The general orthodoxy seems to be that Nirvana with remainder is when an arhat is still alive, and then nirvana without remainder is when the arhat dies.
My question is, are there scriptural citations in either theravada or mahayana texts (not commentary, specifically sutras) that explicitly says this? Or is it simply the orthodox understanding?
I ask in part because in the Pali Canon for instance it says,
This doesn't seem to explicitly say what was stated above, to my eyes, at least not definitively. It actually even says 'here in this very life', which could be read to imply that it is specifically NOT after death of the body."Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbana-elements. What are the two? The Nibbana-element with residue left and the Nibbana-element with no residue left.
"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and plain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.
"Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all this is experience, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.
In my opinion, there are various sort of 'standard' or 'orthodox' interpretations within Theravada that I find suspect, and I am wondering if perhaps this is one of them, but my scholarship is paltry. I appreciate any input. Again, for clarity, I am specifically asking for scriptural citations, I am not interested in orthodoxy, commentary, etc by and large, although I suppose if there are no good scriptural citations then commentary would be alright to take into account. Thank you.