Pratibhanusarini --- 九州インド哲学ブログ2

On Indian Philosophy and Buddhist Studies

MMK 6.9cd

MMK 6.9cd:

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
¬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.)

スポンサーサイト
  1. 2016/06/27(月) 07:26:56|
  2. 未分類

プロフィール

Aghora

Author:Aghora

最近の記事

最近のコメント

最近のトラックバック

月別アーカイブ

カテゴリー

ブロとも申請フォーム

この人とブロともになる

FC2カウンター

ブログ内検索

RSSフィード

リンク

このブログをリンクに追加する