Some comments on Goldman’s translation of Ramayana

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear list members, 

A while ago, there was a great discussion on bvparishat list regarding Prof. Robert Goldman’s translation of kṛtajña in VR 1.1.2, and how the word has been ascribed incorrect meanings in St. Petersburg dictionary and Monier-Williams. 

In this video discussion (part 1 of a 3-part series) with Sh. Rajiv Malhotra, I have offered some comments (including comments on kṛtajña in VR 1.1.2) on the translations of first five verses of VR by Prof. Goldman, comparing them with translations of the same verses by Gita Press, Hari Prasad Shastri, and Griffith. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c9NiN1i_N8

Part 2 of this series will have my comments on the questionable and controversial interpretation of the word śailūṣa as “a pimp” and śailūṣī as a “a prostitute” by Goldman (something which Audrey Truschke cited as evidence [sic] to show that “stilted English” is not the only way to translate English while defending her indefensible and reprehensible “misogynist pig” mistranslation.

Part 3 of this series will have my comments on the translations of some verses from other books of the Vamiki Ramayana by Sheldon Pollock, Robert Goldman, Sally Sutherland Goldman, and Barend van Nooten. 

Your comments and feedback are welcome, as always. 

 

Thanks, Nityananda

--

Nityānanda Miśra

[Aravinda Rao]

Excellent Misra ji,

I heard your discussion with Rajiv ji. I admire it as a person currently teaching Ramayana with the commentaries you referred to. However, I am deliberately not referring to Goldman and others. I think it will be great if you to do a series of talks on the Ramayana, covering the whole text. 

Regards,

Dr. Aravinda Rao K 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Roland Steiner]

Dear Mr Misra,

I can help you with the Mahābhārata quotation in Böhtlingk's
"Sanskrit-Wörterbuch in kürzerer Fassung" (i.e., the small
"Petersburger Wörterbuch" = pw) which you were not able to find, or in
your words during the "video discussion" with Rajiv Malhotra (ca.
22:50): "I could not trace it. This entry in both dictionaries [pw and
Monier-Williams] is incorrect, it has to be deemed incorrect, it goes
against established meaning, the citation is not traceable. So I have
to say that it's an error in those dictionaries."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c9NiN1i_N8

It goes without saying that in 1879 Böhtlingk could not make use of
the critical edition. Hence, the entry "MBH. 12,104,6" for kṛtajña
refers to the Bombay edition where one reads under 12.104.6 the
following śloka:

vyādhinā cābhipannasya mānasenetareṇa vā
dharmajñaś ca kṛtajñaś ca tvadvidhaḥ śaraṇaṃ bhavet

which corresponds to 12.105.6 of the critical edition:

vyādhinā cābhipannasya mānasenetareṇa vā
bahuśrutaḥ kṛtaprajñas tvadvidhaḥ śaraṇaṃ bhavet

Best,

Roland Steiner

[Vipin Chaturvedi]

Absolutely brilliant Mishra Ji.
We need more scholars like you. I have been reading Gita Press books since my childhood and found them to be brilliant and transformational. Also thanks for mentioning Karpaatri Maharaj—a brilliant sanyasi.
We should also remember that scholars some times take the essence or the ultimate aim of the Vedic texts.
We also have examples of Ramanujam —a mathematic genius whom the equations were revealed in a different realm of knowledge.

Thanks for sharing and hope to be enlightened more.

Prof. Vipin Chaturvedi
University of California San Diego

Sent from my iPhone

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The following is the thread on BVP, that aadaraNeeya Nityanand-ji mentioned at 18: 39 of the the video where Prof. Robert Goldman's translation of Kritajna was discussed:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/Robert$20goldman%7Csort:date/bvparishat/SCbhjYJaQJM/H14l6E8HCgAJ

In that thread at this post : https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/SCbhjYJaQJM/zaGx4qTzCQAJ, there is a reference to an older thread on BVP where Prof. Goldman's obnoxious application of Psychoanalysis to Hanuman and his wrongs from Alankara S'aastra point of view in viewing S'ringara rasa in an episode where it doesn't fit etc. are discussed. 

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre for Indic Knowledge Systems. 

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Bijoy Misra]

I admire Prof Paturi's post in recollecting the old thread!

We are working on "a few" words.  If you read through, Goldman's translation

becomes increasingly absurd.  Pollock is another "stalwart" in this business

of philology...  They have no concept of रूढि and the cultural metaphors.

I heard that Stephanie Jamieson whom I knew personally, has also fallen in the trap

of this absurdityin using dictionary to understand old literature!  I have not seen her work yet!

At the same time, I must admit that the language conversion is an extremely hard task!

[Ganesh R]

Dear Sri. Mishra mahodaya,

Thanks a lot for this thorough and brilliant analysis of Robert Goldman's translation. Your exposition, evidences and sources are so convincing. It is really a treat to hear your defense for the Gitaa press translation. I am thrilled by the way you justified our true scholars and tradition. May this service to surabhaarati continue well. I also congratulate infinity foundation for this video production.

With warm regards

Ganesh

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear friends,

Continuing what I said before, I would say that an Indian University or an institution

should arrange a rigorous teach-in course on word use and metaphors.  It could

help many of the new researchers also.  Metaphors in English are word related

and local.  "white as snow", not "white as swan", but then no face has anything

to do with "moon" or a "lotus".  Just like I would have difficulty in explaining to

my mother the phrase "rubber meets the road!".  I still have my ignorance in how

to phrase it precisely back at home.  Some of the vernacular newspapers in India

who use news-feeds do post literal translations that sound absurd.

Though I am now forty-five years in the US, I might have 1% familiarity of the local

cultural use of words.  So I do have sympathy for Robert Goldman and others

who might never know the Indian use of the words.  But there is a more fundamental

flaw in scholarship in assuming as though the words have static meanings.  This is where

I totally differ with my linguist friends in the west.  They derive words through propagation

and not think of the word production.  There was declared injunction against the

research into word production when the French philosopher Voltaire proposed it

in eighteenth century.  Such tacit injunction continues.  Language training becomes

a test of memory than the expression of thought translation.  The concept that the

thought has no words is unknown in the west.

It may take many decades or centuries before we understand the scientific basis

of formation of sound from a thought.  Meanwhile all should agree that the words are

not literal, but they signal message.  Such conviction has to emanate from India

itself with her multiple languages and diverse population.  All messages are true,

it is not what we hear, but what we express.  An expression is different than

transmission or communication.  The west may not catch up easily, because the

idea of individuality is in conflict with uniformity.  The latter is the root of imperialism!

Let me hope the best.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

[David and Nancy Reigle]

A Query to all,

Recently a new English translation of the complete Valmiki Ramayana was published, made by Bibek Debroy. It is described as being only the second translation ever made from the critical edition (Goldman, et al., was the first). I wonder if anyone has checked its accuracy.

Bibek Debroy also translated the whole Mahabharata, the first ever complete translation made from the critical edition. I recently had occasion to check a particular verse from it. The construal of this verse seemed to me to be quite inaccurate, taking the wrong word as the subject of the sentence.

So I wondered if Bibek Debroy's translations of the critical editions of the great epics are considered to be reliable.

Best regards,

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Nityanand-ji, at places points out the inaccuracies in the transaction of Sri Hari Prasad Shastri's too.

[Bijoy Misra]

An epic is not translated by using dictionary. 

Any effort to tell a story would miss the poetics in the poetry!

Slaughtering of words and bypassing unknown concepts would be common!

I did ask Pollock about poetry translations in his role as Editor of old

poetry books.  He said he knew the language!  That was a lame answer..

A poem is not a word arrangement.

I am preparing a local talk tomorrow on "Nature and Spirituality".

In preparing I remembered the old poem of William Wordsworth

that we had studied in High School.

Daffodils

by William Wordsworth

I wandered lonely as a cloud

That floats on high o'er vales and hills,

When all at once I saw a crowd,

A host, of golden daffodils;

Beside the lake, beneath the trees,

Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

 

Continuous as the stars that shine

And twinkle on the milky way,

They stretched in never-ending line

Along the margin of a bay:

Ten thousand saw I at a glance,

Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

 

The waves beside them danced, but they

Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:

A poet could not be but gay,

In such a jocund company:

I gazed'and gazed'but little thought

What wealth the show to me had brought:

 

For oft, when on my couch I lie

In vacant or in pensive mood,

They flash upon that inward eye

Which is the bliss of solitude;

And then my heart with pleasure fills,

And dances with the daffodils.

I dare if anyone can translate it into an Indian language without causing damage to the joy of the poet!

Valmiki is ten times more difficult!

BM

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste

While on the topic of  Sanskrit- Terms',  I may draw the attention of the scholars to a recent publication from Akso Parpola,  Professor emeritus of Indology 

University of Helsinki.  The title of the paper -'  The Mirror in Vedic India: Its ancient use and its present relevance in dating texts'  published in: Studia Orientalia Electronica vol. 7 (2019): 1-29. A pdf is downloadable at  https://journal.fi/store/issue/view/5490 .   Here is the abstract:

 

The major first part of the paper collects as exhaustively as possible all mentions of words for ‘mirror’ occuring in Vedic literature (c.1200–300 bce). The occurrences are presented with sufficient context in Sanskrit and English in order to show how and why the mirror was used in Vedic rituals and Vedic culture in general, and what meaning was ascribed to it. The second part of the paper discusses a fact of major significance that emerges from this documentation: in the extensive older Vedic literature of the Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas and Śrautasūtras (excepting the late Kātyāyana-Śrautasūtra), there is no reference to the mirror at all. This suggests that the mirror was not known in Vedic India until it was introduced to South Asia by the Persian Empire at the end of the sixth century bce. The later Vedic literature, starting with the early Upaniṣads and comprising also the Gṛhyasūtras and Kātyāyana-Śrautasūtra, would therefore postdate 500 bce. In other words, the ‘mirror’ words seem to offer a criterion that for the first time enables a division of the Vedic literature into two clearly separate phases of development. Equally important is the firm historical basis that the mirror provides for dating the transition point. 

   The focus is on the term ' aa-darsha, used in the reference Vedic text.   The  in-house traditional schools perspective, on  the term ' aa-darsha (  आ-दर्श)  is not limited to its interpretation as ' mirror' based on lexicon. It could / would  mean ' From and including the full moon day' ( eg: as in दर्श-पूर्ण्माआसाभ्यां यजेत) . From this perspective, the open review of Akso Parpola's paper by scholars is invited.  .  This could help address one more challenging issue on dates of Vedic resources.

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

--

 

Regards

 

Dr. B V Venkatakrishna Sastry
(G-Mail)

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr B V K Sastry avare,

Thanks for bringing this very important article from a very important scholar into discussion.. 

But I wish you started a separate thread for this. 

I know that this article could involve some problems of translation too. 

But its focus is more on the occurrence of a word or words for a tool called mirror. Its objective is to establish a later date for the early Upanishads. 

I am starting a new thread on this. 

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste Misra ji,

I have seen the entire video...wonderful !

Swami Ramsukhdas Ji always used to encourage people around him to study Gita Press books only and he used to say that 

गीता प्रेस् कि किताबें पडते समय मन को बहुत शान्ति मिलती है 

I always prefer Gita Press books that are free from printing devils and also available at a very affordable price.  

The entire Valmiki Ramayana Set I purchased for Rs.300/-.  Seeing my enthusiasm, the volunteers gave me 'Gita - Sadhak Sanjeevani' by Ramsukhdas Ji

free of cost as a bonus ! 

rgs,

sriram

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste

1. Thanks Paturi garu, for starting the new thread initiative.

2. These are some of the calls to review how we, the insiders of tradition needs to be proactive to define and drive our self.

Thanks.

 

BVK Sastry

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, 3 March 2019 23:03:58 UTC+5:30, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

Nityanand-ji, at places points out the inaccuracies in the transaction of Sri Hari Prasad Shastri's too.

Thanks a lot to Dr. Aravinda Rao , Dr. Roland Steiner,  Prof. Vipin Chaturvedi, Dr. Nagaraj Paturi, Dr. Bijoy Misra, Shatavadhani Dr. Ganesh, David Reigle, Dr. B V K Sastry, and Sh. Venkata Sriram for their comments.

Here is the second video in the series. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BMXVgqrMJY 

For those who may not remember, the context is this. Last year, in a tweet on Twitter, Audrey Truschke infamously claimed that Sita calls Rama a “misogynist pig” in Valmiki’s Rāmāyaṇa. In her defence, she put up screenshots of the translation of the Yuddhakāṇḍa by Goldman et al. Somebody wrote to Prof. Robert Goldman to get his views, and Prof. Goldman wrote back saying he found it “extremely disturbing but perhaps not unexpected” that Truschke used “such inappropriate language and passed it off as coming from Valmiki”. This email was leaked and subsequently published in an article on the website Swarajya magazine. Truschke was facing a lot of heat on Twitter already, and this rebuke from Goldman becoming public compounded it. Truschke wrote an article in The Wire ranting about anger of Hindu right [sic], in which she admitted that characterisation of Sita calling Rama a “misogynist pig” was “a failed translation”. However, for reasons best known to herself, Truschke pointed out that Goldman had translated the word śailuṣa [sic, the correct word is śailūṣa] as “pimp”, and added that this showed that “stilted and formal English” is not the only way to translate Valmiki. Truschke conveniently avoided saying anything about whether she agreed with Goldman’s translation or not (“Whether or not I agree with Professor Goldman’s translation in this case, …”). The ashtavadhani poet Dr. Shankar Rajaraman and I had responded to her article in The Wire in an article on Swarajya, where the word śailūṣa was not discussed in detail.

Thanks, Nityananda

[Vandana Mishra]

Namaste Nityanand ji,

Very nice. I watched your video with my Guru ji Shri Rajiv M ji. Outstanding.

I wish you to expose all these authors who are well established and have created havoc on our narratives n sabhyata . Also if possible, circulate your videos with common man who have no net acess through various other mediums like magazine or pamphelets or T.V .

I am circulating your videos as much ad possible and orally educating people around me.

I want my Dharmic foundation back and my BHARAT back.

Dhanywaad.

On Sat, 2 Mar, 2019, 6:49 PM Aravinda Rao, <karav...@gmail.com> wrote:

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (karav...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

Excellent Misra ji,

I heard your discussion with Rajiv ji. I admire it as a person currently teaching Ramayana with the commentaries you referred to. However, I am deliberately not referring to Goldman and others. I think it will be great if you to do a series of talks on the Ramayana, covering the whole text. 

Regards,

Dr. Aravinda Rao K 

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 6:14 PM Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mārcis Gasūns]

On Monday, 4 March 2019 17:15:23 UTC+3, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Here is the second video in the series. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BMXVgqrMJY 

For those who may not remember, the context is this. Last year, in a tweet on Twitter, Audrey Truschke infamously claimed that Sita calls Rama a “misogynist pig” in Valmiki’s Rāmāyaṇa. In her defence, she put up screenshots of the translation of the Yuddhakāṇḍa by Goldman et al. Somebody wrote to Prof. Robert Goldman to get his views, and Prof. Goldman wrote back saying he found it “extremely disturbing but perhaps not unexpected” that Truschke used “such inappropriate language and passed it off as coming from Valmiki”. This email was leaked and subsequently published in an article on the website Swarajya magazine. Truschke was facing a lot of heat on Twitter already, and this rebuke from Goldman becoming public compounded it. Truschke wrote an article in The Wire ranting about anger of Hindu right [sic], in which she admitted that characterisation of Sita calling Rama a “misogynist pig” was “a failed translation”. However, for reasons best known to herself, Truschke pointed out that Goldman had translated the word śailuṣa [sic, the correct word is śailūṣa] as “pimp”, and added that this showed that “stilted and formal English” is not the only way to translate Valmiki. Truschke conveniently avoided saying anything about whether she agreed with Goldman’s translation or not (“Whether or not I agree with Professor Goldman’s translation in this case, …”). The ashtavadhani poet Dr. Shankar Rajaraman and I had responded to her article in The Wire in an article on Swarajya, where the word śailūṣa was not discussed in detail.

Nityananda,

  In my search for a few words with dark meanings in Ramayana I went to Pune last year and wanted to find answers at Deccan College, but failed. So bellow I add a list of dictionaries that contain the first term in question, not sure if of any help now.

akftajYa:BHS;48,CAE;81,CCS;55,GST;132,MD;117,MW;331,PD;2740,PW;186,SHS;95,VCP;89,WIL;96,YAT;74

akftajYaH:SKD;77

kftajYa:BEN;3704,BHS;5108,BOP;2358,CAE;8266,CCS;5261,INM;5949,MW;54235,PW;29937,PWG;18601,SHS;11275,VCP;14654,WIL;11281,YAT;10730

kftajYaH:SKD;8554 

I owe much to Barend van Nooten, so I would be eager to know what you have you want to say,

Marcis

[Aravinda Rao]

I have circulated the video on my facebook page. It should provoke youngsters to do some serious study of shastras, which people like me missed out in youth.

Aravinda Rao

--

[Roland Steiner]

> Here is the second video in the series.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BMXVgqrMJY

It is comparatively simple. The second half of Rāmāyaṇa 2.27.8 (crit.
ed.) reads (Sītā is speaking):

śailūṣa iva māṃ rāma parebhyo dātum icchasi

which could literally be translated as:

"Like a dancer/an actor (śailūṣa) you, Rāma, are willing to give me to
others."

An interpreter would have to explain the meaning of the phrase "to
give me to others" in the narrower context of this śloka and in the
broader context of the beginning of sarga 2.27. Obviously, it is
regarded as typical of this kind of dancers/actors "to give" (dātum)
their wives "to others" (parebhyaḥ; cp. bhāryāṃ "wife" referring to
Sītā in the first half of the same śloka). And Sītā is comparing Rāma
to such an "actor/dancer". It goes without saying that her statement
is not intended as a compliment, to say the least. I should also be
clear that she must have a motive for making such a comparison which
has its roots in her own personal situation as well as in Rāma's
behaviour. Each plausible interpretation of the use of śailūṣaḥ
("actor/dancer") and the phrase parebhyo dātum ("to give to others")
in this śloka has to take Sīta's specific situation and motivation
into account.

The next step would be to get an idea of how actors/dancers were seen
or depicted in ancient Indian literature with regard to their
insinuated habit of "giving their wives to others". I'll give you a
hint:

Arthaśāstra 2.27 (ed. Kangle), title of the chapter:
gaṇikādhyakṣaḥ "The superintendent of courtesans" (transl. Kangle)

Arthaśāstra 2.27.25 (ed. Kangle):

etena
naṭa-nartaka-gāyana-vādaka-vāg-jīvana-kuśīlava-plavaka-saubhika-cāraṇānāṃ
strī-vyavahāriṇāṃ striyo gūḍhājīvāś ca vyākhyātāḥ //
"By this are explained (rules for) the women of actors, dancers,
singers, musicians, story-tellers, bards, rope-dancers, showmen and
wandering minstrels, who deal in women, and (women) who follow a
secret profession." (transl. Kangle)

The examples could be multiplied arbitrarily.

Best,
Roland Steiner

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, 5 March 2019 10:11:29 UTC+5:30, Roland Steiner wrote:

The next step would be to get an idea of how actors/dancers were seen  
or depicted in ancient Indian literature with regard to their  
insinuated habit of "giving their wives to others". I'll give you a  
hint:

Arthaśāstra 2.27 (ed. Kangle), title of the chapter:
gaṇikādhyakṣaḥ "The superintendent of courtesans" (transl. Kangle)

Arthaśāstra 2.27.25 (ed. Kangle):

etena  
naṭa-nartaka-gāyana-vādaka-vāg-jīvana-kuśīlava-plavaka-saubhika-cāraṇānāṃ  
strī-vyavahāriṇāṃ striyo gūḍhājīvāś ca vyākhyātāḥ //
"By this are explained (rules for) the women of actors, dancers,  
singers, musicians, story-tellers, bards, rope-dancers, showmen and  
wandering minstrels, who deal in women, and (women) who follow a  
secret profession." (transl. Kangle)

Dear Dr. Roland Steiner

Thank you for your comments. I strongly disagree with your interpretation that there is an insinuation of “giving their wives to others” in the Arthaśāstra verse you cited. However, before I share my interpretation, allow me ask you the following question.  

Keeping Kangle aside (and others aside), how do would you parse and translate the compound strī-vyavahāriṇām? Do you agree with Kangle or do you have a better translation?

I will share my parsing and translations after hearing your views. Let me return your favour of a hint by giving you a hint: supyajātau ṇinistācchilye

Look forward to your views,

Nityananda

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 7 March 2019 19:49:53 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Keeping Kangle aside (and others aside), how do would you parse and translate the compound strī-vyavahāriṇām? Do you agree with Kangle or do you have a better translation?

*how would you 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, 4 March 2019 19:45:23 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Thanks a lot to Dr. Aravinda Rao , Dr. Roland Steiner,  Prof. Vipin Chaturvedi, Dr. Nagaraj Paturi, Dr. Bijoy Misra, Shatavadhani Dr. Ganesh, David Reigle, Dr. B V K Sastry, and Sh. Venkata Sriram for their comments.

Here is the second video in the series. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BMXVgqrMJY 

Dear list members

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xs1_l_TsLM 

Here is the third and final video in the series in which I compare the translations of Valmiki Ramayana by Robert Goldman, Sheldon Pollock, et al. with Hindi and English translations by GitaPress. As earlier I find the Gita Press translations to be consistently better: more accurate, more reliable, and more faithful to the original text.

In addition, I point out to the unprofessional work by Princeton Library of Asian Translations on the covers (title on each of the seven books uses the anusvara incorrectly, a basic error which beginners of Sanskrit make), the schoolboy errors that Pollock makes in his translations and annotation of the Ayodhyākāṇḍa, and the incorrect pronunciation of aspirated consonants th and bh by Robert Goldman. I also make an offer to Sheldon Pollock in the video: if he writes a book in Sanskrit and an Indian publisher of repute (MLBD, Chaukhambha, RSS, Gita Press) publishes it, I will proofread it for free. 

[Roland Steiner]

Dear Nityanand Misra,

> Keeping Kangle aside (and others aside), how do would *you *parse
> and translate the compound *strī-
> vyavahāriṇām*? Do you agree with Kangle or do you have a better translation?

The relevant passage is Arthaśāstra 2.27.25 (ed. Kangle):

etena
naṭa-nartaka-gāyana-vādaka-vāg-jīvana-kuśīlava-plavaka-saubhika-cāraṇānāṃ
strī-vyavahāriṇāṃ striyo gūḍhājīvāś ca vyākhyātāḥ //
"By this are explained (rules for) the women of actors, dancers,
singers, musicians, story-tellers, bards, rope-dancers, showmen and
wandering minstrels, who deal in women, and (women) who follow a
secret profession." (transl. Kangle)

If I had not agreed with Kangle's translation, I would not have quoted
it. The word formation of strīvyavahārin in Arthaśāstra 2.27.25 (ed.
Kangle) is to be seen by analogy with surākiṇvavyavahārin "dealing in
liquor and ferments" (Arthaśāstra 2.25.1) or kācavyavahārin "dealing
in glass-ware" (Arthaśāstra 5.2.20) of the same text.

Accordingly, strīvyavahārin means "dealing in women" which perfectly
fits the context of this specific Arthaśāstra chapter (2.27) entitled
gaṇikādhyakṣaḥ "superintendent of prostitutes". The context, as well
as the actual language usage (especially in one and the same text), is
decisive, at least for a historical interpretation, irrespective of
Pāṇini 3.2.78 (supy ajātau ṇinis tācchilye).

Moreover, one could compare (in their respective contexts):

Manusmṛti 8.362:
naiṣa cāraṇadāreṣu vidhir nātmopajīviṣu
sajjayanti hi te nārīr nigūḍhāś cārayanti ca

Baudhāyanadharmasūtra 2.2.4.3 (ed. Hultzsch):
na tu cāraṇadāreṣu na raṅgāvatare [ed. Pandeya: raṅgāvatāre] vadhaḥ
saṃsarjayanti tā hy etān niguptāṃś cālayanty api

Yajñavalkyasmṛti 2.48:
gopaśauṇḍikaśailūṣarajakavyādhayoṣitām
ṛṇaṃ dadyāt patis teṣāṃ yasmād vṛttis tadāśrayā

* * *

However, we should not forget the starting point of this thread. Sīta
says to Rāma: śailūṣa iva māṃ rāma parebhyo dātum icchasi "Like a

dancer/an actor (śailūṣa) you, Rāma, are willing to give me to others."

1. Sīta compares Rāma to an actor/dancer. 2. These dancers/actors are
in the habit of giving their wives to others. The question is (if
there is any question at all): Why is Sītā making such a statement in
her specific situation? Everyone can answer this question for
themselves. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more to say
about that. I permit myself to withdraw from this thread.

Best,
Roland Steiner

[Jaidev Bhat]

In the Vedic index of names by Arthur Macdonell he defines shailush as a man who lives "on the prostitution of his wife".

The link is -- https://archive.org/details/vedicindexofname02macduoft/page/395

He also mentioned the source as Saayanbhaashyam on Taittireeya Brahmana (3.4.2.1). You can see the bhaashya on shailush at the link -- 

https://archive.org/stream/ASS037TaittiriyaBrahmanamWithSayanabhashyaPart1NarayanasastriGodbole1934/ASS_037_Taittiriya_Brahmanam_with_Sayanabhashya_Part_2_-_Narayanasastri_Godbole_1898#page/n348/mode/1up

Saayan says -- anyasmai svabhaaryaam pradaaya tena jiivitam -- he lives by exchanging his wife in return for money.

This is where the idea seems to have come from.

regards,

Jaidev Bhat.

[Walter Slaje]

I have watched this video and stumbled over the passage 19:35 ff:

 

“[...] when I listen to it, I realize that Robert Goldman mispronounces tha as ta and bha as ba. So he cannot pronounce the aspirated consonant – “ha ha ha ha”. So the word is babhrāja, Goldman says babrāja [...]. Well I am not passing a judgment on him, but I am stating the fact. [...] I think I could possibly work up towards my pronunciation. [...] My tha and my bha is clear. Goldman’s tha is ta, Goldman’s bha is ba. Just stating facts.”

 

 

Now, when I listened to it, I realized that Nityanand Misra mispronounces ta (त) as ṭa (ट) and da (द) as ḍa (ड). So he cannot pronounce the dental consonant (no arrogant laughter). So the word is translating, towards, Nityanand Misra says ṭranslaḍing, ṭowards [...]. Well I am not passing a judgment on him, but I am stating the fact. [...] I think he could possibly work up ṭowards his pronunciation. [...] Goldman’s English त and द is clear. Misra’s English त is ट, Misra's English द is ड. Just stating facts.

 

If Dr Nityānand Miśra even himself “thinks he could possibly work up towards his pronunciation”, here is my hitopadeśa:

 

https://magoosh.com/toefl/2015/pronunciation-tips-for-indian-speakers-of-english/

 

Regards,

WS

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:58 PM Walter Slaje <walter...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have watched this video and stumbled over the passage 19:35 ff:

 

“[...] when I listen to it, I realize that Robert Goldman mispronounces tha as ta and bha as ba. So he cannot pronounce the aspirated consonant – “ha ha ha ha”. So the word is babhrāja, Goldman says babrāja [...]. Well I am not passing a judgment on him, but I am stating the fact. [...] I think I could possibly work up towards my pronunciation. [...] My tha and my bha is clear. Goldman’s tha is ta, Goldman’s bha is ba. Just stating facts.”

 

 

Now, when I listened to it, I realized that Nityanand Misra mispronounces ta (त) as ṭa (ट) and da (द) as ḍa (ड). So he cannot pronounce the dental consonant (no arrogant laughter). So the word is translating, towards, Nityanand Misra says ṭranslaḍing, ṭowards [...]. Well I am not passing a judgment on him, but I am stating the fact. [...] I think he could possibly work up ṭowards his pronunciation. [...] Goldman’s English त and द is clear. Misra’s English त is ट, Misra's English द is ड. Just stating facts.

While I appreciate others in this thread pointing out the quasi-pimp connotations of shailIsha, this above comment is just so silly. Unlike Goldman, who is teaching Sanskrit at a renowned university without even being able to speak the language properly, Nityanand Misra is not teaching American (or Austrian) English.

In any case, even the claim that Nityanand cannot pronounce त in english is completely false; and furthermore, I don't know where Walter got the idea that the initial t in translating is not to be pronounced as ṭ - perhaps in Austria they say it that way? Most of the world indeed says "ṭ" - one can listen to how they say it at https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/translate . Then there is the obvious fact that there is no prescriptive shixA shAstra for English, that pronounciation varies with time and place to a far greater extant, and there are many times more people speaking English the Indian way than the quaint Austrian way.

I haven't watched the videos, but am getting the impression that Nityananda must be pointing out quite a few painful flaws in Goldman and Pollock's works so as to make their buddies go off their rockers.

 

 

If Dr Nityānand Miśra even himself “thinks he could possibly work up towards his pronunciation”, here is my hitopadeśa:

 

https://magoosh.com/toefl/2015/pronunciation-tips-for-indian-speakers-of-english/

 

Regards,

WS

Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 23:33 Uhr schrieb Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>:

On Monday, 4 March 2019 19:45:23 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Thanks a lot to Dr. Aravinda Rao , Dr. Roland Steiner,  Prof. Vipin Chaturvedi, Dr. Nagaraj Paturi, Dr. Bijoy Misra, Shatavadhani Dr. Ganesh, David Reigle, Dr. B V K Sastry, and Sh. Venkata Sriram for their comments.

Here is the second video in the series. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BMXVgqrMJY 

Dear list members

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xs1_l_TsLM 

Here is the third and final video in the series in which I compare the translations of Valmiki Ramayana by Robert Goldman, Sheldon Pollock, et al. with Hindi and English translations by GitaPress. As earlier I find the Gita Press translations to be consistently better: more accurate, more reliable, and more faithful to the original text.

In addition, I point out to the unprofessional work by Princeton Library of Asian Translations on the covers (title on each of the seven books uses the anusvara incorrectly, a basic error which beginners of Sanskrit make), the schoolboy errors that Pollock makes in his translations and annotation of the Ayodhyākāṇḍa, and the incorrect pronunciation of aspirated consonants th and bh by Robert Goldman. I also make an offer to Sheldon Pollock in the video: if he writes a book in Sanskrit and an Indian publisher of repute (MLBD, Chaukhambha, RSS, Gita Press) publishes it, I will proofread it for free. 

Your comments and feedback are welcome, as always.

Thanks, Nityananda

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/L6jZbevNn9w/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

Well, if you had actually listened to Misra-ji, he points out later that he may be mispronouncing the zha in Tamil (vaazhai-pazham example), but if he were conducting research in Tamil for 40 years, he should be able to pronounce it. 

Not sure where you got the idea Misra-ji is doing research on English literature/phonetics.

This one comment alone proves what I have seen consistently: white scholars say whatever they like, including racist stuff, and expect Indians to take it without protest. But on pointing out their mistakes they will lash out angrily with silly, tangential critiques like below. Congrats on providing me yet another data point.

Ramakrishnan

[Radhakrishna Warrier]

"Now, when I listened to it, I realized that Nityanand Misra mispronounces ta (त) as ṭa (ट) and da (द) as ḍa (ड). So he cannot pronounce the dental consonant (no arrogant laughter). So the word is translating, towards, Nityanand Misra says ṭranslaḍing, ṭowards [...]. Well I am not passing a judgment on him, but I am stating the fact. [...] I think he could possibly work up ṭowards his pronunciation. [...] Goldman’s English त and द is clear. Misra’s English त is ट, Misra's English द is ड. Just stating facts."

I don't think English language has dental ta (त) and dental da (द).  What it has are alveolar 'ta' and alveolar 'da'.  and in American English, intervocalic alveolar 't' becomes alveolar 'd'.  Water is pronounced like 'wader', butter like 'buder' and so on. "Translating" definitely becomes "translading" in standard American pronunciation.    Also, importantly, the topic was Sanskrit pronunciation, not English pronunciation.

Regards,

Radhakrishna Warrier

---

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Walter Slaje <walter...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 6:13 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Some comments on Goldman’s translation of Ramayana

 

I have watched this video and stumbled over the passage 19:35 ff:

[Gauri Mahulikar]

Hari Om

गीताय शैलूषम्

वाजसनेयी संहिता ३०.६ This clearly indicates that the word is connected with singing

warm regards

Prof. Gauri Mahulikar

Dean & Officiating VC, Chinmaya University

Veliyanad, Ernakulam, 682313

Former Prof & Head, Sanskrit Dept

Mumbai University

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Dr Slaze,

You are being picky.  While Sri Nityanand Misra should not have gotten into the nuances

of pronunciation, which have accent and geography built in, I would think that a scholar

recording himself/herself should be prepared enough.  There are many in the west

record Sanskrit songs with some three days's class.  I see that in India these days also.

Music and pronunciation have been a part of Indian traditional rigor.  You appear to have

sympathy for Goldman.  If you analyze objectively, you would see the marketing aspect!

There is whole branch of Indian literature on pronunciation..

Best regards,

BM

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 8 March 2019 08:28:51 UTC+5:30, Walter Slaje wrote:

I have watched this video and stumbled over the passage 19:35 ff:

 

“[...] when I listen to it, I realize that Robert Goldman mispronounces tha as ta and bha as ba. So he cannot pronounce the aspirated consonant – “ha ha ha ha”. So the word is babhrāja, Goldman says babrāja [...]. Well I am not passing a judgment on him, but I am stating the fact. [...] I think I could possibly work up towards my pronunciation. [...] My tha and my bha is clear. Goldman’s tha is ta, Goldman’s bha is ba. Just stating facts.”

 

 

Now, when I listened to it, I realized that Nityanand Misra mispronounces ta (त) as ṭa (ट) and da (द) as ḍa (ड). So he cannot pronounce the dental consonant (no arrogant laughter). So the word is translating, towards, Nityanand Misra says ṭranslaḍing, ṭowards [...]. Well I am not passing a judgment on him, but I am stating the fact. [...] I think he could possibly work up ṭowards his pronunciation. [...] Goldman’s English त and द is clear. Misra’s English त is ट, Misra's English द is ड. Just stating facts.

Dear Dr. Walter Slaje

Firstly, let me clarify the laughter was no arrogant laughter, but an innocent one. Something like the laughter of English speakers at the German coast guard trainee joke. 

I am no authority on English language or English pronunciation (either received pronunciation or American pronunciation). At the same time, I have not spent my life teaching English language, English literature and/or English phnetics/phonology. Prof. Robert Goldman is a distinguished professor of Sanskrit at Berkeley. He has co-authored the Devavāṇīpraveśikā whose first lesson is on Sanskrit phonology. Here is what Goldman and Goldman say on page 4 of the book:

Similarly, aspirated voiced stops, which never occur in English, are a little difficult at first for English speakers. These sounds "gha," "jha," ''(;lha," "dha," and "bha" must be realized (despite their roman representation) each as one simple sound: a voiced stop accompanied by a discharge of air. They are not to be pronounced as two separate sounds, stop plus voiced "h." (See 1.18.b. 1 for pronunciation.)

Is it too much to expect a person who teaches how to pronounce th and bh sounds in his book to also pronounce them correctly? Are we to assume that there was never any non-Indian or Indian speaker who ever corrected his pronunciation of th and bh sounds? 

In this light, you comparing my English pronunciation with Goldman’s Sanskrit pronunciation is strange. I was not surprised when Vishvas used the expression going off your rockers which means “to become crazy or mentally unsound; to become extremely foolish or foolhardy” for your reaction. Perhaps the pronunciation part touched a raw nerve in your case. Maybe your pronunciation of th and bh is also incorrect (I am not sure as I have not heard it, I would like to hear it though). I have heard some Westerners pronounce the sounds correctly. Here is a Swedish woman, Ananda Himani, speaking the word yathā with the th sound correctly pronounced at 1:51.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6SxTUfNRJQ&t=111s

Compare this with Goldman singing the word yathā multiple times here starting at 1:13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GumyRuo0no&t=73s

My ears say Ananda Himani, who is not an academic, gets it correct and Goldman, author of Devavāṇīpraveśikā, does not. 

 

 

If Dr Nityānand Miśra even himself “thinks he could possibly work up towards his pronunciation”, here is my hitopadeśa:

 

I am very happy to work with you on my English and German pronunciation and your Sanskrit pronunciation. The latter is more important in my humble opinion.

Finally, I do not have a PhD, so please do not call me Dr Nityānand Miśra. My hitopadeśa for you would be to look up people up on Google or LinkedIn before assuming they have a PhD. Here is a video on effective LinkedIn searching.

Thanks, Nityananda

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 8 March 2019 06:46:03 UTC+5:30, Roland Steiner wrote:

Dear Nityanand Misra,

The relevant passage is Arthaśāstra 2.27.25 (ed. Kangle):

etena  
naṭa-nartaka-gāyana-vādaka-vāg-jīvana-kuśīlava-plavaka-saubhika-cāraṇānāṃ  
strī-vyavahāriṇāṃ striyo gūḍhājīvāś ca vyākhyātāḥ //
"By this are explained (rules for) the women of actors, dancers,  
singers, musicians, story-tellers, bards, rope-dancers, showmen and  
wandering minstrels, who deal in women, and (women) who follow a  
secret profession." (transl. Kangle)

If I had not agreed with Kangle's translation, I would not have quoted  
it. The word formation of strīvyavahārin in Arthaśāstra 2.27.25 (ed.  
Kangle) is to be seen by analogy with surākiṇvavyavahārin "dealing in  
liquor and ferments" (Arthaśāstra 2.25.1) or kācavyavahārin "dealing  
in glass-ware" (Arthaśāstra 5.2.20) of the same text.

Accordingly, strīvyavahārin means "dealing in women" which perfectly  
fits the context of this specific Arthaśāstra chapter (2.27) entitled  
gaṇikādhyakṣaḥ "superintendent of prostitutes". The context, as well  
as the actual language usage (especially in one and the same text), is  
decisive, at least for a historical interpretation, irrespective of  
Pāṇini 3.2.78 (supy ajātau ṇinis tācchilye).

Dear Dr. Roland Steiner

You gave the examples of surākiṇvavyavahārin and kācavyavahārin. Now let us consider two examples below (listed in Monier-Williams, with the meanings from the same source)

kūṭavyavahārin = “a deceitful merchant” (not “dealing in deceit”), i.e. a dishonest dealer

samudravyavahārin = “trading by sea” (not “dealing in sea”), i.e. a sea-trader

In both these cases kūṭa and samudra are not the karma, but the karaṇa or adhikaraṇa. Using the rule supyajātau ṇinistācchilye, the word strī-vyavahāriṇām can be parsed as strībhirvyavahartuṃ śīlaṃ yeṣāṃ teṣām, meaning “of those whose nature is to deal with (=with the help of) women.” This is the sense implied by the Hindi translation of Gangaprasada Shastri (attached image). He says स्त्रियों के द्वारा जीविका चलाने वाले, with no sense of handing over women to others in the word or compound. 

Even if the context is that of Gaṇikādhyakṣaḥ, it does not necessarily imply that all these women were given/handed over for prostitution in the time of Chanakya or Valmiki. It would be very wrong to assume that without specific evidence. Is there any specific evidence to conclusively show that a śailūṣī was given/handed over for prostitution and not for singing/dancing? To take an example from recent Indian history, nautch girls, domnis, tawaifs, kanjaris, nochis, and devdasis were all different. It would be wrong to translate any of these terms as a prostitute. In modern times also there are a wide range of [men and] women who work in, for lack a better term, the adult entertainment industry. It is a wide range: singers, fully-dressed dancers (called bar balas in some parts of India), social escorts, erotic dancers, masseuses, adult movie actors, etc. Would be right to use the words pimp and prostitute blindly for all of these professions? 

However, we should not forget the starting point of this thread. Sīta  
says to Rāma: śailūṣa iva māṃ rāma parebhyo dātum icchasi "Like a  
dancer/an actor (śailūṣa) you, Rāma, are willing to give me to others."

1. Sīta compares Rāma to an actor/dancer. 2. These dancers/actors are  
in the habit of giving their wives to others. The question is (if  
there is any question at all): Why is Sītā making such a statement in  
her specific situation? Everyone can answer this question for  
themselves. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more to say  
about that. I permit myself to withdraw from this thread.

My point is not why Sita is saying this, but the specific translation of a śailūṣa as a pimp and a śailūṣī as a prostitute. What did dancers/actors hand over their wives for? The strong association of śailūṣa and śailūṣī with music and dance suggests handing over for music/dance entertainment (like that in the case of nautch girls), not prostitution. As the vācaspatyam says on jāyājīva: jāyayā tannarttanavṛttyā jīvati 

Thanks, Nityananda

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 8 March 2019 20:08:31 UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

singers, fully-dressed dancers (called bar balas in some parts of India), social escorts, erotic dancers, masseuses, adult movie actors, etc. 

*fully- or partly-dressed dancers (called balas/bar balas in some parts of India) 

[Walter Slaje]

Well, let me say this: I am neither an acquaintance of Professor Goldman nor would I ever want to interfere in a serious academic discussion between Professor Goldman and someone else. Personally I am absolutely neutral in this matter and always ready to correct any evident errors. This is the way truth-seeking scholars would proceed under normal circumstances.

But these staged interviews give the impression of a prosecution with only the denouncer present and the accused absent. Publicly mocking a deserved scholar for one wrong articulation, who has dedicated a research life to Indian literature and who has achieved more for the international reputation of India's long-gone culture than any of his self-styled know-it-all critics, appears to me as the pinnacle of bad manners.

In my previous post I have retained the original wording (except for the guffaws) of Dr Mishra and his administrator – thankfully denounced by someone on this list as “racist stuff “­ ­ and have changed only a couple of characteristic sounds with a view to helping also others to understand the essence of this appalling posing, which is palpably meant as a public execution for the amusement of an applauding audience.

What we get from tasteless videos of the kind now in circulation on this allegedly scholarly list are not so much gloatingly and self-righteously insinuated “schoolboy errors” of “white” American scholars. What we actually witness can be reduced basically to bad behaviour. The lack of manners displayed here reminds one of two lads bathing themselves openly in the limelight of their self-centredness fully unaware of the way in which they expose themselves to the educated. In the present case it was done in the spirit of a Swadeshi Indology with the naive belief of Sanskrit in Indian genes with unchanged meanings inherited in an unchanging chain of tradition with no history.

The mean traits of blatant ātma-stuti, para-nindā and abhimāna are so obvious that I bid adieu to this thread.

Good bye,

WS

[Bijoy Misra]

"self-styled know-it-all critics"

How many of these you counted?

It is a loaded phrase!

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 8:48 AM Walter Slaje <walter...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, let me say this: I am neither an acquaintance of Professor Goldman nor would I ever want to interfere in a serious academic discussion between Professor Goldman and someone else. Personally I am absolutely neutral in this matter and always ready to correct any evident errors. This is the way truth-seeking scholars would proceed under normal circumstances.

But these staged interviews give the impression of a prosecution with only the denouncer present and the accused absent. Publicly mocking a deserved scholar for one wrong articulation, who has dedicated a research life to Indian literature and who has achieved more for the international reputation of India's long-gone culture than any of his self-styled know-it-all critics, appears to me as the pinnacle of bad manners.

So many things wrong in just the above paragraph -

One wrong articulation?

Long gone culture?

Know-it-all critics?

achieved more for the international reputation of India's long-gone culture than any of his self-styled know-it-all critics?

 

The above matters are too much to comment on, but just on the last point above, it would do well to recall just a couple of Goldie's contributions (all while shamelessly soliciting contributions from Indian government and Hindu temples) -

- analyzing the size changing abilities of Hanuman in terms of a penis becoming erect

- consistently being on the anti-Hindu side of California Textbook hearings over the decades

What we get from tasteless videos of the kind now in circulation on this allegedly scholarly list are not so much gloatingly and self-righteously insinuated “schoolboy errors” of “white” American scholars.

allegedly scholarly list?

Just remember - we can see what goes in the Indology list managed by Audrey Turschke.

 

What we actually witness can be reduced basically to bad behaviour.

The lack of manners displayed here reminds one of two lads bathing themselves openly in the limelight of their self-centredness fully unaware of the way in which they expose themselves to the educated.

 

I still haven't watched the videos, but you seem to be describing yourself here :-D . You don't even know how to say "translate" and presume to lecture Indians on how English is spoken using that very example. Then you don't even acknowledge and fix your errors. So much for your lack of ātma-stuti, para-nindā and abhimāna.

 

In the present case it was done in the spirit of a Swadeshi Indology with the naive belief of Sanskrit in Indian genes with unchanged meanings inherited in an unchanging chain of tradition with no history.

Interesting caricature. AFAIU, the basis of Svadeshi indology is the fact that people like Sheldon Pollock, Audrey Turshke, Wendy Doniger etc.. misrepresent hindu tradition and culture; actively attack and malign Hindu culture, campaign against current Hindu interests and subvert Hindu anglophones. Their conclusion that we should present our native view to counter the likes of those you support seems quite reasonable. No one is forcing you to read any of it or watch any video pertaining to it.

 

Am Fr., 8. März 2019 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <b.ra...@gmail.com>:

Well, if you had actually listened to Misra-ji, he points out later that he may be mispronouncing the zha in Tamil (vaazhai-pazham example), but if he were conducting research in Tamil for 40 years, he should be able to pronounce it. 

Not sure where you got the idea Misra-ji is doing research on English literature/phonetics.

This one comment alone proves what I have seen consistently: white scholars say whatever they like, including racist stuff, and expect Indians to take it without protest. But on pointing out their mistakes they will lash out angrily with silly, tangential critiques like below. Congrats on providing me yet another data point.

