LINGUISTIC DIFFICULTIES

THE MOST SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES standing in the way of any correct interpretation of Eastern doctrines are those arising from the essential differences between Eastern and Western ways of thinking; we have already touched upon this matter, but we wish to go into it in further detail in the present chapter. The difference naturally shows itself in a corresponding difference between the languages destined to express the respective modes of thought, and thus another difficulty, derived from the first, arises when it comes to rendering certain ideas in the languages of the West, which are deficient in the appropriate terms and are, above all, metaphysically expressive only in a very small degree. Moreover, this is but an aggravation of the difficulties that attend every attempt at translation, and that are still to be met with, though in a less acute form, when passing from one language to another one closely related to it both philologically and geographically; even in the latter case, terms that are considered to be synonymous, and that often have a common origin and derivation, are nevertheless in many cases very far from offering an exact equivalence of meaning. This is quite understandable, for it is evident that every language must be specially adapted to the mentality of the people speaking it, and each people has its own mental make-up, which differs more or less widely from that of other peoples.

This diversity in ethnic mentalities is much reduced, however, when one is dealing with peoples belonging to the same race or attached to the same civilization. In that case, the common mental features are certainly the most fundamental ones, but the secondary characteristics overlaying them may give rise to variations that are nonetheless quite considerable; and it might well be asked whether, among individuals speaking the same language, within the confines of a nation built up out of various racial elements, the words of that language do not possess shades of meaning that differ more or less from one district to another, and the more so since national and linguistic unification is often recent and somewhat artificial. There would be no cause for surprise if, for example, it were to be found that in each province the common language inherited certain peculiarities of the ancient dialect that it had come to supersede and had replaced more or less completely, and this would be true of the essence as well as of the form of the language. However, the differences we are referring to are naturally much more perceptible as between one people and another; if there can be several ways of speaking the same language, that is to say really several ways of thinking while using that language, then there is assuredly a particular way of thinking that is normally expressed in each distinct language; and this difference will attain its maximum in the case of languages that are unlike in every respect, or even in the case of languages which, although philologically akin, have been adapted to very different mentalities and civilizations, for philological affinities provide a much less certain basis for the establishment of real equivalences than mental resemblances. It is for this reason, as we pointed out at the very beginning, that the most literal translation is not always the most faithful one from the point of view of ideas, and that is also why the purely grammatical knowledge of a language is quite inadequate for a true understanding of it.

When we speak of the separation of peoples, and consequently of their languages, it must also be noticed that this can be a separation in time as well as space, so that the foregoing remarks apply with equal force to the understanding of ancient languages. Indeed, even in the case of a single people, if it should happen that its mental outlook undergoes considerable modifications in the course of its history, not only do new terms come to take the place of older ones in its language, but also the meaning of those terms that remain varies proportionally to the mental changes; this is so true that even where a language remains almost unchanged in its outward form, the same words really cease to correspond to the same concepts, so that a real translation becomes necessary in order to restore the sense, by substituting quite different words for words that nevertheless still remain in use; a comparison between the French of the seventeenth century and that of our day would provide us with many examples. It should be added that this is especially true of Western peoples, whose mentality, as we were explaining earlier on, is extremely unstable and changeable; besides, there is another decisive reason why that kind of difficulty should not arise in the East, or rather should be reduced to a minimum; it is that in the East a sharp line of demarcation separates the vernacular tongues, which are bound to vary to some extent in response to current needs, from the languages that are used for purposes of doctrinal exposition, immutably fixed languages that are protected from all contingent variations by their object, a fact which incidentally still further diminishes the importance of questions of chronology.

