Impermanence

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Impermanence

Postby alfa » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:25 pm

Namaste,

WHat exactly is impermanence according to the Buddha - that nothing lasts forever? But is there a duration for various objects? For instance, A may last longer than B even though they're both impermanent. But the difference could be huge. So is the term impermanence used rather loosely here?

Thanks,
Alfa
alfa
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: Impermanence

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:31 pm

alfa wrote:Namaste,

WHat exactly is impermanence according to the Buddha - that nothing lasts forever? But is there a duration for various objects? For instance, A may last longer than B even though they're both impermanent. But the difference could be huge. So is the term impermanence used rather loosely here?

Thanks,
Alfa
One can get into dhamma theory, particularly of later Abhidhamma where there is given an actual of duration of things, but the reality is that it is an empirical/experiential thing. As you sit very quietly, concentrated and mindful, what you experience changes, sometimes with incredible rapidity, sometime seemingly slowly, but things change. It is not an ontological statement; it is a statement of knowing, of what one "sees" or senses.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19632
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Impermanence

Postby Stephen K » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:52 pm

With metta,
Upāsaka Sumana
User avatar
Stephen K
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: Impermanence

Postby Viscid » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:35 pm

I think it's important to note that there is a difference between the intellectualization of Impermanence and the experience of Impermanence.

Sayagyi U Ba Khin wrote:Impermanence (anicca) is, of course, the essential fact which must be first experienced and understood by practice. Mere book-knowledge of the Buddha-Dhamma will not be enough for the correct understanding of Anicca because the experiential aspect will be missing. It is only through experiential understanding of the nature of Anicca as an ever-changing process within you that you can understand Anicca in the way the Buddha would like you to understand it. As in the days of the Buddha, so too now, this understanding of Anicca can be developed by persons who have no book-knowledge whatsoever of Buddhism.


Sayagyi U Ba Khin wrote:The initial object of Vipassana Meditation is to activate the experience of Anicca in oneself and to eventually reach a state of inner and outer calmness and balance. This is achieved when one becomes engrossed in the feeling of Anicca within. The world is now facing serious problems which threaten all mankind. It is just the right time for everyone to take to Vipassana Meditation and learn how to find a deep pool of quiet in the midst of all that is happening today. Anicca is inside of everybody. It is within reach of everybody. Just a look into oneself and there it is — Anicca to be experienced. When one can feel Anicca, when one can experience Anicca, and when one can become engrossed in Anicca, one can at will cut oneself off from the world of ideation outside.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el231.html

The Buddha wrote:"And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five clinging-aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the perception of inconstancy.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
User avatar
Viscid
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Impermanence

Postby SamKR » Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:57 pm

tiltbillings wrote: It is not an ontological statement; it is a statement of knowing, of what one "sees" or senses.


Could you please elaborate a bit why it is not ontological.
Thanks.

Sameer
SamKR
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Impermanence

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:33 pm

SamKR wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: It is not an ontological statement; it is a statement of knowing, of what one "sees" or senses.


Could you please elaborate a bit why it is not ontological.
Thanks.

Sameer
The Buddha, in the suttas is not really making comments about the nature of "objective" reality. He is talking about what we directly experience.


Recall that from the perspective of the Buddha’s teachings in the Pali, the ‘All’ {SN IV 15} is composed entirely of phassa, contact between sense base and sense object. We can only directly know phenomena within this ‘world of experience’, so from the Theravadin perspective, we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness, of seeing (the image of a brain), and so on. The discourses of the Pali describe an individual world of experience as composed of various mental and physical factors, nama and rupa. These two are not the separate, independent worlds that Rene Descartes envisioned.

"…the Buddha spoke of the human person as a psychophysical personality (namarupa). Yet the psychic and the physical were never discussed in isolation, nor were they viewed as self-subsistent entities. For him, there was neither a ‘material-stuff’ nor a ‘mental-stuff’, because both are results of reductive analyses that go beyond experience."53

The physical and mental aspects of human experience are continually arising together, intimately dependent on one another.

53 Kalupahana 1976: 73, refers to D.15{II,62}, where the Buddha speaks of both
physicality and mentality mutually dependent forms of contact (phassa).
Physicality is described as contact with resistance (pat.ighasamphassa),
mentality as contact with concepts (adhivacanasamphassa).


STRONG ROOTS by Jake Davis, page 190-1. http://www.dharma.org/bcbs/Pages/docume ... gRoots.pdf
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19632
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Impermanence

Postby Goedert » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:23 am

alfa wrote:Namaste,

WHat exactly is impermanence according to the Buddha - that nothing lasts forever? But is there a duration for various objects? For instance, A may last longer than B even though they're both impermanent. But the difference could be huge. So is the term impermanence used rather loosely here?

Thanks,
Alfa


Impermanence is a caracteristc of existence.
Existence involve the six senses, they are constantly changing.

Fire
Water
Air
Earth
Mind and its objects
The World

What is born, will fade away.
What is created, will be destroyed.

Thats why nibbana, is also called the immortal or non-created.
User avatar
Goedert
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: Impermanence

Postby Jason » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:44 am

alfa wrote:WHat exactly is impermanence according to the Buddha - that nothing lasts forever? But is there a duration for various objects? For instance, A may last longer than B even though they're both impermanent. But the difference could be huge. So is the term impermanence used rather loosely here?


Anicca is the negative of nicca, which means 'constant' or 'dependable,' often translated as 'impermanence' or 'inconstancy.' In terms of compounded phenomena, it implies change and lack of self (anatta) since whatever is inconstant and subject to change isn't fit to be called 'me' or 'mine.' And to hold onto anything that's inconstant, subject to change, break-up and dissolution, is a cause for mental stress and suffering (dukkha). These are what are often called the three characteristics of existence (tilakkhana), which are present throughout the most discernible aspects of our experience on top of which we construct our sense of self. As Thanissaro succinctly puts it, "We apply these standards to the experiences we consume: if they aren't long-term, then no matter how pleasant they might be, they aren't true happiness. If they're not true happiness, there's no reason to claim them as 'mine.' This insight forms the basis for the Three Characteristics that the Buddha taught for inducing a sense of dispassion for normal time- and space-bound experience" (All About Change).
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth

Re: Impermanence

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:34 am

The imagery which Buddha used to describe impermanence, which has stuck with me over these last thirteen years since studying The Tipitaka in earnest is: .... " like froth on the River Ganges"...which speaks to insubstantiality.

"At one time the Lord was staying at Ayojjhaaya on the bank of the river Ganges. There the Lord addressed the bhikkhus as follows: 'Suppose, bhikkhus, a large lump of froth was floating on this river Ganges and a clear-sighted man were to see it, observe it and properly examine it. Seeing it, observing it, properly examining it, it would appear to him to be empty (ritta), unsubstantial (tuccha), without essence (asaara). What essence, bhikkhus, could there be in a lump of froth?

"In the same way, bhikkhus, whatsoever body, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that a bhikkhu sees, observes and properly examines... it would appear to him to be empty, unsubstantial, without essence. What essence, bhikkhus, could there be in body?

"Suppose, bhikkhus, in autumn when it is raining in large drops a bubble arises and disappears on the water and a clear-sighted man were to see it, observe it and properly examine it. Seeing it, observing it, properly examining it, it would appear to him to be empty, unsubstantial, without essence. What essence, bhikkhus, could there be in a water-bubble?

"In the same way, bhikkhus, whatsoever feeling, past, future or present... that a bhikkhus sees, observes and properly examines... it would appear to him to be empty, unsubstantial, without essence. What essence, bhikkhus, could there be in feeling?

"Suppose, bhikkhus, in the last month of the hot season at midday a mirage appeared and a clear-sighted man were to see it, observe it and properly examine it. Seeing it, observing it, properly examining it, it would appear to him to be empty, unsubstantial, without essence. What essence, bhikkhus, could there be in a mirage?

"In the same way, bhikkhus, whatsoever perception... that a bhikkhu sees, observes and properly examines... it would appear to him to be empty, unsubstantial, without essence. What essence, bhikkhus, could there be in perception?

"Suppose, bhikkhus, a man, needing sound timber, going about seeking, looking for sound limber, and taking a sharp axe should enter a forest and there see a large plantain tree, straight-trunked, young, of great height. And he were to cut it down at the root. Having cut it down at the root he were to chop off the top and remove the outer skin. On removing the outer skin he would find no soft wood, not to speak of sound timber. Then a clear-sighted man were to see it, observe it and properly examine it. Seeing it, observing it, properly examining it, it would appear to him to be empty, unsubstantial, without essence. What essence, bhikkhus, could there be in a plantain tree?

"In the same way, bhikkhus, whatsoever mental activities... a bhikkhu sees, observes and properly examines... they would appear to him to be empty, unsubstantial, without essence. What essence, bhikkhus, could there be in mental activities?

"Suppose, bhikkhus, a magician or a magician's assistant should produce an illusion on the high road and a clear-sighted man were to see it, observe it and properly examine it. Seeing it, observing it, properly examining it, it would appear to him to be empty, unsubstantial, without essence. What essence, bhikkhus, could there be in a magical illusion?

"In the same way, bhikkhus, whatsoever consciousness... a bhikkhu sees, observes and properly examines... it would appear to him to be empty, unsubstantial, without essence. What essence, bhikkhus, could there be in consciousness?

"So seeing, the instructed noble disciple is dispassionate towards the body, towards feeling, perception, mental activities and consciousness. Being dispassionate he detaches himself, being detached he is released and in release is the knowledge of being released and he knows: 'Finished is birth, lived is the holy life, done is what had to be done, there is no more of this or that state.'"

source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el107.html
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Impermanence

Postby alfa » Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:05 am

Thanks, everyone.

When I observe myself, I see certain thoughts and emotions lasting longer than the rest.
alfa
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:43 pm

Re: Impermanence

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:26 am

alfa wrote:Thanks, everyone.

When I observe myself, I see certain thoughts and emotions lasting longer than the rest.


LOL! and Ha, ha! :jumping: (Laughing with you and " not at you". :quote: )

This is a delusion of the first order and it is an interesting choice of words having several interpretations:

1. When I observe ------> "myself", meaning that there is some self to be observed, which belongs to you.

Since there is no (permanent) self to be observed, except that which is impermanent, fragile, insubstantial, "like froth on The River Ganges", ....

2. When I observe -----> (something exterior to) myself.....what is revealed to me is that some of these exterior things last a time period of a very short period (an example would be an arising thought about the need to buy term insurance), some last a longer period (an example would be a thought about getting a good job, when unemployed), and some last an extremely long period of time (a universe, which lasts billions, upon billions of years).

The assumption I will make is that you intended the second case, and you are correct in the mundane case, everyday parlance, but not in the supra-mundane case, because the observer is (himself, herself) in fact arising changing from one mind moment to the next mind moment on several levels: The parts of the observer we call mentality arises and falls constantly; the parts of the observer we call materiality seems to last longer, but when you look at their rotating, vibrating, oscillating, translating molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles, quarks, and conversions from energy to mass via the process Einstein described in famous equation: E=MC^2, even the observer is changing constantly. What this rapidly changing observer is really observing (the contact) is the resultant process of a dependently arisen form (let's say a galaxy composed of stars, which emitted light (photons, which are themselves packets of energy constantly in a state of energetic flux) from the process of a name given by science as "nuclear fusion" of hydrogen, which upon fusion becomes helium, along with energy and light, which are but collections of energetic packets of energy called photons, which is localized only for a time due to the massive influence of the weakest of all forces (gravity), billions upon billions of years ago, and have already dispersed into the universe themselves, which is also in reality a dependently arisen process of formation from the time of The Big Bang, or The Big Slap if you subscribe to the current Membrane Theory, both mental concepts, all of which is/are arising, dwelling for but an infinitesimal mind moment, being observed by a previously mentioned insubstantial observer, which is itself arising, dwelling for but a mind moment and passing away only to be replaced by another infinitesimal observer.....over and over and over, etc..............ad infinitum. :juggling:

So! I ask you: "How can you possibly know or measure how long anything lasts if the tool to make the observations and measurements is itself changing constantly?"....in the supra-mundane sense?

In the mundane sense, that which allows everyday discussions and communications, your (and our) practical delusional process view is that some things last but micro-seconds, and others last a range of time from more than just a few nano-seconds to billions of years. And, as Buddha pointed out, samsara, this place of dukkha, a realm having 31 Planes has been around for an imponderable period of time with no beginning and no end; endless and without beginning; a round of dependently arisen and impermanent pain, suffering, stress and dissatisfaction.

One final point: "having a view" means that you are attached to a view. Attachment to anything ( including views ), because "everything" is dependently arise, and impermanent, results in dukkha. :soap:

resource for further study: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/Finge ... f_Soil.htm

Suggest you read: "Not even as much as a Fingernail of Dust Lasts!" and all associated links at the end of the discussion.

Also from Access to Insight: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_r ... permanence
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Impermanence

Postby kirk5a » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:31 pm

Heraclitus said "Nothing endures but change."

Is that what the Buddha taught, exactly?

I see that he said "Impermanent are all conditioned things" (sankhara).
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Impermanence

Postby pulga » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:09 pm

In a letter to the Hon. Lionel Sumaratunga the Ven. Ñanavira wrote:

"You ask whether aniccatá (or impermanence) in the Dhamma does not refer to things regarded objectively rather than subjectively. Certainly, aniccatá does not not refer to things regarded objectively (note the double negative); and there are, no doubt, passages in the Suttas where this meaning is intended (or at least not excluded). It is clear enough that a person regarding any thing as objectively permanent (as the Christians, for example, regard God or heaven or hell) cannot even begin to understand the Buddha's Teaching. An aspiring Buddhist must first of all understand that there is no single thing (objectively speaking) that lasts for ever.

But if aniccatá means no more than this, we soon run into difficulties; for modern physical science, which is as objective as can be, says the same thing -- indeed, it goes further and says that everything is constantly changing. And this is precisely the point of view of our modern commentators. The Buddha, as you may know, has said,
Yad aniccam tam dukkham;
yam dukkham tad anattá What is impermanent is suffering;
what is suffering is not-self;


and I was told that one gentleman several years ago argued from this that since a stone is impermanent it must therefore experience suffering. And not only he, but also most of the Buddhist world agree that since a stone is impermanent -- i.e. in perpetual flux (according to the scientific concept) -- it has no lasting self-identity; that is to say, it is anattá or not-self. The notion that a stone feels pain will probably find few supporters outside Jain circles; but this objective interpretation of the Buddha's Teaching of anattá is firmly established.

'But what' perhaps you may ask 'is wrong with this?' In the first place, it implies that modern science has caught up with the Buddha's Teaching (which, presumably, we can now afford to throw overboard, since science is bound to make further progress) -- see, in this connexion, note (j) in the Preface of Notes, beginning 'It is all the fashion...'. In the second place, it involves the self-contradictory notion of universal flux -- remember the disciple of Heraclitus, who said that one cannot cross the same river even once (meaning that if everything is in movement there is no movement at all).[a] In the third place, if aniccatá refers only to things regarded objectively and not subjectively (as you suggest), the subject is ipso facto left out of account, and the only meaning that is left for attá or 'self' is the self-identity of the object. But -- as I point out in the admittedly very difficult article ATTÁ -- the Dhamma is concerned purely and simply with 'self' as subject ('I', 'mine'), which is the very thing that you propose to omit by being objective. The fact is, that the triad, anicca/dukkha/anattá has no intelligible application if applied objectively to things. The objective application of aniccatá is valid in the exact measure that objectivity is valid -- that is to say, on a very coarse and limited level only. Objectivity is an abstraction or rationalization from subjectivity -- even the scientist when he is engaged on his experiments is at that time subjective, but when he has finished his series of experiments he eliminates the subjectivity (himself) and is left with the objective result. This means that though there can be no objectivity without an underlying subjectivity, there can quite possibly be subjectivity without objectivity; and the objective aniccatá is only distantly related to the much finer and more subtle subjective aniccatá. It must be remembered that it is only the ariya, and not the puthujjana, who perceives pure subjective aniccatá (it is in seeing subjective aniccatá that the puthujjana becomes ariya; and at that time he is wholly subjective -- the coarse objective perception of aniccatá has been left far behind) -- see, in this connexion, PARAMATTHA SACCA §4 (I think). Objective aniccatá can be found outside the Buddha's Teaching, but not subjective aniccatá." (emphasis mine)
pulga
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Impermanence

Postby daverupa » Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:12 am

pulga wrote:And not only he, but also most of the Buddhist world agree that since a stone is impermanent -- i.e. in perpetual flux (according to the scientific concept)


FWIW, Ven. Nanavira elsewhere describes why the notion of 'constant flux' is an illegitimate interpretation.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4195
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Impermanence

Postby pulga » Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:46 pm

daverupa wrote:[FWIW, Ven. Nanavira elsewhere describes why the notion of 'constant flux' is an illegitimate interpretation.


"The misunderstanding arises from failure to see that change at any given level of generality must be discontinuous and absolute, and that there must be different levels of generality. When these are taken together, any desired approximation to 'continuous change' can be obtained without contradiction. But change, as marking 'the passage of time', is no more than change of aspect or orientation: change of substance is not necessary, nor is movement. " Notes on Dhamma :: Shorter Notes :: PATICCASAMUPPÁDA

When it comes to aniccata, this seems to be the gist of what the Ven. Ñanavira is getting at; and why merely an awareness of objective aniccata without an understanding of its structural implications is inadequate to seeing the truth of anatta. But of course dukkhata also comes into play: "sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta".
pulga
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Impermanence

Postby Dmytro » Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:46 am

Hi Alfa,

alfa wrote:WHat exactly is impermanence according to the Buddha - that nothing lasts forever?


Essentially, yes.

But is there a duration for various objects? For instance, A may last longer than B even though they're both impermanent. But the difference could be huge. So is the term impermanence used rather loosely here?


Yes, there's duration.

"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

— Assutavā-sutta (SN 12.61)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

“Katha~nca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sampajaano hoti? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno viditaa vedanaa uppajjanti, viditaa upa.t.thahanti, viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Viditaa vitakkaa uppajjanti, viditaa upa.t.thahanti, viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Viditaa sa~n~naa uppajjanti, viditaa upa.t.thahanti, viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Eva.m kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sampajaano hoti.

(Sati sutta, SN 5:180)

“Katamaa ca, bhikkhave, samaadhibhaavanaa bhaavitaa bahuliikataa satisampaja~n~naaya sa.mvattati? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno viditaa vedanaa uppajjanti, viditaa upa.t.thahanti, viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti; viditaa sa~n~naa …pe… viditaa vitakkaa uppajjanti, viditaa upa.t.thahanti, viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Aya.m, bhikkhave, samaadhibhaavanaa bhaavitaa bahuliikataa satisampaja~n~naaya sa.mvattati.

"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

See the book by Samanera Bodhesako: http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/change.htm

Best wishes, Dmytro
User avatar
Dmytro
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: Impermanence

Postby minthukyaw » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:00 am

Anicca - အနိစၥ
Anicca is a Pali word usually translated as "impermanence." It is continuous change of living things and non-living things. This Pali word can cover these meanings: the nature of changing (vikara), the nature of nothingness (abhava), the nature of temporary existance (tavakalika, anaddhaniya, and aciratthitika), the nature of decaying (khaya) and the nature of appearing and disappearing (uppada-vaya). And again these are the nature of everything. Thus everything is impermanent.

Ashin Acara
http://www.mrmrt.info/2010/09/anicca.html
minthukyaw
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:41 am


Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests