Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Mistake in the Three Marks?
thickpaper
Veteran
I think there has been a mistake somewhere along the line of the growth of Buddhism when it comes to the Three Marks of Existence.
I think that the idea that Dukka is the third Mark doesn't make sense, Dukka is a truth of experience, not all things that exist. I can see how Dukka arises from Attachment and Ignorance, but I can't see how it can be true of all things.
I think that originally the Third Mark was dependant origination, because this seems true of all things and it also first in perfectly with how emptiness and impertinence conditions change.
Not interested in getting loads of paste-spam thanks:) But has anyone else considered this possibility?
Well wishes.
I think that the idea that Dukka is the third Mark doesn't make sense, Dukka is a truth of experience, not all things that exist. I can see how Dukka arises from Attachment and Ignorance, but I can't see how it can be true of all things.
I think that originally the Third Mark was dependant origination, because this seems true of all things and it also first in perfectly with how emptiness and impertinence conditions change.
Not interested in getting loads of paste-spam thanks:) But has anyone else considered this possibility?
Well wishes.
0
Comments
Can you tell me why I am mistaken, not that I am mistaken?
xx
suffering is only true as there is ignorance/attachment. suffering is just suffering after you become wise and don't attach. and by don't attach i mean don't even attach to not attachment. thus a buddha can suffering all day, yet still balance that with nirvana. i would even say the buddha accepts suffering fully, thus using such suffering to have compassionate action for others.
but that is not the topic here. i think as buddhism evolved into mahayana they dealt with this same problem and worked on dependent origination. if one could understand and realize emptiness, then they could free themselves from ignorance and attachment. suffering is still suffering lol, but who is suffering? there is only the suffering with no subject/object.
it's fun to reconcile the two: emptiness and suffering. same truth just different ways of explanations.
Impermanence makes sense only in relationship to someone who imputes or attributes (wrongly) permanence to an object or phenomenon.
Not-self: same thing.
Unsatisfactoriness: same thing.
So again, IMO, all three of the Marks of Existence are stated within the frame of reference of a human perceiver/interpreter, and the Buddha is well known for addressing practical human-related issues of existence rather than metaphysics, which for the Buddha, consisted mostly of imponderables.
I think the three marks are true of all things, they come before sentience. They were true of the big bang. They are true in the void and in the heart of stars just as much in the hearts of humans and squirrels.
The Three Marks are true of all things that can be.
The Four Noble Truths are true of all things that can feel.
Why would not think this?
With respect,
Mat
Do you think that all things are impermanent, empty and interconnected?
The DO is the cycle of habituation, so you might be seeing how dukkha is tied to the cycle. Or, your ego has grown to the thickness where truth cannot penetrate it. TP sees clearer than Buddha?
>>>Buddha taught suffering and the end of suffering.
Yes, and a big part of the foundations for that is right view. Which is about the world as it is, not as it seems.
>>>The three marks are clearly intended on helping let go of the mental habit of generating permanent forms, clinging to the state of those forms, experiencing dissatisfaction at their passing by.
I think you are mistakenly confusing the obvious benefit of understanding the marks with the actual structure of the marks.
>>>The DO is the cycle of habituation, so you might be seeing how dukkha is tied to the cycle.
I disagree, DO is true of all changes, not just changes relevant to sentience.
>>>Or, your ego has grown to the thickness where truth cannot penetrate it.
Wrong Speech.
>>>TP sees clearer than Buddha?
Seeing clearer than the Buddha and pointing out the possibility of a mistake in a cannon that obviously contains mistakes and inconsistencies are not the same thing.
When we get as far back as the point where the supposed teachings of the Buddha were written down, we're as far back as we can go in Buddhist scripture and the answer to the question becomes a matter of opinion. My point is that the Buddha addressed the existential questions inherent in human existence. Your point is that it seems to be phenomenologically incorrect. Yes, phenomenologically, I think that all things are impermanent, empty, and dependently arisen.
I suppose you've got a point. The reaction to the three attributes as you list them is that they are unsatisfactory, so, yeah, you've got a point.
So you're right and the compilers of early Buddhist scripture were incorrect about this. How much of our practice or other things we do in relation to life and Buddhism does this change?
What should be the actual practical effects of this on practice?
I think so, yes.
>>>When we get as far back as the point where the supposed teachings of the Buddha were written down, we're as far back as we can go in Buddhist scripture and the answer to the question becomes a matter of opinion. My point is that the Buddha addressed the existential questions inherent in human existence. Your point is that it seems to be phenomenologically incorrect. Yes, phenomenologically, I think that all things are impermanent, empty, and dependently arisen.
Yes, I think so. Though I would think its more ontological, foundational.
>>I suppose you've got a point. The reaction to the three attributes as you list them is that they are unsatisfactory, so, yeah, you've got a point.
Yes, exactly. Yet it makes sense when we see the third mark as causal interdependenace/ Dependent origination, at least to me (and I think you)
>>So you're right and the compilers of early Buddhist scripture were incorrect about this. How much of our practice or other things we do in relation to life and Buddhism does this change?
In terms of practice, very little - you need an understanding of DO and DUKKA to know the 4NTs, however they are framed.
But in terms of explaining how the 3 marks condition the 4NTs I think it is significant, at least to those like me who are interested in dharma philosophy as well as practice:)
respect
Forgive me, but the OP's own words - albeit misspelled - possibly a Freudian slip - make a salient point - that the voices in the head may not be real, but they have some very interesting ideas.
Not interested in rebuttal - just making a point from a different angle.
I think its done on this topic!:)
"Well that went well"
The three marks are a teaching. Anicca, dukkha, anatta are a teaching of human perception and its interaction with phenomena. You say "no, it is this, it isn't dukkha, it has DO, and it does something else." You are changing the function and content of the teaching.
It was not wrong speech, it was speculation as to the continual introductions of your #@&%yanas lately. I accept the desire you have to explain the universe, but ceasing the cycle of suffering is a different teaching.
is a rock born? a river? a mountain? a candy? a pencil?
are they ignorant? do they feel?
if there's a thid mark... it will probably be shunyata; (all pervading) emptyness (of space, mostly).
Either way the earth is good.
>>>>The three marks are a teaching.
No, they are eternal truths discovered by the buddha, and probably others, and then taught as the foundations of the entire Dharmic system, leading ultimatly to the end of suffering.
>>>>You are changing the function and content of the teaching...
I think the teaching we have today is not what the Buddha taught in many areas, this is but one of them. I am not changing the foundations of dharma at all. I appreciate how many people have a cognitive dissonance when they try to confront this possibility.
>>>I accept the desire you have to explain the universe,
Oh no, I'm long past seeing how imponderable that is. Id like to find out what the Buddha taught whilst he was alive, as opposed to what buddhists have taught over the millenia.
Apparently the Buddha said Dharma is simple, I am happy to believe that, it seems pretty simple to me and many others.
>>>>but ceasing the cycle of suffering is a different teaching.
I think an understanding of the nature of reality is essential to the cessation of suffering, why would it not be?
without contemplating dukkha we remain attached to the sense desires! No liberation is possible. A fine meal contains suffering too. Even a fine meal of the dharma
the buddha taught based on where the student was. if the student could be taught in relation to suffering then the four noble truths applied. for others with a different mindset, he taught emptiness/dependent origination.
they all lead to freedom from suffering, but they get there in a different fashion.
such is the nature of the dharma. we must understand and realize for ourselves from where the buddha is speaking from. then from there we can understand all views. if we cannot understand all views as serving some function then that is because we are holding onto a certain view.
language and pointing to truth isn't truth itself. it is a means to get to realize truth. as the buddha just showed what is and what is, is.
Not because I cannot see what you point at, it just isn't the teaching.
You cannot teach the cessation of dukkha without dukkha.
I wondered about that question myself a long time ago. How does suffering encompass everything? Well.. We know that life is suffering ( of course many still don't see it), and what is it that does not correlate to life? Nothing. Everything deals with life. Can you name one thing that does not deal with life?
Peace
where is suffering if you don't attach to mind?
it's not that suffering doesn't exist, sure it does.
but it is just another process.
freedom from suffering comes from total unconditional acceptance of suffering and thus seeing suffering as it is.
Time doesn't take any time. But the conditioned thinking makes patterns. Realizing in a flash that we are free!
When the only thing we can do all day is to move our toes because we are in a full body cast. Then all we do is move our toes. Because that is what we can do.
rocks don't suffer, not everything is trilaksana.
You haven't done anything of the case. It is impossible to know whehter a rock has dukkha or not. I find that the question doesn't apply because buddhism was never a metaphysics even at the get go.
You are just projecting things onto a rock and then demanding that buddhism fit your projections.
'non-dukkhic rock' is itself a projection and is stamped with the 3 marks..
If you believe that three three marks are true of all conditioned things and that dukka is suffering then it follows that dukka is not one of the three marks.
Whereas, all things must become and cease and this existence is interdependent on other changes and in tern causes other changes: interdependent origination.
So I think a mistake has been made in the transmission of buddhism:
Dukka is not true of all things that exist whereas impermanence, interconected-emptiness and interdependent origination are.
So all the points above, none of which address this mistake and only say that no mistake has been made, because of what we have as buddhism today, completely miss the point and the circularity therein.
If you cant show were my mistake (I very well may be mistaken) is above (rather than peddling the very thing I am saying is mistaken) then lets all take @SherabDorje 's wise advice.
During meditation you are with all of the rocks in existence in non-conceptual thought.
The moment you have a projection of what a rock is and isn't then you already have DUKKHA.
Dukkha means wobble. And the wobble is from misunderstanding reality. All projections are wobbling...
By the harmonics of the wobbling karma is created.
Also, the whole rock analogy doesn't seem quite right. Don't rocks experience stress in the form of contraction and expansion due temperature changes? If rocks were not subject to dukkha, would they ever crack and erode?