Comments on Witzel's "final answer"

[JHOUBEN at rullet.LeidenUniv.nl]

Comments on Witzel's "final answer" 

Comments on Prof. M. Witzel's 29 November "final answer" to the messages on 
translation, after his criticism of W D.O.'s translation of Sanskrit texts. 

A. The criticisms and the discussion show that Sanskrit studies are in a 
deplorable state. For decades since the end of the last and the beginning of 
the present century, no new grammar of Vedic Sanskrit has been written which 
integrates the results of fundamental research in the field of Syntax, such as 
K. Hoffmann's Der Injunktiv. A comprehensive handbook on the uses and functions 
of the crucial particles (tu, ca, api, etc.) in different fields of Sanskrit 
literature (Vedic, Saastric, Epic) has so far not been written. 

B. As for the specific translation problems of 'scientific' Sanskrit, I suggest 
that if certain basic transformations are allowed, such as genitive + abstract 
noun ----> subject + predicate, it is possible to remain close to the original 
and yet produce a 'digestible' translation. This is what I tried to do in my 
translation of Helaaraaja's Prakiir.na-prakaaza, the oldest available 
commentary on the Sambandha-samuddeza of Bhart.rhari's Vaakyapadiiya (in: 
Bhart.rhari's philosophy of Language: to appear shortly in Groningen: Egbert 
Forsten Publishing, vol. 2 of Gonda Indological Series). For determining which 
transformations should be defensible use was made mainly of Hermann Jacobi's 
"Ueber den nominalen Stil des wissenschaftlichen Sanskrits" (Jacobi, 1903) and 
Peter Hartmann, Nominale Ausdrucksformen im wissenschaftlichen Sanskrit 
(Hartmann, 1955). In the case of a *good* author like Helaaraaja, whose style 
remains generally lucid even when 'scientific', these basic transformations 
suffice to yield an often quite understandable philosophical argument in 
translation. Nevertheless, the discussions are so specialistic and presuppose 
so much detailed knowledge of Saastric texts that each step in the discussion 
requires a considerable amount of explanation. Unlike Stephen Phillips (as I 
understood him from his contributions to the discussion, e.g. 29 November) I 
think that the requirements of being faithful to the Sanskrit original and of 
being understandable to a larger public are so divergent that it is better to 
separate the direct and systematic translation of the original, from sections 
which seek to reach a wider audience: paraphrases, explanations and discussions 
of the original Sanskrit text. (In the case of the above-mentioned book on 
Bhart.hari's philosophy of language, I placed the translation of Helaaraaja's 
commentary in an Appendix, while summaries and paraphrases of it were placed in 
the main body of the work devoted to the interpretation of the 88 verses of the 
Sambandha-samuddeza.)

