Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00140)

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.

>> 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.

>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

The BdZ SD has corrected this mistake also.

--
<> Nicholas Weeks <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles
	"Men must learn to love the truth before they thoroughly believe it."
		Blavatsky