lineages of the Sannyasins who
> become Sankaracharyas. In an ideal situation, the lineages are
> identical, but circumstances often dictate otherwise.
Here is one of the most glaring unmarked deletions:
Other major factors that affect this succession dispute are the
relationships of the principals with Indian political parties and
with internationally popular gurus. Swarupananda Saraswati's
involvement with the Indian Congress party dates back to the
period of the Indepedence struggle, before he became a Sannyasin.
He remains close to numerous Congress politicians (e.g. Digvijay
Singh of Madhya Pradesh and P. V. Narasimha Rao, the former Prime
Minister of India), and has been quite vocally anti-VHP and
anti-RSS.
Steveperino apparently does not want readers to know of
Swaroopananda's close alliance with the Congress Party, since
this fact illuminates the reasons for the Indian government's
disapproval of and harassment of Maharishi. The "official"
opposition to Maharishi from the government and the "official"
opposition to Maharishi from the religious establishment are not
independent of each other; they are intimately intertwined, as
religion and politics are in India generally.
Moreover, Steveperino's omission removes the antecedent to "this"
in the beginning of the following paragraph (it refers to
Swaroopanand's alliance with the Congress Party), making it
appear to refer vaguely to something in the paragraph preceding
the umarked omission.
> In contrast, or perhaps because of this, Santananda, Vishnudevananda
> and Vasudevananda have all had the support of the "Hindutva"
> organizations.
In other words (with the omitted material restored), the support
of the Hindutva (Hindu nationalist/fundamentalist) organizations
may be simply by default, in opposition to the Congress Party
which Swaroopanand supports. Maharishi is certainly himself a
Hindu nationalist, but he is hardly a Hindu fundamentalist.
These hostile political dynamics should be borne in mind when
considering such stories as that posted here recently (and
prominently featured on Trancenet) from the 1981 Illustrated
Weekly of India article that reported on purported problems at
Maharishi Nagar and other complaints about the activities of the
TM movement in India.
Vasudevananda is usually present at major VHP and RSS
> events, where he is introduced as the Jyotirmath Sankaracharya.
> Santananda and Vishnudevananda have also had close connections with
> Mahesh Yogi, who used to be Brahmananda Saraswati's secretary. In fact,
> the earliest doubts about the will left by Brahmananda Saraswati were
> linked to suspicion of the motives and actions of Mahesh Yogi (then
> called Mahesh Brahmachari).
(Incidentally, these parenthetical numbers with asterisks were
inserted by Steveperino; they do not appear in the original.
Apparently he intends them to highlight material he considers
particularly important, but he should have so indicated.)
> (*2) These TM connections probably did not endear Santananda and
> Vishnudevananda to the predominantly Brahmana following of the various
> mathas. I have also heard rumors that when Santananda stepped down in
> favor of Vishnudevananda, there was the hand of Mahesh Yogi behind it.
Another significant and unmarked deletion by Steveperino:
As with so many aspects of this dispute, I don't know if this is
just rumor, or if there is something more to it. It is well known
that Swarupananda and Mahesh Yogi don't see eye to eye on any
issue, and the ex-TM literature has much information about their
disputes.
> However, the connection of Mahesh Yogi to Santananda and his lineal
> successors is not without its own complications. For example, Deepak
> Chopra, the popular New Age author, who used to have intimate ties to
> Mahesh Yogi and his organization, has now broken his connections to
> him, and claims acknowledgement directly from Vasudevananda Saraswati
> instead.
(It should be noted in passing that the above from the essay is a
little misleading; Chopra broke with Maharishi in the 1980s, and
has only very recently become associated with Vasudevanand.
Also, as I noted in another post, this realignment does not
represent a rejection of Maharishi's approach to the teachings of
yoga and of Shankara-Vedanta [Advaita]; all three, Maharishi,
Chopra, and Vasudevananda, share pretty much the same basic
approach. Vasudevananda, indeed, was Santanand's choice to
succeed Vishnudevanand, and both Santanand and Vishnudevanand
were supported by Maharishi. Chopra's claim for acknowledgment
from Vasudevanand indicates not much more than Chopra's
perception of a need for endorsement by an important spiritual
figure, since he can no longer claim Maharishi's approval.)
> Other Candidates -
> Another Swami has claimed that he was once offered the Jyotirmath
> Sankaracharya title, which he respectfully declined. This is
> Prakasananda Saraswati, who has set up an "International Society of
> Divine Love" and a Rasesvari Radharani temple, known as Barsana Dham,
> in Texas, USA. Although he was initiated into Sannyasa by Brahmananda
> Saraswati, his personal religious philosophy is Acintya Bhedabheda,
> associated with Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya Vaishnavas. [10] This
> leads me to seriously suspect his claim of having been offered the
> Sankaracharya post.
