The three marks of existence applied to buddhism itself

Bunks

I listened to an interesting podcast while on my lunch time walk today by (the always controversial) Stephen Batchelor.

He was applying the three marks of existence (impermanence, dukkha and egolessness / not self) to the buddhist tradition itself.

Worth a listen if you get a chance.

http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/169/talk/12413/

jessie70

Is emptiness the same as not-self?

jumbles

A knife cannot cut itself. When you stare into the void, the void stares back.
Wowie Zowie!

jessie70

jumbles said:

A knife cannot cut itself. When you stare into the void, the void stares back.
Wowie Zowie!

Now I have to try going to sleep after reading that!

Jason

jessie70 said:

I thought the third was "emptiness", not "egolessness"?

No, what are know as the three characteristics (tilakkhana) are stress (dukkha), inconstancy (anicca), and not-self (anatta), e.g., AN 3.134:

"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are inconstant.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are stressful.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are stressful.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self."

You may be thinking about the related concept of the four Dharma seals, i.e., all compounded things are impermanent; all emotions are painful; all phenomena are empty; and nirvana is beyond extremes.

jessie70 said:

Is emptiness the same as not-self?

In some contexts, yes, it's more or less synonymous.

As a doctrinal term, emptiness (adj. sunna, noun sunnata) in and of itself is used in a couple of different but related ways in Pali Canon. In one context, emptiness is used as a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience that's utilized in meditation (e.g., MN 121, MN 122).

In another context, emptiness refers to the insubstantiality of the five clinging-aggregates and the six sense media (e.g., SN 22.95, SN 35.85). In this sense, it's synonymous with not-self, or as Richard Gombrich sums it up in What the Buddha Thought, the idea that, "Nothing in the world [of our normal experience] has an unchanging essence."

jessie70

@Jason- you caught my comment very quickly- I edited that out immediately- because I saw the problem! However, that is a very nice clear explanation, so I am not sorry for my little mistake.

jessie70

Also. while I'm learning to remember the terms, I wonder when I'll ever *really* get emptiness and no-self. I really struggle with that. Or the not-I does. You know what I mean. :eek2:

And thanks again, @Jason, for the great explanation.

Jason

jessie70 said:

Also. while I'm learning to remember the terms, I wonder when I'll ever *really* get emptiness and no-self. I really struggle with that. Or the not-I does. You know what I mean. :eek2:

I'm sure you'll develop an intuitive understanding soon enough. A combination of reading, discussion, and meditation usually does the trick.

Bunks

A lot of pali / sanskrit words are interpreted differently depending on the teacher / tradition you are dealing with.

Be careful not to assume the English interpretation you state is the only way to interpret it.

I have found being open to different interpretations has allowed me to see things differently each time I hear a different interpretation.

Songhill

These are the actual three marks:

“Monks, there are these three condition-marks of that which is conditioned. What three? Its genesis is apparent, its passing away is apparent, its changeability while it persists is apparent. These are the three condition-marks.

Monks, there are these three non-condition marks of that which is unconditioned. What three? Its genesis is not apparent, its passing is not apparent, its changeability which it persists in not apparent. These are the three" (AN 3:47 ).

driedleaf

Wouldn't it be better to apply the three marks to oneself before anything else? Just as before giving metta to others, we give it to ourselves first. The reason is because if you can't have loving kindness for yourself, how can you share it with others? So the same should go with the three marks. How can one believe in the three marks if one does not think it exists in oneself. Just a thought.

Songhill

Some Buddhists believe that the three condition-marks (AN 3:47) are the whole enchilada of Buddhism. They are not. It is the unconditioned that we are to cognize. The Buddha teaches the three condition-marks to wean the 'unwashed' off of their addiction to conditioned phenomenal existence.

Monks, there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this here that is born, become, made, compounded. But since, monks, tere is an unborn ... therefore the escape from this here is born, become ... is apparent. — Udâna 80

DairyLama

Bunks said:

I listened to an interesting podcast while on my lunch time walk today by (the always controversial) Stephen Batchelor.

He was applying the three marks of existence (impermanence, dukkha and egolessness / not self) to the buddhist tradition itself.

So did he say that Dharma is a source of suffering?

Bunks

PedanticPorpoise said:

Bunks said:

I listened to an interesting podcast while on my lunch time walk today by (the always controversial) Stephen Batchelor.

He was applying the three marks of existence (impermanence, dukkha and egolessness / not self) to the buddhist tradition itself.

So did he say that Dharma is a source of suffering?





No - just the usual Stephen Batchelor stuff.

All traditions are simply a reflection of the culture in which they were embedded and that we should be mindful of creating our own buddhist culture in the west i.e. Secular buddhism.

Led by him perhaps????????

PrairieGhost

Hi PedanticPorpoise:

So did he say that Dharma is a source of suffering?

I would say potentially yes.

The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. [7] Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html

DairyLama

Bunks said:

All traditions are simply a reflection of the culture in which they were embedded and that we should be mindful of creating our own buddhist culture in the west i.e. Secular buddhism.

I don't see a problem with this, providing there is an awareness that western Buddhism is as much a product of place and time as previous cultural expressions of Dharma. And we humans seem to have this need to continually re-invent the wheel.

DairyLama

PrairieGhost said:

Hi PedanticPorpoise:

So did he say that Dharma is a source of suffering?

I would say potentially yes.

The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. [7] Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html

But people can get attached to Secular Buddhism too.

PrairieGhost

Hi PedanticPorpoise:

But people can get attached to Secular Buddhism too.

Yes, of course. I wasn't making a distinction between religious and secular Buddhism, nor do I really think there is one beyond cultural peripheries.

I think what the Buddha means is that, to paraphrase Dr Susan Blackmore, whereas most religions are meme eating memes which culminate in the religion becoming the supreme meme (in a person's psyche), in Buddhism, the meme eats itself as well, leaving unfiltered suchness.