{"id":297,"date":"2012-04-22T21:33:29","date_gmt":"2012-04-22T19:33:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=297"},"modified":"2013-12-24T00:48:40","modified_gmt":"2013-12-24T00:48:40","slug":"dharmata-in-the-questions-of-maitreya-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/dharmata-in-the-questions-of-maitreya-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Dharmat\u0101 in the Questions of Maitreya, part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

The \u201cQuestions of Maitreya\u201d chapter speaks not only of the dharmat\u0101 (\u201ctrue nature\u201d) and svabh\u0101va (\u201cinherent nature\u201d) as mentioned in the first post on this, it also speaks of the dh\u0101tu (\u201celement\u201d) itself. The Perfection of Wisdom texts had spoken of the unthinkable or inconceivable element (acintya-dh\u0101tu, e.g., Edward Conze, The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom<\/em>, pp. 123, 179, 183, 185, 188, 193, 249, 253, 277, 305, 370, 374, 376, 377). This chapter calls it the unspeakable or inexpressible element (nirabhilapya-dh\u0101tu, Conze, pp. 646-647, eleven occurrences, translated as \u201cinexpressible realm\u201d). Students of The Secret Doctrine<\/em> will be reminded of these two adjectives, unthinkable and unspeakable, as applied to the first fundamental proposition of the Secret Doctrine, an omnipresent, eternal, boundless, and immutable principle (vol. 1, p. 14), which, as discussed here before, would be the dh\u0101tu, the one element. The \u201cQuestions of Maitreya\u201d chapter is one of the most primary documents we have in relation to this fundamental teaching.<\/p>\n

A new translation of the three key definitions from the \u201cQuestions of Maitreya\u201d is given below. It is followed by \u201cTranslation Notes,\u201d explaining how I understood the Sanskrit. These notes are given because Conze said that he and Lamotte have not understood an important phrase in the definition of dharmat\u0101 (p. 648, fn. 17). The notes show how I arrived at my translation of it. Also included below is the full Sanskrit text, which Conze and Iida did not give in their edition. They abbreviated what they regarded as repetitive parts of the text, giving only ellipses in their place. The full text is taken from the Sanskrit edition of the complete Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101-s\u016btra<\/em> in 25,000 lines, which only recently became available. It was prepared by Vijay Raj Vajracharya, and published in 3 volumes, 2006-2008 (Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies). Before giving the translation, I must do what Conze did not do, and which led to Thurman\u2019s criticism of his translations. The technical terms used must be briefly explained.<\/p>\n

No one expects to understand a science such as physics or chemistry without first learning its technical terms and their framework. The same is true of religio-philosophic systems such as Madhyamaka or Yog\u0101c\u0101ra Buddhism. All of Buddhism takes for granted a familiarity with the dharmas, the factors of existence that make up its worldview, often translated as \u201cphenomena.\u201d This is primarily a psychological worldview rather than a physical worldview, like we are accustomed to from modern science. So the dharmas are mostly states of our psychological make-up. These have been just as minutely catalogued in the Buddhist science of Abhidharma as have the physical elements in modern science. Indeed, common lists of dharmas include 75 (Abhidharma-ko\u015ba<\/em>) or 100 (Yog\u0101c\u0101ra) dharmas, much like the periodic table of chemical elements.<\/p>\n

