[Advaita-l] Acarya Shankara is not ablind followerof theScriptures
K Kathirasan NCS
kkathir at ncs.com.sg
Wed Feb 2 01:17:26 CST 2005
That was a great leap. The Vajrasuchika is indeed mentioned in the Muktika Upanishad. That alone is enough to accept the authenticity without having to rely on speculations. In fact all your reasons can be used against many of the Upanishads mentioned in the Muktika Upanishad.
There are many Upanishads which prescribe Nirvikalpa & Savikalpa Samadhi as a means to Moksha. So what is your stand on this when comparing it with the mantras of the Principal Upanishads? Are they authoritative?
The Upanishads are the teachings of the various Shakhas and each Shakha had their own way of expressing the truths contained in the Samhita. Shankara points out that all the shakhas' teachings are uniform in presenting Vidya (upasana) or Jnana by writing his Bhashyas. That's why the terminolgy of the Upanishads are different from one another. It is absurd to think that Ishwara revealed something over a period of time with diverging views/terms.
You should study at least half of the 108 Upanishads mentioned in the Muktika to understand what I am saying.
I had a conversation with Swami Dayananda Saraswatiji about this topic. He specifically mentioned that what is Upanishad is the teaching alone. The words and expressions belonged to the Rishis of the Upanishads.
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Jaldhar H. Vyas
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 2:55 PM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] Acarya Shankara is not ablind followerof theScriptures
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, K Kathirasan NCS wrote:
> Namaste Jaldhar-ji
> Would you apply this rule on the Vajrasuchika Upanishad also?
Apart from the word upanishad in the title, it bears no relation to genuine Shruti texts.
1. It is not connected to any Shakha.
2. It does not use Vedic language only classical sanskrit
3. It does not use Vedic meters. The genuine upanishads are either in
prose or predominantly use Vedic chhandas with less shlokas. The V.U.
is entirely in shlokas.
4. Vajra as a philosophical term is of Buddhist provennance.
5. No Vedantin or Smrtikara has ever bothered quoting from it. Nobody
ever bothered even refuting its claims. (And you would think a shruti
that purported to explain the basis of the caste system would be a big
deal even for opponents don't you think?)
6. It does not appear on the list of 108 upanishads mentioned in the
Muktikopanishad. (which itself is very late)
7. If S. Radhakrishnan had not included it in his book "The Principal
Upanishads" no one would have heard of it at all.
So no, there is no good reason to consider it as Shruti.
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a boy! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/nilagriva/
want to unsubscribe or change your options? See: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
Need assistance? Contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list