 |
|
Title: Upanishads
ISBN: 0140447490
Author:
Anonymous
Publicate Date: 2004-04-27
Publish: 2004-04-27
List Price: $13.00
Average Customer Rating: 4.5
Format: Paperback
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $7.74
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $6.34
Amazon Merchant Price: $10.40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: A Purist Blushes
I first read the Upanishads at age 14, ploughing through the complete literal translation by Swami Nikhil??nanda with its incessant footnotes and daunting commentaries. I had heard that the Brhad??ranyaka Upanishad was the oldest, so I thought I should read that first. Bad choice. All the older Upanishads are packed with unexplained references to Vedic ritual, to archaic cosmologies and models of the body. I was fascinated but understood perhaps 1%.
A year later I found the Penguin Classic translated by Juan Mascar?? and light shone on my mind. I suddenly understood what it was all about. His eloquent words opened a door for me, I went through and I have never gone back.
I now own 8 translations of the Upanishads, partial or complete, and I have read a number of others. Even with no Sanskrit, I can see Mascar??'s versions for what they are: old-fashioned, Romantic, poetic paraphrases. My current Penguin says, First published 1965, but portions of these translations were printed under the title "Himalayas of the Soul" as early as 1938. Mascar?? was writing in the era that gave us World War II, the Holocaust, Stalin's Purges, and yet in spirit he dwells with Wordsworth, Blake and Shelley, the Spanish mystics, Shakespeare and the translators of the King James Version.
I am known as a purist, a stickler, a nit-picker. Take the Mundaka Upanishad, 3:1,1. Mascar?? translates, "Two birds, two sweet friends, dwell on the self-same tree". Others have, "Two birds, always united..." or "Two birds, close companions..." Mascar?? has merely added the unjustified, unnecessary, weak and gooey word "sweet"... yet somehow I don't mind.
Useless for any scholarly purposes, this is still probably the best version for the general reader. Despite his atrocious liberties, Mascar?? has got the heart of the matter. If you become deeply interested of course you will go on to read other translations: this book includes only short excerpts from the longer Upanishads. If you don't know these works, they are the world's oldest spiritual writings and have never been surpassed, or equalled. They are poetic, full of imagery rather than philosophy, and once read are never forgotten.
|
2: Sublime
This is the only effective translation of the "Himalayas Of The Soul" I have met ; Mascaro's introduction is itself a work of poetry as well as an important and sensitive appreciation of the document he has translated.In his hands,this ancient profession of faith in God's "otherness" becomes at once immediate,while capturing its' authors' glimpse of the eternal.The total is sublime.
|
3: New Penguin Upanisads (Roebuck 2000/2003) Fall Short of Oxford in Every Way
After some Sanskrit studies years ago, I decided I'd like to read the principal Upanishads in an accurate (so not the laughably loose Mascaro version) but readable (so not the painfully literal and commentary-heavy tome of Radhakrishnan) English version. It soon became apparent that the choice was between Roebuck and Olivelle (Oxford World's Classics). The academic book reviews were quite ambivalent, so I got the two rivals out from the library and made my own comparison.
I was surprised to find the Oxford superior in every way. Most importantly, Olivelle's translation (while plenty literal) is simply in much more natural English. Roebuck is fond of unnatural word order. Her version includes many footnotes on each page, without which her text would sometimes make no sense; Olivelle manages to translate just as literally, but so that you don't NEED to consult his equally voluminous notes in the back. Looking at the Sanskrit text in cases of notable differences, I found that I was almost always more satisfied with Olivelle's version as scrupulously & clearly reflecting the original, too. (In any case, there's no question that Olivelle is the more authoritative scholar; Roebuck needs to cite several of his books in her bibliography and apologize for the "temerity" of offering a new version, but there is no important scholarly work of Roebuck's that Olivelle can cite in his extensive bibliography.)
Publishing is a business. Roebuck freely admits that she relied heavily on Olivelle's version in making her own. The surprise is that she did not manage to stand on his shoulders and make something better in any way. (The reviews and marketing blurbs that suggest Roebuck's version has any more "devotional" value boils down to some pretty superficial and unimportant differences, like including the invocations before and after each upanishad--which are in no sense a part of the actual text or teaching.) In a sane world, there is no need for this Penguin. The chronology is clear: Penguin realized Mascaro was an embarrassment in need of replacement; they contracted Roebuck; while she was working Olivelle's version came out, making hers otiose. Penguin can't let its Mascaro version be totally eclipsed by Oxford, so we have this choice to confuse us. Don't be confused--get the Oxford.
Finally, the Oxford volume is much better-designed. The notes are clearly indexed by page numbers at the top; the upanishads themselves have much clearer running head-numbers; the upanishads are usefully prefaced by a short, clear outline; etc.
|
4: Excellent Introduction
I have read almost 12 translations of the Upanishads,including many by Indian savants and monks....By far this is the best translation for a general reader...the introduction,running to 45 pages, is an excellent summary for the 'Spirit of Upanishad' which may be easily missed by a philosphy student of Upanisahds or vedanta..the author ties up with the visions of Christian saints--a very valuable account for the western readers----After all,Truth is One--sages describe them or talk about them in different ways---
|
5: Probably the best translation for most purposes
For most Scriptures, I've found a translation that "does it" for me, that seems to blend together perfectly the needs of faithfulness, beauty, and understandable language. Some examples would be Andy Gaus' Unvarnished New Testament, Thanissaro Bhikkhu's Dhammapada, The Leloup/Rowe Gospel of Thomas, Stephen Mitchell's Bhagavad Gita.
With the Upanishads, I always feel "almost, not quite" with even the best translations I've seen so far... And Mascar??'s leads the pack, though not by much. My main gripe is its horrendous formatting. Most of the major Upanishads, like the Psalms and the Prophets, are poetry, and Mascaro translates the verses beautifully. However, they're printed in a disjointed prose format, one slightly-indented paragraph per verse, like old, non-user-friendly Bible translations.
Consider Mascar??'s rendition of Isa, verse 1:
Behold the universe in the glory of God: and all that lives and moves on earth. Leaving the transient, find joy in the Eternal: set not your heart on another's possession.
Compare how it would feel if the formatting and punctuation were given a little more thought...
Behold!
The universe in the glory of God
and all that lives and moves on earth!
Leaving the transient,
find joy in the Eternal!
Set not your heart
on another's possession.
Another problem is the lack of verse numbers. Mascar?? obviously felt they would distract from the text, but if it had been printed as poetry, verse numbers could've been put to the side, unobtrusively.
Lastly, the 'Shads (as I like to call them) do address numerous points that often need clarification, from difficult concepts, historical notes, plays on words, and puns, to alternate readings. Although Mascar?? touches on the major ideas of the 'Shads (Brahman, non-duality, mysticism) in the introduction, some footnotes would be extremely welcome, as would overviews/introductions to the individual writings.
Nevertheless, this is a lovely translation, very good for devotional reading, and for non-scholars, probably the best available, though I feel we need one that's still better.
|
|
|
|
|
