5 ms·

> Yes, individual English words don’t map 1:1 to individual Sanskrit words That is exactly why words of Sanskrit are "non-translatables". Because not all words

> Yes, individual English words don’t map 1:1 to individual Sanskrit words That is exactly why words of Sanskrit are "non-translatables". Because not all words map 1:1. Please look up the meaning of "non-translatables". Whenever there is no mapping 1:1 that word is called a "non-translatable". It does not mean what you think it means. I'll explain below. > Rajiv Malhotra would have had to write his book Sanskrit Non-Translatables in Sanskrit, and not in English as he actually did. "Non-translatables" does not mean the word cannot be translated. It means that there is no equivalent word in English, necessitating one to provide a lot of extra explanations to convey the meaning. For example, let us assume that there was no word called "Sun" in the English Dictionary. Then to translate "Surya" you would have to put extra effort in translating it by saying: "see that spherical ball of light that is emanating a glow and lighting up the sky? It is a Star which looks different from Stars in the night sky due to proximity to our Planet as well as the fact that our Planet is revolving around it. That object is Surya". Now this is a non-translatable as there is no direct 1:1 mapping. So if the translation of Surya is inaccurate (say the translator describes it as a bulb in your room — which is also a shining ball of light) it ruins the entire translation. You can read the definition of non-translatable here [1]. [1]: https://www.trustedtranslations.com/blog/non-translatable https://www.trustedtranslations.com/blog/non-translatable As far as the video is concerned, yeah even he gets some of it wrong (like in the example you rightly pointed out about Stuti/Student). But this was the only video I could find that explained in English as I had assumed you are an English speaker (from the West). It sort of explained why some words cannot be translated. Like one non-translatable is Aatma. Aatma in rudimentary sense is just "Soul". But which "Soul" is this? The Abrahamic definition of Soul? Then that is not what Aatma is in Sanatan Dharma. Heck, even in Sanatan Dharma, there are various interpretations of Aatma based on the school of Vedanta you follow (Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Tattvavada/Dvaita etc). In Advaita/Monism, Aatma is single entity pervading the entire Creation, both within and outside, and the Creation itself is Maya/Illusion whereby the Aatman = Brahman (God). So in essence, there is no difference between God and you as whatever perceived difference you have is an illusion. In Vishishtadvaita, Aatma is divided into infinitesimal parts with all parts eventually combining to form a whole. The Creation is not an Illusion in Vishishtadvaita. But since ultimately, all Aatmas combine into one Brahman, it becomes Advaita in the end. So it is Vishishtadvaita (Qualified Monism). Then you have Tattvavada/Dvaita which states that Aatmas are separate entities yet completely dependent on the Brahman (God). The size of the Aatmas is defined as 1/1000th of 1/1000th of the thinnest strand of hair on a horse. Jains have a different definition of Aatma: where the size of the Aatma is equal to the size of the body that it occupies. Buddhists do not believe in Aatma's existence at all. So as you can see, each Dharmic school has its own interpretation and explanation for what an Aatma is. But when we discuss about Aatma within the schools, we automatically know what is being talked about: the indestructive, immortal part of what makes a inanimate object animate. Now this is not equal to the definition of Abrahamic soul (from my understanding of Abrahamic texts: that God breathed the life-force/soul into Creatures). In Sanatan Dharma, God does no such thing. The Aatmas are literally immortal with no beginning or end. And depending on the school of thought you follow, the Aatma is just one entity or many or none at all. So which definition will you use for translation? Invariably, Western Indologists use the rudimentary Abrahamic definition "Soul". It is incomplete. And hence is non-translatable. It does not mean you cannot translate at all. It just means there is no 1:1 mapping because of lack of vocabulary in the language that you are translating the word into.

kranner 4y ago
By this logic, you can't even use the word "Aatma" without in every instance defining it down to the nines since you can't be sure at first, even in a context of two Indians talking to each other, that both of them understand it to mean exactly the same thing. But it doesn't stop there! You have to make sure that every word used to define Aatma is also defined with unfailing precision. And every word in this meta-definition, and then every word in the meta-meta-definition, and so on. Unfortunately it's an infinite regress. So it turns out that by these absolutely exacting standards, all communication is impossible. But here we are, chatting away, no doubt misunderstanding each other in some crucial manner. To me the problem seems more that Rajiv Malhotra either doesn't understand what "translation" is supposed to mean, or pretends not to. The outsider-insider line doesn't stop at the boundaries of India (contemporary or historical, real or imaginary). It stops at every individual, and even there it's better to say at an individual as they are at a precise moment in their life when they know a certain set of things and hold a certain set of beliefs.
