Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Number and Classification of Errors in Sanskrit Translations (Was: Some comments on Goldman’s translation of Ramayana)

[shivraj singh]

Has anyone done any analysis on how many errors are there in Goldman's Ramayan translation?

Is there any methodology on how to classify such translation errors?

If we don't have any classification methodology is it possible to comeup with one?

typos/spelling errors could be the most trivial category: Type 0 Error

wrong translation of a word which doesn't impact the overall meaning of the shloka: Type 1 Error

wrong translation of a word(s) which alters the meaning of the shloka : Type 2 Error.

An example of Type 1 Error could be VR 2.7.5 (2.7.9 Gita Press edition ) which is being discussed in the other thread. In this shloka calling Ram's mother miserly may not seem to be a big deal but the same line has the word Sati for her. Is Sati for Ram's mother to be taken positively or negatively? If positively then how does miserly fit into this context?

An example of Type 2 Error could be a translation by Dr Witzel of Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra(18.44) (Witzel, M. 1995. Rigvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities. In George Erdosy (ed.) The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, pp. 307-52. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Page 320-21) :

Pra-n.a-yauh. pravavra-ja tasyaite Kuru--Pan~cha-la-h. Ka-śi- -Videha- ity etad A-yavam pravrājam. Pratyan. Ama-vasus tasyaite Ga-ndha-rayas Parśvo Ara-t.t.a- itya etad A-ma-vasavam

Witzel's translation:
"Aya went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and Kasi Videha. This is the Ayava(migration).(His other people)stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parasu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group)."

BB Lal's translation:
"Ayu migrated eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas. This is the Ayava (migration). Amavasu migrated westwards. His (people) are the Ghandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu (migration)."

And the reasons Lal gives for wrong translation of Witzel:
"In the first part, i.e. in ‘prāṅayuh … pravrājam’ the verb used is ‘pravavrāja’, which means ‘migrated’. In the second part, i.e. in ‘pratyaṅamāvasuḥ …. amāvasam’ the verb is not repeated. However, according to the well known rules of grammar, it has got to be same as in the first part i.e. it has to be ‘pravavrāja’. As a result, the second part would mean that ‘Amāvasuh migrated westwards and his descendants are the Gāndhārī, Parśu and Araṭ̣ṭa.’ "

This kind of error where the meaning of the shloka is altered would be a type 2 error.

Shivraj







--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 3/8/19, Walter Slaje <walter...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Some comments on Goldman’s translation of Ramayana
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, March 8, 2019, 1:27 PM
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

[Sivasenani Nori]

Translation studies recognizes a wide range of translations as agreeable. Being firmly entrenched in a post-structuralism framework, there is no concept of 'correct' or 'incorrect' translation, the way the field is evolving. For instance, while translating the Bible, it is seen that translating lambs into seal pups is okay as long as seal pups play the same role in the culture of the destination language as lambs played in the Middle-eastern culture around the time of Christ. Fidelity to the original is no longer a central feature. So it is pretty much "anything goes". So it is more of transcrsation. It is precisely under this self-granted license that obnoxious translations are being done.

So, when mistakes are pointed out, there is not even a sense of shame in the translator, because fidelity to the original is no longer required in the translator's view-point. And the campaign to malign Indian culture goes on. 

Hence, the effort to expose philology as a flawed framework is more relevant and effective. 

How does it translate in practice? For Dr. Slaje it is bad manners on part of Sri Nityananda Mishra to point out errors of pronunciation, but the portrayal of Sri Rama, worshipped by millions, in a depraved manner is academic freedom. This is the deep flaw that needs to be exposed. This becomes the central issue and the the catalogue of mistakes become sahakaarins to the main thrust.

Regards 

N Siva Senani 

--
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.

[Sivasenani Nori]

*... and then the catalogue of mistakes becomes a sahaakarin to the main thrust. - NSS

[Siddharth Wakankar]

Rightly said and summed up by Shivasenani ji. Congrats.

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

Vadodara.9427339942.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, 9 March 2019 09:33:58 UTC+5:30, Sivasenani Nori wrote:

How does it translate in practice? For Dr. Slaje it is bad manners on part of Sri Nityananda Mishra to point out errors of pronunciation, but the portrayal of Sri Rama, worshipped by millions, in a depraved manner is academic freedom. This is the deep flaw that needs to be exposed. This becomes the central issue and the the catalogue of mistakes become sahakaarins to the main thrust.

Rightly said. I may add that for the inimitable Dr. Slaje, good manners in Indology are the prerogative of Western academics. For example, Prof. Goldman publicly calling a critic's works “wretched and ignorant” and claiming that a late Indian translator largely plagiarized his translation of the Rāmāyaṇa would be the pinnacle of good manners. But when Goldman’s translation, acclaimed as the “first reliably accurate English translation of the Rāmāyaṇa” [sic], and Sanskrit pronunciation is shown by a native to have errors, it is the pinnacle of bad manners. Doniger and Pollock ridiculing their Indian critics or saying things like there are no good Indian scholars left or no Indian scholar deserves to be published by a Western press is good manners, but natives having a laugh at the expense of Western academics or saying that an Indian publication like Gita Press produces superior translations are bad manners.

I mince no words: my view is that Dr. Slaje, like many other Western Sanskritists, is living in a fool’s paradise. 

[Bijoy Misra]

I must confess that my interest in Indology was provoked by these

arbitrary adjectives thrown at each other among the western "academicians"

and more at the Indian counterparts in "scholarly" exchanges.  This low level

of insecure expression remains to be sanitized,  I realize that manners and

attitude refine slowly,  Barbarism and violence are the inner call of the ego!

Literature on human conduct is lacking in the west.  The schools teach

"individuality", and not "group living.".  It is a long way to go in the path

of progress in society.  "individuality" might be seeping into the Indian

society through the media corroding the long-established principle of

mutual respect.

--

[Siddharth Wakankar]

In my childhood,I heard that the western Sanskrit scholars were derogatively termed as white.skinned scholars and were ridiculed for their selfish and anti.hindu views and ulterior motives in studying and interpreting Sanskrit literature.

It seems this trait continues with some worthy exceptions .

Sometimes,some blinded indian scholars also are following in their footsteps,proving the line

तनसे आझाद हो गये मनसे गयी ना गुलामी.

What is the outcome of this tendency is unknown. It is a travesty of destiny.

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

Vadodara.9427339942.

[shivraj singh]

Our history can be useful in many contexts. In the 16th century Maharana Pratap of Chittor was fighting a lone battle against Akbar. Many rajput kings had become vassals of Akbar after having given their daughters to him. Thus Pratap had zero support from fellow Hindu kings of Rajasthan.

Akbar sent many expeditions against Pratap but couldn't defeat or capture him. Once Abdur Rahim Khankhana was sent by Akbar against Pratap. Udaipur region has many hills nearby and ravines too. Amar Singh, Pratap's son, attacked Khankhana and dispersed a section of his army. Khankhana's wife and other ladies of his household were captured along with soldiers.

Amar singh jubilantly came to meet his father. Pratap severely admonished Amar Singh that capturing even the enemies' womenfolk was adharm. Pratap's wives and their help took care of Khankhana's family that night and the next morning all of them were returned to Khankhana's camp unharmed. Khankhana was so touched he packed his bags and left Rajasthan and never ever took arms against Pratap. Being a great poet he eulogised Pratap in his poetry.

This behaviour of Pratap was despite knowing fully well that the jauhar pratha in rajasthan started because of mistreatment of Hindu women at the hands of invading armies.

जो दृढ राखै धर्म ने, तिहीं राखै करतार !

Dharm here does not mean religion but the right path.
There are many many such examples from our history.

So having moral high ground should always remain our goal.

Shivraj



--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 3/10/19, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Number and Classification of Errors in Sanskrit Translations (Was: Some comments on Goldman’s translation of Ramayana)
To: "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sunday, March 10, 2019, 12:06 PM
..........

[David and Nancy Reigle]

The general topic of this thread, errors in (or accuracy of) translations of Sanskrit texts, has always been of much interest to me. For more than forty years I have been collecting Sanskrit texts and their English translations, and quite often I have compared portions of the translations with their Sanskrit originals. The specific topic of this thread, errors in (or accuracy of) Goldman’s translation of the Rāmāyaṇa, is of course included in this interest of mine. So when Sri Nityananda Misra started a different thread on this topic, referring to videos of him on it, I read it and watched them with interest. Nityananda-ji knows that I have great respect for him, from previous personal correspondence, and no difference of opinion between us will change this.

 

In his post to this thread, Nityananda-ji noted with obvious disagreement that Goldman’s translation was acclaimed as the “first reliably accurate English translation of the Rāmāyaṇa.” It was not the publisher who gave this acclaim, nor was it from an academic review; and Nityananda-ji graciously refrained from naming the source. It was I who made this statement, in a post to the Indology list a few years ago. The whole statement, addressed to Robert Goldman, is: “The team from the Oriental Institute, Vadodara (Baroda), working from 1951 to 1975, gave the world the first critical edition of the Sanskrit Rāmāyaṇa. Your team gave the world the first reliably accurate English translation of the Rāmāyaṇa.” As may be seen, the statement about the translation is in juxtaposition with a statement about the critical edition. So there is at least the suggestion that the first reliably accurate English translation was in part a result of being based on the first critical edition of the Rāmāyaṇa. Nonetheless, even leaving aside the critical edition, I do not regard the translation made by Goldman, et al., as inferior to the Gita Press English translation in accuracy.

 

Critical reviews of translations of Sanskrit texts, meaning reviews that compare the translation with the Sanskrit text and evaluate the accuracy of the translation, have always been of much help to me. They are not common. The most well-known writer of critical reviews of translations of Sanskrit texts was the late J. W. de Jong, long-time editor of the Indo-Iranian Journal. A good example of one of his critical reviews is that of An Evaluation of the Vedāntic Critique of Buddhism, by Gregory J. Darling, attached. In this review, de Jong points out elementary errors made by Darling in his translations of Sanskrit phrases and sentences. We are fortunate to have a review made by de Jong of the first two volumes of the Rāmāyaṇa translation made by Robert Goldman and Sheldon Pollock, respectively (attached). In his usual manner, de Jong provides a list of translation errors that he noticed while comparing the two translations with the Sanskrit text. They are not many.

 

In the opening post of this thread, Sri Shivraj Singh asked if there is any methodology to classify translation errors, and tentatively proposed one utilizing three types of error:

 

typos/spelling errors could be the most trivial category: Type 0 Error

wrong translation of a word which doesn't impact the overall meaning of the shloka: Type 1 Error

wrong translation of a word(s) which alters the meaning of the shloka: Type 2 Error.

 

To these three I would add a fourth, the wrong construal of Sanskrit phrases and sentences, although this may be in part what Shivraj-ji meant by the third one, from the example given by him. This construal-type of error is much more serious than wrong translation of an individual word, since it changes the meaning of the whole sentence.

 

This last type of error is very rare in carefully made translations such as that of the Rāmāyaṇa made by Robert Goldman. If the Gita Press translation was critically analyzed, a few of these could no doubt be found in it, too; or for that matter, in any translation, no matter how carefully made. When a large number of translations of Sanskrit texts of various genres have been compared, such as was done by de Jong over the years, or even by myself on a much more limited basis, the conclusion reached is that Goldman’s translation of the Rāmāyaṇa ranks high in terms of accuracy.

Best regards,

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

[Bijoy Misra]

There is a huge difference between the Hindi translation of Valmiki Ramayan by the Gita Press and the English translation.

English is inadequate to express Valmiki, though I am giving a try in my own way, to release in 2022.

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Dear Sri Bijoy Misra,

Thank you for the information that there is a huge difference between the Hindi translation of the Valmiki Ramayana by the Gita Press and their English translation. Since I do not know Hindi, I was not aware of this. Is the Hindi translator the same person as the English translator, Cimmanlal Goswami?

Also, does anyone know if the English translation now published by the Gita Press is complete? I purchased my copy many years ago, and at that time it ended with sarga 41 of the uttara-kanda, about halfway through this kanda. This was due to the death of the translator, Sri Cimmanlal Goswami. Perhaps someone later completed the translation.

Glad to learn of your forthcoming English translation of the Ramayana. From your posts here, I get the impression that you have a very high poetic sense. So your translation is likely to be quite different from previous translations. Wishing you all the best with it.

Best regards,

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Dr. Reigle,

I wanted to ask you what metric you applied in reviewing the Valmiki translation work of

Prof Goldman.  Please help explain in brief if you can.

Thank you.

BM

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Dear Dr. Misra,

First I should note that I am not a PhD., so not Dr. Reigle.

I hope you will not mind if I answer your query in the words of Robert Goldman. He states better than I could what he and his team tried to accomplish with their translation, and how it differs from previous translations of the Ramayana. These things are what make it, in my estimation, not inferior to the Gita Press English translation in accuracy. From vol. 1, p. 96:

"Whatever their literary merit, and this varies radically, all of the translations so far made have been based upon a single version or recension of the text, either the vulgate or the Bengal version, and their authors have not been in a position to judge accurately the vital text-critical problems that the epic presents. None of them, moreover, has attempted to put before its audience the results of a close and critical reading of the extensive commentarial literature that has grown up around the poem. As a result, readers of previous translations have had to accept without criticism the translators' judgments on often very difficult questions of interpretation without even knowing where the problems are to be found, much less the issues raised by attempts to solve them."

Thus, in the first five volumes, the notes take up roughly the same number of pages as the translation, although in smaller print. By the time of vol. 6, the translation is about 375 pages and the notes are about 1050 pages. In vol. 7, the translation is about 220 pages and the notes are about 840 pages. So in most cases, especially in the last two volumes, questions of why a particular verse was translated in a particular way are dealt with in the notes, and alternatives may be seen there.

Best regards,

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

[Bijoy Misra]

Is this a metric for a good translated product or an effort to create a consolidation?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri David-ji,

You made a mention of your individual mails to Sri Nityanand-ji in your previous post in the present thread. I too received individual mails from you from which I get to understand that you have absorbed many Hindu-Buddhist ideas into your personality and have a wholehearted respect for them.  You expressed your disappointment and displeasure too with regard to some Indologists who look down upon Sanskrit and Sanskrit epics etc. (Prof. Robert Goldman or Sally Sutherland Goldman were obviously not one of those with whose ideas you disagreed). I think you don't mind my sharing your views about the two pro-Hindu professors here:

You said, 

As a student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the late 1970s, I had two professors for Hinduism: Gerald Larson (an American, who graduated from Columbia University) and Raimundo Panikkar (from Spain). Both were former Christian ministers, Larson a Protestant minister and Panikkar a Catholic priest. Both had left Christianity because what they found in Hinduism made more sense to them. 

Larson, as you know, studied extensively with Ram Shankar Bhattacharya in India, so that he (Larson) would be able to teach and write about Samkhya and Yoga more accurately. Many Americans had long known about yoga (not only hatha but also raja-yoga), but few had heard of Samkhya. Larson's classes at their peak had up to 200 students. He presented Samkhya as something very valuable and worthwhile. It was clearly not a mere academic study for him, and he quietly conveyed his enthusiasm for it to his students. He of course had to maintain a scholarly demeanor, and refrain from public statements about his personal beliefs. We see this today as still the academic norm on the Indology list. This does not mean that these scholars do not personally believe in the things that they study and teach. 

Panikkar was an exception among western scholars. He was openly jubilant about the Hindu ideas that he had come to adopt. You can see this in his large book, The Vedic Experience: Mantramanjari. In his class, "Om in the Upanisads," he made no attempt to keep a scholarly demeanor of supposed objectivity regarding the ideas he presented. He clearly rejoiced in them. He presented them as the highest teachings. Most of his students agreed. 

You also said, 

Professors like Gerald Larson are, in my limited experience, typical of American Indologists.

With regard to the small number of Indologists who in your view are not ' typical of American Indologists' , you said, 

 It is the very outrageousness of their views that attracts so much attention, and therefore generates so much controversy. 

You may remember that I reminded you my  words expressing the same view of small number attracting more attention. My words were : 

It is heartening to see that there are still a very big number of Sanskrit scholars in US, who still live the sensitivity encouraged by likes of Prof. Ingalls. Though uneventful journeys do not get reported as news, they are the ones passengers love!

I recently attended a conference organised by a US based organisation Global Peace Initiative of Women which works in the area of Climate Change and other Environmental issues. The very title of the conference is  " Rediscovering Mother Sita and Her Relevance Today " .   Please note the word Mother Sita. 

Dena Merriam , the convener and founder of GPIW wrote a book on Mother Sita and during its inauguration, she spoke of her personal experiences with Mother Sita. 

During this conference, many western individuals analysed the topic with a great respect for Mother Sita with a good rigour of analysis. 

Prof. Robert Goldman did not agree with Dr Audrey Truschke during the recent controversy and he said, 

Dear Venkat,

Thanks for your message. I find it extremely disturbing but perhaps not unexpected to learn that AT (Audrey Trushcke) has used such inappropriate language and passed it off as coming from Valmiki. Neither the great poet nor we used anything like such a vulgar diction and certainly Sita would never have used such language to her husband even in the midst of emotional distress. Nowhere in our translation of the passage do we use words such as you mention AT as using.

When she refers to the "critical edition” she is referring to the Sanskrit text of the Ramayana as reconstructed by the scholars at the Oriental Institute of Baroda. We have, of course translated the whole text but she is in no way quoting our translation but giving her own reading of the passage in her own highly inappropriate language.

Sita is, or course distressed by Rama’s words when she is first reunited with him after her captivity. But her speech is dignified and moving. We have tried to capture her level of diction in our translation which nowhere uses either an anachronistic term like “misogynistic” or the utterly vulgar and wildly inappropriate term “pig”. Quite shocking, really. It seems as if she is superimposing her own feelings on the poetry of the Adikavi. It has nothing to do with our translation.

For your information I am attaching a copy of our published translation of the relevant passage.

With all best wishes.

Dr R P Goldman

---------------------------

But what comes in the way of agreeing with your assertion that Prof. Robert Goldman's translation is the most accurate so far , is the Introduction to Volume V of their work. (You too quoted from their introduction, but of the first volume). He uses psychoanalysis to talk about certain events in the Hanuman episodes of the narrative.  It is accessible at https://books.google.co.in/books?id=sFmsrEszbxgC&pg=PA52

Sharing a snapshot of the relevant page.

At another place, he says there is S'ringara rasa in the episode where Hanuman is looking for Sita in the Ravana's quarters where women are sleeping. 

Sharing a snapshot of that too here. 

Commenting on that in this list, I said:

Please read the snapshot of the last paragraph of page 50.

Goldmans say here, " On the aesthetic level the passage serves a need for representing the srngararasa, the erotic sentiment and enables the book and the poem to satisfy some of the formal requirements for the contents of a Mahakavya laid down in the treatises on poetics"

Is VR a lakshaNa inspiring lakshya or a lakshaNa-abiding or a lakshaNa-following lakshya? 

Even according to western dates given to VR, it is book whose core was composed in 4th-5th  centuries BC, completed by 2nd century BC. 

Which treatise on poetics dated earlier to 2nd century BC laid down the formal requirements of a Mahakavya that Valmiki was trying to satisfy ?

I added :

Any elementary student of Rasa knows that the Rasa results from the tAdAtmya of the sAmAjika with the nAyaka or nAyakapaksha characters. How does a poet intend to create s'ringArarasa by describing the pratinAyaka paksha characters.

 

That aesthetic ecstasy intended to be created by the poet/theatre-director/film-maker in the heart of the audience is a result of the identification of the audience with the hero/protagonist or a character on the hero/protagonist side only and not with the villain or antagonist or their side need not necessarily come from a knowledge of Rasas'Astra. Just a lay audience of a narrative literary work or a  theatrical show or a film knows these basics of aesthetics.

I further added :

s'ringArarasa is not possible for the following reasons:

 

1. If rAvaNa and kAmukavArAnganAs are in a mutual rati relationship, identifying with the female partner and not identifying with the male partner can not lead to rasa.

 

2. sahridaya is expected to be dhArmika and that is the reason he/she identifies only with the dhArmika characters. He/she identifying with a vArAnganA happens in exceptional cases when in exceptional plays vArAnganA herself is nAyikA (e.g. in mricchakatikanATaka or when she is on the nAyaka-side (sAmAnyanAyikA which is an arvAchIna concept)

 

3. Goldmans themselves are agreeing that vAlmIki is showing the scene through the eyes of hanumAn, a sahridaya who watches the scene through the eyes of hanumAn can not identify with kAmuka vArAnganAs.

 

4. nAyakapaksha character in the scene is hanumAn. A sahridaya identifying simultaneously with hanumAn and rAvaNa's vArAnganas is not possible.  

Such views of Prof. Goldman certainly come in the way of accepting that he can do an accurate translation of the book. 

Warm regards,

 

--

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 )

 

 

 

[Aravinda Rao]

With all due apologies to the women in this group and to make the mood lighter, I wish to quote Baudelaire who said, 'translations are like women, when they are beautiful they are not faithful and when they are faithful they are not beautiful'.

We seem to be in a quest for a Sitadevi in the translations.

Aravinda Rao K

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Nagarajji,

Thank you for publishing this exchange.  Many in the west are interested in rasa

without ever studying the original texts or analyzing the poetic context.  I do not

know how rasa research has entered the west as a psychological aberration.

As I had suggested earlier, a well-grounded course by a good Indian

University could help educate many of the researchers who might have genuine

interest to study the theory.  The basis of western thinking on the topic is

erroneous and many are victims of it without knowing.

Best regards,

BM

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sharing another snapshot, that of the footnote 176 on page 52 of the Volume V where the word 'psychoanalytical' is mentioned.  

[Bijoy Misra]

So, he is trying an interpretation than a translation.

I have had difficulty on his footnotes of ascribing some strange thoughts to poetic lines.

Looks like he is not exposed to the concept of a कवि  or a काव्य.

He would get lost if he reads Kalidasa.

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Dear Prof. Paturi-ji,

 

I was touched and moved by your very kind post in a thread on a rather contentious topic. You are right that I don’t mind you sharing my views about two of my professors who, as was and still is typical in my limited experience, were quite sympathetic to the Hindu ideas that they taught. Yes, I well remember your apt words:

 

“It is heartening to see that there are still a very big number of Sanskrit scholars in US, who still live the sensitivity encouraged by likes of Prof. Ingalls. Though uneventful journeys do not get reported as news, they are the ones passengers love!”

 

Glad to hear your encouraging report of the conference you attended on “Rediscovering Mother Sita and Her Relevance Today.” Thank you also for quoting Robert Goldman’s full letter disagreeing with Audrey Truschke’s very inappropriate comment about Sītā. I suppose Audrey now regrets making that comment.

 

Regarding Robert Goldman’s translation of the Rāṃāyaṇa: You have raised an important question, as to whether someone who uses psychoanalysis regarding certain events in the Hanuman episodes, or who attributes the śṛṅgāra-rasa to an episode in which it cannot occur, can do an accurate translation of the book. This raises in my mind the question as to what extent have such things influenced the translation. I have today read in the Goldmans’ translation of this kāṇḍa some of the Hanuman episodes referred to, and I did not see anything in the translation that would reflect such views. All of the Goldmans’ translations were based heavily on the Indian pandit tradition, following their teachers.

 

The Goldman Rāṃāyaṇa translation is expensive, and is hard for people (including myself) to afford. For this reason, it may be that some who have criticized it do not know that they are in part criticizing the Indian pandit tradition. Goldman writes in his prefaces how heavily their translations are dependent on their Indian teachers. Since not everyone has access to these books, I will here quote some of his statements on this:

 

“First I should like to express my great debt of gratitude to my friend, colleague, and teacher, Pt. T. S. Śrīnivāsa Śāstrī of the Deccan College, Poona, who graciously, patiently, and learnedly read through the entire text of the Bālakāṇḍa and five Sanskrit commentaries on it during 1974-1975, clarifying for me dozens of points that seemed hopelessly obscure. His knowledge of the Rāmāyaṇa is breathtaking, and it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that he knows the text virtually by heart. There is hardly a line of the translation and annotation that has not benefited in some way from his profound learning, deep insight into Sanskrit stylistics, and boundless generosity.” (vol. 1, 1984, p. xvi)

 

“In 1974-1975 I had the privilege and pleasure of reading the Bālakāṇḍa with Pandit Śrīnivāsa Śāstri of the Deccan College in Poona. He had read the entire epic through several times and knew it intimately. Day after day he would clearly and brilliantly elucidate for me words, phrases, and passages that had seemed utterly opaque. Yet, not infrequently, even he would find a passage lucid at first glance, remarking without hesitation, ahaṃ vacmi, ‘I’ll explain it,’ only to stare at it, examine four or five Sanskrit commentaries, and conclude by saying, īśvaro veda, ‘God knows!’” (vol. 1, 1984, p. 106, fn. 18)

 

“Of the dozens of learned scholars who assisted us in so many ways, there are two whose mention we must reserve until last; for their affection and generosity to us in connection with this project was superlative and far greater than we can in any sense hope to repay. These are our guru, Pt. T. Shrinivas Shastri, formerly of the Deccan College, Pune, and Mr. K. Venugopalan of the Sanskrit Dictionary Department of that same institution.

“Throughout the greater part of our eight-month stay in Pune, they graciously met with us for many hours each week to review, discuss, and clarify the many difficulties in the text and the commentaries we encountered during the course of our reading of the Sundarakāṇḍa. Śāstrī-ji was an unfailing source of profound learning and insight into the Rāmāyāṇa, its commentaries, and above all the vast array of śāstraic literature one has to master to be truly conversant with this encyclopedic epic. . . .

“To both of these men the present volume owes more than can be easily expressed in mere words. Although in their modesty they would perhaps deny it, much of what is good in this work is owed to their learning.” (vol. 5, 1996, p. xiv)

 

“First and foremost, we must express our gratitude to our friend, colleague, and guru, Dr. Ram Karan Sharma, the founder and former kulapati of the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan. During his many protracted visits to Berkeley, Dr. Sharma ungrudgingly spent many hours with us reading over difficult passages in the text and the commentaries, and sharing with us his profound reservoir of knowledge of a vast spectrum of the Sanskrit literary and śāstraic corpora. Time and again his knowledge and insight clarified a problem that had left us utterly at a loss. We gratefully acknowledge his learned and unstinting assistance, mindful always of the vedic injunction, ‘gurudevo bhava.’” (vol. 6, 2009, p. xiv)

 

“Let us then begin by recalling the help of several immensely learned Indian scholars whose knowledge and love of the Rāmāyaṇa was unparalleled. All of these paṇḍitarājas are, sadly, now no more. First, we would like to thank Pt. Dr. V. W. Paranjpe of the Deccan College, with whom we had the opportunity to read the Sanskrit epics with their commentaries over several years in Pune and Berkeley. Thanks are also due to scholars who advised me and others involved with the project who gave unstintingly of their knowledge and assistance. Chief among them are the immensely learned Sanskrit sāhityaśāstrin Dr. V. Raghavan; the extraordinary vaiyākaraṇa Dr. S. D. Joshi of Poona Vidyapith; and, of course, the great Rāmāyaṇa authority Dr. Umakant Shah of the M. S. University of Baroda, who was also the director and general editor of the critical edition.

“But our most profound and most affectionate gratitude belongs to Pt. T. Srinivas Shastri, who was long associated with the Dictionary Department of the Deccan College. For the years 1968-1970, 1974-1975, and 1992, we had the pleasure and privilege of reading and discussing the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa and many of its commentaries with him. His vast learning, exquisite Sanskrit, and boundless intellectual generosity set a standard that we can only hope to live up to. We would be remiss, also, if we were to fail to mention Mr. K. Venugopalan, also of the Deccan College Dictionary Project, who frequently sat in on our reading sessions with Shastri-ji and whose comments and clarifications, like many of those of the scholars mentioned above, contributed in countless ways to our understanding of this great work of literature and to our modest attempt to render it into a form that can be enjoyed by and, we hope, be of value to those who are not able to savor its riches in the original Sanskrit.” (vol. 7, 2017, pp. xviii-xix)

“Finally, and most of all, we offer our humble obeisance to the first and foremost of poets, ṛṣi Vālmīki himself, who has given the world the undying delight of his grand poetic history of Sītārāma.” (vol. 7, 2017, p. xx)

 

I do not know of any westerners who have a greater love for the Rāmāyaṇa than Robert and Sally Goldman. Because the Rāmāyaṇa was seen in academia more as a work of literature than a religious text, they did not have to maintain a scholarly demeanor of keeping a distance from it. They could, and did, embrace it openly. As Robert said at the beginning of this short video (“Famous Ramayana epic now in modern English” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNoF5NaRE80): “We love the text, not only because of its beauty—the language is very beautiful, the poetry is very lovely, emotions that are represented in it are very deep and compelling—the characters are very striking, and remain in one’s imagination forever.” Their genuine love for the Rāmāyaṇa has shown itself in them spending their entire lives on it, and I see this love for it reflected in the care with which they made their translation.

 

So, yes, in my opinion they can make, and indeed have made, an accurate translation of the Rāmāyaṇa.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri David-ji,

Glad to know that you are happy with my sharing your views. 

Summary of your mail below is the following:

1. Prof. Robert Goldman took help from several panditas as well acknowledged by him , so his translation is not against the pandita tradition of understanding Ramayana, moreover it is as per that tradition only. 

2. He has great admiration for Valmiki as a poet, so he can not do any damage to the poetic beauty of the kaavya. 

3. His psychoanalysis of Hanuman or wrong application of S'ringaara rasa where, as per the rasa s'aastra or the rasajnengita, it is not to be applied, does not necessarily mean that in the actual translation of the s'lokas where the events viewed through such wrong tools and wrong application of tools is used by him can be wrong. 

With regard to # 3 above, yes there is a theoretical possibility merit of his translation need not necessarily be affected by his wrongs as mentioned above. This theoretical possibility has the other side also. There is a possibility of such a receiver of the book possibly committing mistakes in translation too. That means that the merits of the actual translation needs to be evaluated in its own right. You as one of the receivers of his translation, a highly learned, trained and well informed one at that, would like to attest that his translation is accurate. Fair enough. Others like Sri Nityanand-ji may see inaccuracies. Even that is enough fair. 

------------

But the crucial issue here is this:

Even as per your view Prof. Goldman's translation is not inferior to the Gita Press one. Prof. Goldman's book is expensive and even you as per your own assertion can not afford it .

Gita Press book is highly affordable and sets a benchmark to which evaluators of books like Prof. Goldman's look up to. Then any prudent buyer would buy the Gita Press book. 

But there is a weird tendency among many Indian buyers of books which is part of their tendency in buying other goods : imported alternatives for local products are preferred in spite of the local alternative being not inferior sometimes even superior to the imported alternative and extremely low priced compared to the imported alternative. 

It is something like a person sitting just in a place which can easily access a pure water stream buying the water packed  inside a bottle from the same stream by a business company. 

---------------------------------------------------

Another important issue is

Admiring Ramayana for its poetry is found in Prof. Sheldon Pollock too. But he made many negative remarks about the book like " the book is an othering one" and about the language used in the book , Sanskrit , he calls toxic. That proves that admiring the book for its poetic beauty need not necessarily mean a cultural sensitivity towards its life among the people where it actually continues to live. 

At (https://indianexpress.com/article/express-sunday-eye/im-a-target-because-im-an-outsider-sanskrit-scholar-sheldon-pollock-5191995/) cited recently by Dr Sivasenani garu, Prof. Sheldon Pollock had to confess, saying, 

Yes. You cannot treat the Ramayana as if it’s just the Aeneid. Virgil’s Aeneid is dead. Nobody worships Aeneus, there’ll be no marches through Rome’s streets in his honour, nobody’s going to look for Achilles’ birthplace in Greece. The Ramayana has a life in the hearts of Indian people. I think I have been, to some degree, insensitive to that and I’m trying to learn. I don’t think I would have written anything differently but I would have thought a little more seriously about how, at a spiritual level, these texts have a status very different from the texts of the Western classical traditions, the links to which, to the classical past, have been snapped (Hegel said this of Europe), but it has never been snapped in India. ( Highlighting mine) 

But it may be noted that he says, "I don't think I would have written anything different. "

In the case of Prof. Goldman, he seems to have a greater cultural sensitivity than Prof. Pollock while both of them express equal appreciation for the poetic beauty of the kaavya. Sri Rajiv Malhotra looks at Prof. Pollock's expression of appreciation of poetic beauty of the kaavya as a ploy to trap people into his misinterpretations of the book for a political purpose. 

-----------------------

One of the justifications for highlighting translation errors could be to remove the unnecessary and imprudent  fascination for imported alternatives to the local great  but more affordable products

--
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.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

One of the justifications for highlighting translation errors could be to remove the unnecessary and imprudent  fascination for imported alternatives in preference  to the local great  but more affordable products

Not

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear David,

What I realize that you never read Valmiki in its Devanagari script and do not have any concept of the

poetics or the use of words in expressing poetry.  A poem is loudly read, recited and meditated.

This is also in western tradition, a music conductor dives into the composition in its entirety before

attempting to interpret (my son does opera for a living).  I strongly advise you to try this before you

comment on a text.  Let us qualify ourselves to be a scholar on the topic that we may comment. 

Commentary is the not the use of syntax or appropriation of words.  You need to understand rasa

as a concept, you need to experience it in poetry. 

Meeting scholars and getting generous time from them does not validate errors in concept or does

not condone the lack of expertise.  It is a practice among many in the west to learn words from

others and then write books on their own.  A student also needs qualification.  It could need thirty years

of residence to be able to learn Sanskrit and understand the language.  Dr Goldman or anyone could

send the manuscript for review with the scholars before going to press.

It is a pity that India still reels through the exploitation that was imposed through several centuries of

occupation.  Many of our friends in search of "doing something" began vandalizing the tradition.  Some

of them still do.  Appreciating ignorance is a part of our maturity and intellect, it is hard.  "Liking"

something is not a qualification, "walking" is.  Please walk quietly, you may learn.  You could do

what's right.

I am sorry that I might sound unfriendly in this mail, but observing such vandalism prompted me to

digress from my work in space to study India.  More I see, I get disturbed with the connotation, abuse

and the casualness.  A poem is a woman, improper touching itself is an abuse.  Many of people writing

books on Indian material are not qualified to touch the text let alone write commentary.  Apparently you

yourself have produced some translations, I cannot say the quality or your audience.

While I admire your enthusiasm to learn, I wanted to convey the cultural implication of texts in India.

You may learn if you identify.  The latter is not easy.  "they do" is the textual commentary.  That

is where the trap is.  I gave a lecture last year here in Town Hall, sharing.

https://lincolntv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=6Eem7aiB35eL

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste,

The only successful translation of Valmiki's Ramayana is Tulsidasa's Ramayana.
And if we went by some other yardstick such as word-by-word appropriateness then Valmiki's Ramayana itself could probably become "a bad translation of itself". The text is simply not meant to be parsed like that.
Gitapress translation is though still useful (and justified) in the sense it helps people access and appreciate the original for themselves.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Dr Tuvij,

I won't agree with this assertion.  Tulasi follows Valmiki in the plot but makes his own version.

Valmiki's Rama is a good man, a prince ( सत्यवान्  धार्मिक  वेदज्ञ  शुचिमान्  ...), Tulasi's Rama is an

incarnation (सगुण ब्रह्म).  

I started studying Tulasi for religious purposes (I had to perform as a priest before we had the Temple) 

in the local community before I gravitated to Valmiki.  Our next akhanda (26th year) is April 6-7.

I love Tulasi for his music, I admire Valmiki in poetry ( I don't know his music, he claims he had!)

Attaching the announcement (pardon the transliteration, the Temple Manager won't care!)

Best regards,

BM

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Dr BM,
Valmiki's Ramayana in my understanding (e.g. look at the astronomical detail) has come down to us by transmission through different ages (acquiring many language mutations along the way). Even then, the narrative still belongs to tretA yuga; compared to that Tulsidasa has his reference set in kali yuga and the chasm between Rama and his framework is consequently much bigger.
Dr Korada has put his thoughts in a new thread that covers many important points. Essential perspectives from - for example - even Jyotisha framework cannot be overlooked.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Quoting Dr Korada from that thread :

"Since तत्समशब्द-s are used in the translation of the epic into Indian vernaculars there may not be much problem .

If at all one wants to translate into any other language such as French / English / Deutsche / Spanish etc. the translator be first trained for at least a couple of years in Sanskrit tradition and while doing his work he should adapt terms like - धर्म / योग / तपस् / स्वाध्याय / पुण्य etc , which are pregnant with meaning and offer footnotes / end notes -- so it will be transplanation rather than translation ."

Indeed a golden rule for bare minimum requirements.

[Bijoy Misra]

That's where Goldman comes in.  The text has to be interpreted at its time of creation, not mapped in a different time.

But as I said before Tulasi has a whole different take. 

Valmiki's Rama is विष्णुसम, Tulasi's Rama is विष्णु अवतार

Valmiki has no religion in the text, Rama justifies action by arguing.

Valmiki's Rama is respected as King Dasaratha's son,

Tulasi's Rama is worshiped as Divinity by knowledgeable people where he goes.

The statement "multiple Ramayana" phrase is not only a

misnomer it is erroneous from the literary point of view.

Various people have taken the plot and composed their own version. 

The word "Ramayana" belongs to Valmiki.

In Tulasi it is Ramacharitamanasa. 

Others may not be so careful..

[Walter Slaje]

The minimum requirements include first and foremost a sound knowledge of Sanskrit grammar and word formation. The feminine stem of rāma is certainly not rāmī, but rāmā.

रामी च रामश्च रामौ is plainly wrong.

Regards, WS

[Bijoy Misra]

रामी च रामश्च रामौ is plainly wrong.

Not really.

Your question could be:  is रामी a word? 

I think it can be.  Let Prof Korada argue it out in his time.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019, Bijoy Misra <misra...@gmail.com> wrote:

रामी च रामश्च रामौ is plainly wrong.

 It is certainly wrong. Correct one is रामा च रामश्च रामौ!  I don't find the word रामी but रामा as सुन्दरी रमणी रामा कोपना सैव भामिनी ।। २.६.५३५ । in Amara Kosha.

ह

 

Not really.

Your question could be:  is रामी a word? 

I think it can be.  Let Prof Korada argue it out in his time.

रामा च रामश्च रामौ is the correct form.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:06 PM Walter Slaje <walter...@gmail.com> wrote:

The minimum requirements include first and foremost a sound knowledge of Sanskrit grammar and word formation. The feminine stem of rāma is certainly not rāmī, but rāmā.

रामी च रामश्च रामौ is plainly wrong.

Regards, WS

Am Di., 19. März 2019 um 19:19 Uhr schrieb Kalicharan Tuvij <kalich...@gmail.com>:

Quoting Dr Korada from that thread :

"Since तत्समशब्द-s are used in the translation of the epic into Indian vernaculars there may not be much problem .

If at all one wants to translate into any other language such as French / English / Deutsche / Spanish etc. the translator be first  trained for at least a couple of years in Sanskrit tradition and while doing his work he should adapt  terms like - धर्म / योग / तपस् / स्वाध्याय / पुण्य etc , which are pregnant with meaning and offer footnotes / end notes  -- so it will be transplanation rather than translation ."

Indeed a golden rule for bare minimum requirements.

--
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+unsubscribe@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 the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@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 the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Sorry. I found the explanation in a thread of Korada itself. Hence it cannot be a mistake.

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

rAmasya patnI rAmI, per pANini 4.1.48 puMyogAd-AkhyAyAm I think.

Ramakrishnan

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste

BVK Sastry ( on   The feminine stem of rāma is certainly not rāmī, but rāmā.>

            What is feminine form of person ' Rama'?   should it  be derived like ' deva to devi'  or  ' krishna to krishnaa / shiva to shivaa '? 

          If  ' रामा' is to be treated as feminine form of ' rAma', it would mean a ' lady of Rama' (His women/ related women to the designated individual); not necessarily ' feminine form of 'Rama'. It  would be absurd communication.  

            If '' रामा'  ' is to be treated as ' beautiful lady' as per kosha, then it is a standalone term, on its  own merit ! ; and not a derived feminine gender formation.

             'ramana ( husband) '  will not be the masculine base to derive the feminine form' ramanI (beautiful lady)'.

 

 

BVK Sastry ( on  <  रामी च रामश्च रामौ is plainly wrong.>   and <  Correct one is रामा च रामश्च रामौ! >  I don't find the word रामी but रामा as सुन्दरी रमणी रामा कोपना सैव भामिनी ।। >

 

               We may be entering here to the nuances of Paninian  grammar technicality in  enabling the  'Samasa' between two terms  without clarifying their mutual relation   and   justified application of ' rules governing the   ' dvandva'    samasa' by ' Technical competence= Saamarthya of pada-vidhi'.

 

As given < रामा च रामश्च रामौ !   >   would mean    compounding two  words:   < beautiful lady (रामा)  and a person designated as Rama (राम) >.

                 The connection between the compounding terms   needs to be brought out .  If the dissolution of the compound is by rules governing 'dvanda', then  the final outcome cannot be interpreted to mean 'And' ( =cha-arthe)  or ' grouping = (samucchaya).  Why ? Because the compounding terms have no numeric  (saMkhyA) or adjectival relations (visheshana-) .  It is not just telling like ' beautiful women' and person called Rama'  combined would yield a term  'rAmau' =  ' two rAma's together'.

 

On the other hand if taking the adjectival  relation, we need to invoke ' Tatpurusha or other samasa', then appropriate rule needs to be invoked; The  ''ca-' construction cannot stand. The compounded term 'ramau' needs a different justification or rejection.  The question is how to group together 'beautiful women and  an individual Rama'  to yield a singular designator.

 

On justifying ' रामी' -  Samskruth grammarians ingenuities can always find different ways of explaining the final form ! and use of pratyaya's and rules/  exceptions. ( like kAmI  from kAma  and thenmaking kAmin and then derived form).   But would it be worth all that intellectual exertion  and defending an apashabda usage ?  ? I am not sure.

 

Coming to the classical textual tradition ' rAmascha, rAmascha - etayoh samAharaH -  can yield  rAmau; meaning Two ramas, under the dwandva rule.

 If it is many ' rama' persons , then outcome becomes 'rAmAH'- as a compound word, distinct from prathama- bahuvachana.

 

Look forward for grammarians to clarify the ' previous posts based on ' sAmarthya'  and  'vivkShA'.

 

BVK Sastry ( on'quoting Prof. Koradas thread'.< . I found the explanation in a thread of Korada itself. Hence it cannot be a mistake.>   :

 

      The entire debate was on the ' artha' and why this context  was forgotten?

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Dear Prof. Paturi-ji,

 

You have made an excellent summary of my email, thanks. I fully agree with your conclusion that the merit of the actual translation needs to be evaluated in its own right. Yes, indeed, if others see inaccuracy where I see accuracy, that is fair enough.

 

You make a very good point regarding the high cost of the Goldman translation versus the low cost of the Gita Press translation, making the Gita Press one the best choice for many people. I have always had a high regard for the accuracy of the Gita Press English translation; and although I have other translations, that is the one I would turn to before the Goldman translation of the critical edition was completed. The translator, Sri Cimmanlal Goswami, wrote in the Publisher’s Note to volume 1:

 

“In our translation we have tried to reproduce the meaning of the original as best as possible so as to enable the reader to follow the text word by word, and made it as close as possible, preserving even the grammatical peculiarities of the original and translating even indeclinables like ca, khalu, vai, hi, ha, nu and so on, which cannot be called redundant in the work of a Ṛṣi.”

 

What you bring up about Prof. Sheldon Pollock is a huge issue, one that has probably contributed mightily to whatever poor reception Goldman’s Rāmāyaṇa translation has had. As everyone on this list knows, statements made by Sheldon Pollock elicited a response from Sri Rajiv Malhotra in the form of his book, The Battle for Sanskrit. Many readers of that book came to look unfavorably upon everything that Pollock was associated with. Since Pollock translated volumes 2 and 3 for the 7-volume Rāmāyaṇa translation project edited by Robert Goldman, views about Pollock have perhaps automatically been extended also to Goldman. This seems to me very unfortunate.

 

I do not know Sheldon Pollock. I had never heard of his controversial views until Rajiv Malhotra’s book came under discussion. I have not examined his Rāmāyaṇa translations looking for influence of his views on them. It is possible that these translations were made before he developed the views in question. They were published in 1986 and 1991. I simply do not know. For that matter, I do not know Rosalind Lefeber, who translated volume 4 of the Rāmāyaṇa edited by Robert Goldman. Under the circumstances, it is best for me to clarify what I said about the accuracy of the Goldman Rāmāyaṇa translation, that it would specifically apply to the volumes done by Robert and Sally Goldman, namely, volumes 1, 5, 6, and 7.

Best regards,

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

[David and Nancy Reigle]

Dear Dr. Misra,

 

Thank you for your personal advice to me regarding how to experience the poetry of a poetic text like the Rāmāyaṇa. Certainly I am in no position to evaluate translations of poetic texts in terms of their poetry, and I did not use this as a criterion in forming my opinion about the accuracy of the Goldman Rāmāyaṇa translation. It may be that the kind of translation you are advocating is more like a “transcreation,” as P. Lal called it, in his transcreations of almost all of the Mahābhārata that he was able to complete before he died.

Best regards,

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

रामा  or रामी ----

As given < रामा च रामश्च रामौ !   >   would mean    compounding two  words:   < beautiful lady (रामा)  and a person designated as Rama (राम) >. 

