Thank you Lal for your further explanation.
Lal:
I would like to respectfully point out a possible inconsistency.
In What are rūpa? – Dhammā are rūpa too!, you wrote under #18: Any rūpa (including those kamma beeja) that one makes for oneself, cannot be maintained to one’s satisfaction.
Any type of rūpa with energy will eventually be destroyed or that energy will wear out. Furthermore, they can and will change unexpectedly while in existence too; that is the viparināma characteristic and is a root cause of suffering.
And in Bhūta and Yathābhūta – What Do They Really Mean, you wrote under #19: Any rūpa that has existed or in existence now, has the “ghost-like transient nature”. That is the reason why they change unexpectedly (viparinama) and have the anicca nature.
In an earlier reply to my question in this thread, you wrote: •A tree or a house (sankata) is not sankhara and do not lead to suffering.
I understand it this way: Since a house is a rupa, it cannot be maintained to the owner’s satisfaction in the long run, and is of annica nature — but only when the owner thinks: This house is mine; I can derive much pleasure and comfort from it for as long as I want to. To those who are not owners of the house and do not desire it, it will not be of annica nature, since they have no desire to maintain it.
Hence when it undergoes decay and goes into a state of disrepair and eventual destruction, it brings despair and suffering to its owner who mistakenly thinks the house is of nicca nature (i.e. can be maintained to the owner’s satisfaction indefinitely), thus it also has dukkha nature embedded in it — only when the owner has a craving for it. To the others, the house will not bring them any dukkha.
The Buddha said: sabbe sankhara annica, sabbe sankhara dukkha, and not sabbe dhamma annica, sabbe dhamma dukkha. I think dhamma do not inherently have annica or dukkha nature, although they have anatta nature. The very act of coveting or desiring dhamma and rupa such as a house causes corresponding defiled mano sankhara, vaci sankhara and possibly kaya sankhara to arise, and it is these defiled sankhara that have the annica, dukkha and anatta nature.
Would this understanding be correct? Thank you very much in advance for your explanations.