Translation of Iti 44 which has "idheva, bhikkhave"

Translations
1

Iti 44 has:

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, anupādisesā nibbānadhātu?
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu arahaṁ hoti khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojano sammadaññāvimutto.
Tassa idheva, bhikkhave, sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sīti bhavissanti.

which John Ireland translates as:

Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant … completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.

whereas @sujato has:

And what is the element of extinguishment with nothing left over?
It’s when a mendicant is a perfected one, with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment.
For them, everything that’s felt, being no longer relished, will become cool right here.

This is fascinating to me because a unique facet of the Gelug branch of Tibetan buddhism holds that nibbana without remainder is experienced in meditative equipoise by a Noble being during total absorption on voidness and that this doesn’t just occur at death with the break-up of the body. I believe that the Theravada standard position is that nibbana without remainder is exclusively associated with the paranibbana of a Noble being and should only be understood as occuring at death with the break-up of the body.

A couple questions:

  • Have I correctly identified the pali fragment that is being translated by the two translators in bold?
  • It would seem that this sutta could arguably be understood to support either interpretation?

I don’t wish this topic to be a debate on a doctrinal point of the two traditions, but rather hope to focus on the actual translation. Is it possible that Ireland has mistranslated this or is there something in the actual construction of the Pali words that would definitely rule out the Gelug interpretation?

Thank you! :pray:

2

I am no expert, but it appears to me you have correctly identified the pali term in question.

I highly recommend switching on the line by line pali display in the view options of @sujato 's translations, it makes identifying the specific parts of the text much easier as in:

And what is the element of extinguishment with nothing left over?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, anupādisesā nibbānadhātu?

It’s when a mendicant is a perfected one, with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu arahaṁ hoti khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojano sammadaññāvimutto.

For them, everything that’s felt, being no longer relished, will become cool right here.
Tassa idheva, bhikkhave, sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sīti bhavissanti.

This is called the element of extinguishment with nothing left over.
Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, anupādisesā nibbānadhātu.

These are the two elements of extinguishment.”
Imā kho, bhikkhave, dve nibbānadhātuyo”ti.

The Digital Pali Reader has a vastly superior dictionary function to suttacentral for some reason;

It gives;

Idha (indecl.) [*Sk. [iha], adv. of space fr. pron. base i (cp. [ayaṃ], [iti]etc.), cp. Lat. ihi, Gr. i)qa – genh/s, Av. [ida] ] here in this place, in this connection, now; esp. in this world or present existence Sn 1038, 1056, 1065; It 99 (idh ûpapanna reborn in this existence); Dh 5, 15, 267, 343 392; Nd1 40, 109, 156; Nd2 145, 146; SnA 147; PvA 45, 60, 71. – idhaloka this world, the world of men Sn 1043 (= manussaloka Nd2 552c); PvA 64; in this religion Vbh 245. On diff. meanings of idha see DhsA 348.

Which supports Irelands rendering.

However, either rendering can be interpreted either way:

that everything will be extinguished in this very life can just mean that in this very life, the one in which the body you have now dies, you will be extinguished, it doesn’t really matter if you say “this life” of “right here”, in fact, “right here” could be read narrowly, as something more immediate than “this life”, so some might, perhaps perversely, argue that @sujato 's rendering is MORE supportive of the Gelug position.

Metta

3

You’ve highlighted the right bit. :+1: It’s a junction of idha+eva.

The verse in the same sutta clarifies what is meant both by idha and nibbana without remainder. In Venerable Sujato’s translation:

One element pertains to the present life (idha diṭṭhadhammikā)—
what is left over when the conduit to rebirth has ended
What has nothing left (= nibbana without remainder) over pertains to what follows this life,
where all states of existence cease.

1 Like
4

I think this is the parallel in the chinese agama? I don’t trust ChatGPT to translate this.