What is an Upaniṣad?

[Anonymous No.18706782]

After the Bhagavad Gītā, the Upaniṣad are probably the most translated and well-known Hindu texts in the West. But with them comes a question: what is actually counted as an Upaniṣad and who decides?

==========
Bibiliography

Ayyangār, T.R.Ś. and Śāstrī, S.S. (ed.) (1941) The Sāmānya Vedānta Upaniṣads. Madras: The Adyar Library
Cohen, S. (ed.) (2018) The Upaniṣads: A Complete Guide. Abingdon: Routledge
Deussen, P. (1898) The Philosophy of the Upanishads. English trans. by A.S. Geden (1906) Edinburgh: T&T Clark
Gambhīrānanda, Swāmī (1986) Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad with the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama
Hume, R.E. (1921) The Thirteen Principal Upanishads. London: Oxford University Press
Johnson, W.J. (2009) Oxford Dictionary of Hinduism. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Renou, L. (1947) Vedic India (IC 3). English trans. by Philip Spratt (1957) Calcutta: Susil Gupta
Roebuck, V.J. (2003) The Upaniṣads (2nd edn). London: Penguin Books
Zaehner, R.C. (1966) Hindu Scriptures. London: Everyman's Library
==========

Firstly, we have the manuscript evidence, however no manuscript is predates the late middle ages and it is agreed that the major Upaniṣads were composed much earlier (see previous thread on dating https://archived.moe/lit/thread/18586762/).). Therefore, the first port of call is their relation to other ancient Hindu texts. As mentioned in the previous thread, these include Saṃhitās (collections of hymns), Brāhmaṇas (explanations of fire rituals), and Āraṇyaka (meanings of fire rituals). Several Upaniṣads are in fact part of these larger texts and are often appended to the end of them. These are the following:

Aitareya
>(= Aitareya Āraṇyaka 2.4-6)
Bṛhadāraṇyaka
>(=Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (Kāṇva) 16.3-8 = (Madhyaṃdina) 14.4-9)
Chāndogya
>(=Chāndogya Brāhmaṇa 3-10)
Īśā
>(=Vājasaneyī Saṃhitā 40)
Kaṭha?
>(=possibly lost Kaṭha-Śikṣā-Upaniṣad 14-15*)
Kauṣītaki
>(=Kauṣītaki Āraṇyaka 3-6)
Kena
>(=Jaiminīya-Upaniṣad-Brāhmaṇa 4.18-21)
Mahānārāyaṇa
>(=Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 10 (not in all manuscripts))
Taittirīya
>(=Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 7-9)

* See Michael Witzel (1977) An Unknown Upaniṣad of the Kṛṣṇa Yajur-Veda: The Kaṭha-Śikṣā-Upaniṣad. Journal of the Nepal Research Centre, 1, 139-153
[Verses 1.1-4 correspond to Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa 3.11.8.1]

[Anonymous No.18706801]

However, we have another avenue of determining a 'canonical' list: the commentators. The earliest surviving commentaries are by Adi Śaṅkara, writing around 700 AD. He did not commentate on two of the above Vedic Upaniṣads and commentated on three or four others not embedded in Vedic texts. The authoritative status of these other Upaniṣads must have arisen before Śaṅkara, in the case of the Māṇḍūkya he commentated on an earlier exposition of it (the Gauḍapāda-Kārikā), in addition to the text itself. The existence of his commentaries solidified the place of these independent Upaniṣads in Hindu theology. In fact most manuscripts of them only survive with his commentaries. Śaṅkara commentated on the following:

Aitareya
Bṛhadāraṇyaka
Chāndogya
Īśā
Kaṭha
Kena
Māṇḍūkya
Muṇḍaka
Praśna
Śvetāśvatara?*
Taittirīya

* Authorship of the Śvetāśvatara commentary is disputed, see Johnson (2009: Śaṅkara) and Gambhirananda (1986: vi-vii)

Śaṅkara commentates on the embedded Upaniṣads, minus the Kauṣītaki and Mahānārāyaṇa. Meanwhile, the Māṇḍūkya, Muṇḍaka, Praśna, and possibly Śvetāśvatara appear, despite not being embedded in a larger Vedic text. These latter Upaniṣads are less concerned with Vedic rituals and more with theological insights (e.g. Māṇḍūkya) or worship of the Lord (e.g. Śvetāśvatara). The issue of whether Śaṅkara intended this list to be authoritative is muddied by the fact that he quotes the Kauṣītaki in his commentaries, and occassionally cites other independent Upaniṣads such as the Jābāla. That said, his selection clearly impacted Hindu perceptions of which Upaniṣads were paramount, as can be seen by the fact that the exclusion of the Kauṣītaki has meant it has suffered from poorer textual preservation (Olivelle, 1996: 200).

[Anonymous No.18706808]

After Śaṅkara we have evidence from a late Upaniṣad called the Muktika. Here we find something approaching a 'canonical' list, however the selection has ballooned to 108 Upaniṣads, and the list includes the Muktika itself (clearly the author thought highly of his own text). The Muktika promises that the study of these Upaniṣads will grant liberation, it says that "For the attainment of such liberation by seekers after liberation, the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad alone is sufficient. If ... realization of the Brahman is not accomplished, then, do thou study the Ten Upaniṣads ..." and so on for the "Thirty-two" and "One Hundred and Eight" Upaniṣads (Muktika 1.1.26-29 [Ayyangār, 1941: 363]). The Muktika then names all 108 Upaniṣads, and if we count the first ten names, we get the following list (re-arranged alphabetically):

Aitareya
Bṛhadāraṇyaka
Chāndogya
Īśā
Kaṭha
Kena
Māṇḍūkya
Muṇḍaka
Praśna
Taittirīya

Here we can see that the ten most important Upaniṣads in the Muktika are exactly the Upaniṣads that Śaṅkara commentend on, minus the Śvetāśvatara (another point against the authenticity of that commentary). This shows the influence of Śaṅkara, as well as the continuous composition of new Upaniṣads well into the middle ages.

Much later, we have selections made by western academics. These usually include most of the Upaniṣads mentioned above, with one common addition: the Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣad. F. Max Müller included it in his 1884 translation and believed it to be among the oldest texts, however most other scholars consider it to be late among the major Upaniṣads (see previous thread on dating). Still, it has multiple Hindu commentaries and is of great theological interest, developing doctrines on Yoga and the sacred syllable Oṃ. For this reason it is commonly translated or otherwise included along with the other major Upaniṣads, for example Paul Deussen (1898: 22-26), Robert E. Hume (1921), Louis Renou (1947: 34-37), Robert C. Zaehner (1966), and Valerie Roebuck (2003), Signe Cohen (2018).

[Anonymous No.18706827]

Buddhist sultras are better

[Anonymous No.18707038]

Sneed

[Anonymous No.18707047]

>>18706827
Buddhism is the unevolved, censored, safe-for-work version of Hinduism

[Anonymous No.18707110]

start with the greeks instead.

[Anonymous No.18708115]

man its going to be hilarious watching AI forum bots go into eastern phil when AI has no existential basis to understand what they're on about

[Anonymous No.18708811]

>>18706827
Buddhism is low-test

[Anonymous No.18708829]

>great aunt found the upanishad of shadman

[Anonymous No.18708855]

>>18706782
Finally an UpaniChad thread

[Anonymous No.18710419]

>>18707047
how so?