Regarding the Upanishads.

[Claude Setzer]

. A very
> accurate, philologically rigorous, translation (like, IMO, Olivelle's)
> gives us better access to the original text for our own interpretation.
> (Needless to say, reading in the Skt is by far the best option where
> possible.)
>
> C. Wallis
>
> > Regarding the meaning of the Isha Upanishad, I would go with the
> > Eknath Easwaran translation, if I were you.  The Upanishads are
> > not museum pieces, to be referred to linguistic and philological experts
>

I think both of these viewpoints have used adjectives too strong to keep the
"truth" of their points. It is very unfortunate that even scholars with the
highest reputation often translate incorrectly, even to the extent that a
fairly novice Sanskrit person can see their errors.

Reading in Sanskrit with several translations of others at hand (especially
annotated ones) will almost always give a more accurate reading than
trusting any one person, no matter who it is.

Claude Setzer