[INDOLOGY] Alchemy metaphor

Wed Jul 9 19:09:26 UTC 2014

This is a rather wonderful discussion!  Thanks to all for adding evidence.
The video Dominik posted seems very important insofar as our authors were
in touch with reality, which I like to think they were. Taking account as
best I can of what everyone has said, and the physical evidence, here is my
new translation of the passage. Comments most welcome.

*yadā tu parāmṛṣṭa-nityatva-vyāpitvādi-dharmakaiśvarya-ghanātmanā
ahambhāva-siddharasena śūnyādi-deha-dhātv-antaṃ vidhyate yena prameyatvāt
tat cyavata iva, tadā turyadaśā*;
But when [all the layers of limited selfhood] from the Void to the tissues
of the body are penetrated by the “alchemical elixir” that is the [true]
I-sense—replete with the sovereignty in which the qualities of eternality,
all-pervasiveness, etc. are cognized [as aspects of that “I”]—through which
[penetration-cum-transmutation] their objectivity falls away as it were,
then that is [called] the Fourth State.
*yadāpi viddho 'sau prāṇadehādi-dhātuḥ saṃvid-rasena abhiniviṣṭo ’tyantaṃ
kanaka-dhātur iva jīrṇaḥ kriyate yena sa druta-rasa iva ābhāti kevalaṃ
tat-saṃskāraḥ, tadāpi turyātīta-daśā sā bhavati*
When, further, these elements of *prā**ṇa*, body, etc., penetrated by the
elixir of Consciousness, are thoroughly permeated [by it], they are [then]
“digested” like the element of gold [is by mercury], by which the
“liquified essence” [of consciousness], their purifier, alone appears –
then too it becomes the state Beyond the Fourth.

On 9 July 2014 05:36, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Trying to firm up the idea that vedh- means convert, transmute, or (for
> the philosophers among us, perhaps) transubstantiate.
>
> The *Rasaratnasamuccaya* is a kind of late-ish nibandha text that brings
> together, organizes and medicalizes the earlier, more tantric alchemical
> literature.  Meulenbeld argues that it is datable to the sixteenth century
> (HIML IIA 670).  Earliest dated MS: 1699 CE.  This text is not bad as a
> representative of the developed ("classical"?) rasaśāstra tradition; one
> would expect less standardization of vocab. in earlier texts.
>
> At *Rasaratnasamuccaya* 8.94-95
> <http://sarit.indology.info/newphilo/getobject.pl?c.7:8:165.indologica>
> there is a definition of śabdavedha.
> from blowing of iron, with mercury in the mouth, there is the creation of
> goldenness and silverness. That is known as Word-vedha.
> and the commentator makes it even more explicity that this is
> transmutation, using pari-ṇam.  *Rasaratnasamuccayabodhinī* on 8.95
> <http://sarit.indology.info/newphilo/getobject.pl?c.7:8:166.indologica>:
> ... *tat lauhakhaṇḍaṃ svarṇādirūpeṇa pariṇatam//*
> that bit of iron is converted into the form of gold etc.
>
> ... yatra vedhe svarṇādirūpeṇa pariṇamet sa śabdavedha ityarthaḥ//
> Word-vedha is where it converts with the form of gold etc. ...
>
> The operation being described here is not unclear.  The alchemist puts a
> piece of mercury in his mouth and blows on a piece of iron.  It becomes
> golden or silvery.  This "becoming" is "vedha."
>
> The *Bodhinī* authors were Āśubodha and Nityabodha (hence the witty
> title), the sons of Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara Bhaṭṭacārya, and the *Bodhinī*
> was published in Calcutta in 1927.  So it's arguable that their
> interpretation was influenced by 19th-20th century thought.  However, their
> commentary is very śāstric and elaborate (note the Pāṇinian grammatical
> parsing, "dhama dhāvane ityasmāt lyuḥ" (>P.1.3.134 and pacādi ākṛtigaṇa).
> And as Meulenbeld points out, they cite an exceptionally wide range of
> earlier rasaśāstra texts (HIML IIA 671-2).  Their interpretations are based
> on a close reading of classical rasaśāstra literature.  At the very least,
> one can say that their view represents the understanding of learned
> panditas in turn of the century Calcutta, that vedha meant pariṇāma, or
> transmutation.
>
> Best,
> Dominik
>
>
> Dominik
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9 July 2014 12:27, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 July 2014 11:26, Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have a vague recollection, by the way, of discussing this with David
>>> Pingree back in the 80s, and he pointed me to an old, but interesting
>>> monograph on Indian chemistry (not alchemy) that had some interesting
>>> things to say about vedh-. I’ll try to locate the reference, but no doubt
>>> others on this list will be more familiar with the literature in this area.
>>>
>>
>> I imagine David was thinking of P. C. Ray's *History of Hindu
>> Chemistry * (link
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3iamb3e84kp2o2k/AADzPHJXs8rxHNgRsINzLVH9a>)
>>
>> Best,
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> http://listinfo.indology.info
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20140709/7fde6121/attachment.htm>