We should not grab onto conditioned existence

As a matter of fact, the Buddha never said in a connected statement that the three marks of existence are:

1. sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā (“all conditionality is impermanent”).

2. sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā (“all conditions are suffering”)

3. sabbe dhammā anattā (“all phenomena are not the self (anātman)”

Rather this has been cobbled together from the Dhammapada, verses 277, 278 and 279.  What these three verses share in common is conditionality.  The definition of what is conditioned can be found in this particular discourse of the Buddha:

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned.  What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned” (A. i. 152).

From this we can safely say that conditionality is impermanent along with suffering and anātman (i.e., what is not the ātman such as the conditioned five skandhas). 

But now we come to a problem that many Western Buddhists face as if they could say collectively, “But I thought Buddhism rejects ātman.  This seems to be suggesting the opposite, that we should reject anātman!”  I would say, you’re right. It does imply the rejection of anātman. Here we can see the Buddha saying as much.

“Bhikkhus, you should abandon desire for whatever is anātman/anattā” (Yo, bhikkhave, anattā; tatra vo chando pahātabbo. S. iii. 178). 

A serious reading of the Pali Nikayas tells us in clearest words that it is not the ātman/attā that we must deny in Buddhism so as to heap scorn upon but, instead, anātman/anattā. It is a serious misreading of Buddhism in a manner of speaking, to throw out the baby then heap praise upon the bathwater, but this is what is happening in Buddhism today.  The three marks of existence is nothing more than conditioned existence which is never more than suffering—and we should not grab onto it.  This is not who we really are.

Comments

[smith]

for additional consideration;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoP6o_y80Ag

[smith]

whoops, forgot the link to above comment-
here it is-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbPXAX9j88s

[smith]

yeti, and all: the following link from a Christian perspective regarding this subject- being versus becoming - called the aseity of God, and expounded upon by RC Sproul(master theologian, and philosopher par excellence), may give greater insight into this topic. Its a discussion about the deepest contemplation of the nature of all truth, and for Christians the unfathomable and infinite identity of God.

[n. yeti]

Jung:

I perceive mind doesn't become anything even though appearances are continuously changing. I don't think it is a question of "proving" anything.

The Buddha likened this like a firebrand wheel seen at night. What is seen as a wheel is an illusion created by the movement of the firebrand from one point to the next; existence is like this because what is seen to be moving is merely an illusion. Similarly with a river, which remains contiguous, even though so much water has appeared to flow past. Mind is like this because it has not changed in spite of so many thoughts, feelings, and perceptions which appear to flow from it.

How do I know this? The same senses which create this illusion can be used as instruments to halt the illusion. For example, between the arising of sounds there is silence; the silence is unchanging, even if one hears only the sounds. There is only the appearance of noise momentarily. The silence did not “become” noise, one has merely perceived sound arising from a field of silence. The reverse is also true for silence, which can be thought of as the lack of sound; if there were no sound there would not be silence, so categories of noise and silence don't really apply at all; what is there is mind. So it is with existence or non-existence.

Whether what is heard is the noise or the silence, whether one sees a river or a firebrand, the mind does not become anything. Through inner contemplation it is possible in this way to use the mind like a mirror to see that which is perceived, indeed existence itself, is very much like a firebrand, a river, or noise in these examples: appearances rising and falling within an unchanging field of mind.

Thus, I hold it is beyond the category of becoming anything at all, even though it appears to do so continuously.

[Jung]

"it is free of all categories of becoming."

And you have proven this beyond any shred of doubt, how?