I do not agree with Ven Bodhi that nibbana is hard to translate. To me the problem seems to be that we put the word on a pedestal it doesn’t deserve. You read any book on buddhism, and what does it say the goal is? Nibbana. But in the suttas one finds terms like cessation (nirodha) and ending (khaya) much more often. I guess they outnumber nibbana at least ten to one.
Standard phrases for enlightenment often don’t mention it. Eg. “Nibbindaṃ virajjati; virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṃ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṃ hoti. ‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti.” This is all about losing desire and ending birth; not about creating any new experience.
You see exactly this issue in Ven Bodhis quote given: “The state that supervenes when ignorance and craving have been uprooted is called Nibbāna.” When does the Buddha call Nibbana a state?
The point I’m making is: Nibbana is just a metaphor for the goal; it isn’t the actual goal.
I think the over-emphasis on nibbana is the actual reason for non- or mistranslations. As Ven Sujato said, its actual meaning is clear. It just has too much baggage.
Yes, very good. I haven’t specifically looked for nibbāyati. For sake of completion, SN 36.8 is the same as SN 36.7.
Also this nibbā*-term ‘deteriorates’ in the AN and becomes mostly formulaic.
Yes, it’s DN 27
Actually I think you got all nibbāyati references
Totally agree, and I don’t think another interpretation is really tenable based on the texts. The same mistake has been done by ‘ontologizing’ brahman in late Vedic literature. In most of the cases in the Upanisads where it’s used in definitions or ‘correspondences’ its meaning is ‘supreme’. So ‘x is brahman’ or ‘atman is brahman’ means ‘x is the supreme’ or ‘the atman is the supreme (principle)’.
I’ve only been studying Pali seriously for about a year. But it seems to me that “dhamma” in the context of “sabbe dhammā anattā” ought to refer to anything that is an object of clinging and not just principles of nature or of the Dhamma. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying, below.
“Another is that the Buddha’s objective is the practical one of leading beings to release from suffering, and thus his principal approach to the characterisation of Nibbāna is to inspire the incentive to attain it and to show what must be done to accomplish this.”
Do you think this has any relevance to how and/or whether Nibbana is translated? The primary issue I have with translating Nibbana as extinguishment is when I read extinguishment it’s kind of a turn off and not very motivating. In contrast, Nibbana sounds to me more neutral and abstract. Of course, those are just my impressions and perceptions, but I just wonder if many others might read extinguishment the same way.
Yeah, if I recall correctly, this was one reason Thanissaro Bhikkhu cited for preferring “unbinding” He argues that the cooling of a fire would have a very differently connotation in a tropical (Indian) language than in a subarctic (Nordic/Gaelic) language!
But, personally, I am a fan of trusting the reader. A work of literature from another culture will always require some degree of maturity to read. I can’t agree with translating based on the connotation at the expense of denotation. It simply robs the reader of too much.
A few days ago I bought a wood campstove. It is a very small thing fitting in my one hand. All it requires is some twigs and a spark. I could not see how this could work. There is no gas. There is no electricity. Just dead wood and a spark.
Yet somehow, after an hour of fumbling, cursing and bumbling, I was indeed astonished to see a hot fire in my new stove. So I fed the fire and it kept going. And I fed it some more and it kept going. Then I thought to myself, “Now I know how fire works.” And then I no longer wished to feed the stove. So I stopped feeding the stove. After a time, the fire stopped, cooled and became extinguished. Content, I simply stared at the embers cooling. They faded into peace and so did I.
Nibbana need not be so so complicated. Just stop feeding the fire. It will become extinguished in this very life. Right there.
Sadu. That had much meaning for me as I’m sure it did for others with a substantial amount of meditation and sutta study experience. The concern about translating Nibbana as extinguishment is more about what effects will this translation have on people who are just getting acquainted with the Dhamma. In other words, will translating Nibbana as extinguished invite others deeper into the refuge of the Dhamma or repel them away from it?
For example, it seems very likely that many will read extinguished as annihilated. In fact if you google the word extinguished, one of the definitions of extinguish is annihilate, as shown below:
“2. to put an end to or bring to an end; wipe out of existence; annihilate:
to extinguish hope.” Second definition from the Random House Dictionary of Extinguish.
In summary, since Nirvana is in the English dictionary (as another pointed out), and since extinguished is sometimes defined at least in part as annihilated (and we know annihilation is part of wrong view), would it be more beneficial (for more people) to leave the word Nibbana untranslated? I don’t know the answer to this question, but it seems like a relevant one.
The extinguishment of the taints, I assume?
I’m thinking for example of SN35.28, where the All is described as “burning” with the taints (lust, hatred and delusion).
Hey
I think it would be good to move this topic to discussion or the watercooler.
It started as “feedback” because I wanted to ask Venerable Ajahn Sujato about the issue.
Venerable Sujato stated his mind that he is good with his translation and gave careful and solid explanation why, so the feedback aspect is finished
But this is clearly discussion right now, and I think that the fact its going on in “feedback” section can give impression of pressuring tone, that I would love to avoid.
Since it is topic I started, I think it would be great to move it to discussion or watercooler section, because its intention of feedback was done in first few posts already, but the discussion doesn’t have to finish.
We can discuss the matter of translation of Nibbana in general, but we should not pressure it in feedback section.
We can discuss it regarding all translations, not just Ajahn Sujato, because Venerable Sujato has 100% right to choose his own translation and he already explained why, and we should just respect it and if something, countinue this very interesting discussion outside of feedback section in my humble opinion, to give this hint that its just regular discussion, and no longer trying to “Feedback” something that was already answered thoroughly by Ajahn.
Thank you, yes I think I can do this
I think it would be great to have opinion of a moderator, if the topic should be moved to discussion or watercooler
PS: Allright, I just moved it to discussion, because it is related to EBT and there are suttas references and this is importaint topic and the discussion in the thread was on very high level in my opinion.
One of the fascinating quotes from DN33 deals with the double-entendre about fire:
Three fires: greed, hate, and delusion.
Another three fires: a fire for those worthy of offerings dedicated to te gods, a fire for householders, and a fire for those worthy of a religious donation.
In the first case we have, as you mentioned, the fire of the defilements. And in the second case we have the implication that the end of the spiritual quest is also a form of extinguishment. I find this quite remarkable that the path should be somewhat of a circle that transcends itself after a revolution.
Yes. That may happen. But this issue even affects monks. I’m personally somewhat aghast at the Buddhist monks who mortified themselves into mummies. So even those on the path sometimes head that way as well. And now we have self-embalmed monks in museums here and there. For me they are just dead ends.
Well, having quickly read the passage you quoted (it’s in the foreword to the MN translation) it seems Venerable Bodhi has a view I do not share. He writes “that Nibbana is merely the destruction of the defilements and the extinction of existence cannot stand up under scrutiny.” But the clearest definitions of Nibbana are saying exactly those things he says it is not. I’ve quoted the passages before. Nibbana at enlightenment is the ending of the defilements, Nibbana at death is the cessation of existence (bhava).
He writes further “the most compelling testimony agasint that view is […] ‘there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned …’”. But this is firstly an inspired utterance (Udana), that, like verse, is not meant to inform but to inspire, and secondly can just as well be translated ‘there is an end to what is born, etc.’ or ‘there is that which is without what is born’. The un- prefix here (in unborn etc) is just as much a translation choice as others. That it doesn’t always work is shown in the same sutta (iirc) when it says Nibbana is “asoka”, i.e. the end of sorrow, or sorrowless. Not the Unsorrow.
Of course a translator’s view will inform his writings. So we can read Venerable Bodhi’s comment through this interpretation.
What is inspiring for one person is not inspiring to the other, so that should ideally not inform our translations too much. I find the idea of some eternal blissful consciousness (or whatever Nibbana ideas are out there) not very appealing in that I do not belief it is possible. On the other hand, the extinguishment of craving and the extinguisment of suffering are very beneficial ideas for me.
Actually, that’s just a matter of parts of speech. Born, made, and conditioned are verbs, while sorrow is not. Now, if he had translated sorrowless as unlamented, then I’d give you your point. Otherwise, it’s just English grammar.
Translitering a term like Nirvana/Nibbana because of non-standard usages is actually an attempt at not interpreting a term. The translator isn’t certain what to translate it as and doesn’t want his views to get in the reader’s way. So, when you read Bodhi’s translations, you can read Nibbana as extinguishment or dead-and-not-reborn or anything at all. It’s your call. He’s not going to force you to read “highest bliss” in a passage.
I’m personally still in this boat, myself. I may change my mind in the future as I continue translating, but thus far it’s a special case in which I follow the Chinese texts, which tend to transliterate most of the time. Normally, I wouldn’t do this, but its still something I’m deciding.
The funny thing is that I’m also a reader of Chinese translations that transliterate a term selectively, and so I suffer from not know exactly when it was translated, the same as I do when I read Bodhi’s English translations. I can look at Pali parallels, but the passages don’t always line up.