Note this important last sentence. Prakasanand is almost
certainly Steveperino's current spiritual teacher (see another
psot from me), but it appears Prakasanand's claim to have been
offered the Shankaracharya seat may be bogus. (To Steveperino's
credit, he did not delete this portion of the essay casting doubt
on the integrity of his master, although it's a bit surprising he
did not comment on it.)
<snip>
> (*3). As an aside, a few relatively unknown, early Indian publications
> of the Transcendental Meditation movement claim the Sankaracharya title
> for Mahesh Yogi himself, but this is not to be taken seriously. While
> Mahesh Yogi was indeed one of the followers of Brahmananda Saraswati,
> he has never formally become a Sannyasin. Moreover, his international
> following probably obviates any need for him to claim the Sankaracharya
> title for himself now.
Note that in an earlier post, Steveperino asserted that the fact
that Maharishi has never attempted to claim the Shankaracharya
seat was "proof" that he knew he was not entitled to it. It's
much more likely that he never wanted it even if he had had a
chance to obtain it; he had other fish to fry, and as the essay's
writer notes, has created for himself an even more important
position as head of the worldwide TM movement.
<snip>
> 刪 (*2). [12] Indeed, the very presence of Jayendra Saraswati along with
> the heads of the four Amnaya mathas is a marked change from the absence
> of the Kanchi matha in the 1979 meeting of the Sankaracharyas, and is
> an acknowledgement of the current political importance of this
> institution. Clearly, at least in the eyes of these others,
> Swarupananda Saraswati is the Sankaracharya of Jyotirmath, and also the
> Sankaracharya of Dwaraka.
Another significant unmarked omission:
However, Vasudevananda Saraswati's connections with the Akhada
Parishad (a coordination body that deals with such matters as
order of procession of the Akhadas during the Kumbha Mela, etc.)
indicate that the Dasanami Akhada structure may not be
unanimously supportive of Swarupananda.
This portion was interpolated by Steveperino, without any
indication that it was not part of the original essay (although
it is referenced in the notes to the essay):
> Swami Madhwashram is a Shankaracharya.
> Actually Madhwashram is only one of three renouncers who claim to be
> the Badri Shankaracharya. Each rejects the claims of the other two, and
> the 1998 Kumbh Mela has been witness to disreputable spectacle of press
> conferences called by one of the Shankaracharyas to attack the other
> two. And the attacks may not have been limited to verbal barbs.
>
> (*3) Madhwashram was badly injured in the Caitra Amavasya riot, and he
> has filed a charge of assault against *Swami Vasudevanand,* who also
> says that he is the Badri Shankaracharya.
This interview with Madhwashram is linked to another page
describing the riot in more detail. An interesting bit of
information on that page is not quoted by Steveperino:
One person who was badly beaten in the fight was the
Shankaracharya Madhwashram. The ashram were he was staying was
attacked by Juna nagas. Vehicles there were set on fire. Some
property was stolen and Madhwashram himself suffered a broken arm
and leg. In a later press conference Madhwashram claimed that
this attack was organized by Swami Vasudevanand, who also claims
to be the Badri Shankaracharya, and Swami Parmanand Saraswati, a
leading spokesman for the Juna Akhara. ***Madhwashram also expressed
a suspicion that Swami Swarupanand might have been involved***,
another claimant to the Badri post. The head of the ashram were
Madhwashram was assaulted has filed charges against Parmanand and
Vasudevanand.
<snip>
Another unmarked interpolation from Steveperino (the same article
he has already posted to the newsgroup half a dozen times):
> 刪 And this from The Times of India:
> Court upholds installation of Shankaracharya
> ALLAHABAD: The additional district judge of Allahabad has held that
Again, note that Steveperino fails to mention the fact that this
judgment was subsequently overruled. See John Stanley's post
reproducing the Times of India's report on this development.
The following "footnotes" are Steveperino's; they do not appear
in the original essay. Nor has Steveperino indicated he wrote
them (although that's obvious from their characteristic style).
<snip>
> Footnotes
> (*1) Appears the; pundits based in Varanasi,(the Bharata Dharma
<snip>
> (2*) It shows that the approval of; all the four Jagadguru
> Shankaracharya Peetham is a requsite for holding the Seat. Interesting
<snip>
> (3*) This characteristically demonstrates; the methodology employed
> by; all the Lineage of Satyananda.
> Including: ¨Yogi〃 falsely claiming to be a successor to the Seat;
> Satyanada and ¨Yogi〃 altering the, ˉWill of Shree Guru Devaˇ; and
> Vasudevanada hiring thugs to break the arm of another Shankaracharya
> Madhashram.
This last footnote is typical Steveperino fantasy babble.
Maharishi himself has never, to my knowledge, claimed to be a
successor to the Jyotirmath seat. It's much more likely that
this was claimed *for* him by his supporters, not so much in the
interests of his acquiring the seat, but simply to give him
authority and credibility (on the basis of the assertion of
Santananda, reported here by Lawson, that Maharishi would have
been his own choice to succeed him had Maharishi not been of the
wrong caste). And note that the essay itself says these claims
were made in "a few relatively unknown, early Indian publications
of the Transcendental Meditation movement."
