Sambodhi 2001 Vol 24

Author(s): Jitendra B Shah, K M Patel
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 37

32
VIJAY PANDYA
SAMBODHI
the Aranyaka itself specifically and categorically calls itself so. Then there is Maha-Aitareya Upanisad or also called Bahvṛca-brahmana-Upanisad which has also never been treated as an Upanisad by the tradition. In fact, Keith discusses this problem under the title "Three Upanisads of the Aitareya-Aranyaka1. Thus there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the Aitareya Aranyaka and this cannot be said to be augmenting an aura to the Upanisad as a Śruti.
Further there is a big problem regarding the exact number of the Upanisads. Sankarācārya is credited to have written commentaries on the ten Upanisads viz. Isa-Kena, Katha, Praśna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taitiriam, Aitareya, Chandogya and Bṛhadaranyaka. In addition to this Sankarācārya quotes Śvetāśvatara, Kausītaki and Jābāla in his Brahmasūtrabhāṣya. So these Upanisads could be said to have acquired the sanctity of a Śruti. But what about other. works which are designated as the Upanisads, whose number crosses 200? Then the modern scholars divide the Upanisads into Principal and Minor Upanisads. Then traditionally 108 Upanisads have come down to us according to the Muktika-Upanisad. Excluding those canonised Upanisads like Isa, kena and so on, the remaining Upanisads are regarded as comparatively modern Upanisads. If they are modern, what about their being characterised as Śruti ? Apart from the Muktika-Upanisad collection of 108, there are 220 Upanisads used by the Kalyana journal Jan. 1989. According to the Upanisadvākyamahākośa, (reprint 1991, ed. by Gajanan Sadhale) in all there are 239 Upanisads. Of course, in both these lists, there are some names whose claim to be Upanisads is apparently dubious. In the Upanisadvākyamahakośa, the works like Ayurvedopaniṣad and Caksuṣopanisad are enumerated as Upanisads. In the Kalyāṇa list, Śrī-sūkta, Puruṣa-sukta are also included as Upanisads. Then there are three Aitereyopanisads counted. Then there is an Allopanisad also, which must have originated during the Muslim rule. It is true that there might be some human errors or fau pas but then, this proves that, the Śruti fortress of the Upanisads is not as impregnable as it is supposed to be.
Further there is one acute problem regarding the texts of the Upanisads. The whole Upanisadic corpus is in such a flux that it has been almost impossible to critically edit these texts. These is so much anarchy regarding the various texts which go under the name of the Upanisads. To cite me example of Maitrāyaṇiya or Mactrāyaṇi or Maitri or Maitreyi or Maitrayaṇa-BrāhmaṇaUpanisad. So many names for one work! Under all these names different texts