Responding to complaints from Hindu conservatives regarding translations of Indian scriptures and issues of Interpretations - Part I

When I recently published this post on the use of revisionism by Vedanta apologists to prop up the bogus theories of  their cult, apart from other churlish responses from one Madhava Rao (M. Rao), there was another one from him in response my refuting his weak argument on use of translations of Upanishads by me to refute its doctrines.

My response to M.Rao's earlier translation argument was one these lines:

In order to understand the bizarreness and absurdity of this translation argument (though it is a routine tactic of Hindu apology), let me try to rephrase this. 

What this argument is telling us is that in order to refute, object to or criticize a Vedic, Vedantic or Puranic doctrine, the critic should read the works in their original Sanskrit and not rely on translations to form any opposing opinions on them. What is very conveniently left unsaid is that in order to agree with these doctrines (which is the default religious reflex) there is no need to know any Sanskrit or read any of the original works. The commenter does not say so but it looks very likely that he may not know any Sanskrit himself. But that does not stop him or other Hindu defenders from insisting that critics should be knowing Sanskrit and not using translations. 

The irony is that most of the knowledge of Hindus about Puranas and epics is via oral story telling and similar methods which use translations into Indian languages from original Sanskrit texts. Very few Hindus/Indians have read any of their scriptures or commentaries in the original Sanskrit form. Yet they have no problem in believing the events of the Ramayana, Mahabharata or Puranas and doctrines of the Vedas and Upanishads. But they find all sorts of problems and objections when those same sources are used for criticism and refutation. 

This is like saying that to understand Buddhism and its doctrines and teachings and to form an opinion on them, one should read the Pali canons and suttas in Pali or Prakrit only and not use its translations into other languages. Adi Sankara is not known to have any grasp of Pali, Prakrit or Magadhi, but that did not stop him from refuting Buddhist doctrines of Sunyata and Annata, though they are reported to have been derived from Buddha's teachings to his disciples recorded in the Pali canons and suttas.

Put this way, the fallacy of this translation argument which can also be termed as the 'fallacy of special pleading' will be become obvious and one can see through the hypocrisy and double standards of this type of argument of Hindu conservative defense.

So here goes M.Rao's comment-response:

"I have problem with any translations or interpretations of the ancient writings because most of them start with preconceived personal ideas, self interests, and prejudices of their own. I don’t mind reading those translations but do not attribute them to the Vedic thoughts if they don’t make sense. They are only the translator's interpretations and not necessarily the true thoughts of the ancient Maharishis. 

The Maharishis were scholarly men of high intellect and spent their lifetime in forests and mountaintops in contemplation. The subject of their contemplation can only inferred. One can be certain they were powerful thoughts because they gave rise to the most colorful civilization of beautiful arts, literature, and philosophy, and world's religions Buddhism and Jainism. With such profound influence it is not rational to consider those thoughts as hallucinations of senile old men sitting high on mountaintops deprived of oxygen. If the Rishis talked about Agni, Vayu, Varuna, and Aswins were they worshipping the physical elements and horses? Why did they constantly worry about the strong man Bala stealing cows and hiding them in his cave. Veda Vyasa was a scholarly gentleman but why did he bother to write a treatise about what appears to be a common family quarrel between brothers and their cousins about a piece of land? Why is a kidnap thriller a holy book? If they don’t make sense all this about Hinduism could be BS as you have noted. Or those thoughts and the puranas are not interpreted as the Rishis intended. I strongly believe that it must be the latter. The key perhaps lies in the metaphorical style of Rishis in expressing their thoughts.

