From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)

Impermanence is not a weird technical term[edit]

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).

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)

"Quotes" section[edit]

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)

Static state.[edit]

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 ( (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC))