Talk:Upanishads

• Someone needs to change the transliteration used in the list from ITRANS to standard transliteration. Because Wikipedia is Unicode-based, there's no need to stay limited to ITRANS. If no one else wants to do it, I will. Kricxjo 13:54, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • I did it. Anthony Appleyard 18:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There was a cleanup tag on this page, but it's been removed. IMHO, this still needs some work; it doesn't read clearly to the clueless

• there shouldn't be windows 98 specific coding on the page; this should be converted to unicode / standard HTML
• there are many paragraphs made up of single sentences; it should be restructured
• there is a vast list of Upanishad's without any english text explaining what each one is / is about

I think it may be a good idea to put back a new cleanup tag; but since it's not there right now, I'm deleting this from the old cleanup page.

cleaning up

I'm in the process of cleaning up the list into proper IAST. This will take some time though. dab (ᛏ) 15:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ITRANS list

I finished, the list is in IAST, and I corrected the misspellings I could find (notoriously, the sibilants were confused). There may of course still be errors, and note that the list rests entirely on online references. Somebody should double-check it with some printed publication. dab (ᛏ) 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

classification of Muktika canon

I have found the following sources for the Mukhya/Samanya/Sannyasa/Yoga/Shakta/Shaiva/Vaishna classification of the canon: [1][2][3]. Of these, the first seems to be our source, while the others appear to be ripoffs off Wikipedia. They give the count of how many are associated with which Veda, but they do not give our

"The first 10 are grouped as mukhya "principal", and are identical to those listed above. 24 are grouped as Sāmānya Vedānta "common Vedanta", 17 as Sannyāsa, 8 as Shākta, 14 as Vaishnava, 15 as Shaiva and 20 as Yoga Upanishads."

what is our source for this? It is not in accord with the classification as given by the list. Which is accurate? I will assume that somebody just did a lousy job of counting the list entries, and adapt the numbers to correspond to the list. dab (ᛏ) 14:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that here I introduced these counts myself, but I cannot for the life of me remember where I got them from. I certainly didn't do the count myself. Strange. Let's just ignore these numbers for now then. dab (ᛏ) 14:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

As per nom, none of the major scriptures have a criticism section on their main page, this is why I removed it. Yeditor, stop placing anti-Hindu POV on this page.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such norm. Even Christianity page has a topic for criticism and controversies. None of the Criticism is my POV. It is an opinion of the most renowned philosophers and even Lala Hardayal who was a Hindu Nationalist and a Hero of the right wing Hindu orginisation (RSS- Sangh Parivar) his opinion cannot be anti Hindu. And if it is , why should there be a problem. Are you saying that only Pro hindu material be placed on Wikepedia. I am reversing your reveret, It was no less than vandalasimYeditor 06:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Yeditor 12:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I said SCRIPTURES not RELIGION. Stop misrepresenting my words. I am saying dalistan crap should not be placed on wiki.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar advise to you. stop putting RSS crap on wikiYeditor 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Upanishad as a root of other religions

"The roots of many Indian religions (Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism) are built upon the foundation of the Upanishads."

The above statement has been deleted. Its not only POV but its factually incorrect. Both Buddhism and Jaininsm came much before Upanishads were written. Looks there is a political agenda behind this lineYeditor 12:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WRITTEN. Oral tradition was the basis for Indian traditions, therefore it is older than Buddhism for sure, and predates Mahavir.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindu history is a history without dates. None of these date quotes are reliable. In any case It dosent prove that Jainism and Buddhism is derived from Upanishads. thats a political agenda (Original Research). therefore deserves to be deletedYeditor 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement is still pov with political agenda

"The roots of many Indian religions are built upon the foundation of the Upanishads."

hence deleted. there are only three other religions which have an Indian Origin, namely, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. None of them are founded on the philosophy of Upanishads.Yeditor 04:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

a note to Yeditor

Dear sir. I am afraid you are mistaken in your view that all the Upanisads are post-Buddhist in their composition. The Bhradaranyaka Upanisad is well known to date from the eighth century BCE. Furthermore, it is also well-known that the Upanisads do indeed form the basis for many Indian religions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. I refer you to Dr Radhakrishnan's introduction to his 'Principal Upanisads', the most scholarly edition of the twentieth century. peace be with you. User: Langdell

Dear Langdell

I dont know where you got the idea that "its well known" Upanishads are basis of many Indian religions. The fact is that neither Buddhists nor Jains confirm it. On the contrary one of Buddhas teaching is "avijja' which "means not to have faith in the Shastras". Buddha's teaching is completely contrary to the self mortification preached by the Upanishad philosophy. Many Hindu writers (including Radhakrishnan) have had a politcal agenda to prove that their philosophy is the best and all other religions have been derived from them. The dates of Upanishads ( and other bhraminical texts) are completely unreliable. More on the dates later.Yeditor 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ambedkar had more of an agenda than Radhakrishnan.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

True Babasahebs agenda was to reform Hindus. Radhakrishnans agenda was to push the shit under the carpet and call the room clean. Yeditor 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

With All due respect , I do not think that Wikipedia is a space for political battles.Kindly desist from such battles. Other than this, Radhakrishnan's work are extremely scholarly (you may want to point out how his writings are politically motivated), and have been annotated as such, with Oxford University Instituting a scholarship and an award as his memorial. Since there are no opinion polls to prove who is or who is not scholarly, one has to do more than just talk politics to discredit his writings. tejas 08:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you were a follower of Babasaheb you wouldn't be calling people "Brahmin vandals". Ambedkar was ambivalent toward Brahmins. Radhakrishnan was a great philosopher on Hinduism and colleague of Dadaji, possibly the greatest Hindu revivalist of the 20th century. Anyway, I can see your POV again, Radhakrishnan was a Brahmin. And the best caste reformer was not Ambedkar (who did little but polarize India based on caste), it was Narayana Guru, who merely used his influence to do seva and bring equality to Hindus in a simple, and nonconfrontational manner.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

whom are you trying to fool, Americans? Yeditor 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes thats exactly what I'm doing because I'm a Brahmin vandal right?Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

you decideYeditor 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make insinuations against people. It is a violation of WP:NPA and is grounds for reporting. Sufficient latitude has been given on this matter.Shiva's Trident 09:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection

A short protection period has been put in place to encourage more discussion. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

"The roots of many Indian religions are built upon the foundation of the Upanishads"

This statement is mis-information with a communal agenda. It will remain POV no matter how much its discussed or reworded. It must be removed.Yeditor 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why has the 'criticism' topic been moved to another page. Why are you guys so afraid of criticism that you keep deleting/hiding it. As I said before, it exists even on Christianity page.Yeditor 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Upanishads is more or less equivalent to the bible. The bible criticism handled on another page separate from the main article, I have created a criticism page, just for you to make baseless rants about your hatred of Upanishads and Hinduism.

From a "blatant Hindu vandal" Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that we, as editors, are supposed to be reporting on what authorities say rather than grinding our own personal axes, why not simply write, for example, "According to So-and-so, many Indian religions have the Upanishads as their foundation. [cited source] However, some scholars dispute this, noting that such-and-such. [another cite]." Would that be so terribly hard? Such brief references also could include links to a more complete criticism page. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 08:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect

I hope the four days of pre-emptive protection did something useful. Let's see.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Roots

Its not only Bharatveer. Its a fact, consensus dictates it (myself, Bharatveer, nids, Hkelkar, Babub, Subhash_bose, Leaflord etc.).Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They say "If Hundred people lie, It does not become a truth" Truth is based on proof.

At the end is the proof of how Buddhism ridicules the philosophy (idiotic philosophy as per Thomas Huxley) of Upanishads. If you people have proof of the acceptance of upanishads by Jains and Sikhs as a foundation of their religion (the only other Indian religions), show it. Else the statement goes. Please stop pushing pov.
For your information The Hindu American Foundation, Hindu Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS wing of United states), Vishwa Hindu Parishad have been recently defeated in the US court of law in Sacramento for pushing similar POVs in American text books. See here for the judgment [4] and here for the background of the litigations [5] [6]

The Pov pushing by Hindu American Foundation and its allies has been exactly similar to the pov pushing that you guys (above) have been making on Wikipedia.

THE BUDDHA by Michael Carrithers, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1983, ISBN 0-19-287589-2, P 102 pp, Past Masters series. Review available here [7]

""The Buddha also rejected the yogic teaching about the Self. According to the Vedantic texts known as the Upanishads, the essence of illumination was to recognize that one's ordinary small self was identical with the Cosmic Self, Brahman. But the Buddha, though he recognized the pragmatic existence of a self, did not accept that there was an Eternal Self with which the small self was, or could become, united. Clinging to the idea of a Self of this kind was, he said, a source of suffering.""Yeditor 11:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)