Jump to content

Impermanence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

impermanence
A Buddhist painting displaying Impermanence

Impermanence,also known as thephilosophical problemofchange,is a philosophical concept addressed in a variety ofreligionsandphilosophies.InEastern philosophyit is notable for its role in theBuddhistthree marks of existence.It is also an element ofHinduism.InWestern philosophyit is most famously known through its first appearance inGreek philosophyin the writings ofHeraclitusand in his doctrine ofpanta rhei(everything flows). In Western philosophy the concept is also referred to asbecoming.

Dharmic religions[edit]

ThePaliword for impermanence,anicca,is a compound word consisting of"a"meaning non-, and"nicca"meaning "constant, continuous, permanent".[1]While 'nicca' is the concept of continuity and permanence, 'anicca' refers to its exact opposite; the absence of permanence and continuity. The term is synonymous with the Sanskrit termanitya(a + nitya).[1][2]The concept of impermanence is prominent in Buddhism, and it is also found in various schools of Hinduism and Jainism. The term also appears in theRigveda.[3][4]

Buddhism[edit]

Translations of
Impermanence
EnglishImpermanence
Sanskritअनित्य
(IAST:anitya)
Paliअनिच्च
(anicca)
Burmeseအနိစ္စ
(MLCTS:anicca)
ChineseVô thường
(Pinyin:wúcháng)
JapaneseVô thường
(Rōmaji:mujō)
Khmerអនិច្ចំ
(UNGEGN:ânĭchchâm)
Korean무상
(RR:musang)
Tibetanམི་རྟག་པ་
(Wylie: mi rtag pa, THL: mi tak pa)
Tagaloganissa
Thaiอนิจจัง
(RTGS:anitchang)
Vietnamesevô thường
Glossary of Buddhism
impermanence of life
According to Buddhism, living beings go through many births. Buddhism does not teach the existence of a permanent, immutable soul. The birth of one form from another is part of a process of continuous change.[citation needed]

Impermanence,calledanicca(Pāli) oranitya(Sanskrit), appears extensively in the Pali Canon[1]as one of the essential doctrines ofBuddhism.[1][5][6]The doctrine asserts that all of conditioned existence, without exception, is "transient, evanescent, inconstant".[1]All temporal things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction.[1][2]All physical and mental events are not metaphysically real. They are not constant or permanent; they come into being and dissolve.[7]

Anicca is understood in Buddhism as the first of thethree marks of existence(trilakshana), the other two beingdukkha(suffering, pain, unsatisfactoriness) andanatta(non-self, non-soul, no essence).[6][5][8]It appears in Pali texts as,"sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta",which Szczurek translates as, "all conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things are painful, alldhammasare without Self ".[9]

All physical and mental events, states Buddhism, come into being and dissolve.[10]Human life embodies this flux in the aging process, the cycle of repeated birth and death (Samsara), nothing lasts, and everything decays. This is applicable to all beings and their environs, including beings who havereincarnatedindeva(god) andnaraka(hell) realms.[11][12]

Anicca is intimately associated with the doctrine ofanatta,according to which things have no essence, permanent self, or unchanging soul.[13][14]The Buddha taught that because no physical or mental object is permanent, desires for or attachments to either causes suffering (dukkha). UnderstandingAniccaandAnattaare steps in the Buddhist's spiritual progress toward enlightenment.[15][7][16]

Everything, whether physical or mental, is a formation (Saṅkhāra), has a dependent origination and is impermanent. It arises, changes and disappears.[17][18]According to Buddhism, everything in human life, all objects, as well as all beings whether in heavenly or hellish or earthly realms inBuddhist cosmology,is always changing, inconstant, undergoes rebirth and redeath (Samsara).[11][12]This impermanence is a source ofdukkha.This is in contrast tonirvana,the reality that isnicca,or knows no change, decay or death.[1]

Rupert GethinonFour Noble Truthssays:[19]

As long as there is attachment to things that are
unstable, unreliable, changing and impermanent,
there will be suffering –
when they change, when they cease to be
what we want them to be.
(...)
If craving is the cause of suffering, then the cessation
of suffering will surely follow from 'the complete
fading away and ceasing of that very craving':
its abandoning, relinquishing, releasing, letting go.

Hinduism[edit]

The termAnitya(अनित्य), in the sense of impermanence of objects and life, appears in verse 1.2.10 of theKatha Upanishad,one of thePrincipal Upanishadsof Hinduism.[20][21]It asserts that everything in the world is impermanent, but impermanent nature of things is an opportunity to obtain what is permanent (nitya) as the Hindu scripture presents its doctrine aboutAtman(Self).[9][21][22]The term Anitya also appears in theBhagavad Gitain a similar context.[9]

Buddhism and Hinduism share the doctrine ofAniccaorAnitya,that is "nothing lasts, everything is in constant state of change"; however, they disagree on theAnattadoctrine, that is whether Self exists or not.[7]Even in the details of their respective impermanence theories, state Frank Hoffman and Deegalle Mahinda, Buddhist and Hindu traditions differ.[23]Change associated withAniccaand associated attachments produces sorrow orDukkhaasserts Buddhism and therefore need to be discarded for liberation (nibbana), while Hinduism asserts that not all change and attachments lead toDukkhaand some change – mental or physical or self-knowledge – leads to happiness and therefore need to be sought for liberation (moksha).[23]TheNicca(permanent) in Buddhism isanatta(non-soul), theNityain Hinduism isatman(Self).[9]

Western philosophy[edit]

Impermanence first appears inGreek philosophyin the writings ofHeraclitusand his doctrine ofpanta rhei(everything flows). Heraclitus was famous for his insistence on ever-present change as being the fundamental essence of the universe, as stated in the famous saying, "No man ever steps in the same river twice".[24]This is commonly considered to be a key contribution in the development of the philosophical concept ofbecoming,as contrasted with "being", and has sometimes been seen in a dialectical relationship withParmenides' statement that "whatever is, is, and what is not cannot be", the latter being understood as a key contribution in the development of the philosophical concept ofbeing.For this reason, Parmenides and Heraclitus are commonly considered to be two of the founders ofontology.Scholars have generally believed that either Parmenides was responding to Heraclitus, or Heraclitus to Parmenides, though opinion on who was responding to whom has varied over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries.[25]Heraclitus' position was complemented by his stark commitment to aunity of oppositesin the world, stating that "the path up and down are one and the same". Through these doctrines Heraclitus characterized all existing entities by pairs of contrary properties, whereby no entity may ever occupy a single state at a single time. This, along with his cryptic utterance that "all entities come to be in accordance with thisLogos"(literally," word "," reason ", or" account ") has been the subject of numerous interpretations.

Impermanence was widely but not universally accepted among subsequent Greek philosophers.Democritus' theory of atoms entailed that assemblages of atoms were impermanent.[26]Pyrrhodeclared that everything wasastathmēta(unstable), andanepikrita(unfixed).[27]Plutarchcommented on impermanence saying "And if the nature which is measured is subject to the same conditions as the time which measures it, this nature itself has no permanence, nor" being, "but is becoming and perishing according to its relation to time.[28]TheStoicphilosopher,Marcus Aurelius'Meditationscontains many comments about impermanence, such as “Bear in mind that everything that exists is already fraying at the edges, and in transition, subject to fragmentation and to rot.” (10.18)[29]

Platorejected impermanence, arguing against Heraclitus:[30]

How can that be a real thing which is never in the same state?... for at the moment that the observer approaches, then they become other... so that you cannot get any further in knowing their nature or state.... but if that which knows and that which is known exist ever... then I do not think they can resemble a process or flux....

Several famous Roman Latin sayings are about impermanence, includingOmnia mutantur,Sic transit gloria mundi,andTempora mutantur.

