In the video of the talk by Ajahn Tong, he spoke of three pathways to liberation, something along the lines of reaching Nirvana by understanding one of the three characteristics, anicca, dukkha, anatta.
Could you explain something about that?
Aren't the three characteristics inseparably connected?
And how are those three pathways to be understood?
I only have the texts to go by, so I can tell you what the texts say, and that's what they say, one of three pathways.
But we don't even have to go there, because practically speaking it seems quite clearly to be the case that one does become prominent.
So the example of these paths is when we focus on the stomach, the stomach will change in one of three ways.
Suddenly it will begin to go quickly.
This is a sign of impermanence and the mind enters into cessation based on that.
Sometimes the rising and the falling will become stuck.
and unpleasant.
This is a sign of suffering.
And then because of that, the mind goes into cessation.
Sometimes the rising and falling will go quite smoothly, will suddenly appear to be going on its own, to have no relationship to oneself.
So it's the idea of non-self, the idea that this experience isn't self.
And because of that, there is the cessation.
This can be verified by experienced meditators who will have one of these or something else arise.
If you want to stick to the theory that the three characteristics are inseparable, then you would explain it as one of them being prominent.
And the explanation that the texts give as to why one of them appears prominent, even though all three of them are there,
is because of one's past inclinations.
If a person has given a lot of charity and done a lot of good deeds, for example, done good for other people, then they will tend to enter in, and that is the prominent goodness and good quality that they have, then they'll tend to enter in through impermanence.
If a person has practiced tranquility meditation, and that's the prominent characteristic of their personality, this strong concentration and calm in the mind, then they'll enter into suffering.
they'll tend to enter in through suffering.
If a person has practiced a lot of vipassana, insight meditation, and that is the defining characteristic of their personality, then they'll tend to enter in through non-self.
This is what the texts say.
I think that's a little more difficult to verify because it's hard to say which, you look at a meditator, it's hard to say which characteristic is defining about them, let alone know because of their past history and it could as well have to do with past lives.
But it certainly appears to be the case, practically speaking, that one or the other becomes evident, more clear.
And I don't know that there is any
Any teaching of the Buddha that states that they're all seen at the same time, I would suggest that it's perhaps not the case that all three are seen at the same time, and that one necessarily has to see one or the other at any given time.
But I don't have any backing for that.
It may be possible to see all three at once.
It seems to me that because the mind is only capable of having one thought at one given time,
that any given thought would have to be either this is impermanent, this is suffering, or this is non-self.
So you could see how it comes that one or the other is realized.
Didn't the Buddha say when you see impermanence, you also see suffering and non-self?
I'm quite sure of that, but I think it doesn't mean that you see all three at once, but you enter, you see impermanence first, and through seeing this, you understand suffering and
non-self as well but or if you understand non-self first to its fullest extent you will understand the both others yeah but I think it's kind of a misconception it's kind of shocking to hear this because you do think that all three of them have to be understood but I don't think there's anything
There's any intrinsic need to realize all three.
The point is to let go, right?
Any one of these three will allow you to let go.
They are all saying the same thing.
They're saying that this is not good, it's not satisfying, it's not worth clinging to.
It's the mind that lets go.
Why does it let go?
Because it sees that they're not permanent, it sees that they're not satisfying, or it sees that they're not controllable.
So I would say it can be any one of the three.
But it is, in a sense, saying the same thing about them, that they're meaningless.