Talk:Brahmananda Saraswati

Fair use rationale for Image:Brahmananda Saraswati GuruDev.jpg

Image:Brahmananda Saraswati GuruDev.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous use of "The Maharishi"

The use of the the term "The Maharishi" originated either with early followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or with newspaper reporters or magazine contributors. It was never preferred by most of his followers, by the organizations he founded, or himself.

The correct usage of this titlular name (common in India for spiritual leaders) is either the full "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi", the abbreviated form "Maharishi", or the term "Maharshi", which actually corresponds to how this name is spoken in Hindi or Sanskrit.

Reference: personal observation of usage during about eight months living in residence with Maharshi in 1971 and 1972, along with many previous and subsequent miscellaneous observations.

If there are no objections, I propose that the definite article be dropped from his name in this article. David spector (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi David. It know sounds strange to anyone who knew Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to use the term "the Maharishi". This though was a consensus decision, and was made across all of the TM articles. I would agree that its probably not the right way to reference him in the articles, but the majority of editors felt this was the most neutral way to write his name. Unfortunately personal experience is not a reliable reference for the encyclopedia. It is possible to open up this discussion again, but quite honestly we've been through the same discussion several times, and I'm not sure another round is worth the effort. A thought on the matter.(olive (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Most recent discussion. [1](olive (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Questionable Reference

We have the statement, with reference: An explanation of the purpose of the TM puja ceremony, the Sanscrit text of the ceremony, and its English translation was written and published by the Maharishi in the pamphlet, The Holy Tradition. Does this reference meet WP:RS standards? It claims that the supposed text and translation was published in a pamphlet by MMY called The Holy Tradition, yet the reference is to a web site page. This could be concocted by goodness know who. Should the reference be maintained in the article? --BwB (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing this sentence from article until a more reliable reference can be found. --BwB (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. The court in Malnak stated all of this. There is absolutely no question that this is the authentic text. And if you looked at the link, you would see that it not only sets forth the text, it includes a scan of the actual pamphlet. This is a baseless reversion of reliably sourced material.Fladrif (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Trancenet is not a reliable source. What has a reliable source to do with the Malnak case, and the fact that the tradition is mentioned there. Does the Malnak case have The Holy Tradition in its court documents? I don't remember that but maybe. Did Maharishi publish the book? I don't see that information. I don't believe Maharihsi himself ever published anything, but I could be wrong. I'd like to iron out these questions /concerns about the source. The reversion in fact was not baseless. There are concerns here as far as I can see. Note that BWB left a statement in place for four days before reversion, and no one commented. Whether the material is true or not is not the issue . The issue is the source not the information(olive (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

Trancenet is not being cited as a source. It is simply the place where one can find online both a copy and the text of The Holy Tradition, which is unquestionably a reliable source when it comes to what the puja ceremony consists of. The Malnak case does indeed have "Holy Tradition" in its court documents, and according to multiple witnesses for the Defendants (ie, the TM Org) it was written by MMY. The District Court held: This translation was attached to the Prendeville Deposition and was marked as defendants' exhibit AA. This translation is based upon the Sanskrit chant and the translation thereof appearing in a book called "The Holy Tradition," which was written by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. See Jarvis Deposition at 764. 986-88[2]Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

When one links from the reference in the article one arrives on a page on the Transnet web site. No context of the text is provided, no mention of the court case, no explanation of where the text came from, or who wrote it. The GIF file on the page links to a scan of another document, again without context, name of author, mention of any court case, etc. I removed the sentence because the source is unreliable, not because of the content. And thanks Olive for noting that I posted my initial comment on the topic some days ago. --BwB (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

