[INDOLOGY] Alchemy metaphor

Sat Jul 12 20:54:42 UTC 2014

Dear Dr Aklujkar et. al.,

Thank you very much for this. Some brief answers to your questions and a
correction to a minor misreading follow, to which I don't expect a response
as I did note your desire to conclude the discussion.

Your point #4:  Abhinava is definitely thinking of two stages here (as
reading all of ĪPv and ĪPvv ad ĪPK III.2.12 makes clear), the turyā stage
which liberates one on the level of Īśvara- or Sadāśiva-tattva, and the
turyātīta stage, which liberates one on the level of Śakti-tattva. This
indeed corresponds to a metaphorical use of two alchemical stages, one in
which the copper is penetrated (viddha) by the rasa, giving rise to gold
[through extraction] (rasa-viddha-taamra-kanaka-nyaayena), and one in which
that gold is digested (i.e. absorbed and dissolved) by the mercury, just as
we saw in the video
(atyanta-jaraṇāpādita-tat-saṃskāra-vaśa-pītalatāvaśeṣa-vidruta-rasa-nyāyena).
The 'tat' in that compound is the layers of limited selfhood,
*prāṇa-dehādi-dhātuḥ.
*Secondly, I now suspect that the redundant and oddly phrased
tan-nija-rūpa-samyag-viddha-kanaka-rūpatā at which you look askance was
probably a marginal notation that got incorporated in the main text (as
sometimes happens in the KSTS).

Thirdly, we have *pītalatā *and not *pittalatā*. While I understand that it
could be "brass-ness", I think "gold leaf" makes more sense because this is
the second stage of the process, and the *rasa-viddha *does not transmute
copper into brass, surely!  As I'm sure you know, *latā *in final position
of a compound can just mean "slender, delicate" (as in *bāhulatā* etc.).
The problem with my speculative reading is that I don't actually know
if *pītalatā
*is attested in the meaning "gold leaf".  Dominik? Anyone?

Lastly, re: your point #2, I think you are absolutely right as regards the
use of *vedha *with reference to alchemical operations; but it is not wild
speculation to suppose that in the sphere of more popular discourse,
uneducated as most were in the details of alchemy, the idea circulated that
alchemists magically transmuted base metal into gold using rasa, and thus
the word *vedha *used in a non-technical sense would mean "transmute", even
if technically speaking it is in error.  I see evidence for this hypothesis
in BCA 1.10, and I would bet we could find more in the story literature.
Thus both sides of the debate we've been having would be correct, depending
on the register and genre of Sanskrit literature in which the term occurs.

best, CW

p.s. my attempt at a translation of the passage you cite in full follows,
including the compound that I think is actually spurious, marked by {}.

*ahamity eka-rasena anuvedhe tu, yadā idantā ācchāditā bhavati,
bhāvanā-sātmyād īśvara-sadāśiva-saṃvidi iva turya-daśāyāṃ
rasa-viddha-tāmra-kanaka-nyāyena, yadā vā sarvathaiva pradhvaṃsitā
vidrāvitā vā bhavati turyātīta-daśāyāṃ śākta-saṃvidi iva
tan-nija-rūpa-samyag-viddha-kanaka-rūpatātyanta-jaraṇāpādita-tatsaṃskāra-vaśa-pītalatāvaśeṣa-vidruta-rasa-nyāyena;
tadā pūrṇa-svātantryollāsa eva deha eva sati api . . .* | In the [process
of] penetration by the “one taste” that is [the fundamental] “I”, when a)
objectivity is covered, i.e. in the Fourth state [that arises] due to
becoming habituated to meditative contemplation [on reality] and in which
one possesses the consciousness of Īśvara or Sadāśiva as it were, according
to the maxim of gold [arising] from copper due to being penetrated by
mercury, or when b) [objectivity] is completely destroyed or “liquified,”
i.e. in the state Beyond the Fourth in which consciousness attains the
level of Śakti-tattva, in 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 [“I”]*}, then c) there is simply
the delightful blossoming of full autonomy, even while the body exists.

* I take the tan- in the compound beginning tan-nija-rūpa- as referring to
cit or ahaṃbhāva.

On 12 July 2014 12:19, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.aklujkar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Christopher,
>
> This is mainly to conclude my participation in the present discussion by
> taking note of a few specific points. (kindly excuse the mixture of
> transliteration conventions; I have not yet learned how to type the
> diacritics in Apple's Mail program; advice welcome.)
>
> 1. In my last post principally addressed to Prof. Matthew Kapstein, please
> correct the citation of Paa.nini 3.3.113 to k.rtya-lu.to bahulam. My
> thanks to Prof. George Cardona for bringing the wrong typing to my
> attention.
>
> 2. The video Dr. Dominik Wujastyk brought to our attention on 08 July is
> engaging and valuable. But it does not imply that mercury does not leave
> gold behind or mercury does not purify gold. Such implication is what we
> need to set my interpretation of the Abhinava-gupta passage aside. The
> narrator's relevant words, to the extent I could catch them,
> are:  "[mercury was used] for making gold." "for extracting gold and
> purifying it"  "mercury wraps itself up like a bed sheet". "Gold has almost
> completely vanished.  It's still there of course; it's just dissolved" (If
> necessary, those who can enhance the sound should give a transcript of the
> whole text).  Certainly no clear or direct support for taking vedha as
> 'transmuting'. vedha may be viewed as leading up to transmutation -- as
> causing it or being instrumental in some way, but it is not itself
> transmutation, and the word denoting it does not have transmutation as a
> part of its meaning.
>
> 3. DW cited the following passage in his 09 July post:
> >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 lauhakha**ṇḍ**a**ṃ** svar**ṇ**ādirūpe**ṇ**a pari**ṇ**atam//*that bit
> of iron is converted into the form of gold etc. ... yatra vedhe svarṇ
> ādirūpeṇa 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."<
> It would have been better also to have the words of the Rasaratnasamuccaya
> <http://sarit.indology.info/newphilo/getobject.pl?c.7:8:165.indologica>  itself.
> Even if we confine ourselves to the commentary, it is clear that vedha
> refers to a stage preceding transformation. The  phrase yatra vedhe, even
> if it is not understood as  equal in meaaning to a locative absolute phrase
> like yasmin vedhe sati, must be taken as a situating phrase for the
> phenomenon of pari.naama. One should differentiate between transmuting
> implied by the context as a whole and  transmuting signified by a word.
> Note also that what emerges is gold, something superior.
>
> 4. In the passage added by Prof. Torella, there is something that could be
> useful to understanding the passage with which out discussion started, but
> it is difficult to determine the precise nature of that something, because
> the new passage  has its own
> difficulties.  ĪPvv III p. 348 reads (I have supplied the words you had
> dropped):
> aham ity eka-rasena anuvedhe tu yadaa idantaa aacchaaditaa bhavati
> bhaavanaa-saatmyaad ii;svara-sadaa;siva-sa.mvidi iva turya-da;sayaa.m
> rasa-viddha-taamra-kanaka-nyaayena, yadā vā sarvathaiva pradhvaṃsitā
> vidrāvitā vā bhavati turyātīta-daśāyāṃ ;saakta-sa.mvidi iva . . .
> tan-nija-rūpa-samyag-viddha-kanaka-rūpatātyanta-jaraṇāpādita-tat-saṃskāra-vaśa-pītalatāvaśeṣa-vidruta-rasa-nyāyena,
> tadaa puur.na-svaatantryollaasa eva deha eva sati api
> ni;se.sa-vibhuuti-laabhaat sadaa;sivaadi-;sariiravat.
> Let us assume that the editor has punctuated the sentence(s) correctly and
> that he is justified in dissolving the sandhis the way he has. The
> passage does not come across as problem-free. At least the following
> questions present themselves: Is Abhinava speaking of two stages or
> understandings as ii;svara-sadaa;siva-sa.mvidi and ;saakta-sa.mvidi or  taamra-kanaka-nyaaya
> (or rasa-viddha-taamra-kanaka-nyaaya) and vidruta-rasa-nyāya (or pītalatā
> vaśeṣa-vidruta-rasa-nyāya) seem to indicate? Is tad/tan to be compounded
> with the following nija? If 'yes', the resultant expression sounds odd. If
> 'no', what does tad stand for? Can samyak, an adverb, naturally occur
> between nija-ruupa and viddha? If nija-ruupa and samyag-viddha are to
> qualify kanaka or kanaka-ruupataa jointly, what would be the meaning that
> would not be out of step with the following words -- 'own form and
> thouroughly penetrated' or 'thouroughly penetrated by own form'?  What is
> the reference of tat in tat-sa.mskaara? If pittalataa is 'gold leaf' as you
> say, how did you arrive at that meaning? Ordinarily pitta means 'bile' and
> lataa means 'vine'. (I think pittalataa is not be divided as pitta and
> lataa but as pittala 'brass' and -taa, abstraction suffix).
>
> 5. Personally, I would change a translation, even if a hundred earlier
> scholars had accepted it in the past,  if it is pointed out to me that a
> good philological case has not been made for it.
>
> 6. I had drafted the preceding yesterday. I only revised it this morning.
> Just before posting it, I noticed that Dr. Wujastyk has queried your
> translation and Prof. Torella has already pointed out the desirability of
> rendering pittalataa differently.
>
> Thanks for the rewarding exchanges.
>
> Best wishes.
>
> a.a.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20140712/cd8ba92b/attachment.htm>