Talk:Three marks of existence

Argumentative

I think this article is argumentative and dogmatic. Suppose there are various possible interpretations of a concept like impermanence. Then the article should set forth all of the interpretations rather than seizing upon one interpretation as the "correct" one. For example, the article seems to make the dogmatic assertion that nothing every comes into existence or passes out of existence, but that things merely change their appearance because their constituent parts are rearranged. The article presents this interpretation as correct and uncontested. If it is not, then alternative interpretations should be presented. If the interpretation really is correct and uncontested, then some supporting references should be given to convince the reader that in Buddhism, this is the only interpretation of the concept of impermanence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.68.253.90 (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Anatta - not just a permanent self

Candrakirti states: When knowing selflessness, some eliminate a permanent self, but we do not consider this to be the basis of the conception of "I" It is therefore astonishing that knowing this selflessness expunges and uproots the view of self. —Madhyamakāvatāra 6.140

Therefore, there are major Buddhist schools (in this case the Madhyamikas) who hold that the self being refuted by the awareness of Anatta is not merely a permanent self. I have removed the word permanent from the description. Although Candrakirti makes it clear that there are some schools who consider the bounds of Anatta to be a permanent self, we should not limit the scope of the article to those schools alone. (20040302 (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Atricle Split

I suggest a split: As it stands, Four Seals redirects to Three marks of existence, which has got to be confusing for people. (Wait, four of this is really three of that?!?) This article could have the three, list some of the traditions where there are three and mention that (some? all?) Mahāyāna traditions have a fourth. A Four Dharma Seals article could mention the first three briefly with a link back here, and then explain the fourth seal. --Theodore Kloba (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This immaculate Buddhic Self (atman)

"This immaculate Buddhic Self (atman)" needs references. From my experience this sounds non-Buddhist. If there is some reference in Buddhist teachings to a "Buddhic Self" it should be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.53.37 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed this 2-sentence paragraph. “Buddhic Self” 1) is not a Buddhist Term used by any major School.** 2) a Meta Search of over 100 Internet Search Engines returns the only use being a shortened version of “Becoming Your Christed-Buddhic Self” by “New Age, Spiritualist Hybrids” (that is my neologism for this “group” (two people, namely one: ‘Judy Satori’) on Facebook and a WordPress Blog that uses the term (www.jenniferclark.ca/?p=1153). 3) The translation of the Vedic Sanskrit, Brahmanism, Hinduism: “atman” as “Buddhic Self” [It is already referenced on This Section, and the Buddha’s Dharma teaches Anātman/Anattā = prefix ‘an’ + ‘atman’ ≈ ‘No-Self’] is so antithetically misconstrued that I can only deem it: “Disinformation.” 4) The remainder of the two sentences is saturated with Dualistic natured grammar and syntax that even without the use of the clearly Non-Buddhist term “Buddhic Self,” the remainder a) adds no informational value or even a “Buddhist flavor,” yet it does b) distract and dilute the previous and following text. The term “immaculate” is both Dualistic (Which Buddha-Nature is not) and wreaks of “Good and Bad Morality” which are not buddhist concepts. There is no “good and bad,” the Buddha never used such a dichotomy. c) The second sentence then starts: ”One the other hand...” as though whomever added this 2-sentence paragraph were weighing evidence of how he/she feels about the previous sentence. 5) I attempted to edit out the term “Buddhic Self”...and then as little as possible, but there was nothing in remainder that added to a User Experience, valid Buddha-Dharma knowledge, or augmenting perspective, but there was nothing to salvage, nothing to augment the article, and quite a lot to detract from the Page.

• • I’ve been a full-time Ecumenical Buddhist Minister for over 17 years, six years of residential “Buddhist Ordination Seminary,” Post-Graduate education by some of foremost Academics and Ordained Buddhist Leaders from all over the World, representing every major School and Sect of Buddhism, including courses in Pāli and Sanskrit, as well their Tibetan, Korean, Sinhalese, Japanese, Tamil, Hindi, Vietnamese, English equivalents. I researched the term before I edited the section out, not because I doubted the bastardization of terminology, but for prudent Due Diligence. Dharmamitra Jeff Stefani (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Insubstantiality

Sometimes this term is used; presumably, as the 1st 'seal'. Also, since the word 'seal' is used in the lead [Brit: lede], there should be some clarification regarding various terms used, such as 'Three Seals of Buddhism' - which I am assuming refers to this article. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Stub quality article needs rewriting in plain English with quotes narrowly focused on subject matter, and credible cites.

Stub quality article needs rewriting in plain English with quotes focused on subject matter.

Scope

"With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that 'all sentient beings are marked by these three characteristics", -- surely, and as explained in this article, it's all conditioned phenomena, not merely all sentient beings? 20040302 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Three marks=Aniicalakkhana, Khandha=Anicca, Anicca is not Aniccalakkhana.

See reference in thai section: https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A9%E0%B8%93%E0%B9%8C#.E0.B8.AA.E0.B8.B2.E0.B8.A1.E0.B8.B1.E0.B8.8D.E0.B8.A5.E0.B8.B1.E0.B8.81.E0.B8.A9.E0.B8.93.E0.B8.B0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BallWarapol (talk • contribs) 01:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Significance of the concept of ignorance of the three marks

I've added a little to "Application" section about the fact that in Buddhism it is ignorance of the three marks that is a central problem, and so getting free of that ignorance via direct insight is a key part of the solution to that problem (as per the prajñā components of the Noble Eightfold Path). I also added a reference sentence in the lead since I do think the notion of "ignorance of" the marks is key to explaining the marks themselves. Sleety Dribble (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Relationship between the members

In Pali, the relationship is as following paradigm: What is anicca is dukkha. What is dukkha is anatta ☸ Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā (Samyutta Nikaya.Vol4.Page1).

Anicca and anatta are easily translated. Dukkha is difficult. In the Four Noble Truths it is called Suffering (i.e. noun). In the Three Marks it is often called 'unsatisfactory' (i.e. adjective). But this only fulfills the paradigm in the situation of pleasure: that which is pleasant-anicca is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory is obviously not personal (not under personal control). It doesn't work for neutral or painful objects.

Somewhere, I saw the Three Marks dukkha translated as 'unmanageable'. This makes for a good fit: That which is unlasting is (obviously) unmanageable (i.e. cannot be made lasting) . That which is unmanageable is (obviously) not personal (i.e. it is not under personal control).

The introspectively discovered truth of suffering is one of ceaseless movement, of a dynamic process which is suffering by virtue of being uncontrollable, ever-changing, and therefore inadequate and unsatisfying. (Carrithers, Michael (1986), The Buddha. Cited in Founders of Faith, Oxford University Press, page 54).

Mahasi Sayadaw calls it 'unmanagable, uncontrollable': "What is "Anatta"? It means: "Yam dukkham tadanatta - the dukkha dhamma, as taught by the Buddha. Hence, the five khandhas which are called "dukkha" is not "atta ", a living entity. It is Non-Self, the "anatta" It is unmanageable and cannot be coaxed to become happy inasmuch as it's inherent nature is "suffering". Since it is unmanageable and uncontrollable, it cannot be called or regarded as One's Own 'Self'. As such, Anatta is a condition which is ungovernable, Let's recite a Motto which embraces the said meaning: "The Five Khandhas being ungovernable, are not Atta."

In this Wiki article, someone calls dukkha 'suffering' and proves it by a quote from the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta. But this is the definition of the First Noble Truth dukkha. The quote is invalid. @Sukusala