These comments make me think that you are extremely confused. The link takes you to the transcribed text of "The Holy Tradition". The transcribed text is taken directly from the GIF, which is a copy of the actual pamphlet. They are the same document, not different documents. The transcription is simply easier to read than the scanned copy. The document is what it is. It's my understanding that it was handed out to all TM Initiators, at least up to the point that the court decision came out. Why would you expect it to contain context beyond that? Why would you expect it to say anything about the court case? According to the witnesses for the TM Org in Malnak, it was written by MMY; it contains both the original Sanskrit text, as well as an English translation of the puja ceremony; it also contains a lengthy explanation of the purpose of the ceremony. There's nothing unreliable about any of this, and it's perfectly appropriate to provide a link to the actual document referred to in the court case since it's readily available. That the document is archived at Trancenet is irrelevant to whether or not this is a reliable source. I appreciate that you took your action only after no-one responded to your earlier post, but now that I've seen what you are questioning, I don't believe that these are legitimate objections. Fladrif (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif for you comments. I am not at all confused. The sentence in the article reads "An explanation of the purpose of the TM puja ceremony, the Sanscrit text of the ceremony, and its English translation was written and published by the Maharishi in the pamphlet, The Holy Tradition." The reference for this sentence is numbered "8" and is the link to the Transnet web page, where we find text in a foreign language and english. We do not know who wrote this text, or what the text is. We do not know that this text is indeed "An explanation of the purpose of the TM puja ceremony, the Sanscrit text of the ceremony, and its English translation written and published by the Maharishi in the pamphlet, The Holy Tradition." This could be self-published by anyone and placed on the web page. Therefore, the reference for the sentence is not reliable. --BwB (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement in the article that you've removed is reliably sourced. The decision in Malnak is the source. So, it would be improper to remove that text. I take it that your real objection is providing an in-line link to "The Holy Tradition" itself. Because, even if that link was not used, the text should stay. Now, as to providing an in-line link to "The Holy Tradition", I take it that the objection is that because Trancenet is a TM-skeptic site, you can't be sure that the linked document isn't a forgery. Is that it?Fladrif (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, Flad. The Malnak decision is not the source for the sentence I proposed be removed. The source for the sentence is some text on the Transnet web site. One does not know what it is, or where it came from. The sentence in the article says that "An explanation of the purpose of the TM puja ceremony, the Sanscrit text of the ceremony, and its English translation was written and published by the Maharishi in the pamphlet, The Holy Tradition.", and then give the web page as the source. We simply do not know it is really what the sentence presumes it to be. Therefore the source for this particular sentence (and this sentence only) is not reliable and I propose the sentence be removed from the article. --BwB (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Malnak decisoin is definitely the source for the sentence you deleted, and removal of that sentence is improper because it is reliably sourced. The footnote simply links to a copy of "The Holy Tradition". It is a convenience link, not a source reference. Fladrif (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. We have some major concerns. Trancenet is a commercial site whose owner makes a living in part debunking, categorizing, and making money of of those who consider TM to be a cult -Knapp family business. The link is a heavily POV, spam link, whatever is on the site that we may want to use. Second, If the book is used on the site but copyrighted, we also can't use it for that reason. I don't see that permission has been granted to Knapp to use the book if copyrighted, maybe its there but I don't see it. if the Holy Tradition is in the court documents we may be able to use the court documents that way . I'm not sure about that, I'd have to check. I'm removing the spam links, do not agree to link to a spam site, but will leave the sentence in pending a link to a source that is compliant.(olive (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

OK, so now it isn't a reliable souce issue at all, it's having a link to a TM skeptic site in an article. By your logic, we ought to delete all of the references to every TM Org official site as well, given that it makes a living selling TM and related products, is heavily POV, and are spam links in the same sense and to the same extent that Trancenet is. But, Trancenet most certainly does not fall within the scope of WP:LINKSPAM, so I dont' think that this is a well-founded argument. But, I'll play along. But, you did go too far in removing appopriate footnotes instead of just the links, if its the links you're concerned about. .Fladrif (talk)

Olive. Pay attention instead of just reflexively reverting. I did not add a link that you claim is spam. I added a footnote citing the Federal Supplement, which is published by West Publishing, but which not available online without a subscription. Fladrif (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK I missed that. Thanks and apologies. And yes Tancenet is specifically a site where Knapp provides a very prominently displayed link to his business. There is a distinct difference according to Wikipedia between using a site to describe and define itself in an article on itself and using a personal site to sell services. So for example if we were doing an article on Knapp we could use a site where he describes himself, although if that site is also commercial things get dicey. If there are TM sites that are specifically commercial sites they shouldn't be used, in my opinion. Reliability is also a concern as noted in the essay WP:Convenience links..

No problem. Per WP:LINKSPAM and WP:ELNOI don't really think that the links you object to are "mainly intended to promote a website" or "for the purpose of promoting a website or a product" which is why I don't believe they fall within the scope of spam. Per the WP:Convenience links article, since the source is a photocopy or scan of the original document, there isn't really any serious basis to contend that the document isn't authentic. While this document is undated, it was apparently written before 1964, never had a copyright registered or reregistered, and so the copyright would have expired not later than 1992 and the work is now in the public domain.Fladrif (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me amend that last bit, as it isn't quite accurate. Because it was published and distributed prior to 1978 without any copyright notice whatsoever, the right to claim copyright was lost at that time.Fladrif (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing the point. The reference for the sentence in question is a link to a Transnet web page with text in a foreign language and english. Does everyone agree with me so far? OK. My point is that we do not know what this text is. There is nothing on the web page to tell the reader what they are looking at. Can we agree on that? Now, the link to the GIF from this web page goes of to what seems to be a scan/photocopy of a document with a cover, a picture and some text. The cover reads "The Holy Tradition", but there is no author, date of publication, or any thing to identify it. Correct? We do not know that the materials presented are what they purport to be. They could be completely fabricated by the author of the web site. This is my argument for saying the source is not reliable. --BwB (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are missing the point. And, you're not bothering to see that the web site does indeed identify what this document is - a copy and a transcription of the Maharishi's pamphlet, "The Holy Tradition", which was at one time the primary textbook for TM Teacher Training Phase III, and which was given to every TM Initiator. You claim that you can't know that it's not a forgery or fabrication. Got any real evidence to suggest that the scan/photocopy is of a forgery? It's pretty easy to check that booklet against other sources - for example the text excerpted from it in the Malnak decision - and against other sources to see that it is not a forgery. And, if you don't believe me or your lying eyes, you can ask olive, timidguy, chemistryprof, and others, who I am quite certain can assure you that this document is indeed an accurate copy of "The Holy Tradition". I'm sure that they still have their personal copies, or if not, can easily get their hands on one. Fladrif (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Message not the messenger please, Flad. "...you're not bothering to see..", "..if you don't believe me or your lying eyes,..", "I'm sure that they still have their personal copies,..". Thanks. --BwB (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

and I may be missing the point/points. Fladrif compromised and links to Trancnet were removed. The sentence in place is linked to Malnak v Yogi. Although I see references to the puja and I would assume that information came from somewhere, I'll guess the Holy Tradition, I don't see an actual ref to it either. Would someone mind pointing that out, I don't mind the sentence being in in any way but I think it needs to be referenced correctly . As I said I may be missing that reference somewhere. I don't own the Holy Tradition and I am not a TM teacher by the way.(olive (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Sure, above, I quoted a portion of the District Court decision which specifically states that, according to the witnesses for the TM Org Defendants in that case, "The Holy Tradition" was written by MMY and includes, among other things, the Sanscrit text and an English translation of the puja ceremony. You can read the whole decision without having a Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw subscription at the Trancenet link that was removed. I don't know of any other free sites where you can read the District Court decision online; there are many free sites to read the Court of Appeals opinion, but it doesn't specifically mention "The Holy Tradition", only the District Court decision mentions it. Fladrif (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My understanding is that court documents although primary sources are OK to use. So I would say the reference is fine and the sentence OK. If I did have concerns about this article it would be that the content on the Maharishi is starting to outstrip the content on Brahmananda Saraswati violating undue weight , but I would think that could be easliy remedied by adding more on the Bramanada Saraswati.(olive (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

I think that that's the appropriate solution. Paul Mason's website [3] has a great deal of source material online which would probably provide at the very least a starting point for adding more to this article. Much of it isn't in English, but a good deal of it is. Fladrif (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the problem is that the Paul Mason site is a personal web site and not a reliable source.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Use of name

In the section Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati is referred to as "Saraswati". I am not at all comfortable with this use, so I am changing all instances of "Saraswati" to "Brahmananda Saraswati". If others have more knowledge on the best names to use, I'd be glad to hear. --BwB (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be in line with Wiki guidelines WP:SURNAME-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Saraswati is not a "surname". It is a given name in the Vedic tradition and cannot be treated in the same way as we would for western family names, like John Smith. --BwB (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Saraswati is a reference to the swami order Saraswati, and not a surname. There are several branches of the swami order, The Swami Order is organized into 10 subdivisions called "dasanamis". There are references to them on several sites on the Internet. They include Sagar (sea) and Aranya (Forest), for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tormod Kinnes (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources

• Love and God, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Age of Enlightenment Press, 1973
• The Whole Thing the Real Thing, Prem C. Pasricha, Delhi Photo Company, 1977
• 'The Life & Teachings of 'Guru Dev' Paul Mason
• Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh, Beacon Light of the Himalyas 1955

