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.
Three Dharma Seals
David
A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
There seems to be a discrepancy in the dharma in regards to the Three Dharma Seals.
Some schools will teach that they are impermanence, non-self and dukkha while others say they are impermanence, non-self and nirvana.
Which observation fits best with your Buddhist process and why?
How has it been helpful so far?
Some schools will teach that they are impermanence, non-self and dukkha while others say they are impermanence, non-self and nirvana.
Which observation fits best with your Buddhist process and why?
How has it been helpful so far?
0
Comments
If we mostly see suffering in all we perceive then we will project suffering for all that perceive us. On the other hand if we mostly see nirvana and the Buddha in all we perceive then we will project a sense of that well being.
Can dukkha be a true Dharma Seal if it is not a universal aspect of being?
Just read chapter 5 of The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching. What TNH is saying makes sense to me so far. Would like to see a rebuttal against his theory though, both sides of the story as it were.
In the Jewel Ornament of Liberation (JoL) there are three methods:
The JoL is the Lam Rim text meant to accompany a teachers direct pointing out instruction. Use of the JoL is found in the Kama Kagyu lineage of Tibetan Buddhism.
Impermanence, suffering, not-self. The reason why that dukkha is also included is because,
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/suchIs.htm
I hope i'm not misrepresenting the Buddha when I say this, but I would say that there are 5 Dharma seals altogether, impermanence/suffering/not-self/whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation
Sometimes I've heard them listed as the 4 seals with Nirvana is peace as the 4th. More as an addition rather than a substitution.
That actually says that suffering is dependent on conditions as to whether it will arise so it couldn't be a dharma seal in the sense that all things are impermanent and non-self.
That everything is unsatisfying is a subjective notion also.
In regards to the 5 dharma seals wouldn't impermanence cover both origination and cessation?
But then again, dukkha which is dependent origination, which is the arising of the whole mass of suffering, so it would be origination, and cessation would be Nibbana. So I guess 4 Dharma seals.
there is a big debate. In my lineage Buddha nature is timeless, self, and bliss.
Non self is truth, can anybody point to themselves without pointing out an object?
Dukkha/Nirvanna - well the first applies to the ego, the second applies to who we really are. I guess from where you are looking. Same coin right.
But aren't impermanence and non-self also aspects of conditionality?
I hadn't heard about the 3 seals teachings, just the 3 characteristics of conditioned existence and the 4 dharma seals. It might be nice to leave dukkha out.
No fish?
I don't think impermanence can be avoided so it can't be conditional. Same thing with non-self. Nirvana is apparently already here, it's just been obscured.
There is no escaping impermanence. There is no escaping non-self. There is no escaping nirvava either even if we don't perceive it as such.
It doesn't seem conducive to the dharma to say there is no escaping dukkha.
Buddha still experienced the impermanence of all things and non-self but did he still experience dukkha?
If so then it could be considered a mark or seal but if he did not suffer while there was still impermanence and non-self then how could all three be on the same level?
If nothing is permanent, there cannot be a self. But we want a self, so we cling - and this results in sorrow. So basically the three can't be separated. What the buddha did is another matter. Doesn't change the fact that existence is basically characterized by these three things.
Impermanence and not-self are aspects of conditionality. I do agree though that they dukkha is on a different level.
Why assume we all want there to be a separate self? I don't mind knowing the absolute while living the conventional. It actually makes compassion a matter of common sense.
It is not an objective truth and so it's best not to cling to the idea that we all want to be a separate self.
The way I get it is that the three Dharma Seals are supposed to explain the nature of reality or existence.
Existence is characterized by impermanence, not self (or interbeing, or conditionality) and dukkha.
Nirvana is understanding that throws light on the way reality works, and helps bring about cessation of dukkha by acceptance of reality as it is and removal of attachment, but is not per se a characteristic of reality.
Note: Isn't not-self conditionality? The fact that all existence is interrelated with no individual, separate self in sight?
Conditionality is the same as causation which is partly what we mean by karma so I agree with that statement.
So if it is on a different level, how can it be one of the marks or dharma seals?
(Not asking you, that's just the question that naturally springs to mind)
That's just the thing... Why then is it said we have Buddha nature (or the potential to awaken if we see clearly) rather than the potential for suffering if we see clearly?
We are meant to accept impermanence.
We are meant to accept non-self.
We are meant to transform dukkha.
I don' know if I quite got how you phrased your comment, @ourself, but I would say that reality entails impermanence, non-self and dukkha.
You threw in Buddha nature, so I would say, through nirvana, through seeing reality and its characteristics clearly -and therefore, accepting, rather than transforming them- we awaken to our Buddha nature.
I was just trying to understand why some would include dukkha but not joy. If dukkha is the only one of the three seals that can be transformed how can it be a true dharma seal?
I can understand that dukkha and joy are opposites which means they are the same thing or different sides to the same coin but I think there must be a certain joy in seeing that clearly. This joy would not have an opposite because it's a joy of no-opposition.
I guess I can see both points now, thanks guys.
If we awaken we see the truth of non-self
If we awaken we see the truth of impermanence
If we awaken we see the truth of dukkha
The joy is in the acceptance of dukkha?
Dukkha is a mark of existence, joy, nirvana, seeing clearly, a solution...
Dukkha is traditionally one of the 3 characteristics of conditioned existence, which means there is no lasting satisfaction to be found in conditioned phenomena. Enlightenment is described as the experience of the unconditioned....I will get back to you on this.
Impermanence is not conditional, it is a constant.
Non-self is not conditional, it is a constant.
Nirvana is not conditional, it is a constant but must be seen without obstruction.
Suffering depends on not seeing clearly so it is conditional upon obstruction of nirvana.
I wouldn't put it that way. True joy is in the transformation of suffering, not in complacency.
If suffering can be transformed then it is not a true dharma seal or mark of existence because it depends on conditions.
The way you put it, suffering is the reality with nirvana being a learned delusion.
A blade of grass is impermanent.
A blade of grass has no sense of self.
A blade of grass is not separate from nirvana.
It would then be a hard sell that a blade of grass is stressed out or suffering dukkha.
No brain, no pain.
No, nirvana is not a learned delusion.
It is acceptance of things as they are. Contentment. A different standing point to observe the same reality.
The reality of suffering does not change, but we learn to come to terms with it.
--Thich Nhat Hanh: The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching
@DhammaDragon;
Being complacent in suffering is not cessation of suffering and Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, not the inescapable reality of suffering. There is a big difference there.
Put it this way... If there can be the cessation of suffering which would mean the end of suffering, then suffering simply cannot be a true dharma seal/mark of existence.
I never said we have to be complacent in suffering.
In Thay's own words, "Buddhism is liberation through understanding."
Understanding suffering, not dwelling mired in suffering, is Nirvana.
He also says that impermanence and nonself are synonim.
From the point of view of time, we call it impermanence, and from the point of view of space, we refer to nonself.
We discussed this somewhere before: we suffer because of our flawed perception of reality, i.e. because we want things to be permanent when they are not.
Once we come to terms with impermanence, and precisely because things are impermanent, are we better able to enjoy the present moment to the most.
"Whether an enlightened Tathagata were to appear in this world or not, this principle would still prevail as an enduring aspect of the natural order: 1) All compounded things are impermanent, 2) All compounded things are subject to dukkha, 3) All dhamma are without essence or self.
A Tathagata, having achieved enlightenment, understands this principle."
(A. N. I 286)
Thay mentions the three Dharma seals as being impermanence, nonself and nirvana, but the Theravadan insist on aniccata (impermanence), dukkhata (suffering) and anattata (nonself) as being the three characteristics or marks of existence.
Nirvana, enlightenment, is understanding that reality is so.
Phra Payutto says that the solution to dukkha is coming to understand the conditions of dukkha.
He says that Buddhadhamma teaches us to react to dukkha through insight: once you understand your problem, you can solve it.
This thread is gettin' good!!!.... hahaha. I can see my agreeing back and forth with some of the posts
Edit: Here's a thread with what Plum village has up....
I don't know if it adds...or confuses...hahaha...but it did come to my mind...
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/22837/discourse-on-the-dharma-seal#latest
Actually @Earthninja , I'm pretty much at that level myself with a couple of the threads currently in vogue....
@ourself
Those who understand/see "Dukkha" see/understand Nirvana
Those who understand/see "Nirvana" see/understand Dukkha
Tis half a dozen of one or six of the other...I have no preference...
Yes, both are aspects of conditionality.
Impermanence is change and that which is impermanent has always been in a state of change so there is no original form.
"Understanding suffering not dwelling mired in suffering is nirvana"
Yes I agree which is why I find it odd that so many want to keep suffering by constantly finding it everywhere.
In the last 6 or so I did an about-face and instead of looking for suffering in everything, I look for the healing in everything and I feel healing.
