 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
> A perfect example is Swami Gambhirananda's translation of
> the BrhadAranyaka Upanishad. The last section of the Upanishad
> deals with rituals designed to ensure the birth of a son.
> Sankaracharya, a serious philosopher if there ever was one,
> comments on it as he would any other text of Vedanta. In
> Gambhirananda's translation of the text and commentary,
> he completely bypasses it, leaving only the Sanskrit text.
> Why is this? Is he ashamed of what the Upanishad contains?
> Why would he leave out what even Sankara did not?
I checked this up. I have two translations, one by Swami Madhavananda,
where he claims to have translated AchArya's commentary in full. There
_is_ a commentary on the section on sons etc, and not just the verses as
you say.
There is another one which does not mention any author. However this is
a translation with notes and this does not have any notes on this
section. But it does not claim to be a translation of the commentary.
I don't think there is any other translation, may be I am mistaken? Even
if Swamiji did leave out this secion, perhaps it was because he thought
it was unimportant compared to the the section on dream, waking etc. May
be you feel that the passages on how a husband should beat his wife if
she refuses to have sex with him worthy of lengthy exposition, but I
dare say most people will not :-). Not me at least :-). In any case I
believe it's a criminal offence to beat one's wife these days :-).
Anyway, jokes apart, if Swamiji had claimed to have translated Acharya's
commentary faithfully and left out this section, he is guilty of being
dishonest. However, even if he did, I don't think this reflects on the
credibility of the RK mission at large, especially since we have another
Swamiji who has translated the commentary faithfully.
Ramakrishnan
--
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|