                                                              __ Vid BVK Sastry

This is perfectly right . Let me explain ---

’तस्येदम् ’ (पा 4-3-120) अण् - in the sense of शेष -- any relation --- Patanjali under तस्यापत्यम् (4-1-92) --

तस्येदंविशेषा ह्येते - अपत्यम् , समूहः , विकारः , निवासः इति ।

What he means is -- तस्येदम् is for संबन्धसामान्य ( any relation ) -- whereas अपत्यम् etc are विशेषसंबन्ध ---

रामस्य इयम् , ’ तस्येदम् ’ अण् - राम -- स्त्रीत्वविवक्षायाम् - ’ अजाद्यतष्टाप् ’ (पा 4-1-4 ) टाप् -- रामा ।

now if you want that  सीता has got some relation (not necessarily दाम्पत्यम् / conjugal relation) then you can say रामा --

also keep in mind ( as Vid Sastry sounded an alert ) the term रामा ,  as per the popular usage , may mean ' a beautiful lady ' - and if you do such a comment , while lecturing on रामायणम् , people may get annoyed and offended and we know the result ..

So , we go to -- पुंयोगादाख्यायाम् (पा 4-1-49) (Vid Balasubramanian) -- रामस्य पत्नी रामी ।

Keep षष्ठमीमांसा - ’दम्पत्योः सहाधिकारात् ’ as well as आपस्तम्बगृह्यसूत्रम् - ’ पाणिग्रहणात्  सहत्वं कर्मसु पुण्यफलेषु च " - in mind .

Bonus Info :

The दाम्पत्यम् between राम and सीता is -- अद्वैतं सुखदुःखयोः (उत्तररामचरितम् - भवभूतिः)

Not only राम , even कुश etc are एकपत्नीव्रतिनः --

अथार्धरात्रे स्तिमितप्रदीपे शय्याग्रुहे सुप्तजने प्रबुद्धः ।

कुशः प्रवासस्थकलत्रवेषाम् अदृष्टपूर्वां वनितामपश्यत् ॥

का त्वं षुभे कस्य परिग्रहो वा किं वा मदभ्यागमकारणं ते ।

आचक्ष्व मत्वा वशिनां रघूणां मनः परस्त्रीविमुखप्रवृत्ति ॥ रघुवंशः , 16 सर्गः

धन्यो’स्मि

 

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The minimum requirements include first and foremost a sound knowledge of Sanskrit grammar and word formation 

Yes, that's right.  

That includes and implies the knowledge that feminine stem is not the term suited in the context but the word genitive form with feminine ending is the apt word here. 

It is possible that in some cases, the genitive form with feminine ending may appear to be the same as the feminine stem. 

When two forms for the genitive form with feminine ending are possible for the same word, and one of the forms has potential to cause ambiguity, the other form which does not lead to such ambiguity is chosen. 

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

A clarification --

in fact you cannot get  रामा by  रम् +घञ् - रामः - ’तस्येदम् ’ -राम - अजाद्यतष्टाप् -- रामा - this प्रक्रिया  is untenable ---

राम - अण्णन्तप्रातिपदिकम् will get ङीप् by ' टिड्ढाणाञ्द्वयसज्दघ्नच्मात्रच्तयप्ठक्ठञ्कञ्क्वरपः ’ 4-1-15 and it will be रामी rather than रामा ।

For रामा (  a beautiful lady ) the प्रक्रिया is as follows ---

रमते  इति रामः - रम् + ण -- ’ ज्वलितिकसन्तेभ्यो णः " ( 3-1-140 ) --  टाप् - ’ अजाद्यतष्टाप् ’ (4-1-4) --- रामा --- ’सुन्दरी रम्णी रामा’ - अमरकोशः ।

पक्षे पचाद्यच् -- रमते इति रमः । Here both , रामः and रमः , have got the same meaning , but not श्रीराम .

So रामा च रामश्च रामौ - is not possible at all ् in the intended sense .

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Mr. Reigle,

I would request you to reread my mail, than rationalizing.

Ignorance does not go away through turning pages!

We need to qualify ourselves to comment on a subject.

We have to call and end to the cavalier skills in scholarship.

Best wishes,

Bijoy Misra

[Bijoy Misra]

Prof Korada and friends,

The analysis presented while obvious is above the pay-grade of the

students, whose teachers have frozen them otherwise.

What we are witnessing the real-time display of shallowness and

lack of understanding on words.  I discovered it with another published

author some thirty years ago before I took upon myself to study Panini.

Quick conclusions without analysis are also entering the minds of

Indian scholars as I notice occasionally.  Our latest hypothesis is

that the words are connected to our cognitive processing in the brain

and not in our utterance!

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Prof. Misra, 

Our love and respect for our language, literature and/or culture need not make us so aggressive in our tone towards even those who do not share the hatred towards the subject matter of their own discipline that we see in others and more over have a genuine love and respect for what they study with great rigour, intensity, width and depth and get transformed into living what they study. 

Regards,

[Bijoy Misra]

Prof Paturi,

I respect your note.  I admired the humility of Prof Korada

in handling an uncalled for comment on his grammatical

skills.  The feminine ई in ownership is a popular use in

old oDiA literature.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

[Roland Steiner]

Dear members of the Bhāratīyavidvatpariṣat,

I have compiled the most important arguments in connection with the phrase रामी च रामश्च रामौ:

(1)

> If 'रामा' is to be treated as feminine form of 'rAma', it would mean
> a 'lady of Rama' (His women/ related women to the
> designated individual); not necessarily 'feminine form of 'Rama'.
> It would be absurd communication.

(2)

> If ''रामा'' is to be treated as 'beautiful lady' as per kosha, then it is a standalone term,

> on its own merit!; and not a derived feminine gender formation.

(3)

> As given <रामा च रामश्च रामौ !> would mean compounding two words:
> beautiful lady (रामा) and a person designated as Rama (राम)

(4)

> It is not just telling like 'beautiful women' and person called Rama'
> combined would yield a term 'rAmau' = 'two rAma's
> together'

(5)

> When two forms for the genitive form with feminine ending are possible
> for the same word, and one of the forms has
> potential to cause ambiguity, the other form which does not lead to such ambiguity is chosen.

Let us take the dual form śivau ("Pārvatī and Śiva"). According to the arguments above, one must not parse śivau as śivā ca śivaś ca, because

(1) śivā "as feminine form of" śiva, "it would mean a 'lady of'" śiva [...]. "It would be absurd communication."

(2) "If" śivā "is to be treated as" 'a jackal' "as per kosha [and according to its standard usage in Sanskrit literature], then it is a standalone term, on its own merit!; and not a derived feminine gender formation."

(3) "As given <śivā ca śivaś ca śivau!> would mean compounding two words:" jackal (śivā) "and a person designated as" Śiva (śiva).

(4) "It is not just telling like" 'jackal' "and person called" 'Śiva' "combined would yield a term" 'śivau' "= 'two" śiva-s
"together'".

(5) "When two forms for the genitive form with feminine ending are possible for the same word, and one of the forms has potential to cause ambiguity, the other form which does not lead to such ambiguity is chosen."

* * *

In Bhāravī's Kirātārjunīya (5.40) we come across the genitive dual śivayoḥ. Mallinātha comments: śivā ca śivaś ca tayoḥ śivayor umāśaṅkarayoḥ / pumān striyā (= Pāṇini 1.2.67) ity ekaśeṣaḥ. Obviously, Mallinātha does not have any grammatical and semantic difficulties using the regular feminine form śivā (śivaḥ, śivā, śivam) in spite of the common meaning of the noun śivā ("jackal"). Accordingly, he would certainly have analyzed rāmā ca rāmaś ca tayoḥ rāmayor sītārāmayoḥ by use of the regular feminine form rāmā (rāmaḥ, rāmā, rāmam).

[Also compare Apte s.v. rāmā: ramate 'nayā ram karaṇe ghañ.]

> On justifying ' रामी' -  Samskruth grammarians ingenuities can always
> find different ways of explaining the final form !

That speaks for itself.


