Talk:Three marks of existence

impermanence is impermanence

"In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that may go on to form new plants."

that's cute, but this temporal or wishful interpretation is neither consistent with the pali nor physics. Even those little carbon atoms will break down, even those quarks. And the world itself if we should believe the Buddha if not Hubble. -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.226.240 (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the original editor was not clear about what they were attempting to say. The argument must be from anatta - essencelessness. To attempt a paraphrase - remembering that science (and perception) are models, or narratives, we cannot claim that impermanence is objectively true, but merely that it is central to many edifying (or resonant) narratives. cf. Huntington (emptiness of emptiness) 20040302 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Early comments

is it not true that the Buddha said even Nirvana was anatta? for example:

Sabbe sankhara anicca (sankhara being conditioned phenomena) Sabbe sankhara dukkha ( " " " " ) Sabbe dhamma anatta (dhammas being all phenomena)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grainsilo (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Dharma of Dukkha should not be among the Three Seals, and Dukkha should be the ADDITIONAL FOURTH seal instead of tranquility of Nirvana. Therefore, the Three Seals of Dharma are: 1.Anitya (impermanence), 2.Anatman (No-self), and 3.Tranquility of Nirvana. Reference: http://www.buddhistdoor.com/bdoor/0108/sources/seals.htm  ; http://www.ibc-rk.org/04Dharma%20talk/Dharma%20talk7/01dharmatalk7.html  ; and also the Chinese classic: 智度論二十二曰：「佛法印有三種：一者一切有為法念念生滅皆無常，二者一切法無我，三者寂滅涅槃。（中略）摩訶衍中說諸法不生不滅，一相所謂無相。」 - kumkee 14:40, 01 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is no objection by the end of May, I whill correct the Three-Seal content. -- kumkee 12:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Charles Muller's digital dictionary agrees with you. This convinces me, at the very least, that the version with nirvana is standard in the Sinitic world. I guess there's a chance that other versions might predominate in other languages. The only reason I bring this up is that the version with dukkha seems to enjoy fairly wide credence as standard in English. - Nat Krause 14:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

---

This could use headers differentiating various interpretive traditions within Buddhism. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

Yes- it's possibly a little syncretic; ideas? (20040302 20:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC))

Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff is out of my field, so I'm not sure how best to tinker. I threw up a division between the main article and a section on various traditions' interpretations; that should help a little bit. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:23, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

looks good as ever, kukku.. (20040302 04:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC))

This page makes no sense at all. The three marks of existence are "1. Dukkha- The reality and universality of suffering. 2. Samudaya- Td control things. 3. Nirodha- Suffering ceases with the final liberation of Nirvana." www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism1.htm

That is not correct. You are listing the first three of the Four Noble Truths, as the website cited accurately states. - Nat Krause 03:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi Good Folks at Wikipedia,

I've seen hundreds of references to the Three Marks of all Conditioned Phenomena. They universally list

Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness and Not-Self

as the Three Marks of All Conditioned Phenomena.

There is a small confusion as sometimes there are 4 Characteristics listed (including 'Only Nirvana is Peace). These four constitute a different list and refers to the Four Characteristics of all Buddhist Teachings.

Here are some unimpeachable sources that list the Three Marks as Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness and Not-self.

General Index of Access to Insight

This link lists the following 3 terms as part of the Three Marks:

Anicca - impermanence Dukkha - suffering or unsatisfactoriness Anatta - not-self)

• * * * *

From A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism by Professor John Powers

page 226

The pate lists the Three Marks as the Sanskrit Trilaksana or the Pali Tilakkhana. Tibetan is mtshan nyid gsum.

Powers lists the three Marks as:

(1) selflessness - Skt. Anatman; (2) impermanence - Skt. Anitya and (3) unsatisfactoriness or suffering - Skt. Dukkha

• * * * *

Buddhist Studies: Glossary of Buddhist Terms

Buddha Net - an Influential site for Buddhism lists

Anatta Anittya/Anicca Dukkha

Buddha Net lists under each of these three terms that they are part of the Three Marks.

• * * * *

Buddhist Glossary from Tricycle, an influential Buddhist Magazine

This glossary notes that Vipassana or Insight Meditation yields a meditative and intuitive cognition of the three marks of existence as:

impermanence or anitya, suffering or duhkha, and no-self or

Note also that this text notes that vipassana in the Mahayana is said to lead to an intuitive knowledge of emptiness as well as the three marks and other subjects.

• * * * *

Thanks for all your work. Wikipedia is a valuable - a Vital - part of the Web.

Van Baldwin

I say yes!

Merge "Three Signs of Being" into "Three marks of existence."

I need to apologize to the editors of "Being," but I'm afraid that the page is not very well written: choppy and jargon-heavy. And (now, I am not in any sense an expert on Buddhist philosophy, so I may be quite wrong), it doesn't appear to have much content that "Existence" doesn't have: it's just phrased differently and generally less well.

I notice there's been no discussion on the subject for quite some time. I should like it if someone were to just go ahead and do it.
I'd do it myself if I knew enough about the subject to edit with confidence.

