SN22.85 — Yamakasutta
At one time, Venerable Sāriputta was staying in Sāvatthī, in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's Monastery. At that time, a certain disciple named Yamaka had the following wrong view: As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a disciple whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.
Several disciples heard that the disciple Yamaka had this wrong view: As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a disciple whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.
Then those disciples approached the Venerable Yamaka and exchanged greetings with him. When they had concluded their greetings and cordial talk, they sat down to one side and said to the Venerable Yamaka: Is it true, friend Yamaka, that you have such a wrong view: As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a disciple whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death?
Exactly so, friends. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a disciple whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.
Do not say so, friend Yamaka. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not speak thus: A disciple whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.
Even though the Venerable Yamaka was thus admonished by those disciples, he still adhered to that evil view and continued to insist: As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a disciple whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.
When those disciples were unable to dissuade the Venerable Yamaka from that evil view, they rose from their seats and approached the Venerable Sāriputta. After paying homage to him, they sat down to one side and said: Friend Sāriputta, the disciple Yamaka has such a wrong view: As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a disciple whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death. It would be good if the Venerable Sāriputta would go to the disciple Yamaka out of compassion.
The Venerable Sāriputta consented in silence. Then, in the evening, the Venerable Sāriputta emerged from seclusion and approached the Venerable Yamaka. After exchanging greetings with him, he sat down to one side and said: Is it true, friend Yamaka, that you have such a wrong view: As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a disciple whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death?
Exactly so, friend. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a disciple whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.
What do you think, friend Yamaka, is form permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent, friend.
Is feeling permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent, friend.
Is perception permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent, friend.
Are formations permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent, friend.
Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent, friend.
Therefore, friend Yamaka, seeing thus... he understands: There is no more for this state of being. What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the Tathāgata?
No, friend.
Do you regard feeling as the Tathāgata?
No, friend.
Do you regard perception as the Tathāgata?
No, friend.
Do you regard formations as the Tathāgata?
No, friend.
Do you regard consciousness as the Tathāgata?
No, friend.
What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathāgata as in form?
No, friend.
Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from form?
No, friend.
Do you regard the Tathāgata as in feeling?
No, friend.
Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from feeling?
No, friend.
Do you regard the Tathāgata as in perception?
No, friend.
Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from perception?
No, friend.
Do you regard the Tathāgata as in formations?
No, friend.
Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from formations?
No, friend.
Do you regard the Tathāgata as in consciousness?
No, friend.
Do you regard the Tathāgata as apart from consciousness?
No, friend.
What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathāgata as without form, without feeling, without perception, without formations, without consciousness?
No, friend.
Therefore, friend Yamaka, when you cannot pin down the Tathāgata as a truth or reality even in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a disciple whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death?
Thus I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, that a disciple who is an arahant, with taints destroyed, upon the breaking up of the body, is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death.
Formerly, friend Sāriputta, I held that evil view, but now, having heard the Dhamma teaching of the Venerable Sāriputta, I have abandoned that evil view and have understood the Dhamma.
If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: Friend Yamaka, that disciple who is an arahant, with taints destroyed, upon the breaking up of the body, what happens to him after death? How would you answer?
If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer: Form, friend, is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is non-self. Feeling... Perception... Formations... Consciousness is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is non-self. Thus would I answer, friend.
Well said, well said, friend Yamaka. Now, friend Yamaka, I will give you a simile to illustrate this point further. Suppose, friend Yamaka, there was a householder or householders son, rich, with great wealth and property, and he was well-guarded.
Then a man with ill intentions, desiring his harm, his misfortune, his downfall, wanting to kill him, would approach him and say: I will serve you, sir. The householder or householders son would employ him. He would serve him, rising early, retiring late, being obliging and behaving pleasantly.
The householder or householders son would trust him as a friend, as a companion, and would place confidence in him. When the man saw that the householder or householders son trusted him, he would find an opportunity to kill him with a sharp knife.
What do you think, friend Yamaka, when the man approached the householder or householders son and said: I will serve you, sir, was he not already a murderer? Even though the householder or householders son did not know: This man is a murderer, was he not already a murderer? When he served him, rising early, retiring late, being obliging and behaving pleasantly, was he not still a murderer?
Even though the householder or householders son did not know: This man is a murderer, was he not still a murderer? When he found an opportunity to kill him with a sharp knife, was he not still a murderer? Even though the householder or householders son did not know: This man is a murderer, was he not still a murderer?
Yes, friend.
Just so, friend, an unlearned ordinary person, who has not seen the noble ones, who is unskilled in the noble Dhamma, who is undisciplined in the noble Dhamma, who has not seen the good persons, who is unskilled in the good persons Dhamma, who is undisciplined in the good persons Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
He regards feeling... perception... formations... 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: Form is impermanent.
He does not understand as it really is: Feeling is impermanent.
He does not understand as it really is: Perception is impermanent.
He does not understand as it really is: Formations are impermanent.
He does not understand as it really is: Consciousness is impermanent.
He does not understand as it really is: Form is suffering.
He does not understand as it really is: Feeling is suffering.
He does not understand as it really is: Perception is suffering.
He does not understand as it really is: Formations are suffering.
He does not understand as it really is: Consciousness is suffering.
He does not understand as it really is: Form is non-self.
He does not understand as it really is: Feeling is non-self.
He does not understand as it really is: Perception is non-self.
He does not understand as it really is: Formations are non-self.
He does not understand as it really is: Consciousness is non-self.
He does not understand as it really is: Form is conditioned.
He does not understand as it really is: Feeling is conditioned.
He does not understand as it really is: Perception is conditioned.
He does not understand as it really is: Formations are conditioned.
He does not understand as it really is: Consciousness is conditioned.
He does not understand as it really is: Form is a murderer.
He does not understand as it really is: Feeling is a murderer.
He does not understand as it really is: Perception is a murderer.
He does not understand as it really is: Formations are murderers.
He does not understand as it really is: Consciousness is a murderer.
He does not understand as it really is. He approaches form, clings to it, and regards it as self. He approaches feeling, clings to it, and regards it as self. He approaches perception, clings to it, and regards it as self. He approaches mental formations, clings to them, and regards them as self. He approaches consciousness, clings to it, and regards it as self. These five aggregates subject to clinging, being approached and clung to, lead to his long-term harm and suffering.
But, friends, a noble disciple who is a seer of the noble ones, well-trained in the true Dhamma, does not regard form as self, nor self as possessing form, nor form as in self, nor self as in form. He does not regard feeling as self, nor self as possessing feeling, nor feeling as in self, nor self as in feeling. He does not regard perception as self, nor self as possessing perception, nor perception as in self, nor self as in perception. He does not regard mental formations as self, nor self as possessing mental formations, nor mental formations as in self, nor self as in mental formations. He does not regard consciousness as self, nor self as possessing consciousness, nor consciousness as in self, nor self as in consciousness.
He understands form as it really is: Form is impermanent. He understands feeling as it really is: Feeling is impermanent. He understands perception as it really is: Perception is impermanent. He understands mental formations as they really are: Mental formations are impermanent. He understands consciousness as it really is: Consciousness is impermanent.
He understands form as it really is: Form is suffering. He understands feeling as it really is: Feeling is suffering. He understands perception as it really is: Perception is suffering. He understands mental formations as they really are: Mental formations are suffering. He understands consciousness as it really is: Consciousness is suffering.
He understands form as it really is: Form is not-self. He understands feeling as it really is: Feeling is not-self. He understands perception as it really is: Perception is not-self. He understands mental formations as they really are: Mental formations are not-self. He understands consciousness as it really is: Consciousness is not-self.
He understands form as it really is: Form is conditioned. He understands feeling as it really is: Feeling is conditioned. He understands perception as it really is: Perception is conditioned. He understands mental formations as they really are: Mental formations are conditioned. He understands consciousness as it really is: Consciousness is conditioned.
He understands form as it really is: Form is subject to destruction. He understands feeling as it really is: Feeling is subject to destruction. He understands perception as it really is: Perception is subject to destruction. He understands mental formations as they really are: Mental formations are subject to destruction. He understands consciousness as it really is: Consciousness is subject to destruction.
He does not approach form, does not cling to it, does not regard it as self. He does not approach feeling, does not cling to it, does not regard it as self. He does not approach perception, does not cling to it, does not regard it as self. He does not approach mental formations, does not cling to them, does not regard them as self. He does not approach consciousness, does not cling to it, does not regard it as self. These five aggregates subject to clinging, being not approached and not clung to, lead to his long-term welfare and happiness.
Indeed, friend Sāriputta, it is so for those venerable ones who have such fellow practitioners who are compassionate, who seek their welfare, who give advice, and who instruct them.
And having heard this Dhamma teaching from the venerable Sāriputta, my mind was liberated from the taints without clinging.