Translational Methodology

The approach to translation applied here at Anuśīlana.in is dubbed demonstrative, explicated minimalism. It favors direct translation more so than communicative translation on the basis of a leaning more towards formal equivalence than functional equivalence. It is aimed rather sharply at foreignization rather than domestication of its source texts and recognizes an extensive set of Sanskrit untranslatables.

Some of the demerits of this approach are as follows:

• A lack of naturalness and readability, i.e., sometimes stilted English.
• Long sentences that may need to be read more than once to be grasped, especially in translations of elaborate verses and commentaries.
• A steeper learning curve in comparison to other approaches.

Some of its merits as follows:

• Greater grammatical precision.
• Creation of resources that support greater establishment and assimilation within English language discourse of common śāstric terminology in general, as well as Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava theological terminology in particulur.
• Minimization of irrelevant, misleading, or unnecessarily narrowed connotations, and of projection of elements of a translation’s target culture onto the source culture.
• Minimization of cultural appropriation and cultural digestion.

Core concept

The translational approach applied here is dubbed demonstrative, explicated minimalism because it seeks to convey source language content into the target language using a minimum of words in a manner that both (1) shows rather than tells readers how the content in the source language reads and (2) explains the meaning of the content where necessary without injecting explanation into the translation itself. This segregation of translation and explanation is achieved by flagging explanations with brackets wherever they are included in the midst of translations. The opposite approach, that of integrating explanations into translations themselves without making it clear to readers how much of a rendering is actually translation of the source text and how much of it is the translator’s explanation of the source text, howsoever well-intended and insightful it may be, is categorically avoided. In short, in the approach applied here, the act of “translating” a text is conceived as distinct from the act of “explaining” a text, with “translation” understood to mean transference of the meaning of a text into the target language in as formally equivalent language as is practically advantageous, and “explanation” understood to mean clarifying the meaning of the text by paraphrasing or elaborating on it.  

Although interpretation is inherent in any form and style of translation, the minimalist approach applied here aims to extend to the reader greater access to the interpretive process. It shies away from performing it entirely on the reader’s behalf as many translators do without even informing their audience they are doing it. This occurs when they present renderings of source text statements that are billed to readers as “translations” yet in actuality are paraphrased explanations of the source text’s original expressions with either a largely or an entirely reconstructed grammatical structure (but note that re-ordering of words and phrases to suit the syntax of the target language is not what is being referred to here). Such an approach makes creating renderings that are comfortable to read and more readily comprehensible immensely easier, and translators who render texts in this style are often praised as “good translators” by readers who are unaware of the liberties being taken by them in the process of creating the “translations” they are reading. 

The minimalist approach taken here, in contrast to the above, often leads to translations that are less easy to understand and less natural to read. This approach is thus not meant for readers who want things largely or entirely pre-processed for them but rather it is for those who want to have more access to the literal content of the source text itself and more agency in the interpretive process of reading it. For readers with the necessary patience and interest, this approach can ultimately lead to attaining a deeper and clearer sense of the meaning and intent of the source text. It also in many cases prevents a source text’s breadth in meaning and connotation from getting lost in translation, and often gives readers a greater feeling of insight into the feel and style of the source text.

If readers find that some translations rendered in this approach feel stilted or are cumbersome in length, they are asked to bear in mind that the minimalist approach applied here does not hold readability and appeal in the target language and target culture as its primary objective. Moreover, if one frequently reads, for example, the translations of Sanskrit commentaries done in this minimalist approach, some of the stilted expressions become easily recognizable as commonly recurrent constructions in the source text and soon read with an acquired smoothness.

Sentential integrity

The sentence is the fundamental unit of meaning in communication. Sanskrit hermeneutics, furthermore, teaches that meaning can be drawn neither from individual words nor from phrases outside of a sentence; rather, it is embedded inherently only in a sentential unit. Moreover, it is widely observed the most significant steps by which an author conveys a line of thought to readers is that of the sequence of the sentences in their writing. In light of this, significant effort has been applied in the minimalist approach taken here to translate with a one-to-one correspondence in sentential sequence and content. This is to say, all source text sentences are translated into the target language in the exact same number of sentences that the source text contains and with all the same content found in each sentence. The only exceptions to this are some extremely long and challenging sentences in certain Sanskrit commentaries or verses. When these are split up into more than one sentence in translation for the sake of readability and comprehension, readers are informed of this with a (^) symbol, which indicates that the content from the original sentence in the source text continues into the following sentence of the translation.

­Brackets

Square brackets are used to flag explanatory content added to translations by the translator, as well as content that is intended to be supplied within the sentence by the reader as per rules of Sanskrit grammar and hermeneutics.

Because Sanskrit commentaries are often intricate and make frequent use of demonstrative pronouns (or multiple sets of demonstrative pronouns in tandem), the bracketed explanations that are included in the midst of translations occur most commonly in the case of commentaries. Their purpose in almost all instances is to clarify the referent of pronouns under discussion and to clarify the author’s intent in cases where it may remain opaque to readers even after reading the direct translation of the author’s words. 

Readers are also requested to bear in mind that meticulous effort has been made to ensure that translations that include bracketed content read as complete sentences without the bracketed content that is present in the midst of them. In many cases, it may prove insightful to read such sentences first omitting the bracketed content and then read them again including the bracketed content. The only, relatively rare exceptions to this rule come in the case of certain Sanskrit commentaries that are written in the aforementioned elliptical fashion wherein certain words or phrases are absent in the written form of the text yet intended by the author to be supplied by the reader while reading the text with the understood sense that such words or phrases are intended by the author to be supplied in this manner by the reader during the reading process. In such cases, the supplied content is flagged in brackets to indicate it is not written in the text being translated even though it is intended to be read there by the author, and thus in such cases the content will not read as a complete sentence in English without the bracketed content. In some cases, however, especially that of Bengali poetry, where pronouns are so commonly left out of the written form of the text with the intent that that they be inferred from context and supplied by the reader, full rigor in bracketing all of the pronouns is not maintained in the interest of avoiding creating English prose that appears excessively cluttered with bracketed content.

Capitalization

Reverential capitalization is not applied to pronouns of any type in the minimalistic approached fostered here. The commonality of pronoun capitalization in translation of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava works is likely a legacy of Christian Missionaries’ influence on English language education and literature in late 19th century and early 20th century India given that Sanskrit and Bengali contain only a single case of letters and there is thus no upper/lower case distinction in those languages to beget or mandate such capitalization. The majority of present-day English language Bible editions, such as the NIV and KJV, as well as most prominent English language style guides like the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS), also omit reverential capitalization of pronouns. Omitting reverential capitalization also makes for a simpler and more efficient translation and editing process since it the removes the need to decide who is and who is not a worthy recipient of reverential capitalization as well as when or in what contexts such capitalization should be applied.

Terms

Nearly all terms of Sanskrit terms that are used untranslated on Anuśīlana.in are defined on the site itself using the terms’ source text definitions, be they from particular śāstras or the works of theologians such as Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmīpāda. Readers are encouraged to look up words they are unfamiliar with in the Sūktis category list or by running an in-site search on them. Numerous online Sanskrit dictionary resources, such as digital versions of the Apte and Monier-Williams dictionaries, can also provide useful references in some cases.

Italics

In contrast to the norm established by English language style guides, Sanskrit terms run without italics in the approach taken here unless they are being used as a word, as in the case of their being cited from a passage being translated to indicate which part of the English text is a rendering of them specifically. This omission of italics is also adopted as part of an effort towards Sanskritizing English. The line between words being foreign and non-foreign and thus fit or not fit for italicization is often gray, and numerous Sanskrit words, such as karma, guru, and mantra, are now no longer italicized since they are considered by dictionary and style guide authors to have become part of the English language and everyday vocabulary. Therefore, understanding that rules of grammar and style both shape usage and are shaped by usage, the approach taken here aims to support usage and assimilation of more Sanskrit terms into English parlance and thus omits italicization of them.  

Gender-inclusive language

Sanskrit is a gendered language, and Sanskrit texts have regularly used male pronouns and words with masculine case endings to refer to humans and living beings in general since antiquity. Śāstras such as Śrīmad Bhāgavatam also speak of “women” as asat-saṅga in no uncertain terms (e.g., SB 3.31.39). The minimalistic approach to translation applied here does not seek to mask these aspects of the texts in translation in response to 21st century sensitivities regarding gendered language. It sees the responsibility of properly interpreting gendered language to be more the reader’s than the translator’s.

Be that as it may, in cases where a gender neutral rendering of a noun or pronoun can be achieved in the target language without modifying the grammatical structure of the source text expression and such a rendering is considered acceptably in keeping with the intended sense of the source text, then such a rendering has often been given, as in the case of rendering gendered words such as naraḥ, “man,” and narāḥ, “men,” as “person” and “people,” and gendered pronouns like saḥ and tasya as “one” and “one’s” rather than “he” and “his”. In some cases, however, masculine nouns and pronouns are used in the translation in keeping with the gender and norms found in the source text. 

In Sanskrit hermeneutics, all such instances of male nouns and pronouns being used refer to humans or living beings in general, as well as all statements made which discourage association with women are known as upalakṣaṇas, that is, words that function as indicators of both themselves and the other members of the category to which they are meant to be inferred to belong to or be applied to from the context of the statement. The proper meaning of such words is thus to be grasped by means of what is known as ajahat-svārthā lakṣaṇā-vṛtti, i.e., the indicatory function of a word whereby it acts as the signifier of a contextually implied category while not necessarily giving up its own literal meaning (see Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī’s Sarva-saṁvādinī on anuccheda 11 of Tattva Sandarbha for further discussion of this hermeneutic). This means that in the case of the word naraḥ, “man,” being used to refer to a human being in general, the meaning is to be understood from the word is a person of any gender, such as a male. The word thus indicates a category while also retaining its own literal meaning. Similarly, if associating with women is described as being “even more detrimental than drinking poison” (see CNN 8.24, CC 2.11.8), the word women in such a statement is to be interpreted to mean any member of any gender whose association is detrimental to one’s own pursuit of transcendence, which in the case of some may include women and in the case of others may not.

