The GK, mANDUkya controversy and some other stuff

Giri gmadras at ENGR.UCDAVIS.EDU
Sun Mar 16 15:21:22 CST 1997

On Sat, 15 Mar 1997, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> I'll check up both the lists (your's and Vidyasankar's) with my copy of
> the muktika and inform you later.

        Thanks for checking. In my copy of the muktika, both the
upanishhad-s are listed as belonging to the kR^ishhNa yajur veda.

> He knows that these two are from the atharva veda. Deussen says that
> other than the prashna and the muNDaka, all the other atharva
> upanishhad-s were "written" later. He thinks so because sha.nkara has
> not used them in the BSB. But, to his credit he quotes Anandagiri whose
> statement would invalidate his position.

The statement by Deussen  that all other atharva upanishhad-s were
written later can be refuted due to two reasons :

1. Besides the major upanishhads, Shankara has been *attributed* with
commentaries on: atharvashikha, nR^isiMhataapanii, atharvashira,
vajrasuuchi and tripura. The first three belong to the atharva veda.

2. Shankara has quoted from atleast one other _minor upanishhad.h_ from
the atharva veda, mahaanaarayana upanishhad.h, in the upadeshasahasri and
his commentary on the adhyatma patala etc. He has quoted tripurataapanii
upanishhad from the atharva veda in the LTB. Therefore, the claim that
Shankara does not quote from minor upanishhad-s of the atharva veda is
baseless.  He may not have quoted them in BSB because of the reason given
by Anandagiri.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list