My acquaintance with Upanishads, the most important philosophical writings of ancient India, is quite superficial and rather recent. I was aware that Dara Shikoh, the Mughal emperror Aurabgazeb's brother known for his eclecticism had translated these vibrant poems into Persian. I had also read about German philosopher Schopenhauer's high regard for them. However, though a dear friend had once presented me a copy of Sri Aurobindo's English Translation of the Upanishads about 20 years ago I did not read it for sometime.
Then, for a time, I stayed in the External Affairs Ministry Hostel in Delhi's Kasturba Gandhi Marg. This gave me a chance to take membership and visit the nearby Sahithya Academi Library. There I came across Tatvamasi, the famous Malayalam work on Upanishads by Sukumar Asheekode, Kerala's front-ranking cultural personality and literary critic. Now, the Sahitya Academy Library had a curious policy, which I don't know whether it is still following: Any book which really interests a reader is for reference only, not for lending! I remember finding an anthology of the basic writings of Betrand Russel, a Radhakrishnan Reader, and a very interesting history of Christianity in India, all for reference only. Most of them, I read as much as possible on my visits. I still remember reading a captivating essay on Thomas Aquinas and another titled 'How I write?' in the Bertrand Russel Book. (I bought that book later in Colombo.) The history of Christianity in in India, the first unbiased work on that subject I came across, was a revelation.
I read Tatvamasi, the The Upanishad book by Azheekode fully in a few visits. As a survey of Upanishads, it is wonderful. It digs into Indian and European scholarship on Upanishads wonderfully to produce a masterly overview. The book is an introduction to the mystic vision of Isha, search for the ultimate in Kena, the heroic Nachiketa of Katha, the loving teacher Pippalada and his pure-minded disciples of Prasna, the Mundaka's unshakable faith in the power of truth, the incomparable Mandukya with its exploration of the world of ego and Taitiriya's window to bliss. You come to know from the Aitareya that in ancient India, women were permitted to take part in philosophical discussions. (Half way through its inquiry, the Aitareya asks only pregnant women to exit from the assembly as the discussion that followed was perhaps considered not suitable for their condition.) Who can forget Satyakama of Chhandogya or Yagyavalkya of Brihadaranyaka?
Later I bought a copy of Tatvamasi on a visit to Kerala. Tatvamasi spurred me to take out the Aurobindo book that stayed unread for two years. It has the Sanskrit text in Devanagiri with English translation of all principal Upanishads except the two longer ones, Chhandogya and Brihadaranyaka which are covered only in fragments. I read all texts and translations and enjoyed them. The most difficult in the book are Aurobindo's commentaries. While his translations are straightforward and clear, the prose of commentaries is impossible to penetrate. By the time you reach the end of a sentence, it is a struggle recalling its beginning. Luckily, commentaries are given only on two Upanishads, Isha and Kena!
Last year I purchased, Eknath Easwaran's English Translation of the Principal Upanishads published by Penguin. (The list and number of principal Upanishads are not definite. The number is variously taken as ten or eleven. Roughly, these are the Upanishads commented on by the great Sankara). Easwaran's rendering struck me as rather plain but useful.
Interestingly, I have a book titled Upnishad Prakash (The light of Upanishads) in Hindi by Satyavrt Sidhantalankar, former Member of Indian Parliament and Vice Chancellor or Gurukul Kangri University. It was published in 1981. Though reading Hindi is something of a struggle for me, I thought I will give the book a try and decided to do a test-reading of the chapter on Madukya, an Upanishad I have somehow come to specially like. This Upanishad is an analysis of Om, the eternal, imperishable word. In his introductory comments on Mandukya, the author quotes the bible as saying "The word was with God, the word was God" and attributes it to the first chapter of the book of Genesis. This was enough for me. Clearly, Sidhantalankar is quoting something he is not familiar with. Anybody with even a remote acquaintance with the bible will recall the correct lines "In the beginning was the Word; the Word was with God and the Word was God" which is the opening verse of the Gospel of John in New Testament and not in the Book Genesis in Hebrew Bible(Old Testament).
Having lost faith in the author, I have not touched Upanishad Prakash since. But I periodically go back to Aurobindo's translation and Tatvamasi which opened the world of the Upanishads to me.
