PDA

View Full Version : Non-Advaita Translation of Upanishads?



Shivbhakta
12 April 2013, 05:32 AM
Namaste.

I have read several translations of many Upanishads, but all are from Advaita Vedantin scholars. Are there any authoritative translations and commentaries from Vishishtadvaitin or Bhedabheda scholars?

Thank you.

philosoraptor
12 April 2013, 08:18 PM
Namaste.

I have read several translations of many Upanishads, but all are from Advaita Vedantin scholars. Are there any authoritative translations and commentaries from Vishishtadvaitin or Bhedabheda scholars?

Thank you.

Check out Exotic India for Kathopanisat with the translation of Sri Ranga Ramanuja's commentary - he is a follower of Ramanuja and the translation is done by Dr. N.S. Anantarangachariar Swami, a very erudite scholar of the SV tradition.

Ra K Sankar
12 April 2013, 11:50 PM
Namaste

There is an English translation of Isavasya Upanishad commentary
by Madvacharya, the proponent of dualistic / tattva / bheda argument mode.

Regards
Ra K Sankar

Omkara
13 April 2013, 02:03 AM
These translations are from the standpoint of the Dvaita tradition of Madhvacharya-

Katha Upanishad-
https://sites.google.com/site/harshalarajesh/katakopanishad

Mundaka Upanishad-
https://sites.google.com/site/harshalarajesh/atharvanopanishad

Mandukya Upanishad-
https://sites.google.com/site/harshalarajesh/mandukyopanishad

Kena Upanishad-
https://sites.google.com/site/harshalarajesh/works-of-madhvacharya/kenopanishad

Isha Upanishad-
http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/shruti/isha/ibtcomm_tot.pdf

Also, translations of Madhvacharya's commentaries on the upanishads can be found here-
http://www.nageshsonde.com/books.html
Please ignore the translator's comments which are from a neo- advaitin perspective and contrary to the spirit of the Bhashyas.

You may also be interested in purchasing these- http://www.madhwakart.com/shop/principal-upanisads-vol-i-ii/

hinduism♥krishna
01 July 2013, 09:43 AM
Namaste.

I have read several translations of many Upanishads, but all are from Advaita Vedantin scholars. Are there any authoritative translations and commentaries from Vishishtadvaitin or Bhedabheda scholars?

Thank you.
Namste.
First of all, Take a look on these shlokas:


Upanishad VIII.xii.3. It says, “This tranquil one, that is, jivatma, rising up from this body (the reference is to videhamukti) becomes one with the Brahman and is established in his own nature.” ( The words, “ is established in his own nature” clearly mean that the consciousness constituting the essence of the individual jivatmas called Atma is the same as the all pervading, infinite consciousness called " sat chit anand " Brahman.

Brhadaranyaka IV.iii.30, says, “There is not that second thing separate from it ( bramhan) that It can know." it indicates there is nothing other than bramhan and strongly indicates oneness. Oneness is the essential nature of parabramhan.

Kaivalya Upanishad 10 - “Clearly recognizing oneself to be present in all beings and clearly recognizing all beings in oneself, the seeker attains the supreme Brahman; not by any other means”. it also indicates oneness ( sayujyata) . [ lord krishna also emphasizes on this in bhagavad gita. without knowing this one can not attain supreme bramhan] …

Brhadaranyaka I.iv.10 says ‘He who thinks that Brahman is one and he is another does not know.”

Kaivalya Upanishad 4 – “Through a life of renunciation, the pure minded seekers clearly grasp the meaning of teaching of Vedanta. Having become one with the Infinite Brahman (while living), all those seekers get totally resolved into Brahman at the time of final death.”

Mundaka III.ii.4 – “The atma of the knower (of Brahman) merges in the abode that is Brahman”.

Prasna Upanishad VI.5 – “ Just as the these flowing rivers that have the sea as their goal get absorbed on reaching the sea, the sixteen constituents of the all seeing Purusha, i.e., one who has recognizes his identity with Brahman , the one who has Purusha (Brahman) as one’s goal, (the sixteen digits being the ten indriyas, the five pranas and the ahamkara) disappear on reaching Purusha (Brahman), when their nama roopa are destroyed and the one (the entity that remains undestroyed) is simply called Purusha (Brahman)”. (Depending on the context, the word, “Purusha” refers to jivatma or Iswara or Brahman).

Swetasvatara Upanishad I.11 goes on to describe the process of upasana and kramamukti. It says “If one meditates on Parameswara during life, on the fall of the physical body, the sukshma sarira goes to join Iswara (the kaaranabrahma, the macrocosmic causal body, enjoys sarva-aiswarya (all happiness, powers, etc.), and, thereafter, as aaptakaamah (i.e. with a sense of all desires being fulfilled by knowledge of identity with Brahman) becomes Brahman”

Brhadaranyaka II.iv.6 – “One who views Brahman as if having diversity in It goes from death to death.”

Upanishadas Shows oneness of atma and bramhan. I wonder how you will find authentic Upanishads from vishishtaadvaitian or bhedabheda ?
Upanishadas philosophy is exactly opposite to the dualism.
Because of this you will find very few commentries from dvaita bedhabheda . Even if you find them you wont get accurate meaning of Sanskrit verses or you will find adding of some extra words.

I hope it will help you.
Hari govinda ॐ

Omkara
01 July 2013, 11:59 PM
Because of this you will find very few commentries from dvaita bedhabheda . Even if you find them you wont get accurate meaning of Sanskrit verses or you will find adding of some extra words.


And what about all the added words in these tranlations of yours?

hinduism♥krishna
02 July 2013, 01:24 AM
And what about all the added words in these tranlations of yours?

Namaste.
I don't think i have added words. One or two sentenses i have added but they are just explanations of shlokas after stating original verses meaning.
Original shlokas are as it is. No any modifications. You can check it if you don't believe.

If my post hurt you pardon me.

shri hari govinda!!!

Omkara
03 July 2013, 06:59 AM
Namaste.
I don't think i have added words. One or two sentenses i have added but they are just explanations of shlokas after stating original verses meaning.
Original shlokas are as it is. No any modifications. You can check it if you don't believe.

If my post hurt you pardon me.

shri hari govinda!!!

Could you parse out your translations word-by-word and justify them, then?

hinduism♥krishna
03 July 2013, 10:30 AM
Could you parse out your translations word-by-word and justify them, then?

namaste.

If you don't believe check yourself. If you are not sure you should check it word by word why me?
I m very sure vedas and upanishada teaches oneness of atma and bramha. This is an open secret for the knowers of vedas.
All highly learned vedic scholars agreed that atma and parabramhan are one.

I m disciple of great devotee of lord krishna, maharashtian saint dnyaneshwar. He was master in vedas and upanishadas. He truly knew the term " i am bramhan " as he was beloved devotee of lord krishna. At the age of 16 only he wrote a divine commentey on gita and revealed the secret of vedas to all varnas. and he take samadhi at the edge of 21. Truly he was incarnation of lord krishna.

So i m following actual vedic dharma not a modified sectarian dharma. It is very difficult to accept the truth of upanishadas for sectarian followers as it opposes their theory.

regards

jai shri kriahna hari hari

philosoraptor
03 July 2013, 09:38 PM
Could you parse out your translations word-by-word and justify them, then?

Wow, Omkara, you must have a truly "dualistic mind" to make such a request. Clearly you have been reading too many books of "gaudiya vaishnwas."

Omkara
04 July 2013, 03:18 AM
namaste.

If you don't believe check yourself. If you are not sure you should check it word by word why me?

You offered translations of scriptures on a public forum to support a certain view. If the veracity of those translations are questioned, it is upto you to justify them by providing word-by-word derivations. This is basic forum ettiquette. Go through translations of these verses by any reputed Advaitin organization. You will find that they differ from yours.

philosoraptor
04 July 2013, 11:10 AM
You offered translations of scriptures on a public forum to support a certain view. If the veracity of those translations are questioned, it is upto you to justify them by providing word-by-word derivations. This is basic forum ettiquette. Go through translations of these verses by any reputed Advaitin organization. You will find that they differ from yours.

Here is the part where HinduismKrishna will call Omkara a "gaudiya vaisnwa." If anyone disagrees with HinduismKrishna, it can only be that they are "gaudiya vaishnwas" who follow a "modified sectarian dharma" instead of the true dharma that HK follows.

Wait for it.... wait for it....

hinduism♥krishna
04 July 2013, 10:44 PM
You offered translations of scriptures on a public forum to support a certain view. If the veracity of those translations are questioned, it is upto you to justify them by providing word-by-word derivations. This is basic forum ettiquette. Go through translations of these verses by any reputed Advaitin organization. You will find that they differ from yours.

Namaste.
I consider it unnecessary to prove a true thing. Mainy great sages and saints like dnyaneshwar, eknatha had stated the meaning of vedas and upanishadas that atma and bramhan are one.I consider it true because they cannot be wrong cuz they were the great devotees of lord krishna .
Also, even if i would write translations word by word, here are some people who will say it is interpolated.
My general logic is if upanishadas truly want to say atma is different from bramhan, why they didnt use the sentences like " you are not bramhan, you are different from bramhan, atma is not bramhan, i am not bramhan. ". think about it.
I surely know, dvaita philosophers are not very sincere in translating upanishadas.

jai shri hari.

Omkara
04 July 2013, 10:55 PM
Mainy great sages and saints like dnyaneshwar, eknatha had stated the meaning of vedas and upanishadas that atma and bramhan are one.I consider it true because they cannot be wrong cuz they were the great devotees of lord krishna .

So Ramanuja, Madhva,Vallabha,Nimbarka, Raghavendra Swami etc. were not great devotees of Lord Krishna?



My general logic is if upanishadas truly want to say atma is different from bramhan, why they didnt use the sentences like " you are not bramhan, you are different from bramhan, atma is not bramhan, bramhan, you are different from bramhan, atma is not bramhan, am not bramhan. ". think about it.


I have posted quotes from the Upanishads which destroy Advaita, but you did not bother to reply.

These quotes are from Parama Upanishad, which is cited by Madhvacharya and has been accepted as authentic by advaitin scholars like Madhusudhana Saraswati, Sayanacharya and Sridhara Swamin in their works-

jIvasya paramaikyaM tu buddhisArUpya ekasthAnanivAso vA vyaktisthAnamapex na svarUpaikatA tasya muktasyApi virU svAtantryapUrNate.alpatvapAratantrye vi- ******** iti paramashrutiH * ||

'The unity of jiva with the Lord consists of sameness of thought or it may mean dwelling in the same place. Such sameness of habitation is relative to some particular manifestation of the Lord. It is not unity of essential being. For even the released individual is different from him. The difference between the two lies in the Lord being independent and infinite and the individual being finite and dependent'. Such are the words of Parama-Sruti.

mithashcha jaDabhedo yaH prapaJNcho bhedapaJNchakaH | so.ayaM satyo hyanAdishcha sAdishchennAshamApnuyAt.h | na cha nAshaM prayAtyeshha na chAsau bhrAntikakalpitaH * | kalpitashchennivarteta na chAsau vinivartate * | dvaitaM na vidyata iti tasmAdaj~nAninAM matam.h * | mataM hi j~nAninAmetanmitaM trAtaM cha vishhNunA * | tasmAtsatyamiti proktaM paramo harireva tu" * ||- ******** iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'The universe consists of five differences. They are the difference between God and the individual self, that between God and insentient matter, that among individual selves, that between insentient matter and individual self and that among the material entities themselves. This is real and unoriginated. If it were originated, it would perish.But it does not perish. Nor is it a fabrication of illusion. If it were so, it would have disappeared.But it does not dissapear. Therefore, the view that there is no duality is the view of the ignorant. The view of the enlightened is that this world is comprehended and protected by Visnu. Therefore it is proclaimed to be real.'

vishhNuM sarvaguNaiH pUrNaM j~nAtvA saMsAravarjitaH | nirduHkhAnandabhuN^.hnityaM tatsamIpe sa modate * | muktAnAM chAshrayo vishhNuradhiko.adhipatistathA * | tadvashA eva te sarve sarvadaiva sa IshvaraH" ||-iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'He who knows Visnu as full of excellences, gets rid of samsara and becomes a enjoyer of painless bliss for all eternity. He rejoices in proximity to Visnu. Visnu is the support for the liberated selves. He surpasses them and he is their Lord. All of them are under his control. He is always the supreme ruler'.

philosoraptor
05 July 2013, 08:29 AM
Wait for it.....

hinduism♥krishna
05 July 2013, 09:41 AM
Namaste.shri hari hari om.

sarvam hy etad.h brahma, ayam atma brahma so.ayam atma chatushpat.h..
2..
( mandukya upanishada)

All this is verily Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This Atman has four quarters
(parts).



amatrash chaturtho. Avyavaharyah prapanchopashamah shivo. advaita
evam onkara atmaiva samvishaty Atmana.a.Atmanam ya evam veda ..
12.. ( mandukya)

That which has no parts (soundless), incomprehensible (with the aid of sense
organs), the cessation of all phenomena, all bliss and non-dual AUM, is the fourth
and verily the same as Atman . He who knows this merges his self into the Cosmic
Self.


I have posted quotes from the Upanishads which destroy Advaita, but you did not bother to reply.
How advaita will get desteoyed if upanishadas say oneness of atma and bramhan.


'The unity of jiva with the Lord consists of sameness of thought or it may mean dwelling in the same place. Such sameness of habitation is relative to some particular manifestation of the Lord. It is not unity of essential being. For even the released individual is different from him. The difference between the two lies in the Lord being independent and infinite and the individual being finite and dependent'. Such are the words of Parama-Sruti.
I dount support this at all. Here jiva is mentioned not atma.When atma appears to be bound by material and subtle body then it is called as " jiva "
The term it is depedent is for jiva only , not to atma. I have already explained in srimad bhagavat says points to ponder....#20 that atma is ever free , it is beyond maya and liberation.Then how you can say atma is dependent
Did you forget what lord krishna says in bhagavad gita about atma that it is all pervading .The all pervading thing can not be a dependant. And also all pervading thing can't be a finite. The finiteness and dependant is only for jiva which is illusory not to the omnipresent atma which is sat chit anand.

Chandogya 7.24.1 says, “The finite is that that in which one sees something else…… knows something else. That which is finite is mortal.

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.4.vi. “The Brahmana rejects him who knows the Brahmana to be different from the Self. The Kshatriya rejects him who knows the Kshatriya to be different from the Self. Worlds reject him who knows the worlds to be different from the Self. The gods reject him who knows the gods to be different from the Self. Beings reject him who knows beings to be different from the Self. All reject him who knows all to be different from the Self. This Brahmana, this Kshatriya, these worlds, these gods, these beings and this all are only the Self (atma)."


The Parama-sruti says: 'The universe consists of five differences. They are the difference between God and the individual self, that between God and insentient matter, that among individual selves, that between insentient matter and individual self and that among the material entities themselves. This is real and unoriginated. If it were originated, it would perish.But it does not perish. Nor is it a fabrication of illusion. If it were so, it would have disappeared.But it does not dissapear. Therefore, the view that there is no duality is the view of the ignorant. The view of the enlightened is that this world is comprehended and protected by Visnu. Therefore it is proclaimed to be real.'
Can you give me the original sanskrit shloka ? It seems to be interpolated or recently added.Upanishadas doesn't talk about differences. In Upanishads there is mentioned many times that difference is not real.

Upanishadas say they are fools who see differences.

Brhadaranyaka I.iv.10 says ‘He who thinks that Brahman is one and he is another does not know.”

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.2 – “From a second entity only fear arises.”


The Parama-sruti says: 'He who knows Visnu as full of excellences, gets rid of samsara and becomes a enjoyer of painless bliss for all eternity. He rejoices in proximity to Visnu. Visnu is the support for the liberated selves. He surpasses them and he is their Lord. All of them are under his control. He is always the supreme ruler'.
So what? Does this mean atma different from bramhan? Certainly no.

Vishnu is turiya pada of atma. Also turiya is defined in mandukya upanishad as follow:
7. Turiya is not that which cognises the
internal, not that which cognises the
external, not what cognises both of them,
not a mass of cognition, not cognitive, not
non-cognitive. It is unseen, incapable of
being spoken of, unnameable, the essence
of the knowledge of the one self, that into
which the world is resolved, the peaceful,
the benign, the non-dual, such, they think,
is the fourth quarter. He is the self; He is to
be known.


Shri hari hari govinda.