Theme 2 A - Ultimate Reality - The Three Lakshanas PDF

**[THEME 2 A -- Ultimate Reality -- The Three Lakshanas]** +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Theme 2 A -- The Nature of Ultimate Reality:** | | | | **The three laks...

**[THEME 2 A -- Ultimate Reality -- The Three Lakshanas]** +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **Theme 2 A -- The Nature of Ultimate Reality:** | | | | **The three lakshanas (three marks of existence): dukkha, anicca and | | anatta** | | | | The concepts of dukkha and anicca, with reference to the | | Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta. | | | | The concept of anatta, with reference to Section 1 Chapter 1 of the | | Chariot passage of the Questions of King Milinda. | | | | Possible b questions: | | | | - **The three lakshanas as representative of reality** | | | | - **The three lakshanas as the most important teachings of | | Buddhism** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ **[The Three Marks of Existence (Tilakkhana)]** Once he was enlightened, or awakened, the Buddha looked at the world and deduced that all existent things have three 'marks' or qualities. These are **dukkha** (unsatisfactoriness), **anicca** (impermanence) and **anatta** (no self). In other words, if something belongs to samsara (lit. 'wandering', but usually translated as the cycle of birth, death and rebirth), then it has these three marks: **Dukkha** - it is unsatisfactory/imperfect/inadequate/unable to deliver genuine satisfaction or to slake the thirst of tanha **Anicca** -- it is impermanent, subject to change, unreliable **Anatta** -- it has no ultimately real self/soul/identity The three marks of existence are what define **samsara**. To exist is to bear them, and this applies to phenomena (things) and to people. When we look shortly at the Four Noble Truths, we will find three kinds of suffering, each of which is associated with one of the three marks of existence. The three marks are quite easy to understand. We all know that everything is impermanent, and we have learned that in the Buddhist view, nothing is satisfactory -- it kind of follows from impermanence. The concept of anatta is perhaps new to us though, and although it is not at all hard to grasp, it does have powerful implications, and is an interesting way of looking at the world. Most of what follows, therefore, is about anatta. Anatta literally translates as 'no-self' (sometimes 'not-self'). Its meaning is that nothing exists by or of itself alone, nothing exists by its own power, all things exist only in a relationship of dependence upon other things. Buddhism asserts that because things do not exist by their own power, but are dependent on other things to continue to be, the things of this world are not worthy of being considered fully real. In presenting the doctrine of anatta, the Buddha was consciously distinguishing his own teaching from that of Hinduism. At the time the Buddha was alive, the Hindu Upanisads were being written. We know the Buddha was familiar with some Upanisads because he refers to them by name. The essential teaching of the Upanisads is that human beings, indeed all life forms, possess an indestructible essence or soul which migrates from body to body in a series of lives. The Buddha emphatically denied that any such essence or soul existed, considering any idea of a 'real self' to be not only a mere mental construct, but actually a dangerous illusion, causing us to live our lives in selfish behaviour and self-obsession. The teaching of anatta is so fundamental to Buddhism that it occurred in the Buddha's second sermon following his enlightenment, as a result of which the four remaining unawakened ascetics were themselves awakened. In the second sermon, anatta is presented as one of the three 'marks of existence' (tilakkhana), the other two, anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (unsatisfactoriness). In this sermon, the Buddha states: "All **dhammas** (compounded things) are without self". It is through this that we understand that anatta applies not just to persons, but also to phenomena, as both people and phenomena are 'dhammas'. The application of anatta to phenomena is rather well explained by the 2^nd^ century sage Nagarjuna, who was accused of denying the Four Noble Truths after declaring them to be void of self. His reply was clever -- if suffering fully existed (i.e. had an ultimately real self), it could never be ended! He went on to illustrate this with reference to a seed. If a seed had a real self, it would not be dependent on causes, and therefore no causes could act upon it. You could give it all the water and sunlight you wanted, they would have no effect, it would always be a seed. So it is actually because of no-self that the seed is open to causation and able to change into a tree or a flower. In this way, no-self theory is actually a rather useful way of explaining why our world is as it is. In relation to this double application of no-self to both things and to persons, the Buddha explained that human and other sentient beings are comprised of no more than five skandhas ('bundles' or 'heaps') which come together at birth and dissipate at death. These are: form (i.e. body), feelings, perceptions, impulses (each of which arises out of the previous) and consciousness (which holds the rest together). In the famous text The Questions of King Milinda, the great sage Nagasena uses the analogy of a chariot to explain no-self to the Greek king. Asking him "Are the wheels the chariot? Is the axle the chariot?" etc. Nagasena leads the king to understand that all things are merely temporary aggregations of a variety of causes. Even all the parts together cannot be said to constitute a real chariot because the chariot only exists in dependence upon its parts -- it does not fully exist, by and of itself. Having established that, Nagasena explains that human beings are things too, and we also have no existence beyond being a 'collocation of causes and conditions'. Thus Nagasena is able to declare: "By the term Nagasena I am known, but my name is only a convenient designation, for no such person can here be apprehended." This is a reference to the Two Levels of Truth, an explanatory device beloved of both Buddhism and Hinduism. Of course, there is a person called Nagasena who wakes up in the morning and eats lunch at noon. But this is only true on the conventional, everyday level of truth. Subjected to analysis however, we find that on a higher level of truth there really is no fully real Nagasena -- and no fully real lunch either. The two levels of truth can also be understood through a modern context. On the surface of things, in our everyday world, tables and chairs seem pretty solid and we trust them enough to hold our weight. Under a powerful enough microscope of course, they are - the 'higher truth' - mostly empty space. Indeed, the amount of solid matter of all six billion human beings alive today, gathered in one place, would amount to the size of a sugar lump -- and even that would not be so solid it could not be further split by a supercollider. Not surprisingly, the Buddha's doctrine of no-self has found some appeal amongst modern physicists, such as Capra. Additionally, the idea that any concept of a 'self' is a mere mental construct is not exactly unknown in the West. Wittgenstein said: "We are bewitched by language into belief in a self", and Ryle used the concept of a 'category mistake' to explain how we erroneously consider ourselves to be something more than the sum of our parts. It was Hume, though, who expressed the thought in the most intriguing way, stating that "In the act of perception, I can never catch sense of a perceiver". He went on to declare that human beings are no more than 'bundles' of perceptions, rumbling along one after the other like a series of railway carriages. What is really fascinating is his use of the word 'bundles' -- exactly the same word as that used by the Buddha himself (skandhas = bundles). Now, the Buddha did not simply 'observe' that anatta was true and leave it at that. He analysed the role it plays in miring us deeper and deeper into samsara so that, becoming aware of it, we could become free. Direct perception (**yathabhutadarsana**) of anatta is the key to conquering craving -- if we see there is no self, then we must understand that possessions etc. will not make us happy and -- more than that -- we would understand that if we have no self, there isn't anything to be made happy in the first place! Each of the three marks of existence is associated with a particular kind of suffering. That associated with anatta is the deepest, sankharadukkha, the 'suffering of conditions'. The Buddhist scholar Edward Conze described this as 'a basic anxiety at the core of our being', as it is an unconscious sense of our own unreality. Fundamentally not at ease, we compulsively seek to fill this inner void with possessions, people, experiences, grasping at anything as if by having things we are filling the void and convincing ourselves we really do exist. This is the gist of the second noble truth, of our thirst, our craving. We act as if we do not realise that that the things we crave and grasp and won't let go of are not fully real either, and will never provide us with the fundamental satisfaction we are seeking. As the Buddha himself put it, grasping after things is like 'trying to slake our thirst with sea water' -- not only will it not work, it will only make us more thirsty. Many people have looked at the above analysis of human behaviour and deduced that Buddhism is essentially a psychological system. It may be. But for the Buddha it was a soteriological system, for as soon as we become aware of the full truth of anatta, and we cease craving and grasping after the things of this world, then we may become liberated from it. There is something else about anatta that Western commentators often miss, although Buddhists themselves are fully aware of it. Think carefully. Anatta states that no thing exists by its own power, but only in a relationship of dependence upon other things. Think. It follows necessarily that everything in the world is part of a gigantic interconnected web, all things, to some extent, are dependent upon all other things. The entire universe, indeed, is one amazing, interconnected, dynamic flux (perfectly consistent with the holographic universe of contemporary physics). Think further. We are not separate from the environment we inhabit, we are part of it. Moreover, we are not separate from each other, in a sense we are even part of each other. If you are with this, then think *ethically*: we overlap and interact with the world and each other every day -- every second, even. What we choose to put into the mix will have an effect, like throwing a pebble into a pool. We can behave with great selfishness and pollute the environment without care, we can hurt each other in body, speech or mind. Or we can be full of pride and keep ourselves to ourselves and restrict all interactions to minimal necessities. Or, aware of no-self, aware of our interaction with the whole, we can humbly litter the environment with acts of care and creations of beauty, we can behave to each other with great compassion, we can offer smiles to people serving endless queues behind post office counters if it will make one moment of their day better, we can look for opportunities to be of service to strangers and support to friends. Think. Because of anatta, it is not possible to act without effect. Even our quietest thoughts have effects like the beating of a butterfly's wings. So we might as well let our thoughts be kind. We might as well take charge of ourselves. In the light of anatta, we might as well behave responsibly, and positively, as we go about our own unavoidable shifting and changing in an ultimately responsive universe. Examiner's Report 2018 **4. (a) Explain the three lakshanas (marks of existence). \[AO1 20\]** This was a very popular and well-answered question. Features of stronger responses: it was impressive to note how many candidates were able to give full and detailed explanations including reference to the Four Sights, the teaching of Nagasena and the Questions of King Milinda; most candidates were able to explain in no little detail the three types of dukkha and the ways in which the three lakshanas are interlinked and interdependent. Features of weaker responses: some candidates seemed unclear as to the depth of meaning given to dukkha and to its significance in terms of suffering and unsatisfactoriness being a key mark of existence; in some responses, exemplification was attempted which tended to be simplistic and did not support the depth of explanation required e.g. anicca is like the feeling of a school holiday which is not permanent. **(b) 'The three lakshanas are the most important teachings in Buddhism.' Evaluate this view. \[AO2 30\]** This was another question where better candidates appeared to enjoy answering the question in that they could display a wide range of knowledge and understanding. Features of stronger responses: some candidates focused entirely on the three lakshanas and in their response assessed whether dukkha, anatta or anicca might be more important or whether they stood together as being fundamental; such discussions usefully linked the lakshanas to moments in the life of the Buddha or to the Dharma; other candidates brought in a variety of other Buddhist teachings such as the Lotus Sutra and upaya or the Heart Sutra and sunyata and successfully presented a discussion on whether such concepts were more or less important. 21 Features of weaker responses: given the range of Buddhist teachings, some candidates limited themselves by focusing on single issues such as meditation or mindfulness which might be seen more as practices than teachings; some candidates did not focus sufficiently on the key words in the question 'most important' and therefore tended to list a variety of Buddhist teachings without reaching a purposeful conclusion. **Explain the Buddhist understanding of Dukkha and Anicca** Buddhists have multiple understandings of the word 'dukkha' in its respective contexts as one of the '3 Marks of Existence' and the '4 Noble Truths'. John Peacock informs us that the literal translation of dukkha is 'dirty space', which refers to the centre of a cart wheel where, once greased and the axel inserted, it gathers dust and dirt and the wheel can never run true. The most common translation of the word dukkha is 'suffering'; this is an appropriate translation in the context of the 4NTs which is focused on human experience. A more appropriate translation in the context of the 3MOE is 'unsatisfactoriness' because the 3MOE is focused on 'conditioned' phenomena (things). Dukkha is first alluded to in the Buddha's first sermon after enlightenment -- the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta - where the Buddha states "Birth is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, in short suffering is the five categories of all changing objects". Thannissaro Bikkhu's translates dukkha as 'stress' as it incorporates the mental and physical states of dukkha. Considering all the contradicting translations of dukkha, it is unsurprising that Buddhist scholar Rahula argues that it is better left untranslated because it simply has too many translations and understandings in Buddhism, all of which have a level of truth.   Buddhists have an understanding of 3 types of dukkha in the context of the 4NTs all of which apply to one of the 3MOE which highlights how the two concepts are invariably linked. The first kind of dukkha is dukkha-dukkha which applies to the facts of life -- old age, sickness and death and daily sufferings such as physical and emotional pain, these are the concepts that Siddhartha was exposed to in the 'Four Sights' section of the life story of the Buddha. The second type of dukkha is 'viparinama dukkha' -- which is essentially dukkha caused by change (anicca), for example the loss of a loved one. Finally, the last kind of dukkha is 'samkhara dukkha', or the suffering of conditions, this is linked with anatta. It essentially states that due to no self and no soul (anatman) human beings are condemned to a mental state of discontentment and dissatisfaction as beings that haven't been awakened. Edward Conze illustrates this eloquently and describes it as "a basic anxiety at the core of our being".   The Buddhist understanding of anicca is impermanence -- the universe is in a constant state of flux and therefore it is pointless attaching your happiness to material possessions, or even people that will invariably grow old and die because nothing lasts forever. Everything in samsara arises from a cause -- everything is 'conditioned' and therefore everything must change. Dukkha and anicca are intertwined concepts in Buddhism as suffering arises when beings fail to see that things are impermanent. Contemporary Buddhist scholar Peter Harvey states "it is because things are impermanent that they are also dukkha" which highlights this overlap.   The general message the Buddha was trying to convey with anicca is that by living a life in ignorance of the Dhamma and failing to acknowledge impermanence, we are attempting to 'slake our thirst with seawater' and condemning ourselves to further suffering.          **"If there is no self, rebirth makes no sense." Evaluate this view.** In the non-canonical Buddhist text 'Milindapanha' (Questions of King Milinda), philosopher Nagasena highlights to King Milinda that a person is nothing more than the sum of their parts, there is no soul (anatman) and no permanent individuality, this is expressed in the quotes "'Nagasena' is just a convenient designation" and "there is no permanent identity involved in the matter". Therefore, one could argue that no real Nagasena truly exists and hence the concept of rebirth makes no sense as nothing exists by its own power but only in a relationship of dependence on other things. Despite this, one needs to look at the two levels of truth: on the everyday, conventional or experiential level of truth Nagasena and rebirth both exist; however on the higher level of truth under greater understanding and analytic examination Nagasena and rebirth alike do not truly exist.   Nagasena likens rebirth into another realm to growing older in this life through various analogies. He states that a child that has grown into an adult is 'neither the same nor different' to the adult version. In other words, despite the physical matter changing, the essence is still the same and there is a line of continuity throughout, this is why rebirth can make sense without physical matter being transported. Rebirth needs to be distinguished from the concept of reincarnation -- which literally means 'again in flesh'. Narada Thera expresses his thoughts on this issue -- "The Buddhist doctrine of rebirth needs to be distinguished from theory of reincarnation which implies the transmigration of a soul and its invariable material rebirth".  On the other hand, it could be argued that if a person truly has no-soul or permanent identity, rebirth seems illogical because there is nothing physical that is passed on after death. IN QKM, Nagasena uses the mango tree analogy to illustrate that we are responsible for our actions; everything has a consequence and it is the nature of these consequences that results in rebirth. Just as a farmer has ownership of the fruit that results from planting a seed, we have ownership of the 'fruit' of our actions and it is this karmic energy that is passed through rebirth and not physical matter.   Buddhist understanding is that a person arises and functions due to the 5 skandhas: form, feeling, perception, impulses and consciousness. A person is simply interacting mental and physical processes. However, just because a person has no soul or no true core, rebirth still applies as a person is still able to search for enlightenment and seek improvement through rebirth in their time on earth. No soul is required to be reborn, just the craving to live a life and a failure to yet conquer craving, hatred and ignorance. Gethin comments on this plight in his book 'The Foundations of Buddhism': "beings search this vast, endless universe in a search of some permanent home" but because everything is constantly changing, "the search for happiness and security in the round of rebirth never ends". This emphasises my point that despite not having a true self, due to dependent existence, a person can choose to maximise their time on earth to better themselves in their next rebirth.   In conclusion, I do believe that rebirth makes sense despite there being no true self and no physical matter transferred. This is because on the lower level of truth we have complete control of our actions and the consequences of these actions, which forms the karmic fruit that results in rebirth. In fact, I would also argue that it is non-sensical to believe that any permanent, [fixed] identity would be transferred because it would limit human individuality and ability to grow in the human realm, as if all were fixed nothing would be able to change. **Extra notes on Dukkha (as the above was written before the textbook came out!)** Remember how examiners love to see analysis, and one sure-fire way to show analysis is to get into the meanings of words. I have told you that dukkha can be broken into two words -- duk (dirty) and kha (space), which was the term used for the centre of a cartwheel which, when greased, would attract all the dirt and gunge from the road and, as a result, the wheel would not run true or smoothly. It is an excellent analogy for life not doing what we want it to, and is also the most common explanation of the word 'dukkha'. Your textbook however breaks the word down differently, into du (difficult) and kha (to endure). This will also be true, so you have two ways to analyse the word dukkha, both of which work! I have also mentioned how the word 'dukkha' is commonly translated as 'unsatisfactory' in the context of the three marks of existence, but as 'suffering' in the context of the Four Noble Truths. This is because the Four Noble Truths are about human experience, but the three marks apply to objects as well as to persons. And it would not make sense to say "this pen is suffering". However, you will get used to scholars offering their own translations for key words. Thanissaro uses 'stress', Harvey considers 'frustration' and also 'pain'. Unsatisfactoriness and suffering do work best overall, but Rahula has a good point when he suggests "it is better to leave it untranslated." Your textbook also refers to dukkha in the Dhammappavattanasutta which, as the first sermon the Buddha ever gave (to the five ascetics), which you would expect, since dukkha is the first of the Four Noble Truths and also one of the three marks of existence. You should also, therefore, make this link. The sutta says:\ \ "Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: birth is suffering, ageing is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering. Association with what one loathes is suffering, separation from what one loves is suffering, not getting what one wants is suffering. In short, the five skandhas are suffering." In effect, there is nothing which is not dukkha. The Buddha even said "that which is sukha (joyful) is dukkha." Of course, as all our joys and pleasures in life are impermanent and must end, we can understand how even joys and pleasures are unsatisfactory.