[INDOLOGY] Alchemy metaphor

[Christopher Wallis]

Thank you Prof. Torella for your clarification. One point of disagreement
here: you say "in these contexts *saṃskāraḥ *always refers to the residual
traces left by “inferior” realities on the way of their being progressively
overcome", but we have a clear example to the contrary in Kṣemarāja's P.H.
sūtra 19 and comm, where *samādhi-saṃskāra *clearly refers to a beneficial
and desirable *saṃskāra.* But that aside, I propose a different
reading of *tatsaṃskāraḥ
*in the passage below, though not with full confidence. From everything we
have learned in this alchemical discussion (and following up the references
given), *drutarasaḥ *in the metaphor can only be the mercury, so here
*drutarasaḥ
*must analogically stand in for *cidrasaḥ *(or *prakāśarasaḥ*), hence the
iva. As seen in real-life amalgamation, the *drutarasaḥ  *indeed *ābhāti
kevalam *-- appears alone -- as a result of this process, having digested
the mercury. So Abh. is saying that *cidrasaḥ *is what remains, having
devoured *prāṇa-dehādi-dhātuḥ *(cf. *jīrṇa *here with *grasa,
alaṅgrasa *elsewhere
in the literature).  That leaves us with the difficulty involving
*tatsaṃskāraḥ.
*Since Abh. did not write *tatsaṃskārasahitaḥ *but easily could have done,
I propose that he might be using *saṃskāra *here in its other primary sense
-- that is, the *drutarasaḥ *is the "purifier of that (*prāṇa-dehādi-dhātuḥ*)"
since that is exactly what mercury does. But I withdraw my guess that
*tatsaṃskāraḥ
*meant "the impression of awakened consciousness itself" which Dr Torella
rightly called unconvincing.

But I think it cannot be true that *tatsaṃskāraḥ *here means "the
*saṃskāras* left by body, prāṇa, etc. [for the moment still remain]" as
Prof. Torella suggested, because the *turyātīta *here being discussed is
being contrasted to a previous *turyātīta *(there being two versions of
this attainment), about which it was said: *śūnyādi-saṃskāro 'pi asti, *which
is unambiguous. How can there be a contrast if the *saṃskāra*s remain in
this second *turyātīta *as well?  (Unless I'm missing some other point of
contrast.) I take the point that if one becomes *ekībhūtam sa.mvid-ghanam*
then there is no samāveśa possible, but I'm not clear that Abhinava
disallows this possibility of going beyond samāveśa.

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/20140710/1443dee4/attachment.htm>