The Connected Discourses 22.85
Yamaka
At one time, venerable Sāriputta was dwelling at Sāvatthī, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s park.
Now at that time, this kind of bad view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Yamaka:
“As I understand the dhamma taught by the Bhagavā, a bhikkhu with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo], with the breakup of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death.”
Several bhikkhus heard that this kind of bad view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Yamaka:
“As I understand the dhamma taught by the Bhagavā, a bhikkhu with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo], with the breakup of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death.”
Then those bhikkhus approached venerable Yamaka; having approached, they exchanged greetings with venerable Yamaka.
When they had concluded their courteous and memorable conversation, they sat down to one side. Sitting to one side, those bhikkhus said this to venerable Yamaka:
“Is it true, friend Yamaka, that this kind of bad view has arisen in you:
‘As I understand the dhamma taught by the Bhagavā, a bhikkhu with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo], with the breakup of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death’?”
“Friend, that is exactly how I understand the dhamma taught by the Bhagavā:
‘A bhikkhu with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo], with the breakup of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death.’”
“Do not say so, friend Yamaka. Do not misrepresent the Bhagavā. For it is not sādhu to misrepresent the Bhagavā. For the Bhagavā would not say this:
‘A bhikkhu with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo], with the breakup of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death.’”
Even when venerable Yamaka was spoken to in this way by those bhikkhus, he still spoke, clinging to that bad view, holding to it firmly and insisting on it:
“As I understand the dhamma taught by the Bhagavā, a bhikkhu with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo], with the breakup of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death.”
When those bhikkhus could not detach venerable Yamaka from that bad view, they rose from their seats and approached venerable Sāriputta; having approached, they said this to venerable Sāriputta:
“Friend Sāriputta, this kind of bad view has arisen in a bhikkhu named Yamaka:
‘As I understand the dhamma taught by the Bhagavā, a bhikkhu with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo], with the breakup of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death.’
It would be sādhu if venerable Sāriputta would approach the bhikkhu Yamaka, out of compassion.”
Venerable Sāriputta consented by silence.
Then venerable Sāriputta, in the evening, having emerged from seclusion, approached venerable Yamaka; having approached, he exchanged greetings with venerable Yamaka … sitting to one side, venerable Sāriputta said this to venerable Yamaka:
“Is it true, friend Yamaka, that this kind of bad view has arisen in you:
‘As I understand the dhamma taught by the Bhagavā, a bhikkhu with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo], with the breakup of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death’?”
“Friend, that is exactly how I understand the dhamma taught by the Bhagavā: a bhikkhu with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo], with the breakup of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka,
is form [rūpaṁ] permanent or impermanent [aniccaṁ]?”
“Impermanent [Aniccaṁ], friend.”
“Is vedanā permanent …
saññā …
saṅkhāras …
is viññāṇa permanent or impermanent [aniccaṁ]?”
“Impermanent [Aniccaṁ], friend.”
“Therefore …
seeing thus …
he understands: there is no more for this state of being.
What do you think, friend Yamaka,
do you regard form [rūpaṁ] as the Tathāgata?”
“No, friend.” …
“Do you regard vedanā as the Tathāgata?”
“No, friend.” …
“saññā …
saṅkhāras …
do you regard viññāṇa as the Tathāgata?”
“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka,
do you regard the Tathāgata as in form [rūpasmiṁ]?”
“No, friend.”
“Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from form [rūpā]?”
“No, friend.”
“In vedanā …
apart from vedanā …
in saññā …
apart from saññā …
in saṅkhāras …
apart from saṅkhāras …
do you regard the Tathāgata as in viññāṇa?”
“No, friend.”
“Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from viññāṇa?”
“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka,
do you regard form [rūpaṁ] … vedanā … saññā … saṅkhāras … viññāṇa as the Tathāgata?”
“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka,
do you regard this one without form [arūpī] … without vedanā … without saññā … without saṅkhāra … without viññāṇa as the Tathāgata?”
“No, friend.”
“But when the Tathāgata is not found by you here and now as real and established, is it fitting for you to make this declaration:
‘As I understand the dhamma taught by the Bhagavā, a bhikkhu with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo], with the breakup of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death’?”
“Friend Sāriputta, formerly, when I was ignorant, I did have that bad view;
but now, having heard this teaching of dhamma from venerable Sāriputta, that bad view has been abandoned, and the dhamma has been understood by me.”
“If they were to ask you thus, friend Yamaka:
‘Friend Yamaka, that bhikkhu who is an arahant, with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo] — what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’
Asked thus, friend Yamaka, how would you answer?”
“Friend, if they were to ask me thus:
‘Friend Yamaka, that bhikkhu who is an arahant, with āsavas destroyed [khīṇāsavo] — what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’
Asked thus, friend, I would answer thus:
‘Form [rūpaṁ], friend, is impermanent [aniccaṁ].
What is impermanent [Yadaniccaṁ] is dukkha;
what is dukkha has ceased and gone to its setting.
Vedanā …
saññā …
saṅkhāras …
viññāṇa is impermanent [aniccaṁ].
What is impermanent [Yadaniccaṁ] is dukkha;
what is dukkha has ceased and gone to its setting.’
Asked thus, friend, I would answer thus.”
“Sādhu, sādhu, friend Yamaka.
Then, friend Yamaka, I will make a simile for you, for still greater knowledge of this very meaning.
Suppose, friend Yamaka, a householder or householder’s son were wealthy, with great riches and possessions;
and he were well guarded.
Then some man would appear who desired his harm, desired his injury, desired his insecurity from bondage, and wished to take his life.
He might think:
‘This householder or householder’s son is wealthy, with great riches and possessions;
and he is well guarded;
it is not easy to take his life by force.
What if I were to slip in close and take his life?’
He would approach that householder or householder’s son and say this:
‘I would serve you, bhante.’
Then that householder or householder’s son would let him serve.
He would serve, rising before him, going to bed after him, doing what he was told, behaving agreeably, and speaking pleasantly.
Then that householder or householder’s son would trust him as a friend;
he would trust him as a companion;
and he would place confidence in him.
When, friend, that man might think:
‘This householder or householder’s son now trusts me,’ then, knowing him to be alone, he would take his life with a sharp knife.
What do you think, friend Yamaka,
when that man approached that householder or householder’s son and said this:
‘I would serve you, bhante,’ even then he was a murderer.
But though he was a murderer, the other did not know:
‘He is my murderer.’
And when he served, rising before him, going to bed after him, doing what he was told, behaving agreeably, and speaking pleasantly, even then he was a murderer.
But though he was a murderer, the other did not know:
‘He is my murderer.’
And when, knowing him to be alone, he took his life with a sharp knife, even then he was a murderer.
But though he was a murderer, the other did not know:
‘He is my murderer.’”
“Yes, friend.”
“So too, friend, an uninstructed ordinary person, one who has not seen the noble ones, unskilled in the dhamma of the noble ones, undisciplined in the dhamma of the noble ones, one who has not seen true persons, unskilled in the dhamma of true persons, undisciplined in the dhamma of true persons,
regards form [rūpaṁ] as self, or self as possessing form [rūpavantaṁ]; or form in self, or self in form.
Vedanā …
saññā …
saṅkhāras …
he regards viññāṇa as self, or self as possessing viññāṇa; or viññāṇa in self, or self in viññāṇa.
He does not understand as it truly is: ‘Impermanent [aniccaṁ] form [rūpaṁ] is impermanent form [aniccaṁ rūpaṁ].’
He does not understand as it truly is: ‘Impermanent [Aniccaṁ] vedanā is impermanent vedanā [aniccā vedanā].’
He does not understand as it truly is: ‘Impermanent [Aniccaṁ] saññā is impermanent saññā [aniccā saññā].’
He does not understand as it truly is: ‘Impermanent [Anicce] saṅkhāras are impermanent saṅkhāras [aniccā saṅkhārā].’
He does not understand as it truly is: ‘Impermanent [Aniccaṁ] viññāṇa is impermanent viññāṇa [aniccaṁ viññāṇaṁ].’
He does not understand as it truly is: ‘Dukkha form [rūpaṁ] is dukkha form [dukkhaṁ rūpaṁ].’
Dukkha vedanā …
dukkha saññā …
dukkha saṅkhāras …
he does not understand as it truly is: ‘Dukkha viññāṇa is dukkha viññāṇa.’
He does not understand as it truly is: ‘Not-self [Anattaṁ] form [rūpaṁ] is not-self form [anattā rūpaṁ].’
Not-self [Anattaṁ] vedanā …
not-self [anattaṁ] saññā …
not-self [anatte] saṅkhāras …
he does not understand as it truly is: ‘Not-self [anattaṁ] viññāṇa is not-self viññāṇa [anattaṁ viññāṇaṁ].’
He does not understand as it truly is: ‘Saṅkhata form [rūpaṁ] is saṅkhata form [saṅkhataṁ rūpaṁ].’
Saṅkhata vedanā …
saṅkhata saññā …
saṅkhata saṅkhāras …
he does not understand as it truly is: ‘Saṅkhata viññāṇa is saṅkhata viññāṇa.’
He does not understand as it truly is: ‘Murderous form [rūpaṁ] is murderous form [vadhakaṁ rūpaṁ].’
Murderous vedanā is murderous vedanā …
murderous saññā is murderous saññā …
he does not understand as it truly is: ‘Murderous saṅkhāras are murderous saṅkhāras.’
He does not understand as it truly is: ‘Murderous viññāṇa is murderous viññāṇa.’
He approaches form [rūpaṁ], grasps it with upādāna, and takes a stand on it: ‘It is my self.’
Vedanā …
saññā …
saṅkhāras …
he approaches viññāṇa, grasps it with upādāna, and takes a stand on it: ‘It is my self.’
For him, these five aggregates of upādāna, approached and grasped with upādāna, lead for a long time to harm and dukkha.
But, friend, a learned noble disciple, one who has seen the noble ones … well disciplined in the dhamma of true persons,
does not regard form [rūpaṁ] as self, nor self as possessing form [rūpavantaṁ]; nor form in self, nor self in form.
Not vedanā …
not saññā …
not saṅkhāras …
he does not regard viññāṇa as self, nor self as possessing viññāṇa;
nor viññāṇa in self, nor self in viññāṇa.
He understands as it truly is: ‘Impermanent [aniccaṁ] form [rūpaṁ] is impermanent form [aniccaṁ rūpaṁ].’
Impermanent [Aniccaṁ] vedanā …
impermanent [aniccaṁ] saññā …
impermanent [anicce] saṅkhāras …
he understands as it truly is: ‘Impermanent [aniccaṁ] viññāṇa is impermanent viññāṇa [aniccaṁ viññāṇaṁ].’
He understands as it truly is: ‘Dukkha form [rūpaṁ] is dukkha form [dukkhaṁ rūpaṁ].’
Dukkha vedanā …
dukkha saññā …
dukkha saṅkhāras …
he understands as it truly is: ‘Dukkha viññāṇa is dukkha viññāṇa.’
He understands as it truly is: ‘Not-self [Anattaṁ] form [rūpaṁ] is not-self form [anattā rūpaṁ].’
Not-self [Anattaṁ] vedanā …
not-self [anattaṁ] saññā …
not-self [anatte] saṅkhāras …
he understands as it truly is: ‘Not-self [anattaṁ] viññāṇa is not-self viññāṇa [anattā viññāṇaṁ].’
He understands as it truly is: ‘Saṅkhata form [rūpaṁ] is saṅkhata form [saṅkhataṁ rūpaṁ].’
Saṅkhata vedanā …
saṅkhata saññā …
saṅkhata saṅkhāras …
he understands as it truly is: ‘Saṅkhata viññāṇa is saṅkhata viññāṇa.’
He understands as it truly is: ‘Murderous form [rūpaṁ] is murderous form [vadhakaṁ rūpaṁ].’
Murderous vedanā …
murderous saññā …
he understands as it truly is: ‘Murderous saṅkhāras are murderous saṅkhāras.’
He understands as it truly is: ‘Murderous viññāṇa is murderous viññāṇa.’
He does not approach form [rūpaṁ], does not grasp it with upādāna, and does not take a stand on it: ‘It is my self.’
Vedanā …
saññā …
saṅkhāras …
he does not approach viññāṇa, does not grasp it with upādāna, and does not take a stand on it: ‘It is my self.’
For him, these five aggregates of upādāna, not approached and not grasped with upādāna, lead for a long time to welfare and sukha.”
“So it is, friend Sāriputta, for those venerables who have such compassionate, well-wishing fellow practitioners of the holy life as advisers and instructors.
And now, having heard this teaching of dhamma from venerable Sāriputta, my citta has been liberated from the āsavas without upādāna.”
The third.