Home | Dhamma | Teachings | Practice | Glossary | Tipiṭaka | Suttas

Samyutta Nikaya

# SN 22.85 Yamaka Sutta (Discourse to The Venerable Yamaka) SN 22.85

Download TXT Download PDF Browse this collection Home

Candana Bhikkhu audio

## Listen on YouTube

- The Connected Discourses: SN 22.85, Yamaka Sutta (Discourse to The Venerable Yamaka). (Duration: 46:35)

## Text

    [page 1]
    SN 22.85
    Saṁyutta Nikāya
    The Connected Discourses

    Khandhavagga Saṁyutta
    (Collection of Discourses on the Aggregates)
    Khandha Saṁyutta
    Connected Discourses on the Aggregates
    Thera Vagga
    (Section on the Senior Bhikkhus)

    Yamaka Sutta
    “Discourse to the Venerable Yamaka”

    Translated by Candana Bhikkhu

    Copyright © Candana Bhikkhu 2023

    This is what I personally heard.

    Once, the Venerable Sāriputta was living in Sāvatthī, at the monastery offered by Anāthapiṇḍika
    in Jeta’s Park. It was during that time that a destructively malignant view had surfaced in the
    mind of a certain Bhikkhu, with the name of Yamaka.

    His bad view was the following:

    ‘The way I see and understand the Dhamma being taught by The Blessed One, any Bhikkhu who
    has attained the state where his heart’s contaminants (āsavas) are fully destroyed, upon
    reaching the end of life with the breakdown of the body, at that moment of death, he becomes no
    more, no longer existing after death.’
    Now, a number of Bhikkhus, on hearing this pernicious view arisen within the Bhikkhu Yamaka,
    went and quickly approached him, in order to discuss this important matter. Thus, after having
    exchanged friendly greetings with the Venerable Yamaka, the visiting Bhikkhus sat to one side
    and asked him in turn, by saying:

    “Could it be true, friend Yamaka, that such a destructively malignant view has surfaced in your
    mind? Whereby you claim: ‘The way I see and understand the Dhamma being taught by The
    Blessed One, any Bhikkhu who has attained the state where his heart’s contaminants (āsavas)
    are fully destroyed, upon reaching the end of life with the breakdown of the body, at that moment
    of death, he becomes no more, no longer existing after death.’

    [page 2]
    “Now, is this exclamation of yours true?”

    “Indeed, it is, friends!” replied the Bhikkhu Yamaka, as he repeated his claim:

    ‘The way I see and understand the Dhamma being taught by The Blessed One, any Bhikkhu who
    has attained the state where his heart’s contaminants (āsavas) are fully destroyed, upon
    reaching the end of life with the breakdown of the body, at that moment of death, he becomes no
    more, no longer existing after death.’

    “Friend Yamaka, do not say such things! You are misrepresenting The Blessed One! Do not
    misrepresent The Blessed One, O, friend! Misrepresenting The Blessed One brings many evil
    consequences to you, friend, as it is never a good thing to misspeak the words uttered by The
    Blessed One! For The Blessed One would never speak such words as:

    “…any Bhikkhu, who has attained the state where his heart’s contaminants (āsavas) are fully
    destroyed, upon reaching the end of life with the breakdown of the body, at that moment of death,
    he becomes no more, no longer existing after death.’

    “But, despite all their efforts at trying to remove this malignantly dangerous view from the heart
    of the Bhikkhu Yamaka, he still arrogantly refused to listen to the admonishment of his fellow
    companions in the Holy Life. Thus, the Venerable Yamaka obstinately continued holding onto
    his adhammic and pernicious view, as he insisted:

    ‘The way I see and understand the Dhamma being taught by The Blessed One, any Bhikkhu who
    has attained the state where his heart’s contaminants (āsavas) are fully destroyed, upon
    reaching the end of life with the breakdown of the body, at that moment of death, he becomes no
    more, no longer existing after death.’

    Meanwhile, those other Bhikkhus, on seeing that they were unable to change the Venerable
    Yamaka’s mind from holding on to this wrong view, arose from their seats and went straight to
    the Venerable Sāriputta, and reported to him what they had heard and witnessed, while also
    adding:
    “If only the Venerable Sāriputta would go and speak to the Bhikkhu Yamaka, out of compassion,
    it would surely help him to change his position.”

    And on hearing their report, the Venerable Sāriputta agreed, by maintaining silence.

    Then, in the evening, coming out of his seclusion, the Venerable Sāriputta went and approached
    the Bhikkhu Yamaka’s kuti. After exchanging friendly greetings with him, he sat down at one
    side and addressed the Bhikkhu, by asking:
    “Is what I heard true, friend Yamaka, that such a destructively malignant view has surfaced in
    your mind? Whereby you claim the following:

    ‘The way I see and understand the Dhamma being taught by The Blessed One, any Bhikkhu who
    has attained the state where his heart’s contaminants (āsavas) are fully destroyed, upon

    [page 3]
    reaching the end of life with the breakdown of the body, at that moment of death, he becomes no
    more, no longer existing after death.’

    “You have heard correctly, friend, for that is exactly how I understand it,” replied the Bhikkhu
    Yamaka.

    Then, the Venerable Sāriputta said:

    “What do you think, friend Yamaka, would you consider form (rūpa) to be permanent or
    impermanent?”

    “It is impermanent, friend,” replied the Bhikkhu Yamaka.

    “How about feelings (vedanā), friend Yamaka? Would you consider them to be permanent or
    impermanent?”

    “They are impermanent, friend.”

    “What about perceptions and memories (saññā), friend Yamaka? Would you consider them to be
    permanent or impermanent?”

    “They too, are impermanent, friend.”

    “How about habitual drives (saṅkhārā), friend Yamaka? Would you consider them to be
    permanent or impermanent?”

    “They are impermanent, friend.”

    “And what about sense awareness or consciousness (viññāna), friend Yamaka? Would you
    consider them to be permanent or impermanent?”

    “They are also impermanent, friend.”

    “Therefore, friend Yamaka, whatever kind of matter or form, whether related to the past, future,
    or present, be it internal or external, gross or subtle, of an inferior or superior quality, whether far
    or near, the Bhikkhu sees all this as it truly is and with the necessary wisdom thus: ‘This is not
    mine, this is not a part of me, this is not myself.’

    “Whatever kind of feeling, whether related to the past, future, or present, be it internal or
    external, gross or subtle, of an inferior or superior quality, whether far or near, the Bhikkhu sees
    all this as it truly is and with the necessary wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this is not a part of
    me, this is not myself.’

    “Whatever kind of memories or perceptions, whether related to the past, future, or present, be it
    internal or external, gross or subtle, of an inferior or superior quality, whether far or near, the

    [page 4]
    Bhikkhu sees all this as it truly is and with the necessary wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this is
    not a part of me, this is not myself.’

    “Whatever kind of habitual tendencies or drives, whether related to the past, future, or present,
    be it internal or external, gross or subtle, of an inferior or superior quality, whether far or near,
    the Bhikkhu sees all this as it truly is and with the necessary wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this
    is not a part of me, this is not myself.’

    “Whatever kind of sense awareness or consciousness, whether related to the past, future, or
    present, be it internal or external, gross or subtle, of an inferior or superior quality, whether far or
    near, the Bhikkhu sees all this as it truly is and with the necessary wisdom thus: ‘This is not
    mine, this is not a part of me, this is not myself.’

    “Thus, on seeing the truth that these things are all impermanent, the Noble Disciple in Training
    becomes disenchanted, experiencing disgust towards all forms; he becomes disenchanted,
    experiencing disgust towards all feelings; he becomes disenchanted, experiencing disgust
    towards all perceptions and memories; he becomes disenchanted, experiencing disgust towards
    all habitual drives; he becomes disenchanted, experiencing disgust towards all types of sense
    awareness or consciousnesses.

    “In this way, by becoming disenchanted and experiencing disgust, the Bhikkhu grows
    dispassionate. Then, this leads him to relinquish his grip from holding onto anything. By no
    longer grasping onto anything thus, he neither becomes anxious, nor restless or agitated. And no
    longer becoming agitated, he experiences the ultimate relief that is Nibbāna.

    “Now, at that very instant, the Bhikkhu comes to know personally with his direct understanding:

    ‘Birth is finally destroyed.
    The Holy Life has now been fully lived and its Goal achieved.
    There is no more coming back to any state of becoming.’

    1. “Now, friend Yamaka, do you look upon The Tathāgata and see Him as ‘form?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Do you look upon The Tathāgata and see Him as a collection of ‘feelings?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Do you look upon The Tathāgata and see Him as a collection of ‘perceptions’ or ‘memories?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Well, do you look upon The Tathāgata and see Him as a collection of ‘habitual drives?’”

    [page 5]
    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Do you look upon The Tathāgata and see Him as a collection of ‘sense awareness’ or
    ‘consciousnesses?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    2. “In that case, friend Yamaka, do you look upon The Tathāgata as the product of ‘form?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Do you look upon The Tathāgata as the product of ‘feelings?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Do you look upon The Tathāgata as the product of ‘perceptions’ or ‘memories?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Well, do you look upon The Tathāgata as the product of ‘habitual drives?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Do you look upon The Tathāgata as the product of ‘sense awareness’ or ‘consciousnesses?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Do you then consider, friend Yamaka, the Tathāgata to be a combination of all these taken
    together: of form, feelings, perceptions and memories, and of sense awareness or
    consciousness?”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Well, friend Yamaka, would you then consider the Tathāgata to be without form, feelings,
    perceptions and memories, and sense awareness or consciousness?”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    3. “Well then, friend Yamaka, do you look upon The Tathāgata as someone who is beyond
    ‘form?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Do you look upon The Tathāgata as someone who is beyond ‘feelings?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    [page 6]
    “Do you look upon The Tathāgata as someone who is beyond ‘perceptions’ or ‘memories?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Well, do you look upon The Tathāgata as someone who is beyond ‘habitual drives?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “Do you look upon The Tathāgata as someone who is beyond ‘sense awareness’ or
    ‘consciousness?’”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    4. “In that case, friend Yamaka, do you then consider the Tathāgata as someone who is merely a
    combination of all these aggregates put together, that is, of form, feelings, perceptions and
    memories, and of sense awareness or consciousness?”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    5. “Well, how about this, friend Yamaka, would you consider the Tathāgata as someone who is
    without form, feelings, perceptions and memories, and sense awareness or consciousness?”

    “No, friend, I do not.”

    “But, friend Yamaka, if it is truly as you say, that you don’t consider or look upon the Tathāgata
    as someone who is solidly existing in the first place, then how could you still declare the
    following:

    ‘The way I see and understand the Dhamma being taught by The Blessed One, any Bhikkhu who
    has attained the state where his heart’s contaminants (āsavas) are fully destroyed, upon
    reaching the end of life with the breakdown of the body, at that moment of death, he becomes no
    more, no longer existing after death?’

    “After all, friend, remember how, whenever the Tathāgata describes to us, Bhikkhus, the state of
    the Tathāgata as the Supreme Being; The Blessed One, who has Self-Awakened to the Highest,
    having crossed the flood; the Perfectly Awakened Arahant; he does explain this without any
    reliance on views of whether the Tathāgata exists after death, or whether the Tathāgata does not
    exist after death, or whether the Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death, or whether
    the Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death.”

    Then, having carefully listened to the Venerable Sāriputta’s words, the Venerable Yamaka
    replied by saying:

    “Dear friend Sāriputta, earlier and up to just a moment ago, while lost in my own ignorance, I
    was arrogant, for I obstinately kept grasping onto that evil and unwholesome view, but now, that

    [page 7]
    no longer holds true, because I have heard the voice of reason through this beautiful Dhamma
    Talk from my friend, our Dear Venerable Sāriputta!

    “Therefore, because of your elucidating and clear instruction, friend, no such pernicious view is
    to be found within me anymore, for it has fallen away. Having penetrated it, I have now finally
    seen the Dhamma!”

    And the Venerable Sāriputta continued his questions by asking further:

    “And how about, friend Yamaka, if others approached and asked you the following:

    ‘Friend Yamaka, considering the case of a Bhikkhu who has attained the state where his heart’s
    contaminants (āsavas) are fully destroyed, upon reaching the end of life with the breakdown of
    the body, at that moment of death, he becomes no more, no longer existing after death?’

    “What might your response be to them, then?”

    “If, friend Sāriputta, others approach and ask me:

    ‘Friend Yamaka, considering the case of a Bhikkhu who has attained the state where his heart’s
    contaminants (āsavas) are fully destroyed, upon reaching the end of life with the breakdown of
    the body, at that moment of death, he becomes no more, no longer existing after death?’

    “Then, I will answer them in the following manner:

    a. ‘Friends, do know that form itself is impermanent, and whatever that is impermanent is
    suffering. After all, it is innately suffering due to the fact that it ceases and passes away.

    b. ‘Also, friends, feeling itself is impermanent, and whatever that is impermanent is suffering.
    After all, it is innately suffering due to the fact that it ceases and passes away.

    c. ‘Also, friends, perceptions and memories are themselves impermanent, and whatever that is
    impermanent is suffering. After all, it is innately suffering due to the fact that it ceases and
    passes away.

    d. ‘Also, friends, habitual drives are themselves impermanent, and whatever that is impermanent
    is suffering. After all, it is innately suffering due to the fact that it ceases and passes away.

    e. ‘Also, friends, sense awareness or consciousness is itself impermanent, and whatever that is
    impermanent is suffering. After all, it is innately suffering due to the fact that it ceases and
    passes away.

    “Therefore, friend Sāriputta, whenever asked that question, I would answer in such a manner.”

    “Sādhu, Sādhu indeed, friend Yamaka!” Replied the Venerable Sāriputta, while adding:

    [page 8]
    “Now, friend Yamaka, I am going to share a simile with you to help you understand the deeper
    meaning of this even better and more clearly.

    “Imagine, friend Yamaka, there being a householder or the son of a rich householder, an
    affluently rich man, who is exceedingly wealthy and who rules over a vast territory, possessing
    countless assets, someone who moves about throughout his life while being surrounded by his
    armed bodyguards.

    “One day, a certain individual shows up, a viciously conniving assassin of a man, whose sole
    aim is to bring harm to this rich man, to destroy and kill him, by depriving him of his life.

    “Then, he would start thinking:

    ‘This affluently rich householder is exceedingly wealthy and rules over a vast territory,
    possessing countless assets. I can’t just assault and try to take his life by force, for he is well
    protected. So, I must first make him trust me so I can get close enough to him, and only then will
    I be able to deprive him of his life!’

    “Thus, the assassin begins acting on his scheme by first approaching the rich householder, and
    says to him:

    ‘I wish to serve you, lord.’

    “Then, that rich householder goes ahead and appoints him as one of his servants, and that
    assassin goes to work by pretending to be an obedient and selfless worker. Thus, he lets his
    master, the rich householder, see how he gets up in the mornings before him, and only retires to
    bed late in the night, after the rich householder had gone to sleep.

    “In this way, the assassin works his charm by doing whatever he is told, going above and beyond
    what is expected of him as a servant, always being pleasant and agreeable in his conduct, using a
    sweet tongue and endearing in his speech.

    “In time, the rich householder even begins to see this servant of his as a ‘true friend,’ a faithful
    and kind companion, and as such, the rich householder starts putting more and more trust in him.

    “Now, once the assassin notices that his long-term plan is working, whereby the householder has
    placed enough trust in him, then, the moment he is alone with him, away from his protective
    bodyguards, he quickly pulls out his sharp knife and kills him, depriving the rich householder,
    his master, of his life.

    “Now, what do you say, friend Yamaka, when that man came and approached the rich
    householder and told him: ‘I wish to serve you, lord,’ – wasn’t he an assassin then, or had he
    ceased being an assassin at the time, even though he was not yet recognized by the rich
    householder, about to be killed, as ‘his assassin?’

    [page 9]
    “How about when that man was pretending to be a selfless and obedient servant, waking up
    before his rich master and going to bed after the master had retired; working his charm by doing
    whatever he was told, going above and beyond what was expected of him as a servant; always
    being pleasant and agreeable in his conduct, using a sweet tongue and being endearing in his
    speech’ –  wasn’t he an assassin then, or had he ceased from being an assassin at the time, even
    though he was not yet recognized by the rich householder, about to be killed, as ‘his assassin?’

    “Or, when the rich householder, his lord and master, began trusting him, enough so that he
    considered that man to be his ‘true friend,’ whereby, once he saw the opportunity of finally being
    alone with him, the man quickly pulled out his sharp knife and killed him –  wasn’t he an
    assassin already, or had he ceased from being an assassin up until that moment, even though he
    was not recognized all along by the rich householder who was about to be killed, to be none
    other than ‘his assassin?’

    “Yes, indeed, friend, he always was and never ceased being an assassin, throughout!” answered
    the Venerable Yamaka.

    A. “Well, in just the same manner, friend Yamaka, the putujjana or the undisciplined, ignorant
    person, is both too dense to see and recognize the Noble Ones, as well as untrained and
    undisciplined in their Dhamma, for he is someone who, due to his untamed and crude
    personality, is unable to recognize the Superior Person even if he were to see them up close, nor
    is he skilled and educated in their Teachings.

