Thanks Lal and Saket.
I came across this problem when I was looking for the Anatthalakkhana Sutta in some pali and Sinhala tipitaka’s. For example in the Buddha Jayanthi Edition of the Tripitaka I couldn’t find a Anattha Lakkhana Sutta. What we refer to as the antthalakkhana sutta is actually the panca vaggiya sutta.
It is the same with the Dhammapada references that Saket provided. The corresponding Dhammapada 277-279 in the Budhha Jayanthi version have no sub-headings like anicchalakkanavatthu etc., although such sub-headings are there in sutta central.
I could not find any other place in the tripitaka where aniccha lakkana or the term “thilakkana” is explicitly mentioned. So if you do come across this please let me know.
I did not want to write about this at the beginning but on further thought I thought it would be good to write something as it might help to distinguish between the differences in aniccha and anithya (impermanence). Again some might see this as simply word play and etymology but it helped me to understand it a bit better.
Aniccha is referred to as a sanna (sign or perception) that should be cultivated. This is the same for dukka, anaththa, asuba, pahaana, anicche dukka, dukke anaththa etc.
Lakkhana (lakshsana) could be taken to mean a mark or characteristic and is different to a perception or a sign. For example there is a man standing in front of us and he has a few characteristics. His height and skin colour, hair colour, his clothes etc. are all characteristics. And these characteristics can be seen by anyone looking at the man and won’t change based on who is looking at him. However the sanna (perception) that different people will take from this man can differ. Some will see him as good or evil or intelligent, my father or friend etc. These are perceptions and are not something inherently in that man and will differ based on who is looking at the man.
So how I understand this is; impermanence (addhuvang), change (viparinama), decay (vaya) etc are all characteristics of any object or person. For example that is why it is said “vayo sankatha lakkanang”. However aniccha, the fact that we cannot maintain anything to our liking, is not a characteristic of the object but a perception we create because of that object. So there has to be someone who sees that object as niccha or aniccha or asubha etc. Without that person seeing it that way there can be no aniccha in that object. So it is we who cultivate that niccha or aniccha perception of an object. Therefore aniccha is not a characteristic (lakkhana) because if it were a characteristic anyone looking at it will see it like that.
This is the same with dukkha. If everything has the characteristic of dukkha there is no way out of dukkha until we eliminate everything in this world. However I don’t think dukkha is inherently in an object but it is created (brought on) by a person who doesn’t see the aniccha nature of it. That is why all though everything is said to be dukkha, there is a way out of all this dukkha. By seeing it or perceiving it differently.
So in conclusion I would say that aniccha, dukkha, anattha, asuba etc. are all perceptions that we create and not something inherent in an object, while impermanence is something inherent in an object and can be seen by anyone observing it. So, it is not the impermanent characteristic that gives dukkha but how one perceives it, by perceiving it as niccha, subha etc. that brings about dukkha.