SN 22.85

SA 104

On one occasion the Venerable Sāriputta was dwelling at Savatthi in Jeta’s Grove, Anathapiṇḍika’s Park. Now on that occasion the following pernicious view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Yamaka: “

This have I heard. At one time the Buddha was staying at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park.

At that time a monk called Yamaka had given rise to an evil wrong view, speaking in this way:

As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.”

“As I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, an arahant, with the influxes being eradicated, will not exist anywhere after the body breaks up at the end of life.”

(The Venerable Sariputta said to him) : “Is it true, friend Yamaka, that such a pernicious view as this has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death’?

”Exactly so, friend.”

The venerable Sāriputta said to the monk Yamaka: “Is it true that you speak in this way: ‘[As] I understand the Dharma taught by the Blessed One, an arahant, with the influxes being eradicated, will not exist anywhere after the body breaks up at the end of life’?”

The monk Yamaka replied to Sāriputta: “It is true, venerable Sāriputta.”

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, is form permanent or impermanent?”

—“Impermanent, friend.”…

—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’

Sāriputta said: “I will now ask you, answer me according to your understanding. How is it, Yamaka, is bodily form permanent or is it impermanent?”

[Yamaka] replied: “It is impermanent, venerable Sāriputta.”

[Sāriputta] asked again: “What is impermanent, is it dukkha?”

[Yamaka] replied: “It is dukkha.”

[Sāriputta] asked again: “What is impermanent, dukkha, of a nature to change, would a noble disciple herein [regard] it as the self, as distinct from the self [in the sense of being owned by it], as existing [within the self, or the self] as existing [within it]?”

[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta.”

Feeling … perception … formations … consciousness is also like this.

“”What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the Tathagata?”

—“No, friend.”

—“Do you regard feeling … perception … co-actions … consciousness as the Tathagata?”

—“No, friend.”

“

[Sāriputta] asked again: “How is it, Yamaka, is bodily form the Tathāgata?”

[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta.”

[Sāriputta asked again]: “Is feeling … perception … co-actions … consciousness the Tathāgata?”

[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta.”

“”What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as in form?”

—“No, friend.”

—“Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from form?”

—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling?

As apart from feeling?

As in perception?

As apart from perception?

As in co-actions?

As apart from co-actions?

As in consciousness?

As apart from consciousness?”

—“No, friend.”

[Sāriputta] asked again: “Is the Tathāgata in bodily form?

Is the Tathāgata in feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?”

[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta.”

_____

[Sāriputta] asked again: “How is it, Yamaka, is the Tathāgata distinct from bodily form?

Is the Tathāgata distinct from feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?”

[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta.”

“”What do you think, friend Yakama, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as the Tathagata?”

—“No, friend.”

What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?”

—“No, friend.”

[Sāriputta] asked again: “Is the Tathāgata without bodily form … feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?”

[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta”.

[Sāriputta asked again]: “Is bodily form in the Tathāgata? Is feeling … perception … formations … consciousness in the Tathāgata?

[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta.

But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death’?”

[Sāriputta said]: “In this way, Yamaka, the Tathāgata as existing truly here and now, cannot be gotten at anywhere, cannot be designated anywhere. Why do you say: ‘[As] I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, an arahant, with the influxes being eradicated, will not exist anywhere after the body breaks up at the end of life’?

Is that properly spoken?”

[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta.”

[Sāriputta] asked again: “Yamaka, earlier you said: ‘[As] I understand the Dharma taught by the Buddha, an arahant, with the influxes being eradicated, will not exist anywhere after the body breaks up at the end of life’. Why are you now replying by stating that this is not the case?”

Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have made the breakthrough to the

Dhamma.”

The monk Yamaka said: “Venerable Sāriputta, earlier I did not understand. Because of ignorance I generated and expressed an evil wrong view like this. Having heard what the venerable Sāriputta said, all that lack of understanding and ignorance have been completely abandoned.”

“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what would you answer? “

[Sāriputta] asked again: “Yamaka, if you are further asked: ‘Monk, as you earlier declared an evil wrong view, knowing and seeing what has this now all been completely removed?’ What would you answer?”

“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus:

‘Friends, form is impermanent;

what is impermanent is suffering;

what is suffering has ceased and passed away.

Feeling … Perception … co-actions … Consciousness is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away.’

Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way. “

[Yamaka replied: “Venerable Sāriputta, if someone comes and asks, I would answer in this way:

‘The bodily form of an arahant, with the influxes being eradicated, is impermanent.

What is impermanent, is dukkha.

What is dukkha has become tranquil and become cool, it has forever disappeared. Feeling, perception … co-actions … consciousness is also like this.’

[If] someone comes and asks, I would answer in this way.”

SIMILE

“Good, good, friend Yamaka! Now, friend Yamaka, I will make up a simile for you in order to convey this same meaning even more clearly. Suppose, friend Yamaka, there was a householder or a householder’s son, a rich man, with much wealth and property, protected by a bodyguard. Then some man would appear who wanted to ruin him, to harm him, to endanger him, to take his life. It would occur to that man: ‘This householder or householder’s son is a rich man, with much wealth and property, protected by a bodyguard. It won’t be easy to take his life by force. Let me get close to him and then take his life.’

“Then he would approach that householder or householder’s son and say to him: ‘I would serve you, sir.’ Then the householder or householder’s son would appoint him as a servant. The man would serve him, rising up before him, retiring after him, doing whatever he wants, agreeable in his conduct, endearing in his speech. The householder or householder’s son would consider him a friend, a bosom friend, and he would place trust in him. But when the man becomes aware that the householder or householder’s son has placed trust in him, then, finding him alone, he would take his life with a sharp knife.

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, when that man had approached that householder or householder’s son and said to him: ‘I would serve you, sir,’ wasn’t he a murderer even then, though the other did not recognize him as ‘my murderer’? And when the man was serving him, rising up before him, retiring after him, doing whatever he wants, agreeable in his conduct, endearing in his speech, wasn’t he a murderer then too, though the other did not recognize him as ‘my murderer’? And when the man came upon him while he was alone and took his life with a sharp knife, wasn’t he a murderer then too, though the other did not recognize him as ‘my murderer’?”

“Yes, friend.”

“So too, friend Yamaka, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.

“He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness.

“He does not understand as it really is impermanent form as ‘impermanent form’ … impermanent feeling as ‘impermanent feeling’ … impermanent perception as ‘impermanent perception’ … impermanent volitional formations as ‘impermanent volitional formations’ … impermanent consciousness as ‘impermanent consciousness.’

“He does not understand as it really is painful form as ‘painful form’ … painful feeling as ‘painful feeling’ … painful perception as ‘painful perception’ … painful volitional formations as ‘painful volitional formations’ … painful consciousness as ‘painful consciousness.’

“He does not understand as it really is selfless form as ‘selfless form’ … selfless feeling as ‘selfless feeling’ … selfless perception as ‘selfless perception’ … selfless volitional formations as ‘selfless volitional formations’ … selfless consciousness as ‘selfless consciousness.’

“He does not understand as it really is conditioned form as ‘conditioned form’ … conditioned feeling as ‘conditioned feeling’ … conditioned perception as ‘conditioned perception’ … conditioned volitional formations as ‘conditioned volitional formations’ … conditioned consciousness as ‘conditioned consciousness.’

“He does not understand as it really is murderous form as ‘murderous form’ … murderous feeling as ‘murderous feeling’ … murderous perception as ‘murderous perception’ … murderous volitional formations as ‘murderous volitional formations’ … murderous consciousness as ‘murderous consciousness.’

“He becomes engaged with form, clings to it, and takes a stand upon it as ‘my self.’ He becomes engaged with feeling … with perception … with volitional formations … with consciousness, clings to it, and takes a stand upon it as ‘my self.’ These same five aggregates of clinging, to which he becomes engaged and to which he clings, lead to his harm and suffering for a long time.

“But, friend, the instructed noble disciple, who is a seer of the noble ones … does not regard form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.

“He does not regard feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness.

“He understands as it really is impermanent form as ‘impermanent form’ … impermanent consciousness as ‘impermanent consciousness.’

