<p><strong>Is every Dhamma cause of suffering?</strong></p>

<p>No: as mentioned in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24508/254">this answer</a>, <em>nibanna</em> is classified as a <em>dhamma</em> (and as <em>anatta</em>) but not a cause of suffering.</p>

<p>The same source says,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā</em> — "all <em>saṅkhāras</em> are unsatisfactory"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's <em>sankharas</em> that are classified as unsatisfactory (and impermanent).</p>

<hr>

<p>But the term <em>dhamma</em> is broad and can be used (in different contexts) to mean a lot of different things -- for example, Jayarava's essay on <a href="http://jayarava.blogspot.fr/2013/05/the-simile-of-raft.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Simile of the Raft</a> identifies some of the different possible meanings of <em>dhamma</em>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-07T13:58:59.293Z
If Nibanna is not cause of suffering then why shouldn't I identify myself with it ? Why shouldn't I say I am Nibanna or I am in a state of Nibanna or Nibanna is my true self ?
Dheeraj Verma
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-07T14:26:34.923Z
That might be good to ask as a new question ("What does *Sabbe Dhamma Anatta* mean, and why is that so?"). I think it may be because identifying *anything at all* with "myself" is a cause of suffering ... i.e. it's not nibanna that's the problem, it's identity-view -- see for example verse 23 of MN 22 referenced in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/15904/254). I wonder whether, perhaps, identity-view is a type of *sankhara*.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-07T13:36:00.633Z
2018-02-07T13:36:00.633Z
ChrisW
<p>I have now spent quite sometime understanding what Lord Buddha said. Some of the fundamental things are still not clear to me.</p>

<p>For example Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Meaning all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself. But why all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself?Because all Dhammas are impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering.
Therefore can I conclude that all Dhammas are ultimately cause of suffering?</p>

<p>If that is true then why should I adopt the three jewels : Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha?</p>

<dhammas>
Is every Dhamma cause of suffering?
# Is every Dhamma cause of suffering?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-07)

I have now spent quite sometime understanding what Lord Buddha said. Some of the fundamental things are still not clear to me.

For example Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Meaning all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself. But why all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself?Because all Dhammas are impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering.
Therefore can I conclude that all Dhammas are ultimately cause of suffering?

If that is true then why should I adopt the three jewels : Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha?

**Tags:** dhammas


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-02-07. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

**Is every Dhamma cause of suffering?**

No: as mentioned in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24508/254), *nibanna* is classified as a *dhamma* (and as *anatta*) but not a cause of suffering.

The same source says,

> *sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā* — "all *saṅkhāras* are unsatisfactory"

It's *sankharas* that are classified as unsatisfactory (and impermanent).

---

But the term *dhamma* is broad and can be used (in different contexts) to mean a lot of different things -- for example, Jayarava's essay on [The Simile of the Raft](http://jayarava.blogspot.fr/2013/05/the-simile-of-raft.html) identifies some of the different possible meanings of *dhamma*.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: If Nibanna is not cause of suffering then why shouldn't I identify myself with it ? Why shouldn't I say I am Nibanna or I am in a state of Nibanna or Nibanna is my true self ?  
> **username_1**: That might be good to ask as a new question ("What does *Sabbe Dhamma Anatta* mean, and why is that so?"). I think it may be because identifying *anything at all* with "myself" is a cause of suffering ... i.e. it's not nibanna that's the problem, it's identity-view -- see for example verse 23 of MN 22 referenced in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/15904/254). I wonder whether, perhaps, identity-view is a type of *sankhara*.  

---

