Talk:Three marks of existence
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theThree marks of existence article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives (index):1Auto-archiving period:30 days  |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stub quality article needs rewriting in plain English with quotes focused on subject matter.— Precedingunsigned comment added byOcdnctx (talk •contribs)04:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that 'all sentient beings are marked by these three characteristics", -- surely, and as explained in this article, it'sall conditioned phenomena, not merely all sentient beings?20040302 (talk)15:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See reference in thai section:https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A9%E0%B8%93%E0%B9%8C#.E0.B8.AA.E0.B8.B2.E0.B8.A1.E0.B8.B1.E0.B8.8D.E0.B8.A5.E0.B8.B1.E0.B8.81.E0.B8.A9.E0.B8.93.E0.B8.B0— Precedingunsigned comment added byBallWarapol (talk •contribs)01:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little to "Application" section about the fact that in Buddhism it isignorance of the three marks that is a central problem, and so getting free of that ignorance via direct insight is a key part of the solution to that problem (as per the prajñā components of the Noble Eightfold Path). I also added a reference sentence in the lead since I do think the notion of "ignorance of" the marks is key to explaining the marks themselves.Sleety Dribble (talk)17:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Pali, the relationship is as following paradigm:What is anicca is dukkha. What is dukkha is anatta☸ Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā (Samyutta Nikaya.Vol4.Page1).
Anicca and anatta are easily translated. Dukkha is difficult. In the Four Noble Truths it is called Suffering (i.e. noun). In the Three Marks it is often called 'unsatisfactory' (i.e. adjective). But this only fulfills the paradigm in the situation of pleasure: that which is pleasant-anicca is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory is obviously not personal (not under personal control). It doesn't work for neutral or painful objects.
Somewhere, I saw the Three Marks dukkha translated as 'unmanageable'. This makes for a good fit: That which is unlasting is (obviously) unmanageable (i.e. cannot be made lasting) . That which is unmanageable is (obviously) not personal (i.e. it is not under personal control).
The introspectively discovered truth of suffering is one of ceaseless movement, of a dynamic process which is suffering by virtue of being uncontrollable, ever-changing, and therefore inadequate and unsatisfying. (Carrithers, Michael (1986), The Buddha. Cited in Founders of Faith, Oxford University Press, page 54).
Mahasi Sayadaw calls it 'unmanagable, uncontrollable': "What is "Anatta"? It means: "Yam dukkham tadanatta - the dukkha dhamma, as taught by the Buddha. Hence, the five khandhas which are called "dukkha" is not "atta ", a living entity. It is Non-Self, the "anatta" It is unmanageable and cannot be coaxed to become happy inasmuch as it's inherent nature is "suffering". Since it is unmanageable and uncontrollable, it cannot be called or regarded as One's Own 'Self'. As such, Anatta is a condition which is ungovernable, Let's recite a Motto which embraces the said meaning: "The Five Khandhas being ungovernable, are not Atta."
In this Wiki article, someone calls dukkha 'suffering' and proves it by a quote from the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta. But this is the definition of the First Noble Truth dukkha. The quote is invalid. @Sukusala— Precedingundated comment added 16:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
.svg)
