Imperative to learn the significance of the non-translatable nature of Sanskrit

The encounter between Sanskrit, India’s ancient and sacred language, and the Western scholarly tradition of Orientalism has been complex and fraught. At the heart of this encounter lies a fundamental tension—the non-translatable nature of Sanskrit and its resistance to being fully captured or understood through the lens of Western linguistics and philosophy. This linguistic and conceptual gap became the site of intense political and intellectual contestation as Orientalist scholars sought to study, categorize, and ultimately dominate Indian knowledge systems. The non-translatable aspects of Sanskrit came up against Orientalist politics and academic practices, and this confrontation resulted in distortions and misrepresentations of the Bharàtiya  Jnana Parampara, i.e., Indian knowledge tradition. The non-translatable nature of Sanskrit helps to understand the clash between Sanskrit and Orientalism, for which we must first appreciate the unique linguistic and philosophical features that make Sanskrit particularly resistant to translation into Western languages.

To understand how Sanskrit’s non-translatable nature influences Orientalist politics, one must analyse the complex linguistic, cultural, and historical factors that have shaped Bharatiya knowledge transmission. This exchange has significantly shaped Western and Indian perceptions of philosophy and thinking. This is about non-translatability. Sanskrit has unique traits that make rendering its terms into Western languages like English difficult. This non-translatability transcends language. Still, language encases complete thought systems, cultural settings, and philosophical frameworks. The highly inflected form, compound word growth, and complicated relationship with Bharatiya intellectual and religious traditions make Sanskrit not completely translatable. Its non-translatability is multifaceted. First, its grammar retains clarity and nuance lost in translation. The Sanskrit system of compound words (samāsa) allows the formulation of complex concepts that would require lengthy English sentences. Brahman denotes ultimate reality, cosmic principle, and universal soul in Advaita Vedanta, which is hard to translate. Sanskrit phrases have many context-dependent and culturally unique meanings. Depending on the context, dharma eventually became duty, law, righteousness, cosmic order, or mostly religion. Polysemy makes translating complicated ideas challenging; thus, they may be misconstrued or oversimplified. 

Many essential phrases in Sanskrit are infused with centuries of intellectual debate due to their intimate ties with Indian philosophical and spiritual traditions. Karma, Yoga, and Moksha include complex systems of thinking that require substantial explication and contextualisation. Orientalist researchers trying to grasp and interpret Indian knowledge systems through Western ideas and language struggled with Sanskrit’s semantic elusiveness. According to Edward Said, Orientalism is the Western academic practice of researching and representing Eastern cultures from a position of cultural superiority to conquer or reform the Orient. Orientalist methods sometimes misrepresented Indian knowledge traditions in Sanskrit studies. Translating complicated Sanskrit principles into Western languages and systems of thought often led to unintentional distortions. Orientalist politics’ inclination to approach Indian philosophy through Western philosophical frameworks significantly impacted Sanskrit interpretation. This method usually imposed comparisons that misrepresented Indian philosophy. Early Orientalist researchers tried to fit Indian philosophical systems into Western terms like idealism, materialism, and pantheism, missing their unique characteristics and complexities. 

Orientalist researchers approximated or coined new words to translate complex themes. The Advaita Vedanta viewpoint shows this distortion. Western philosophy was influenced by early Orientalists’ translation of Advaita as monism. This interpretation misses Advaita Vedanta’s complex and distinctive perspective on reality, which differs from Western monistic philosophies. Orientalist Sanskrit valued particular literature and traditions, misrepresenting Indian knowledge. Literary and philosophical literature, especially so-called Brahmanical texts, took precedence over oral traditions, folk wisdom, and other intellectual schools. This selective reading of Sanskrit literature and traditions has far-reaching implications. It influenced Western and Indian ideas about Indian culture, philosophy, and philosophical legacy. Brahmanical texts were often elevated over other sources in Indian knowledge traditions due to Orientalist emphasis on specific texts that were held to be classical or ‘canonical’. Some Orientalists romanticized Indian culture. The esoteric, symbolic Sanskrit literary tropes and conventions were sometimes exploited to ‘exoticize’ Indian knowledge. Despite noble intentions, this romanticized view of Indian philosophy often ignored its rational and analytical sides and depicted it as mystical and otherworldly. 

Neo-Vedantic doctrines grew out of western interpretations of Sanskrit philosophical texts in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. The difficulties of interpreting Sanskrit have affected Indian history and culture. Therefore, historical texts and inscriptions are sometimes misconstrued. This has affected our view of Indian history, sometimes leading to culturally wrong interpretations of historical events and societal institutions. Sanskrit literature and Jana  Parampara are increasingly being approached on their terms rather than through Western lenses. New translation and interpretation tools help preserve Sanskrit terminology’s complexity. One method is anthropology-inspired ‘thick’ translation. The meaning and cultural importance of terms are explained by translation and in context. Reading can be difficult, but this method better depicts Indian thoughts. Another method is to contest translatability. Some experts say we should leverage Sanskrit concepts’ non-translatability to promote cross-cultural understanding rather than translate them. This concept makes non-translatability an opportunity to generate new ideas and perspectives. The internet has also made Sanskrit texts and ideas more accessible. Academics and readers can better interpret them across texts and traditions using digital tools and databases. But these new methods have downsides. Much of the vast Sanskrit literature is still untranslated or understudied, hindering understanding. 

Sanskrit texts require specialized knowledge, making them inaccessible to many readers and strengthening elitism in Indian traditions. Sanskrit is being revived in India to restore the country’s intellectual history. These attempts often oppose Orientalist narratives, but they may reinforce essentialist views of Indian culture that ignore its diversity and richness. Sanskrit scriptures have been translated and interpreted all over the world due to international interest in Indian philosophy and spirituality. This has increased access to Indian ideas, yet the worldwide yoga and mindfulness movements have decontextualised or commercialised Indic notions and ideas. However, an apt translation of Sanskrit in a post-Orientalist era is quite difficult. How can Sanskrit texts be made available worldwide without compromising the underlying culture and philosophy? Intercultural hermeneutics, which aims to debate between philosophical traditions without assuming that any framework is superior or universal, seems promising. The non-translatability of concepts is seen as an opportunity for mutual learning and exchange, not as a barrier to comprehension. Significantly, some Indian scholars and philosophers have reshaped the understanding of Sanskrit and its traditions in recent times. 

Once again, the interaction between Sanskrit and Orientalist politics has profoundly shaped our understanding of Indian knowledge traditions. As we move forward, the challenge is to develop strategies that can facilitate the understanding of Sanskrit and its philology while avoiding the pitfalls of Orientalist misrepresentation. This requires a delicate balance between preserving the specificity and richness of the language and thought and making it accessible to the general public. Ultimately, engaging with the complexity of Sanskrit offers an opportunity to refine and improve our approaches to language, culture, and knowledge. It invites us to embrace the complexity and diversity of human thought and seek understanding across linguistic and cultural boundaries. In doing so, we may gain a deeper appreciation of Bharatiya Jana Parampara and also enrich the global intellectual discourse.