The previous years of my life feels like a dream. I was happily living, consumed with studies, learning things, watching youtube and stuff, enjoying a lot, mind was busy in various entertaining stuffs. But, I don't know how it started, but all those passions are waning. Its almost as if I've forgotten how to live. Live as in the previous ways of my living. I am now trying to find a way to live as I've lived in the past but can't seem to go back to the old ways. I mean I want to find something fun for my mind as I had in the past but I just cant bring up enough passion. What is happening to me ?

My mother and I have slight issues because she is nagging and controlling (and I impatient). Despite that I love her very much, and I can't stand the idea that she will pass away in a few years; and she will suffer during death and later in a lower rebirth. I start crying every time this comes to my mind. In the moment I feel like leaving my job to go live with her and serve her (*I live in a far foreign country so I see her once a year or so*). Further I think of accepting it as part of life, but nothing comes to mind. I wonder, how is it even possible to be okay with this? Is there no other way but to endure great suffering when it inevitably happens? I wonder how other people deal with this? Do they all go through intense pain or somehow skillfully avoid it (especially buddhist master's who are not affected by this at all)? No matter how many books I read on Buddhism, I find no solutions to this question. Please educate me, as I think it is one of the most important questions of many people's lives.

What is the connection between time and impermanence ? Are they different terms for the same thing ? I heard this from philosopher, "*Nibbana is like a timeless space*".

> “‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering.” -The Buddha, from [Dhammapada, verse 277](https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=277) > “Whatever has the nature of arising, all of it has the nature of ceasing.” -The Buddha, from [Kimsuka Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.204.wlsh.html) But why does something being conditioned mean that it has to be impermanent? And why does something having arisen mean that it has the "nature" of ceasing? Most scientists believe that this localized spacetime manifold in its current state had an origin 13.8 billion years ago. The current consensus among the scientific community regarding the future of this localized spacetime manifold is that it will simply continue to expand forever if we are to believe the current cosmological data. I wrote that as an example, but likewise, I can give other examples. Its not at all clear to me as to why something having arisen means that it can cease, and its not at all clear to me as to why something being conditioned means that it is impermanent. Of course, one could retort and say that the contents of the universe might change or that in this moment, that particle will be in a different position, but that means largely nothing because there is a difference between the microscopic and macroscopic things we observe from our point of view, which is why we distinguish between something like classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Even with this, many, e.g. Neoplatonists, would contest this notion and say that the Universal Intellect as they conceptualize it is conditioned and created as well as composite, but never changes and is eternal. All in all, its not at all clear to me what proof is given for the idea that *all* conditioned things are impermanent, and that *whatever* has the nature of arising, *all of it* has the nature of ceasing. Any help on explaining this would be appreciated.

There are many scientific truths which seem to be absolute. For example- matter attracts matter , whether it is the matter of earth or sun or stars or dark matter etc ,they all attract each other. How do we identify such truths as and are they really permanent?

Sabbe Sankhara Anicca means all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. However , I was thinking whether any phenomena can be present everywhere even for a short span of time ? In other words I think , no conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous because it will give a sense of temporary Self. One ubiquitous phenomena which comes to my mind is the presence of atom. Everything is made up of atoms except dark matter. Another ubiquitous phenomena is gravity. It seems to present everywhere.This is true for everything and everywhere. Is it true that no conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous? And what will be the Pali or Sanskrit translation for “No conditioned phenomena can be ubiquitous.”? PS : I think Buddha didn’t say anything about it. However your thoughts are welcome. One reason I asked this question was because an ubiquitous phenomena gives at least a sense of temporary Self.

Nobody has ever seen a circle. Yet we all say "that is a circle" and nod in agreement. But when we say that the top of a bottle is a circle, we see the bottle top, not really the circle. The recognition of a circle is impermanent. We are taught to recognize a circle in school and are given its name as "circle". Nobody has ever drawn a circle. We can only draw a rough form that is recognized as a "circle" but is actually not a circle. And it's not a circle because circles are made of points with no width, so a drawing of a circle can never be the circle we recognize. So then we ask, "What is a circle?" And in response comes the chorus, "A circle is a form". Except that the Buddha says: > [SN22.55:3.1](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.55/en/sujato#sn22.55:3.1) : They don’t truly understand form—which is impermanent—as impermanent. So if a circle is a form, it must be impermanent. But wait. How can this be? Beyond our deaths and the forgetting of the circle, others will be born who will be taught to recognize a circle as "circulo" or "Kreis" or whatever. And our children and their children will agree that these words define the same form. Is a circle a form and if so, how can we understand what the Buddha means when he says that form is impermanent?

In this excellent answer giving an in depth explanation of the various uses of sankhata in various suttas, the first usage is explained as 'conditioned things' based upon the famous phrase, "sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā" which is translated in various ways by different translators. Observe:

’All conditioned things are impermanent’ I.B. Horner

’All formations are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Bodhi

’All form is impermanent’ Bhikkhu Bodhi

‘All processes are inconstant’ Thanissaro Bhikkhu

’All conditional things are impermanent’ Suddhāso Bhikkhu

’All conditional things are impermanent’ Ācāriya Buddharakkhita

’That all conditional things are impermanent’ Peter Feldmeier

‘All conditions are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Sujato

‘All conditions are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Ānandajoti

Questions:

1. Are the differences in these translations meaningful?
2. If so, what is the correct translation/meaning?
3. Is it incorrect to translate sankhara in the context of 'sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā' as 'a thing' or 'a phenomena?'
4. Is there any other place in the suttas where we can definitely say that sankhara is used to mean 'a thing' or 'a phenomena?'

