Qualification For Translating Scriptures - What does it take to get it straight?

Ages ago we had a discussion over the qualifications for translating scriptures, balance between academic/scholarly and devotional qualifications, and so forth. Some questions in this regard have surfaced in other recent topics, so I figured we could take a new look at the issue.

Thoughts?

Lately I have really come to appreciate some of the mundane scholars of Vaisnavism, due to the somewhat objective take on things. They hold no allegiance to any group or doctrine, so they translate and comment as they see the texts. So there is an element of objectivity that is refreshing. Dimock, for instance, annoys me sometimes in his CC translation as he seems to be trying too hard to be literal, at the expense of readability. So far my experience has been that every four or five pages I come across a sentence that reads terribly in English, but from looking at the BBT CC, I can grasp that he is trying to exactly relate the Bengali. But in many ways that is a great fault--he is telling it like it is, so at the very least he should be conveying a good sense of what Krishna das Kaviraj Goswami meant. A transparent via medium.

And from another perspective, I have to say that I envy the access and facility many of these people have. I just obtained June McDaniel's The Madness of the Saints: Ecstatic Religion in Bengal and opened it up to read a section on Gaura Kisora Das Babaji, quoted from Gaudiya Vaisnava Jivana of Haridasa Das. Access to texts such as those are rare in English.

I personally wouldn't reject the translator, even if I weren't prepared to accept everything they say or adopt their own religion or habits. And some of them, like Haberman, do a damn fine job of introducing complex topics in a manner that I have yet to be seen done by any sadhaka in English.

And to be a little cynical, having a scholarly translation probably goes some way toward avoiding all the party politics--"Oh, I wouldn't read that. It was translated by X Das/Maharaja, and you know what his philosophy is."

Three steps:

• Know the original language well, with an understanding of its nuances.
• Know the language you are translating into.
• Demystify.

Most devotee translations fail on one or all of these steps. Demystification means be ready to take the step to convey seemingly foreign or complex ideas in the source language into easily comprehensible and sometimes run-of-the-mill concepts in the target language.

Sanskrit is particular difficult because its syntax can be so different from English. You really have to be ready to toss out the original syntax altogether. So demystification really means ruthless editing.

I know the situation and difficulty of the translator only in the field of European languages including Latin, and can only approximate to the complexity of translation of Sanskrit and Bengali texts. Obviously I know the situation as a reader of translations though. What I wish to see in a translation of a verse is that eagerness of the translator to give the meaning of the text as closely as possible. I like the way it is done in the Gita Press Bhagavatam where additional explanatory meaning is put in brackets, so that I notice as a reader that there is some interpolation required to give the text the direction that the translator wanted it to give.

I wish to feel the love and respect of the translator for the text he is translating. For me that shows his devotion to the cause. This struggle of the translator with his language, this endeavour for the befitting expression, and his ability to create a style giving space to that endeavour, that is for me enough of a proof of his qualification (material qualification of knowing the original language well assumed).

If the original text is of a possible ambivalence, esp. in terms of a personal or impersonal interpretation, then I like to see that ambivalence, rather than it being covered up with the translator's choice of orientation.

I would also look for the time a person spent with the text and the tradition the text represents, and the interest he showed in the cultural ambiente of the text. An Indologist who did not go to India, for instance, I approach with a lot of grains of salt. But then, that criterion is unimportant in the case of poets and philosophers of the romantic period who got in touch with Indic texts who did not have the opportunity to travel to India. The love and enthusiasm that their reading aroused in them is alone enough for me.

In Catholic Theology Karl Rahner introduced the term of the "anonymous Catholic", meaning a person who is Catholic without knowing it. I would apply the same understanding to translators of sacred texts who become devotional, even if temporarily, through their valuable service they do to readers and the tradition concerned.

Jagat, I believe a fourth step would be in place:

• Be well acquainted with the concepts the text deals with

If the translator is not familiar with the subject matter, odd interpretations of difficult passages may arise.

This brings us to the center of the "controversy" - how far can a person familiarize himself with the concepts of a devotional text without having practiced the path of devotion himself?

Conversely - how far can a person practicing the path of devotion himself be still unacquainted with the conceps of a devotional text? A great deal, it sometimes seems.

