A reader wrote me:
I would like to know whether there is a similar term in Indian philosophy (sanskrit) for ‘Intelligence’. Can we equate it with the term prajñānam?
The problem with such questions (I do not know about you, but I often receive them), is that they are based on an atomic concept of sentences, as if there were a 1:1 correspondence among concepts and words and among language 1 and language 2. This theory has long been superseded both in linguistics (see Saussure’s discussion of how not even “tree” can be easily translated) and in translation theories. Moreover, as a scholar of Mīmāṃsā, I tend to imagine that the contribution of each word in a sentence is at least also a result of the contributions of the other words in the same sentence.
Thus, at least in case of philosophical concepts, one cannot focus on a single term, i.e., on a “dictionary approach”, but rather on what Umberto Eco calls the encyclopedic approach, i.e., offering a broader definition instead of a 1:1 translation. Moreover, each discussion of a (European) philosophical term needs to be preceded by an analysis of the term itself. Ideally, one should reconstruct it, too, through an encyclopedic approach (what does “X” entail? in which contexts is it used?).
In the case of “intelligence”, prajñā (not prajñāna) is often used, even more so in Mahāyāna texts, for “wisdom”, it can mean also “discrimination” and can therefore be compared to “intelligence”. I would, however, rather suggest buddhi, which stands for one’s ability to engage intellectually, especially because it does not have the sapiential aspect of prajñā and because buddhimat `having buddhi‘ can often be used in contexts in which in English one would speak of “intelligent” people. Another possibility would be prekṣā, again because of the use of prekṣāvat in order to define people who are able to consider things before deliberating.
What do readers think? How do you conceive “intelligence” in Sanskrit?
Cross-posted on the Indian Philosophy blog
I would translate intelligence as ‘buddhikauśalam’ and intelligent as ‘buddhikuśala’. Prekşā also comes closer to the idea. Again, if by intelligent we mean someone who has a presence of mind then ‘pratyutpannamatih’ is perhaps the closest Sanskrit parallel.
Medias?
What do you mean, Dominik?
I fully agree with you, Elisa. (I did not know about Saussure and ‘tree’, but for years already have used exactly that word in my Kannada classes as an example of how words have their own semantic fields: the Kannada word ‘mara’ does not mean ‘tree’ or ‘wood’, but both. Thus, in Kannada or Tamil, people can say ‘this table is made of tree’, which sounds ridiculous in English.)
Sudipta Munsi’s terms (buddhikauśala and buddhikuśala) are understandable but debatable. Why have I never come across these words in the four decades that I have been reading Sanskrit philosophical texts? They seem to be constructs that are intended to reflect what often is meant when a speaker of English uses ‘intelligence’ and ‘intelligent’, but in effect rather signify what is usually conveyed by the words ‘cleverness’ and ‘clever’, or perhaps ‘shrewdness’ and ‘shrewd’. Indeed, I have heard people in India speak English and use the word ‘intelligent’ when they actually meant ‘shrewd’ (or even ‘devious’). The Sanskrit word that, in my reading, comes closest to the English (or more broadly: European) ‘intelligence’ is buddhi. Intelligence is the faculty of understanding, and the Sanskrit verb ‘budh’ is the verb that most precisely carries the same meaning as ‘to understand’. Cf. also the causative bodhayati = to teach = ‘to make someone understand’. A prabuddha is someone who has understood, etc. etc.
The use of buddhimat / buddhivat for ‘intelligent’ (‘having intelligence’: buddhi-mat) is still found in modern Indian languages.
We should also bear in mind that all such terms can be used with highly specific technical meanings in certain schools of thought. But this is nothing specifically Indian (we come across such terminological quarrels in Europe too).
many thanks, Robert, for this intelligent comment:-)
Though a mere spectator I do appreciate your engaging and extending stance.
As to buddhi it seems appropriate, perhaps even more so when we consider it as the potential womb for the arising of sattva.
Here, whilst appreciating your arguments of the limitations of a word without a sentence, may I add another word to the mix?
