20
Viṃśatikā / All 22 verses / 20
कथं वा दण्डकारण्यशून्यत्वमृषिकोपतः मनोदण्डो महावद्यः कथं वा तेन सिध्यति
kathaṃ vā daṇḍakāraṇyaśūnyatvam ṛṣikopataḥ manodaṇḍo mahāvadyaḥ kathaṃ vā tena sidhyati
The line
How else did the Daṇḍaka (दण्डक) forest become empty from the sages' anger? And how, by that, is a mind-blow established as a great offense?
नेपालीमा
नत्र दण्डक वन ऋषिहरूको रिसले कसरी रित्तो भयो? र त्यसबाट मनको प्रहार ठूलो अपराध भनेर कसरी सिद्ध हुन्छ?
Where it sits
Verses 19 and 20 answer 'no object, no harm.' Verse 21 takes the last large objection: the Buddha knows other minds, so other minds, at least, are real objects. The answer will be that this knowledge, too, is not object-matching in the way the objection wants.
Split: katham (कथम्) + vā (वा) + daṇḍaka-araṇya-śūnyatvam (दण्डक-अरण्य-शून्यत्वम्) + ṛṣi-kopataḥ (ऋषि-कोपतः) + manas-daṇḍaḥ (मनस्-दण्डः) + mahā-vadyaḥ (महा-वद्यः) + katham (कथम्) + vā (वा) + tena (तेन) + sidhyati (सिध्यति)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| katham (कथम्) | indeclinable | how. |
| vā (वा) | indeclinable | or. Another case, beside verse 19. |
| daṇḍaka-araṇya-śūnyatvam (दण्डक-अरण्य-शून्यत्वम्) | nominative singular, neuter | the emptiness of the Daṇḍaka (दण्डक) forest. śūnyatva (शून्यत्व) is the state of being empty. |
| ṛṣi-kopataḥ (ऋषि-कोपतः) | indeclinable, ablative in sense | from the anger of the ṛṣis (ऋषि), the sages. -taḥ (-तः) is 'from.' |
| manas-daṇḍaḥ (मनस्-दण्डः) | nominative singular, masculine | the rod that is mental. daṇḍa (दण्ड) is a punishment, a blow. The file joins manodaṇḍo (मनोदण्डो). |
| mahā-vadyaḥ (महा-वद्यः) | nominative singular, masculine | a great vadya (वद्य), something to be blamed, an offense. |
| katham (कथम्) | indeclinable | how. |
| vā (वा) | indeclinable | and how, again. |
| tena (तेन) | instrumental singular, masculine | by that. By the emptying of the forest, or by the sages' anger. |
| sidhyati (सिध्यति) | present, third person singular | is established. |
The phrases
The story is that the sages' anger emptied a forest. If a mental event can do that, the mental blow is already a great offense, which the teaching says it is. The verse uses the story as a case where the harm travelled without a stick.
Read it as two questions with one answer already in view from verse 19: another's cognition is enough.
Sanskrit in this line
śūnyatvam (शून्यत्वम्) here is an empty forest, not Nāgārjuna (नागार्जुन)'s śūnyatā (शून्यता). Same root, śūnya (शून्य), a different compound. Do not import the Madhyamaka term into this line.
Say it back
What travelled from the sages to the forest?