    “And why is that?

    1. “It is because he continues to regard form as inherent to being or having a ‘self,’ or identifies
    a ‘self’ to be possessing some kind of substantial form, or form to be inseparable from a ‘self,’
    or that there is a substantial ‘self’ in form.

    2. “Similarly, he regards feeling as inherent to being or having a ‘self,’ or identifies a ‘self’ to be
    possessing some kind of substantial feeling, or feeling to be inseparable from a ‘self,’ or that
    there is a substantial ‘self’ in feeling.

    3. “Similarly, he regards perception or memory as inherent to being or having a ‘self,’ or
    identifies a ‘self’ to be possessing some kind of substantial perception or memory, or
    perception or memory to be inseparable from a ‘self,’ or that there is a substantial ‘self’ in
    perception or memory.

    4. “Similarly, he regards habitual drives as inherent to being or having a ‘self,’ or identifies a
    ‘self’ to be possessing some kind of substantial habitual drives, or habitual drives to be
    inseparable from a ‘self,’ or that there is a substantial ‘self’ in habitual drives.

    5. “Similarly, he regards sense awareness or consciousness as inherent to being or having a
    ‘self,’ or identifies a ‘self’ to be possessing some kind of substantial sense awareness or
    consciousness, or sense awareness or consciousness to be inseparable from a ‘self,’ or that
    there is a substantial ‘self’ in sense awareness or consciousness.

    [page 10]
    a. “For truly, such a person does not see or understand form as it truly is. That is, being
    impermanent and transitory, and never otherwise.
    b. “Similarly, he does not see or understand feeling as it truly is. That is, being impermanent and
    transitory, and never otherwise.
    c. “Similarly, he does not see or understand perception or memory as it truly is. That is, being
    impermanent and transitory, and never otherwise.
    d. “Similarly, he does not see or understand habitual drives as they truly are. That is, being
    impermanent and transitory, and never otherwise.
    e. “Similarly, he does not see or understand sense awareness or consciousnesses as they truly
    are. That is, being impermanent and transitory, and never otherwise.

    a. “As a result, such a person does not see or understand form as it truly is. That is, being
    suffering, and never otherwise.
    b. “Similarly, he does not see or understand feeling as it truly is. That is, being suffering, and
    never otherwise.
    c. “Similarly, he does not see or understand perception or memory as it truly is. That is, being
    suffering, and never otherwise.
    d. “Similarly, he does not see or understand habitual drives as they truly are. That is, being
    suffering, and never otherwise.
    e. “Similarly, he does not see or understand sense awareness or consciousnesses as they truly
    are. That is, being suffering, and never otherwise.

    a. “Furthermore, such a person does not see or understand form as it truly is. That is, being
    without a substantial self, and never otherwise.
    b. “Similarly, he does not see or understand feeling as it truly is. That is, being without a
    substantial self, and never otherwise.
    c. “Similarly, he does not see or understand perception or memory as it truly is. That is, being
    without a substantial self, and never otherwise.
    d. “Similarly, he does not see or understand habitual drives as they truly are. That is, being
    without a substantial self, and never otherwise.
    e. “Similarly, he does not see or understand sense awareness or consciousnesses as they truly
    are. That is, being without a substantial self, and never otherwise.

    [page 11]
    a. “Furthermore, such a person does not see or understand form as it truly is. That is, being
    completely conditioned and thereby causally produced, and never otherwise.
    b. “Similarly, he does not see or understand feeling as it truly is. That is, being completely
    conditioned and thereby causally produced, and never otherwise.
    c. “Similarly, he does not see or understand perception or memory as it truly is. That is, being
    completely conditioned and thereby causally produced, and never otherwise.
    d. “Similarly, he does not see or understand habitual drives as they truly are. That is, being
    completely conditioned and thereby causally produced, and never otherwise.
    e. “Similarly, he does not see or understand sense awareness or consciousnesses as they truly
    are. That is, being completely conditioned and thereby causally produced, and never otherwise.

