Talk:Upanishads/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why use an image of Shankaracharya for this article?

I don't think an image of Shankaracharya is the best choice for an article on Upanishads. He a scholar of Vedanta (Advaita Vedanta more specifically). His work with Upanishads are mostly in the form of commentaries that expound the doctrince of Advaita. There are other commentarators on the Upanishads like Madhavacharya and Ramanujam. An image like this one (used for the Rigveda) would be more suitable. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 21:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Removed. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Better yet an artist's rendition of Yajnavalkya if one could be found. Mitsube (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if we there is an accurate picture of Yajnavalkya. Mostly what's out there would be illustrations. I think it is best to folow the style adopted by the articles on scriptures of other religions, which is use images of the scriptures themsleves rather than of people. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 01:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image re-added. Sankaracharya's picture is in no way inappropriate here.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the articles on the Bible and the Quran. The images found in both articles are solely of the scriptures themselves, and not of any person(s); and they do not even contain images of the authors (St. Paul, Muhammad, e.t.c.). Sankaracharya did not author the Upanishads, he commented on them. There are many other commentrators. Why use his picture? Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 01:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed Image. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP policy on Images. There is no hard rule in WP which says only "authors" should be included. Instead of removing sankara's picture , try to include some other pics as well.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an experiment: try adding pictures of commentators to the articles on Bible, Quran. I'm certain that no one is going to let that happen, because such images don't belong to the article. An article should contain material that is relevant to the subject of article, and I'm sure WP policy supports that even if there might not be any "hard" rule on it. It's a bit misguiding to add Shankaracharya's picture at the very front the article. (Looks like he's the most important person w.r.t to Upanishads, which is not true since there are many other important commentrators). I'll move it to a more acceptable point in the article. Let's see if we can find an image of the scriptures themselves, that would be a good choice for the article image. BTW, Shakaracharya didn't found Advaita (it existed long before, see Gaudapada); rather he consolidated and propagated it. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 05:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "misguiding" in having sankara's pic there. Rest are all your povs. Instead of moving this pic, Please try adding more pics , if you have any. -Bharatveer (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try answering to the points I made, rather than make fallacious claims of POV? Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 04:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You didnt' ask any questions. As I said there is no fast rule in WP, which says only "founder's" pic should be inlcuded. Don't try to delete pictures from WP .-Bharatveer (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the rules decide this issue. The question is, does putting the picture on top equate somehow Shankara with the Upanishads? If so, then that is objectionable. He was influenced by other streams of thought besides what is written in the Upanishads, and his interpretation of them is not the only one or even the dominant one among Hindus today. Mitsube (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Try to include pictures of other commentator's too. But removing the picture is in no way the solution.Bharatveer (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Placing Shankara's picture on top does give him an undue importance with respect to the Upanishads and is therefore objectionable. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 15:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it syncs well with the description seen left side of the pic.-Bharatveer (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Shankara is notable to the Upanishads, so the article may well sport his image. But the image currently featured is highly dubious in terms of copyright. It was pulled off some website, and the website owner apparently gave "permission". Its author is unknown, and there is no evidence it is in any way a notable depiction of Shankara. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image questions (Feb 2010): Regarding images, Shankara is an important interpreter, but not the only interpreter. I have two questions: 1. Does anyone know of an image of Ramunaja that could potentially be used in this article (as well as in the article about him)? 2. Under what circumstances could we use the image of the Isha Upanished, now online HERE, via the website Indology.info, which claims it is the "The first Sanskrit manuscript on the World Wide Web". (The image is offered for noncommercial uses, but is not put in public domain) -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Two Problems

Dara Shikoh, a Muslim prince, invited Hindu pandits to come to Delhi, India, to assist him in translating the Upanishads from Sanskrit into Persian. As a result of this collaboration, the Upanishads eventually became known outside of India.

Arjun G. Menon doesn't want to mention the Hindu pandits in the subtitle of the section "Renown outside of India." He only wants the Islamic scholars mentioned in the subtitle. It is plain to see, however, that the translations were the result of a joint effort by both Hindus and Muslims. Problem Number 1: Why does Arjun G. Menon want to exclude mention of the Hindu pandits?

When I reverted the subtitle so that it mentioned both Hindus and Muslim scholars, Arjun G. Menon undid my reversion. He claimed that the subtitle "falls under Renown outside India, therefore it would be self-contradictory to say Hindu." However, according to the article, the translation was performed in Delhi, India by Hindus and Muslims. The purpose of the translations was that the Upanishads could be known outside of India. Therefore, the fact that they became known outside of India does not preclude the translations from having been performed inside of India by both Hindus and Muslims. Problem Number 2: Why is it self–contradictory to say, in a section entitled "Renown outside of India," that both Hindus and Muslims translated the Upanishads inside of India so that they could become known outside of India?

The old, effective methods of fire and sword cannot be used in Wikipedia to assert dominance. This "Talk: Upanishads" section is the place to exhibit the interesting, rational answers to the above problems which relate to the attempt to eliminate the mention of the Hindu pandits who helped to translate the Upanishads in Delhi, India in the 1650s.Lestrade (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Problem 1

Question: Why does Arjun G. Menon want to exclude mention of the Hindu pandits? Lestrade (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Answer: I did not exclude the mention of the Hindu pandits. All I have done is remove the word "Hindu" from the subtitle for reasons I will explain as answer to problem 2. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 20:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem 2

Question: Why is it self–contradictory to say, in a section entitled "Renown outside of India," that both Hindus and Muslims translated the Upanishads inside of India so that they could become known outside of India? Lestrade (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Answer: In my opinion "Renown outside India" means study/scholarship of the Upanishads outside India, or by people who were are not "Indian" culturally/enthnically/e.t.c. Dara Shikoh lived in India, but he was culturally non-Indian (as he/his family followed a religion that originated far from India). Thus, it would be self-contradictory to say "Hindu scholarship" under "Renown outside India". Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hindu (and Muslim) scholarship inside of India made it possible for the Upanishads to be known outside of India. Lestrade (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

"... scholarship inside of India made ...", so that's why this comes under the section "Renown outside India" ? Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 22:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Risky business

In the "Renown outside of India" section, Arjun G. Menon added the following sentence: "In his [Dara Shikoh's] translation, known by the name Sirr-e-Akbar (The Greatest Mystery), he states at the Introduction that the work referred to in the Qur'an as the ' Kitab al-maknun ' or the hidden book is none other than the Upanishads." Is it known whether Shikoh had to justify his translation of the Upanishads by asserting that they were really part of the Koran? Otherwise, would it have been dangerous for him to translate that Sanskrit Hindu scripture?Lestrade (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I took that sentence from the this section of the Dara Shikoh article. A search on Google for Kitab al-maknun lead to this web page, which asserts the same. The reliability of the page is rather questionable, if we can't find more sources for the claim let's have it removed from both articles.

I don't think Shikoh called the Upanishads Kitab al-maknun to justify their translation. Also, he does not assert them to be a part of the Qu'ran but claims that they are the work referred to in the Qur'an as the Kitab al-maknun. I believe he stated this (if he really said this) in a matter of fact way; not out of fear or as justification for translation. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 20:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Associated"

It would be a really good idea to say how or why (or both) various upanishads are associated with the various Vedas. Is there a cross-reference? Is there a schematic to assignments? Patrij (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

why is Shankara's image here?

There are many commentaries on the Upanishads. it is misleading to have his image in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyagaraja (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please offer alternative image! Redheylin (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it mandatory to have an image? Even if it were, this image has to go -- maybe we can put an image of Om. My point is Shankara wrote a commentary - his views on the subject. We wouldn't put up an image of Max Muller coz wrote a translation?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyagaraja (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are some idiots editing this article?

why does the introduction say middle of first millenium BC to make it perfectly vague? who the hell is getting hurt by stating possible time range for the two oldest Upanishads, Max Muller said that they are of no later vintage than 900BC. Also, does editors of wikipedia have a way to decide which reference is good and which is not, or is it random and arbitrary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skant (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from incivilities, especially those using colloquialisms of an unfamiliar language! Please also see editors guidelines on referencing. Max Muller is notable - but also 100 yrs old. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what are the acceptable date for Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya? Give your references. Why it doesn't say or shouldn't say 800-900BC to give proper idea of their antiquity and why it should say something that make them close to 500BC, which is not acceptable by anyone worth his honesty. Choice of language can be yours, you can use as civilized or not-so civilized language as you want.-skant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.184.77 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Etymology"

I have been trying to add one more meaning to the word Upa. Upa in most common usage means "near". But with in depth linguistic analysis of all modern languages we can conclude that the primary meaning of word "Upa" as "to elevate" or "to go higher". This gives the word meaning of Upanishad as "to elevate the self towards Brahman". In English "Up", in Hindi "Upar", in Kannada "Upparige" all use the same root "Upa" with the primary meaning.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpsaravu (talk • contribs)

Can you provide the source for this etymology ? If it is a oral discourse by Bannanje Govindacharya can provide as much information as you can about the audio or video recording, or published transcript ? Abecedare (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure I have the MP3 version of his Pravachanas recorded with me. Soon I will give the exact clipping of his discourse. In most of his Upanishad discourses he discuses this etymology.--Kpsaravu (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Eknath Easwaran

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner Duncan. Eknath Easwaran is not qualified in the area of Buddhist studies (or Hindu philosophy). The statements that the Upanishads are talking about the same things as the Dhammapada is simply not true. If for example you read Alexander Wynne's 2007 work The Origin of Buddhist Meditation you will see how the Buddha rejected the states described in the Upanishads as being the goal of religious practice. Most introductory texts on Buddhism, in fact, have material on this; the Buddha saw the meditative states already known in northern India at the time as constructed and impermanent; there was a need to go farther. That is why there is such a thing as Buddhism! The ideas in the Brahmanical religion about Self where rejected by the Buddha. They need to be dropped in order to attain liberation. In fact you can read more about this in the wikipedia at Buddhism and Hinduism#Soteriology, Buddhism and Hinduism#Upanishadic Self declared non-existent and other places.

A more general point is that wikipedia is written using reliable secondary sources. Eknath Easwaran may be an inspiring writer but his concern is not scholarly precision. Statements of the kind you added do not belong in wikipedia. Furthermore self-published material (he founded Nilgiri press) is generally not allowed: Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources. I don't think that his work on Buddhism (or Hindu philosophy) has previously been published by academic presses. Mitsube (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube, the quotation added by DuncanCraig1949 was added to a section entitled "Renown outside India", a subsection entitled "European scholarship". I am not sure that Easwaran's quotation belongs in a subsection with that title, but I disagree with the reasons you give. Others quoted in that section include Erwin Schroedinger, who to my knowledge is not an established scholar of either Hinduism or Buddhism (nor were several other 19th century philosophers quoted in that section, at least by modern standards). Thus, I think you are not applying sound reasoning, since your standards would seemingly imply that most or all of the entire section should be blanked. Easwaran is a notable and respected voice about the Upanishads as well as other Indian religious scriptures, and his translations of the Upanishads as well as Buddhist scripture (e.g., the Dhammapada) and the Bhagavad Gita are widely used (including in academic institutions), have been republished beyond Nilgiri Press (e.g., Penguin India; German re-translations), and have been praised highly by eminent scholars (e.g., Huston Smith - see HERE). So, although I agree with your statement that "his concern is not scholarly precision", there are other strengths/qualifications that are also relevant here, and I see many reasons why his perspectives should in principle be eligible for inclusion in this page. However, I am not sure that particular quote belongs in a section on "European scholarship" (and I am not, at least for now, proposing any concrete alternatives, since there are multiple considerations about ensuring an addition is an improvement). -- Health Researcher (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no good reason to include Schrodinger's opinion either. I don't really object to it because it's clearly just his opinion. But then when someone makes a false allegation about Buddhism that is not acceptable. Easwaran's translations might be good (I don't know, I haven't looked at any), but translation and analysis are quite different. Mitsube (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mitsube, and thanks for entering into discussion on this. I don't think Easwaran was saying that the Upanishads, the Bhagavada Gita and the Dhammapada "are talking about the same things" - but what they clearly represent is a lineage of Indian spiritual writings, in the same way that the Old Testament and the New Testament show the lineage of Judaeo/Christian thinking (I apologise in advance if you personally feel that Judaism and Christianity cannot be linked in this way - I don't mean to offend here, just to offer a simile). When I first read the Upanishads (in translation) I couldn't figure out what they were trying to say, but this particular quote from Easwaran really helped me understand how that Indian spiritual lineage could be looked at and comprehended. That's why I wanted to include it in wikipedia - I'm not sure which of the many wikipedia rules and guidelines might apply here, but for me an encyclopedia does a service to its readers if it helps them understand what is being described. I think the other quotes in this section also enhance the reader's comprehension and that's why I offered it here.DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Duncan. It is very important to keep in mind that the various Indian traditions have stark differences with one another. Glossing over these differences belittles them all, I think. In the case of Easwaran, he seems to have tried to find common ground, which is perfectly fine. But suggesting that the Dhammapada provides the guide to ascending the peaks described in the Upanishads is not right. That is not what the Dhammapada is about. Not being a scholar of Buddhism, Easwaran would likely not have known just why not, so he can't be blamed. Also the Bhagavad Gita is not saying the same thing as (many of the) Upanishads either; the latter texts are often non-theistic, while the BG is quite theistic. If you want to parse the statement so as to say what you said above, i.e., "According to Easwaran, the Upanishads descibe goals of Hindu religious practice rather than the path to the goals" that would be fine with me. Mitsube (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitsube, for your help on getting this right. I'd prefer to keep closer to Easwaran's original text rather than interpret it myself into something he may not have exactly meant, so how would you feel about the following text:

Eknath Easwaran in translating the Upanishads tells how they "form snapshots of towering peaks of consciousness taken at various times by different observers and dispatched with just the barest kind of explanation"

That would still get across the overview of them that helped me with reading the translations and inspired me to persevere with them.

DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for collaborating. Mitsube (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you too! Have made the change as above. DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dating

I have a question regarding when they were written down! If Lord Krishna spoke about Upanishads in Bhagavath Geetha some where around 3000BC, this means upanishads are already existing by that time. so how come they were dated around 1st Millenium BCE? Could any one please explain me?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish rdkb (talk • contribs) 05:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Bhagavad Gita is certainly not 5000 years old. Bhagavad#Date_and_text may be worth checking out. -Pollinosisss (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why may I ask...

is another Wikipedia page used as a source for one of the contentions of the article? I'm extremely confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRouxEMP (talk • contribs) 07:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Should not happen: please remove, either supplying or requesting a proper citation. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

around When were the Middle Upanishads written?

The section of Meditation about Hinduism, located at Meditation#Hinduism needs a mention of the date in time around which The Middle Upanishads were written. makeswell (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking about the Principal Upanishads (which is the default assumption in literature), take a look at newly added content here: Upanishads#Chronology. Let me know if you are looking anything more specific than this. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Caste system in the Upanishads and Vedas

With reference to the removal of content related to caste system and criticism of Upanishads in a recent series of edits,[1] the following sources may be of help to User:Tempaccount1234567 and others:

• Ranade has an elaborate discussion on pages 59-60 about the caste system mentioned in the oldest of the Upanishads, the Brihadaranyaka (For Ranade details, check the sources you removed from the article)
• For caste system in the Vedas check: Chowdhry, Tarapada (1956), Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (ed.), History of Philosophy Eastern and Western, George Allen and Unwin Limited, p. 46
• Numerous other authors talk about the caste system in the Upanishads and Vedas. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

User:Tempaccount1234567, User:Needproof, IP addresses: 122.164.80.169, 122.164.82.129, 122.164.80.4 - please take a look at the cited sources for evidence on the caste system in the Vedas and Upanishads and STOP ruining the article!

Caste system in the Upanishads: [2] Caste system in the Vedas: [3]

The article is awaiting a Good Article review and your non-constructive efforts may cause a setback in getting it listed as a GA. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Ambdekar on Hinduism is same as quoting Malcom X on Christianity

There seems to be excessive temptation to quote Indian dalit writers on this topic. Their views have some validity but are sometimes peppered with excessive hostility and emotional reaction. Quoting these writers in the lead sections and giving them WP:UNDUE is same as quoting Farrakhan and Malcom X in the lead of articles about Christianity. It is neither fair to Hindus nor to Chrisitans, and above all, it is not fair to the objectivity and the cause of Wikipedia. Editors should see to--History Sleuth (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC) it that wikipedia articles are not turing into WP:Soapbox for any interest group, however valid their greivance might be. The remarks of these Dalit writers need to be treated respectfully but only with proper weight in the criticism section. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit restored the article to a vandal and sockpuppets version.[4] You removed 30% of Ambedkar content and 70% of Radhakrishanan, Ranade and other good sources - see above [5]. The article is now damaged in the lead and other places and it now provides wrong information about Vedas being one of the three scriptures on which the later vedantic schools have been based. I'm requesting you to undo your edit and remove the allegedly contentious content about Ambedkar manually. We can then have a discussion here about how and whether to include Ambedkar or Huxley quotes. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is presumable that you made such a complex edit so that your additions could not be easily reverted. I support History Sleuth's edit. Please do not add unsourced, undue criticism to the lead of a major topic. — goethean ॐ 00:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just fixing typos and Wikilinks. I'm wondering why you called it rm poorly-written addition to lead in your edit summary - was it the choice of words or the content or both? The quote from Huxley was well sourced. So, why undue? Just trying to understand and learn. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Huxley is not known for his knowledge of the Upanishads — at all. He is known as an enemy of religion. So it is unsurprising that someone searching for a negative comment about an important book would find Huxley convenient. Maybe you should try adding some of your NPOV wisdom to the lead of Bible or Shakespeare and see how far you get. — goethean ॐ 02:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

An atheistic critique should be admissible to the Upanishads article - just my opinion. Adding a balanced amount of criticism actually improves an article, not just from a Wikipedia standpoint but it also paints a more accurate picture of the people who follow these scriptures. Every single genuine guru, sadhu and even the ritualistic priests I have met embrace criticism directed towards any of the Hindu scriptures. Maybe they are just confident and know exactly where the Hindu scriptures stand. Sorry, I have no interest venturing to the Shakespeare and Bible articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Critcism that is fair is based on the content of doctrine not its practioners. Most of the Ambedkarites (himself included) are more focussed on the perceived foibles of the practioners than the content of Upnishdadic doctrine itself. I am sure Hindus are responsible for may abuses just like Christians, Muslims and everybody else...but to use the behavior of the adherents of a faith to judge its doctrinal content is problematic. I am sure if one were to judge the doctrinal points of Christianity through the slave trade, heresy hunting and witch-burning sanctioned by many Churches (both Catholic and Protestant), it is not going to be fair to Christianity as a doctrine. Same applies to Upnishads. Despite the abuses committed by people who claimed to follow them , there have been numerous reform movements within Hinduism which have derived inspiration from the monistic teaching of Upnishads. Many Dalit Hindu saints like Ravidas , Kabir, Namdev, etc have taught what was directly or indirectly inspired by Upnishads.

Ambedkarites are in likness and image of Nation of Islam critics of Christianity. While what they say does carry a perspective but it is by no means always scholarly or even mainstream as regards as the content of the doctrine is concerned because it is deeply wedded to a radical ideology of social engineering. The critique of the scripture is conditioned by this overarching agenda which renders it citable only as a fringe viewpoint of a radical political outfit.--History Sleuth (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambedkar was a scholar of religion as well. Mitsube (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So was Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan still is. They have written great impassioned critiques of Christianity from the perspective of Black Americans. If Ambedkar wrote anything about the doctrine, not what was allegedly done by the practitioners of doctrine, it could perhaps be citable with proper weight. Otherwise, it belongs to appropriate section, i.e Criticism with proper sub-heading as "social impact" ...there again it would need to be balanced with the experiences of Dalit Hindu saints like Ravidas who felt no need to criticize them and were adherents of Bhakti school which was disrectly inspired by Ramanuja's exegesis on Upnidhads. Bhakti lineages of which Dalit saints like Ravidas, Kabir, etc were important part all trace back to Ramanuja's Viśiṣṭādvaita interpretation of Upnishads --History Sleuth (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The analogies being drawn between Malcom X, Farrakhan and Ambedkar commit the false analogy fallacy. Two points here:

1. We need a line of criticism here to make this is a GA and perhaps an FA someday.
2. If there's such a strong reaction to Ambedkar, we can use Huxley as stated below Talk:Upanishads#Adviatia_doesn.27t_belong_to_the_lead.2FIntroduction but my preference is for Ambedkar since his actions attacked relevant substance of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad directly. Moreover, his act of converting to Buddhism as a reaction to his disappointment with the Hindu scriptures have had a lasting, long and very serious impact on Indian history of religion. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no false analogy here. The only thing that is being emphasized is that a wikipedia article should not be manipulated as WP:Soapbox for any special interest group wedded to a radical political ideology like Ambedkarism. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ambedkar criticism does not fit in to any of these five soapbox categories - advocacy, opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion, advertising. It's wrong to put it under WP:Soapbox. Ambedkar was a highly educated person with a doctorate of philosophy (LSE, Ivy League). He has thought and spoken a lot about religion and his thoughts have been translated in to action by his conversion to Buddhism. I see him as the best Hindu critic on Hindu scriptures. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not Amdedkar that is the issue but the way a wp:fringe view of an outfit with political ideology is being given prominence even though it does not direcly focus on any doctrinal critique of the text under consideration and has an obvious conflict of interest. Amdedkar was about as much Hindu as Salman Rushdie is a Muslim. Nobody can challenge Rushdie's erudition on the subject. Are the editors willing to quote him in the lead about article on Islam? Advocacy of a viewpoint can be easily pushed on wikipedia through WP:Undue. (Comment by History Sleuth)

There's no political ideology in the Ambedkar statement. Ambedkar is measuring the effectiveness of the Upanishads very pragmatically - by examining whether it caused the Hindus to change their discriminative social behavior. He finds it does not. IMO, this is most stinging and pragmatic critique as opposed to the complex doctrinal speculation about the true nature of the ultimate reality and the self. Moreover some critics have said that the doctrine of the Upanishads is very simple, i.e., Brahman=Atman. Also, that a critique has to be doctrinal is your POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised you could make such a statement. Ambedkar's primary preoccupation was with caste and this should not even require a testimony. His views, i.e, Ambedkarism is a full blown political movement in India. He was wedded to the ideology of social reorganization, much like Nation of Islam movement which wanted to tear down Christianity to erase the blot of slavery. Upnishads, Bible, and other scriptures are essentially doctrinal texts. The critique of these texts has to be based on thier content first and foremost. Their social ramifications are a side bar. Why don't you quote Malcom X in the lead about Christianity stating that 'äccording to Malcom X Bible contributed to slavery'? There are actually direct quotes in Bible that support slavery, while Upnishads carry only vague references to caste. One passage in Chhandogya Upnishad actually implies that caste is purely based on character, not birth , of a person. Amdekar's commentary would certainly merit inclusion but only as a fringe view when there is mountain of critical literature available on Upnishads addressing their actual content. Note: I am not able to contribute to Wikipedia regularly anymore.--History Sleuth (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The article in the current form is stable and I've decided to not to attempt to include the Ambedkar quote since experience shows that the article won't be stable. As a result this discussion is now moot. The bottomline though is that the Upanishads and the Gita both endorse the caste system. This is seen as a problem in present day no matter how immense their doctrinal accomplishments. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

GA icon shows up but no review!

I recently improved & expanded this article significantly and then nominated it for a GA review. A GA icon [[6]] showed up in the right hand top corner but no GA review was given and the article is still in the list of GA nominations. I was really looking forward to the review/feedback. Do the long time users know if this is an error? Zuggernaut (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with this Redtigerxyz. It was clearly a work of a vandal [7] placed strategically so that it was hard to detect and I missed it. I will check more to see if there are any inappropriate links towards the end of the article. Thanks again. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dating

It is better to use up-to-date scholarship on the dates of the Upanishads, such as King. The more scholars have looked at this the closer the Upanishads have gotten to us in time. Bronckhorst even argues that all of the Upanishads are post-Buddhist but that is a minority view. Does anyone have access to Olivelle on this? To say that all of the mukhya Upanishads are post-Buddhist is quite silly. Mitsube (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is Olivelle: [8]. We should probably use something like what he says. He has five of them as pre-Buddhist. He's a good authority on early Sanskrit texts, but he might be quoting some old information. King seems to know something Olivelle doesn't. Maybe we should quote both with attribution? Mitsube (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we should present the latest and most accurate dates. I have rephrased the line in the lead to say something to the effect "the oldest of the mukhya Upanishads date to pre-Buddhist times". Zuggernaut (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In the intro I think it is probably best to say something more vague, like "the oldest of the Upanishads date to pre-Buddhist times". Also there seems to be an undue emphasis on mukhya vs. non-mukhya especially in the intro. Mitsube (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with keeping it vague since there are differing opinions. Regarding the new Upanishads, isn't that the real situation? No writer performs any analysis of them.Zuggernaut (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica quotes dates of 500-200 BCE for the principal Upanishads and as they (EB) would presumably like to offer themselves as a reliable authority on current scholarship would likely have some reason for such a brazen difference with dates shown here. This seems to suggest that the Upanishads appeared around the same time or after Buddhist ideas. --67.49.245.122 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Adviatia doesn't belong to the lead/Introduction

This is an article focused on the Upanishads and while the Upanishads, the Brahmasutra and the Gita may have influenced Vedantic schools such as Advaita, there's no need to over emphasize Advaita in the article. Particularly, the lead/introduction section should have information that's only directly relevant to the Upanishads - no need to have Advaita here. I have restored the lead as follows:

The Upanishads (Devanagari: उपनिषद्, IAST: Upaniṣad, also spelled "Upaniṣad") are a collection of more than 200 philosophical texts of the Hindu religion. The first dozen or so texts are the most important, and they are variously referred to as the Principal Upanishads, mukhya or main Upanishads, and the old Upanishads. The oldest of the mukhya Upanishads were composed during the pre-Buddhist era of India, and have been passed down the generations in oral tradition. The mukhya Upanishads hold the stature of revealed texts or shruti amongst Hindu scriptures. Along with the Bhagavad Gita, and the Brahmasutra,[1] the mukhya Upanishads provide a foundation for several later schools of Indian philosophy.

The Upanishads do not belong to any particular period of Sanskrit literature. The oldest, such as the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads, date to the late Brahmana period around the middle of the first millennium BCE, while the new Upanishads were composed in the medieval and early modern period; discoveries of newer Upanishads were being reported as late as 1926.[2] The newest Upanishads are known to be imitations of the mukhya Upanishads. The Upanishads are collectively considered amongst the 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written by the British poet Martin Seymour-Smith.

One new Upanishad, the Muktika Upanishad, predates 1656[3] and contains a list of 108 canonical Upanishads[4], listing itself as the final one. Dara Shikoh, son of the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan, translated fifty Upanishads into Persian in 1657. The first written English translation came in 1804 from Max Müller; he was aware of 170 Upanishads. Sadhale's catalog from 1985 is called the Upaniṣad-vākya-mahā-kośa and it lists 223 Upanishads.[5] The Upanishads are mostly the concluding part of the Brahmanas and the transition from the latter to the former is identified as the Aranyakas.[6]

An additional line can be added if we can reach consensus:

On the one hand, the ideas of the Upanishads are said to have made the greatest contribution to human thought and on the other, Huxley states that the voluminous work can be reduced to only a few words, i.e., the equation of Brahman with the Atman.

Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised you make a statement like this. Why is there such an emphasis on what Huxley said? Advaita of Adi Sankara and Ramanuja are the most influential and notable schools of Vedanta (and Hindu revival in general) and both draw heavily , in terms of doctrine and authority, from their interpretation of Upnishads. To leave them out of the lead would be a significant omission. I have added them to the lead with a reference. More references establishing the notablity of the link would not be very difficult to find. I request you do not remove them again without establishing consensus. thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not my statement nor my feeling. I'm just presenting what Huxley said to see if editors can add and keep half a sentence of criticism which will help make this a good article. Sure, Upanishads influenced Advaita but we have a separate article for Advaita where that connection could be analyzed in detail. The focus of this article is the Upanishads and this statement #5 in the lead includes all schools of Vedanta "Along with the Bhagavad Gita, and the Brahmasutra,[1] the mukhya Upanishads provide a foundation for several later schools of Indian philosophy." The line you have added back about Advaita is WP:UNDUE Zuggernaut (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would again beg to respectfully differ with you on this. WP:UNDUE does not apply in this case because without the exponents of Advaita who wrote extensive exegeses on Upanishads, these texts would not have survived in popular Hindu imagination. Advaita is a specific and most influential interpretation of Upanishads that has a direct bearing on the doctrinal content of the texts. Adi Sankara's and Ramanuja's exegetical works on Upanishads and their mutual critique , comprises some of the most notable polemics about the doctrinal content of the texts.Adi Sankara and Ramanuja are simply notable for the lead because of leaving behind extensive exegeses on these texts. The Advaita interpretation of Upanishads, prvovided in these exegeses, later inspired Neo-Vedanta movement in 19th century and many aspects of Europoean indology. If you want to present the doctrinal criticism of Upanishads perhaps scholars like Robert Charles Zaehner or Albert Schweitzer would be more suitable as they focused more on docrinal aspects of the texts rather than their ramifications for caste or race relations, which is a fair but very topical issue. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Some problems with your argument: (1) Given that lower castes (the majority) were deliberately and by design excluded from obtaining access to the Upanishads for thousands of years, how can you term it as "popular Hindu imagination"? It's an oxymoron. (2) Surely proponents of the various Vedantic schools were important figures and they might have played a role in preserving the Upanishads but the tangible contributions in long-term preservation and transmission of the Upanishads came from Akbar, Dara Sikoh and the Europeans who wrote them down. For these and other reasons, I feel Shankara and Ramanuja don't belong in the lead. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Upanishads and Advaita are to each other what Christianity and New Testament are to each other. To exclude Advaita's reference from the lead of an article about Upanishads is like excluding the reference to Christianity in an article about New Testament. Advaita derives its authority from Upanishads which are part of Vedas. Adi Sankara and Ramanuja wrote the most notable exegeses on Upanishads. They are citable in the lead for just this reason alone. Lets seek the opinion of third party editors if we are not able to agree on this. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Gaudapada, etc are all important people. They find mention in an appropriate section [9]. What you are proposing is captured concisely in this statement very early in the lead Along with the Bhagavad Gita, and the Brahmasutra,[1] the mukhya Upanishads provide a foundation for several later schools of Indian philosophy. In general we should keep content directly relevant to the Upanishads in the lead. For example, instead of mentioning Shankara and Ramanuja, we should mention Yajnavalkya and Uddalaka. I will do that shortly but I will keep your additions till we reach a consensus. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Adi Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhavacharya are three most important interpreters of Upanishadic canon. All later commentators, including the Westerners, use their commentaries to argue one position or the other. They are as important to Upanishads as St. Paul and St. Augustine are to Christianity. I would be interested in seeing how other editors could argue a different position just for curiousity sake. The references to these exegetes of Upanishads are "directly relevant to the Upanishads in the lead." They are as relevant to the lead as Yajnavalkya and Uddalaka who would not be known as well to the world outside without the works left by the founders of three rival schools of Hinduism. Please give sufficient time, i.e 3-4 weeks, for conensus to emerge. Many other earlier contributors may not be aware of this process but may have useful contributions. We will miss thier valuable inputs if we try to rush this through. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been about three weeks since that edit. I think we should go ahead and remove it since other editors don't seem to mind. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Huxley is WP:UNDUE in the lede, as he is not an authority on the Upanishads. If you wanted to mention a Westerner, Schopenhauer would be appropriate. Mitsube's introduction is well-sourced, well-written, and I support it. — goethean ॐ 16:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Huxley was an agnostic commenting on a theistic school of thought. Also Paul Deussen basically said the same thing in even fewer words "...the fundamental thought of the entire Upanishad philosophy may be expressed by the simple equation Brahman=Atman". Because of those reasons, I don't think it's WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In the intro it is more important to focus on what the Upanishads actually say, as opposed to what men who lived over a millenium later claimed that they say, for their own reasons. So the intro could touch on the various ideas in the Upanishads. I put some quotes in footnotes in the article that could be used for that. Mitsube (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement as far as leaving out the founders of the Vedanta schools is concerned. However, we should make an exception to Ambedkar and allow 1/2 a line from him. This is justified, IMO, because he is the only scholar since the composition of the Upanishads (and other Hindu scriptures) who has had a tangible impact on the social order of the Hindus. For example, he started the practice of Hindu outcasts/untouchables converting to Buddhism to escape sub-human treatment from caste Hindus. Huge swaths of such Hindus have converted to Buddhism following him in his own conversion leading to a 112063.29% increase in the Buddhist population of India.[10] This alone sets him apart from the founders of the various schools of Vedanta, however great their doctrinal, intellectual and spiritual accomplishments. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Ambedkar's statements are very important certainly. And I would accept having some notable views in the intro. But I would think that the most important thing is to say in the intro is what the Upanishads actually say. Mitsube (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine including a reference to the BU, I.4.11-15 which describes the caste system. We can say something like - "Four verses of the oldest of the Upanishads, the Brihadaranyaka, contain a brief endorsement of the universally despised caste system." Zuggernaut (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede's just too long. Redheylin (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to make space by keeping only content that's relevant to the Upanishads. Zuggernaut (talk)

Should tables be converted to text?

During a recent GA review for another article I was given feedback that tables should be converted to prose. Any ideas how how we can tackle this for Upanishads? Should we convert all tables to text? Zuggernaut (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does what you were told about some other article have any relevance to this article? What strikes me as more relevant is if you see something in WP:TABLE that would suggest a change here. Barring a specific argument that is found compelling, let's keep the present tables. Health Researcher (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right - it was a different article and may not have much to do with Upanishads but I was asked multiple times to remove the tables and the second opinion was the same.. WP:TABLE has enough reasons for us to keep the tables. If it comes up in a review we can point to it. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Importance (or lack thereof) of "New Upanishads"

In view of the article's statement that "the mukhya Upanishads provide a foundation for several later schools of Indian philosophy (vedanta), among them, two influential monistic schools of Hinduism", I wonder if the article lede as now written is giving somewhat undue importance (WP:UNDUE) to the "New" Upanishads? For example, why is about half of the first paragraph devoted to the "New" Upanishads? They certainly merit being mentioned in the article. But from the composition of the first 80% of the lede, one almost gets the impression that the New Upanishads are as important as the mukhya Upanishads. (that is, by its composition, most of the lede almost contradicts its very brief opening remark that the mukhya are "most important")

Perhaps the IP's recent deletion of several sentences about the New Upanishads went too far. But maybe diminishing their importance in the lede would be a good thing? What are our objective resources / reference points for calibrating the relative importance of the mukhya versus the new Upanishads? Do any scholars offer paraphrasable generalizations about the influence (or lack thereof) of the "new" Upanishads? Health Researcher (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the new Upanishads aren't that important and if the reader reads the entire lead section, he will get the right picture. I have not come across authors who talk much about the new Upanishads. And in general, when they refer to Upanishads, they are almost always referring to the mukhya Upanishads by default. Something related and worth noting here - Wikipedia has a separate article for Mukhya Upanishads but not for the new Upanishads. If anyone has sources that deal with the new Upanishads in detail, please provide links/book titles - it would be an interesting topic to read. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Upanishads/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found and fixed seven.[11] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: one found and tagged.[12] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Stray sentence at the end of the lead needs to be consolidated with the preceding paragraph. Y

   The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD Y

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citation needed tags from August 2010 need addressing. Y

   I added one more citation needed tag. After this, the Upanishads were rapidly translated into Dutch, Polish, Japenese and Russian Y

   Assume good faith for off-line sources, sources appear reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The oldest of these, the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads, were composed during the pre-Buddhist era of India Needs a date as the reader may not be familiar with the pre-Bhuddist era. Y

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images tagged and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

   Fine, thanks for fixing those issues. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

I've addressed the GA review recommendations in the following manner:

GA criterion 1(b)

• Updated lead to include a summary of praise and criticism for completeness [13]
• Merged the stray sentence withe the paragraph above it [14]

GA criterion 2(a)

• Provided citations or deleted content with {{cn}} tags for which I have not been able to find sources [15] [16]

GA criterion 3(a)

• Provided the dates of Buddhas birth and death for defining the term "pre-Buddhist" [17] Zuggernaut (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Good news - Upanishads is now a GA!

I would like to thank everyone who spent time and contributed to the article, particularly:

User:Jezhotwells
User:Resident_Mario
User:Redheylin
User:Dbachmann
User:Mitsube
User:SMasters
User:Goethean
User:Buddhipriya
User:Bharatveer

Zuggernaut (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Like I said, a good PR and a GAN will come easy =) Congrats, ResMar 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, and well done – a fine example of teamwork. - S Masters (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not mix up Friedrich Schrader (1865-1922) and Friedrich Otto Schrader (1876-1961)

Friedrich Schrader (1865-1922) and de:Friedrich Otto Schrader (1876-1961) are two German scholars who are often intermixed in references.

F. O. Schrader was a renowned professor of Indology in Germany and probably the one referenced in this article. To make things more complicated, the other F. Schrader also started his academic career in Indology, as a student of Richard Pischel, for whom he translated an ancient vedic text, the Karmapradipa. Schrader translated the first Prapathaka in 1889, the second Prapathaka was translated by Alexander von Stael-Holstein, also a student of Pischel. However, the older Friedrich Schrader moved to Constantinople in 1891 and lived there until 1918. He became famous as a writer, publisher, newspaper editor and art historian, corresponding with many eminent scholars like de:Martin Hartmann, Theodor Wiegand, Carl Heinrich Becker, and de:Eugen Mittwoch.

--Ischtiraki (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Authorship editing

Please talk before reverting changes , Their is no historical document or proof of noteing an author to the upanishads , as they have been edited and changed with time and no single author has ever claimed or writer ship any where in history . Shrikanthv (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Please go through any one of upanishads before commenting on what it has or not , as texts does not remotly say about who is thier author. the names mentioned are fitctional charecters , where the talking start between the charecters and are not authors and nowhere their is a mention that they even existed.

Regarding recent POV-pusing

It is unacceptable to relabel Textual criticism as "misunderstanding." It is unacceptable to replace properly cited scholarly references with personal interpretations of incomplete citations. Such incomplete citations (such as The upanishads, 2004 "The Upanishads" World library literary society) fail to distinguish between commentary on the source text (which should be properly attributed instead of misplacing with the source text), editor interpretation of the source text (which Wikipedia does not accept), and the source text itself (which seems less likely); and without the page numbers it is impossible for other editors to verify the context or even the quality of the work. I cannot assume both good faith or competence with such faulty citations. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Are these edits by ForestTeacher?SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they're by Shrikanthv (see link in previous post). ForestTeacher has done a lot which I think needs sorting through, but nothing along the lines of what happened in the edit I provided. As far as I've seen, ForestTeacher uses citations already in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok. A lot of editing recently. I hope atleast you can make sense of it and double check things. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

First, Ian Thomson has done an excellent job by keeping the article readable and to-the-point. I admit that Shrikanthv's complaint about the authorship section is somewhat valid - it needs some changes, considering that Yajnavalkya and Uddalaka aruni and others are not likely to be the actual names of the composers of the Upanishads they feature in (in the unlikely event that they each had only one composer).

Second, I removed the Sramana religion quote from the lead. Saibaba, every single aspect of "fully orthodox" Hinduism has influence from all sorts of non-Vedic sources, starting from the Rigveda downwards. The Rigveda itself, 3500 years old, has words which many authors believe were Dravidian in origin. So it is a moot point to say that the Upanishads are considered fully orthodox Sruti "although they show sramanic influence". Shiva and Subramanya and Durga and Ganesha can be considered "fully orthodox" gods, in spite of their obviously non-Vedic origins. And the Upanishad article clearly mentions the Buddhist influences on many Upanishads, not just once but multiple times, to drive home the point very well to the readers. You could add the quotes about Sramanic influence in the development part of the article, though I doubt that would add any information that the article doesnt already contain. What exactly does "fully orthodox" even mean? Is there any such clear demarcation?ForestTeacher (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Shramana is not synonymous with Buddhism, or any of the other things you mention. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You have not provided an answer to my questions, my dear Saibaba. Never mind. I do appreciate your rephrasing of your sentence to say that the Upanishads were influenced by the Sramana movement, instead of saying that there was something suspicious about them being accepted as "fully orthodox". ForestTeacher (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to bring to your notice something from your own reference, Indian History from TMH, page 120, top left corner. "The Upanishads were used as a textbook and reference point not only by orthodox thinkers throughout religious history, but also by Nastika dissdents. Buddhist texts, for example, are rich with material drawn from the early Upanishads." I would like to add that to the article as well, if you are so insistent on keeping this Shramana business in the lead.ForestTeacher (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you were right that this is all too much for the lead. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong notion of things

I do not understand Why the article only has to quote from a book which is unknown to the world, and may not have any supportive evidence in them , and how is Critisim a fact when the entire thing is just a view of a single person. and how come it is judged as right without even remote evidence, I do question Mr Ian weather he has had read a single line of upanishads ? or ever had make any sence of it ? It is wrong to put this things until and unless a collective opinion is made. currently article balantly directs the reader to the notion that upanishads are work of mediocre men . A false notion to Wiki readers.Shrikanthv (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOR: Personal opinions and views on the subject do not matter. Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, we only summarize what academic sources have to say on the subject. Some authors have discussed certain concepts, and we summarize what they have to say. It is relevant, it is given due weight, and the sources meet the reliable source guidelines.

Wikipedia is unconcerned with what is "true," but only with summarizing reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored. If that does not appeal to you, you do not have to be here.

Furthermore, I would think followers of any religious text would want people to learn about their authors. If they are divine works, then a human hand writing them would not tarnish the ideas they contain, and criticism would not trouble the mind of the faithful. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have decided not to fight you , but to fight for truth . I am not informing that the texts (upanishads ) do not have criticism but the stated is totally false and even not matching with books mentioned as citation and I have read through the reliable source guildlines myself and some of the authors has no authoratitive knowledge on the subject. I reject your summary of data as they are not true. I am not apealed or disapealed by any of the things , i am just against the false notion , thanks for showing me out of wiki, you are not the owner . Again have you read single line of upanishads ? Shrikanthv (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal knowledge and personal truths have no meaning, no purpose, no value on this site. Again, see WP:NOR. We do not accept editors with agendas. You have not demonstrated in any way that the sources cited do not match the information given. Please provide quotes from the sources cited in those sections, such as Mahadevan's History of Philosophy Eastern and Western or Murray Mitchell's Hinduism past and present that demonstrate that the article is misrepresenting what those sources have to say on the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ShrikanthV: You may not be aware that the sources we are using in this article are not so much the Upanishads themselves but documents that others have written about the Upanishads. You are correct that the Upanishads do not say who wrote them but there are scholars who have studied that question and we use their publications as sources. The most constructive editors here are as familiar with those scholarly sources as with the Upanishads themselves. Some of this is explained in the policy on types of sources where the distinction is made between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. In this article the Upanishads are the main primary sources, scholarly texts are the main secondary sources and encyclopedias and other high level treatments of the Upanishads are tertiary sources. Wikipedia mainly uses secondary sources because they are likely to provide the most reliable details. Jojalozzo 02:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr Jojalozzo , I do understand the sources and types of sources you have considered here , except for your quotes, from others i can see their is only tantrum and verbal abuse thrown at people . it is just simply some one has to prove superior without analysing the subject with neutral point of view. what if their were books about jesus informing that he did not exist published by authors who were not authoratitive on the subject but mere making guess out of history like e.g da-vinci code , the secoundary sources said above are not written by authors which are not well versed in the subject . and example of the author John Murray Mitchell was was a religious preacher from UK who came to India (with chritian ideology and agenda )and some how he had to make british proud, and i reject him of being authoritative about Upanishads , as he had no prior knowledge of Indian culture and writings, you can also find that the only other book he has written is about islam ,which is again was suiting to his requirement for Indian agenda. how would he ever consider to have a neutral view point on religious subject matter ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 09:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Again as allways i get to be shown a bunch of rules and regulations to be read.

I do not have an agenda , Please stop labelling people.(Mr Ian )

I am going to add the real critcism by one of the authoritative figures about the subject Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan from his book The Principal Upanishads (book) again please refer to the author he is no religious preacher nor has biased state of mind like the authors of sources already stated here . he was well versed in theology and christianism too. and again himself was President of India (hope this mathches the authoritative figure needed by wiki rules and i will not delete the previous as it seems that it was seen as truth by some people before. Shrikanthv (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another qoute from Dr A. E. Gough Was again a british officer who saw India first time in his life in 1800, and is book again titled 'Philosophic Speculations of the Upanishads ' ; A. E. Gough the above statement is clear enough for anyone to understand that it was his mere "Speculations" not even closer to becoming a secoundary work Shrikanthv (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Mr David J Kalupahana Was a Buddhist preacher , I do not accept this source and cannot have a neutral point of view , as each religious people have their own agenda to portray and allways try to falsify other religious writings Shrikanthv (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you're confusing devotion with scholarly examination. You also misunderstand the WP:NPOV policies: editors are not supposed to put their personal views into the article. However, published author's personal views on a subject may be presented as long as they are presented as their views. The views in the Criticism section are presented as the authors' views, not as objective facts.

Regarding "books about jesus informing that he did not exist": this article does not dispute the historical existence of the various authors of the Upanishads (as I recall, you were the one downplaying their involvement). The Jesus article cites a great deal of agnostic, atheist, and other non-Christian historians; and describes the views of Mandaeans (who thought Jesus was a false prophet), the Jews' and Muslims' rejection of any claim of Jesus's divinity, as well as the irreligious idea that Jesus was a mythical figure. The Christ Myth idea is not disputed by Wikipedia's editors' own views, nor with religious sources, but with academic sources. Dan Brown's ideas are not dismissed by pointing out his religious beliefs or his nationality, but by comparing them with historical findings. Your dismissal of Murray Mitchell, Gough, and Kalupahana on the grounds of their religion and their ethnicity is at least as biased as you present them to be. If someone dismissed an author simply because they were Indian, you'd find that disgusting, wouldn't you? How do you accept your own dismissal of those authors based off of race and religion, then?

Following the example of the Jesus article, if you wish to counter the Authorship section, you would need sources specifically criticizing Mahadevan's work for soddy scholarship, not because of his religion or nationality. As for countering the Criticism section, the "Worldwide transmission" section balances out with it quite well.

Once again, you failed to provide any quotes from those authors contrary to our summary of their views. Please explain why you used the edit summary "source not matching with the information" when the information in the article matches the sources cited for that information. Gough's views are attributed to Gough and you admit that Gough criticised the Upanishads, so how is it possible that the source cited does not match the information provided? Please use more truthful edit summaries in the future. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MR Ian for being " specific " and not blaming me "directly". again my recent additions are not of my thinking but of the authors and regarding your information about my former edits , may be i reacted and i was wrong (in terms of wiki edition) and as you could have seen it i deleted it myself. seriously i am not dismissing your statements just because that you may be a christian. again regarding dismissing of authors be careful here i am not differentiating them only by religious or citizenship there were more information given on them . Eg. Mr John Murray Mitchell was a religious "preacher" , i informed about him not just because he was a christian but a "preacher" and his bias can also be proved by his books "Hinduism past and present: with an account of recent Hindu reformers and a brief comparison between Hinduism and Christianity" please quote the full name of the book in references . again you can see here he was mere trying to differentiate religions and again his second book just compares islam with christianism. there would be suffecient amount of evidence of bias. now i am not talking against Thomas Huxley here do I ? , he had his views and i accept it and he was no preacher or attached to christianism preaching. and regarding false citation i am talking about ranade 1956 , which is completely false as he has not mentioned it as the article portrays. Shrikanthv (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New Criticism additions

Some new sections were added to the Criticism section recently. I edited them for grammar and flow but I'm not sure if they belong in that section. As I understand the purpose of the Criticism section, it is where social and philosophical issues related to the intent of the Upanishads' authors are presented. These new sections appear to be criticism of translations and scholarly work in general. I think their content would be better moved into other sections of the article if it's not already covered there. Jojalozzo 17:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Focus on Racism of Criticism Section

I find it pathetic that much of the criticism of the Upanishads cited in the article is simply racism from a different time. There must be other, more reasoned rejections of the philosophy; this is the first time I've looked into these writings, but seeing devotees equate critical reaction with racism makes me think the community of practitioners must be weak if they are unable to admit there are questions that their beliefs need to answer.209.99.215.191 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

False authors and books mixup

I have done a quite a research on the citation qouted and how the article has been twisted so that the general outlook is turning out to be poor their are two authors and books which does not match

1)

Mahadevan's History of Philosophy Eastern and Western

Where Mr Mahadevan never wrote the book " History of Philosophy eastern and western " but again this was written by Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (who was president of India ) and again i really went to the page number 56 (as the first reference is Mahadevan p 56 in the whole article) the funny part was it is simply not there .

for those of you who do not want to buy this book and check, here is how i can prove the editor did not had neutral point of view and just adding his own texts and linking wrongly.

Their are 4 lines linking to same page of mahadevan p 56 (first reference in the article)

line 1 - The Upanishads are found mostly the concluding part of the Brahmanas and in the Aranyakas.[a] line 2 - If a Upanishad has been commented upon or quoted by revered thinkers like Shankara, it is a Mukhya Upanishad,[b] line 3 - Not much is known about the authors except for those, like Yajnavalkayva and Uddalaka, mentioned in the texts line 4 - The Brihadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the most important of the mukhya Upanishads. They represent two main schools of thought within the Upanishads. The Brihadaranyaka deals with acosmic or nis-prapancha, whereas the Chandogya deals with the cosmic or sa-prapancha

you can see the difference in content , it has to be an small essay to include such a varied topics and definitly not from a book which has 9 volumns in total !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

2 )

Regarding quotes from ranade 1926 , these are outrageously lie!! please check yourself with the following links the book is in pubic domain!! and look in to page numbers eg reference 2  : Ranade 1926, p. 205. it is completely not existing !!! the link : http://www.archive.org/details/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926.djvu

The actual pdf file : http://ia600604.us.archive.org/2/items/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926.djvu/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926_text.pdf

So this article need major surgery which needs to be done !! and wonder how this was considered best article !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

1) Radhakrishnan was the editor of History of Philosophy, Eastern and Western, who compiled the works of various authors. The section of the work cited was authored by Mahadevan. This arrangement is actually not that unusual for academic works.

2) Are you using the DJVU file? It was corrupt when I downloaded it. Are you looking at the file page number of the PDF, or the scanned page number of the original book? There is a difference. Ref 2 is used for "With the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahmasutra (known collectively as the Prasthanatrayi)," and page 205 of Ranade (which does so exist) says "the whole philosophy of the Vedanta in its various schools has been based upon these three foundation-stones, namely, the Upanishads, the Brahmasutras, and the Bhagavadgita." The Prasthanatrayi bit appears to be a later addition to the article and not intended to be part of the original citation.

P 59-60 are cited "The Brihadaranyaka gives an unorthodox explanation of the origin of the caste-system. It says that a similar four-tier caste system existed in heaven which is now replicated on earth." P 59 says "In the Brihadaranyaka, there is a very unorthodox theory about the origin of castes..." which goes on to summarize the theory. On the following page, it concludes the summary with "In this unorthodox theory, we have the origin of the earthly caste system on the pattern of a heavenly caste system..."

I'm currently in class, and the (really entertaining) professor is more interesting than demonstrating the page numbers are indeed correct. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for digging in deep mr Ian , Again calling him "Dr " Radhakrishnan was the author and the book comes in 9 volumns please recheck your source. still i did not get to see mr mahadevan in you links ???

and regarding stating of unorthodox view Here the author picks up only one line. !! and then puts another text from another source to bring about wrong meaning. Eg

he takes the line from the book is " The Brihadaranyaka gives an unorthodox explanation of the origin of the caste-system."

and then qoutes from other source "This has been criticized by the Dalit leader Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar." while the gist of the whole paragraph has been thrown into air, what actual the author is talking about is this=

some background (for non Indians ) In India currently caste system is based on family , this means if you are brahmin your son will also be brahmin and again the same if you are from lower caste your son will also be from lower caste (which we term it as "orthodox " ) again back to gist of the para here the author says that in the brihadarnyaka the caste system mentioned is "unorthodox" and mentions that the caste system mentioned is dividing persons depending on their "work" and not on family or geniolgy basis (which is orthodox and currently prevailing).

which gives false notion that it was from a single content !!

and i am still looking for 4 references from the page 54!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The portion about Ambedkar is not cited to Ranade at all, and again, if you check the scanned page number 56 instead of the file page number 56, it checks out. Do you really need me to retype all the pages cited here? Given your prior actions on the article, I can only believe you're handling this either incompetently or tendentiously. Please quit tossing out red herrings, the sources are fine. Noone is supporting your crusade here. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I want clear everything one by one 1st

Yes The potion of ambedkar is not cited to ranade i agree, how about taking one sentence of in one book and one from another to give false meaning ? did you happen to really read my analysis before ? the author ranade is not criticizing the upanishads of bringing in caste system , but actually stating the true reason why it was formed (the gist of the para from which is taken from ) , where in deleberelty only half sentence is taken from this para and one from an another which are not linked !! e.g It is just taking one sentence in bible saying " Jesus cured many people " and then from another book stating " people always have tried to cheat people by professing themselves as curers " while both or out of different books and out of context. again stop blaming people and also labeling . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

ShrikanthV: I am not sure I follow you completely but it appears that you object to the scholarship of some of the sources we are using. Please take note that as editors in Wikipedia our role is not to determine the accuracy of the sources but their reliability. This distinction is often difficult for newcomers to accept because it means we have to put aside our own judgements of what is good scholarship and what is not. Likewise it is not our place to synthesize new ideas from reliable sources. Our main concerns with sources are a) whether the source is reliable, i.e. peer reviewed, published by a third party, etc. and b) whether we have accurately expressed the content of the source. If there are sources we think are incorrect then we must keep that to ourselves unless there is another reliable source that makes the case for us. I think the more an editor has studied a topic the harder they find this task since they will have developed a significant body of personal opinion that must be laid aside before they can participate effectively. I hope this helps you see where some of the friction you are encountering is coming from. Jojalozzo 15:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

hello mr Jojalozzo , again that is what i want say it again your point "b) whether we have accurately expressed the content of the source" please check the links (its free and in public domain ) http://ia600604.us.archive.org/2/items/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926.djvu/A.Constructive.Survey.of.Upanishadic.Philosophy.by.R.D.Ranade.1926_text.pdf

below please go to the page number 59 and read yourself. 

clearly it is not expressing the real data! I do not understand you are also viewing me with a colored glass ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs)

We've been over this, the citations do match up if you look at the correct page number. If you look at p.59 of the PDF file it doesn't work, but p.59 of the PDF is not p.59 of the book. I've provided examples of how they do, you have provided no examples of how they do not.

Although I'm sure that once again, you're not going to listen. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Walker citation

Shrikantv cites Walker 534 for "Most of the Upanishads kept secret and only passed on to others orally in the form of Shloka until 1647 by Dara Shikoh."

However, the text is discussing a particular Upanishad authored by Shikoh. Other sources cited only say that he translated many other, but was not their author or transcriber.

After the above exchanges, and given his previous actions, I can no longer pretend to assume good faith with this editor. Per WP:DUCK, he is a tendentious editor. If anyone else verifies that the Walker citation also covers the claim that none of the Upanishads were written until the 17th century, I'll pull back on that. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, It was not only added by me please read "new upanishads" section last line , there also it mentions the same and added by other person, and again the upanishads being tranfered orally was from the book which i had stated, you can also recheck by reading 4th line of the article at the beginning. and again thanks for branding me "Tendentious Editor " I guess i have found you being a school kid just throwing tantrums and picking up people ( bullying ) and again thanks for asking for anyone , as i see no other . Shrikanthv (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for owning the Upanishads page yourself and editing according to you requirements (your perception) , where is the language criticism ? and quality of the source ?, thanks for completely deleting it ( Hope mr Jojalozzo see this!! ), its clear you belong to church and want to show that other scripture are acts of foolish people ,My friend you are kid and acts are clear . I will let you know one secret from hinduism (also a religion by itself ) , "" "truth" is beyond religion "" so do not waste yourself attaching to any religion. Shrikanthv (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Again you are successfully distracting my points congrats IAN, again i copy paste the thing here . what do you have to say  ? \

Yes The potion of ambedkar is not cited to ranade i agree, how about taking one sentence of in one book and one from another to give false meaning ?

the author ranade is not criticizing the upanishads of bringing in caste system , but actually stating the true reason why it was formed (the gist of the para from which is taken from ) , where in deleberelty only half sentence is taken from this para and one from an another which are not linked !! (again to editors this is not my view please read the book ) e.g It is just taking one sentence in bible saying " Jesus cured many people " and then from another book stating " people always have tried to cheat people by professing themselves as curers " while both or out of different books and out of context. Shrikanthv (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

= Reckless editing

Mr Ians multiple editing has completely deleted the language section and Quality of the source section and also made it irreversible, make it clear the the editor has a prejudice towards articles criticism page. Shrikanthv (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you actually look at the page history, you'll see that I moved those additions to more appropriate sections and properly attributed them instead of treating them as universal statements of fact. I moved the language portion to the Worldwide transmission section and the quality of the source portion to the Chronology and geography section. Irreversible? I don't see the page being locked anywhere. Prejudice? I'm not the one trying to weaken the criticism section. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop branding me as indian hindus supporter (please read my statment about thomas huxley, as i have stated i accepted his statements and he is not praising the upanishads but criticizing it . and i hope being a englander biologist makes him 'westerner' ) and calling me racist , i guess the conflicts are rising as too much of personnel things are getting mingled, I am still waiting to answer my question of (do not run know or brand me again as racist ) Conflict

3)reference 104 : Ranade 1926, p. 59-60. Here the author picks up only one line. !! and then puts another text from another source to bring about wrong meaning. Eg the line from the book is " The Brihadaranyaka gives an unorthodox explanation of the origin of the caste-system." and then qoutes from other source "This has been criticized by the Dalit leader Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar." where the actual content says that the brihadarnayaka explains caste system based on duties and responsibalities which is unorthodox ! (the authors take not mine )

these slicing the sentences makes that the actual source not being cited correctly,

which gives false notion that it was from a single content !!

this is same as taking one sentence in bible saying " Jesus cured many people " and then from another book stating " people always have tried to cheat people by professing themselves as curers " while both or out of different books and out of context.Shrikanthv (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why

I still donot understand using the sentences that describe appraisal from some scholars, in the lead section of the article related to a major book in a major religion of the world. I see the same problem in the page of Bhagavad Gita. Please move the sentence to a separate section. Bineet Ojha |BINEET| 17:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern is similar to Bineet Ojha's above, except it concerns the accuracy of the claim made in the introduction: Why do we say that Kant recognized the significance of the Upanishads? I know of no places in Kant where he actually refers to the Upanishads. I checked the secondary sources listed: each notes that there are broad similarities between some of his views and those found in the Upanishads, but none shows that he ever read or acknowledged them. Thus, I suspect that the wording in the present article is either highly misleading or inaccurate. Can somebody provide a source in Kant, or a note in any reliable biographies, that supports the claim in the article? Otherwise, I would argue that Kant's name should be removed from the list of those who acknowledged the Upanishad's influence, while the others--Schopenhauer, Emerson, and Thoreau--should stay, as there is more than enough evidence to assure accuracy. Thuathail (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for Deletion of content which are from sources which are questionable

Some of the contents in the section related to critiscism are from questionable sources , the authors were extremists in all the cases and are being widly accepted as extrimistic point of view and matches with wiki guidlines of questionable sources .

Proposed deletion content below

"" Ambedkar implies that the voluminous Upanishads are a useless work because of their inability to effect any change in the caste-biased, inherently unequal Hindu society. He dismisses the Upanishads by quoting Huxley in saying that Upanishadic philosophy can be reduced to very few words. Ambedkar agrees with Huxley:

"In supposing the existence of a permanent reality, or "substance", beneath the shifting series of phenomena, whether of matter or of mind. The substance of the cosmos was "Brahma", that of the individual man "Atman"; and the latter was separated from the former only, if I may so speak, by its phenomenal envelope, by the casing of sensations, thoughts and desires, pleasures and pains, which make up the illusive phantasmagoria of life. This the ignorant, take for reality; their "Atman" therefore remains eternally imprisoned in delusions, bound by the fetters of desire and scourged by the whip of misery."

   —Thomas Huxley[106]

John Murray Mitchell, a Western writer, asserts that by suggesting that all appearance is an illusion, the Upanishads are potentially overturning ethical distinctions.[107] Dr. A.E. Gough, an early European orientalist, remarked that the Upanishads were "the work of a rude age, a deteriorated race, and a barbarous and unprogressive community."[108] About the Indian Philosophy in general, Dr. A.E. Gough continued to say, "In treating of Indian Philosophy a writer has to deal with thoughts of lower order than the thoughts of the every day life of Europe. The great difficulty lies in this, that a low order of ideas has to be expressed in a high order of terms, and that the English words suggest a wealth of analysis and association altogether foreign to thoughts that are to be reproduced. The effort is nothing less than an endeavour to revert to a ruder type of mental culture and to become for the time being barbarous."

""

Sources from below links

Singh 2000, pp. 97. Singh 2000, pp. 96–97.

"the author has been charged for extremistic view over Hindu religion in India."

Murray Mitchell, John. Hinduism past and present: with an account of recent Hindu reformers and a brief comparison between Hinduism and Christianity. Asian Educational Services, 2000. ISBN 8120603389, 9788120603387.

"the author was a chrision missionary from england , whos only objective was to spread christianism in India (can be considered as an extremistic view )" Shrikanthv (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

Why is the BC (Before Christ)/AD dating convention used? Both the BC/AD and BCE/CE dating conventions are allowed in Wikipedia articles according to Wikipedia's manual of style. But I find it strange that the dates for an article on one religion should be defined in terms of another religion's dating convention. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems strange to me too. Wikipedia's manual of style requires a "good reason" for changing from one system to another. Off the top of my head, eliminating the "strangeness" of "an article on one religion [using dates] defined in terms of another religion's dating convention" seems like a good reason for a change. What do others think? -- Presearch (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A consensus of editors here is all that is required for the change. I welcome other editors to weigh in. I made this same suggestion on another eastern religion's Wikipedia page, about a year ago I think, and the editors there agreed to the change, ostensibly thinking it was strange there as well. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, BCE/CE dating convention will look better on this page. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I made the change. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD regarding Criticism section

To the IP user who is removing the criticism section, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guideline, WP:BRD.

The criticism section has been in the article since at least July 2012. I didn't look further back. Thus, the section's existence had reached consensus here, and criticism of the topic of an article is allowed at Wikipedia according to WP:Criticism. This states, "Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia."

On 21 September, the criticism section was deleted by an IP user. It was reverted by Ian.thomson on the same day. WP:BRD indicates that the next action is for editors to discuss, not continue to delete, which eventually becomes edit warring. Yet, the section was deleted again soon after.

I restored the material on 23 September. It was again removed by an IP user. I restored the material again, but will not do so if it is removed in the future by an IP user without discussion here. I'll simply report it to an administrator rather than get involved in an edit war. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

How is such a large criticism allowed on a page related to religion? One can make another page on it such as criticism of Upanishads, no one is stopped from doing so. Example Bible. Instead intricacies of critique on this page on religion is restored repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.81 (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a whole criticism of the Bible article, and Wikipedia is not censored. People who know how things work here - which does not include you - have brought up a bunch of rules that you ignored. Quit trying to push your religion here. 184.210.125.105 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the point. You are free to create a similar page for Upanishads with details which you have not. Quit trying misunderstanding and misquoting others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.242 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Focus on Racism of Criticism Section

I find it pathetic that much of the criticism of the Upanishads cited in the article is simply racism from a different time. There must be other, more reasoned rejections of the philosophy; this is the first time I've looked into these writings, but seeing devotees equate critical reaction with racism makes me think the community of practitioners must be weak if they are unable to admit there are questions that their beliefs need to answer.209.99.215.191 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and "A.E. Gough" would sound no namer to just anyone, his comment should be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Those quotes were just gratuitous and didn't shed any light on the subject. If modern texts on Upanishads report or discuss Gough's view (which I doubt) then we can reconsider. Abecedare (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The first English Translation of Upanishads

It is wrong to see that "The first written English translation came in 1805 from Colebrooke". In reality, this book of Colebrooke "On the Religion and Philosophy of the Hindus. London: Williams & Norgate" was published on 1858.

The first English Translation of Upanishads came in 1816 from Rammohun Roy. Please see " Rammohun Roy, Translation of the Kena-upanishad, Calcutta, 1816, p. 6." in History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature,MAX MULLER, p. 320.

In the book "The Upanishads" Swami Paramananda clearly mentioned "The first English translation was made by a learned Hindu, Raja Ram Mohun Roy."

TraceyWonder (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Read the note:

"See Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1858), Essays on the religion and philosophy of the Hindus. London: Williams and Norgate. In this volume, see chapter 1 (pp. 1–69), On the Vedas, or Sacred Writings of the Hindus, reprinted from Colebrooke's Asiatic Researches, Calcutta: 1805, Vol 8, pp. 369–476. A translation of the Aitareya Upanishad appears in pages 26–30 of this chapter."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Note

I was going through the literature of Upanishads but I found no one who has mentioned about this translation of the Aitareya Upanishad except Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1858) and that too in his own book. There is no other reference available to judge the authenticity of this claim. I am surprised how Max Müller could miss it. Anyway, I think we must give an honest and accurate picture. I think it will be better if we put some thing like: "The first English translation of the Aitareya Upanishad was made by Colebrooke in 1805 and the first English translation of the Kena Upanishad was made by Rammohun Roy in 1816."

Thanks TraceyWonder (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's good. Go ahead! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way: I've also been searching for more info, but couldn't find it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Confusion of "Brahman" with "Brahma" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishad#Atman_and_Brahma Please delete this section or rewrite it. It is very misleading. Brahman is the ultimate reality of Upanisads whereas Brahma is a Puranic god part of the hindu trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.XiB (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

BCE/CE

Article' era should be changed to BCE and CE. That is how we have arranged the eras in almost all South Asian articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Please feel free to do so. Airborne84 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have made those changes now. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

what is this statement?

In introduction this statement "continued to being composed through the early modern and modern era,[14] down to at least the 20th century" is meaningless/absurd. You cannot write a book and call it a Upanishad, these were written by priestly class and are commentary on part of Veda, it is not that you write some book of fiction and call it a Upanishad without having any relationship to any Veda. Also in 20th century nobody was writing primary commentary on Vedas or Brahmanas. commentary is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skant71 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a reference in the article: Varghese, Alexander P (2008), India : History, Religion, Vision And Contribution To The World, vol. Volume 1, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, ISBN 978-81-269-0903-2 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help) p.101

I think you're right; the author states that some do not include the Upanishads with the Vedas, since texts called Upanishads have been written until recent times, often with subjects unrelated to the Vedic Upanishads. I'll correct the sentences. Thanks for noticing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Romanian paper

@89.101.241.146: Welcome to wikipedia. The source and opinion summary you include is WP:Primary, because it does not seem to have been cited elsewhere after a search of the Citation Index. Do you have another source? Some of the claims you added are not mainstream, a few already stated in the article which do not need to be repeated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Maya

Removed due to exclusive Advaita POV. Maya is not defined as illusion by other vedanta schools. Can be re-inserted with adequate modifications to accommodate other strands of thoughts in different Upanishads. Nrityam (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars over POV tag

@Bishonen:: Please have a look into this. Two editors have been trying to remove the POV tag without consensus on the talk page to incorporate their bias. Nrityam (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have explained my removal; you have hardly concreticised your addition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: Please see WP:NPOVD, an essay that explains when tagging is appropriate. It says,

"An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with the Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (N.B.: not all views held by editors or by the general public) ....".

You have not offered reliable sources with specific page numbers that state something different than what this article is already stating. The two you mentioned, Hiriyanna and Fowler, those views are already in the article. A good faith attempt to address your concern about Dvaita and Vishistadvaita has already been made, which justifies a detag. If you add the tag back again, you must explain the tag on the talk page, and raise new objections with reliable sources and page numbers. If you suggest "actual contributions to the article", or proposed language, we can work towards something we all can agree on. But, right now your approach with tags and a forum-y discussion, is puzzling and not helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

de-tag is justified only once consensus on all points is reached. Nrityam (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: what "all points"? you mean your unsourced and puzzling personal translation/interpretation/OR on Brahma sutras above, etc? which policy page states so? which policy page states that tags are permanent and the tagger doesn't need to explain the tag. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Chronology

The chronology based on Deussen, Ranade and Radhakridhnan was almost as old as the Upanishads themselves; I've updated the chronology based on Olivelle and the "scholarly consencus", which is about a century of scholarly research since those three. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Somebody please correct/revert the chronology, there is no "scholarly consensus" that Joshua Jonathan has mentioned in his comment and Joshua himself seems to have Christian bias and Patrick Olivelle has strong Christian bias in his translations. There are tons of things/literature on India having bias that Oxford seems to always allow.

Also, it is not an argument but irrational statement to say that some old translation or chronology is wrong simply because somebody biased who happen to be born centuries later is giving you some new date.

Upanishads are not tested in scientific laboratories that you can show better technology and if somebody did test this chronology in some new/modern lab please give the names of instruments as argument and not a mere phrase in quotes "scholarly consensus" and related argument that original chronology was given long time back.

There are better scholars at Oxford itself, who can contest this chronolgy or anything being told by Patrick Olivelle.

Nature allows truths to be known in infinite ways over infinite time, so you cannot just wish them away.

I am keeping a copy of my comment for frivolous removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skant71 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to propose alternate contemporary academic sources of the caliber of Patrick Olivelle's work, you are welcome to do so and we can consider adding their view to the article. If you simply want to throw around unfounded accusations of religious bias, your comments will be ignored, and eventually reverted. The former is decidedly the more fruitful direction if your intention is to effect actual change to the wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It can't be as old, can it? Can you share sources other than Olivelle? What is the scholarly consensus that you refer to? Who are the other scholars?Nrityam (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Could you find other sources? Nrityam (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: see diff. Check the source, if you like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. See WP:Fringe theories. We can;t go by one source for such definitive asssertion. Nrityam (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me? Fringe? You'll really need "high-quality sources" to underscore that accusation regarding Olivelle... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

And let me add to this: I'm starting to doubt your WP:COMPETENCE, making such idiot remarks, calling sound scholarly work an "exceptional claim." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh ho, someone is really angry. I am sorry you were not taught manners. WP:CIVIL or not, I refuse to further talk to a moron. Do whatever you want to do with the page. I thought you would be a sensible pperson. But you are what you are - a moron who is resorting to name calling when he has nothing better to do. And, with a willing co-editor who forgot lessons in manners as well. You might as well go to hell for all I care! Nrityam (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Fowler's summary

@JJ: could you please check this edit of @Nrityam and evaluate if the version he is edit warring over is supported by the source. @Nrityam has changed it to pages 298 and 1, while it is the page 299 which I had cited and summarized is where I see Fowler mentioning Ramanuja's Upanishadic interpretation. I don't see where Fowler is stating, on 1 or 298 or 299, that "Atman and Prakriti the body of the supreme reality" is Ramanuja's derivation from the Upanishads. Do you see this, which para? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me help you.

have changed 1 to 299.

Page 298 - ...and since the world and the jivas are controlled, ....., they must also be a body - the body, sarira, of God. ...Once the soul is withdrawn, the body can't exist. ... similarly, once God is withdrawn, jivas and the world also cease to exist

This should make it clear.

Continue reading till page 300 and you may just understand Vishistadvaita.N sahi (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Looks like you are drawing conclusions and new interpretations = OR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Really! Too bad you will never learn! N sahi (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes, NPOV improvement and major edits to the article

According to Nrityam, this article does not adhere to NPOV. Below are his arguments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: I have reverted your changes to the lead and the main. Much of your changes are to content that is from last GA review, before you or I edited this article. Major removal of reliable scholarly sources, and of sourced content needs a discussion. You are welcome to add content, with sources, to address any NPOV concerns you have. But, just deleting sources and content is not constructive. Let us discuss your concerns one by one. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Okay, here we go: [see subsections] Nrityam (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: These read like your personal wisdom / prejudice / views. A tertiary source such as wikipedia summarizes different views in scholarly sources. Whether you or I or someone agrees with Lanman, Brown, Slater, Varghese, Koller, Phillips, Deussen, etc is irrelevant. Someone or I can cite Brahmasutras here, translate the sutra, then fill in the aphorism therein, and have a forum-y debate with you, but this is not a forum. See WP:TPNO. Also see WP:TRUTH. If you find reliable sources that say something different about Upanishads, which has not been summarized yet, then please summarize and add the source. If some reliable source is not summarized as well as it can be, improve the wording and the summary. But keep your personal wisdom and disagreements out of wikipedia, don't mass delete summary and sources added by other editors. This is a collaborative project, improvements to this article are better achieved incrementally. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

[So, ]I remain unclear what is the bias you are talking about. Is your concern that the Dvaita, Dvaitadvaita and other interpretations are not adequately explained? If so, we can add summaries on them from reliable scholarly sources. But what you can't do is to mass delete sources and content from this GA article, simply because you personally disagree with WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Brahma Sutras

"This ancient debate flowered into various dual, non-dual theories in Hinduism. The Brahmasutra by Badarayana (~ 100 BCE) synthesized and unified these somewhat conflicting theories, stating that Atman and Brahman are different in some respects particularly during the state of ignorance, but at the deepest level and in the state of Self-realization, Atman and Brahman are identical, non-different."

References

Objection: Where does Brahma Sutra say so? Ramanujan believes it says that Atman forms the body of the reality that Brahman forms the soul of. Shankara says they are alike. Madhva says they are both different. Mode details in pages on Vedanta, Dvaita, Advaita and Vishistadvaita. Nrityam (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Brahman-sutras: does it not? Find other sources (not commentaries) which give a different reading). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it doesn't. If it is not commentary, it ought to be from the primary source. Which sutra/s of BS say these? None. A few for references below.

• "Guham pravistavatmanau hi taddarsanat" (I.2.11) - The two who have entered into the cavity (of the heart) are indeed the individual soul and the Supreme Soul, because it is so seen.

Guham: in the cavity (of the heart) Pravishtau: the two who have entered; Atmanau: are the two selfs (individual soul and the Supreme Soul); Hi: indeed, because; Taddarsanat: because it is so seen.

• "Viseshanaccha" I.2.12 - And on account of the distinctive qualities (of the two mentioned in subsequent texts).

Viseshanat: on account of distinctive qualities; Cha: and.

• "Sariraschobhaye’pi hi bhedenainamadhiyate" I.2.20 - And the individual soul (is not the Internal Ruler) for both also (i.e. both recensions viz., the Kanva and Madhyandina Sakhas of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) speak of it as different (from the Internal Ruler.)

Sarirah: the embodied, the individual soul; Cha: also, and; (Na: not); Ubhaye: the both namely the recentions Kanva and Madhyandinas; Api: even, also; Hi: because; Bhedena: by way of difference; Enam: this, the Jiva; Adhiyate: read, speak of, indicate.

• "Na cha smartamataddharmabhilapat" I.2.19 - And (the Internal Ruler is) not that which is taught in the Sankhya Smriti (viz., Pradhana) because qualities contrary to its nature are mentioned (here).

Na: neither; Cha: also, and; Smartam: that which is taught in (Sankhya) Smriti; Ataddharmabhilapat: because qualities contrary to its nature are mentioned.

• "Sariraschobhaye’pi hi bhedenainamadhiyate" I.2.20 - And the individual soul (is not the Internal Ruler) for both also (i.e. both recensions viz., the Kanva and Madhyandina Sakhas of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) speak of it as different (from the Internal Ruler.)

Sarirah: the embodied, the individual soul; Cha: also, and; (Na: not); Ubhaye: the both namely the recentions Kanva and Madhyandinas; Api: even, also; Hi: because; Bhedena: by way of difference; Enam: this, the Jiva; Adhiyate: read, speak of, indicate.

Many more examples could be given from the text which clearly talk of Atman and Brahman as separate. If some modern writer states that Brahma Sutras decidedly talk of monism, he must be a creative genius. Shankara interpreted texts using Avidha and Anvaya-Vyatireka. I am not saying he is wrong, I am not saying the other interpreters are wrong. All I am talking about is based on a two fold argument - 1. Brahma Sutras don't decidedly, just on the basis of literal translation, talks of any one school of thought as to monism or the lack of it. These arguments are also corroborated in Fowler's (Perspectives of Reality - Pages 4 & 5). Also refer (Hiriyanna's Essentials of Indian Philosophy page 151). Nrityam (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: You are doing OR, in ad1, by offering your own translation and commentary. @Joshua Jonathan, I believe, is asking for WP:RS that give a different reading of Brahmasutra, and one which this article has not considered (not your own, because OR is unacceptable in wikipedia). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a baseless allegation.Nrityam (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I've checked the source; this is what Koller says. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

At the cost of repeating myself, Brahma Sutras can't be read without a commentary. All WP:RS will conform to that. Statements objected specifically have been brought from the Advaita perspective. Hiriyanna, Sharma, Radhakrisnan, Chari, etc. mention no such thing. I don't find such a mention in Fowler. The sources need to be re-checked again. I don't have the books. May be someone needs to check if they have been summarized correctly and in the correct context. Logically, they are not. Also, is there any other source at all, WP:RS of course, that has a similar point. Nrityam (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't have the books, so you can't check Fowler, but you "don't find such a mention in Fowler"...

Can't help if you don;t understand. I have Fowler. I don't have Koller. Thanks. Nrityam (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the quotes above, they seem to come from Sivananda. Regarding 1.2.20, see this commentary:

"The difference between the Jiva and Brahman is one of Upadhi (limitation). The difference between the Internal Ruler and the individual soul is merely the product of ignorance or Avidya. It has its reason in the limiting adjunct, consisting of the organs of action, presented by ignorance. The difference is not absolutely true. Because the Self within is one only; two internal Selfs are not possible. But on account of limiting adjuncts the one Self is practically treated as if it were two, just as we make a distinction between the ether of the jar and the universal ether..
The scriptural text where there is duality, as it were, there one sees another intimates that the world exists only in the sphere of ignorance, while the subsequent text. But when the Self only is all this how should one see another declares that the world disappears in the sphere of true knowledge.

Non non-duality here, as far as I can see. I think that you don't need only commentaries, but also commentaries on the commentaries, that is, WP:RS like Koller. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice. Why not read his intro. He has followed Shankara's interpretation.

You may ask why do such great realised souls hold different views, why have they started different cults or systems. The highest philosophy of Sri Sankara which bespeaks of the identity of the individual soul and the Supreme Soul cannot be understood by the vast majority of persons. Therefore Sri Madhva and Sri Ramanuja started their Bhakti cult. The different schools are different rungs in the ladder of Yoga. The student must place his foot step by step and finally reach the highest peak of perfection-the Kevaladvaita realisation of Sri Sankara. As temperaments are different, different schools are also necessary to suit the taste, capacity, and stage of evolution of the aspirant. Therefore all schools and cults are necessary. They have got their own place and scope. The views of various Acharyas are all true in respect of the particular aspect of Brahman dealt with by them each in his own way. Sankara has taken Brahman in His transcendental aspect, while Sri Ramanuja has taken Him chiefly in His immanent aspect. People were following blindly the rituals during the time of Sri Sankara. When he was preparing his commentary he had in view the purpose of combating the baneful effects which blind ritualism produced. He never condemned selfless service or Nishkama Karma Yoga. He condemned the performance of rituals with selfish motives. Sankara Bhashya is the oldest of all commentaries. It upholds Suddha-Para-Brahman or the Supreme Self of the Upanishads as something superior to other divine beings. It propounds a very bold philosophy and declares emphatically that the individual soul is identical with the Supreme Self. Sankara's philosophical view accurately represents the meaning of Badarayana. His explanations only faithfully render the intended meaning of Sri Vyasa. This is beyond doubt and dispute.

So, what you are reading here is a simplified version of Shankara's commentary. Nrityam (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

2. "Greatest contribution"

"The idea put forth by the Upanishadic seers that Atman and Brahman are One and the same is one of the greatest contributions made to the thought of the world."

References

Objection: This idea is the idea of the Advaita school, which is an interpetation of the Upanishads. This is not THE Upanishadic idea per se. Nrityam (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"One of the greatest contributions" - hm, this sounds subjective, and could be removed, maybe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Should be removed. It is subjective. Nrityam (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

3. Maya

Objection: Maya as illusion is definition as per Shankara. Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, Dvaitadvaita, Upadhika among other schools interpet Maya differently as Yogmaya and the primordial power of the Brahma. Nrityam (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Maya: if it's incomplete, add relevant info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok. We can agree on that. Nrityam (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Will add more info on Maya from WP:RSNrityam (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

4. Relevance of Shankara's monism

"a foundation for the several later schools of Vedanta, among them, two influential monistic schools of Hinduism."
Notes

References

Comment - Please tell me how a reference to monism of Shankara is relevant here. Nrityam (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Monism of Shankara: why is it not relevant? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Why just two monism schools? Why not others? What about dvaita and dvaitadvaita, for example? Nrityam (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify objection ad4. The current version already states, "provide a foundation for the several later schools of Vedanta", which the main article lists; the added "influential part" is supported by the three notes with WP:RS (I would prefer a bit wordsmith-ing though). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The current version has been drafted after the objection were laid out. Let me re-assess and come back.Nrityam (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

5. Relevance of translations into western languages

"With the translation of the Upanishads in the early 19th century they also started to attract attention from a western audience. Arthur Schopenhauer was deeply impressed by the Upanishads and called it "the production of the highest human wisdom". The 19th-century transcendentalists noted the influence of the Upanishads in western philosophy."

References

Comment - Pardon me, but I find this enlightenment of West with the Upanishads a little out of place for the intorduction. Why not a similar piece of their introduction to Russia and China?

It was only with the western interest in Indian religions that non-western cultures came to be informed about these religions, and even took over parts of it. So, yes, that's relevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Currently, words like "also started to attract attention from a western audience" sound high-brow and condescending to me....may be some word play is in order. However, no problem with them being there. I get your point. Nrityam (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

6. Shri Adi Shankara

Shri Adi Shankara

Comment - Why is Shri neede here? It seems like some devotee put it up there. Is this a place for devotion or dispassionate objective encyclopedic writing?

"Shri" could be removed, but a passionate objection against it doesn't sound objective either. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Subjective assessment. The overall reply indeed was passionate because the act of Ms. Welch in reverting all the edits without as much as checking the details did come across as arrogant. Nrityam (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

7. Categorisation as monistic, non-dualistic or dualistic

"While some Upanishads have been deemed 'monistic', others, including the Katha Upanishad, are dualistic. The Maitri is one of the Upanishads that inclines more toward dualism, thus grounding classical Samkhya and Yoga schools of Hinduism, in contrast to the non-dualistic Upanishads at the foundation of its Vedanta school."

References

Comment - Serious objections here. Need more references. Upanishads are decidedly neither dual or non-dual, the categorization is usually encompassing of all mukhya ones, depending on the philosophy of the Vedantin. Nrityam (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"Upanishads are decidedly neither dual or non-dual": sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Katha has been beautifully interpreted as a monist text by Shankara. Hiriyanna find the prevailing views of all Upanishads to be monistic and absolutic while quickly adding that there are pluralisic views but not very conspicuous. He points out correctly that there are great difficulties in deciding exactly what the teaching of the Upanishads are in certain aspects. (Hiriyanna, Essentials of Indian Philosophy, pp: 19-20). "The vagueness of the Upanishadic teaching is particularly in reference to the relation of Brahman to the Individual Sou on the one hand, and to the physical universe on the another. Though as pointed our already (page 19), statements about their identity are many and prominent, those distinguishing them are not altogether wanting. The first problem to solve for anyone attempting to systematize the teachings of the Upanishaads is accordingly to harmonize these sets of statements " (Hiriyanna, Essentials of Indian Philosophy, p 151) Regarding Katha in particlar Fowler in his book writes on Page 32, "The Hindy diety Shiva ...and Vishnu in Katha, but not exclusively theistically, for the impersonal acosmic conception of Brahman is still present". This makes the statement on Katha as dualistic clearly wrong. Hope this answers your question. I am surprised though that it comes from you.

I am reverting to the BIAS tag as I have clearly given the objections here on the talk page. The fact that you removed the was incorrect and not as per the rules. Nrityam (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

On ad7, Hiriyanna is a 1932 source, making it dated. Nevertheless, Hiriyanna's point about monistic and pluralistic, many interpretations of Upanishads is shared by later scholars. This is already in this article, repeatedly, but sourced to more recently published WP:RS/reviews. For example, "The Upanishadic age was characterized by a pluralism of worldviews"; "various dual, non-dual theories..."; "Due to the wide variety of philosophical teachings contained in the Upanishads, various interpretations could be grounded on the Upanishads"; "Atman is the predominantly discussed topic in the Upanishads, but they express two distinct, somewhat divergent themes"; "Madhva, much like Adi Shankara claims for Advaita, states that his theistic Dvaita Vedanta is grounded in the Upanishads."; etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hiriyanna may be a dated source, but how would you explain away the fact that it is still one of the most cited ones in contemporary scholarship. So, it is NOT irrelevant. The current texts at many places still strongly emphasize the Adviata POV. I am summarizing them shortly. Nrityam (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: Please use the more recent publications that cite Hiriyanna. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

8. Chronology

The chronology portion is completely biased towards the POV of Sanskritists / Indologists. For balance, it should have been mentioned that tradition upholds Upnaishads, part of the Vedas, to be Apaurusheya, not written by any man. Nrityam (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"completely biased towards the POV of Sanskritists / Indologists" - maybe you should read about the basics of Wikipedia: giving an overview of the relevant info from reliable sources, such as written by Indologists and Sanskritists. You can add traditional views when based on WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. I will add a note with WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

While your elderly, apparently astute suggestions are welcome, I am completely aware of the rules. Many sources which qualify as WP:RS do mention the tradition view before moving to chronology hypothesis. One should avoid, in the interest of balance and fairness, making a statement on the chronology with blanket precision while ignoring the qualifiers altogether. In this case, like Olivelle, one of your oft-used WP:RS, says - all attempts at giving a chronology for Upanishads are essentially inaccurate. Nrityam (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: Before your edits, the Chronology section already stated as the opening line, "Scholars are uncertain about the exact centuries in which the Upanishads were composed." Olivelle does give his own chrono estimates, which is summarized in this article. There seems to be an on-going and puzzling disconnect between your allegations on this talk page, and what the article states. Please remember this talk page is not a forum, and persistent violations of WP:TPNO are not constructive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Olivelle's claims are extraordinary. While he talks of a scholarly consensus, he doesn't reference the same. We need at least one more source. Also, your consistent guidance on what is right, wrong, constructive and non-constructive are ad hominem in nature and should be avoided. Is it WP:CIVIL, just wondering?Nrityam (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nrityam: You mean Olivelle, not Oliver, don't you? If it is indeed Olivelle – the widely cited professor with publications on Upanishads, are you questioning Patrick Olivelle's competence, scholarship or particular source(s) by him published by Oxford University Press? If it is Oliver you mean, please provide a link? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Nrityam, I don't see any mention in this article of Olivelle summarising the, or a, "scholarly concencus." What exactly is it you're objectiong to here? Which claims do you find "extraordinary," and why, based on which source? Please clarify yourself; otherwise, consider the possibility that you're WP:DISRUPTIVE here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Ya, it is Olivelle. Thanks for pointing! Yes, I am questioning this. Look at Joshua Jonathan's answer to the earlier thread on chronology (Olivelle and the Scholarly Consensus - I want to know what this scholarly consensus is). We can ddiscuss further once you have the context clear. Nrityam (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's up to you to provide "the context": what is it exactly you're objecting to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@JJ - Consider the possibility that you are saying this just because you have not been able to prove your point. Nrityam (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Olivelle and the Scholarly Consensus - I want to know what this scholarly consensus is. Hence, more sources will help.Nrityam (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean this (diff):

"Scholars have disagreed about the exact dates of the composition of the Upanishads, but according to Olivelle o scholarly concensus can be give. (Olivelle 1998, p.12-13)"

Olivelle, Patrick (1998), Upaniṣads, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-282292-6. Which says:

"The scholarly consensus, well founded I think, is that the Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the two earliest Upanisads."

Nothing extraordinary about this, i think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Upanishad

Hello can i get some information about upanishad in samskrit Shree udupi (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upanishads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160322115246/http://www.gayathrimanthra.com/contents/documents/Translation/108UpanishadsWithUpanishadBrahmamCommentary.pdf to http://www.gayathrimanthra.com/contents/documents/Translation/108UpanishadsWithUpanishadBrahmamCommentary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Duplication of Chronology

Chronology reappears in many sub-sections. Can some senior editor correct the same?

Alberthank (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why? And which? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)