- KrishnaShripad 4y ago
  > By this logic, you can't even use the word "Aatma" without in every instance defining it down to the nines since you can't be sure at first, even in a context of two Indians talking to each other, that both of them understand it to mean exactly the same thing You are just getting pedantic here. I am talking about official translations for scriptures/manuscripts. Do you agree that translations should strive for accuracy or not? I need you to clarify that first. Because if you believe there is no need to strive for accuracy then we can end the debate here as we are differing on the fundamentals itself. We can then agree to disagree. If you believe that translations have to be as accurate as possible then yes. Definition of Aatma has to be defined down to the nines (by both yourself and the Poorva Paksha/opposite philosophy) before even proceeding with debates/discussions. What do you think we did for thousands of years researching on Vedanta if not for this exact thing? The most famous incident that comes to my mind is from the "Madhva Vijaya" of Madhvacharya (he is the founder of Tattvavada school of Vedanta). This is set in the 13th century. Quoting from it [1] (Page 49): "After successfully completing his first Southern Tour, Sri Madhva was passing through Kerala, en route to Udupi. In the course of the journey, he reached the banks of the river Payasvini & stayed there for some time. One day, there was a grand assembly of scholars in a temple on the banks of the holy river. Sri Madhva had just expounded a given Sookta in the Aitareya sakha of the Rig Veda as requested by a Veteran scholar of the locality (Verse 1, 2). Though the scholars admired his scholarship at heart, outwardly they said that it meant something else & gave their own meaning (Verse 3). Sri Madhva accepted their meaning & added that the Vedas carried three meaning & the Mahabharata had ten & each word of Vishnu Sahasranama a hundred meanings (verse 4). The pundits challenged him to give out those hundred meanings (verse 5). Sri Madhva readily accepted it but laid a condition that they should repeat the meanings after he had finished. (verse 6). They agree to do so. Sri Madhva then began with the first word “Vishwam” & went on expounding one meaning after another. (verse 7). As the exposition proceeded, the admiring scholars felt staggered, as they could no longer follow the grammatical intricacies, & much less keep them in their memory. Realizing their smallness, they begged him to stop & pleaded excuse for confronting him & sought his blessing (verses 8-10). Sri Madhva’s stay in Kerala coincided with the annual Vidvat Sadas when Pandits received their usual Royal rewards of merit. Sri Acharya naturally availed the opportunity to meet the local luminaries & celebrities for discussion & expounding to them the correct interpretation of Vedic Texts (verse 11). Some of the pundits who participated in the debate with Sri Madhva in public, found it very difficult to answer his points (verse 12). The local pundits no more wanted a direct confrontation with him & earn a bad name for their entire region in case of a defeat. They, therefore, engaged some outsider to contradict the Acharya’s derivation of the word pR^iNIyAt.h verse 14. Sri Acharya exposed the poor pandit’s inability in distinguishing the two roots pR^iNa dAne & prI~N. prINane and by himself explaining the grammatical difference between the two, won the reference of the whole assembly (verses 15, 16). On another occasion during the period of Sri Acharya’s stay in Kerala, there arose a controversy over the meaning of the word “Apaalaa”. Sri Madhva explained that in the context it was used in the Veda, the word meant only “ a very young girl” ….. tAvadapAlA kIrtitA 'ati -taruNI ityayamUche) verse 17. But some Pandits were adamant in asserting that the word meant a leper. Sri Madhva said that a great scholar would soon arrive there & endorse his meanings & set at rest the controversy. So it happened. A great scholar did come & he confirmed the view of the Acharya (verse 19). The Pundits of Kerala not only admired his profound scholarship but were also wonder struck at his prophetic vision (verse 20). In this way, making people rejoice by the magic of his ringing voice & well reasoned arguments, Sri Madhva, shining like a pleasant full moon in the galaxy, completed his Southern Tour with success & returned to Udupi (verse 21-23)." > But it doesn't stop there! You have to make sure that every word used to define Aatma is also defined with unfailing precision. And every word in this meta-definition, and then every word in the meta-meta-definition, and so on. Unfortunately it's an infinite regress. So it turns out that by these absolutely exacting standards, all communication is impossible. But here we are, chatting away, no doubt misunderstanding each other in some crucial manner. Yes we are and