Yoga - The one undisputed fact about Guru DevJi

Author

The one undisputed fact about Guru DevJi

willytex@yahoo.com

2006-09-11, 4:31 pm

Apparently, the Swami Prakashanand Saraswati gave Robert Kropinsky a
'letter of introduction' in order to get an audience with the Swami
Swaroopanand at Guru Dev's oldest living desciple birtday celebration
in Brindaban. But, when the Swami Swaroop 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. One so-called
Shankaracharya has been charged with murder. 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
desciplic 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 Vasudevanand 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 Santananda) 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 Collin-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 'secretary', according to my sources - so it would be
perfectly logical for Guru Dev to call for Mr. Mahesh.

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, 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 a thing or two about
how to organize a yoga camp! From what I've read, it was the
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, you know what I mean? 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!

Of course, I wasn't there, 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. Now that would be a topsy-turvy 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.

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.

The Jyotrimath succession is really 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 Badrika Ashram considered
himself to be the Shankaracharya. Who is to say? Certainly not a
committee of pundits down in Kashi!

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
Times of India, Swami Shantanand was installed with all due pomp and
ceremony. Shantanand meditated for over an hour in a public reception.

Namaste' and have a good day!

Premanand

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

I just checked the wording of the Hindi biography on Guru Dev. It
alleges that a 'uttaraadhikaara patra' (a document relating to
succession) was registered in Allahabad on December 18th 1952.

coldbluice

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

> willytex wrote:
> Apparently, the Swami Prakashanand Saraswati gave Robert Kropinsky a
> 'letter of introduction' in order to get an audience with the Swami
> Swaroopanand at Guru Dev's oldest living desciple birtday celebration
> in Brindaban.

Ya so?..I told you that.

> <snip>
> 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.
> <snip>
> Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati is
> currently the *sole representative Guru Dev's lineage*, according to
> Vidyasankar Sundaresan.

>From Vidyasankar Sundaresan:...

.."..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..."
source- http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/posit...jyot-ascii.html

>From November 2001
Times Of India

.. "..MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2001
THE TIMES OF INDIA CITIES: LUCKNOW POWERED BY
INDIATIMES
District judge rejects Swami's plea
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
.."ALLAHABAD: District judge Jagmohan Paliwal dismissed the revision
application of Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, and upheld the order of
February 13 passed by civil judge (junior division) west, Allahabad.
The civil Judge, on February 13 this year had dismissed the two
applications of Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, whereby he had prayed
that contempt proceedings pending against him be rejected in the light
of the High Court Order. Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati
has filed a suit, seeking relief that Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati be
restrained by the court from proclaiming himself Jagat Guru
Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath Badrikashram Himalaya. The Additional
Civil Judge (Second), Allahabad on February 22, 1999 had passed a
temporary injunction, restraining Swami Vasudevanand, not to proclaim
himself as Jagat Guru Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth Badrikashram
Himalaya and work accordingly.."
source-
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...=-2128819658...

>From March 2005

"...A god man, claiming to be the Shankaracharya of the Jyotirmath
Peeth in Badrinath, has accused another Shankaracharya's followers of
stealing from the monastery premises.
Swami Vasudevananda Saraswati on Tuesday said followers of Swami
Swarupananda Saraswati stole ornaments of Goddess Purnagiri and silver
utensils when the Peeth was under a lockout..."
source- http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/29god.htm

>From Vidyasankar Sundaresan:...
"...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)..."
source- http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/posit...jyot-ascii.html

> Vasudevananda was present at the appointment of
> a Mahamandaleswara of the Mahanirvani Akhada in 1995, according to
> Hinduism Today.

So please tell us what *exactly* that means Willytex?

The Mahanirvani Akhada is nowhere near Jyosimutt or Badrinath, nor is
Mahanirvani Akhada related in any way/shape/form/fashion to the
Jysosimutt Ashram trust.

Also, a little more background on Swami Vasudevananda...
Far from being a reclusive holy man altruistically advising spiritual
seekers, as SES would like to believe, Vasudevanand has a long history
of very public political involvement with right wing (Hindutva)-
fundamentalist groups such as BJP, RSS and VHP.
He is in fact the most senior religious figure who regularly associates

with them.
These groups advocate dissolving the secular, multicultural modern
India, and returning that country to a religious state governed by and
for the Hindu majority, including reinstitution of Hindu religious law
and the caste system, and suppression of minorities. A key rallying
point for their efforts has been the destruction of the Babri mosque in

Ayodhya in 1992 followed by the relentless, polarising and even violent

attempts of these influential Hindu groups to build a temple to the
Hindu god Rama on this site.
For background on these points, see:
http://www.awaazsaw.org/ibf/ (Section 1 especially)
http://www.southasianmedia.net/Maga...ue_hindutva.htm
http://www.abo.fi/comprel/temenos/temeno32/tamminen.htm
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=19557
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/Hindutva1.htm
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/08/2...82000611000.htm

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

Only through the *highly questionable and much contested* "so-called
will" of Sri BrahmanandaJi.

Without the "so-called will" Swami Vasudevananda would be laughed out
of court.

"..Immediately after Swami Shantananda's abdication, the --
Swami Krishnabodha Asrama camp, now led by Swami Swaroopananda,
launched a new court case. In this new tactic, Swami Swaroopananda
initiated Dwarka Prasad Shastri, the second named person in Sri
BrahmanandaJi's disputed
will, into sanyas, making him Dandi Swami Swami Dwarikeshananda
Saraswati.
The idea here was that they would plead that he, as the
second named person in the disputed will should proceed to the "head"
of Jysoimutt after Swami Shantananda ahead of the third named person
who had been Swami Vishnudevananda.
So even though they believed the will had been a forgery, they would
use it against the rival camp, and then the new swami would simply
abdicate to Swami Swaroopananda, whom he endorsed. However, the new
swami died before the case was ever tried..."
"...In 1989 a when Swami Vishnudevananda died. A new case was
launched
by Swami Swaroopananda (case # 513, filed at Allahabad) this time
aimed at Swami Vasudevananda, the inheritor of Santananda's math and
his diksa disciple, who possesses a will of Vishnudevananda's giving
the "title" to him..."

> 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?

Diksha sanyas initiated by Sri BrahmanandaJi at the age of 19 years in
1949.

> Apparently, Guru Dev wasn't even at Jyotirmath in the year 1950,
> according to Raj Varma,

That would be that Lil Mishmashi Shrivstava Prasad Varma's uncle.
And, we would belive that nonsense why?

> 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

No another lie!
He was "offered the seat of Jyosimutt" by Sri BrahmanandaJi, but
politley declined.

> - 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,

Sri SwamiJi was fully renounced, and well qualified according to Sri
BrahmanandJi.

> and who had
> been in the presence of Guru Dev for probably a total of thirty minutes
> in his whole life.

No Sri SwamiJi had determined at an early age that He would take diksha
sanyas from Sri BrahmanandaJi, and had made yearly visits to him from
early teenage years.

> Sounds like something a stupid committee of
> politicaly motivated pundits down in Kashi would come with.

In your pitiful delusional mind you have created a situation that no
basis in historical fact.

> According to Mr. Sundaresan, "...although he was initiated into
> Sannyasa by Brahmananda Saraswati,

Thats right my Sri Swamiji took diksha sanyas at the age of 19 by Sri
BrahmanandaJi.
After, deciding at a very early age that He would take sanyas, he spent
nearly 8 years of making annual treks to Sri BrahmanandaJi's ashram.

> his personal religious philosophy is
> Acintya Bhedabheda, associated with Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya
> Vaishnavas.

Thats right..Sri BrahmanandaJi's devotional practise was dedicated to
the *Formless* form of Nirakar Brahm. However, He sung a devotional
chant- "Bhajo Govindam" as wriiten by Adi Shankar to His beloved
*Personal Form* of Sakar Brahm..which is a devtional secret.

> This leads me to seriously suspect his claim of having been
> offered the Sankaracharya post."

You are just mouthing others words. You have absolutelu no idea how-
Nirkar Brahm (Formless form of God) relates to Sakar Brahm (*Personal
Form of God).

> 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

You once again have no idea what you talking about..the Kashi Vidvat
Parishad and the Jyosimutt Ashram Trust-(Bharata Dharma Mahamandala)
placed Sri BrahmanandaJi in the "seat" in 1941.
And, in fact the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, claimed they had, (at the
time
of the establishing of the Jyosi Mutt trust), reserved the right to
decide who ascended as "head" if succession ever became an issue.

> - 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."

Now you are making that crap up..Willytex.

It is a historical fact that-- Karpatri Swamiji and the Bharat Dharma
Mahamandal with the Kashi Vidvat Parishad nominated Swami Krishnabodha
Asrama on June 25,
1953 to head Jyosimutt.

Without proper consideration given to the historical facts regarding
the revival of the of the seat at Jyosi, individuals such as yourself
can (and often do) fabricate mis-leading statements.
The facts are it was only in the late 1930s that time, a Dandi swami
from Banaras named Swami Gyanananda Saraswati established a trust for
the Jyosi Mutt, overseen by his organization, the Bharat Dharma
Mahamandal, and began a search for a Dandi qualified to head the post,
not wanting the position himself.
After a reconaissance mission to locate the site of the original
math, which had become obscured over time, Swami Gyanananda became
satisfied that he had found the ruins of it on a hillside above Jyosi,
and on Aprl 11, 1941 the particluar spot was secured by deed and
endowment. In the meantime, Swami Gyanananda, the Mahamandal, and
members of the Kashi Vidvat Parisad had decided to ask Swami
Hariharananda Saraswati (also known as-Karpatri Swamiji) to accept the
post.

> However, there is one undisputed fact - neither Swaroopanand nor
> Prakashanand's name was listed in Guru Dev's will.

Again you are making this crap up as you go along. The "so-called will"
was contested from the very moment it was published on on June 8, 1953.

> Another fact, is
> that in the Kropinsky interview Swami Swaroopanand does not deny the
> validity of Guru Dev's will.

These are Swami Swaroopananda's final comments on the "so-called
will"..
..'"...Again, the so-called will of the deceased Guru Dev prescribes
the name of Dvarikeshanand Saraswati as the second person, not him..."

http://www.minet.org/Documents/shank-5

It is a historical fact that Swami Swaroopananda filed two lawsuits on
this very issue of a forged will the first in 1983..

1). Immediately after Swami Shantananda's abdication, the Krishnabodha
Asrama camp, now led by Swami Swaroopananda, launched a new court case.

In this new tactic, Swami Swaroopananda initiated Dwarka Prasad
Shastri, the second named person in Sri BrahmanandaJi's disputed
will, into sanyas, making him Dandi Swami Swami Dwarikeshananda
Saraswati. The idea here was that they would plead that he, as the
second named person in the disputed will should proceed to the "head"
of Jysoimutt after Swami Shantananda ahead of the third named person
who had been Swami Vishnudevananda.
So even though they believed the will had been a forgery, they would
use it against the rival camp, and then the new swami would simply
abdicate to Swami Swaroopananda, whom he endorsed. However, the new
swami died before the case was ever tried.

2). In 1989 a when Swami Vishnudevananda died. A new case was launched

by Swami Swaroopananda (case # 513, filed at Allahabad) this time
aimed at Swami Vasudevananda, the inheritor of Santananda's math and
his diksa disciple, who possesses a will of Vishnudevananda's giving
the "title" to him.

> 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.

You cannot follow nor understand the legal facts surrounding this
issue.

That was due largely to a legal strategy by plaintiffs-(Swami
Hariharananda Saraswati also known as-Karpatri Swamiji, and the ashram
trust- Bharat Dharma Mahamandal) that the court would accept the
plaintiffs arguement that the Jyosi Math Trust was violated...
"...By the late fifties a court case was being framed by those
contending against Swami Santananda and in the early sixties they
obtained permission of the Advocate general in Allahabad to file a suit
under s.92 of the Civil Procedure Code (instituted by the British in
1908) against him. This case, first heard in District court at Seoni,
was brought forward in the name of Swami Paramatmananda, the fourth
person named in the disputed will, along with three pandits, two of
which, Mahdev Sastra and Nagesh Upadyaya, were of the Bharat Dharma
Mahamandal.
Swami Paramatmananda, by all accounts had no real interest in becoming
the acarya, and would have abdicated immediately to Swami Krishnabodha
Asrama had the case gone in his favor, but the hope was that having
appeared on the original will, itself already recognized as a legal
document when the certificate of succession had been granted, some
credibility would be gained.
In the suit against Santananda he was named as "Ramji Tripathi,"
his name before becoming an ascetic, an implicit defamation of his
position.

After much deliberation, the court dismissed the case, siding for
neither person, and so leaving Santananda, by default, with the
succession certificate that had been issued in 1956. The court
maintained that under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code dealing with
public trusts, a suit must be brought forward only to protect the
public interest. In contrast to this, the court felt that the
plaintiffs were suing only to defend the personal interests, rights and
position, of Krisnabodh Asrama, through Swami Paramatmananda, and so
they threw the case out of court, standing on several precedent cases
(court case, p.794).
The case was appealed to the High court at Allahabad in 1962 (Civil
Appeal No. 385), and received the same judgement, that is "the High
Court found that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations
of breach of trust against the first respondent. No reasons were given
in the plaint for asking the directions of the court for the
administration of the trust. " (court case, p.791) Though it is
interesting to note that the court itself acknowledged that Santananda
lacked the knowledge "in Sanskrit and the Vedas which was a necessary
qualification for holding the headship of the Math." (p.793, pt. E
of the court case) But, perceiving this as outside the scope of the
suit, and of the jurisdiction of the secular court, it was of no
consequence.

With no recourse for litigation on the grounds of incompetence to
preside for religious reasons, the plaintiffs continued their civil
suit and appealed the case to the Supreme Court of India at Delhi.
The case was filed as "Civil Appeal No. 1589" of 1973 and decided
on August 21, 1974. The position of the court was again that "there
was an allegation that the direction of the Court was necessary for the
administration of the trust..."

> 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!

No Willytex those lawsuits were filed by Swami Swaroopananda much later
(early & late-1980s) that the original lawsuit mentioned above...
"..In 1989 a new turn developed when Visnudevananda also died. A new
case was launched by the Swarupananda group (case # 513, filed at
Allahabad) this time aimed at Swami Vasudevananda, the inheritor of
Santananda's math and his diksa disciple, who possesses a will of
Visnudevananda's giving the acaryaship to him. The Swarupananda camp
claims Vasudevananda is a personae non grata, exempt from the contest
by virture of the fact that he is not a diksa disciple of Brahmananda
and supported mainly by the money of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a devotee
of the Santananda camp "who wishes to be legitimated by a
Sankaracarya but can get no real Sankaracarya to sit with him,"

> 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 Collin-Smith.

No, *I first posted those words* (years ago August 20, 2000 in a
thread entitled- "spiritual regeneration), and it is a fact that Sri
BrahmanandaJi did order "Brahmacharya Mahesh" to-, "go to the mountains
and never come down. And never have disciples."
I later Joyce Collin-Smith & Dr. Coplin websites to back up my
statements as to how exactly "Brahmacharya Mahesh" traveled from the
mountains of north Indian state of Uttar Kashi to the southern Indian
state of Andhra Pradesh and in the city of Madras.

Here are the words of Joyce Collin-Smith
see works cited...
http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/edu/a...omm/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's successor, 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. It seemed he had

simply wanted to get away from the valley. The implication behind the
words at this point was that he was in very low spirits. .."

And, Dr. Coplin
see work 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
thesouthern state of Andhra Pradesh. By his own admission, he was
responding not only to the request of his relative but more directlyto
an irrepressible impulse to "go south" and visit the temples of
pilgrimage at Kanchi, Rameshwaram, and Kanya Kumari..." [end]

> 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?

Not really, Mehesh Brahmachari, a ascetic from the Shudra caste,
acting, as members of the kyastha subcaste often do, as a secretary
which is not uncommon at all.

> 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.

By interviewing witness that were present at the time.

> 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 'secretary', according to my sources - so it would be
> perfectly logical for Guru Dev to call for Mr. Mahesh.
>
> Guru Dev had composed a will over 2 years previously and had it
> registered in Allahabad.

No sorry pal the will was recently wriiten just prior to His death on
May 23, 1953 and then published on June 8, 1953. The "so-called will"
was not in any time registered in Allahbad.

Well there are two reasons Willytex..

1). Questions regarding the authenicity of the will arose, for
instance, why hadn't Sri BrahmanandaJi published the will while he
was still alive?
Why hadn't he made clear then who he wanted to follow him?
Some believed the will to be a forgery, and sited that Mehesh
Brahmachari, a ascetic from the Shudra caste, acting, as members of the
kyastha subcaste often do, as a secretary, had the opportunity to
create such a document, and as a supporter of Santananda might be
willing.
They also argued that even if the will was authentic, it had probably
been tampered with, claiming that someone must have reversed the order
of the four persons as Swami Paramananda was clearly the best choice.

2). Another allegation held that even if the will was real that Sri
BrahmanandaJi had not been is a "sound disposing state of mind"
(*footnote: court case, p.793) when the will was executed and cited
their personal experience with him during those last days as testimony.
This allegation had even spread to rumors that Sri BrahmanandaJi had
been poisoned.

> <snip>
> 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.

No Willytex you are again making that stuff up as you go along.

> According to The
> Times of India, Swami Shantanand was installed with all due pomp and
> ceremony. Shantanand meditated for over an hour in a public reception.

Prove it.

> Namaste' and have a good day!

You too.

coldbluice

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

> Premanand wrote:
> I just checked the wording of the Hindi biography on Guru Dev.
> It alleges that a 'uttaraadhikaara patra' (a document relating to
> succession) was registered in Allahabad on December 18th 1952.

Namaste & Pranams Paul,
The "biography of Guru Dev" to which you refer was written "Raj Varma"
that would uncle to Lil Mishmashi Shristava Prasad Varma correct?

There are several problems with that spurious "claim".
First in all the court cases from the early 1960's to the late 1980s it
was never an established legal fact that the "so-called will" was ever
registered anywhere.

A "succession certificate" was issued by the court in 1956 based upon
the "so-called will".
On June 12, 1953 as head of the math, Swami Shantinanda came into
possession of the math properties and applied for a certificate of
succession in the district court at Allahabad. This was eventually
granted on Dec. 12, 1956 - that is, three years later.

If you check the archives here at a.m.t. I first made issue with the
fact that "Brahmachari Mahesh" re-wrote the "so-called will".
I first posted this in a thread entitled "Lawson's Spin Story" on July
17, 2000.

According to my sources it is established historical fact that by the
late fifties a court case was being framed by those contending against
Swami Santananda and in the early sixties they obtained permission of
the Advocate general in Allahabad to file a suit under s.92 of the
Civil Procedure Code (instituted by the British in 1908) against him.
This case, first heard in District court at Seoni, was brought forward
in the name of Swami Paramatmananda, the fourth person named in the
disputed will, along with three pandits, two of which, Mahdev Sastra
and Nagesh Upadyaya, were of the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal.
Swami Paramatmananda, by all accounts had no real interest in becoming
the acarya, and would have abdicated immediately to Swami Krishnabodha
Asrama had the case gone in his favor, but the hope was that having
appeared on the original will, itself already recognized as a legal
document when the certificate of succession had been granted, some
credibility would be gained. In the suit against Santananda he was
named as "Ramji Tripathi," his name before becoming an ascetic, an
implicit defamation of his position.
After much deliberation, the court dismissed the case, siding for
neither person, and so leaving Swami Santananda, by default, with the
succession certificate that had been issued in 1956. The court
maintained that under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code dealing with
public trusts, a suit must be brought forward only to protect the
public interest. In contrast to this, the court felt that the
plaintiffs were suing only to defend the personal interests, rights and
position, of Swami Krishnabodha Asrama, through Swami Paramatmananda,
and so they threw the case out of court, standing on several precedent
cases (court case, p.794).
The case was appealed to the High court at Allahabad in 1962
(Civil Appeal No. 385), and received the same judgement, that is "the
High Court found that there was no evidence to substantiate the
allegations of breach of trust against the first respondent. No
reasons were given in the plaint for asking the directions of the court
for the administration of the trust. " (court case, p.791) Though it
is interesting to note that the court itself acknowledged that Swami
Santananda lacked the knowledge "in Sanskrit and the Vedas which was
a necessary qualification for holding the headship of the Math."
(p.793, pt. E of the court case) But, perceiving this as outside the
scope of the suit, and of the jurisdiction of the secular court, it was
of no consequence.
With no recourse for litigation on the grounds of incompetence
to preside for religious reasons, the plaintiffs continued their civil
suit and appealed the case to the Supreme Court of India at Delhi.
The case was filed as "Civil Appeal No. 1589" of 1973 and decided
on August 21, 1974. The position of the court was again that "there
was an allegation that the direction of the Court was necessary for the
administration of the trust. But no reasons were given in the plaint
why the plaintiffs were seeking the direction of the Court. There were
no clear allegations of maladministration..." and so "We think that
the High Court was right in dismissing the suit on the ground that it
did not fall within S. 92... We therefore dismiss the appeal."
(court case, p.796).

There are real issues with the "so-called will" according to my
scources (Dana Sawyer) are ....

1). Questions regarding the authenicity of the will arose, for
instance, why hadn't Sri BrahmanandaJi's published the will while he
was still alive? Why hadn't he made clear then who he wanted to
follow him? Some believed the will to be a forgery, and sited that
"Mahesh Brahmachari", a ascetic from the Shudra caste, acting, as
members of the kyastha subcaste often do, as a secretary, had the
opportunity to create such a document, and as a supporter of Swami
Santananda might be willing. They also argued that even if the will
was authentic, it had probably been tampered with, claiming that
someone must have reversed the order of the four persons as Swami
Paramananda was clearly the best choice.

2). Another allegation held that even if the will was real that Sri
BrahmanandaJi had not been is a "sound disposing state of mind"
(*footnote: court case, p.793) when the will was executed and cited
their personal experience with him during those last days as testimony.
This allegation had even spread to rumors that Sri BrahmanandaJi had
been poisoned.

3). The third allegation was pedagogical, specifically, that Swami
Santananda did not have the requisite learning in Sanskrit and the
Vedas required to assume the gaddi. Forwarders of this allegation
cited that when Sankara founded these specific maths he created a
constitution for them, presented in two brief texts, the Mathamnaya
and the Mahanusasan. (the authenticity of these texts is academically
disputed but tradition has upheld them). In those texts, Sankara
specifies that to be the acarya of avidyapith, a claimant must (a)
have control of his senses and desires, (b) must have a good knowledge
of Sanskrit and the Vedas (including the vedangas, etc.), and (3) must
be well versed in all aspects of the varnasrama-dharma. But, to the
contrary, Santananda, his opponents maintained, though a good and moral
person, did not have the requisite learning, having been a book binder
in his pre-ascetic life and Sri BrahmanandaJi's cook during his time
with the guru.

This is how the first lawsuits were framed in early 1960's.

I first posted issues surrounding the --posioning of Sri BrahmanandaJi
by a conspiracy lead by "Brahmachari Mahesh" and the cook.
Certainly willytex can provide you with the archives from a.m.t.

coldbluice

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

> Premanand wrote:
> I just checked the wording of the Hindi biography on Guru Dev.
> It alleges that a 'uttaraadhikaara patra' (a document relating to
> succession) was registered in Allahabad on December 18th 1952.

Just one more thing here Paul..we have established legal fact that-
the "so-called will" was found and published on June 8, 1953.
And, Sri BrahmanandaJi died on May 20, 1953, that is a period of nearly
3 weeks!!

Also, we know from legal court documents in the very first court case
and subsequent appeallate cases brought by the Plaintiffs-(Swami
Hariharananda Saraswati also known as-Karpatri Swamiji, and the ashram
trust- Bharat Dharma Mahamandal) that the respondent -(Swami
Shantinanda) never presented any documentation that the "so-called
will" was any older than fews days before Sri BrahmanandaJi's death!!

That would establish the date of the "so-called will" about May 16 or
17, 1953.
As Sri BrahmanandaJi had not supposedly executed the will until very
near His final days (footnote: court case, p.793).

According to my sources the questions regarding the authenicity of the
will arose, for instance-,
1). Why hadn't Sri BrahmanandaJi published the will while he was
still alive?
2). Why hadn't he made clear then who he wanted to follow him?
3). Some believed the will to be a forgery, and sited that Mahesh
Brahmachari, a ascetic from the Shudra caste, acting, as members of the
kyastha subcaste often do, as a secretary, had the opportunity to
create such a document, and as a supporter of Santananda might be
willing.
4). They also argued that even if the will was authentic, it had
probably been tampered with, claiming that someone must have reversed
the order of the four persons as Swami Paramananda was clearly the best
choice.

5). Another allegation held that even if the will was real that Sri
BrahmanandaJi had not been is a "sound disposing state of mind"
(*footnote: court case, p.793) when the will was executed and cited
their personal experience with him during those last days as testimony.

Given these established undisputed *Legal Facts* why would Raj Varma
need to lie about-, " document relating to succession was registered in
Allahabad on December 18th 1952?

When given the established leagl facts nothing relating to a
"succession" was registered in Allahabad on December 18th 1952.

And, the only document (in line with this "so-called will"), Swami
Santinanda was installed on June 12, 1953 as head of the math, came
into possession of the math properties and applied for a certificate of
succession in the district court at Allahabad. This was eventually
granted on Dec. 12, 1956 - that is, three years later.

It well appears Raj Varma deliberately altered the date in his
"autobiography" from the documents legal dated of Dec. 12, 1956 to his
new date of Dec. 18, 1952.
That is just roughly 6 months before Sri BrahmanandaJi's death of May
23, 1953!

Now Raj Varma is the uncle of Lil Mishmashi Brahmachari Mahesh?
It is esatblished Lil Mishmashi Brahmachari Mahesh was engaging in
"suspicious actions and motives" around the time of His death.

Yep a conspiracy by the cook and Lil Mishmashi Brahmachari Mahesh to
poison Sri BrahmanandaJi to death, and then re-wrote the "so-called
will".

Premanand

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

Namaste Ji

With regard to the date of the alleged will. Guru Dev was in Delhi on
December 4th 1952(meeting with the president Dr Rajendra Prasad). The
Hindi biography has him leaving Delhi on December 19th 1952, going to
Agra and staying there until January 22 1953. ( Raj Varma uses exactly
the same dates). So-o-o, if the document of succession was supposed to
have been deposited in Allahabad on December 18th 1952, that would have
been whilst he was in Delhi.

The Hindi biography I am referring to is 'Shri Jyotishpeethaddharaka'
and was actually written by Rameshwar Tiwari, but Raj Varma's biography
('Strange Facts of a Great Saint') appears to draw on similar material
(probably the ashram newsletter 'Shri Shankaracharya Upadesha', hence
the similarity.

I am curious as to the name given in court for Shantanand because it is
said that his family name was Tiwari.

Jai Guru Dev (Victory to Guru Dev)
Paul

coldbluice wrote:
>
> Namaste & Pranams Paul,
> The "biography of Guru Dev" to which you refer was written "Raj Varma"
> that would uncle to Lil Mishmashi Shristava Prasad Varma correct?
>
> There are several problems with that spurious "claim".
> First in all the court cases from the early 1960's to the late 1980s it
> was never an established legal fact that the "so-called will" was ever
> registered anywhere.
>
> A "succession certificate" was issued by the court in 1956 based upon
> the "so-called will".
> On June 12, 1953 as head of the math, Swami Shantinanda came into
> possession of the math properties and applied for a certificate of
> succession in the district court at Allahabad. This was eventually
> granted on Dec. 12, 1956 - that is, three years later.
>
> If you check the archives here at a.m.t. I first made issue with the
> fact that "Brahmachari Mahesh" re-wrote the "so-called will".
> I first posted this in a thread entitled "Lawson's Spin Story" on July
> 17, 2000.
>
> According to my sources it is established historical fact that by the
> late fifties a court case was being framed by those contending against
> Swami Santananda and in the early sixties they obtained permission of
> the Advocate general in Allahabad to file a suit under s.92 of the
> Civil Procedure Code (instituted by the British in 1908) against him.
> This case, first heard in District court at Seoni, was brought forward
> in the name of Swami Paramatmananda, the fourth person named in the
> disputed will, along with three pandits, two of which, Mahdev Sastra
> and Nagesh Upadyaya, were of the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal.
> Swami Paramatmananda, by all accounts had no real interest in becoming
> the acarya, and would have abdicated immediately to Swami Krishnabodha
> Asrama had the case gone in his favor, but the hope was that having
> appeared on the original will, itself already recognized as a legal
> document when the certificate of succession had been granted, some
> credibility would be gained. In the suit against Santananda he was
> named as "Ramji Tripathi," his name before becoming an ascetic, an
> implicit defamation of his position.
> After much deliberation, the court dismissed the case, siding for
> neither person, and so leaving Swami Santananda, by default, with the
> succession certificate that had been issued in 1956. The court
> maintained that under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code dealing with
> public trusts, a suit must be brought forward only to protect the
> public interest. In contrast to this, the court felt that the
> plaintiffs were suing only to defend the personal interests, rights and
> position, of Swami Krishnabodha Asrama, through Swami Paramatmananda,
> and so they threw the case out of court, standing on several precedent
> cases (court case, p.794).
> The case was appealed to the High court at Allahabad in 1962
> (Civil Appeal No. 385), and received the same judgement, that is "the
> High Court found that there was no evidence to substantiate the
> allegations of breach of trust against the first respondent. No
> reasons were given in the plaint for asking the directions of the court
> for the administration of the trust. " (court case, p.791) Though it
> is interesting to note that the court itself acknowledged that Swami
> Santananda lacked the knowledge "in Sanskrit and the Vedas which was
> a necessary qualification for holding the headship of the Math."
> (p.793, pt. E of the court case) But, perceiving this as outside the
> scope of the suit, and of the jurisdiction of the secular court, it was
> of no consequence.
> With no recourse for litigation on the grounds of incompetence
> to preside for religious reasons, the plaintiffs continued their civil
> suit and appealed the case to the Supreme Court of India at Delhi.
> The case was filed as "Civil Appeal No. 1589" of 1973 and decided
> on August 21, 1974. The position of the court was again that "there
> was an allegation that the direction of the Court was necessary for the
> administration of the trust. But no reasons were given in the plaint
> why the plaintiffs were seeking the direction of the Court. There were
> no clear allegations of maladministration..." and so "We think that
> the High Court was right in dismissing the suit on the ground that it
> did not fall within S. 92... We therefore dismiss the appeal."
> (court case, p.796).
>
> There are real issues with the "so-called will" according to my
> scources (Dana Sawyer) are ....
>
> 1). Questions regarding the authenicity of the will arose, for
> instance, why hadn't Sri BrahmanandaJi's published the will while he
> was still alive? Why hadn't he made clear then who he wanted to
> follow him? Some believed the will to be a forgery, and sited that
> "Mahesh Brahmachari", a ascetic from the Shudra caste, acting, as
> members of the kyastha subcaste often do, as a secretary, had the
> opportunity to create such a document, and as a supporter of Swami
> Santananda might be willing. They also argued that even if the will
> was authentic, it had probably been tampered with, claiming that
> someone must have reversed the order of the four persons as Swami
> Paramananda was clearly the best choice.
>
> 2). Another allegation held that even if the will was real that Sri
> BrahmanandaJi had not been is a "sound disposing state of mind"
> (*footnote: court case, p.793) when the will was executed and cited
> their personal experience with him during those last days as testimony.
> This allegation had even spread to rumors that Sri BrahmanandaJi had
> been poisoned.
>
> 3). The third allegation was pedagogical, specifically, that Swami
> Santananda did not have the requisite learning in Sanskrit and the
> Vedas required to assume the gaddi. Forwarders of this allegation
> cited that when Sankara founded these specific maths he created a
> constitution for them, presented in two brief texts, the Mathamnaya
> and the Mahanusasan. (the authenticity of these texts is academically
> disputed but tradition has upheld them). In those texts, Sankara
> specifies that to be the acarya of avidyapith, a claimant must (a)
> have control of his senses and desires, (b) must have a good knowledge
> of Sanskrit and the Vedas (including the vedangas, etc.), and (3) must
> be well versed in all aspects of the varnasrama-dharma. But, to the
> contrary, Santananda, his opponents maintained, though a good and moral
> person, did not have the requisite learning, having been a book binder
> in his pre-ascetic life and Sri BrahmanandaJi's cook during his time
> with the guru.
>
> This is how the first lawsuits were framed in early 1960's.
>
> I first posted issues surrounding the --posioning of Sri BrahmanandaJi
> by a conspiracy lead by "Brahmachari Mahesh" and the cook.
> Certainly willytex can provide you with the archives from a.m.t.

