[Buddha-l] Saantideva (Re: Pudgalavada)

[Joy Vriens]

>Joy Vriens wrote : 
>I still have a problem with "That which ... is nothing". The Tibetan "gar"  
>means "where" and can be short for "gar yang" "anywhere". With a negation  
>this becomes nowhere, exists nowhere, your locus. For me this is very  
>different from "nothing". 

Stephen
 
>The "nothing" correctly corresponds to the Tibetan "cung-zad min" (na  
>ki~ncit), not "gar [med-pa]" (kvacit).  I see no problem with the  
>translations from Sanskrit or Tibetan that have bee offered -- though the  
>Guenter version misses out a line from the Tibetan and so has limited value. 

Doesn't the sanskrit translate "not something"? There is a difference for me between "not something" and "nothing". It may be a detail, but it is an important detail IMO in order to capture the subtility. 

Perhaps a - not exactly analogous I am afraid - exemple will illustrate my problem:

Love, not being in the body nor anywhere else, neither intermingled 
nor somewhere separate, is nothing.

Joy