ТРИСВАБХАВА-НИРДЕША

This paper describes and elucidates two philosophical parallels: the first between two early YogAcAra Buddhist positions, and the second between these positions and a contemporary discussion in analytic philosophy. The two YogAcAra positions are (1) that reality is a mere appearance (AkRti); and (2) that all language is metaphorical (upacAra). First, the distinctive YogAcAra belief in the reality of mere appearances is clarified by carefully distinguishing the terminological uses in Vasubandhu’s Three Natures Exposition (TrisvabhAvanirdesa) from the terms used to make parallel conceptual moves in a very similar passage from the Ornament to the MahAyAna Sutras (MahAyAnasutrAla kAra). Second, the theory of language advocated by Sthiramati in his commentary to Vasubandhu’s Thirty Verses (TrimsikAkArikA) is explained as a counter to arguments that Yogacara non-realism is self-defeating. This latter view shows how YogAcAra may be fruitfully brought into dialogue with Hilary Putnam’s famous antiskeptical Brain-in-a-Vat argument. The paper finds basic accord within Vasubandhu’s ontology and theory of reference, and shows how they represent a new, coherent YogAcAra response to Putnam’s realist challenge.

3. Вечное отсутствие в том как предстает того, что предстает следует знать как совершенную природу из-за её неизменности.

парикальпита, это представление об атмане (то чего не существует)

относительно Вашего мнения, что
то это как-то не вяжется с трактатиком, потому что если бы Васубандху хотел рассказать об ан-атмане, он бы упомянул не слона, а человека.

Мне кажется, что речь не об атмане, а о том, как иллюзия в нашем сознании превращается в реальность.
Под "иллюзорным слоном", мне кажется, Васубандху имеет ввиду нашу реальную жизнь, что мы видим вокруг себя.
Просто для простоты восприятия он сразу назвал её иллюзией.

SUMMARY STATEMENT ON THE VARIOUS METHODS OF CLASSIFYING THE AGGREGATES, ELEMENTS AND SPHERES

Furthermore, in brief, the division (prabedha) of the aggregates, elements and spheres is threefold:

     1. division according to imaginary characteristics (parikalpitalakṣaṇa),
     2. division according to analytical characteristics (vikalpitalakṣaṇa),
     3. division according to characteristics of the essential nature (dharmatālakṣaṇa).

     1. What is division according to imaginary characteristics? It is the fact of imagining a self (I, ātman), a being (sattva), a soul (jīva), a creature (jantu), a person (poṣa), an individual (pudgala), a human being (manuja) or a man (mānava) in the aggregates, elements and spheres.
     2. What is division according to analytical characteristics? These are the aggregates, elements and spheres themselves.
     3. What is division according to the characteristics of the essential nature? This is the non-existence (abhāva) of a self in these same aggregates, elements and spheres. It is the non-existence of a being, soul, creature, person, individual, human being, or man. It is the fact that there is a non-self (nairātmyāstitā).

Furthermore, emptiness is threefold:

     i) the emptiness of non-existence (abhāvaśūnyatā),120
     ii) the emptiness of existence as such-and-such (tathābhāvaśūnyatā) and
     iii) natural emptiness (prakṛtiśūnyatā).

The first should be understood as imaginary (parikalpita), the second as relative (paratantra)121 and the third as absolute (pariniṣpanna).

     Furthermore, all things lack self-nature as a result of the absence of the self-nature of characteristics (lakṣaṇaniḥsvabhāvatā) with respect to the imaginary nature (parikalpite svabhāve), as a result of the absence of nature of arising (utpattiniḥsvabhātatā) with respect to the relative nature (paratantre), and as a result of the absence of nature in the ultimate sense (paramārthaniḥsvabhāva) with respect to the absolute nature (pariniṣpanne).

В схемке получилось смешное место, (кар 14): "невеждами считается тем, что", а дальше идет мнение Васубандху.
По смыслу должно быть "природа, воображаемая невеждами, считается тем"

The intended purpose why ordinary worldlings practice the attainment of nonideation;

For what intended purpose is [the attainment of non-ideation] practiced?

[The attainment of non-ideation is practiced] with a desire for deliverance.

The practitioners, [i.e., ordinary worldlings only,] falsely claim [manyante] that the millennium-state
of non-ideation (āsaṃjñika) that constitutes the [ripened] effect of the attainment of non-ideation, is
true escape or deliverance [niḥsaraṇa]. [They practice it with a desire for liberation (mokṣakāma).]

Noble ones [ārya] see this attainment as a deep pit, a calamity (vinipātasthāna, i.e., apāyasthāna: an
unfortunate rebirth state, or giri-taṭa-vinipātasthāna) and do not desire to enter or practice it.
On the contrary, ordinary worldlings (pṛthagjana) identify the state of non-ideation (āsaṃjñika) with
true liberation [mokṣa], they have the notion of escape (niḥsaraṇasaṃjñā) in regard to it, and thus
practice [samāpadyante] the attainment that leads to it. But the noble ones know that the impure
(sāsrava) cannot be true liberation. Thus they do not practice this attainment.

В трисвабхаве всё проще, парикальпита, это представление об атмане (то чего не существует), паратантра, это пратитьясамутпада (причинно зависимое страдание), а паринишпанна, это анатман т.е. вечное отсутствие в паратантре (пратитьясамутпаде) парикальпиты (атмана).



Спасибо, исправил. Конечно, паратантра минус парикальпита = паринишпанна. Стандартная формула.