“Hidden by the face of appearances, it’s always there, as integral to the working of the universe as the dance of electrons, the binding of atoms into molecules, and the ceaseless pulsing of the stars.
Buddhists usually recognize multiple objects of this sort of confidence or conviction, but many are especially devoted to one in particular, such as one particular buddha or disciple.
Faith may not only be devotion to a person but exists in relation to Buddhist concepts like the efficacy of karma (confidence that intentional action produce results) and the possibility of enlightenment for those who put into practice what the Buddha taught.
A faithful devotee was called an upāsaka or upāsika, a status for which no formal initiation is required.
Early Buddhism valued personal verification of the truth of the Buddha's Teachings as the best way to confirm what is true. By comparison, it considered sacred texts (scriptures), mere reason, or faith in a teacher to be far less valuable sources of authority. See the Kalama Sutta.
As important as faith is to initiate action along the path-of-practice, it is merely a first step on the path of compassion and wisdom to awakening (full enlightenment).
Faith becomes obsolete or is redefined at the final stage of the path as it converts to gnosis (direct experience). More
(Autumn Kings) I caught a feelin' at the end of the night/ Vision of a god walkin' into the light/ Whisperin' words that I needed to hear:/ Never lose faith while you're livin' in fear
Then it was gone, gone, gone/ Gone, gone, gone/ Gone, gone, gone/ Gone, gone, gone/ Yeow!
Had a premonition at the end of the night/ Vision of a devil tryna swallow the light/ Screamin' so loud, it was all I could hear/ Tellin' me it's better if I disappeared
Then it was gone, gone, gone/ Gone, gone, gone/ Gone, gone, gone/ Gone, gone, gone
Can't make up my mind/ I'm sick of never knowin' my direction/ Lookin' for a sign/ Need more than just the man in my reflection/ It's time for me to take what's mine/ Leave the rest to the great divine/ And find somewhere that I belong/ Before I'm gone!
Can't make up my!/ Can't make up my mind/ Cuz I ain't full of time!/ Can't make up my mind/ I'm sick of never knowing my direction/ Looking for a sign/ Need more than just the man in my reflection/ It's time for me to take what's mine/ Leave the rest to the Great Divine/ And find somewhere that I belong
Can't make up my mind/ I'm sick of never knowing my direction/ Looking for a sign/ Need more than just the man in my reflection/ It's time for me to take what's mine/ Leave the fears of the past behind/ And find somewhere that I belong/ Before I'm gone/ Gone, gone, gone/ Gone, gone, gone/ Gone, gone, gone/ Gone, gone, gone/ La, la, la, la, la, la, la...
Autumn Kings: Canadian rock band that formed in Ontario in 2015, who have since relocated to Detroit, Michigan, USA [2, 3]. The group started as an independent band but signed with Hopeless Records in August 2024 [4], crediting Linkin Park and Metallica as inspiration [15].
Nothing lasts; love it anyway (impermanence)
(Buddha's Wisdom) Can we love something so hard we keep it from changing or love someone without trying to keep it just the way it is? | The Buddha's truth about impermanence
What is "impermanence" in Buddhism?
Look, we'll never grow apart or separate!
Anicca (pronounced /ah-nee-cha/) means "impermanent," "transient," "in constant flux," "changing," "unstable," "perpetually altering," and so on. As an abstract noun (aniccatā), it is "impermanence."
It is one of the Three Universal Characteristics of Existence (ti-lakkhana). In most texts, the two other characteristics (that all things are "disappointing" and "impersonal" or dukkha and anattā) are derived (S.22. 15; Ud.IV. I).
The impermanence of "things" (dhammas, "phenomena") is their arising (appearing), turning (changing), and passing away (vanishing).
It is the restless arising, altering, and disappearing of things that have come to be (arisen, become) then immediately (in the next submoment) changed and in the next submoment scattered, dissolved, been destroyed, passed out of being. All of this is called "becoming."
Then what may rightly be said of all things, of all mental and material phenomena in an ultimately sense -- namely, of cittas and kalapas -- is that, "Not having been, they come to be, but once having been, they cease." This is the radical truth of impermanence from moment to moment, not their eventual decline, which anyone can see. It is because we do not see their radical changeability and their hurtling towards destruction that the mind/heart clings to things or to the appearance of things, falling under the illusion/delusion that they persist from moment to moment. They SEEM to persist! That is because what replaces them (cittas and kalapas, mind-moments and particles) are other mental and physical phenomena that is almost but not quite the same. The new things (the replacements from moment to moment) are not identical. Casual observation makes the mind believe they are, that it is the self-same thing from one moment to the next persisting, carrying on. But it is not.
