Reply To: Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta in relation to dhamma and various types of sankhara


Lal wrote:
“The verse that you quoted DOES NOT say that “sabbe sankhara LEAD TO dukkha.”
It just says, “sabbe sankhara dukkha” OR “All sankhara are suffering.”

For a long time I thought the two phrases “sabbe sankhara annica” and “sabbe sankhara dukkha” meant “everything sankhara can LEAD to is anicca and causes suffering.” Not that “all sankhara ARE anicca” or “all sankhara ARE suffering.”

That makes a big difference(the sankhara itself vs what the sankhara can lead to). And changes a lot of things.

For one, if it is all sankhara are suffering then my first analysis would appear to be wrong. Because I deduced apunnabhisankhara and punnabhisankhara to be suffering in terms of what each can LEAD to rather than apunnabisankhara/punnabhisankhara as BEING suffering.

In this site sankhara has been defined as THOUGHTS, even kaya sankhara. For example vaci sankhara is not the speech itself but the THOUGHTS that lead to speech. Kaya sankhara is not the bodily action itself but the THOUGHTS that lead to the bodily action.

So in “sabbe sankhara anicca” and “sabbe sankhara dukkha”, the “sankhara” does not include speech itself or bodily action itself? It just means thoughts? As in “all THOUGHTS are anicca” or “all THOUGHTS are suffering?”