The Upanishads, Part II — SBE Vol. 15 — trans. F. Max Müller (1884)
The translator’s English as printed. The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
Upanishads will probably have to go beyond. Where I had an opportunity of comparing other commentaries, besides those of Sankara, it became quite clear that they often followed a different text, and when, as in the case of the Maitrayaza-brabmava-upanishad, I was enabled to collate copies which came from the South of India, the opinion which I have often expressed of the great value of Southern MSS. received fresh confirmation.
The study of Grantha and other Southern MSS. will inaugurate, I believe, a new period in the critical treatment of Sanskrit texts, and the text of the Upanishads will, I hope, benefit quite as much as later texts by the treasures still concealed in the libraries of the Dekhan.
The rule which I have followed myself, and which I have asked my fellow translators to follow, has been adhered to in this new volume also, viz. whenever a choice has to be made between what is not quite faithful and what is not quite English, to surrender without hesitation the idiom rather than the accuracy of the translation.
I know that all true scholars have approved of this, and if some of our critics have been offended by certain unidiomatic expressions occurring in our translations, all I can say is, that we shall always be most grateful if they would suggest translations which are not only faithful, but also idiomatic. For the purpose we have in view, a rugged but faithful translation seems to us more useful than a smooth but misleading one. .
However, we have laid ourselves open to another kind of censure also, namely, of having occasionally not been literal enough. It is impossible to argue these questions in general, but every translator knows that in many cases a literal translation may convey an entirely wrong meaning: I shall give at least one instance.
My old friend, Mr. Nehemiah Goreh—at least I hope he will still allow me to call him so—in the ‘Occasional Papers on Missionary Subjects,’ First Series, No. 6, quotes, on p. 39, a passage from the KX Aandogya-upanishad, translates it into English, and then remarks that I had not translated it accurately. But the fault seems to me to lie
XIV UPANISHADS.
entirely with him, in attempting to translate a passage without considering the whole chapter of which it forms a part. Mr. Nehemiah Goreh states the beginning of the story rightly when he says that a youth by name Svetaketu went, by the advice of his father, to a teacher to study under him. After spending twelve years, as was customary, with the teacher, when he returned home he appeared rather elated. Then the father asked him: Uta tam adesam apraksho! yendsrutam srutam bhavaty amatam matam avignatam vigwatam iti? I translated this: ‘ Have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?’ Mr. Nehemiah Goreh translates: ‘Hast thou asked (of thy teacher) for that instruction by which what is not heard becomes heard, what is not comprehended becomes comprehended, what is not known becomes known?’ I shall not quarrel with my friend for translating man by to comprehend rather than by to perceive. I prefer my own translation, because manas is one side of the common sensory (antadkarama), buddhi, the other ; the original difference between the two being, so far as I can see, that the manas originally dealt with percepts, the buddhi with concepts”. But the chief difference on which my critic lays stress is that I translated asrutam, amatam, and avignzatam not by ‘not heard, not comprehended, not known,’ but by ‘what cannot be heard, what cannot be perceived, what cannot be known.’ Now, before finding fault, why did he not ask himself what possible reason I could have had for deviating from the original, and for translating avignata by unknowable or
1 Mr. Nehemiah Goreh writes aprakshyo, and this is no doubt the reading adopted by Roer in his edition of the AAandogya-upanishad in the Bibliotheca Indica, p. 384. In Sankara’s commentary also the same form is given. Still grammar requires apraksho. ?
The Pastkadasi (1, 20) distinguishes between manas and buddhi, by saying, mano vimarsartipam syad buddhik syAn niskayatmik4, which places the difference between the two rather in the degree of certainty, ascribing deliberation to manas, decision to buddhi.
Upanishads will probably have to go beyond. Where I had an opportunity of comparing other commentaries, besides those of Sankara, it became quite clear that they often followed a different text, and when, as in the case of the Maitrayaza-brabmava-upanishad, I was enabled to collate copies which came from the South of India, the opinion which I have often expressed of the great value of Southern MSS. received fresh confirmation.
The study of Grantha and other Southern MSS. will inaugurate, I believe, a new period in the critical treatment of Sanskrit texts, and the text of the Upanishads will, I hope, benefit quite as much as later texts by the treasures still concealed in the libraries of the Dekhan.
The rule which I have followed myself, and which I have asked my fellow translators to follow, has been adhered to in this new volume also, viz. whenever a choice has to be made between what is not quite faithful and what is not quite English, to surrender without hesitation the idiom rather than the accuracy of the translation.
I know that all true scholars have approved of this, and if some of our critics have been offended by certain unidiomatic expressions occurring in our translations, all I can say is, that we shall always be most grateful if they would suggest translations which are not only faithful, but also idiomatic. For the purpose we have in view, a rugged but faithful translation seems to us more useful than a smooth but misleading one. .
However, we have laid ourselves open to another kind of censure also, namely, of having occasionally not been literal enough. It is impossible to argue these questions in general, but every translator knows that in many cases a literal translation may convey an entirely wrong meaning: I shall give at least one instance.
My old friend, Mr. Nehemiah Goreh—at least I hope he will still allow me to call him so—in the ‘Occasional Papers on Missionary Subjects,’ First Series, No. 6, quotes, on p. 39, a passage from the KX Aandogya-upanishad, translates it into English, and then remarks that I had not translated it accurately. But the fault seems to me to lie
XIV UPANISHADS.
entirely with him, in attempting to translate a passage without considering the whole chapter of which it forms a part. Mr. Nehemiah Goreh states the beginning of the story rightly when he says that a youth by name Svetaketu went, by the advice of his father, to a teacher to study under him. After spending twelve years, as was customary, with the teacher, when he returned home he appeared rather elated. Then the father asked him: Uta tam adesam apraksho! yendsrutam srutam bhavaty amatam matam avig#atam vigwatam iti? I translated this: ‘ Have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?’ Mr. Nehemiah Goreh translates: ‘Hast you asked (of your teacher) for that instruction by which what is not heard becomes heard, what is not comprehended becomes comprehended, what is not known becomes known?’ I shall not quarrel with my friend for translating man by to comprehend rather than by to perceive. I prefer my own translation, because manas is one side of the common sensory (antadkarama), buddhi, the other ; the original difference between the two being, so far as I can see, that the manas originally dealt with percepts, the buddhi with concepts”. But the chief difference on which my critic lays stress is that I translated asrutam, amatam, and avig#zatam not by ‘not heard, not comprehended, not known,’ but by ‘what cannot be heard, what cannot be perceived, what cannot be known.’ Now, before finding fault, why did he not ask himself what possible reason I could have had for deviating from the original, and for translating avig#ata by unknowable or
1 Mr. Nehemiah Goreh writes aprakshyo, and this is no doubt the reading adopted by Roer in his edition of the AAandogya-upanishad in the Bibliotheca Indica, p. 384. In Sankara’s commentary also the same form is given. Still grammar requires apraksho. ?
The Pastkadasi (1, 20) distinguishes between manas and buddhi, by saying, mano vimarsartipam syad buddhik syAn niskayatmik4, which places the difference between the two rather in the degree of certainty, ascribing deliberation to manas, decision to buddhi.
No commentary for this page under the selected tracks.
There is commentary on page 2.