By the way, I would really appreciate if we kept this discussion rather theoretical so as to avoid having to move this over to the ISKCON/GM forum.

Where does devotion come into this? At every step. Through both study and practice, one can understand the nuances of the original text. This can to some extent be achieved by an empathetic scholar. A student of religion may in many ways be better positioned than a devotee to recognize universal phenomena within the particularities of a religion's termninology.

I found myself that excessive absorption in the source language might result in hampering the use of the target language. This is most evident
in an excessive reluctance to use English substitutes for Sanskrit terms.

This is even more difficult when one comes to the stage of editing and really has to go from the raw, literal translation to a language that is comfortably recognizable as the target language. It is here that one's devotion is tested, in the following sense: Is one capable of putting the old wine into new bottles? At this stage, all the questions of cultural equivalency come into play. There are also other choices that have to be made based on the target language. For instance, the first English language translation of the Chaitanya Charitamrita is written in King James biblical style. Though it is stilted in places, the devotional effect is unquestionable. I would even suggest editing the worst excesses and republishing this version for the pleasure of devotees.

So this is the hardest part, because ultimately the goal of the text is not simply to communicate information, but also to communicate rasa. Philosophy is therefore easier to translate than literature, though the opposite may appear to be immediately true.

Sample text #1:

And glory unto the saints Rupa, Sanatana, Sri Jiva. Gopala, Raghunatha Bhatta and Raghunath Das. For, all these six are my preceptors. I write of the holy lilas of the Lord Chaitanya from the power of grace received from them. And I write this all at random only to purge and purify my own soul.

Thus the Lord continued to stay on at the holy Nilachala. And he had with him here all his foilowers. And he passed his days with them in the p1easure of singing the holy songs. And be danced and sang during the day and he saw the Lord Jagannath. And at night the Lord tasted the loving sweetness of the Lord Krishna in the company of the saint Svarupa and the Raya Ramananda.

So the Lord passed his days in great joy. And yet he could not contain within himself his deep feeling of separation from his Lord Krishna. And this feeling gained in intensity day after day. It was specially strong during the night. So the Lord was ill at ease all night. At tirnes he meditated, at times he was in deep anxiety. At times again he was in delirium. Thus all that is found in the scriptures became visible in the Lord. And day and night the saint Svarupa and the sage Raya Ramananda did their best to give the Lord consolation.

Now, on one occasion it happened that the servant Govinda went to the devotee Haridasa with holy food. And he went with much ado to offer the food to the holy devotee. And the servant Govinda saw the devotee Haridasa lying on the ground. The devotee was then slowly chanting the prescribed number of the holy name.

And Govinda now said unto him, "Rise up, O Haridas, come and eat the holy food." But Haridas aid, "I have not been able to say the prescribed number of the holy name as yet. How shall I take my food? I have accordingly resolved to observe this day as a day of fast. But I must not show any disregard to the holy food."

Sample Text #2 (ACBSP)

I am writing this narration of the pastimes and attributes of the Lord by the mercy of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates. I do not know how to write properly, but I am purifying myself by writing this description.

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu thus resided at Jagannath Puri with His personal devotees and enjoyed the congregational chanting of the Hare Krishna maha mantra.

In the daytime Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu engaged in dancing and chanting and in seeing the temple of Lord Jagannath. At night, in the company of His most confidential devotees, such as Ramananda Raya and Svarupa Damodara Goswami, He tasted the nectar of the transcendental mellows of Lord Sri Krishna's pastimes.

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu very happily passed His days in this way at Nilacala, Jagannath Puri. Feeling separation from Krishna, He exhibited many transcendental symptoms all over His body.

Day after day the symptoms increased, and at night they increased even more. All these symptoms, such as transcendental anxiety, agitation, and talking like a madman, were present, just as they are described in the çastras.

Svarupa Damodara Goswami and Ramananda Raya, the chief assistants in Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's pastimes, remained with Him both day and night.

One day Govinda, the personal servant of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, went in great jubilation to deliver the remnants of Lord Jagannath's food to Haridasa Thakur.

When Govinda came to Haridasa, he saw that Haridasa áhakura was lying on his back and chanting his rounds very slowly.

