Talk:Katha Upanishad

message: I noticed today that this page lists only one source for a Katha translation, something from a US-based press in Bloomington, Indiana, but does not list additional translations -- not even such classics as by Radhakrishnan (except for an external link to a Paramanda translation). In contrast, I noticed that the page for the Isha Upanishad lists a variety of translations. Therefore I am adding some additional translations to bring this page more in line with the Isha page style. Not all of these translations may be equally scholarly, but that does not strike me as a sole criterion of interest for translations (that is, readers may seek scholarly translations for scholarly purposes, and other types of translations -- e.g., reflecting particular perspectives, sources of inspiration, or needs -- from other sources). No doubt readers would also be well-served by an impartial discussion of the (alleged or, better, verifiable) qualities of the various translations. We wouldn't want an infintely long list (how many translations are there?), but as a reader of the page, I can say that I myself would certainly want to be told about more than 1 or 2 translations. So these additions may not be perfect, but at least listing multiple translations seems like a step in the right direction -- so I am doing it (Please offer clear explanations of your reasoning if you disagree -- Thanks!). Health Researcher (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing more translations and sources 

message: Hi All 
There is an article in the name Nachiketa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachiketa) which also talks about Katha Upanishad. Please consider changing the name in either of the article and link one another.
Thanks
Xyvutz
Xyvutz (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we change the name 'Naciketas' to 'Nachiketa' ? 

message: Oh dear, now I am remembering why I got so frustrated with Wikipedia. The site is wonderful in so many areas. But the insistence on "academic sources" and "scholarship", which is a good thing in most subjects surely, often leads to problems when dealing with Asian subjects, and in my experience especially with Hinduism, because western "scholars" consistently misunderstand and misportray Hindu teachings. Yet, because Wikipedia accepts such culturally biased work as an authentic, academic source, such misinformation and (what looks to me like) garbage can be included in Wikipedia articles, with extensive references; while a (for me) more authentic source (like for instance Prabhavananda), might be discounted because it is not "academic". The page on Ramakrishna, with all the arguments on Jeffrey Kripal and Kali's Child, is a case in point (see the talk pages and archives if you are curious). I wonder if there is scope for updating Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources to give weight to authentic sources outside academia, especially in such areas as Asian Religions. That is, sources which are considered authentic within that tradition (like, for instance, Prabhavananda) could be accepted as authentic for Wikipedia as well. But I don't have the time or energy to fight for this! Devadaru (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to Hinduism, the real problem, as Randall Collins notes in his The Sociology of Philosophies, is that almost all Hindus themselves have a totally skewed idea of the history of Hinduism. There is no concept that the Mahabharata and Ramayana are myths that were written starting after the Buddha's time for example, and that Hinduism is very different from the Vedic religion. It is important to use academic sources, Indian and otherwise. Mitsube (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes yes, my dear, the real problem after all is that we Hindus have the skewed view, not western academics. Ha ha! Thank you, you prove my point. I bet the "real problem" is much more complex, though. But I see efforts here in this line will just make me frustrated and annoyed, and anyhow I don't enjoy arguing. So I better say goodbye to editing on Wikipedia for the time being. (This article makes some very good points about why getting into this territory makes my head hot:  ) Devadaru (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mitsube: I've seen various things by Randall Collins that I've liked, though I haven't read the particular book that you cite. However, I've seen enough of the current debates on Wikipedia and elsewhere to know that I very firmly reject the insinuation that the problem is "all" with Hinduism, which seems to be the implication of your phrase "the real problem" (i.e., the above is not one of your talk-page contributions that is most accurate or that best reflects loving-kindness, in my opinion :-)). Also, Hinduism scholarship presents challenges that are not present, or not present in the same degree, in Buddhist scholarship -- such as an oral tradition extending over half a millenium or much longer before codification in writing. There are many zones of uncertainty, and in such circumstances, there may be no "mainstream opinion" held by the vast majority, even of scholars, about many issues of interest. I am sure you agree with this, but what do you see as its implications? Would you agree that in such circumstances of ambiguity, the appropriate Wikipedia response is to mention a few of the more widespread/influential/notable perspectives (subject to WP:DUE)? Health Researcher (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By "the problem" I meant the problem with using the writings of Hindu religious figures. As regards mentioning their opinions as notable, as I said above that is fine. Sorry for not being clear. And yes, the early Buddhist texts were preserved orally for hundreds of years before being written down too. And you needn't burden yourself by trying to rate my various talk page posts against each other. Though we can all always use more metta in our communications with one another. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: @Devadaru: Yes, I agree with you, Western scholarship seems to be particularly weak on the subject of Hinduism. Of course, this is recognized by some Western scholars, such as Huston Smith, who noted that Kripal's treatment of RK has some similar dynamics to earlier Western imperialist dynamics. And these are not uncontested issues in Wikipedia. Some influential editors, such as DBachmann (signature 'dab') have sometimes, on talk pages, characterized work by scholars such as W Doniger as the nadir of postmodern drivel. My perception is that there are often see-saw (back-and-forth) fluctuations on some of the more contested pages. But in other pages, such as some of these related to the Upanishads, I wonder if there are in fact ways that the more overall valid and emically valid (insider-valid) perspectives can be included and given an important role in the article. Perhaps in a variety of places in Wikipedia, what is needed is simply for people to put in the work of tracking down, making the case for, and including the relevant references. Who knows, perhaps the picture of strengths and weaknesses that emerges can even be instructive for academics who better understand Hinduism, giving clues how they should prioritize their academic efforts. It would be a pity if you gave up totally on Wikipedia. Health Researcher (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Here are some quotations from the Wikipedia page on reliable sources (WP:RS) that are relevant to evaluating nonacademic sources, such as Prabhavananda's Spiritual Heritage of India (see talk above), that we may potentially want to draw on:
*"Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." (WP:RS#Types_of_sources) 
*"The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes." (WP:RS#Scholarship)
Health Researcher (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonacademic reliable sources

message: Our system for citing Katha verses on this page is not standardized. More specifically, I notice that some of the earlier work on this page cited Katha verses to chapters numbered 1 to 6 (i.e., I-VI), whereas the more recent contributions by Ekabhishek use the system of 2 parts, each of which has 3 chapters. It seems to me that we should standardize, and use only one system. All of the editions with which I am familiar use the system used by Ekabhishek (2 parts / 3 chapters in each)  (e.g., it is used by, Radhakrishnan's translation, Easwaran's translation, Gambhirananda's translation). I am inclined to convert the page to using this latter system. Any opinions? Health Researcher (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, 2 chapters or ādhyāyas, each with three parts or vallis. Moreover, I am strongly in favor of dropping Roman numerals in all scriptural references. It is easier to read, say, 1.3.14 than I.iii.14. Devadaru (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardizing verse references: 2 parts, each with 3 chaps? 

message: Presently the article says, ".. It is associated with the Cāraka-Kaṭha school of the Black Yajurveda". However the book Principal Upanishads, mentions that it belongs to the Taittiriya Shakha of Yajurveda (see - Radhakrishnan, S. (1994). The Principal Upanishads. New Delhi: HarperCollins Publishers India.  p. 593.) Plus the two citation presently given, do not allow access to the relevant text to cross check the facts, as one of them is right, thanks! --Ekabhishektalk 03:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Devanagari is wrong for Kaṭhā (uses dental rather than retroflex 't').
Imurchie (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I believe actually the retroflex ṭh is correct... see , for example (look inside...) Devadaru (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Devadaru's sources say otherwise. Thanks, `Stickee (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Imurchie, 27 August 2010 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Katha 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207183955/http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/katha.html to http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/katha.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified