Sabbe dhamma anatta

Q & A
21

Hi,

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?

22

Screenshot_20231006_123500_Chrome
Screenshot_20231006_123500_Chrome1080×1997 131 KB

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 .

23

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.

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?)

24

Hi Clarity ,

Please reference me the sutta said Nibbana can be known .

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

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

Thanks

25

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”?

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.

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.

26

These are all figurative expressions or
metaphors .

Again is but a simile .

Screenshot_20231007_003242_Chrome
Screenshot_20231007_003242_Chrome1080×2119 134 KB

Screenshot_20231007_002836_Chrome
Screenshot_20231007_002836_Chrome1080×1995 150 KB

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 .

27

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”

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.

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?

28

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)

1 Like
29

“Sabbe dhamma” means all dhamma’s, plural.

This means that the buddha is referring to conditioned dhammas, as multiplicity means conditioned.

Nibbana is unconditioned and so cannot be included in this statement.

30

No, all things means all things, including nibbana. All sankharas are impermanent, all sankharas are dukkha, here indeed, nibbana as unconditioned, cannot be included in this statement.

In Suttas “self” is always associated with wrong view, self-identification with certain thing or sakkayaditthi. But nibbana is the cessation of sakkaya.

31

The view “no-self” is considered equally erroneous.
Both the view of self and of no self are a thicket of views to be abanded.
Then the citta is relased and pure when there is non-clinging to the aggregates, and there is parisuddha citta.
Nibbana is not another “thing”.
It is unconditioned and so by definition cannot be included in “sabbe dhamma”.
If the buddha meant that nibbana is not self he would have said “dhamma anatta”.
He only ever pointed to the aggregates being non-self, only what is subject to clinging is non-self.

Nibbana is not subject to clinging. And is beyond both the views of self and non self.

32

The view “there is no self” indeed is a wrong view, but I wonder why do you care to inform me about it, since to see any thing as: this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self, does not fall into direct negation of self.

That’s fine. In order to see Dhamma, puthujjana must abandon sakkayadithi and to go beyond being/ not being dialectic. So you have to see all things as: this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self. In other words you should not delight in them.

But since you say that according to you nibbana cannot be classified as “thing” there is also no danger of self-identification with it.

However MN 1 should introduce some amount of uncertainty regarding your position:

From extinction he has a percept of extinction; having had from extinction a percept of extinction, he conceives (that to be) extinction, he conceives (that to be) in extinction, he conceives (that to be apart) from extinction, he conceives extinction to be ‘Mine’, he relishes extinction. Why is that? He has not fully diagnosed it, I say.

I myself am not certain about the passage, but sometimes nibbana is discussed as a “base” which may suggest that it could be also recognised as a “thing”.

So from practical point of view the most important is to recognise that “there is no self” is as much attavada as view which affirms self, and this you seem to have no any problem to acknowledge. Whether nibbana can be classified as a thing or not, it is rather unimportant dialectic as long as one agrees that all things with which puthujjana can identify his self are in fact not-self.

33

Does “all dhammas” here mean everything that can be experienced?

34

Yes, otherwise how would you know about the thing which cannot be experienced. But such definition does not free us from ambiguity since there is dialectic: can nibbana be experienced?

And this dialectic cannot be solved without previous analysis of the term “experience” and “nibbana”.

But from practical point of view we can admit that danger of self-identification with nibbana, if at all possible, isn’t something with what puthujjana has to usually struggle in his everyday experience, where the self-identification with the body is predominant.

35

Im telling you because you only mentioned the view of self, and not of not self, and this is an unbalanced analysis.

Someone in theravadin history has decided that ‘sabbe dhamma anatta’ includes nibbana, and its wrong. Just because an interpretation like this is old, and ubiquitous in tradition doesnt make it right.

The excerpt of the sutta you provided is all about having a realisation, and then turning it into ‘conceiving’. Conceiving is a process of the mind.

He is inferring that one should just know, with direct awareness, rather than add conceiving to it, as conceiving is a process of the mind and therfore conditioned and filters perception erroneously.

One needs to attain to samadhi to see dhamma, which is without mental process and conceiving, and i agree sakkayadhitti must be abandoned in order to see without this personality bias.

My point is that nibbana is unconditioned, its not something that can be abandoned because it is not an object. It can’t be identified with.

What is left when all that is not self is abandoned?

36

Whether one asserts or negates self both views are opposite side of the same mistake and are just modification of attavada, it looks like we don’t understand each other…

Asankhata dhatu. But it is better to focus one’s practice on anatta:

…the sense ‘I am’ is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it — body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not.

Q: Then what am I?
M: It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are. For as long as knowledge means description in terms of what is already known, perceptual, or conceptual, there can be no such thing as self-knowledge, for what you are cannot be described, except as except as total negation. All you can say is: ‘I am not this, I am not that’. You cannot meaningfully say ‘this is what I am’. It just makes no sense. What you can point out as ‘this’ or ‘that’ cannot be yourself. Surely, you can not be ‘something’ else. You are nothing perceivable, or imaginable.

M : Discover all you are not. Body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, time, space, being and not-being, this or that — nothing concrete or abstract you can point out to is you. A mere verbal statement will not do — you may repeat a formula endlessly without any result whatsoever. You must watch your-self continuously — particularly your mind — moment by moment, missing nothing. This witnessing is essential for the separation of the self from the not-self.

Q: The witnessing — is it not my real nature?
M: For witnessing, there must be something else to witness. We are still in duality!
Q: What about witnessing the witness? Awareness of awareness?
M: Putting words together will not take you far. Go within and discover what you are not. Nothing else matters.

M - Nisargadatta Maharaj

37

I agree with all these sentiments wholeheartedly.
And i am on the same page as you and agree that both views of self and non self are the same mistake. Which is why i made the comment that the view of non-self is a mistake.

And I also agree that anything that can be perceived in a dualistic manner is not self.

My point is that the buddha was not an absolutist, and so he always pointed to what the self ‘is not’, as the reality of ones true nature cannot be represented by a definition, and so he would never have meant ‘nibbana is not-self’ which is what is understood by traditonal theravadins to be included in the statement ‘sabbe dhamma anatta’, because nibbana is not another perception.

Thats all im trying to say.

And my comment was really for the person who put up the original post.

38

I’m curious to know, given the various comments, do you feel that you understand this issue now? How would you now answer your own question?

39

If Nibbana can’t be experienced, what’s the point in trying to attain it?

1 Like
40

Now, that is rather easy to answer namely, feeling is inseparable aspect of experience. But whatever is felt, counts as suffering. And nobody wants to suffer. :smiling_face:

The burden of feeling! The burden of having to feel!
…
… I was free from having to feel. It was in a certain sense home – the place, that is, where one doesn’t feel. Pessoa
**
M: All experience is time bound. Whatever has a beginning must have an end.
…
M: Beyond the mind there is no such thing as experience. Experience is a dual state. You cannot talk of reality as an experience.
…
…rest is freedom from experience.
…
It is not experience that you need, but the freedom from all experience. Don’t be greedy for experience; you need none.

M -Nisargadatta Maharaj

**

The venerable Sāriputta said this:—It is extinction, friends, that is pleasant! It is extinction, friends, that is pleasant! When this was said, the venerable Udāyi said to the venerable Sāriputta,—But what herein is pleasant, friend Sāriputta, since herein there is nothing felt?—Just this is pleasant, friend, that herein there is nothing felt.’

Anguttara IX,iv,3 <A.iv,414>
*

“It is possible, Ānanda, that wanderers of other sects might speak thus: ‘The recluse Gotama speaks of the cessation of perception and feeling and he describes that as pleasure. What is this, and how is this?’ Wanderers of other sects who speak thus should be told: ‘Friends, the Blessed One describes pleasure not only with reference to pleasant feeling; rather, friends, the Tathāgata describes as pleasure any kind of pleasure wherever and in whatever way it is found.’”

MN 59