Talk:Three marks of existence

message: "In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that may go on to form new plants."
:that's cute, but this temporal or wishful interpretation is neither consistent with the pali nor physics. Even those little carbon atoms will break down, even those quarks. And the world itself if we should believe the Buddha if not Hubble. -Alex  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.226.240 (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the original editor was not clear about what they were attempting to say. The argument must be from anatta - essencelessness. To attempt a paraphrase - remembering that science (and perception) are models, or narratives, we cannot claim that impermanence is objectively true, but merely that it is central to many edifying (or resonant) narratives. cf. Huntington (emptiness of emptiness) 20040302 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  impermanence is impermanence 

message: As far as I can remember, "Three Dharma Seals" are Anicca, Anatta, Nirvana. And adding Dukkah make it "Four Dharma Seals". Who wrote this? FWBOarticle
Plus, if you want it to be accurate translation wise, the title should be "Three (Buddha)Dharma Seals". FWBOarticle
See the section directly above this one on this talk page for a complete and satisfying response to your observation. makeswell (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clasification of three "marks" doesn't seems to be correct 

message: This is wrong in so many ways.  We should change the title of this article to "Three Dharma Seals" FWBOarticle
: Dharma Seals redirects here. I don't think there's anything wrong with this article as it is right now. Of course, I don't know much about these things but it all seesm to make sense. Toon 09:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dharma = Existence 

message: I have reverted the edits made by 4.131.49.89 since
# they are not in line with the style of the rest of the article,
# I am unable to verify the sources (Dn 2.100 and SN 3.196),
# this is not an article on Vedanta.
For an interesting read about Buddhism and Vedanta, see e.g. Vedanta and Buddhism, A Comparative Study, especially this paragraph:The denial of an imperishable Atman is common ground for all systems of Hinayana as well as Mahayana, and there is, therefore, no reason for the assumption that Buddhist tradition, unanimous on that point, has deviated from the original doctrine of the Buddha. If the Buddha, contrary to the Buddhist tradition, had actually proclaimed a transcendental Atman, a reminiscence of it would have been preserved somehow by one of the older sects. It is remarkable that even the Pudgalavadins, who assume a kind of individual soul, never appeal to texts in which an Atman in this sense is proclaimed. He who advocates such a revolutionary conception of the Buddha's teachings, has also the duty to show evidence how such a complete transformation started and grew, suddenly or gradually. But non of those who advocate the Atta-theory has taken to comply with that demand which is indispensable to a historian.
Sleep well, Andkaha(talk) 09:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits by 4.131.49.89 regarding Atman 

message: Added "Unreferenced" tag. "This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs cites! 

message: Can we summarize as follows?
*Theravada (order as given here, not current article):
**all sankharas are anicca
**all sankharas are dukkha
**all dhammas are anatta (including nirvana & concepts)
*East Asian Buddhism: different list of 3 signs as stated above in this column
*Tibetan Buddhism: 4 seals
Peter jackson (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: This easily misunderstood Mahayana idea should probably not be presented alongside what the Buddha personally taught about anatta, should it? At least not in this article? Mitsube (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a responsibility to cover all non-marginal topics that we have solid information about from reputable sources, don't we?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we shouldn't give the idea unduly more weight than core ideas like anatta. What do you think? Mitsube (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The undue weight here is quite extreme. Mitsube (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I added a little bit. The balance is better now. Mitsube (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tathagatagarbha 

message: I'm a researcher in phenomenology and suggest to remove the term(phenomenology of psychology)
used here: (and everything in the phenomenology of psychology)
and translated to Portuguese too: (bem como na fenomenologia da psicologia)
Is possible that exists the term in the Budism, but is not the same meaning related on the redirection (by clicking on phenomenology link)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaused (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What? makeswell (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

text: there's phenomenology and there's psychology... --Elvenmuse (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  (phenomenology of psychology) has been wrongly used in this article 

message: I think this article is argumentative and dogmatic.  Suppose there are various possible interpretations of a concept like impermanence.  Then the article should set forth all of the interpretations rather than seizing upon one interpretation as the "correct" one.  For example, the article seems to make the dogmatic assertion that nothing every comes into existence or passes out of existence, but that things merely change their appearance because their constituent parts are rearranged.  The article presents this interpretation as correct and uncontested.  If it is not, then alternative interpretations should be presented.  If the interpretation really is correct and uncontested, then some supporting references should be given to convince the reader that in Buddhism, this is the only interpretation of the concept of impermanence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.68.253.90 (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argumentative 

message: Candrakirti states: When knowing selflessness, some eliminate a permanent self, but we do not consider this to be the basis of the conception of "I" It is therefore astonishing that knowing this selflessness expunges and uproots the view of self.  —Madhyamakāvatāra 6.140
Therefore, there are major Buddhist schools (in this case the Madhyamikas) who hold that the self being refuted by the awareness of Anatta is not merely a permanent self. I have removed the word permanent from the description. Although Candrakirti makes it clear that there are some schools who consider the bounds of Anatta to be a permanent self, we should not limit the scope of the article to those schools alone. (20040302 (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatta - not just a permanent self 

message: I suggest a split: As it stands, Four Seals redirects to Three marks of existence, which has got to be confusing for people.  (Wait, four of this is really three of that?!?)  This article could have the three, list some of the traditions where there are three and mention that (some? all?) Mahāyāna traditions have a fourth.  A Four Dharma Seals article could mention the first three briefly with a link back here, and then explain the fourth seal.  --Theodore Kloba (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atricle Split 

message: "This immaculate Buddhic Self (atman)" needs references. From my experience this sounds non-Buddhist. If there is some reference in Buddhist teachings to a "Buddhic Self" it should be referenced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.53.37 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This immaculate Buddhic Self (atman) 

message: Sometimes this term is used; presumably, as the 1st 'seal'.  Also, since the word 'seal' is used in the lead [Brit: lede], there should be some clarification regarding various terms used, such as 'Three Seals of Buddhism' - which I am assuming refers to this article. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insubstantiality  

message: "With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that 'all sentient beings are marked by these three characteristics",  -- surely, and as explained in this article, it's all conditioned phenomena, not merely all sentient beings? 20040302 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: See reference  in thai section: https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A9%E0%B8%93%E0%B9%8C#.E0.B8.AA.E0.B8.B2.E0.B8.A1.E0.B8.B1.E0.B8.8D.E0.B8.A5.E0.B8.B1.E0.B8.81.E0.B8.A9.E0.B8.93.E0.B8.B0  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BallWarapol (talk • contribs) 01:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three marks=Aniicalakkhana, Khandha=Anicca, Anicca is not Aniccalakkhana. 

message: I've added a little to "Application" section  about the fact that in Buddhism it is ignorance of the three marks that is a central problem, and so getting free of that ignorance via direct insight is a key part of the solution to that problem (as per the  prajñā components of the Noble Eightfold Path). I also added a reference sentence in the lead since I do think the notion of "ignorance of" the marks is key to explaining the marks themselves. Sleety Dribble (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of the concept of ignorance of the three marks