The "Age of Enlightenment Press" is described as part of the Maharishi Group, which was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. So it appears that that is a self-published book. The "Delhi Photo Company" doesn't sound like a regular book publisher. What do we know about its reputation for fact checking?[4] I don't see any publisher listed for the Mason reference, just a hyperlink.[5] Wasn't there a concern that Beacon Light of the Himalyas isn't properly published?   Will Beback  talk  07:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Any other input?   Will Beback  talk  05:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There were objections to Beacon Light discussed at length in the TM and RSN talk pages. They were not well-taken objections, as they were principally based on the contention, unaminously contradicted by reliable sources, that it wasn't about TM. The use of the source here is an essay by MMY about Saraswati, published in a book compiled and printed by a third person. It is not self-published. Even if self-published, it would be a statement by MMY about his own opinions of Saraswati, about whom he is presumably an expert, and thus a proper use of self-published material. It might be described as a primary source, though that can be argued, but its use here is simply to present a statement by MMY about the esteem with with he held Saraswati, without commentary or interpretation, a proper and legitimate use of primary sources. Fladrif (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Beacon Light" was a published version of the program used for a conference at which Maharishi spoke as did other speakers. The Notice board comments indicated it was not particularly reliable as a publication (it was not published in a reputable publishing house) and was more of a primary source, but could be used to underpin or back up a reliable secondary source. The program speaks about Maharishi's theories on consciousness but never uses the terms Transcendental Mediation. I have the book. However other reliable sources do cite as Flad says Beacon Light as a first book written by MMY, so on that basis as supported by RS was considered for inclusion included. Whether it should be included on its own is another issue. At this point I have no opinion either way.(olive (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Love and God is a selection of discourses/prayers written by MMY. As a source for Maharishi's words it would be fine I think, but not as a source to make any claims or allegations.

The Whole Thing the Real Thing is a short autobiography probably not what we would consider from a reliable publishing house from what I can see. It may be cited in other sources as Beacon Light was or is, and so might be used with a reliable secondary source. That is open tom discussion as far as I'm concerned.

This Paul Mason book seem to be self published, and would seem to fall below the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion.(olive (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

I don't remember ever scrutinizing this article in terms of its sources so this seems a good exercise.(olive (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

So what does this leave us with? Beacon Light? It appears that we have no publication that meets Wikipedia's standard as a reliable, secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks a little iffy. I'll take a look later tomorrow for other sources that may have information. Paul Mason's book The Maharishi does have information on Brahmananda Saraswati, and the book seems to be a RS... published by Element Books Limited, Shaftesbury, 1994.(olive (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

I'd agree. The article needs better, independently-published secondary sources. Some of the current sources are probably OK for limited use supplementing such secondary sources, but as things stand right now, the article is not well-sourced. Fladrif (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources: After a preliminary look. So far, these have the best information. (In addition to Paul Manson, The Maharishi.) I'll keep looking. (olive (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Forem, Jack, Transcendental Meditation. E.P. Dutton and CO., New York, 1973

Jefferson, William, The Story of The Maharishi. Pocket Books (Simon and Schuster), New York, 1976.

Russell, Peter, The TM Technique. Routledge, Boston, 1976.

Possibly less reliable: Swami Rama, Living With the Himalayan Masters. Himalayan International Institute, Honesdale, Pennsylvania, 1976 and1980.

Transcendenatla Meditaion

Text on disciples more than BS text

It seems that the text dedicated to the disciples of Brahmananda Saraswati outweigh the text of the subject of the article. Does this seem strange to other editors? --BwB (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Word count for Brahmananda Saraswati material - approx. 550 words.
• Word count for Disciple section - approx. 511 words. --BwB (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources it might be good to add text to those other sections and develop those sections. They seem under developed. That would be one solution anyway.(olive (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

If it weren't for his disciples, or at least one of his disciples, none of us would be editing this article. The quality of a teacher can be judged by their students. We have an entire article for the disciples of MMY. Since there's an article on MMY already, do we need to say so much about him here?   Will Beback  talk  17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume you're responding to BWB since I didn't recommend developing the disciple section any more unless there are other disciples that need to be added. Actually I don't see that anyone suggested adding more on MMY. Is there an objection developing the other sections as I've suggested?(olive (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

I think the idea to develop the main section of the article - more about Brahmananda Saraswati himself - is the right approach. I will put some attention on this when I get the time. --BwB (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

discussion of the Shankaracharya succession controversy

There is virtually no mention of the controversy surrounding SBS's successor. Swami Shantananda Saraswati survived several court challenges to his position over the 30+ years that he served as one of the 2 major claimants to the title and Swami Swaroopanda Saraswati was unsucessful in his lawsuits during that same period. It seems arguable that 1) Shantananda's chosen successor, Swami Vasudevananda Saraswati, should be at least mentioned 2) that there should be more info about Shantananda and 3) that the controversy itself should be mentioned. discussion of the Shankaracharya succession controversySparaig2 (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

I am not sure how much these topics should be discussed here. This is an article on the life of Brahmananda Saraswati. What happened after his death is not really direct relevant to a biography. These topics could be discussed in another article. --BwB (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a bio of a person, not the history of his disciples or successors. That info belongs in their individual bios or in the article caled Jyotir Math.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sparaig, do you have any other sources the info that you gave? ie Swami Shantananda Saraswati survived several court challenges to his position over the 30+ years that he served as one of the 2 major claimants to the title and Swami Swaroopanda Saraswati was unsucessful in his lawsuits during that same period.??? This would be good information for the Jyotir Math article. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Coatrack

I have placed a coatrack tag on this article and organized all the off-topic text into one section of the article called: Other. This content should be moved to other relevant articles in my opinion. Thoughts from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the four monastaries or maths of Adi Shankara each have their own article. So I have created one for Jyotir Math which previously was lumped in with the article on the city called Jyotirmath.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, please note that the content in this article that speaks of Swarupananda is from his web site and aside from being a primary source appears to be plagiarized content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Parked content

Since after three weeks, no one has responded to my post above, I am parking the off topic content here. Maybe it can be used in other, more appropriate articles such as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Jyotir Math, Mimamsa, Shankara. Puja etc. [although my research shows that most or all of the content below is already included in those articles].

• Adi Shankara (c. 8th century CE), the great reviver of Vedic Sanatana Dharma, had set up four principal seats of learning in India. Shankara's four principal disciples, Padma-Pada, Hasta-Malaka, Vartika-Kara and Trotaka were assigned to these four learning centers in the north, south, east and west of India. Shankara's insistence that only Brahmins were entitled to lead a life of renunciation attracted much hostility. He refashioned the Buddhist notion of formal monastic orders and made them available to his followers. This prompted Ramanuja to call him a crypto-Buddhist and Madhva continued the assault, saying that Shankara's unflinching monism was prompted by his inability to count beyond one. Followers of the orthodox school of Mimamsa were also unhappy at his emphasis on the importance of renunciation. Shankara's later rise to pre-eminence represents a turn-around in his reputation.

• At the age of nine, Swarupananda left home to visit the holy places of India, including Varanasi where he studied with Swāmī Hariharānanda Sarasvatī, called Swami Koropotri in Yogānanda's Autobiography and a disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati. In 1942, Swarupānanda became a freedom fighter in the Quit India movement and was known as 'Revolutionary Sadhu'. In 1950, Brahmananda Saraswati made him a dandi sannyasi. After Brahmananda Saraswati's passing in 1953, Swarupānanda took up with a new guru, Swami Krishnabodha Ashrama. Krishnabodha was established as Brahmānanda's successor by Hariharānanda. Swarupānanda became president of the Ramrajya Parishad Party. On Krishnabodha's demise, the post of Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math passed to Swarupānanda. There were now two Shankaracharya ashrams in Joshimath, Swarupānanda's on the site of Totakacharya's cave, just below the ashram that Brahmananda Saraswati had built in the 1940s. In 1982, Swarupānanda inherited the title of Shankaracharya of Dwarka.

• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi became a devotee of Brahmananda Saraswati shortly before Brahmananda Saraswati was installed as Shankaracharya in 1941. Mahesh Yogi later became the Shankaracharya's personal assistant.

• In Monier-Williams' Sanskrit dictionary, the primary meaning of 'puja' is honour. An explanation of the purpose of the TM puja ceremony, the Sanskrit text of the ceremony, and its English translation was written and published by Mahesh Yogi in the pamphlet, The Holy Tradition. The court in Malnak v Yogi, quoting and citing The Holy Tradition, found that this ceremony involved the making of offerings to a deified Guru Dev. The title Guru Dev is widely used, often to refer to a deceased spiritual teacher. Mahatma Gandhi called the Bengali poet and musician Rabindranath Tagore Guru Dev.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I have removed this uncited text which I tagged as uncited last month. While some sources say the TM puja is a "Holy Tradition cermemony" (Williamson page 85) that pays tribute to the "tradition of knowledge" (Bainbridge page 188), I found no source that directly connects Saraswati to the TM puja. If anyone can find a source then this text (in italics) can be re-added to the article.
    • It is in recognition of Saraswati as the modern custodian of the Vedic tradition that a puja ceremony is performed by Transcendental Meditation teachers during personal instruction. fact|date=August 2012 Additionally, those trained by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi regard Saraswati as their guru. fact|date=August 2012-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brahmananda Saraswati. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-today.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908152901/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/592/592.F2d.197.78-1882.78-1568.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/592/592.F2d.197.78-1882.78-1568.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Date of birth

The source quoted for date of birth says 21 December 1871 as the most likely date. In an edit of 4 June 2012, the date was however changed to 20 December 1868 without giving a reason. I think it should be changed back to what the source says. --Aloist (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Swami Brahmananda Saraswathi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)