Talk:Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In italics

Looking at the name Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad, I wonder why one word is italicised and not the other. Both are Sanskrita. Is upaniṣad now considered to be an English word? --Pete (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "stephenphillips":

• From Maya (illusion): Stephen H Phillips (2012), Epistemology in Classical India: The Knowledge Sources of the Nyaya School, Routledge, ISBN 978-1138008816, Chapter 3
• From Maitrayaniya Upanishad: Stephen Phillips (2009), Yoga, Karma, and Rebirth: A Brief History and Philosophy, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0231144858, Chapter 1

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Project Hinduism page?

@Abecedare: Would this article be part of Hinduism project from Indic scripts perspective? Re: this edit by Ogress. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly a part of the Hinduism project and IMO the type of article where Devanagari script can be included non-controversially, since for a Sanskrit text it is the natural choice (yes, I realize that the script post-dates the composition of the text, but in modern times it is the script of choice for Sanskrit), and I don't foresee anyone arguing to include any other Indic script, which is the main motivation for the WP:INDICSCRIPT guideline.

That said, some larger points: including the Devanagari script is justifiable IMO, but not really a crucial inclusion. There are many other improvements that can be made to the lead of the article that will have an even greater imapact. For example, currently, anyone not already familiar with the Upanishads etc could read the entire first paragraph, without realizing that what is being talked about is a scripture, and not (say) some architectural structure. Only the word "composed" in the second paragraph first hints at what is being talked about, and the meaning and context becomes clear only on reading "key scripture to various schools of Hinduism". And worse, one can read the entire article body without being explicitly told the language the text is composed in! There is only an indirect mention in the discussion of the fourth chapter, and even that doesn't say Vedic Sanskrit, which I believe would be more precise than just Sanskrit (check the sources on this though).

None of this is intended remotely as a criticism of any of the current or past editors of the article; just as a reminder that we should not miss the forest for the tress and keep in mind the information that is likely to be most useful to an, often lay, reader. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Indeed, and thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::It doesn't add crucial content (IAST is right there) and so much needs to be done on the page about content. I did some work on it myself as well, you'll note. It's also included in cites for those who can read Sanskrit such as one I formatted that begins Asatō mā sadgamaya... Ogress _smash! 19:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/quotes/brihadaranyaka-upanishad-4-4-5-6
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/jrblack/web/SKT/DL/upanishads.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130630071725/http://ebooks.gutenberg.us:80/himalayanacademy/sacredhinduliterature/lws/lws_ch-10.html to http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/himalayanacademy/sacredhinduliterature/lws/lws_ch-10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed by Ms Sarah Welch?

Genuinely curious why my edits were reverted. They were all sourced. Regarding WP:QUOTEFARM, half the article will have to be re-written that way. Also, a lot of spelling and grammar corrections have been reverted to older forms.

As of now, the content has been explained from Shankara's interpretation point of view. That needs to be corrected. Is there an issue here? Yajnavalkyaas (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yajnavalkyaas: I have retained some of your edits, and made a note of different Advaita, Dvaita etc interpretations in the discussion section where it belongs. Quotes are okay, if carefully used in appropriate section. I did remove something you added from Chari. According to Olivelle, and other scholarly translations, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad does not open (state at the outset) what you added from Chari. See Olivelle's The Early Upanishads (pp. 29-37) for example. The Contents section of this article should summarize what the multiple mainstream secondary WP:RS such as Olivelle, Deussen etc are stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to add to Different interpretations sub-section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)