Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00137)

Nicholas replied:

> >> There is nothing like "supreme, and not supreme
> >> (paravara)" in that 28th verse or anywhere near.  However if
> one goes to
> >> the Mundaka Up. II, 2, 8 -- there it is.  Now I suppose one
> can build up
> >> much good merit with this detective work.  What why not just
> consider it
> >> a mistake in editing, proofing, writing etc. of the SD?
>
> Paul:
> >Why not consider it as Mandukya Upanishad (2.28).?  "Mandukya"
> is different
> >from "Mundaka".  Should someone correct it?  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.

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.

> One does not have to be scholar to know the Mundaka & Mandukya are *not*
the same upanishad.

Is that so?

SD, I, 83:

"(a) In the Mandukya (Mundaka) Upanishad it is written . . . . . "

All good wishes,
Paul