Ramanuja

[Omkara]

No. Upanishads-proper were not considered part of the Vedas. As far as I can tell, Nyaya/Vaiseshikha/Mimamsa do not quote the Upanishads for any of their philosophical positions. In fact, the atomic theory of Nyaya/Vaiseshikha is at odds with the prakriti theory of the Upanishads.

No. Shankaracharya had debates with members of these schools and he did cite upanishads to them as seen in the Shankara Vijayam. Specifically, he debated with Mandana Mishra on the meaning of Tat Tvam Asi.

[wundermonk]

No. Shankaracharya had debates with members of these schools and he did cite upanishads to them as seen in the Shankara Vijayam. Specifically, he debated with Mandana Mishra on the meaning of Tat Tvam Asi.

That would be Neo though. Nyaya sutras, Mimamsa sutras and Vaiseshikha sutras have no mention of Upanishads. (that would be my guess, need to look them up, but as I remember, no mention is made of Upanishads) So, Shankara was debating with Neos then, right?

[philosoraptor]

No. Upanishads-proper were not considered part of the Vedas. As far as I can tell, Nyaya/Vaiseshikha/Mimamsa do not quote the Upanishads for any of their philosophical positions. In fact, the atomic theory of Nyaya/Vaiseshikha is at odds with the prakriti theory of the Upanishads.

They were considered part of the Vedas. The Puranas also describe them as such.

In any case, the point being made is that the Arya Samajis are as Hindu as the next person.

So is OSHO, but you don't see me making an issue out of it.

They did evolve at a particular point in time - just like any other school of thought, and if their status of whether they represent Hinduism properly is called into question, I would expect you to outline who exactly represents Hinduism properly.

Going off on tangents again, I see. Let's bring us back to the real point. Dogra claims that Ramanuja is opposed to the varNAshrama system because he preached inclusiveness and compassion. This is factually incorrect, since Ramanuja did observe the customs of the heredity-based varNAshrama system, as did his followers. Now, do you dispute this or not?

[shiv.somashekhar]

The accusations of Upanishads having been added later to the Vedas by tampering etc were post British. Corrections welcome.

Chronology existed before the British too. Yajnavalkya introduced the Shukla Yajur because he was concerned about the authenticity of the Krishna Yajur. The Yajur and Sama refer to the Rig, but not the other way around, which automatically makes it older.

It is a fact that most Upanishads have been added later. Shankara talks about a dozen Upanishads, but Ramanuja's list is longer and Madhva's list is even longer. By the time of Vidyaranya, the count was in excess of one hundred. As noted by academia "the later the Acharya, the longer the list of Upanishads". As recently as in the 19th century, one Gaudiya author introduced a Chaitanya Upanishad and claimed it was part of the Rig-Veda and he discovered a Bengali script of this lost Upanishad!

[philosoraptor]

Chronology existed before the British too. Yajnavalkya introduced the Shukla Yajur because he was concerned about the authenticity of the Krishna Yajur. The Yajur and Sama refer to the Rig, but not the other way around, which automatically makes it older.

It is a fact that most Upanishads have been added later. Shankara talks about a dozen Upanishads, but Ramanuja's list is longer and Madhva's list is even longer. By the time of Vidyaranya, the count was in excess of one hundred. As noted by academia "the later the Acharya, the longer the list of Upanishads". As recently as in the 19th century, one Gaudiya author introduced a Chaitanya Upanishad and claimed it was part of the Rig-Veda and he discovered a Bengali script of this lost Upanishad!

Even a mirage in a desert presupposes the existence of real water elsewhere....

[shiv.somashekhar]

No. Upanishads-proper were not considered part of the Vedas. As far as I can tell, Nyaya/Vaiseshikha/Mimamsa do not quote the Upanishads for any of their philosophical positions. In fact, the atomic theory of Nyaya/Vaiseshikha is at odds with the prakriti theory of the Upanishads.

It is my understanding that Mimamsa does not consider anything other than the portions that discuss action, as having value - or more specifically, relevant to their doctrine.

As Mimamsa was the primary target of Shankara, he discusses Karma and Jnana portions of the Shruti and in debating them, argues that the later was more important. Later Madhva criticized Shankara for the artificial separation of Shruti into two and argued that all of Shruti had a single purport of Supremacy of Vishnu.

It is very unlikely that Upanishads were quoted by Nyaya/Vaiseshika. As far as I know, Shankara was the first ever to quote Upanishads (actually, the first time we get to hear of actual Upanishad names). Both Vatsyayana and Udyotakara, the two well known Nyaya commentators lived earlier.

[Omkara]

As far as I know, Shankara was the first ever to quote Upanishads (actually, the first time we get to hear of actual Upanishad names).

What do you have to say about Gautama Buddha ridiculing the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad's creation account in the Digha Nikaya?

[jignyAsu]

Chronology existed before the British too. Yajnavalkya introduced the Shukla Yajur because he was concerned about the authenticity of the Krishna Yajur. The Yajur and Sama refer to the Rig, but not the other way around, which automatically makes it older.

As far as my knowledge goes, the Sage Yajnavalkya was not concerned with anything being fake. He had a difference of opinion b/w His Guru on certain rituals and practices or possibly in classification of the Vedas. When His Guru then asks Him to unlearn everything, He goes in search of sun god to be as His guru.

This is interpreted as being "introduced as new" by non-Hindu historians because they don't believe in Sage Vyasa's or Yajnavalkya's divinity. If Yajnavalkya gets His Upanishad from the Sun god, it means to them that the scripture was invented at that time. Nothing wrong..but we as Hindus don't have problem accepting divinities.

It is a fact that most Upanishads have been added later. Shankara talks about a dozen Upanishads, but Ramanuja's list is longer and Madhva's list is even longer. By the time of Vidyaranya, the count was in excess of one hundred. As noted by academia "the later the Acharya, the longer the list of Upanishads". As recently as in the 19th century, one Gaudiya author introduced a Chaitanya Upanishad and claimed it was part of the Rig-Veda and he discovered a Bengali script of this lost Upanishad!

Just because Shankaracharya talks only about a dozen Upanishad doesn't mean that there were only a dozen Upanishads at that time. There is no rule that an Acharya has to refer all the existing scriptures. They didn't even refer to all the verses in Upanishads...does that mean that all verses were added later? There could have been lot more at that time and it is also possible in some cases that some lost scriptures have been found in some corners in India.

To cook up Upanishads and pass across ancient India was not simple at all like the indologists easily put it. How can the whole of India filled with scholars heavily debating against Ramanujacharya's philosophy (for e.g.) mysteriously be silent when a new Upanishads is introduced? They would have severely criticized Him for introducing fake Scriptures.

Even today, when the population of Vedic scholars have seriously dwindled, Chaintanya Upanishad or Brahma Samhita is accepted only by Gaudiyas. It is not at all accepted all across India in the level of the Chandogya Upanishad.

[shiv.somashekhar]

What do you have to say about Gautama Buddha ridiculing the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad's creation account in the Digha Nikaya?

I am pretty sure, the name Brhadaranyaka does not appear anywhere in any Sutta.

An Upanishad school is mentioned by some writers such as Bana, but no specifics until the time of Shankara.

[shiv.somashekhar]

As far as my knowledge goes, the Sage Yajnavalkya was not concerned with anything being fake. He had a difference of opinion b/w His Guru on certain rituals and practices or possibly in classification of the Vedas.

What is the difference? Sounds the same as invalid or incorrect to me.

This is interpreted as being "introduced as new" by enon-Hindu historians because they don't believe in Sage Vyasa's or Yajnavalkya's divinity.

It is simple logic that the Shukla Yajur was unavailable and unknown before Yajnavalkya's time - regardless of his divinity. Else, we can make the same argument for everything including Islam.

Just because Shankaracharya talks only about a dozen Upanishad doesn't mean that there were only a dozen Upanishads at that time. There is no rule that an Acharya has to refer all the existing scriptures.

Simple logic. If there is no evidence that a certain text existed at time T, then there is every possibility that it did not exist at that time. It may have been in existence, but there is no way to prove it and hence, one has to allow the possibility of its non-existence or else logic just went out of the window.

They didn't even refer to all the verses in Upanishads...does that mean that all verses were added later?

Same logic. The very first time a verse is quoted is when we can be sure of its existence. Any prior date is doubtful subject to the same problem mentioned above. This is again a faith vs. logic thing.

There could have been lot more at that time and it is also possible in some cases that some lost scriptures have been found in some corners in India.

Or they were fabricated. Unless you admit both options, you are not being logical.

You do realize that your position of "we have to accept every scripture as genuine" does not find support among the orthodoxy? This has nothing to do with the British or the West. Every group only accepts a set of scripture as absolute authority. Among the rest , some are acceptable as secondary authorities under certain conditions or else they are not accepted at all.

To cook up Upanishads and pass across ancient India was not simple at all like the indologists easily put it. How can the whole of India filled with scholars heavily debating against Ramanujacharya's philosophy (for e.g.) mysteriously be silent when a new Upanishads is introduced? They would have severely criticized Him for introducing fake Scriptures.

No problem. Scripture and arguments used in debates are tailored to the opponent. You do not quote the Rig-Veda to the Buddhist or the Pancharatra to the Advaitin. Scripture used has to commonly accepted to both parties and therefore new Upanishads do not count.

Even today, when the population of Vedic scholars have seriously dwindled, Chaintanya Upanishad or Brahma Samhita is accepted only by Gaudiyas. It is not at all accepted all across India in the level of the Chandogya Upanishad.

The point is there do exist fake Upanishads and you seem to agree. No one said *all* Upanishads are fake.