That of the oft bandied term ‘enlightenment’.
Previous enquiries have not been fruitful and I even have had its suggested that it is of Theosophic origin and cross applied from the 17th century European intellectual movement.
Whatever, I do struggle to context its Sanskrit equivalent within the language of Indian thought.
Thank you
Thank you, Paul, this is a very good example of how our expectations shape our translations (should you want to write a short (or long) post about it, here or on the Indian Philosophy Blog, please let me know). The metaphor of enlightenment is so powerful in European culture, that it is not surprising we used it to understand bodhi. “Awakening” is less evocative in our culture —much more so, however, in India, where the metaphor of sleep and dream is very frequently repeated as a threaten to the possibility of true knowledge.
How about “medha”
I am sure medhā would work in many contexts. Perhaps it is less frequently used than “intelligence”? (By the way, perhaps Dominik Wujastyk above also meant medhas and his automatic corrector changed it into medias)
Intelligence in English usually goes under Intellectual Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence (to further extrapolate, spiritual intelligence).
Intellectual intelligence -> pragyaa may not be a good translation. However, for emotional and spiritual, quite possibly.
Pragyaa, my understanding is, is usually translated as wisdom.
Another word that is used for intelligence is buddhimataa. If I were forced to use one word, that would be this.
Thank you, Mukul. I am generally cautious about translations of words outside of sentences, but generally agree with your suggestions.
Do you mean (now using diacritics) buddhimattā (and now an attempt in Nāgarī: बुदधिमतता)? That means ‘the quality of possessing buddhi’. That represents a slight shift in focus, viz., ‘intelligence’ as a psychic faculty (cf. my suggestion, earlier in the thread) vs. ‘intelligence’ as a quality in a person (here in ‘buddhimattā’).
As a philosopher rather than a Sanskritist, I would say that the question is framed in a way that cannot be answers directly with a term or choice of terms because that is not how the logic of language operates in such cases.
Meaning is a function of context. There are a limited number of terms and they have do serve many uses in different context. In addition, context is historical, geographical and cultural.
This a reason for textual analysis, exegesis and hermeneutics for example. Prior to this linguistic analysis and application of logical analysis.
When historical, geographical and cultural differences are great, direct translation of concepts is difficult to impossible. The best that can be accomplished is a rendering of the text along with a commentary explaining the concepts in the original use to the degree that this can be determined, which is also difficult to impossible given ancient text whose provenance is unknown or disputed.
This is an issue with translating texts from the Vedic and Buddhist traditions into modern European languages, even through they are foundationally Indo-European. Much more difficult when the language is of different origin, e.g., Semitic, Chinese, etc.
Then there is the difference between the Vedic and Buddhist traditions, both ofd which use Sanskrit, and there are also difference schools within the Vedic and Buddhist traditions, too. The meaning of the same terms can vary in important ways that non-experts will not be aware of or notice in reading unless alerted.
So a direct correspondence of Sanskrit terms and concepts to English is often lacking. The question above is even more complicated since it assumes some universal framework for Sanskrit in which “name and form” (namarupa) is universal, as in Plato’s theory of meaning. This might be true at the level of karana loka, but most of us are at the level of shtula loka, where namarupa is merely an assumption for us and our ordinary language doesn’t work that way.
But one has to start somewhere in a rendering, and I would agree that buddhi is a good place to start, with qualifications. “Buddhi” is somewhat problematic owing to the framework(s) in which it occurs. For example, in one framework, antakarana is comprised of ahamkara, buddhi, chitta, and manas. This is the construction of the jivatama, whose task is to realize its true nature as shivatma by transcending the limitations of jiva. This is accomplished by resolving the accumulated impressions (sanskara, vasana). Then jivatma realizes its nature as shivatma. So, in this framework intelligence must have a dual aspect, individual and “cosmic.” Individual intelligence is different at the level of sthula, sukshma, and karana sharira. There are various aspects of “cosmic intelligence” and its emergence — hiranyagarbha, mahatattva, samadhi chitta, etc. And this is just one framework. It can be viewed as an affirmative mode of expression with various Buddhist frameworks being complementary negative expressions.
The challenge of the translator and scholars using translation is to convey the concepts (meaning) behind the works (terms). The terms are expressed by signs that function as different symbols in different contexts. It would be rare to find a key term that is used consistently across all contexts that could be translated using a closely corresponding term that exactly or even closely replicates the concept.
In my experience teaching philosophy and related subjects, this has to be conveyed very early since students try to transpose different frameworks into their own familiar framework that is most intimate to them. The challenge is getting them to be able to think “outside the box” of their own framework. Many just can’t seem to do it. I didn’t get this until grad school when I studied philosophy of language and also read many historical philosophers at the same time, forcing me to realize that I had to be able to switch frameworks seamlessly in order to understand their positions from their post of view rather than my own.
So I would say the best way to answer that question is to start with, “It’s complicated.” Then continue and explain how meaning gets generated, followed by emphasizing that understanding such concepts requires acquiring the framework(s) in which they function and the specific context(s) of the particular use (s) of key terms. As a matter of fact, one of the key challenges authors face even in technical writing is sticking strictly to the stipulated use of the terms.
Thank you for this detailed reply. I hope my original post also showed I share some of your concerns concerning the problems with translating, especially out of context.
As for your pars constuens, I am somehow surprised by the fact that you adopt a Śaiva framework and present it as if it were pan-Indian.
Last, I fully agree with the problem of making students aware of the risks inherent in the process of transposing their point of view into another one. I tried to address this issue in my posts (and articles) about the idea of “God” in Indian thought. Paul’s point above (on “enlightenment”) is also relevant here.
One of the delightful things about Sanskrit is that, more than any other Indian language, it reflects subtleties of the history of thought in India that are unknown elsewhere and hence are not reflected in non-Indian languages. (Any doubts about this? Then try finding a satisfying Sanskrit equivalent for the English word ‘consciousness’. There is none; or rather, there are many, depending upon what exactly one’s approach to ‘consciousness’ is.)
Especially when it comes to describing non-physical matters, there is a real danger that the discussion becomes over-technical, narrowly doctrinal or ‘sectarian’. I understood the original question in a broad, not very specific sense. If we dive into the technicalities of what ‘buddhi’ means in, for instance, Sāṃkhya thought, we are narrowing the scope of the question dramatically, and my impression is that this was not the intention of the original question.
If we wish to answer the question in the broad sense in which I understood it, we should see what words have been used in the course of time and in a variety of contexts (i.e., contexts in time, place, specific discourse). And if we consider the question to be asked with a non-antiquarian intention (i.e., living Sanskrit as a source of vocabulary that is relevant in living, modern Indian languages), then I still believe that ‘buddhi’ is the only obvious answer.
I am reminded of Halbfass’ answer to the question what the Sanskrit word for ‘philosophy’ is: he came up with the word ‘anvīkṣikī’ (in his _India and Europe_). But this is a word which I have never come across in my own reading of what we generally consider ‘philosophical’ texts over several decades, and if at all it ever has been really current, it is a totally dead word now. What I see in universities today is that departments of philosophy are called ‘tattvaśāstra-vibhāga’.
Many thanks for all these replies and apologies for my being late in making them public (I was in Japan and then on holiday abroad).
Buddhiman for men,Buddhimati for ladies,don,t use to this word of intelligent in sanskrit.
One of the many Kosha-s, the Hemakosha contains the following verse:
मतिरागमिका ज्ञेया
बुद्धिस्तत्कालदर्शिनी /
प्रज्ञा चातीतकालस्य
मेधा कालत्रयात्मिका //
According to this view, Buddhi is that kind of intelligence which helps us figure out PRESENT-related matters.
Perhaps there is more to this four-fold view of intelligence: Mati, buddhi, PRajn^aa, and MEdhA.