muktika upanishhad (was Re: Brahmana)

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Giri wrote:

>
> > Secondly, the vajrasuchi "upanishad" is probably a late forgery.
>
>         Naturally then, you assume muktika upanishhad is also a forgery
> since it mentions vajrasuchi as a genuine upanishhad. On the other hand,
> has some vedantic authority said that vajrasuchi and muktika are fakes ?

Actually an authority on everything: nyAyA, mImA.nsA, yoga and vedAnta
considers the muktika upanishhad as shruti. The authority is none other than
HH abhinava vidyAtIrtha mahAsvAmigaL. So is upanishhad brahma yogin who has
commented on the 108 upanishhad-s. Handwaving dismissals of the 108 upanishhad-s
is based on an ignorance of what the advaitic tradition says.

> Shankara quotes from upanishhads which are no longer extant today.
> Further, he even notes certain verses in the adhyatma patala of the
> apastamba dharma sutra are upanishhadic in origin but have been lost by
> his time. Thus, there has been a gradual erosion of upanishhadic verses.
> Compounding this problem is the modern forgeries. Given this case, we are
> provided to rely on the 108 upanishhads provided by muktika or else throw
> out almost all upanishhads and just stick with the major upanishhads
> which have been used by Shankara etc.

Whether shrI sha.nkara quoted a upanishhad or not cannot be the means for
judging it's validity. He has never made the claim that he has quoted from all
known upanishhad-s in his time! That way the atharva shira and atharva shikha
upanishhad-s would have to be dismissed. But the two are mentioned in nR^isimha
pUrva tApanIya on which there is a commentary attributed to either shrI
sha.nkara or shrI gauDapAda (I think the latter). These upanishhad-s on Lord
nR^isimha have been quoted by vidyAraNyasvamin also.

As far as I am concerned the 108 can be taken as genuine based on authorities
like upanishhad brahma yogin and HH.

Ramakrishnan.
--
                  http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/