4 ms·

"to transparently convey what the original scriptures say" All translations are lossy. So why not read the original? Granted, Sanskrit is not easy. But it's

"to transparently convey what the original scriptures say" All translations are lossy. So why not read the original? Granted, Sanskrit is not easy. But it's not insurmountably difficult either especially for a person of Indian origin. And the language of the epics (of which the Gita is a part) is generally a lot simpler than in e.g. kavyas or technical shastras. A few months is long enough to pick up enough understanding of grammar and along with a dictionary you should be able to work through the relatively short Gita quite quickly. Yes, this is still much slower than reading a translation but if you're goal is avoiding commentorial bias this is the only rational way to go.

wolverine876 5y ago
> if you're goal is avoiding commentorial bias this is the only rational way to go. I don't mean to discourage anyone - it would be rewarding to learn the Sanskrit - but I wonder if the beginning reader understands more or less. Beginning readers in any language are arguably translating into their native language. An expert translator likely will do far better, understanding nuances, meanings, idioms, constructions, etc. that the noob is oblivious to.
dartharva 5y ago
Are the "original" Sanskrit texts floating around really original? Modern Sanskrit is significantly different that Vedic-era Sanskrit, or so I am told. Won't you be picking up just another translation if you try that?
- jaldhar 5y ago
  Sorry only just saw this. We do not know 100% for sure but the historical consensus is the Gita is several hundred years younger than the latest stratum of Vedic texts, well within the era of classical Sanskrit. And the Vedic language (which technically is not Sanskrit as properly that refers to the language codified by Panini, Katyayana and Patanjali.) is somewhat different but not that different. I learned the parts of the Veda that I know the traditional way just memorizing the recitation without the meaning but based on my knowledge of grammar and vocabulary I can understand about 75% and a commentary takes care of the rest.

wolverine876 5y ago

> if you're goal is avoiding commentorial bias this is the only rational way to go. I don't mean to discourage anyone - it would be rewarding to learn the Sanskrit - but I wonder if the beginning reader understands more or less. Beginning readers in any language are arguably translating into their native language. An expert translator likely will do far better, understanding nuances, meanings, idioms, constructions, etc. that the noob is oblivious to.

dartharva 5y ago

Are the "original" Sanskrit texts floating around really original? Modern Sanskrit is significantly different that Vedic-era Sanskrit, or so I am told. Won't you be picking up just another translation if you try that?

jaldhar 5y ago
Sorry only just saw this. We do not know 100% for sure but the historical consensus is the Gita is several hundred years younger than the latest stratum of Vedic texts, well within the era of classical Sanskrit. And the Vedic language (which technically is not Sanskrit as properly that refers to the language codified by Panini, Katyayana and Patanjali.) is somewhat different but not that different. I learned the parts of the Veda that I know the traditional way just memorizing the recitation without the meaning but based on my knowledge of grammar and vocabulary I can understand about 75% and a commentary takes care of the rest.