The Acharyas. Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madwa did not agree with each other about their interpretation of Vedas. So you have company if did not like Shankaracharya's Vedanta. The three hated each other so much that they have their own communal followings with the segregated communities prohibited some years ago from not even dining together. I would read their interpretations but do not wish to become a blind follower nor needlessly get agitated with the interpretations. Historians say that the rise of Buddhism all over India during Emperor Ashoka's time was a big headache to the Acharayas. They ultimately managed by elevating Buddha to an Avatar level but banished Buddhism from its place of birth. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar who advocated conversion of untouchable into Buddhism hated all three Acharayas because he considered they were responsible for all the social ills. He too read Vedas but came to his own biased interpretations which naturally are all negative. He talks of historical evidence that Lord Venkateswara temple in Tirupati was originally a Buddhist shrine but taken over and converted to a temple by the Acharyas with help of local kings. He says that ceremony of offering hair to the Lord really came from the Buddhist custom. The story doesn’t end there. Initially the temple was said to be controlled Advaita group and so the Lord was branded on his forehead (namam) with horizontal bars. Subsequently the Vaishnavites became stronger - took over the temple and changed the horizontal bars into vertical bars. Even after all these historical turmoils and upheavals the mystery of Vedas still remains".

This is a pretty detailed response but which talks nothing about what the responder thinks of the doctrines of the Upanishads and Vedanta, Instead he is referring to the Vedas and the Mahabharata, which were not at all referred to in the arguments against the Vedanta.It is typical of Hindu conservative apology is to make irrelevant and discursive arguments unrelated to the topic, but affecting the overall interests and image of the Hindu religion. But I still decided to respond since some interestingly fallacious arguments were made in them, which are in need of refutation, which also serve to expose the poor idea that most Hindus have about the history and background of their scriptures and their complete disdain of literary and analytic criticism. Since I had to be detailed and  specific in my responses I have decided to divide and conquer this bundle of apologetic ranting. I have highlighted above the parts being responded to  and reproduce below the detailed refutation and counter-points to them:

M.Rao's 1st comment : “I have a problem with any translations or interpretations of the ancient writings because most of them start with preconceived personal ideas, self interests, and prejudices of their own.”

My response:

This looks like your own problem and not necessarily the problem of translation or the translators. To say that these translations start with preconceived personal ideas, self interests, and prejudices of their own, is quite a serious accusation for which a detailed description and reasoning requires to be given. It does not look like you have provided any basis for such a sweeping accusation against the translations and its authors.

In fact most of the western Indologists, especially HH Wilson, William Jones and even Max Mueller, who have translated the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas and other scriptural works were very appreciative and in awe of them(though they may not be supportive of Hinduism) . A few prominent German philosophers (Schopenhauer and Nietzsche)   were known to have been greatly influenced by and admiring of the Gita and Upanishads.

So even if we assume for the sake of argument, from their attitude towards these scriptures that they had  preconceived personal ideas, self interests, and prejudices of their own, it looks clearly disposed favorably towards these scriptures rather than against them.  The other factor that works  against your tactic of discrediting translation of Vedas and other ancient scriptures is that there are not one or two but many translations of these works.

Then there are also translations into English by Indian acharyas and swamis of Upanishads and Vedanta, and these do not differ substantively from the translations by Max Mueller or Sanderson Beck. Also when an Indologist translator differs, in the interpretation of a word or phrase in Sanskrit  from other schools or technique or tradition, he provides a basis or explanation for that, as I have read a John Muir or Richard Garbe or Michael Wetzel do in some of their works. Many indologists did not offer any specific view or opinion of the dogmas or doctrines of Vedas and Upanishads and were more concerned with issues of chronology and historicity. So how can their translations or recordings be accused of preconceived personal ideas, self interests, and prejudices.

For instance Ralph T.H. Griffiths translation of the Rig Veda is one of the more prominent ones and is even used by Hindu Websites to propagate that scripture to its patrons. If Ralph T.H. Griffith’s translation is according to your assumption vitiated by  his preconceived personal ideas, self interests, and prejudices of their own, why is it being widely used and not contested or refuted or challenged by Indian and Hindu scholars.

Going by that reckoning, it looks like clearly that even Hindu intelligentsia or conservative elite in their actual behavior  do not doubt the veracity or competence of these translations, though they keep harping on the bogus argument that translations cannot capture the deeper meanings of the scriptures. What they don’t understand or pretend not to is that capturing deeper and metaphorical meanings and nuances, if any  is not the work of translation, but that of inquiry and  interpretation.

Confusing these two different objectives may seem to help the argument of the Hindu conservatism, but this ruse or tactic can be seen through. Their real quarrel or objection is not with the translation per se but with the interpretation of the critic or skeptic which is unfavorable or unflattering to the scriptures. I really doubt if this person has any understanding or appreciation of how translation works and how the use of linguistics and system of review and analysis can enhance the reliability and competence of the product of translation.

A perusal of this link to the Vedic reader on sacredtexts.com would provide anyone interested in the Veda bibliography , good idea of how the Vedas were analyzed, interpreted and translated.

Though I have used the translations to arrive at a very critical and negative view of Indian scriptures, the reasons for that are explained in a lot of detail in my various posts and comments. Without considering those detailed arguments and refutations and without providing any valid counter-points to them, shifting the blame onto the so-called integrity and competence of the translations is very much a self-defeating tactic.


M Rao's next comment: “I don’t mind reading those translations but do not attribute them to the Vedic thoughts if they don’t make sense. They are only the translator's interpretations and not necessarily the true thoughts of the ancient Maharishis.”

My response:
Before getting into a more detailed rebuttal of the fallacious argument made by M. Rao, the first question that needs to be put to the apologist is how does he know the true thoughts of the ancient Maharishis other than through what the Maharishis have recorded in the Vedic mantras or what has been ascribed to them in those mantras.

And what are these great Vedic thoughts that this apologist alone is privy to, and is not able to attribute to these translations.

Though unlikely with his ignorance of Sanskrit, how is he able to arrive at a  contradistinction between the  true thoughts of the Maharishi from the supposedly colored interpretations of the translator. He will face the same trap that he thought he has laid out for the critic. Here it is not only necessarily for the apologist to know Sanskrit better than the translator (of which he has hardly supplied any proof), but he also needs to show how he is able to divine or understand the true thoughts of the ancient Maharishis and how and why did he reach the certainty that the mantras necessarily reflect the true thoughts of the Maharishis.

To make his case worse he is also silent on what those true thoughts of the Maharishis are which have been falsified by the prejudice of the translators and what is the precise nature of that prejudice or preconception. It will not suffice to recklessly dismiss the works of translation as mere products blemished by  preconceived personal ideas, self interests, and prejudices of their own, without elaborating what those preconceived personal ideas, self interests, and prejudices exactly are and how they misrepresent the ‘original’ and ‘true thoughts’ of the Maharishis of the Vedas and Upanishads.

Vague and generalized accusations are among the default defensive ploys of a religious apologist. But unfortunately for them critics and skeptics do not give up so easily and can continue to chase the apologist to provide verifiable details of the argument he is taking up.

As an experiment the apologist is free to take a verse or two from the Rig Veda or the primary Upanishads or even both and point out the faults of any widely circulating translations on them and compare them with his own translation by providing detailed justification for that difference in his translation. He may also describe the ‘true thoughts’ of the Maharishi that he may have gleaned from those verses and how he arrived at the truth and certainty of those ‘true thoughts’.

Though it may prove fatal or damaging to his argument, he would need to show how he determined that the verse is written by a specific Maharishi and not ghost written for him by a later Sanskrit priest or scholar in around 600 BCE or a little earlier than that. The historical and linguistic consensus is that the peculiarities of Vedic oral traditions and subsequent composition techniques have preserved the integrity of the original Vedic verses to a great extent. So our apologist, not probably having realized that he is going against the grain of such overwhelming academic agreement, has his hard work really cut out for him.

I would be curious to know if he will respond to these counter-points and take up the challenge of the experiment suggested to him.