The Fire Simile with Vatsagotra: A Rough Translation of SĀ 962

This is not a qualified or professional translation. It is a rough draft I have done to appreciate the Chinese discourse, learn some Buddhist Chinese, and compare it with the Pāḷi. It is part of a study I am doing of the fire simile in the string of Vaccha/Vatsa sutras.

More than anything, I would greatly appreciate corrections and feedback! :pray:

I do hope, though, that anyone interested in the Buddhist discourses will also be able to appreciate this thread by getting a basic sense of the sutra!


- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa -

Saṁyuktāgama 962
(九六二) 見

如是我聞:
This is what I’ve heard:
一時,佛住王舍城迦蘭陀竹園。
One time, the Buddha was staying in the city of Rājagṛha, in the Bamboo Park of Kalanda.
爾時,婆蹉種出家來詣佛所,與世尊面相問訊,問訊已,退坐一面,白佛言:
Then, the wanderer Vatsagotra went up to the Buddha and exchanged greetings in the presence of the Lord. After the greetings, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:
「瞿曇!云何瞿曇作如是見、如是說:『世間常,此是真實,餘則虛妄。』耶?」
“Gautama, how is it? Does Gautama hold the view and declare that the world is eternal; and only this is true, the rest is vain and false?”
佛告婆蹉種出家:
The Buddha told the wanderer Vatsagotra:
「我不作如是見、如是說:『世間常,是則真實,餘則虛妄。』」
“I do not hold such a view and declare that.”
「云何瞿曇作如是見、如是說:『世間無常、常無常、非常非無常,有邊、無邊、邊無邊、非邊非無邊,命即是身、命異身異,如來有後死、無後死、有無後死、非有非無後死。』?」
“How is it, does Gautama hold the view and declare that the world is non-eternal, or both eternal and non-eternal, or neither eternal nor non-eternal? Or that it has a boundary, or is boundless, or it both has a boundary and is boundless, or it neither has a boundary nor is boundless? Or that the lifeforce is the same as the body, or that the lifeforce is one thing and the body another? Or that the Tathāgata exists after death, or is non-existent after death, or both exists and is non-existent after death, or neither exists nor is non-existent after death?”
佛告婆蹉種出家:
The Buddha told the wanderer Vatsagotra:
「我不作如是見、如是說,乃至非有非無後死。」
“I do not hold such a view and declare that [up to] the Tathāgata neither exists nor is non-existent after death.”
爾時,婆蹉種出家白佛言:
Then, the wanderer Vatsagotra said to the Buddha:
「瞿曇!於此見,見何等過患,而於此諸見,一切不說?」
“Gautama, what problem do you see such that, for all of these views, you do not declare any of them?”
佛告婆蹉種出家:
The Buddha told the wanderer Vatsagotra:
「若作是見,世間常,此則真實,餘則虛妄者,此是倒見、此是觀察見、此是動搖見、此是垢污見、此是結見,是苦、是閡、是惱、是熱,見結所繫,愚癡無聞凡夫於未來世,生、老、病、死、憂、悲、惱、苦生。
"Holding to such a view as one who says ‘the world is eternal; only this is true, the rest is vain and false’—this is a distorted view, an investigation of views, a wavering of views, a corruption of views, a knot of views. It is a form of suffering, obstruction, affliction, and fever. It is a binding view which chains ignorant fools, the unlearned commoners, to future lives, rebirth, old age, sickness, and death; and it gives rise to sorrow, grief, affliction, and suffering.
婆蹉種出家!若作是見,世間無常、常無常、非常非無常,有邊、無邊、邊無邊、非有邊非無邊,是命是身、命異身異,如來有後死、無後死、有無後死、非有非無後死。
"Wanderer Vatsagotra, holding to such views that the world is non-eternal, or both eternal and non-eternal, or neither eternal nor non-eternal; or that it has boundaries, or is boundless, or both has boundaries and is boundless, or neither has boundaries nor is boundless; or that the lifeforce is the same as the body, or that the lifeforce is one thing and the body another; or that the Tathāgata exists after death, or is non-existent after death, or both exists and is non-existent after death, or neither exists nor is non-existent after death—
此是倒見,乃至憂、悲、惱、苦生。」
“These are distorted views [up to] which give rise to sorrow, grief, affliction, and suffering.”
婆蹉種出家白佛:
The wander Vatsagotra said to the Buddha:
「瞿曇!何所見?」
“What then is your view, Gautama?”
佛告婆蹉種出家:
The Buddha told the wanderer Vatsagotra:
「如來所見已畢。婆蹉種出家!然如來見,謂見此苦聖諦、此苦集聖諦、此苦滅聖諦、此苦滅道跡聖諦;
"The Tathāgata has finished with views. For, Wanderer Vatsagotra, the Tathāgata correctly sees. That is to say, he sees ‘this is the noble truth of suffering; this is the noble truth of the creation of suffering; this is the nobe truth of the extinguishment of suffering; this is the noble truth of the path leading to the extinguishment of suffering.’
作如是知、如是見已,於一切見、一切受、一切生,一切我、我所見、我慢繫著使,斷滅、寂靜、清涼、真實,如是等解脫。
"Having known and seen thus, he has annihilated and stilled all views, all grasping, all rebirth, all views of me, mine, and tendencies to conceiving. He has become truly cool and passes his time, attained to liberation.
比丘!生者不然,不生亦不然。」
“Bhikṣu, it is not the case that he is reborn, nor is it the case that he is not reborn.”
婆蹉白佛
Vatsa said to the Buddha:
「瞿曇!何故說言生者不然?」
“Gautama, for what reason do you say that it is not the case that he is reborn?”
佛告婆蹉:
The Buddha told Vatsa:
「我今問汝,隨意答我。
"Now, I shall ask you a question; answer as you will.
婆蹉!猶如有人於汝前然火,汝見火然不?即於汝前火滅,汝見火滅不?」
“Vatsa, suppose there were someone burning a fire in front of you. Would you see that fire burning? And if that fire were to be extinguished before you, would you see that the fire had been extinguished?”
婆蹉白佛:
Vatsa said to the Buddha:
「如是,瞿曇!」
“Indeed, Gautama!”
佛告婆蹉:
The Buddha told Vatsa:
「若有人問汝:『向者火然,今在何處?為東方去耶?西方、南方、北方去耶?』如是問者,汝云何"說?」
“And if they were to ask you: ‘Which direction is that fire in now? Did it go to the east, to the west, to the south, or to the north?’ To someone asking this, how might you respond?”
婆蹉白佛:
Vatsa said to the Buddha:
「瞿曇!若有來作如是問者,我當作如是答:
"Gautama, if someone came to ask me that, I would answer them like this:
『若有於我前然火,薪草因緣故然,若不增薪,火則永滅,不復更起,東方、南方、西方、北方去者,是則不然。』」
“A fire burning in front of me would burn dependent on the conditions of fuel and grass. If no one added any more fuel to it, such that the fire were to become forever extinguished, it would not appear anymore. To say that it goes to the east, to the south, to the west, or to the north—that would just not be the case.”
佛告婆蹉:
The Buddha told Vatsa:
「我亦如是說,色已斷已知,受、想、行、識已斷已知,斷其根本,如截多羅樹頭,無復生分,於未來世永不復起。
"In the same way, I also declare that the Tathāgata has completely severed and understood form. The Tathāgata has completely severed and understood feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. These have been cut off at the root, cut like a Tala tree stump, unable to arise again, so that they will never again appear in a future life.
若至東方,南、西、北方,是則不然,甚深廣大,無量無數永滅。」
“That the Tathāgata reaches the east, the south, the west, or the north—this is just not the case. The Tathāgata is extremely profound and vast; immeasurable, uncountable, and forever extinguished.”
婆蹉白佛:
Vatsa said to the Buddha:
「我當說譬。」
“I shall declare a fitting simile for this!”
佛告婆蹉:
The Buddha told Vatsa:
「為知是時。」
“Now is an appropriate time.”
婆蹉白佛:
Vatsa said to the Buddha:
「瞿曇!譬如近城邑聚落,有好淨地,生堅固林,有一大堅固樹,其生已來經數千歲,日夜既久,枝葉零落,皮膚枯朽,唯幹獨立。
"Gautama, take for instance a town or village that has good and clean land where a forest is stably growing. It is like a great and stable tree there that has grown already a thousand years, for a long, long time, so that the branches and leaves had fallen away and the bark had withered to rot, leaving only the tree trunk standing alone.
如是,瞿曇!如來法、律離諸枝條柯葉,唯空幹堅固獨立。」
“Just so, Gautama, the Tathāgata’s dharma and discipline is rid of the various branches, twigs, and foliage, with only the tree trunk left standing, stable and independent.”
爾時,婆蹉出家聞佛所說,歡喜隨喜,從坐起去。
Then, the wanderer Vatsa delighted and rejoiced having heard what the Buddha said. He rose from his seat and departed.

6 Likes

There are several passages which I found difficult to parse the specifics of, even if the general sense seemed relatively clear. Most of these had to do with particular grammatical particles which, frankly, I do not understand. The main ones in this discourse that I seemed to struggle with were:

: Seems to be used as an auxiliary verb. I do not understand it.

: Seems to be a kind of conditional which changes the mood of the sentence, though in some cases it is more clear and in others less clear how this exactly works.

: Seems like it should be somewhat straightforward, but I just do not properly grok it.

“為知是時” : This line in the text I probably missed. But I took my best guess. The 為 was the main problem.

There are of course other minor cases, and general sentences or vocab which I’ve probably misconstrued.

One difficulty was not knowing the standard terms. So such lists as the four characters:

是苦、是閡、是惱、是熱

Which are parallel to four Pāḷi words as well, I am just not familiar with how these compare and if there are more specific senses of the words that should be captured. While the translation gets the idea across, it would need to be evaluated and standardized for something more complete. And so on.


I have tried to render the text in a way that is friendly and idiomatic to native English readers while, of course, remaining faithful to the intent of the original. On the whole I have tended towards more Chinese-ism, because the two languages simply have radically different literary forms and this is already outside my ability.

One interesting case is when the Buddha responds to the fire simile by explaining the nature of the Tathāgata. No grammatical topic is directly provided other than a single first person pronoun as the subject at the beginning. It is not clear to me if the Buddha is referring to himself, or if we should assume he means a Tathāgata in general. But since the text tends to have the Buddha refer to himself as the Tathāgata anyway, it seemed that was the safest bet to avoid ugly square brackets. One reason this is relevant is that if it is the Buddha himself, then he must be referring to a living Tathāgata, whereas if he means the Tathāgata in general, it is a bit more ambiguous.

1 Like

If only Vatsa had asked the obvious follow-up:

“O Gautama! For what reason do you say that it is not the case that he is not reborn.”

:joy: :pray:

2 Likes

The Pāli version of this sutra (MN 72) is much more rigorous in applying all four corners of the tetralemma to the status of the Tathāgata. In explaining that the Tathāgata has “cut off [etc.]” the various aggregates, it repeats each time that ‘he is reborn, is not reborn, both, or neither’ do not apply.

I think that the sense of the Chinese passage here (SA 962) is meant to be the same. All three parallels to this sutra currently in question apply the fire simile with the various directions. The basic simile is:

A fire burns dependent on fuel.
Without fuel, the fire will go out.
That can be reckoned an “extinguished fire.”
You cannot predicate of an extinguished fire that it goes to the north, south, east, or west.

And this corresponds to:
A person burns dependent on fuel.
Without fuel, the fire will go out.
That can be reckoned an “extinguished person.”
You cannot predicate of an extinguished person that they go to existence, non-existence, both, or neither after death.

Since the four directions and four undeclared corners are consistent, and the fact that you cannot say any of the four options (directions or tetralemma) apply to something “extinguished” (fire or person), it seems to me that that element of the sutra is the main part in common to all discourses. The specific way this simile is introduced varies, but I don’t think it is of major importance. I could be corrected though, if someone takes a more plausible reading!

To me the simile is not meant to be esoteric or to favor one of the four corners. When a fire “goes out,” you can’t say it ‘goes’ to a place or direction. When a fire is burning, however, you can point out on what fuel it is dependent. A fire burning in dependence on sticks is a “stick fire,” and so on. A person burning dependent on “form, feeling, perception, choices, awareness” can be reckoned on that basis.

I will note that in Pāli and Sanskrit, the word for “fuel” is the same word as “grasping” (‘upādāna’), and that correspondence is very prominent in the Indic texts. In Chinese it is unfortunately lost.

Best wishes.

4 Likes

We may compare the simile to another fire simile at SN 12.52:

“There are things that fuel grasping. When you concentrate on the drawbacks of these things, your craving ceases. When craving ceases, grasping (upādāna) ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.
Suppose a great mass of fire was burning with ten, twenty, thirty, or forty loads of wood. And no-one would toss in dry grass, cow dung, or wood from time to time. As the original fuel (upādāna) is used up and no more is added, the great mass of fire would be extinguished due to not being fed (anupahārā anāhāro nibbāyeyya).

Near identical wording is used in parts of the simile at MN 72, such as when Vaccha describes the end of the fire due to lack of fuel:

“anupahārā anāhāro nibbuto”

Āhāra’ is the same word as in ‘four nutriments,’ and is a synonym both in etymology and meaning of ‘upādāna.’ It too carries both an objective sense (fuel/food) and a psychological sense (grasping/sustenance).

2 Likes

So the point is that the directions of the fire going out are analogous to the four corners? Saying an extinguished person is not reborn is akin to saying that the extinguished fire went south? :joy: It is a beautiful simile don’t you think? :pray:

1 Like

Not a bad translation, overall.

作 isn’t an auxiliary verb, but it’s very general like English “to make” - it can be used in all sorts of contexts to mean different specific actions involving creating or making something. Here, it lit. means to “make” a view or statement.

若 usually means “if, supposing” but it can also serve as “whether/either/or” if there’s two or more options listed out. It begins a clause that’s theoretical or optional.

然 could be thought of as standing for more than word. Here, it’s used both to mean “that’s so, correct, right” or “to burn, be on fire” depending on context.

為知是時: When I search for this phrase in CBETA, it turns out this is the only time 為 occurs in this phrase. It’s probably a misprint for 宜, which means “fitting, right, appropriate.” The phrase ought to read 宜知是時: “It’s fitting to know this is the time (for that).” Which is an elaborate way of saying, “Okay, go ahead.”

That’s the trouble with translating the Agamas, they often have mistakes and omissions that make them difficult for a beginner to parse. With the exception of the Madhyama Agama, they aren’t well edited or maintained.

Some other issues:

法、律 means “the Dharma and Vinaya.”

It’s not necessary to translate 瞿曇! as “O Gautama!” CBETA inserted exclamation points whenever someone was addressed, but it’s not the original punctuation. Though, originally, there wasn’t much punctuation.

過患 doesn’t mean danger, but it probably does translate a word like ādīnava. It lit. means mistake and trouble. In the conversation between Vatsa and the Buddha, it might be translated as “What’s the trouble” or “What’s the problem with such views?” I think that’s closer to the intended meaning.

3 Likes

Damn, so that’s how to notice the print errors. And I’ve always wondered from reading your notes “How could one figure that out?!” :smiley:

Thanks for the corrections and help, Charles! I really appreciate it and will keep them in mind! I’m sure there are many, many other mistakes to correct given the ambiguity I felt in different passages. But it’s helpful to practice and get this advice. And good to hear I haven’t hallucinated the meaning!

Gotcha — Yeah I couldn’t find it listed as an auxiliary verb in any dictionary I checked, but I wondered if the more common meanings were blocking out the lesser ones. I think I struggled because “make a view” just isn’t idiomatic for me, so it seemed a bit forced. But I did see some similar-ish definitions to believing something listed for it I think. Now I know it’s used like that in Chinese though!

One thing that confused me is that I couldn’t find the sense of “burning” in the dictionaries I checked. But in the passage there, I just went out on a limb and guessed that it had that meaning because of the fire radical and because of the context. Glad to know it can have actually that meaning. And the sense of “correct/right” is helpful.

Is CBETA the best place you recommend for handling this, such as to check for variant readings and searching phrases?

Yeah, I figured that the ‘!’ must be recent because of it being Western punctuation, and that in either case it was just meant to indicate vocative. For some reason, I rendered it like that though. It is pretty weird in English to do so.

I do wonder: when you read these texts, do you subvocalize the modern Mandarin pronunciation of the characters? Or when you consider a character in your mind, do you consider it with the Mandarin pronunciation? Or do you just know the image of the character itself, or some other pronunciation?

Oh! And do you know of an online dictionary you would recommend for general words, not just Buddhist ones?

1 Like

Side question, and I hope this isn’t derailing, but isn’t there a good edition of SĀ that came out in 2014? Editors Wang Jianwei and Jin Hui, ISBN 978-7-5675-0534-6 ?

Or is the issue intelprop stuff that means none of this text is ever going to be available on CBETA?

Could be. I’ve not looked at it, myself. Yinshun published a lightly amended version of SA that was restored to its original order in the 1980s, which really should be the version people read rather than the Taisho edition (at a minimum).

It seems from a Wiki page about it that the main innovation is collating Pali with the Chinese and translating a couple Pali samyuttas to replace the lost samyuktas … which I guess is better than nothing. Lost texts are lost texts at the end of the day. I’m guessing it’s translated to Mandarin as well? Not sure from the Wiki description. Still, it would be interesting to look at it one of these days.

Probably. Most copyrighted material isn’t going to be put in SC for that reason.

1 Like