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.
Trying to Explain the Three Foundations/Marks/Seals of all existent things.
thickpaper
Veteran
Q1: What is true of just one thing?
A: That it exists and cannot change.
Q2: What is true of just two things?
A: That they exist. That one is not the other. That difference is not possible.
Q3: Why is difference not possible with just two things?
A: Because there is no there thing that the two things can change relative to.
Q4: What is true of just three things?
A: That they exist. That they are not the same. That there can be difference; There is the potential for difference.
Q5: How can there be difference?
A: One thing can be connected to either one of the other things or connected to both of the other things. If one things is connected to only one other thing then it is interconnected to the other thing.
Q6: What is the difference between the two that are different?
A: It is a difference of connection, not of essence.
Q7: What is essence?
A: There is no essence, only interconnected things, all that is not a thing arrises from interconections.
Q8: What is difference without contradiction?
A: If this thing is different to that thing then this thing has changed relative to that thing.
Q9: Is change essential?
A: Only to things that can change. That which starts must stop.
Q10: Why must that thing which starts stop?
A: Because all things are interconnected things. If a thing arises from a change in interconnections there is no thing that is more than those interconnections; so any change is a change away from the thing.
Q11: Is this true of all change?
A: It is true of all consistent change, namely of the three kinds.
Q12: What are the three kinds of change?
A: There is the change of being when this is not the same as that.
There is change without connection or cause.
There is change that depends on other changes.
Q13: What is change that depends on other changes?
A: If this thing depends on that thing then without this, no that. Without that, then no this. When this stops that stops. What that stops so does this. ; All changes that are not true chance are changes of interdependence.
Q14: So all things are without essence, changing and interdependent on other changes and all changes will bring about the stopping of all things.
A: Yes.
Q15:Cool.Beer?
A: Sure;)
A: That it exists and cannot change.
Q2: What is true of just two things?
A: That they exist. That one is not the other. That difference is not possible.
Q3: Why is difference not possible with just two things?
A: Because there is no there thing that the two things can change relative to.
Q4: What is true of just three things?
A: That they exist. That they are not the same. That there can be difference; There is the potential for difference.
Q5: How can there be difference?
A: One thing can be connected to either one of the other things or connected to both of the other things. If one things is connected to only one other thing then it is interconnected to the other thing.
Q6: What is the difference between the two that are different?
A: It is a difference of connection, not of essence.
Q7: What is essence?
A: There is no essence, only interconnected things, all that is not a thing arrises from interconections.
Q8: What is difference without contradiction?
A: If this thing is different to that thing then this thing has changed relative to that thing.
Q9: Is change essential?
A: Only to things that can change. That which starts must stop.
Q10: Why must that thing which starts stop?
A: Because all things are interconnected things. If a thing arises from a change in interconnections there is no thing that is more than those interconnections; so any change is a change away from the thing.
Q11: Is this true of all change?
A: It is true of all consistent change, namely of the three kinds.
Q12: What are the three kinds of change?
A: There is the change of being when this is not the same as that.
There is change without connection or cause.
There is change that depends on other changes.
Q13: What is change that depends on other changes?
A: If this thing depends on that thing then without this, no that. Without that, then no this. When this stops that stops. What that stops so does this. ; All changes that are not true chance are changes of interdependence.
Q14: So all things are without essence, changing and interdependent on other changes and all changes will bring about the stopping of all things.
A: Yes.
Q15:Cool.Beer?
A: Sure;)
0
Comments
2. These first two questions.
3. The are both from the same person.
4. The subject of this post. Namely, anicca, dukkha, and anatta
5. I give up. You win.
metta
To me at least, the first two Q&A's just don't make sense, and you lost me after the third one.
Since you say you're "trying to explain", I expect that you're up for some constructive criticism. I think you're making the whole thing too complicated and convoluted, like you're way overthinking or over-stating it. Maybe start by stating what the three marks of existence are and then make sure as you're writing it that each statement relates directly back to the three marks of existence.
I must be backfiring somewhere because I am trying to make it simple! Doh!:)
As Buddhists we all should know the three marks, but I cant find any explanation of why the Buddha knew they were true of all conditioned things. I cant find it in any commentaries or suttas but this is the starting point of Dharma.
I can see why they are true. I have explained it to people in the real world and they get it too. It is very simple, but it requires us to think through the possibilities, not just assume anything is the case. I would gladly explain it on skype with a webcam.
Yes, this is perhaps good advice. I did think of that but it adds another layer in that I don't then want to accidentally state what I am trying to show.
Would you try to find out why the three marks are true and see what you come up with, this will be constructive, I hope. I will have a think about how best to re-do the dialetic with the marks stated at the start as you suggest.
Thank you and well wishes:)
for example, you wish to marry a certain woman or man but a trusted friend tells you that man or woman is extremely sexually promiscuous
so you decide that man or woman will "not be your partner" (anatta). why? because they are unsatisfactory (dukkha) due to the impermanence (anicca) of their faithfulness
for example, you decide to buy a certain motor car but a trusted friend tells you that the engines for that motor car do not last very long and must be replaced every year
so you decide that motor will "not be yours" (anatta). why? because it is unsatisfactory (dukkha) due to the impermanence (anicca) of it engine
the buddha said: "what is impermanent is unsatisfactory. what is impermanent & unsatifactory cannot be a [permanent] self and is unfit to be regarded as belonging to oneself"
Compare your explanation to mine.
:wow:
Q1: What is true of just one thing?
A: That it is composed of constituent parts and in a constant state of change if only at the atomic or molecular level.
Q2: What is true of just two things?
A: That they exist. That one is not the other. It is possible that they are different, or that they are identical.
Q3: Why is difference not possible with just two things?
A: It is possible. Why wouldn't it be?
Q4: What is true of just three things?
A: The same as what is true of just two things. They may or may not be different.
Q5: How can there be difference?
A: An infinite number of ways.
Q6: What is the difference between the two that are different?
A: Any one thing among an infinite number of things may be different. One of the protons may be different, one of the neutrons, etc.
Q7: What is essence?
A: There is no essence, only interconnected things, all that is not a thing arises from interconnections.
Q8: What is difference without contradiction?
A: If this thing is different to that thing then this is different to that thing- this is possible in an infinite number of ways.
Q9: Is change essential?
A: Change is all there really “is”. It is the human mind that posits permanence or constancy. Actually, all things are in a constant state or flow of change, and always have been. The human mind has had to posit permanence or constancy in order to survive. But this is also what gives rise to the false feeling of “self” and therefore to unsatisfactoriness.
Q10: Why must that thing which starts stop?
A: Nothing starts or stops. Phenomena just keep changing.
Q11: Is this true of all change?
A: Yes.
Q12: What are the three kinds of change?
A: There is the change of being when this is not the same as that.
There is change that depends on other changes.
(There is no change without connection or cause. Every phenomena is in a constant state of change or flux and always has been.)
Q13: What is change that depends on other changes?
A: If this thing depends on that thing then without this, no that. Without that, then no this. All changes that are not true chance are changes of interdependence.
Q14: So all things are without essence, changing and interdependent on other changes and all changes will bring about the stopping of all things.
A: No, things will continue to change and flow since that is the nature of impermanence. Nothing actually starts or stops, it just changes.
Q15:Cool.Beer?
A:No thanks. Stopped a long time ago.
@thickpaper- I have a very crappy internet signal and some things to do so I don't know if or when I'll be able to carry on with this. I just did this rather quickly and I don't know if I can stick with a protracted discussion like this.
But metta to you anyway.
try and see whether you can find anything without six sense bases
take/ look into the mind and try to see 'something comes into the mind' and see how long it stays there as it is without changing
if you 'like' it but does not stay then you get un-pleasent feelingd
if you 'do not like' it itself gives you unpleasent feeling
if you 'neither like nor dislike' it does not stay like that forever
if something is not stay as you like how can you say that is 'your self' ?
whenever possible do this experiment for something you hear, see, taste, smell and feel
one day, the experiment will gives results and that result is not just 'theory' or analysis of theory
that is the 'experience' of Three Marks
one can come to this experience of Three Marks through 'five aggregates' or 'six elements' or 'dependent origination'
analysing theory is helpful
but just that is not ENOUGH
we need to do the experiment too
The sincere practitioner Avalokitesvara
while intently practicing the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
perceived that all of the five phenomenal aggregates are empty of inherent existence
and was thereby saved from all suffering and distress.
He told Shariputra:
Form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness is form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.
Shariputra,
all perceived phenomena are marked with emptiness.
They do not appear or disappear,
they are neither tainted nor pure,
nor do they increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling,
no perception, no impulse, and no consciousness.
There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind,
no mind to perceive,
and so forth
until it is clear that there is no realm of mental consciousness.
There is no ignorance nor extinction of ignorance,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of these phenomena.
There is no suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
nor is there attainment, because there is nothing to attain.
If the sincere practitioner depends on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation,
and the mind is not a hindrance,
without any hindrance no fears exist.
Far apart from every incorrect view one dwells in the final state of seeing clearly.
In the innumerable worlds and dimensions
all sincere practitioners depend on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
and thereby attain the final state of seeing clearly.
Therefore know that the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom
is the great transcendent mantra,
the great clarifying mantra,
the ultimate mantra,
the supreme mantra
which is able to relieve all suffering,
is perfectly clear,
and is beyond any mistaken perception.
So proclaim the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom.
Proclaim the mantra which says:
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha.
“Gone Beyond, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, gone to the other shore.
Clarity.
So it is.
_______________________________
I learn something new every time I read that. But this part strikes me in this discussion:
"If the sincere practitioner depends on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation,
and the mind is not a hindrance,
without any hindrance no fears exist.
I hope this doesn't sound like the "you have to experience it through meditation" cop-out, but maybe that's so in this case.
One thing can be divided into an infinite number of 'things' and only the mind can stitch them together.
The notion of 'thing' is a fabrication created by consciousness. That is why the three marks are ONLY TRUE OF CONDITIONAL REALTIY. Conditional means mentally labled by thought.
Try reading THESIS.doc
It is a fabrication to say that one atom is a thing. An atom is made of electrons etc. An electron is made of smaller things. Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that the properties that constitute a thing such as particle momentum and position cannot be pinned down. As part of the fundamental fabric of reality.
There cannot be one 'existent' thing. It can be divided into infinite.
>>>There are no things.
There are things, they are empty. There are only things in relations. What forms the substrate of existance is imponderable and irrelevant: it may be spacetime, matrix bits, god's dreams.... yada yada.
>>>It is a fabrication to say that one atom is a thing. An atom is made of electrons etc. An electron is made of smaller things.
I havent said that. Moreover at this level "physics" is irrelvant.
>>>Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that the properties that constitute a thing such as particle momentum and position cannot be pinned down. As part of the fundamental fabric of reality.
As said, at this level "physics" is irrelvant. The Three Marks are true of any concievable reality, not just this one. If you do not see this point I think you do not understand the three marks.
>>>There cannot be one 'existent' thing. It can be divided into infinite.
In the case of all things, there can be one thing; that is, the things true of allthings, be they armchairs, galaxies or abstract single-points.
For example you point to the snowball and say thats a snowman. I say no its a snowball. You point to the carrot and say its a snowman. I say no thats the carrot.
You can divide things. You can always divide anything smaller.
"In the case of all things, there can be one thing; that is, the things true of allthings, be they armchairs, galaxies or abstract single-points."
This is incorrect. You can always divide anything smaller. A single point is nothing real. It is mentally labled. Because it is infinitely thin there is nothing there.
>>>>This is incorrect. You can always divide anything smaller.
