<p>The Pali phrase in the Suñña Sutta is,</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>suññam idaṃ attena vā attaniyena vā</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>... which <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81#Pali_Canon" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> translates as,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>this world is empty of self or anything pertaining to self</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The word <em>attena</em> is a declension of <a href="http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:533.pali" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Attan</a>, which is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ātman</a> in Sanskrit/Hinduism:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ātman is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation, a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... which is cognate to (or opposed to, to be contrasted with) the Buddhist Pali term <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anatta</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of &quot;non-self&quot;, that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in living beings. It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism, and along with Dukkha (suffering) and Anicca (impermanence), it is one of three Right Understandings about the three marks of existence.</p>
<p>The concept of Anatta or Anatman in Buddhism, is a major difference from the Hindu concept of Atman (self, soul).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Maybe that helps to explain what &quot;self-nature&quot; might mean, or whence it's derived, in &quot;the original sutras&quot;.</p>
<p>See also topics which are tagged <a href="/questions/tagged/anatman" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;anatman&#39;" rel="tag">anatman</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>Furthermore, the term <em>bhava</em> appears a lot in &quot;the original sutras&quot; in that it's one of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas#Becoming" rel="nofollow noreferrer">12 Nidanas</a> and thus part of the theory of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da#The_Twelve_Nidanas" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dependent origination</a>.</p>
<p>In <em>Svabhava</em> (or the Pali <em>sabhāva</em>) there's the word <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhava</a> plus the root <a href="http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:2494.pali" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sa</a> which means &quot;own&quot;, a reflexive pronoun cognate to the Latin <em>sui</em>, <em>suus</em>.</p>
<p>In the Pali, &quot;becoming&quot; is dependently originated. The whole <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/14503/explain-this-theravada-wheel-of-life">wheel of becoming</a> is about how various things which shouldn't be considered 'self' sustain or feed each other, so I take it that (independent) self-becoming is a paradox, a contradiction, which explains the quote in the OP &quot;all phenomenon have no nature of their own&quot;.</p>
<p>If this isn't clear, and/or this appears to contradict other answers, perhaps that's because there are (or there are posited) several categories of self-nature (see e.g. <a href="http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library/essays/yogacara-part3.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tri-svabhava-nirdesa</a>).</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svabhava#Therav.C4.81da" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> says,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the Pāli canon, &quot;sabhāva&quot; is absent from what are generally considered to be the earliest texts.[a] When found in later texts (e.g., the paracanonical Milindapañha), it generically refers to state (of mind), character or truth.</p>
<p>In the post-canonical Abhidhamma literature, sabhāva is used to distinguish an irreducible, dependent, momentary phenomenon (dhamma) from a conventionally constructed object. Thus, a collection of visual and tactile phenomena might be mentally constructed into what is conventionally referred to as a &quot;table&quot;; but, beyond its constituent elements, a construct such as &quot;table&quot; lacks intrinsic existence (sabhāva).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think that this example (of the non-self of a table) is analogous to the parable of the chariot from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milinda_Panha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Milinda Panha</a>. Wikipedia dates the Milinda Panha to about 100 CE, which I contrast with the lifetime of the Buddha in about 400 BCE.</p>
<p>As you progress (forward in history) into the foundations of Mahayana you get to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nagarjuna (150 to 250 CE)</a>. The SEP says this about <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/#EmpSva" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Emptiness and <em>svabhāva</em></a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The central concept around which all of Nāgārjuna's philosophy is built is the notion of emptiness (śūnyatā). Emptiness is of course always the emptiness of something, and the something Nāgārjuna has in mind here is svabhāva. Different terms have been used to translate this word into English: “inherent existence” and “intrinsic nature” appear etc.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Fwiw <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svabhava" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> says of <em>Svabhava</em>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the Mahāyāna Buddhadharma tradition(s) it is one of a suite of terms employed to denote the Buddha-nature</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-13T07:22:26.737Z
Pali words can have multiple meanings. Thus, 'bhava' & 'bhāva' are used in different words, such as 'bhāvana' ('cultivation'). Also, some pre-Buddhist words get redefined in Buddhism. For example, "atta' is a pre-Buddhist word meaning "soul" because people believed they had or were a soul. But for Buddha, there was no soul therefore why would Buddha teach about "no-soul"? This would be like teaching about 'no god', which would make little difference to suffering. Buddha used 'atta" to refer to "self", since the mind's of people actually construct ideas of self that are intrinsic to suffering.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-13T09:24:08.393Z
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava -- `The Sanskrit word "bhāva" (भाव) means "emotion, sentiment, state of body or mind, disposition", while "bhava" (भव) means "being, worldly existence, becoming, birth, be, production, origin". The former term is rooted in latter, and in some context also means "becoming, being, existing, occurring, appearance" while connoting the condition thereof.` The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava#In_Ramakrishna_Mission gives examples of various *...bhāva* words as various kinds of mental attitude or emotion.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-13T09:56:45.220Z
@Dhammadhatu By the way, thank you for pointing out that I made an error.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-13T01:59:01.380Z
2016-07-13T06:39:45.913Z
2020-06-17T09:56:10.877Z
ChrisW
<p>Of what I’ve read and heard of so far, in the scriptures (Sutta-Vinaya – but I’m not in a position to quote) the emphasis on impermanence, or becoming, is not a belief in nothingness. As per the scriptures existence is real, but it is transitory. In the later day Mahayana, it was the later philosopher Nagarjuna, who brought in the concept of sunyata.  He argued against the belief that somehow there were ultimate forces or things which had a permanent reality of their own or swabhava as @ChrisW has mentioned. He was not describing sunyata as a void per-se but the present meaning is a later day development. Today some even call Nirvâna as Sunyata, 'emptiness.'. But IMHO if someone or something is there in one place and at the next moment that something or someone is not there any longer, then that place is now ‘Sunyata’ of that person or thing.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-13T00:23:57.107Z
2016-07-13T00:23:57.107Z
Saptha Visuddhi
<p><strong>Sunnata</strong> is from the original Pali scriptures, such as the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html" rel="nofollow">Suñña Sutta</a>. The definition of 'sunnata' is contained therein, namely, void/empty of self &amp; anything belonging/pertaining to self. </p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html" rel="nofollow">Ani Sutta</a> states discourses that are words of the Tathagata are deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness (suttantānaṃ).</p>

<p>However, from the perspective of the Pali suttas, the intellectual Mahayana quibble about '<strong>sabhava</strong>', which also occupies the minds of many an intellectual Theravada, is an extreme view. This quibble is born from intellectual thinking rather than from the clear direct (non-thinking) observation of meditation.</p>

<p>My guess is word 'sabhava' comes from the Theravada commentaries rather than from the Pali suttas. That being said, in my opinion, it does not contradict the Pali teachings of anatta (not-self) &amp; sunnata (emptiness) because as long as 'things' (such as the five aggregates) are clearly seen as 'anatta' (not containing a 'self'); those 'things' remain 'empty'. In other words, there is no need to negate the 'thingness' (or 'sabhava') of 'things' because the word 'sabhava' does not mean 'self', 'ego' or 'personality'.</p>

<p>The Pali scriptures describe form, feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness, earth, wind, fire, water, space, Nibbana, etc, as having intrinsic qualities, which is essentially the meaning of 'sabhava'. The word 'bhava' can mean 'produce' (rather than 'being') thus 'sabhava' can mean 'self-produced'. </p>

<p>Take, for example, the earth element. What produces/sustains the earth element? I suppose the only logical answer to that question is 'the earth element'. For example, for life forms to sustain the physical body, they must eat other physical life forms. If the earth element is physically broken down, all that is obtained is smaller particles of earth element (atoms, etc). </p>

<p>Therefore, there is no need to quibble over 'sabhava' since, in the experience of meditation, the five aggregates are seen as the 'five aggregates' (rather than as a 'self') and seeing form as 'form', feeling as 'feeling', earth as 'earth', etc, is exactly the same as seeing form as 'empty', feeling as 'empty', etc. </p>

<p>Some Pali quotes below: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything
  internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid &amp; sustained [by food]:
  head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones,
  bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large
  intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces or
  anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid and
  sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the
  internal earth property &amp; the external earth property are simply earth
  property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right
  discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'
  When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and
  makes [craving towards] the earth property fade from the mind</em>.</p>
  
  <p><em>Maha-Rahulovada Sutta</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>And why do you call it 'form' ('rupa')? Because it is 'afflicted' ('ruppati'), thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold &amp; heat &amp; hunger &amp;
  thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, &amp; reptiles.
  Because it is afflicted, it is called form.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called 'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it
  feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called
  feeling.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it
  perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it
  perceives, it is called perception.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they
  fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they
  fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness,
  they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of
  perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of
  consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated
  thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called
  fabrications.</em> </p>
  
