[INDOLOGY] Alchemy metaphor

[Christopher Wallis]

Dear Dominik, thank you for the question. Taking Dr Aklujkar's arguments
for a more strictly philological approach into account, my current
conclusion is that *vedha *can have a narrower, more literal meaning and a
broader, more general meaning (much like *prāṇa*) and therefore, in
Abhinava's ĪPv passage (not cited in this discussion), where the word
stands on its own, I am translating *vidh- *as "transmute", and in the more
detailed ĪPvv passage, where *vidh- *denotes the first stage of a process
(followed by *abhini+viś *and *jīrṇa*), I am translating it as
"penetrate".  The sources cited by David White in his Alchemical Body
seemed to corroborate that when *vedha *is used in a looser, more
metaphorical sense -- or as the *result *of an alchemical process --,
"transmute" is appropriate, whereas a more precise usage demands
"penetrate".  Thus I would agree with those who take it as "transmute"
in *Bodhicaryāvatāra
*1.10.

best, CW




On 11 July 2014 23:21, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Christopher, you are using "piercing/penetration" again for vedha.
> Were the arguments for "transformation/transmutation" not sufficiently
> plausible?  Or applicable (philosophically)?
>
> Best,
> Dominik
>
>
>
> On 10 July 2014 23:22, Christopher Wallis <bhairava11 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For those following the alchemy discussion, Prof. Torella offered this
>> important parallel passage (ĪPvv III p. 348):
>>
>> yadā vā sarvathaiva pradhvaṃsitā vidrāvitā vā bhavati turyātīta-daśāyāṃ .
>> . .
>> tan-nija-rūpa-samyag-viddha-kanaka-rūpatātyanta-jaraṇāpādita-tatsaṃskāravaśa-pītalatāvaśeṣa-vidruta-rasa-nyāyena
>>
>>
>> Which I think confirms what we have been saying about the alchemical
>> processes here. My first pass at a translation would be:
>>
>> "or when [objectivity] is completely destroyed or liquified, i.e. in the
>> state Beyond the Fourth, after the manner of the liquid mercury that
>> remains after the gold leaf -- i.e. the power of the impression(s) of that
>> [objectivity]--has been thoroughly digested, its form having been [first]
>> well penetrated by the innate form of that [consciousness]".
>>
>> I hope I am correct in taking *pītalatā *as "gold leaf". The sentences
>> immediately before this one establish that the penetration of (in this
>> case) copper by mercury extracts the gold (
>> *rasa-viddhatāmra-kanaka-nyāyena*), corresponding to the Fourth State in
>> which objectivity is covered (*idantā ācchāditā*), only its impressions
>> remaining.
>>
>> I hope Prof. Torella and/or others will correct any mistakes here.
>>
>> best, CW
>>
>>
>> On 10 July 2014 02:45, Raffaele Torella <raffaele.torella at uniroma1.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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/20140712/e3e56432/attachment.htm>