[Buddha-l] MMK 25.09 (was: as Swami goes...)

[Dan Lusthaus]

Glad to see Richard H. has found a few moments to share his thinking on 
this.

> ya ājavaṃjavībhāva upādāya pratītya vā |
> so 'pratītyānupādāya nirvāṇam upadiśyate || MMK_25,09

> The process of making something come and go in ontological or conceptual 
> dependence is, when not in metaphysical or conceptual dependence, called 
> nirvana.

Revision appreciated. Why use "ontological" at first, and then switch to 
"metaphysical"? Is there a reason to not stay consistent with the term?

> Some explanation is in order. First it is the entire process of making 
> things come and go that is dependent, and it is dependent in two way, each 
> indicated by a different gerund. Pratītya alludes to pratītya samutpāda, 
> which is coming into being as a result of encountering conditions. So I 
> render than "in ontological dependence" (if I can be forgiven for having 
> departed from the usual clunky way of rendering gerunds). Upādāya alludes 
> to upādāya prajñapti, which is refers to conceptual dependence. For 
> example, the concept of a person depends on the dharmas, and the concept 
> of someone's being a father depends on the concept of someone else's being 
> a son. So I render that "in conceptual dependence."

This is very close to Candrakirti's reading. He gives as an example of the 
hetu-pratyaya aka pratītya type, those who think samskaras go from life to 
life, following rigid causal laws, so that when the causes cease, so do 
samskaras, and thus samsara as well.

The example for the upādāya (prajñapti) is the pudgalavadins, who hold the 
pudgala as the substrate for birth and death. [They consider the pudgala a 
prajñapti.]

> the nominalized form bhāva is ambiguous. It may be a nominalization of 
> either the vanilla verb or the causative. That is, the non-nominalized 
> form could be either "ājavaṃjavī bhavati" (it becomes something that comes 
> and goes) or "ājavaṃjavī bhāvayati" (it makes something come and go). I 
> think the former is probably more likely, now that I think of it, so my 
> translation should be modified accordingly, producing this:
>
> The process of becoming what comes and goes in ontological or conceptual 
> dependence is, when not in metaphysical or conceptual dependence, called 
> nirvana.

Interesting revision (still altering "ontological" to "metaphysical"). How 
does something come and go independent of conditions?

>The new one by Katsura and Siderits is the best I have seen,

I haven't seen it yet. Is it in print?

I largely concur with your evaluation of the MMK translations.

Dan