Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Question about impermanence
I saw this question on another forum but it had no replies. Maybe you guys can shed some light:
I would appreciate it if you guys would help me find out whether or not I am completely off on a inconsistency I feel I have stumbled upon in the understanding of impermanence. Forgive me for quoting wikipedia, but as I understand it "The term expresses the Buddhist notion that all of conditioned existence, without exception, is in a constant state of flux." If this is the case, would not the notion of Impermanence, the doctrine of Impermanence, and Impermanence as an element of samsara also be in constant flux? Something in this seems to invalidate the claim as I understand it. If all things without exception are conditioned and impermanent, then are not all our truths (having arisen from observations made by conditioned beings who observed a conditioned world) subject to change and impermanence, which might as well be the same as saying as they aren't really even true at all? Does the argument or concept of impermanence undo itself from within, or have I completely misunderstood some crucial element here? Thanks in advance.
I would appreciate it if you guys would help me find out whether or not I am completely off on a inconsistency I feel I have stumbled upon in the understanding of impermanence. Forgive me for quoting wikipedia, but as I understand it "The term expresses the Buddhist notion that all of conditioned existence, without exception, is in a constant state of flux." If this is the case, would not the notion of Impermanence, the doctrine of Impermanence, and Impermanence as an element of samsara also be in constant flux? Something in this seems to invalidate the claim as I understand it. If all things without exception are conditioned and impermanent, then are not all our truths (having arisen from observations made by conditioned beings who observed a conditioned world) subject to change and impermanence, which might as well be the same as saying as they aren't really even true at all? Does the argument or concept of impermanence undo itself from within, or have I completely misunderstood some crucial element here? Thanks in advance.
0
Comments
The "things" themselves are the phenomena in flux. The Buddha's teachings are to show us the universal laws of nature, so that we are disillusioned by these things and stop clinging to them or to ourselves.
One: I am lazy.
Two: I'm trying to keep it simple.
"Just do it".
That's my point.
However, if you look at impermanence from the perspective of yourself: If you're angry are you angry forever? If you're alive now, will it be forever? Everything we do is impermanent... our very thoughts, being, sense of self is, right? Thus ourselves, our ego, our understandings and our questions.
But I think you understand that, my point being is if you understand the very nature of impermanence, then does the questionable permanence of this statement honestly matter? From a perspective on yourself, one again, as you view impermanence, you may question it, and for you, at that moment, impermanence isn't permanent. Maybe later you accept impermanence... Some momentary validation, you're allowing for the THOUGHT of impermanence to be either permanent or impermanent. That is the nature of things, or ourself. Thus, you're right, our perception of impermanence allows for it to be in constant flux as we try to identify or label it...
There, I said it.
Actually saying "acts upon" may be incorrect as we're not sure it's a force. Rather, all things share impermanence as part of their nature or natural functioning. So then, Impermanence is an aspect of all "things".
That is what it's all about. If we see what is true of all things, then we will be able to see which thoughts/speech/acts of ours are not in accordance with the nature of all phenomena, including ourselves and the minds that create our world.
We can deduce reasonably why we have such suffering and frustration in our lives by seeing that our thoughts are not in accord with reality.
There is no such "thing" as impermanence. No function, activity, or object that can be pointed toward. Nothing that you can grasp hold of and say "this is impermanence."
It is an expression used for helping the ignorant understand and come to terms with the constant change and flux experienced while grasping on to and discriminating self-less forms.
There is no divine mandate or "natural law" set in place that commands impermanence upon dependently arisen phenomena. Impermanence is recognized when simply analyzing the nature of dependently arisen phenomena.
Sometimes though, I just delete a whole post because...you know what....?
It's small stuff.....
the only permanent thing is the impermanence. But impermanence, by it's nature of no self, is no thing. You can't really put it into words.
Another thing we agree on!
The laws of nature could all be different, impermanence and emptiness could not be.