But again there are some problems in understanding this. Even if the Upanishads tell us about the God Absolute how on earth can we verify whether what they tell is true or not? In the real world if you say something then the verification can be there, directly checking and seeing whether what is claimed is true. But about the 'subject beyond' the revelations themselves carry their own authentication. Just what they say about the 'beyond the world matters' namely God, what they say are authoritative in themselves. It may be a little odd. But then how can there be any verification also? Because to verify, it must come down ultimately to perception. But God is a subject beyond means like perception. That is why both the Vedic and Vedantic studies separate the subjects of the world and the subjects beyond the world.
Vedas and Vedanta are not means of knowing for the subjects of the world. The subject of God cannot be known through any other means other than Vedas and Vedanta. It is more or less the confusion between faith and reason is clarified and the faith is made a methodological study of revealed texts. Faith becomes a meaningful study of its own subject rather than randomizing one's opinions on any chance subjects, worldly or beyond the world.
But again when we say the Upanishads are called Vedanta, we have a problem there. Because do all the texts which bear the name Upanishad come under the category Vedanta? There are various anthologies of these Upanishads, sometimes 27, sometimes 108, sometimes 220 and even more. A good point of classifying these will be the standard that whatever Upanishad comes in the total text of Vedas, whether it is Rig Veda or Yajur Veda or Sama or Atharva, those can be called Vedanta. If selected like that even that comes to more than fifty. But the tradition either from the times before Sri Adisankara or from his times has been to take ten Upanishads for commenting upon. But the actual Upanishads quoted by the commentators of Brahma Sutras vary, say 12, 14 or more.
Are there not great thoughts in other Upanishads of 108 or 220? Yea there are really many such thoughts in many of those texts. But the larger anthologies do contain some spurious compositions down the time. But generally those which form part of the Vedas are good and even quite a number of Upanishads, which are individual treatises, not forming part of any Vedas also contain many remarkable thoughts even though of sectarian devotions. But the selection of Upanishads and fixing up the number of them should have been done during the times of Brahma Sutras or before that. Perhaps when trying to arrive at the uniform import and consistent message of the revelations, sages should have decided that these ten texts cover all the essential aspects of the Vedanta regarding that transcendent reality. Other Upanishads may elaborate upon these essential aspects, taking one or more aspects into their focus. So fixing these ten Upanishads and arriving at their uniform consistent meaning give us a standard even for studying all other Upanishads also and identify genuine texts.
The standard ten Upanishads are Isavasya Upanishad of Sukla Yajur Veda, Kena Upanishad of Sama Veda, Katha Upanishad of Krishna Yajur Veda, Prasna Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, Mandukya Upanishad all these three of Atharva Veda, Aitareya Upanishad of Rig Veda, Taiitiriya Upanishad of Krishna Yajur Veda, Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad of Sukla Yajur Veda and Chandogya Upanishad of Sama Veda. In addition to these ten, another Upanishad of great importance is the Svetasvatara Upanishad of Krishna Yajur Veda. Likewise another Upanishad of importance is Kaushitaki Upanishad of Rig Veda. So these ten plus two Upanishads form the standard and basic texts of Vedanta. The Vedantic core concepts contained in these Upanishads are summed up poetically by Sri Krishna in the Gita and the Vedanta of these Upanishads are made into a reasoned out treatise in the form of aphorisms by Veda Vyasa in Brahma Sutras.
Srirangam Mohanarangan
***
No comments:
Post a Comment