Language and translation

[Frater Sisyphus]

I don't know where this will lead but I'm really interested (well naturally as Hinduism is a big thing for me in the present) from the perspective of our native Sanskrit/Hindi readers/speakers, on your opinion on the effectiveness on English (as I am an English speaker ) translations of Hindu sacred texts.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is; when you (if you do) read English translations, do you feel they are effective at conveying the essence of their original meanings?


p.s. I know I am being vague but I think a wider discussion than just a bunch of specific translations, would be more helpful



When it comes to any texts, even more widely well-known (in a 'world-famous in your household sense) texts like the Torah (in Judaism or Christianity), you still run into massive roadblocks with translations - which sometimes lead to big, heated interpretative debates.

 

[sayak83]

I don't know where this will lead but I'm really interested (well naturally as Hinduism is a big thing for me in the present) from the perspective of our native Sanskrit/Hindi readers/speakers, on your opinion on the effectiveness on English (as I am an English speaker ) translations of Hindu sacred texts.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is; when you (if you do) read English translations, do you feel they are effective at conveying the essence of their original meanings?


p.s. I know I am being vague but I think a wider discussion than just a bunch of specific translations, would be more helpful



When it comes to any texts, even more widely well-known (in a 'world-famous in your household sense) texts like the Torah (in Judaism or Christianity), you still run into massive roadblocks with translations - which sometimes lead to big, heated interpretative debates.

Meaning, yes. But since many of the works are poetic, much of the poetic beauty is lost.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Meaning, yes. But since many of the works are poetic, much of the poetic beauty is lost.

Yes, I can see how this is the case.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, I can see how this is the case.

Are you looking to read any particular text?

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Based on my limited experience as a native English speaker and intermediate Hindi speaker - the meaning of the original Sanskrit is almost always misinterpreted. A lot of it is that there aren't theological or philosophical concepts in English speaking cultures that can accurately describe what's going on in ancient Sanskrit. So, in my opinion, a lot is lost in translation.

 

[Vinayaka]

Based on my limited experience as a native English speaker and intermediate Hindi speaker - the meaning of the original Sanskrit is almost always misinterpreted. A lot of it is that there aren't theological or philosophical concepts in English speaking cultures that can accurately describe what's going on in ancient Sanskrit. So, in my opinion, a lot is lost in translation.

I concur. Even some of the most common terms, like 'dharma' are butchered, pardon the himsa connection. I just think it's really difficult for anyone to describe or interpret something outside their own cultural box, and language is one of the main components of that box.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

I concur. Even some of the most common terms, like 'dharma' are butchered, pardon the himsa connection. I just think it's really difficult for anyone to describe or interpret something outside their own cultural box, and language is one of the main components of that box.

This is one of my fears outlined with Hinduism. I want to be able to understand it and have it not be filtered through the (so called) westernized construct via language.

Do you think that learning the original languages is the only way to fully grasp this?

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Are you looking to read any particular text?

Well, at the moment I am routinely reading all the core sacred texts, in several translations - including the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Vedas, Srimad Bhagavatam and Atharvaveda (among several others)

Some for the first time and others I've been familiar with for quite a long time

 

[sayak83]

Well, at the moment I am routinely reading all the core sacred texts, in several translations - including the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Vedas, Srimad Bhagavatam and Atharvaveda (among several others)

Some for the first time and others I've been familiar with for quite a long time

Wow. Big project. Best of luck. Feel free to ask questions.

 

[Vinayaka]

This is one of my fears outlined with Hinduism. I want to be able to understand it and have it not be filtered through the (so called) westernized construct via language.

Do you think that learning the original languages is the only way to fully grasp this?

No. One of the problems with translators is the desire to find a word to word translation, when a paragraph would be better. I think you just have to be careful, and practice it. Besides just study it philosophically. Lots of good Hindus don't know Sanskrit. Brahman, as an example, isn't actually an intellectual concept but far more an inner realisation..Through practice, it sinks in on the inside.

Hinduism is an experiential religion. The intellectual study doesn't do it justice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When it comes to any texts, even more widely well-known (in a 'world-famous in your household sense) texts like the Torah (in Judaism or Christianity), you still run into massive roadblocks with translations - which sometimes lead to big, heated interpretative debates.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is; when you (if you do) read English translations, do you feel they are effective at conveying the essence of their original meanings?

The road blocks in Sanskrit are not as large as they may be in Hebrew. We still understand the meaning and intention of the words. But translations are a problem because of (individul/sectoral) biases. One must know at least a little of Sanskrit to spot the mistakes/distortions. Sacred-texts.com and Archives.org have nice collections.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you think that learning the original languages is the only way to fully grasp this?

I would not say that. We have members in forum who do not know Sanskrit but understand Hindu ideas very well. It is always better not to depend on just one translation and keep an eye on what is the belief of the person who is translating something. For example, the original verse in BhagawadGita many a times does not refer to God or soul but theist translators insert them.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

This is one of my fears outlined with Hinduism. I want to be able to understand it and have it not be filtered through the (so called) westernized construct via language.

Do you think that learning the original languages is the only way to fully grasp this?

What I would do is read a couple different translation of a text I did this for the gita. But also I would ask Hindus directly about what certain passages mean, because you'll get the cultural meanings from that as well. Once you see how different concepts are interpreted in different texts, you can see where the "trouble areas" are. As in you'll see where there is the most variation on translation due to incongruous language/concept differences.

 

[Vinayaka]

The road blocks in Sanskrit are not as large as they may be in Hebrew. We still understand the meaning and intention of the words. But translations are a problem because of (individul/sectoral) biases. One must know at least a little of Sanskrit to spot the mistakes/distortions. Sacred-texts.com and Archives.org have nice collections.

Not sure how Old Tamil would fit into the range or degree of difficulty. I do know some translators have said it is really a double translation, first from Old Tamil to modern Tamil, and then to English. From the variations done with the Tirukkural, one can see it must have been arduous. The Tirumanthiram (for those who don't know, it's an ancient Tamil scripture on Yoga) as far as I know has only been done once or twice. I seriously doubt that an accurate meaning has been conveyed. So much is just plain obscure to begin with.

 

[Vinayaka]

The word 'priest' is a great example. In Sanskrit (or Tamil), what is called a priest in western lingo, is a purohit, a pundit, a kurukkal, a pujari, etc. Any of these has very little at all in common with the western concept of priest. Really a very different job description.

 

[ajay0]

I don't know where this will lead but I'm really interested (well naturally as Hinduism is a big thing for me in the present) from the perspective of our native Sanskrit/Hindi readers/speakers, on your opinion on the effectiveness on English (as I am an English speaker ) translations of Hindu sacred texts.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is; when you (if you do) read English translations, do you feel they are effective at conveying the essence of their original meanings?

For the most part yes, because most of the english translations are done by saints and scholars adept in Sanskrit.

There is a three volume translation with commentary of the Bhagavad Gita by Swami Ranganathananda of the Ramakrishna Mission in english. Same too with Swami Prabhavananda.

Yoga vasistha has been translated into english by swami Venkatesananda.

For the most part, there is a high degree of accuracy in these translations without errors.

But I have seen some erronous translations by those of non-Hindu origin. I would attribute this to improper understanding of vocabulary and context.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Of course, only the brave will attempt to read 'Gita Rahasya', commentary on BhgawadGita by B. G. Tilak.