Hi @cdpatton,
Yes, it’s English. Not Pali. But that’s my point. In Pali both asoka and ajata are adjectives that describe nibbana. That is, they describe what is absent (a-) in nibbana, describing what nibbana is not. They do not describe what nibbana IS. But then translating that as Unborn, potentially turns the absence of “born” into a presence of “the Unborn”.
Just like deathless (amata, also derived from a verb in Pali) means the absence of death, not the Undeath! (literally it’s non-died) So if we were consistent, we’d have amata-> deathless, ajata ->birthless. So it is a choice that has been made.
I mean, I’m not criticizing “Unborn” as such. It’s not an altogether bad translation, as long as you know that unborn means the absence of birth. But Ven Bodhi’s comment on it is in my opinion misplaced, in saying it’s “the most compelling testimony againnt that view” that nibbana is the cessation of existence. Because as I said, “the end of what’s born” or “birthless”, or alike, is just as valid a translation.
I agree Ven Bodhi does not force “highest bliss” in his translations, and that’s good. Actually, he translates nibbana as “quencing” in verse, which effectively means the same as “extinguishment”. It was my mistake to refer to “highest bliss” or blissful consciousness in commenting on him. With that I was referring more to the “unbinding” and “ultimate liberation” kind of translations.