There can be different kinds of reality. Reality as experienced by dogs, cats, elephants, lions, pigs, snakes, humans, gods, maras or reality as experienced in hell or reality as experienced in heaven or reality as experienced by water born animals or by birds etc., differ widely in their nature. The word I am comfortable using for reality is dhamma. However, sankhara is another word which might be used as all realities are impermanent therefore they must be a sankhara. My question is : Which word - dhamma or sankhara - should be used to translate the meaning of reality from english to pali?

Sabbe Sankhara Anicca. But it is not clear why all Sankhara are impermanent? Can I ask ,who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent? Are we responsible for making the Sankhara impermanent? Is it some kind of God who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent? Or Does it happen on its own ?

I am still confused about the meaning of Dhammas. Here I take the example of science. Science has many truths. Science explains the reality in its own ways. My question is: Can we consider Science a Dhamma? If yes, then why is it a Dhamma? If not, then is science a Sankhara? Is yes, then is it Anicca? Or Is Science both a Sankhara and Dhamma?

Given that except Nirvana everything is impermanent, is it true that everything is unconditionally changeable? In other words whether, given something ,isn't it true that it will change no matter whether there is any reason behind it or not? Can we say all conditions are superfluous for a change to happen? Can we say change happens with or without conditions ?

Sabbe sanskharas Anicca. But is there any tendency or effort to keep sanskharas as it is for as long as possible? I personally suspect yes because there is a craving to keep the narrative alive.

Someone said that Anicca/Anatta/Dukkha are not Dhamma, it is a pannati or concept. To clear my doubt I ask : Is Anicca/Anatta/Dukkha a Dhamma or not ?

Why are Concepts not Impermanent? I found the below explanation in another forum. Are they Permanent? or not both? > Conventional reality (sammuti sacca/ pannatti) is just a concept and > not real. Non-real dhammas don’t exist and therefore cannot be anicca > or dukkha. > > According to Abhdhamma: > > - dhamma = paramata + pannatti > - paramata = sankhata + asankhata > - sankhata = citta + cetasika + rupa > - asnkhata = nibbana > - dhamma = citta + cetasika + rupa + nibbana + pannatti > > All the dhammas are anatta. Anatta means devoid of > essence/self/ownership/hegemony. > > Only the sankhata (compounded) is anicca-dukkha. Nibbana and Pannatti > are anatta only. > > Nibbana is real but not compounded. Therefore not anicca-dukkha. > Pannatti is non-real. Therefore not anicca-dukkha. > **In Theravada, Concept is an object (unreal object).** It is not the > Concept-formation of our mind. Mind and mental factors that form a > concept do arise and cease, but not the Concept. > The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the > Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind. **Pannatti is an object.** This > fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind. > The colors that the eye sees in a movie are real, but not the concept > of “movie”. What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of “movie”. > **What “Conceptualizing” points to, is the Concept.** It is a fake object > that “Conceptualizing” points to. > > **The pointer exists, but “what is pointed” doesn’t exist.** > > So Concepts are not considered as anicca or dukkha. Conventional Reality is not Impermanent! Introduction to the Ultimacy (International Institute of Theravada)

💚I've seen teachers translate anicca as uncertainty. Is that a good translation? I mean, you can be certain when something is going to end. I'm just kind of trying to put these translations together and see if any intellectual insights are known by anyone. What about anatta with impermanence &/or uncertainty? One minute I am thinking that they go together and the next I'm thinking that they don't go together. It seems hard to see. Why is it hard for me to see? Am I trying to see intellectually in order to see experientially? What about all of the 3 characteristics &/or uncertainty?

According to Buddhist teachings, we suffer because of the moment to moment impermanence of all experience. As I understand it, this is caused by clinging to experiences we feel positive about. But wouldn't the impermanence of experiences we try to avoid, by the same logic, involve a similar subtle kind of bliss?

Can you quickly explain "everything is impermanent"? Is it metaphysical or ontological claim, that nothing that "exists" will exist forever? Or is it a claim that nothing can always be (meaning having that nature, rather than 'exist') anything? If not that latter, does Buddhism universally agree that there is no *awareness* of something being what it is, without existence? ---------- Can I be aware of, for example, a shape being red without existence and "permanently" in the standard way of using that word, even if "everything is impermanent"?

If everything is impermanent and this is used as a reason why Buddhists do not believe in a creator and eternal God, how can Nirvana be permanent? Did the Buddha ever explain this point?

Does the relinquishing of views prohibit belief in the permanence of buddha nature? > I prostrate to Gautama, who, out of loving compassion, taught the > excellent Dharma in order to relinquish all views. The dedication to Nagarjuna'a MMK > In the opening of the Buddha nature book of Sbobogenzo, Dogen quotes > the following passage from the Nirvana Sutra: — H > Qnai no sbujo wa > kotogotoku bussbdoyusu; Nyorai v>ajdjuniibite benyaku arukoto natbi), > “All sentient beings without exception have the Buddha nature: > Tatbdgata (Buddha) is permanent with no change at all.”8 This well > expresses the fundamental standpoint of Mahayana Buddhism. In the > passage two important themes are emphasized: “All sentient beings have > the Buddha nature,” and “Tathagata abides forever without change.” > These two themes are inseparable from one another. Against this > traditional reading, Dogen dares to read as follows... Masao Abe, Dogen on Buddha Nature.