I understand that the traditional (commentarial?) interpretation of the statement “sabbe dhammā anattā” refers to nibbāna as dhammā which is not inconstant (that which does not fall into “sabbe sankhārā aniccā”).
I have an alternative interpretation of this statement and I’d like to know whether there’s support for it in the EBTs.
AN 3.136 mentions the dhammaniyāmatā, i.e. fixed laws concerning dhammā. These are sabbē sankhārā aniccā/dukkhā and sabbē dhammā anattā. Can we consider these laws (or natures) as themselves being dhammā? The formulation of dhammaniyāmatā being a sort of recursive definition that also applies to itself? If so, then being fixed laws that do not undergo change these niyāmatā would fall only into the “sabbe dhammā anattā” category. Or is this too broad an interpretation of the word “dhammā”?
Do the EBTs have any support for the traditional interpretation of nibbāna being a dhamma?