Hi,

There are several arguments below. If they are wrong, please correct
it. My comment will be in //.....//. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sabbe dhammaa anattaa - Dhammapada 279

Some says that "sabbe" only pertains the five khandhas. He provide
several evidence for this.

1. They quote the Sabba Sutta (The All) Salayatana Vagga, Samyutta
Nikaya {S iv 15; CDB ii 1140}

//The word 'sabbe' belongs to the Middle Indic
vocabulary first, and only secondly to specialized doctrine. //

2. They quote Dhammapada Att. 3.406

sabbe dhammaati pañcakkhandhaa (sabbe dhammaa designates the five
khandhas)

//A friend, Suan, told me "When Section 279 in Dhammapada commentary
said "Tattha sabbe dhammaati pancakkhandhaa eva adhippetaa", we need
to remember the context indicated by the term "Tattha" (On that
occasion, in that context)..... That is why the Dhammapada commentary
on Section 279 has to say that "On that occasion, all things means
the five aggregates only".//


3. Sabba in standalone.

SN 4.28 "sabbam., bhikkhave, anatta"
The 'all', bhikkhus, are not the Soul.
The word dhamma is not even in this passage. Dhammaa is not the
subject of anatta's modification.
Similarly for these two passage:

SN 4.21 "sabbam., bhikkhave, addhabhu'tam" Bhikkhus, the 'all' are
afflictions.

SN 4.19 "sabbam., bhikkhave, a'dittam." Bhikkhus, the 'all' are
ablaze.


//The Buddha said "All is burning" But he define, in the very sutta
what he meant. "And what is the all that is burning? Bhikkhus, the
eye....the ear...the nose...the tongue...the body....the mind...."//

5. Grammar

sabbe (noun [see SN 4.15], direct object, in accusative. Sabba is
nominative, sensory-determinates. 'the all')

dhammaa (proper noun, plural, subject, undeclined in nominative,
dharmas)

anattaa (adjective, modifying sabba. An [is not] atta' [attan: Soul]).
Sabbe "the All" is the subject of Anatta in sabbe dhammaa anatta.



//sabbe: sabba-, Adj.: all, every. Nom.Pl.m. = sabbe.

'Sabbe' there is not a direct object. There is no direct object,
because a direct object requires a TRANSITIVE VERB. There is no
transitive verb in that snippet.

The word 'sabba' uses the PRONOMINAL DECLENSION. Hence 'sabbe' is
actually the nominative plural here.


dhamma: dhamma-, N.m. Nom.Pl.

anatta: anatta-, Adj. Nom.Pl.m. //

But I have two questions.
First, which is correct and why? Second, is "sabba" a pronoun?

Thanks, Rahula