Translation, Transcreation and Culture: The Evolving Theories of Translation

in Hindi and Other Modern Indian Languages

G. Gopinathan

Translation theory in the Indian languages has always been something

inherent in practice. In the ancient period, no specific theory of translation was

recorded since creative writing and translation were never considered as two

separate process in India. But the modern period has shown some difference as

many individual translators have recorded their experiences and reflections. The

development of theory literature as part of the translators’ training and higher

studies in translation introduced in some of the academic institutions in India after

the seventies, have also contributed for a change in the attitude. Even then, very

few attempts have been made to churn out the theories of translation in India, since

the theories are embedded in the practice itself. In the ancient period, much

translation was done between allied classical languages like Sanskrit and Prakrits.

These translations were called to chaya chaya or ‘translation as shadow of the

original text’ was practiced during this period. This theory has three implications

(Gopinathan, 2000).

1. A translation should follow the original text exactly like a shadow, which

follows the original object.

2. As a shadow can differ from its original object, depending on the intensity and

the angle of light falling on it, a translation may also have a different form
 2

depending on the nature of light thrown on it by the translator by his

interpretation.

However, with the emergence of the modern Indian languages, translation

activity became intensified and the theory of translated text following the original

like a shadow, was not strictly adhered to. The contact with western languages like

English, French, German, etc also has influenced the theoretical stand point of the

translators to a greater extent. As a result of these historical changes, translation

theory has also been evolving along with the developments in the creative writing

and the changing tastes and socio-cultural situations. The evolution of translation

theory in Hindi and other modern Indian languages can be traced as follows:

1. The tradition of Transcreation:

The people oriented and the time oriented creative translations of the ancient

Sanskrit spiritual texts are generally termed as ‘Transcreation’. Transcreation has

been the general mode of translation in modern Indian languages from the olden

days. This term originally used by contemporary writers like P. Lal for his English

translation of the Shakuntala and Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (1974), is applicable

for the whole tradition of creative translation of great classics like Ramayana,

Bhagarata and Mahabharata in the regional languages from Sanskrit. Sujeet

Mukherji (1981) prefers to call it ‘Translation as New writing’. But

‘Transcreation’ seems to be a better word to express this literary tradition of India.

 3

Transcreation can offer the best possible solution for the problems of culturally

oriented literary texts. Transcreation in this context can be understood as a rebirth

or incarnation (Avatar) of the original work. In a general sense, it can be defined as

an aesthetic re-interpretation of the original work suited to the readers/audience of

the target language in the particular time and space. This re-interpretation is done

with a certain social purpose and is performed with suitable interpolations,

explanations, expansions, summarising and aesthetic innovations in style and

techniques. Usually such texts, like the Ramayana of Tulasidas, in Hindi, and that

of Kamba in Tamil, are used as meta texts in the religious and spiritual fields.

These translators had the aim of spiritually educating the people of their time who

were separated from the ancient age by the time factor and also by language factor

since they were ignorant of the Sanskrit language. According to the traditional

Indian concept of word or veda as Brahman or God (‘Sabda Brahman’), these texts

being the revelation of vedic truth through the stages like valmiki and vyasa,

reincarnate in the regional languages for giving emancipation to the common folk

who were deprived of learning the vedic texts directly. Since they are the vedas for

the common man speaking these languages, they became their book for everyday

reading and spiritual discourse. Hence the theory behind these transcreations has

got great sociological bearing.

In fact, the tradition of transcreation in India goes back to the Chakyars and

Katha vacaks who still interpret creatively the ancient texts to their audience in the
 4

most effective and aesthetic manner. The medieval transcreators like Tulsidas in the

introduction of his Ramayana states that he is writing his Ramayana in the Regional

language on the basis of famous Ramayanas in Sanskrit and taking materials from

elsewhere for his own mental gratification and pleasure. Ezhuthachan, in his

introductory statements of the ‘Atyatma Ramayanam’ in Malayalam is saying that

he is writing his Ramayana for enlightening the people who are ignorant about the

great Ramayana and its message. In the modern period also poets like Tagore, Sri

Aurobindo, A. K. Ramanujan, Haribaresh Rai Bachan, Agneya, Vallathol and many

others have and this technique of transcreation. A modern poet Vennikulam has

again transcreated the Ramayana of Tulasidas from Hindi to Malayalam using the

traditional poetic style called ‘Kilippattu’ (parrot song) and it could become a

popular translation too.

