back to questions
Triṃśikā (Vasubandhu) with Sthiramati's bhāṣya · 24
prathamo lakṣaṇenaiva niḥsvabhāvo 'paraḥ punaḥ na svayaṃbhāva etasyety aparā niḥsvabhāvatā
Translation. The first—the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva)—
lacks intrinsic nature (niḥsvabhāva) precisely in respect of its defining characteristic (lakṣaṇa).
The other—the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva)—in turn:
“this has no being from itself (svayaṃbhāva).”
That is the other naturelessness (niḥsvabhāvatā), naturelessness with respect to arising (utpatti-niḥsvabhāvatā).
Grammar check: 12 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 |
|---|
| prathamaḥ | prathama | pass |
| lakṣaṇena | lakṣaṇa | pass |
| eva | eva | pass |
| niḥsvabhāvaḥ | niḥsvabhāva | pass |
| aparaḥ | apara | pass |
| punaḥ | punar | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| svayaṃbhāvaḥ | svayaṃbhāva | pass |
| etasya | etad | pass |
| iti | iti | pass |
| aparā | apara | pass |
| niḥsvabhāvatā | niḥsvabhāvatā | 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.
Supply ‘imagined nature’ as the referent of masculine prathamaḥ.→ The first member is explicitly the imagined nature.
trbh [1403]prathamaḥ parikalpitaḥ svabhāvo 'yaṃ ca lakṣaṇenaiva niḥsvabhāvas
The first is the imagined nature, and this is natureless precisely in respect of its characteristic.
Construe lakṣaṇenaiva as an instrumental of respect, with eva restricting lakṣaṇa.→ ‘Precisely in respect of its defining characteristic,’ because the characteristic itself is projected and therefore no own-form is present.
trbh [1403, 1404]prathamaḥ parikalpitaḥ svabhāvo 'yaṃ ca lakṣaṇenaiva niḥsvabhāvas tallakṣaṇasyotprekṣitatvāt
The first is the imagined nature, and this is natureless precisely in respect of its characteristic, because that characteristic is imagined.
trbh [1405, 1406, 1407]rūpalakṣaṇaṃ rūpam anubhavalakṣaṇā vedanetyādi ataś ca svarūpābhāvāt khapuṣpavat svarūpeṇaiva niḥsvabhāvaḥ
‘Form has the characteristic of form; feeling has the characteristic of experience,’ and so forth; consequently, because own-form is absent, it is natureless precisely in its own form, like a sky-flower.
Identify aparaḥ with the dependent nature and take punar contrastively as ‘in turn.’→ The dependent nature, ‘in turn.’
trbh [1408]aparaḥ punar iti paratantrasvabhāvaḥ
‘The other, in turn’ means the dependent nature.
Interpret svayaṃbhāva as being or arising from itself, not merely as a synonym of svabhāva.→ ‘It has no being or arising from itself’: its arising depends on other conditions, like an illusion.
trbh [1409, 1410]na svayaṃbhāva etasya māyāvat parapratyayenotpatteḥ
This has no being from itself, as with an illusion, because it arises through conditions supplied by others.
trbh [1411, 1412]ataś ca yathā prakhyāti tathāsyotpattir nāstīty ato 'syotpattiniḥsvabhāvatety ucyate
Moreover, it does not arise in the manner in which it appears; therefore this is called its naturelessness with respect to arising.
Take etasya as referring to the dependent nature and iti as closing the proposition that explains the second naturelessness.→ The genitive refers to the dependent nature, and iti closes the proposition that grounds aparā niḥsvabhāvatā.
trbh [1408, 1409, 1410]aparaḥ punar iti paratantrasvabhāvaḥ na svayaṃbhāva etasya māyāvat parapratyayenotpatteḥ
‘The other, in turn’ is the dependent nature. This has no being from itself, as with an illusion, because it arises through other conditions.
Read niḥsvabhāva privatively: ‘whose intrinsic nature is absent.’→ A privative bahuvrīhi; the commentary expressly explains it through svarūpābhāva, absence of own-form.
trbh [1407]ataś ca svarūpābhāvāt khapuṣpavat svarūpeṇaiva niḥsvabhāvaḥ
Consequently, because own-form is absent, it is natureless precisely in its own form, like a sky-flower.
Analyze niḥsvabhāvatā as one feminine abstract noun and understand aparā as ‘the other kind of naturelessness,’ specifically naturelessness of arising.→ A single abstract noun; here the commentary identifies it as utpatti-niḥsvabhāvatā, ‘naturelessness with respect to arising.’
trbh [1411, 1412]ataś ca yathā prakhyāti tathāsyotpattir nāstīty ato 'syotpattiniḥsvabhāvatety ucyate
Since it does not arise in the manner in which it appears, this is called its naturelessness with respect to arising.