Sabbe dhamma anatta

[paul1]

@Max

it isnt a state that can be affirm as something permanently exist

From the practice view it’s vital to hold the conceptual idea of nibbana as that enables a resort alternative from the suffering of samsara. This is recommended for example in Anguttara 11.13 where the lay beginner is exhorted to specific practices resulting in "a sense of the goal " which means cultivating a sense of nibbana.

“gains a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the Dhamma.”

More experienced practitioners know you can take actions based on the permanency of nibbana, and observe the verifying results.

[thomaslaw]

“sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta”

Is this statement of words found in SN/SA suttas?

[Max]

@thomaslaw

Is this statement of words found in SN/SA suttas?

Reverend Channa, form,
“rūpaṁ kho, āvuso channa, aniccaṁ;

feeling,
vedanā aniccā;

perception,
saññā aniccā;

choices,
saṅkhārā aniccā;

and consciousness are impermanent.
viññāṇaṁ aniccaṁ.

Form,
Rūpaṁ anattā;

feeling,
vedanā …

perception,
saññā …

choices,
saṅkhārā …

and consciousness are not-self.
viññāṇaṁ anattā.

All conditions are impermanent.
Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā;

All things are not-self.”
sabbe dhammā anattā”ti.

SN22.90 Channasutta

[thomaslaw]

This “sabbe sankhara dukkha” is not in the sutta SN 22.90.

[bran]

They are here:
Dhp277 Dhp278 Dhp279

@thomaslaw @Max

[Max]

@bran

They are here:
Dhp277 Dhp278 Dhp279

He was asking for SN/SA

[Max]

@thomaslaw

This “sabbe sankhara dukkha” is not in the sutta SN 22.90.

https://suttacentral.net/sa87/en/analayo

Discourse on Dukkha SA87

“Monks, is bodily form permanent or impermanent?”

The monks said to the Buddha: “It is impermanent, Blessed One.”

The Buddha said: “Monks, what is impermanent, is it dukkha?”

The monks said to the Buddha: “It is dukkha, Blessed One.”

The Buddha said: “Monks, what is impermanent, dukkha, of a nature to change, would a learned noble disciple herein regard it as the self, as distinct from the self in the sense of being owned by it, as existing within the self, or the self as existing within it?“

The monks said to the Buddha: “No, Blessed One.”

[Clarity]

@thomaslaw

Is this statement of words found in SN/SA suttas?

It’s in AN 3.136, full 3 sentences:

'sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā’ti
'sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’ti
'sabbe dhammā anattā’ti

in MN 35 and SN 22.90 only have 2 sentences:

'sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā’ti
'sabbe dhammā anattā’ti

in SN 44.10 only has 1 sentence:

'sabbe dhammā anattā’ti

Anyway, from anicca to dukkha is inevitable. So, even with 2 sentences, the meaning is still not different with 3 sentences.

[Layman]

Just asking some questions

If I crush a dough nut in to a dough ball does the hole perish? If I again make the dough ball in to a dough nut does the hole arise?.. Is it correct to say regarding the hole, ‘Uppajjitva nirujjanti’ ?

What if we say, ‘Sabbe dhamma anicca’ and someone else says Ah! That’s debatable, You can burn the tables but can you burn the idea of ‘table’ which the manayatana grasps? And not least, would it not clash with statements such like
‘Yavata, bhikkhave, dhamma sankhata va asankhata va, virago tesam aggamakkhayati’?

What if an outsider asetic for example manages to diagnose the vedayita lakkhana that is to say Vedana, and says, there certainly is a Diversity of experience but this quality of experiencing is never let aside, that is what I am?

[josephzizys]

I analysed sabbe dhama annata in this thread:

I am researching sabbe dhammā anattā

I am trying to read the SN44.10 parallel SA961, can someone more knowledgeable than me confirm that the parallel lacks the phrase “all phenomena are not self”? @cdpatton I have to admit I am hoping to hear from you

Basically this phrase is late, contested in the material itself (i.e Anandas responsento channa) and therefore probably not from the earliest strata of tge teaching.

The problem is the predicate “All”.

The i think clearly earlier phrase is

“All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation”

Here the predicate has a scope, it works very naturally with conditionality.

If you can co about saying “all” in an unqualified way then you slip into an absolutism that is anathama to early Buddhism.