that is totally fine as the discussion won't be included in research papers/translations. There is no need to get so pedantic in regular conversations. It is perfectly fine to misinterpret or misunderstand. This becomes a problem only and only when you mistranslate a scripture and publish it for the masses without strictly defining each terminology and even mentioning the Philosophical school of Vedanta you are referring to. Because Aatma in Advaita is vastly different from Aatma in Tattvavada which is vastly different from Aatma in Jainisim. You can't just whip out a Sanskrit to English (or whatever language) dictionary and directly translate through that. This is the biggest problem I see "casual Pundits" do when it comes to interpretations/providing translations. I label them "casual Pundits" because they just blindly use the dictionary to explain Vedic verses/hymns, when in fact, that is the exact opposite of what is done in Vedanta. In Vedanta, every word has to have a reference to another Vedic scripture where that word is defined in detail. If no such direct reference is found, then the meaning of the word is derived by combining various verses where it is defined and then extracting the meaning out of it. It is a laborious process which requires mastery in all Vedic scriptures. Very few individuals actually achieved that mastery and hence became Jagadgurus founding Philosophical schools of Vedanta. If it was as easy as whipping out a Sanskrit-to-English dictionary and translating a verse, everyone of us can become PhDs. Please first understand what Vedanta is and why it exists. Because Sanskrit is tightly coupled with Vedanta itself. [1] (Page 49): https://anandsp1.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/madhwa-vijaya-gist-in-english.pdf https://anandsp1.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/madhwa-vijaya-g...

kranner 4y ago

By this logic, you can't even use the word "Aatma" without in every instance defining it down to the nines since you can't be sure at first, even in a context of two Indians talking to each other, that both of them understand it to mean exactly the same thing. But it doesn't stop there! You have to make sure that every word used to define Aatma is also defined with unfailing precision. And every word in this meta-definition, and then every word in the meta-meta-definition, and so on. Unfortunately it's an infinite regress. So it turns out that by these absolutely exacting standards, all communication is impossible. But here we are, chatting away, no doubt misunderstanding each other in some crucial manner. To me the problem seems more that Rajiv Malhotra either doesn't understand what "translation" is supposed to mean, or pretends not to. The outsider-insider line doesn't stop at the boundaries of India (contemporary or historical, real or imaginary). It stops at every individual, and even there it's better to say at an individual as they are at a precise moment in their life when they know a certain set of things and hold a certain set of beliefs.

KrishnaShripad 4y ago
> By this logic, you can't even use the word "Aatma" without in every instance defining it down to the nines since you can't be sure at first, even in a context of two Indians talking to each other, that both of them understand it to mean exactly the same thing You are just getting pedantic here. I am talking about official translations for scriptures/manuscripts. Do you agree that translations should strive for accuracy or not? I need you to clarify that first. Because if you believe there is no need to strive for accuracy then we can end the debate here as we are differing on the fundamentals itself. We can then agree to disagree. If you believe that translations have to be as accurate as possible then yes. Definition of Aatma has to be defined down to the nines (by both yourself and the Poorva Paksha/opposite philosophy) before even proceeding with debates/discussions. What do you think we did for thousands of years researching on Vedanta if not for this exact thing? The most famous incident that comes to my mind is from the "Madhva Vijaya" of Madhvacharya (he is the founder of Tattvavada school of Vedanta). This is set in the 13th century. Quoting from it [1] (Page 49): "After successfully completing his first Southern Tour, Sri Madhva was passing through Kerala, en route to Udupi. In the course of the journey, he reached the banks of the river Payasvini & stayed there for some time. One day, there was a grand assembly of scholars in a temple on the banks of the holy river. Sri Madhva had just expounded a given Sookta in the Aitareya sakha of the Rig Veda as requested by a Veteran scholar of the locality (Verse 1, 2). Though the scholars admired his scholarship at heart, outwardly they said that it meant something else & gave their own meaning (Verse 3). Sri Madhva accepted their meaning & added that the Vedas carried