Instead of nihilism, Nibbana is the only thing that exists

[samseva]

@Gabriel

@char101

Isn’t this is exactly what “sabbe dhamma anatta” is saying?

I would agree if we knew what sabbe dhamma meant. Dhamma is a weird zombie word of the EBT. Coming from ‘support’ and ‘law’ it then meant ‘teaching’ or ‘doctrine’. But it also means ‘thought’, and finally - and I might add this smells like Abhidhamma - it’s came to mean ‘thing’.

So I wouldn’t know what the ‘dhamma’ in sabbe dhamma anatta actually refers to. Do you have a definition found in the EBT?

The two main and different defintions of the word dhamma are, one, the teachings, and in this context, it is (simply) translated as ‘phenomena’. It’s not Abhidhammic, but repeatidly present in the EBT.

See:

@samseva

sabbe sankhārā aniccā
All formations (conditioned) are impermanent

sabbe sankhārā dukkhā
All formations (conditioned) are suffering

sabbe dhammā anattā
All phenomena (unconditioned—i.e., including Nibbāna—and conditioned things) are not-self

Nibbāna is not included in the first two, for the reasons that you described [Nibbāna is not conditioned (i.e., a formation) and by definition cannot be dukkhā], but it is a dhamma (it is phenomena) and therefore is classified in the third characteristic (all things are not-self).

@Martin

Not me, but my point stands. Having followed this discussion I still think the suttas are ambiguous on the question of whether Nibbana is a transcendent reality, or a state of mind, or something else.

Nibbāna is unconditioned. It is categorically and solely a result (for the lack of a better word) based on the absence of the defilements/fetters (kilesa/saṃyojana) and dukkha—nothing more, nothing less.

You have the common assumption that Nibbāna is a magically blissful state. Nibbāna is probably highly blissful due the complete/absolute absence of dukkha; but not blissful in the way “nirvana” is described by the mainstream.