Note: our next session will on the 27th of April, and it is likely to be the completion of the text Kindly monitor this blog weekly for updates (there may be other future adjustments) Timings: 13.45 - 15.15 (Hamburg Time) 19.45 - 21.15 (Bangkok Time) (daylight saving time in Germany does not apply) When daylight savings time applies: 13.45 - 15.15 (Hamburg Time) 18.45 -20.15 (Bangkok Time) The readings will be every Thursday; extra sessions will be announced on a case to case basis. (Occasional changes to the schedule will be announced on this blog). Please keep an eye on the comments to this post, where links to relevant materials, as well as news regarding timings, etc., will be found on a regular basis. Zoom Link valid for all the readings: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81282599778?pwd=SlNzcEE3RW9kRXhJeTEzQTdEQ1FIZz09 Folder where relevant texts and recordings can be accessed: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tEmZaVXIaYcNRdUUDiXZwy5lfgMtdSl9?usp=sharing Recordings can also be seen in the following unlisted Youtube playlist: Ratnākara Readings Playlist
270 Comments
Mattia
8/9/2021 08:33:19 pm
We are now assessing when to begin the readings.
Reply
Andrey
8/15/2021 10:07:50 pm
Any chance that you can start the readings 30 mins later than what you planed so far?
Reply
Andrey
8/15/2021 10:13:19 pm
oh... nevermind! I just noticed that you plan for Mondays, which don't work for me anyways. Wish you lot of fun!
Mattia Salvini
8/21/2021 03:26:01 am
Thanks Andrey! We also have Thursdays, I hope you can join at least for some of the sessions. We will also record the readings, let's see if we can find a way to make them available promptly enough.
Greg Seton
8/23/2021 01:36:45 am
Very happy to hear the announcement. I also have trouble on Mondays. Tuesday or Thursday works for me or weekends.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/23/2021 05:09:47 am
You could ask Haru whether some of the sessions could be in weekends occasionally. Somehow he prefers those two days of the week, thus I am not sure, he may have other commitments during the weekend.
Reply
Alex Watson
8/23/2021 08:15:38 am
Monday and Thursday good for me.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/24/2021 12:43:58 am
Thanks Alex, I am glad the timing works well for you, looking forward to meeting you on Zoom this Thursday!
Reply
Jed Forman
8/24/2021 09:31:04 am
Thanks so much for organizing this! Any chance sessions will be recorded? I'm on the West Coast of the US, so the times are a bit early.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/24/2021 06:50:51 pm
Indeed we will record them, please check the link to the folder for the relevant materials and you will see a sub-folder for the recordings,
Reply
Jed Forman
8/24/2021 07:14:55 pm
Fantastic!
Eva Strähle
8/25/2021 02:10:19 am
This is amazing.Thank you!
Reply
Hejung
8/25/2021 09:42:50 am
Dear all,
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/25/2021 09:25:54 pm
anugr̥hītāḥ smo bhadanta
Reply
Hejung
8/26/2021 02:44:58 am
I found some mistakes in my previous drafts. So, I uploaded updated drafts, apologies for bothering you! I thank Alex, Mattia, and Junglan for their corrections and suggestions! See you very soon!
Reply
Greg Seton
8/26/2021 07:00:37 am
Sorry to post such a silly thought of absolutely no consequence unworthy of much response, but I wondered whether, in the first verse, it could also be read citrācitrādvaitavyavasthitiḥ, perhaps suggesting the "establishment of (any sort of) nondual (reflexive awareness whether it be) variegated or unvariegated. In other words, the implication would be that Jñānaśrī previously argued that the nature of reflexive awareness is "variegated" against the opposing "unvariegated" positions, but he has yet to establish (i.e. defend) the reflexive awareness itself.
Reply
Alex Watson
8/26/2021 07:25:23 am
A question for Haru or anyone regarding the fact that Prajñākaragupta is referred to here (SSŚ 1.2) and elsewhere as Bhāṣyakāra. Does this indicate that his commentary had two different names PV-alaṅkāra and PV-bhāṣya? Is there any evidence as to which, if either, was 'original'?
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
8/26/2021 07:37:10 am
Ratnakīrti does call him Alaṅkārakāra, and he's not the only one.
Reply
Alex Watson
8/27/2021 01:36:20 am
Rāmakaṇṭha also calls him Alaṅkārakāraḥ (Nareśvaraparīkṣāprakāśa, p. 52).
Shinya Moriyama
8/27/2021 08:50:38 am
Dear Alex,
Reply
Alex Watson
8/28/2021 02:51:38 pm
Very helpful; thank you Shinya.
Alex Watson
8/26/2021 08:16:47 am
Very minor point. I think you mentioned three possibilities, Haru, for saṃsāranirvṛtipatha:
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
8/26/2021 08:47:34 am
Compounds such as saṃsāramārga, saṃsārapatha etc. are not so rare, both in Buddhist and non-Buddhist texts, actually. Anyway, there are indeed multiple possibilities here.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/26/2021 07:53:11 pm
Perhaps some useful examples (I could not find many relevant examples, but at least these):
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/26/2021 08:05:18 pm
Something from the Pāli:
Reply
Alex Watson
8/27/2021 01:20:16 am
I see. Thanks for the information about, and examples of, saṃsāramārga and saṃsārapatha.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/27/2021 04:24:25 am
I think the ālīkya of the ākāras does not here = the ākāras, but rather an undesirable property of being false that they would have (no real ākāras in turn = no real samantabhadratvam). That is how I would understand it, what do you think Alex?
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
8/27/2021 04:28:57 am
Yes, Mattia. The verse from Sākārasaṃgraha 4.1 which Hejung put in a note on this verse is somewhat helpful (though it has its own difficulties too...).
Hejung
8/27/2021 03:44:57 am
Dear all,
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/27/2021 06:38:02 am
Reply
Davey Tomlinson
8/27/2021 06:45:00 am
I wonder if Bhāviveka might be among Jñānaśrī's opponents who'd advance something like the view in 5.2b. Compare, for instance, MHK 3.266: jñeyasya sarvathāsiddhir nirvikalpāpi yatra dhīḥ | notpadyate tad atulyaṃ tattvaṃ tattvavido viduḥ ||. Eckel 2008, fn. 114, translates this: "No object of knowledge exists at all, so those who know reality say that ultimate (atulya) reality is [the object] about which not even a non-conceptual cognition arises." (Cf. Eckel 1992, 158.)
Reply
Hejung
8/29/2021 01:36:49 pm
It is interesting to consider this possibility. The more I read this chapter in comparison with Prajñākaramati, the more I find BCAP reflected in Jñānaśrīmitra's discussion. I think, we can find some relevant description to 5.2b in Prajñākaramati ad 9.22. We should also consider that it might go back even to Bhāviveka. However, I can say this only if we translate the verse differently. I wonder if we should take the jñeyasya sarvathāsiddhir to be depending on nirvikalpāpi dhiīḥ.
Reply
Hejung
8/29/2021 05:51:32 pm
I just noticed that Lindtner's edition actually reads jñeyasya sarvathāsiddher!
Junglan Bang
8/29/2021 10:03:55 pm
This is another question. This MHK 3.266 is followed by MHK 4.18-9 as Eckel states
Alex Watson
8/28/2021 02:55:42 pm
Thanks Haru for addressing my question about the meaning of ālikyāparihārataḥ (5.1) at the beginning of the last class. I see now that the meaning is that the ākāras are necessarily alīka if there is no svasamvedana.
Reply
Alex Watson
8/29/2021 12:34:29 am
I had difficulty with the following sentence in the prose after 5.4:
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
8/29/2021 08:14:49 pm
I have the same difficulty here. I assume that the argument is related to the definition of saṃvṛti/sāṃvṛtatva by avicāraikaramaṇīya (that which is agreeable without being analyzed, see Madhyamakālaṅkāra v. 64). In my understanding, the two positions are argued:
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
8/30/2021 03:16:06 am
Testing here, as a few comments of mine seem to have disappeared (or are perhaps still pending moderation, as a message I received reported?). But to include at least some kind of minimal content with the test: in response to this comment of Alex "A strange implication seems to be that if it *was* completely rejected it would *not* require a bādhaka.", I think that the satisaptamii sarvathāpratikṣepābhāve need not, and should not, be read as having such an implication.
Reply
Hejung
8/29/2021 01:21:06 pm
It seems to me that the way the opponent and Jñānaśrī define the premeyahatiḥ / prameyabādhā is different. In verse 5.2b, we can say that the opponent accuses Jñānaśrī of refuting prameya, but in verse 5.5 (the second half), Jñānaśrī replies that it is impossible to do so. Where does the difference lie between the two?
Reply
Jed Forman
8/29/2021 01:43:46 pm
Just to chime in: I think you're exactly right that this is the Mādhyamika objection. There is a lengthy discussion by Candrakīrti in Madhyamakāvatāra where he argues several absurdums that follow if prameya is a mental object. (Some of these are completely counterintuitive, at least to me—e.g., he argues that if every cognition did not have an external prameya, then the bones produced by a yogi in meditation would be seen by everyone. External prameyas thus guarantee private appearances!)
Reply
Hejung
8/29/2021 02:16:18 pm
Thank you, Jed, for your prompt reply! Could you tell me the exact reference to the example you mentioned? It sounds counterintuitive to me too! Though, the Yogācāra may disagree with that example.
Mattia Salvini
8/30/2021 02:35:30 am
Could it also be that svasamvedana is accepted conventionally, because established via pratyakṣa, but refuted ultimately, because refutable by the ekānekaviraha argument?
Reply
Davey Tomlinson
8/30/2021 08:23:43 am
That seems possible, Mattia! Though would the ekāneka- argument target reflexive awareness directly, or indirectly? Maybe the Mādhyamika's point would just be that, since it targets ākāras, and since awareness is not really distinct from ākāras, therefore it targets awareness, and so by implication awareness's nature, svasaṃvedana. I'm not sure ekāneka- targets svasaṃvedana directly, though. But the svakāritravirodha- line of argument does. (Or so the Mādhyamika thinks! I think...)
Jed Forman
8/30/2021 10:45:19 am
Śāntarakṣita makes the ekāneka argument against svasaṃvedana. He argues that if consciousness were self-cognizing, it would have to be both a singular consciousness and a multiple entity (knower, knowing, and known).
Hejung
8/30/2021 12:17:44 pm
As far as Prajñākaramati's description ad BCA 9.22, he seems to say that svasamveda is not established by pratyakṣa, and that is why it is conventional.
Hejung
8/30/2021 12:31:18 pm
Apologies for my typos in the previous post.
Harunaga Isaacson
8/30/2021 12:41:24 pm
> The reference to a scriptural source is untraced, i.e. nākāraṇaṃ viṣaya iti vacanāt. Could anyone tell me the reference?
Harunaga Isaacson
8/30/2021 12:45:39 pm
> What I meant is that Prajñākaramati says that svasamvedana has no [direct object] insofar as it has no support of an object (na ca anupakārakasya viṣayabhāvaḥ).
Hejung
8/30/2021 12:53:31 pm
Thank you, Haru, for the reference and the translation!
Hejung
8/30/2021 02:02:09 pm
I still wonder about the same sentence in a bigger scope. My translation goes, ``Nor is it the case that [the awareness of awareness (buddhipratipatti)] is possible by the cognition (tena) that exists at the same time, because such cognition (tasya) is not assisted (tasyānupakārāt). Nor is it that cognition without any help has an object.'' Thanks to your help, Haru, I suspect that the sentence--na ca anupakārakasya viṣayabhāvaḥ, nākāraṇaṃ viṣaya iti vacanāt---could be taken as reflecting PVin ad 1.15, that is ākārārpaṇakṣamaṃ hi kāraṇaṃ vijñānasya viṣayaḥ... nākāraṇaṃ viṣayaḥ. Prajñākaramati might be reflecting this sentence in refuting svasaṃvedana. What do you think?
Jed Forman
8/29/2021 02:40:49 pm
Sure thing! He makes the same point about the pus (pūya) that appears to pretas and the floaters that appear to those with cataracts (timira). From the Madhyamakāvatāra:
Reply
Hejung
8/29/2021 03:02:51 pm
Thanks very much!
Reply
Hejung
8/29/2021 07:11:53 pm
Update notice. Please find revised drafts, see you soon.
Reply
Davey Tomlinson
8/30/2021 08:30:17 am
Just a thought about the "svayam eva ca sattvaṃ cet prakāśo ’pi svayaṃ bhavet" verse. I understood the sattva to be the sattva of the second cognition (b) in virtue of which the first cognition (a) is real, and then prakāśa to be basically just a synonym of svasaṃvitti. Jñānaśrī's response, then, is that if the opponent accepts that the existence of (b) is svayam, why not just say that prakāśa itself is svayam? After all, if the opponent admits that the existence of cognition (b) is svayam, he evidently gives up the position that reflexive action is contradictory, so he might as well just accept that such reflexivity is possible in the case of prakāśa and forego positing any second-order cognition in the first place. Just a thought!
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
8/30/2021 10:57:43 am
Many thanks to all for comments and suggestions, during our sessions and here in the blog.
Reply
Hejung
8/30/2021 12:00:13 pm
Thanks for your suggestion!
Reply
Alex Watson
9/1/2021 10:34:44 am
About prameyabādhā as one of the two mentioned ways by which the Mādhyamika might refute the ultimate reality of svasaṃvedana. How precisely does a refutation of svasaṃvedana's prameya establish svasaṃvedana to be merely conventional?
Reply
Jed Forman
9/1/2021 11:02:20 am
I take the exchange to be this: the Mādhyamika says that consciousness cannot exist without an external object. If svasaṃvedana has no external object, then it cannot be consiousness.
Reply
Jed Forman
9/3/2021 10:50:48 pm
Thank you to Haru for pointing out my confusion in the second paragraph!