The relevance of transcreation is universal since it can be used as a device to

break the myth of ‘untranslatability’. In fact it is a holistic approach in which all

possible techniques like elaboration, interpolation, image transpolation, explaining

the cultural value of the original text, image change, image recreation, translative

explanations and elucidations, are possible. In such texts, the translator enters into

the sole of the original author and then he himself becomes creator. In the post-

colonial situation, Haribaresh Rai Bachan, Agneya and Dharamvir Bharati have

used the transcreation techniques for translating the western and eastern poetry in

Hindi. It certainly demands an intuitive and aesthetic recreation and the application
 5

of creative imagination. Transcreation is not all together a new creation because

there is always a logical relationship between the original and the translated text. At

the same time it reads like a new creation.

2. The Nationalistic Theory of Translation:

During the freedom movement, the spirit of Nationalism was kindled by the

renaissance in Indian culture and literature. The translation of Bible in Indian

languages proved to be a good model of modern prose. At the same time it could

also pose some challenging before the nationalist Indians who wanted to regenerate

the cultural values of ancient India. Many of the translations done by the social

reformers and national leaders should be interpreted in the light of this cultural

crisis. Ram Mohan Roy (1774-1833) was perhaps the first writer in India to create a

revolution by translating two vedanta treatises (1815) and the upanishads in to

simple modern Bangali Prose. Afterwards Dayananda Saraswathy wrote ‘Satyarth

Prakash (1974) as a summary translation and interpretation of the vedic truth for

the common man. This trend can be seen throughout India. Bhagavad Gita was

translated with a political orientation by leaders like Tilak and Gandhi. The literary

and social leaders like Bharatendu in Hindi and Bharati in Tamil wanted to develop

their mother tongues by translating all best works from other languages.

Bharatendu translated from Sanskrit, Prakrit, Bengali and English and Bharati

translated from Sanskrit and English. These translators were doing translation for

enriching their language concerned. So Bharati has advocated Tamilizing the

 6

foreign works and Bharatendu while translating ‘Merchant of Venice’ into Hindi,

Completely changed the cultural atmosphere by Indianising the proper names and

place names and changing the cultural atmosphere. As a yard stick of translation,

Bharati suggested that ‘’first of all you read out your sentence to a Tamilian who

does not know English. If he understands it without any difficulty, you use that

sentence. Then only your writings will be of use to Tamilnadu. Otherwise it simply

means that you are troubling yourself as well as the readers (Jeya, 1988). A good

example of creating the national spirit by changing the total atmosphere of the

poem can be seen in the Hindi translation of Thomas Grey’s ‘Elegy written in a

country church yard’ by Kanta Prasad auru. He brings Indians heroes in the place

of Hampden, Milton and Cromwell.

“Some village Hampden, that with dawnless breast.

The little tyrant in his fields withstead,

Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,

Some Cromwell, guiltless of his country’s blood (Grey)

“Koyi Ayodhyanath Sadrsa Nijdesupasi;

Siva Prasad Sam Koyi des adhikar udasi’

Inme hote vir koyi Rana Pratap Sam’

Athava koyi Magan Singh hi se bhupadham.

(Gramina vilap, Saraswati, 1908).

 7

The motive of these translations was to develop the “Swadesi” idea, to bring

out the merits of the land and to resist the cultural infiltration from the west and to

bring the best from other literatures.

3. The psycho-spiritual theories of Translation

The psycho spiritual theories of translation developed by Sri Aurobindo are

very important in the context of modern Indian languages.

Sri Aurobindo (1892-1950), a philosopher, poet, spiritualist and one of the

greatest translators of India, has recorded the theoretical framework of his own

translations in his articles like On translating Kalidasa, On translating the

Bhagavad Gita, On translating the Upanishads, The interpretation of scripture,

Freedom in translation, Importance of turn of language in Translation, Translation

of Prose into poetry, and Remarks on Bengali translations. Since these theories

have emerged from his own practice of translation, they have a sound basis of

cognitive philosophy and psychology. His own philosophy is based on the psycho-

spiritual interpretations of the ancient Indian thinking in the Upanishads. He seems

to have been especially influenced by the cognitive philosophy of ancient India, the

tradition of which goes back to the pre-Buddhist and the Buddhist period. Some of

the theories put forward by him as the following.

3.1. Translation and the levels of consciousness

 8

About the cognitive process of translation like analysis and comprehension

of the literal and the suggested meaning of the target text and finding of suitable

equivalence in the target language, Sri Aurobindo (1972(3):115) has mentioned

three basic things in his essay, The interpretation of Scripture. They are name

(nama), form of meaning (rupa) and the image of the essential figure of truth

(svarupa).

Here, Sri Aurobindo indicates the different levels of consciousness and the

role of intuition in grasping the meaning at the higher levels. He is mentioning

three levels of the text, which are like the three levels of language mentioned by the

fifth century philosopher-grammarian Bhartrhari, in his work Vakyapadiyam,

namely pasyanti, the highest or the deepest level of consciousness, madhyama or

the intermediate common mental level and vaikhari, the spoken-linguistic level

(Kunjunni Raja 1963: 147-148). Sri Aurobindo, gives a further psycho-spiritual

division of the levels of consciousness at the physical, mental and the supra mental

levels. According to him ‘Our ordinary human mind is only a fraction of our entire

consciousness, which ranges from the mind levels to the superconscient above and

the subconscience below. . . Our mind is only a middle term in a long series of

ascending consciousness” (Olsson, 1959: 12). In the light of this view of Sri

Aurobindo, it can be said that a text can be analysed linguistically and intellectually

at the two levels of word and its form of meaning, but at the highest level, the
 9

analysis can be done only intuitively and perhaps at this level, the actual translation

takes place.

Some cognitive linguists consider that translation equivalence is possible at

the level of imagery (Tabakowska 1993: 30). This idea seems to be very near to the

level of the ‘Essential Figure of Truth’ mentioned by Sri Aurobindo.

In translation, the process of text analysis, comprehension of the literal as

well as the suggested meaning, and the process of decision making will also have

three levels. The flashes from the ‘Supermind’ through the medium of intuition will

be of great help for the translator. The use of the mechanical mind of the translator

will produce only a mechanical type of translation, whereas a translation made by

the proper use of the intuition will produce better results. Translator, in the search

for effective equivalent goes through an inner struggle like the scientist in his

experiments. Like the discovery which often comes to the scientist from above as a

flash and not as a result of mere intellectual search, a translator also often gets

insights into the possible equivalence like a flash from his Supermind through his

intuition. According to Sri Aurobindo, consciousness can ascend or descend at the

various levels and can integrate the lower one to the higher. The lower stages do

not disappear, but are transformed, and continue under new conditions. This he

calls the principle of integration (Olsson 1959: 14). In the light of this view, we

can say that the decision making process in translation starts from the

superconscious level of the image or the ‘essential figure of truth’. Then the
 10

mental level of the figure of meaning or rupa, and the physical or material level of

nama, or word are also integrated. It is the finding of the appropriate expression at

the surface level which can suggest the meaning. This extends its dimensions

towards the third level of consciousness. Then translation becomes more

communicative, especially when the higher meaning of the text is significant.

About this kind of cognitive process, the ancient Indian thinkers had two divergent

views. Some scholars like Bhartrhari believed that all cognition, perception

included, is linguistic at all levels. But according to the Nyaya theories, perceptual

cognition is initially non-linguistic and non-conceptual, but this initial phase is soon

replaced by a linguistic and conceptual cognition, which is still perceptual (Mohanti

1994: 197).

