"Kiñcana" revisited

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. :slight_smile:

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”. :sweat_smile:

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.

1 Like

It’s because “akiñcana” is a frequent epithet used to refer to advanced and detached sages. It was presumably a pre-Buddhist idea that spiritual people would aspire to having nothing, as the passage you quoted indicates and as is hinted elsewhere, such as in the story of Bāvari.

So the point is that Buddhism is offering a specific definition of what it means for someone to be “akiñcana,” meaning “one who has no thing.” For someone to not have material possessions is not enough; rather, it’s someone who has no greed, hatred, or delusion who can truly be called one who doesn’t have anything.

It’s dialectical.

3 Likes

Right. So these are the things that get lost in the translation absent of a culture around specific contexts. :slight_smile:

I wonder if it would be acceptable to translate it figuratively as “Anger is a burden” etc. to supply the context. Otherwise it’s the job of asterixes and footnotes. :slight_smile:

Thanks for your insight, Bhante.

Yes, to some extent. :slight_smile: However when this discussion arises, it’s in a particular context where they discuss meditation. He gives a case where the three terms differ in meaning, and another where they each have the same meaning. It should be relatively clear if read closely, but it’s of course natural to miss things sometimes either way.

Sukhī hotu!

1 Like

It is just word play bereft of any deeper significance.
kiñcana means something.
akiñcana is the opposite of something, i.e. not anything or nothing.
ākiñcanya (the nya becomes ñña in Pali so ākiñcañña) is nominally derived from the word akiñcana and means nothingness.

It means to get cetovimukti through ākiñcanya he needs to give up kiñcana (and that kiñcana - which needs to be given up - is rāga, doṣa and moha).

It is easier to say it in Sanskrit or Pali meaningfully than it is to translate meaningfully.

1 Like