/lit/ - Literature

>>22973046
*blocks you're path*

advaitins get the fuck out of here

After the Bhagavad Gītā, the Upaniṣad are probably the most translated and well-known Hindu texts in the West. But with them comes a question: what is actually counted as an Upaniṣad and who decides?

==========
Bibiliography

Ayyangār, T.R.Ś. and Śāstrī, S.S. (ed.) (1941) The Sāmānya Vedānta Upaniṣads. Madras: The Adyar Library
Cohen, S. (ed.) (2018) The Upaniṣads: A Complete Guide. Abingdon: Routledge
Deussen, P. (1898) The Philosophy of the Upanishads. English trans. by A.S. Geden (1906) Edinburgh: T&T Clark
Gambhīrānanda, Swāmī (1986) Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad with the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama
Hume, R.E. (1921) The Thirteen Principal Upanishads. London: Oxford University Press
Johnson, W.J. (2009) Oxford Dictionary of Hinduism. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Renou, L. (1947) Vedic India (IC 3). English trans. by Philip Spratt (1957) Calcutta: Susil Gupta
Roebuck, V.J. (2003) The Upaniṣads (2nd edn). London: Penguin Books
Zaehner, R.C. (1966) Hindu Scriptures. London: Everyman's Library
==========

Firstly, we have the manuscript evidence, however no manuscript is predates the late middle ages and it is agreed that the major Upaniṣads were composed much earlier (see previous thread on dating https://archived.moe/lit/thread/18586762/).). Therefore, the first port of call is their relation to other ancient Hindu texts. As mentioned in the previous thread, these include Saṃhitās (collections of hymns), Brāhmaṇas (explanations of fire rituals), and Āraṇyaka (meanings of fire rituals). Several Upaniṣads are in fact part of these larger texts and are often appended to the end of them. These are the following:

Aitareya
>(= Aitareya Āraṇyaka 2.4-6)
Bṛhadāraṇyaka
>(=Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (Kāṇva) 16.3-8 = (Madhyaṃdina) 14.4-9)
Chāndogya
>(=Chāndogya Brāhmaṇa 3-10)
Īśā
>(=Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā 40)
Kaṭha?
>(=possibly lost Kaṭha-Śikṣā-Upaniṣad 14-15*)
Kauṣītaki
>(=Kauṣītaki Āraṇyaka 3-6)
Kena
>(=Jaiminīya-Upaniṣad-Brāhmaṇa 4.18-21)
Mahānārāyaṇa
>(=Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 10 (not in all manuscripts))
Taittirīya
>(=Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 7-9)

* See Michael Witzel (1977) An Unknown Upaniṣad of the Kṛṣṇa Yajur-Veda: The Kaṭha-Śikṣā-Upaniṣad. Journal of the Nepal Research Centre, 1, 139-153
[Verses 1.1-4 correspond to Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa 3.11.8.1]

>>18473583
>The Upanishads support qualified non-dualism, cope
Why then do Katha 2.1.10 and Brihadaranyaka 4.4.19 both say that there is no diversity and that the perception of diversity leads one from death to death?
Why then does Chandogya 6.1.4 and similar verses state over and over that change is unreal and that the unchanging basis alone is real?
Why then does Brihadaranyaka 2.5.19 say that it's only because of maya that Brahman is perceived as manifold (i.e. as a multiplicity)?
Why then does Brihadaranyaka 1.4.10 say that men who worship another diety as though it were different from that man are comparable to animals?
Why then does Svetasvatara 6.5 & 6.20 say that Brahman is without parts? If there are no parts there cannot be internal distinctions composed of separate parts
Why then does Svetasvatara 6.15 say that the Paramatman alone exists?
Why then does Kena 1.9 say that Brahman is not that which people worship as an object? If Brahman comprises the material world as Ramanuja holds then whatever people worship as an object is inevitably Brahman.
Why then do the Sanskrit words for devotion (bhakti) and grace (kripa) not appear once in the entire text of the Brahma Sutras?

Vishishtadvaita is the apex of Vedantic thought. Aum namo Narayanaya

>>18276252
>Shankara is the only way.
Whoops! Lemme just correct that incoherence of yours right there.

Why does Ramanuja get comparatively so little love on /lit/ compared to Shankara and Advaita? I am reading his Gita commentary and it is great.

>>17274465
>Shankaracharya
Retroactively refuted by His Holiness Rāmānuja

Personality is the ultimate constant

Leave Shankara to me.

>>14607565
Of course. Most scholars, most Hindus, and most Buddhists agree that Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are largely the same because of the massive influence of Buddhism on Advaita.

Of course, the more interesting Vedanta is Vishishtadvaita. Ramanuja's refutations of Shankara are quite impressive, but Shankara's Buddho-Vedantism still deserves credit for its ingenuity.

>>14153941
Have you read ramanuja?

>>14153614
Consider looking into the works of Ramanuja.
Don't give up on christanity though it's never a good idea to give up on a faith that's working.

It's time to move beyond Shankara.

Take the Vishishtadvaita-pill.