Namaste.

I’ve recently begun to read the Upanishads with some seriousness and one of the considerations that has naturally come up is what translation(s) are best for my purposes.

I have read through the Patrick Olivelle version and am currently reading Nikhilananda’s one volume edition. I have mixed feelings about both. Olivelle is attractively clear and idiomatic in some places but overall rather bloodless and lacking in feeling for the profound import of the text. I much prefer Nikhilananda in his communication of the spiritual import, but I’ve also noticed that he tends to interpolate his philosophical point of view; in particular, he often inserts “non-dual” and “non-duality” where I’m fairly sure it doesn’t actually exist in the orginal. It’s not that I’m uncomfortable with his interpretation – I agree with it in general – it’s just that I’d prefer more fidelity to the text.

I’ve also seen the Radakrishnan version in library, and like the fact he includes the original (at least in transliteration) but I’m a little put of by the presence of so much western style theologizing. Of course this may be a misimpression on my part.

Anyway, it would be great to hear about other peoples’ impressions of these and other translations.

Thanks in advance,
Kshetra