Is Surya (Sun god) Vishnu or Shiva (amsa)?

[Sri Vaishnava]

I am not sure whether Shaivas accept Maha,Narayana,and Narasimha Tapani upanishad.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=e...search_r&cad=1

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=e...search_r&cad=1

Not a question of whether they do or not, but the idea is that the upanishads have not been challenged with respect to authority. The narasimha tApanIya, for instance, has been cited by Shankara, Vidyaranya, Vedanta Desika, Madhva and RangarAmAnuja muni, and has a commentary dating prior to the accepted period. Its content is also explained by Desika in Srimad Rahasya Traya Sara and is referenced by Sayana in his veda bhAshya. So it is authoritative for vedAntins. This alone determines its authenticity. The nArAyaNopanishad too finds prominent use in debates from the period of srI parAshara bhattar.

As far as shaivas are concerned, their methodology, as highlighted by the brahma sutras itself, is to give importance to their own works such as their agamas, sutras and the like. So, they do not mind rejecting even vedic portions. Note though, that rejection does not deny the presence of the upanishad and its circulation during the time period. Just because some shaivas rejected Gita as a valid text, it does not disprove its circulation or use in debates. It was only in the 16th century that any attempt was made by Shaivas to reconcile shAstras to their point of view.

The above links say that the mahopanishad has been challenged by critics, and that Vedanta Desika has defended it against such criticism.

The mahOpanishad is mentioned to be corrupted even during the time of Desika, and hence, he simply showed that the vAkya "eko ha vai nArAyaNa aseet' is authentic since it has seen prior usage by Yadava and others. If you read the works of Swami Desika, you will note a drive for thoroughness and organisation. Even if an issue has not been raked up, the acharyan anticipates it and addresses even the little things that could cause a doubt. This trait is appreciated by even rival scholars. It was in this spirit that he took up the issue of showing the authenticity of the work and not because anyone actually challenged it. If there had indeed been a challenge, his normal way is to make a direct reference to the opponent in his works, which he has not in this case.

We do not accept mahOpanishad in its present form. Even mAdhva refrains from quoting anything more than 2 or 3 well known vAkyas.

Some of the upanishads need to be moved from the second to the first list. Atharvasikha and chulika have commentaries by Sri Ranga Ramanuja Muni of your own tradition. Kaivalya and Atharvasiras have numerous commentaries by Advaitins and Shaivas. I think you have neglected to mention some upanishads like Jabala, Pranagnihotra etc.

Yes, I had forgotten that Atharvasikha and Chulika have commentaries. My mistake.

Regarding Jabala, etc I did say 'some others' in the second category.

The Kaivalya and Atharvasiras commentaries do not date prior to 15th century. Therefore, it is not accepted fully in content even if it has more recent commentaries.

Note, we have absolutely no bias because even this so-called shaiva upanishad can be interpreted in its present form in accordance with vaishnava philosophy. This has already been done by Sri Rama Subramanya Sastrigal, an advaitin who was a staunch advocator of Vishnu sarvOttama back in 1870 or so. His kaivalyOpanishad vilAsa is a Vishnu-Para vyAkhyAna on the upanishad.

Even so, this upanishad is not accepted by tradition as being authentic in content. All the commentaries on it are recent to my knowledge.

We are not trying to determine acceptance of rejection of an upanishad, but only whether it was already commentated upon in a time when debates existed. Something that is rejected by Shaivas, but was circulated in debates among vedAntins, or something rejected by vedAntins, but which was circulated in debate among shaivas, are to be considered authentic.

[Sudas Paijavana]

delete

[harikumar]

Pranams to all the learned members of this discussion.

I have query on the authenticity of the Narasimha Tapani Upanishad cited by Swami Desikan and other schoMadhva. Though a commentary is attributed to Adi Shankara for this Upanishad, some people opine that it is a later shankaracharya who commented on this and not Adi Shankara. Is this objection valid? And has shankara quoted this shruthi and in any of his bhashyas?

Also it is not being studied and taught in the Advaita Sampradaya widely as compared to the principal upanishads.

Also Ramaunja has not quoted from this Upanishad either as far as I know.
Who was the first commentator to quote this upanishad?

I sincerely request for a clarification on this.
Pranams.

[Omkara]

Pranams to all the learned members of this discussion.

I have query on the authenticity of the Narasimha Tapani Upanishad cited by Swami Desikan and other schoMadhva. Though a commentary is attributed to Adi Shankara for this Upanishad, some people opine that it is a later shankaracharya who commented on this and not Adi Shankara. Is this objection valid? And has shankara quoted this shruthi and in any of his bhashyas?

Also it is not being studied and taught in the Advaita Sampradaya widely as compared to the principal upanishads.

Also Ramaunja has not quoted from this Upanishad either as far as I know.
Who was the first commentator to quote this upanishad?

I sincerely request for a clarification on this.
Pranams.

Narasimha Tapani Upanishad is accepted by all Vaishnava schools and is a very important exegetical tool for Vaishnavas. Shankara's commentary on Narasimha Tapani is not considered authentic by most scholars, but his disciple Sureshvara has cited it. It has also been cited by famous advaitins like Vidyaranya and is considered authentic by Advaitins. Shaivas, however do not fonsider the Narasimha Tapani, Maha or Narayana Upanishads as shruti. In short, it is accepted by Vedantins but rejected by Shaivas.

[harikumar]

Dear Sir,
Many pranams. Thanks a lot for your enlightening reply on the Narasimha Tapani Upanishad. Also I found that Madhva has quoted n his Tantra Sara and Anuvyakhyana. Yesterday I found a commentary on this Upanishads attributed to Shankara and another commentary attributed to Vidyaranya.

It is a very interesting fact that Sureshvara who is a direct disciple of Shankara has quoted this. Can you please tell in which commentarty he has quoted it?

Pranams
Harikumar

[bhagavatafan]

Shankara's commentary on Narasimha Tapani is not considered authentic by most scholars, but his disciple Sureshvara has cited it.

Dear Omkara,

Can you kindly provide me a reference to the above? It would be a very valuable piece of information. Thanks in advance.

[Omkara]

Dear Sir,
Many pranams. Thanks a lot for your enlightening reply on the Narasimha Tapani Upanishad. Also I found that Madhva has quoted n his Tantra Sara and Anuvyakhyana. Yesterday I found a commentary on this Upanishads attributed to Shankara and another commentary attributed to Vidyaranya.

It is a very interesting fact that Sureshvara who is a direct disciple of Shankara has quoted this. Can you please tell in which commentarty he has quoted it?

Pranams
Harikumar

Dear Omkara,

Can you kindly provide me a reference to the above? It would be a very valuable piece of information. Thanks in advance.

I saw this in a post on the old hindunet forum, where the name of the work in which he had cited this upanishad was given, but i don't remember the name of the work, and the forum has been shut down.

[kriyarameeshh]

Sri Matre Namah,

goodness me..... Viraja ji, looks like you have an art of open steaming debates.

When it comes to Surya, I think the Veda is the only authority to look at. His attribution to Vishnu and Siva is only from the Puranic days.

Surya is the absolute Brahman. He is just not just the Jivatma as someone quoted in this thread. If that is the case, I request them to give me the pramaana from the vedic Riks only and not from any of the upanishads, Puranas or commentaries.

Regards.