The phrase itself is harmless enough if one remembers to sort of mentally squeeze the “arisen” aspect before the “dhamma” term, but it seems people often forget to do that and therfore think they have found a “metaphysical anatta” in the suttas.

But by the abayakata we have

Not atta (anatta)
Not anatta (an-anatta)
Not both
Not niether

The linked thread has plenty of detail.

[Clarity]

With your background in philosophy could you please help with these questions below:

1. From a statement “Self exists” (atthi atta), can we EVER logically come to such a conclusion as “Everything is not self” (sabbe dhammā anattā)?

2. From a statement “Self does not exist” (natthi atta), can we logically STILL NOT come to such a conclusion as “Everything is not self” (sabbe dhammā anattā)?

[Max]

@Clarity

• From a statement “Self exists” (atthi atta), can we EVER logically come to such a conclusion as “Everything is not self” (sabbe dhammā anattā)?
• From a statement “Self does not exist” (natthi atta), can we logically STILL NOT come to such a conclusion as “Everything is not self” (sabbe dhammā anattā)?

Hi , What is everything ? If you mean six senses experiences , logically speaking just some experiences . Neither experiences are self or not self . If it is everything that is beyond our experiences how would one know then isnt it ?

[Clarity]

Hi,

@Max

What is everything ?

That’s interesting question. It reminds me of the sutta about “The All” as in Sabbasutta SN 35.23.

Let’s say we define “everything” as: “all that are either conditioned or unconditioned”

For example, you pick something as “X”, then we look at “X”, see if “X” belongs to category “conditioned” or “unconditioned” or “neither”.

If “X” is proven to belongs to “neither” (or if we can’t prove that “X” belongs to either “conditioned” or “unconditioned”) then those 2 questions are not applicable, otherwise, we continue with those 2 questions.

Will it be okay for you like that?

[Max]

@Clarity

The All” as in Sabbasutta SN 35.23.

Let’s say we define “everything” as: “all that are either conditioned or unconditioned”

Per the sutta SN35.23 you mentioned and what the Buddha said , it seems nothing else can be known which you called unconditoned . The Unconditioned is but an expression for absence of the asavas .

[Clarity]

@Max

Per the sutta SN35.23 you mentioned and what the Buddha said , it seems nothing else can be known which you called unconditoned

As I have said in my previous post, I am well aware of SN 35.23

And no, it does not seems “nothing else can be known which you called unconditoned” as you said. The reason is: Nibbana is unconditioned and Nibbana can be known/realized/experienced.

@Max

The Unconditioned is but an expression for absence of the asavas .

This is your own definition of the unconditioned. However, if you look at the table in front of you, that table is absence of the asavas but it is still conditioned.

Also, I did not “reject this all and describe another all”. I tried not to make confusion by defining “the all”. Instead, I was giving you a definition of “everything” as “all that are either conditioned or unconditioned”. (Your original question was about “everything”, right?)

[Max]

@Clarity

The reason is: Nibbana is unconditioned and Nibbana can be known/realized/experienced.

Hi Clarity ,

Please reference me the sutta said Nibbana can be known .

@Clarity

This is your own definition of the unconditioned. However, if you look at the table in front of you,
that table is absence of the asavas but it is still conditioned.

No , not mine own definition but the sutttas and the Buddha , the conditioned might include inanimates but isnt only beings whom has asavas ?

@Clarity

I was giving you a definition of “everything” as “all that are either conditioned or unconditioned”.

Your given definition cannot be found in suttas as far as i see . But do provide if you do have .

Thanks

[Clarity]

@Max

Please reference me the sutta said Nibbana can be known .

Maybe you can look at SN 43.12-44 where the Buddha listed 33 ways to describe Nibbāna such as: nibbāna, unconditioned, uninclined, undefiled, the truth, the constant, the deathless, the freedom, the haven, etc.

For a noble discipline, nibbāna is known but can only be tasted at the arahant level. You can look at this SN 12.68 with the simile of water in a well for your reference.

So, I have given you references to show you that “nibbāna can be known”, do you have reference that says “nibbāna can NOT be known”?

@Max

No , not mine own definition but the sutttas and the Buddha , the conditioned might include inanimates but isnt only beings whom has asavas ?

Your definition was “The Unconditioned is but an expression for absence of the asavas .” which is a bit unclear with that word “but” which means “only”, “nothing else except”.

That’s why I gave a counter-example of inanimate object which is clearly “absence of the asavas” but is nevertheless conditioned.

@Max

Your given definition cannot be found in suttas as far as i see . But do provide if you do have .

You were asking “What is everything?”, you didn’t ask “What is all?”. In my 2 questions, I put “Everything is not self”, I didn’t put “All is not self”. As I said, I aware of SN 35.23, so I didn’t want to confuse others by saying “All is not self” or making a new definition of “the all”.

So, because you asked for definition of “everything”, I gave you definition of “everything” as
“all that are either conditioned or unconditioned”

For reference, you can have a look at AN 10.58 about “everything” (sabbe dhammā). The Buddha said in that sutta “nibbānapariyosānā sabbe dhammā” which were translated as something like “everything reaches nibbāna as perfection”.

Are you ok with that or do you want to use your own definition of “everything”? Please let me know.

[Max]

@Clarity

33 ways to describe Nibbāna such as: nibbāna, unconditioned, uninclined, undefiled, the truth, the constant, the deathless, the freedom, the haven, etc.

These are all figurative expressions or
metaphors .

@Clarity

simile of water in a well

Again is but a simile .

@Clarity

You were asking “What is everything?”, you didn’t ask “What is all?”.

@Clarity

AN 10.58 about “everything” (sabbe dhammā). The Buddha said in that sutta “nibbānapariyosānā sabbe dhammā” which were translated as something like “everything reaches nibbāna as perfection”.

Everything and all things are but the same . I suggest we should just focus on what suttas said and not individual definition ! What the Buddha taught , according to the suttas , everything can be known cannot be separated from the contact , when there is contact , knowing the conditioned is possible . However Nibbana is the simile of blowing out of the defilements .

I think i have said enough . Sorry if you couldnt catch what has been conveyed so far . However you are entitled to your own opinion though . Thanks .

[Clarity]

@Max

These are all figurative expressions or
metaphors .

No, I don’t think so. These are very very accurate descriptions of nibbāna. Anything else that does not fit these descriptions is not considered as nibbāna.

Again, I am still waiting for your reference of sutta where it says “nibbāna can NOT be known”

@Max

Again is but a simile .

It’s a very good simile for people who can understand. You underlined that part “I am not a perfected one” but you skipped the later part “Reverend Ānanda, I have nothing to say to Venerable Nārada when he speaks like this, except what is good and wholesome.” You didn’t see that Ven. Nārada in that sutta is not an arahant but at least a sotāpanna, a noble discipline who already known nibbāna but not yet tasted it.

@Max

I suggest we should just focus on what suttas said and not individual definition ! What the Buddha taught , according to the suttas , everything can be known cannot be separated from the contact , when there is contact , knowing the conditioned is possible . However Nibbana is the simile of blowing out of the defilements .

You underlined “all things are rooted in desire. They are produced by application of mind. Contact is their origin.” You didn’t see yet, these are the words meant to other “wanderers of other religions”. None of those people is at sotāpanna level, none of them knows about nibbāna.

That’s the reason, the “sabbe dhammā” in the first few sentences is simply limited to the conditioned. However, for the Buddha, when he mentioned afterwards at the end “nibbānapariyosānā sabbe dhammā”, then this is out of the other ascetics’ scope, because they can’t know nibbāna.

Anyway, fine by me, you can pick the definition of “everything” as you see fits in the sutta. It depends on individuals, the ascetics have their own definition of “sabbe dhammā” too. I have no objection for your choice. I will go with your definition that you think fits in the sutta. So, we already settled this part, how about we move on with the original questions?

@Clarity

1. From a statement “Self exists” (atthi atta), can we EVER logically come to such a conclusion as “Everything is not self” (sabbe dhammā anattā)?

2. From a statement “Self does not exist” (natthi atta), can we logically STILL NOT come to such a conclusion as “Everything is not self” (sabbe dhammā anattā)?

[knigarian]

Subjectivity is associated with the notion of permanence. So self can’t dependent on anything which is impermanent. All things are not self says that any kind of self- identification is mistaken. All sankharas are impermanent means that all things (on which notion of self is dependent) are impermanent. Since puthujjana takes his own being for granted in order to abandon attavada he must see that things on which his notion of self is dependent, are impermanent.

In the context of dependent arising any member of it is sankhara, and the following one is sankhata dhamma (and so not-self)