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

[Dan Lusthaus]

>>
>> 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.

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.

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.

upādāya -- I think you may have misread this as upādāna?

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.

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.

Finally, as for upādāya and pratītya, glossing the latter as "dependent" 
(not an uncommon gloss) is a way of getting in and out without doing 
anything overtly "wrong", but it doesn't do justice to the complexity of the 
word and its centrality to Nagarjuna's thinking. Upādāya is notoriously 
difficult to pin down in Nagarjuna's usage, since different Buddhists (and 
others) used it in different ways, with different connotated referents.

There are certainly affinities between this karika and the famous

yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaḥ śūnyatāṃ tāṃ pracakṣmahe |
sā prajñaptir upādāya pratipat saiva madhyamā || MMK_24,18

which we might gloss as: Pratītya-samutpāda and śūnyatā are flip-sides of 
each other. They are both nominal and material conditions (prajñaptir 
upādāya), i.e., equivalent to, the Middle Way.

Note the ya X sa Y structure. There are other ways one could gloss this 
(takers?). And prajñaptir upādāya can be somewhat vexing.

Any philologists in our midst who would care to compile all the karikas in 
MMK that use pratītya (there are quite a few), and try to analytically 
determine what it means in MMK by how Nagarjuna uses it? (or do likewise for 
some of the other terms here, such as upādāya, ājava, javī, bhāva, 
prajñapti, etc.?)

Care to take another stab at 25.9, Erik? Again, I admire your bravery.

In the meantime, Richard, have I suggested something sufficiently obtuse, 
misguided, or right wing to rouse you to weigh in?

Dan