Summary: perhaps liberation is what is “deep and hard to fathom like the ocean”, not the Tathāgata.
Hi all,
A while back I was reading MN72, the famous discourse on the fire simile spoken to a wanderer from the Vaccha clan. I realized something when I reached the following sentence:
rūpasaṅkhāya vimutto kho vaccha tathāgato gambhīro appameyyo duppariyogāḷho seyyathāpi mahāsamuddo. (Similar in SN44.1.)
The following translation by Bodhi and Ñānamoli more or less represents the standard interpretation of this sentence. I’m using it just as an example. (I’ve taken “Vaccha” out for clarity. In the original it follows “form”.)
The Tathāgata is liberated from reckoning in terms of material form, he is profound, immeasurable, hard to fathom like the ocean.
This has always puzzled me. What exactly is profound about a Tathagata? Why is a Tathagata hard to fathom yet a normal unenlightened person supposedly not? After all, both are just five aggregates, so both are just as hard to get to the bottom of. Or do you somehow become an immeasurable ocean when you get enlightened?
But if I just change the word “he” into “which”, it becomes intelligible:
The Tathāgata is liberated from reckoning in terms of material form, which is profound, immeasurable, hard to fathom like the ocean.
You see what that did? Liberation is now what’s “profound and hard to fathom”, not the Tathāgata!
Grammatically this is possible, as far as I can tell. I see I’ve structured it as (A = B) = C instead of A = B = C but I don’t think there is a fundamental problem with that. Please correct me if I’m wrong. (For people new to Pāli I’ll explain. The sentence in Pali has no verb “is” in it. It basically says: “from reckoning-material-form liberated Tathāgata profound, immeasurable, hard-to-fathom like ocean.” The translator has to interpret the sentence and decide which things are to be linked with “is” in English.)
Contextually this also makes sense, for only a few paragraphs before, the Buddha said:
For this Dhamma [i.e. principle/truth], is profound, hard to see and hard to understand, Vaccha …
That is all I have say, basically. I hope it makes sense. But while I’m at it, I might as well suggest linking “profound” (or ‘deep’) and “immeasurable” with “ocean” more directly:
The Tathāgata is liberated from reckoning in terms of material form, which, like the ocean, is hard to fathom, deep and immeasurable.
Or:
The Tathāgata is liberated from reckoning in terms of material form, which is as hard to fathom, as deep and as immeasurable as the ocean.
I have further opinions about the word choices in this translation. For example, I think saṅkha is what we’d call ‘identification with’, not ‘reckoning in terms of’. But to not distract from my main point I’ll leave those opinions for another time, perhaps.
If people are interested, I may also share some other thoughts on this sutta; on “reappear doesn’t apply” and such. Let me know if you are interested. Perhaps I’ll even be brave enough to attempt a translation.
So what do you think? Is the Tathagāta profound? Or is liberation profound?
Or am I missing the obvious? That shouldn’t be surprising, since all translations I know have “the Tathagatha is like the ocean” … So, friends, especially fellow Pali geeks, please tell me if I’m wrong, or let me know if you think I may be right. (A ‘love’ I count as confirmation!)
Thanks for reading.