Universal characteristics in Buddhism
by
J. P. Pathirana
There are universal
characteristics of existence which you and I and everyone of us are subject to
and there is no way of escape. This is an important aspect of the teachings of
the Buddha. Like the Four Noble Truths, Kamma, Dependent Origination and the five
aggregates; the three characteristics of the teachings of the Buddha is the part
of what we might call the doctrinal contents of wisdom. In other words, when we
talk about the knowledge and the understanding that is implied by wisdom, we have
this teaching in mind.
Before we examine the characteristics individually,
let us come to an understanding of what they mean and what way they are useful.
First of all, what is a characteristic and what is not. A characteristic is something
which is necessarily connected with something else. Because the characteristic
is necessarily connected with something, it can tell us about the nature of that
thing. Let us take an example. Heat for instance is a characteristic of fire but
not a characteristic of water. Heat is the characteristic of fire, heat of the
fire, is always and invariably connected with fire. On the other hand, the heat
of water depends on external factors - an electric stove, the heat of the sun
and so forth. But the heat of fire is natural to fire. It is in this sense that
the Buddha uses the term characteristic to refer to facts of nature of existence,
that are always connected with existence and that are always found in existence.
The characteristic heat is always connected with fire. So we can understand something
about the nature of fire from heat. We can understand that fire is hot. We can
understand that we can use fire to cook our food, to warm ourselves and so forth.
The characteristic of heat tells us something about fire, how to use it and what
to do with it. If we were to think of the characteristic of heat as connected
with water; it would not help us to use water because heat is not always connected
with water. We cannot cook our food with water. We cannot warm ourselves with
water. So when the Buddha said there are THREE characteristics of existence, He
meant that these characteristics are always present in existence and that they
help to understand what to do with existence.
The three characteristics of
existence that we have in mind are the characteristics of Impermanence (Anitya),
suffering (Dukkha) and no-self (Anatma). These three characteristics are always
present in or are connected with existence. They help us to know what to do with
existence and also tell us the nature of existence. What we learn to develop as
a result of understanding the three characteristics is renunciation. Once we understand
that existence is universally characterised by impermanence, suffering and no-self,
we eliminate our attachment to existence. Once we eliminate our existence, we
gain the threshold of Nibbana. This is the purpose that understanding the three
characteristics serves. It removes attachment by removing delusions, the misunderstanding
that existence is permanent, is pleasant and has something to do with self. This
is why understanding the three characteristics is part of the contents of wisdom.
Let
us look at the First of the three characteristics of existence, the characteristic
of impermanence. The fact of impermanence has been recognised not only in Buddhist
thought but also elsewhere in the history of philosophy. It was the ancient Greek
philosopher Heraclitus who remarked that one could not step into the same river
twice. This remark, which implies the everchanging and transcient nature of things
is a very Buddhistic remark. In the Buddhist scriptures, it is said that the three
worlds (Dhatus) are impermanent like autumn clouds, that birth and death are like
a dance; and that human life is like a flash of lightning or a waterfall. All
these are compelling images of impermanence and they help us to understand that
all things are marked or characterised by impermanence.
If we look at our own
personality, we will find that our bodies are impermanent. They are subject to
constant change. We grow thin. We grow old and gray - our teeth fall out, our
hair falls out. If one needs any proof of the impermanence of the physical form,
one need only to look at one's own photograph on one's own driving licence or
passport over the years. Similarly, our mental states are impermanent. At one
moment we are happy and at another moment we are sad. As infants, we hardly understand
anything. As adults, in the prime of life we understand a great deal more. And
again in old age we lose the power of our mental facilities and become like infants.
Our minds are also characterised by impermanence. This is also true of the things
that we see around us. Everything we see around us are impermanent. Not one thing
will last forever - not the office-blocks, nor the temples, nor the rivers and
islands, nor the mountain-chains, nor the oceans. We know for a fact that all
these natural phenomena, even those appear to be most durable, even the solar
system itself will one day decline and become extinct. Finally understanding impermanence
is an aid to the understanding of the ultimate nature of things. Seeing that all
things are perishable and change every moment, we also begin to see things have
no substantial existence of their own. Understanding impermanence is a key to
understanding of no-self.
Let us now go to the second of the three characterics,
the characteristic of suffering. The Buddha has said that whatever is impermanent
is suffering - because impermanence is an occasion for suffering. It is an occasion
for suffering and a cause of suffering because impermanence is an occasion for
suffering so long as ignorance of the real nature of things, we crave and cling
to objects in the forlorn hope that they may be permanent, that they may yield
permanent happiness. Failing to understnad that youth, health and life itself
are impermanent, we crave for them, we cling to them. We long to hold on to our
youth and for prolonging our life and yet because they are impermanent by nature,
they slip through our fingers like sand.
