Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 I have a fundamental question? Why are the Upanishads so reluctant to identify the Brahman? The Svetasvatara Upanishad identifies it as Rudra, albeit reluctantly. Does any Upanishad (among the principal 12) identify Krishna/Vishnu with Brahman? Also other than Purusha Sukta and Narayana Sukta in Vedas, which other hymn identifies Vishnu/Krishna as Brahman? Also do we have ISKCON translation of Svetasvatara Upanishad available , one which can be understood. Thanks. Subash ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your life partner online Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 achintya, subash r <rajaasub> wrote: > > I have a fundamental question? Why are the Upanishads > so reluctant to identify the Brahman? This is untrue. Krishna Upanishad, Gopaala-taapanii Upanishad, and Naaraayana Upanishad are among some which explicitly name the Supreme Brahman. > The Svetasvatara Upanishad identifies it as Rudra, > albeit reluctantly. Does any Upanishad (among the > principal 12) > identify Krishna/Vishnu with Brahman? Even Svetaashvatara Upanishd identifies this Rudra indirectly as Vishnu. It invokes Hari's name in the beginning and describes later (4th or 5th chapter I think) how this Rudra gave birth to Brahmaa and instructed him on transcendental knowledge. > Also other than Purusha Sukta and Narayana Sukta in > Vedas, which other hymn identifies Vishnu/Krishna as > Brahman? Off hand, I do not remember how many others do. But if a religious scripture says it once, is that not sufficient to accept it as truth? > Also do we have ISKCON translation of Svetasvatara > Upanishad available , one which can be understood. ISKCON does not have a translation. Kushakratha dasa did a translation, although like many of his books, it is filled with typos. Also, I am not sure which commentary he has followed in his translation. The Gaudiya Math published a 4 volume _12 Essential Upanishads_ series, but the editing is extremely poor and the English is hard to understand. Besides, I am also unclear as to what preparation the translator did to produce this "Gaudiiya" commentary. yours, K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 Thanks for the clarification. A few more related questions. Are all 108 Upanishads considered as Shruti? Why is the general public being made to believe that the 12 principal ones are only the Shruti? How can a person who argues so be refuted? And why did the main Acharyas (Madhwa, Sankara) focus on commentaries of these 12 only? --- krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote: achintya, subash r <rajaasub> wrote: > > I have a fundamental question? Why are the Upanishads > so reluctant to identify the Brahman? This is untrue. Krishna Upanishad, Gopaala-taapanii Upanishad, and Naaraayana Upanishad are among some which explicitly name the Supreme Brahman. > The Svetasvatara Upanishad identifies it as Rudra, > albeit reluctantly. Does any Upanishad (among the > principal 12) > identify Krishna/Vishnu with Brahman? Even Svetaashvatara Upanishd identifies this Rudra indirectly as Vishnu. It invokes Hari's name in the beginning and describes later (4th or 5th chapter I think) how this Rudra gave birth to Brahmaa and instructed him on transcendental knowledge. > Also other than Purusha Sukta and Narayana Sukta in > Vedas, which other hymn identifies Vishnu/Krishna as > Brahman? Off hand, I do not remember how many others do. But if a religious scripture says it once, is that not sufficient to accept it as truth? > Also do we have ISKCON translation of Svetasvatara > Upanishad available , one which can be understood. ISKCON does not have a translation. Kushakratha dasa did a translation, although like many of his books, it is filled with typos. Also, I am not sure which commentary he has followed in his translation. The Gaudiya Math published a 4 volume _12 Essential Upanishads_ series, but the editing is extremely poor and the English is hard to understand. Besides, I am also unclear as to what preparation the translator did to produce this "Gaudiiya" commentary. yours, K Achintya Homepage: achintya DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school. Sponsor Get unlimited calls to U.S./Canada achintya/ achintya Terms of Service. ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your life partner online Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 achintya, subash r <rajaasub> wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. A few more related > questions. > > Are all 108 Upanishads considered as Shruti? In order for something to be considered shruti, it has to be passed down in oral tradition since time immemorial. In other words, not only must it be part of the eternal Veda, but it must be maintained in the oral fashion. It is also implicit in this understanding that something is more easily accepted as shruti when different traditions have access to the text. It becomes more suspicious when only one tradition has it while others have never heard of it. > Why is the general public being made to believe that > the 12 principal ones are only the Shruti? How can a > person who argues so be refuted? > This is not an open and shut argument. I recently learned that some Maadhvas doubt the authenticity of some Upanishads in the 108 Principle Upanishads list, and with good reason. I have access to some of these - one of them known as Skanda Upanishad reads like a treatise on politically-correct, neo-Advaita. Advaitins appears to accept the authenticty of all 108 Upanishads, as their own Sri Upanishad Brahmendra Yogin commented on them around 200 years ago. > And why did the main Acharyas (Madhwa, Sankara) focus > on commentaries of these 12 only? I suspect many of them did because Shankara chose these 12 Upanishads, and they had to refute his commentaries. As far as why Shankara chose these 12, well... 1) I read somewhere in one of the Upanishads that these 12 were considered especially significant in some way, but as I cannot recall the source, take this with a grain of salt. 2) These 12 Upanishads are well known to all traditions, and thus no one will doubt their authenticity. So, what better texts upon which to base one's system of Vedaanta? - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.