Talk:Shvetashvatara Upanishad

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Formatting

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced analysis 

message: 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  Upanishad (400 - 200 BCE)For dating to 400-200 BCE see: Flood (1996), p. 86. is the earliest textual exposition of a systematic philosophy of Shaivism.For  Upanishad as a systematic philosophy of Shaivism see: . As explained by Gavin Flood, the text proposes: 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminati6 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  On point 1 of Contents. 

message: Substituted at 06:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment