 | This article'sfactual accuracy isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements arereliably sourced.(April 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
.jpg)
Impermanence, also known as thephilosophical problem ofchange, is a philosophical concept addressed in a variety ofreligions andphilosophies. InEastern philosophy it is notable for its role in theBuddhistthree marks of existence. It is also an important element ofHinduism. InWestern philosophy it is most famously known through its first appearance inGreek philosophy in the writings ofHeraclitus and in his doctrine ofpanta rhei (everything flows). In Western philosophy the concept is also referred to asbecoming.
ThePali word 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]
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]
The termanitya (अनित्य), in the sense of impermanence of objects and life, appears in verse 1.2.10 of theKatha Upanishad, one of thePrincipal Upanishads of Hinduism.[8][9] It asserts that material 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).[10][9][11] The term Anitya also appears in theBhagavad Gita in a similar context.[10]
In Chapter 2 of theBhagavad Gita,Krishna elucidates a profound spiritual truth toArjuna, emphasizing the distinction between the eternal nature of theatman (soul) and the transient, perishable nature of the material world.Krishna conveys that while the body is subject to decay and death, the soul remains undying and unchanging. This teaching serves as a foundational philosophy inHinduism, encouraging detachment from material concerns and an understanding of the true, eternal self. This insight is pivotal for Arjuna, as it reorients his perspective from the battlefield's immediate concerns to the broader, spiritual dimensions of existence, urging him to perform his duty without attachment to the outcomes.[12]
Buddhism and Hinduism share the doctrine ofAnicca orAnitya, that is "nothing lasts, everything is in constant state of change"; however, they disagree on theAnatta doctrine, 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.[13] Change associated withAnicca and associated attachments produces sorrow orDukkha asserts Buddhism and therefore need to be discarded for liberation (nibbana), while Hinduism asserts that not all change and attachments lead toDukkha and some change – mental or physical or self-knowledge – leads to happiness and therefore need to be sought for liberation (moksha).[13] TheNicca (permanent) in Buddhism isanatta (non-soul), theNitya in Hinduism isatman (Self).[10]
| Part of a series on |
| Philosophy |
|---|
 |
Impermanence first appears inGreek philosophy in the writings ofHeraclitus and 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".[14] 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.[15] Heraclitus' position was complemented by his stark commitment to aunity of opposites in 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.[16]Pyrrho declared that everything wasastathmēta (unstable), andanepikrita (unfixed).[17]Plutarch commented 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.[18] TheStoic philosopher,Marcus Aurelius'Meditations contains 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)[19]
Plato rejected impermanence, arguing against Heraclitus:[20]
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.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
.svg)
