Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1INTRODUCTION. XV ee. eee) ae what cannot be known, rather than by unknown, as every one would be inclined to translate these words at first sight? If he had done so, he would have seen in a moment, that without the change which I introduced in the idiom, the translation would not have conveyed the sense of the original, nay, would have conveyed no sense at all. What could Svetaketu have answered, if his father had asked him, whether he had not asked for that instruction by which what is not heard becomes heard, what is not comprehended becomes comprehended, what is not known becomes known? He would have answered, ‘ Yes, I have asked for it ; and from the first day on which I learnt the Siksha, the ABC, I have every day heard something which I had not heard before, I have comprehended something which I had not comprehended before, I have known something which I had not known before.’ Then why does he say in reply, ‘ What is that instruction?’ Surely Mr. Nehemiah Goreh knew that the instruction which the father refers to, is the instruction regarding Brahman, and that in all which follows the father tries to lead his son by slow degrees to a knowledge of Brahman!. Now that Brahman is called again and again ‘that which cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be perceived, cannot be conceived, in the ordinary sense of these words ; can be learnt, in fact, from the Veda only*. It was in order to bring out this meaning that I translated asrutam not by ‘not heard,’ but by ‘not hearable,’ or, in better English, by ‘ what cannot be heard °.’
21 In the Vedaata-Sara, Sadananda lays great stress on the fact that inthis very chapter of the X#indogya-upanishad, the principal subject of the whole chapter is mentioned both in the beginning and in the end. ‘Tatra prakaramapratipadyasyarthasya tadadyantayor upadanam upakramasamharam. Yatha X’andogyashashthaprapathake prakaramapratipadyasyadvitiyavastuna ekam evadvitiyam (VI, 2, 1) ityadav aitaditmyam idam sarvam (VI, 16, 3) ity ante ka pratipddanam. ‘ The beginning with and ending with’ imply that the matter to be declared in any given section is declared both at the beginning and at the end thereof :—as, for instance, in the sixth section of the A#andogya-upanishad, ‘the Real, besides which there is nought else’—which is to be explained in that section—is declared at the outset in the terms, ‘ One only, without a second,’ and at the end in the terms ‘ All this consists of That.’ 2 Vedanta-Sara, No. 118, tatraivadvitiyavastuno manantaravishayikarazam. 3 See Mund. Up. I, 1, 6, adresyam agrahyam. Xvi UPANISHADS.
3Any classical scholar knows how often we must translate invictus by invincible, and how Latin tolerates even invictissimus, which we could never render in English by ‘the most unconquered, but ‘the unconquerable.’ English idiom, therefore, and common sense required that avig#ata should be translated, not by inconceived, but by inconceivable, if the translation was to be faithful, and was to give to the reader a correct idea of the original. Let us now examine some other translations, to see whether the translators were satisfied with translating literally, or whether they attempted to translate thoughtfully. Anquctil Duperron’s translation, being in Latin, cannot help us much. He translates: ‘Non auditum, auditum fiat ; et non scitum, scitum ; et non cognitum, cognitum.’ Rajendralal Mitra translates: ‘ Have you enquired of your tutor about that subject which makes the unheard-of heard, the unconsidered considered, and the unsettled settled ?’ He evidently knew that Brahman was intended, but his rendering of the three verbs is not exact. Mr. Gough (p. 43) translates: ‘Hast thou asked for that instruction by which the unheard becomes heard, the unthought thought, the unknown known?’ But now let us consult a scholar who, in a very marked degree, always was a thoughtful translator, who felt a real interest in the subject, and therefore was never satisfied with mere words, however plausible. The late Dr. Ballantyne, in his translation of the Vedanta-Séra}, had occasion to translate this passage from the A /dndogya-upanishad, and how did he translate it? ‘The culogizing of the subject is the glorifying of what is set forth in this or that section (of the Veda); as, for example, in that same section, the sixth chapter of the A’/andogya-upanishad, the glorifying of the Real, besides whom there is nought else, in the following terms: “Thou, O disciple, hast asked for that instruction
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1INTRODUCTION. XV ee. eee) ae what cannot be known, rather than by unknown, as every one would be inclined to translate these words at first sight? If he had done so, he would have seen in a moment, that without the change which I introduced in the idiom, the translation would not have conveyed the sense of the original, nay, would have conveyed no sense at all. What could Svetaketu have answered, if his father had asked him, whether he had not asked for that instruction by which what is not heard becomes heard, what is not comprehended becomes comprehended, what is not known becomes known? He would have answered, ‘ Yes, I have asked for it ; and from the first day on which I learnt the Siksha, the ABC, I have every day heard something which I had not heard before, I have comprehended something which I had not comprehended before, I have known something which I had not known before.’ Then why does he say in reply, ‘ What is that instruction?’ Surely Mr. Nehemiah Goreh knew that the instruction which the father refers to, is the instruction regarding Brahman, and that in all which follows the father tries to lead his son by slow degrees to a knowledge of Brahman!. Now that Brahman is called again and again ‘that which cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be perceived, cannot be conceived, in the ordinary sense of these words ; can be learnt, in fact, from the Veda only*. It was in order to bring out this meaning that I translated asrutam not by ‘not heard,’ but by ‘not hearable,’ or, in better English, by ‘ what cannot be heard °.’
21 In the Vedaata-Sara, Sadananda lays great stress on the fact that inthis very chapter of the X#indogya-upanishad, the principal subject of the whole chapter is mentioned both in the beginning and in the end. ‘Tatra prakaramapratipadyasyarthasya tadadyantayor upadanam upakramasamharam. Yatha X’andogyashashthaprapathake prakaramapratipadyasyadvitiyavastuna ekam evadvitiyam (VI, 2, 1) ityadav aitaditmyam idam sarvam (VI, 16, 3) ity ante ka pratipddanam. ‘ The beginning with and ending with’ imply that the matter to be declared in any given section is declared both at the beginning and at the end thereof :—as, for instance, in the sixth section of the A#andogya-upanishad, ‘the Real, besides which there is nought else’—which is to be explained in that section—is declared at the outset in the terms, ‘ One only, without a second,’ and at the end in the terms ‘ All this consists of That.’ 2 Vedanta-Sara, No. 118, tatraivadvitiyavastuno manantaravishayikarazam. 3 See Mund. Up. I, 1, 6, adresyam agrahyam. Xvi UPANISHADS.
3Any classical scholar knows how often we must translate invictus by invincible, and how Latin tolerates even invictissimus, which we could never render in English by ‘the most unconquered, but ‘the unconquerable.’ English idiom, therefore, and common sense required that avig#ata should be translated, not by inconceived, but by inconceivable, if the translation was to be faithful, and was to give to the reader a correct idea of the original. Let us now examine some other translations, to see whether the translators were satisfied with translating literally, or whether they attempted to translate thoughtfully. Anquctil Duperron’s translation, being in Latin, cannot help us much. He translates: ‘Non auditum, auditum fiat ; et non scitum, scitum ; et non cognitum, cognitum.’ Rajendralal Mitra translates: ‘ Have you enquired of your tutor about that subject which makes the unheard-of heard, the unconsidered considered, and the unsettled settled ?’ He evidently knew that Brahman was intended, but his rendering of the three verbs is not exact. Mr. Gough (p. 43) translates: ‘Hast thou asked for that instruction by which the unheard becomes heard, the unthought thought, the unknown known?’ But now let us consult a scholar who, in a very marked degree, always was a thoughtful translator, who felt a real interest in the subject, and therefore was never satisfied with mere words, however plausible. The late Dr. Ballantyne, in his translation of the Vedanta-Séra}, had occasion to translate this passage from the A /dndogya-upanishad, and how did he translate it? ‘The culogizing of the subject is the glorifying of what is set forth in this or that section (of the Veda); as, for example, in that same section, the sixth chapter of the A’/andogya-upanishad, the glorifying of the Real, besides whom there is nought else, in the following terms: “Thou, O disciple, hast asked for that instruction
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.