A classical example of speech in which the listener is expected to interpret a word in this way is as follows: “Kākebhyaḥ dadhi rakṣatām: protect the yoghurt from the crows.” When a mother instructs her son in this way, she does not literally mean only crows but also means any other animal or entity that might spoil a pot of yoghurt by any means. If her son, after hearing her instruction, were to sit by and watch as a cat came up and started eating the yoghurt, thinking his mother only wants him to watch out for crows and not for cats, then the boy’s mother might well become frustrated that the boy did not understand what she meant even though he clearly understood the literal meaning of her instruction and followed it. Similarly, statements in śāstra that warm aspiring transcendentalists of the association of “women” are evidently meant to be interpreted to mean anyone of any gender whose association is an obstacle to anyone else of any other gender as per whatever the case may be in any given circumstances.

The approach to translation applied here for the most part leaves the responsibility of interpreting gendered language to readers in the aforementioned manner in keeping within its minimalist premise.

Transliteration

Sanskrit and Bengali text is transliterated according to the IAST standard.

Spelling

Using the stem form [i.e., the undeclined form] of Sanskrit nouns when they are left untranslated in English prose is a norm that has gained traction in English language academic writing on Sanskrit literature. This norm is also followed here with the exception that most words the stem form of which ends in a consonant, such as preman and dharman, are rendered without the final consonant, that is, as prema and dharma. This dropping of the final consonant in the case of words the stem form of which ends in a consonant is common in modern India vernacular languages, such as Bengali and Hindi, and can already be observed in numerous words that have gained widespread recognition in English, such as the word yogi being now found in English dictionaries and not rather its the stem form yogin. There are some exceptions to this exception, however, such as Brahman, since this word is found in English dictionaries in its stem form and the retention of the ‘n’ helps to avoid confusion with Brahmā, the name of the devatā of universal emanation.

Passive voice

English language grammar books and style guides largely discourage usage of the passive voice and portray it as inferior to constructions in the active voice. Sanskrit grammarians, poets, and commentators of the present and long into the past, as well as past and present writers and speakers of medieval and modern Bengali, do not share this disfavoring attitude in the least. On the contrary, constructions in the passive voice, which is known in Sanskrit vyākaraṇa and modern-day Bengal grammar as karma-vācya, are both very common and valued in Sanskrit and Bengali. Moreover, since usage of the active voice, which is known in Sanskrit and Bengali grammar as kartṛ-vācya, tends to put emphasis on the agent of an action, whereas the passive voice tends instead to put emphasis on the object of the action and/or the action itself, among śāstrically educated Bengali and Sanskrit speakers, using the active voice in first person is sometimes considered to be an arrogant way of speaking, and Vaiṣṇavas in particular often favor the usage of passive voice when speaking of actions which were performed through oneself as an agent to avoid putting pointed or excessive emphasis on one’s own role as the agent of the action. Such a manner of speaking and its normative usage in the Sanskrit and Bengali speaking communities fosters a less ego-centric way not only of speaking but of thinking itself, and since the contours and norms of language inevitably shape one’s thoughts, they so also stand to influence one’s actions and destiny.

These sensitivities can be drawn back to principles taught in texts such as Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā, wherein Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa that considering oneself the primary agent of the actions one performs is a symptom of being ignorant and deluded by egotism and that the wise consider the actions which they are the instrument in the execution of to be carried out primarily by the senses and guṇas of prakṛti (see BG 3.27), which in turn are impelled by Bhagavān himself (see BG 9.10).

The minimalist approach taken here passive voice constructions are thus viewed as an integral, endearing, and insightful feature of the communication within the Sanskrit and Bengali speaking communities that facilitate communication which in its very construction incorporates greater awareness of the presence and agency of divinity as well as awareness of oneself as more an instrument in the execution of action than the primary agent. Thus, although English language readers may find translations that preserve source language usage of the passive voice in translation stilted, verbose, and/or vague, the minimalist approach taken here recognizes no mandate to invariably flip source text passive voice constructions into active voice target language constructions and thus usage of the passive voice is largely retained in the translation in most cases, unless it is felt that the usage of the passive voice in the source text in a given instance is merely idiomatic or a rendering of the content in the passive voice in the target language will result in a rendering that feels excessively strained.

Acknowledgement 

Lastly, the minimalist approach applied here is offered as a compliment to the existing body of translations of Sanskrit śāstras and Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava works in the English language. It is only one of many approaches that can be taken, which, like them all, has its merits and demerits and can only at best convey a limited aspect of a text’s scope and depth of meaning. Because the majority of English language translations of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava works lean towards functional equivalence and domestication, it is hoped that the approach taken here will enrich the existing body of translated literature with its less common and thus complimentary methodology. Moreover, it is offered with the view that numerous translations of a given text are ultimately necessary for target language readers to compare and reflect on in the process of striving to assimilate its message.