Hejung
9/2/2021 03:28:18 am
Just uploaded revised drafts, see you soon!
Reply
Jed Forman
9/6/2021 01:40:49 am
Hi all. I was wondering about the dṛṣṭi-pramoṣa referenced just before 5.12. I found something similar in Prajñākaragupta's alaṃkāra. Excuse the corrupt Sanskrit and my rough translation. I wonder if dṛṣṭi-pramoṣa could be similar to pūrva-dṛṣṭasya vismaraṇa. Thoughts?
Reply
Jed Forman
9/6/2021 10:51:34 pm
Thanks, Haru, for addressing this. If you or someone else could send what you had tried to post on the blog to jed[dot]forman[at]gmail[dot]com I would be much obliged!
Reply
Alex Watson
9/6/2021 02:23:28 am
If I understood your account of 5.2 correctly, Haru, you take pakṣa 1 and pakṣa 2 as complete *rejections* (not refutations) of vit (1) and svayaṃ vit (2). And then pakṣas 3, 4 and 5 as rejections of pāramārthikatva as a result of refutations (hati, bādhā). So the reason 1 is slightly different from 5, and 2 is slightly different from 4, is that 1 and 2 are complete rejections whereas 3, 4 and 5 are assertions of sāṃvṛtatva. Have I understood you correctly?
Reply
Alex Watson
9/6/2021 03:57:22 am
A. It seems that mostly in this passage compounds like paravedanam mean pareṇa vedanam. But am I right that occasionally what is talked about is not cognition by another but rather cognition of another (objective genitive)?
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
9/6/2021 04:35:54 am
Before v. 93ab (=Sākāra 5.6ab), Prajñākara wrote a verse: yadi nāmāparotpattiḥ sa eva viṣayo 'stu san / aparasya tu sadbhāvaḥ katham anyasya vedane //92// svavedane 'py anāśvāsaḥ kā vārtā paravedane / ... Thus, paravedana seems to be a cognition of the other (i.e., viṣaya?) But, I'm not sure its correct understanding.
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
9/7/2021 11:37:40 pm
Although Sākārasiddhi’s context is different, let me explain the context of PVA III v. 93ab, which appears in Prajñākara’s long discussion on the refutation of the causal efficacy (arthakriyā).
Hejung
9/6/2021 04:00:23 am
Apologies for uploading the revised drafts shortly before today's session! See you soon.
Reply
Mattia salvini
9/6/2021 08:00:02 pm
A question regarding the option
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
9/9/2021 01:17:16 am
Thank you, Mattia; I think that either could work (with hardly much difference. I think that rūpam ādhāya can mean 'taking form, i.e. arising/being' rūpam ādhāya can mean 'taking form, i.e. arising/being' (I am reminded slightly of the expression ātmalābha). 'Taking form one way' or 'Taking (a) form (which is) one way' seems to come down to the same. And yes, that would I think be the overall suggested sense. It might be considered almost a restatement, from the 'negative' side, of the first half; it might also be regarded as a justification of the first half. If/since it is not possible for cognition to arise/be with one form/nature and to appear with another, therefore we can conclude that cognition is the way that it appears.
Reply
Mattia salvini
9/9/2021 08:50:41 am
Thank you Haru, I found the mention of ātmalābha to be especially helpful!
Jed Forman
9/8/2021 12:51:30 am
Is it possible to read 5.14cd a little differently? Could ekyakaraṇād be read as the negation of a cvi pratyaya, as in ekī-akaraṇād? I don't know if that's possible, but I was thinking then ucayate is construing with the entire phrase, something like "svākāreṇaikyakaraṇād bahir api [iti cet] ucyate," and this is the error. So something like "[Some] say 'It is an external object because it is not one with its own representation,' [but this is] an error."
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
9/9/2021 01:56:10 am
Thanks, Jed; I think though that this is not a possible formation. Having made a verk ekīkṛ (by Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.4.50) we could then make the noun ekīkaraṇa, with lyuṭ. I think that such a noun cannot now be negated by the addition of an -a- in the middle of
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
9/9/2021 01:56:57 am
Pardon the funny typo above: verk --> verb !
Hejung
9/8/2021 10:56:26 pm
Please find updated drafts.
Reply
Mattia salvini
9/9/2021 01:05:27 am
In note 37 you mention that it may be best "to translate pītabhāsa as a dvandva"; however, it seems that you translated it as a karmadhāraya in the body of the text ("a yellow light")?
Reply
Hejung
9/9/2021 03:54:55 am
Thanks Mattia, for you correction!
Mattia salvini
9/9/2021 09:14:18 pm
Regarding this sentence:
Reply
Alex Watson
9/10/2021 08:26:52 am
As part of your answer, Haru, to my question about paravedanam sometimes seeming to mean parasya vedanam and sometimes pareṇa vedana, I think you said that it doesn't make much difference as paravedanam in this context will mean parasya pareṇa vedanam. I take it this means 'cognition of one thing by another thing'.
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
9/10/2021 10:31:20 am
Dear Harunaga-san,
Reply
Greg Seton
9/10/2021 11:28:51 am
I accidentally unsubscribed, so I am resubscribing to the blog here.
Reply
Alex Watson
9/12/2021 03:19:36 am
Probably a very ignorant question: is vyāpakānupalambha in this context simply a way of referring to the argument that shows something to be neither one nor many? What is the vyāpaka here?
Reply
Alex Watson
9/12/2021 03:20:38 am
I presume from the fact that the paragraph we read last time ends
Reply
Hejung
9/12/2021 07:02:53 pm
It seems to me that the section from nanu pareṇa prakāśane tenaiva rakṣā syāt...up to verse 5.19 covers the third option, i.e. prameyahatyā kathaṃ pravedanam. Although we see some references to the TSP, I think both Śāntarakṣita and Prajñākaramati would agree with this position.
Reply
Hejung
9/13/2021 12:03:21 am
Just uploaded revised drafts.
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
9/13/2021 04:09:16 am
Many thanks to the many who contributed helpful, stimulating, comments/suggestions! I didn't have time, for which apologies, to respond to them here, but I hope to get back at least briefly to most of them by next week. Thanks also to Hejung for his revised files. This is mainly just to mention that I have also uploaded in our drive a tiny file with a couple of parallel passages which may (perhaps) help us with some of the things we have read or will read today. Looking forward to seeing you soon!
Reply
Alex Watson
9/15/2021 04:09:37 am
Regarding the vyāpakānupalambha argument that the Mādhyamika thinks can refute svasaṃvedana – I expect it will be clearer to those of you who have read the previous chapters of SSŚ what precisely this argument is; I am struggling with it and had the following questions.
