Of Dharma and Doom: A translation revives the ending of the Mahabharata
theamericanscholar.org
theamericanscholar.org
I'm sure this is just a mistake on the part of the editor, there are a lot of names in the Mahabharat, and we're not really exposed to the stories in the west. I'd be really excited to see some TV recreations of the Mahabharat. It's really quite an astounding story and there's a lot of good content there, so to speak.
It's very similar to the Odyssey for those who've read that. Full of little parables and stories with archetypal meanings, exactly as the article discusses
In fact, in the Mahabharata itself, while Lord Krishna addresses the dead Parikshit (when he was killed by the Brahmastra while being in the womb of Uttara) he states that there has never been a conflict/misunderstanding between himself and Arjuna (also called Vijaya). Forget a fight. He then grants life to Parikshit by saying the following words (Sanskrit transliteration and English translation from Kisar Mohan Ganguli's Mahabharata):
yathA me dayito dharmo brAhmaNAshcha visheShataH | abhimanyoH suto jAto mRRito jIvatvayaM tathA || 20||
yathAhaM nAbhijAnAmi vijayena kadAchana | virodhaM tena satyena mRRito jIvatvayaM shishuH || 21||
yathA satyaM cha dharmashcha mayi nityaM pratiShThitau | tathA mRRitaH shishurayaM jIvatAmabhimanyujaH || 22||
"Having sat up, the daughter of the king of the Matsyas, summoning her patience, joined her hands in reverence and touched the earth with her head for saluting Kesava of eyes like the petals of the lotus. That foremost of beings, hearing those heart-rending lamentations of hers, touched water and withdrew the (force of the) Brahma-weapon. That hero of unfading glory, belonging to the race of the Dasarhas, promised to give the child his life. Then he of pure soul, said these words in the hearing of the whole universe,--'O Uttara, I never utter an untruth.
My words will prove true. I shall revive this child in the presence of all creatures. Never before have I uttered an untruth even in jest. Never have I turned back from battle. (By the merit of those acts) let this child revive! As righteousness is dear to me, as Brahmanas are specially dear to me, (by the merit of that disposition of mine) let Abhimanyu's son, who is born dead, revive! Never hath a misunderstanding arisen between me and my friend Vijaya. Let this dead child revive by that truth! As truth and righteousness are always established in me, let this dead child of Abhimanyu revive (by the merit of these)! As Kansa and Kesi have been righteously slain by me, let this child revive today by that truth!' After these words were uttered by Vasudeva, that child, O foremost one of Bharata's race, became animate and began gradually to move, O monarch."
> Never hath a misunderstanding arisen between me and my friend Vijaya.
I did learn that there's a 19th-century play called Gayopakhyanam, where they almost fight.
Haha no issues!
> I did learn that there's a 19th-century play called Gayopakhyanam, where they almost fight.
Yes there are many Sthala Puranas that have their own variations/additions to the main storyline. Which is why we stick to the oldest manuscripts that are available as we do not know if/when distortions happened as this story spans multiple thousands of years.
We have sadly also lost scriptures to invasions. Especially with the burning of Nalanda University (by Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji: by some estimates, 9 million scriptures were destroyed) and Takshashila University (by Persians, Greeks, Parthians, Hephthalites, Shakas and Kushanas) though Alexander and future Greeks revived the University again in partnership with Chandragupta Maurya. Hepthalites were most destructive of the lot. Both these Universities contained tomes of Dharmic scriptures/manuscripts (both Buddhist and Hindu).
Nalanda supposedly burned for 3 months.
About the latter ("considered to be one of the earliest universities in the world") and the revival of the university - I recently started reading a book called, The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies. I'm interested in learning about the influence of Buddhism on Greek (and later European) philosophy. I know almost nothing about the history of India, so it's been a fun educational journey.
The name of Chandragupta Maurya I hadn't heard before, but I see he is an important historical figure, the grandfather of Ashoka. And they're said to be from the Shakya family from which Gautama Buddha descended.
