reposting again

[Sankaran Aniruddhan]

namaste,

>True.  Only problem is we do have concerns which are authentic and
>which are not.  The ten is mentioned is only for the fact that  all
>the three achaarya-s refer to them.  Other wise we will end up as in
>Madhva tradition bringing in references that no one else have access
>to or accept as pramaaNa.  That is absolutely unscientific approach.

but surely, when Sankaracharya has quoted certain upanishads (even though
they are not one of the 10 principal upanishads), like the paingala
upanishad or the jabala upanishad, it should be given more weight, since
he is anterior to the other commentators, unlike Sri Madhvacharya who was
born 400 years or more after Sankaracharya. Is there any interpretation
or commentary to the paingala upanishad (which mentions adhyaropa
apavada) from the vishishtadvaita or dvaita side?

Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
namAmi bhagavatpAda Sam.karam lokaSam.karam

Aniruddhan