[Buddha-l] As Swami goes, so goes the nation? (Dan Lusthaus and Richard P. Hayes)

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 27-4-2010 0:00, Dan Lusthaus schreef:
>>> ya ājavaṃjavībhāva upādāya pratītya vā |
>>> so 'pratītyānupādāya nirvāṇam upadiśyate || MMK_25,09
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> I'll just contribute my five cents:
>> That which is in the state of restless moving about has attachment and
>> is dependent, nirvāṇa however is thought to be that which is without
>> attachment and independent.
>>      
> Thanks, Erik, for making the first stab. While we're waiting for Richard to
> imbibe his morning coffee, or however he begins the day, let me suggest a
> few problems with this brave attempt, simple stuff first.
>    
Hi Dan,
I admit that I'm not an expert in Sanskrit and certainly not a 
philologist, so I admit my ignorance. The least I can do however is 
indicate how I came to my translation.
> upādāya pratītya vā -- vā means "or", not "and", and in a literary domain
> imbued with logical distinctions such as Nagarjuna's, that is not a trivial
> distinction.
>    
Āpta allows more interpretations and says it is a word that somehow 
expresses an alternative, in most cases 'or'.
> ājavaṃjavībhāva -- if we break that up we have ājavaṃ javī-bhāva. A bhāva
> (also not a trivial term for Nagarjuna, since a core part of svabhāva,
> parabhāva, etc.) that is ājavaṃ-javī, i.e., going and coming, rushing in and
> out (of existence?), etc. So a bit more than "moving about", given its sense
> of frenetic arising and ceasing.
>    
You'll find it in Edgerton's.
> upādāya -- I think you may have misread this as upādāna?
>    
Edgerton allows upādāna, but on second thought perhaps 'based on 
dependency' may be a better translation for upādāya pratītya.
.
> The "ya X so Y" structure I take to be a kind of "That which is X is
> therefore Y". Richard, after his morning coffee, will disabuse me of that.
> Whether the structure is that strict or not, I would still take it to
> consist of sort of equivalence between the X and Y, and not a disjunctive
> statement allowing X to *become* y or even be strongly contrasted or opposed
> to Y.
>    
I think it is a red herring. I know this structure is very common, but 
in this case it may not apply.
> As for upadiśyate (upadeśa), "is thought to be" is nice in that it is taking
> a qualified stand, but it leaves open who is doing such thinking (those
> thinking correctly, or the idiots one is opposing). Also an upadeśa
> sometimes carries the sense of a "teaching," i.e., a prescriptive statement,
> or, minimally, a statement with pedagogic value.
>    
Āpta allows 'to indicate or point out'.
Ok, I'll give my opinion up for any expert's, let's wait and see what 
others make of it.

-- 


Erik

Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
Weblog: http://erik-hoogcarspel.blogspot.com/
Productie: http://www.olivepress.nl