The upanishads

[Anonymous No.19354896]

is this a bad translation? its says on the back that nobody in the world is as qualified.

[Anonymous No.19354899]

maybe it's a good translation

[Anonymous No.19354908]

>>19354899
i hope so. i just remeber some anon awhile ago said this person is compromised somehow.

[Anonymous No.19355042]

>>19354908
Easwaran is a perennialist, which influences his commentary and translation greatly.

[Anonymous No.19355044]

This is the one to get.

[Anonymous No.19355138]

>>19355042
what is a perennialist?

[Anonymous No.19355147]

>>19355044
warum?

[Anonymous No.19355183]

>>19355042
>>19355138
>Perennialists believe that the focus of education should be the ideas that have lasted over centuries. They believe the ideas are as relevant and meaningful today as when they were written. They recommend that students learn from reading and analyzing the works by history's finest thinkers and writers.
this seems like a good approach

[Anonymous No.19355763]

om

[Anonymous No.19355773]

>>19355147
>>19355044
It's the best translation and it has the Sanskrit text as well.

t. Brahmin who knows fluent Sanskrit

[Anonymous No.19355873]

>>19355138
>>19355183
He means a religous perennialist, which is someone he thinks that salvation/unity with the divine can be achieved via virtually any genuine religous tradition

[Anonymous No.19355888]

>>19354896
It's heavily abridged, especially the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads.

>>19355773
The Oxford Worlds Classics edition doesn't have sanskrit text, only English. The translater later made an edition with facing sanskrit text, but it was never in the OWC version.

[Anonymous No.19355894]

>>19355888
>It's heavily abridged
why would anyone allow that? seems unethical? are you full of shit?

[Anonymous No.19355944]

>>19354896
I like the Radhakrishnan translation of the Principal Upanishads, but Easwaran is fine.

[Anonymous No.19356766]

bump

[Anonymous No.19357124]

>>19354896
Easwaran has always been a bit on the "liberal" side and tends to translate for the western audience while remaining politically correct. He'd much rather steer clear of a controversial but correct translation in the hopes that people will find it acceptable.

[Anonymous No.19357353]

>>19354896
Reading a translation isn't worth much; start by reading translations of Shankara's commentaries, and build on that. Then read translations of commentaries on his commentaries. Then read translated treatises on the Upanishads specific to certain philosophies, like Vedanta. Or how the apply to bhakti traditions.

[Anonymous No.19358048]

>>19355894
No, I had a copy and read it, gave it away because it leaves so much out. For example, it leaves out most of the Brihadaranyaka, only translating some of Yajñavalkya's dialogues from it. I wouldn't say it's unethical, some parts of the Upanishads are very obscure and Easwaran's translation is meant for the general reader. But don't get it if you want to study the entire texts.

[Anonymous No.19358054]

>>19355873
Huh?
Wtf
I thought religious perennialism was about recognising the ancient divine origin of a plurality of religious traditions, not that following any religious tradition would lead to salvation
I guess it makes sense why christians/muslims hate perennialism then

[Anonymous No.19358355]

>>19358054
>I thought religious perennialism was about recognising the ancient divine origin of a plurality of religious traditions
That is more Traditionalism with a capital T, which has a much more refined position on the matter IMO. This often the reason why many Traditionalists dislike being lumped in with perennialists (such as Huxley) whose approach is more 'wishy washy'

[Anonymous No.19359289]

bump

[Anonymous No.19359292]

>>19358048
>For example, it leaves out most of the Brihadaranyaka, only translating some of Yajñavalkya's dialogues from it.
how is it ethical to leave out sections from a religious text? who has the authority to make such a decision?

[Anonymous No.19359334]

>>19354896
Should I just learn sanskrit, how long could it possibly take? Certainly not more than a few years right?

[Anonymous No.19360014]

>>19359334
I think a translation is perfectly sufficient considering the circumstances.

[Anonymous No.19360404]

>>19360014
what are the circumstances? I can't think of another scenario where learning the original language would be more of a valid path than Eastern metaphysical ancient texts.

[Anonymous No.19360947]

>>19358355
>has a much more refined position on the matter
Traditionalism seems arbitrary. There is no reason that continuity or age makes a religion more true. It is akin to accepting the transcendental argument for God and then saying that the correct God is a specific type of Catholic or Protestant because thats how you grew up.

[Anonymous No.19361260]

>>19360947
>there is no reason that continuity or age makes a religion true
This sort of assumes that Traditionalists like Guenon, Evola, and Schuon accept that religion is something that you have faith in on account of it being old or something. That is NOT what they were saying. They basically said that all religions seem to be manifestations of the same realization of Truth that is absolute. This Truth is something that isn't believed in, but KNOWN to be true. So continuity and age have nothing to do with it. It's either true or it isn't. A new religion could form today that contains these truths and it would be just as valid (of course Traditionalists argue that such a faith could never form today, since we live in le Kali Yuga, and even if such a faith were to start, no one would follow it).

[Anonymous No.19361289]

>>19361260
to add to this, in Traditionalist's eyes, there is no such thing as "belief", "faith", or even "religion" in the way modern Christians and others understand it. These things, they would say, are recent (relatively speaking) degenerations of an understanding of the divine that was once known and is now merely believed in. And to back themselves up they basically have the entirety of esoteric thought in all religions. In this way, writers like Evola and Guenon are actually the polar opposite of the caricature of mystical wishy washy types some portray them as.

[Anonymous No.19361691]

>>19361289
This is a very well formulated explanation of the way traditionalists think anon. Based

[Anonymous No.19361702]

>>19361691
you're too kind anon

[Anonymous No.19363020]

>>19355044
Where do I go after having read this and the Bhagavad Gita? I still feel completely lost.