“Please rise and take your maha-prasada,” Govinda said. Haridasa Thakur replied, “Today I shall observe fasting. I have not finished my regular number of rounds. How then can I eat. But you have brought maha prasad, and how can I neglect it?”

Maybe someone could give the corresponding translation by Dimock and we can compare.

Perhaps people could select other passages as treated by different individuals for comparison and comment. I did something like this with the Harinam Chintamani previously.

Jagat, which chapter is that, to help me find the passage in Dimock's edition? Or is Braj already working on it?

I did this with Das Goswami and Panihati, reading the BBT side-by-side with Dimock's. I'll post my comments on it later. I can also type up Dimock's Antya 11 later if someone else (Nadabip?) doesn't get to it first....Sheesh, who needs to work anyway?


Glory to Rupa, Sanatana, Jiva, Raghunatha [Dasa], Raghunatha [Bhatta], and Gopal--glory to these six, my lords. By the grace of them all I write the qualities of the lila of Caitanya; [although] I write haphazardly, it purifies me.

So in this way Prabhu lived at Nilacala, and with his bhaktas as his companions he has kirtana-vilasa. In the day he danced and had kirtana and darsana of Isvara, and in the night he tasted rasa with Raya and Svarupa. In this way time passed happily for Mahaprabhu; but his body could not contain the delirium of his viraha from Krsna. Day by day the delirium grew, and at night it was very strong--worry and anxiety and raving and all the rest, as the sastras describe it. Svarupa Goswami and Ramananda Raya, both consoled Prabhu day and night.

One day Govinda brought mahaprasadas, and in joy went to give it to Haridasa. He saw that Haridasa was lying down, and very softly was doing kirtana of the prescribed number [of names]. Govinda said, "Rise up and come and eat." And Haridasa replied, "Today I shall transgress. How can I eat? The number of sankirtana has not been completed. But you have brought mahaprasada; how can I ignore it?"

(Dimock has footnotes also:

Verse 9: Yaiche taiche: haphazardly, i.e. "even though my description of all this is insufficient, still it brings me purification."

Verse 12: VikAra: lit., "delirium," the alteration of the condition of his mind from its previous normal state, because of his feeling of viraha.)

I've got Clooney's Seeing Through Texts: Doing Theology among the Srivaisnavas of South India but have not looked at it closely. In his conclusion he waxes lyrical about the reader and scholar surrendering to the text, prapatti. He seems to approach the task of translation with a devotional or, at least, open attitude, as fits his apparent disposition as a theologian and religious practitioner.

One review says, "Clooney has established himself as our most passionate, discriminating, deferential, and subtle comparative theologian." This seems apt, based on the little I have scanned so far.

You could give a little more info in the book report section, especially when you have read it a bit more.

My two cents:
1. Translations by non devotees dont work - shastras are works of divine devotion and non devotees cannot infuse devotion into the reader, nor can they have a proper understanding of transcendental devotional topics without having transcendental devotion themselves. bhaktya mam abhijanati yavan yas casmi tattvatah (Gita 18.55) "I can be known as I am in truth by devotion."
While reading a translation one associates not only with the original author, but very much with the translator as well, and that does affect one's consciousness and attitude.
2. Don't know what Jagat means with de-mystifying. I feel uncomfortable with that term. Anyway, the subtleties of Sanskrit/Bengali, words like prema, rasa and bhava, cannot be properly translated into any western language because the creators of French, German, English or Spanish simply did not have the divine experiences the Indian mystics had.

Conclusion: the best is to learn Sanskrit and / or Bengali oneself.
Then:
1. One is not dependant on the subjective mood, attitude and style of the translator, let alone his perhaps faulty, non-devoted or offensive state of mind.
2. One has direct communion with the nitya siddhas by directly relishing and meditating on their divine words.

Translation is always going to be interpretation, at some place or another in the process. Getting the "real thing" (the "Ding an sich") is an admirable ideal, but unattainable. The further we are separated from the original in time, the more difficult it becomes to retrieve that Ding.

As such, to our translation is added a historical as well as experiential dimension: What did it mean to the author, and what does it mean to us today?

The Hindu tradition discussed in the thread on verses quoted out of context is an example of where "translation" is entirely divorced from its historical "context." This is undesirable from the point of view of Truth.

At the same time, for a devotional translation to be truly valid, it must be made meaningful in the present-day context.

