Upanisad later than the age of Buddha?

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

Allow me to ask one silly question. The Vedas come first. Then come

the

Aranyaka and Brahmanas. The Upanisad is later than Aranyaka and

Bramanas. Is this correct?

 

Lal Mani Joshi, in his book, "Brahmanism, Buddhism and Hinduism,

ChapterIV (Date of the Oldest Upanisads) seems to think that the

Upanisads

are later than the age of Buddha.

 

Several points he mentioned are cited below. I do not have access to

the texts and additional information for the points and text his

cited. I

would be grateful if anyone could verify his claim.

 

1. "....The Samkhyayana or Kausitaki Aranyaka mentiones Gunakhya

Samkhyayana as a pupil of Kahola Kausitaki. This Samkhyayana was a

contemporary of Asvalayana as is clear from the fact that Asvalayana

honours

Kahola as a guru. This Asvalayana is called Kausalya in the Prasna

Upanisad, that is a resident of Kosala. As Raychaudhuri has pointed

out, this

Asvalayana Kausalya is identical with Assalayana of Savatthi

mentioned

as a great Vedic teacher of Kosala in the Assalayana Sutta. He was a

contemporary ofBuddha....."

 

2. "...Two famous brahmans of the later Vedic age, Pauskarasadi and

Lauhitya, mentioned in the Samkhyayana Aranyaka, are also mentioned

as

contemporaries of the Buddha in the Ambattha and Lohicca

Suttas......Thus

the Aranyaka and the sutras associated with Samkhyayana and

Asvalayana

cannot be placed before the age of Buddha. The Upanisads are

posterior

to the Aranyaka texts......."

 

3. "...Svetsketu, the famous person in the Brihadaranyaka (vi. 2. 1f)

and Chandogya (vi. 1f) Upanisads.........Svetaketu was a contemporary

of

Gunakhya Samkhyayana and Asvalayana of Savatthi......"

 

4. "...The royal philosopher Ajatasatru, mentioned in the Kausitaki

(iv. 1) and Brihadaranyaka (ii. 1. 1) Upanisads was evidently King

Ajatasatru of Magadha of Magadha, a contemporary of Buddha. In

Upanisads, he

is called a king of Kasi (Varanasi)..........In the time of Buddha,

Kasi

was under the control of Bimbisara and his son Ajatasatru; the small

territory of Kasi had come to the Magadhan monarch as a dowry and

Ajatasatru inherited his father's kingdom. There is no reason to

think that

the Upanisadic Ajatasatru of Kasi was different from the Magadhan

Ajasatru known to Buddhist and Jaina literature....."

 

Thanks, Rahula

[Guest guest]

> Allow me to ask one silly question. The Vedas come first. Then come

> the

> Aranyaka and Brahmanas. The Upanisad is later than Aranyaka and

> Bramanas. Is this correct?

>

> Lal Mani Joshi, in his book, "Brahmanism, Buddhism and Hinduism,

> ChapterIV (Date of the Oldest Upanisads) seems to think that the

> Upanisads

> are later than the age of Buddha.

 

Though it is quite possible that some of the Upanishads are later

than the Buddha, there're quite a few which clearly predate the

Buddha.

 

The doctrine of anatta itself presupposes a well established atman

doctrine - as taught by the Upanishads. And in the Vedas it is the

Upanishads which dwells on such issues.

 

Mere names cannot be used as evidence. Either as Philip says

such "name quoting" was used to assert the validity of the Buddhist

texts themselves, or even they could have referred to totally

different persons. It is not unusual for an Ajaatashatru to surface a

few centuries after the original Ajaatashatru.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

> Though it is quite possible that some of the Upanishads are later

> than the Buddha, there're quite a few which clearly predate the

> Buddha.

 

Which predate the Buddha? Brha-daranyaka and Chandogya?

 

> The doctrine of anatta itself presupposes a well established atman

> doctrine - as taught by the Upanishads. And in the Vedas it is the

> Upanishads which dwells on such issues.

 

I was told that the concept of anatman was present in Upanisads. (And

the Buddha was actually preaching Upanisads doctrine)

 

Rahula