Up to a point, something of this sort could have been found in Europe at the time when Latin was generally used in teaching and for intellectual intercourse; a language put to such a use cannot properly speaking be called a dead language, but it is a fixed language, wherein indeed lies its great advantage, not to mention its usefulness in international relations, for which purpose the artificial 'auxiliary languages' advocated by the moderns are always bound to be a failure. If we are able to speak of unchangeable fixity, especially in the East, and of languages serving for the expression of doctrines that are purely metaphysical in essence, the reason is that these doctrines do not 'evolve' in the Western sense of the word, a fact, moreover, that entirely precludes the application of any 'historical method' to their study. However strange and incomprehensible this may appear in the eyes of modern Westerners, who persist in believing in 'progress' applied to every field, it is nonetheless a fact, and whoever fails to recognize it condemns himself to a perpetual inability to understand the East in any of its aspects. There can be no question of metaphysical doctrines either altering their basis or even becoming perfected; they can only undergo development according as they are regarded from different points of view, when they merely take on the forms of expression more particularly appropriate to each of these points of view, each successive formulation always remaining completely faithful to the traditional spirit. Under exceptional circumstances, should an intellectual deviation arise within a more or less restricted section of society, this deviation, if it is really serious, brings about before long the abandonment of the traditional language in the society in question; by and by it is replaced by some idiom of popular origin, which, however, in its turn acquires a certain relative fixity, because the dissident doctrine tends of its own accord to constitute itself as an independent tradition, though one deficient in regular authority. The Easterner, even when he has departed from the normal ways of his intellectuality, cannot exist without a tradition or something to take the place of one, and we shall later try to explain what tradition under all its various aspects means to him; this moreover provides one of the deepest reasons for his disdain of the Westerner, who only too often appears to him as a being devoid of any traditional attachment.

We will now consider the difficulties we specially set out to discuss in the present chapter from another point of view and, as it were, in their principle. It can be said that any expression of a thought is necessarily imperfect in itself, for it limits and cramps the conception by enclosing it within a definite form, which can never hope to be completely adequate inasmuch as a conception always contains something that surpasses its expression; this applies with still greater force when metaphysical conceptions are in question, which always require a due allowance to be made for the inexpressible, since it is in their very essence to open the door to limitless possibilities. The passage from one language to another language less suited in its nature to such purposes can indeed only heighten the original and unavoidable defect; but once one has to some extent succeeded in grasping the conception itself through its original expression, by identifying oneself as far as possible with the mental outlook of the person or persons whose thoughts it represents, it is evident that one can always make up largely for this disadvantage by resorting to an interpretation which, if it is to be intelligible, will have to be a commentary rather than a literal translation pure and simple. Fundamentally therefore, the real difficulty is the mental assimilation needed to arrive at this result; there are certainly many minds that are quite incapable of it, and it is easy to gauge how far this effort transcends the scope of mere works of erudition. There is only one really profitable way of studying doctrines: in order to be understood they must be studied so to speak 'from the inside', whereas the orientalists have always confined themselves to an investigation from the outside.

The kind of study referred to is, relatively speaking, easier in the case of doctrines that have been handed down regularly to the present day, and that still possess their authorized interpreters, than in the case of teachings that have only come down to us in a written or symbolic form, unaccompanied by the oral tradition that has long since died out. It is all the more regrettable that orientalists, through a prejudice that may have been partly involuntary but for that very reason all the more invincible, have always persisted in neglecting this help that is open to them-to those at least who embark on the study of still extant civilizations, if not to those others whose researches are concerned with extinct civilizations. Nevertheless, as we have already explained in an earlier context, even the latter, the Egyptologists and Assyriologists for example, could certainly spare themselves many a misunderstanding if they possessed a wider knowledge of the human mind and of the various modalities that it can assume; but it is just this knowledge that can only be acquired by a genuine study of the Eastern doctrines, which could thus render the greatest service to the study of antiquity in all its branches, at least indirectly. However, even with this object in view (an object that is far from appearing of paramount importance in our eyes) something more is demanded than to bury oneself under an erudition which has little to offer in any case; but this is doubtless the only field in which those who are unable to escape from the narrow limitations of the modern Western mentality find that they can exercise their activity without having to face too many awkward difficulties. It is this, we repeat once again, that constitutes the fundamental reason why the works of orientalists are utterly inadequate for bringing about the comprehension of any idea whatsoever, and they are at the same time useless, if not in some cases actually harmful, as a means toward promoting an intellectual understanding between East and West.