The three
The Pāli text gives the list compactly: sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — all conditioned things are impermanent; sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — all conditioned things are unsatisfactory; sabbe dhammā anattā — all phenomena, conditioned or not, are without self. The first two formulations are claims about the field of changing experience the practitioner inhabits. The third is broader: anattā applies to dhammas, the basic constituents of experience itself, including the unconditioned nirvāṇa the path is taken to lead toward. The shift in scope from the second mark to the third is deliberate — the absence of substantial separate self is, on this analysis, not a feature only of the impermanent realm one is escaping from but of every phenomenon, including the escape itself. The technical Pāli terms are the canonical ones — anicca, dukkha, anattā — each carrying its own lexicon entry, and the vocabulary is unstable enough across English translators that pinning it down at first use is part of the work.
How they function in practice
The list is doctrinal in form but practical in function. The classical Therav āda curriculum presents the marks as the three things insight is engineered to surface, in roughly that order, across long retreat practice. Anicca is what attention notices first — the relentless arising-and-passing of every sensory event when noting becomes fine-grained enough that the impression of stable objects begins to dissolve. Dukkha is the second-order recognition that the mind, having noticed impermanence, continues to grasp anyway, and that the gap between what it grasps for and what is there to be grasped is the structural source of its unease. Anattā is the third recognition: the noticing-mind itself does not have the kind of inside the previous two recognitions assumed it had. The classical vipassanā progression deepens the three across the ñāṇa stages mapped in Buddhaghosa's fifth-century Visuddhimagga, which remains the most detailed manual of how the recognitions are supposed to land in lived experience rather than as assented-to propositions.
Across the three vehicles
Theravāda treats the three marks as the explicit content of insight, named in classical Pāli at every stage of the path. Mahāyāna extends anattā — the absence of substantial self — outward into emptiness (śūnyatā), the doctrine that nothing whatsoever, including the elements of experience the Theravāda Abhidhamma still treats as discrete dhammas, has independent existence. The Madhyamaka school formalises this extension; the interbeing vocabulary Thich Nhat Hanh carries into modern English is the same recognition rendered for a contemporary readership. Vajrayāna takes the three marks, the extended śūnyatā, and the further claim that the practitioner's own awareness, once recognised in the Buddha-nature idiom, is the unbroken ground every conditioned phenomenon arises in. The three accounts are not three competing doctrines; they are three depths at which the same recognition is presented. Anattā is present in all three, with the technical content widening as the framework widens.
In the index
The clearest sustained presentation of the three marks in the index is Tara Brach and Jack Kornfield's *Power of Awareness*, whose IMS-Theravāda curriculum walks the practitioner through the anicca / dukkha / anattā progression in unornamented English over a multi-week retreat-style sequence. Jon Kabat-Zinn's MBSR carries the same content in clinical idiom — the body scan and noting practice the eight-week programme prescribes are vipassanā stripped of the Pāli vocabulary, and the impermanence-and-unsatisfactoriness recognitions emerge in practitioners on the same timetable the older curriculum predicts. On the Mahāyāna side, Thich Nhat Hanh on emptiness, signlessness and aimlessness is the index's most direct exposition of the three marks once they are widened into the emptiness framework, and the Plum Village teaching carries the same content in pastoral register. Pema Chödrön's *When Things Fall Apart* and her course on awakening compassion sit on the Tibetan side: the books read the three marks through the lens of groundlessness, the technical Karma Kagyu rendering of anattā as the experiential ground from which compassionate action actually arises. Adyashanti's *Do Nothing* approaches the same recognition from the Zen side, where anattā is the immediate seeing-into-one's-own-nature the koan curriculum is engineered to provoke.
What they aren't
The three marks are not, on the tradition's own account, propositions to be assented to. The path is not a brief in support of impermanence; it is a curriculum that arranges conditions under which the practitioner notices impermanence directly, and the noticing — not the proposition — is what the doctrine is for. They are also not three separate claims. The classical commentaries treat anicca, dukkha and anattā as one recognition stated three times: the impermanent grasped at as if it were stable produces the unsatisfactoriness, and the looking that locates the unsatisfactoriness fails to find a substantial self doing the grasping. Reading the list as three independent doctrines that can each be taken or left flattens the analysis the Buddha was actually offering, and produces the misreading common to both pop-Buddhist self-help and to the secular mindfulness market — that impermanence names a wistful aesthetic fact, that dukkha names a difficult emotion, and that anattā is best treated as a metaphor. None of those readings does the work the three were meant to do.
— end of entry —