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.
I find these kinds of threads fascinating. I usually have little to offer because my teacher and my sangha doesn't worry about labeling them. We touch on all of the things discussed here, often and in great detail and discussion and debate. But we do not label them as "3 seals" or "3 marks of existence." Is there a specific point into labeling them and getting into a huge discussion about who is really right? It seems to me the entire discussion is based on ego and determining which side is correct when it probably doesn't really matter as long as long as you learn and grow and adjust your understanding as you go. If you understand it all, does it truly matter whether the 3rd seal is dukkha or nirvana? Why?
It's certainly helped my understanding to revisit these classifications. The differences in perspective between different schools can be very revealing.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I don't mind graphics and pictures... but when a thread becomes full of them, because people either use them in response instead of words, or they just keep posting pictures without any commentary, it makes actually finding out what the thread is about, pretty obscure, and at times, virtually unintelligible.
It's important to remember we have a lot of 'lurkers'...
@karasti said:
Is there a specific point into labeling them and getting into a huge discussion about who is really right? It seems to me the entire discussion is based on ego and determining which side is correct when it probably doesn't really matter as long as long as you learn and grow and adjust your understanding as you go. If you understand it all, does it truly matter whether the 3rd seal is dukkha or nirvana? Why?
I would tend to agree with you here, @karasti, but I don't think any side is trying to be right.
These discussions sometimes help us review concepts we took for granted and put our own ideas in order.
It seemed interesting to me to find the Dalai Lama mentioning a fourth seal, for instance.
The thread has helped me see things more clearly. In Tibetan monasteries there is a long tradition of very heated debates of ideas.
5
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
For myself I don't care in the slightest "who" is right, I only care "what" is right. If I ever do get it all down right it will be partly because I had gotten it all wrong before.
Having the third seal as dukkha and the fourth seal as nirvana seems to actually simplify the seals down to two... If impermanence and non-self are two sides of the same coin it's easy to see dukkha and nirvana as two sides of another.
@ourself said:Having the third seal as dukkha and the fourth seal as nirvana seems to actually simplify the seals down to two... If impermanence and non-self are two sides of the same coin it's easy to see dukkha and nirvana as two sides of another.
Impermanence and non-self are 2 sides of conditionality, so dukkha and nirvana would be 2 sides of our response to conditionality? Something like that?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Something like that I guess but maybe as we understand impermanence and non-self the nirvana is revealed within dukkha or samsara.
I feel like I'm trying to remember the recipe of something I only tasted in a dream.
well what I am saying is that we must not see it deeply enough because we are still grasping. this is debated sometimes on the internet with some more western Buddhist seekers having the idea that it is very easy to understand what Buddha taught rather than something that takes many lifetimes and a lot of effort.
@Jeffrey so true my friend, it's easy to understand the Buddhas teachings but when it cones down to direct experience of the teachings ... Well that's the hard part.
And it makes no difference how many books you read and understand if we don't directly experience.
@Jeffrey said: this is debated sometimes on the internet with some more western Buddhist seekers having the idea that it is very easy to understand what Buddha taught rather than something that takes many lifetimes and a lot of effort.
I think that with a more secular approach there is an inevitable "downgrading" of the challenges. Maybe that's not a bad thing though.
I guess what I meant is that for me, lengthy discussions of definitions do absolutely nothing to further my practice. Whether I understand the 3 seals or not does nothing for me in my daily life and practice, it's just an intellectual pursuit. Which isn't of course a bad thing. It just sometimes seems like we get into a lot of intellectual debates in an attempt to understand Buddhism rather than taking more time to simply practice. Not saying debate is bad, I just find it curious. For me, when I investigate it myself, it usually comes down to ego, to wanting to perfectly understand something because that is a sign in furthering my Buddhist education. But education and understanding/experience/practice often have little to do with each other. The monks in Myanmar are probably quite well educated. They probably know more Sutras than we've ever seen. But it hasn't done anything to further their understanding, obviously. Sometimes, I think our desire to conquer learning certain topics, even within Buddhism, is just simply another distraction from practice. Do you spend more time debating (with yourself or with others) the meanings of topics than you do practicing?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
It's a matter of perspective. I try to always be practicing even when I am debating or looking for the logic behind certain doctrine.
If I find a teaching that seems illogical I question it. I used to put it on the back burner but that now feels like procrastination.
And besides, the back burner is there to come back to eventually. Letting it fill up too high is a fire hazard.
"The argument, "Impermanent, therefore suffering, therefore nonself" is illogical. Of course, if we believe that something is permanent or has a self we may suffer when we discover that it is impermanent and without a separate self. But in many texts, suffering is regarded as one of the three dharma seals. To put suffering on the same level as impermanence and nonself is an error. Impermanence and nonself are universal. They are a mark of all things. Suffering is not."
--Thich Nhat Hanh: The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching
This does not contradict the Buddha's statement that all conditioned things are unsatisfactory for there can be no security in clinging to them. They are here one moment and gone the next moment.
‘All fabrications are impermanent.’
Seeing this with discernment
One grows weary of unsatisfactoriness.
This is the path to purity.
‘All fabrications are unsatisfactory.’
......................................................
‘All phenomena are not-self.’
......................................................
Dhammapada 277-279
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I suppose I take issue with the word "unsatisfactory" in this part of my practice.
I grew weary of unsatisfactoriness long before I was exposed to Buddhism.
Isn't there a place where we start being ok with impermenance, non-self, dukkha and nirvana?
Isn't there a place where we become satisfied not in spite of these truths but because of them?
Is that another fabrication or is that the clearing away of fabrications and accepting satisfaction knowing we must experience suffering in order to experience joy?
I wonder that, too. The implication so far has been you cannot move past unsatisfactoriness (or whatever you prefer to call it) until enlightenment. I think we can greatly improve on it though. There are people on the planet who don't seem to suffer it the same way we do, but mostly they still claim they aren't "there" yet.
@ourself said:
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?
As I understand it....
The three marks are true of all contingent things. If you contemplate what is true of all contingent things you will arrive at least at change and interconnectivity. These are in essence impermanence and emptiness/interconnectedness.
If all is interconnected and impermanent then any change is a chance connected with end or limit. I see this as the universal truth of Dukka, it is true of all things not just experience.
That is three three marks of existence, they are true of all things which could have been otherwise.
It is when you step the stream of understanding to see how the three marks effect all experiences that it follows that there must be this inevitable limit to the quantity and quality of experience, this is the inevitability of Dukka.
Understanding this is not the same as seeing dependent origination, but I believe they all stem to the same root truths.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@karasti said:
I wonder that, too. The implication so far has been you cannot move past unsatisfactoriness (or whatever you prefer to call it) until enlightenment. I think we can greatly improve on it though. There are people on the planet who don't seem to suffer it the same way we do, but mostly they still claim they aren't "there" yet.
I guess it's easier to get desensitized to our own pain than our loved ones pain. We can give up all our possessions and start fresh because it is all non-self but on the flip side of non-self is the guy down the road living in the gutter and begging for change. They are also an expression of non-self and they suffer for the lack of compassion.
I wonder if I could ever say I am awake in the absolute sense until every other being has awakened.
Catch-22 of the Bodhisattva code?
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The three marks are true of all contingent things. If you contemplate what is true of all contingent things you will arrive at least at change and interconnectivity. These are in essence impermanence and emptiness/interconnectedness.
If all is interconnected and impermanent then any change is a chance connected with end or limit. I see this as the universal truth of Dukka, it is true of all things not just experience.
I can see the logic in the first paragraph but then that same logic seems to go against the second one. If all is interconnected and impermanent then any perceived end or limit would in truth really be change.
I would argue that the only real universal truth is change (this covers both non-self and impermanence). If dukkha was a universal truth then there would be no cessation of dukkha unless dukkha is the obscuration of nirvana.
If we can see them both instead of just dukkha I think Buddhism would be better understood and not as disregarded for being nihilistic.
Anything that is suffering has the potential to heal on some level. Some people believe that an amputee healing means they grew back a limb but dukkha is more on an emotional and intellectual scale I think.
I would imagine there are countless examples of people that healed as their final act here.
I honestly think adding nirvana as the flip side of dukkha solves my dilemma. I think it is very important to see the possibility of nirvana in all we would see suffering in.
You guys are awesome, thanks for giving me so many takes on this.
@thickpaper said:Understanding this is not the same as seeing dependent origination, but I believe they all stem to the same root truths.
Though dependent origination explains that ignorance is a necessary condition for dukkha. So when there is no ignorance there is no dukkha. So dukkha is not inevitable, it only arises when the necessary conditions are in place.
So dukkha is not an inherent characteristic of existence in the way that impermanence and non-self are.
@ourself said:I would argue that the only real universal truth is change (this covers both non-self and impermanence). If dukkha was a universal truth then there would be no cessation of dukkha unless dukkha is the obscuration of nirvana.
I agree. If dukkha were a universal truth then no escape from it would be possible.
@thickpaper said:I think that there is the Dukka of experience and the dukka of existence.>
There is only the dukkha of experience, and specifically only of unenlightened experience. That's clear from dependent origination, where ignorance is a necessary condition of dukkha.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Yeah, I think that if there was dukkha without ignorance and by simply existing then rocks would experience dukkha.
I don't think rocks experience dukkha and do think that any dukkha we see in the rocks is a reflection and not a projection.
@ourself said:
Yeah, I think that if there was dukkha without ignorance and by simply existing then rocks would experience dukkha.
I don't think rocks experience dukkha and do think that any dukkha we see in the rocks is a reflection and not a projection.
But according to dependent origination rock is not an independent entity and only exists in relation to everything else.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited June 2015
@genie said:
But according to dependent origination rock is not an independent entity and only exists in relation to everything else.
Well, yes, it is a conditioned thing just like everything else.
That's what I mean.
A rock has no ignorance, it is rocking and not suffering for it.
If you want to say that all sentient beings suffer dukkha as a consequence of self awareness then I'm all ears but if you are saying that all is suffering, I'm going to have to disagree.
However, that still doesn't mean dukkha could be a true dharma seal or mark of existence unless we are using it as the flip side or obscuration of nirvana. If that's the case, shouldn't nirvana at least get equal billing?
The point is that your question - do rocks experience dukkha - is wrong since Buddhism sees life as a process rather than as things or objects. So there is only the process which you label at one time as rock,at another time as chair etc. And this process has the three chief characteristics.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
We are not talking about chief characteristics, we are talking about marks of existence.
That's why I said if you are trying to say sentient beings suffer dukkha as consequence of self awareness I'm all ears but if you want to say all is suffering then i'll (still) have to disagree.
@ourself said: We are not talking about chief characteristics, we are talking about marks of existence.
I still think the word "existence" is causing problems here. In the suttas the 3 characteristics relate to human experience, specifically unenlightened human experience.
4
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
We experience dukkha as a mundane truth because we have not penetrated reality with insight. Via vipassana we may gain panna, drop our cravings and realise nibbana, the supramundane truth. Dukkha/nibbana are two sides of the same coin - or seal, in this case. The other 2 seals, anicca and anatta, are uncontested.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2015
I don't have faith in anything claimed to be supramundane or divine.
The conventional truth is not separate from the absolute, they are just perceived on a different scale in my opinion.
Sorry, it's late so I'm probably being too cryptic. Time for sleeps methinks.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Daozen said:
We experience dukkha as a mundane truth because we have not penetrated reality with insight. Via vipassana we may gain panna, drop our cravings and realise nibbana, the supramundane truth. Dukkha/nibbana are two sides of the same coin - or seal, in this case. The other 2 seals, anicca and anatta, are uncontested.
That was actually partially my original point (if I take away the hint at supramundanity).
To me, dukkha couldn't be a true dharma seal because it depends on conditions to arise. Those conditions are the obscuration of nibbana.
Anicca and anatta could be seen as two sides of the same coin also.
Comments
I find these kinds of threads fascinating. I usually have little to offer because my teacher and my sangha doesn't worry about labeling them. We touch on all of the things discussed here, often and in great detail and discussion and debate. But we do not label them as "3 seals" or "3 marks of existence." Is there a specific point into labeling them and getting into a huge discussion about who is really right? It seems to me the entire discussion is based on ego and determining which side is correct when it probably doesn't really matter as long as long as you learn and grow and adjust your understanding as you go. If you understand it all, does it truly matter whether the 3rd seal is dukkha or nirvana? Why?
It's certainly helped my understanding to revisit these classifications. The differences in perspective between different schools can be very revealing.
Well, I guess I asked for it! And there's something else for the cliche thread, "Be careful what you wish for!"
I know you don't like graphics on serious text threads @federica, but this one seems appropriate for me on this one.
I don't mind graphics and pictures... but when a thread becomes full of them, because people either use them in response instead of words, or they just keep posting pictures without any commentary, it makes actually finding out what the thread is about, pretty obscure, and at times, virtually unintelligible.
It's important to remember we have a lot of 'lurkers'...
I would tend to agree with you here, @karasti, but I don't think any side is trying to be right.
These discussions sometimes help us review concepts we took for granted and put our own ideas in order.
It seemed interesting to me to find the Dalai Lama mentioning a fourth seal, for instance.
The thread has helped me see things more clearly. In Tibetan monasteries there is a long tradition of very heated debates of ideas.
For myself I don't care in the slightest "who" is right, I only care "what" is right. If I ever do get it all down right it will be partly because I had gotten it all wrong before.
Having the third seal as dukkha and the fourth seal as nirvana seems to actually simplify the seals down to two... If impermanence and non-self are two sides of the same coin it's easy to see dukkha and nirvana as two sides of another.
Impermanence and non-self are 2 sides of conditionality, so dukkha and nirvana would be 2 sides of our response to conditionality? Something like that?
Something like that I guess but maybe as we understand impermanence and non-self the nirvana is revealed within dukkha or samsara.
I feel like I'm trying to remember the recipe of something I only tasted in a dream.
we may know things are impermanent yet still 'grasping'
I think the idea is that if we saw impermanence deeply enough ( directly enough? ) then the grasping would cease.
well what I am saying is that we must not see it deeply enough because we are still grasping. this is debated sometimes on the internet with some more western Buddhist seekers having the idea that it is very easy to understand what Buddha taught rather than something that takes many lifetimes and a lot of effort.
@Jeffrey so true my friend, it's easy to understand the Buddhas teachings but when it cones down to direct experience of the teachings ... Well that's the hard part.
And it makes no difference how many books you read and understand if we don't directly experience.
I think that with a more secular approach there is an inevitable "downgrading" of the challenges. Maybe that's not a bad thing though.
I guess what I meant is that for me, lengthy discussions of definitions do absolutely nothing to further my practice. Whether I understand the 3 seals or not does nothing for me in my daily life and practice, it's just an intellectual pursuit. Which isn't of course a bad thing. It just sometimes seems like we get into a lot of intellectual debates in an attempt to understand Buddhism rather than taking more time to simply practice. Not saying debate is bad, I just find it curious. For me, when I investigate it myself, it usually comes down to ego, to wanting to perfectly understand something because that is a sign in furthering my Buddhist education. But education and understanding/experience/practice often have little to do with each other. The monks in Myanmar are probably quite well educated. They probably know more Sutras than we've ever seen. But it hasn't done anything to further their understanding, obviously. Sometimes, I think our desire to conquer learning certain topics, even within Buddhism, is just simply another distraction from practice. Do you spend more time debating (with yourself or with others) the meanings of topics than you do practicing?
It's a matter of perspective. I try to always be practicing even when I am debating or looking for the logic behind certain doctrine.
If I find a teaching that seems illogical I question it. I used to put it on the back burner but that now feels like procrastination.
And besides, the back burner is there to come back to eventually. Letting it fill up too high is a fire hazard.
Yes, that back burner can get quite crowded! With me it's usually questions on which there are a range of interpretations.
This does not contradict the Buddha's statement that all conditioned things are unsatisfactory for there can be no security in clinging to them. They are here one moment and gone the next moment.
Dhammapada 277-279
@pegembara;
I suppose I take issue with the word "unsatisfactory" in this part of my practice.
I grew weary of unsatisfactoriness long before I was exposed to Buddhism.
Isn't there a place where we start being ok with impermenance, non-self, dukkha and nirvana?
Isn't there a place where we become satisfied not in spite of these truths but because of them?
Is that another fabrication or is that the clearing away of fabrications and accepting satisfaction knowing we must experience suffering in order to experience joy?
I wonder that, too. The implication so far has been you cannot move past unsatisfactoriness (or whatever you prefer to call it) until enlightenment. I think we can greatly improve on it though. There are people on the planet who don't seem to suffer it the same way we do, but mostly they still claim they aren't "there" yet.
As I understand it....
The three marks are true of all contingent things. If you contemplate what is true of all contingent things you will arrive at least at change and interconnectivity. These are in essence impermanence and emptiness/interconnectedness.
If all is interconnected and impermanent then any change is a chance connected with end or limit. I see this as the universal truth of Dukka, it is true of all things not just experience.
That is three three marks of existence, they are true of all things which could have been otherwise.
It is when you step the stream of understanding to see how the three marks effect all experiences that it follows that there must be this inevitable limit to the quantity and quality of experience, this is the inevitability of Dukka.
Understanding this is not the same as seeing dependent origination, but I believe they all stem to the same root truths.
