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-svarūpīkṛtaṃ 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.mskāras 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

On 7 July 2014 21:34, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.aklujkar@gmail.com> wrote:

The understanding of the passage that is being proposed is largely on the right track, especially with the contribution of Dominik.However, I should draw attention to two points that may lead to a different understanding of the chemical/alchemical process.

1. Literally, the translation of yena prameyatvāt tat cyavata iva should be 

"whereby that (thing śūnyādi-deha-dhātv-anta) slips down/falls away, as it were, from being an object of cognition" (i.e., it ceases to be -- no longer figures in -- cognition, although it is out there as before)," 

not 

"by which their objectivity falls away as it were". 

Note that the subject of cyavate is tat,  a neuter gender word, and prameyatvāt is an ablative. śūnyādi-deha-dhātv-anta is a bahu-vriihi and, therefore, something like 'thing', 'entity', 'assemblage' must be understood as its vi;se.sya. 

Now, one can say that the earlier translation may be grammatically opaque but it essentially conveys the same thing as the translation I have offered. However, as you will see from the next point, the literal translation assists us in understanding the analogy rightly. 

2. In prāṇa-dehādi-dhātuḥ saṃvid-rasena abhiniviṣṭo ’tyantaṃ kanaka-dhātur iva jīrṇaḥ kriyate, one would expect pure consciousness to be similar to pure gold. It would be inappropriate to compare it with what is left after gold is taken out. The process conveyed by jīrṇaḥ should, therefore, be one in which impurities of gold are taken out as a result of its saturation by something (there is no word in the passage that would suggest that we should set aside the usual meanings of vidhyate, viddha and abhinivi.s.ta ranging from 'pierce' to 'permeate').

That that 'something' is paarada 'mercury' is what we learn from Rasa-ratna-samuccaya 5.11: वेधजं सुवर्णम् -- पारद-वेधेन संजातं सुवर्णम्. 

Note that here gold is spoken of as the outcome, not anything else that goes with gold. 

The same Rasa-ratna-samuccaya, at 5.21-22, speaks of सुवर्णं जलवद् द्रुतं द्रव-रूपं वा करोति, which 'liquidity' notion is also found in the Abhinava-gupta passage under consideration. 

(I give the Rasa-ratna-samuccaya references according to the आयुर्वेदीय महाकोश अर्थात् आयुर्वेदीय शब्दकोश, p. 1628, of वेणीमाधवशास्त्री जोशी and नारायण हरी जोशी, मुम्बई : महाराष्ट्र राज्य साहित्य आणि संस्कृति मंडळ, १९६८. I do not have access at the moment to the Rasa-ratna-samuccaya itself).

a.a.