In arts and culture[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^abcdefgThomas William Rhys Davids; William Stede (1921).Pali-English Dictionary.Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 355, Article onNicca.ISBN978-81-208-1144-7.
  2. ^abRobert E. Buswell Jr.; Donald S. Lopez Jr. (2013).The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism.Princeton University Press. pp. 47–48, Article onAnitya.ISBN978-1-4008-4805-8.
  3. ^A. C. Paranjpe (2006).Self and Identity in Modern Psychology and Indian Thought.Springer Science & Business Media. p. 172.ISBN978-0-306-47151-3.
  4. ^Martin G. Wiltshire (1990).Ascetic Figures Before and in Early Buddhism: The Emergence of Gautama as the Buddha.Walter de Gruyter. pp. 136 note 14.ISBN978-3-11-009896-9.
  5. ^abRichard Gombrich (2006).Theravada Buddhism.Routledge. p. 47.ISBN978-1-134-90352-8.,Quote:"All phenomenal existence [in Buddhism] is said to have three interlocking characteristics: impermanence, suffering and lack of soul or essence."
  6. ^abRobert E. Buswell Jr.; Donald S. Lopez Jr. (2013).The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism.Princeton University Press. pp. 42–43, 47, 581.ISBN978-1-4008-4805-8.
  7. ^abcRay Billington (2002).Understanding Eastern Philosophy.Routledge. pp. 56–59.ISBN978-1-134-79348-8.
  8. ^Anicca Buddhism,Encyclopædia Britannica (2013);
    Anatta Buddhism,Encyclopædia Britannica (2013);
    Phra Payutto(1995).Buddhadhamma: Natural Laws and Values for Life.Translated by Grant Olson. State University of New York Press. pp. 62–63.ISBN978-0-7914-2631-9.
  9. ^abcdRichard Francis Gombrich; Cristina Anna Scherrer-Schaub (2008).Buddhist Studies.Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 209–210.ISBN978-81-208-3248-0.
  10. ^Anicca Buddhism,Encyclopædia Britannica (2013)
  11. ^abDamien Keown (2013).Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction.Oxford University Press. pp. 32–38.ISBN978-0-19-966383-5.
  12. ^abPeter Harvey (2012).An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices.Cambridge University Press. pp. 32–33, 38–39, 46–49.ISBN978-0-521-85942-4.
  13. ^Anatta Buddhism,Encyclopædia Britannica (2013)
  14. ^[a]Christmas Humphreys (2012).Exploring Buddhism.Routledge. pp. 42–43.ISBN978-1-136-22877-3.
    [b]Brian Morris (2006).Religion and Anthropology: A Critical Introduction.Cambridge University Press. p. 51.ISBN978-0-521-85241-8.,Quote:"(...) anatta is the doctrine of non-self, and is an extreme empiricist doctrine that holds that the notion of an unchanging permanent self is a fiction and has no reality. According to Buddhist doctrine, the individual person consists of five skandhas or heaps - the body, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. The belief in a self or soul, over these five skandhas, is illusory and the cause of suffering."
    [c]Richard Gombrich (2006).Theravada Buddhism.Routledge. p. 47.ISBN978-1-134-90352-8.,Quote:"(...) Buddha's teaching that beings have no soul, no abiding essence. This 'no-soul doctrine' (anatta-vada) he expounded in his second sermon."
  15. ^Brian Morris (2006).Religion and Anthropology: A Critical Introduction.Cambridge University Press. pp. 51–53.ISBN978-0-521-85241-8.
  16. ^John Whalen-Bridge (2011).Writing as Enlightenment: Buddhist American Literature into the Twenty-first Century.State University of New York Press. pp. 154–155.ISBN978-1-4384-3921-1.
  17. ^Paul Williams (2005).Buddhism: Buddhism in China, East Asia, and Japan.Routledge. pp. 150–153.ISBN978-0-415-33234-7.
  18. ^Damien Keown (2004).A Dictionary of Buddhism.Oxford University Press. p. 15.ISBN978-0-19-157917-2.
  19. ^Rupert Gethin (1998).The Foundations of Buddhism.Oxford University Press. p.74.ISBN978-0-19-160671-7.
  20. ^Katha Upanishad 1.2.10,Wikisource; Quote: जानाम्यहं शेवधिरित्यनित्यं न ह्यध्रुवैः प्राप्यते हि ध्रुवं तत् । ततो मया नाचिकेतश्चितोऽग्निःअनित्यैर्द्रव्यैः प्राप्तवानस्मि नित्यम् ॥ १०॥
  21. ^abPaul Deussen, Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN978-8120814684,page 283 with footnote 1
  22. ^Max Muller (1884).The Upanishads.Oxford University Press (Reprinted Dover Press, 2012). p. 9, verse 1.2.10.ISBN978-0-486-15711-5.
  23. ^abFrank Hoffman; Deegalle Mahinda (2013).Pali Buddhism.Routledge. pp. 162–165.ISBN978-1-136-78553-5.
  24. ^This is how Plato puts Heraclitus' doctrine. SeeCratylus,402a.
  25. ^John Palmer (2016).Parmenides.Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  26. ^"Democritus".The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2016.
  27. ^Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015).Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia(PDF).Princeton University Press.pp. 22–23.ISBN9781400866328.
  28. ^Plutarch,On the “E” at Delphi
  29. ^Marcus Aurelius on impermanencephillipwells.com April 2015[dead link]
  30. ^CratylusParagraph 440 sections c-d.

External links[edit]