I guess it's easier to get desensitized to our own pain than our loved ones pain. We can give up all our possessions and start fresh because it is all non-self but on the flip side of non-self is the guy down the road living in the gutter and begging for change. They are also an expression of non-self and they suffer for the lack of compassion.
I wonder if I could ever say I am awake in the absolute sense until every other being has awakened.
Catch-22 of the Bodhisattva code?
I can see the logic in the first paragraph but then that same logic seems to go against the second one. If all is interconnected and impermanent then any perceived end or limit would in truth really be change.
I would argue that the only real universal truth is change (this covers both non-self and impermanence). If dukkha was a universal truth then there would be no cessation of dukkha unless dukkha is the obscuration of nirvana.
If we can see them both instead of just dukkha I think Buddhism would be better understood and not as disregarded for being nihilistic.
Anything that is suffering has the potential to heal on some level. Some people believe that an amputee healing means they grew back a limb but dukkha is more on an emotional and intellectual scale I think.
I would imagine there are countless examples of people that healed as their final act here.
I honestly think adding nirvana as the flip side of dukkha solves my dilemma. I think it is very important to see the possibility of nirvana in all we would see suffering in.
You guys are awesome, thanks for giving me so many takes on this.
Though dependent origination explains that ignorance is a necessary condition for dukkha. So when there is no ignorance there is no dukkha. So dukkha is not inevitable, it only arises when the necessary conditions are in place.
So dukkha is not an inherent characteristic of existence in the way that impermanence and non-self are.
I agree. If dukkha were a universal truth then no escape from it would be possible.
I think that there is the Dukka of experience and the dukka of existence. The latter is an instance of the former.
I think you might try not to see dukka as identity, as in "this is dukka" but in terms of connectivity, as in, "this is connected to dukka".
There is only the dukkha of experience, and specifically only of unenlightened experience. That's clear from dependent origination, where ignorance is a necessary condition of dukkha.
Yeah, I think that if there was dukkha without ignorance and by simply existing then rocks would experience dukkha.
I don't think rocks experience dukkha and do think that any dukkha we see in the rocks is a reflection and not a projection.
But according to dependent origination rock is not an independent entity and only exists in relation to everything else.
Well, yes, it is a conditioned thing just like everything else.
That's what I mean.
A rock has no ignorance, it is rocking and not suffering for it.
If you want to say that all sentient beings suffer dukkha as a consequence of self awareness then I'm all ears but if you are saying that all is suffering, I'm going to have to disagree.
However, that still doesn't mean dukkha could be a true dharma seal or mark of existence unless we are using it as the flip side or obscuration of nirvana. If that's the case, shouldn't nirvana at least get equal billing?
That's why I have a pet rock, I don't have to worry about it's feelings.
"Stone me, what a life...."
I believe the Pope is considered a rock. Just thought I would mention it.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope
However you are not allowed to pet him.
The point is that your question - do rocks experience dukkha - is wrong since Buddhism sees life as a process rather than as things or objects. So there is only the process which you label at one time as rock,at another time as chair etc. And this process has the three chief characteristics.
@genie;
We are not talking about chief characteristics, we are talking about marks of existence.
That's why I said if you are trying to say sentient beings suffer dukkha as consequence of self awareness I'm all ears but if you want to say all is suffering then i'll (still) have to disagree.
I still think the word "existence" is causing problems here. In the suttas the 3 characteristics relate to human experience, specifically unenlightened human experience.
@SpinyNorman;
I think you are right there.
Dukkha: mundane
Nibbana: supramundane
How so? Dukkha is the first truth, nibbana the third, so...?
We experience dukkha as a mundane truth because we have not penetrated reality with insight. Via vipassana we may gain panna, drop our cravings and realise nibbana, the supramundane truth. Dukkha/nibbana are two sides of the same coin - or seal, in this case. The other 2 seals, anicca and anatta, are uncontested.
I don't have faith in anything claimed to be supramundane or divine.
The conventional truth is not separate from the absolute, they are just perceived on a different scale in my opinion.
To bask in one is to obscure the other.
Good thing we are asked to find the middle way.
Nibbana is the fruit of the supramundane path, it's not a "truth".
Things have changed since your last comment then ... ?
No, I'm just confused by your terminology.
Sorry, it's late so I'm probably being too cryptic. Time for sleeps methinks.
That was actually partially my original point (if I take away the hint at supramundanity).
To me, dukkha couldn't be a true dharma seal because it depends on conditions to arise. Those conditions are the obscuration of nibbana.
Anicca and anatta could be seen as two sides of the same coin also.