Have a Wetpaint account? Sign in
Location: Discussion Forum
Discussion: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
 AlanChapman |
The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 23 2008, 9:39 AM EDT
To what extent do you believe observing the three characteristics is fundamental to achieving fruition? In a recent thread (Vipassana vs the Suttas) the question was asked 'what does ultimately lead to Nibbana? Seeing the Three Characteristics or understanding Dependent Origination?!' The resounding reply was that they are both the same thing, but I would like to propose that any idea of a fundamental characteristic to reality is nothing of the sort, as fruition clearly demonstrates. For those of you who believe the Buddha's teachings offer the truth, do you not think that the three characteristics would present themselves by any serious investigation of reality, as opposed to reqiuring perceptual cultivation? Consider Centred Prayer, Maharshi's Self-Enquiry and Gurdjieff's Fourth Way. None of them offer the others' 'fundamental' or 'absolute' characteristics of reality, but each leads to fruition (I'm speaking from experience). In light of this, I'm of the opinion that simply observing reality is the key to the progress of insight, and vipassana (looking for the three characteristics) is just one more method for keeping the mind present and attentive, just like consenting to God's presence, finding the feeling of self or 'splitting the attention' . Taking any methodology for the truth is inherently problematic and the mess surrounding 'no-self' and emptiness is a prime example. Don't get me wrong here - I'm not dismissing vipassana (on the contrary, I love it!); rather I am highlighting what I believe is a dogma developed from something that should have remained an injunction. Thoughts?
Keyword tags:
None
|
 Hokai |
1. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 23 2008, 11:41 AM EDT
Nice intro to this important subject, Alan. I will approach this issue from a perspective of wider Buddhist tradition. The problem arising with three characteristics is of semantic and interpretative nature. Namely, the three characteristics are NOT a description of "reality", which is indeed obvious when we have a look at the four seals of the View, as follows: All compounded things are impermanent. All phenomena lack self-nature. All dualistic experience is intrinsically painful. Nirvana alone is peace, and is beyond concept. The first three lines, obviously, refer to the three "lakshana" - characteristics, signs, or marks. These three actually refer to everything that can be witnessed, made an object of awareness, and of "any serious investigation" as you propose. Now, to "investigate reality", one need to also consider that which never becomes an object, and therefore escapes this methodology, but does however reveal itself once self-recognized as already obvious. The approach to this recognition does indeed differ among traditions, as it does differ among Buddhist traditions themselves. Indeed, many of which do not work with three characteristics, but all of which lead to three doors of liberation (signless, desireless, and emptiness) which are sometimes, but not exclusively, connected to the three characteristics in a one-to-one manner. As made clear by the fourth line, reality in its ultimate aspect transcends (yet includes) the three characteristics (as well as their opposites, which give content to wholly different methodologies). (cont.) |
|
Hokai |
2. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 23 2008, 11:42 AM EDT
When the ultimate is referred to from the perspective of the relative, then three characteristics are used which neither describe the relative itself (that being more properly done by dependent co-arising), nor the ultimate, but are instead used as path (this corresponds somewhat to the via negativa, or the apophatic approach); other Buddhist vehicles equally use a positive language (corresponding to via positiva, or the cataphatic approach) whence Nirvana itself - the fourth line - is described as "self, purity, eternity, and bliss" but again in a special sense. Now, methodology shouldn't be taken for the truth, as you say, unless we're clear which truth it refers to. There is the twofold truth, but there is also the threefold scheme known as basis, path, and fruit (or fruition). The three characteristics belong to the truth of the path, and specifically to the method and not the wisdom. There are stages in the relationship of relative and ultimate (e.g. five ranks of Tozan in Zen are a good example) and the language used always involves some paradox in absence of fruition. As to your remark that "looking for the three characteristics is just one more method for keeping the mind present and attentive", this also requires some qualification. Technically, "keeping the mind present and attentive" may mean different things in different methodologies. In Buddhism, presence and attentiveness is generally known as shamatha (pali: samatha), sometimes referred simply as "calm", and the three characteristics are specifically used in a way that is referred to as vipashyana (pali: vipassana), referred to simply as "insight" or "seeing". (cont.) |
|
Hokai |
3. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 23 2008, 11:52 AM EDT
Insight may indeed be into the three characteristics, but also may be into the ineffable nature of mind ("suchness"), or even into the inseparability of the three characteristics and suchness itself, and that's why interpretation becomes crucial in the process of realization, and what is usually understood as "fruition" is only the beginning of an integrative process, a rather long road for most. Specifically, seeing the three characteristics is not identified with seeing the reality as it is, the three being precisely referred to [in Western translations] as "characteristics of existence", and existence not being identical with ultimate reality. As clear from the four seals, impermanence refers to compounded phenomena, lack of self-nature to all phenomena, and suffering to dualistic experience. (As to the fourth line, there's the Heart sutra as a widely available entry point.) Meditation (both calm and insight) is necessary but not enough, and concepts used in the path are balanced by the View, without which methodology easily becomes a dogma. Just as, without practice, the View itself degenerates into mere doctrine. |
|
AlanChapman |
4. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 24 2008, 5:43 AM EDT
Thanks for such a detailed response Hokai.I’ve always been a massive fan of the apophatic approach, the pinnacle of which for me is the Greek school (the One who cannot be hypothesized, etc). I have massive difficulty believing the cataphatic approach is useful in any sense beyond providing a convenient description. It never occurred to me that the method of the three characteristics might have more in common with philosophy (and I mean that in the original sense of the word, as an intellectual method of enlightenment) than straight forward attention and presence. Would you say then that it is the continued contemplation of the three characteristics as they relate to the sensate world (and thereby making vipassana a contemplative practice in the true sense of the word) rather than maintaining presence/attention that is the main focus of vipassana? Would I be wrong to consider ‘noting’ as the same method, different surface features? It might seem beside the point whether we consider vipassana as a largely attentive/presence practice or mostly a contemplative exercise – but I think such a distinction might certainly help when it comes to evaluating exactly what is performed when it comes to vipassana, and its expected results. For instance, I know practitioners, whose sole method of insight is vipassana, who have acheived fruition but have never experienced a preceding ‘door’ (I’ve experimented with many methods and I’ve noticed what occurs in a relative sense around fruition seems largely dependent on what method is used). I know skill in observation plays a part, but might apprehension of the three doors require the attention resting more on the contemplative aspect as opposed to the arising and passing sensations? |
|
Hokai |
5. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 24 2008, 11:06 AM EDT
Alan: "I’ve always been a massive fan of the apophatic approach, the pinnacle of which for me is the Greek school (the One who cannot be hypothesized, etc). I have massive difficulty believing the cataphatic approach is useful in any sense beyond providing a convenient description."In this case we're talking about a practice-injunction, not an attempt to describe. The three characteristics allow one's attention to move beyond what's initially observed into the actual nature of the whole display, including eventually the self-aware observer, as the most subtle recoil in consciousness. The resultant clarity, however, goes beyond them, and is known, somewhat enigmatically, as "final release" - first FROM boundary defined, separate vantage point, and then INTO everything felt and known, AS everything felt and known. In absence of such View, however, the three characteristics (forgetting the fourth seal of the View) tend to become solidified as THE description of what reality is like, and produce a rather flat insight, limited to negating phenomena and self, and unable to redeem both as gestures of the ultimate. The point is, what conceals reality for some, reveals it for others, hence the oft used metaphor (and not just metaphor) of dreams. |
|
Hokai |
6. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 24 2008, 11:15 AM EDT
Alan: "Would you say then that it is the continued contemplation of the three characteristics as they relate to the sensate world (and thereby making vipassana a contemplative practice in the true sense of the word) rather than maintaining presence/attention that is the main focus of vipassana? Would I be wrong to consider ‘noting’ as the same method, different surface features?" Definitely, though you're making a distinction that, however useful and mostly necessary, persists only at initial stages of cultivation. Instead of either/or, let's consider the potential of both/and, wherein presence-attention allows one to make reflective distinctions relating to the range of observation. But you're quite right in making the next point, regarding expected results. Alan: "I know skill in observation plays a part, but might apprehension of the three doors require the attention resting more on the contemplative aspect as opposed to the arising and passing sensations?" This specific discrimination hinges on the exact meaning of contemplation (a word rarely used in Buddhist circles), but I can see what you're pointing to. I believe the same distinction can be made by employing the difference between event-perspective (what is arising) and mind-perspective (the nature of the state witnessing what is arising, namely awareness itself). These two are implicit, though one chooses which one to engage in any given practice. In fact, most practices allow only one of these, while some practices emphasize them as different stages. Any thoughts? |
 vjhorn |
8. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 24 2008, 5:36 PM EDT
"I know skill in observation plays a part, but might apprehension of the three doors require the attention resting more on the contemplative aspect as opposed to the arising and passing sensations?"I'm enjoying the geeky conversation here guys! Though, I suspect others who have some experience with fruitions could say more about this, my experience with experiencing one of the preceding three doors in the moments prior to fruition seems largely dependent on the level of concentration/samadhi I have during that time. During most fruitions, especially when I'm not on retreat, I don't notice any of the three doors, and sometimes may not even notice the fruition! On retreat, when I'm powering the one-pointed concentration though, I will often notice one of the three doors. In addition, during big fruitions--one's that seem indicative of larger and enduring shifts of identity--there is often a recognition (after the fact of course) of one of the doors. I suspect that many people's concentration isn't strong enough to notice the preceding doors, or more likely, people don't know what to look for and thus miss it that way. But if the distinction you are making, with "contemplative aspect" vs. "arising and passing sensations", here is akin to insight vs. concentration then I would say that this definitely seems to have some impact on how fruition and the moments leading up to it are experienced. :-D |
|
AlanChapman |
9. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 25 2008, 5:17 AM EDT
Alan: "I’ve always been a massive fan of the apophatic approach…I have massive difficulty believing the cataphatic approach is useful in any sense beyond providing a convenient description."Hokai: In this case we're talking about a practice-injunction, not an attempt to describe. Indeed, which is my point – the three characteristics are a practical injunction and prohibit ascribing any idea to emptiness, which certainly helps with the ‘final release’ as you call it. My problem is with ascribing positive attributes as a means to enlightenment. Reminds of the direct path nonsense of repeating ‘I am God’… I’m using the term ‘contemplation’ to mean intellectual or rational methods of enlightenment (Korean Buddhism, Philosophical Midwifery, etc). I’m not making the distinction to posit one method above another, or to argue which one is ‘best’; I’m just trying to get a handle on the difference between, say Zazen (which I consider attentive/present) and vipassana (as investigating the three characteristics), both of which I would have previously considered insight practice. |
|
AlanChapman |
10. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 25 2008, 5:18 AM EDT
Hokai: I believe the same distinction can be made by employing the difference between event-perspective (what is arising) and mind-perspective (the nature of the state witnessing what is arising, namely awareness itself). These two are implicit, though one chooses which one to engage in any given practice. In fact, most practices allow only one of these, while some practices emphasize them as different stages. Any thoughts?This is the root of the problem for me: both the event-perspective and mind-perspective are one and the same thing, namely an experience to be observed. For instance, if you simply observe what is arising, how do you fail to include the nature of the state witnessing what is arising during the practice? How is swapping (for example) a physical sensation for a mental sensation any indication of progress? And this is the reason I questioned the nature of observing the three characteristics as perhaps a method that encourages the attention to remain present and resting on immediate sensations. Perhaps I need to make a further distinction. By attentive/present I really mean allowing all and any sensations to arise and pass of their own accord; not restricting the attention to a single object (although again – I see the use of keeping the attention on the breath during certain insight practices as a means of keeping present, whilst also observing all and any sensations that arise. The difference for me between insight and concentration practice is the degree of exclusivity exercised by the attention). |
|
AlanChapman |
11. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 25 2008, 5:44 AM EDT
Hello VJ!‘I'm enjoying the geeky conversation here guys!’ Talking of geeks, I’m a big fan of your podcast! I’d never considered the intensity of the phenomenon of the three doors being dependent upon strength of concentration, which of course makes a great deal of sense. To what extent then do you believe the three doors are fundamental to fruition? For instance, say I was a Christian monk who achieved fruition using centred prayer, if I had a great deal of concentration skill, would I still experience something similar to the three doors? Or do you see them as a shallow feature whose perception is cultivated partly through the act of looking for them and partly through the amount of concentration ‘energy’ applied to the act, peculiar to the method of vipassana? ‘during big fruitions--one's that seem indicative of larger and enduring shifts of identity--there is often a recognition (after the fact of course) of one of the doors.’ I know exactly what you mean – this has been my only experience of the three doors, a possible recognition of one of them after the event. I’ve made progress when it comes to insight, but I’ve never been on retreat and my samatha is not all that hot, so your post has certainly made a lot of sense to me. I’m gearing up for some hardcore samatha practice (I’ve always seen straight up samatha as sort of pointless considering I need never master the jhanas and still get enlightened, but I’ve recently decided to master nerodhi as I’m intent on understanding what role it plays in the process of insight) so it will be interesting to see what effect this has on my experience of fruition. |
|
Hokai |
12. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 26 2008, 12:28 PM EDT
Back to your "massive difficulty believing the cataphatic approach is useful in any sense beyond providing a convenient description", plus "problem with ascribing positive attributes as a means to enlightenment". Of course, you confess these present difficulty and problem for you personally, but you also suggest you can't grasp their usefulness in any case. Now, this could in itself be an effective obstacle, since the ultimate - i.e. that to which and as which we ought to awaken - is signified by neither negative, nor affirmative notions. These are all intimations and injunctions, and they are best understood comparatively, though one could also understand them by application and thorough consummation of each. The popular cliche being with the finger "pointing" at the moon, where we easily forget that it's not the finger doing the pointing. Finger only signifies the pointing action. Which is - AGAIN - a 3rd person approach to attention. Therefore, we have a finger raised as if saying "Watch!" and inducing a presence turned neither within nor without, neither towards nor away from... But I guess my point is clear. It's "easy" and "natural" for anyone to develop a spontaneous liking and bias to either the negative or the affirmative approach to awakening. What is revealed in awakening transcends both of these, and yet it can and should be expressed in both ways, not just to step down and include those that can't grasp negations. (Indeed, our ultimate nature is empty of confusion, but it's categorically not empty of wisdom.) The relationship between these two is, in my view, similar to that of the ascending and descending currents: we integrate the two, being identified with neither, and pursuing our practices as either. What we realize, however, is beyond delimitation and demarcation (see the fourth line again) and yet is present in any event. (cont.) |
|
Hokai |
13. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 26 2008, 12:47 PM EDT
While we're at it, there's an interesting correlation to this matter in the way the Buddhist tradition has revolutionized its own relevance and integrity by shifting the description, and thus making it less opaque, more limpid. First, there was a more or less literal description of the relative, eschewing direct reference to the ultimate whenever practically possible (so much so that realization is called cessation). Then there was a description of the ultimate through a series of negations, wherein all sorts of dharmic and spiritual signposts are deconstructed and relinquished to make space for genuine suchness. Then came a tradition of actually listing the previously ineffable qualities contained in this forever-peaceful-yet-always-dynamic suchness, but not in a way that theistic systems posit their godly qualities at a level below the ineffable. This affirmative approach isn't simplistic or naive at all. However, I believe it requires a certain degree of sophistication, in terms of both practice and interpretation, as exemplified in the abuses of virtually every nondual teaching.
|
 xsurf |
14. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 27 2008, 2:33 AM EDT
I do not see bare attention and investigating the 3 characteristics as separate. Because awareness is not an observer but is all transient manifestation, investigating the 3 characteristics is directly experiencing the nature of awareness/Presence/manifestation itself, as impermanence, suffering, no-self. In essence, there is no one/no watcher, only self-luminous phenomena arising & passing momentarily.Also, this is not to say that self-inquiry is less useful than vipassana (also how one practices self inquiry differs), but in my friend's experience self-inquiry only led him to the I AM/Witness level of experience, and further insights into non-duality was gained through practicing vipassana. He wrote his 'six stages of experience': http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html A convo from the friend on Vipassana: (12:21 AM) Thusness: what is the role of insight meditation? (12:22 AM) Thusness: why bare attention? (12:22 AM) Thusness: why naked awareness? (12:22 AM) Thusness: when insight meditation is taught and buddha said when hearing just the sound...this and that... (12:23 AM) Thusness: what buddha wanted is to experience directly what awareness is, the arising, the ceasing, the clarity, the non-dual nature (12:23 AM) Thusness: in DO (Dependent Origination) (12:24 AM) Thusness: not to note it with thought or place any conclusion on any experience. (12:25 AM) Thusness: "this is impermanence" is not about noting and place any conclusion about an phenomenon arising. (12:26 AM) Thusness: but experience impermanence directly, not in words (12:26 AM) Thusness: be impermanence and know what is it really... (12:26 AM) Thusness: see what clarity is, not what it should be (12:27 AM) Thusness: it is luminous and yet empty...experience it directly...it is so. (12:27 AM) Thusness: break the solidity until there is no holding simply thus. |
|
slachs slachs |
15. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 28 2008, 12:06 AM EDT
Alan Chapman wrote "I’m using the term ‘contemplation’ to mean intellectual or rational methods of enlightenment (Korean Buddhism, Philosophical Midwifery, etc)."Not sure what you mean here? Why are you singling out Korean Buddhism? Do you have a specific sect of Korean Budd. in mind? |
|
AlanChapman |
16. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 28 2008, 5:13 AM EDT
If we were to take rationalising emptiness or enlightenment as far as it can go, we end up saying it neither is nor is not positive or negative (or anything else for that matter). But this expression, as given by nagarjuna and (in my humble opinion) to a more profound extent by Plotinus is in fact the pinnacle of the apophatic approach. I certainly see the benefit of using the cataphatic approach as a convenience when it comes to discussing enlightenment - I have no problem saying it is blissful, peaceful, the Truth with a big T, and so on. But I have never come across a rational method using the positive approach to achieve insight. My knowledge of Buddhism is far from extensive - do you know of any rational cataphatic methods?
|
|
AlanChapman |
17. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 28 2008, 5:18 AM EDT
xsurf: 'I do not see bare attention and investigating the 3 characteristics as separate. Because awareness is not an observer but is all transient manifestation, investigating the 3 characteristics is directly experiencing the nature of awareness/Presence/manifestation itself, as impermanence, suffering, no-self. In essence, there is no one/no watcher, only self-luminous phenomena arising & passing momentarily.'I agree with this in a theoretical sense, and I'm guessing this is self evident for the arahat; but in a practical sense, would you not admit that when practicng samatha (or someting similar) you do not observe the three characteristics? As such, I would agrue there is a very real practical difference between attention and vipassana. |
|
AlanChapman |
18. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 28 2008, 5:47 AM EDT
In referencing Korean Buddhism, I specifically mean the work of Chinul. Check out 'The collected works of Chinul: the Korean approach to Zen' (if you can get a copy that is - they're pretty rare these days). I'm singling out Chinul because his approach is more or less a method of using intellectual reflection to attain insight (just like Philosophy used to be).
|
|
Hokai |
19. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 28 2008, 10:50 AM EDT
Alan: "do you know of any rational cataphatic methods?" What exactly do you mean by rational method in this case? In Buddhist contexts, intellectual inquiry is rarely used on its own to ascertain the fundamental characteristics, or especially the ultimate. Direct experience is always encouraged which would by necessity include non-conceptual first hand insights, and these tend to escape strict rational criteria as understood conventionally. Plus, Stuart is at home with Chinul as anyone. I'm sure he'll have something to say.:-) |
|
AlanChapman |
20. RE: The Absolute Nature of the Three Characteristics
Jul 28 2008, 11:55 AM EDT
Sorry Hokai, I guess I’ve been rather unclear in my previous posts.Whenever I’ve mentioned ‘rational’ or ‘intellectual’ method, (I rather clumsily referred to it as ‘contemplative’ at first), I’ve been specifically talking about gaining the experience of Fruition using a technique based solely on intellectual reflection (but as a meditative discipline or through dialogue). I know for some such an idea is preposterous – surely I can’t be suggesting you can think your way to enlightenment? But that is precisely the original nature of the Greek school, specifically Platonism, which today is nothing but a dead ontology. For anyone interested in such methods, and how Korean Buddhism relates to this, I wholeheartedly recommend checking out the work of Pierre Grimes: http://www.philosophicalmidwifery.com/ Here’s one of his videos where he discusses Korean Buddhism and how it relates to Philosophy (Pierre is actually the Dharma Successor to Myo Bong, the Patriarchal Dharma successor of Venerable Hye-Am, the 33rd patriarch from Lin Chi): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YIZpe-fgXI |
