शास्त्रShastrasanskrit-agents ask the śāstras।cited।grammar-checked

back to questions

Triṃśikā (Vasubandhu) with Sthiramati's bhāṣya · 1

ātmadharmopacāro hi vividho yaḥ pravartate vijñānapariṇāme 'sau pariṇāmaḥ sa ca tridhā

Translation. Indeed, the manifold figurative designation (upacāra) of self (ātman) and dharmas (dharma) that occurs in common usage and in treatises has its locus only in the transformation of consciousness (vijñāna-pariṇāma); and that transformation is threefold.

Grammar check: 11 words pass / 0 flagged / 0 beyond the checkerPāṇini-verified

Every word's claimed grammar is re-derived with vidyut-prakriya, software implementing Pāṇini's rules. Flags are shown, never hidden; some are the text taking epic or Vedic liberties the classical rules do not generate.

Word by word

surfacelemmagrammar
ātmadharmopacāraḥātmadharmopacārapass
hihipass
vividhaḥvividhapass
yaḥyadpass
pravartatevṛtpass
vijñānapariṇāmevijñānapariṇāmapass
asauadaspass
pariṇāmaḥpariṇāmapass
saḥtadpass
cacapass
tridhātridhāpass

How the commentary settled it

Where the verse alone is ambiguous, the reading follows Sthiramati's commentary; the deciding lines are quoted below each decision.
Supply “in common usage and in treatises” as the understood setting of pravartate; render hi as “indeed.”
→ The commentary explicitly labels lokaśāstrayoḥ as the omitted completion of the sentence, so it is represented in the translation.
trbh [25]lokaśāstrayor iti vākyaśeṣaḥ
The words “in common usage and in the treatises” are the sentence-completion.
Parse ātmadharmopacāra as the figurative designation of two coordinated objects—self and dharmas—not as “the designation of the self’s dharma.”
→ An overall objective/genitive tatpuruṣa with the coordinated dependency ātman + dharma. Upacāra is rendered “figurative designation” because it is equated with prajñapti and is applied where the named item is absent.
trbh [28, 29, 30]ātmā dharmāś copacaryanta ity ātmadharmopacāraḥ sa punar ātmaprajñaptir dharmaprajñaptiś ca
Self and dharmas are figuratively designated; hence “the figurative designation of self and dharmas.” This, in turn, is the designation of self and the designation of dharmas.
trbh [49, 50, 51]yac ca yatra nāsti tat tatropacaryate tad yathā bāhīke gauḥ
What does not exist in a given locus is figuratively designated there, as when one calls a Bāhīka “a cow.”
Render vividha as “manifold” and retain dharma as the technical plural “dharmas,” not as moral law or duty.
→ “Manifold” directly reflects anekaprakāraḥ; “dharmas” is retained because the examples are aggregates, elements, sense-bases, form, feeling, conception, formations, and consciousness.
trbh [31, 32]vividha ity anekaprakāraḥ
“Manifold” means “of many kinds.”
trbh [33, 34, 35]ātmā jīvo jantur manujo māṇava ity evamādika ātmopacāraḥ skandhā dhātava āyatanāni rūpaṃ vedanā saṃjñā saṃskārā vijñānam ity evamādiko dharmopacāraḥ
Expressions such as self, living being, creature, person, and human are designations of self; aggregates, elements, sense-bases, form, feeling, conception, formations, and consciousness are examples of designation of dharmas.
Take vijñānapariṇāme as the locus of the designation and asau as resuming ātmadharmopacāraḥ; do not equate the designation itself with transformation.
→ The designation has its locus only in consciousness-transformation. Sthiramati explicitly connects asau with ātmadharmopacāra and contrasts this locus with a primary self or real dharmas.
trbh [26, 27]vijñānapariṇāme 'sau ātmadharmopacāra iti saṃbadhyate
The construction is: “That figurative designation of self and dharmas is in the transformation of consciousness.”
trbh [36]ayaṃ dviprakāro 'py upacāro vijñānapariṇāma eva na mukhye ātmani dharmeṣu ceti
This twofold designation is only in the transformation of consciousness, not in a primary self or in dharmas.
trbh [55, 56]upacārasya ca nirādhārasyāsaṃbhavād avaśyaṃ vijñānapariṇāmo vastuto 'stīty upagantavyo yatrātmadharmopacāraḥ pravartate
Since a designation without a basis is impossible, one must accept that the transformation of consciousness really exists as that in which the designation of self and dharmas operates.
Translate pariṇāma as the technical “transformation,” understood in momentary causal terms, and vijñānapariṇāma as “transformation of consciousness.”
→ “Transformation” preserves the technical term while the commentary defines it as otherness and specifically as the effect’s acquisition of its own being, distinct from the extinguished causal moment. It also says that the term signals the dependent arising of consciousness.
trbh [39, 40, 41, 42, 43]ko 'yaṃ pariṇāmo nāma anyathātvam kāraṇakṣaṇanirodhasamakālaḥ kāraṇakṣaṇavilakṣaṇaḥ kāryasyātmalābhaḥ pariṇāmaḥ
What is this so-called transformation? Otherness. Transformation is the effect’s acquisition of its own being, distinct from the causal moment and simultaneous with that causal moment’s cessation.
trbh [61, 62, 63]evañ ca sarvaṃ vijñeyaṃ parikalpitasvabhāvatvād vastuto na vidyate vijñānaṃ punaḥ pratītyasamutpannatvād dravyato 'stīty abhyupeyam pratītyasamutpannatvaṃ punar vijñānasya pariṇāmaśabdena jñāpitam
Everything cognized is not substantially existent because it has an imagined nature, whereas consciousness is to be accepted as substantially existent because it arises dependently. The word “transformation” indicates this dependent arising of consciousness.
Do not let “designation of self and dharmas” imply that an external self and external dharmas are real referents.
→ The translation uses “figurative designation” and places it in consciousness-transformation without asserting real external selves or dharmas.
trbh [38]dharmāṇām ātmanaś ca vijñānapariṇāmād bahir abhāvāt
Because dharmas and self do not exist outside the transformation of consciousness.
trbh [44, 45, 46, 47]tatrātmādivikalpavāsanāparipoṣād rūpādivikalpavāsanāparipoṣāc cālayavijñānād ātmādinirbhāsaṃ rūpādinirbhāsañ ca tasmād vikalpād bahirbhūtam ivopādāyātmādyupacāro rūpādidharmopacāraś cānādikālikaḥ pravartate vināpi bāhyenātmanā dharmaiś ca
Through the maturation of latent impressions of constructions of self and of form and so forth, appearances of self and form arise from store consciousness and are taken as though external to that construction; beginninglessly, the designation of self and the designation of dharmas thus operate even without an external self or dharmas.
trbh [52, 53]evaṃ vijñānasvarūpe bahiś cātmadharmābhāvāt parikalpita evātmā dharmāś ca na tu paramārthataḥ santīti vijñānavad vijñeyam api dravyata evety ayam
Because self and dharmas are absent both in the intrinsic nature of consciousness and externally, self and dharmas are merely imagined and do not exist ultimately.
Treat the claim that upacāra requires a real primary self and real dharmas as an opponent’s position, not Sthiramati’s conclusion.
→ The translation does not presuppose primary, independently existing referents, because the commentary explicitly rejects that objection.
trbh [98, 99]anyas tv āha asaty ātmani mukhye dharmeṣu copacāro na yujyate
But another says: “If a primary self and dharmas do not exist, figurative designation is impossible.”
trbh [147, 148]tatra yad uktaṃ asaty ātmani mukhye dharmeṣu copacāro na yukta iti tad ayuktam
As for the assertion that designation is impossible when a primary self and dharmas do not exist—that is untenable.
Take tridhā as predicated of pariṇāma, not of upacāra, and leave the three types unnamed in this verse.
→ The commentary introduces the line by asking how many divisions consciousness-transformation has and later explicitly calls it the “threefold transformation.” The present translation therefore states only that transformation is threefold.
trbh [149, 150, 151, 152]vijñānapariṇāmaḥ kati prabheda iti na jñāyate atas tatprabhedopadarśanārtham āha pariṇāmaḥ sa ca tridhā
It is not known how many divisions the transformation of consciousness has. Therefore, to show its divisions, he says: “And that transformation is threefold.”
trbh [164]yo 'sau trividhaḥ pariṇāma ukto 'sāv api na jñāyate
That transformation which has been stated to be threefold is itself not yet understood.