During insight meditation no hearing of sound aware and cittarupa disappears like a mirage during meditation seen as no thoughts. Feel like cessation of mind. Is it anicca?thoughts disappear and citta goes inside without control. What is the stage of insight meditation is that?

Is it the mind that think mind is owned by itself? Can any one provide insights, techniques, meditations that help me to understand that "mind does not belong to me"? I aware that thoughts are coming from nowhere and we don't intentionally make them. But this is not enough. Can you please provide me a deep explanation, especially a guided meditation to practice no-self?

*Anicca*, *dukkha*, *anatta*. I've listened to plenty of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis talk about these characteristics at length. Take for example anicca. I am asking the same thing about dukkha and anatta. Suppose one has not yet seen for oneself how all phenomena are impermanent, but has an intellectual understanding of it from listening to the Dhamma. Is it *possible* that such a person could, for instance, recognize anicca, but not understand that they have recognized it, thinking, "Anicca is yet to be grasped", when in fact anicca has already been grasped? To clarify, the person might even reap the benefits of understanding anicca. They don't fret about illness, nor about building a career, nor about global warming, for instance. (I have picked a few things from my own life that I am still learning to deal with). Yet the person still thinks, "Anicca is yet to be grasped." If it is possible, how is it possible and what should one do about it? If it is not possible, why not? As a guess, does the answer lie in the person's actions? As another guess, is this a more specific case of asking how to know one's own mind?

Can anyone please explain the meaning of the word Dhamma in the sentence "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta"? Since Anatta is Truth; Am I an instance of Dhamma?

That is to say, I only remember of the pattern of anicca→dukkha→anatta (that which is impermanent and unsatisfactory cannot be considered Self, to paraphrase) in the suttas. Is there an argument that progresses from anicca to anatta (and then to dukkha), directly?

In Buddhism, the English words 'suffering' & 'unsatisfactoriness' are often used as translations of the Pali word 'dukkha'. What is the difference between 'suffering' & 'unsatisfactoriness'?

In his book Breath by Breath , Larry Rosenberg says that being mindful of the breath, as in the Anapanasati Sutta , is a complete practice and can lead to complete liberation. Following on from that I would think it should be possible to experience all three marks of existence in the breath. From my own practice I can feel both the impermanence and no-self aspects of the breath. They seem fairly evident even with access or just momentary levels of concentration. However I don't see the other mark of conditioned existence i.e. suffering. How can one see suffering in the breath? How does this come about? Are there any traditional or contemporary writings on the subject? Many thanks for any all help

What are some signs that one might be seeing the three characteristics with more clarity or depth? What might represent that one is having a new and more profound experience of impermanence, dukkha or not-self during one's practice or during any time? **Here are some examples of what is meant by sign:** - When we finish sweeping the floor, that might be a sign of impermanence. - If an annoying song keeps repeating in the mind that we can't control then that might be a sign of not-self. - We strongly misidentify the body as the self. If while meditating we see past the concept of the body then we might strangely feel like we have no body at some point. This no body effect might be a sign of not-self.

As I practice more and more on seeing life as Dukkha, something interesting happens. I feel a greater sense of gratitude and contentment. I am not talking about seeing things as they are directly and non-conceptually, piercing through and seeing emptiness. I am a beginner, stuck in concepts. But the more I interpret my existence in view of impermanence/anicca, suffering/dukkha, and non-self/anattā, the more grateful and content I become. Am I "fooling" myself? Is it just another aspect of Dukkha, like when you are in love and don't see that it's going to end/change?

Can the teaching be reduced to Paticca Samuppada? Has lord Buddha preached so in any Sutta? During vipassana meditation, the practitioner focuses on impermanence, dissatisfaction and non-self. After this, when getting Arhantship, is it Paticca Samuppada that is understood by the disciple?

Dukkha is usually clarified as an intrinsic characteristic of everything conditioned and to be as such a direct derivative of the characteristic of impermanence. Does this also apply to the noble path(s)? There is a discussion about that in the kathāvatthu (17.5), but that could not clarify it (at least for me). Best wishes. (I'm also bearing in mind, that the paths are classified as being anāsava. Would that imply that an anāsava-dhamma is not impermanent, suffering, not-self?) P.S. In the cūḷa­ve­dalla­sutta, MN 44, it is stated explicitly that the noble eightfold path is conditioned: > [...] “Ariyo panāyye, aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo saṅkhato udāhu asaṅkhato”ti? > > “Ariyo kho, āvuso visākha, aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo saṅkhato”ti. [...] > > [...] “But is the eightfold Noble Path, Noble Lady, conditioned or > unconditioned?” “The eightfold Noble Path, friend Visākha, is > conditioned.” [...]