I read this Sutta and noticed something I didn't ever before.
Why is it "Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā" and "Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā" but "Sabbe dhammā anattā"?4. Uppādāsuttaṃ
137. ‘‘Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā. Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti – ‘sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā’ti. Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā. Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti – ‘sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’ti. Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. Sabbe dhammā anattā. Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti – ‘sabbe dhammā anattā’’’ti. Catutthaṃ. (A.3.137)
Okay all saṅkhārā (formations) are aniccā, dukkhā and anattā. Why not all dhammā? I thought all dhammā (everything*) would be aniccā, dukkhā and anattā. Does it imply that all dhamma (which includes saṅkhārā) are anattā but not all dhammā (things) are aniccā and dukkhā?
Maybe everything* is just a saṅkhāra. So it would be a dhamma too but are there maybe dhammā which aren't saṅkhārā? Oh...! Guess I have it now! nibbāna is a dhamma, right? but not a saṅkhāra, right? This would clarify it...
Did I understand that correctly? Questions upon questions...my apologies. I'm a little bit confused now... But I think I understood it while I was writing this thread.
best wishes