The purely historical approach is ultimately a sectarian one: i.e., sectarianism means that a particular historical situation is identified with the Absolute Truth. This is ironic, since sectarians generally have a very ahistorical approach and usually take the present surface of the palimpsest to be the original one.

Thus there is a need for an awareness of the original context, the historical context of interpretation, and finally, the spiritual dimension of its meaning in the present-day context.

For Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's religion to be considered Absolute Truth, it must have the potential to resonate with everyone: it must have universal application, i.e., outside its original historical context, as well as outside the context of its interpretive history.

Translation is thus more than a linguistic affair, and "realization" more than a purely historical appreciation or even an archeological type of spirituality, though it is hard to see how it is possible to achieve the final step of devotional understanding without this historical perspective.

Good idea. Lets keep the theories somewhere else.

Arent the personalities described in shastra and the places where they performed their divine activities universally attractive? We see pilgrims from all countries of the world swarming together in 'Indian' places in 'Bengal' or 'UP' to commemmorate their divine actions. Seems to be more than just an archeology or anthropology study....

Inasmuch as the universal has been successfully tapped into. My previous post was a little more complex than I intended.

Archeological means digging up dead things. Evidently, social circumstances, etc., made Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's message particularly meaningful when he was present. The same kinds of messages are not necessarily going to have the same kind of widespread resonance in Western European society today that they had in medieval Bengal.

A clever archeologist can reproduce through various means, not the least of which is the ability to empathize, the moods and meanings of another time. But such a scholar is indifferent to these things as "ultimate concerns."

A devotee is someone for whom these values have crossed time (through parampara) and become ultimately meaningful in the here and now.

Translating means making it meaningful for others. A devotee is not, I don't think, indifferent to the goal of making his own meanings meaningful to others.

I just got the books today. Govinda Lilamrta, and Vilapa Kusumanjali vol. 1 and 2. Nice and beautifully translated by Adavtadas-ji; a sadhaka scholar.

Since I have no time and qualification to learn Sanskrit or Bengali; bless me to be able to drink that nectar...


Radhe Radhe....!

Sanskrit to Bengali has a built-in cheat mechanism. Even you don't understand something, you can just use the same Sanskrit words and simply transpose them into Bengali. It looks like a translation, but is completely useless.

Clearly you have to understand the original text. That is not always easy. With Sanskrit it is often not immediately clear what is being said, but a translator has to begin with the faith that it means SOMETHING. Even if the original author expressed himself poorly, you have to be able to recognize what it was that he was attempting to say.

Sometimes you have to entertain the possibility that even a great writer did not perfectly express the idea he had in mind. This may be particularly challenging when it comes to a sacred text.

Not only must it mean something, but it must be something coherent. The trouble with many of our current translators is that they are bound up by the immediate letters of the verse or sentence they are translating. They don't really think about what went before or what comes after.

You have to remember that you are translating into a different language, which means not only that the words are different, but that often there are no direct equivalents, not even cultural equivalents for certain ideas. What is a "kitchen" for Mother Yashoda? Is dahi yogurt or buttermilk? Is the churning process the same in (that part of) India as it is in most European cultures?

Furthermore, when translating poetry, it is easy to get bogged down in similes and metaphors that quickly become trite in English. How many lotus-thisses or thats can one piece of English writing take? The translator has to be bold and chop some of them.

These are judgment calls, of course, but one has to look at the finished product as a piece of English writing, and judge it by the standards of English language and literature. The test is in the effect it produces and not necessarily in its literal accuracy. When I took translation courses, one of the things I retained was the idea that a translation can be superior to the original, in the sense that it can be better written. That is what every translator should aim for.

Gitam – Sri Sri Radhika Pada-Padme Vijnapti
Srila Rupa Gosvami



Radhe! Jaya jaya madhava-dayite!
Gokula-taruni-mandala-mahite

O Simati Radhika! O beloved of Madhava! O You whose glories are sung by the young maidens of Gokula-mandala! All glories to You! All glories to You!

Damodara-rati vardhana-vese!
Hari-niskuta-vrndavipinese!

From the effulgence of the tips of Your toes to the top of Your head, Your artistic dress and entire appearance increase Damodara’s loving attachment for You! O queen of the forest of Vrndavana! O pleasure garden of Sri Hari!

