and just as a little follow up to the above, consider:
They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by choices and intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation.’
‘Yaṁ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ tadaniccaṁ nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti.
MN52 MN121 AN11.16
“Mendicants, this body doesn’t belong to you or to anyone else.
“Nāyaṁ, bhikkhave, kāyo tumhākaṁ napi aññesaṁ.
It’s old deeds, and should be seen as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt.
Purāṇamidaṁ, bhikkhave, kammaṁ abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ vedaniyaṁ daṭṭhabbaṁ.
“Do you see that when that fuel ceases, what has come to be is liable to cease?”
“Tadāhāranirodhā yaṁ bhūtaṁ, taṁ nirodhadhammanti, bhikkhave, passathā”ti?
One truly sees with right wisdom that when that fuel ceases, what has come to be is liable to cease.
Tadāhāranirodhā yaṁ bhūtaṁ taṁ nirodhadhammanti yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya passati.
Seeing this, one is practicing for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding what is liable to cease.
Tadāhāranirodhā yaṁ bhūtaṁ taṁ nirodhadhammanti yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya disvā nirodhadhammassa nibbidāya virāgāya nirodhāya paṭipanno hoti.
Old age and death are impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away, and cease.
Jarāmaraṇaṁ, bhikkhave, aniccaṁ saṅkhataṁ paṭiccasamuppannaṁ khayadhammaṁ vayadhammaṁ virāgadhammaṁ nirodhadhammaṁ.
And also their knowledge that even this knowledge of the stability of natural principles is liable to end, vanish, fade away, and cease.
yampissa taṁ dhammaṭṭhitiñāṇaṁ tampi khayadhammaṁ vayadhammaṁ virāgadhammaṁ nirodhadhammanti ñāṇaṁ.
So you have a quite common and pithy turn of phrase about the teaching; yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman that is symmetrical and balanced, spread across all 4 principle Nikayas, in the Vinaya, and then, popping up here and there, rarer constructions, sometimes confined to one or two Nikayas, sometimes confined to just one or two suttas, that seem to use several similar words to convey a similar idea, but now applied specific doctrinal ideas and so on.
finally you get sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā and saṅkhārā anattā in the rare instances that it does occur as a kind of culmination of this trend.
I think ultimately the problem with this kind of concordance @Jasudho is precisely that the most common contemporary claims most often rely on precisely the rarest ancient attestations.
How many times have you heard from a contemporary that the body is old kamma? it’s given as a truism, something one will presumably find all over the suttas, but as far as I can tell it occurs exactly once, at SN12.37, in the whole canon (it’s quoted in the Nidessa).
A moments reflection tells us why it’s rare, because it’s wrong, if the body is past kamma then we have not Buddhism but Jainism, and thus it’s not in fact repeated all over the place because it’s not meant to be taken as doctrine but rather as poetic language, which it is, and if not taken literally but figuratively is fine.
collecting these things really probably needs to start with something along the lines of https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/ but for the hyperbolic exaggerations of Buddhist scholars.
These days whenever I see a claim along the lines of “it is a well known fact” or “a frequently made statement in the early buddhist texts” or anything like that I am immediately suspicious, and head off to DPR to find the truth.
speaking of SN12.37 purāṇamidaṃ kammaṃ or old kamma may be unique to it, but one of my favorite short definitions of conditionality also occurs in it, iti imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti; imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati; imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti; imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati which again I always thought was “common” widespread" etc etc, and it is more widespread than some of the above discussed examples, but really, it’s absent from the Vinaya, absent from DN, absent from the abhidhamma, occurs in only 3 suttas of MN; MN38 MN79 MN115
a collection of SN12 sutta starting at SN12.21 and again once at SN55.28 then once in AN at AN10.92 and a couple of times in the Udana…
This means for me, as a growing skeptic of the whole “the Buddha basically taught the contents of the sutta pitaka during his lifetime” school of thought, that most likely iti imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti; imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati; imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti; imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati is not in fact an indisputable teaching of the Buddha but more likely a later pithy summary of such.
Thats fine, I don’t need the Buddha to have said every word for me to believe it, but I suspect others might not feel the same, anyway, my basic standard now is something that Rhys Davids is alledged to have said, that the earliest teachings are “The simple statements of Buddhist doctrine now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.”
This standard rules out iti imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti; imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati; imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti; imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati (although 3 out of 4 aain’t bad as they say).
it in fact rules out quite a bit. I think it is for this reason that you see a lot of people leery of DN, they would rather rule it out than have to rule out some of their favorite articulations of doctrine.
basically a lot of what we take to be the “common” “standard” teaching of Buddhism, even amongst western contemporary scholars, seems to be hugely and disproportionately influenced by the Nidessa, and rarely based on actual word counts or standards like “all 4 principle Nikayas”.
for me its a bit like harry potter and dobby the elf. if you discovered some tattered and damaged books, and you could decifer only the names of the characters, and 4 volumes have harry and hermione and hagrid and one volume has harry and hermione and hagrid and dobby the elf, you can reasonably infer that most likely dobby the elf is an addition or new character, while harry and hermione and hagrid, being in both the dobby and non dobby volumes, are the original characters.
This is why for example it seems reasonable to infer that the jhana formula precedes and predates the mindfulness of breathing formula since vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati occurs on all 4 Nikayas, dozens of times, while dīghaṃ vā assasanto occurs about one tenth as often and if we remove DN22 (since it is obviously imported form MN10) then it doesn’t occur at all in DN.