Talk:Criticism of Upanishads

Copied
I copied Yeditor's rant on Upanishads and placed it here.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed neutrality dispute tag. There is no dispute. the sources are cited and world famousYeditor 10:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything is disputed here as the article takes a position on the statements. They are not quoted in the third person. I dispute both the neutrality and factual accuracy here.Shiva&#39;s Trident 07:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * MAde the edits less of a rant and more scholarly in tone, removed irrelevant info, and got rid of out-of-context unsourced garbage by Huxley (who only mentions the Upanishads ONCE IN HIS ENTIRE BOOK and not in the para Yeditor copied from the webpage).Shiva&#39;s Trident 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism by subhash bose. Yeditor 04:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

NO MERGE
See commentor above. He is the reason its not merged, otherwise anti-Hindu POV leachate would pollute the Upanishads article.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is full of anti-Hindu POV. To convey a neutral tone, any reasonable author should also provide links to critique's rebuttals.

Arguing that this article is POV, and that therefore it should not be merged with Upanishad, is a poor argument. If the articles are merged, more people will read this text (Upanishad gets more traffic than this article). When more people read a text, the POV is eventually corrected. If it stays at this obscure article, the POV text will remain intact. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not just about POV.There is no precedent for criticism of scripture to be merged with articles on scripture. Look at Bible or Quran. The criticism section of the Bible is a stub pointing to the bigger article. NO criticism of Quran section exists but there is a section on Criticism of Islam.Hkelkar 22:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization
I looked up the source cited in the article and realized that the article is mistitled and IMO misrepresented Dr. Ambedkar's views. While it is true that Har Dayal (and Aldous Huxley) criticized the Upanishads; Dr. Ambedkar was only questioning the effectiveness of their teachings, especially as a counterweight to inequality preached by Manusmriti. For instance, note the use of the word "notwithstanding" in the following quote from the source: "It is therefore incontrovertible that notwithstanding the Hindu Code of Ethics, notwithstanding the philosophy of the Upanishads not a little not a jot did abate from the philosophy of Hinduism as propounded by Manu." So in my opinion these views should be merged with the main Upanishad article perhaps under a "Commentary" (not "Criticism") section which includes balancing views from other reliable sources. Abecedare 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ambedkar still seems to have a negative view on the effect of the Ups. I am leery of merging because articles like Bible and Quran dont have criticism or anything but positive commentary. I created this page by merging commentary onto this page. I will thank you however for taking the time to read the refs, and editing out misrepresentations. Baka  man  15:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My reading:
 * (1) It's not Ambedkar's view that Upanishad's had a negative effect, but rather that they did not have any discernible effect in social/political (as opposed to purely philosophical) settings.
 * (2) Both the Bible and Qur'an articles do have specific sections titled "Criticism" (see, ). That said, I don't think we need a criticism sections in the main Upanishad article, mainly because there has been so little of it ! Instead it may be worth having a "Commentary" (or similarly titled) section in which we can cover the gamut of 'contemporary' views on Upanishads ranging from Har Dayal's (they are worthless), to Ambedkar's (they were ineffective), to (say) Sri Aurobindo's and Radhakrishnan's arguably more mainstream opinion. Abecedare 18:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

merging
the passage needs to be cleaned up for WP:NPOV, quite regardless of merging or not merging; NPOV concerns are no reason for or against a merge. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)