The latter view seems to be more relevant in the context of translation. The

translation of any text is taking place at the three levels, as Sri Aurobindo indicates.

At the super conscious level, it may not be purely linguistic, but soon at the mental

and the physical level, it becomes linguistic and conceptual. He refers to supreme

level by the ancient term Sabdabrahman, word as God, which is defined by

Monier-Williams (1899:1053) “the Veda considered as a revealed sound or word

and identified with the Supreme.” Translation scholars like Hans G. Honig (1991:

78) call this level the ‘uncontrolled work space’ in the mental mapping of

translation. In the light of these views, it can be said that while analysing and

comprehending the meaning, the translator should reach the mental level (or the
 11

deep level of the modern linguistics) from the surface linguistic level and then to

the highest (or the deepest) level where the text exists in a language without

language form. While finding the equivalent, the translator will have to go to this

language without language form first and then opt for appropriate name and form

in the TL. Hence the process of translation can be said to be linguistic, intellectual

and intuitive at the same time. Comparison also will be going on in the translator’s

human translating machine, consciously and unconsciously at all the three levels.

Therefore, the empirical methods for analysing and evaluating these processes also

should be three dimensional, linguistic, intellectual and intuitive.

3.2. The Problem of ‘knower, knowledge and the known’ in translation

Sri Aurobindo (1972(3);118) writes that in the interpretation of the

Scripture, the standards of truth are three, the knower, knowledge and the known.

He explains that the known is the text itself that we intend to interpret (translate).

The knower in the case of texts like the Upanisads is the original drasta or seer of

the hymn. In the case of other key texts, he will be the author. The ancient Indian

scholars of cognitive philosophy discussed basic problem of the unity of ‘knower,

knowledge and the known’ under the technical name of triputi or triad.

Surendranath Dasgupta explains the interpretation of the unity of this triad by the

Vedanta school of philosophers as follows:

 12

According to Sri Aurobindo, the translator ought to be in spiritual contact

with the original seer (author). He represents the logical basis of the empathy of the

translator with the author. He says that “if knowledge is a perishable thing in a

perishable instrument, such a contact is impossible but in that case the scripture

itself must be false and not worth considering. If there is any truth in what the

scripture says, knowledge is eternal and inherent in all of us and what another say I

can see, what another realised I can realise. The drasta was a soul in relation with

the infinite spirit and I am also a soul in relation with the infinite spirit. We have a

meeting place, a possibility of communication” (Sri Aurobindo 1972(3): 118).

In effect, this communion between the original author, the translator and the

knowledge which is revealed by the text form the triangular cognitive basis of

translation. This will again continue as the triad of translator (who by the perceptive

process identifies with the original author), knowledge revealed by the target text

and the reader of the target text who will have a communion with the two.

According to Sri Aurobindo, knowledge is the eternal truth, part of which the

author expresses to us. He says that not only words, but also ideas are no more than

symbols of a knowledge which is beyond ideas and words (1972 (3): 115).

Therefore he instructs that the translator must transgress limits and penetrate to the

knowledge behind. This knowledge must be experienced before it can be known,

and the realisation in the self of things is the only knowledge. Text alone should be

the guiding factor for the translator. The translator of the Vedas should prefer to
 13

know what the Veda has to say for itself (1972(3):117). At the same time, out of the

two main instruments of cognition suggested by the ancient Indian philosophers,

namely the authority of word and direct perception, Sri Aurobindo prefers

perception in understanding the true meaning of the text (1972(3):116). In his

essay, The foundations of a the psychological theory (1972(10):31), he advocates

for finding out the ‘right psychological function’ of the symbols which should be

founded on good philosophical justification and fitting naturally into the context

wherever it occurs. Sri Aurobindo (1972 (3):118) says that the translator should

exceed the scriptures (texts) in order to be master of their knowledge. He also says

that the capacity of man is unlimited, and if we can get rid of our ahankara or ego,

if we can put ourselves at the service of the infinite without any reservation or

predilection or opinion, there is no reason why our realisation should be limited. He

is of the firm conviction that to understand the scriptures, it is not enough to be a

scholar, one must be a soul. This is a hint on the ideal nature of the impersonality of

the translator about which Sri Aurobindo has commented at various occasions. He

has practiced this impersonality as a translator himself in the translations of so

many spiritual texts and great authors. Kandaswamy (1993:34) writes that the kind

of integral personality and the integral insight Sri Aurobindo brings to bear upon

his translations is not merely a surrender to the original work and continual

extinction of self on the part of the translator, but a kind of sahrdayatvam, a kind of
 14

identity in which the entire being of the translator throbs with a glow and brilliance

of the original.

In the light of the above discussion it can be concluded that through such an

identity of the original author, translator and the text, the unification of ‘knower,

known and the knowledge’ becomes possible. This can be the cognitive basis of

not only the scripture translation but of any kind of translation of literature or a

work of spiritual nature.

3.3. The problem of communicating new concepts through translation

Sri Aurobindo in his preface to the translation of the Upanisads

(1972(12):58) writes: “The mind of man demands, and that demand is legitimate,

that new ideas shall be presented to him in words which convey to him some

associations with which he should not feel like a foreigner in a strange country

where no one knows his language, nor he theirs. The new must be presented to him

in terms of the old, new wine must be put to some extend in old bottles.”

This statement is of great cognitive significance since the problem of

translating the cultural terms from other cultures has been a crucial one before the

translators all over the world. Sri Aurobindo does not advocate for total

replacement by the available target terms. On the basis of cognitive philosophy and

psychology, and also based on his own experience as a translator, he is suggesting a

more natural and psychological method of approaching the problem. The Nyaya
 15

philosophers of ancient India had accepted analogy (Upamana) as one of the valid

sources of cognition. It is a concept of associating a thing unknown before with its

name by virtue of its similarity with some other known thing (Dasgupta 1951: 354).

A famous example given by them is that a man of the city who has never seen a

wild ox goes to the forest, asks a forester -- “what is a wild ox?”, and the forester

replies -- “oh, you do not know it, it is just like a cow”. Afterwards when he finds a

wild ox, he compares it with a cow and understands that it is a wild ox. Similarly

when a new concept or new cultural term which is unknown to the reader of the

target language can be made familiar to him through the existing terms, although

there can be limitations. This is in fact a psychological method of making use of the

images already existing in the minds of the target reader. For example, in the

translation of the Upanisads, Sri Aurobindo says that the use of the world “God”

will be better in the target text, even though the Sanskrit language always employs

the neuter gender when referring to the Supreme being. He is of the opinion that if

the new ideas are presented with force and power through the already existing

similar terms, a reader of intelligence will soon come to understand that something

different is meant by ‘god’ (1972(12):58). This approach seems to be more natural

and psychological. This can be tested by comparing two different versions in

which the terms have been translated by using the familiar terms in one and by

unfamiliar new terms in the other. The empirical basis of this theory seems to be

quite sound.
 16

3.4. The problem of word value and image transformation

In his essay On translating Kalidasa, Sri Aurobindo suggests that the

translator of aesthetically important text must give preference to ‘closeness of word

value’ and not closeness of meaning (1972(3):241. The problem discussed here is

of utmost importance in the context of cognition of the culturally dissimilar items

in translation. Sri Aurobindo is of the opinion that what is perfectly familiar in the

original language must not seem entirely alien to the foreign audience. There must

be some toning down of strangeness, an attempt to bring home the association to

the foreign intelligence, to give at least some idea to a cultured but not orientally

erudite mind (1972(3):237). In this context he suggests two devices which he

himself adopted in his translations. One way is to discard the original image and

replace it by a more intelligible image in the target language, when it is

indispensable (1972(3): 240). This is a creative deice and it calls for the application

of translator’s creative intelligence. In replacing the image, the aesthetic and

cultural value of the original image may be taken into account. The second

technique suggested by him is to render the word or image by some neologism

which will help to convey any prominent characteristic of idea associated with the

thing it expresses. Blossom of ruby may render, for instance bandhoula, a flower

associated with its redness. Or else a word itself may be dropped and the

characteristic may be brought into prominence. For instance, instead of saying that

a woman lipped like a ripe bimba fruit, it will be a fair translation to write that “her
 17

scarlet mouth is ripe fruit and red” (1972(3):237). Such a device is expressingly

declaring the characteristics which the source text only indicates. The process of

these two devices is a kind of demetaphorisation or decoding of the images and

then finding a suitable equivalent which can communicate the value of the images.

