back to questions
Triṃśikā (Vasubandhu) with Sthiramati's bhāṣya · 28
yadā tv ālambanaṃ jñānaṃ naivopalabhate tadā | sthitaṃ vijñaptimātratve grāhyābhābhāve tadagrahāt
Translation. But when cognition (jñāna) does not at all apprehend
any objective support (ālambana) outside mind,
then it stands established in representation-only (vijñaptimātratva);
for, when the appearance of anything graspable (grāhyābhā) is absent,
it is not grasped—and the grasper (grāhaka) too is absent.
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 |
|---|
| yadā | yadā | pass |
| tu | tu | pass |
| ālambanam | ālambana | pass |
| jñānam | jñāna | pass |
| na | na | pass |
| eva | eva | pass |
| upalabhate | labh | pass |
| tadā | tadā | pass |
| sthitam | sthita | pass |
| vijñaptimātratve | vijñaptimātratva | pass |
| grāhyābhābhāve | grāhyābhābhāva | pass |
| tadagrahāt | tadagraha | 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.
Take jñānam as the nominative subject and ālambanam as its accusative object, despite neuter case syncretism.→ “Cognition does not apprehend an objective support.”
trbh [1486, 1487]yasmin kāle deśanālambanaṃ avavādālambanaṃ prākṛtaṃ vā rūpaśabdādyālambanaṃ
jñānaṃ bahiś cittān nopalabhate na paśyati na gṛhṇāti nābhiniviśate
At the time when cognition does not apprehend—does not see, grasp, or fix upon—externally to mind an objective support consisting in teaching, instruction, or an ordinary support such as form and sound.
Render ālambana as an ‘objective support’ apprehended outside mind, not as a physical prop or merely an internal meditation aid.→ “objective support (ālambana) outside mind”
trbh [1486, 1487]deśanālambanaṃ avavādālambanaṃ prākṛtaṃ vā rūpaśabdādyālambanaṃ
jñānaṃ bahiś cittān nopalabhate
Cognition does not apprehend outside mind a teaching-support, an instructional support, or an ordinary support such as form or sound.
trbh [1487, 1488]na paśyati na gṛhṇāti nābhiniviśate
yathābhūtārthadarśanān na tu jātyandhavat
It does not see, grasp, or become fixed upon it, because it sees the real object as it is—not because it is like someone blind from birth.
Understand sthitam with an implicit bhavati and construe vijñaptimātratve restrictively as ‘in representation-only,’ identified by the commentary with the nature of one’s own mind.→ “then it stands established in representation-only (vijñaptimātratva)”
trbh [1488, 1489]tasmin kāle vijñānagrāhasya prahāṇaṃ
svacittadharmatāyāṃ ca pratiṣṭhito bhavati
At that time the grasping of cognition is abandoned, and one becomes established in the nature of one’s own mind.
trbh [1495, 1496]svacittadharmatāyāṃ ca cittam
avasthitaṃ bhavati
And mind becomes established in the nature of its own mind.
Retain and parse the bhāṣya’s longer reading grāhyābhābhāve rather than silently emending it, but interpret it under the prose gloss as absence of an objective or graspable appearance—not as absence of literal luminosity.→ Nested tatpuruṣa: grāhyasya ābhā, tasyā abhāvaḥ, translated ‘when the appearance of anything graspable is absent.’
trbh [1491]grāhyābhāve tadagrahād iti
‘Because it is not grasped when the grasped object is absent.’
trbh [1492, 1493]grāhye sati grāhako bhavati na tu grāhyābhāva iti
grāhyābhāve grāhakābhāvam
When something graspable is present, a grasper exists, but not in the absence of the graspable; in the absence of the grasped there is absence of the grasper.
Take tadagrahāt as a causal ablative whose immediate grammar is ‘because of not grasping that,’ while preserving the commentary’s stronger inference that absence of the grasped entails absence of the grasper.→ “for … it is not grasped—and the grasper too is absent.”
trbh [1490, 1491]atraiva kāraṇam āha
grāhyābhāve tadagrahād iti
Here he states precisely the reason: ‘because it is not grasped when the grasped object is absent.’
trbh [1492, 1493]grāhye sati grāhako bhavati na tu grāhyābhāva iti
grāhyābhāve grāhakābhāvam
A grasper exists when something graspable exists, but not when the graspable is absent; when the grasped is absent, the grasper is absent.
trbh [1494]nirvikalpaṃ lokottaraṃ jñānam utpadyate
Nonconceptual supramundane cognition arises.
Treat the failure to apprehend as veridical insight rather than perceptual incapacity or blank unconsciousness.→ The cognition does not apprehend an external object because of accurate vision of reality, not because cognition has ceased or become defective.
trbh [1487, 1488]nopalabhate na paśyati na gṛhṇāti nābhiniviśate
yathābhūtārthadarśanān na tu jātyandhavat
It does not apprehend, see, grasp, or fix upon it because it sees the object as it really is, not as one blind from birth would fail to see.