While in the case of the first two characteristics it is stated that all formations (sabbe saṅkhārā) are impermanent and subject to suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states that “all things are not-self” (sabbe dhammā anattā; M. 35, Dhp. 279). This is for emphasizing that the false view of an abiding self or substance is neither applicable to any ‘formation’ or conditioned phenomenon, nor to Nibbāna, the Unconditioned Element (asaṅkhatādhātu).
The Anattā-lakkhaṇa Sutta, the ‘Discourse on the Characteristic of Not-self’, was the second discourse after Enlightenment, preached by the Buddha to his first five disciples, who after hearing it attained to perfect Holiness (Arahatta).
Dhamma is not formation. Sankhara is formation. Dhamma is law. All laws cannot be anatta. Anatta is a law. Some laws are anicca and dukkha. Some other laws are other things.
The original version provides translation of “Sabbe sankhara anatta” ti but it becomes ‘dhamma’ and phenomena, which should not be.
Verse 279: “All phenomena (dhammas) are without Self”…
Sabbe sankhara anatta should not become “All phenomena (dhammas).” Sabbe sankhara anatta should only be Sabbe sankhara anatta. By providing the term dhammas, seemingly it became Sabbe dhamma anatta.
When one sees with wisdom that all conditioned things are transient, He overcomes unsatisfactoriness - This is the path to purity.
When one sees with wisdom that all conditioned things are unsatisfactory, He overcomes unsatisfactoriness - This is the path to purity.
When one sees with wisdom that all phenomena are soulless, He overcomes unsatisfactoriness - This is the path to purity.
Both Suttantapiṭaka and Dhammapada provide "Sabbe saṅkhārā anattā"ti that is indeed the right one, original one, I believe. Search on google book
Perhaps translation started the problem. Sankhara is translated as phenomena and later Sabbe Sankhara became Sabbe Dhamma.
Perhaps, “sabbe dhammā anattā” is also correct? But I’m not convinced. I rather agree with Ajan Chah here. Why do we agree? Because of saṅkhātadhammā and asaṅkhāta dhammā/asankhata dhamma are different. Asankhata is not associated with anatta.
'‘Sabbe saṃkhārā aniccā’'ti jānato passato paññāya ete sotā3 pithiyanti pacchijjanti na savanti na āsavanti na sandanti nappavattanti. ''Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’'ti jānato passato paññāyete sotā pithiyanti pacchijjanti na savanti na āsavanti na sandanti nappavattanti. ''Sabbe saṅkhārā anattā’'ti jānato passato paññāyete sotā pithiyanti pacchijjanti na savanti na āsavanti na sandanti nappavattanti
In these same passages, however, the third characteristic of existence, selflessness, is an attribute of dhamma rather than saṅkhārā…
The whole sentence is so wrong with many mistakes. The word existence should not be used here. Nibbana is also existence. It exists. The word existence misrepresents the Dhamma.
I do not think that, here, the term dhamma is used in a different sense than sankhara. If the Buddha had said “sabbe sankhara anatta ,” meaning that all the conditioned phenomena are substanceless, people might have wrongly inferred that the unconditioned phenomenon (asankhatadhamma) must have a permanent entity (atta).
The author seems unaware of nirodha - cessation of sanna and vedana - sanna-vedayita-nirodha as nibbana that is asankhata dhamma.
This is a great topic, but has nothing to do with the original title. When you see a divergence, try to quote that person with a new topic. I just did that with somone questioning if there are those who exist who don’t use the commentary.
I have given the scriptural reference.
Sabbe Dhamma (all Dhamma) Anattati (are not to be regarded as Self, lack of self).
Now in Abhidhammattha Sangaha, this first verse stated that there were four Paramattha Dhamma - Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, and Nibbāna. These Dhammas are not something different from “Sabbe Dhamma”, since the word “Sabbe”.
Nibbāna doesn’t mean go beyond Self or Nonself. If you said Nibbāna is to go beyond these two states, that you will need to admit the existence of both Self and Nonself to be real as in ultimate sense. This is the problem.
Nibbana is cessation - Nirodha - of sanna and vedana.
Sanna-Vedayita-Nirodha: Ending-Sense-Perception-Sense Experience — … In [SN 4.36.11] The Buddha explains his statement that whatsoever is sense-experience, that is of the nature of pain. Then he describes three progressions leading to Arahantship: that of a progression of endings; that of a progresion of masterings; and that of a progression of calmings-down.
If you find yourself strongly identified with an experience, use a reflection about not-self. You might incline the mind towards thinking the thought: “This experience is not me, not mine, not who I am.”
Experience/vedana/feeling is constant, as constant as consciousness. We should notice this experience and understand it as experience: not me, not mine, not who I am.
That is the meaning of anatta.
Sabbe dhamma anatta was stated by the Buddha himself:
‘all things are not self’
‘sabbe dhamma anatta’
-SN 44.10
…The Buddha declares that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhammā anattā), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since “all phenomena” includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self."
-Bhikkhi Bodhi’s footnote to the Ānanda Sutta (SN.44.10)
And here is the Dhammapada on suttacentral:
All things are not-self—
“Sabbe dhammā anattā”ti,
when this is seen with wisdom,
yadā paññāya passati;
one grows disillusioned with suffering:
Atha nibbindati dukkhe,
this is the path to purity.
esa maggo visuddhiyā.
-Dhp 273-289
This almost seems like a joke or something lol! I feel like I’m back on dhammawheel…
I quoted the dhp on this back at reply #7 six days days. But we should be patient. Some disagreement is also good for this group. Only recently did Robert and I do our first moderation operations . That is not so bad, considering we have 60+ members and have been in operation for a few months now.
To be fair here. I cant remember where, but i think i did read a paper or excerpt of a book or something that mentioned that some manuscripts do indeed say sabbe sankhara anatta rather than sabbe dhamma anatta.
Not too surprising since different ancient manuscripts often have some discrepancies since they were records written by people and not flawless tape recorders. Its perfectly possible some of these links are based on manuscripts that used the less common usage. Although most scholars do agree sabbe dhamma anatta is likely the more accurate rendering. most groups who dispute the “no self” concept of anatta just interpret dhamma differently rather than saying that it is actually all sankharas are non self.
When it’s intended to be excluded, you will instead see “sabbe sankhara” instead of “sabbe dhamma”. Therefore, “all compounds are devoid of self” would be “sabbe sankhara anatta”. Therefore, they are different in meaning and intent. Is the person you quoted suggesting they are synonymous?
“Sabbe sankhara anicca. Sabbe sankhara dukkha. Sabbe sankhara anatta – All phenomena are impermanent. All phenomena are unsatisfactory. All phenomena are selfless.”
Guy E. Dubois (1947) has translated various parts of the early Buddhist texts into Dutch
Sabbe sankhara anicca – All conditioned phenomena are impermanent Sabbe sankhara dukkha – All conditioned phenomena are suffering Sabbe dhamma anatta – All phenomena (dhammas ) are without self (9)
Narada Thera 2000, The Dhammapada, Verses 277-279, Buddhist Cultural Centre, Dehiwala, Sri Lanka.
Venerable Narada Thera’s Dhammapada version is different from Burmese version:
Source 3: Sabbe sankhara anatta in books: the same in Mahayanist version, possibly because Mahayanists made a copy for themselves from ancient Theravada.