Talk:Impermanence

Does anyone know what's up with this: jjmh,ok;lg,lg j,l g ., One of the conditioned dharmas not associated with mind in Yogācāra theory. In this case the term means disappearance. The first of the trividyā; that all things are impermanent, their birth, existence, change, and death never resting for a moment.

 (Skt. anityatā; adhruva, anityatva)

कुक्कुरोवाच 22:01, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reading this article as it stands at the moment, you would think that impermanence was a concept understood by Buddhists and by no one else. It needs a much broader treatment than it is getting here. The Buddhism stuff is a good start though. Ireneshusband 09:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC).Reply

The article even misrepresents what the Buddha pinpoints. In English impermanence is little more than a concept and, as such, resides for everyday purposes almost entirely in the realm of the abstract. Impermanence in common parlance may, at best, be inferred from its visible epiphenomena (less common parlance:-)

The Buddha, pragmatist supreme, is concerned, by contrast - as would be anybody who's just taken a hit in the chest - to remove pronto the agonizing arrow, rather than speculating whence the arrow, identifying the archer, his or her possible motive, category of poison if any, etc, etc, etc. These all rank, like impermanence, as species of speculation not at all conducive to the immediate relief of suffering.

Anicca is not a mere concept. It is here and now. It labels an every-moment painful felt sensation of change. Impermanence sounds like one of the topics in relation to which the Buddha notoriously chose to remain silent. Stress, in the formulation of Hans Selye, is the consequence of the failure to adapt to change. The Buddha shows us how to transcend stress by learning to adapt to change, albeit via a panoply of available methods: in round figures, 40 and counting.

Those who succeed in dominating most of the articles on "Buddhism" need to get their heads out of the Pali Dictionary, shake off its 19th century dust & address, to some personal practical purpose, why it may be that the Buddha says, "I teach but two things: the nature of dukkha and its transcendence."

Gorblimey. Dukkha is labelled "a central concept in Buddhism: Brahma deliver us from the plague of concepts. And the pain of the conceptualists. Who take, I can well believe, great pains. Whatever happened to the article labeled Anicca? Please change! Change, please. And less of the heady empire building, of which the editor above quite rightly complains. His thoroughly justifiable request, once fulfilled, will result in Anicca's paradoxically appropriate colonization by mere Impermanence.

Glad to get that - if not the arrow - off my chest. Wingspeed (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can some one familiar with Buddhist texts more clearly identify the texts cited in the quotes section? Thanks! --JosiahHenderson (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is not correct to say that 'everything is in flux' meaning that nothing is 'static'. There is static state = namely 'the static state of the lack of static state' KK (178.43.139.54 (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC))Reply

The series on Buddhism box should be restored to parallel the treatment of dukkha and anatta. Teishin (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rupert loup Teishin (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It can be put in their section but there is a quotation template in that place. Rupert Loup (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was put in the top section previously. It is also in the top section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha which similarly addresses both Buddhism and Hinduism. Teishin (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dukkha is a Buddhist concept, impermanece is not exclusive of Buddhism and the template at the bottom already has this link. Putting it on at the begining of the article fails WP:UNDUE. Rupert Loup (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dukkha is a Hindu concept, too. It is not exclusive to Buddhism. And if one allows translation, dukkha appears in Western Philosophy, most notably in its negation, ataraxia. For that matter, anatta appears in Western philosophy too, as adiaphora. Teishin (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

That box has been there since 10 April 2004. I would imagine pursuit of this issue would involve many topics other than just impermanence and dukkha. Teishin (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't matter how much was there, it is against WP:UNDUE to give prominence of placement to a viewpoint. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Then there are a bunch of other instances which would also need to be edited to uphold that standard. Just some ones I found quickly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anavastha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anupalabdhi Teishin (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but this talk page is not for those articles, discuss it in their talk pages. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're the one who has a concern about how this has been handled and has changed it here. I don't have a concern about those pages. It appears that you do. Shouldn't you yourself be taking up the matter in their talk pages? Isn't that necessary for consistency? My argument is that the status quo ante should be restored and that this article should be consistent with those others.Teishin (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you have an issue with WP:UNDUE go and discuss it in its talk page. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I do not have an issue with WP:UNDUE. I have an issue with your removal of the series on Buddhism box on this page.Teishin (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I removed it because it breaks that policy, therefore the issue is that policy. You can add that template to the section "Buddhism" if you think that it's helpful to having it in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The content of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_(philosophy) seems largely duplicative of what is in this article. Should the change page be eliminated and its contents merged into impermanence? Teishin (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Merge effected. Teishin (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Greetings to all Wikipedia members and staff,

