Yamaka Sutta

By Bhante Seelananda

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

A number of bhikkhus heard that such a pernicious view had arisen in the  bhikkhu Yamaka. Then they approached the Venerable Yamaka and  exchanged greetings with him, after which they sat down to one side and  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, friends. 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.” 

“Friend Yamaka, do not speak thus. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One.  It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not  speak thus: ‘A bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and  perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death.’” 

Yet, although he was admonished by the bhikkhus in this way, the  Venerable Yamaka still obstinately grasped that pernicious view, adhered  to it, and declared: “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.” 

Since those bhikkhus were unable to detach the Venerable Yamaka from  that pernicious view, they rose from their seats, approached the Venerable  Sāriputta, and told him all that had occurred, adding: “It would be good if  the Venerable Sāriputta would approach the bhikkhu Yamaka out of  compassion for him.” The Venerable Sāriputta consented by silence. Then,  in the evening, the Venerable Sāriputta emerged from seclusion. He  approached the Venerable Yamaka and exchanged greetings with him,  after which he sat down to one side and 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.” 

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, is form permanent or impermanent?”  – “Impermanent, friend.”… – “Therefore, any kind of form whatsoever whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle,  inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really  

is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences  revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards  perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through  dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the  knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy  life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, 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 … perception …  volitional formations … consciousness as the Tath›gata?” “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? As  apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in  volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in  consciousness? As apart from consciousness?” – “No, friend.” 

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness [taken together] as the Tathāgata?” – “No, friend.”  

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathāgata as one  who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without  volitional formations, without consciousness?” – “No, friend.” 

“But, friend, when the Tathāgata 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’?” 

“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.” 

“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?” 

“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 … Volitional formations …  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.” 

“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  non-clinging.”  

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