The 3 characteristics sutta Found in the Pali Vinaya, Mahàvagga, 1^st Khandhaka Transl. Bodhangkur Mahathero Note: The sutta is of unknown provenance, and probably late. Both the 1st part dealing with anatta and the last part dealing with the eradication of the asavas appears to have been added later since they are fundamentally redundant as (fundmental) causes of dukkha.

Critique The earliest reasons suggested by the Buddha as cause of dukkha where his 2 fundamental insights: ‘Whatever is born dies.’ (temporality) ‘Things (dharmas) arise subject to conditions; they cease subject to conditions.’ (conditioned arising and relativity)

The Bhagavat said: “Bhikkhus, consciousness is not SELF. Were consciousness SELF, consciousness would not deteriorate (i.e. change), and one could have it of consciousness: ‘My consciousness is this, my consciousness is not this.’ And since consciousness not SELF, so it leads to deterioration, and none can have it of consciousness: ‘My consciousness is this, my consciousness is not this’.” “Bhikkhus, feeling not SELF …(repeat above).” “Bhikkhus, perception not SELF …(repeat above).” “Bhikkhus, formation not SELF …(repeat above). “Bhikkhus, material form not SELF …(repeat above).” ……….. “Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it:” “Is consciousness permanent or transient? ” “Transient, Sir.” “Now is what is transient distressing or not distressing?” “Distressing, Sir.” “And that which is transient, distressing, changing according to the law, is it clever to see it as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my SELF?’” “No, Sir.” “Is feeling permanent or transient? …(repeat above).” “Is perception permanent or inconstant? …(repeat above).” “Is formation permanent or inconstant? …(repeat above).” “Is material form permanent or transient? …(repeat above).” “So, bhikkhus whatever consciousness, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding be regarded as it is: ‘This not mine, this not I am, this not my SELF.’ ” “Whatever feeling … (repeat above).” “Whatever perception …(repeat above).” “Whatever formation …(repeat above).” “Whatever material form, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding be regarded as it is: ‘This not mine, this not I am, this not my SELF’. ” …………….. “Bhikkhus, when an learned Aryan hearer sees thus, he finds disgust in consciousness, he finds disgust in sensation, he finds disgust in perception, he finds disgust in formation, he finds disgust in material form. When he finds disgust, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He discerns: ‘Birth is exhausted, the pure life is completed, the deed is done, there is no further return to this.’”  ………………. That is what the Bhagavat said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words. Now during this utterance, the minds of the bhikkhus of the group of five were, by not clinging, liberated from the intoxicants. And there were then six worthies in the world.

The Buddha did not at any time define the term ‘ atta’ save (as here) that it does not deteriorate (i.e. that it’s ‘abiding’ (meaning permanent ... see part 2). Hence the argument is spurious. A connection between the deterioration of the atta and dukkha is not made as in the 2nd part. A connection is made between ownership and dukkha. It is likely that this argument was introduced later to counter the claims made by Vedantins about the atta (i.e. atma). more The answer: ‘distressing’ (i.e. dukkha) is naive. It should have been: “that depends on conditions!” and when the argument would have collapsed. More about dukkha Since the SELF (i.e. atta) is not defined save in its impermanence, the argument is spurious. For why cannot my (or the) SELF be mine even if it is impermanent. This should mean that the Aryan hearer has achieved buddhahood, not merely the status of a ‘worthy’. This is an obvious populist morality (and thus political) add on from a later period. The elimination of the asavas, i.e. intoxicants has absolutely nothing to do with the foregoing. Indeed whoever concocted this late upgrade to Buddhist dukkha avoidance theory got it completely wrong. Dukkha, like sukkha, happen as generic bio-systems (survival) status reports independent of both temporality and identity, permanent or impermanent.