Talk:Isha Upanishad

Should this article not be called the Isha Upanishad, for consistency with the others, and because it is the most common name? And Isha itself is more common that Isha Upanishad. Imc 09:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've just put the merge tags on as suggested by Profvk on Talk:Sri Isopanisad, but I know nothing about this subject (I found Sri Isopanisad when someone slapped a {{catneeded}} tag on), so I make no real comment on whether this is an appropriate merge or not. Feel very free to remove the tags if it's not. Cheers --Pak21 09:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am merging the two articles, and tried to cleanup the more blatant essayish parts. Still needs major cleanup, particularly attribution of interpretations and translations. dab (ᛏ) 11:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

still needs major revision. It is useful to cite interpretations, but you have to give their authors every time. Wikipedia can only discuss the objective form and content of the text, and refer to the opinion of published authors for questions of interpretation. Since the original is not in English, translations must be attributed. It is desirable to give a literal translation first, and longer circumlocutions can be treated as interpretations. dab (ᛏ) 12:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello dab, I have done what I can, and cited the translations I've brought in. The descriptions of the text were so messey in my opinion that I've removed them entirely. I don't know if we have to list all the verses in the article - and would feel a section discussion regarding different types of interpretations might be more appropriate? GourangaUK 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that most of the text was unsalvageable. I am re-inserting Griffith's translation of verse 8 though (plus the short discussion of syntax analysis). Ideally, we should have a brief discussion of the text itself, and then a discussion of notable various interpretations. The text is so short, however, that the content of each verse may be discussed individually. dab (ᛏ) 17:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think Prabhupada's translation should be treated under "interpretations": He is very transparent by supplying a word-by-word explanation, but rendering shukra as "the greatest of all, the Personality of Godhead" (etc. etc.) is an explanation (interpretation), and not an actual translation. dab (ᛏ) 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

More meanings should be given for the first verse. Though Sanskrit has such an excellent grammer and it has such a wonderful etymology, still for some reason the simplest meaning of this verse as understood literally by anyone knowing sanskrit is not what is given in article. For someone knowing a bit of sanskrit the meaning is much straightforward. The meaning of verse is more like "All that you have in this universe is a place/abode of God (or part of God); so use it (or enjoy it) with a sense of detachment/renouncement (don't know the actual word in english, other wise the meaning is "use it with a sense of detachment+renoucement")

The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.7.175.2 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Reply

I agree - it is my intention to do this, because different translations reflect different interpretations.

O Govinda. You have removed two quotes on the grounds that Osho "has no credentials" and does not expound "any tradition". You also personally disagree with his understanding of the advaita standpoint. You have also removed a picture on the grounds that the text is not from the Isha Upanishad.

Now clearly it is not necessary to represent a "tradition" - otherwise scholars like Gavin Flood could not be used. And clearly you cannot remove an authority just because you personally disagree - that is personal research. As to notability I am only aware of two full-length English-language commentators on the Upanishad. One is Prabhupada's = his "credentials" are simply that he expounds one of the several "traditions" to which you refer (there is no representation here of ANY reading that contradicts Prabhupada's, nor any academic overview, and P is not a notable academic). The other is Osho, who has contributed one full-length commentary in English and another in Hindi and is a Professor of Philosophy. He represents a different view from Prabhupada's. There are other notable commentators, like Aurobindo, who were briefer but should be noticed.

Lastly, the text in the pic IS drawn from a translation of the Isha; the same verse rendered by Prabhavananda and Manchester (external link on page) as "May I behold through thy grace thy most blessed form. The Being that dwells therein even that Being am I." and Muller; "The light which is thy fairest form, I see it. I am what He is". Again, this is the English rendering used by Osho.

Image:Ishaupanishad.jpg Redheylin (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia articles are based on scholarly literature (secondary sources), but may also include references to primary sources. It is important not to confuse the two. Osho is a primary source for anything concerning Osho. G. Flood is a secondary source in his field of expertise. Regardless of the origin of the translation, it isn't desirable to clutter articles with cheesy images. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Redheylin: If Osho, whether I agree with his views or not, were well regarded as an academic authority on Vedic literature or acknowledged as an exponent of a respected tradition, I think he would be a fitting source for an encyclopedia article on this topic to quote.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dbachmann - please refer me to details of wiki policy on "cheesiness", thanks. Please also explain why a commentary upon this upanishad is not a secondary source and the exact nature of the "confusion" you think I may have made.

O Govinda - you have simply repeated yourself. Please note that the appellation "vedic" in relation to the Isha is itself a point of vew of a certain school to which the commentator in question does not belong. You have used the value-judgements "well-regarded", "fitting" and "respected", but these are a matter of POV unless you can back them up. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Osho as scriptural commentator; "Osho's commentary on the Sikh scripture known as Japuji was hailed as the best available by Giani Zail Singh, the former President of India." (from page Osho)

You are right, Redheylin, that "well-regarded" and "respected" reflect value judgments. That doesn't make these terms useless or irrelevant. A scholar well regarded by his academic peers is a scholar a responsible encyclopedia would likely regard as an authority suitable to quote. And a leading exponent of a tradition would surely be worthy to quote when that tradition is widely respected by scholars and religious leaders for its philosophical, literary, social, religious, and cultural contributions. By these measures, some sources are indeed "fitting," just as some other sources deserve to be considered disreputable.

Yes, I have a POV about sources: If they're to be cited as authorities, they should have relevant credentials.

Regarding the praise from Giani Zail Singh: Those familiar with political norms in India will hesitate to regard praise from politicians as a reliable sign of objective worth. That apart, writing even a splendid commentary on a Sikh scripture hardly qualifies one as an authority on the Upanisads.

By the way: Though Osho, I suppose, might see things differently, I see nothing in the text of this Upanisad that justifies a mithuna graphic.

Cordially,

O Govinda (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is not a "mithuna" - it is a detail from a stone sculpture roughly contemporaneous with the mukhya era, representing god and consort, like Vishnu and Lakshmi. It is the closest approximation I can find to a graphic conception of the "Ishwar" of that era, which, as you may know, precedes the bhakti era by a millennium.

As regards your position, about "respectable" sources, I repeat my invitation to produce sufficient notable authority for your statements that Osho fails and ACB, implicitly, passes the test of general academic respect. I agree that both commentators fall somewhat under the category of religious teachers, and that a more objective overview would be good, but this is not available at the moment. Of course it is not just a question of "politicians" - the Dalai Lama has endorsed Osho's Buddhist commentaries, influential churchmen his comments on the gospels, etc. He is chiefly notable as a religious teacher in his own right, but taught Upanisadic philosophy at an academic level. What is your position on Aurobindo? Redheylin (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I think if we provide commentary, Osho should perhaps not be the first and only commentator we cite. I can't see any google scholar cites for his "I am that" – that may change, as I understand his work is beginning to be studied academically in India, but at present, there is no evidence that his work is sufficiently influential. Couldn't see any press review of his book either, at least not online. He does seem to be quite well regarded as a religious commentator in India, at least by some, so it may be okay to add his work to the Literature section. If at some point in the future we have lots of others commentators represented, then we can perhaps talk again; but there should be some evidence of his notability as a commentator on this specific text. Jayen466 21:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

re the request to "please refer me to details of wiki policy on 'cheesiness'", see WP:ENC. We can cover cheesy artwork in articles about cheesy artwork, if at all notable. Self-made cheesy art lacks all notability unless and until you get some major media coverage of your work. See also the UE rationale for image deletion at WP:IFD. You are free to use Image:Ishaupanishad.jpg in your userspace. If you have no intention of doing so, the image should probably be deleted as unencyclopedic. Furthermore, I find it highly dubious to translate "Purusha" with "cosmic spirit", and to quote verse 16 partially, without making clear that the "thou" there refers to the Sun. The Swami Paramananda translation has "O Sun ... The Purusha (Effulgent Being) who dwells within Thee, I am He". You make this "That cosmic spirit which lies at thy heart ... I myself am that", photoshopped together with some anthropomorphic statue losing all indication that this is about the subject identifying his own Self with that of the Sun. dab (𒁳) 08:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, now, Jayen, we are going to need evidence of notability as a commentator for Prabhupada too, as the whole article was based upon his reading - so Osho was not "the first and only" but an attempt to add a contrast of views. I was also going to include Aurobindo, but the same difficulty is there - could you suggest some meta-source which would serve as a criterion of notable commentators on this particular Upanishad? I note you produced a quote that listed Vedanta (which means the Upanishads) first among the topics with which the writer credited Osho expertise. But if it has to be this specific text, then we simply have no secondary sources at all, so the entire article is invalid - and this is going to be true for all the Upanishads, I think.

DB, your comments are original research, but there is no difficulty at all in accommodating your Mullerian views by selecting an alternative translation. I am sorry to hear that your aesthetic evaluations were also personal - there is no way around that: we cannot simply remove every image we dislike. If we dislike the fact that Vedanta anthropomorphises, we will need some notable commentator expressing this dislike. Unfortunately no commentator whatsoever is at present identified as notable. Redheylin (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

my comments are "original research"? They are comments, properly placed on at talkpage. I am not sure what my "views" are supposed to be, and how they are "Mullerian". I pointed out why there is no way you can clutter article space with your private collages, that's all. Find an encyclopedic image related to the topic, and it will be fine. So the "Vedanta anthropomorphises"? Is that a fact now? Last time I checked, Vedanta was strong on mysticism. dab (𒁳) 15:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

we are going to need evidence of notability as a commentator for Prabhupada too Totally agree with you, Redheylin. And as far as I can tell from a preliminary look at Google Scholar, Prabhupada has no such standing, while there are some good indications that Aurobindo has (82 out of 176 Google Scholar references mention Aurobindo). In Google Books, the situation appears much the same; around one-half of all published books discussing the Isha Upanishad also mention Aurobindo, and there are hardly any mentions of Prabhupada (I found 2, as against over 350 for Aurobindo). So from this preliminary survey it seems that Prabhupada is out, and Aurobindo is in, in a big way.

I hasten to add that this was a quick survey; if anyone is aware of alternative spellings etc. that might have skewed my results, or is able to present more detailed research, by all means, let's hear about it. But any argument that a particular commentator should be included or excluded must be based on the academic reception of their commentary. We should not give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe sources. Jayen466 00:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jayen you are a marvel. To be fair to Prabhupada you ought to include the spellings Upanisad, Isopanisad. Interesting result for Aurobindo. His stuff is online, but he did not complete it. Redheylin (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nothing much with Upanisad, 22 with Isopanisad. Jayen466 11:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Quick comment: See http://www.acbspn.com/reviews.htm. Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. His work on the Bhagavad Gita does have more scholarly cites, but even so, the majority seem to be from works discussing the Hare Krishna movement, rather than from secondary literature on the Bhagavad Gita. Jayen466 11:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Literally: "all this (idam sarvam) covered by the Lord (Isavasyam), whatsoever, (yat kiñcha) the created world (jagatyam jagat). What is given (tena tyaktena) do enjoy (bhuñjitha), do not covet (ma grdhah) anyone else's (kasya svid) wealth (dhanam). ^[1]

I have removed the above as I am unhappy about its reliability but I dont have access to a good Sct dictionary at the moment. My doubts centre around "kiñcha jagatyam jagat tena tyaktena" If DB or anybody has a good quality source from which we might render this with a grammatical analysis? Redheylin (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

there are plenty of good dictionaries online. You are now very close to WP:POINT. I do not know why anyone should care whethe you happen to have access to a good dictionary. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Try to stick to the plot, thanks. There is no disruption, no point is being made, no need for hostility. A dictionary is a reliable source for rendering a foreign language. I would like to see a sourced and reliable word-for-word rendering so that it can be seen how various interpretations are arrived at - why someone is saying that it is sun-worship, another is saying it is morality, another is saying it is pantheism. Please also note that this is an English language affair and "pada" is not an English word. You could say "poetic foot", but I dont think that has the same exact sense. Redheylin (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re anthropomorphism - this is what one does when one calls the sun or the supreme real "lord", or equates fire witha human formed god (see agni). You are free to add your personal comments here: not to edit the actual page on the basis of your own theories. Since the text is named for "Ishwara" it is reasonable to include a representation of such a deity. Redheylin (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note our pada article. You might as well say that "Upanishad" is not English. Doh. Redheylin, I am not interested in your opinions or elaborations of them. If you find an encyclopedic image illustrating "Ishvara", feel free to include it at Ishvara, preferably before ruining it with a graphics editor beforehand. If you have a problem with kiñca, kindly place a citation request. Or feel free to look up kim and ca in a dictionary. dab (𒁳) 16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I merged pada into Vedic meter back in 2006[1]. You may still find the information, since pada is now a disambiguation page. Try to pull your own weight, ok? dab (𒁳) 16:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can confirm that "Upanis(h)ad" is found in Chambers'; it is a "theosophical or philosophical treatise". Pada - no, sorry. What I normally do here is put the Sct technical term afterwards in brackets. What English word would you select to translate "pada"? You will no doubt realise that "this All" is a POV translation, which is questionable since "All" capitalised suggests a divinity of some sort, which is contradicted by the text where all this is COVERED with the divinity. No divinisation of "all" is suggested, no capital is suggested. Now, "this all" sounds like the article was written in Tennessee. So "all this", alright? Redheylin (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Redheylin, this is such a non-issue. Technically, the incipit quoted is a pada. But I am happy to call it a "quarter-verse", or just the "incipit" if you prefer. The literal translation of "pada" is "foot", happily coinciding with the English term "metric foot". Yes, I translated "sarva" as a noun, sue me. dab (𒁳) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Literally: "all this (idaṃ sarvaṃ) covered by the Lord (īśā vāsyam), whatsoever, (yat kiñca) the created world (jagatyāṃ jagat). What is given (tena tyaktena) do enjoy (bhuñjīthā), do not covet (mā gṛdhaḥ) anyone else's (kasya svid) wealth (dhanam). ^[1]

I really must remove this again for the following reasons; the item was blanked out when I began work. I deblanked it when collecting and adding different versions of the text. Then I noticed there were some questionable renderings. I modified these, but did not remove the ref - so at present the rendering is not that of the ref. However, the rendering is not neutral and authoritative enough to function as the arbiter here, though it could be rendered as one of the versions. This is why I suggested rendering from a dictionary, though that may be OR. Otherwise it is better to send it back to where I got it. This reflects a wider difficulty in including the views of the main Vedantic schools. Redheylin (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

them let's blank the entire thing under {{quotefarm}}. The rendering is, as it says, literal. Redheylin, do you know any Sanskrit, or are you using Wikipedia to learn Sanskrit interactively here? Since you are apparently unwilling to use inline tags, we'll need to reduce this to the bare minimum that has a foundation in proper literature. dab (𒁳) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do you think I knew what "pada" meant? Glad to see you left MaxMuller in there, my sun-worshipping friend.

The wikisource link is now bad. Says the article has been deleted and moved to language domain (Sanskrit). But the page on the SA domain does not exist! Whatever happened to the source material?Devadaru (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Lie Cleaner HK: Welcome to wikipedia. Please review wikipedia's content policies and guidelines particularly about reliable sources and inappropriate content. You did add non-RS websites based content from vedabase.net etc. Please do not edit war and explain why. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

What is a non-RS website?This is literally my first day here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lie Cleaner HK (talk • contribs)

Click WP:RS and please read. It is long guideline page, but your edits will be less challenged if you understand and follow those guidelines. In general, blogs, promotional or other websites and any source that publishes non-peer reviewed content are non-RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, Thanks. Will go through it. I only made my account 2 hours ago, so hope you will ignore my mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lie Cleaner HK (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isha Upanishad. 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/20090122174210/http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/1_sanskr/1_veda/4_upa/isup___u.htm to http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/1_sanskr/1_veda/4_upa/isup___u.htm

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) 20:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply