gad rgyangs wrote:
it says "since there is nothing but X1 and X2, X does not exist" how does that make sense semantically?
You are being myopic:
Here is the passage Vimalamitra is commenting on:There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.
Context, context, context.
Would you say the translation you just posted above is most accurate? (I assume you would being that I'm sure you translated it)
I posted this same passage earlier but a different translation and there seems to be a few clearly noticeable differences. I believe someone(Mr. G?) already posted a quote from you(in response to an unrelated post) stating that use of the term "gnosis" is unnecessary and can actually potentially muddle things up, but aside from that there also seems to be other terms which don't correlate.
This is the other one:Within self-emergent primordial gnosis,
there are no objects to be experienced,
There is nothing which has previously passed away,
Nor anything which will subsequently emerge,
Nor anything at all which currently appears.
There is no karma,
There are no latent karmic propensities,
There is no dimmed awareness,
There is no mind,
There is no psyche,
There is no insight,
There is no cyclic existence,
And there is no transcendence of misery -
It is not the case that even awareness itself exists.
There is nothing whatsoever which manifests within primordial gnosis.
- excerpt from The Tantra Of The Wordless Secret
(Absence Of Letters | yi ge med pa) or (Letterless Tantra | yi ge med pa'i rgyud)
At any rate I suppose it just goes to show the potential contrasting meanings and connotations different terms can give depending on translation, even though overall they both seem to ultimately convey the same insight.
Also should note because it ultimately coincides with the topic: Jax proceeded to label me a nihilist for posting this passage... and not that the labeling in and of itself matters (I'm not here to bicker about mudslinging), but it does serve to reify the necessity of this discussion at hand. Glad this is all being addressed thoroughly.