[Buddha-l] Re: buddha-l Digest, ("That which ... is nothing")

[Elihu Smith]

> >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".
> >----
> >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.
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >Stephen Hodge
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> Besides, which, of course, it seems an inescapable
> conceptual and 
> logical fact that for anything to exist' it muse
> exist 'somewhere' It 
> is not an accident that for ever so many languages
> (for all 
> languages, maybe?) existential expressions are 
> always locative 
> existentials.
> -- 
> F. K. L. Chit Hlaing
> 

In this context it might also be valuable to
clarify/acknowledge the 'dimension' of time, , as
Eihei Dogen does in Being-Time ("Uji" in Shobogenzo).

Elihu