Thank you very much to everyone that partecipated! I think that now the topic has taken a route of its own so it is better to follow the flow
Based on my research and on what was collected here, passages about Anicca (that are not simply the linkage of impermanence = Dukkha that are everywhere) are not very frequent in the suttas, but what can be gathered is that momentariness is not there except on very few (one?) passage and that btw pairs well with the analysis of Analayo that says that momentariness is a later idea (if helpful of not, it is another matter).
Anicca
is something that arises, persist for an indefinite amount with an indefinite amount of change and then ends. For the 4-mind aggregates, the time which they persists is very brief, while the body is seen to arise, persist, degrate and end in a lifetime. For what is worth to us (the five aggregates) the one that persists the most is the body and that is certainly interesting in various ways, to counter the magic-trick of consciousness as an enduring-thing for example.
Just as there are degrees of Dukkha (Dukkha can be minor or major) so it so for anicca that is diverse in duration and stability, because there are things that persist more (for what interest to us, persist more as pleasant), that are more stable and reliable and others that are way less stable. Jhanas being the more stable and reliable of all that we can imagine bar Nibbana.
Ofc, nothing is reliable to the point to take it as our own, to make an appropriation as mine and avoid the anxiety that every acquisition entails. Not even the experience of the Unconditioned. Even if we could find something that doesn't end or that will certainly not end in our lifetime, the fact of change of the aggregates while persisting will still expose us to the danger of Dukkha because the change could be unpleasant for us.
About the relationship Anicca > Dukkha
There's no possession without
potential Dukkha, because for example an house that we possess for a lifetime can still be subject to change and our possession be threatened while we are alive, but at the same time it is untenable that a house
is "Suffering" without making some distinctions on the word Dukkha.
The Dukkha is not that the house will end with certainty, but that can change
for us while we are alive so the anxiety and stress that possession entails
sometimes. In fact
not all the potential Dukkha will ever manifest and instead to possess a house for all our life can be a source of happiness: since we have a limited control on the conditions, the Dukkha that will manifest will be in degrees that we cannot control as well (provided that we have made the acquisition/appropriation/attachment to the house ofc
).
Analayo is very wise in his analysis and I suggest this reading to everyone:
Another and rather crucial aspect of the Cū5avedalla-sutta's presentation is that not only will pleasant feelings eventually
cause the experience of unpleasantness, once they change and become otherwise, but unpleasant feelings can cause the pleas-
ure of relief once they change and disappear. This perspective is significant in so far as it provides a necessary background to
the statement that whatever is felt is included within dukkha, ya kiñci vedayita ta dukkhasmi (SN II 53).
Much hinges on a proper translation of the term dukkha in such a context. If one were to opt for the most commonly used
translation of dukkha as "suffering", this passage would pro-pose that all felt experience is to be included under the heading
of `suffering'. In the light of the above passage from the Cū5a-vedalla-sutta, such a conclusion would meet with difficulties,
since though the presence of unpleasant feelings may be ex-perienced as `suffering', the presence of pleasant feelings is
certainly not experienced as `suffering', and the two are, ac-cording to the dictum of the Mahānidāna-sutta, mutually ex-
clusive experiences.
When the future change of both feelings is considered, one could attribute the qualification `suffering' to pleasant feeling,
as its change leads to displeasure. Yet, in order to appropriately treat the effects of future change, one would also have to take
into consideration the change of unpleasant feeling, and such a change, as the Cū5avedalla-sutta clarifies, is experienced as
pleasant and not as `suffering'. Hence the Cū5avedalla-sutta's presentation reveals the limi-tations of the translation "suffering", making it advisable to adopt a different translation of the term dukkha in such a con-text. An alternative would be, for example, the term "unsatis-
factory". Though pleasant feeling is pleasant while it lasts, it is still unsatisfactory, precisely because it does not last forever.
According to another passage, this is in fact the implication of the dictum that whatever is felt is included within dukkha,
namely that all felt experience is unsatisfactory, however pleasant it may be at present, because it does not last (SN IV 216
This pair well to the distinction that I've sometimes made: there's distinction about the Dukkha
that we can feel and that is not always there and
the potential felt Dukkha that is not there and can or cannot manifest that is the
"Dukkha if we cling to x" that relates to the unsatisfactoriness part and
that is not yet felt and can be avoided with dispassion, taking the escape before it happens. If we miss this, it is hard to make sense of the third noble truth and evaluate it for ourselves, being certain that it works.