[INDOLOGY] Alchemy metaphor

Thu Jul 10 16:17:08 UTC 2014

Let me immediately say that I apologize for inadvertently implying that Dr
Torella was confused on a particular point -- in fact the confusion was
mine, and not properly flagged as such.  I am very much aware that my
understanding of Pratyabhijñā materials lags *far* behind Dr. Torella's,
and I have the greatest respect for his work.

best, CW

On 10 July 2014 02:45, Raffaele Torella <raffaele.torella at uniroma1.it>
wrote:

>
> Il giorno 08/lug/2014, alle ore 18:48, Christopher Wallis <
> bhairava11 at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> Dear Dr Aklujkar,
>
> Cognisant as I am of your expertise, I must respectfully disagree. In the
> context of the Pratyabhijñā philosophy being expounded by Abhinavagupta
> here, the idea is that the body mind etc., which are clearly objects of
> awareness, lose their separate objectivity in this *turyā *state,
> becoming expressions of awareness itself (*tadā bodha-svarūpīk**ṛtaṃ**
> tad-rasānuviddham eva śūnyādi-dehāntam avabhāti*, further on in the
> passage), not separate from it. So this is not the *turyā *of other
> schools (= *samādhi*), because a complete withdrawal from the objects of
> cognition is here called *turyātīta*. In the *turyā *state under
> discussion, it is specifically the objectivity of the objects of
> consciousness that falls away, not their appearance within consciousness --
> but he specifies that the impressions (*sa.mskāra*) of objectivity remain.
>
> With regard to your second point, the *Rasa-ratna-samuccaya *(5.11)
> citation (thank you for that!) I think shows that *vedha *can indeed mean
> transmute; so what we have in the Abhinavagupta passage is three stages in
> the process (in which the agent is *ahambhāva *or *svātantryarūpa-bodha*).
> The first is denoted by *vidh-,  *permeate, infuse, but also transmute;
> the second, *abhini+viś*, immerse completely (now dehādi have become like
> gold); the third, *jīrṇa*, in which all trace of objectivity (the
> *sa.mskāra*s referred to above) are "worn away" or the gold is "digested"
> by the mercury in the metaphor. (This is now *turyātīta-daśā*). Thus the
> mercury preparation (*siddha-rasa*) changes the base metal to gold, then
> with prolonged exposure eats away that pure gold itself, since Abhinava
> wants no trace of objectivity left in this process. A nice (if surprising)
> metaphor, since the idea of pure gold triggers our *rāga*, and therefore
> must be dissolved, leaving only the dynamism of consciousness itself.
>
> Torella (1994) supports my reading in his summary paraphrase of this
> passage:
> "The objective realities with which the I had identified himself are
> themselves transformed on contact with the I . . . so that they continue to
> subsist, but as though they have ceased to be objects; they are compared to
> copper which on contact with mercury is transformed into gold. The state
> beyond the fourth state, in which . . . the differentiation is now
> completely dissolved, the idantā dispelled; remaining within the terms of
> the simile suggested by Abh., even the gold into which the various levels
> of subjectivity have been transformed - from the body to the void - as it
> is increasingly permeated by the mercury wears away and finally dissolves,
> these realities only surviving in the residual form of samskāra."  but
> later he seemingly changed his understanding of the passage, writing "This
> experience, which corresponds to the
> fourth state, can be extended further, until it flows into the state
> beyond the fourth, where the components of limitation, including
> *sa.mskāra*, are totally dissolved and incorporated in the I."
>
> This last confusion hinges on the interpretation of the phrase *sa
> drutarasa iva ābhāti kevalaṃ tat-saṃskāraḥ.*
>  I am taking *tat-sa.mskāra *to refer to the sole impression of awakened
> consciousness itself (*drutarasa = cidrasa*).
>
> very best,
> CW
>
>
> Dear Members,
>
> just after an interminable car trip in Central Europe, I do not have the
> mental alertness to express my overall and detailed opinion on this very
> interesting matter. For the moment, at least, I can’t refrain from making
> some short remarks on the last point (and indirectly on my alleged
> ‘confusion’).
>
> *yadā tu parāmṛṣṭa-nityatva-vyāpitvādi-dharmakaiśvarya-ghanātmanā
> ahambhāva-siddharasena śūnyādi-deha-dhātv-antaṃ vidhyate yena prameyatvāt
> tat cyavata iva, tadā turyadaśā*;
> *yadāpi viddho 'sau prāṇa-dehādi-dhātuḥ saṃvid-rasena abhiniviṣṭo
> ’tyantaṃ kanaka-dhātur iva jīrṇaḥ kriyate yena sa druta-rasa iva ābhāti
> kevalaṃ tat-saṃskāraḥ, tadāpi turyātīta-daśā sā bhavati. *
>
> *drutarasa* is clearly (at least to my mind) a *bahuvrīhi* depending on *prāṇa-dehādi-dhātuḥ
> . *However fairly elliptical, also the following *tatsaṃskāraḥ *also has
> to be taken as a *bahuvrīhi*, nuancing *sa drutarasa iva ābhāti* (of
> course, we would have been very grateful to Abh. for a more merciful
> *tatsaṃskārasahitaḥ,* or so…; also possibly to be understood as: “only,
> the *saṃskāras* left by body, prāṇa, etc. [for the moment still
> remains]). The key term is here *kevalam*, which introduces a restriction
> with the regards the previous statement (which also contains in itself the
> germ of a possible restriction: *drutarasa *iva*. * Wallis’ alternative
> interpretation ("the sole impression of awakened consciousness itself”)
> does not convince me: in these contexts *saṃskāraḥ *always refers to the
> residual traces left by “inferior” realities on the way of their being
> progressively overcome or transfigured (see e.g. the somewhat parallel
> passage in IPVV III p. 348
> *tannijarūpasamyagviddhakanakarūpatātyantajaraṇāpāditatatsaṃskāravaśapītalatāvaśeṣavidrutarasanyāyena).*
>
> I should like also to add that the *turyātīta samāveśa*, which this
> passage refers to, is not something intrinsically different from *turya*,
> but only its progressive extension, which virtually leads the
> complete elimination of the *saṃskāras* too. In saying ‘virtually’ I mean
> that for these authors this is in a sense an endless process. After all, if
> the process were indeed completed, how could *samāveśa* itself be
> possible? As Abhinava says (IPV on III.2.12) *samāveśapallavā eva ca
> prasiddhadehādipramātṛbhāgaprahvībhāvabhāvanānuprāṇitāḥ […] **dehapāte tu
> parameśvara evaikarasaḥ , ---- iti kaḥ kutra kathaṃ samāviśet.*
>
> More (perhaps) to follow.
>
> All best wishes to the members of this wonderful list
> Raffaele Torella
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Raffaele Torella
> Chair of Sanskrit
> Istituto Italiano di Studi Orientali
> Sapienza Università di Roma
> www.scribd.com/raffaeletorella
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20140710/c38e9957/attachment.htm>