No evidence has been presented that Santanand and/or Maharishi
altered Guru Dev's will. The doubts about the authenticity of
the will appear to have been based on some of Guru Dev's
disciples' disapproval of Santanand, who was named in the will as
Guru Dev's preferred successor. Jealousy of Maharishi's close
relationship with Guru Dev may also have played a role,
especially since Maharishi was not a sannyasin and not a Brahmin.
No evidence has been presented that Vasudevananda was responsible
for the attack on Madhava Asrama, other than Madhava's claim.
But note the important fact, unmentioned by Steveperino, that
Madhava has also cast suspicion on Steveperino's hero,
Swaroopanand himself.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@panix.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
steve_...@my-deja.com
Namaste
Deepest Respects
Most politely could answer just one simple question, "why will none of
the other Jagadguru Shankaracharya's refuse to recognize the Lineage of
Satyananda/Vishnudevananda/Vasudevananda?"
Not even the Council Pundits at Varanasi recognize
Vasudevananda...."Supporters of Vasudevananda's claim have also offered
an identical argument. Madhava Asrama does not recognize the claim of
Vasudevananda Saraswati to the Jyotirmath title, as he traces his own
claim to the title through his guru, Krishnabodha Asrama, and to the
decision of the *Kashi Vidvat Parishad and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha.*
All the other Jagadguru Shankaracharyas and the Council of Pundits at
Varanasi (or Kasi Vidvat Parishad & Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha), do
not recognize this lineage of
Santyananada/Vishnudevanandsa/vasudevananda.
It does not matter how I choose to present the facts, (in
whatever "deceptive" format matters not!).
No one ever recognized this "lineage"
of "Yogi/satyananda/vishnudevananda/vsaudevananda!
Lets face it Ms. Judy; you have been duped by the biggest con of all
time!
Best Regards
Steve Perino
In article <Wd5Uvq2B...@panix.com>,
steve_...@my-deja.com
Namaste
Deepest Respects
Most politely could answer just one simple question, "why will none of
the other Jagadguru Shankaracharya's refuse to recognize the Lineage of
Satyananda/Vishnudevananda/Vasudevananda?"
Not even the Council Pundits at Varanasi recognize
Vasudevananda...."Supporters of Vasudevananda's claim have also offered
an identical argument. Madhava Asrama does not recognize the claim of
Vasudevananda Saraswati to the Jyotirmath title, as he traces his own
claim to the title through his guru, Krishnabodha Asrama, and to the
decision of the *Kashi Vidvat Parishad and the Akhila Bharatiya
Dharmasangha.*
All the other Jagadguru Shankaracharyas and the Council of Pundits at
Varanasi (or Kasi Vidvat Parishad & Akhila Bharatiya Dharmasangha), do
not recognize this lineage of
Santyananada/Vishnudevanandsa/vasudevananda.
It does not matter how I choose to present the facts, (in
whatever "deceptive" format matters not!).
No one ever recognized this "lineage"
of "Yogi/satyananda/vishnudevananda/vsaudevananda!
Lets face it Ms. Judy; you have been duped by the biggest con of all
time!
Best Regards
Steve Perino
In article <Wd5Uvq2B...@panix.com>,
jst...@panix.com wrote:
willytex
Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
Thread: The Shankaracharya Lineage of Jyotirmath: Steveperino's
unmarked edits
<snip>
"Readers should be aware that Steveperino has edited the material in
his posting of this essay (the one whose URL I provided in an earlier
post as an authoritative source concerning the Jyotirmath succession
controversy), WITHOUT indicating that he has done so. He has left out
many parts of it but has failed to mark the deletions with ellipses,
and he has interpolated other material, including his own remarks,
without making it clear that it is not part of the original essay.
Such behavior is unethical in the extreme."
<snip>
On 7/24 Steve Perino wrote
Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
Thread: The Shankaracharya Lineage of Jyotirmath: Steveperino's
unmarked edits
<snip>
"It does not matter how I choose to present the facts, in
whatever 'deceptive' format matters not!.
<snip>
SteveP - Huh! Deceptive? You ARE confused. Guru Dev said in his will
that his choice for successor was Swamiji Shantanand
not 'Satyananda.' 'Satyanand' was not a 'Jagadguru,' he was a disciple
of Guru Dev, who taught advanced techniques for Maharishi! Why are you
witholding information? You know that all the Adi-Shankacharya Maths
have had succession disputes and that the Kanchi Math, which you refer
to in your spam attacks, is not even traditionaly accepted as a
Shankacharya Math! Don't even know your own lineage. Like I
said, 'rasik bhaktivada' mood-making, not Rikvic Vastu Shastra Veda!
Confused, two-step, Krhsn chanter impostor.
