Guest guest Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Dear friends,Namaste,Nrisimhatapaniya upanishad is in the original list of the 08 Upanishads in the Muktika Upanishad. No categorisation of the Upanishads is given in that list. Sayana includes only the Samhitas and the Brahmans in Veda.The Aranyaka s and Upanishads are considered as Vedanta. The categorisation of the Upanishads had occurred subsequently. One, who has read the Bhagavad Gita, would know that Lord Krishna said in the verse 15 of the Chapter 15 of the Bhagavad Gita that He is the author of the Vedanta and He is also the creator of the Vedas. Here the Lord includes all the Upanishads in Vedanta. This type of fault-finding shows hostility rather than trying to sort out a problem. No Hindu scholars worth his salt will ever try to undermine the authority of any of the 108 upanishads. Adi Sankaracharya and his Paramguru Gaudapadacharya were great scholars of Advaita Vedanta. Gaudapadacharya composed a bhashya on the Nrsimhauttaratapaniya upanishad and Adi Sankaracharya composed a bhashya on the Nrisimhapurvatapaniya Upanishad.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 10/26/09, Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots wrote:Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots Vedanta and Upanishads Date: Monday, October 26, 2009, 9:31 PM Namaste, //>>>>>>Even vedanta mentions SriVidya. The Nrisimhapurvatapani ya upanishad mentions Sri Vidya// Such misquotations happen because many people mistakenly think that any text that goes by the name upanishad is Vedantic. It is NOT so. The Nrsimhapurvatapani upanishad is NOT considered a Vedantic upanishad. Not all Upanishads are accepted across *all* Vedantic schools. Some of the texts that are called upanishads may not be accepted by specific traditions. The 108 upanishads mentioned by the muktikopanishad are further categorised as Mukhya (Principal) Vedanta upanishads, Samanya (General) Vedanta upanishads, Samnyasa upanishads, Yoga upanishads, Vaishnava upanishads, Saiva upanishads and Sakta upanishads. The Nrsimhapurvatapani is a *Vaishnava* upanishad. It is such mistaken notions that make a truly informed scholarly discussion of most topics impossible on a general public forum such as this. That is why I said that I will refrain from writing further. As I said earlier I have decided to refrain from writing further on Tantra-Veda on this forum as of now. At this rate, it is only a matter of a few more posts before the controversy shifts from Veda-Tantra, to the differences among the various Vedantic schools and then probably across all traditions of Sanatana dharma. As a lover of Sanatana Dharma I refuse to participate in any more discussions on a public forum as this will only bring more disrepute to all schools and portray Sanatana Dharma as one of irreconciliable internal conflicts. Inspite of the differences among various traditions, the general practice among Hindus has been generally tolerant and respectful. I hope we can all recognise this feature of Sanatana Dharma first, and just agree to disagree. Instead of just concentrating on the differences, one can focus on what binds us all together. Children of this land proudly proclaim our uniqueness as "Unity in Diversity". I hope in true Sanatana spirit, we can all agree to co-exist peacefully inspite of our differences. Regards, Satya Prakash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Namaste, It is not one among the principal or general vedantic upanishads accepted by all. It is primarily a Vaishnava upanishad (that does not mean it has no vedanta in it). That is my point. Yes categorisations happened subsequently. But if you are willing to take chronology/history into account it will kick start more controversies. Also arises the question of uniform acceptance across traditions (of what is pramana and what not). For some only the Veda Samhita, for some both Veda Samhita and *some* upanishads, for others Veda Samhita, Upanishads, and all Smrtis including Puranas. What Adi Samkara composed and what other Samkaras composed subsequently will arouse another debate. Needless to say, the date of composition of any text, is of no real concern to the particular tradition/followers. A discussion simply cannot happen because the issue of when a text was written has no validity for a follower. Due to many such reasons, there is no point in further discussion. As there is no point in an endless cycle of debates/counter-debates, I respectfully agree to differ. Regards, Satya Prakash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Just quoting from a website will not help. Do you know how many bashyas Adi Sankaracharya wrote according to what his contemporary Chitsukhacharya wrote in a Sankara Vijaya? You need to read more. Nobody to my knowledge says that Adi Sankara wrote bhashya on Kaushitaki. Nobody is sure that Adi Sankaracharya wrote bhashya on Svetasvatara. Why bring in irrelevant topics here? We are talking about Nrisimhatapaniya Upanishad here.--- On Tue, 10/27/09, Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots wrote:Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots Re: Vedanta and Upanishads Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 1:40 AM "There are bhAshyas on SvetASvatara, kaushItakI and nRsimhatApanI upanishads, the attribution of which is doubtful." http://www.advaita- vedanta.org/ avhp/sankara. html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, I guess I owe you a clarification. I was initially a bit puzzled as to why a person like you who seems reasonable and gentle enough got annoyed with my answer on Vedanta and Upanishads. After going through our exchanges again I realised that it was my mistake. You had raised the issue of Sri Vidya in *Vedanta*, which I had misread as *Advaita Vedanta*, probably due to my affiliation with Advaita. In one of my earliest posts too, that was the reason I was addressing Samkara's Kevaladvaita and Sri Vidya in reply to your question. That is how I ended up talking about various traditions accepting/subscribing to certain upanishads only. Sorry for the same. Regards, Satya Prakash , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: > > Namaste, > > No problem if you wish to remain with your ideas. Nrsimhatapaniyaupanishad is one of the original 108 Upanishads and no Hindu should demean any of those 108 upanishds. That is my opinion. You may differ if you want to. All Upanishads belong to Vedanta, ie they are the ultimate portion of the Vedas and contain the ultimate knowledge. That is to my knowledge. If you want to differ I have no problem. > > Regards, > > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya > > --- On Tue, 10/27/09, Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots wrote: > > Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots > Re: Vedanta and Upanishads > > Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 1:37 AM > > > Namaste, > > > > It is not one among the principal or general vedantic upanishads accepted by all. It is primarily a Vaishnava upanishad (that does not mean it has no vedanta in it). That is my point. Yes categorisations happened subsequently. But if you are willing to take chronology/history into account it will kick start more controversies. > > > > Also arises the question of uniform acceptance across traditions (of what is pramana and what not). For some only the Veda Samhita, for some both Veda Samhita and *some* upanishads, for others Veda Samhita, Upanishads, and all Smrtis including Puranas. > > > > What Adi Samkara composed and what other Samkaras composed subsequently will arouse another debate. > > > > Needless to say, the date of composition of any text, is of no real concern to the particular tradition/followers . A discussion simply cannot happen because the issue of when a text was written has no validity for a follower. Due to many such reasons, there is no point in further discussion. > > > > As there is no point in an endless cycle of debates/counter- debates, I respectfully agree to differ. > > > > Regards, > > Satya Prakash > 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.