back to questions
Triṃśikā (Vasubandhu) with Sthiramati's bhāṣya · 20
yena yena vikalpena yad yad vastu vikalpyate | parikalpita evāsau svabhāvo na sa vidyate
Translation. By whatever conceptualization (vikalpa)
whatever object is conceptualized,
that is only the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva);
the object so conceived does not exist.
Grammar check: 14 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
| surface | lemma | grammar |
|---|
| yena | yad | pass |
| yena | yad | pass |
| vikalpena | vikalpa | pass |
| yat | yad | pass |
| yat | yad | pass |
| vastu | vastu | pass |
| vikalpyate | kḷp | pass |
| parikalpitaḥ | parikalpita | pass |
| eva | eva | pass |
| asau | adas | pass |
| svabhāvaḥ | svabhāva | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| saḥ | tad | pass |
| vidyate | vid | pass |
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.
The repeated relatives yena yena and yat yat are distributive rather than interrogative: ‘by whatever conceptualization, whatever object.’ Their scope includes every internally or externally conceived object, even Buddha-qualities.→ Distributive relatives ranging over indefinitely many conceptualizations and objects
trbh [1297, 1298, 1299, 1300]ādhyātmikabāhyavikalpyavastubhedena vikalpānām ānantyaṃ pradarśayann āha
yena yena vikalpeneti
yad yad vastu prakalpyate
ādhyātmikaṃ bāhyaṃ vāntaśo yāvad buddhadharmā api
Showing the infinitude of conceptualizations according to the division of internally and externally conceptualizable objects, he says, ‘by whatever conceptualization.’ Whatever object is conceived—internal or external, extending even as far as Buddha-qualities.
Yat yat vastu is the nominative patient-subject of passive vikalpyate, while yena yena vikalpena is its instrumental of conceptualization. Vikalpa is therefore rendered ‘conceptualization,’ and vikalpyate ‘is conceptualized.’→ Construe the neuter phrase as passive subject and the instrumental as the conceptualizing agency or means
trbh [1298, 1299]yena yena vikalpeneti
yad yad vastu prakalpyate
‘By whatever conceptualization’: whatever object is conceived.
trbh [1303, 1304]na sa vidyata iti
yad vastu vikalpyaviṣayas tad yasmāt sattābhāvān na vidyate
As for ‘it does not exist’: because the object that is the target of conceptualization lacks existence, it does not exist.
Parikalpita eva asau svabhāvaḥ is taken as a predication, ‘that is only the imagined nature,’ with eva restricting parikalpita. It does not describe a nature bound to causes and conditions.→ A predicative technical identification: the object has only imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), not causally conditioned nature
trbh [1301]parikalpita evāsau svabhāva iti
As for ‘that nature is only imagined.’
trbh [1305, 1306, 1307]tasmāt tad vastu
parikalpitasvabhāvam eva
na hetupratyayapratibaddhasvabhāvam
Therefore that object is solely of imagined nature, not of a nature bound to causes and conditions.
Na sa vidyate is existential: ‘it does not exist.’ Its target is the object or nature as projected as the content of conceptualization, not the occurrence of conceptualization itself and not every kind of conditioned reality.→ The conceptually projected object lacks existence
trbh [1303, 1304]na sa vidyata iti
yad vastu vikalpyaviṣayas tad yasmāt sattābhāvān na vidyate
As for ‘it does not exist’: because the object that is the target of conceptualization lacks existence, it does not exist.
trbh [1313]sarvam idaṃ vikalpamātram eva tadarthasya parikalpitarūpatvāt
All this is merely conceptualization, because its referent has an imagined form.
‘Imagined’ does not mean that the projected object possesses all the mutually incompatible natures attributed to it. The commentary argues from the occurrence of contradictory conceptualizations to the absence of a corresponding multiply contradictory object-nature.→ The plurality and contradiction belong to conceptualizations, not to one corresponding object-nature
trbh [1308, 1309, 1310, 1311]tathā hy
ekasmin vastuni tadabhāve ca parasparaviruddhānekavikalpapravṛttir dṛṣṭā
na
ca tad ekaṃ vastu tadabhāvo vā parasparaviruddhānekasvabhāvo yujyate
For the occurrence of many mutually contradictory conceptualizations is observed regarding one object and also its absence; but that one object, or its absence, cannot properly have many mutually contradictory natures.