Sri Aurobindo’s theories of translation and philosophy have influenced many

translators like Sumitranandan Pant, Vyohar Rajendra Singh and Vidyapati Kokil

in Hindi and Subramania Bharati in Tamil.

4, The Indian poetic theories and their application:

In the contemporary period, Indian poetic theories like ‘Dhvani’ (suggestive

meaning and Auchitya - appropriateness) have been applied as critical yardsticks of

translation.

In the Western world there had been a continuous controversy whether a

word was to be translated literally or if its sense was to be translated (i.e. word for

word vs. sense for sense, or literal vs. free). The notion prevailing in India from the

Vedic times was that over and above the literal meaning, there is a suggestive

meaning in the word used in a text. In the Rgveda Samhita (687),it is said that a

man who sees only the literal meaning of a poem sees, but does not see; he hears

but does not hear. For the one who goes beyond and looks into the inner meaning,

the speech reveals itself completely as a loving wife does to her husband.

Anandavardhana, a ninth century critic, calls this theory of poetic suggestion

 18

dhwani. Dhvani is defined by Anandavardhana as the capacity of a word to suggest

a charming sense other than its literal and expressed meaning. This suggested sense

is like the grace or charm of beautiful maiden, which is different from the beauty of

her limbs (1965)> Anandavardhana establishes the theory that dhvani is the soul of

poetry.

The fundamental problem of translation can be seen as the problem of how

to communicate the suggestive meaning in the target text. As Anandavardhana

says, suggestive meaning is the soul of poetry, thus making literal translation of

poetry rather impossible. Hence, rather than talking about the impossibility of

translation, we should talk about the impossibility of translating poetry literally.

The difficulty is intensified by the fact that usually we can reach the suggestive

meaning only through the literal meaning. Such poetry, in which the words and

their literal meaning occupy a subordinate position and suggest some charming

sense (an idea, a figure of speech or an emotion) is called dhvani (Kunjunni Raja,

1997). The suggestive meaning depends mainly on three factors. First, it depends

on the peculiar expression of the word in the text with a particular motive, second

on its shades of meaning, and third on its socio cultural context. Whenever only

literal translation is needed, a translator can follow a mechanical method meaning

but where communicating the suggestive meaning, the translator will need to adopt

a more creative technique by using scientific imagination. The significance of the

theory of suggestive meaning in translation has been an important matter of

 19

discussion in recent years and the studies by Gopinathan (Gopinathan and

Kandaswamy 1983) and Niranjan Mohanty (1994) have attracted the attention of

translation scholars concerning the need to apply the theory of dhvani in studying

the problems of translation (Gopinathan, 2000).

In the introduction to his book ‘Translation Its theories and practices,

Avadhesh K. Singh (1996) has focussed on the relevance of “Auchtya” theory for

translation. According to him, Auchitya is translation, without moving too far from

its meaning in India poetics, should mean propriety in the selection of a text for

translation, of methodology and strategy used for translation; and of placing the

translated text in proper perspective, so that the source writer’s/text’s intended, not

merely articulated meaning finds its proper expression in the target text. He has

related ‘auchitya’ to the social responsibility of the translator and has expressed the

views that its negligence may lead to misinterpretation, distortion, over under

interpretation and even to much social disservice. He is of the opinion that the

western poetics is silent about this social appropriateness or propriety in translation.

