/lit/ - Literature

>>12399803
You can look up the translators name and use this chart some anon made to figure out which Upanishads it has and whether any are abridged. I am not familiar with the Penguin edition but most Penguin stuff is of decent quality. I don't have the time to research it at the moment but if I had to guess I would probably say the Penguin one is most likely a fairly solid and accessible translation by a mainstream academic. I have never seen anyone complain about their translation.

>>11584933
I haven't read it but it's a decent choice. He was a part of the Ramakrishna movement but not everyone affiliated with it promotes a neovedanta spin. He was a direct disciple of Ramakrishna's wife which is a good thing and his translations of the Gita and Ramakrishna's gospel are widely regarded as being of a high quality. He presents the Upanishads from an Advaita persepctive which I personally agree with but if you are interested in a translation that doesn't take one view or another (not a good idea imo) he is not the right choice. Some anon compiled this chart of all the English translations and which ones they include. If you want the most complete english translation that has the most Upanishads (without a lengthy and detailed commentary e.g. Shankara's) without any parts omitted that would probably be Radnakrishnan's (who also has an advaita perspective).

Since some folks here are interested in Hinduism, I though it would be good to make some information available about which Upanishads are present in some popular translations. It can be misleading just reading blurbs which don't explain what's left out.