I see healing in everything. I don't think nirvana is in simply not suffering anymore but actually in the act of healing and then being healed.
Perhaps by starting to understand suffering I found the reason to look for healing, I don't know.
That being said, I hope you all know I'm not trying to be a dink or the fly in the punch or anything.
I think this suffering kick has been done to death and is getting old. Suffering is already implied with healing but by losing ground.
It is time to see the healing so there is no seer, just healing.
Mercy!
Lobsters only have 100 000 neurons to understand such things
Non self seems to be a lack of position not permenance?
You are referring to:
No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind;
no realm of eyes
and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness.
(Heart Sutra)
Where there is no permanent sense of being, it has to attach itself to an impermanent arising?
This from @DhammaDragon post seems more accurate? We are saying the same thing slightly differently?
Thanks guys.
I see your point and @DhammaDragons too.
However, it helps to remember that time and space are not different things and so neither is position or permanence.
We can't have a perceived distance without a sense of time and vice versa.
It makes it a nice experience when we all respect each other.
Thanks for the read. I will digest it now.
Edit: Now there Thay is saying dharma seals are doors of liberation.
Too many doors and seals!
Back to the cushion I go.
To add to the confusion, but to also reconcile both viewpoints on the Dharma seals and / or marks of existence, in a book about the 4NT, HH the Dalai Lama mentions Four Seals:
"The Four Seals are: all composite phenomena are impermanent, all contaminated phenomena are by nature unsatisfactory, all phenomena are empty of self-existence, and nirvana is true peace."
I have another book by HH the Dalai Lama, "The World of Tibetan Buddhism," where he elaborates on the Four Seals.
In Tibetan Buddhism, it would seem that the seals are not exactly marks or characteristics of existence, but rather axioms that are common to all schools of Buddhism, that's why nirvana is included in the list:
https://books.google.ch/books?id=X8s6AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT33&lpg=PT33&dq=the+four+seals+of+dharma+dalai+lama&source=bl&ots=mPm7uv4699&sig=7l49THPoIzjMfYDsRMVIhIqgFBE&hl=de&sa=X&ei=SAp0VaXlK8iwsQHgxYDwCw&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=the four seals of dharma dalai lama&f=false
http://www.lionsroar.com/buddhism-nutshell-four-seals-dharma/#
http://thubtenchodron.org/2011/08/core-buddhist-principles/
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/dalai3.html
http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/748
And doing some googling, I came across this old New Buddhist thread:
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/7229/four-seals-of-dharma
I don't see them as contradictory or being a discrepancy. One is a description of the qualities of phenomena, AKA "three marks of existence". The other is a description, or 3 marks, of a "Buddhist" teaching.
But impermanence and non-self do seem qualitatively different to dukkha and nirvana.
The first two relate to the way things are, the second two relate to how we experience them.
Sure, but wasn't meaning to compare impermanence to dukkha. But rather just the first 3 seals to the 2nd 3 seals. Like this.
"impermanence, non-self, and dukkha" = qualities of existence/phenomena
"impermanence, non-self, and nirvana" = qualities of a Buddhist teaching
What you say is how they are usually defined but Thay specifically says it is an error to equate dukkha to a true mark of existence.
While going through everything it looks to me as if Thay is trying to show the distinction between "everything is suffering" and "sentient being suffer because of ignorance".
A table doesn't suffer the notion of either permanence or a self but it would be hard to argue that a table is non-conditional.
The buddhist teaching/instruction is for sentient beings who suffer, and in that context it is the same as saying 'there is suffering'.
Yes, as has already been pointed out, examining the 4nt should be aimed less at 'what do the words mean', and more at 'what do they mean to me'.
If someone is happy, does that mean they shouldn't try to find out what awakening means?
The truth of happiness and the end of happiness doesn't have quite the same punch to it, does it?
It's a provisional teaching. No more than that.
Edit- sorry wrong thread. Oh well.
Yes, dukkha is a characteristic of human experience while ignorance persists. This is confirmed by the teachings on dependent origination, where ignorance is the root or underlying cause of suffering.
Yes, fair point. I suspect part of the confusion is that in the suttas the 3 characteristics are framed in terms of the aggregates, ie in terms of human experience. Later they became more like metaphysical statements about the nature of existence.
On reflection I think the 4 seals formula makes most sense, because it includes the basic characteristics of impermanence and non-self, but also the samsara / nirvana pair ( I've substituted samsara for dukkha because I think it conveys the meaning better - actually wholesome / unwholesome would also work ).