- willytex
steve_...@my-deja.com
Namaste
Deepest Respects
You say... "> SteveP - Huh! Deceptive? You ARE confused. Guru Dev said
in his will
> that his choice for successor was Swamiji Shantanand
> not 'Satyananda.' 'Satyanand' was not a 'Jagadguru,' he was a disciple
> of Guru Dev, who taught advanced techniques for Maharishi!
Let us examine Ms. Judy Stein's URL
The Jyotirmath Sankaracharya Lineage in the 20th Century
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
This page was first born in response to the INDOLOGY listserv
discussion (January 19, 1998) about the Sankaracharya of the North, and
has been updated a few times since then. Barring fresh developments in
future, this version (July 2000) will be final. There is also another
version of this page, which uses standard diacritical marks.
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. [1] Another
important factor that legitimated the Jyotirmath revival should not be
overlooked.
Beginnings of Conflict -
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]
No you fool Sir Willytex; it clearly states... "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."
No mention of your Shantanand, your mind is wandering again (awash in
mescal)
However: the True Successor of Shree Guru Deva, was appointed by the
same Council of Pundits at Varanasi, that appointed Him. (lets go to
Judy's URL)...
Divided Lineage -
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.
"The organizations involved in reviving Jyothirmath...." and "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.
You see fool! Shree Swami Krishnabodha Asrama Saraswatiji was appointed
Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Jyothirmath in 1953, by the same
organizations that appointed; Shree Swami Brahamananda Saraswatiji
Maharaj in 1941.
Furthermore, blessed by Shree Swami Abhinava Sacchidananda Tirth
Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Dwarika Sharda Peetham 1945-1982.
You and Lawson and the phony will; a truly pathetic attempt to squeeze
TM in somewhere. Keep trying and suckle at the breast of your infantile
emotional attachments (or "Yogi")
Best Regards
Steve Perino
In article <8lisc1$mdp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
willytex <will...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 7/23 Judy Stein wrote
> Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Thread: The Shankaracharya Lineage of Jyotirmath: Steveperino's
> unmarked edits
> <snip>
> "Readers should be aware that Steveperino has edited the material in
> his posting of this essay (the one whose URL I provided in an earlier
> post as an authoritative source concerning the Jyotirmath succession
> controversy), WITHOUT indicating that he has done so. He has left out
> many parts of it but has failed to mark the deletions with ellipses,
> and he has interpolated other material, including his own remarks,
> without making it clear that it is not part of the original essay.
>
> Such behavior is unethical in the extreme."
> <snip>
> On 7/24 Steve Perino wrote
> Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Thread: The Shankaracharya Lineage of Jyotirmath: Steveperino's
> unmarked edits
> <snip>
> "It does not matter how I choose to present the facts, in
> whatever 'deceptive' format matters not!.
> <snip>
>
> SteveP - Huh! Deceptive? You ARE confused. Guru Dev said in his will
> that his choice for successor was Swamiji Shantanand
> not 'Satyananda.' 'Satyanand' was not a 'Jagadguru,' he was a disciple
> of Guru Dev, who taught advanced techniques for Maharishi! Why are you
> witholding information? You know that all the Adi-Shankacharya Maths
> have had succession disputes and that the Kanchi Math, which you refer
> to in your spam attacks, is not even traditionaly accepted as a
> Shankacharya Math! Don't even know your own lineage. Like I
> said, 'rasik bhaktivada' mood-making, not Rikvic Vastu Shastra Veda!
>
> Confused, two-step, Krhsn chanter impostor.
>
> - willytex
>
Judy Stein
steve_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello Judy
> Namaste
> Deepest Respects
>
> Most politely could answer just one simple question, "why will none of
> the other Jagadguru Shankaracharya's refuse to recognize the Lineage of
> Satyananda/Vishnudevananda/Vasudevananda?"
I don't know. Nobody has posted any reasons except the vague
statement that Santanand was "unqualified."
<snip>
> It does not matter how I choose to present the facts, (in
> whatever "deceptive" format matters not!).
Oh, yes, it does. If you choose to make your arguments using
deception, it matters a great deal. It demonstrates that you
can't make your case honestly.
But I'll take your assertion as tacit acknowledgment that you
cut-and-pasted the essay on the Jyotirmath succession controversy
(which I referred you to) in a manner designed to mislead and
deceive (at the same time as you were *knowingly falsely*
accusing *me* of having cut-and-pasted the material from
kamakoti.org).
> No one ever recognized this "lineage"
> of "Yogi/satyananda/vishnudevananda/vsaudevananda!
As I've noted, it has been recognized in quite a few quarters,
just not by Swaroopanand's cronies.
> Lets face it Ms. Judy; you have been duped by the biggest con
> of all time!
I'm not sure why you say that, since I've explicitly said I don't
believe much of anything you have posted here. I'm afraid you
haven't been at all successful in your attempt to dupe the
readers of alt.meditation.transcendental.
steve_...@my-deja.com
Namaste
Deepest Respects
Most politely, you say... "> As I've noted, it has been recognized in
quite a few quarters, just not by Swaroopanand's cronies."
Please Ms. Judy name one True Authentic Jagadguru Shankaracharya whom
recognizes this... "Lineage of
Satyananda/Vishnudevananda/Vasudevananda?"
> I don't know. Nobody has posted any reasons except the vague
> statement that Santanand was "unqualified."
Ms. Judy; the whole reason the other Jagadguru Shankaracharyas from the
Peethams and the Council of Pundits at Varanasi got involved, in 1953.
Was, nearly every person involved believed the "will" to be less than
authentic and Satananada unqualified.
What do you believe? no one had anything better to do? or perhaps,
everyone just simply felt like picking on Satananda?
Come on it defies common sense, something was defientely wrong with the
Final Affairs of Shree Swami Guru Devaji.
Best Regards
Steve Perino
In article <p48Vvq2B...@panix.com>,
jst...@panix.com wrote:
> In article <8lhp1u$r8o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> steve_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Hello Judy
> > Namaste
> > Deepest Respects
> >
> > Most politely could answer just one simple question, "why will none
of
> > the other Jagadguru Shankaracharya's refuse to recognize the
Lineage of
> > Satyananda/Vishnudevananda/Vasudevananda?"
>
> I don't know. Nobody has posted any reasons except the vague
> statement that Santanand was "unqualified."
>
> <snip>
> > It does not matter how I choose to present the facts, (in
> > whatever "deceptive" format matters not!).
>
> Oh, yes, it does. If you choose to make your arguments using
> deception, it matters a great deal. It demonstrates that you
> can't make your case honestly.
>
> But I'll take your assertion as tacit acknowledgment that you
> cut-and-pasted the essay on the Jyotirmath succession controversy
> (which I referred you to) in a manner designed to mislead and
> deceive (at the same time as you were *knowingly falsely*
> accusing *me* of having cut-and-pasted the material from
> kamakoti.org).
>
> > No one ever recognized this "lineage"
> > of "Yogi/satyananda/vishnudevananda/vsaudevananda!
>
> As I've noted, it has been recognized in quite a few quarters,
> just not by Swaroopanand's cronies.
>
> > Lets face it Ms. Judy; you have been duped by the biggest con
> > of all time!
>
> I'm not sure why you say that, since I've explicitly said I don't
> believe much of anything you have posted here. I'm afraid you
> haven't been at all successful in your attempt to dupe the
> readers of alt.meditation.transcendental.
>
willytex
Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
Thread: The Shankaracharya Lineage of Jyotirmath
"Come on it defies common sense, something was defientely wrong with
the Final Affairs of Shree Swami Guru Devaji."
<
SteveP - This may be the only accurate statement you have made on this
subject. However, whatever went wrong in the final affairs of Sri Guru
Dev certainly wasn'nt the fault of Sri Swami Shantanand Saraswati. If
the pronouncements of the Swoop Shank are any indication of the level
of intelligence of the other Shanks, Sri Swami Shantanand stands out
like a beacon of Holiness!
You and your ilk, on the other hand, have made yourselves into a
laughingstock with your anti-Vedanta sectarianism. Not one Vedanta
Peeth in all of India supports sectarian Radharani worship in the
raganuga style. Who in the world do you think you are trying to kid?
Not even the ISKCON Vedika Bhaktis support Raganuga, and they are
directly aligned with Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in desciplic
succession. LOL!
- willytex
steve_...@my-deja.com
Namaste
Deepest Respects
Most politely, you say...."> "Come on it defies common sense, something
was defientely wrong with the Final Affairs of Shree Swami Guru Devaji."
> SteveP - This may be the only accurate statement you have made on this
> subject. However, whatever went wrong in the final affairs of Sri Guru
> Dev certainly wasn'nt the fault of Sri Swami Shantanand Saraswati."
There is only one small problem with that assertion; please allow me to
show you..."If the pronouncements of the Swoop Shank are any indication
of the level of intelligence of the other Shanks",
By; "Swoop Shank" you are referring to in a degrading manner to, Shree
Swami Swaroopananda Saraswti- Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Dwarika
Sharda Peetham.
Lets look at the fallacy of your statment (to Ms. Judy URL again)
<snip>Divided Lineage -
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.[end]
You see; it was not Shree Swami Swaroopanada Saraswati contesting
Santananda/Shantananda claim. It was "the organizations involved in
reviving Jyotirmath in 1941..." (see Above). It was ..."<snip>Bharata
Dharma Mahamandala, Kashi Vidvat Parishad<", or the Council of Pundits
at Varanansi.
When in 1953: Shree Swami Krishnabodha Asrama was appointed, Shree
Swami Guru Devaji successor; <snip>"These efforts were blessed by Swami
Abhinava Sacchidananda Tirtha, the then Sankaracharya of Dwaraka."
Try paying attention, this all happened 20 years before Shree Swami
Swaroopananda Saraswati was appointed Jagadguru Shankaracharya of
Jyotirmath!
