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.

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.