When this occurs, impermanence is
an occasion for suffering. The impermanence of all situations in samsara is a
particular occasion for suffering when it occurs even in the so-called fortunate
realms. It is said that suffering of the gods is even greater than the suffering
of living beings dwelling in the lower realms of existence when they see that
they are about to fall from the heavens to the lower realms of existence. Even
the gods trembled when the Buddha reminded them of impermance. Even those pleasant
experiences which we crave and cling to are impermanent and whatever is impermanent
is also suffering.
Now, let us go to the third universal characteristic of
suffering, the characteristic of no-self, or impersonality, or insubstantiality.
This is in a sense, one of the really distinctive features of Buddhist thought
and of the teachings of the Buddha. Sometimes, this teaching of no-self is an
occasion for confusion because often we wonder how can one deny the self. After
all, we do say "I am speaking" or "I am walking" or "I
am called so and so" or "I am the father or the son of such and such
person". So how can we deny the reality of that "I". In order to
clarify this, I think it is important to remember that the Buddhist rejection
of "I" is not a rejection of this convenient designation, the name "I".
Rather, it is rejection of the idea that this name "I" stand for a substantial,
permanent and changeless reality. When the Buddha said that the five factors of
personal experience were not the self and that the self was not found within them;
He meant that on analysis, this name "I" did not correspond to any essence
or entity. The Buddha has used the example of the chariot and the forest to explain
the relation between the term "I" and the components of personal experience.
The Buddha has explained that the term chariot, is simply a convenient name for
a collection of parts that is assembled in a particular way. The wheels are not
the chariot. Neither is the axle and neither is the carriage and so forth.
Similarly,
an individual tree is not a forest. Neither is a number of individual trees a
forest. There is no forest apart from the individual trees. The term forest is
just a convenient name for an assembly of individual trees. This is the thrust
of the Buddha's rejection of the belief in a real, independent, permanent entity
that is represented by the term "I". Such a permanent entity would have
to be independent, would have to be sovereign in the way that a King is master
of those around him. It would have to be permanent, immutable and impervious to
change and such a permanent entity, such a self is nowhere to be found.
The
Buddha has applied the following analysis to the body and mind to indicate that
the self is nowhere to be found either in the body or mind. The body is not the
self. For if the body were the self, the self would be impermanent, would be subject
to change, decay, destruction and death. So the body cannot be the self. The self
does not possess the body, in the sense that I possess a cart or a television,
because the self cannot control the body. The body falls ill, gets tired and old
against our wishes. The body has a shape which often does not agree with our wishes.
So in no way does the self possess the body. The self is not in the body. If we
search our body from the top of our head to the tip of our toes, we can nowhere
locate the self. The self is not in the bone, nor in the blood, nor in the marrow,
nor in the hair, nor in the spittle. The self is nowhere to be found in the body.
Similarly, the mind is not the self. The mind is subject to constant change. The
mind is forever jumping like a monkey.
The mind is happy at one moment and
unhappy at the next. So the mind cannot be the self for the mind is constantly
changing. The self does not posssess the mind because the mind becomes excited
and depressed against our wishes. Although we know certain thoughts are wholesome,
and certain thoughts are unwholesome, the mind pursues unwholesome thoughts and
is indifferent towards wholesome thoughts. So the self does not possess the mind
because the mind acts independently of the self. The self is not in the mind.
No matter how carefully we search the contents of our mind, no matter how carefully
we search our thoughts, our feelings and ideas, we can nowhere find the self.
There is a very simple exercise anyone of us can perform. We can all sit quietly
for a brief period of time and look within our body and mind and without exception
we will find that we cannot locate the self anywhere within the body nor the mind.
The conclusion remains that the self is just a convenient name for a collection
of factors. There is no self, no soul, no essence, no core of personal experience
apart from the ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent physical and mental
factors of personal experience such as our feelings, ideas, thoughts, habits and
attitudes.
Why should we care to reject the idea of self? How can we benefit
by rejecting the idea of self? Here too, we can benefit in two important ways.
First of all in our everyday life, on a mundane level we can benefit in that we
will become more creative, more comfortable and more open people. So long as we
cling to the self, we will always have to defend ourselves, to defend our possessions,
property, prestige, opinions and even our words. But once we give up this belief
in an independent and permanent self, we will be able to relate to other people
and situations without paronia. We will be able to relate freely, spontaneously
and creatively. Understanding no-self is therefore an aid to living. Through the
understanding of impermanence, suffering and no-self, we will have freed ourselves
of the fundamental errors that imprison us within the cycle of birth and death
- the error of seeing things as pleasant and the error of seeing things as self.
When these delusious are removed, wisdom arises. Just as when darkness is removed,
wisdom arises. And when wisdom arises, one experiences the peace and freedom of
Nibbana or Nirvana