Tarasara Upanishad

[Omkara]

This is a Vaishnava Upanishad from the Muktika canon.Could some knowledgeble Vaishnava explain these verses to me?

“Om Namo Narayanaya is the Taraka. It should be worshipped as Chidatma. Om is a single syllable and of the nature of Atman. Namah is of two syllables and is of the nature of Prakriti (matter). Narayanaya is of five syllables and is of the nature of Parabrahman. He who knows this becomes immortal. Through ‘Om’, is Brahma produced; through ‘Na’ is Vishnu produced; through ‘Ma’ is Rudra produced; through ‘Na’ is Ishvara produced;through ‘Ra’ is the Anda-Virat (or Virat of the universe) produced; through ‘Ya’ is Purusha produced; through ‘Na’ is Bhagavan (Lord) produced; and through ‘Ya’ is Paramatman produced. This Ashtakshara (eight syllables) of Narayana is the supreme and the highest Purusha. Thus is the Rig-Veda with the first foot (or half).
That which is Om is the indestructible, the supreme and Brahman. That alone should be worshipped. It is this that is of the eight subtle syllables. And this becomes eight, being of eight forms. ‘A’ is the first letter; ‘U’ is the second; ‘M’ is the third; Bindu is the fourth; Nada is the fifth; Kala is the sixth; Kalatita (that beyond Kala) is the seventh; and that which is beyond these is the eighth. It is called Taraka, because it enables one to cross this mundane existence. Know that Taraka alone is Brahman and it alone should be worshipped”.
1. “From the letter ‘A’ came Brahma named Jambavan (the bear). From the letter ‘U’ came Upendra, named Hari.
2. From the letter ‘M’ came Shiva, known as Hanuman. Bindu is named Ishvara and is Satrughna, the Lord of the discus itself.
3. Nada should be known as the great Lord named Bharata and the sound of the conch
itself. From Kala came the Purusha himself as Lakshmana and the bearer of the earth.
4. Kalatita is known as the goddess Sita Herself. That which is beyond is the Paramatman
named Sri Rama and is the highest Purusha.
All this is the explanation of the letter Om, which is the past, the present and future and which is other than these (viz.,) Tattva, Mantra, Varna (colour), Devata (deity), Chhandas (metre), Rik, Kala, Sakti and Srishti (creation). He who knows this becomes immortal.
(Thus is) Yajur-Veda with the second foot”.

[philosoraptor]

The character of this Upanishad, like that of many other "later" Upanishads, seems different from that of the principle 11. For example, this is a different explanation of OM than I have seen before in other Upanishads. Of note, the derivation of "nArAyaNa" is also different from other analyses that I have seen. Frankly, this one lost me after "from OM Brahma is produced." I suppose that "Vishnu" being produced from na-kAra could refer to sUrya, since viShNu is another name for sUrya. But I hesitate to offer conjectural explanations on a text that is not commented upon by any mainstream tradition.

[Omkara]

Thanks,that explains a lot.The upanishads listed as shaiva in the muktika canon are accepted as authoritative by all shaivas and have been cited and commented upton since at least the tenth century,so I assumed that the scenario was analogous wrt to the vaishnava upanishads.That is what caused my confusion since this upanishad does not seem to fit in with mainstream vaishnava theology.

I found the equation of jambavan with Brahma particularly curious.I've never heard of that one before.

[sanathan]

This is a Vaishnava Upanishad from the Muktika canon

Who divided Upanishads into Vishnava, Saiva etc., ..that classification itself shows it is fake and fabricated text.
Another point , which ever text is claimed to be upanishad ,must be supported with the views of Brahma Sutras, because BS explains the true purport of upanishads.

[philosoraptor]

Truth be told, the true "Vaishnava" Upanishads are the principal 11 commented on by Madhva and followers of Ramanuja. I don't know about these other texts that are commonly referred to as "Vaishnava Upanishads." They have some gems in them to be sure, but the idea of "Vaishnava" vs "Shaiva" vs "Shakta" Upanishads seems itself something of a modern, post-vedantic concept. For Vaishnava Vedantins, Vedanta and Vaishnavism are synonymous. The shrutis glorify Brahman aka Narayana, so for some shrutis to be specifically set aside for anya-devatas is a little odd. Note that, even some principal Upanishads like Svetashvatara refer to Brahman by "Shaivite" names but are understood by Vaishnavas to refer to Narayana. The problem then, isn't the referencing of Brahman by anya-devata names. There is more to it, I think. For example, references to Brahman creating Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva, Vishnu being same as Shiva (one such mantra appears to be taken out of context from the Vishnu Purana where it in fact means something totally different), and other concepts not alluded to in the principal shrutis.

Please note that I am not speaking in any official capacity; I am merely expressing my own personal doubts on the subject. For whatever it is worth, I did see a listing of 108 Upanishads on a publicly-available E-book published by a Sri Vaishnava group, including the so-called "Shaivite" and "Shakta" Upanishads. What exactly that means, I am not sure. I think the E-book was called "Vedams and Upanishads" and is available on ahobilavalli.org or sundarasimham.org.

[Omkara]

Who divided Upanishads into Vishnava, Saiva etc., ..that classification itself shows it is fake and fabricated text.
Another point , which ever text is claimed to be upanishad ,must be supported with the views of Brahma Sutras, because BS explains the true purport of upanishads.

I agree.

[Omkara]

Truth be told, the true "Vaishnava" Upanishads are the principal 11 commented on by Madhva and followers of Ramanuja. I don't know about these other texts that are commonly referred to as "Vaishnava Upanishads." They have some gems in them to be sure, but the idea of "Vaishnava" vs "Shaiva" vs "Shakta" Upanishads seems itself something of a modern, post-vedantic concept. For Vaishnava Vedantins, Vedanta and Vaishnavism are synonymous. The shrutis glorify Brahman aka Narayana, so for some shrutis to be specifically set aside for anya-devatas is a little odd. Note that, even some principal Upanishads like Svetashvatara refer to Brahman by "Shaivite" names but are understood by Vaishnavas to refer to Narayana. The problem then, isn't the referencing of Brahman by anya-devata names. There is more to it, I think. For example, references to Brahman creating Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva, Vishnu being same as Shiva (one such mantra appears to be taken out of context from the Vishnu Purana where it in fact means something totally different), and other concepts not alluded to in the principal shrutis.

Please note that I am not speaking in any official capacity; I am merely expressing my own personal doubts on the subject. For whatever it is worth, I did see a listing of 108 Upanishads on a publicly-available E-book published by a Sri Vaishnava group, including the so-called "Shaivite" and "Shakta" Upanishads. What exactly that means, I am not sure. I think the E-book was called "Vedams and Upanishads" and is available on ahobilavalli.org or sundarasimham.org.

There are upanishads other than the principal 11 quoted by Sankara,Ramanuja and Madhva in their works.The muktika canon contains lists of shaiva and vaishnava upanishads,and calls them as such,which is one of the reasons I think it is spurious.I did notice,however that all uhe upanishads listed as shaiva in the muktika are accepted as canonical by shaivas,so I thought the situation was analogous for the upanishads the muktika refers to as vaishnava.Ramanuja,Madhva and Shankara do quote upanishads other than the 11 mukhya upanishads in their works.Maitrayani,Kaushitaki,Subala,Jabala,Mahanarayana are quoted by all three as well as by Srikantha,a Saivite commentator on the Brahma Sutras whose commentary I am reading.Certain "saiva" upanishads are also quoted by non shaivas,for example Shankara quotes the Kaivalya upanishad.Ramanuja in the Sri Bhasya tries hard to prove that the Atharvasikha upanishad refers to Lord Vishnu as the Supreme.
From my reading,certain upanishads like Narasimha Tapani Upanishad are considered very important by Vaishnavas.
http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/atharva_veda/nrisimhapoorvatapaniya.html
http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/atharva_veda/nrisimhauttaratapaniya.

I have seen the muktika canon referred to on four different SriVaishnava sites,but I don't think Srivaishnavas in general accept it.

[philosoraptor]

Maitrayani,Kaushitaki,Subala,Jabala,Mahanarayana are quoted by all three as well as by Srikantha,a Saivite commentator on the Brahma Sutras whose commentary I am reading.

Yes, these texts I don't have an issue with, since by virtue of their having been quoted during the Vedantic period, and not challenged by rival schools, the likelihood of their being genuine is much higher.

I'm not familiar with the Narasimha Tapani, so I can't say much about it. Perhaps this is because I am also a bit conservative. If a given shruti text is too explicit in spelling out a conclusion (e.g. this Deity is the Supreme Brahman), then I am more likely to wonder if it wasn't an authored text of sectarian origin. This is not to say that a conclusion like "Narayana is Brahman" can't be non-sectarian. It's just that, I don't believe in reinforcing genuine conclusions with less-than-genuine evidence.

Many refer to the 108 Upanishads but I have a feeling this is more out of habit rather than doctrinal agreement.

[Omkara]

I would tend to agree.When a text says "shiva is supreme" or "vishnu is supreme" ten times in ten different ways and then ends without discussing philosophy or metaphysics,one is naturally inclined to wonder if it is a text authored by some overzealous person tring to propogate his own views by creating a bogus upanishad.

Secondly,why would Shankara use the upanishads he did if this canon was known in his time?There are srveral upanishads in the muktika which state the entire advaita theory verbatim without need of interpretation.Some of these upanishads even copy-paste entire paragraphs from Shankara's commentaries,which is why I tend to think thus canon is bogus.