<p>The Four Dharma seals are wrong, because Dukkha is a part of the Four Noble Truths. Dukkha cannot be a Dharma seal because suffering can be transcended with enlightenment. But the Three Dharma Seals are the actual Truth that will always be:</p>

<ol>
<li>All Samskara are impermanent</li>
<li>All dharma are without a substantial self</li>
<li>Nirvana is perfect peace</li>
</ol>

<p>All three are inherent truth, not something that can be changed with enlightenment.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-21T18:05:27.333Z
What's the definition of a "dharma seal", by the way? The version I know of is that "[all *saṅkhāras*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence#Description) are dukkha" (and nirvana is not a sankhara). The Wikipedia article implies that "dharma seal" is a characteristic of doctrine.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-21T18:20:03.623Z
So I suppose you're saying it's possible to teach Buddhism without teaching about dukkha. I suppose that's true, e.g. [in this topic](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7258/254) I mentioned that I found it difficult to begin with the "first noble truth".
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-09T08:41:28.997Z
2017-07-21T17:25:48.347Z
2017-07-21T17:25:48.347Z
Socrates
<p>This article, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals" rel="noreferrer">Four Dharma Seals</a>, says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>As suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence sometimes the second seal is omitted to make Three Dharma Seals.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From that I get the impression that,</p>

<ul>
<li>The <em>tilakkhaṇa</em> is the earliest doctrine (in the Pali canon)</li>
<li>Later someone added <em>nirvana</em> to that list (making the four Dharma seals)</li>
<li>Then, someone decided that if <em>nirvana</em> is in that list, then <em>dukkha</em> isn't permanent/inevitable, and so they removed <em>dukkha</em> from the list.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-20T15:38:07.223Z
2017-01-20T15:38:07.223Z
ChrisW
<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals" rel="noreferrer">Three Dharma Seals</a> in an error of interpretation by Thích Nhất Hạnh based on an error of interpretation by the majority of Buddhist commentators and translators. It is an example of when an error is made based on accepting an existing error rather than refuting an existing error. </p>

<p>Thích Nhất Hạnh has correctly stated that "suffering" is not an inherent aspect of reality however the word 'dukkha' as one of the <em>tilakkhaṇa</em> does not mean 'suffering' but means '<em>unsatisfactoriness</em>'.</p>

<p>It is an error to translate the second <em>tilakkhaṇa</em> as 'suffering' or 'stress' thus it is another error, as Thích Nhất Hạnh has done, to accept the wrong translation as valid and then dismiss it because this also dismisses what the Buddha taught and, more importantly, dismisses what is actually real. </p>

<p>Thus, as properly translated from <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html" rel="noreferrer">Dhammapada 278</a> by Acharya Buddharakkhita:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>279. "All things [including Nibbana] are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals" rel="noreferrer">Four Dharma Seals</a> should be (according to reality) as follows:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>All compounded things are impermanent</p></li>
<li><p>All compounded things are unsatisfactory (cannot bring lasting
happiness)</p></li>
<li><p>All phenomena [including Nibbana] are not-self/empty</p></li>
<li><p>Nirvana is uncompounded, the supreme &amp; true lasting happiness (end of
suffering).</p></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-01T12:29:28.297Z
Could you discuss "unsatisfactorily" in the context of "feelings" please? TNH's criticism about suffering seems to be easy to extend to "unsatisfactorily". Sorry it seems I am bombarding you with questions tonight.... take it as a compliment :)
pandita
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-02T06:40:13.073Z
I doubt TNH's criticism seems to be easy to extend to "unsatisfactory". Unsatisfactory is not the same as suffering. I do not take drugs because drugs are unsatisfactory. However, this not taking drugs is not suffering. Unsatisfactory means something cannot bring you lasting happiness. Unsatisfactory does not mean something will make you suffer. For example, drinking water does not make me suffer. However, drinking water will not make me permanently happy. Therefore, water is unsatisfactory but water is not suffering.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-20T18:15:49.597Z
2017-01-20T18:29:19.630Z
2017-01-20T18:29:19.630Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>I suppose that there is (are) differences between the <em>tilakkhana</em> (anicca; dukkha and anatta) and the so-called <em>three dhamma-seals</em> (anicca; anatta and nibbana). Can anyone help me?</p>

<doctrine>
Differences between the tilakkhana and the Dhamma seal
# Differences between the tilakkhana and the Dhamma seal

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-01-20)

I suppose that there is (are) differences between the *tilakkhana* (anicca; dukkha and anatta) and the so-called *three dhamma-seals* (anicca; anatta and nibbana). Can anyone help me?

**Tags:** doctrine


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-01-20. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

This article, [Four Dharma Seals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals), says:

> As suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence sometimes the second seal is omitted to make Three Dharma Seals.

From that I get the impression that,

* The *tilakkhaṇa* is the earliest doctrine (in the Pali canon)
* Later someone added *nirvana* to that list (making the four Dharma seals)
* Then, someone decided that if *nirvana* is in that list, then *dukkha* isn't permanent/inevitable, and so they removed *dukkha* from the list.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-01-20. Score: 6

The [Three Dharma Seals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals) in an error of interpretation by Thích Nhất Hạnh based on an error of interpretation by the majority of Buddhist commentators and translators. It is an example of when an error is made based on accepting an existing error rather than refuting an existing error.

Thích Nhất Hạnh has correctly stated that "suffering" is not an inherent aspect of reality however the word 'dukkha' as one of the *tilakkhaṇa* does not mean 'suffering' but means '*unsatisfactoriness*'.

It is an error to translate the second *tilakkhaṇa* as 'suffering' or 'stress' thus it is another error, as Thích Nhất Hạnh has done, to accept the wrong translation as valid and then dismiss it because this also dismisses what the Buddha taught and, more importantly, dismisses what is actually real.

Thus, as properly translated from [Dhammapada 278](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html) by Acharya Buddharakkhita:

> *277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
> purification.*
>
> *278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
> purification.*
>
> *279. "All things [including Nibbana] are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification*

The [Four Dharma Seals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals) should be (according to reality) as follows:

* All compounded things are impermanent
* All compounded things are unsatisfactory (cannot bring lasting
  happiness)
* All phenomena [including Nibbana] are not-self/empty
* Nirvana is uncompounded, the supreme & true lasting happiness (end of
  suffering).

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Could you discuss "unsatisfactorily" in the context of "feelings" please? TNH's criticism about suffering seems to be easy to extend to "unsatisfactorily". Sorry it seems I am bombarding you with questions tonight.... take it as a compliment :)  
> **username_3**: I doubt TNH's criticism seems to be easy to extend to "unsatisfactory". Unsatisfactory is not the same as suffering. I do not take drugs because drugs are unsatisfactory. However, this not taking drugs is not suffering. Unsatisfactory means something cannot bring you lasting happiness. Unsatisfactory does not mean something will make you suffer. For example, drinking water does not make me suffer. However, drinking water will not make me permanently happy. Therefore, water is unsatisfactory but water is not suffering.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-07-09. Score: 0

The Four Dharma seals are wrong, because Dukkha is a part of the Four Noble Truths. Dukkha cannot be a Dharma seal because suffering can be transcended with enlightenment. But the Three Dharma Seals are the actual Truth that will always be:

1. All Samskara are impermanent
2. All dharma are without a substantial self
3. Nirvana is perfect peace

All three are inherent truth, not something that can be changed with enlightenment.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: What's the definition of a "dharma seal", by the way? The version I know of is that "[all *saṅkhāras*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence#Description) are dukkha" (and nirvana is not a sankhara). The Wikipedia article implies that "dharma seal" is a characteristic of doctrine.  
> **username_2**: So I suppose you're saying it's possible to teach Buddhism without teaching about dukkha. I suppose that's true, e.g. [in this topic](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/7258/254) I mentioned that I found it difficult to begin with the "first noble truth".  

---