Regards,
Roland Steiner

[Nagaraj Paturi]

"When two forms for the genitive form with feminine ending are possible for the same word, and one of the forms has potential to cause ambiguity, the other form which does not lead to such ambiguity is chosen. "

This is a statement about a good policy for inambiguous communication.

If some purvaachaarya did not follow that , that is not an instruction not to follow a good policy. An aadaraNeeya not following a better policy is not any demerit of him.

"The entire debate was on the ' artha' and why this context  was forgotten?"

-- Even this speaks for itself and about the problem with the thread.

 

--

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.

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

Prof Steiner,

Is you contention:

1. rAmI ca rAmascha is wrong and only rAmA ca ramasca is correct, or

2. both are correct?

Ramakrishnan

--

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.

[Roland Steiner]

Dear Mr. Misra,

> The feminine ई in ownership is a popular use in old oDiA literature.

Thank you for this hint. In Sanskrit rāmī, if related to ownership,
would be the nominative singular masculine to the nominal stem rāmin
(I do not know whether it is actually used in Sanskrit literature as a
separate word; as a final member of a compound it is found in
kṣaṇarāmin "a pigeon" [for the literal meaning, see Monier-Williams
s.v. kṣaṇa-rāmin]).

You will realize that neither its gender nor its meaning is suitable here.

Regards,
Roland Steiner

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Dr. Steiner,

Words existed before grammar was created.

यमी is a Vedic word.

Possibly you should look deeper into Panini's sixth book.

Thank you.

BM

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Vid Roland Steiner-----

In the first place try to understand as to how व्याकरणशास्त्रम् is compiled --

In पस्पशाह्निकम् , महाभाष्यम् , पतञ्जलि  quotes the first वार्तिकम् of  कात्यायन --

सिद्धे शब्दार्थसंबन्धे लोकतः , लोकतः अर्थप्रयुक्ते शब्दप्रयोगे शास्त्रेण धर्मनियमः , यथा लौकिकवैदिकेषु ।

Panini is not स्रस्टा (creator) of शब्द--s , rather he is a स्मर्ता ( roughly registrar) 

Meaning of the above वार्तिकम् -- when the शब्द , अर्थ and  the संबन्ध between them is there , and when the शब्दप्रयोग in a particular अर्थ is there , then व्याकरणम् makes धर्मनियम (if this शब्द is employed there will be धर्म etc) - it is just like in the सिद्धान्त-s of वेद and लोक ।

The same is called प्रयुक्तानाम् इदम् अन्वाख्यानम् ।

In the same chapter Patanjali  rakes up another question -- कथं तर्हीमे शब्दाः प्रतिपत्तव्याः ? how to know the    शब्द-s?

किञ्चित् सामान्यविशेषवत् लक्षणं प्रवर्त्यम् -- there should be two rules - one general and another exceptional .

कश्चित् उत्सर्गः कर्तव्यः कश्चित् अपवादः -- the same as above .

The word ’ शिवा ’ has been there in usage -- ' शिवा भवानी रुद्राणी शर्वाणी सर्वमङ्गला ’ -- अमरकोशः ।

शिवम् (शुभम्) अस्ति अस्याः इति शिवा - पचाद्यच् - टाप् - ’ अजाद्यतः टाप् -- शिवा - this is the शब्दनिष्पत्ति ।

Such exceptional cases will be there all thru the language . 

If it is शिवस्य पत्नी then it will be शिवी -- ’पुंयोगदाख्यायाम्’ ।

In the व्याकरणम् of any language this will be there .Nothing strange .

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

--

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.

[Bijoy Misra]

Prof Korada,

I admire your erudite analysis.

I do take a scientific view.  Human expression

is not controlled by grammar, it is cognitive and

neurological.  Why human beings create suffixes

to create relationship is a challenging topic in

brain science (not attempted yet).  Grammar

only catalogs and codes it.  Unfortunately the late

languages are "learned" and so they appear "coded".

There is a difference in translating a thought

to expression and in communication.  The latter

needs a binary transformation, the former is unitary,

and hence possibly universal (characteristic of man!).

Best regards,

BM

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

The most important argument in connection with the phrase रामी च रामश्च रामौ: is -

"तस्येदम् is for संबन्धसामान्य ( any relation ) -- whereas अपत्यम् etc are विशेषसंबन्ध"

"sitA is rAmA"
"Only sitA is rAmI"



re Tulasidasa:
The word translation itself implies "a movement into a separate spacetime". That Tulasidasa could do so into Kaliyuga is real credit.

[Roland Steiner]

Dear Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan,

> 1. rAmI ca rAmascha is wrong and only rAmA ca ramasca is correct, or
> 2. both are correct?

I made two points: 1. The arguments against the
correctness/suitableness of rāmā are untenable. 2. rāmā is the
expected correct form. I leave everything else to your own and the
list members' judgement.

Not only for time reasons, I have to say goodbye to his thread now.

Regards,
Roland Steiner

--

Dr. Roland Steiner
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
Seminar für Indologie

[shivraj singh]

Roland,
Since you don't seem to be agreeing with what some scholars have written perhaps you will be amenable in doing an experiment? This may or may not help resolve the matter at hand. YMMV.

If you have contacts in India perhaps they can help answering these questions independently:
a) What is a married lady or a mother from Jhala ( a rajput clan ) called? : Jhali Ji
b) What is the wife of a Gupta ( a mercantile caste of India) called? : Guptani Ji
c) What is the wife of a Gujar (a caste in India ) called?: Gujari Ji
d) What is the wife of a Jhinwar (another caste in India ) called? Jhinwari Ji
e) What is the wife of a Jat ( caste in India ) called? Jatni Ji

Ji is just an honorific.

Shivraj






--------------------------------------------

On Wed, 3/20/19, Roland Steiner <ste...@staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Number and Classification of Errors in Sanskrit Translations (Was: Some comments on Goldman’s translation of Ramayana)

To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2019, 2:14 PM

--
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.

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sri Shivraj,

It won't be just casual.

A good analysis would distinguish between स्त्री,  भार्या, दारा, and  पत्नी .

We have some broad understanding from literature, not a cognitive analysis.

Best regards,

BM

[Ramakrishnan]

sarvebhyo namaḥ

I think the issue of rāmā & rāmī has been settled (as Dr. Korada Subrahmanyam has stated in detail twice in this thread). 

Both these endings (-ā & -ī) are therefore correct feminine forms but their use differs by context.

. To give another example:

• gaṇaka means male mathematician
• gaṇakā means female mathematician - (ṭāP pratyaya as per Pāṇini)
• gaṇakī means wife of the male mathematician (the gaṇakī does not have to be a mathematician herself) - ṅīṢ pratyaya as per Pāṇini 

If anyone disagrees with the above conclusion, please provide grammatical reasons.

Dhanyo'smi,
Ram  

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 21 March 2019 03:05:59 UTC+5:30, Ramakrishnan Suryanarayanan wrote:

sarvebhyo namaḥ

I think the issue of rāmā & rāmī has been settled (as Dr. Korada Subrahmanyam has stated in detail twice in this thread). 

Just came across the word rāmī in the Rigveda-samhita 

उषा न रामीररुणैरपोर्णुते (२.३४.१२)

uṣā na rāmīraruṇairaporṇute (2.34.12)

रामीः कृष्णवर्णा रात्रीरिति सायणः

[Roland Steiner]

> Just came across the word *rāmī *in the Rigveda-samhita

>
> उषा न रामीररुणैरपोर्णुते (२.३४.१२)
> uṣā na rāmīraruṇairaporṇute (2.34.12)
>
> रामीः कृष्णवर्णा रात्रीरिति सायणः

Nobody has denied that rāmī means "dark night". PW (Böhtlingk-Roth,
Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. Vol. 6, 1871), s.v. rāma: "4) f. ī Dunkel, Nacht
[= darkness, night]: uṣā na rāmīr aruṇair aporṇute ṚV. 2, 34, 11
[read: 12]."