Stupidity of Indian meanings of English words

By hipkapi March 23, 2018 Balagangadhara, colonial consciousness, translation

Note: For a broader application and context, please read this paper: translation, interpretation and culture

1. The word ‘temple’ is not used in English to refer to a place where false gods are worshipped. It is used to speak of “the temple of Solomon” (the king Solomon of the Jews) too and there is no suggestion in the western culture that the Jews worshipped false gods.

2. Your friend is providing you with an identifying description: “this building which…” and identifies it in terms of several functions tied to that building.

3. If your friend is not arguing for the sake of arguing, then ask him the following types of questions: what distinguishes an Anjaneya’s temple from a Siva’s temple and these two from Rama’s temple or that of a Sharadamba? Why do they not do puja’s in Siva’s temple by chanting the Vishnu Sahasranama? Etc. If he knows something at all about the Indian traditions (irrespective of what language he speaks in), your friend will to say something about the nature of the Devas and the Devatas in these temples.

4. Ask your friend too, provided he is genuine about ‘understanding’, why the Bhakta’s of Anjaneya are strict celibates. Ask your friend further why no sculptures of naked women are found anywhere in the temple murals of Anjaneya, and why prostitutes do not throng his temple, if all temples were brothels.

5. Questions of the type (3) and (4) will help you primarily (and your friend secondarily) to figure out how your friend is using the word ‘temple’. This use will be partly governed by his rootedness in some tradition or another. Before you give your definitions of words (which you are free to do anytime you feel like), try to find out how your friend is using them, if you intend to communicate with him.

6. The problem is not one of whether the Indians provide words with their own ‘meanings’, which differ from how Oxford English Dictionary defines them. Even less does it have to do with wanting to be ‘fair’ to speakers from different cultures and the ‘meanings’ they give to words in the English language. There are two kinds of issues: one is about what words like ‘God’, ‘temple’, ‘sacredness’, etc. mean in English or in any West-European language; the other, because of this, is about communicability and research.

7. If you had read ‘The Heathen …’ you would have known that words like the above are theoretical terms in the Christian theology. As such, they have found their home also in the natural languages of Europe. Therefore, when one talks about the phenomenon of religion, one uses these terms in a rather precise way (even in the European natural languages). When we talk about ‘atoms’ or ‘genes’ in English, we make use of a part of their technical meanings from scientific theories. Now one of your rhetorical question boils down to this: why cannot Indians mean ‘haircut’ while using the word ‘atoms’ and ‘Masala Dosa’ when they use the words ‘genes’? They can; they have the freedom to do so. However, if they do so with others who follow the technical meanings of these words (as defined in these theories) even partially, the Indians run the risk of being radically incoherent or downright stupid. This is not an issue of ‘fairness’. [The very fact they would not do this with respect to words like ‘genes’ and ‘atoms’ but do that with respect to ‘God’, ‘sacredness’ etc. confirms my thesis in ‘The HeathenÂ… …’ (Do you not think it is time for you to read the book?)]

8. My thesis about colonial consciousness supplements the claim I put forward in ‘The HeathenÂ… …’ about religious language being its own meta-language. Indians think they are ‘free’ to mean ‘puja’ when they use the word ‘worship’, ‘pavitra’ when they use the word ‘sacredness’ or ‘holy’ (they probably use these two words as synonyms) and so on. While indeed they are not wrong in assuming that they do have this freedom, they make perfect asses of themselves when they discuss with literate people or write books using ‘their’ meanings. They do so, however, in the a) conviction that they do know what these words ‘mean’; (b) oblivious to their own total ignorance in theology; (c) certain that their ‘meanings’ is all there is to these words. This is a wide-spread social phenomenon in India and it is just about as normal as someone writing a paper in Physics or Biology with the conviction that ‘atoms’ mean ‘haircut’ and ‘genes’ mean ‘Masala Dosa’. May be, your friend will defend such papers as well because, after all, one has to be ‘fair’ to all speakers of English.

4 thoughts on “Stupidity of Indian meanings of English words”

  1. EdMeasure

    I think you are mistaken. The usual dictionary definition is “a building devoted to the worship, or regarded as the dwelling place, of a god or gods or other objects of religious reverence,” and it’s customarily used to describe Roman, Greek, and other worship spaces. Its origin goes back to Roman usage.

    1. Arun

      The ancient Roman meaning is obscured by the long intervening Christian history. Even the original meanings of “religion” and “superstition” have changed.

      1. CIPig

        We actually have a pretty good idea of the Greek and Roman meanings of “Temple.” Religion is a word that has hardly evolved from Roman times: https://www.etymonline.com/word/religion. Superstition has moved a bit more, but still has clear Roman roots. In a long life, I don’t recall ever having Temple heard as a designation for a place of Christian worship, though some Jews started using it in the Sixteenth Century. Besides them, Shriners, Mormons and various Asian religions are often described (in English) as having Temples.

        The Online Etymology Dictionary can be your friend.