Vrsabhanudadhi-nava-sasi-lekhe!
Lalita-sakhi! Guna-ramita-visakhe!

Just as the moon was produced from the churning of the Milk Ocean, You have arisen like the new moon from the ocean of Vrsabhanu Mahraja’s affection for You. O dearmost friend of Lalita! O You who have captivated the heart of Your intimate sakhi Visakha with Your charming (lalita) qualities of friendship, kindness and loyalty to Krsna!

Karunam kuru mayi karuna-bharite!
Sanaka-sanatana-varnita-carite!

O Karuna-mayi, all-compassionate one! Even naisthika-brahmacaris like Sanka and Sanatana (who have described Your asta-kaliya lila in the Vedas, as well as Bhismadeva and Sukadeva Gosvami) meditate on Your transcendental qualities and character. O Sri Radha! Bestow Your kindness upon me!


Is this translation ok? If so, what is Bhismadeva doing in this group?

Perhaps he is just hanging around because he got bored in Vaikuntha?

The part in brackets is not there in the original, it must be someone's realization. I believe this comes from Narayan Maharaja's song book. Perhaps he knows the manjari-svarupa of Bhismadeva.

Radha Rasa Sudhanidhi verse 4:

YO BRAHMA RUDRA SUKA NARADA BHISMA MUKHYAIR
ALAKSITO NA SAHASA PURUSASYA TASYA
SADYO VASIKARANA CURNAM ANANTA SAKTIM
TAM RADHIKA CARANA RENUM ANUSMARAMI

yah - who; brahma rudra suka narada bhisma - Lord Brahma, Lord Siva, Narada Muni, Bhisma; mukhyaih - by the chiefs; alaksita - not noticed; na - not; sahasa - suddenly; purusasya - of the man; tasya - whose; sadyah - suddenly; vasikarana - controlling; curnam - powder; ananta - endless; saktim - power; tam - Her; radhika-carana - Radhika's feet; renum - dust; anusmarami - I constantly remember.

"I constantly remember the footdust of Sri Radhika, whose unlimited power instantly subdues even the Supreme Person (Sri Krsna), Who Himself cannot be easily seen even by the greatest devotees like Lord Brahma, Lord Siva, Sukadeva Muni, Narada Muni and Bhisma."

This is what I have been doing all day. Reading Madhava Mahotsava with Bhanu's translations, and then revising them. I have given the word order (anvaya) so that those who know a little Sanskrit can follow along. I haven't pinpointed all the problems. I haven't changed his vocabulary where it was adequate, only tried to include missing elements, correct mistaken ones, and so on. A hint to anyone learning Sanskrit: Always do the anvaya. It'll clear your head. Please excuse my pedestrian translations as well as the inherent lack of humility that adorns any such exercise.

---

||4.9||

sA vRndAmbara-bhaNita-cchalena dUrAd
UrdhvasthA nija-lapitAmRtaugha-varSaiH |
premArdra-vraja-jana-kAnti-kalpa-vallIm
utphullAM kim api tadA mudA cakAra ||

Bhanu's translation: Vrinda stood in an elevated place, and sounding like an akash vani (celestial voice) gave sweet instructions to gladden the splendorous desire creepers of the love-laden women of Vraja.

ANVAYA:
tadA sA vRndA Urdhva-sthA dUrAt ambara-bhaNita-cchalena nija-lapitAmRtaugha-varSaiH kim api mudA premArdra-vraja-jana-kAnti-kalpa-vallIm utphullAM cakAra |

Vrinda then stood in an elevated place a little distance away, and throwing her voice so that it sounded disembodied and divine, she joyfully rained down a shower of sweet instructions, making the splendorous desire creepers of the love-laden people of Vraja blossom.

||4.10||

zrI-rAdhAm atula-guNAmbudhIndu-lakSmIM
zrI-vRndAvana-bhuvi vizva-vanditAyAm |
yogIndre drutam abhiSiJca kAJcanAli-
zrI-rAjan-maNi-yuji siMha-pITha-pRSThe ||

Bhanu's translation: O Paurnamasi, greatest of yoginis! Quickly arrange to bathe the Lakshmi moon, born of the ocean of incomparable qualities, on a golden throne embedded with jewels in the land of Vrindavan, which is worshiped by the whole universe.

