conceptual fallacy of transportation - - you cant translate cultural connotations
Folks, I've been meaning to write this for months, given the importance of this topic. I think we need to tweak our understanding of this matter because it is way off the mark right now. The so-called translation problem is even worse than we think it is. It is not a problem involving words and meanings but is more of a theoretical problem that relates to the entire framework that shapes the way we think.
Ever since our colonization we have taken on the Abrahamic way of talking without really understanding what we are talking about. This has been one of the greatest failing of Hindus. While our enemies were busy studying us to death, we sat back and did not care to understand what their religion and culture were all about.
As a result of this, we adopted their way of thinking so that now we no longer have an intuitive understanding of many of the words in our own languages. This is especially true when it comes to talking about human psychology. We are as clueless about words such as manas and buddhi as as anyone from the West who wants to study our traditions. When it comes to words like these we do with them exactly what we do with words like deva andpuja. We map them on to certain words in English and understand them in the way that the West has taught us to understand them. This is what is so insidious about the translation problem. It is not confined just to translation into English. It encompasses the way we talk in our native Indian languages. The framework of the western cultural experience has been so dominant in the last 300 years that language-use in Hindi, Kannada, Tamil, Gujarati, Marathi, Sanskrit, and every other Indian language has been distorted.
Please remember that many of these words have to do with basic human psychology. These are words that we use to talk about ourselves, our friends, husbands, wives, parents, kids, and other human beings. Therefore, we cannot sit back and proclaim that there are many Hindu experts and scholars who do know what they are talking about. Given the fundamental importance of a vocabulary that allows us to talk about ourselves, we cannot sit back and rely on a community of specialists. We must be able to relate to these words as we live and breathe. Even if our experts tell us what these words mean, how do we understand them in ourselves? Is my desire for a dosa an expression of mymanas or my buddhi? When I want to punch somebody, what prevents me: buddhi, chitta, manas, dharma, or, to use Christian terminology, the conscience? What if my buddhi and manasboth support me in wanting to punch someone? What then is the difference between the two? What do I need to train if I want to improve? How do I identify that entity? How do I know what trains it? Your experts, it turns out, will have to appeal to the words I already know in order to explain to me what buddhi or manas is. Merely knowing a word cannot help me identify it in myself. Our approach to studying human psychology was different from the subject 'psychology' that is taught in schools and universities.
Distortions in our understanding of our own traditions had already started with the Islamic colonization. They became more systematized when the missionaries and European scholars began with their translations. The next level of distortion started when Indians themselves adopted this way of talking in English. Finally, distortions occurred when Indians then translated their way of talking in English back into the Indian languages. After all these distortions, there is no way of telling how the cognition of Indians has changed in the past few centuries. In many ways we are as clueless as anyone from the West who studies our traditions. What they learn from studying Patanjali is also what we learn by studying Patanjali. This is the reason why earlier generations of Indians did not object to the translations the British came up with. It’s because our understanding of Ishwara is as shallow as our understanding of God.
This problem cannot be solved by merely retaining words in our own language. As a first step we have to understand the culture that inflicted this framework that we have become trapped in. In other words, the so-called translation problem is a theoretical problem, and as long as we accept the theoretical framework provided by the West, whether it involves religion or cosmology or whether it has to do with human psychology, we will not be able to solve the problem.
We need to develop alternative theoretical frameworks to rival those of the West. Our frameworks may well be superior when talking about human psychology, let’s say. They may not be adequate when talking about the cosmos. Accordingly, we can adopt, adapt, or discard our frameworks. Meanwhile, just quibbling over the meaning of what brhamanda exactly means is a useless exercise. What may have been cutting edge at the time of Aryabhata and Agastya may not be relevant any more. The fact that we are willing to accept every bit of knowledge that was produced 5000 years ago without any critical reflection is further proof of the fact that we are so out of touch with our traditions. It is not about studying some ancient text but really understanding their approach to knowledge. With all due respect, merely using Sanskrit words in some contexts is a useless exercise. If we really understood what we were talking about, we would be able to express it in any language.
Divya Jhingran
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें