Where does that term, 'knowledge of the 3 chars' come from, for the 3rd nyana? In "the progress of insight" it's called "knowledge of comprehension".

Edited to add: i ask because of this interesting essay on the three perceptions, which has an interesting take on the 3 characteristics. a subtly different, but maybe importantly so, way of looking at it.

from The Progress of Insight, Mahasi Sayadaw, regarding Knowledge of Comprehension:
"This comprehension of an object noticed, as being impermanent, painful, and without a self (impersonal), through knowing its nature of impermanency, etc., by means of simply noticing, without reflecting and reasoning, is called "knowledge by comprehension through direct experience."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html

That's the answer you were looking for?

right, he calls it 'knowledge of comprehension', though - i wonder why we call it knowledge of the 3 characteristics?

I enjoyed that article. What is the significance of this difference in terminology to you Beo? How do you see it changing your approach to practice, if at all?

I like that the emphasis is on training the mind to drop its search for "my" constant happiness by tuning in to (perceiving) annatta, anicca and dukha. And the hint that areas which mind refuses to see in these ways are our sticking points, our "hold-back", and the next areas to look at. Even including the deathless. Very nice article on insight and concentration.

I have no idea where the terminology for 3rd nana came from, but I liked your link and thought I'd pop in on a side note. The topic of the 3c's is interesting in itself. For one thing, aside from certain moments in the DN, I just don't see the 3c's as linear or equal. All things inner and outer are only unsatisfactory in light of the presumption that they should be in a way that they aren't-- stable-- and be property of one who is not-- "me". So I've always found dukha to be an artifact of perception, or the affective consequence of a particular view (that "I am" and can "have" security).

There seems to be some ambiguity in many teachings on the 3c's in that while this dynamic is acknowledged, it is also often asserted (in seeming contradiction) that all dharmas are unsatisfying, as if they were intrinsically so. Perhaps that would be a natural conclusion if I had spent much much time visualizing everything as bones, bodies as corpses filled with pus, etc. under the influence of ultra strong concentration as seems typical for traditional monastics. I don't know!

I'm gonna take a guess and say that Daniel chose to use "Knowledge of the 3 characteristics" because it is a much more descriptive and meaningful name for that stage than "Knowledge by comprehension." Every description of the 3rd ñana states that in this stage the meditator starts to see every sensation as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self. That this seeing becomes natural and that it expands itself to all phenomena (dhammas) of past, present and future. I guess the 3C nature of stuff (technical dharma term) is what's being comprehended.

Eran.

yea similar reasoning here. it makes a lot more sense to think of it as in the article. there's a large difference between: "see each sensation as inherently unsatisfactory" and "contemplate how unsatisfactoriness arises". if each sensation was inherently stressful then how would Buddha claim he found the 'end of stress'? how come an actually free person does not suffer?

practicing in the latter - just watching how suffering arises - is proving to be fascinating. its kind of like nipping it in the bud - instead of waiting to start suffering then you go 'that sucks!', you see instead what causes the suffering to arise.


it seems to cause a different approach to practice, though, which is why i point it out. 'knowledge of comprehension of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self" is different than "knowledge of the 3 characteristics (inherent in every sensation) of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self".

It's an interesting paradox, isn't it? If all sensations are dukkha, how can there be freedom from dukkha? And yet the buddha says:

"He (note: the one who sees with wisdom) knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha that what passes away is merely dukkha" (SN 12.15 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html)

The way I currently understand this is there are multiple senses in which we can understand the word 'dukkha'. In the four noble truths, the Buddha is talking about dukkha as suffering or stress, for example suffering is caused by clinging. When talking about dukkha as an Inherent characteristic of sensations it's better to understand dukkha as unsatisfactory, for example whatever arises is unsatisfactory. When you put those two together you get something like suffering is caused by clinging to things that are, by nature, unsatisfactory. so it is by seeing all things as unsatisfactory that one develops dispassion towards them, stops clinging to them and therefore becomes free from suffering.



What is that causes suffering to arise in your experience?