- The Three Marks in Geometry
- Buddhism und Geometry.jpg (287.31 KiB) Viewed 679 times
I drew up this diagram on a whim, not knowing what to expect. The shape of the triangle and its position within the circle is not accidental. I will explain this diagram in short detail.
1. The mark of “not-self” is connected to the mark of “ill” by the suffering of bondage. In the words of some hypothetical existentialist; “the non-being of our being is bound to the insufferable nature of existence.”
2. The mark of “ill” is connected to the mark of “impermanence” by the suffering of separation. In other words; “all composite things will eventually fall to pieces.”
3. The mark of “not-self” is connected to the mark of “impermanence” by the suffering of decay. In the words of Elvis Presly; “don’t be cruel to a heart that’s true.” It is not our bodies that decay. It is our misapprehended sense of self which decays.
1. A line is drawn towards the suffering of decay from the mark of ill. It is appropriate that the mark of ill should point to the suffering of decay since all that is composite will decay in the physical sense (even if all composite things separate in the sense of impermanence).
2. A line is drawn towards the suffering of separation from the mark of not-self. It is appropriate that the mark of not-self should point towards the suffering of separation since it is principally in separation that we learn of not-self (and hence the indication of the mark of ill and it’s pointing to the suffering of decay and not, rather, separation makes more sense).
3. A line is drawn towards the suffering of bondage from the mark of impermanence. It is appropriate that impermanence should point towards bondage because impermanence really is the bondage we have within the confines of the nature of existence and the nature of consciousness.
SIX TRIANGLES ARE CREATED, EACH CORRESPONDING TO THE BRIEFLY DETAILED VARIETIES OF SUFFERING:
1. In the suffering of bondage we experience material pain in relation to “ill”; and immaterial despair in relation to “not-self”.
2. The suffering of separation produces sorrow in relation to “ill” and grief in relation to “impermanence”.
3. Because of decay we experience the suffering of aging and death (not pain, but “remorse” and “worry” over the death of our “selves”); and this is in relation to the mark of “not-self”. In relation to impermanence the suffering of separation leaves us to lament over how we cannot change the nature of the world.
REGARDING DEPENDENT ORIGINATION:
1. The suffering of bondage is attenuated by clinging, becoming, birth, suffering, and ignorance.
2. The suffering of decay is attenuated by the upsurge of fabrications, consciousness, and name and form.
3. The suffering of separation is attenuated by the six sense spheres, contact, feeling, craving, and clinging.
And there are more observations to be made; such as, for example, how the triangle is in fact a right triangle (c^2= a^2 + b^2); how three archetypal "personalities" can be expressed depending on what edge becomes the foundation of the triangle (for example, the "stable" type, that rests on the hypotenuse; the "high-reaching" type, that rests on the short edge; and the "symmetrical" type, that rests on the second longest edge). When the triangle is considered from those three vantages you can speculate as to how different persons deal with life and pain (perhaps even how the 62 speculative views arise out of the suffering of existence).
It is at least something to ponder.