Talk:Katha Upanishad

Listing more translations and sources

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)

Should we change the name 'Naciketas' to 'Nachiketa' ?

Hi All

There is an article in the name 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)

References

Dualistic?

It seems to me that there are verses in the Katha which are clearly nondualistic, and others which are dualistic. To call the whole upanishad dualistic strikes me as a one-sided view. For instance, 2.1.10, 2.1.11. And Shankaracharya interprets all 10 Upanishads on which he wrote commentaries to be non-dualistic. Devadaru (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As later commentators pointed out, Shankara's attempt to force Upanishads like this one into his philosophy do not work. There were many Upanishads composed with a wide diversity of opinions. There are sources on this in the intro to the Upanishads article. Mitsube (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We must remember that whether or not Shankara's interpretations are more valid than criticisms of his interpretations by later interpreters is not Wikipedia's concern to decide - otherwise Wikipedia would be involved in pushing one POV over another. Shankara's opinions are almost always deemed notable, so if a source can be found re an interpretation by Shankara of the Katha as nondual, then, barring unusual circumstances (e.g., perhaps by WP:DUE if demonstrable unanimous rejection by all later Hindu interpreters), it should merit inclusion in the article. I thought Devadaru's text was fine, except, as Mitsube notes, it should be sourced. Health Researcher (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That is true, his exegesis is notable. But the Upanishad was composed in a particular context, with a particular intention. And we have scholars stating what that was. That should definitely be stated in the article as a fact. The statements of modern scholars is what we use to write the articles. Though I agree that Shankara's opinion is notable and if cited could be included. Mitsube (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The verses themselves seem clearly nondualistic. Shankara's commentary on 2.11: "Before attaining the knowledge of unity, idam, this--Brahman which is homogeneous; aptavyam, is to be attained, as identical with the Self, there being nothing else existing; manasa, through the mind--which is purified by the teacher and the scriptures. And since ignorance, that presents diversity, ceases on this attainment, iha, here--in the Brahman; nana, diversity; kim cana, even so little; na asti, does not exist. ..." (From Eight Upanishads, trans Swami Gambhirananda (Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama, 1957), p 187.) And Radhakrishnan comments, "In these two verses [2.1.10-11], the Supreme is declared to be devoid of any difference. The multiplicity of the world does not touch the unity of the Supreme." (The Principal Upanishads, S. Radhakrishnan (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1953), p 634). Would references like these be enough to include a line that the upanishad has been interpreted from advaitic standpoint?

It seems to me that certainly the upanishad contains both dualistic and nondualistic ideas. The notion that a scriptural text must present only one philosophical viewpoint, consistently throughout the text, is the traditional view; but that has forced all the commentators to torture the texts in places. Devadaru (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it say somewhere else that purusha transcends brahman? Mitsube (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube, perhaps you have this verse in mind: Katha verse I.3.11: "Beyond the great self is the unmanifest [avyaktam]; beyond the unmanifest is the spirit [purusan]. Beyond the spirit there is nothing. That is the end (of the journey); that is the final goal." (Radhakrishnan, p. 625, 1994, bracketed words inserted from the Sanskrit). In his commentary Radhakrishnan seems to say that the word "unmanifest [avyaktam]" indicates prakriti. This to me seems a less-common interpretation of "unmanifest" but I do know many Sk terms shift in their meanings. Radhakrishnan goes on to say "purusa is considered to be higher as he is the source of light and his unity appears nearer to the ultimate one than the multiplicity of prakriti; strictly speaking, however, the Pure Self is beyond the descriptions of unity, duality and multiplicity" (p. 626). Health Researcher (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So the Pure Self is beyond descriptions of unity, duality and multiplicity but the Purusha is beyond it? I am confused. Also I think avyaktam means brahman. It does in other places. It could mean something else here. Mitsube (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorting this out is not straightforward. Notice that below, Davadaru had earlier identified K2.3.8 as another verse that talks about the same issue. It appears in Radhakrishnan pp. 643-644. As s/he pointed out, it's the same two terms (avyakta and purusha). Apparently Nikhilananda translates it as avyakta as brahman. But for this verse, Radhakrishnan doesn't comment on avyakta (other than to translate it into English as "unmanifest"). No clear answers here. Maybe more poking of Radhakrishnan would reveal his thinking, maybe not... (?) Health Researcher (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if there is some sort of Katha verse like what Mitsube suggests, that would not seem to contradict the notion that different verses may emphasize different aspects (e.g., some emphasize dualistic views, some emphasize monistic views). Indeed, doesn't Radhakrishnan's comment in itself to establish the point that reputable sources view some K verses as more monistic? Or is there a nuance here that I am overlooking? Perhaps the time is approaching for a WP:BOLD insertion of an appropriately crafted sentence or two. Health Researcher (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

