[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 772 KB, 1080x1055, lynchian.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14489778 No.14489778 [Reply] [Original]

what translation of the Upanishads is the most faithful and most beautiful?

>> No.14489817
File: 275 KB, 1864x641, guenonfag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Good morning guenonfag, still insane?

>> No.14489830

I am not him. Do you think he will have a good answer for me?

>> No.14489833
File: 52 KB, 600x447, poo2loo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>most faithful
The one not skipping any of the extremely detailed street-defecation passages.
>most beautiful
Idk... Probably one re-interpreted by Westerners and made into a respectable doctrine.

>> No.14489964

Eknath Easwaran's translation is very easy to read, although some of them are abridged. They're really not that long so you don't have to pick a single translation.

>> No.14490035

I'll keep that in mind. I am not necessarily looking for easy to read translations. More so for accurate and scholarly ones. For introductory purposes I downloaded the Sacred Books Of The East Max Müller translation as it predates the new age hippie bullshit I want to stay as far away from as possible.

>> No.14490166

If you dont want to read Shankara's commentaries on them (which includes the entire text of the Upanishad) then buy Radnakrishnan's 'The Principal Upanishads', it has unabridged translations of all the primary Upanishads in one book, and it's pretty good as far as beauty and accuracy go.

>> No.14490180

What about Eknath Easwaran?

>> No.14490201

Are the Upanishads understandable by someone with no mystical experience of the higher states of being?

>> No.14490210

His are abridged and if they are similar to his Gita translation then they will be simplified as I found his Gita to be nice and pleasant to read but very dumbed down compared to the better translations

>> No.14490216

Do you speak Sankrit?

>> No.14490219

It's possible but certainly having mystical experiences prior to reading them would almost certainly help you understand them. But you can also choose to read them with commentary which may help, reading them with Shankara's commentaries induced mystical experiences in me while I was reading them

>> No.14490224

Dumb & Dumber

>> No.14490231

No, but I have seen websites before where people compare the different translations and so I still have sort of an idea of which is more accurate. Easwaran tends to leave out a lot of Sanskrit words and ways of speaking that the other translations preserve and Easwaran's translated sentences are sometimes a lot shorter as well.

>> No.14490239
File: 64 KB, 819x756, 1571612369020.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Be careful about Shankara. His fellow Hindus have long said about him that he is a cryptobuddhist, taking a buddhist framework and only superficially connecting it to the Upanishads.

Of course Shankara's devotees dispute this but it is the standard opinion among hindus and modern historians of religion.

>> No.14490240

>reading them with Shankara's commentaries induced mystical experiences in me while I was reading them
Based. The closest I've ever gotten is a constant warmth around my heart during days where I think a lot about God and pray.

>> No.14490247

You have basis for evaluating translations so you have no business talking. Link the website you're talking about if you want but please stop talking shit. There's already too much bullshit from people who want top pretend they know what they're about.

>> No.14490249

Silence. Shankaracharya (pbuh) was an infallible prophet.

>> No.14490253

LMFAO. didn't buddhist not even exist in his time? how could he "retroactively" copy buddhism when it didn't even exist yet? epic fail.

>> No.14490258

Do link those websites, that would be very helpful.

Whose commentaries would be more faithful than Shankara's?

>> No.14490263

No, in fact you can even pray to the upanishad and gain some mystical insight. I kid you not, I levitated slightly once when reciting a random excerpt from it.

>> No.14490266

tits or it didn't happen

>> No.14490267

Ramanuja probably. His interpretation accounted for multiplicity without resorting to the 'jivas are illusions' logical paradox.

>> No.14490275

>pray to a book
I'm not muslim though.

>> No.14490278

You will be.

>> No.14490286

On a serious not, would such a thing be possible by a truly enlightened being? Like could Shankara (or any other teacher of your choice) levitate or freely break certain "laws" of nature? I don't see much point in this Hinduism stuff if it talks so much about higher states but yet can't do basic shit like break some empirical laws which are impermanent and illusory (to me it seems, anyway).