Reply
Alex Watson
9/15/2021 04:13:36 am
I wanted to ask about this exchange:
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
9/20/2021 02:46:06 am
There is of course no compelling reason for/necessity of the Mādhyamikas making this move, but it is one which might well occur to him. The context is protecting the reality of ākāras; if the Siddhāntin says that they are protected by svasaṃvedana, it may well occur to an opponent to say that that could only work if svasaṃvedana is itself established. Vijñaptimātrasiddhi does not entail the reality of ākāras, since as you say, Alex, RK and others deny that, but the way that their reality is being defended, by appealing to svaṃvedana, presupposes, the Mādhyamika may well say, that consciousness only has been established/settled. If consciousness/svasaṃvedana itself is refuted, if it does not have (ultimate) reality, it cannot establish/defend the reality of ākāras.
Reply
Hejung
9/16/2021 12:09:24 am
Thank you, Alex, for your questions. My question is relevant to some of yours. To ask mine properly for others as well, I would try to build up some points trying to answer your questions in anticipation of further suggestions.
Reply
Hejung
9/16/2021 12:13:30 am
In SSŚ, chapter 6 and the Advaitabinduprakaraṇa, Jñānaśrī presents his ultimate position in two verses, the first half of the first verse seems to be his position tuned into the catuṣkoṭi--- nāsat prakāśavapuṣā na ca sat tadanyair ekena na dvitayam advitayam na tābhyāṃ... the subject of this verse is advayaṃ cetaḥ taken from the last verse in chapter 1. The non-dual awareness is not non-existent in relation to the nature of manifestation, nor is it existent in relation to things other than itself, etc. I have a feeling that we cannot even call this formulation the vyāpakānupalambha. It might be another form of advayānumāna in the form of negation. I look forward to hearing what you think. See you soon!
Reply
Hejung
9/16/2021 01:36:49 am
Apologies for my confusion. I take back what I said at the last sentence. My mistake was lying on taking advayṃ cetaḥ as the pakṣa. In fact, I should take the cetaḥ as the pakṣa, and the advayaṃ as the sādhya. Then we have Jñānaśrī's vyāpakānupalambha---ceto 'dvayaṃ nāsat prakāśavapuṣā na ca sat tadanyaiḥ. Nonetheless, it still can be taken as the advayānumāna in the form of negation that is not different in meaning from Sākārasaṃgraha 4.136.
Reply
Shoryu Katsura
9/16/2021 06:58:16 am
I would like to take “aparopādhiprakāśiny”(p.7,4) as equivalent to “svaprakāśya”. Thus,
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
9/20/2021 02:49:49 am
Yes, agreed, that's a good way to take it. The wording is perhaps slightly odd, but it may be partly influenced by J's wish for a nice 'sound'/alliteration...
Reply
Mattia salvini
9/16/2021 06:47:27 pm
nijābhisaṁskārikāvidyā
Reply
Shoryu Katsura
9/20/2021 02:00:56 pm
Dear Mattia
Reply
Mattia salvini
9/16/2021 08:46:28 pm
P.S.:
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
9/20/2021 02:58:25 am
Indeed, excellent; thank you for the parallels, of which the one from our author himself seemed to me particularly helpful.
Reply
Alex Watson
9/18/2021 09:18:45 am
Many thanks to Hejung and Haru for partially addressing my questions.
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
9/20/2021 03:02:57 am
Just briefly, only addressing a part of your remarks, Alex.
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
9/20/2021 03:09:03 am
Not sure if my comment was sufficiently clearly worded. Perhaps it may help to put it like this: it is being posited that sattvam/sasvabhāvatvam is pervaded by ekānekasvabhāvatva, the having the nature of being one or many. If we determine the absence of ekānekasvabhāvatva, for instance by showing that it is impossible/contradictory for the bhāvas to be either one or many, we have to conclude that they do not exist/do not have a svabhāva.
Hejung
9/19/2021 11:50:56 pm
Apologies for uploading revised drafts too shortly. See you soon.
Reply
Alex Watson
9/20/2021 08:44:08 am
tadā ca sa eva pratyakṣabādhādikaṃ nirūpayiṣyati
Reply
Shoryu Katsura
9/20/2021 02:03:05 pm
Dear Hejung,
Reply
Davey Tomlinson
9/22/2021 08:41:07 am
I'm having trouble getting my thoughts clear on this, so forgive me if I'm off base. I'd thought that the karmakartṛ usage here (given the opponent's worry that awareness is both agent and object) would suggest that what's implied is something like "svayaṃ vedyate buddhiḥ," where awareness is not simply the object but is the object-agent. On this reading of karmakartṛvivakṣayā, then, Jñānaśrī's point might be that he can avoid karitravirodha by stipulating that in statements like "svayaṃ bhāsate buddhiḥ" or "svayaṃ prakāśate buddhiḥ", even though (I think) it's not quite formally a proper karmakartṛ, buddhi really is the object-agent (just like in instances of vedyate buddhiḥ...?*).
Reply
Shoryu Katsura
9/22/2021 06:02:14 pm
Kataoka san’s blog reminded me of Dr. Hideyo Ogawa’s detailed analysis of the notion of karmakartṛ (unfortunately in Japanese). Please see his Research Map if you read Japanese. Without the author’s permission, I translate his conclusion:
Harunaga Isaacson
9/23/2021 03:58:19 am
Thank you Prof. Katsura and Davey (and others!). Short of time right now, alas, but just two very small notes. The first is bibliographical: slightly helpful may be (apart from the publication of Ogawa) also this article and the material quoted and referred to in it: Noriyuki KUDO "Why *jñāyate svayam eva ghaṭaḥ is not Accepted ? — Karmakartari Construction Discussed by Navyavaiyākaraṇas", in: Madhav M. Deshpande and Saroja Bhate (eds.): Vācaspatyam: Pt. Vamanshastri Bhagwat Felicitation Volume. Poona:Vaidika Samśodana Maṇḍala, 1994, pp. 17–33. (A PDF can be found here: http://iriab.soka.ac.jp/content/pdf/kudo/Kudo1994-Karmakartari.pdf .)
Andrey Kleabanob
9/23/2021 05:56:27 am
In reply to Katsura sensei and Haru mahodaya:
Andrey Kleabanob
9/24/2021 04:43:48 am
I just saw that my comment from yesterday wasn't approved by the system. To summarise what wrote, vedyate does not need be a causative, it could be a passive form (whatever we call it exactly in Sanskrit) from vedayati, a 10th class root. Still, following Kāśikā etc., karmakartṛ-prayoga shouldn't be possible, because it is essentially a kartṛsthāka dhātu. (we expect "ṇer aṇau.." to operate here). It is possible though that Jñānaśrī didn't know about the special limitations imposed by the commentators, or, what is also possible, that he followed an interpretation tradition that we are not aware of.
Mattia Salvini
9/25/2021 09:19:38 pm
Andrey:
Andrey Klebanov
9/27/2021 02:14:43 am
Mattia Ji,
Andrey Klebanov
9/27/2021 02:38:28 am
As for Yaśomitra's interpretation of asiddham, I definitely haven't seen it anywhere else (but it's not that I have studied this particular sūtra at length or smth.).
