Sanskrit Grammar and Linguistics

The aim of the first part of this article is to outline how Patañjali might have understood the Yamas and Niyamas in his Pātañjalayogaśāstra. The second part (to be published in the next issue of Yoga Scotland) will consider a few examples of how the Yamas and Niyamas have been reinterpreted for different audiences since the time of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra.

“What is misleading about the ‘flat world’ assumption is that while superficial cultural elements do seem to have coalesced into a common global culture, the deeper structures that support the power and privilege of certain groups are stronger than ever before. Globalization is often framed in terms and structures that emerged under Western domination of the world over the past five hundred years or so. These in turn, are founded on the values and beliefs that emerged from the unique historical and religious experiences of the peoples of European origin. When all collective identities are discarded and all boundaries challenged – whether under the rubric of post-modern critique or as a result of a vague sense that ‘all are one’ and ‘we are all fundamentally the same’ – the result is not a world free from dominance but one in which the strongest identities along with their versions of history and values prevail.”
Malhotra, Rajiv; Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji. Sanskrit Non-Translatables: The Importance of Sanskritizing English (p.27). Amaryllis. Edizione  Kindle.

This book  of Rajiv Malhotra and Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji illuminates a fundamental problem for the preservation of the Tradition in its original purity: the distortion and the risk of contamination of the sacred Saṃskṛtam language  through English. In addition to highlighting the problem with precision and clarity, he proposes a possible solution. It is now up to all sincere researchers to take note of the proposal and the responsibility that each one will have in accepting it or not.
Conforming one's work to this brilliant proposal will be a welcome duty for every sincere researcher of the Sanātana Dharma , who will be able to make use of simple and effective guiding criteria: for this a sincere thanks is due to the authors. With the hope that the sown seed will find the right land to germinate and spread across the spectrum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuRawxP-DCI
"Sanskrit Non-Translatables is a path-breaking and audacious attempt at Sanskritizing the English language and enriching it with powerful Sanskrit words. It continues the original and innovative idea of non translatability of Sanskrit, first introduced in the book, Being Different. For English readers, this should be the starting point of the movement to resist the digestion of Sanskrit into English, by introducing loanwords into their English vocabulary without translation.
The book presents a thorough mechanism of the process of digestion and examines the loss of adhikara for Sanskrit because of translating its core ideas into English. The movement launched by this book will resist this and stop the programs that seek to turn Sanskrit into a dead language by translating all its treasures to render it redundant. It discusses fifty-four non-translatables across various genres that are being commonly mistranslated. It empowers English speakers with the knowledge and arguments to introduce these Sanskrit words into their daily speech with confidence. Every lover of India's sanskriti will benefit from the book and become a cultural ambassador propagating it through routine communications."

This book is also an example of how cultural colonialism works: negatively labeling a text and an author without even having read it is a clear example of how a deeply rooted attitude is hidden behind the facade of a certain academic respectability. It would be desirable that researchers always seek an individual predisposition open to equanimity and detachment from profane passions. The text asks questions, promptly arguing each statement: one can agree with them, or be in disagreement. In any case you should work on the merits and in the substance, check if the statements have a basis or are inconsistent. Limiting oneself to denigrate with easy slogans and labels, without having read and reflected on the text, or ignoring it a priori, is an evident sign of how the usual sectarian arrogance is hidden under the alleged superiority and independence of certain research.