ANVAYA:
yogIndre ! zrI-rAdhAm atula-guNAmbudhIndu-lakSmIM vizva-vanditAyAm zrI-vRndAvana-bhuvi kAJcanAli-zrI-rAjan-maNi-yuji siMha-pITha-pRSThe [sthApayitvA] drutam abhiSiJca |

O Paurnamasi, greatest of yoginis! Quickly place Radha, who arose from the ocean of incomparable qualities just as Lakshmi and the moon arose from the ocean of nectar, on a jewel-encrusted golden throne here in this land of Vrindavan, which is worshiped by the whole universe, and perform her abhisheka.

||4.11||

rAdhAyAm ayam abhiSeka-kAnti-pUraH
zrIdaH syAd vanam anu gokulambhuvaM ca |
aMzUnAm udaya ivAmRtAMzu-mUrtau
yad yogye khalu vibhavo’khilaM dhinoti ||

Bhanu's translation: The light rays of Radha’s abhisheka, the jewel of light of the rising moon, will spread incomparable glory to Vrindavan, Gokula, and the whole earth. When glory is given to deserving candidates, the universe becomes joyful.

ANVAYA:
ayam abhiSeka-kAnti-pUraH rAdhAyAm zrIdaH syAt, vanam anu (ca) gokulam (anu ca) bhuvaM (anu) ca [zrIdaH syAt] | yat (yasmAt) khalu yogye vibhavaH akhilaM dhinoti, AmRtAMzu-mUrtau aMzUnAm udaya iva [akhilaM dhinoti] |

The light rays of this abhisheka will bring glory to Radha, to our forest, to the cowherd community, and to the whole earth, for honors given to the deserving enliven everyone, as does the full appearance of nectarean rays on the face of the moon.

||4.12||

yA vRndA-vipina-vibhUtir asti sAkSAt
kRSNAtmA priya-savayAz ca rAdhikA yA |
svasyAsau sa-maham abhinnayaiva lakSmyA
premNA tAM svayam abhiSektum Ihate’dya ||

Bhanu's translation: “Radha, surrounded by her dear friends, is endowed with the glory of Vraja’s forests. Today, by observing this festival Krishna is attempting to bathe Radha in unequalled glorious prema.

ANVAYA:
yA rAdhikA sAkSAt vRndA-vipina-vibhUtiH, kRSNAtmA, priya-savayAz ca asti, asau (zrI-kRSNaH) tAM adya (1) svasya abhinnayA eva lakSmyA (2) premNA (3) sa-maham (ca) svayam abhiSektum Ihate ||

This Radha is the glory of the Vrindavan forest; she is Krishna's soul and dearly loved by her friends. Today, in great pomp and circumstance, Krishna desires to personally crown her with the opulence that is not distinct from himself and with his love.

Is the Anvaya just the sanskrit words put into english word order like in the Sri Narayan Maharaj Bhagavadgita?

No, it's the natural Sanskrit word order, or prose word order. Sanskrit usually follows a simple (1) SUBJECT (2) OBJECT (3) VERB sequence. But in verse, the order can become quite confused. A commentary will usually start by breaking down the word order into its simplest components.

Thus, in the first verse above, we have: tadA sA vRndA Urdhva-sthA dUrAt ambara-bhaNita-cchalena nija-lapitAmRtaugha-varSaiH kim api mudA premArdra-vraja-jana-kAnti-kalpa-vallIm utphullAM cakAra | The simplest elements are

"(1) sA vRndA (2) *-vallIM (3a) utphullAM (3b) cakAra" | That is the core of the sentence. "(1) She, Vrinda, (3b) made (2) the vines (3a) flower."

This is not such a great example, because strictly speaking cakAra is the verb, and utphullAM is a part of the object.

Then you add the different modifiers:

1. Urdhva-sthA -- standing in a high place.
2. premArdra-vraja-jana-kAnti-kalpa-vallIm -- a compound word, that needs to be resolved a bit differently.
3. dUrAt ambara-bhaNita-cchalena nija-lapitAmRtaugha-varSaiH kim api mudA -- All these words are somehow or other modifying the verb.

