The 3 marks of what, exactly?

[Spiny Norman]

For me, all aggregates are only mind-fabricated, none are real. I think you are taking the five aggregates as being real, this is certainly the majority view. So for me, it is only the cessation of constructed experience. But saying this may be of no help to a worldling since he is adding constructed experience to everything, and cannot distinguish between constructed and non-constructed experience.

I just take the aggregates to be a model of the way we experience things. Another model of experience is The All, ie the sense bases.

Clearly the aggregates are conditioned ( I prefer "conditional" ), as compared to Nibbana, which is unconditioned. So Nibbana represents the "escape" from the conditioned, as the Udana passage puts it. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

With this view of the unconditioned as an escape from the conditioned, it does make sense to talk about "the 3 marks of conditioned existence", as somebody suggested earlier in the thread.

I'm not sure I understand your distinction above between constructed and non-constructed experience - could you give a practical example?
It sounds reminiscent of MN1 where there is seeing things as really are versus conceiving about them.

[vinasp]

Hi Spiny,

Earlier you said:

Spiny: - "...since cessation of the five aggregates sounds like the complete cessation of experience ...."

I think that it would be interesting to explore this, since there is some difference of interpretation here.

I would like to start with the five clinging aggregates. My position is that when these cease it is not just clinging which ceases, but all of the following:

1. Some consciousness (vinnana) ceases.
2. Some volitional formations cease.
3. Some perceptions cease.
4. Some feelings cease.
5. Some appropriated form ceases.

Some of each of these things remains and these are eliminated when the five aggregates cease.

After the cessation of the five aggregates none of these things are found, and yet experience continues.

The ordinary man misunderstands everything in terms of permanence, pleasure, and selfhood. This misunderstanding is ignorance. The only thing that can be misunderstanding in this way is consciousness, so consciousness is ignorance.

Cultivating the three marks diminishes this ignorance, and can eliminate it altogether. So the three marks develop wisdom.

So the purpose of the three marks is to eliminate consciousness. Consciousness is not a thing, or a state, it is an event in a stream of such events.

Each event of consciousness is the arising of consciousness dependent on its object. Consciousness and its object arise and cease together, each depends on the other.

The objects of consciousness are the other four aggregates, so these cease when consciousness ceases.

So cultivating the three marks first removes the five clinging aggregates, then removes the five aggregates.

Regards, Vincent.

[Spiny Norman]

1. Some consciousness (vinnana) ceases.
2. Some volitional formations cease.
3. Some perceptions cease.
4. Some feelings cease.
5. Some appropriated form ceases.
.

I think a practical example here would be very helpful Vincent.

Say I am out in the town, and I come to a busy road. I see a bus approaching, so I decide not to cross the road ( as I don't want to get flattened! ).

So here we have various strands of consciousness, but most significantly visual consciousness. We have various perceptions, but most significantly the perception of "bus". Various volitions are involved, but most significantly here the decision not to cross the road. Various feelings will be involved, let's say as an example there is mild aversion towards buses because they are noisy and smelly. And so on.

Could you say what you think would cease with this example?

[cappuccino]

All that ceases is identification.

[vinasp]

Hi Spiny,

Spiny: - "Could you say what you think would cease with this example?"

To keep things simple let us assume that all aggregates have ceased, which is the state called 'tathagata.'

Spiny: - "Say I am out in the town, and I come to a busy road. I see a bus approaching, so I decide not to cross the road ( as I don't want to get flattened! )."

A tathagata, in that situation, could say exactly the same things.

Spiny: - "So here we have various strands of consciousness, but most significantly visual consciousness."

A tathagata would not say this. First you said that you see a bus, now you talk about visual consciousness. The tathagata also sees the bus, but he does not have any of the six kinds of consciousness.

Nowhere in the discourses is it said that 'eye-consciousness' is seeing. Since vinnana is some kind of conceptual knowing, then 'eye-consciousness' would be some kind of conceptual knowledge of what has been seen.

But 'wisdom' (panna) also includes conceptual knowing, why would there be two words for this? Why is it said that consciousness ceases, why is wisdom to be developed, and why is wisdom not said to cease?

The obvious explanation is that consciousness is the wrong kind of conceptual knowing, while wisdom is the correct kind.

Spiny: - " We have various perceptions, but most significantly the perception of "bus". Various volitions are involved, but most significantly here the decision not to cross the road. Various feelings will be involved ...."

Now, appropriated form is an object of consciousness, but this form has ceased along with the consciousness. Since there are now no objects of consciousness, there is no contact. Therefore, feeling, perception, and volition do not arise.

Regards, Vincent.