The 3 marks of what, exactly?

[Spiny Norman]

"The 3 marks of existence" doesn't sound right, because Nibbana / cessation of dukkha is a living experience.

"The 3 marks of unenlightened existence" doesn't sound right either, because insight into anicca and anatta is a prerequisite for enlightenment, and I don't see how these two marks could be said to cease in the way that dukkha ceases.

You could replace "existence" with "experience" in the above descriptions, but I don't think it would make much difference.

And I don't think that "Sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anatta" clarifies the question I have raised.

Your thoughts?

[robertk]

The khandhas, ayataanas and dhatus.

[Spiny Norman]

The khandhas, ayataanas and dhatus.

It that were the case, then enlightenment and cessation of dukkha would not be possible.

[Sam Vara]

Why not conditioned (sankhata) existence?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

And I don't think that "Sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anatta" clarifies the question I have raised.

I think it does.

You don't need to conceive of a "three marks of" anything, separate from or different to the Pali that you quoted.

Metta,
Paul.

[robertk]

The khandhas, ayataanas and dhatus.

It that were the case, then enlightenment and cessation of dukkha would not be possible.

why would that be?

[justindesilva]

"The 3 marks of existence" doesn't sound right, because Nibbana / cessation of dukkha is a living experience.

"The 3 marks of unenlightened existence" doesn't sound right either, because insight into anicca and anatta is a prerequisite for enlightenment, and I don't see how these two marks could be said to cease in the way that dukkha ceases.

You could replace "existence" with "experience" in the above descriptions, but I don't think it would make much difference.

And I don't think that "Sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anatta" clarifies the question I have raised.

Your thoughts?

Anicca, Dukka, Anatta has no fitting words in English language. Lord budda in his message especially with agganna sutra expressed about the flux of energies which contracts and expands. In it anicca means the change which occurs in this flux. We beings are tools as part and parcel of the manifestation of energy in this flux of energies. Dukka is only sensation in the flux of energies where we are involved mentally and physically. Paticca samuppada explains the involvement of beings with existence. Dukka is not sorrow or distress as believed. Dukka somanassa or domanassa is what goes on with the mind. Hence feeling or vedana has to be analysed in a deeper sense. Anatta means that self or an ego is not involved with this flux of energies.
Lord budda stated that there is no doer neither is there a self experiencing the effect of the cause of action. There is only pure damma.
It states that there is only the acting flux of energies. Vedana hence is momentary sensation neither joy or sorrow . It is felt by the beings existing or entangled in this flux of energies.
The vision of such an explanation will be different between a putujjana layman with defilements or an enlightened being a sovan or a higher status.

[dylanj]

Why not conditioned (sankhata) existence?

Because the 3rd Mark is of both conditioned & unconditioned phenomena.

[dylanj]

"The 3 marks of existence" doesn't sound right, because Nibbana / cessation of dukkha is a living experience.

I don't see the logic here. Why does Nibbana being experienced in life mean the term is invalid?

"The 3 marks of unenlightened existence" doesn't sound right either

Well that's certainly not what they are, the 3 marks are if anything even more evident for an enlightened being. There's nothing about them restrictive to unenlightenment.

And I don't think that "Sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anatta" clarifies the question I have raised.

it certainly does, this is what the teaching actually is.

What's wrong with 3 marks of existence, though? They are three characteristics which are observable in existence. If you really insist, they are often referred to as tilakkhana/3 characteristics.

[davidbrainerd]

Physical existence

[Sam Vara]

Why not conditioned (sankhata) existence?

Because the 3rd Mark is of both conditioned & unconditioned phenomena.

What is the problem with that? The first two apply to conditioned existence only, whereas the third applies to the conditioned and the unconditioned. So when talking of conditioned existence, we can say it has three marks.

[dylanj]

Why not conditioned (sankhata) existence?

Because the 3rd Mark is of both conditioned & unconditioned phenomena.

