Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta
The Discourse on the Characteristic of Not-Self
[20] At that time, the Blessed One addressed the group of five bhikkhus:
“Bhikkhus, rūpa is anattā (not-self). If this rūpa were attā, then rūpa would not lead to affliction, and one could declare regarding rūpa: ‘Let my rūpa be thus; let my rūpa not be thus.’ But because rūpa is anattā, it leads to affliction, and one cannot declare concerning rūpa: ‘Let my rūpa be thus; let my rūpa not be thus.’
vedanā is anattā. If this vedanā were attā, then vedanā would not lead to affliction, and one could declare: ‘Let my vedanā be thus; let my vedanā not be thus.’ But because vedanā is anattā, it leads to affliction, and one cannot declare regarding vedanā: ‘Let my vedanā be thus; let my vedanā not be thus.’
saññā is anattā. If this saññā were attā, then saññā would not lead to affliction, and one could declare: ‘Let my saññā be thus; let my saññā not be thus.’ But because saññā is anattā, it leads to affliction, and one cannot declare concerning saññā: ‘Let my saññā be thus; let my saññā not be thus.’
saṅkhārā are anattā. If these saṅkhārā were attā, then saṅkhārā would not lead to affliction, and one could declare: ‘Let my saṅkhārā be thus; let my saṅkhārā not be thus.’ But because saṅkhārā are anattā, they lead to affliction, and one cannot declare concerning saṅkhārā: ‘Let my saṅkhārā be thus; let my saṅkhārā not be thus.’
viññāṇa is anattā. If this viññāṇa were attā, then viññāṇa would not lead to affliction, and one could declare: ‘Let my viññāṇa be thus; let my viññāṇa not be thus.’ But because viññāṇa is anattā, it leads to affliction, and one cannot declare regarding viññāṇa: ‘Let my viññāṇa be thus; let my viññāṇa not be thus.’
The Blessed One Questions the Five Bhikkhus
[21] The Blessed One asked: “Bhikkhus, what do you think: Is rūpa permanent or impermanent?”
The five bhikkhus replied: “Impermanent, Bhante.”
“And what is impermanent — is that dukkha or sukha?”
“Dukkha, Bhante.”
“And what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change — is it fitting to regard it thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”
“That is not fitting, Bhante.”
“And vedanā — permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, Bhante.” “And what is impermanent — dukkha or sukha?” “Dukkha, Bhante.” “And is it fitting to regard it as ‘mine, I am, my self’?” “Not fitting, Bhante.”
“And saññā — permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, Bhante.” “And what is impermanent — dukkha or sukha?” “Dukkha, Bhante.” “And is it fitting to regard it as ‘mine, I am, my self’?” “Not fitting, Bhante.”
“And saṅkhārā — permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, Bhante.” “And what is impermanent — dukkha or sukha?” “Dukkha, Bhante.” “And is it fitting to regard them as ‘mine, I am, my self’?” “Not fitting, Bhante.”
“And viññāṇa — permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, Bhante.” “And what is impermanent — dukkha or sukha?” “Dukkha, Bhante.” “And is it fitting to regard it as ‘mine, I am, my self’?” “Not fitting, Bhante.”
Seeing with Yathābhūta-ñāṇa-dassana
(Understanding things as they truly are)
[22] “Therefore, bhikkhus, any rūpa whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near — should be seen as only rūpa, with right wisdom, as it truly is: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Any vedanā whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near — should be seen with right wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Any saññā whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near — should be seen with right wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Any saṅkhārā whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near — should be seen with right wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Any viññāṇa whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near — should be seen with right wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Disenchantment → Dispassion → Liberation
[23] “Bhikkhus, an ariya-disciple who hears this teaching and sees it thus becomes disenchanted with rūpa, disenchanted with vedanā, disenchanted with saññā, disenchanted with saṅkhārā, disenchanted with viññāṇa.
Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, the mind is liberated. When it is liberated, he knows: ‘It is liberated.’
He understands clearly: ‘Birth is ended, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no further becoming of this kind.’”
[24] When the Blessed One had spoken this discourse, the group of five bhikkhus rejoiced in his words. And while this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the five bhikkhus were liberated from the āsavas through non-clinging.
End of the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta