My question is about the translation of “iṇa” as “loan” the following passage (DN 2, DN 10, MN 39):
seyyathāpi puriso iṇaṃ ādāya kammante payojeyya. tassa te kammantā samijjheyyuṃ, so yāni ca porāṇāni iṇamūlāni, tāni ca byantiṃ kareyya, siyā cassa uttariṃ avasiṭṭhaṃ dārabharaṇāya.
VT’s translation:
Suppose that a man, taking a loan, invests it in his business affairs. His business affairs succeed. He repays his old debts and there is extra left over for maintaining his wife.
This translation notes:
Iṇaṃ ādāya. Neumann has ‘oppressed by debt,’ but Buddhaghosa (p. 212) says ‘taking goods on interest’; and this is confirmed by Jāt. IV, 256, V, 436.
Indeed the commentary says:
iṇaṃ ādāyāti vaḍḍhiyā dhanaṃ gahetvā.
If we take the sutta at face value, it seems that V Neumann’s rendering makes more sense. Someone who practices to remove the hindrances is like someone who is paying off a debt contracted earlier, independently from his later undertaking of the path. But translated as “loan” it makes it sound like the debt was contracted knowingly, in order to improve the state of things, which is obviously not the case with obstructions.
So should we follow the commentary, Ven Ñāṇamoli, Ven T, Ven B and all those who do not want to stray from it, or should we follow Neumann’s approach?
It seems that AN 6.45, the only other sutta I could spot with the same expression seems to confirm that the debt is not contracted in order to solve a problem, but is rather an aggravation of a preexisting problem (Ven T):
a poor, destitute, penniless person gets into debt. For one who
partakes of sensuality, getting into debt is suffering in the world."
“Yes, lord.”
“And a poor, destitute, penniless person, having gotten into debt,
owes interest payments. For one who partakes of sensuality, interest
payment is suffering in the world.”
“Yes, lord.”
“And when a poor, destitute, penniless person owing interest payments
does not pay interest on time, they serve him notice. For one who
partakes of sensuality, being served notice is suffering in the world.”
“Yes, lord.”
“And when a poor, destitute, penniless person, being served notice,
does not pay, they hound him. For one who partakes of sensuality, being
hounded is suffering in the world.”
“Yes, lord.”
“And when a poor, destitute, penniless person, being hounded, does
not pay, he is put into bondage. For one who partakes of sensuality,
bondage is suffering in the world.”
“Yes, lord.”
"Thus, monks, poverty is suffering in the world for one who partakes
of sensuality. Getting into debt is suffering in the world for one who
partakes of sensuality. Interest payment is suffering in the world for
one who partakes of sensuality. Being served notice is suffering in the
world for one who partakes of sensuality. Being hounded is suffering in
the world for one who partakes of sensuality. Bondage is suffering in
the world for one who partakes of sensuality.
"In the same way, monks, whoever has no conviction with regard to
skillful mental qualities, no sense of conscience with regard to
skillful mental qualities, no sense of concern with regard to skillful
mental qualities, no persistence with regard to skillful mental
qualities, no discernment with regard to skillful mental qualities is,
in the discipline of a noble one, said to be poor, destitute, &
penniless.
"He — poor, destitute, & penniless, having no conviction with
regard to skillful mental qualities, no sense of conscience… no sense
of concern… no persistence… no discernment with regard to skillful
mental qualities — engages in misconduct by way of the body, misconduct
by way of speech, misconduct by way of the mind. For him, I tell you,
this is getting into debt.