Part 4 - Method of translation

None knows more clearly than myself what imperfections are to be found in this first attempt at translating such an imperfect text on such highly technical subjects. I owe it, therefore, to the reader to indicate the general method I have closely followed. In the translation of the Text I have endeavoured to adhere as closely as possible to the language of the original. It has consistently been my aim to reproduce the bare meaning of the Mānasāra, and to avoid, as far as can be done, taking liberties with the language in order to bring out meanings other than what the most obvious and ordinary natural interpretation would suggest. Notwithstanding this, however, I found myself obliged in some cases to deviate from a strictly literal treatment. The reason for this was mainly the very peculiar nature of the Text and its inconsistent construction, following, as it seemingly does, no rules of grammar. Under such circumstances, there being no standard to which the language can be made to conform, a particular passage may naturally lend itself to wide speculation and diverse conjectures. The method I have followed in such cases has been to avoid the tendency towards speculation and broad construction, and to attempt a more or less free rendering only so far as it was obviously necessary, or there was at least a high degree of probability to warrant it. There were some passages, for example, which in spite of the clear discrepancies in grammar did not fail to show what was meant. There were others which presented greater difficulty and it was only after a careful comparison of these, with other parts of the Text, and a reference to the passages in other works such as the Āgamas, Purāṇas, and a number of manuscripts on the Śilpa-śāstra dealing with similar matters of better construction, and easier interpretation, that I was enabled to explain their sense.

Besides the grammatical confusion, there was another great difficulty I was faced with owing to the technical nature of the subject. There are various words used in a strictly technical sense, differing entirely from their derivative literal renderings. It is from the very nature of these an extremely difficult task to trace the exact significance of forgotten ancient technical expressions. I have attempted to some extent to apportion to these technical terms certain fixed meanings although there appears to be an apparent disagreement on particular occasions.

Below are instanced a few of such difficulties:

(1) The words Tāra, Vistāra, and Viśāla seem, generally speaking, to have been used to signify length, breadth, and width, and I have rendered them as a rule accordingly. Occasionally, however, passages are met with in which such a distinction between the words is not apparent. Both Tāra and Viśāla are sometimes used in the sense of Vistāra or breadth.

(2) The words Aṃśa, Mātra, and Aṅgula have been used indiscriminately to signify either one of any number of equal parts into which the length or height of a particular object is divided, or a fixed standard of measurement either absolute or relative.

It is, however, laid down in the Text that the Aṅgula measurement is of four kinds—

(a) the Bera Aṅgula is stated to be the measurement by the finger-breadth of the idol;

(b) the Deha Labdha Aṅgula is nothing but one of the equal parts into which the length or height of the idol is divided;

(c) the Mātra or Mātrāṅgula means the finger-breadth of the master or architect but it is also used as one of the equal parts into which the height of the master or a structure is divided; and

(d) the Mānāṅgula, is the Aṅgula proper; this is the standard measurement equal to about three-fourths of an inch. But in use there appears to be no more distinction made between these different kinds of Aṅgula than between the words Aṃśa, Mātra, and Aṅgula themselves.

(3) The names of the different mouldings or the different parts of a structure are not clearly distinguished. The Text for example gives the following sets of words as synonyms:

Kapota—Prastara, Mañca, Pracchādana, Gopāna, Vitāna, Valabhi, Mattavāraṇa, Vidhāna and Lupā.

Mañca—Prati, Prastara,, Prativājana, Anvanta, Avasāna, Vidhāna, and Vidhānaka.

Yājana—Kṣepaṇa, Vetra, Paṭṭa, Uttara, Paṭṭikā, Kampa, Dṛkka, Maṇḍa, Antarita, etc.

Tulādaṇḍa—Jayanti, Phalakā, Kapota, Vaktra-hasta, Lupā, Gopānaka, Candra, etc.

Jaṅghā—Caraṇa, Stali, Stambha, Aṅghri, Sthāṇu, Sthūṇa, Pāda, Kampa, Araṇi, Bhāraka, and Dhāraṇa.

But it appears very clear from the way these different words are used, that there is a distinction between them. I have attempted to explain elaborately most of these in the Dictionary.

In a few cases of technical expressions which, are now obsolete and the exact significance of which, is often doubtful or conjectural I could not find suitable terms and phraseology of the science to translate them. The literal meanings of the words would convey no sense at all. If we have to coin words for these, it would be necessary to have the assistance of the artist on the one hand, of the philologist on the other, and a reference to existing buildings. For the present I have thought it better to quote the original expressions either untranslated altogether, or with literal meanings of them in bracket.

I have thus endeavoured to follow the general lines adopted by Dr. Bühler in translating the Manu-saṃhitā. But in place of Bühler’s citation of different commentaries on the Manu-saṃhitā I have referred to the numerous illustrative passages, not from commentaries on the Mānasāra, of which there are none, but from other Śilpa-śāstra, inscriptions, Āgamas, Purāṇas, and other general literature which have been gathered together in my Dictionary. It was, however, not possible to quote all these numerous references in the footnotes