Santananda/Shantananda claim was nullified by all involved in 1953. Did
any court order reverse; Shree Swami Krishnabodha Asrama appointment to
Jyotirmath? NO!
For 20 years until his death; no one successfully legally or otherwise
managed to undo, what was done in 1953!
Your attachment to "Yogi" and TM keeps you living in the; dark remote
distant past. Where your anger and resentment blinds you from accepting
truth.
You attempt to blame Shree Swami Swaroopananda for the failures
of "Yogi" to achieve any level of legitmate recognition, in India.(or
anywhere else).
Try to get past it and move on! Shree Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati did
nothing to "Yogi" that "yogi" did not do to himself!
All that; Shree Swami Swaroopananda Saraswatiji-(Jagadguru
Shankaracharya of Jyosimathpeetham and Dwarika Sharda Peetham); did was
give one litte interview to Bob Kropinski, which when looked at
objectively (in the light of day and not the dark distant past),
reveals "Yogi" was fabricating "his teaching" as he went along!
Move on Bro, get a life: Shree Swami Guru Devaji and Shree Adi Shankara
and All True Authentic Spiritual Guides, never taught TM! UNREFUTED
Best Regards
Steve Perino
In article <8lqn0l$guo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
steve_...@my-deja.com
Namaste
Deepest Respects
Most politely you say...<snip> "Not one Vedanta Peeth in all of India
supports sectarian Radharani worship in the raganuga style. Who in the
world do you think you are trying to kid?
Not even the ISKCON Vedika Bhaktis support Raganuga, and they are
directly..."[end]
Shankaracharyas' call for unifying Hinduism
Date: 25-11-1998 :: Pg: 10 :: Col: d
By K. Kannan
VRINDAVAN (U.P.), Nov. 24.
In an attempt to sink the differences among various sects of the Hindu
religion and as the first step to rise above sectarian differences, the
Shankaracharyas of Dwarka, Badrikashram and Puri made a joint public
appearance at a Dharm Sammelan here on Monday, as part of a 22-day-long
spiritual festival.
It was also for the first time that the Shankaracharya of Dwarka
undertook the Braj Chaurasi Kos Yatra along with his followers from
different parts of the country. So far, the yatra had been undertaken
only by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Vallabhacharya - both of them leading
lights of the ``Vaishnava'' sect.
The Dharm Sammelan was organised as part of a process of self- enquiry
into the nature of Hinduism and its relevance for the modern age. It
was also the beginning of an attempt to reverse the trend of
contamination of religion by politics.
Among those who attended the conference were the former President, Dr.
Shankar Dayal Sharma, the Union Urban Development Minister, Mr. Ram
Jethmalani, and the former Union Minister, Dr. Balram Jhakar, besides a
galaxy of sants and intellectuals from different parts of the country.
While there are references in the Skanda Purana and the Narada Purana
that everybody can perform the Brij Yatra, it is for the first time
that at the call of the Shankaracharya of Dwarka, Swami Swaroopanand
Saraswati, sants from different parts of the country converged on
Vrindavan, the ``Leela Sthal'' of Lord Krishna. For the past 20 days,
they have been living in camps in Vrindavan.
By undertaking this ``Brij Yatra'', they hope to imbibe the message of
Lord Krishna who taught the gospel of love and exhorted man to do his
duty without considering the results. The presence of Swami
Swaroopananda Saraswati and Swami Chinmayananda on the same platform
also indicated the willingness to start the process of unification of
Hindu religion.
Speaking on the occasion, Mr. Ram Jethmalani said ``If we want to make
India strong, we have to re-assert the philosophy of Hinduism. India
can be strong and truly secular only when Hinduism is strong, and even
the strongest critic of India, Mr. Nirad. C. Chaudhary, has said this
in so many words''.
Quoting Albert Einstein, who had said ``science without religion is
lame and religion without science is blind,'' Mr. Jethmalani stated
that national character and identity could be re- established only when
the true religion of the majority entered it. But it was religion which
should enter politics and not the other way round.
Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma said science had upheld the position of the
Advaita that energy and matter are one. Therefore, it was time that
``we asserted our true Hindu identity''.
Mr. Balram Jakhar said the lamp of true secularism could burn bright in
the country only when religion was followed in letter and spirit.
On the last day of the spiritual festival, there will be a
commemoration of Ras Khan - a Muslim who wrote epic poetry drawing
heavily from Krishna's ``Prem Ras''. ``We hope to reach a level of
consciousness where disputes like the Ayodhya controversy will look
redundant and foolish,'' the Shankaracharya stated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You idiot!. Whom are you attempting to fool with that statement
regarding...
(<snip>"> You and your ilk, on the other hand, have made yourselves
into a laughingstock with your anti-Vedanta sectarianism. Not one
Vedanta Peeth in all of India supports sectarian..")
You on the otherhand only continue to prove your own ignorance and are
a laughingstock; read on ignoramus, from the Hindu On-Line....
