[Advaita-l] The problem with translations

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

While I am on a soapbox, let me vent a little more about the problems of 
translations.

unscrupulous translators

Last year my wife and some other ladies decided they were going to get 
together and read the Bhagavadgita.  As it was a multicultural group (some 
Nepalis and South Indians as well as Gujaratis) they decided to read an 
English translation along with reciting the shlokas.  They picked 
Prabhupada's "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" It's readily available and says it 
is "as it is" so it should be good right?  But no, he consistently inserts 
his own (or his sampradayas') interpretations into it.  Mow, ok, he is a 
Vaishnava; nothing wrong with that per se.  But then you should 
acknowledge that up front.  To pretend you are being objective is simply 
fraudulent.  Unfortunately many translations are like this.

ungainly language

The first day they started their recitation my wife asked me "what does 
'Supreme Personality of Godhead mean?"  Everyone in the group had been 
puzzled by that phrase.  I said "he means Bhagavan" and suddenly a light 
dawned.  Prabhupada as a dvaitin wants to show that Krishna is ultimately 
saguna not nirguna but what a confusing way to say it.  It could be argued 
that this book was meant for a Western audience not Indians but I 
guarantee you no one in Europe or America understands "Supreme Personality 
of Godhead" without an explanation.  And if you're going to be explaining 
anyway why not just say Bhagavan and have a footnote or a glossary in the 
back?

Other mistranslations are aesthetically unappealing.  Shriharsha wrote an 
influential Advaita work called Khandanakhandakhadya.  I have sometimes 
seen that referenced by it's literal English translation "Sweets of 
Refutation".  Khandanakhandakhadya is clever.  "Sweets of refutation" 
sounds silly.

lack of cultural understanding

I once read a study of tantric puja by a reputable academic but I was 
perplexed by the mention of rituals on a vase.  A vase is what you put 
flowers in no? I have never seen that in any puja.   Turns out they meant 
kalasha which makes more sense.  Probably it didn't help that the author 
was not a native English speaker either.  So it may not be a deliberate 
misinterpretation but the effect is the same; it is hard to understand.

In another case, the translator of a Vaishnava work, gave an 
interpretation of a verse which was quite plausible but totally missed 
that is was an allusion to an episode in the Bhagavata Purana.  I believe 
anyone who was familiar with the Bhagavata (as the original author and 
readers were) would have caught this as I did but the translator evidently 
was not.

And this goes both ways.  A few days ago I quoted from 
Brhadaranyakopanishad and to check I also looked at Swami Madhavanandas 
translation.  I noticed that in some places he has Shankaracharya answer 
objections from "the Nihilists"  Did Nietzche somehow build a time machine 
and travel to ancient India?  No actually it refers to Shunyavadins, 
followers of a type of Buddhist philosophy.  As they believe in the 
impermanance of all things, nihilist is not completely wrong but if you 
were familiar with Western philosophy, the label would be more likely to 
lead you astray than to help.

However we should also admit that whenever there is more than one person 
discoursing there is some kind of interpretation and translation.  Even if 
both were speaking to each other in perfect sanskrit, some imperfections 
would remain.  It is unavoidable and this is why ultimately language has 
to be jetisoned altogether.  But in the meantime atleast we can avoid 
extra hardship by trying to rely on primary sources as much as possible 
and keep the translations as backup only.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>