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@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@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@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