Analayo gives this as a translation of the chinese parallel SA104:
[Sāriputta] asked again: “Is the Tathāgata without bodily form … feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?”
[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta.”
[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.”
I note that this seems remarkably similar to the Pali, however our own @cdpatton gives of the same passage:
- Again, he asked, “Does something other than form possess the Tathāgata? Does something other than feeling … conception … volition … consciousness possess the Tathāgata?”
He replied, “No, Venerable Śāriputra.”
- “So it is, Yamaka. The Tathāgata sees the teaching that’s true and abides according to it without obtaining or postulating anything. How can you say, ‘As I understand the Bhagavān’s teaching, an arhat who has ended the contaminants won’t exist when his body breaks up and his life ends’? Is that an appropriate statement?”[2]
He replied, “No, Venerable Śāriputra.”
turning to the AI DeepL as an arbitrator, it renders the passage:
“復問:「非色、受、想、行、識有如來耶?」”,
“Again, he asked, Isn’t there a tathāgata in form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness?”,
“答言:「不也,尊者舍利弗!」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,
“「如是,焰摩迦!”,
So it is, Yamaka!",
“如來見法真實、如住,無所得、無所施設,汝云何言:『我解知世尊所說,”,
“The Tathāgata sees things as they really are and thus abide. They have no acquisition or attachment whatsoever. How can you say, “I understand and know what the World-honored One has said:”,
“漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終無所有。』”,
“When the contaminants end, the arhat’s body breaks up and his life ends, there’s nothing to be possessed.'”,
“為時說耶?」”,
“Is it taught at the right time?”,
“答言:「不也,尊者舍利弗!」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,
I note that the machine translation renders the passage in a similar way to @cdpatton and that it does not support Analayo’s gloss.
So the chinese parallel seems to have something like “one thus gone sees things as they really are and abides thus, they have no properties or attributes whatsoever” so attributing “existence” or “non existence” is incorrect.
I note that this argument isthe same as MN72, and different from the argument as it is made in SN22.85
Make of these things what you will.
Analayo does somewhat better with the relevent part of SA106, the parallel to SN22.86:
[The Buddha asked again]: “Is feeling … perception … formations … consciousness permanent or is it impermanent?”
[Anurādha] replied: “It is impermanent, Blessed One.”
As spoken fully in the Discourse to Yamaka, up to: “Is consciousness the Tathāgata?”
[Anurādha] replied: “No.”
The Buddha said to Anurādha: “One who speaks in this way is in accordance and in line with all that has been declared [by me], he does not misrepresent the Tathāgata and does not come to be [speaking] out of order. He speaks as the Tathāgata speaks and is in order with all teachings. On being closely questioned by others who have come, there is nothing capable of being criticized. Why is that?
“I understand bodily form as it really is, I understand the arising of bodily form … the cessation of bodily form … the path to the cessation of bodily form as it really is. [Feeling … perception … formations … consciousness is also like this].
“Anurādha, if one leaves behind what the Tathāgata has done and claims he is without knowledge and without vision, then this is not correctly spoken.”
When the Buddha had spoken this discourse, Anurādha, hearing what the Buddha had said, was delighted and received it respectfully.
So neither of the parallels make the “not a genuine fact” argument.
Metta