Re: Errors in the SD
Sep 10, 1998 10:44 AM
by Bazzer (Paul)
> >> 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?
> >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.
> 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,
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application