 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
>
> Mani Varadarajan wrote:
>
> > 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.
It is Swami Madhavananda. I did not identify the author correctly.
My apologies.
See the last section of the Upanishad. Look at how much Sanskrit
there is, and see how many slokas Madhavananda translates.
All the sections describing how to properly prepare one's wife
for the sexual act are left untranslated. Sankaracharya, on the
other hand, an honest and faithful commentator, explains every
single word. Madhavananda's claim to have translated Sankara's
comments in full is false.
Swami Madhavananda's work is not unusual; it is typical of the
Vivekananda style.
Mani
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|