Tetsunori Koizumi, Director
Usually translated as “Three Marks of Existence”, the Buddha’s teaching on kilesa appears in a number of suttas. In Samyutta Nikaya, for example, it appears in SN22 and SN 35. In Anguttara Nikaya, we can find the most succinct yet clearest teaching on kilesa summarized in the following words of the Buddha: “Bhikkus, whether Tathagatas arise or not, there persists that law, that stableness of the Dhamma, that fixed course of the Dhamma. (1) Sabbe sankhara anicca (All conditioned things are impermanent). (2) Sabbe sankhara dukkha (All conditioned things are suffering). (3) Sabbe dhamma anatta (All phenomena are non-self).” (Anguttara Nikaya, III.136)
Though the Buddha often discourages this, a critical reader with scholastic bent will easily notice two asymmetries by examining the words used in these three statements. The first asymmetry has to do with what the three marks refer to. While “impermanence” and “non-self” refer to the true nature of reality, or “how things really are”, in the Buddha’s philosophical vision of the universe, “suffering” does not. Doesn’t “suffering” rather refer to the state of mind regarding how we respond to “impermanence” and “non-self”? If that is the case, why does the Buddha include “suffering” as one of the three marks of existence? The second asymmetry has to do with the use of the word “dhamma” in the third statement. Why does the Buddha use “dhamma” here, not “sankhara” as he does in the first two statements?
As for the first asymmetry, Thich Nhat Hanh goes as far as stating that putting “suffering” on the same level as “impermanence” and “non-self” is an error: “To put suffering on the same level as impermanence and non-self is an error. Impermanence and non-self are ‘universal’. They are a ‘mark’ of all things. Suffering is not.” (Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, 1998, p.21) What Thich Nhat Hanh means is that “suffering”, as the word referring to the way we respond to “impermanence” and “non-self”, is not a “mark”, or a “characteristic feature”, of all things that exist in the world around us. Indeed, it takes the authority of somebody like Thich Nhat Hanh, widely admired by his disciples and lay followers alike for his accessible expositions of the Buddha’s teachings based on the solid scholarship of the Buddhist canons, to declare that the Buddha’s second statement is an error.
While it may not be a mark of all things, there is no question about the importance of “suffering” in the Buddha’s teachings. We may recall the Buddha’s First Sermon in which he teaches “suffering” as the First Noble Truth and tanha, whose original meaning is “thirst” but is usually translated as “craving”, as the Second Noble Truth. What is “craving”, then? Is it not one of those mental formations we develop in our minds? If so, “craving”, too, is subject to “impermanence”. As a matter of fact, the Buddha talks about the “impermanence” of every one of the Five Aggregates in another sutta: “Bhikkhus, form is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perception is impermanent, mental formations are impermanent, consciousness is impermanent.” (Samyutta Nikaya 22.12) Later on in the same sutta, the Buddha provides us a hint to remedy the asymmetry: “Bhikkhus, form (feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering.” (Samyutta Nikaya, 22:15) When we connect up these lines, we can see that what the Buddha is telling us is: “All conditioned things are impermanent,” and “What is impermanent is suffering.” It follows, therefore, that “All conditioned things are suffering.”
What about the second asymmetry regarding the use of “dhamma” (dharma in Sanskrit) in the third statement instead of “sankhara” used in the first two statements? Zen Master Sheng Yen provides us this answer: “Dharmas include all phenomena, whether physiological, psychological, social, internal, or external.” (Master Sheng Yen, Zen Wisdom: Conversations on Buddhism, 2001, p.34) While the word sankhara, as the composite of san (derived from sam “together”) and khara (“to make”), refers to all composite entities, or formations, the word dhamma applies to all phenomena, including such a key concept in the Buddha’s teachings about paticca-samuppanna dhamma (dependently arisen phenomena). If so, it is not difficult to see why the Buddha uses the word “dhamma” in the third statement.
With our questions about the two asymmetries in the Three Marks of Existence satisfactorily answered, what is left for us to do now is to get down to our business, that is to say, our practice. And The Dhammapada does include the Buddha’s words about the importance of the Three Marks of Existence as “practice”, or “path”: “When through wisdom one perceives, ‘All sankharas are impermanent,’ then one is detached as to misery. This is the path of purity.” “When through wisdom one perceives, ‘All sankharas are suffering,’ then one is detached as to misery. This is the path of purity.” “When through wisdom one perceives, ‘All dhammas are non-self,’ then one is detached as to misery. This is the path of purity.” (The Dhammapada, 277, 278, 279)