04-25-2008, 01:45 AM
Bodhiji,
Great find!!
So, mahA-upaniShad could be the original source. So, the claim that "vasudhaiva kutumbakam" is found in vedas, is partly justifiable, since upanishads are part of shruti.
I wonder if it is same as the mahat-upaniShad listed under the 108 upanishads.
I am not sure whther Mahopanishad is associated with any AraNyakas. Presence in AraNyaka-s will really make the case for its ancient roots. Some upanishads also occur in brAhmaNa-s with names like upaniShad-brAhmaNa. Maha-nArAyaNa upanishad and taittirIya upanishad are part of TattirIya AraNyaka. Most of the upaniShads in 108 list are not associated with AraNyaka-s (or brAhmaNa-s) and are not considered ancient.
Great find!!
So, mahA-upaniShad could be the original source. So, the claim that "vasudhaiva kutumbakam" is found in vedas, is partly justifiable, since upanishads are part of shruti.
I wonder if it is same as the mahat-upaniShad listed under the 108 upanishads.
I am not sure whther Mahopanishad is associated with any AraNyakas. Presence in AraNyaka-s will really make the case for its ancient roots. Some upanishads also occur in brAhmaNa-s with names like upaniShad-brAhmaNa. Maha-nArAyaNa upanishad and taittirIya upanishad are part of TattirIya AraNyaka. Most of the upaniShads in 108 list are not associated with AraNyaka-s (or brAhmaNa-s) and are not considered ancient.