Harunaga Isaacson
9/27/2021 03:02:37 am
Dear Andrey,
Mattia Salvini
9/27/2021 03:02:59 am
Thanks Andrey,
Harunaga Isaacson
9/27/2021 03:06:24 am
"Also, I'm somehow not so sure about that "ekasavarṇadīrghatvam". Usually the process should be smth like (manas upa, mana - ru - upa, mana - y - upa, mana - upa). His savarṇadīrghatva- implies that there must be an "u" (or an "a") occurring somewhere in the process. But I don't know, maybe I'm missing smth right now."
Mattia Salvini
9/27/2021 04:43:22 am
Apologies, Haru, and Andrey. Indeed I had posted the passage on manaāpa while actually meaning to post the following:
Alex Watson
9/20/2021 05:01:41 pm
Are there parallels for the expression vedanaṃ vadataḥ? I would have thought that it is words that are spoken, and cognitions are thought. But I suppose this expression could mean 'for someone who articulates the thought'.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
9/20/2021 11:46:49 pm
Dear All,
Reply
Mattia Salvini
9/21/2021 12:42:48 am
Reply
Mattia Salvini
9/21/2021 01:08:27 am
P.S.: here is the initial section of a discussion by Ratnakīrti, which I think may be relevant in assessing my proposed line of interpretation:
Reply
Alex Watson
9/21/2021 01:14:00 am
yasya puro ’paropādhiprakāśiny api nīle nijābhisaṃskārikāvidyābalāt paraprakāśyatāsaṃśayaḥ, tadbodhanāya nyāyasahaḥ sādhanopanyāsaḥ.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
9/21/2021 05:10:31 am
I hope the following parallels may be useful:
Reply
Hejung
9/23/2021 02:21:16 am
In note 58 in the newest translation, I tried to account for the meaning of the upādhi in this context. Please let me know what you think.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
9/28/2021 05:05:29 am
I took it to mean something simpler, i.e. an additional, proximate causal factor; aparopādhiprakāśin means "something that has manifestation not due to an additional, proximate causal factor." I think the following parallel from Prajñākaramati clarifies this:
Jed Forman
9/22/2021 11:40:27 am
Just a small question on 5.19.
Reply
Hejung
9/23/2021 02:16:45 am
Many apologies for uploading the revised drafts too shortly again!
Reply
Mattia Salvini
9/23/2021 02:45:11 am
Regarding arthatattva:
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
9/23/2021 02:57:11 am
Many thanks for the parallels, Mattia (also for your other posts, to which alas I will not be able to respond today, probably). Just a quick request for a reminder: when you say "how I was proposing to take “arthatattva:”', which way was that exactly again? In your last passage it seems to me that arthatattva is 6tp and artha contrasts with śabdamātra- a little before that.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
9/23/2021 04:20:42 am
Yes Haru thank you, indeed - I would have taken it (understanding it as 6tp) as:
Hejung
9/27/2021 01:51:21 am
Just uploaded revised drafts, see you soon.
Reply
Shoryu Katsura
9/27/2021 06:30:59 am
SSS: saṃvṛtyā sarvasvīkārād iti cet. tattvato na kiṃcid astīty etad eva lokasya na kṣamam. saṃvṛtyā tu nāstīti yadi syād astu.
Reply
Alex Watson
9/27/2021 10:00:55 am
At the very beginning of this chapter 5 of SSŚ, Jñānaśrī (or at least Jñānaśrī writing as a pūrvapakṣin) said that svasaṃvedana is yuktyāgamanigṛhīta.
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
10/3/2021 08:29:51 pm
Dear Alex,
Reply
Shanshan Jia
10/11/2021 05:28:35 am
Dear Moriyama sensai,
Shinya Moriyama
10/12/2021 09:14:02 am
Thank you, Shanshan Jia-san, for your kind explanation of the background of the LAS, about which I knew nothing. Especially the idea of two kinds of cittamātra in LAS is very interesting. I look forward to reading your dissertation.
Alex Watson
9/27/2021 10:05:16 am
I see three separable but related/overlapping things that Jñānaśrī regards as denied when it is said that X svayam bhāsate/prakāśate:
Reply
Mattia Salvini
9/27/2021 07:25:10 pm
Note on schedule:
Reply
Hejung
10/3/2021 11:25:51 pm
I hope that everyone had a pleasant weekend.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
10/4/2021 06:17:43 am
Please note that the next meeting will be on Oct the 14th (no sessions between Oct 5th and Oct the 14th)
Reply
Shanshan Jia
10/11/2021 03:24:56 am
Excuse me for going back to some old discussions between Mattia and Andrey about the "karmakartari" in Yaśomitra's commentary. I just want to point out that in fact it's not his own view, as it is stated in the text "karmakartari ktavidhānam ity apare". Though he did not leave a refutation about this view, I think it's slightly imprecise to say that it's his own explanation. In fact, he proposes two other interpretations for the kta form in the word "buddha": 1. kartari (probably his main / preferred interpretation), in the sense of the one who opens, expands like a lotus which blossoms, being free from ignorance (avidyā, the state of being unconscious) and sleepiness, dullness (nidrā). 2. "karmaṇi", as the object of budh, in the sense of being awakened by other buddhas or being known by other buddhas.
Reply
Shanshan Jia
10/11/2021 10:03:05 am
An afterthought about this karmakartari, addressed to Mattia and Andrey and perhaps others who are interested:
Reply
Shanshan Jia
10/12/2021 01:49:29 am
Self-correction: "odanam" should be "odanaḥ"
Mattia Salvini
10/13/2021 08:57:12 pm
Thank you Shanshan, that is useful (yes, I was expressing myself somewhat imprecisely, although I imagine that Yaśomitra does not frown upon that explanation, as, it seems to me, he does not rebuke it). In the end, though, the example of svayaṁ budhyate does not seem to validate the understanding of vedyate as a karmakartari usage, for the reasons offered by Andrey above, if I understood those reasons correctly.
Hejung
10/20/2021 08:50:38 pm
Please find revised drafts for today's reading.
Reply
Hejung
10/27/2021 11:19:21 pm
I hope that everyone is having a good week. Just uploaded revised drafts for today. Read with you soon!
Reply
Alex Watson
11/3/2021 01:56:06 am
Dear All
Reply
Alex Watson
11/3/2021 02:01:36 am
4. p. 18, 5:40cd: anenaivāpāste ’py anumitimate liṅgaviraho
Reply
Alex Watson
11/3/2021 09:13:13 am
A brief addition to my last post about the problems Jñānaśrī refers to with the liṅga in the inference of consciousness. Obviously finding references is a better way to make progress than simply using one's imagination :-) but I can imagine someone arguing that if jñāna is imperceptible then jñātatā is imperceptible too. And this is the kind of argument that Jñānaśrī would agree with, given his frequent assertions to the effect that we would not know an object as cognized unless we cognized cognition, i.e. we would not know jñātatā unless we cognized jñāna.
Reply
Hejung
11/4/2021 01:19:17 am
Please find revised drafts for today's reading. See you soon!
Reply
Mattia Salvini
11/4/2021 07:22:18 am
NOTE:
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
11/4/2021 06:33:24 pm
Thank you for the wonderful seminar! On yesterday’s lecture, I would comment two points.
Reply
Alex Watson
11/7/2021 01:26:51 am
Based on what we read last time, my impression is that Jñānaśrī thinks that the Śāntideva verse straightforwardly asserts that dṛṣṭādi na pratiṣidhyate.
Reply
Hejung
11/11/2021 12:47:13 am
Dear all,
Reply
Alex Watson
11/16/2021 10:07:53 am
I had a question about the passage that began on the top of page 12 with atha tattvato ’pi nāstīti kim asmābhiḥ sādhyate, astināstivyatikramasyābhimatatvād iti cet.
Reply
Alex Watson
11/16/2021 11:54:25 pm
2 corrections to the previous post:
Reply
Hejung
11/18/2021 03:23:03 am
Apologies from uploading the newest drafts very shortly!
Reply
Hejung
11/18/2021 03:23:41 am
Sorry for the typo, apologies for...
Reply
Mattia Salvini
11/19/2021 05:25:59 am
anumānasiddhavyāvṛttyantaraviśiṣṭasya pratyakṣeṇa sākṣātkāre pramāṇayor api na virodhaḥ, kṣaṇikavad alīkatve ’pi niścayapratyayānudayāt. viṣayabhedaś ca vyaktaḥ.
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
11/19/2021 09:28:43 am
Thank you very much, Mattia. I would agree with your suggestions, especially the second one.
Reply
Alex Watson
11/24/2021 12:20:07 pm
I wanted to add something to Mattia's and Shinya-san's comments about this sentence
Reply
Alex Watson
11/24/2021 12:28:47 pm
Continuing from my last message which was cut off because of its terrible length!
Reply
Hejung
11/25/2021 01:39:38 am
Apologies for uploading the newest drafts very shortly.
Reply
Alex Watson
12/1/2021 09:11:21 am
When the Mādhyamika says in 5.46 (and in the prose below it) that there is no virodha between perception and inference, he must have some reason for seeing an at least potential virodha. Virodha must loom as a possibility for it to need to be denied.
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
12/2/2021 02:26:59 am
If there is a virodha, then the Sākāravādin can easily say that (svasaṃvedana) pratyakṣa trumps anumāna. (Indeed this is what goes on to happen.) So the Mādhyamika is here, anticipating that, trying to deny/remove that possibility. Hence the appeal to an analogy with the case of kṣaṇikatva.
Reply
Alex Watson
12/19/2021 08:50:55 am
Many thanks Haru, for your reply to my question about the virodha between pratyakṣa and anumāna.
Alex Watson
12/1/2021 07:54:53 pm
I am very interested in which Dharmakīrtian authors thought that momentariness was proved by ordinary perception (not just through cultivated yogic perception).
Reply
Alex Watson
12/19/2021 08:56:11 am
Many thanks Haru for answering this question (at the beginning of Session 20) about nīlasattāgrāhiṇo hi pratyakṣasya kṣaṇabhaṅgasādhanaṃ sattāviśeṣasādhanam eva.
Reply
Jed
12/19/2021 09:53:17 am
I think you're hitting on (IMHO) a difficulty in the general Buddhist position on yogipratyakṣa. Sucaritamiśra criticizes Buddhists exactly on this point, arguing yp is redundant if perception in general perceives that phenomena are momentary.
Hejung
12/2/2021 03:04:15 am
Just uploaded the latest drafts.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
12/2/2021 06:26:53 am
An attempt:
Reply
Mattia Salvini
12/2/2021 10:55:24 pm
To expand a bit:
Reply
Alex Watson
12/3/2021 11:16:43 am
Thanks Mattia. I can follow you up to there.
Mattia Salvini
12/4/2021 08:19:00 pm
"Furthermore, the principle is that one should not take as one's own side something that is rejected through pramāṇas."
Reply
Mattia Salvini
12/4/2021 10:32:55 pm
P.S.: it may be perhaps better to then understand pramāṇapratikṣipta as "rejected as pramāṇa" , in order to get this overall interpretation
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
12/6/2021 03:04:51 am
A brief note on the term ardhajaratīyam. There is Yamāri's interpretation of the term to PVA 43:23: kim ardhajaratīyam ālambate /, according to which the term indicates the impossibility of taking only the wealth of a half-old woman in whom one has no interest. If one wants her wealth, one must accept to get (or marry to) her as well.
Reply
Hejung
12/7/2021 04:01:05 pm
Many thanks to Prof. Moriyama for sharing this piece of information!
Reply
Hejung
12/8/2021 10:55:29 pm
Please find the newest drafts for today.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
12/9/2021 06:26:25 am
yadi ca kvacit pramāṇanirūpaṇe na saṃvādopalambhas tadā
Reply
Shoryu Katsura
12/9/2021 04:08:27 pm
Re. pakṣīkaraṇam
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
12/16/2021 02:45:43 am
Many thanks to Mattia and Prof. Katsura for helpful clarifications!
Reply
Hejung
12/16/2021 08:31:10 am
Just a small point, Thakur's editions lack the word pratyakṣa in the pratyakṣapratikṣiptasya. Vladimir seems not reporting this significant difference.
Shoryu Katsura
12/9/2021 04:36:31 pm
Re: saṃvāda
Reply
Hejung
12/16/2021 01:14:29 am
Sorry for uploading the latest drafts very shortly.
Reply
Alex Watson
12/20/2021 09:54:36 am
Many thanks to Jed for this very helpful post! And to Davey Tomlinson for emailing me a response to my post.
Reply
Jed
1/1/2022 01:49:21 pm
"Then what the cultivation of yogi-pratyakṣa enables is perception of a repeatable property rather than that of a unique dharmin (this latter being already available to ordinary sense-perception)?"
Reply
Alex Watson
12/20/2021 10:08:12 am
About the placing in the pakṣa of what an opponent will see as a locus of vyabhicāra, which is referred to in both SSŚ and in Jñānaśrī's treatment of the īśvarānumāna.
Reply
Hejung
12/23/2021 12:44:46 am
Just uploaded the drafts for our last reading this year!
Reply
Shoryu Katsura
12/24/2021 04:59:28 pm
Dear Harunaga san
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
2/3/2022 04:03:15 am
Dear Professor Katsura, very belatedly, for which my apologies, let me thank you for your kind and warm words, and of course for your joining us for the reading of chapter 5, and many helpful comments and suggestions both during the sessions and on this blog!
Reply
Hejung
2/2/2022 06:34:04 am
I hope everyone is having a good time turning the Lunar New Year! I just have uploaded my drafts for the beginning of the Ratnākarara readings this year. I am grateful to Kzuo Kano for sharing his work in progress that deal with some excerpts from the chapter that was very helpful.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
2/5/2022 12:27:43 am
Regarding the following section:
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
2/9/2022 05:51:48 am
Relevant indeed, it seems to me, thank you Mattia!
Reply
Hejung
2/9/2022 11:21:21 pm
Hope everyone is having a good week.
Reply
Hejung
2/16/2022 10:41:49 pm
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
2/16/2022 10:43:50 pm
I meant I thank Kazuo...
Reply
Hejung
3/3/2022 12:36:33 am
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
3/16/2022 08:53:27 pm
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
3/23/2022 08:25:59 pm
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
3/30/2022 09:27:36 pm
Hope you are well.
Reply
Shanshan Jia
3/31/2022 06:09:58 am
Dear Hejung and dear all,
Reply
Shanshan Jia
3/31/2022 06:25:16 am
Sorry about the typo: it should be svātantryam in the last line of my last comment.
Reply
Hejung
3/31/2022 04:44:28 pm
Apologies for misunderstanding what you said yesterday. Now I see what you mean and agree with you. I will change my translation, thanks!
Hejung
4/6/2022 05:00:58 pm
Further, it seems that Jñānaśrīmitra seems to use the svātantryam in a specific case, that is, when he wants to critique his opponent misinterpreting an authoritative text because they are reading their position into the text being quoted.
Shanshan Jia
3/31/2022 07:03:51 am
Another point: in the verse Bodhicittavivaraṇa 27quoted by Jñānaśrī on page 12 of Hejung's current draft, the first pāda which says "cittamātram idaṃ sarvaṃ" is supposed to be a quote from a sūtra. In the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, two verses 3.121 and 10.625 both have exactly the same wording as their first pāda. I just checked Lindtner's Nagarjuniana and it seems that he does not point it out in this book. I see that Jan Westerhoff quoted Bodhicittavivarṇa 27 in his article ''Nāgārjuna's Yogācāra" (2015: 173) as well, but he does not mention the LAS either. Lindtner seemed not to have mentioned this else where either although he did write something quite interesting between Nāgārjuna and the LAS. Perhaps I am the first person who points this out! But if anyone else knows that who has wrote anything about this, please do let me know. I will be more than grateful! My dissertation has one section addressing this matter too. Thank you Hejung, again for your edition and translation. I benefit a lot especially from reading this chapter together! Shanshan
Reply
Hejung
4/5/2022 03:48:36 pm
Thanks very much for pointing out those verses. It may well be the case insofar as there are no Japanese works that mention this. I am also very grateful to those learned scholars!
Reply
Hejung
4/6/2022 04:45:56 am
Regarding Laṅkāvatāra 10.625, pāda b lacks one syllable---sarvabhāvā hy anutpannā asatsadasaṃbhavāḥ|. Nanjio mentions a variant, asatsadābhasaṃbhavāḥ, in view of Bodhiruci's Chinese translation. It seems to me that the latter could likely come down to the same meaning. I am in trouble trying to spot the reference to the Chinese translation. Can you help?
Reply
Shanshan Jia
4/8/2022 03:06:17 am
Dear Hejung, I am sorry that I haven't seen your comment until yesterday evening. Regarding 10.625, I have found Bodhirūci 's translation (《入楞伽經》卷10) as follows:
Hejung
4/10/2022 03:22:50 pm
Thanks very much!
Mattia Salvini
4/3/2022 06:02:23 am
A very tentative thought:
Reply
Hejung
4/6/2022 05:36:04 pm
I agree with you that the prasajyavṛtti is meant to make a distinction between J and R. The difference might not only be relevant to the way both J and R understand the Dharmakāya, but also relevant to the way one applies negation so as to experience the Dharmakāya. Given that R holds that only paryudāsa is the correct way of making negation, the quotation of Paramārthastava 5 seems to have been read in favour of R. To point out that the quotation is misled, J reminds the opponent of that there was a prasajyavṛtti in Paramārthastava 4 that is unacceptable to R.
Reply
Hejung
4/6/2022 05:54:58 pm
Later on J says that Madhyāntavibhāga 1.1ab, i.e. abhūtaparikalpo 'sti dvayṃ tatra na vidyate|, can be understood to be respectively paryudāsa (1.1a) and prasajyapratiṣedha (1.1b). More importantly J says that he does not care which way one makes negation as far as svasamveda is secured. I have the impression that to J, the distinction between dharma and dharamin does not hold any significance on the absolute level. The expression, dhrameṇa dharminirdeśāt, seems to have some relevance to this paragraph too.
Reply
Hejung
4/6/2022 06:43:49 pm
We will resume our reading from p. 13 | 10 in the edition and p. 25 | 6 in the translation.
Reply
Hejung
4/13/2022 07:18:34 pm
Hope all of you are well.
Reply
Hejung
4/20/2022 07:35:40 pm
I hope that everyone is having a good week.
Reply
Hejung
5/4/2022 10:08:22 pm
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
5/18/2022 09:26:31 pm
Dear all,
Reply
Shoryu Katsura
5/19/2022 02:04:09 pm
The expression ‘antimā/antyā saṃvṛtiḥ’ in verse 6.12 reminds me of Dr. Kyuma’s discovery that Jñānaśrīmitra holds several different levels of saṃvṛti and paramārtha. Please see his Sein und Wirklichkeit in der Augenblicklichkeitslehre Jñānaśrīmitras, Wien 2005, Einleitung. Also see his Kōki Yugagyōha no Sisō, Yuishiki to Yugagyō, Series Daijō Bukkyō, Shunjyūsha, 2012. According to J. one doctrine (as e.g. the Sautrāntika) is paramārtha with respect to the doctrine of lower level (as e.g. the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika) but it is saṃvṛti with respect to the doctrine of higher level (as e.g. the Yogācāra). J. refers to the terms like bālasaṃvṛti/adharasaṃvṛt and niruttarasaṃvṛti/paṇḍitasaṃvṛti. According to Kyuma san, the highest level is that of the Yogācāra and J. characterizes it pratibhāsamātra/svavinmātra.
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
5/21/2022 07:04:25 pm
Thank you for the wonderful lecture!
Reply
Hejung
5/25/2022 10:03:39 pm
Dear Prof. Moriyama,
Reply
Hejung
5/25/2022 10:06:03 pm
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
6/8/2022 01:09:55 pm
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
6/30/2022 01:03:48 am
Dear all,
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
7/7/2022 01:50:37 am
Dear Harunaga-san, dear all,
Reply
Hejung
7/7/2022 03:28:31 am
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
7/14/2022 01:51:58 am
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
7/21/2022 01:09:31 am
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
8/4/2022 12:25:27 am
Dear all,
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/4/2022 04:25:50 am
"As you see, when the Nirākāravādin mentions the falsehood of the sambhogakāya, it is mostly something bhinna from the dharmakāya"
Reply
Hejung
8/4/2022 04:45:23 am
I believe both parties explain that the relation of the two bodies is neither same nor different from each other. When the Nirākāravādin mentions the sambhogakāya, it explains the former, i.e. it is not the same with the dharmakāya. I would like to draw your attention to the end of the quotation. The Nirākāravādin says the dharmkāya is avasthānataram.
Kazuo Kano
8/6/2022 10:14:55 pm
As for the passage: sūtrālaṅkāre ’pi “sarvaiś citrair lakṣaṇakair maṇḍitagātraḥˮ iti, atra bhāṣyam “citragrahaṇaṃ cakravartyādilakṣaṇebhyo viśeṣaṇārthamˮ iti dṛḍhīkaraṇam eva; the following is the equivalent part of the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra (Śaraṇagamanādhikāra); these parts are preserved only in the Tibetan translation:
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/25/2022 06:24:30 am
Regarding tundivr̥ttānta, I feel that the following verse from the Subhāṣitaratnakośa may fit the context well?
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/25/2022 07:19:14 am
P.S.: (I think it also fits with Jñānaśrī's sense of humor?)
Reply
Harunaga Isaacson
8/25/2022 10:27:24 pm
> P.S.: (I think it also fits with Jñānaśrī's sense of humor?)
Reply
Mattia Salvini
8/27/2022 01:52:04 am
Thank you Haru!
Reply
Hejung
9/1/2022 04:39:24 am
Dear all,
Reply
Hejung
9/22/2022 03:46:11 am
Dear all,
Reply
Mattia Salvini
9/22/2022 09:32:23 am
Regarding pratimbimbādi, I think it relates to Ratnagotravibhāga 4.13 and following, which in turn should be related to the Jñānālokālaṁkārasūtra.
Reply
Hejung
10/20/2022 04:11:01 am
Dear all,
Reply
Mattia Salvini
10/20/2022 04:16:26 am
is it 66 15?
Reply
Kazuo Kano
10/27/2022 04:26:03 pm
In RGV 3.1a, paramārthakāyatā (instead of paramārthakāyas in RGV Ms. A) sounds unmetic when the verse is written in upajāti.
Reply
Mattia Salvini
10/29/2022 08:44:57 pm
Thank you, Kazuo!
Reply
Hejung
11/3/2022 05:34:31 am
Dear all,
Reply
Mattia
12/8/2022 08:11:56 pm
kevalo vā paramārthaśabdaḥ śūnyatāparyāyaḥ kṛtaḥ paramārthakāya iti tu dharmadharmiṇoḥ pramāṇasiddhinibandhano ’bhidhīyata iti na virodhaḥ
Reply
Mattia
12/9/2022 07:47:04 pm
I would like to further modify my proposed translation:
Reply
12/11/2022 05:14:19 am
Uygun fiyatlardan takipçi satın al: https://takipcialdim.com/
Reply
12/11/2022 07:14:40 am
Tiktok takipçi satın almak için tıkla: https://takipcialdim.com/tiktok-takipci-satin-al/
Reply
12/11/2022 07:23:32 am
instagram beğeni satın al: https://takipcialdim.com/instagram-begeni-satin-al/
Reply
12/16/2022 11:42:06 pm
uygun fiyatlardan takipçi Hemen Göz At: https://takipcim.com.tr/
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
1/5/2023 09:17:49 am
According to fn. 13 of Noriaki Hakamaya’s article (http://repo.komazawa-u.ac.jp/opac/repository/all/18523/KJ00005090969.pdf), the four vyavadhānas are traced to the so-called Abhidharmasūtra:
Reply
Mattia
1/8/2023 06:42:05 pm
Thank you, this is extremely useful!
Reply
Mattia
1/16/2023 04:45:38 am
kalpitam eva tattvaṃ bhinnam vā grāhyādi
Reply
Mattia
1/16/2023 05:35:40 pm
A third option (somewhat close to the first):
Reply
Shinya Moriyama
1/18/2023 07:41:32 am
This is just a thought without ground, but I think the commentary on the PA of the Dignāga is finished up to alam bahunā.
Reply
Mattia
1/19/2023 05:35:18 pm
A proposal for the verse on the alternatives on the nature of the Buddha:
Reply
Mattia
1/22/2023 06:46:45 pm
samvidrūpam arūpam ambaranibhaṃ na bhrāntam anye
Reply
Kei Kataoka
2/1/2023 05:34:06 pm
The niṣṭhā in the last sentence is a culminating/ending point rather than basis, I think.
Reply
Mattia
2/2/2023 12:17:12 am
I also find this to be a preferable interpretation, thank you Kei
Reply
Mattia
2/2/2023 06:33:01 am
Some parts of the Bodhisattvabhūmi regarding the avoidance of nimittas with and without ābhoga:
Reply
Mattia
2/2/2023 06:41:32 am
kim iyaṃ nāgalokabhāṣā, ācāryamuṣṭir vā
Reply
Jed Forman
2/2/2023 09:45:30 am
Just another thought about "yo ... vimukto": Could the relative not be referring back to anything but anticipating an elliptical correlative? So, "yo dvayalakṣaṇena vimukto grāhyagrāhakalakṣaṇena, iyaṃ darśanamārgāvastheti" is actually "yo dvayalakṣaṇena vimuktaḥ sa grāhyagrāhakalakṣaṇena vimukta, iyaṃ darśanamārgāvastheti." In other words, "That which is free of the marks of duality is free of the marks of subject and object, and that state is the path of seeing." Or, does the masculine yaḥ preclude this, since (on my reading) we would expect a neuter? Thoughts?
Reply
Mattia
2/2/2023 07:54:18 pm
Thank you, to me this looks slightly unlikely, as grāhyagrāhakalakṣaṇena seems to be a gloss of sorts for dvayalakṣaṇena, thus I find it difficult to read them as vyadhikaraṇa (as, I think, your proposal would require: "one who is free of A is free of B"); and yes, if you meant the yaḥ saḥ as a general statement, I agree that a neuter would make better sense; moreover, it would seem difficult to go from a general statement to an identification of the path of seeing (i.e., it would seem odd that the path of seeing is defined as a general principle rather than a specific state, even if the general principle is applicable to a key feature of that state, as the general principle in itself does not say whether the feature is being actualized or not).
Reply
Jed
2/6/2023 06:43:27 pm
Thanks Mattia. I agree with your comments. I wondered about yaḥ with darśanamārga too, but I would think the iyam would preclude that, since (if grāhyagrāhakalakṣaṇena is only a gloss) iyam would have to construe with the relative. Otherwise, what would it refer to? If we made your reading explicit, it would be "yo dvayalakṣaṇena vimukto grāhyagrāhakalakṣaṇena, sa darśanamārgo hi iyam avastheti." It seems like "iyam avasthā" is just left dangling. But maybe I'm missing something?
Mattia
2/8/2023 06:21:39 pm
I was rather thinking of something along the lines of:
Reply
Jed Forman
2/8/2023 06:36:18 pm
I think that actually makes perfect sense if we read it as "iyam avasthā pratyakṣatāgamanam asti." Thanks!
Reply
Mattia
2/8/2023 08:11:24 pm
To spell out another possible interpretation that has already been mentioned:
Reply
Hejung
4/27/2023 04:29:05 am
Dear all,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
UPDATESHere you will find updated materials for the readings ArchivesCategories |