Siderits and Katsura 2013:70:
katamasmin pṛthagbhāve sahabhāvaṃ satīcchasi//9//
If there is distinctness of the two, in which do you posit co-occurrence?
S & K seem to understand the structure of the sentence as follows:
pṛthagbhāve sati sahabhāvaṃ katamasmin icchasi/
But here the intended structure is:
katamasmin pṛthagbhāve sati sahabhāvaṃ icchasi/
See, e.g. Walleser p. 35 (quoted in Teramoto p. 101):
Bei was für einem Getrennt-(Verschiden-)sein wünschest du Zusammensein?
Therefore, the line should be understood as follows:
In the presence of what kind of distinctness do you claim co-occurrence? [There is no distinctness that can be assumed.]
Around here Nāgārjuna has in mind the following anvaya and vyatireka:
pṛthagbhāva → sahabhāva
In 6.9ab he denies the establishment of pṛthagbhāva.
It seems that the denial of pṛthagbhāva is not a mere assumption in 6.9cd, but probably intended as an actual (accepted, established) fact.
S & K 2013:70:
pṛthagbhāvāprasiddheś ca sahabhāvo na sidhyati/
And if distinctness is not established, co-occurrence is not established.
I prefer "because" to "if" for the ablative of aprasiddheḥ here. (N could have used pṛthagbhāvāprasiddhau or pṛthagbhāve 'prasiddhe instead of pṛthagbhāvāprasiddheḥ, if he intended a mere assumption.)
- 2016/06/27(月) 07:26:56|