back to questions
Triṃśikā (Vasubandhu) with Sthiramati's bhāṣya · 22
ata eva sa naivānyo nānanyaḥ paratantrataḥ anityatādivad vācyo nādṛṣṭe 'smin sa dṛśyate
Translation. For that very reason, the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna)
is neither different from nor non-different from the dependent nature (paratantra);
like impermanence and the rest, it must be described [as neither different nor non-different].
Unless this [perfected nature] has been directly realized, that [dependent nature] is not seen.
Grammar check: 14 words pass / 0 flagged / 2 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 |
|---|
| ataḥ | atas | pass |
| eva | eva | pass |
| saḥ | tad | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| eva | eva | pass |
| anyaḥ | anya | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| ananyaḥ | ananya | pass |
| paratantrataḥ | paratantratas | unsupported |
| anityatādivat | anityatādivat | unsupported |
| vācyaḥ | vācya | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| adṛṣṭe | adṛṣṭa | pass |
| asmin | idam | pass |
| saḥ | tad | pass |
| dṛśyate | dṛś | 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 first saḥ denotes the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna), defined as the dependent nature’s perpetual absence of the imagined nature; it does not denote the dependent nature.→ saḥ = pariniṣpannaḥ
trbh [1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346]ata eva sa naiveti parikalpitena svabhāvena paratantrasya sadā rahitatā
pariniṣpannaḥ
rahitatā ca dharmatā
sā ca dharmatā dharmān nānyā nānanyā
yujyate
“‘For that very reason, it is not …’: the perfected is the dependent nature’s perpetual absence of the imagined nature. That absence is the nature of phenomena; and that nature of phenomena is properly neither different from nor non-different from phenomena.”
trbh [1347, 1348]pariniṣpannaś ca paratantradharmatety ataḥ paratantrāt pariniṣpanno
nānyo nānanya iti boddhavyaḥ
“Since the perfected is the nature of the dependent, the perfected should therefore be understood as neither different from nor non-different from the dependent.”
paratantrataḥ is construed ablativally—“from/than the dependent nature”—rather than as a feminine nominative meaning “dependence.”→ Ablatival paratantrataḥ, equivalent in the commentary’s construal to paratantrāt
trbh [1347, 1348, 1349]pariniṣpannaś ca paratantradharmatety ataḥ paratantrāt pariniṣpanno
nānyo nānanya iti boddhavyaḥ
yadi hi pariniṣpannaḥ paratantrād anyaḥ syād
“Since the perfected is the nature of the dependent, the perfected is to be understood as neither different from nor non-different from the dependent. For if the perfected were different from the dependent …”
The coordinated predicates deny both difference and strict non-difference/identity; neither negation is to be weakened or omitted.→ Neither different from nor non-different from the dependent nature
trbh [1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355]yadi hi pariniṣpannaḥ paratantrād anyaḥ syād
evaṃ na parikalpitena paratantraḥ śūnyaḥ syāt
athānanya evam api
pariniṣpanno na viśuddhālambanaḥ syāt paratantravat saṃkleśātmakatvāt
evaṃ
paratantraś ca na kleśātmakaḥ syāt
pariniṣpannād ananyatvāt pariniṣpannavat
“If the perfected were different from the dependent, the dependent would not be empty of the imagined. If it were non-different, the perfected would not be a purified object, since it would be defiled like the dependent; conversely, the dependent would not be defiled, since it would be non-different from the perfected.”
anityatādivat supplies an analogy with impermanence, suffering, and non-self, while vācyaḥ takes the ellipsis nānyo nānanyaḥ: “must be described as neither different nor non-different.”→ “Like impermanence and the rest, it must be described as neither different nor non-different.”
trbh [1356, 1357, 1358, 1359, 1360]anityatādivad vācyo
nānyo nānanya iti vākyaśeṣaḥ
yathā hy anityatā duḥkhatānātmatā ca
saṃskārādibhyo
nānyā nānanyā
“‘It must be described like impermanence and the rest’: ‘neither different nor non-different’ completes the sentence. Impermanence, suffering, and non-self are neither different from nor non-different from conditioned formations and the like.”
trbh [1361, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365]yadi saṃskārebhyo 'nityatā anyā
evaṃ tarhi saṃskārā nityāḥ
syuḥ
athānanyā evam api saṃskārāḥ pradhvaṃsābhāvarūpāḥ syur anityatāvat
evaṃ duḥkhatādiṣv api vācyam
“If impermanence were different from formations, the formations would be permanent; if non-different, the formations would themselves have the form of cessation, like impermanence. The same is to be said of suffering and the other terms.”
In the final pāda, asmin refers to the perfected nature and the second saḥ refers to the dependent nature. The locative phrase gives the condition: unless the perfected nature is realized, the dependent nature is not seen.→ “Unless this perfected nature has been realized, that dependent nature is not seen.”
trbh [1366, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370]yadi grāhyagrāhakabhāvarahitaḥ paratantraḥ katham asau gṛhyate agṛhyamāṇo vā
katham astīti vijñāyate
ata āha
nādṛṣṭe 'smin sa dṛśyate
nādṛṣṭe 'sminn iti pariniṣpannasvabhāve sa dṛśyata iti paratantraḥ svabhāvaḥ
“If the dependent is devoid of the condition of apprehended and apprehender, how is it apprehended, or how is its existence known if it is not apprehended? Therefore he says: ‘Unless this is seen, that is not seen.’ ‘This’ means the perfected nature; ‘that is seen’ means the dependent nature.”
trbh [1371, 1372, 1373, 1374]nirvikalpalokottarajñānadṛśye pariniṣpanne svabhāve adṛṣṭe apratividdhe
asākṣātkṛte tatpṛṣṭhalabdhaśuddhalaukikajñānagamyatvāt paratantro 'nyena
jñānena na gṛhyate
ataḥ pariniṣpanne 'dṛṣṭe paratantro na dṛśyate
“When the perfected nature—the object of nonconceptual supramundane cognition—has not been seen, penetrated, or directly realized, the dependent is not apprehended by another cognition, since it is accessible to pure mundane cognition attained subsequently. Therefore, when the perfected is unseen, the dependent is not seen.”
The final statement is not an assertion that the dependent nature is absolutely unknowable: it becomes accessible to pure mundane cognition obtained after supramundane realization.→ Passive “is seen,” with the denial limited by the preceding unrealized condition
trbh [1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380]na punar
lokottarajñānapṛṣṭhalabdhenāpi jñānena na dṛśyate
tathā nirvikalpapraveśāyāṃ dhāraṇyām uktam
tat pṛṣṭhalabdhena jñānena māyāmarīcisvapnapratiśrutkodakacandranirmitasamān
sarvadharmān pratyetīti
atra ca dharmāḥ paratantrasaṃgṛhītā abhipretāḥ
“It is not, however, the case that it is not seen even by cognition obtained subsequent to supramundane cognition. The Dhāraṇī on Entry into Nonconceptuality says that with subsequently obtained cognition one understands all phenomena as resembling illusion, mirage, dream, echo, a moon in water, and magical creation; here ‘phenomena’ are intended as included within the dependent.”