"One who is not awake does not understand the non-existence of a sense-object seen in a dream." Vasubandhu
Vasubandhu alternates between two voices in this text. While the transitions are unmarked in the Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese manuscripts, it can be inferred that this is the voice of the objector/opponent, likely functioning as "the devil's advocate" in an inner monologue.
-
-
What if it is just an error of the translator (which happens all the time)? “Therefore, it _is_ so that all referential objectifications of external objects are, as is the case in a dream, [actually] devoid of external objects.” Doesn’t it sound correct in the overall context?
-
Errors are always possible. However, I'm looking at the Sanskrit, which uses the negative marker "na" (tasmān na svapna ivārthopalabdhiḥ sarvā nirarthikā), in which case the negation in Silk's translation seems correct and is consistent with the devil's advocate position.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.