I've enjoyed your other thoughtful comments in this thread, even the controversial one criticising the "deliberately mistranslated" scriptures. I don't know the truth of the matter, but perhaps the translators simply lacked understanding? And I can see that some words are impossible to translate, with so much meaning lost or wrongly transformed in the process.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your knowledge and perspective. Especially this comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32929993 ) was very thought-provoking, one of my favorite comments ever on this forum.
There is a lot of interconnect between Ancient Greek and Ancient Indian civilizations. Even when it comes to Demigods we have lots of similarities. Mostly because we interacted a lot (in spite of the Wars that we fought with each other, we eventually began to respect each others Civilizations more deeply). But with the fall of these Ancient Civilizations much of that relations that were built was lost. In a way, Dharmic Religions are the oldest surviving Religions... or dare I say oldest surviving Ancient Civilizations.
One of my biggest gripes with Western Indologists is that they classified Sanatan Dharma/Hinduism as Polytheist. Which is actually far from the Truth. We have only 1 God (the Brahman of the Vedas — the Supreme Being) with many Demigods (Devatas). Now depending on the school of Vedanta one follows, there are multiple interpretations of what God is (is God an independent entity — Tattvavada/Dvaita, we are all part of one God — Vishishtadvaita or I am God — Advaita). Yet all of it just boils down to either Monism or Monotheism. Not Polytheism. But as usual, the latter has stuck on due to wrong translations and will take a long time for it to be fixed.
Buddhism and Jainism on the other hand fall under Charvaka Philosophy. Charvakas deny the Supremacy of the Vedas as they believe in empirical evidence, direct perception alone. So even though we all come under the same umbrella term of "Dharmic Religions" there is a fundamental difference between both, which goes by the terminologies: Astika (Vedic) and Nastika (non-Vedic).
> The name of Chandragupta Maurya I hadn't heard before, but I see he is an important historical figure, the grandfather of Ashoka. And they're said to be from the Shakya family from which Gautama Buddha descended.
Yes you are right. Chandragupta Maurya was the Emperor of Ancient India and the founder of the Mauryan Empire. Emperor Ashoka is his descendent.
> I don't know the truth of the matter, but perhaps the translators simply lacked understanding?
This is a long story but it ties heavily to Evalengelical Christian Missionaries and providing them a fodder by misinterpreting many of the scriptures incorrectly (many Missionaries here use these translated scriptures to fool the local populace). It then becomes really easy to coax local populace in India (typically the lower castes), who due to various unfortunate circumstances (including discrimination they were subjected to in the past by upper castes, coupled with their own economic conditions), weren't versed in Sanskrit, to convert to Christianity or other Abrahamic Religions.
I have no issues with people converting as that is their individual preference/right but I don't want wrongly translated scriptures to be used as fodder for such conversions. I am more worried about these translations gaining a life of its own and cementing itself as the true translations winning over actual translations that was passed down through generations by our Ancestors. I want to preserve this culture/tradition as I feel it holds value to people on Earth and for future generations to research/introspect/learn from. Irrespective of whether they find value in it or not. Irrespective of whether it is perfect, faulty or downright nonsense. It should be looked at as preservation of Ancient Culture/Traditions and not be lost in the annals of Time.
Also, wrong translations builds animosity between groups. People here are converting not out of some profound wisdom or philosophical enlightenment but out of a hatred for the Religion they belonged to. This sort of brainwashing is going on every single day in India.
Very few who bothered to do their own independent research and figure out that the translations are wrong reconvert back.
This is not healthy for a society IMHO. Especially if conversions are forced or happen out of misinformation/animosity, it just ends up creating bad blood, regrets (once you realize you have been taken for a ride) and even divisiveness leading to communal rifts.
So I see it as my moral duty to set things right when I see wrong translations. Even if the World is against me. And I know I am not alone in this endeavour.
> Especially this comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32929993 ) was very thought-provoking, one of my favorite comments ever on this forum.
Thank you so much for your kind words! Means a lot!
To whom are Dharmic religions bleeding followers? Other religions or ireligion? Is conversion happening between the Dharmic religions? Any idea about percentages related to conversions?
Mostly to Abrahamic religions. For Christianity at least you can check the Joshua Project where they have complete statistics of souls harvested: https://joshuaproject.net/countries/IN
You can sort by "Progress Scale" to see the rate of conversions.
> Is conversion happening between the Dharmic religions?
Yes this also happens regularly where Hindus convert to Buddhism and vice-versa. No statistics for this unfortunately.
> ireligion
I don't know the statistics about how many are atheists/agnostic. However, they don't face any discrimination for their viewpoints and many identify themselves as Hindu too (as the word Hindu is not just used as a Religious construct but also to signify culture you belong to). Many even take part in Religious festivities (however odd it might sound to you) as for them it is more a celebration/festival/communal gathering than accepting existence of a Creator/Deity. That flexibility has always been there since Ancient times.
> You can sort by "Progress Scale" to see the rate of conversions.
That is just insidious. It is Sith or Borg like behavior.
Documentation on how to collect demographic data: https://hisregistries.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/rop/RO...
Even an FAQ: https://hisregistries.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/rop/RO...
And a standards process: https://hisregistries.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/standa...
The entire mechanism is slick, polished and well co-ordinated. Everyone is involved in the process: politicians, police, pastors, NGOs and it probably goes all the way to the Vatican (this is probably a conspiracy theory but can't be ruled out). Most of the donations come from foreign contributions. The modus operandi is typically to create flyers that talk about famine/hunger/floods/earthquakes/AIDS or some infectious disease ravaging third-world countries (think Africa, Asian countries) and solicit donations from gullible citizens of First World countries who naturally do not suspect it to be used for anything nefarious. These donations rake in millions of dollars.
Then these donations are routed through NGOs in India (which thankfully the Government of India cracked down on in 2015-16). They are then routed through various pastors/missionaries who "Preach the Gospel" (code for bribe the economically downtrodden). The more "souls harvested" the higher the share of donation that these pastors/missionaries get. So it is high incentive, high stakes game for them. Every soul they harvest they get anywhere from $3000-$8000. The biggest slice of the pie is for those who can convert upper-caste Brahmins. However, they mostly target villages/tribal areas. The last information (dollar amounts) I cannot substantiate with proof (as most of it happens under the table) but I have seen it with my own eyes (worked with someone who I witnessed engaging in this — he had forgotten that I was in the same room). So take the last piece of information as purely anecdotal as I do not know how wide spread this is and if the rates are the same all across India.
If the conversions were happening because of philosophical/ideological acceptance it wouldn't be an issue at all. This is different. This can be classified as a form of corruption.
If you are interested, you can check "Confessions of an Ex-Christian: Esther Dhanraj" which details the modus operandi of this conversion racket.
As another commenter pointed out, if you want to know the history of India, there is no better scripture than the Mahabharata. Indians learn through stories about our Ancient Epics. That is the only thread that binds us to everything in the Civilization. Mahabharata is the core of it. As a kid, I was fascinated by the Mahabharata serial (old 1990s serial which is an abridged version of the actual scripture). It has English subtitles as well: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa6CHPhFNfadNcnVZRXa6...
I have a feeling you'll enjoy it. :)
Once you know Mahabharata, you'll get really familiar with the lingo/jargon/terms that are commonly used in Dharmic scriptures. Then it becomes really easy to connect with the rest of your study of the Ancient Indian Civilization.
Already I love the music, sitar and singing; how the title is in Sanskrit, English, and Arabic scripts; and how it starts with Time itself telling the story.
---
In another comment you mentioned Hiraṇyagarbha, or Brahmanda. What a beautiful concept that is. I've heard about the Cosmic Egg in other cultures, particularly in the Greek Orphic tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_egg#Greek/Orphic_mytholo...
---
What started my journey of curiosity about Greek and Indian cultural exchange, is that I grew up in Japan (it's literally my motherland) - and in Japanese temples, at the entrance are commonly seen two lions (stone statues) guarding the sacred space. I read that this symbolism came from ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, via India to China and reached Japan.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%8B%9B%E7%8A%AC
The lions are named "A" and "Un", corresponding to Aum, अहूँ.
---
By the way, would you mind if I wrote you an email? I'm enjoying our conversation, and have some philosophical questions. I didn't want to post my address here, to connect this account with my real-life identity, so I won't ask for yours - but maybe there's a temporary way to exchange info and get in touch, or a private way to give you my email (or vice versa)?
One thing I was curious to ask, about your thoughts on the differences and similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism. I imagine that's a big topic, haha.
I won't mind at all. You can contact me at shripad@criptext.com
---
> Already I love the music, sitar and singing; how the title is in Sanskrit, English, and Arabic scripts; and how it starts with Time itself telling the story.
That's great :) Yes the story is an emotional rollercoaster. The main storyline ends with Episode 94 (all Episodes after that are side stories that happened in the same timeline). This is the only show that captures the essence of Mahabharata. Still nothing can beat the actual scripture itself as it is more detailed (the show is abridged due to paucity of Time). Kisar Mohan Ganguli's Mahabharata is a decent translation (https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm) which you can read once you finish the show.
> One thing I was curious to ask, about your thoughts on the differences and similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism. I imagine that's a big topic, haha.
It definitely is a big topic haha! More importantly, Hinduism is itself not the right word to describe the Religion. It is "Sanatan Dharma".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San%C4%81tana_Dharma
Within it is Vedanta (also called Uttara Mimamsa) which has multiple schools. The closest school of Vedanta that shares a lot of overlapping concepts with Buddhism is Advaita Vedanta. The other schools (like Vishishtadvaita and Tattvavada/Dvaita) deviate significantly.
---
> What started my journey of curiosity about Greek and Indian cultural exchange, is that I grew up in Japan (it's literally my motherland) - and in Japanese temples, at the entrance are commonly seen two lions (stone statues) guarding the sacred space. I read that this symbolism came from ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, via India to China and reached Japan.
Yes that is right. In fact, a lot of the iconography and idols (especially in old Temples) in Japan has direct correlation with Dharmic deities. This page contains all comparisons:
http://hssjapan.org/hindu-gods-in-japan/
---
> In another comment you mentioned Hiraṇyagarbha, or Brahmanda. What a beautiful concept that is. I've heard about the Cosmic Egg in other cultures, particularly in the Greek Orphic tradition.
Yes all Ancient Civilizations had this concept permeated into their scriptures in one way or the other. You'll find a lot of similarities. One striking similarity is that of Noah's Ark and Lord Vishnu's "Matsya Avatar".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsya
Both have pretty much the same story line except that in Matsya Avatar God himself incarnates to rescue the species on Earth.
Another fact: Emperor Chandragupta Maurya studied in this University under the tutelage of his teacher, Acharya Chanakya. Chanakya raises this boy (not born into Royal Lineage) and teaches him everything: politics, philosophy, economics, administration and handling weapons. Turns him into a Warrior. He eventually raises a formidable Army and attacks the Nanda Empire to oust Emperor Dhana Nanda (who was at that time extremely cruel. Alexander's Army mutinied at Beas (Hyphasis River) against attacking the Nanda Empire primarily because they heard about the barbarity of the Nandas and the vast Army that they commanded). Once Chandragupta defeats Dhana Nanda, he forms the Mauryan Empire and appoints Chanakya as the Prime Minister.
Edit: 1991 apparently.
In another story, it is said that Yudhishtira's chariot was supposed to not touch the ground due to his virtuousness. When he lied to his guru Drona to trick him to give up his arm believing his son had perished, the chariot sunk back to the ground.
The translations from The Mahabharata by W.J.Johnson and published in Oxford World's Classics series are highly recommended. There are two;
1) The Bhagavad Gita - A very nice and succinct translation that you can read and re-read many times. Pair it with the more detailed 2-vol translation by Franklin Edgerton and you can understand the text better.
2) The Sauptikaparvan of the Mahabharata: The Massacre at Night - This is an excellent and rare translation (pdfs available online) of a section from the end of the Mahabharata where after the defeat of the Kauravas in War, Ashwatthama with his two other colleagues sets out to eradicate the entire progeny of the Pandavas in revenge. With colourful and evocative language it paints a good picture of all the doom and gloom at the end of the epic.
His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god. He preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and called himself Sam. He never claimed to be a god, but then he never claimed not to be a god.
In particular: Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock and their ilk. An example [1] and the complete talk [2]
> "FeTNA is a US-based Tamil diaspora organization that finances Tamil chair in Berkeley and acted as a vehicle for ethno-political separatism, with links to the Tamil Tigers. It supports the Christianization of Tamil culture and offers a doorway into Indian politics for right-wing evangelican American politicians and western geo-political strategists."
> His sources for these claims? His ass.
WTF? FeTNA has advocated for LTTE (Tamil Tigers) many times. It is openly pro-LTTE. You can check the FeTNA resolution here: http://www.sangam.org/TVOICE/tvFall95.htm#ftna
Let me quote some lines from the resolution:
1. "D. The Sri Lankan governments propaganda that the Tamil freedom fighters (LTTE) unilaterally broke the peace process is totally and completely false."
2. "We say that the Tamil people have the right to determine their own future. If any attempt is made to impose an arbitrary political settlement on the Tamil people through military means, the LTTE will resist it."
Stopped reading after this point. His very first quote that FeTNA has no association with LTTE is a big lie.
Another article on FeTNA [3]:
"Also, the coordinator was against converting the convention into yet another pro-LTTE forum where India bashing would go on unabated as in the past conventions and put his foot down that irritated the trio.
Last year, the Government of India abruptly cancelled the Indian visa of Dr. Muthuvel Chelliah, a naturalized US citizen for his continuous anti-India tirade and support to banned anti-Indian organizations that perpetrate violence and terrorism. He has filed a case against the Home Ministry in the High Court of Madras pleading that his Indian visa be restored so that he can meet his aged mother in Tamil Nadu. Support to Tamil Eelam and LTTE have been the undeclared agenda of Fetna in the past and member associations who do not subscribe to its views were either reprimanded or removed.
Various pro-Eelam leaders such as New York based Rudra Kumaran, "Prime Minister" of Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), a government in exile of Tamil Eelams; Dr Elyn Shandler, a fiery pro-LTTE speaker and Jewish-American rabble rouser who was also denied Indian visa for her anti-India rhetoric and Professor Francis Boyle who advocates Tamil Eelam were regular speakers every year at Fetna annual conventions and prime time were allotted to their fiery speeches much against the wishes of Indian Tamils. This year the coordinator Balagan wanted to downplay the pro-LTTE image of Fetna that did not go well with the pro-Eelam supporters who were gunning for his head. Finally Balagan secured majority support and those opposed him were forced to quit. Vice President Dr Dhandapani Kuppuswamy was chosen as interim president and elections were called for to choose new set of office bearers."
And as far as forced conversions to Christianity, it is extremely rampant in Tamil Nadu [1]. I am from the neighboring state of Telangana which is equally affected by this malaise [2].
[1]: https://www.firstpost.com/politics/christian-conversion-mafi...
[2]: https://www.opindia.com/2022/05/tamil-nadu-hindu-woman-tries...
[3]: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Fetna+President+Pazhani+Sunda...
If you keep doing this, we're going to have to ban you again—not because we disagree with your positions (I don't know what they are, and it doesn't matte) but because you're breaking the intended use of the site.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Even the translation by J. Eggeling is not completely accurate because Sanskrit has a lot of words that are non-translatables because of inherent weakness of English as a language (which includes limited vocabulary to describe Sanskrit words accurately) [1].
Irrespective of Eggeling's translation not being completely accurate, it atleast was a decent attempt. She references him but totally twists the translations to make it sexualized in a lot of places. The actual scripture is not at all depicting what is translated by her in the end.
[1]: To understand why English is not accurate enough to describe Sanskrit vocabulary, this video will shed complete light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7XYCNbLtPQ
Ironically, this video which claims to prove that you can’t express in English everything that you can express in Sanskrit is itself in English. Sanskrit non-translatables are a myth. Yes, individual English words don’t map 1:1 to individual Sanskrit words. This is the case for any two lects. That doesn’t mean you can’t use a sequence of words in English to describe all possible connotations of a word in Sanskrit, unless English didn’t even contain words for the concepts underlying the connotations of this Sanskrit word. If that had actually been the case, Rajiv Malhotra would have had to write his book Sanskrit Non-Translatables in Sanskrit, and not in English as he actually did.
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
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.
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.
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-g...
Thank you for citing the passage. Very amusing, particularly how Madhva used his prodigious memory to dazzle his opponents into submission. Apt that his capacious memory was, like the outsider-insider debate in the modern context, completely irrelevant to the scholars' interpretation which may have been correct in its own way.
It wasn't correct in the larger context. Which is why this line is important: "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)."
As their meaning contradicted his meaning they questioned him as to how his meaning is right. Madhva instead says that he accepts the meaning they provided too (only in that context) but in the larger context it fails as the Vedas carry 3 meanings, Mahabharata 10 and each word of Vishnu Sahashranama a 100 meanings.
For example, if I am using binoculars to focus on the eye of a bird and call that only an eye and argue that it is not anything else, I am being myopic. Yes it is an "eye" but the larger context is more important: it is "eye" of what? A bird.
In this situation, Madhva tells them that though their meaning is correct (it is an "eye"), they are interpreting that particular verse in a wrong manner when it comes to the larger context (that they have completely ignored the bird in the process). Then he goes on to say that, because of that reason alone, the meaning they provided does not fit the larger context (though in isolation their meaning is correct).
Why the larger context is important? Because, of the preceding line: "Though the scholars admired his scholarship at heart, outwardly they said that it meant something else & gave their own meaning (Verse 3)".
So the question here is not about whether the verse interpretation by itself was right/wrong (which Madhva himself accepts it is right) but that interpretation did not fit the larger context (and hence it becomes wrong). It is more intricate than just straightforward interpretation. That is all that is being conveyed here.
How? Quote exactly what Rajiv Malhotra said that makes you believe this?
> 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.
I don't see any problem here. Rajiv says literally what you just said. That the outsider-insider line doesn't stop at boundaries of India. He himself says that there are many whites who are "insiders" while many brown Indian Hindus who are "outsiders".
If you asked me 15 years ago if I considered myself an insider or an outsider, I would very much classify myself as an outsider for not knowing much about Vedanta. So yes, "individual as they are at a precise moment in their life when they known a certain set of things and hold a certain set of beliefs" is what Rajiv says and I agree with.
So we are in agreement here. What is the issue exactly? Because I sense that you probably haven't grokked what Rajiv said. Rajiv, you and I are on the same page as far as this is concerned.
My problem is that Rajiv doesn’t get to decide whether someone is an insider or an outsider. The moment someone disagrees with you, you simply say they are ignorant. Which is exactly what Tyler Williams said in one of the videos you linked to. You can’t discredit someone based solely on where they’re from, or whether or not they are an insider in your personal opinion. I think I’ve said all I wanted to say on this topic.
Rajiv is not deciding. It is Sanatan Dharma itself deciding. How do I say that? It is because we have a set of rules when it comes to expounding a Philosophy or even an argument. Without following those rules, you cannot be called a Scholar nor can your school of thought (however valid it maybe) be accepted.
So what are these rules? The rules are defined as such:
1. If you are writing a translation for a scripture, you should be either a part of an established School of Vedanta or at least quote the School of Vedanta you are referring to in your translations. For example, the Gita Press is known for being aligned with Advaitic School of Vedanta. So the translation of Bhagavad Gita by the Gita Press is in line with Advaitic concepts. Prabhupada's translation of Bhagavad Gita (famously known as "Bhagavad Gita as it is") is in line with the Philosophy of "Achintya Bheda Abheda": an established sub-school of Vedanta. "Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya" written by Madhvacharya is part of the Tattvavada School of Vedanta. What is the School of Vedanta that Wendy Doniger or Sheldon Pollock adhere to?
2. If you are not a part of an established School of Vedanta, and you have your own interpretations, you should at least found a School of Vedanta by debating with luminaries from opposite Schools of Vedanta (called the Poorva Paksha). They have to be convinced that your translation also holds value and should be accommodated into the umbrella of Vedanta schools. This is how it has always been traditionally done since the past thousands of years. It is the official form of "Peer Review" which is carried out by Kashi Vidvat Parishat, Varanasi where experts from all Schools of Vedanta gather and cross-question your knowledge of the Vedic scriptures and the logic behind your interpretations. If they find it sound (even if it completely contradicts their own philosophy), they'll accord you with the title of Jagadguru as you have founded a completely new way of interpreting the Vedic scriptures. That's the spirit with which the Vidvat Parishat functions and has been doing so for thousands of years. But before you even get to this point, you will have to write translations and commentaries for the Prasthanatrayi [1]. Without this, you won't even be qualified to debate.
If you are doing neither then you will not be taken seriously and your work will always be relegated to the "outsider" category.
So it is wrong to claim that Rajiv is getting to decide whether someone is an insider or outsider. He is just making the common masses aware of what is an insider and what is an outsider based on the definition as laid out by Sanatan Dharma itself.
I typically don't expect instant responses in Hacker News. You are responding within minutes of me posting so I am assuming you have a bot running that notifies you of a reply to your comment.
1. Who am I? Do I really exist or am I an illusion?
2. What is this Creation? Is this real or an illusion?
3. What is Time?
4. Is there a Creator? Or is there none?
5. If there is a Creator then what is the relationship between me and the Creator?
6. Are we many individual Aatmas with each having separate, distinct reality or one Aatma living in an illusion that it is separate, distinct reality?
All these Philosophical questions derive from the Vedic scriptures viz: Vedas, Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranas. The Philosophical Schools (or schools of Vedanta) have spent thousands of years researching on these fundamental Philosophical questions. To point a link to an authentic translation is hence a very difficult task: for one, there are very few and far between. Two: it is a mammoth undertaking to translate the entire corpus of literature that has accumulated in Sanskrit over the past thousands of years. Three: most of the English translations from Indian Indologists exist only for one school: Advaita. Other schools haven't been translated yet (though for Tattvavada there is translation now available in the form of 37 Sarvamoola Granthas of Madhvacharya — the founder of the Tattvavada school of Vedanta).
The problem also is that Sanskrit has a lot of "non-translatable" words. There is no such "authentic" translation as when you "translate" you will have to find meanings that fit the language you are translating into which eventually leads to dumbing down the translation as the vocabulary is not sufficient to describe the Sanskrit word.
For example, most Western Indologists wrongly translate Aatma as "Soul". However, what is Soul exactly? It has Religious connotations attributed and inline with Abrahamic interpretations of what a Soul is which is not what Aatma is in Sanatan Dharma.
What is Dharma in English? Most Western Indologists incorrectly translate it as "Religion" (or some use the slightly better term "Righteousness"). But Dharma is not Religion at all. It is "Eternal Truth" (hence is called Sanatan Dharma) that is based on concepts of "Righteousness" and "Duties" tightly interwoven into the "Karmic cycle". It is not Dogmatic in any way, shape or form. There are no "Commandments".
What is Karma in English? "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"? Nope. That is just rudimentary translation of what Karma is. Because in this translation, there is an expectation that the Karmic result would happen immediately or within a short period of time. However, in Sanatan Dharma, Karma spans not just one lifetime but infinite lifetimes. The Karmic cycle of the Aatma started from the very beginnings of Creation (through the breaking of the Hiranyagarbha roughly translated as "Golden womb" or Big Bang in modern parlance). So when Sanatan Dharma talks of Karma it talks in terms of Cosmic timescale which runs in trillions of years. The Age of Brahma (who is the one who ushers in the Creation on the command of God – Lord Vishnu), according to Sanatan Dharma, is 311 trillion years (this is the lifetime of birth and death of Creation itself, before it restarts all over again (Big Crunch followed by Big Bang), with Lokas (Multiverses) within it). The Karmic cycle starts at the very beginning of Creation itself and ends with the end of Creation to restart again in a cyclical manner. So how do I fit all this in a 1:1 mapping between Karma and an English equivalent? There is no such word in English which defines Karma in its entirety.
How do you translate Prāṇa in English? "Life force" or "Vital principle". Both don't sufficiently describe Prāṇa as Prāṇa is closely tied to Vāyu (also called Mukhya Prāṇa or the controller of the life force). Without explaining Vāyu you cannot explain Prāṇa as Vāyu is the controller and the cause.
If you want to have a curious conversation about translation and scholarship—great. But importing pre-existing flamewar talking points into HN threads is definitely not that, and is against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Needless to say, I have no view on the relative accuracy of Mahabharata translations. But I know HN threads and I know internet flamebait when I see it. No more of this, please.
Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32927390 also.
I'm not asking anyone to submit to colonial dogmas here—just to abide by the site guidelines when making their substantive points.
Even if they're 100% correct*, commenters still have to follow the site guidelines. Showing up with an obviously pre-existing agenda, ready-to-go talking points, and denunciatory rhetoric is definitely not curious conversation. Moreover, HN has a problem with Indian nationalist flamewars (as it does with other nationalist flamewars), quite vicious ones in fact, and I unfortunately have had to moderate enough of them to recognize the pattern when I see it.
* (especially if they're 100% correct, since that is what everyone feels about their own views in any case)
Thanks for the clarification. You are right and I'll try to tone it down.
> HN has a problem with Indian nationalist flamewars (as it does with other nationalist flamewars), quite vicious ones in fact, and I unfortunately have had to moderate enough of them to recognize the pattern when I see it.
The reason probably has to do with Indian voices being shut down by the Western academia and Western media (both play a big role in the conditioning) which ends up with Indians like me (and many others like me) who come with pitchforks in discussions with people who do not have such intentions. I recognize that and will work on it.
So yes you are right that Indians, off late, have become extremely passionate about certain causes: be it defending Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma or Nationalistic viewpoints (India in general). Please understand that this is reactionary to what we have witnessed/subjected to over years if not decades of being exposed to brainwashing by Western academia and media. It was only recently that we have started to look into our own history without the corrupted lens of the Colonial powers that modified/changed/rewrote/distorted many portions of our historical past (as they say, Victors write History). That anger at being fooled for so long is what is driving the under current of Nationalism today.
We are beginning to stand up for what we believe in to be right (whether that is accepted by the rest of the World or not is immaterial at this point). We have kept quiet and not spoken out against misinformation or mischaracterization of our people for all these years with a hope that it will change. It sadly hasn't happened.
However, you are not wrong in that Indians are generally extremely passionate (which wasn't the case some 20 years back). It will cool down over time I am sure of that. But do give us some leeway to express ourselves (even if we make mistakes) as sometimes we just need an outlet.
Thanks for your clarification and understanding.
I recognize moderation is required but I was genuinely engaging with someone's viewpoint curiously. It is not frequent you come across someone here that is conversant with tattvavAda philosophy of MadhvacArya - doesn't seem acceptable to shut them down, especially given the history of colonial influence in India and throughout the world.
These countries are finally now finding their voice after centuries of occupation, and it seems quite harsh to shut down that down on the basis of flamewars. Ultimately you probably have more experience on this topic so will ultimately defer to your judgement and authority but wanted to share another POV.
By that argument, all moderation is "implicitly taking a side", in which case we might as well have no rules at all.
That "we" was a very exclusive club by design, and now that people outside it are trying to butt in, it is only natural that doors would be slammed in their face. The idea that the club was open to all was a fiction, told in the knowledge that only "we" had a voice to speak with anyways.
In internet forums, criticizing or mocking Hindus is perfectly acceptable but any comments trying to present Hindu culture in a fair light get quickly classified as nationalistic or flamebait. The canonical example being r/India.
We're still years away from where this bias is seen and acknowledged for what it is.
For what is worth, I saw nothing in the original parent comment to classify it as flamebait. It was a perfectly valid opinion about how Hindu texts have been misrepresented by Western scholars.
Thanks Krishna for your comment, I for one learned something from it.