muktika upanishhad (was Re: Brahmana)

Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian rbalasub at ECN.PURDUE.EDU
Fri Feb 14 13:09:53 CST 1997

Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

[ ...]

> 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 :-)

No it need not. The padma purANa contradicts shruti by saying shiva should not
be worshiped. So do many other purANa-s. The final authority in all such cases
is shruti and not handwaving, back pedaling arguments that the authors of some
smR^iti texts must have followed shruti and hence this upanishhad is a fake and
so on.

Read pUrva mimA.nsA arguments on how a text is established as shruti.

> 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

You have this cute habit of switching back and forth between "critical
scholarship" and vedanta whatever pleases you. In your previous mail you claimed
that pUrva mimA.nsA scholars do not accept this upanishhad. When you were asked
by Giri who they were, and when I pointed out two stalwarts in the advaita
tradition who accept the muktika, you back pedal furiously and claim to be a
critical scholar. Well, I have no use for views of critical scholars. Let us
stick to advaita and bonafide teachers in this sampradAya.

> 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.

No. Can you point out to a single pUrva mIma.nsA text which claims adherence to
a certain metre is necessary? That way the shvetAshvatara and the mANDUkya
would have be discarded on the basis of not belonging to a specific shaka. BTW,
they don't have svara-s either. However the gaNapati upanishhad satisfies both
criteria. So would you discard the other two and put the gaNapati U in the 10
principal upanishhad-s?

> > 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.

Certainly not, since he has never claimed to have quoted all upanishhad-s extant
during his time.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list