The most basic analysis of a person is in terms of the five skandhas, the five \u201caggregates\u201d that make up a person. This has been an essential feature of Buddhism from the beginning, before the development of the detailed lists of dharmas. The definitions from the \u201cQuestions of Maitreya\u201d of the three aspects of dharmas, or ways in which dharmas are to be seen, are given in relation to the five skandhas, then going on to include all dharmas up to the highest with the phrase, \u201cup to buddha-dharmas.\u201d We do not yet have standardized English translations for the five skandhas or \u201caggregates.\u201d Common translations for them are: (1) r\u016bpa, \u201cform\u201d or \u201cmatter\u201d; (2) vedan\u0101, \u201cfeeling\u201d or \u201csensation\u201d; (3) sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101, \u201cperception\u201d or \u201cperception and conception\u201d; (4) sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra, \u201cformations\u201d or \u201cmental formations\u201d or \u201ckarma-formations\u201d or \u201cvolitional formations\u201d or \u201cvolitions\u201d or \u201cdispositions\u201d or \u201cconditioning forces\u201d or \u201ccompositional factors\u201d; (5) vij\u00f1\u0101na, \u201cconsciousness.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is wide consensus that, as one of the five aggregates that make up a person, r\u016bpa (\u201cform\u201d) refers to \u201cmatter.\u201d Although this is therefore a good translation, there is also wisdom in keeping the same translation term for the same original term wherever it occurs, as we learned from the marvelously consistent Tibetan translations of Sanskrit texts that comprise the Tibetan Buddhist canon. There, r\u016bpa is translated as gzugs throughout. So I will stay with \u201cform\u201d for r\u016bpa. For the second aggregate, vedan\u0101, the translation term \u201csensation\u201d is not very different from \u201cfeeling,\u201d so I will use the more commonly used \u201cfeeling.\u201d For the third aggregate, translators have pointed out that when sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101 is translated as \u201cperception,\u201d we must also know that \u201cconception\u201d is included in this skandha. The fourth skandha, sa\u1e43sk\u0101r\u0101\u1e25 (plural), is quite the hardest to translate, as may be seen by its many renderings. I will here simply choose one of these, \u201cconditioning forces.\u201d The fifth skandha is translated by most translators as \u201cconsciousness\u201d (although a few translate it as \u201cperception\u201d or \u201ccognition\u201d).<\/p>\n

The \u201cQuestions of Maitreya\u201d chapter begins with Maitreya asking the Buddha how, if the inherent nature (svabh\u0101va) of all dharmas is non-existence (abh\u0101va), should a bodhisattva practicing the Perfection of Wisdom train in the bodhisattva training in regard to \u201cform\u201d (the first aggregate), \u201cfeeling\u201d (the second aggregate), etc., etc. That is, if all dharmas are ultimately non-existent, how does a bodhisattva (who wishes to help others) understand the dharmas that make up the people and the world that are to be helped. The Buddha replies that the bodhisattva should understand all dharmas as just names (n\u0101ma-m\u0101tra).<\/p>\n

Maitreya then says: when the name \u201cform,\u201d etc., is perceived as having substance or being real (sa-vastuka), based on it being the outward sign (nimitta) of something that is conditioned (sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra), then how can a bodhisattva train in understanding \u201cform,\u201d etc., to be just a name. That is, since each thing we see is real in that it is produced by causes and conditions, how can we regard it as being merely a name. Maitreya here uses a phrase that is used throughout the \u201cQuestions of Maitreya\u201d chapter, sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra-nimitta, translated by Conze as \u201cthe sign of something conditioned.\u201d This is a perfectly good translation, but it needs to be explained.<\/p>\n

Something conditioned or compounded (sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra) is something that is produced by causes and conditions, and that is put together or made of parts. This means that it is transitory or impermanent, and will not last. Everything in the phenomenal world is something conditioned or compounded (sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra, sa\u1e43sk\u1e5bta). So to speak of something conditioned is a way to refer to everything in the phenomenal or perceptible world. Then, we do not perceive a thing in its entirety, but we see only the outward sign or visible representation of it. This is its sign (nimitta), how we characterize or define it. It is a way to refer to something according to how we see it, which allows us to identify it, name it, etc. The Tibetan translation of nimitta used here, mtshan ma (as opposed to rgyu mtshan or rgyu meaning cause), emphasizes its meaning as something\u2019s defining characteristic. The compound sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra-nimitta, translated by Conze as \u201cthe sign of something conditioned,\u201d thus may also be translated as \u201cdefined by being conditioned.\u201d It refers to all dharmas except the unconditioned or uncompounded dharmas, namely, nirv\u0101\u1e47a, and sometimes also \u0101k\u0101\u015ba (\u201cspace\u201d), and sometimes also tathat\u0101 (\u201csuchness\u201d).<\/p>\n

Maitreya goes on to point out here: if a thing that is defined by being conditioned, to which we give the name \u201cform,\u201d etc., actually lacked any substance or any reality, if there was really nothing there, then it would not be tenable to give it the name, \u201cform,\u201d etc. There would be nothing to give a name to. The Buddha replies that the name is adventitious (\u0101gantuka), not inherent, projected onto a thing that is defined by being conditioned, such as form, etc. All along, Maitreya has been asking about the inherent nature (svabh\u0101va) of dharmas. This reply, that the name is adventitious, leads to a discussion of whether the inherent nature of form, etc., is actually perceived. If the name is adventitious, then perhaps it is the inherent nature of form, etc., that is perceived. This is denied. If the name is perceived, then perhaps the name is the inherent nature of form, etc. This is denied.<\/p>\n