coldbluice

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

Premanand wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Namaste Ji
>
> With regard to the date of the alleged will. Guru Dev was in Delhi on
> December 4th 1952(meeting with the president Dr Rajendra Prasad). The
> Hindi biography has him leaving Delhi on December 19th 1952, going to
> Agra and staying there until January 22 1953. ( Raj Varma uses exactly
> the same dates). So-o-o, if the document of succession was supposed to
> have been deposited in Allahabad on December 18th 1952, that would have
> been whilst he was in Delhi.
>
> The Hindi biography I am referring to is 'Shri Jyotishpeethaddharaka'
> and was actually written by Rameshwar Tiwari, but Raj Varma's biography
> ('Strange Facts of a Great Saint') appears to draw on similar material
> (probably the ashram newsletter 'Shri Shankaracharya Upadesha', hence
> the similarity.
>
> I am curious as to the name given in court for Shantanand because it is
> said that his family name was Tiwari.
>
> Jai Guru Dev (Victory to Guru Dev)
> Paul
>
>
> coldbluice wrote:

coldbluice

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

> Premanand wrote:
> Namaste Ji
>
> With regard to the date of the alleged will. Guru Dev was in Delhi on
> December 4th 1952(meeting with the president Dr Rajendra Prasad). The
> Hindi biography has him leaving Delhi on December 19th 1952, going to
> Agra and staying there until January 22 1953. ( Raj Varma uses exactly
> the same dates). So-o-o, if the document of succession was supposed to
> have been deposited in Allahabad on December 18th 1952, that would have
> been whilst he was in Delhi.
>
> The Hindi biography I am referring to is 'Shri Jyotishpeethaddharaka'
> and was actually written by Rameshwar Tiwari, but Raj Varma's biography
> ('Strange Facts of a Great Saint') appears to draw on similar material
> (probably the ashram newsletter 'Shri Shankaracharya Upadesha', hence
> the similarity.
>
> I am curious as to the name given in court for Shantanand because it is
> said that his family name was Tiwari.

Namaste & Pranams Paul.
I could check for you.

As for my current thinking I would guess that Swami Shantinanda("Ramji
Tripathi") and Rameshwar Tiwari are one in very same person.

I have conducted personal interviews with the very first "tm-ers" in
the west(New Zealand) Joan and her husband taught by "Shantinanda" in
the late 1950s.

As it was, or was not "Shantinanda" but "Brahmachari Mahesh traveling
under his name.

Please have a look at the a.m.t. archives for a thread entitled-, "#2
Lawson's sources" posted June 13, 2000 by me.

The two of them partners in high crimes and conpiracies involving
murder & fraudlent "will" re-writing & forgery & lying & stealing,
etc... check the archives.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Jai Guru Dev (Victory to Guru Dev)
> Paul
>
>
> coldbluice wrote:

pundit_moderator

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

coldbluice wrote:
> In the suit against Santananda he was named as "Ramji Tripathi,"
> his name before becoming an ascetic, an implicit defamation of his
> position.
>
You are incorrect - Swami Shantanand Saraswati's name before he took
Sanyas was Tiwari.

>From the Times of India:

'Senior Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth Dead'

The senior Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth, Swami Shantanand Saraswati
Ji Maharaj, died in Allahabad on Friday night at his Alopi Bagh Ashram.
He was 90. The "jalsamadhi" of the Shankaracharya will be performed on
Sunday at Sangam, the confluence of the Ganga, Yamuna and Saraswati.
The body has been kept in the ashram to enable the public to pay their
respects. Senior leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, including Mr.
Ashok Singhal, dharmacharyas and disciples of the Shankaracharya are
arriving here to participate in the last rites of the Shankaracharya.

The Shankaracharya was born in Achati village of Basti district into a
Brahmin family. He was the third son of Pandit Lal Bihari Tiwari. After
taking to "Vairagya" at 20, he went to Geeta press, Gorakhpur, and
there he stayed from 1933 to 1939. After that, he went to the ashram of
Uria Baba in Vrindaban where he remained for 14 years and studied. In
1951, he took "sanyas" from Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati
of Jyotish Peeth.

After the death of Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, he was made the
Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth on June 12, 1953. On February 29, 1980,
he declared Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati his successor.

pundit_moderator

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

coldbluice wrote:
> Yep a conspiracy by the cook and Lil Mishmashi Brahmachari Mahesh to
> poison Sri BrahmanandaJi to death, and then re-wrote the "so-called
> will".
>
So, this alleged incident would have been reported to the police and
mentioned in the Indian press, right? So, why not post the report here
so we can all read it?

JOSHIMATH - In early 1980s Swami Swaroopanand became the Shankaracharya
of the Dwarakapeeth also. Soon afterwards, the Parishad and others
asked him to choose to remain the Shankaracharya of only one of the
peeths and give up the other. He did not do so, and in 1993, the
Council of Learned Men in
Varanasi made Swami Madhavashram the Shankaracharya of Jyotipeeth.

Source:

Hindustan Times, April 25

PASSED ON: Senior, retired, Shankaracharya of Jyotir Peeth, Swami
Shantanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, age ninety, on December 7, 1997, in
Allahabad, India. Senior leaders of the VHP participated in final
rites. Swami became Shankaracharya in 1953 after the death of his guru,
Brahmanand Saraswati. Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati is his successor.

Hinduism Today March 1998

pundit_moderator

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

coldbluice wrote:
> Ya so?..I told you that.
>
Ya, so, why didn't you tell us that one Shank is an accused thief and
another is an accused murderer?

Rediff: A God Man, claiming to be the Shankaracharya of the Jyotirmath
Peeth in Badrinath, has accused another Shankaracharya's followers of
stealing from the monastery premises.

Swami Vasudevananda Saraswati on Tuesday said followers of Swami
Swarupananda Saraswati stole ornaments of Goddess Purnagiri and silver
utensils when the Peeth was under a lockout. Vasudevananda said a first
information report has been filed with the Joshimath police station.