5. The Synthesis of Western and Eastern Ideas:

The contemporary theory literature in Hindi and other Indian languages

presents a synthesis of the western and Indian ideas. The western linguistic models

of Catford, Nida, Jacobson etc. have influenced many writers in Hindi like

Bholanath Tiwari (1972), Ravindranath Shrivastava (1985), Suresh Kumar (1986),

 20

Bhatia Kailashchandra (1985) and others. Gopinathan (1985, 1993) has interpreted

the translation process as a metaphychosis by bringing a synthesis of Indian and

western ideas. His model of the process of translation is as follows:

According to him, meaning or the soul of the text is transferred whereas the

style or body of the text is replaced at various linguistic levels.

Conclusion

Concluding the above discussion on the theories of translation in the modern

Indian languages we can reach the following conclusion:

The theories of translation in Hindi and other modern Indian languages are

only evolving through the process of critical analysis and evolution which has

started only recently. The tradition of transcreation has its roots in India’s very

ancient culture and it is still influencing the writers. The nationalist theory of

enriching the regional languages through translation and the idea of ‘swadeshi’ and

‘Indianisation’ is part of the vibrant historical consciousness. The psychospiritual

theories of Sri Aurobindo have deep impact on many modern Indian writers and

translators and is futuristic in nature. Dhvani or the theory of suggestive meaning

and ‘Auchitya (appropriateness( are being applied and yardsticks of translation.

 21

Indian poetics and linguistics can contribute much for the development of

translation theory. Even the computer translation theories in India like “Anusaraka’

show a kind of synthesis of the western and eastern ideas in the contemporary

period. This synthesis will be more useful for developing the Indian theories of

translation in the global perspectives.

References

Anandavardhana. Dhvanyaloka. Bhattacharya, Bishnupad (ed.) Calcutta: Firma

K.L. Mukhopadhyaya, 1965.

Avadhesh, K. Singh (ed.) Translation, Its theory and practice. New Delhi: Creative

Books, 1996.

Bholanath Tiwari. Anuvad vigyan. Delhi: Kitab Ghar, 1972.

Das Gupta, Surendranath. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol.I, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1951.

Gopinathan, G. “The Nature and Problems of Translation.” The Problems of

Translation. G. Gopinathan and S. Kandaswamy (eds.) Allahabad: Lok

Bharati Prakashan, 1993.

Gopinathan, G. Ancient Indian Theories of Translation. In. Translation perspectives

XI, New York: Binghamton University, 2000.

 22

Gopinathan,G. Anuwad Siddhant Anuprayog. Allahabad: Lokbharati Prakashan,

1985.

Honig, Hano G. Holnes’ Mapping Theory” and the Landscape of Mental

Translation process. In Van Lenven Zwart, Kitty M.X. Nacaijkens, ton (eds.)

Translation studies: the State of the Art. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991.

Jeya, V. Bharathis Concept of Translation from the point of view of language and

social development in Translation As Synthesis, Karunakaran, K. and

Jayakumar (eds.). New Delhi: Bahri Publications, 1988.

Lal, P. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. Kolkatta: Writers Workshop, 1974.

Mohanti, I.L. Indian Epistemology. In Daney, Jonathan and Sosa, Ernest (eds.) A

companion to Epistemology. London: Blackwell, 1994.

Monter Williams, Monier. The Sanskrit English Dictionary. Second Edition.

Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1899.

Mukharjee, Sujit. Translation As Discovery. New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1981.

Olsson, Eva. The Philosophy of Sri Aurobindo in the Light of the Gospel. Madras:

The Christian Literature Society, 1959.

Raja,Kunjunni. The Indian Theories of Meaning. Madras: The Adayar Library and

Research Centre, 1977.

 23

Ravindranath Srivastava and Krishnakumar Goswami (eds.) Anuvad Siddhant Aur

Praradhi. Delhi: Alekh Prakashan, 1985.

Sri Aurobindo. Collected works. Volumes, 3, 9, 10, 12. Pondicherry: Sri

Aurobindo Ashram, 1972.

Suresh Kumar, Anuvad Siddhant ki Roop Rekha. New Delhi: Vani Prakashan,

1986.

Taba Konska, Edzbeeta. Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of translation. Tubingen:

Gunter Noarverlag, 1973.