In MN 36 and related passages, after the Buddha wasted his time with self-mortification, he reflected on his failure, leading to his deepest insight:
‘Could there be another path to awakening?’
Then it occurred to me:
‘I recall sitting in the cool shade of the rose-apple tree while my father the Sakyan was off working. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome qualities, I entered and remained in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.
Could that be the path to awakening?’
Then following on that memory came the realization:
‘That is the only path to awakening.’ (eseva maggo bodhāyā’ti)
Obviously this passage directly contradicts the basic thesis of the vipassanavāda, the idea that it is possible to get awakened without jhana. This passage is hardly alone, as jhanas are an essential part of all presentations of the Buddhist path. Still, it is a powerful rhetorical statement, placed at a crucial juncture of the Buddha’s spiritual journey.
While the overall meaning of the passage is beyond doubt, the particle eva in the last line is open to interpretation. It is used in a variety of ways, usually indicating emphasis, definition, or singularity. Thus is can be translated as “really”, “indeed”, “quite”, “just”, or “only”, depending on context. Often it is not translated at all.
Recent translations have followed the latter route, with both Vens Bodhi and Thanissaro following Ñāṇamoḷi in rendering it: “That is the path to enlightenment.” Earlier translators incorporated the particle, with Chalmers saying “true” path, while Horner says this is “itself” the path.
Now, the Sri Lankan lineage of translators was strongly influenced by the vipassanavāda. Obviously it would be wrong to say that the particle was suppressed deliberately, but it is the kind of subtle shift in emphasis that easily and unconsciously slips by, shaping the way the suttas are received.
While there are no linguistic grounds to decide which approach is correct, the exact phrase is used in Dhp 274, where it must mean “only”:
Eseva maggo natthañño
This is the only path, there is no other.
This makes perfect sense in the context of MN 36. The bodhisatta is emerging from his prior practice, rejecting the mistakes in his past practice, and realizing that there is only one way forward. Ven Ñāṇatusita—so I noticed after writing the initial draft of this essay—makes exactly (eva) the same point (private document), noting that the phrase is echoing the question earlier of whether there might be another path.
Of course, it is perfectly possible that the same phrase has a different nuance in the two contexts. But given that there is a strong connection between the contexts, surely the default position is to accept that they have the same meaning, and to differentiate them only if necessary.
In this case, as in a couple of instances I have noted before, the oldest translation, by Chalmers, is the most accurate.