C. The purport of points A and B is that there definitely is scope for progress 
in Sanskrit Studies in the way scholars and scientists generally like to see 
'progress': as an approximation "with *increasing precision*" of "the correct 
representation" (quotes from Witzel's final comments) of an original Sanskrit 
text. This scope is especially found in more precise descriptions of 
grammatical structures and functions in Sanskrit against the background of 
those in a modern language like English. In the field of the lexicon, however, 
there is a very disturbing factor for those aiming at an increasing precision 
over time: the variability of the lexicon of the purpose language. (The 
grammatical structure of English is much more stable over time and less open to 
cultural variation, although stylistic fashions may gradually transfrom the 
grammar as well. The variability on the lexical level is also found on the 
macro-level of the interpretation of a text as a meaningful whole, but this 
aspect was not part of the preceding discussion.) This problem applies to 
cultural terms (I now know of no better example than the word 'gay' in modern 
English and in Monier-Williams English-Sanskrit dictionary) but probably even 
more so to terms which overlap with modern technical, philosophical or 
scientific notions (cf. var.na rendered as 'letter' in Monier-Williams Sanskrit-
English dictionary, and Wezler's discussion in his article "Credo quia 
occidentale: a note on Sanskrit var.na and its misinterpretation in literature 
on Miimaamsaa and Vyaakara.na" in Studies in Miimaamsaa, Dr. Mandan Mishra 
Felicitation Volume). The problem is a very basic one and in its own dimension 
similar to the one indicated by Wilhelm Halbfass when he said that it is 
difficult to find a reliable platform of 'latest research' in modern Western 
ontology, on the basis of which the contributions to ontological thought in the 
Sanskrit tradition can be interpreted and evaluated (cf. Halbfass, On Being and 
What there is, 1992:11). In this field, encompassing the problem area of 
Witzel's 'intranslatable' terms dharma, .rta, etc., there seems to be no scope 
for a more or less linear progress. Rather, it is to be admitted that 
'Orientalism' has a point here, that our understanding of the *other* is not 
separable from the influence and limitations of *our own* concepts, constructs 
and decisions, and that an entirely objective interpretation of ancient texts 
is by definition impossible. Wouldn't it be as objectionable to posit the 
culture in which a text originated as entirely different from the present 
(something in which romanticists excelled) as it is to posit it as basically 
the same as the present (the 'Orientalists' as criticized by Witzel)? 
Nevertheless, I think that from a methodological point of view the latter 
option is to preferred in the following sense: presuppose similarity with what 
is known unless there are reasons to believe otherwise. This means, among other 
things, that we should not posit a separate 'Indian rationality' but that what 
is rational in Europe is and was also rational in India (cf. the recurrent 
argument in this direction by Staal in his Universals, 1988). The 
methodological problem whether in historical reconstructions a fundamental 
sameness or difference is to be presupposed has been discussed also in other 
branches of learning, cf. the so called Uniformitarian Principle which posits 
as a working hypothesis that "knowledge of processes that operated in the past 
can be inferred by observing ongoing processes in the present" (Christie 
1983:ix, cited in Labov 1994, Principles of Linguistic Change:21). This also 
means that *in principle* issues of scientific and philosophical discussions in 
the Sanskrit tradition may be very relevant to modern discussions in similar 
fields. Bhart.rhari's discussions concerning the relation between language, 
thought and reality do resonate strongly with modern discussions on these 
perennial issues (issues, moreover, which recur, as if independently, in 
remarkably similar forms in other intellectual contexts as in the Arabic, 
Hebrew and Greek tradition, cf. The Emergence of Semantics in Four Linguistic 
Traditions, by Versteegh, Sluiter, van Bekkum and Houben, to appear in 
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins). It is precisely in these cases that 
the temptation is greatest to read too much of one's own ideas into the 
Sanskrit text, and it is here that there is a great need, not for mere 
explanatory paraphrases nor for merely a precise but incomprehensible 
translation in accordance with the basics of Sanskrit grammar, but for a 
balanced combination of both. The scope of progress in this area is quite 
different and cannot be entirely 'rectilinear'. The study of crucial terms and 
concepts requires that the great number of works of major philosophical, 
scientific, poetical, religious, and cultural interest of which the Sanskrit 
tradition can boast are made accessible in a faithful way and at the same time 
rethought in a sensitive and comprehensive way. It is to be accepted beforehand 
that the results of such efforts will at one time be outdated in certain 
perhaps even vital respects, precisely because they result from a strongly 
dialectical relationship with the here and now. There is, moreover, a definite 
risk that one's 'sense of progress' in this area of philosophical and cultural 
interpretation soon turns out to be deceptive (cf. Frauwallner's "Der arische 
Anteil an der indischen Philosophie" ZDMG 1938, WZKM 1939, in which the author 
follows a line of thought which he fortunately discontinued in his admirable 
later oeuvre). But that does not make it less important and less exciting to 
work in this area of confrontation where the waves from the ocean of the past 
do not remain on a safe distance but beat and shake the shores of the present 
under the overarching stormy sky of human existence. 

Jan E.M. Houben,
Research Fellow IIAS, Leiden