Top anicca quotes and a question: it is impermanent or inconstant?

[nirodh27]

Sam Vara's post about the critique at Buddhism really made me wonder how Buddhism is seen from the outside given that is it unlikely that many people that speaks about Buddhism have direct contact with the suttas. Direct contact with the suttas have its dangers and perils, but I think that are way less than not have contact with them.

Starting with Anicca, I would like to point-out some important passages that explain anicca in the suttas. While "form is impermanent then suffering" is everywhere, an explaination of why it is so is, surprisingly, not very frequent.

Those are the most important passages that I've found:

SN 22.26

“Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘The pleasure and joy that arise in dependence on form: this is the gratification in form. That form is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this is the danger in form. The removal and abandonment of desire and lust for form: this is the escape from form.

“‘The pleasure and joy that arise in dependence on feeling … in dependence on perception … in dependence on volitional formations … in dependence on consciousness: this is the gratification in consciousness. That consciousness is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this is the danger in consciousness. The removal and abandonment of desire and lust for consciousness: this is the escape from consciousness.’

Impermanence = danger > that is why the "being prey of Dukkha all-the-time" is an extraordinary example of the undestanding and why radical not-anxiety describes the liberated arahant.

22.28

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, if there were no gratification in form, beings would not become enamoured with it; but because there is gratification in form, beings become enamoured with it. If there were no danger in form, beings would not experience revulsion towards it; but because there is danger in form, beings experience revulsion towards it. If there were no escape from form, beings would not escape from it; but because there is an escape from form, beings escape from it.

"The three kinds of feelings, O monks, are impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen, liable to destruction, to evanescence, to fading away, to cessation — namely, pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neutral feeling."

12.61 is also very important because it signals that there are different degrees of anicca, it is not just a switch on/off, but with eternal/perishable:

"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.

This is another great sutta that links understanding impermanence to the ending of lustful desire (Agama's only AFAIK). Even if I think that impermanence is more than intelligible from anyone of course undestanding in the Buddhist sense (so personal verification, removing doubt) can happen only why lustful desires are absent.

SA 187

At that time the Blessed One said to the monks: “Because of being endowed with one thing, one is no longer fit to understand that bodily form is impermanent, to understand that feeling … perception … formations … consciousness is impermanent. What is that one thing with which one is endowed? It is lustful desires.

“Not being endowed with one thing,60 one is fit to understand that bodily form is impermanent, to understand that feeling … perception … formations … consciousness is impermanent. What is that one thing with which one is endowed? It is being endowed with the absence of lustful desires. One who is without the condition of lustful desires is fit to understand that bodily form is impermanent, is fit to understand that feeling … perception … formations … consciousness is impermanent.”

When the Buddha had spoken this discourse, hearing what the Buddha had said the monks were delighted and received it respectfully.

MA 22

“Bhikkhus, you may well acquire that possession that is anicca, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that might endure as long as eternity. But do you see any such possession, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any possession that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and that might endure as long as eternity.

and his parallel that seems slightly different, there's no reference (as far I can see: https://suttacentral.net/ma200/en/patto ... ript=latin) to everlasting possessions, but to the reliability and acceptability

The Bhagavān then praised the monks, “Good, good! A monk [might] accept thus something as acceptable that doesn’t cause sadness, trouble, lamentation, beating of chests, and craziness. Do you see anything to accept that’s acceptable and doesn’t cause sadness, trouble, lamentation, beating of chests, and craziness?”

The monks replied, “No, Bhagavān.”

The Bhagavān praised them, “Good, good! You [might] rely on thus seeing what’s dependable. Having seen it, you don’t become sad and troubled, don’t lament and beat your chests, and don’t go crazy. Do you see [something] to rely on, thus seeing what’s dependable? Having seen it, will you not become sad and troubled, lament and beat your chests, or go crazy?”

The monks replied, “No, Bhagavān.”

Reading all this passages, I would like people to add passages that are important or crucial in their understanding of anicca

Those passages reminds me of Thanissaro's writings about ANICCA, which is something that I would like people to comment about:

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. Anicca, the first of the three, is pivotal. Anicca applies to everything that changes. Often translated as "impermanent," it's actually the negative of nicca, which means constant or dependable. Everything that changes is inconstant. Now, the difference between "impermanent" and "inconstant" may seem semantic, but it's crucial to the way anicca functions in the Buddha's teachings. As the early texts state repeatedly, if something is anicca then the other two characteristics automatically follow: it's dukkha (stressful) and anatta (not-self), i.e., not worthy to be claimed as me or mine.