>> No.14490293

>Whose commentaries would be more faithful than Shankara's?
Nobody, Ramanuja never wrote any commentaries on the Upanishads, only on the Gita and the Brahma Sutras. Shankara is the only commentator from a non-dualist school who wrote a large amount of Upaniahad commentaries. Madhva did but his Dvaita (dualist) school is so far removed from the obvious purport of the text which repeatedly condemn dualism and he reads the exact obvious meaning of them into the text that it becomes farcical. Shankara is a highly respected religious figure in India and all the stuff some people accuse of being Buddhist is already found in the early Upanishads. You shouldn't take that guy seriously he is some mentally ill Buddhist who lurks constantly and posts image whenever he sees a thread about Hinduism and he constantly whines about Shankara, most likely because Shankara btfos Buddhism in his writings.

>> No.14490295

Some anon here has probably teleported around various holy sites and shitposted from there.

>> No.14490296

*he reads the exact opposite meaning of them into the text that it becomes farcical

>> No.14490297
File: 26 KB, 329x499, The Art of War.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yes, but there is always the mystical side which requires experience to understand. And it is also true that some people have a greater aptitude for it. However first we must distinguish the esoteric and the mystical. They coincide but they do not depend on the other, one is a type of knowledge and the other(for this) a type of experience. For example when I was 15 I had what one would call a spiritual experience while attempting a Hindu mantra for the third time after a couple of weeks(and my entire life), yet knowing almost nothing about Hindu philosophy or esoterica. Let us say the philosophical is the grouping of knowledge which includes both the inner and outer and is not experience.

Because of this, you should amass as large a philosophical and esoteric knowledge you can of the West prior to Eastern philosophy and spiritual experiences.

Plato being the most important before all of this.

>> No.14490309

>Because of this, you should amass as large a philosophical and esoteric knowledge you can of the West
What if I was raised in the East from early childhood? Do I have the spiritual powers necessary to skip this preparatory step? I don't think I have a clouded Westernized "intellect".

>> No.14490310

Case in point of a Shankara devotee: >>14490293

Just be careful about modern religious sectarians trying to convince you their sect is the only one that "BTFO" all the others and all the others are trivially wrong. Typical cult mentality.

>> No.14490316
File: 123 KB, 633x758, 1550589512292.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Madhva argued that Shankara championed monism because he was so stupid that he could only count to one

>> No.14490318

>their sect is the only one that "BTFO" all the others and all the others are trivially wrong
this is trivial to see though. he is correct.
t. not even a shankarian streetshitter.

>> No.14490321


>> No.14490329
File: 890 KB, 1630x1328, 1577921239002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>But I AM right though!
>You realize you can't just repeat "I'm right! I'm right!," right? How do we know you're right?
>Because I AM!

Ah.. Well, that settles it then. Why are cultists at their most vociferous on the internet?

Pic related, even some of the most prominent nondualist philosophers and historians of philosophy in India say that Shankara and Gaudapada substantially ripped off Buddhism. Watch the Guenon cultist freak out over it some more.

>> No.14490332

>all this talk of sects BTFOing each other
Did they do debates like those atheist ones on youtube? Do we have any transcripts of them?

>> No.14490336

>I don't see much point in this Hinduism stuff if it talks so much about higher states but yet can't do basic shit like break some empirical laws which are impermanent and illusory (to me it seems, anyway).
Anon please be joking, please don't tell me you think the physical revelation is of higher purpose than the psychological/spiritual. These layers of life are simultaneous and should be treated as such.

>> No.14490338

I will decide the veracity of Shankara's claims. Just tell me one thing.
What was his stance on an adult male marrying a 10yo girl?

>> No.14490346

>What if I was raised in the East from early childhood?
What race are you?

>Do I have the spiritual powers necessary to skip this preparatory step? I don't think I have a clouded Westernized "intellect".
Where did you find this?

>> No.14490350

Real Hindus don't really give a shit about any of this. Westerners have a very sectarian mindset which comes from being raised around exclusivist religions and they carry that over into their eastern studies. What matters is the Sonatana Dharma, the particular system of metaphysics you subscribe to is ultimately irrelevant. Check them all out and go with what resonates.

>> No.14490352

>the physical revelation is of higher purpose than the psychological/spiritual
I don't suggest that. Quite the contrary, in fact. The physical pales in comparison to the spiritual, so it should be possible (in my eyes) to suspend "physical" "laws" by briefly levitating if someone achieved a truly enlightened state. I don't mean recording it on and posting it on facebook, just authentic writings of peers confirming it.

>> No.14490361


When will there be a killstream between whiteheadanon and guenonfag?

>> No.14490364

>His interpretation accounted for multiplicity
The issue with that though is that the notion of multiplicty is condemned unequivocally in the primary Upanishads such as in Katha Upanishad 2.1.10 and 2.1.11.:

"What is here, the same is there; and what is there, the same is here. He goes from death to death who sees any difference here"

"By the mind alone is Brahman to be realized; then one does not see in It any multiplicity whatsoever. He goes from death to death who sees multiplicity in It. This, verily, is That."

An identical verse occurs in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. These verses undermine Ramanuja's attempt to sustain some sort of real multiplicity in his metaphysical scheme.

>without resorting to the 'jivas are illusions' logical paradox
I don't see it as being a paradox. How else can permanent liberation from worldly existence and a permanent union with Brahman be possible if the distinction between Brahman and the soul isn't ultimately illusory? Eternal equally means existing forever without any beginning as much as it means existing eternally without any end. There can be nothing truly eternal which suddenly comes into existence or which suddenly emerges, it's only eternal if it has always existed, an eternal thing cannot be non-existent and then be 'produced'. One of the reasons that Advaita says that the distinction between Brahman and the soul is illusory is that if union were not already the case in reality then were union somehow acheived it would be a produced result and subject to change, i.e. not actually eternal, there would be no reason why someone who had attained union couldn't be estranged and descend back down into a body again. The only truly eternal liberation or union with Brahman is that which has in truth always existed; a status such as eternal liberation which has always been true or existent can only be 'achieved' if it was only falsely seeming to be otherwise via illusion and this illusion removed via knowledge.

>> No.14490371

real hindus are overwhelmingly bhakti, you might notice that the only people arguing over shit like this are westerners arguing in western languages on western websites. in india you are simply part of a tradition. guenonfag larps so hard exactly because he's not a real hindu, he is a man without a religion or a country so he makes up for it in online arguments.

>how can i prove my tradition's interpretations are the correct ones?
>i know, i'll cite my tradition's interpretations of how they are the correct ones!


>> No.14490373

>Madhva did but his Dvaita (dualist) school is so far removed from the obvious purport of the text which repeatedly condemn dualism and he reads the exact obvious meaning of them into the text that it becomes farcica
suppose Shankara was 'correct' in his interpretation of the upanishads for arguments sake, his argument should only boil down to 'follow the upanishads bro'. Instead he erects a (Nagarjunian) framework to affirm his interpretation and if it fails (which it does as pointed out by Ramanuja), his followers go back to the usual 'upanishads are obviously Advaita anyway'.

It's a circular argument and a cop out.

>> No.14490387
File: 120 KB, 872x606, 5b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>It's a circular argument and a cop out.

Not only is it circular, Shankara's institutionalization of Vedanta (using a Buddhist framework as you rightly state) itself decided what Upanishads are canonical. That was the entire purpose of Shankara's commentaries.

You can't prove the correctness of Shankara's commentaries of the canonical Upanishads by appealing to the fact that Shankara wrote correct commentaries of the canonical Upanishads. The Shankara spammer's devotion to his religion may be admirable from an emotional standpoint, but he mistakes it for logical proof, and when this is denied, he becomes extremely emotional.

>> No.14490401

>The issue with that though is that the notion of multiplicity is condemned unequivocally in the primary Upanishads such as in Katha Upanishad 2.1.10 and 2.1.11.:
According to Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.2‐3 Brahman says, “May I be many, may I grow forth”. The upanishads do not condemn multiplicity, you are reading it dogmatically.

>I don't see it as being a paradox
If Jiva is an illusion, who is being liberated? Knowledge of brahman becomes impossible if the knower is already a knower behind a veil (ignorance).

>> No.14490429
File: 1.88 MB, 300x209, Cheetah gif.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>The physical pales in comparison to the spiritual
Anon you're missing the point, this is a physical desire. Besides you yourself that you think if spiritual enlightenment cannot turn physical into spiritual(do anything) then it is pointless.

As I said, these different levels are simultaneous and act upon each other. Physical fitness would be a good example of how it influences the spiritual. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1VGZCpt18A

The Hitler Youth, another example.

The ground of the world is by far the most amazing of things in all of human thought and feeling. For us, for it, there must be recognition by way of itself and therefore the total imminence of nothing other than itself. We are beings of this world, and time is nothing save the absolutes expression of the multiplicity in condensed unity.

"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."

- Martin Heidegger

>> No.14490432

>besides you yourself *said* that

>> No.14490448

Let us see how many of these ideas allegedly taken from Buddhism appear first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads

The doctrine of Maya? It's first mentioned by name in Brihadaranyaka (2.5.19) and alluded too many times elsewhere in the same text and in Chandogya. Monasticism? The Brihadaranyaka praises it and describes it as the course that Janaka follows after becoming enlightened in (4.4.22 & 4.5.2). The self-luminosity of the Self being taken from Yogachara? The Brihadaranayka describes the Self as self-luminous in (4.3.6). Advaita idealism being taken from Buddhist idealism? The Aitareya Upanishad (which according to a review by Olivelle et al is pre-Buddhist) directly says "consiousness is Brahman" in (3.1.4.).

The unborn doctrine? The Brihadaranyaka states that Brahman is unborn many times in (4.4.22., 4.4.24. & 4.4.25.), and says that Brahman is only seen as manifold because of Maya (2.5.19) and says that really there is no diversity in Brahman and that people who see diversity go from death to death (4.4.19). The Chandogya says in line (6.1.4.) "By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, (existing) in name only. But earth is the reality" and then repeats the message with the example of clay, gold etc in other lines. Hence, the pre-Buddhist Upanishads deny that change, multiplicity etc are real and attribute it to maya and ignorance, and they say that he underlying reality which is the basis of those illusions is unborn and unchanging.

The distinction between absolute knowledge and non-absolute knowledge? The Mundaka Upanishad while not pre-Buddhist mentions supreme and non-supreme Brahma-knowledge in line (1.1.4.) hundreds of years before Nagarjuna who is the first Buddhist to mention higher and lower knowledge (Buddha never did). The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka also makes a distinction between a higher and lower understanding of Brahman in line (2.3.1.) when it says that Brahman should be known in two forms, the one gross, mortal, limited and definite and the other subtle, immortal, unlimited and indefinite.

That's a quick summary of everything people claim Shankara took from Buddhism, but as you can see it all appears first in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, if anything it would indicate the Buddha himself and Buddhists like Nagarjuna obtained concepts from the early Upanishads.

>> No.14490456

>the usual copypasta "I-It was in the upanishads first bro, according to my religion's interpretation!"

Yes, and the correctness of that interpretation is exactly what is in question. If you want to commit the fallacy of begging the question, then your opponent might as well appeal to authority by re-stating that your position is a minority religious perspective and most historians and even most other Hindus, including prominent nondualists, disagree with you.

>> No.14490498

>The distinction between absolute knowledge and non-absolute knowledge?
You just made these terms up. No such thing as 'non-absolute knowledge'. You are shying away from using the real designation.

>The concept of "ajāta" was borrowed by Gaudapada from Madhyamika Buddhism,[3][4]
>Advaita took over from the Madhyamika the idea of levels of reality.[16] Usually two levels are being mentioned,[17] namely saṃvṛti-satya, "the empirical truth",[web 4] and paramārtha-satya, "ultimate truth".

This Advaitic principle is contrary to the Upanishads
>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth – satyameva jayate. II.12, 5th Brahmana - Br Upanishad

There can only be one Brahman without a second.

>> No.14490611
File: 92 KB, 300x414, Viṣṇu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>According to Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.2‐3 Brahman says, “May I be many, may I grow forth”. The upanishads do not condemn multiplicity, you are reading it dogmatically.
The Upanishads describe Brahman as the material and efficient cause of the world, but they also state that this emergence into multiplicity is only because of Maya and they emphasize that only the cause viz. Brahman is absolutely real. If one accepts all the primary Upanishads as Sruti and considers them to be internally consistent, then one has to reconcile these different verses. To me, the most logical way to do so would be to do as Advaita does and say that Brahman emanates/creates the world but that this is ultimately due to Brahman's power of Maya and is not completely real it itself.

For example in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad it says in verse (2.5.19.): "Perceiving this the Rsi said, '(He) transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known. The Lord on account of Maya is perceived as manifold".

If Brahman is perceived as manifold because of Maya as the Upanishad states, does this not imply that the perceived manifoldness/multiplicity is not completely real?

The Chandogya Upanishad says in line (6.1.4.): "O good looking one, as by knowing a lump of earth, all things made of earth become known: All transformation has speech as its basis and it is name only. Earth as such is the reality."

This verse states that transformation (which from the context of the previous verse 6.1.3. is talking about Brahman and His transformation into the world) has it's basis in speech and exists in name only, i.e. only in conventional usage and not as something that has any reality in itself. The text states "earth as such is the reality". This clearly amounts to a denial of the reality of the world of transformation combined with a statement that the cause from the transformations originated (i.e. the earth, or Brahman) as such is the reality.

If you say that Brahman become many and created the world through his power of Maya but that this in the end isn't ultimately real but is only a projection of Maya then this allows one to accept both the verses describing illusion and creation. But if one accepts the verses describing creation and considers it to be completely real but then disregards the verses describing it as illusory then one is throwing out the meaning of certain lines. The first interpretation can accommodate both types of verses as consistent whereas it seems like the second doesn't.

>> No.14490615

>If Jiva is an illusion, who is being liberated?
Advaita holds that Jiva is an illusion witnessed by Brahman/Atma, who is at the same time completely unaffected by what It witnesses "Just as the sun, which is the eye of the whole world, is not tainted by the ocular and external defects, similarly, the Self, that is but one in all beings, is not tainted by the sorrows of the world, it being transcendental." - Katha Upanishad 2.2.11. Liberation involves the self-luminous reality of the Self shining forth. There is able to be a liberation despite the Jiva being illusory, because the illusion of the Jiva is witnessed by the Self, and when avidya is destroyed by knowledge of Self, the Self which was observing that illusion all along shines forth as the reality that always was, is and will be; and this is liberation.
>Knowledge of brahman becomes impossible if the knower is already a knower behind a veil (ignorance).
I'm not sure exactly what you meant here, Advaita holds that Brahman is transcendental to thought and cannot be grasped by the mind, as the mind and the intellect are subject to the veil of avidya/maya; but that because Brahman is the inner Self who is not subject to ignorance He can shine forth as the self-luminous reality in spiritual realization. So that the knowing intellect/mind is subject to ignorance is not a problem from the perspective of Advaita, because there is a knower even prior to them in the form of the Self who observes them and this Self is not subject to ignorance.

>> No.14490658

>You just made these terms up. No such thing as 'non-absolute knowledge'. You are shying away from using the real designation.
No I didnt, the Mundaka Upanishad is the first text in all of Indian religion/philosophy to explicitly make the distinction in line (1.1.4.), the exact words it uses are para, or supreme knowledge, and apara, or non-supreme knowledge. The Mundaka Upanishad is hundreds of years before the beginning of the Madhyamaka school. Buddha never mentions the distinction once in the entire Pali Canon.
>>The concept of "ajāta" was borrowed by Gaudapada from Madhyamika Buddhism
No he didn't, ajata just means unborn and the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishads describes Brahman as unborn in line (4.4.22.) and others. Gaudapada cites these verses from the Brihadaranyaka in his Karika to show that they are an Upanishadic doctrine.
>What you call truth is one. There cannot be two truths, three truths, four truths, five truths, etc. There is only one truth –
Advaita does not say there are "two truths" and there is no "two truths doctrine" in Advaita. This is a term from Madhyamaka philosophy that modern scholars have also applied to Advaita doctrine, but it is never described in this way in the works of Shankara or other Advaita texts. Advaita says there is supreme and non-supreme knowledge, and that only the first is ultimately real; and this is in accordance with the above line. Shankara doesn't say that the non-supreme knowledge viz the world of multiplicity is the truth or the second truth, this is why he denies that the world is real. That line from the Brihadaranyaka could not be referring to the Madhyamaka concept anyway since it predates Madhyamaka by some 900-800 years or so.

>> No.14490673

Could it be that this thread is all the commentary one could possibly need?

>> No.14490679



>> No.14490686

What is your favourite Upanishad, anons?

>> No.14490692

There's this one obscure stanza about how Aum is the breath AND the speech. That was wild.

>> No.14490698
File: 25 KB, 526x793, Sri_Anandamoyi_Ma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.14490703
File: 1.74 MB, 2369x1889, 1577024730353.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The Katha Upanishad

>> No.14490710

hmm if I had to choose between the 103 Buddhist influenced Upanishads it would be...

>> No.14490741
File: 46 KB, 240x320, 1576324920393.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The later Upanishads are not all automatically Buddhist-influenced, that's an absurd claim. Buddha was considered to be a heretic and teacher of false doctrine by most Hindus historically. In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa it is taught that Viṣṇu appeared as the Buddha and taught a false and nonsensical doctrine to some demons for the purpose of subduing them and getting them to lose their powers so that they could be massacred. The dupes are the Buddhists who do not understand that the source of all of their teachings that they defend so vehemently is in fact a trick. It precisely because that Buddhism is a false and nonsensical doctrine taught by Lord Viṣṇu as a trick that later sages like the great Sri Śaṅkarācārya found its doctrines to be so absurd and incoherent, after exposing Buddhisms inner contradictions in his commentaries Śaṅkarācārya succinctly summaries its significance thus:

>"From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Adi Śaṅkarācārya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

>> No.14490750

>The later Upanishads are not all automatically Buddhist-influenced
they mostly are, sorry to say

>> No.14491149


>> No.14491358

Let's return to the topic of translations. I guess the conflict the other two anons acted out for us also plays into that - so what are the best translations for any of the conflicting readings of the Upanishads?

>> No.14491364

Please ignore the Guenonfag autism. That's not what Hinduism is about.

>> No.14491395

Advaita isn't Guenonfag autism. It's one of the major branches of Hindu theology.

