MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Is impermenance the opposite of eternal life? Why would the Buddha believe in this, since he's sublime and all? What exactly is impeemenance?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Impermenant and Forever
- Thread starter MonkeyFire
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That nothing stays the same. Forms rise and fall, atoms can be destroyed and made, molecules come together and separate. Points of Origins that no longer can be traced through the process of change giving way to new points of origin.
Realizing that dualistic ways of thinking as Illustrated above that does not actually add or take away the state by which things in phenomena rise and fall. An ever-present eternal now by which time never has or had a true beginning or end.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Where is Buddha? Brahma and Indra searched for him but did not find him.
Did Buddha say that? Acinteyya, acinteyya.
The word anicca is the negative of the word nicca. Nicca means constant, reliable, permanent, so anicca means not constant, not reliable, not permanent, subject to change. Anicca is therefore related to uncertainty, which is agnostic, not gnostic, unlike the more gnostic or faith based concept of eternal life. You really can't say it is opposite.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The Buddha said that what is eternal is not subject to change. He taught that everything changes (everything is impermanent) therefore, nothing is eternal or permanent.
He believes this because he experienced the nature of suffering and cause. Defining it as once one is born, they are in a process of dying. He tried to understand this through Hindu practices. That was not satisfying him enough because he felt Brahma is permanent and he saw life in constant transition. The eternal nature, he found, was a contradiction of the nature of life and humanity within it.
Impermanence: What is in constant change. Samsara. (Opposite of permanence)
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Did Buddha say that? Acinteyya, acinteyya.
No. Yet unpondrables do arise nonetheless. They come and go as with such themes as that outlined by the OP. A bit like original face
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
'Sama sarati iti samsara' (that which is ever changing is Samsara).
Last edited:
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Fluctuation must be iermanent creating paradox for impermenance. Impermenance itself can not change.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
You are absolutely right. That is one thing which is permanent. It is the property of what exists (in Hinduism, Brahman). Change every Planck's instant, 5.39 seconds raised to -44 power of ten (forum does not have the facility of superscript) or even quicker (the time period that we are not aware of) - virtual particles.
But what exists cannot be said to change. Because it is its permanent property to change. It would have been a change if it stopped doing that even for a Planck's instant. Therefore, what exists is changeless, and probably eternal.
Why probably eternal, because it exists in two forms - existence and non-existence, which are just phases of each other. Even existence is not permanent. It fluctuates unperceptibly with non-existence. This is the quantum theory of existence. I think, Buddha, my guru, understood it clearly.
Rinchen
Member
Look around yourself. Everything is subject to change. It's not a belief, but an observable fact of life and reality.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Maybe, maybe not.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
That is Jainism - Anekantavada.
- Affirmation: syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
- Denial: syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
- Joint but successive affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
- Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
- Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
- Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
- Joint and simultaneous affirmation and denial: syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
What's the deal between temporal pleasure and impermenance?