Do you have an example of a specific deliberate mistranslation by, let’s say, Wendy Doniger?
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.