Sanskrit Transliteration, 2

Sanskrit Transliteration

The main objection is that my system of tranliteration makes no distinction between long and short vowels. This, it is claimed, must always be indicated, since it can lead both to semantic misconceptions and generally unacceptable pronunciation. Other sounds indicated by IAST can, it is agreed, be left out, but in addition to ṛ, ḷ, ś, ṣ och c, which I chose to mark in my system, the quantity of the vowels must always be indicated, not just in transliteration of verse. This, it is suggested, can be done – as historically it has been – in two ways: either by adding another vowel (Bhagavad-Giitaa), or by accent or circumflex (Bhagavad-Gítá, Bhagavad-Gîtâ).

I am inclined to think this is not a good solution. The double vowels simply do not look good, and the accent and circumflex would be just another system of diacritics. Both seem to me to have an unnecessarily alienating effect similar to that of IAST. The things indicated by ri, lri (not yet in my translated verses), sh, and ch must be indicated in order to avoid unacceptable pronunciation. But in these cases, the IAST virtually rules out correct pronunciation for those who have not learnt that system. The reason, on the other hand, that I left out the marking of the long and short vowels as less important is that this at least allows, as it were, the correct pronunciation, along with the incorrect one.

My general argument for my system and against the IAST is not that the latter is a bad system, that it is not excellent in academic works, or that it is difficult to learn. It is both an excellent system for some purposes, and very easy to learn. The argument is rather that it nonetheless appears unnecessarily alienating and pedantic in some connections. I have found one scholarly introduction to Indian philosophy where the author, normally using IAST, significantly feels compelled, in the difficult case of the word ṛṣi, to add rishi (my transliteration) in parentheses. That is certainly not a good solution. But quite as significantly, another such introduction, to Hinduism, consistently uses my system, without indicating long and short vowels.

It seems to me that this system is in many cases the best way to familiarize Western readers without any knowledge of Sanskrit or familiarity with IAST with the language. I submit that by transliterating the words in a way they recognize, a way that is congruent with their own languages (or some of them, like English and Swedish), not only will the pronunciation be much better, but it will also be easier for speakers of Western languages to recognize Sanskrit as their own language, as it were – to identify the close relation between these languages.

It is a fact that Westerners have already incorporated many Sanskrit words in their own languages in the way I suggest: atman, rishi, darshana, jnana, kshatriya, shakti, asana, guna, maya, samsara, lila, ashtanga, svami, chakra, jiva, ashram(a), shastra, kundalini, sadhu, ananda, moksha, avatar(a), and vedanta, written in this way, are today more or less common words in some Western languages – as are yoga, dharma, mukti, brahman, siddhi, japa, muni, karma, guru, tantra, advaita, bhakti, and mantra, which are written in the same way in my system and in IAST or in the system recommended by my critics as an alternative to it.

By using my system for verse transliteration as well as for single words in texts in the Western languages, it seems this process will be furthered and facilitated to a greater extent than if IAST is used. New words will be more quickly and easily incorporated. More people will then also be motivated to take up the proper study of Sanskrit, and incorrect or imperfect pronunciation (which, I repeat, is produced to an even greater extent by the IAST for those who are not familiar with it) will naturally be corrected and refined. Concepts conducive to spiritual enlightenment, to lifting the West out of the darkness of ignorance and illusion, will be more easily learned.