three meaning & the Mahabharata had ten & each word of Vishnu Sahasranama a hundred meanings (verse 4). The pundits challenged him to give out those hundred meanings (verse 5). Sri Madhva readily accepted it but laid a condition that they should repeat the meanings after he had finished. (verse 6). They agree to do so. Sri Madhva then began with the first word “Vishwam” & went on expounding one meaning after another. (verse 7). As the exposition proceeded, the admiring scholars felt staggered, as they could no longer follow the grammatical intricacies, & much less keep them in their memory. Realizing their smallness, they begged him to stop & pleaded excuse for confronting him & sought his blessing (verses 8-10). Sri Madhva’s stay in Kerala coincided with the annual Vidvat Sadas when Pandits received their usual Royal rewards of merit. Sri Acharya naturally availed the opportunity to meet the local luminaries & celebrities for discussion & expounding to them the correct interpretation of Vedic Texts (verse 11). Some of the pundits who participated in the debate with Sri Madhva in public, found it very difficult to answer his points (verse 12). The local pundits no more wanted a direct confrontation with him & earn a bad name for their entire region in case of a defeat. They, therefore, engaged some outsider to contradict the Acharya’s derivation of the word pR^iNIyAt.h verse 14. Sri Acharya exposed the poor pandit’s inability in distinguishing the two roots pR^iNa dAne & prI~N. prINane and by himself explaining the grammatical difference between the two, won the reference of the whole assembly (verses 15, 16). On another occasion during the period of Sri Acharya’s stay in Kerala, there arose a controversy over the meaning of the word “Apaalaa”. Sri Madhva explained that in the context it was used in the Veda, the word meant only “ a very young girl” ….. tAvadapAlA kIrtitA 'ati -taruNI ityayamUche) verse 17. But some Pandits were adamant in asserting that the word meant a leper. Sri Madhva said that a great scholar would soon arrive there & endorse his meanings & set at rest the controversy. So it happened. A great scholar did come & he confirmed the view of the Acharya (verse 19). The Pundits of Kerala not only admired his profound scholarship but were also wonder struck at his prophetic vision (verse 20). In this way, making people rejoice by the magic of his ringing voice & well reasoned arguments, Sri Madhva, shining like a pleasant full moon in the galaxy, completed his Southern Tour with success & returned to Udupi (verse 21-23)." > But it doesn't stop there! You have to make sure that every word used to define Aatma is also defined with unfailing precision. And every word in this meta-definition, and then every word in the meta-meta-definition, and so on. Unfortunately it's an infinite regress. So it turns out that by these absolutely exacting standards, all communication is impossible. But here we are, chatting away, no doubt misunderstanding each other in some crucial manner. Yes we are and that is totally fine as the discussion won't be included in research papers/translations. There is no need to get so pedantic in regular conversations. It is perfectly fine to misinterpret or misunderstand. This becomes a problem only and only when you mistranslate a scripture and publish it for the masses without strictly defining each terminology and even mentioning the Philosophical school of Vedanta you are referring to. Because Aatma in Advaita is vastly different from Aatma in Tattvavada which is vastly different from Aatma in Jainisim. You can't just whip out a Sanskrit to English (or whatever language) dictionary and directly translate through that. This is the biggest problem I see "casual Pundits" do when it comes to interpretations/providing translations. I label them "casual Pundits" because they just blindly use the dictionary to explain Vedic verses/hymns, when in fact, that is the exact opposite of what is done in Vedanta. In Vedanta, every word has to have a reference to another Vedic scripture where that word is defined in detail. If no such direct reference is found, then the meaning of the word is derived by combining various verses where it is defined and then extracting the meaning out of it. It is a laborious process which requires mastery in all Vedic scriptures. Very few individuals actually achieved that mastery and hence became Jagadgurus founding Philosophical schools of Vedanta. If it was as easy as whipping out a Sanskrit-to-English dictionary and translating a verse, everyone of us can become PhDs. Please first understand what Vedanta is and why it exists. Because Sanskrit is tightly coupled with Vedanta itself. [1] (Page 49): https://anandsp1.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/madhwa-vijaya-gist-in-english.pdf https://anandsp1.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/madhwa-vijaya-g...