If we translate anicca as impermanent, the connection among these Three Characteristics might seem debatable. But if we translate it as inconstant, and consider the Three Characteristics in light of the Buddha's original question, the connection is clear. If you're seeking a dependable basis for long-term happiness and ease, anything inconstant is obviously a stressful place to pin your hopes — like trying to relax in an unstable chair whose legs are liable to break at any time. If you understand that your sense of self is something willed and fabricated — that you choose to create it — there's no compelling reason to keep creating a "me" or "mine" around any experience that's inconstant and stressful. You want something better. You don't want to make that experience the goal of your practice.

I think that inconstancy greatly improves the understanding of the connection anicca > dukkha (let's skip anatta for a moment, which is the act of revulsion and so relative to the escape). I'll add a quote from the article of Vallicella:

Permanence is the standard against which the ordinary satisfactions of life are judged deficient. Absolute permanence sets the ontological and axiological standard. The operative presupposition is that only that which is permanent is truly real, truly important, and truly satisfactory.

makes me wonder if the reading of Thanissaro makes things way more clear. I think it does, but it is your opinion that matters most!

another sutta to add:

SN22.97

“Sir, is there any form at all that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever? Is there any feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever?”

“Mendicant, there is no form at all that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. There’s no feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.”

Then the Buddha, picking up a little bit of dirt under his fingernail, addressed that mendicant:

“There’s not even this much of any form that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. If there were, this living of the spiritual life for the complete ending of suffering would not be found. But since there isn’t, this living of the spiritual life for the complete ending of suffering is found.

[Noble Sangha]

Ohhhh, I would love to participant on this topic But not the right timing for me. In the meantime, I'll continue to work on finishing up a post on another thread and observe other's comments.

[justpractice]

I find "unreliable" or "out of one's control" as a helpful way to consider anicca. Starting out, translating it as "impermanent" did not work for me due to all the common-sense based assumptions I had around that word; it simply did not invoke the right anxiety in regard to that which I was holding dear. I'm not certain "inconstant" would have been much different, but I recommend using whatever word cuts the deepest.

[mjaviem]

I understand anicca as "can't last" and "can't be trusted". The teachings are about the here and now. What you know about the present and not what you know about the future.

[cappuccino]

The perceiving of impermanence, developed and frequently practiced

[equilibrium]

impermanent or inconstant ?

Same thing really, both related to form. ….. matter of focusing, on the one hand, it will not last… on the other, slowly changing. ….. in accordance with the 3 marks of the conditioned:

Per AN 3.47:

Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned.
What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned.

Per AN 7.46:

….., the perception of inconstancy, the perception of stress in what is inconstant, the perception of not-self in what is stressful.

'The perception of the unattractive, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its final end'

[Ceisiwr]

...

I quite like impermanence. Inconstant sounds more to me like there are things which endure and change over time. That is a nod to substance metaphysics. I'm currently reading Venerable Ratnakīrti's "Proof of Momentariness by Positive Correlation" (Kṣaṇabhaṅgasiddhi anvayātmikā). In that work it is the proponents of Nyāya who argue that there are things (substances) which persist and change over time, like pots. In the suttas we do find the Buddha making such statements, but we also find proto-momentariness ideas too.

“Good, good, Ānanda. The arising of form is evident, its vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. The arising of feeling … perception … choices … consciousness is evident, its vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. These are the things for which arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.37/en/suj ... ript=latin

“Good, good, Ānanda. ‘Whatever form has passed, ceased, and perished, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting were evident. Whatever feeling … perception … choices … consciousness has passed, ceased, and perished, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting were evident. These the things for which arising, vanishing, and change while persisting were evident.

Whatever form is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting will be evident. Whatever feeling … perception … choices … consciousness is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting will be evident. These are the things for which arising, vanishing, and change while persisting will be evident.

Whatever form has been born, and has appeared, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting are evident. Whatever feeling … perception … choices … consciousness has been born, and has appeared, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting are evident. These are the things for which arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.38/en/suj ... ript=latin

Then the Blessed One took up a little bit of soil in his fingernail and said to that bhikkhu: “Bhikkhu, there is not even this much form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. If there was this much form that was permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering could not be discerned. But because there is not even this much form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering is discerned.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.97/en/bod ... ight=false

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The eye is impermanent, perishing, and changing. Sights are impermanent, perishing, and changing. So this duality is tottering and toppling; it’s impermanent, perishing, and changing. Eye consciousness is impermanent, perishing, and changing. And the causes and conditions that give rise to eye consciousness are also impermanent, perishing, and changing. But since eye consciousness has arisen dependent on conditions that are impermanent, how could it be permanent?

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.93/en/suj ... ript=latin

The Buddha said to the monks: “… Monks, just as two hands coming together produce sound, so, conditioned by eye and visible forms arises eye consciousness, and these three things together are contact. From contact arise feeling, perception, and volition.

“All these phenomena are not-self, impermanent; they are without a permanent self, not eternal, not stable, changing. Why is this so?

“Monks, these have the nature of birth, ageing, death, ceasing, and rebirth. Monks, all compounded things are as an illusion, a flame, ceasing in an instant; being not real they come (arise) and go (cease).

https://suttacentral.net/sa273/en/choon ... ight=false

Conventionally we talk of substances which persist and change over time. I think with a higher understanding we arrive at momentariness, and above that an understanding of no arising or ceasing at all.

[mjaviem]

I quite like impermanence. Inconstant sounds more to me like there are things which endure and change over time. That is a nod to substance metaphysics.....

[befriend]

Tilakkhana gatha verses on the three characteristics impermanent is all that is conditioned when one sees this with wisdom one turns away from suffering this is the path to purity unsatisfactory is all that is conditioned when one sees this with wisdom one turns away from suffering this is the path to purity without self are all dhammas when one sees this with wisdom one turns away from suffering this is the path to purity

[pegembara]

Anicca is emptiness, without substance or inherently unstable. Like drawing on water or sand.

"Now suppose that in the autumn — when it's raining in fat, heavy drops — a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any feeling that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in feeling?

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[cappuccino]

Inconstant sounds more to me like there are things which endure and change over time.

Do you remember your high school “self” compared to now


That’s inconstancy

[justindesilva]

Inconstant sounds more to me like there are things which endure and change over time.

Do you remember your high school “self” compared to now


That’s inconstancy

Anitya is translated as impermanence or transitory. Nitya is permanent or not changing. As it is used with rupa for damma sake impermanence is the better word. Transitory may be used but not frequently . used before.
With pancaskanda it is a transition of rupa to vedana , to sanna to sankara boiling down to vingnana which are all impermanent with each stage of skanda. Inconstancy may be correct with character.

[Dhammapardon]

Would it be both impermanent and inconstant?
Impermanent in the arising and ceasing.
Inconstant in the fluctuation and change while it persists?
There is a saying "Love flutters by" which reminds me of this.

[nirodh27]

Thank you everyone for the partecipation! Some of the quote or the observations provided were truly important to make a comprehensive list! Thank you. I hope that there will be more!

In the meantime, another quote from Thanissaro that better explains the difference between impermanence and inconstant:

I’ve been giving you English equivalents for these three perceptions. Perhaps I should explain them a bit more. Anicca is usually translated as impermanent, but I prefer to translate it as inconstant largely because, one, its opposite, the Pali word nicca, means “constant” rather than “permanent.” And two, “inconstancy” implies not only that things end, but that they change even as they’re continuing, even as they last. They’re unreliable and unpredictable.


You can build your house, say, on a mountain, thinking, “Well, the mountain may be impermanent, and maybe someday it’s going to erode into the ocean, but as long as I’m around, it seems to be permanent enough, so I’ll build my house there.” The impermanence of the mountain doesn’t really deter you. But if you realize that the mountain often has earthquakes and landslides, you’d be wise to decide not to build your house there after all. Or it’s like sitting in a chair where the legs are uneven: You have to tense your legs all the time you’re in the chair to keep from tipping over.

It’s important to remember that anicca here functions in the context of the search for true happiness. Sometimes you see it explained the other way around. People say, “Given the fact that things are inconstant in the world, we have to find a happiness by learning to content ourselves with what’s inconstant or impermanent.” Often they’ll compare this to a dance. You dance with this partner, but when this partner leaves you, you find another partner to dance with. Things keep changing, so you avoid suffering by learning how to move fluidly from one attachment to the next—as if that were the way to find happiness in a world that’s constantly changing.

But when the Buddha teaches these topics, as I said, he reverses the context. In other words, you start out with your search for happiness, with the conviction that there is such a thing as a happiness that lasts. Then you apply the perception of anicca, inconstancy, to whatever is coming up in your experience, or as the result of your actions, to measure it: If the perception really fits, then you have to realize that this is not what you’re looking for. It may be part of the path that you hold on to provisionally, but ultimately you realize that in terms of the goal, there must be something better.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/uncol ... tions.html

Inconstant: The usual rendering for anicca is “impermanent.” However, the antonym of the term, nicca, carries connotations of constancy and dependability; and as anicca is used to emphasize the point that conditioned phenomena cannot be depended on to provide true happiness, this seem a useful rendering for conveying this point.

The first perception is the perception of inconstancy. This is sometimes translated as “impermanence,” but I prefer the translation “inconstancy” for two main reasons. One, the Pāli term here, anicca, is the opposite of nicca, which in normal contexts means “constant.” Two, psychologically, the fact that something is impermanent doesn’t necessarily make it a cause of suffering, but if something is inconstant, then there’s a constant sense of stress around it. For example, you might build a house on a mountain, and you know the mountain’s impermanent, but you tell yourself, “It’s going to be permanent enough for me. By the time the mountain moves, I’m going to be long gone.” So it’s not necessarily stressful. But if you build a house in an area where they have frequent earthquakes or fires or the ground is very unstable, the inconstancy of the situation makes it stressful. So that’s the first perception.

Another sutta quote instead from the girimananda-sutta:

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 aggregates. This, Ānanda, is called the perception of inconstancy.

[Sasha_A]

What is important here is not the specific type of impermanence, whether it be a constant flux or some change from time to time, but the impermanence of what specifically we mean. It's just that impermanence of any kind in relation to an object that we don't care about is not a problem in itself. Impermanence becomes a problem only when it happens not according to our desire and in relation to what is dear to us, what we consider ourselves or ours - and only in this case is impermanence the very aniccha that is dukkha. And here it is no longer important whether what we have appropriated or want to appropriate really changes or not, the very fact that it is subject to the inevitability of changes that occur against our will and desire is important.

The problem of dukkha is not a problem in general, but a problem of 'mine' and 'for me'.

Impermanence = danger > that is why the "being prey of Dukkha all-the-time" is an extraordinary example of the undestanding and why radical not-anxiety describes the liberated arahant.

Change: 4. Impermanence and desire
...
After all, it is not change as such that is a source for unhappiness (in which case there would be no escape from sorrow), but change from the way I want things to be. A skillful repairing of my concrete slab is a change, but it is of itself cause not for anxiety but for gladness.

My electronic clock functions dependent upon a vibration rate of some thousands of cycles per second (admittedly, a long way from the enormous figure of 176,470,000,000, but not bad for all that), and the rapidity of its vibrations causes me no alarm (unless the alarm function is switched on). Rather, I would be perturbed if the clock were to stop vibrating, to stop changing (and registering) “all the time:” to become other than the way I want it to be.

A hundred-rupee note is no less negotiable today than it was a month ago, for all that it may be said to have changed 457,410,240,000,000 times in the interim. Where is the sorrow in that sort of change?

The sun courses daily across the sky; the seasons progress annually; and this in itself does not induce anxiety. Rather, I should be disconcerted and grieved if the sun were to stop transiting the sky, or if it were to remain always winter, or even always summer. This would be truly upsetting. Yet this is not so much a matter of change as of becoming otherwise, i.e. other than the way I want or expect things to be. The sun’s position has stopped changing “all the time;” the seasons have ceased their advancement. This is the sort of change I turn from and wish to deny. For even if matters were not arranged in their most perfect possible order they were at least arranged: day followed night, winter followed autumn. There was not the threatening anxiety of uncertainty: if this, what next?

But the doctrine of flux is a doctrine of certainty: everything is always changing. It is therefore a falsification of our manifest awareness of the world’s unreliability: things change when we expect (and wish) them not to. The need to hold to and proclaim this doctrine is thus revealed for what it is: not a coming to truth but a fleeing from it. In the face of the world’s insecurity the doctrine of flux is an attempt to retreat into a position of certainty.

Yet despite our efforts we cannot change the fact that things change and become otherwise. What can be altered is our attachment to the things of the world whether or not they are in a state of flux. To make observance of flux the basis of one’s efforts, then, at minimum misses the point by going too far (atidhāvati: to overshoot the mark). It is a misdirection of effort. It diverts us from the task of recognizing our own inappropriate efforts to appropriate the world, steering us to a less relevant (but far easier) effort to perceive in the world our own notions about the world.

Rather than perceive impermanence as the decay and decrepitude of old age, as the weakening of the faculties, the loss of control over the body, the gasping for air as life ebbs, the fearsome uncontrollable slide from light to darkness as our very identity — body, perception, consciousness, all — fades away and breaks up — rather than perceive impermanence as that, how much more comfortable to blandly assert that everything is always changing, and thereby to move from the threatening and vertiginous perceptual realm to the safely exorcised sphere of the conceptual, while at the same time concealing this entire movement by a dialectical dance of complacency. No, change is involved with suffering not because of change per se but because things do not remain the way we wish them to remain even when the way we wish them to be is “to be changing.”