Ramakrishnan

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:58 PM Walter Slaje <walter...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have watched this video and stumbled over the passage 19:35 ff:

 

“[...] when I listen to it, I realize that Robert Goldman mispronounces tha as ta and bha as ba. So he cannot pronounce the aspirated consonant – “ha ha ha ha”. So the word is babhrāja, Goldman says babrāja [...]. Well I am not passing a judgment on him, but I am stating the fact. [...] I think I could possibly work up towards my pronunciation. [...] My tha and my bha is clear. Goldman’s tha is ta, Goldman’s bha is ba. Just stating facts.”

 

 

Now, when I listened to it, I realized that Nityanand Misra mispronounces ta (त) as ṭa (ट) and da (द) as ḍa (ड). So he cannot pronounce the dental consonant (no arrogant laughter). So the word is translating, towards, Nityanand Misra says ṭranslaḍing, ṭowards [...]. Well I am not passing a judgment on him, but I am stating the fact. [...] I think he could possibly work up ṭowards his pronunciation. [...] Goldman’s English त and द is clear. Misra’s English त is ट, Misra's English द is ड. Just stating facts.

 

If Dr Nityānand Miśra even himself “thinks he could possibly work up towards his pronunciation”, here is my hitopadeśa:

 

https://magoosh.com/toefl/2015/pronunciation-tips-for-indian-speakers-of-english/

 

Regards,

WS

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/L6jZbevNn9w/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>What we get from tasteless videos of the kind now in circulation on this allegedly scholarly list are not so much gloatingly and self-righteously insinuated “schoolboy errors” of “white” American scholars. What we actually witness can be reduced basically to bad behaviour<

Probably Prof. Walter Slaje was reminded of his getting pointed out on this list, for his lack of fairness and good scholarship in misrepresenting this list on another forum at

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/yp2kud2_GFA/3OQSXuexAgAJ

>who has achieved more for the international reputation of India's long-gone culture than any of his self-styled know-it-all critics, appears to me as the pinnacle of bad manners.<

It is this view towards Indian literature and culture that  it is 'long-gone' that is creating the need for correctional measures from those who are living that culture which is being misrepresented as 'long-gone'.

If the service to Ramayana is to give sexual interpretation to a Ramayana character worshipped as a deity, such a 'service' is not thankfully received but is duly exposed .

[Vishal Agarwal]

Dr Slaje,

The errors are not just about pronouncing Sanskrit, but also about how it is written. Let me give an example. On the Indology list, around 2003, all of your colleagues rushed to defend Paul Courtright over his sexually pervert interpretations of Bhagavan Ganesha. Well, I got a hold of his PhD thesis on which the book was based. Here is the reference -

Paul Barber Courtright. ‘Ganesa and the Ganesa Festival in Maharashtra, A Study in Hindu Religious Celebration’. A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Princeton University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Recommended for Acceptance by the Department of Religion, September 1974.

The prevalence of transliteration errors in almost every other page makes one wonder if the Courtright was even aware of correct pronunciations of Hindi and Marathi words and if he ever proof-read the text of his thesis, or if his Thesis committee members ever noticed these errors.

On Page 5, Atharva Veda is mis-spelt as ‘Athārva Veda’

On Page 14 and 17 etc., the Mahābhārata is mis-spelt as ‘Māhabhārata’

On Page 14 and 15, the Mānavagṛhyasūtra’ is mis-spelt as ‘Mānavagṛhasūtra’

On Page 16, the Yājnavalkyasmṛti is mis-spelt as ‘Yajnavālkyasmṛti’

On Page 18, Mahābhāṣya is mis-spelt as ‘Māhabhāsa’

On Page 18, Rāmāyaṇa is mis-spelt as ‘Rāmayāna’

On Page 19, Mahāpurāṇa is mis-spelt as ‘Māhapurāṇa’, Matsyapurāṇa as ‘Matsyapūraṇa’, Vāyupurāṇa as ‘Vayupurāṇa’.

On Page 20, Jaya is mis-spelt as ‘Jāyā’, Vijaya as ‘Vijāyā’

On Page 22, Śakti is mis-spelt as ‘Śaktī’.

On Page 24, Prahara is mis-spelt as ‘Prahāra’

There is no consistency of transliteration. Sometimes, vinaayaka should have been spelt as vināyaka but instead we see vinayaka (e.g., p. 14, 18). Let me leave it at that!

Let me tell you one thing if you care - our culture is not 'long gone.' We are NOT museum pieces that cannot talk back. A recent spat on this list prevents me from spilling more beans on you, but members of this very list can read the archives of other Indology list to see what I would term as your arrogant, rude behavior directed specifically towards scholars of Indian origin. While we appreciate you spearheading the Mokshopaya studies, the fact remains that you have disdain for living Hindus. Your virtue signalling below just reminds me of 'ulta chor kotwal ko danntay' adage in Hindi.

Thank you.

Vishal Agarwal

_____________

[Siddharth Wakankar]

Dear Scholars and Friends,

I am reminded of a very little.known Sanskrit work, written and published in three different editions from  Calcutta between 1840 and 18610or so by Shri John Muir,famous for his translations of Original Sanskrit Texts.That work written in Sanskrit in the form of Gurushishyasamvaada, clearly states=in defence of Christianity and against Hinduism- as it's subtitle.I will give the exact details in a day or two.

He composed that book so that Sanskrit Pandits will read and re.act to the contents. As the Sanskrit scholars at that time were not so active,as some of us are today,to contradict the western scholars convincingly,we have only three scholars writing against that book.They were a 19 year old Sanskrit Pandit from Varanasi,viz.Narayanashastri Gore,Subaji Bapu and Bengali scholar,Harachandra Tarkapanchanan.

Looking to this indifference of the then Sanskrit Pandits,Mr.Muir published three editions of this book and other anti.hindu stuff in Hindi etc.to distribute freely in the society 

How many of Sanskrit scholars know this disturbing fact.

Now that Indian scholars are awake,the foreigners-most of whom have some ulterior motives- are feeling the punch.

That is all. Best luck to those scholars who are exposing such highly esteemed foreign scholars who are misrepresenting India and its literature.

Are some of these foreigners still of the opinion like Shri Max Muller that,we are doing our work,if Christianity or Church does not do anything,whose fault it is. 

Thanks for patiently reading this small write.up.

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

Vadodara.9427339942.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Just to show how deligent and careful aadaraNeeya Niyanand-ji is in making comments about scholars of the standing of Prof. Robert Goldman, please see his post at 

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/3WjZziSAEGo/1eUfxiq_KgAJ

But posts from

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/3WjZziSAEGo/CxYYcr_JKgAJ

onwards show how obnoxious the consequences of application of psychoanalysis to Sri Hanuman-ji are.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 8 March 2019 22:18:38 UTC+5:30, Walter Slaje wrote:

Well, let me say this: I am neither an acquaintance of Professor Goldman nor would I ever want to interfere in a serious academic discussion between Professor Goldman and someone else. Personally I am absolutely neutral in this matter and always ready to correct any evident errors. This is the way truth-seeking scholars would proceed under normal circumstances.

But these staged interviews give the impression of a prosecution with only the denouncer present and the accused absent. Publicly mocking a deserved scholar for one wrong articulation, who has dedicated a research life to Indian literature and who has achieved more for the international reputation of India's long-gone culture than any of his self-styled know-it-all critics, appears to me as the pinnacle of bad manners.

You are entitled to your views, but the interviews were not intended to mock Goldman, but offer criticism of his work. Your comments on international reputation of India’s long-gone culture reek not only of ignorance of Goldman’s critics but also of contempt. Your views portraying Goldman as bearing the burden of preserving international reputation of India’s culture and dismissing his critics as simply bad-mannered people are reminiscent of views held by Rudyard Kipling, who felt that some people had the divine burden to reign God’s Empire on Earth. 

Pray, is the international reputation of India’s culture more important than the culture itself? And Indians, who are much closer to India’s past culture, have no right to critique the so-called international torchbearers of India’s past culture?

