You just lied.
Plus, that is a typo. If you just cautious enough to read further… Obviously you did not.
1 Like
The existence of Nama Rupa - the First Noble Truth. Nibbana does not have these three marks.
not me, not mine, not who I am
“not me, not mine, not who I am”
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…
4 Likes
True. Thanks for sharing Zans.
I believe even the modern Suttavadins would agree on “Sabbe Dhamma Anattati” Dhammapada verse.
4 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
“Sabbe sankhara anatta” ti was translated as “All phenomena (dhammas) are without Self”…
That seems to be a reason why Sabbe sankhara became sabbe dhamma.
Some considered sankhara and dhamma are synonymous here. But the original Dhammapada text is Sabbe sankhara.
Wrong. The original Dhammapada text is Sabbe Dhamma Anattati.
Sabbe Saṅkhara is appeared when Lord Buddha speaking of the characters of five aggregates in certain occasions such as
Culasaccaka Sutta:
"rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, aniccaṁ, vedanā aniccā, saññā aniccā, saṅkhārā aniccā, viññāṇaṁ aniccaṁ. Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, anattā, vedanā anattā, saññā anattā, saṅkhārā anattā, viññāṇaṁ anattā. Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā, sabbe dhammā anattā’ti. "
While using “Sabbe Dhamma Anattati”, all five aggregates are included by the word “Sabbe Dhamma”. Hence, there is no contradiction.
It is solely your misunderstanding about the terminology.
2 Likes
Source 1: https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=16264 agree with me. Never read these before honestly.
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?
Source 2: What is Vipassana? | Buddho.org
The Buddha:
“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
Venerable Narada Thera’s Dhammapada version is the following: Fermentations (asava) and their eradication In Theravada Buddhism – drarisworld
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.
1940: Buddhism in England Volumes 15-16
1936: ### The Maha-Bodhi - Volume 44 - Page 418
Yes, it should be repeated instead of changing it to dhamma.
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. The texts say:
“Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā”ti, …
“Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”ti, …
“Sabbe dhammā anattā”ti, …
SuttaCentral
ti means basically “end quote”, it has nothing to do with the meaning of the lines (apart from that they are in quotes, of course).
2 Likes
True, Dhammapada is saying that “Sabbe Dhamma Anatta’ti”.
Not “Sabbe Saṅkhara Anatta’ti” as per Dhamma001 posted.
And yes, "ti " is just like end quote or fullstop.
2 Likes
I agree absolutely with
Sankhārā = five khandas
Dhammā= five kandas + nibbāna
As nibbāna is anatta, but not anicca or dukkha
Sabbe dhammā anattā is obviously correct.
There is pheraps another possible way:
Sankhārā = 5 khandas
Dhammā = 5 khanda + nibbāna +paññati (concept)
As paññati don’t arise, don’t pass away, it has no upadhi titthi bhanga, it is not anicca or dukkha.
But definitaly it is anattā.
Sabbe Dhammā anattā.
However, it depends the definition of Dhamma.
If we define as in Abhidhamma, that is paramattha, of course it does not work:
“Sabhavam dharentiti dhammā”
“They bear their own intrinsic nature, thus they are dhammā”.
2 Likes
While I don’t disagree with “nibbāna is anatta”, there is an argument that in the context of the Dhammapada verse it doesn’t make much sense:
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.
SuttaCentral
The argument goes that it seems odd to include nibbāna in a verse about disillusionment.
However, Ven Dhammanando made some comments here that support the inclusion of nibbāna: https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=232064&sid=c28316a93c391eb69ce41708b63d68a1#p232064
2 Likes
In that context, anatta means ownerless - i.e. the nature is ownerless or has no atta.
Anatta indicates the five aggregates are owned by none. In this sense, the five aggregates cannot be controlled to stay young, to stay alive. Hence, the five aggregates are not me, not mine, not who I am. For being anicca (jara and marana), these five aggregates are anatta. For being anatta, these five aggregates are suffering/dukkha.
If nibbana were anatta, then nibbana were also anicca and dukkha as these three are inseparable.
See Anatta Lakkhana Sutta
I agree. In this context, the tilakkhanā, three carachteristics are applied on Sankhārā, the object of vipassanā.
Furthermore it is the explanation of Dhammapada Atthakathā:
‘“sabbe dhammā anattāti, yadā paññāya passati.
atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā”ti.
tattha sabbe dhammāti pañcakkhandhā eva adhippetā.’
" all phenomenon are non self, having seen it with wisdom, one is disenchanted with suffering, such is the path of purification “. Here all phenomenon, the five aggregates are meant.’
Nibbinda is the consequence of vipassanā, before the noble path to arise: nibbinda or nibbidā, in the suttanta, follows yathābhūta ñânadassana, and is before virāga. It always comes with the contemplation of the ti lakkhanās of the five khandas or nāma rūpa. Of course, nibbāna is not an object of vipassanā.
Therefore " sabbe dhammā anattā ti” means five khandas, taken in its context, nibbāna is not implied.
I agree to some extent. We don’t need to observe or to contemplate nibbāna as the three characteristics of the five khandas. Also, the anattā understood by contemplating anicca and dukkha of the five aggregate is the one to get liberated, the one to be understood practically.
So the anattā/ not anattā of Nibbāna is much more a philosophical aspect, not practical.
One may say nibbāna is anattā as other phenomenon… or one may say it is non sense to apply anattā on something wich is already empty of craving and empty of nāma rūpa, anattā (in the sense of being deprived of a self) having sense in relationship with sankhārā only.
I don’t think it is necessary to speculate on it since it is a philosophical question outside the field of practical Dhamma… Although interesting to some extent, this speculation is not supportive in a practical way. So i would say, it does not matter.
1 Like
Right View and Wrong View matter for the practice. Vicikicca/doubt also matter, as is a hinderance. The mind would remain undeveloped.
Yes i think regardless of the true answer you’re absolutely right to say it doesnt matter from a practical point of view. clinging to the idea of no self at all is just as much a hindrance as clinging to a self and can lead to rebirth in the sphere of nothingness rather than attainment of nibbana (MN106). And you dont even need to understand anatta to enlighten, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta makes no mention of non-self yet the 5 brahmins became sotapannas with the knowledge of the Dhammacakkappavattana sutta alone.
To this I disagree, the exposition of Dukkha Ariyasacca is precisely indicating the three marks: Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta.
For what is not permanent it is Dukkha, for what is subject to Dukkha is not to be regarded as “Self”, hence Anatta.
At the end of Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, only Bhante Añña kondanna realized: “Yamkinci samudaya dhammam, sabbam tam Nirodha dhammam ti.” aka “whatever state subject to arising, is bound to ceasing”, which can be understood as the meaning of Anicca (impermanence). Here he attained Sotapanna stage.
Though the rest of the members not able to attain fruition yet at the event of Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.
To say Anatta teaching is not important is very wrong, since the core teaching of Buddha that set different from many other religions is “Anatta” concept. Without this Anatta teaching, all will be fallen under either Sassataditthi or Ucchedaditthi, Sammaditthi can never be attained.
2 Likes