--Deaconse 03:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went and did it. I looked at both pages and decided, in my boundless arrogance, that Three Signs of Being is a bad article compared to this one, and that it doesn't contain anything useful that this article doesn't, so I just made it into a redirect. I would have liked for someone to take a better look at it and try and pick out nice things to put in here, but it was just taking too long for me so I decided to follow the Be Bold and the WP:IAR principles. --Toon 18:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Clasification of three "marks" doesn't seems to be correct

As far as I can remember, "Three Dharma Seals" are Anicca, Anatta, Nirvana. And adding Dukkah make it "Four Dharma Seals". Who wrote this? FWBOarticle

Plus, if you want it to be accurate translation wise, the title should be "Three (Buddha)Dharma Seals". FWBOarticle

See the section directly above this one on this talk page for a complete and satisfying response to your observation. makeswell (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dharma = Existence

This is wrong in so many ways. We should change the title of this article to "Three Dharma Seals" FWBOarticle

Dharma Seals redirects here. I don't think there's anything wrong with this article as it is right now. Of course, I don't know much about these things but it all seesm to make sense. Toon 09:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits by 4.131.49.89 regarding Atman

I have reverted the edits made by 4.131.49.89 since

1. they are not in line with the style of the rest of the article,
2. I am unable to verify the sources (Dn 2.100 and SN 3.196),
3. this is not an article on Vedanta.

For an interesting read about Buddhism and Vedanta, see e.g. Vedanta and Buddhism, A Comparative Study, especially this paragraph:

The denial of an imperishable Atman is common ground for all systems of Hinayana as well as Mahayana, and there is, therefore, no reason for the assumption that Buddhist tradition, unanimous on that point, has deviated from the original doctrine of the Buddha. If the Buddha, contrary to the Buddhist tradition, had actually proclaimed a transcendental Atman, a reminiscence of it would have been preserved somehow by one of the older sects. It is remarkable that even the Pudgalavadins, who assume a kind of individual soul, never appeal to texts in which an Atman in this sense is proclaimed. He who advocates such a revolutionary conception of the Buddha's teachings, has also the duty to show evidence how such a complete transformation started and grew, suddenly or gradually. But non of those who advocate the Atta-theory has taken to comply with that demand which is indispensable to a historian.

Sleep well, Andkaha^(talk) 09:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs cites!

Added "Unreferenced" tag. "This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Can we summarize as follows?

• Theravada (order as given here, not current article):
  • all sankharas are anicca
  • all sankharas are dukkha
  • all dhammas are anatta (including nirvana & concepts)
• East Asian Buddhism: different list of 3 signs as stated above in this column
• Tibetan Buddhism: 4 seals

Peter jackson (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The above uses non-Buddhist Theravada terms, as does the article in question. The article needs to be corrected to use Buddhist Dharma terms:

1. अनित्यत्व - anityatva - Impermanence

2. दुःख - duhkha - Suffering

3. शून्यता - Shunyata - Emptiness

  अनात्मन् - Anatman - no supreme spirit (no "god" and no "soul")

4. निर्वाण - Nirvana - Cessation of all suffering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.47 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tathagatagarbha

This easily misunderstood Mahayana idea should probably not be presented alongside what the Buddha personally taught about anatta, should it? At least not in this article? Mitsube (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We have a responsibility to cover all non-marginal topics that we have solid information about from reputable sources, don't we?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we shouldn't give the idea unduly more weight than core ideas like anatta. What do you think? Mitsube (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The undue weight here is quite extreme. Mitsube (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a little bit. The balance is better now. Mitsube (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Transcend samsara and nirvana?

Can we get a quote saying that samsara and nirvana have to be transcended with meditation? I think the key is that there is no inherent imperfection anywhere, not that nirvana needs to be "transcended." Mitsube (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe a quote about using Tri Laksana as object of meditation? --Elvenmuse (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

nirvana is not to be transcended. It can't. It is not a conditioned thing. It is a negation. The three here are to be understood and let go. Samsara is created by our own ignorance of these three observable facts. By identifying with that which is impermanent and subject to decay and suffering, we jump into another womb out of habit, fear, clinging, and stupidity. Let go! If you want a quote, start reading the pali or a translation. Nothing esoteric in the words of the Buddha. -Alex Nov 2012

Although I agree with most of this last comment, there are traditions of Buddhism that appear not to. However, I find the idea of transcendence a misnomer here.

Even later misinterpretations of the Buddha agree with the above point that nirvana is not to be and can not be transcended. The Mahayana for example postpone nirvana by the Bodhisattva vow. That is namely not to achieve the goal for oneself, but to wait and presumably help all sentient beings achieve nirvana. -Alex 2 Dec 2012

(phenomenology of psychology) has been wrongly used in this article

I'm a researcher in phenomenology and suggest to remove the term(phenomenology of psychology) used here: (and everything in the phenomenology of psychology) and translated to Portuguese too: (bem como na fenomenologia da psicologia)

Is possible that exists the term in the Budism, but is not the same meaning related on the redirection (by clicking on phenomenology link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaused (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What? makeswell (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

there's phenomenology and there's psychology... --Elvenmuse (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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