There was a 7 year old post on this topic with little info beyond PED translation and some speculations. So I’ve decided to make a new thread to investigate this matter.
In SN 41.7:
6.6 Greed is something, hate is something, and delusion is something.
Rāgo kho, bhante, kiñcanaṁ, doso kiñcanaṁ, moho kiñcanaṁ.
6.7 A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated them, so they are unable to arise in the future.
Te khīṇāsavassa bhikkhuno pahīnā ucchinnamūlā tālāvatthukatā anabhāvaṅkatā āyatiṁ anuppādadhammā.
I’m not sure what anything being something signifies… An apple is also something, heart is something, Dhamma is something as well, no?
Should we understand “Greed is one thing, Delusion is another thing”, signifying their differences?
Or, as in the case of PTS definition, does kiñcana have a deeper significance of “Attachment, impediment” etc. ?
Kiñcana (adj. – nt.) [kiŋ+cana, equal to kiŋ+ci, indef. pron.] only in neg. sentences: something, anything. From the freq. context in the older texts it has assumed the moral implication of something that sticks or adheres to the character of a man, and which he must get rid of, if he wants to attain to a higher moral condition. ↔ Def. as the 3 impurities of character (rāga, dosa, moha)
Interestingly, DPD lists “Obstruction, Trouble” with a cross next to it.
(Most) Other usages seem to be signifying just what the word “anything” or “something” should mean - sometimes it’s a brahmin saying “I don’t have anything” etc. But in that case again, I have trouble conceptualising why it’s prudent to remark that “Anger is something”.
An 4.185
Take another brahmin who says:
Puna caparaṁ, paribbājakā, brāhmaṇo evamāha:‘I don’t belong to anyone anywhere. And nothing belongs to me anywhere.’
‘nāhaṁ kvacani kassaci kiñcanatasmiṁ na ca mama kvacani katthaci kiñcanatatthī’ti.