[Advaita-l] 108 Upanishads Complete List – Ramani's blog
Raghav Kumar Dwivedula
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 22 03:10:40 EST 2018
Namaste Praveen ji
If we analyze the muktikopaniShat in an academic fashion, the mention of
Sri Rama, Lakshmana and Hanuman etc., in the upaniShat makes it seem like a
historical text. But then for the academic all upaniShats are historical
anyway in talking of ancient Indian cities like Mithila, GAndhAra etc., as
My question was about the ten well-known ones and if there is any other
reference to this particular set of ten. It appears there isn't.
For an Astika, this one reference from muktikopanisShad would be deemed
enough. And for the academic,
the first ten names listed in the upanishad being the same ten commented on
by bhAShyakAra, would indicate that this upaniShat is likely a
Another aspect -
I remember bhAshyakAra 'authenticates' this upaniShat since he quotes from
it? Is the mAnDUkyamevAlam referenced in bhAShya? I could not locate it.
Need to check this. But any reference in bhAShya would mean it's not
atleast a medieval text. There is one bhAShya reference which can be
attributed to both kaTha and muktika viz., 'ashabdam asparsham...'. But a
unique muktika reference would clinch the issue.
An old article on the 'official' Astika position which says Kanchi and
Sringeri Mathas accept this upanishad as authentic is here. A number of
typos in the article below but it is still quite readable and helpful.
shrI vidyAraNya quotes from muktikopaniShat in Panchadashi.
On 22-Jan-2018 8:24 AM, "Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Raghavji and others,
> I can understand a purely scholarly approach for academic interest which
> doesn't consider Shruti as a pramANa, but for AstikAs, why is a listing
> other than muktikA's 108 necessary? Here I assume that you know that
> Muktikopanishad itself points out the 108 Upanishads in the sequence of
> study for mokSha, placing itself the last. That itself is the oldest
> reference and considered valid in the sampradAya.
> As a general hypothesis in the context, I had considered some doubts:
> 1) If there be a doubt for anyone that muktikA itself being last cannot
> reveal the earlier 107, since it is studied last, such doubt can be raised
> regarding any work, including Vedas, which itself states that Vedas should
> be studied, without knowing which one cannot study. Hence the sampradAya to
> the rescue.
> 2) If Mandukya is studied first, why is to be studied again and why 7th in
> the list? We can relate our own experiences of revisiting a text after
> certain other study bringing more clarity. The 2nd study is deeper even if
> it is cursory!
> 3) Rama and Hanuman conversation cannot be a Shruti. It may be taken that
> the tattva is presented through Rama and Hanuman for/by a Rishi. It may be
> a saMvAda in some other kalpa than we know. Else such doubt can be
> expressed about Yajnavalkya, Nachiketas, etc as well. All Shrutis may not
> be manifest all the time.
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Yes of course, sAyanAcArya comes later than bhAShyakAra. Thanks for
> > pointing out.
> > Was interested seeing dashopaniShat reference and wanted to know any
> > mention of these specific ten.
> > Om
> > On 21-Jan-2018 8:27 PM, "Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l" <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Sayanacharya is post-Bhashyakara, being pUrvAshrama brother of
> > Vidyaranyamuni!
> > Kind rgds,
> > --Praveen R. Bhat
> > /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> > That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> > 2018-01-21 19:52 GMT+05:30 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:
> > > Namaste
> > > तथाप्यसिद्धं चेज्ज्ञानं दशोपनिषदं पठ ।
> > > ज्ञानं लब्ध्वा चिरादेव मामकं धाम यास्यसि ॥ २७॥
> > >
> > > This is where Bhashyakara gets His list of ten Upanishads from,
> > including
> > > Mandukya above.
> > >
> > > My question -
> > > Is there any pre-shankara reference to these particular 10 Upanishads
> > > being referenced by the muktikopaniShad? Maybe sAyana bhAShya? Or for
> > that
> > > matter a reference anywhere else?
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list