Maitreya then wonders if form, etc., completely do not exist by way of their inherent characteristics (sva-lak\u1e63a\u1e47a), here used as a kind of synonym of inherent nature (svabh\u0101va). The Buddha replies: I do not say that form, etc., completely do not exist by way of their inherent characteristics. Maitreya responds: how do form, etc., exist? The Buddha replies that they exist by worldly convention, not in reality or ultimately (param\u0101rthata\u1e25).<\/p>\n

Maitreya now brings in the inexpressible \u201celement\u201d (dh\u0101tu). He says that, as he understands the Buddha\u2019s teachings, the \u201celement\u201d is inexpressible (nirabhilapya) ultimately. The implication is that, ultimately (param\u0101rthata\u1e25), one cannot say it exists or does not exist. Students of The Secret Doctrine<\/em> will here be reminded of H. P. Blavatsky\u2019s statement, \u201cIt is \u2018Be-ness\u2019 rather than Being\u201d (vol. 1, p. 14). Maitreya wonders, then, why the Buddha would say that form, etc., do not exist ultimately. Wouldn\u2019t they be the same as the element, so that one could only say about their existence that it is inexpressible ultimately, rather than that they do not exist ultimately? The Buddha replies: things that are defined by being conditioned, i.e., form, etc., are neither different from the element nor not different from the element. Maitreya asks how, then, should they be understood.<\/p>\n

The Buddha says that they should be understood under three aspects: (1) parikalpita (kun brtags), \u201cfalsely imagined,\u201d or \u201cimaginary\u201d; (2) vikalpita (rnam par brtags), \u201cconceptualized,\u201d or \u201cconstructed by thought\u201d; and (3) dharmat\u0101 (chos nyid), \u201cdharma-ness\u201d or \u201ctrue nature.\u201d Maitreya asks: which is the falsely imagined form, etc.?; which is the thought-constructed form, etc.?; which is the true nature form, etc.? The Buddha then gives the definitions of these three, where the present translation begins.<\/p>\n

The Sanskrit text accompanying the translation is from \u0100ryapa\u00f1cavi\u1e43\u015batis\u0101hasrik\u0101praj\u00f1\u0101p\u0101ramit\u0101<\/em>, ed. Vijay Raj Vajracharya, vol. 3, pp. 1328-1329. This corresponds to the Conze and Iida edition, p. 238, nos. 39-41 (attached earlier). The corresponding Tibetan translation from the Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101-s\u016btra<\/em> in 18,000 lines is found in the Collated Kangyur, vol. 31, pp. 387-388; the one from the Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101-s\u016btra<\/em> in 25,000 lines is found in vol. 28, pp. 775-776. In the revised Praj\u00f1\u0101-p\u0101ramit\u0101-s\u016btra<\/em> in 25,000 lines, it is found in the Collated Tengyur, vol. 51, pp. 790-791. As said before, Conze\u2019s English translation of this passage is found in his book, The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom<\/em>, p. 648 (attached earlier). Here is the Sanskrit text and new translation:<\/p>\n

bhagav\u0101n \u0101ha | y\u0101 maitreya sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra-nimitte vastuni r\u016bpam iti n\u0101ma sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101 sa\u1e43keta\u1e25 praj\u00f1aptir vyavah\u0101ra\u1e25 ni\u015britya r\u016bpa-svabh\u0101vatay\u0101 parikalpaneda\u1e43 parikalpita\u1e43 r\u016bpam | yan maitreya tasmin sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra-nimitte vastuni vedaneti sa\u1e43j\u00f1eti sa\u1e43sk\u0101r\u0101 iti vij\u00f1\u0101nam iti y\u0101vad buddha-dharm\u0101 iti n\u0101ma sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101 sa\u1e43keta\u1e25 praj\u00f1aptir vyavah\u0101ra\u1e25 ni\u015britya vedan\u0101-svabh\u0101vatay\u0101 sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101-svabh\u0101vatay\u0101 sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra-svabh\u0101vatay\u0101 vij\u00f1\u0101na-svabh\u0101vatay\u0101 y\u0101vad buddha-dharma-svabh\u0101vatay\u0101 parikalpaneya\u1e43 parikalpit\u0101 vedan\u0101-sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101-sa\u1e43sk\u0101r\u0101 vij\u00f1\u0101na\u1e43 y\u0101vad ime parikalpit\u0101 buddha-dharm\u0101\u1e25 |<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Blessed One said: Maitreya, in regard to a thing that is defined by being conditioned, the false imagination as to the inherent nature of form, based on the name, notion, label, designation, or conventional expression \u2018form\u2019, is the falsely imagined form. Maitreya, in regard to this thing that is defined by being conditioned, the false imagination as to the inherent nature of feeling, as to the inherent nature of perception, as to the inherent nature of conditioning forces, as to the inherent nature of consciousness, up to as to the inherent nature of buddha-dharmas, based on the name, notion, label, designation, or conventional expression \u2018feeling\u2019, \u2018perception\u2019, \u2018conditioning forces\u2019, \u2018consciousness\u2019, up to \u2018buddha-dharmas\u2019, is the falsely imagined feeling, perception, conditioning forces, consciousness, up to the falsely imagined buddha-dharmas.\u201d<\/p>\n

y\u0101 punas tasya sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra-nimittasya vastuno vikalpa-m\u0101tra-dharmat\u0101y\u0101m avasth\u0101nat\u0101[-]vikalpa\u1e43 prat\u012bty\u0101bhilapanat\u0101 tatreda\u1e43 n\u0101ma sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101 sa\u1e43keta\u1e25 praj\u00f1aptir vyavah\u0101ro r\u016bpam iti vedaneti sa\u1e43j\u00f1eti sa\u1e43sk\u0101r\u0101 iti vij\u00f1\u0101nam iti y\u0101vad buddha-dharm\u0101 iti | ida\u1e43 vikalpita\u1e43 r\u016bpam iya\u1e43 vikalpit\u0101 vedan\u0101 iya\u1e43 vikalpit\u0101 sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101 ime vikalpit\u0101\u1e25 sa\u1e43sk\u0101r\u0101 ida\u1e43 vikalpita\u1e43 vij\u00f1\u0101nam ime y\u0101vad vikalpit\u0101 buddha-dharm\u0101\u1e25 |<\/p>\n

\u201cNext, this thing that is defined by being conditioned is an expression dependent on the thought-construction of [its] status as to the true nature of thought-construction only. What, in regard to this, is the name, notion, label, designation, or conventional expression \u2018form\u2019, \u2018feeling\u2019, \u2018perception\u2019, \u2018conditioning forces\u2019, \u2018consciousness\u2019, up to \u2018buddha-dharmas\u2019, this is the thought-constructed form, this is the thought-constructed feeling, this is the thought-constructed perception, these are the thought-constructed conditioning forces, this is the thought-constructed consciousness, up to these are the thought-constructed buddha-dharmas.\u201d<\/p>\n

y\u0101 utp\u0101d\u0101d v\u0101 tath\u0101gat\u0101n\u0101m anutp\u0101d\u0101d v\u0101 sthitaiveya\u1e43 dharm\u0101\u1e47\u0101\u1e43 dharmat\u0101 dharma-sthitit\u0101 dharma-dh\u0101tur yat tena parikalpita-r\u016bpe\u1e47a tasya vikalpita-r\u016bpasya nitya\u1e43 nitya-k\u0101la\u1e43 dhruva\u1e43 dhruva-k\u0101la\u1e43 ni\u1e25svabh\u0101vat\u0101 dharma-nair\u0101tmya\u1e43 tathat\u0101 bh\u016bta-ko\u1e6dir ida\u1e43 dharmat\u0101 r\u016bpam iya\u1e43 dharmat\u0101 vedan\u0101 sa\u1e43j\u00f1\u0101 sa\u1e43sk\u0101r\u0101 vij\u00f1\u0101nam ime y\u0101vad buddha-dharm\u0101\u1e25 |<\/p>\n

\u201cWhether tath\u0101gatas arise or do not arise, this true nature (dharmat\u0101) of dharmas simply remains; [it is] the condition for the abiding of dharmas (dharma-sthitit\u0101), the element of dharmas (dharma-dh\u0101tu). [It is] the absence of inherent nature (ni\u1e25svabh\u0101va) of this thought-constructed form as [it appears as] this falsely imagined form throughout permanent, permanent time, and constant, constant time; [it is] the absence of self in dharmas (dharma-nair\u0101tmya), suchness (tathat\u0101), the reality limit (bh\u016bta-ko\u1e6di). This is the true nature form (dharmat\u0101 r\u016bpa), this is the true nature feeling, perception, conditioning forces, consciousness, up to these are the [true nature] buddha-dharmas.\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation Notes<\/p>\n

Before getting to the problem area, a few other translation issues should be clarified. Sanskrit regularly uses what has been called a yat-tat correlative, where the relative pronoun yat, \u201cwhat, which,\u201d is correlated with the demonstrative pronoun tat, \u201cthis, that.\u201d This includes all forms of the Sanskrit pronouns, in any gender or any declension, and not only the forms yat and tat. Such a construction with correlating pronouns is not used in English. In our first definition above, the core sentence is: y\u0101 parikalpan\u0101 ida\u1e43 parikalpita\u1e43 r\u016bpam, where the correlating pronouns are y\u0101, \u201cwhat,\u201d and idam, \u201cthis.\u201d It says, literally, \u201cwhat is false imagination, this is falsely imagined form.\u201d But in English, we merely say, \u201cfalse imagination is falsely imagined form.\u201d We do not use the correlating pronouns. So my English translation of this definition purposely omits these pronouns. This same core sentence structure is used for all three definitions, beginning with y\u0101, \u201cwhat,\u201d and ending with the correlative idam, \u201cthis.\u201d In the second two definitions, however, the beginning part giving the \u201cwhat\u201d is lengthy, so the definition requires more than one English sentence. In the second definition, I have not omitted the \u201cwhat,\u201d but have moved it to the beginning of the third English sentence. Even though it does not make very good English, I have retained it in the translation because the correlating \u201cthis\u201d in the ending part of the definition is repeated for each item. In the third definition, I have omitted translating the \u201cwhat\u201d in the lengthy beginning part of the definition, but I have translated the \u201cthis\u201d at the beginning of the English sentence giving the ending part of the definition.<\/p>\n

On specific terms: As already said, the word nimitta, often translated as \u201csign,\u201d is here translated in the compound sa\u1e43sk\u0101ra-nimitta as \u201cdefined by,\u201d following the Tibetan translation of it used here, mtshan ma. The word sa\u1e43keta is also often translated as \u201csign.\u201d Conze here translated it as \u201csocial agreement.\u201d I have here translated it as \u201clabel.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then, the compound dharma-sthitit\u0101 is not easy to understand. Bhikkhu Bodhi translates its Pali equivalent as \u201cthe stableness of the Dhamma.\u201d Conze translates it as \u201cthe established order of dharmas.\u201d My translation of it as \u201cthe condition for the abiding of dharmas\u201d is based on the form of this catechism-like saying as it occurs in the Sa\u1e43yukt\u0101gama: utp\u0101d\u0101d v\u0101 tath\u0101gat\u0101n\u0101m anutp\u0101d\u0101d v\u0101 sthit\u0101 eveya\u1e43 dharmat\u0101 dharma-sthitaye dh\u0101tu\u1e25. Here, sthiti is declined in the dative case, \u201cfor the abiding of dharmas.\u201d The whole sentence may be translated as: \u201cWhether tath\u0101gatas arise or do not arise, this true nature (dharmat\u0101) simply remains, the element (dh\u0101tu) for the abiding of dharmas.\u201d The Sanskrit of this text was discovered among the Turfan finds in the early 1900s. See: Funfundzwanzig S\u016btras des Nid\u0101nasa\u1e43yukta<\/em>, edited by Chandrabh\u0101l Trip\u0101\u1e6dh\u012b (Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden, vol. 8. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962, p. 148). The word \u201ccondition\u201d in my translation renders the -t\u0101 suffix.<\/p>\n

The problematic phrase is given by Conze (p. 648) as: \u201cthe absence of own-being which is characteristic eternally and through all eternity, constantly and through all time, of that discerned form because of that imagined form.\u201d In a footnote to this, Conze refers to and partially quotes a French translation by Lamotte, concluding: \u201cWe have not understood this phrase.\u201d The reference is given as \u201cLamotte II 1. p. 91.\u201d As happens all too often, this is not listed in the abbreviations, and there is no bibliography. Paging backwards, we find on p. 583 fn. a reference to \u201cE. Lamotte, Le traite<\/em>,\u201d but this is a different book. The reference, it turns out, is to Lamotte\u2019s 1938 book, La somme du grand vehicule<\/em>, tome II, fascicule I. There, in a long footnote quoting material from the Chinese translation of the Upanibandhana<\/em> commentary, this same passage occurs. The phrase in question is: \u201cEn raison de cette matiere imaginaire (parikalpitar\u016bpa<\/em>), la matiere pensee (vikalpar\u016bpa<\/em>) est eternelle et constante.\u201d This is then summed up as: \u201cEn raison de ces attributs de Buddha imaginaires (parikalpitabuddhadharma<\/em>), les attributs de Buddha penses (vikalpabuddhadharma<\/em>) sont eternels et constants.\u201d Ani Migme translates Lamotte\u2019s French of these phrases as (p. 133): \u201cBecause of this imaginary nature (parikalpitar\u016bpa<\/em>), conceptual form (vikalpar\u016bpa<\/em>) is eternal and constant\u201d; and \u201cBecause of these imaginary attributes of the Buddha (parikalpitabuddhadharma<\/em>), the conceptual attributes of the Buddha (vikalpabuddhadharma<\/em>) are eternal and constant.\u201d<\/p>\n

As may be seen, Conze\u2019s and Lamotte\u2019s translations agree in saying \u201cbecause of<\/span> that imagined form\/this imaginary nature.\u201d One must wonder why anything eternal and constant would be because of something imagined or imaginary (I have translated this as \u201cfalsely imagined,\u201d because the prefix \u201cpari\u201d gives kalpita, \u201cimagined,\u201d the sense of \u201cfalsely\u201d). The \u201cbecause of\u201d is a translation of the instrumental case ending, \u201c-ena,\u201d on parikalpita-r\u016bpe\u1e47a, and its corresponding pronoun declined in the instrumental case, tena. The instrumental case is not always easy to translate, because it has more than one meaning. One of the less-known meanings of the instrumental case is \u201cas.\u201d It is not found in Sanskrit textbooks known to me. But it can be found in this meaning in a related text, Vasubandhu\u2019s commentary on Maitreya\u2019s Madhy\u0101nta-vibh\u0101ga<\/em>, 3.2: tat punar da\u015ba-vidha\u1e43 da\u015ba-vidh\u0101tmagr\u0101ha-pratipak\u1e63e\u1e47a veditavyam, \u201cFurther, this group of ten [principles] should be understood as an antidote (pratipak\u1e63e\u1e47a) to the group of ten graspings of self.\u201d It can also be found in this meaning in another old text, Gau\u1e0dap\u0101da\u2019s M\u0101\u1e47\u1e0d\u016bkya-k\u0101rik\u0101<\/em>, 3.3: \u0101tm\u0101 hy \u0101k\u0101\u015bavaj j\u012bvair gha\u1e6d\u0101k\u0101\u015bair ivodita\u1e25, \u201cThe \u0101tman has arisen as individual souls (j\u012bvair, instrumental plural), like space as the space in pots.\u201d Indeed, this text even uses it in this meaning with the cognate verbal, vikalpita, in 2.17 and 2.19. The latter is: pr\u0101\u1e47\u0101dibhir anantais tu bh\u0101vair etair vikalpita\u1e25, \u201c[It] is imagined as pr\u0101\u1e47a, etc., as these infinite existing things.\u201d This establishes that the instrumental case can mean \u201cas.\u201d Does it mean \u201cas\u201d here?<\/p>\n

In a text by Vasubandhu, the Tri-svabh\u0101va-nirde\u015ba<\/em>, the corresponding three svabh\u0101vas taught in the Yog\u0101c\u0101ra school of Buddhism are explained. These are: (1) parikalpita svabh\u0101va, the \u201cfalsely imagined nature\u201d; (2) paratantra svabh\u0101va, the \u201cdependent nature\u201d; and (3) parini\u1e63panna svabh\u0101va, the \u201cperfect nature.\u201d They are defined in verses 2-4, which I translate as follows:<\/p>\n

yat khy\u0101ti paratantro \u2019sau yath\u0101 khy\u0101ti sa kalpita\u1e25 |<\/p>\n

pratyay\u0101dh\u012bna-v\u1e5bttitv\u0101t kalpan\u0101-m\u0101tra-bh\u0101vata\u1e25 || 2 ||<\/p>\n

2. What appears is the dependent, because it functions in dependence on conditions. As it appears is the imagined, because of being imagination only.<\/p>\n

tasya khy\u0101tur yath\u0101-khy\u0101na\u1e43 y\u0101 sad\u0101vidyam\u0101nat\u0101 |<\/p>\n

j\u00f1eya\u1e25 sa parini\u1e63panna\u1e25 svabh\u0101vo \u2019nanyath\u0101tvata\u1e25 || 3 ||<\/p>\n

3. The ever non-existence of what appears, as it appears, is to be known as the perfect nature, because it is changeless.<\/p>\n

tatra ki\u1e43 khy\u0101ty asatkalpa\u1e25 katha\u1e43 khy\u0101ti dvay\u0101tman\u0101 |<\/p>\n

tasya k\u0101 n\u0101stit\u0101 tena y\u0101 tatr\u0101dvaya-dharmat\u0101 || 4 ||<\/p>\n

4. Of these, what appears? The imagination of what is unreal. How does it appear? In the form of duality. What is the non-existence of that as that (tena)? Their true nature without duality.<\/p>\n

Here in verses 2 and 3, the word yath\u0101, \u201cas\u201d (in the sense of \u201cthe way in which\u201d), is twice used to define the (falsely) imagined nature (kalpita used for parikalpita to fit the meter): \u201cas it appears.\u201d Then in verse 4, the pronoun declined in the instrumental case, tena, clearly means \u201cas that\/this.\u201d This is also what it means in the problematic phrase from the \u201cQuestions of Maitreya\u201d chapter. It does not here mean \u201cbecause of this\/that,\u201d as Lamotte took it in his early work (translated from a Chinese translation rather than the Sanskrit original) that he never had time to go back and revise, and as Conze also gave but responsibly added a note saying, \u201cWe have not understood this phrase.\u201d It here means \u201cas<\/span> this falsely imagined form\u201d; so I have translated this phrase as \u201cthe absence of inherent nature (ni\u1e25svabh\u0101va) of this thought-constructed form as [it appears as] this falsely imagined form throughout permanent, permanent time, and constant, constant time.\u201d I added in brackets \u201c[it appears as]\u201d so that \u201cas this falsely imagined form\u201d would not be taken as \u201cas also this falsely imagined form.\u201d<\/p>\n

Not a single one of the seven English translations of the Tri-svabh\u0101va-nirde\u015ba<\/em> now available took tena in verse 4 as \u201cas that\/this.\u201d Two translations simply omitted the tena (Sujitkumar Mukhopadhyaya, The Trisvabh\u0101vanirde\u015ba of Vasubandhu<\/em>, 1939; and Stefan Anacker, Seven Works of Vasubandhu<\/em>, 1984). Two translations took the tena as \u201cwith this\/that\u201d (Fernando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti, \u201cwith this (duality),\u201d Journal of Indian Philosophy<\/em>, 1983, p. 252; and Karl Brunnholzl, \u201cwith that [duality],\u201d Straight from the Heart<\/em>, 2007). Two seem to have taken the tena in the meaning \u201cby this,\u201d and then paraphrased this as \u201cwill result from\u201d (Thomas A. Kochumuttom, A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience<\/em>, 1982), or as \u201cis the consequence of\u201d (Jay Garfield, Empty Words<\/em>, 2002, but the translation is too loose to tell for sure). One seems to have taken the tena as \u201cin virtue of which\u201d and placed it with the last metrical foot of the verse (Thomas E. Wood, Mind Only<\/em>, 1991). Despite the yath\u0101 (\u201cas\u201d) in the definitions in the preceding two verses, the meaning of the instrumental case as \u201cas\u201d is too little known.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The \u201cQuestions of Maitreya\u201d chapter speaks not only of the dharmat\u0101 (\u201ctrue nature\u201d) and svabh\u0101va (\u201cinherent nature\u201d) as mentioned in the first post on this, it also speaks of the dh\u0101tu (\u201celement\u201d) itself. The Perfection of Wisdom texts had spoken of the unthinkable or inconceivable element (acintya-dh\u0101tu, e.g., Edward Conze, The Large Sutra on Perfect […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dhatu"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=297"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1088,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297\/revisions\/1088"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}