Anattalakhana sutta
(A) On the full moon day of Waso, at Isipatana, Migadawon forest near Varanasi, Buddha taught the Dhammacakka Pavattana to five ascetics; Kondanna, Vappa, Boddiya, Mahanam and Assaji. ( five ascetics = the group of five were the monks who had previously followed the Bodhisatta while he was practicing austerities and who later heard the First Discourse and became the Buddha's first disciples.)
(B) In succession by one another after attainment of Sotapatti Phala on consecutive days, (on the 5th of waning Waso month) Buddha taught them the Anatta Lakkhana sutta for the attainment of Arahatta Phala. O, Good persons, let's recite this Anatta Lakkhana sutta now.
The introduction of Anattalakkha Sutta:
At one time, Buddha was staying in Isipatana, the Deer park, near the township of Varanasi. There the the Bhagava addressed the group of five Bhikkhus 'O! Bhikkhus, and the Bhikkhus answered, " Bhante" , then the Bhagava spoke thus: -
"Matter, Bhikkhus, is neither the self nor a living entity" If matter, Bhikkhus, were the self, then matter would not tend to sickness, and one could say of matter, "Thus let matter happen to me this way (in favorable condition), let matter not to happen to me this way (in unfavorable condition)". But, Bhikkhus in as much as matter is not the self, which is why matter tends to sickness. And one cannot say of matter, "Thus let matter be thus for me, let matter not be thus for me."
"Feeling, Bhikkhus, is neither the self nor a living entity" If feeling, Bhikkhus, were the self, then feeling would not tend to sickness, and one could say of feeling, "Thus let feeling happen to me this way (in favorable condition), let feeling not to happen to me this way (in unfavorable condition)". But, Bhikkhus in as much as feeling is not the self, which is why feeling tends to sickness. And one cannot say of feeling, "Thus let feeling be thus for me, let feeling not be thus for me."
"Perception, Bhikkhus, is neither the self nor a living entity" If perception, Bhikkhus, were the self, then perception would not tend to sickness, and one could say of perception, "Thus let perception happen to me this way (in favorable condition), let perception not to happen to me this way (in unfavorable condition)". But, Bhikkhus in as much as perception is not the self, which is why perception tends to sickness. And one cannot say of perception, "Thus let perception be thus for me, let perception not be thus for me."
"Mental formation, Bhikkhus, is neither the self nor a living entity" If mental formation, Bhikkhus, were the self, then mental formation would not tend to sickness, and one could say of mental formation, "Thus let mental formation happen to me this way (in favorable condition), let mental formation not to happen to me this way (in unfavorable condition)". But, Bhikkhus in as much as mental formation is not the self, which is why mental formation tends to sickness. And one cannot say of mental formation, "Thus let mental formation be thus for me, let mental formation not be thus for me."
"Consciousness, Bhikkhus, is neither the self nor a living entity" If consciousness, Bhikkhus, were the self, then consciousness would not tend to sickness, and one could say of consciousness, "Thus let consciousness happen to me this way (in favorable condition), let consciousness not to happen to me this way (in unfavorable condition)". But, Bhikkhus in as much as consciousness is not the self, which is why consciousness tends to sickness. And one cannot say of consciousness, "Thus let consciousness be thus for me, let consciousness not be thus for me."
What do you think of this, Bhikkhus? Is matter permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, Bhante. And Bhikkhus, what is impermanent, is that suffering or happiness? Suffering, Bhante. Then, Bhikkhus what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, is it fitting to regard it thus, "This is mine, this is I, this is the self for me?" Not fitting, Bhante.
Is feeling permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, Bhante. And Bhikkhus, what is impermanent, is that suffering or happiness? Suffering, Bhante. Then, Bhikkhus what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, is it fitting to regard it thus, "This is mine, this is I, this is the self for me?" Not fitting, Bhante.
Is perception permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, Bhante. And Bhikkhus, what is impermanent, is that suffering or happiness? Suffering, Bhante. Then, Bhikkhus what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, is it fitting to regard it thus, "This is mine, this is I, this is the self for me?" Not fitting, Bhante.
Is mental formation permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, Bhante. And Bhikkhus, what is impermanent, is that suffering or happiness? Suffering, Bhante. Then, Bhikkhus what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, is it fitting to regard it thus, "This is mine, this is I, this is the self for me?" Not fitting, Bhante.
Is consciousness permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, Bhante. And Bhikkhus, what is impermanent, is that suffering or happiness? Suffering, Bhante. Then, Bhikkhus what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, is it fitting to regard it thus, "This is mine, this is I, this is the self for me?" Not fitting, Bhante.
Therefore, Bhikkhus, being impermanent, suffering and subject to change, whatever matter there is, be it past, future or present, inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or lofty, far or near, matter of all kinds should be regarded by right wisdom, " This is not mine, this I am not, this is not the self for me."
Therefore, Bhikkhus, being impermanent, suffering and subject to change, whatever feeling there is, be it past, future or present, inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or lofty, far or near, feeling of all kinds should be regarded by right wisdom, " This is not mine, this I am not, this is not the self for me."
Therefore, Bhikkhus, being impermanent, suffering and subject to change, whatever perception there is, be it past, future or present, inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or lofty, far or near, perception of all kinds should be regarded by right wisdom, " This is not mine, this I am not, this is not the self for me."
Therefore, Bhikkhus, being impermanent, suffering and subject to change, whatever mental formation there is, be it past, future or present, inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or lofty, far or near, mental formation of all kinds should be regarded by right wisdom, " This is not mine, this I am not, this is not the self for me."
Therefore, Bhikkhus, being impermanent, suffering and subject to change, whatever consciousness there is, be it past, future or present, inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or lofty, far or near, consciousness of all kinds should be regarded by right wisdom, " This is not mine, this I am not, this is not the self for me."
So seen, Bhikkhus, the well taught noble disciple is disgusted with matter, disgusted with feeling, disgusted with perception, disgusted with mental formation, disgusted with consciousness. So being disgusted, he is dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is free from craving. When he is freed, he knows that it is freedom. Further he knows that birth is ended. The Holy life has been lived. What was to be done has been done. Nothing further has to be done for this noble path.
This is what the Buddha had said and the group of five Bhikkhus was delighted and rejoiced at what the Buddha had explained. After this explanation was done, the minds of five Bhikkhus were freed from Asava; ( four Asava: desire, craving, wrong belief, ignorance).
Here ends the Anattalakhana sutta.