'Dual+Nondual: To Devadaru, with regard to your last paragraph about coexistence of both dualistic and nondualistic ideas: It seems to me that this touches on a very important point, and its significance transcends the Katha. Important streams of interpretation in Indian thought do not hold dual and nondual views as necessarily in conflict with each other. Thus, why should we feel obliged to impute a philosophical stance on this issue to any given Upanishad? (of course, if the evidence is clear that an Upanishad only adopts one stance, that's a different issue.) Indian thought as a whole seems to hold these ideas as representing alternative perspectives that each reflect important truths (some have used the similie of the Upanishads as an 'ecstatic slide show' that offers multiple perspectives without seeking a comprehensive philosophical integration). Willingness to accept truth in each of these perspectives is clear in such figures as Ramakrishna, but I suspect many more instances could be found, perhaps throughout history. In scholarly work, I think I've seen work by Huston Smith that converges with this idea, though I can't seem to lay my hands on it at the moment (I think a brief sketch of the idea may occur in his book Primordial Tradition).

It's perhaps relevant that psychologists have sometimes argued that the capacity to assimilate complementary perspectives is an indicator of spiritual/religious maturity (which, as we know, is not always present in scholars, since many of them are not themselves engaged in spiritual/religious practice). Two articles are: Reich, K. H. (1990). The Chalcedonian definition - an example of the difficulties and the usefulness of thinking in terms of complementarity. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18, 148-157. Reich, K. H. (1991). The role of complementarity reasoning in religious development. New Directions for Child Development, 52, 77-89. There are also analogies with other fields. For example, on the level of intuitions and imagery, it's difficult to reconcile the particle and wave theories of light, but they are reconciled in the equations of quantum theory.

It seems to me that this viewpoint (that dual and nondual may be complementary practical/experiential perspectives rather than competing philosophical perspectives) should be integrated (as one noteworthy view) into Wikipedia's discussion of the Upanishads as a whole, if it has not already been mentioned there (I haven't checked). The key, of course, for including this idea in Wikipedia is finding references to notable and/or scholarly sources that express this idea. I think Prabhavanda's Spiritual Heritage of India may also discuss this idea; his work is certainly of a fairly scholarly tone, though I am not sure about what topics in Wikipedia it would counts as a reliable source, since he did not have an academic appointment and the book, at least my edition, was not published by an academic press. My knowledge of sources on this matter is uneven and not too deep. But I think this is a well-established position in the tradition, so there must be sources somewhere. I will try to find my Huston Smith book in the next few days. If good sources are located, then perhaps changes would be indicated both in the KU page and elsewhere. Health Researcher (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point as regards spiritual practice Health Researcher. In Buddhism, I think it is the balance between striving to change what is there and resting in what is there. But knowing whether or not specific Upanishads take that approach, or whether they are even practice-oriented, would require some good sourcing. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Health Researcher for your interesting and well-put comments. Prabhavananda's book 1962 edition was published by Doubleday; most editions probably by Vedanta Press, which he founded. I believe many college professors use the book in religion classes; but sticklers may say, "No, he wasn't a PhD attached to a university, so it doesn't count as scholarly." (Which is one reason why I have more or less given up on editing in Wikipedia. Or maybe I just don't have the patience!) As I understand their position, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda argue that Dual - Qualified Nondual - Dual (Dvaita - Vishishtadvaita - Advaita) are different levels of experience; with Advaita being the "last word". Again, I imagine Ramakrishna would say, "What IS, is beyond all concepts like Dvaita, Advaita, etc."

The Upanishads page notes that the three main commentators interpret the Upanishads each according to his own outlook. No mention of a kind of unity in diversity of philosophical standpoints... But it comes across as fairly well written.

As for Mitsube's comment re Purusha: Purusha transcends "avyakta", the "unmanifested". (2.3.8) The Purusha here is called "all-pervading and imperceptible" (Nikhilananda). Nikhilananda notes (p 153, Upanishads vol 1) that "avyakta" means "Brahman, or the Absolute, associated with undifferentiated ajnana. The Absolute Itself is beyond causal relations....Prakriti, maya, the Unmanifest, and Avyakta ... are synonymous terms." So Purusha is equated with the Supreme Brahman here (at least in this interpretation). But anyhow, I don't say that the whole upanishad is written from the non-dualistic standpoint (Shankaracharya would argue thus), only that side by side with what seem like theistic or dualistic verses, we find also non-dualistic ones. I shall have to sign off for some time now, with other pressing activities...Devadaru (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Potentially relevant quotes (re dualism + related issues)

I am creating this section as a place to collect quotations that may be relevant for characterizing the relation between dualistic and nondualistic views represented in the Katha and the Upanishads as a whole. I don't have much training or a large library in this issue, and others are welcome and encouraged to add. The goal is to create resources for a nuanced view that does not uphold misleading dichotomies at the level of individual Upanishadic texts, or more broadly. Health Researcher (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• (re Katha), "In these two verses [2.1.10-11], the Supreme is declared to be devoid of any difference. The multiplicity of theworld does not touch the unity of the Supreme." (Radhakrishnan, The PrincipalUpanishads, S. Radhakrishnan (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1953),p 634). (re-copied from Devadaru's comment, above)
• (re Katha) Shankara's commentary on 2.11: "Before attaining the knowledge ofunity, idam, this--Brahman which is homogeneous; aptavyam, is to be attained, as identical with the Self, there being nothing else existing; manasa, through the mind--which is purified by the teacherand the scriptures. And since ignorance, that presents diversity, ceases on this attainment, iha, here--in the Brahman; nana, diversity;kim cana, even so little; na asti, does not exist. ..." (From EightUpanishads, trans Swami Gambhirananda (Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama, 1957),p 187.) (re-copied from Davaradu's comment, above)
• "It is not necessary to look on the theism emphasised in the Katha and the Svetashvatara Upanishads as a declension from the pure monistic idealism. It is in the direct line of development of Upanisad thought." (Radhakrishnan, pp. 84-85, 1994 HarperCollins India; though pagination may be same as 1st 1953 edition(?)). (comment: the word "emphasis" does not rule out some more monistic verses) Health Researcher (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The Radhakrishnan source could be used, but I don't think he's addressing the issue we're talking about. Mitsube (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• "The Upanisads are vehicles more of spiritual illumination than of systematic reflection. They reveal to us a world of rich and varied spiritual experience rather than a world of abstract philosophical categories. Their truths are verified not only by logical reason but by personal experience. Their aim is practical rather than speculative. Knowledge is a means to freedom. Philosophy, brahma-vidya, is the pursuit of wisdom by a way of life." (Radhakrishnan 1994, pp. 23-24) Health Researcher (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• "the truths the Vedas deal with exceed language in a double sense. To the fact that the infinite cannot be fitted into concepts which are finite by nature is joined the further fact that the knowledge in question resembles 'knowing how' more than 'knowing that'; it is more like knowing how to swim or ride a bicycle than like recognizing that these activities require certain movements of arms and legs. Vedantic epistemology involves yoga. To know, one must be; to deepen one's knowledge of the kind in question, one must deepen one's being." (Huston Smith, 1978, pp. 6-7, Foreword (pp. 5-9) in Swami Prabhavananda (1963/1979). Spiritual Heritage of India, Vedanta Press edition, 1979) Health Researcher (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• "We should note carefully certain characteristics... of the Upanisads as a whole. One of these is their essential homogeneity. Many apparently differing conceptions are to be found in them, but these are, roughly speaking, to be found in all of them, not distributed, one in one Upanisad, another in another. It is true that one Upanisad may emphasize certain ideas, or a certain view, more than the rest, or may specialize as it were ina particular topic; but such distinctions often seem purely accidental, and are never important. The partitions between the Upanisads might therefore, for all practical purposes, be completely done away with, the whole hundred and eight being reduced to one. Accordingly, in our own brief analysis of the ten chief Upanisads, none will receive separate scrutiny" (p. 40, Prabhavananda, 1979, Spiritual Heritage of India, Vedanta Press edition). Health Researcher (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Another and more important characteristic [of the Upanisads] arises from the fact that the Upanisads are the work of saints and seers. Their authors were concerned with reporting insights which came to them in thought or vision, not with making these insights superficially coherent. They were not builders of systems but recorders of experience. We must be prepared, therefore, for apparent inconsistency, for obliviousness to one conception through temporary absorption in another." (p. 40, Prabhavananda, 1979, Spiritual Heritage of India). Health Researcher (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Again only Radhakrishnan was an academic, I believe, and we can quote him as appropriate. I don't think most Upanishads mention actual methods to have experiences. They do come across as speculative philosophy in many cases (not that there is anything wrong with that, necessarily). I have read this somewhere not too long ago. Mitsube (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in addition to Radhakrishnan, Huston Smith is the source of one of those quotes, and he's a well-known academic.

Prabhavananda's book also seems a likely reliable source (it supplied two quotes above). The reliable sources page (WP:RS) indicates that citation by academics is a relevant criterion, and the 1979 edition has been cited 57 times on Google Scholar HERE (although not all of these 57 may "count" for our purposes, surely many of them do). The book was also favorably reviewed when it first appeared in the journal Philosophy, published by Cambridge University Press (on behalf of Royal Institute of Philosophy). The opening sentence of the review begins "Swami Prabhavananda has written a charming and authoritative book on the spiritual heritage of India..." (Riebe, 1963, p. 376; soon I intend to add that reference to P's wikipedia page). I will put some relevant info and quotes from WP:RS lower on the page, in a new "Nonacademic sources" section. And in case anyone wants to view it on Google book, here is a link to Prabhavananda's Spiritual Heritage of India. Actually, at the moment, we may not need to cite him because much of what he says in those 2 quotes above is also covered by Radhakrishnan and/or Smith, or both; but more quotes from him may at some point become relevant. Health Researcher (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Update-1: I've been finding some additional scholarly reviews of Prabhavanda's SHI. These may be helpful for further appraising the relevance of this work to various Katha-related and Upanishad-related topics. All agree that the book has major strengths, and some weaknesses are also pointed out. At any rate, this book is certainly on the scholarly map, so to speak. I will add more info as I get time. Health Researcher (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Update-2: In addition to at least 4 reviews in scholarly journals, there is a review of Prabhavanda's SHI in Publishers Weekly (1964, v186), which mentions an earlier review in Christian Century, a general-audience publication for Christians. I have not been able to obtain these latter two reviews online. However, together with the scholarly reviews, they would indicate that The Spiritual Heritage of India is sufficiently notable to merit its own Wikipedia page (by WP:BK). It will take me some time to track down these latter 2 reviews, but when I do, barring unexpected developments, I expect to create a Wikipedia page for the SHI. Health Researcher (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

New book pages re Prabhavananda, Radhakrishnan (@Davadaru, Mitsube, & anyone interested): Apropros to several of the quotes above, see new WP pages The Principal Upanishads (book) (Radhakrishnan book) and Spiritual Heritage of India (book) (Prabhavananda book). These pages are not yet "good articles" on these books, but may still provide a resource for weighing(/working out) the relevance/etc. of those books as sources for refining the Katha page. On the book pages, the description of book contents could still be built up. Perhaps the fact that the quotes above have come up in our conversations suggests they would be of interest on the book pages as well as perhaps on this Katha page. Health Researcher (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

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)

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)

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: Balagangadhara, S.N. (Spring 2008). "Are Dialogues Antidotes to Violence? Two Recent Examples From Hinduism Studies" (PDF). Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies. 7 (19): 118–143. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) ) Devadaru (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

Nonacademic reliable sources

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)

Standardizing verse references: 2 parts, each with 3 chaps?

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)

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)

Intro

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. ISBN 817223124-5 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! --Ekabhishek^talk 03:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Imurchie, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Devanagari is wrong for Kaṭhā (uses dental rather than retroflex 't').

Imurchie (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I believe actually the retroflex ṭh is correct... see [1], for example (look inside...) Devadaru (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)