Talk:Upanishads

Template:CollapsedShell

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)

This is all nonsense. Sanskrit upa (cognate with Greek hypo) has absolutely nothing to do with Hindi upar, which derives from Sanskrit upari (cf. Greek hyper, Latin super), a completely different word. With verbs, i.e. adverbially, upa means "towards, near, together with". With nouns, i.e. appositionally, it means "under, subordinate to".

Check Monier-Wiiliams online, that's as good a WP:RS as any. Ramblings on tape simply don't cut it. rudra (talk) 19:19, 28 December 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)

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)