[In
reply to Paolo Magnone]
Dear Paolo,
I
fully agree with your important remark:
> First of all, we should carefully
distinguish between the theoretical
> and historico-philological import
of the discussion. On the
> theoretical side, we may regard a
certain statement as unwarranted
> or inconsistent, which must not in
any way hinder our recognition,
> whether or not such statement has
been made, on the historico-
> philological side.
At the same time I do accept as a
principle of analysis, that whenever we have two competing interpretations -
philologically both possible - the more coherent and plausible one is to be
preferred.
> we may have misgivings about the
notion of a purpose without an
> intelligent subject entertaining
it. Still the interpretation of SK 21 is
> not as plain as that.
I do have misgivings about the notion
of a purpose *of an intelligent subject* not willing it. The puruSa is
conscious; it has purposes; therefore (I think) he wills. SK 21 is
controversial, but it is perfectly clear that the purpose is the purpose of the
puruSa only and not of the pradhAna; cf. e.g. puruSArtha eva hetur (31); svArtha iva parArtha ArambhaH(56); tasyArtham
apArthakaM carati (60).
> the puruSa is described as
impartial, neutral, inactive and even
> impassive. This being
granted, I cannot envisage any more space
> for volition as I understand
it.
A judge [ in Sanskrit, draSTR :-)
] may be impartial, neutral and even impassive and at the same time he may want
the criminal to be punished.
> adhyavasAya is akin to vyavasAya as used in BhG 2.41 with the
> meaning of "resolution"
I disagree: the context is significantly
different. Here the buddhi *can* be vyavasAyAtmikA, and can be its *opposite*;
in the SK it *is* adhyavasAya.
Larson's suggestion (buddhi = will) is a bit surprising
after his clear analysis of buddhi as involved in the last stage of the process
of perception. It is only natural that he later changed his mind - in the
Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies he translates SK 23: "Intellect is
characterized by reflective discerning".
As from SK 5 (prativiSayAdhyavasAyo dRSTaM)
it is clear that adhyavasAya is essential to experience/perception, something
like conceptualization / understanding / categorizing / grasping would seem more
appropriate than resolution / will, as no volition is needed for
perception.
> it is hardly possible to pursue a discussion such as this through this
means.
I am disappointed. (In Hungary there are no one to discuss such matters
with.) What is the forum you would suggest?
Yours, Ferenc