[INDOLOGY] Alchemy metaphor

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Dear Matthew,

I agree with what you say as far as the difficulties involved in taking vedhaniiya as an optative/potential *passive* participle, meaning 'one to be pierced', are concerned. However, taking vidh/vyadh in the sense 'transform' is not the only solution for the difficulties. 

Recognizing that some derivates formed with aniiya can also have a case meaning other than karman, 'direct object', implicit in them also offers a way out. This is what Prajñākara-mati has done. He reads an agentive or instrumental case in the participial adjective. In this understanding, he has support of Paa.nini 3.3.113 (k.rtya-lyu.to;s ca bahulam). This A.s.taadhyaayii suutra recognizes usages like snaaniiya.m cuur.nam 'a powder that brings about bath -- that contributes to the realization of the act of bathing' and daaniiyo                   'A brahmin conducive to giving -- a brahmin who deserves a gift, who motivates people (through his noble conduct, learning, etc.) to give a gift'. (Obviously, the powder is not bathed, and a/the brahmin does not himself become a gift). Relying on such a recognized usages,  Prajñākara-mati advises his readers to take vedhaniiya in the sense 'one which pierces/penetrates' or 'one which is instrumental in the act of piercing/penetrating'. 

Accompanied by atiiva, a word meaning 'that which pierces/penetrates' can be rendered in the present context as 'infusing, permeating', but to take vedhaniiya beyond that sense we still do not have philological support. It can stand for something that leads to transforming but not for transforming itself. A factual follow-up does not necessarily lead to a semantic follow-up. Nor is a logically necessary development always reflected in the semantic extension of a word. 

I agree with you that the main proposition in the Bodhi-caryaavataara verse is "just as the rasajāta turns a base substance into gold, so the bodhi-citta turns this impure human body into the a buddha-body." I also agree with your surmise contained in: "“apt to infuse”...Prajñākara-mati is indicating something like this when he says: kartari anīyaḥ karaṇe vā." What I question is the assertion in: " [Prajñākara-mati] is interpreting vedh- causatively here". 

Even if Prajñākara-mati is understood as you say, the rendering would be 'rasājāta is that which causes [X'} to peirce/penetrate/infuse'. Would that necessarily lead to 'rasājāta is that which transforms'? 

(Your sentence "rasājāta is that which brings about infusion ...", probably written to clarify the causativity aspect, does not contain any typical causativity-indicating words. If, for that reason, I understand you as not having technical-grammatical causativity in mind, then I can replace your sentence first with "rasājāta is that which causes infusion" and then with "rasājāta is that which makes/gives rise to infusion". But then your proposal for overcoming the difficulties will be the same as Prajñākara-mati's.)

Since I have to leave the study of Tibetan to my next life, I cannot comment on the literal meaning of the Tibetan trasnslation you have kindly cited, but I am tempted to ask, "Can the Tibetan not be understood in any way other than 'It is the finest transformer because it causes very great transformation'." Prajñākara-mati's use of vedha-kaaritvaat leaves no doubt that he takes the agent or instrument of the action denoted by vidh/vyadh as the implicit case relationship in  vedhaniiya. The translators, whether guided by Sumati-kīrti or not, are unlikely to have missed the usefulness of the learned hint dropped by  Prajñākara-mati. 

Although -kaarin can perhaps be related to the causal derivate kaar of k.r/kar, it does not have a causative sense of the grammatical-technical type 'one which makes/inspires/impels X to perform/undergo some action.'. See compounds ending in -kaarin in the reverse dictionary of W. Schwarz, p. 515.)

You write at the end: "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 ..."

Was the book History of Hindu Chemistry  by Prafulla Chandra Ray? If it was, it is said to have been incorporated in: 
Ray, Priyadaranjan. 1956. History of Chemistry in Ancient and Medieval India, Calcutta: Indian Chemical Society. Other title: Chemistry in Ancient and Medieval India. 

Thanks and best wishes. 

ashok