 

What we get from tasteless videos of the kind now in circulation on this allegedly scholarly list are not so much gloatingly and self-righteously insinuated “schoolboy errors” of “white” American scholars. What we actually witness can be reduced basically to bad behaviour. The lack of manners displayed here reminds one of two lads bathing themselves openly in the limelight of their self-centredness fully unaware of the way in which they expose themselves to the educated. In the present case it was done in the spirit of a Swadeshi Indology with the naive belief of Sanskrit in Indian genes with unchanged meanings inherited in an unchanging chain of tradition with no history.

If this is an allegedly scholarly list, as you say, why are you even here as a member? Why would you even care to respond? Are we to assume you are an alleged scholar? It would have been better had you tried to show that what are claimed as schoolboy errors are not errors. If you rather show what meanings have changed and when and try to specifically contradict the claims, that would be scholarly and not rants like these. 

 

The mean traits of blatant ātma-stuti, para-nindā and abhimāna are so obvious that I bid adieu to this thread.

So now you are saying that people whose views you do not like have “mean traits”. Very good manners. 

[shankara]

Wakankarji,

As you might already know, Sita Ram Goel narrated the controversy that arose after John Muir published 'Matapariksha' and its critiques by Hindu scholars, in his 'History of Hindu–Christian Encounters, AD 304 to 1996'.

http://www.academia.edu/35034312/History_of_Hindu_Christian_Encounters_-_Sitaram_Goel

A more detailed description of Matapariksha controversy is found in Richard Fox Young's 'Resistant Hinduism'

https://archive.org/details/ResistantHinduism.SanskritSourcesOnAntiChristianApologeticsInEarlyNineteenthCent_20180827

BTW, the name of the young Marathi scholar who wrote the first critique of Matapariksha 'Sastra Tattva Vinirnaya' was Nilakantha Gore. This book was published by Scindi Oriental Institute in 1951, edited by S.L. Katre.

https://archive.org/details/shastratattvavinirnaya

It was unfortunate that this young scholar got converted to Christianity within a few years and wrote a book called 'Shaddarsanadarpana' critiquing 6 darsanas of Hindu philosophy to prove superiority of Christian faith.

A short article on Nilakantha Gore -

https://vivekitam.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/curious-case-of-nilakantha-goreh/

regards
shankara

[Siddharth Wakankar]

Dear Shankar ji,

Prof.Richard Fox Young visited my place in Baroda in early 2000 and we had a long discussion about Matapariksha.In fact, he gave a copy of his Resistant Hinduism as well as of the first edition of Mata...by John Muir.

I do have a copy of the book by Shri Goel and managed to get a copy of Harachandra ms.from London and wrote a paper on it which was published from Santiniketan.

Only one original ms.of Mata..is deposited in Asiatic Society, Mumbai.

I am amazed by your overwhelmingly exhaustive memory and capacity to provide exact references.Hats off to you.

I did expect a post from you after my post and you did oblige.

Thanks and warm regards.

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

Vadodara.9427339942.

[Siddharth Wakankar]

Dear Shankar ji,

I do possess the excellent edition of Shaastratattvavinirnaya by S.L.Katre.

I wonder that very few Sanskrit scholars know of this work by Shri Muir and his critics.

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

[Siddharth Wakankar]

I convinced,on the basis of my research and pointed out to Prof. Young that Subaji Bapu who helped Wilkinson in editing Jyotisha works from Bibliotheca Indica ,Calcutta,is different from Somanath Vyas and he gracefully accepted his mistake and wrote back to me to that effect and corrected his observation.

This is what research does,as he pointed out in his letter to me.

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

[shankara]

Wakankarji,

If you have soft copy of your paper on Harachandra's critique of Matapariksha, please share it.

Religious dialogues and debates especially those that involve Hinduism is one of my favourite subjects. I have collected almost all books related to Matapariksha controversy that are available online.

Harachandra Tarkapanchanana's 'mataparikshottara' (also in the form of gurusishyasamvada) was published in Bengali script in 1840. It is available at Google books.

regards
shankara

[Siddharth Wakankar]

Dear Shankar,

I have to search for it in my huge collection. In the meanwhile,pl. give your postal address,so that I can send its xerox copy to you.

Just let me have the details about the material on this subject which you have collected. 

Now,I lost contact with Prof.Young who met me last in 2007,assuring me that he will again meet me in 2009 and we will visit Sehore in M. P. the place of Somanath Vyas,but...

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

[shankara]

Wakankarji,

I will send you a mail off the list.

regards
shankara

[Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri]

Dear Sri Nithyanand Mishra, Shri Rajiv Malhotra, and others,

I saw the video on Robert Goldman, and agree with the conclusions. I also read the Sanskrit Ramayana Sarga under consideration.  I want to use another meaning of "Sailush" as obtained from Sanskrit Dictionary @ sanskritdictionary.com.This is a slightly different point of view for Sri Nithyanand's and Rajivji's consideration. The word Sailush also means "one who beats time' for, say, a dance performance. (As in, 'Taalam' for a dance). As you all know, the background to Sita using this word for Rama is as follows: Rama comes home from Dasaratha's palace, and tells Sita that he is going to the forest for 14 years. Sita tells him she wants to go to forest with him. Rama refuses, and gives few reasons but Sita insists. Rama again tells her to live with his mother Kausalya in the palace. He says his brother Bharata will take care of her. Sita refuses and gives her reasons for wanting to go with Rama. When Rama insists for a third time, Sita is angry, and uses this word, 'Sailush' to imply that he is just a drum beater, who keeps repeating the same thing again and again. In fact, such a usage is common in Telugu language. If someone goes on repeating the same thing, we say you are sounding like a 'taalam', or 'aadinde aata'. (meaning playing the same thing over and over). Please examine if my explanation is a possible way of looking at the word Sailush. Any error is mine. Just a different POV, not using the meaning 'jaayaajeevi'. 

I agree with Sri Nithyanand that Goldman has no clue on this word, and how it is used. Such people who denigrate Ramayana should be castigated. In fact, it is so far from the meaning of prostitution, that both Goldman and Audrey should be taken to court for misrepresenting the icon of an entire race in derogatory terms. I am also ashamed that us Hindus have not read these foreign writers critically. 

Thanks for an interesting episode.

Regards,

Krishna Kumar Pillalamarri

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:44:24 AM UTC-8, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Dear list members, 

A while ago, there was a great discussion on bvparishat list regarding Prof. Robert Goldman’s translation of kṛtajña in VR 1.1.2, and how the word has been ascribed incorrect meanings in St. Petersburg dictionary and Monier-Williams. 

In this video discussion (part 1 of a 3-part series) with Sh. Rajiv Malhotra, I have offered some comments (including comments on kṛtajña in VR 1.1.2) on the translations of first five verses of VR by Prof. Goldman, comparing them with translations of the same verses by Gita Press, Hari Prasad Shastri, and Griffith. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c9NiN1i_N8

Part 2 of this series will have my comments on the questionable and controversial interpretation of the word śailūṣa as “a pimp” and śailūṣī as a “a prostitute” by Goldman (something which Audrey Truschke cited as evidence [sic] to show that “stilted English” is not the only way to translate English while defending her indefensible and reprehensible “misogynist pig” mistranslation.

Part 3 of this series will have my comments on the translations of some verses from other books of the Vamiki Ramayana by Sheldon Pollock, Robert Goldman, Sally Sutherland Goldman, and Barend van Nooten. 

Your comments and feedback are welcome, as always. 

 

Thanks, Nityananda

--

Nityānanda Miśra

[Siddharth Wakankar]

A really good and novel interpretation.

Thanks and congrats.

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

Vadodara.9427339942.

[Dushyant Gautam]

Thanks a lot for a different meaning and explanation.

Regards

Dushyant Gautam, PMP