Three Signs of Being

[Dharmavidya]

I have been asked about the formula in Buddhist teaching that is commonly called the Three Signs of Being. The full text, in Sanskrit, is
Sarva samskara anitya
Sarva samskara dukkha
Sarva dharma anatma

This is a very important text in Buddhism - a core statement of the doctrine. What does it mean?

'Sarva' means 'all'. 'Samskaras' are things that we construct, particularly 'mental formations'. D.T.Suzuki used to translate the term 'confections' which is etymologically correct and has the right tone of slight disparagement. 'Dharma' means real things or reality. 'Anitya' means 'impermanent'. 'Dukkha' may mean 'afflictive' or may mean 'dangerous'. 'Anatma' means 'non-self'. 'Non-self', of course, means 'other'.

So, this formula says that all our own mental formations or confections (the things we cook up) are impermanent and dangerous or troublesome, since real things are not self. The implication is that to be in touch with dharma is to be in touch with what is actually there, free of the colouring imparted by one's personal bias. A buddha is one who has woken up and sees clearly what is actually so. This also implies that from the Buddhist point of view the truth of what is true (dharma) is in no way dependent upon the internal operations of the mind that perceives it. If it is true it is true. When we say such things as 'my truth' we are not talking about truth in this sense. I do not mean to rule such gramatical usages out of the language, but it is important to remember that in Buddhism dharma is external to the 'self'.

Now, the idea of non-self has commonly been built up in Buddhist circles beyond its basic meaning. Non-self is taken to be an ontological principle concerning the 'emptiness' (shunyata) of dharmas, taken to be 'things in general'. This is fine and in no way in contradiction to the above if we understand that 'emptiness' means empty of the spin that our ego puts upon things.

In Buddhism we also have the teachings of dependent origination and conditional arising. These imply that none of our mental states stands independently. Everything that is 'self' is conditional and liable to change as conditions change. This teaching fills out the above teaching. Of course, here too there is a temptation to extend the idea beyond its original application and turn it into an ontological principle. In this case one asserts that nothing in the world arises except in dependence upon (ephemeral) conditions. I do not have any particular objection to this extension as a philosophical move, so long as one remembers that as soon as you make this move you are into the realm of Buddhist speculative philosophy because Shakyamuni seems never to have made this move himself. He consistently used these teachings, to the best of my knowledge, solely to elucidate the deluded mind and not as a way of designating the qualities of material objects.

A related point is the usage of such terms as 'soul' and 'spirit' in Buddhist discourse. Whether the use of such terms is legitimate or not depends upon what is meant in the particular case. If I say that a teaching is in the spirit of what Shakyamuni meant, there can be no quarrel with such a usage. Buddha clearly intended that his disciples should act in a spirited way and I don't think that he would have had much trouble with the rather generic way in which the term 'spiritual' is used these days. If I use the term soul loosely to refer to the individual or in the way that we use 'self' in ordinary sentences, as when one says 'he did it himself', and so on, then this is not exceptional - Shakyamuni did so himself. However, while these ordinary usages are not to be scorned, Buddhism does hold a distinctive position.

Commonly it is said that Buddhism asserts that there is no soul and it is correct that Buddhism does not use the structure of ideas found in Brahmanism in which an immortal atma reincarnates until it finds its way back to the godhead. That approach simply is not Buddhist. Buddhism finds reality in an externalist epistemology, not an internalist one. It is not the saving of one's own soul that is at stake, but whether one is in a correct orientation toward others that matters, and, in relation to the Buddhist practice of refuge, whether one is in a correct relation to the Buddha. 'Sarva dharma anatma' is about as clear a statement of externalist epistemology as one can make. The full implications of this have probably not been fully appreciated in most Buddhist quarters.

[Jim Burns]

Amazing! I have so much to learn!

Keep sharing... I am listening... Jim

[Dr Di]

thank you. I agree with the above and have to add that the purity and oneness of the higher mind is very obvious to me.

[Kaspalita]

Hi Diane,

The Lankavatra Sutra was not really taught by the Buddha as such, it was composed during the 4th C. And while it *is* a corner stone of Chan and Zen Buddhism, it contains teachings that the Critical Buddhism movement would argue are not what the Buddha was really about....

[Dharmavidya]

Dear Di, Yes, and the teaching is for ordinary human beings. The unborn, undying, uncreated, timeless will no doubt bless us in its own way, but though the sun shines upon the ocean it is still necessary to learn to swim. Shakyamuni taught discriminative wisdom and in this case he taught us to discriminate dharma from samskara. Warm wishes - D.

[Dr Di]

all of the above seems to relate to the discriminating and intuitive `minds` of human beings. but as the Buddha taught in the Lankavatara Sutra, tha clear-light- or Universal- mind is not internal or external . it is unborn, undying and uncreated , with no place or time.

[Dharmavidya]

Thanks, Kenny. In practice a great deal of Western Buddhism is what I tend to call pop spirituality, and central theme of such spirituality is the notion that everything comes 'from within' which is an internalist epistmology and, I suggest, quite at odd with Shakyamuni's teaching. Sarva dharma anatma suggests that it is not the internal process of the person who does or who perceives something that gives validity or worth to something, but that it is the thing itself that matters. The Buddhist stance is not so much that of purifying or expressing one's inner being as of placing oneself in a proper relation to what is other.

[Kenny Lewis]

Dear Dharmavidya, Thank you for this post.

"The full implications of this have probably not been fully appreciated in most Buddhist quarters. "

- can you say a little more on that point.

Very much appreciated.