<snip>..."It was also for the first time that the Shankaracharya of
Dwarka undertook the Braj Chaurasi Kos Yatra along with his followers
from different parts of the country. So far, the yatra had been
undertaken only by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Vallabhacharya - both of
them leading lights of the ``Vaishnava'' sect." [end]
<snip>... "While there are references in the Skanda Purana and the
Narada Purana that everybody can perform the Brij Yatra, it is for the
first time that at the call of the Shankaracharya of Dwarka, Swami
Swaroopanand Saraswati, sants from different parts of the country
converged on Vrindavan, the ``Leela Sthal'' of Lord Krishna. For the
past 20 days, they have been living in camps in Vrindavan.
By undertaking this ``Brij Yatra'', they hope to imbibe the message of
Lord Krishna who taught the gospel of love and exhorted man to do his
duty without considering the results. The presence of Swami
Swaroopananda Saraswati and Swami Chinmayananda on the same platform
also indicated the willingness to start the process of unification of
Hindu religion. [end]
Are you completely stupid? Or perhaps just an freaky infantile
emotional attachment to "Yogi"?, coupled with stupidity?
Best Regards
Steve Perino
In article <8lqn0l$guo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
willytex <will...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 7/27 Steve Perino wrote
> Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Thread: The Shankaracharya Lineage of Jyotirmath
> <snip>
> "Come on it defies common sense, something was defientely wrong with
> the Final Affairs of Shree Swami Guru Devaji."
> <snip>
> <
> SteveP - This may be the only accurate statement you have made on this
> subject. However, whatever went wrong in the final affairs of Sri Guru
> Dev certainly wasn'nt the fault of Sri Swami Shantanand Saraswati. If
> the pronouncements of the Swoop Shank are any indication of the level
> of intelligence of the other Shanks, Sri Swami Shantanand stands out
> like a beacon of Holiness!
>
> You and your ilk, on the other hand, have made yourselves into a
> laughingstock with your anti-Vedanta sectarianism. Not one Vedanta
> Peeth in all of India supports sectarian Radharani worship in the
> raganuga style. Who in the world do you think you are trying to kid?
> Not even the ISKCON Vedika Bhaktis support Raganuga, and they are
> directly aligned with Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in desciplic
> succession. LOL!
>
> - willytex
>
willytex
Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
Thread: Shankaracharya Lineage
On 7/27 willytex wrote
> "Not one Vedanta Peeth in all of India supports sectarian Radharani
> worship in the raganuga style. Who in the world do you think you are
> and they are directly aligned with Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in
> desciplic succession."
"Are you completely stupid?
<snip>
Stevebaloni - Like I said, no ISKCON support for raganuga Bhakti. No
Vedanta Radha Peeths. No Vedic scriptural support for Radhavada. No
Radharani in history. No raganuga Vedic parampara. No raganuga
spiritual master. No raganuga. No Bhakti. No way.
Am I supposed to be impressed that Swami Svarupanand sat on the same
stage as Swami Chinmayananda. LOL! Get serious.
steve_...@my-deja.com
Namaste
Deepest Respects
Most Politely you say...."
. No raganuga Vedic parampara. No raganuga
> spiritual master. No raganuga. No Bhakti. No way."
Look here comes Steve with 5 websites all have ragnuga bhakti!
No support! are you stupid?
1) http://hgsoft.com/srv/arc/srv9702/msg00043.htm
Raganuga-bhakti in Caitanya Vaishnavism
2)
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/nmj_articles/raganuga-
bhakti/raganuga-bhakti.html
Raganuga Bhakti
Can Spiritual Spontaneity Be Taught? Can It Be Learned?
by His Holiness Swami B. G. Narasingha Maharaja
3) http://www.the-gita.net/BRS/frame.htm?nav_1_2_r&1-2-270.htm
4) http://www.mandala.com.au/jaiva_dharma/ch21.htm
http://www.mandala.com.au/bhakti.htm
<snip> "You can experience Sri Krishna. By your soul's experience you
may have perception of Him. Your eye's perceptions and your ear's
perceptions are not one and the same, they are different, and similarly
the soul's perception is different from the experiences you have
through your senses. The soul may have such a high experience and
understanding, but it will have to soar up through devotion to Krishna
and then draw that sort of ecstasy.
Devotion to Sri Krishna grows like a creeper growing from a tiny
seed. .."
5) http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/sriguru.html
Srimad Bhagavad-Gita's Most Confidential Verse
Excerpts from an Extraordinary Expose
by Swami Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja
Come on willytex you make this to easy!
Best Regards
Steve Perino
In article <8mctq4$j3u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
willytex <will...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 7/28/2000 Steve Perino wrote
> Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Thread: Shankaracharya Lineage
> On 7/27 willytex wrote
> > "Not one Vedanta Peeth in all of India supports sectarian Radharani
> > worship in the raganuga style. Who in the world do you think you are
> > trying to kid? Not even the ISKCON Vedika Bhaktis support raganuga,
> > and they are directly aligned with Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in
> > desciplic succession."
