[Buddha-l] Saantideva (Re: Pudgalavada)

[Richard Nance]

On 12/1/06, Joy Vriens <joy at vrienstrad.com> wrote:

> 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.

The Sanskrit "kiñcit" is an indefinite construction; it can be used to
mean "something." When used with a negation, it's translatable as "not
anything" -- which is logically equivalent to "nothing."

But, of course, interpreting a text may well require more than
assessing the logical contours of its claims. Regarding this
particular verse, the Indian commentator Prajñaakaramati notes that
what 'Saantideva is driving at is, roughly, that mind/mental phenomena
are, in an ultimate sense (paramaarthata.h), not substantially
existent (na vastusat), due to being essenceless (ni.hsvabhaava).
This, in general terms, is what the notion of emptiness is usually
taken to involve or imply. To be "empty" is to be empty of essential
or substantial existence, where essential/substantial existence is
taken to be opposed to the notion that things arise in dependence on
causes and conditions.

So: the verse's "kiñcit" should be read as referring to any
*substantially existent* thing.  Does this help?

Best wishes,

R. Nance