The divisibility is irrelevant; the idea of an abstract singlepoint is a tool of the thinking. Try looking at it another way: What is true of all things that is true of just thouse things, not their parts nor of their their relations?
The answer, for all things, is simply that they exist independently of all other things.
What is true of the car that is not true of the wheels.... and so on.
Laying asside the urge to naysay (the easy urge for all things), do you see this? If not lets focus on that.
xx
I'm not sure what you mean by abstraction. The fact is that if an abstraction doesn't point to anything in the world then it is just mental 'gymnastics' to avoid a more crude term referring to solitary release.
If you can always divide smaller than the idea of a single point is a false idea. Like the idea of a rabbit with horns.
I probably don't see what you see. I don't think you understand non-self in my opinion. At least from what I understand from my dogmatic mystical orthodox guru :P Honestly I don't think there is ONE buddhism I think there are many. But your beliefs are on a different branch of the tree. You can't be on two trains at the same time.
Dukkha means when you take a mental lable as fixed there is suffering. It denies impermanence. And nonself. You lose openness to surprises. Like what are you going to do if you find out your zipper is down?
>>>If you can always divide smaller than the idea of a single point is a false idea.
>>>>I probably don't see what you see.
No, and I would like to help you see. It is not complex, its not even deep. At best it requires a bit of "letting go" of our worldly perspective.
Dont get hooked up on the divisibility, as its clearly distracting rather than abstracting for you.
Imagine a thing, and lets lable that thing "X". X could be your PC, your feet, the roundest pebble on Mars. The biggest subspot on Betleguse. The first atom on Argon in the universe.... the "froth on a wave"...anything.
Now X is divisible, that's a given.
Lets think in terms of statements, though we could naysay these until the cows come home, but for us they are a convinenent way to address the issues.
What statements are true of X that are not true of anything else?
And
What statements are true of X that are not true of any part of X?
And
What statements are true of X that are not true of any relationship X has with anything else?
If you think about these, really think - not just try to find fault and quirk - then I think you will come up with only one statement that satisfied all three questions:
X exists.
The fact X is before this, or left of that or containes these... all such statements are excluded.
Existance is an abstract property. All other properties (until we have values) are not abstract, they are relational.
I think this is what the buddha is refering to when he talks of the three marks of EXISTance.
This is our starting point, this was the starting point for the OP. If you ahve one things, whatver it is, the only thing that is true of just that thing, is that it exists.
Do you see this? We cannot proceed until you do. I urge you to drop all you think and start from blank principles for this "experiment".
Take your time to ponder please:)
xx
Very sincerely I feel buddha was talking about THIS world. Cheers.
"X exists."
Thats the opposite of mahayana buddhism. I am a mahayana buddhist. There is no self-existence. There is experience. In this world. And the experience cannot be fixed. We cannot nail it down. It is MYSTerious.
Existance due to duality in language. Buddhism is not an airtight theory. It is provisional in need of interpretation in the context of an experience. It is not abstract. If it did not refer to our experience then it would be no value whatsoever.
You seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel. You seem also to be expressing solid qualities to archetypes, which is against the truth of non-self and transience. Archetpyes are not static, they shift depending on the associations in the brain in the perciever.
The reason we don't spend time applying a self, "this is for sure a bunny", is because that leads to suffering. If we see "we call this momentary arising a bunny for the sake of communicating" then we do not. Moreover, what you call a bunny does not point to the same qualities as everyone else, so clinging to X leads to dissonance with others.
You seem to do this with your words quite a bit. "No, I'm pointing at X, spend time looking and you'll see it" as though your mind is seeing truth, while theirs is cloudy. Words are only as good as their ability to carry a message. Perhaps more "rethink what TP is doing" and less "just think about it more, audience, and you'll see my wisdom."
With warmth,
Matt
The Buddha taught dharma to people in a few hours, to the point of enlightenment. This is what some texts say, I belive it.
Dharma is simple, there is no mystical aspect, no majic, this is what I believe - I received the beliefs of those who disagree but don't wish to engage with them on the matter.
So... I want to know what is that the buddha taught that must have explained the three marks without meditation, and the four noble truths, from that.
It's so easy to criticse me, just as it is anything. That's easy meat and unless its backed up by answers to the questions, then its empty. This is true of all questions and all answers, whether we talk dharma or home economics.
Do you have an answer to the question: Why are the Three Marks of existence true of all conditioned things?
male egos. Gosh.
How do you know that?
Why did he believe they were true?
How did he think they condition the four noble truths?
Did he think they were true of all possible states or just states that are perceived? Why not? I have found it has utterly formed a foundation for my dharma. Am I mistaken? If so why and how?
Stating isn't explaining.
No worldly phenomena are permanent. They are all composed of constituent parts, which are further composed of more constituent parts, and so forth. This can be measured scientifically and reasonable inferences about this can be made.
The have no true existence from their own side, and they are independent of "me", so they are not-self, and I am not-self, because if you take away something like memory from "me", then I am no longer the "me" "I" thought "I"was.
If "I" try to impose a self or permanence onto phenomenal reality, "I" will be frustrated, stressed, and maybe even suffer because that's just not the way it is. Things are in a constant state of change/flux, and if "I" try to believe or act otherwise, "I" will eventually meet with frustration.
There you have it, folks. An explanation of the three marks of existence without reference to meditative insight. A little science or a little inferential reasoning will make it crystal clear.
"My wife will always love and accept me the way I am and I don't have to change or grow as a human being because she will always love and accept me."
That's a common one.
The Buddha says the hardest part of dharma to get is interdependent causation (dependent origination), and I would imagine most of us here understand that?
Sure they are pre-scientific and pre-sentient, but they are demonstrable by science and/or inference.
the Buddha taught causality so causes can be abandoned or developed. the 2nd truth states the cause of suffering is to be abandoned. the 4th truth states the path ("cause") to Nirvana is to be developed
but explaining why change occurs will not change change. we cannot be free from change. we cannot abandon the three marks. we can only accept them & realise them
imo, it is not necessary to explain "the cause" of the three marks
regards
There is a possible abstract reality (though close to inconceivable) that is just one thing that never changes. It has no beginning, end or change.
In this abstract reality there can be no change. Even if we have two of these things, and nothing else, there can be no change. It is only when there are three of them , ABC, that we have the possibility of change.
Does that shed light or darkness on what I'm trying to get at. I can show it with a web cam and three pebbles:) I have three pebbles just for it. Up for it? No embarrassed required. Just an open and flexible mind;)
yes, because they are true of all things. We can imagine a reality of musical notes or numbers, they still adhere to the three marks.
Well wishes:)
Do we really believe the OP illuminates/ellucidates the 3 marks?
I did not notice the 2nd mark mentioned in the OP
If you are not interested in this need for explanation, fine, but then I question why you attack those interested in trying to? Same with @amatt. I see countless things here I think are wrong view but, unless its obvious dogma, I stay out - though I used to be a sucker for getting involved.
Skills in silence. Practice hard.
ABC is for kindergarten (rather than for university atomic theory)
the OP must be read over and over again...and it does not even include the 2nd mark
Anyways, I find your negativity is making me negative, which I haven't felt here for a long time.
*I have become a dukka sukka!* Doh!
laters xx
I'm getting so I just don't understand this whole exercise. The Three Marks are simple, pre-logical, pre-sentient, and easily demonstrable by explanation, science, or reasonable inference. I know you can take a joke, so I'm going to say that it seems you've made the "Hallelujah Chorus" out of "Chopsticks" here.
And people seemed to be getting tired of the dead horse, so I've substituted a picture of a recently passed bodhisattva here. He taught us patience.
I say, with utmost love and metta for you, I find that list clumsy and unhelpful, and almost certainly another stone that will set up more suffering for you. I could be wrong, I'm not enlightened, and I spoke up only to help.
If you do not claim this thing as yours, why does my distaste for it "attack" you?