Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00156)

Nicholas wrote:

> Paul:
> >>  A
> >> scholar/editor/expert could
> >> >easily justify such a correction on the (exoteric) basis that
> >> Mandukya and
> >> >Mundaka are the same.  But they'd be missing the point.
>
> >Nicholas:
> >
> >> You have it backwards.  The words quoted in the SD, "supreme and not
> >> supreme" are not in the Mandukya Up.
>
> P:
> >Not having commented on whether "supreme and not supreme" are,
> or are not,
> >in Mandukya Upanishad somewhat at a loss on what you mean by having it
> >backwards.  Please advise.
>
> You said a scholar/expert could easily prove they are they same
> upanishad.
> What, in fact, could be easily proven is that they are NOT the same. Thus
> the backwards.

See what you mean by the backwards bit.  Thank you.

What was said was: "a scholar/editor/expert could easily justify such a
correction on the (exoteric) basis that Mandukya and Mundaka are the same.
But they'd be missing the point". The point being that the *correction*
would be the mistake. It is an open question whether Mandukya/Mundaka are,
or are not, *in reality*, the 'same' (origin).

> >> One does not have to be scholar to know the Mundaka & Mandukya
> are *not*
> >the same upanishad.
> >
> >Is that so?
>
> Yes -- many reliable translations are available now.  Some with
> transliterated Sanskrit also.

Who did the translations?  Are they translations of translations of
translations of . .?  What/where is the original?  How was it recorded? Was
it Senzar, Sanscrit, Sanskrit etc.?  Was it oral teaching(which
tongue/race/round), on disks?

> >SD, I, 83:
> >
> >"(a) In the Mandukya (Mundaka) Upanishad it is written . . . . . "

> Thank you for pointing out another mistake in the original SD.  The same
> points can made again.  The citation I. i. 7 does fit the 12 verse format
> of the Mandukya.  There is nothing about spiders, webs or herbs in the
> Mandukya. There is in the Mundaka -- at the place I, i, 7.  See
> Gambhirananda's translation of EIGHT UPANISHADS, vol II, p.91

Quite incredible that this can immediately be labelled a "mistake" on the
basis that it doesn't neatly line up with the exoteric/surface stuff.  Quite
incredible.

> The BdZ SD has corrected this mistake also.

Karma.

Kindest regards,
Paul.