Comments

Comm. NT: 25. It may be noted in passing that the word anattā (not-self) is never applied directly to Nibbāna in the Suttas (and Abhidhamma), or in Bhante Buddhaghosa’s commentaries (Cf. Ch. XXI, note 4, where Vism-mhṭ is quoted explaining the scope of applicability of the “three characteristics”). The argument introduced here that, since attā (self) is a non- existent myth, therefore Nibbāna (the unformed dhamma, the truth of cessation) is void of self (atta-suñña) is taken up in the Saddhammappakāsinī (Hewavitarne Ce, p. 464): All dhammas whether grouped together
In three ways, two ways, or one way,
Are void: thus here in this dispensation
Do those who know voidness make their comment.
“How so? Firstly, all mundane dhammas are void of lastingness, beauty, pleasure, and self because they are destitute of lastingness, beauty, pleasure, and self. Path and fruition dhammas are void of lastingness, pleasure, and self, because they are destitute of lastingness, pleasure, and self. Nibbāna dhammas (pl.) are void of self because of the non-existence (abhāva) of self. [Secondly,] formed dhammas, both mundane and supramundane, are all void of a [permanent] living being (satta) because of the non- existence of [such] a living being of any sort whatever. The unformed dhamma (sing.) is void of formations because of the non-existence (abhāva: or absence) of those formations too. [Thirdly,] all dhammas formed and unformed are void of self because of the non-existence of any person (puggala) called ‘self’ (attā).”

пали	Evaṃ tāva suññato vinicchayo veditabbo.
Nyanamoli thera	This, in the first place, is how the exposition should be understood as to void.25