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

back to questions

Triṃśikā (Vasubandhu) with Sthiramati's bhāṣya · 6

kleśaiś caturbhiḥ sahitaṃ nivṛtāvyākṛtaiḥ sadā ātmadṛṣṭyātmamohātmamānātmasnehasaṃjñitaiḥ

Translation. At all times while it exists, it is associated with four afflictions (kleśa), obscured-and-indeterminate (nivṛtāvyākṛta): those called self-view (ātmadṛṣṭi), ignorance concerning self (ātmamoha), self-conceit (ātmamāna), and self-love (ātmasneha).

Grammar check: 6 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
kleśaiḥkleśapass
caturbhiḥcaturpass
sahitamsahitapass
nivṛtāvyākṛtaiḥnivṛtāvyākṛtapass
sadāsadāpass
ātmadṛṣṭyātmamohātmamānātmasnehasaṃjñitaiḥātma-dṛṣṭi-ātma-moha-ātma-māna-ātma-sneha-saṃjñitapass

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.
Read kleśaiś caturbhiḥ as “with four afflictions,” excluding both non-afflictive mental factors and two of the six possible afflictions.
→ The manas is associated specifically with four of the six kleśas.
trbh [386, 387, 388, 389, 390]caittā hi dviprakārāḥ kleśās tad anye ca tadanyebhyo vyavacchedārtham āha kleśair iti kleśā api ṣaṭ na ca taiḥ saṃprayujyate 'taś caturbhir ity āha
Mental factors are of two kinds: afflictions and others. To exclude the others, he says ‘with afflictions.’ Afflictions themselves are six, but it is not associated with all of them; hence he says ‘with four.’
Take sahitam as neuter nominative singular and translate it as “associated,” with the preceding vijñānam/manas as its continuing subject.
→ Neuter Prathama Eka, predicated of the manas-consciousness; semantically equivalent to saṃprayukta.
trbh [391]sahitam iti saṃprayuktam
‘Sahita’ means ‘associated.’
trbh [418, 419, 420]avidyayā cātmadṛṣṭyā cāsmimānena tṛṣṇayā ebhiś caturbhiḥ saṃkliṣṭaṃ mananālakṣaṇaṃ manaḥ viparyāsanimittaṃ tu manaḥ kliṣṭaṃ sadaiva tat
Through ignorance, self-view, the ‘I am’ conceit, and craving—by these four the manas characterized by mentation is afflicted; that afflicted manas is always the cause of error.
Analyze nivṛtāvyākṛtaiḥ as one karmadhāraya compound qualifying kleśaiḥ, not as a separate nivṛta plus avyākṛtaiḥ.
→ The same four afflictions are nivṛta because they are defiled and avyākṛta because they are not classified as wholesome or unwholesome.
trbh [392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398]kleśā api dvividhāḥ akuśalā nivṛtāvyākṛtāś ca akuśalebhyo viśeṣārtham āha nivṛtāvyākṛtair iti na hi nivṛtena vijñānenākuśalānāṃ saṃprayogaḥ saṃbhavati nivṛtāḥ kliṣṭatvāt avyākṛtāḥ kuśalākuśalatvenāvyākaraṇāt
Afflictions too are of two kinds: unwholesome and obscured-indeterminate. To distinguish these from the unwholesome ones, he says ‘with the obscured-indeterminate.’ Association of unwholesome factors with an obscured consciousness is not possible. They are obscured because they are defiled, and indeterminate because they are not classified as wholesome or unwholesome.
Make sadā modify the association, while recognizing the commentary’s qualification that “always” means throughout the manas’s period of existence.
→ At every time for as long as the manas exists, it is associated with these afflictions.
trbh [399, 400, 401]sadeti sarvakālam yāvat tad asti tāvat taiḥ saṃprayuktam
‘Always’ means ‘at every time’: for as long as it exists, it is associated with them.
Construe the instrumental compound ending in saṃjñitaiḥ as an agreeing specification of the four kleśas: the four are separately called self-view, self-ignorance, self-conceit, and self-love.
→ The compound supplies the specific names of the four kleśas previously mentioned only in general.
trbh [402, 403]sāmānyanirdeśād viśeṣato na jñāyanta iti viśeṣato nirdiśati ātmadṛṣṭyātmamohātmamānātmasnehasaṃjñitaiḥ
Because they are not known specifically from the general statement, he now specifies them: ‘called self-view, self-ignorance, self-conceit, and self-love.’
Adopt the bhāṣya reading ātmadṛṣṭi, not the vulgate variant ātmaduṣṭi, and render it as “self-view,” specifically the personality-view that sees a self in the appropriated aggregates.
→ ātmadṛṣṭi, identified by the commentary with satkāyadṛṣṭi.
trbh [403, 404]ātmadṛṣṭyātmamohātmamānātmasnehasaṃjñitaiḥ upādānaskandheṣv ātmeti darśanam ātmadṛṣṭiḥ satkāyadṛṣṭir ity arthaḥ
‘Called self-view, self-ignorance, self-conceit, and self-love.’ Seeing a self in the aggregates of appropriation is self-view; the meaning is personality-view.
trbh [411, 412]tatrālayavijñānasvarūpe saṃmūḍhaḥ sann ālayavijñāne ātmadṛṣṭim utpādayati
Being deluded concerning that—the nature of the store consciousness—one produces self-view regarding the store consciousness.
Render ātmamoha as “ignorance concerning self,” ātmamāna as “self-conceit” or the ‘I am’ conceit, and ātmasneha as “self-love,” rather than leaving them as generic delusion, estimation, and oiliness.
→ Three distinct afflictions: ignorance about self, conceited elevation based on self-view, and attachment or love toward what is conceived as self.
trbh [405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410]moho 'jñānam ātmany ajñānam ātmamohaḥ ātmaviṣaye māna ātmamāno 'smimāna ity arthaḥ ātmani sneha ātmasneha ātmapremety arthaḥ
Delusion is ignorance. Ignorance concerning self is self-ignorance. Conceit whose object is self is self-conceit, meaning the ‘I am’ conceit. Love toward self is self-love; it means love of self.
trbh [413, 414, 415, 416]ātmadarśanād yā cittasyonnatiḥ so 'smimānaḥ etasmiṃs traye saty ātmābhimate vastuni yo 'bhiṣvaṅgaḥ sa ātmasnehaḥ
The elevation of mind arising from seeing a self is the ‘I am’ conceit. When these three are present, the attachment to the object conceived as self is self-love.