archaic Sanskrit - hindu literature

dan37_123

Hi,

"without knowing archaic sanskrit how can one translate the indian reglious texts"???


India has developed some of the richest philosophical treaties in the world, namely the vedas, upanishads, bhagavadgita, purans etc.,

When i read the translation of these works, each sutra has a two or four line translation, followed by a TWO or FOUR PAGE interpretation or commentary.

My question is, if the original texts are in archaic sanskarit, how can one dare to translate let alone give a long running commentaries.

Hope some on can shed some light on this question-
"without knowing archaic sanskrit how can one translate the indian reglious texts"???

thanks
daniel

girlfromvenus

the answer is:

without knowing sanskrit of course noone can translate !

but why do you assume that the translators actually don't know Sanskrit ?
Sanskrit is not the easiest of languages but it's manageable to learn it.

I seem not to really get your problem......or are you just confused why in some cases you have soooooo much commentary related to the actual text ?

dan37_123

"archaic sanskrit" is old, and it is the lanague that was used for writing the religious texts.

existing sanskrit (??) is very different from archaic sanskrit.

though both archaic and exisitng form of saksrit may have some similarities, but could throw up some BIG surprises.

So my fear is, without knowing archaic sanskrit, how can anyone dare to translate some thing??

thanks
daniel

AvidTrekker

Yes, indeed you are right !!

This applies to the vedas where the language is really archaic and my primary area of focus. Further, all verses in the vedas give at least three levels of meanings. At the Earthly level, at the PraaNic / dieties level and at the highest Yogic level.

Max Muller and others attempted to translate without knowing archaic sanskrit. Later on Max Muller managed to grasp quite many nuances of archaic sanskrit.... but he had already done a lot of translation work based on modern sanskrit. Even the word "sanskrit" itself does not exist in the vedas as indicative of the name of the language. The language is known as chhandaH bhaaShaa, which means "language of the vedic meters".

Even Indian pundits have done translations based on modern sanskrit. Most of them, not all... The majority of them [Western and Indian] all have translated saayaNaacharya's commentary rather than the original veda. The aacharya himself admits to a "ritual" bent of mind in his translations which may not be valid for all other people who are not ritualists.

In the contemporary scenario I can say Aurobindo, Kapali Shastry and R. L. Kashyap are rendering more of "true to the original spirit" translations.

The Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayananda Sarasvati wrote in Gujarati, which you may not be able to read. Other pundits in local languages are making sporadic attempts. This writer is also trying to solve a drop-sized puzzle in the vast ocean of the veda. Today this has become only a labour of Love becoz nobody will get paid for doing such research as very few are interested in such things in the first place.

Among Westerners, Germans have put in the maximum research efforts in unravelling the vedas. They are more into dicovering secret sources of energy and technical scientific aspects in the Vedas nowadays, so their research will never get published, only patented.

This is imho, the general the state of affairs in archaic sanskrit [read "vedic"] translation....

This can take up an entire volume, but i will leave it at this. Its a subject which both saddens and gladdens my heart.

__________________
The Universe is an ellipsoid?... or a Spheroid?? If the sphere smiles... it becomes an ellipse. This IS Creation.

dan37_123

Hi Avid,

thansk for the reply. For example, i read the Bhagavadgita, translated by Radhakrishnan.

The first few chapters seems to convey some meaning, but later on, it goes into a ritualistic repetitive pattern.

One thing that struck me was, the VARNAS and CASTES that is mentioned in the BHAGAVADGITA. I have lot of respect for the indian philosophical thought, but how can, one with such deeper understanding, can INSULT HUMANITY under the name of CASTE SYSTEM. This contradiction some how beats the hell out of my brain.

I would appreciate if you can kindly shed some light on this.

My explanation is this, in the true or the original thought, there was no perversions. As the thoughts are passed verbally over centures or even thoudsnds of years, slowy, with the passage of time, people started inserting all sorts of non-sensical things into these wonderful philosphical thoughts.

thanks
daniel

AvidTrekker

IMHO, the best almost-natural-flowing English translation of the Bhagavad Gita is by Jack Hawley. See the link here.

In the original caste system, there were no perversions. During the Vedic period, women were also given the sacred thread and were allowed to learn vedas. Some women even attained the hallowed status of a rishikaa [fem. of rishi] People from the lowest or even lower-than-the-lowest caste attained the status of the highest title: that of a bramha-rishi. Some examples of low caste becoming great Rishis: Vasishtha was born of a public woman [they were NOT counted even within the four castes]. Agastya was born in a pot. Valmiki was a tribal-hunter-cum-highway-robber. Vyasa was born of a fisherwoman "out-of-wedlock". There are many more. The point has been conveyed.

I can understand the Westerners' shocked reaction at the current state of caste system. Yes, it has been perverted down the ages. But in the cities and educated folk, it has almost disappeared. Among the villages where education has not percolated, it still exists with its cruel perversions. With time, we will remove it. To have some perspective, one must remember that we are trying to undo some 5000 years of systemic programming. There is NO culture on Earth which has survived 5000 years, hence this is a unique situation which others cannot even begin to imagine, let alone do something concrete about.

Having said that, let me point out that some diluted form of caste system also exists in the West. For example, teachers and professors tend to stick together. [bramhins]. Corporate honchos will generally not stray from their groups. [vaishyas]. Workers will stick to each other and maybe form unions [shudras]. The difference is that the system is not insitutionalized. It is not based upon birth, but upon the type-of-work that one usually does. This is what Krishna has exactly stated in the Bhagavad Gita. "The differentiation of the castes is based upon the mental qualities and the type of work done by a person. Nowhere does it state that it is based upon birth.

Society requires all types of people at all times... then and even now... teachers, warriors, business-trades-people, workers.... We can add more to this list today... but it suffices as a broad classification.

The Caste system was never ever meant for the rich and powerful to enable them to subjugate the poor and downtrodden. It happened because man became inhuman. He stopped practising his true dharma.

This is not only true of Hindus today, but of people from other faiths also. Man in general has deviated from his true path in all the faiths and religions. The original teachings are for mere lip service and not for putting into action.

BTW, this happens to "off topic" because the Bhagavad Gita has not been written in archaic sanskrit, but regular sanskrit which was the lingua franca of the Country at the time of its writing 5000 years ago.