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

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> The shakha argument is also not feasible. No one knows what
> shaakha the upanishads like maaNDUkya belonged to.

There is a Mandukeya shakha of atharvaveda.  And the name of Rshi Manduki
is known from Rg, Yajus, and Atharvana traditions.

> Not to mention a
> host of other "major" and "minor" upanishads which have a solid
> commentarial tradition.
>

Well, I consider a solid commentorial tradition to be a valid substitute
for a shakha affiliation and vice versa.  The point is in each case we are
not relying on self-proclamations in the text itself or a vague
feeling that "this ought to be Shruti" but some kind of third-party
corroboration.  Sure it is guesswork.  But all guesses are not created
equal.

As for the social statement it is also a pertinent part of a historical
analysis to note that this work is mainly touted by those who want a Vedic
fig leaf to cover their political views.

People might not want to adopt my precise methods but they have to stop
treating our history and culture like it was was behind a dusty display
case in a museum.  We have to get involved and understand the issues as
our sages and acharyas themselves understood them.  Only then can we
successfully pass these ideas on to succeeding generations.

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