The logical implications of anicca

[JDavid]

My point was that I am confused about what Ven. @sujato meant (below) about the use of dhamma rather than sankhara in the formula “sabbe dhammā anattā”. The early texts give examples of classes of things that are regarded as anattā. I can see that the formula “sabbe dhammā anattā” is a principle (dhamma in that sense). The texts assert, for every instance, x, of any khandha, that x is anatta. So the domain of things that are anatta is not restricted to instances of principles of the teachings as Ven. @sujato seems to be saying. Hence my confusion.

@sujato

The reason for the difference between the use of sankhara and dhamma is not because one of them includes Nibbana. It is because dhamma here means “principle” as in, the laws of nature: dependent origination, the four noble truths, and so on. They are descriptions of how the world is, so they are not themselves “impermanent” (since they are always accurate descriptions of samsara) nor are they suffering. They are, however, clearly not self.