Opinions on 'The Three Marks of Existence'

[StephenK]

I would like to hear your opinions on the three marks of existence, as they are known in Buddhism:

1. Anicca refers to the impermanence, uncertainty or inconstancy of existence in this conditioned realm. Conditioned meaning dependent on conditions - all conditions are in a state of change, not constant, unsteady. All parts of experience - all things and experiences - are dependent on causes and conditions, coming into being, ceasing to be. Nothing is everlasting.
2. Dukkha is often translated as suffering or unsatisfactoryness (dissatisfaction), or stress. Here meaning that nothing (physical nor mental phenomena) can ever bring lasting happiness (or a deeper satisfaction). Holding on to (or craving for, clinging to) impermanent conditions as if they were permanent is a frequent cause for dukkha.
3. Anatta refers to the 'self', often translated at not-self or non-self. Often misunderstood as "non-existence" or "no-soul", this teaching refers to that no phenomena are 'self', in a 'self' nor owned by a 'self'.

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by StephenK

[Ether]

I agree with the first two

[Saumaya]

@StephenK Realisation of Anicca leads to Dukha, transcending Dukha leads to anatta

[Flow With Life]

2 hours ago, Saumaya said:

@StephenK Realisation of Anicca leads to Dukha, transcending Dukha leads to anatta

I thought anicca leads to anatta (since no conditioned phenomena can be taken as the unchanging-self, since they are all changing), and then realizing that there is "suffering" but none who suffer, leads to liberation from dukkha.

[Saumaya]

1 hour ago, Flow With Life said:

I thought anicca leads to anatta (since no conditioned phenomena can be taken as the unchanging-self, since they are all changing), and then realizing that there is "suffering" but none who suffer, leads to liberation from dukkha.

However you like it man...