Talk:Isha Upanishad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Krishnaism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with traditions worshiping Krishna. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vaishnavism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Vaishnavism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Contents 1 The name 2 Suggested merge 3 merge, cleanup 4 meaning of Isa verse

[edit] The name

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)

[edit] Suggested merge

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)

[edit] merge, cleanup

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] meaning of Isa verse

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)