Impermanence of impermanence ?

DarthVegas

I was just wondering how Buddhism mitigates what western philosophers would call “truths” or “universals” in terms of impermanence and interconnectedness. By truths, I means things like physical or mathematical laws (2+2=4) or the conceptual essence of something (the fact that a triangle has 3 sides). These are things which exist independent of us, the universe and even each other to a large extent. They have existed before us and will continue to exist even if there is nothing to acknowledge them.

We could take, for example, the “truth” of impermanence. Is impermanence itself impermanent? If it is than it’s not a “truth”, but if not then it contradicts itself.

Perhaps this concept only applies to tangible things, but wouldn’t that give us something to cling?

I ask this out of honest curiosity, my limited understanding of this concept and nothing else. I thank anyone who replies.

DhammaDhatu

Darth Vegas wrote: »

I was just wondering how Buddhism mitigates what western philosophers would call “truths” or “universals” in terms of impermanence and interconnectedness.

Dear Darth,

Buddhism holds its truths are permanent or what is called natural lawfulness (niyama).

If you do not find a satisfactory answer in the discussion, you may read this link, and this:

Kind regards

Buddhism teaches that all things, both material and immaterial, are entirely subject to the direction of causes and are interdependent. This natural course of things is called in common terms "the law of nature," and in the Pali language niyama, literally meaning "certainty" or "fixed way," referring to the fact that specific determinants inevitably lead to corresponding results.

The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of natural law, or niyama.

Plus this link

allanstevns

Darth Vegas wrote: »

I was just wondering how Buddhism mitigates
We could take, for example, the “truth” of impermanence. Is impermanence itself impermanent? If it is than it’s not a “truth”, but if not then it contradicts itself.

It would be like saying that change is changing - its nonsense. impermanence isnt an object, but just a way to describe how things really exist. Philosophizing (is it called that?... dunno) about the imepermanence of impermanence, is trying to over intellectualize things (i feel a strong urge to say: "GET BACK ON YOUR ZAFU!!!") :D:D

You can however, in some way speak if ultimate truth being somewhat interdependant on conventional truth, since these two arent seperate but to sides of the same coin.

I hope this helps
Much love

Allan

aaki

Facts in buddhism are unchanging (called impermanence) because they're negations. For example the fact that there is a bed in your bedroom at the moment is the lack of all other existing possibilities.

That fact will no longer exist when the negation no longer applies. It will no longer apply when the circumstances change.

Here you may notice that the fact does itself not change out of existence or into existence. It's unchanging. This is really important for understanding empty space, cessations, and emptiness/selflessness. Selflessness is this kind of negation.