muktika upanishhad (was Re: Brahmana)

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> 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.

So there you go.  I would consider that proof.  And the more examples like
that you could give, the more firm the proof becomes.

> Handwaving dismissals of the 108 upanishhad-s
> is based on an ignorance of what the advaitic tradition says.
>

Handwaving dismissal of my arguments is based on an ignorance of what I
said. :-)

The case before us is a work called vajrasuchi mhich claims to be an
upanishad and claims that being a Brahman is not based on birth.  Now we
have an approximately 2700 year history of writing on Dharma Shastra where
the duties of the various castes is a mjor topic of discussion.  Don't you
find it odd that in all that time everyone has said caste is based on
birth and no one not the Mitakshara or the Parashara Madhaviam or the
Smriti Kaustubh, the Smriti Ratnakara, or the Dharma Sindhu has noticed
this "Shruti" that contradicts them?  You know that for almost as long
there have been people against Dharma yet none of hem have seized upon
this "Vedic" statement to prove the traditional view is wrong?  Perhaps
there is an explanation but I suspect it involves a lot of hand-waving :-)

As for the Muktika I clearly stated that the view of an Vedantin and a
critical scholar are different.  To say one believes one view doesn't say
anthing about the views of the other.  From the critical point of view,
there is ample evidence to suggest it like most of the minor upanishads is
far later than the big 10.  Differences in language, terminology, metre
and adherence to a specific Vedic Shakha are all non-hand-waving factors
in coming to this conclusion.

> Whether shrI sha.nkara quoted a upanishhad or not cannot be the means for
> judging it's validity.

Not the only means but certainly a means.

>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.
>

As I said above it is quoting genuine authorities like that which can help
convince us of the authenticity of a work.  but we should realize that
certain works are of dubious authenticity and not rely on them too much.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar at braincells.com]   And the men .-_|\ who hold
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                          /     \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ -)~~~~~~~~  Perth->*.--._/  o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy   /\/\/\ _ _ ___ _  _ Amboy       v      McQ!