[Advaita-l] Acarya Shankara is not ablind followerof theScriptures

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, K Kathirasan NCS wrote:

> Namaste
>
> That was a great leap. The Vajrasuchika is indeed mentioned in the
> Muktika Upanishad.

My mistake, yes it is.

> 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.
>

And in fact they can be used against the Muktikopanishad itself.  I think
it too is mostly likely spurious.  The reason I mentioned it is because
the muktikopanishad atleast concerns itself with enumerating upanishads.
Regardless of whether it is real or fake, it is an attempt by atleast one
section of the tradition to map out the Vedic canon.  But we can find
other ways to do it too.  For instance did Upanishadbrahmayogi comment on
Vajrasuchika? It is these little tidbits put together which can enable us
to make a determination.  Yes, in the end its all guesswork but there is a
difference between an educated guess and a shot in the dark.

> 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?
>

For that matter kalisantarana "upanishad" teaches the Harekrishna mantra
as the means to moksha.  Other texts are also blatently sectarian.  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.

Ok, so what Shakha does Vajrasuchika belong to?  (No, "Samaveda" isn't a
shakha.)

> 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.
>

The classical upanishads are mostly uniform in teaching.  They share the
same worldview and concepts atleast.  But vajrasuchika and kalisantarana
or to use another notorious example allah upanishad obviously do not.
Then there are a whole range where the boundary is a lot fuzzier.

 > 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.
>

Ok that just transfers the test of authenticity from the text to the
teaching.  You still can't claim authority for a work just because it has
upanishad in the title.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a boy! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/nilagriva/