What is the problem with that? The first two apply to conditioned existence only, whereas the third applies to the conditioned and the unconditioned. So when talking of conditioned existence, we can say it has three marks.

Okay, but why would you single out conditioned existence like that? The 3 marks are descriptors of both the conditioned & unconditioned & the first two marks describe the fact that the unconditioned is not anicca & not dukkha as much as they describe that the conditioned is anicca & dukkha. The teaching encompasses both the conditioned & unconditioned, therefore we should not call the teaching "marks of conditioned existence".

[Sam Vara]

Okay, but why would you single out conditioned existence like that?

Conditioned existence is singled out like that because it is the existence which is known by ordinary people, those in need of the Buddha's teaching. There should be no clinging to any conditioned thing because it is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self.

The 3 marks are descriptors of both the conditioned & unconditioned

I don't think they are. Only one of them - anatta - is applied to everything, and thus is applied to the unconditioned:

[When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are inconstant' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.

When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are stressful' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.

When you see with discernment,
'All phenomena are not-self' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.
(Dhp 277-279)

The teaching encompasses both the conditioned & unconditioned, therefore we should not call the teaching "marks of conditioned existence".

I think it is more accurate to say that the teaching refers to both the conditioned and the unconditioned; but it does not apply the same descriptors to everything that it describes. It applies one descriptor (anatta) to the conditioned and the unconditioned alike; it is the sole universal descriptor. It applies all three to conditioned existence. The three (dukkha, anicca, and anatta) are therefore applied only to the conditioned.

[Jetavan]

"The 3 marks of existence" doesn't sound right, because Nibbana / cessation of dukkha is a living experience.

"The 3 marks of unenlightened existence" doesn't sound right either, because insight into anicca and anatta is a prerequisite for enlightenment, and I don't see how these two marks could be said to cease in the way that dukkha ceases.

"Dukkha" can be defined in two ways: (1) the feeling of dissatisfaction; and (2) the inability to provide total satisfaction.

The cessation of dukkha is the cessation of dukkha #1.

Dukkha as one of the three marks of conditioned existence is dukkha #2 Such a characteristic of conditioned phenomena is always true (just like anicca and anatta are always true).

Ajahn Karuṇadhammo talks about the two kinds of dukkha.

[dylanj]

Okay, but why would you single out conditioned existence like that?

Conditioned existence is singled out like that because it is the existence which is known by ordinary people, those in need of the Buddha's teaching. There should be no clinging to any conditioned thing because it is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self.

The 3 marks are descriptors of both the conditioned & unconditioned

I don't think they are. Only one of them - anatta - is applied to everything, and thus is applied to the unconditioned:
...

The teaching encompasses both the conditioned & unconditioned, therefore we should not call the teaching "marks of conditioned existence".

I think it is more accurate to say that the teaching refers to both the conditioned and the unconditioned; but it does not apply the same descriptors to everything that it describes. It applies one descriptor (anatta) to the conditioned and the unconditioned alike; it is the sole universal descriptor. It applies all three to conditioned existence. The three (dukkha, anicca, and anatta) are therefore applied only to the conditioned.

I think you are equivocating. Yes only one mark refers to the unconditioned. Still the 3 marks as a collective are not "the 3 marks of the conditioned" but are more "the 3 marks of things", with internal distinctions as to which things, conditioned or otherwise, each mark applies. It is not only the conditioned existence which is relevant to ordinary people...it is of profound relevance that not only the conditioned but also the unconditioned are not-self. If we single-out the conditioned & say "these are the 3 qualities of the conditioned" (which is true) there is room left for postulating that that which is beyond the conditioned is self, which we in fact see happening in some 'Buddhist' groups, e.g. Dhammakaya. It seems you are trying to change the teaching by putting excessive emphasis on the fact that all 3 marks describe the conditioned & insufficient emphasis on the fact that 1 also describes the unconditioned. "3 marks of the conditioned"....of course it is technically true but it is not right for it is not the way the teaching is taught.