> <snip>
> "Are you completely stupid?
> <snip>
>
> Stevebaloni - Like I said, no ISKCON support for raganuga Bhakti. No
> Vedanta Radha Peeths. No Vedic scriptural support for Radhavada. No
> Radharani in history. No raganuga Vedic parampara. No raganuga
> spiritual master. No raganuga. No Bhakti. No way.
>
> Am I supposed to be impressed that Swami Svarupanand sat on the same
> stage as Swami Chinmayananda. LOL! Get serious.
>
willytex
Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
Thread: Advaita Vedanta
"Not one Vedanta Peeth in all of India supports sectarian Radharani
worship in the raganuga style. Who in the world do you think you are
and they are directly aligned with Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in
desciplic succession."
"Like I said, no ISKCON support for raganuga Bhakti. No Vedanta Radha
Peeths. No Vedic scriptural support for > Radhavada. No Radharani in
history. No raganuga Vedic parampara. No raganuga spiritual master. No
raganuga. No Bhakti. No way."
On 8/03/2000 Steve Perino wrote
<snip>
"NO! Ms. Judy Stein. Shree Adi Shankara taught Advait Vedanta! 'Aham
Brahmasmi' means 'Your Soul belongs to Shree Krishna, not this material
world'! Where do you see *brahman* word in 'Aham Brahmasmi'? SHOW ME?"
<snip>
"Shree Adi Shankara Never taught *Advait Vad* or- Absolute Monism.
<snip>
SteveP - Like I said: Confused modified dualistic babblin' leela Krshn'
chanter'.
<snip>
On 8/04 Steve Perino wrote
<snip>
"Look here comes Steve with 5 websites all have ragnuga bhakti! No
support! are you stupid?"
Steverino - Yes, I guess I AM stupid! Stupid to think that you know how
to read. I said not one VEDANTA Peeth nor ISCKON Dham supports Raganuga
style bhakti.
Oh! Look, here comes willytex with a photo of Swami Prakashand sitting
with eyes closed on stage at an All India Yoga Conference with Sri
Swami Chidanaanda of Sivananda Asharam, Rishikesh, and Charan Singh of
Radhasoami Satsang, Beas.
steve_...@my-deja.com
Sincerely, deepest respects
Most plolitely you say...'
<snip> "Steverino - Yes, I guess I AM stupid! Stupid to think that you
know how
> to read. I said not one VEDANTA Peeth nor ISCKON Dham supports
Raganuga
> style bhakti."
WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS....
Shankaracharyas' call for unifying Hinduism
Date: 25-11-1998 :: Pg: 10 :: Col: d
By K. Kannan
VRINDAVAN (U.P.), Nov. 24.
<snip> "In an attempt to sink the differences among various sects of
You idiot! willytex;
This raganuga bhakti; MORON BOY!
<snip> "While there are references in the Skanda Purana and the Narada
Purana that everybody can perform the Brij Yatra, it is for the first
time that at the call of the Shankaracharya of Dwarka, Swami
Swaroopanand Saraswati, sants from different parts of the country
converged on Vrindavan, the ``Leela Sthal'' of Lord Krishna...."
Honored by two Jagadguru Shankarcahryas of Puri and Dwarika
Sharda/Jyoismath Peetham!
Best Regards
Steve Perino
In article <8mlcv7$9lv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
willytex <will...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 7/27 willytex wrote
> Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Thread: Advaita Vedanta
> "Not one Vedanta Peeth in all of India supports sectarian Radharani
> worship in the raganuga style. Who in the world do you think you are
> trying to kid? Not even the ISKCON Vedika Bhaktis support raganuga,
> and they are directly aligned with Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in
> desciplic succession."
willytex
Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
Thread: Eyes Wide Shut
On 8/06/willytex wrote
<snip>
"Steverino - Yes, I guess I AM stupid! Stupid to think that you know
how to read. I said not one VEDANTA Peeth nor ISCKON Dham supports
Raganuga style bhakti."
"In an attempt to sink the differences among various sects of the Hindu
religion and as the first step to rise above sectarian differences, the
Shankaracharyas of Dwarka, Badrikashram and Puri made a joint public
appearance at a Dharm Sammelan here on Monday, as part of a 22-day-long
spiritual festival."
Steverino - Yes, I guess I AM stupid! Stupid to think you know how to
read. You are stupid if you think that the above post is some kind of
endorsement for Raganuga Bhakti. I did not find the word Raganuga
anywhere in this report, nor does it say that ANY Vedanta Peeth
supports Rasik sadhana. The fact is, that there are only three
Radhavada Temples in the whole of Vraj. Lord Chaitanya was a Vedika
Bhakti, NOT Ras Leela, according to the Sri Chasitanya parampara
Gaudiya Math. Idoit!
I have a photo of Swami Prakashananand sitting onstage with eyes closed
with Charan Singh Maharaj at an All India Yoga Conference. Does that
make Swami Prakashanad a Surat Shabd Yoga devottee? I guess so.