I would like to point out something regarding anicca and impermanence: the translation "impermanence" is merely a western interpretation and an analogous word using for the eastern concept of anicca. It is a rendition and interpretation of an eastern concept by western scholars aiming at a western audience whose cultural background had as its closest pair the concept of "impermanence", very much discussed by christian thinkers. Even though, these concepts, in all their semantic scopes, are not equivalents: neither equivalents, nor the same. According to most eastern views I am acquainted to, anicca goes way beyond than the western concept of impermanence: anicca is not something restricted to the earthly life, it goes beyond this life, in all possible future worlds that a living being may incarnate, even in the highest "heavenly" abode and even in the deepest form of "hell", anicca is one of the most fundamental realities of those planes of existence. Anicca seems to be inherent in any form of the manifested existence, regardless of what type and where it may happen; and this comprehension, I think, is missing in most of our western thinkers, since they don't conceive in general anything like samsara or the constant cycle of incarnations. And I don't know if you see it as strikingly different, but for me this is a capital difference between anicca and impermanence as thought by most western thinkers, since, as far as we talk about most of the Dharmic religions, anicca (pali) or anitya (sanskrit) posit the infinity of all possible manifestations within and beyond this world, with exception of what Hinduism calls Vaikuntha. So, I would ask the help of anyone more adept in this kind of knowledge, if they could solve this question that came to my mind regarding this article.

As far as I know about translation, all sorts of translation work mostly with analogy and interpretation: very frequently, there isn't anything as a pure and perfect term rendition from a language to another, because linguistic terms are products of quite different world views and histories. So, I believe that "impermanence" is comprehended in a significantly different way if compared to the eastern concept of "anicca", because, firstly, they both are products of quite different countries, territories, histories, cultures, etc, and secondly, western philosophy never had any concept like reincarnation - this one at least not as eastern thinkers had - and samsara, or such a scope of other worldly planes, worlds and forms of existence, and such a categorical and irreducible definition of any form of manifested life as defined in its most fundamental root as founded on anicca or anitya and - according to many other eastern philosophical schools - as also being illusory. It is also worth noting the interplay between anicca and kamma (pali) or karma (sanskrit), to the extent that these two concepts influence deeply each others' semantic values. The relationship between these two concepts in the Dharmic religions is really tight, to the extent that the idea of anicca does not work properly without the understanding of karma, and this later concept is completely missing in the western tradition of philosophy. Even though it might be agreed that some analogies are traced between kamma or karma and divine retribution, this kind of relationship is restricted to the field of analogy and can never go beyond it, and it can be considered a mistake to conceive these two ideas as the same. So, this is one more point against the equivalence between anicca and impermanence.

If you judge me right in my positions, wouldn't it be wise if two articles were created? One for anicca and another for impermanence?

I would be really thankful if you take my question into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.206.242.199 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Gusfriend (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Whilst there was an Original Research template at the top of the page I have removed it and I have added the Template:Original research section template to these two sections as there are no inline citations to support the text in either of these sections to specifically call out these specific sections as needing attention. I was torn between using the OR template and Citation needed but it is unclear to the casual reader is it is Original Research or just lacking citations to others who have published articles saying it. Gusfriend (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense to me - I think that's the better tag than citation need, just because I'm not sure that the eleatics are actually associated with the claims made in the article, according to most scholars. Generally any representation of the pre-Socratics that seems as confident as that is written makes me think it may be original research based on ancient sources like Diogenes Laertius- scholarly reviews tend to be more equivocal from what I've read. - car chasm (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering which script was used for anicca in the 'Translations of Impermanence' box; as I understand it there are lots of different scripts used depending on the region, I'm just curious, thanks for any help Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure it's Devanagari Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply