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:
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.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.’
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.
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:"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."
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."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.
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.
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 acceptabilityMA 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.
Reading all this passages, I would like people to add passages that are important or crucial in their understanding of aniccaThe 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.”
Those passages reminds me of Thanissaro's writings about ANICCA, which is something that I would like people to comment about:
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: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.
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!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.
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.