    a. “In addition, such a person does not see or understand form as it truly is. That is, being your
    own assassin, seeking to deprive you of life, and nothing else.
    b. “Similarly, he does not see or understand feeling as it truly is. That is, being your own
    assassin, seeking to deprive you of life, and nothing else.
    c. “Similarly, he does not see or understand perception or memory as it truly is. That is, being
    your own assassin, seeking to deprive you of life, and nothing else.
    d. “Similarly, he does not see or understand habitual drives as they truly are. That is, being your
    own assassin, seeking to deprive you of life, and nothing else.
    e. “Similarly, he does not see or understand sense awareness or consciousnesses as they truly
    are. That is, being your own assassin, seeking to deprive you of life, and nothing else.

    a. “Now, as a result, such a person becomes attracted to form and grabs tightly onto it. By
    becoming hopelessly identified with form and treating it as an innate ‘asset’ of his, the putujjana
    sees it as inseparable from his false view of a ‘substantial self.’
    b. “Similarly, he becomes attracted to feeling and grabs tightly onto it. By becoming hopelessly
    identified with feeling and treating it as an innate ‘asset’ of his, the putujjana sees it as
    inseparable from his false view of a ‘substantial self.’
    c. “Similarly, he becomes attracted to perception or memory and grabs tightly onto it. By
    becoming hopelessly identified with perception or memory and treating it as an innate ‘asset’ of
    his, the putujjana sees it as inseparable from his false view of a ‘substantial self.’
    d. “Similarly, he becomes attracted to habitual drives and grabs tightly onto them. By becoming
    hopelessly identified with habitual drives and treating them as innate ‘assets’ of his, the
    putujjana sees them as inseparable from his false view of a ‘substantial self.’

    [page 12]
    e. “Similarly, he becomes attracted to sense awareness or consciousnesses and grabs tightly
    onto them. By becoming hopelessly identified with sense awareness or consciousnesses and
    treating them as innate ‘assets’ of his, the putujjana sees them as inseparable from his false view
    of a ‘substantial self.’
    “Now, once he takes the bait and gets identified thus, becoming entangled and fully engaged
    with these five aggregates due to his tendency to grab onto them, he is then led on continuously
    to more and more suffering, all towards his detriment and lasting for a very long time.

    B. “However, friend Yamaka, the learned and wise Noble Disciple is both able to see and
    recognize the Noble Ones, and as a result he is trained and disciplined in their Dhamma, for he is
    someone who, due to his tamed and refined personality, is able to recognize the Superior Person,
    and is skilled and educated in their Teachings.

    “And why is that?

    1. “It is because he neither regards form as inherent to being or having a ‘self,’ nor identifies a
    ‘self’ to be possessing some kind of substantial form, nor that form is something inseparable
    from a ‘self,’ nor that there is a substantial ‘self’ in form.

    2. “Similarly, he neither regards feeling as inherent to being or having a ‘self,’ nor identifies a
    ‘self’ to be possessing some kind of substantial feeling, nor that feeling is something inseparable
    from a ‘self,’ nor that there is a substantial ‘self’ in feeling.

    3. “Similarly, he neither regards perception or memory as inherent to being or having a ‘self,’
    nor identifies a ‘self’ to be possessing some kind of substantial perception or memory, nor that
    perception or memory is something inseparable from a ‘self,’ nor that there is a substantial
    ‘self’ in perception or memory.

    4. “Similarly, he neither regards habitual drives as inherent to being or having a ‘self,’ nor
    identifies a ‘self’ to be possessing of some kind of substantial habitual drives, nor that habitual
    drives are something inseparable from a ‘self,’ nor that there is a substantial ‘self’ in habitual
    drives.

    5. “Similarly, he neither regards sense awareness or consciousnesses as inherent to being or
    having a ‘self,’ nor identifies a ‘self’ to be possessing some kind of substantial sense awareness
    or consciousnesses, nor that sense awareness or consciousnesses are something inseparable
    from a ‘self,’ nor that there is a substantial ‘self’ in sense awareness or consciousnesses.

    a. “For truly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand form as it truly is. That is, being
    impermanent and transitory, and never otherwise.
    b. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand feeling as it truly is. That is, being
    impermanent and transitory, and never otherwise.

    [page 13]
    c. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand perception or memory as it truly is.
    That is, being impermanent and transitory, and never otherwise.
    d. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand habitual drives as they truly are. That
    is, being impermanent and transitory, and never otherwise.
    e. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand sense awareness or consciousnesses
    as they truly are. That is, being impermanent and transitory, and never otherwise.

    a. “As a result, the Noble Disciple does see and understand form as it truly is. That is, being
    suffering, and never otherwise.
    b. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand feeling as it truly is. That is, being
    suffering, and never otherwise.
    c. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand perception or memory as it truly is.
    That is, being suffering, and never otherwise.
    d. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand habitual drives as they truly are. That
    is, being suffering, and never otherwise.
    e. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand sense awareness or consciousnesses
    as they truly are. That is, being suffering, and never otherwise.

    a. “Furthermore, the Noble Disciple does see and understand form as it truly is. That is, being
    without a substantial self, and never otherwise.
    b. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand feeling as it truly is. That is, being
    without a substantial self, and never otherwise.
    c. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand perception or memory as it truly is.
    That is, being without a substantial self, and never otherwise.
    d. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand habitual drives as they truly are. That
    is, being without a substantial self, and never otherwise.
    e. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand sense awareness or consciousnesses
    as they truly are. That is, being without a substantial self, and never otherwise.

    a. “Furthermore, the Noble Disciple does see and understand form as it truly is. That is, being
    completely conditioned and thereby causally produced, and never otherwise.
    b. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand feeling as it truly is. That is, being
    completely conditioned and thereby causally produced, and never otherwise.

    [page 14]
    c. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand perception or memory as it truly is.
    That is, being completely conditioned and thereby causally produced, and never otherwise.
    d. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand habitual drives as they truly are. That
    is, being completely conditioned and thereby causally produced, and never otherwise.
    e. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand sense awareness or consciousnesses
    as they truly are. That is, being completely conditioned and thereby causally produced, and never
    otherwise.

    a. “In addition, the Noble Disciple does see and understand form as it truly is. That is, being your
    own assassin, seeking to deprive you of life, and nothing else.
    b. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand feeling as it truly is. That is, being
    your own assassin, seeking to deprive you of life, and nothing else.
    c. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand perception or memory as it truly is.
    That is, being your own assassin, seeking to deprive you of life, and nothing else.
    d. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand habitual drives as they truly are. That
    is, being your own assassin, seeking to deprive you of life, and nothing else.
    e. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple does see and understand sense awareness or consciousnesses
    as they truly are. That is, being your own assassin, seeking to deprive you of life, and nothing
    else.

    a. “Now, as a result, the Noble Disciple neither becomes attracted to form nor grabs tightly onto
    it. By not becoming identified with form nor treating it as an innate ‘asset’ of his, the Noble
    Disciple sees it as it truly is; therefore, he does not fall prey to the false notion of a ‘substantial
    self.’
    b. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple neither becomes attracted to feeling nor grabs tightly onto it.
    By not becoming identified with feeling nor treating it as an innate ‘asset’ of his, the Noble
    Disciple sees it as it truly is; therefore, he does not fall prey to the false notion of a ‘substantial
    self.’
    c. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple neither becomes attracted to perception or memory nor grabs
    tightly onto it. By not becoming identified with perception or memory nor treating it as an innate
    ‘asset’ of his, the Noble Disciple sees it as it truly is; therefore, he does not fall prey to the false
    notion of a ‘substantial self.’
    d. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple neither becomes attracted to habitual drives nor grabs tightly
    onto them. By not becoming identified with habitual drives nor treating them as innate ‘assets’
    of his, the Noble Disciple sees them as they truly are; therefore, he does not fall prey to the false
    notion of a ‘substantial self.’

    [page 15]
    e. “Similarly, the Noble Disciple neither becomes attracted to sense awareness or
    consciousnesses nor grabs tightly onto them. By not becoming identified with sense awareness
    or consciousnesses nor treating them as innate ‘assets’ of his, the Noble Disciple sees them as
    they truly are; therefore, he does not fall prey to the false notion of a ‘substantial self.’
    “Now, because the Noble Disciple does not take the bait nor gets identified thus, by not
    becoming entangled nor engaged with these five aggregates due to seeing through the tendency
    to grab on to them, he is then led to further and further states of happiness, for his lasting welfare
    and peace.”

    “What a true blessing, friend Sāriputta! How wonderful to have such exceptional and kind
    Venerables as companions in the Holy Life! What a joy, to be experiencing the Compassion and
    Mettā of our Senior Brother, who comes to selflessly admonish and teach us the Dhamma!

    “I rejoice, since having heard the wise words of the Venerable Sāriputta’s Dhamma Talk, my
    heart has now become fully liberated from the contaminants, by overcoming the very clinging
    itself!”

    Sādhu
    Sādhu
    Sādhu

Contact: admin@opensourceeverything.net