>> No.14491413
File: 1.54 MB, 2113x1885, IMG_5289.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

see pic related

>> No.14491422

In terms of accurate academic translations that include all the major Upanishads, it would be either Patrick Olivelle's or Valerie Roebuck's. A journal review of both of them says this:
>It is my good fortune to report that two recent translations of the major Upanisads are superior efforts that should replace earlier translations as standards in the field.
>Roebuck's translation is very fluid, in general reads beautifully
>Olivelle's study of the critical texts of the Upanisad allows him insights into the text that Roebuck does not have, yet on certain other counts Roebuck may be more accurate.
>On the whole, my impression is that Roebuck is most often more literal, but that Olivelle's deeper and broader understanding of vedic textuality and the eccentricities of Sanskrit syntax renders his translation on the whole better, if not always clearer. And, of course, his notes are models of the best of Indological scholarship. Regardless, as stated in the beginning, both of these translations are major advances over their predecessors.
-Smith, F.M. (2002) Review. Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol 122(1), pp 156-160

>> No.14491834

Now that the dust has settled where is the Wensleydale?

>> No.14491998

Thanks anon, big help!

>> No.14492303

is it worth buying?

>> No.14492545

i just stick to olivelle's one.
i might try the penguin one.
i am critical about those made by indian scholars.
i avoid the mascaro one.
i avoid the 'spiritual' ones.

it is certainly necessary to know the historical context and the vedic development that led to them.

>> No.14492606

>i just stick to olivelle's one
It does sound like the best one. Too bad I can't find it as pub or mobi, so Roebuck it is.

>> No.14492615

...now what might be the best scholarly translation of the Bhagavad-Gita?

>> No.14492625

It's the highly influential commentary of Shankara (c. 7th century AD), so it's good to understand that Upanishad's later reception, but it's a very long and technical commentary.

>> No.14492631

lol nice criteria to pick your reading.

i think you might be able to find an epub in openlibrary, even tho they are not always fully accurate, as they are just an ocr of the pdf file.

>> No.14492648

There's a pdf

>> No.14492680

I already had that but thanks for the effort. I was low-key fishing for an ePub or mobi. I'll probably read Roebuck and Olivelli comparatively.

>> No.14493107


>> No.14493145

There are several that I know of:

J.A.B. van Buitenen — includes the surrounding chapters from the Mahabharata, which give extra context. Considered very accurate from what I can gather, but I don't own it. Apparently there is just an introduction, no notes or commentary.

Gavin Flood and Charles Martin (Norton Critical Edition) — a balance between accuracy and poetry, it reads very well but I can see where it's a bit loose when I compare it with other translations and commentaries. Imitates the Sanskrit by having four lines per verse, but doesn't use the academic transliteration system (IAST) which all the others do except W.J. Johnson. Being a Norton Critical, it has a few footnotes and lots of useful essays in the back.

R.C. Zaehner — Very extensive commentary that compares the text's theology to contemporary and earlier Indian texts. However, it's clearly influenced by Zaehner's own Christian theology as well. For example, he translates 'buddhi' (=intellect) as 'soul' because of its similarities to how the soul is described in Catholicism.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan — Another extensive commentary. A midpoint between traditional Indian interpretations and modern academic ones. It's from 1948 so his scholarship is out of date now, but still very interesting.

Franklin Egerton — Incredibly literal translation, it exactly represents the meaning of each line of Sanskrit, even if it means breaking English grammar. Originally published as two volumes: the first has the translation and a handful of endnotes, the second has interpretive essays and a much looser, poetic, translation by Edwin Arnold. Published in 1944 so it's out of date, but still relevant since it's cited by later translators.

W.J. Johnson — Oxford World Classics. Johnson is a professor of indology, so it's probably quite accurate, but it only has a very brief introduction and a handful of endnotes. Doesn't use IAST.

Laurie L. Patton — Penguin Classics. Decent introduction and some endnotes. Several Sanskrit terms are left untranslated and are explained in the introduction instead, which helps preserve some of the nuances. However, each verse is broken into eight lines, which makes it hard to read as each line is so short it can't make sense by itself, so the meaning feel chopped up. Also, that doesn't reflect the formatting of the original Sanskrit, which has four lines per verse, so it seems like a pointless innovation to me.

>> No.14493797

thank you

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.