It's a translation of the meaning, not just the words.Malcolm wrote:
- yadā na bhāvo nābhāvo...
Not one of the words in the following phrase exist in the Tibetan translation, not to the mention the Sanskrit original.
- When neither an entity (dngos po, bhāva) nor a nonentity (dngos po, abhāva)...
None of Śantideva's Indian commentators understand this to mean the "true existence of..." and translated non-entity as emptiness is quite strange and wrong.
- Eventually, when the true existence of things and the true existence of emptiness....
The primary commentator, Prajñākaravarman, states:
It is in sum, an incorrect translation.
- As such, this means that when neither an entity nor a nonentity remain before the mind of the yogi, because at that time an apprehensible aspect does not appear, all concepts are pacified through the absence of perception.
I know you are a literalist, Malcolm, who believes that the mere words of a text convey the correct meaning, but this is simply not the case. I have given a clear explanation of the real meaning of this verse. Can you explain how Prajñākaravarman's commentary differs from the explanation I gave? I don't believe there is any difference except that it is incorrect to say there is an absence of perception per se because there is no mind without an object. Thus, even the commentary requires clarification as to the correct meaning which is that all concepts of inherent existence are pacified through the absence of perceiving inherent existence.