TL;DR: In Buddhism, impermanence, suffering and non-self are the three marks of the teaching (the three dharma seals). Impermanence says all phenomena arise and pass away continuously; suffering says the incompleteness of what is impermanent; non-self says no permanent entity governs them. These three ways of seeing are not dogma to believe in, but a way of observing in order to cling less, not an absolute statement about anyone's fate or finances.
What are the three marks of the teaching?
The three marks of the teaching, called trilakṣaṇa in Sanskrit and tilakkhaṇa in Pali, are usually translated as the three dharma seals or the three characteristics. They are impermanence, suffering and non-self. In the Theravada tradition, these three are seen as the common marks of all conditioned dharmas, that is, everything made by causes and conditions. Seeing these three correctly is held to be the condition for understanding suffering, its origin, its cessation and the path, that is, the Four Noble Truths.
Two layers of meaning need to be distinguished. First, impermanence, suffering and non-self are three truths to be observed in body, mind and world. Second, they are used as themes of contemplation so the mind lets go. The three doors of liberation (emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness) are a different list, discussed below. This presentation appears in commentaries on the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. Trần Trọng Kim, in his book Phật giáo, second printing in 1958, stresses that Buddhism is a teaching that looks straight at suffering and seeks liberation from it; the Four Noble Truths and the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination are its essentials[1].
This article presents the three marks according to the common understanding of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, with reference to Vietnamese translations and commentaries. It is a presentation for understanding and practice, not a statement about anyone's personal fate or a guide to investment or health.
What does impermanence mean in the teaching?
Impermanence means all phenomena made by causes and conditions are arising and passing, not standing still for two consecutive moments. In other words, no conditioned dharma stays intact from its arising to its passing. This change can be coarse and easy to see, such as birth, aging, sickness and death; it can also be subtle and hard to see, such as moment-by-moment arising and passing.
Phan Văn Hùm in Phật giáo triết học, published in 1942, distinguishes two layers of impermanence. Momentary impermanence is change within each very short moment; segmental impermanence is the visible result when that change accumulates into clear transformation, as a young person becomes old, as prosperity turns to decline[2]. This book cites the view that in one moment there are as many as nine hundred arisings and passings, but right after that notes that this subtle change is not seen, and only when the result appears is it called segmental[2].
Note: the figure of nine hundred arisings and passings in one moment is a way of speaking in the commentarial tradition, not a physical measurement. Read it as a way of expressing the degree of change, and do not turn it into a scientific claim.
How is impermanence different from "everything changes"?
If one only says everything changes, that is an ordinary remark, not the teaching. The difference lies in impermanence being used as a contemplation: seeing body, feeling, mind and dharmas all arising and passing, and from that seeing that clinging to them is clinging to what is drifting away. In the scriptures, impermanence is usually named together with suffering and non-self, because seeing the impermanent one sees the incomplete, and seeing the incomplete one sees nothing to grasp as a self.
Is impermanence pessimistic?
Not exactly. Impermanence is a reason for diligence, because opportunities and conditions can change. It is also a reason to hold views less tightly, because what is good can change and what is bad can change. This understanding appears in popular explanations, but a distinction is needed: that is an applied interpretation, not the wording of the scriptures.
What does suffering mean in the teaching?
Suffering, duḥkha in Sanskrit, is the second mark. In the Four Noble Truths, the Truth of Suffering is the truth of suffering to be recognized. Vietnamese translations usually list: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, meeting the disliked is suffering, separation from the liked is suffering, wanting and not getting is suffering. Trần Trọng Kim in Phật lục, published in 1940, presents the Four Noble Truths in this way: the Truth of Suffering is clearly examining suffering in the world such as birth, sickness, aging and death; the Truth of Origin is clearly examining where suffering comes from; the Truth of Cessation is clearly examining how to end suffering; the Truth of the Path is the way out of the suffering of cyclic existence[3].
Suffering is not only the feeling of pain. In a broad sense, suffering includes the incompleteness of pleasure, because pleasure made by conditions will also change. This is why suffering is spoken of together with impermanence: what arises from conditions cannot be kept forever, so it cannot be an absolute refuge.
Two layers need to be distinguished. The first is the suffering of suffering, that is, obvious pain. The second is the suffering of formation, that is, the subtle unease of all conditioned dharmas. The threefold classification, including the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change and the suffering of formation, is usually given in commentaries. This article presents the common understanding and does not go deep into commentarial detail.
What does non-self mean and why is it the hardest to understand?
Non-self, anātman in Sanskrit and anattā in Pali, means all dharmas lack a permanent self, lack a fixed owner. In other words, when body and mind are analyzed into components, no independent, permanent, unchanging "I" is found governing them all. In Theravada Buddhism, non-self is usually presented through the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness are not self, not mine, not my self.
Phan Văn Hùm in Phật giáo triết học argues that dharmas come together from six causes and four conditions, so they are impermanent and ceaselessly changing; being impermanent in that way, they are non-self. This book also says that if one keeps analyzing into smaller parts, beyond the five aggregates there is nothing, so the view that a true self governs and passes to the next life is a delusion about reality[2].
This is the most easily misunderstood point. Non-self does not mean there is no person, no responsibility, no karma. It denies a permanent, independent, unchanging entity called a self. Dharmas still operate by conditions; actions still have results; but there is no fixed "soul" or "I" standing behind.
Does non-self contradict rebirth?
This is a major question and traditions answer it differently. Theravada Buddhism usually speaks of a causal continuum, with no entity moving from one life to the next. This understanding is not a scientific claim, but a way of contemplating. Readers should distinguish: this is an interpretation of the discipline, not a conclusion of experimental research.
How are the three marks related?
The three marks are not three separate topics. They are three faces of one view. Impermanence is the time face: what arises from conditions changes. Suffering is the value face: what changes cannot be a complete refuge. Non-self is the essence face: what changes has no permanent core. In many scriptures these three are named together, and seeing one deeply is seeing all three.
An everyday example can illustrate. A person holds an office. That office is impermanent because conditions change; it is suffering because losing it brings pain; it is non-self because the office is not the person, and the person is not the office. Contemplating this way is not to be weary of life, but to identify less with what is held.
Table comparing the three marks
| Mark | Sanskrit, Pali | Contemplation question | Usual object | Common misunderstanding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impermanence | anitya, anicca | Is this changing? | Body, feeling, mind, dharmas | Taken as pessimism, or as "everything is meaningless" |
| Suffering | duḥkha, dukkha | Can this be a complete refuge? | Birth, aging, sickness, death, meeting, separation, wanting | Taken as only pain, ignoring the subtle incomplete layer |
| Non-self | anātman, anattā | Is this me, mine, my self? | Five aggregates, eighteen elements | Taken as no person, no karma |
How do schools present the three marks differently?
Traditions are not fully agreed on how to present them, and readers should know that.
First, Theravada Buddhism usually stresses the three characteristics of all conditioned dharmas and uses them as contemplation subjects. Vietnamese translations and commentaries in this direction usually cite the Four Noble Truths and the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination as the framework[1][3].
Second, some Mahayana traditions, especially the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures, stress emptiness and see impermanence, suffering and non-self as steps into the view of emptiness. In this way, impermanence is not only a mark of conditioned dharmas, but also a means to break clinging.
These differences are not necessarily contradictions. They reflect different purposes: some traditions use the three marks as an analytical framework, others use them as a reminder to let go of concepts.
What are the three doors of liberation and are they the three marks?
The three doors of liberation are three ways into liberation, usually given as emptiness, signlessness and wishlessness. These three are not identical to the three marks, but they are related. Signlessness is tied to impermanence, because seeing change one does not cling to signs. Wishlessness is tied to suffering, because seeing the incomplete one does not wish it to be a refuge. Emptiness is tied to non-self, because seeing no self one sees nothing to grasp.
A clear distinction: the three marks are characteristics to be seen, while the three doors of liberation are ways in. This presentation appears in many commentaries, and beginners should grasp the difference so as not to confuse the two lists.
How to contemplate the three marks in daily life?
Note from Nhật Nguyệt: this section is the site's applied interpretation, not the original wording of the scriptures. Its purpose is to help readers have a way of self-observation, not a formula guaranteeing results.
A simple way is to use three short questions when something makes you cling. First, how is this changing? Second, if it changes, can I rely on it completely? Third, where am I identifying myself with it? These three questions are not to deny the relative value of work, relationships or money, but to see them less as permanent.
Another way is to contemplate the body. Sit quietly for a few minutes, notice the breath coming and going, notice feelings changing, notice thoughts arriving and leaving. When change is seen clearly, the practitioner may find clinging loosening. This is a common practice in contemplative traditions, not a medical therapy.
Limits should be noted. The three marks are a category of the teaching, not a tool for predicting finances, health or fate. If someone uses the three marks to assert a definite outcome for a life, that is a use beyond its scope.
Why is misunderstanding non-self dangerous?
Misunderstanding non-self as "nothing exists" can lead to resignation, denial of responsibility, or using it to justify harmful behavior. Traditions warn about this. Non-self does not deny convention: there are still people, tasks, karma, and suffering to be reduced. It denies a permanent, independent, unchanging entity.
Misunderstanding impermanence as "everything is meaningless" can also lead to contempt for ethics. Yet it is precisely because of impermanence that action matters: conditions can change, so present deeds have influence. This point is often stressed in applied explanations.
Misunderstanding suffering as pessimism is similar. The Truth of Suffering is not for being weary of life, but for correctly identifying the problem. Without correctly identifying suffering, there is no motivation to transform it.
Conclusion: the three marks are not dogma
The three marks of the teaching, impermanence, suffering and non-self, are a framework for observing body, mind and world. Impermanence says all conditioned dharmas arise and pass; suffering says that arising and passing cannot be a complete refuge; non-self says there is no permanent entity in them. Traditions present the three marks in different ways, and readers should know that these are interpretations of the discipline, not proven scientific claims. Their value lies in helping practitioners cling less, not in giving certain promises about anyone's fate or finances.
One point to remember: this article presents the common understanding of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, with reference to Vietnamese translations and commentaries. Schools may differ in detail, and readers should consult original texts if they wish to go deeper.