  <p><em>And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is
  sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, &amp;
  unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Khajjaniya Sutta</em></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-12T23:44:41.727Z
2016-07-13T00:30:41.700Z
2016-07-13T00:30:41.700Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>I was reading on some later Buddhist and Mahayana sutras and kept seeing the principles along the lines of "all phenomenon have no nature of their own and are thus empty." I've studied on scriptures like this before, like the Heart Sutra, but I don't think the Pali Canon or Tripitaka mentions anything about this doctrine. I'm curious what exactly later Buddhists meant by this, and if the Buddha actually taught this doctrine or if Sunyata has basis in the original sutras. Thank you to all.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-12T22:49:47.133Z
Given that "self-nature" is a translation of *Svabhava*, perhaps this question (about "no self-nature") is partially answered by the answers to [this earlier question](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/12079/254) of yours. See also [other answers](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=Svabhava) on this site which mention *Svabhava*.
ChrisW
<sunyata>
What does it mean when something has "no self-nature"?
# What does it mean when something has "no self-nature"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-12)

I was reading on some later Buddhist and Mahayana sutras and kept seeing the principles along the lines of "all phenomenon have no nature of their own and are thus empty." I've studied on scriptures like this before, like the Heart Sutra, but I don't think the Pali Canon or Tripitaka mentions anything about this doctrine. I'm curious what exactly later Buddhists meant by this, and if the Buddha actually taught this doctrine or if Sunyata has basis in the original sutras. Thank you to all.

**Tags:** sunyata

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Given that "self-nature" is a translation of *Svabhava*, perhaps this question (about "no self-nature") is partially answered by the answers to [this earlier question](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/12079/254) of yours. See also [other answers](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=Svabhava) on this site which mention *Svabhava*.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-07-13. Score: 1

The Pali phrase in the Suñña Sutta is,

> *suññam idaṃ attena vā attaniyena vā*

... which [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81#Pali_Canon) translates as,

> this world is empty of self or anything pertaining to self

The word *attena* is a declension of [Attan](http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:533.pali), which is [Ātman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)) in Sanskrit/Hinduism:

> Ātman is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation, a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.

... which is cognate to (or opposed to, to be contrasted with) the Buddhist Pali term [Anatta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta):

> In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in living beings. It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism, and along with Dukkha (suffering) and Anicca (impermanence), it is one of three Right Understandings about the three marks of existence.
>
> The concept of Anatta or Anatman in Buddhism, is a major difference from the Hindu concept of Atman (self, soul).

Maybe that helps to explain what "self-nature" might mean, or whence it's derived, in "the original sutras".

See also topics which are tagged [anatman](/questions/tagged/anatman "show questions tagged 'anatman'").

---

Furthermore, the term *bhava* appears a lot in "the original sutras" in that it's one of the [12 Nidanas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas#Becoming) and thus part of the theory of [dependent origination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da#The_Twelve_Nidanas).

In *Svabhava* (or the Pali *sabhāva*) there's the word [Bhava](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava) plus the root [Sa](http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:2494.pali) which means "own", a reflexive pronoun cognate to the Latin *sui*, *suus*.

In the Pali, "becoming" is dependently originated. The whole [wheel of becoming](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/14503/explain-this-theravada-wheel-of-life) is about how various things which shouldn't be considered 'self' sustain or feed each other, so I take it that (independent) self-becoming is a paradox, a contradiction, which explains the quote in the OP "all phenomenon have no nature of their own".

If this isn't clear, and/or this appears to contradict other answers, perhaps that's because there are (or there are posited) several categories of self-nature (see e.g. [Tri-svabhava-nirdesa](http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library/essays/yogacara-part3.htm)).

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svabhava#Therav.C4.81da) says,

> In the Pāli canon, "sabhāva" is absent from what are generally considered to be the earliest texts.[a] When found in later texts (e.g., the paracanonical Milindapañha), it generically refers to state (of mind), character or truth.
>
> In the post-canonical Abhidhamma literature, sabhāva is used to distinguish an irreducible, dependent, momentary phenomenon (dhamma) from a conventionally constructed object. Thus, a collection of visual and tactile phenomena might be mentally constructed into what is conventionally referred to as a "table"; but, beyond its constituent elements, a construct such as "table" lacks intrinsic existence (sabhāva).

I think that this example (of the non-self of a table) is analogous to the parable of the chariot from the [Milinda Panha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milinda_Panha). Wikipedia dates the Milinda Panha to about 100 CE, which I contrast with the lifetime of the Buddha in about 400 BCE.

As you progress (forward in history) into the foundations of Mahayana you get to [Nagarjuna (150 to 250 CE)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna). The SEP says this about [Emptiness and *svabhāva*](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/#EmpSva),

> The central concept around which all of Nāgārjuna's philosophy is built is the notion of emptiness (śūnyatā). Emptiness is of course always the emptiness of something, and the something Nāgārjuna has in mind here is svabhāva. Different terms have been used to translate this word into English: “inherent existence” and “intrinsic nature” appear etc.