“He understands as it really is painful form as ‘painful form’ … painful consciousness as ‘painful consciousness.’

“He understands as it really is selfless form as ‘selfless form’ … selfless consciousness as ‘selfless consciousness.’

“He understands as it really is conditioned form as ‘conditioned form’ … conditioned consciousness as ‘conditioned consciousness. ’

“He understands as it really is murderous form as ‘murderous form’ … murderous consciousness as ‘murderous consciousness.’

“He does not become engaged with form, cling to it, and take a stand upon it as ‘my self.’ He does not become engaged with feeling … with perception … with volitional formations … with consciousness, cling to it, and take a stand upon it as ‘my self.’ These same five aggregates of clinging, to which he does not become engaged and to which he does not cling, lead to his welfare and happiness for a long time.”

“So it is, friend Sāriputta, for those venerable ones who have such compassionate and benevolent brothers in the holy life to admonish and instruct them. And now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the Venerable Sāriputta, my mind is liberated from the taints by nonclinging.”

This is what the Venerable Sāriputta said. Elated, the Venerable Yamaka delighted in the Venerable Sāriputta’s statement.

Sāriputta said: “It is well, it is well, monk Yamaka. You should answer in this way. Why is that? The bodily form of an arahant, with the influxes being eradicated, is impermanent. What is impermanent, is dukkha. What is impermanent and dukkha is of a nature to rise and fall. Feeling … perception … formations … consciousness is also like this.”

When the venerable Sāriputta spoke this teaching, the monk Yamaka attained the pure eye of Dharma that is remote from [mental] stains and free from [mental] dust.

The venerable Sāriputta said to the monk Yamaka: “I will now speak a simile. Wise persons gain understanding through a simile. It is like the son of a householder; a son of a householder who is very rich and has much wealth. He seeks widely for a retinue that well protects his wealth.

“Then an evil person who is his enemy pretends to have come as a close friend in order to become his retainer. He often waits for an opportunity, going to sleep late and rising early, looking after him nearby when he rests. He is careful and respectful in his affairs, modest in his words, causing his master to think of him with delight, to perceive him as a friend, to perceive him as a son, with utmost trust and without doubt, without guarding himself. Later on, with a sharp knife in his hand, he cuts off [his master’s] life.

“Monk Yamaka, what do you think? That evil enemy, acting at the householder’s friend, was he not acting from the outset as an expedient with a mind intent on harm, constantly waiting for an opportunity until bringing about [the householder’s] end? Yet that householder was not able to realize it, until the moment he suffered harm.”

[Yamaka] replied: “It is true, venerable [Sāriputta].”

Sāriputta said to the monk Yamaka. “What do you think? Had that householder actually understood that the man pretending to be a friend wished his harm, would he have well guarded himself and not suffered harm?”

[Yamaka] replied: “It is like this, venerable Sāriputta.”

[Sāriputta said]: “In the same way, monk Yamaka, a foolish unlearned worldling perceives these five aggregates of clinging as permanent, perceives them as ease, perceives them as health, perceives them as the self, perceives them as belonging to the self. He keeps guarding and cherishing these five aggregates of clinging. In the end he is harmed by the enemy of the five aggregates of clinging, just as that householder was harmed by the enemy pretending to be a friend, without realizing it.

“Yamaka, a learned noble disciples who examines these five aggregates of clinging as a disease, as a carbuncle, as a thorn, as a killer, as impermanent, as dukkha, as empty, as not self, and as not belonging to a self, does not cling to these five aggregates of clinging and [therefore] is not attached to them.

“Because of not clinging he is not attached, because of not being attached he personally realizes Nirvāṇa, [knowing]: ‘Birth for me has been eradicated, the holy life has been established, what had to be done has been done, I myself know that there will be no receiving of any further existence.’”

When the venerable Sāriputta spoke this teaching, the monk Yamaka by not clinging attained liberation from the influxes in his mind.

The venerable Sāriputta, having spoken this teaching to the monk Yamaka, having instructed, taught, illuminated, and delighted him, rose from his seat and left.