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.
Are the 'three marks of existence' FACTS.. Or just a 'buddhist' concept?
zenmyste
Veteran
I dont want people to get defensive towards buddhism!
I would just like 'your' opinion!
Im just wondering is it 'Fact' that there is 'No self' - there is no 'I'
And if you believe its 'fact' can you share your experience as to when you 'realized' this for 'yourself' !
Also My question only arises because if things are 'facts' then that means 'Everyone' - (all religions) would agree with this 'non self'
Is that true? Do all religions agree or is it, like, a buddhist concept which now you believe it is true through your practice in buddhism..
I would just like 'your' opinion!
Im just wondering is it 'Fact' that there is 'No self' - there is no 'I'
And if you believe its 'fact' can you share your experience as to when you 'realized' this for 'yourself' !
Also My question only arises because if things are 'facts' then that means 'Everyone' - (all religions) would agree with this 'non self'
Is that true? Do all religions agree or is it, like, a buddhist concept which now you believe it is true through your practice in buddhism..
0
Comments
the third Anatta(not-self) I think is the hardest to come to see through your own experience. I think I've been picking at the surface but I truely do not see "not-self" in everything... yet. That is one of the marks of a stream-winner, wisdom of not-self.
So to sum up-
Anicca(Impermenance)- all things are forever changing, even science supports this fact by showing us that our cells die and new cells arise every second. We also know that this universe had a beginning and it will have an end..there will be a time when all the gas from all the stars dies out and the universe goes black once more.
Dukkha(unsatisfactoriness) - The level of this one really does depend on the individual. Some can only see that there are some things in life that are "suffering" or "unsatisfactory". While others can see that even in what we consider the most "happy" things in life.. there is unsatisfactoriness. Because we do not know that all things are impermanent we cling to things, and when they change ( arise/pass away) we suffer because of our ignorance.
Anatta( Not-self) - Again I cannot speak with much experiential wisdom on this. But we are supposed to come to realize that there is not-self in everything. What is this body? is there a self in this mind? in this arm? leg? our speech? where is this "self" and what makes up this "self", just this, the five aggregates, form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness.
If taken to be ontological truths then one will stagnant. One uses the view to facilitate dropping.
Conditioned Phenomena are Impermanent.
There is suffering it pervades all of Samsara.
There is no Inherent Self things are illusory.
These are 3 true things that are verified by logic and experience.
How do you ''know'' things are not 'real'
The three marks cannot be ontological truths but rather they are experiential.
Impermanence as an experience is neither permanent, nor impermanent. Its like everything is complete change, thus absolutely nothing is happening. Changing without reference points. Thus nothing changing, nor is there a basis to designate something as changing. Just complete change. But really that doesn't line up with our dualistic/inherent thinking, which assumes changes requires something not changing and changing itself is something changing. Well when you experience and push through the projections of subject/object you find a fractal which is changing but absolutely nothing changing. Paradox to the mind, very apparent in direct experience.
And what does that conclude? Absolutely nothing for the mind but everything for liberation. It basically means that everything is liberating itself continuously and no antidotes are required. But to arrive at that conclusion requires tremendous letting go as a state of being.
What about non-self?
In direct experience there is absolute no "er", subject. Directly hearing a sound there is only sound, only the process of hearing. Then we project hearer, which is a thought that references a certain location. So experience is then built with time, subject, reference points. But again in experience there is only the sound. If one actually practices in such way then anatta can be known to be obvious as it is always the case. It is only thought that references an assumed subject.
What about suffering?
Everything is suffering because we conceive the world as real or unreal. Is or isn't. The assumption is that there is actually independent things out there or in here. Not only that we give time, location, subjects, meaning, preferences to inherent existence. So even if we see through the illusion of self or the subject we still haven't seen the illusion of the phenomenal world, which the self is made up of. We drop thoughts and come to experience everything in the six doors. But then we cannot see the emptiness of the six doors thus we suffer. Ignorance is the greatest spell that is casted by the mind.
The point of all this isn't just dry intellectual theory. It is to examine everything in our experience without coming to a conclusion. There are no conclusions: just suffering and the release of suffering.
Facts, opinions and experience.
Subjectivity and objectivity have no true hierarchy other than the assumed functioning and assumed bias we have.
Buddhism as a whole is about suffering and the end of suffering, which basically requires no objectivity or subjectivity.
So the real question and crux of the meaning is does the view taken bring more suffering or does it bring less suffering?
For a concept say: Force = mass x acceleration
But when we test that concept we find that the reality of the world fits the concept.
But that is dealing with external reality and not the mind.
It is important to note no one disputes the conventionality of the objects themselves simply their mode of existence.
Again all things are like dreams for although they appear they do not truly exist !
Belief - a form of delusion for the childish?
Belief is not required in Buddhism. Find your self, soul, yidam and father christmas all dissolving . . . Into Nothing.
Sorry guys, might have to start speaking the Truth if I (or my incarnated soul - try not to laugh) intend to wake from the dreams imposed on us by ignorance, no matter how revered the source . . .
:wave:
I think the 3 marks of existence are analagous to a scientific theory, we observe carefully and see whether our experience supports the hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fana_(Sufism)
In Buddhism meditation leads to the non arising of our lower persona, which begins to dissolve as we recognise its inherent falsity. There are other ways, they have their meditations . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muraqaba
As I said to the Buddha only this morning: 'Are you sure you don't exist?'
Things seem to be entities owing to the fallibility of our senses — our faculties of sight, hearing, touching, smelling and tasting, and even thinking. Science has accepted the position that our senses are not infallible guides to us. A permanent entity is only a concept, only a name. It does not exist in reality.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratna/wheel102.html
Actions too are compounded - sitting, standing, walking, urinating.
A simple act of breathing is a combination of in breath, out breath, diaphragmatic and chest movements, chemical sensors in the brain, cellular metabolism etc, etc. Likewise swallowing is also compounded - tongue rolling, pushing the food into the pharynx, food mixing with saliva etc. In other words, all phenomena (actions and objects) are sankharas. Labels do not adequately describe reality! Emptiness is everywhere.
It is pretty obvious that not all religions agree that it is a fact that the 'I' is a mental contruction. Many religions place no store in investigating such things, and would regard the consequence of this idea, which would be that 'I am God', just as we all are, as an heretical idea, the work of the devil. For an objective God to which I am subject, as required by most forms of theism, an independent self would be a logical necessity.
Before investigation it will seem obvious that the 'I' of everyday life is 'me' and that 'I think' and that 'I am'. All of the 'wisdom traditions', however, claim that the 'I' is not there when we go looking for it. As these are the only traditions in which people actually investigate these things empirically, it seems safe to assume that no-self is one of Wittgenstein's facts about the universe, a fact of ontology.
No-self is not an especially Buddhist concept, I think, but Buddhism is such a fantastically well-organised religion intellectually, philsophically, didactically and practically that these concepts often seem much more clear here than elsewhere. There is only one mysticism, however, since we're all studying the same phenomenon, and so the same idea is there in Sufism, Theosophy, Kabbalism, Taoism, Seikhism, Vedanta and so forth/ It is bound to be there, since if what is real is a unity, as mysticism claims, then a plurality of independently-existing 'souls' or 'selfs' would clearly be impossible.
Of course the reality of no-self can only be spoken of by people who know it as a fact. The rest of us must take it on trust or suspend judgement. But no-self can be proved in logic, and I don't think it would be necessary to be a buddha to be very sure that it is a fact.
Facts are what anyone might verify. So ... verify it or not, it's no skin off my nose.
Omg, forgive my ignorance, but is that what is meant by the 'no self' concept - (no abiding self)
If so, what a silly thing for me to even question!
Of course that is a 'fact' yes!
Like i said, pls everyone excuse my ignorance!
Next time you meditate on the breath try becomng aware that you are being breathed.
Its just as valid.
It appears to be a universally agreed upon sentiment in Buddhism that clinging and attachment are, for a lack of a better word, "bad" things. Now, for me I don't quite understand what's so wrong with that. I don't see there being anything wrong with attachment....to a point, of course.
The way I see it is that a Buddhist would say, for example, not to grow some sort of attachment to a car, like many people seem to do (including myself) as it's quite obvious (to me at least) that there's a very slim chance you'll have the same car for the entirety of your existence. So with that in mind, I am still somewhat "attached" to my car. I like it, I'm happy when I get to drive it and so on. However, I won't go so far as to literally fall in love with it or something as I know that despite all my efforts, I'm going to lose it some day. When that day comes, I will be disappointed, even sad, but not as much as I would be if I were overly attached to it.
So my question is, what's wrong with attachment as long as you don't take it too far? Sure there will be some suffering of some sort at one point or another, but what you get in suffering you can possibly get even more happiness out of, and once you get past the dissatisfaction of sadness of the loss, you can maybe even look back with fondness, which will maybe squeeze a bit more happiness out of it.
So....yeah. :P
One question @Captain_America is if you have tried meditating. All the verbal diarrhea I could spew means nothing compared to trying meditation 30 minutes a day for 6 months. If you haven't done that I challenge you. Ideally you need hints from a teacher. However it is like riding a bike in that nobody can teach you balance and it is possible to learn to ride a bike with no teacher.
So it is 'to a point'. A small letting go gives a small peace and a big letting go gives a big peace.
http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/MarshlandFlowersReader5.aspx?article=117
"What the Buddha taught is a true way to celebrate every moment of your life, not a negation of life.
You can be swimming in the middle of all the objects of desire and have no attachment or clinging to it and that is true renunciation. However, it must be said that for some people renouncing the objects themselves does help in the real renunciation of the Kama Sankalpa. So, this is a very individual thing.
Actually, if you renounce your Kama Sankalpa towards all objects of the world then you are free to enjoy them without any fear and hope or clinging to them in the hope that it will last; or fear that they might go away. Then we enjoy it while it is there and when it goes away, you enjoy its absence too. This is what the Buddha meant by: When seeing, just the seen; when hearing, just the heard... (drishte drista matram bhavishati, srute..) which is an oft repeated statement in the Zen Buddhist tradition - as when sitting, just the sitting; when walking, just the walking...
Then you are free to enjoy every moment freely without hope and fear (hope that it will last forever or fear that it might go away). And this is the true enjoyment of life (a true celebration of life, of this moment); also called drishta dharma. What the Buddha taught is a true way to celebrate every moment of your life, not a negation of life; a true celebration of what every moment presents, not a negation of what is presented. It is the ordinary mind under the influence of ignorance that negates the moment in front of us in search of our imagined happiness and thus misses out on the real world.
We are constantly hankering after a past memory or an imagined future and continually missing out on the only reality which we have which is the present moment. This constant hankering after memories of the past or craving for an imagined future is what is meant by Kama Sankalpa. This is also called Trisna which means thirsting or craving; and this is the eighth factor in the chain of 12 interdependent origination. (Dwadas nidan). It is that which ties us to samsara which is a synonym for suffering
So what the Buddha taught was not life denial but rather the true way to live life fully with all its richness. If there is outer renunciation of objects, as there is in the Sravaka system, it is always as a means to weaken the Kama Sankalpa and not as a thing to hold on to as something great in itself; not something to glorify. If that happens, then the renunciation of the outer worldly objects itself becomes an object of Kama Sankalpa. In that case, it defeats the purpose and just becomes another source of further clinging. Thus the act of renunciation gets glorified and used as a means of boosting one's ego.
This does not mean you stop renouncing. Now you renounce even the renunciation. One still continues to live one's life as a renunciant. In the process of explaining kama sankalpa we touched upon the chain of 12 interdependent origination. We will have to deal with that later as that is crucial to the understanding of Buddhism. Now let us move on to the third type of suffering."
"Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html
Imagine you would like to know if you could get to Burlington by taking Highway 61 (a fact.)
So you get a map (Buddhism) that shows yes Burlington is on Highway 61.
But you still have not gone to Burlington via Highway 61. What good is this knowledge about what route to take unless you actually make the trip?
The 3 marks of existence, anicca-dukkha-anatta, are the way things are. More importantly, Insights into the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and selflessness of all phenomena (including the aggregates) leads to freedom. A meditation practice is required. When you understand the way it is, rather than the way you wish it were, you stop clinging.
Best Wishes