The job of the translator is to convert the text from one language to another, in the consciousness that each language has its own mystique.

I was reflecting on this on reading the Madhava Mahotsava. There is a macro (prose) and a micro (poetry) approach to translation. Most Sanskrit kavya is very micro oriented. Each verse is meant to more or less stand on its own. Like Hamsaduta or Radha-rasa-sudha-nidhi, for instance. There is a thread, but the individual pearls are more important than the necklace.

English (as most modern European languages) is very much a macro language. The big picture is more important than the multiplication of ornaments and alankaras. A well-placed metaphor serves the overall movement of plot, action, or logical denouement, but excessively flowery language is considered a burden rather than a desideratum.

So the micro approach in translating requires one to take each verse individually, with Sanskrit, word by word, commentary, etc. The macro approach would be to brush out the excesses from the individual verses and concentrate on the thread.

In some cases, like the Chaitanya-charitamrita, Mahabharata or Bhagavatam, the macro approach is clearly necessary, otherwise one gets bogged down in details and loses the narrative thread, which in those cases is rather more important than the poetry.

Mahakavyas like Madhava-mahotsava, or champus like Gopala Champu and Ananda Vrindavan, fall into an "in-between" category, where there is an important story line, but the author tries to throw as much alankara at you as he can along the way.

Of course, in MM, it is clear that Bhanu "does not get" stuff here and there, which throws a reader off. It is like that with the translations of Mukta-carita as well. A few confused translations here and there can distract a reader terribly, leaving him or her floundering in the void.

So, my philosophy would be when translating into English to favor the "mystique" of the English language and concentrate on the big picture, smooth out any single-word translations that create bumps in the road (in other words, make the word fit the context), and jettison some of the ornamented language, or at least translate it very carefully so as not to obstruct the overall spirit.

A European reader will gladly sacrifice another lotus-metaphor or two in order to get a smooth read.

There is some sacrifice involved, and there would certainly be criticism, but I think this is a defensible approach. The reason for criticism would be that most novice translators are source-language-oriented, not target-language-oriented.

Anyway, it's becoming quite clear that Bhanu Maharaj is just translating the Bengali, not the Sanskrit.

Some things to watch for in general. I shall add to this list:

• As far as possible, use "Krishna's" rather than "of Krishna."
• Watch out for locutions like "in that place" where you could just say "there", "at that time" ==> "then," etc.<
• maNi can mean just "stone", it doesn't have to be jewels all the time. In a fluvial land like Bengal, nice stone of any kind is a rarity.

I hope this comment isn't out of place, given the direction this thread has taken; if so, I guess it can be moved.

Can we learn something by comparing several translators' attempts at rendering Caitanya Caritamrita Antya 19.20-21? The original Bengali is (please forgive my ignorance of proper Harvard-Kyoto or other such notation):

baulake kahiha — loka ha-ila baula
baulake kahiha — hate na vikaya caula
baulake kahiha — kaye nahika aula
baulake kahiha — iha kahiyache baula

The following three translations each take a notably different approach to the text. Each has some merit; the first adheres most strenuously to the form of the original, the second renders the text's meaning more fluidly than the first, and the third strikes me as beautiful poetry, perhaps capturing the "spirit" of the original most effectively, though taking the greatest liberties with the literal wording and format of the original.


Tell whom is mad — everyone is mad,
Tell whom is mad — rice retail is bad,
Tell whom is mad — mad market is bad,
Tell whom is mad — who speaks is mad!

--Swami B.S. Govinda, quoted by Swami B.S. Goswami


Please inform Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who is acting like a madman, that everyone here has become mad like Him. Inform Him also that in the marketplace, rice is no longer in demand. Those now mad in ecstatic love are no longer interested in the material world. Tell Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu that Advaita Prabhu, who has also become a madman in ecstatic love, has spoken these words.

--Swami B.V. Swami


Tell our Prabhu, who acts as madmen do,
that everyone has lost their sanity,
And rice once high in price has no value.
In love of God, half-crazed humanity
neglects this world and all they once held dear;
tell him a madman brings this to his ear.

--The Golden Volcano of Divine Love


Same text, markedly different approaches. What do you think of these as a translator, as a scholar, and/or as a reader?

I agree that the last is superior. Govinda Maharaj's translation seems to effectively communicate nothing, ACBSP's translation tells us too much and loses the playful nature of the original.

I have this version in my bank:

Tell that crazy man everyone’s gone crazy.
Tell that crazy man no one’s selling rice in the market any more.
Tell that crazy man there’s no more use for crazies like him.
Tell that crazy man that a crazy man said this. (CC 3.19.20-21)

This is a complex verse with many conflicting ideas about its meaning. In such cases the best translation may be the one that preserves such ambiguities. One that takes a stand on a particular interpretation in such cases may be the least valid one.

However, translations themselves are often independent literary statements. The Luther Bible or the King James version are examples. On the other hand, Muslims refuse to accept any translation of the Quran as valid because the Quran only exists in Arabic, the language in which it was revealed.

My personal feeling is that one has to take an interpretive stand when translating. This is the progressive path of a living tradition, but of course will result in a certain fragmentation as interpretations vary. Not really a bad thing, as long as people know what they are doing.

But I agree that we need more poetic renditions. I stopped doing them because they were too much work, but once in a while some flowed out.

I used to have a copy of the Caitanya caritamrta in six vols with sounds very much like the one that Jagat is quoting. I think it was a very beautiful and affectatious translation, but it went missing some years ago. Does anyone have a copy?

Here is something else for the translator to consider;
madhura prasanna ihar kavya salankar/
aiche kavitva bina nahe rasera pracar//
( C.C. Antya,2)

avismrtih krsna-padaravindayoh ksinotyabhadrani ca sam tanoti /
sattvasya sudhim paramatma-bhaktim jnanam ca vijnana-viraga-yuktam //

( Bhag.12.12.45)

The non-forgetfullness of Sri Krsna's lotus-feet disolves all evils and grants ultimate well-being; it purifies the conscious faculty, awakens loving devotion for the supreme self combined with knowledge and realisation of the reality and indifferance (to the world).

Do any of the readers have access to tikas on this sloka.I have seen some quoted by Sri Ananta das Pandit in his intro of Sri Madan mohandas babaji's edition of the Gutika, but if there is more I would like to see.
I like the compound word avismrti which seems to imply a conscious effort or to remember not to forget.

here's a verse from Caitanya candramrta;

namas-caitanya-canrdaya koti-cadranana-tvise/
premandabdhi-candraya caru candramsu-hasine//

Salutations to the moon-like Caitanya whose countenance as a million moons doth shine; who, like the moon from the ocean of love's ecstacy churned, sheds the soothing beams of his beautious smile.

Dear Jagat, would like to see some of your metric translations. And have you read the Ramayana and Mahabharata by Romesh Datta in English iambic tetrametre?

Later on was going to post an extract from C.C. that was done by this(me) some time ago, but is this the appropriate place for it.

Aren't you the personality who posted some nice poetry a while back? I'd certainly like to see more of it, and I would even like to collaborate. It's really been a while since I did anything like that. Mostly doggerel, I am afraid.

But when it does come to that, I'd like to see the Sanskrit plays done in a more formal style, perhaps we could think about it. Perhaps starting with the Danakelikaumudi, which is short and only has a 100 Sanskrit verses, some quite short and inconsequential.

What do you think? Want to give it a go?

That would be an honour, though I'm conscious of my disqualification, and though I try to sound it, I am not educated at all. Perhaps we can discuss it via e mail.
Anyway stumbled accross a nice verse today;

yAm nirvaktumabhUt prabhurnahi caturvaktro 'pi te mAdhurIm
tAmudghAtayAdya yadyapi satAm hAso mayA svIkrta /
viaphalyAya tathApi deva! bhavitA nAyam mamopAkramah
sarvAnartha-hara-tvadIya-bhajanAbhAso'pi yad-visrutah //
(Sri Rupa, Stavamala)

O Lord even the wise are unable to exhaustively describe your charming sweetness, which I now essay to do, thereby incuring much laughter among the saints. But it shall not be in vain, for as is well known, even the slightest semblance of your adoration removes all evils.

The plays might be a good place to start as you say. I know one devotee who has completed the Vidagdha madhav and is working on the other one.I have not read either unfortunately and would need to get familiar with the text.Same goes for Danakeli kaumudi, but I have read the Danakeli cintamani a few times.