Fwiw [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svabhava) says of *Svabhava*,

> In the Mahāyāna Buddhadharma tradition(s) it is one of a suite of terms employed to denote the Buddha-nature

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Pali words can have multiple meanings. Thus, 'bhava' & 'bhāva' are used in different words, such as 'bhāvana' ('cultivation'). Also, some pre-Buddhist words get redefined in Buddhism. For example, "atta' is a pre-Buddhist word meaning "soul" because people believed they had or were a soul. But for Buddha, there was no soul therefore why would Buddha teach about "no-soul"? This would be like teaching about 'no god', which would make little difference to suffering. Buddha used 'atta" to refer to "self", since the mind's of people actually construct ideas of self that are intrinsic to suffering.  
> **username_1**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava -- `The Sanskrit word "bhāva" (भाव) means "emotion, sentiment, state of body or mind, disposition", while "bhava" (भव) means "being, worldly existence, becoming, birth, be, production, origin". The former term is rooted in latter, and in some context also means "becoming, being, existing, occurring, appearance" while connoting the condition thereof.` The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava#In_Ramakrishna_Mission gives examples of various *...bhāva* words as various kinds of mental attitude or emotion.  
> **username_1**: @Dhammadhatu By the way, thank you for pointing out that I made an error.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-07-13. Score: 0

Of what I’ve read and heard of so far, in the scriptures (Sutta-Vinaya – but I’m not in a position to quote) the emphasis on impermanence, or becoming, is not a belief in nothingness. As per the scriptures existence is real, but it is transitory. In the later day Mahayana, it was the later philosopher Nagarjuna, who brought in the concept of sunyata. He argued against the belief that somehow there were ultimate forces or things which had a permanent reality of their own or swabhava as @username_1 has mentioned. He was not describing sunyata as a void per-se but the present meaning is a later day development. Today some even call Nirvâna as Sunyata, 'emptiness.'. But IMHO if someone or something is there in one place and at the next moment that something or someone is not there any longer, then that place is now ‘Sunyata’ of that person or thing.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-07-12. Score: 0

**Sunnata** is from the original Pali scriptures, such as the [Suñña Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html). The definition of 'sunnata' is contained therein, namely, void/empty of self & anything belonging/pertaining to self.

The [Ani Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html) states discourses that are words of the Tathagata are deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness (suttantānaṃ).

However, from the perspective of the Pali suttas, the intellectual Mahayana quibble about '**sabhava**', which also occupies the minds of many an intellectual Theravada, is an extreme view. This quibble is born from intellectual thinking rather than from the clear direct (non-thinking) observation of meditation.

My guess is word 'sabhava' comes from the Theravada commentaries rather than from the Pali suttas. That being said, in my opinion, it does not contradict the Pali teachings of anatta (not-self) & sunnata (emptiness) because as long as 'things' (such as the five aggregates) are clearly seen as 'anatta' (not containing a 'self'); those 'things' remain 'empty'. In other words, there is no need to negate the 'thingness' (or 'sabhava') of 'things' because the word 'sabhava' does not mean 'self', 'ego' or 'personality'.

The Pali scriptures describe form, feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness, earth, wind, fire, water, space, Nibbana, etc, as having intrinsic qualities, which is essentially the meaning of 'sabhava'. The word 'bhava' can mean 'produce' (rather than 'being') thus 'sabhava' can mean 'self-produced'.

Take, for example, the earth element. What produces/sustains the earth element? I suppose the only logical answer to that question is 'the earth element'. For example, for life forms to sustain the physical body, they must eat other physical life forms. If the earth element is physically broken down, all that is obtained is smaller particles of earth element (atoms, etc).

Therefore, there is no need to quibble over 'sabhava' since, in the experience of meditation, the five aggregates are seen as the 'five aggregates' (rather than as a 'self') and seeing form as 'form', feeling as 'feeling', earth as 'earth', etc, is exactly the same as seeing form as 'empty', feeling as 'empty', etc.

Some Pali quotes below:

> *And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything
> internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid & sustained [by food]:
> head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones,
> bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large
> intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces or
> anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid and
> sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the
> internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth
> property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right
> discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'
> When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
> discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and
> makes [craving towards] the earth property fade from the mind*.
>
> *Maha-Rahulovada Sutta*

~~~

> *And why do you call it 'form' ('rupa')? Because it is 'afflicted' ('ruppati'), thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger &
> thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles.
> Because it is afflicted, it is called form.*
>
> *And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called 'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it
> feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called
> feeling.*
>
> *And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it
> perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it
> perceives, it is called perception.*
>
> *And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they
> fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they
> fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness,
> they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of
> perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of
> consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated
> thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called
> fabrications.*
>
> *And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is
> sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, &
> unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.*
>
> *Khajjaniya Sutta*


---

