Talk:Shvetashvatara Upanishad

Formatting

This article lacks good formatting, I'm not so good at formatting and also I have less time, can anybody help in this regard? any help is appreciated.

Lokesh 2000 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a few formatting things but I'll try to do more. I'm not an expert in this area by any means, but the writing seems very esoteric - I would suggest trying to simplify the language so that people unfamiliar with Upanishads may be able to understand it. Also, I think removing "we" would help give this a more NPOV. Bellemichelle 12:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced analysis

I have removed the Content section from the article that was added back in 2006, but had persisted unsourced (ie, except for citations to the Upanishad itself) for 8+ years, and furthermore contained some seemingly disputable analysis. That said, it is possible that the section contained something that was useful and sourceable; so here is the link to the section that was removed for future reference. Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

On point 1 of Contents.

Point 1 states : 1. The Supreme God is called by various names such as Shiva, Rudra, etc. From this feature one might assume it was a Shaiva Upanishad, but such an assumption would be incorrect because, at the time of this Upanishad, Shaiva Agamas were not there. Also, at that time the Saguna Brahman, (God with attributes), used to be called by different names, each indicating a particular manifestation of Brahman. Just as the names Shiva or Rudra are used to refer to Brahman, names such as Vayu, Aditya or Agni are also used for same purpose in this Upanishad, rather than referring to the demigods of those names. Moreover, if this Upanishad is indeed a Shaiva Upanishad, other sects of Hinduism such as Vaishnavas wouldn't have quoted its verses/mantras as authority in their respective treatises.

Questions: 1.Where are the references to "facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites" for this statement?. (shouldn't it be removed then?)

2.Don't you think that words such as Demigods are too misleading? Refer to the Wiki article on Agni and you would know what I mean.

3.Isnt the last sentence of that paragraph an assumption or opinion?

Please Note:

The Śvetāśvatara Upanishad (400 - 200 BCE) is the earliest textual exposition of a systematic philosophy of Shaivism. As explained by Gavin Flood, the text proposes:

... a theology which elevates Rudra to the status of supreme being, the Lord (Sanskrit: Īśa) who is transcendent yet also has cosmological functions, as does Śiva in later traditions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminati6 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of what I had put in the article(now removed), was the opinion of Upanishad Scholar Adidevananda as found in his Kannada translation and commentary on the said Upanishad. So It is actually sourced. I have added source in the references section. At that time of writing the content, I was novice and did not put citations at appropriate places in the article. Now, wherever you find certain sentences as opinions we can correct them saying they are scholarly opinions of Adidevananda. As far as demigod word is concerned, Agni was important in vedic times but not now. He and others mentioned are now demigods. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lokesh 2000: Feel free to add back to the article the parts of the deleted section that you can source to the commentary by Swami Adidevananda. It would be best to provide inline citations and attribution (ie, "According to Swami Adidevananda ...") so that it is clear whose analysis is being described. Unfortunately since I haven't read Adidevananda's commentary, and cannot read Kannada, I cannot do any of this myself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Shvetashvatara Upanishad/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

As an Indologist, I would like to point out that the views put forward here, attributed to Gavin Flood, are not accepted by the majority of scholars. In fact, the Śvetāśvatara usually dated much later than what is claimed here, usually not long before Śaṅkara (around 8th century AD). This is partly due to the doctrine of this Upaniṣad, which is seen to reconcile that of Advaita Vedānta and Sāṅkhya, which are later developments. Perhaps some more scholarly sources would be in order here. See, for instance, Patrick Olivelle's "Upaniṣads".

Last edited at 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)