Read more:

'Shankaracharya followers accused of stealing'
Rediff, March 29, 2005
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/29god.htm

Premanand

2006-09-12, 4:31 pm

Namaste Ji
I've just checked Shantanand's Hindi biography and his family name
appears to be Tiwari Tripathee, & it seems Shantanand was also known as
"Ram Ji".
As to the paper relating to succession, was it in Hindi or in English,
and has anyone got a copy of it?
Jai Guru Dev

coldbluice wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Namaste & Pranams Paul.
> I could check for you.
>
> As for my current thinking I would guess that Swami Shantinanda("Ramji
> Tripathi") and Rameshwar Tiwari are one in very same person.
>
> I have conducted personal interviews with the very first "tm-ers" in
> the west(New Zealand) Joan and her husband taught by "Shantinanda" in
> the late 1950s.
>
> As it was, or was not "Shantinanda" but "Brahmachari Mahesh traveling
> under his name.
>
> Please have a look at the a.m.t. archives for a thread entitled-, "#2
> Lawson's sources" posted June 13, 2000 by me.
>
> The two of them partners in high crimes and conpiracies involving
> murder & fraudlent "will" re-writing & forgery & lying & stealing,
> etc... check the archives.
>

coldbluice

2006-09-12, 9:35 pm

> Premanand wrote:
> Namaste Ji
> I've just checked Shantanand's Hindi biography and his family name
> appears to be Tiwari Tripathee, & it seems Shantanand was also known as
> "Ram Ji".

Namaste & Pranams PermanandJi

I thought so!..Thank you!
That wild bunch--the two of them partners in high crimes and
conpiracies involving
murder & fraudlent "will" re-writing & forgery & lying & stealing,

Now what was WIllytex saying?..
> Wrom: BLVLMHAALPTCXLYRWTQTIPWIGYOKSTTZR
> Date: Tues, Sep 12 2006 3:49 pm
> In the suit against Santananda he was named as
> "Ramji Tripathi,"
> his name before becoming an ascetic,
> an implicit defamation of his position.
> You are incorrect -
> Swami Shantanand Saraswati's
> name before he took Sanyas was Tiwari.

Willytex has not a clue!

I think we have just established the "so-called will" was forged.
Funny I have saying the same thing for 75 months now.

> As to the paper relating to succession, was it in Hindi or in English,
> and has anyone got a copy of it?
> Jai Guru Dev
>
I can find out.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> coldbluice wrote:

coldbluice

2006-09-12, 9:35 pm

> Willytex wrote:
> Ya, so, why didn't you tell us that one Shank is an accused thief and
> another is an accused murderer?
>
> Rediff: A God Man, claiming to be the Shankaracharya of the Jyotirmath
> Peeth in Badrinath, has accused another Shankaracharya's followers of
> stealing from the monastery premises.
>
> Swami Vasudevananda Saraswati on Tuesday said followers of Swami
> Swarupananda Saraswati stole ornaments of Goddess Purnagiri and silver
> utensils when the Peeth was under a lockout. Vasudevananda said a first
> information report has been filed with the Joshimath police station.

The case against Swami Swaroopananda dismissed..you want to post the
news article or shall I?

> Read more:
>
> 'Shankaracharya followers accused of stealing'
> Rediff, March 29, 2005
> http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/29god.htm

pundit_moderator

2006-09-13, 2:25 am

> > Rediff: A God Man, claiming to be the Shankaracharya of the Jyotirmath
coldbluice wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> The case against Swami Swaroopananda dismissed..you want to post the
> news article or shall I?
>
Thiefs, murderers and liars - your whole tradition is based on the
caste system. You're a crank, a bigot, and a fink informer for the ATF.
Remember what happened at Waco - get out while you can and save your
children.
[vbcol=seagreen]

coldbluice

2006-09-13, 8:25 am

> Willytex wrote:
> Thiefs, murderers and liars -
> your whole tradition is based on the
> caste system.

No Willytex "my Tradition" is *NOT* based on the "caste system".
We have currently at least 20 female sanyasi preachers from--
different cultures /socio-economic / ethnic backgrounds and 10
different countries.

That is why we are *NOT* members of the (V)ishwa (H)indu (P)arishad, or
the VHP of North America. As much as you like to think we are.

How can a religious organizaton (J)agadguru (K)riplau (P)arishad with
20 feamle sanyasi preachers (Prachariks) of different socio-economic /
cultural / national /ethnic backgrounds be part of a caste system?

> You're a crank, a bigot,
> and a fink informer for the ATF.

WOW all this angry name-calling, simply because we have *factually
established* there was a conspiracy to engage in forgery to tamper with
the "so-called will"/ Document Of Succession of Sri Swami BrahmanandaJi
Maharaj.

And, Swami Shantinanda (aka-"Ramji Tripathi") and Rameshwar Tiwari are
one in very same person.

And Ramji Tripathi/Rameshwar Tiwari committed bank fraud and deception
as Mr. Paul Mason (PremanandJi) pointed out --, "a document of
succession was supposed to have been deposited in Allahabad on December
18th 1952."

Now we know for a *LEGAL FACT* by undisputed sworn testimony and *LEGAL
DOCUMENTS* that the "so-called will" was not was executed by Sri
BrahmanandaJi Maharaj until very shortly (days in fact) before His
death on May 23, 1953.

So, if the "so-called will" of Sri BrahmanandaJi was not a legal
document until about May 17, 1953 what was that-, " document of
succession deposited in Allahabad on December 18th 1952."?

I (personally) am once again telling you (as I have for the past 75
months) that "Brahmachari Mahesh" and "Swami Shantinanda- the Ashram
Cook"(aka-Ramji Tripathi/Rameshwar Tiwari) engaged in a conspiracy to
1). slowly poison Sri BrahmanandaJi to death.
2). submit a clever forgery of a "so-called will"
3). lie and conceal their criminal behavior
4). commit various acts of fraud.
All of which to take control of the Jyosimath Ashram (and its wealth)
of Sri BrahmanandaJi Maharaj.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Remember what happened at Waco -
> get out while you can and save your
> children.
>