Flip the pages, and the cartoon shark moves.
For example, to easily illustrate this subtle but vital point, imagine watching a motion cartoon (a moving comic strip reel). How is the illusion of "motion" being achieved? Certainly, the drawing is not moving. But that's what it looks like to the casual observer. A flipbook of cartoon images if being flipped through. If the flipping stops, the illusion (of motion) stops. If the flipping resumes, it is as if the motion resumes. The image itself NEVER moves. The reel or the flipping moves, and because the images are so similar BUT not identical, movement of the images is magically conjured. Now, take two or more consecutive images. Are they all identical or just very similar? They are very similar with a tiny, almost imperceptible difference between them. That miniscule difference causes the illusion of the image's motion when there is flipping or when the reel is spinning at a certain number of frames per second (FPS). But casually shuffling these images in hand (no flipping, no reel), they all look the same, exactly the same. Many frames later in the sequence, one can perceive a difference. Then, training the eye to notice, one can begin to see that they are all just a tiny (barely noticeable) bit different.
Move hundreds of thousands of frames in a reel
Who cares? The more similar the frames, the more the moving cartoon will appear smooth and realistic, whereas the less similar the image-frames will make the movement appear jumpy and artificial. In high-fidelity movies, frame rate is important, moving faster than the eye can perceive it. Slow the rate down, and reality comes into view. Nothing on the screen is actually moving. The illusion is stripped away. Every "movie" has to move at a replacement rate that tricks the eye/brain into not noticing its segmented nature, its constituent nature, its compounded nature, its lack of identity. This frame NEVER becomes that frame, but because the second follows the first, the replacement is accomplished seamlessly.
In just the same way, we never notice that our reality is a bunch of segments, a stream of mind-moments and particles -- incessantly arising, turning, and vanishing so quickly that everything around us gives off the illusion of identity (from moment to moment), continuity (that it is the SAME thing from one moment to the next moment), and the promise that thing (phenomena) there in front of us may (is capable of somehow, someday) fulfilling us, completing us, pleasing us, ultimately satisfying us, enduring and real. But it is neither real nor enduring and has no hope of ever fulfilling us. It is, in other words, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal, not itself from one moment to the next.
So, again, who cares? One should care because it is by noticing that THIS IS REALITY, and this has always been reality, and that one CAN let go of the painful (the disappointing) by finally noticing that it is impermanent and impersonal, that it is dukkha and anicca, and that ultimately speaking, it is anatta, not-self). This realization leads to waking up, to enlightenment in this very life. This is why the Buddha teaches it -- not as a belief system to have faith in, but rather as a path-of-practice, a way of knowing-and-seeing for each person to personally experience. Why? So that the illusion (maya) will be broken and wisdom (panna, prajna) will arise and that clinging to the painful/disappointing will be let go of.
The meaning is that these things (all mental and material constituents) never persist in the same way for one whole moment, but that they are dissolving and vanishing from moment to moment (The Path of Purification, Vis.M. VII, 3).
Impermanence is a fundamental feature of all conditioned things (phenomena), be they material or mental, coarse or subtle, one's own (internal) or another's (external): ALL formations are impermanent (sabbe sankhārā aniccā; MN 35, Dhp. 277).
Wait, a "triangle" is just three lines?
What does "conditioned" mean? It means composed of parts, constituents; has a conditional existence utterly dependent on its parts. For example, what is an equilateral "triangle"? Ultimately, it is a conditioned phenomenon. What is it conditioned on? It is conditioned on three equal-length lines in a particular arrangement. That theoretical (intangible) arrangement is the triangle, and those physical (tangible) lines arranged that way are the triangle. When the conditions or constituents are moved, where does the "triangle" go? It does not "go" anywhere because it was never really (ultimately speaking) there to begin with. What was there then? There was an illusion (in the mind) arising based on causes and conditions being present, utterly dependent on these causes and conditions or supports, ingredients, elements, constituents. Conventionally, we can very rightly say that the whole is greater than the parts, but ultimately this is not actually true. The parts contained the potential for the illusion before we ever saw the illusion.
Again, not to be repetitive, who cares?! The noble ones (those along the stages of enlightenment) care because there are two precious things that result from this realization. One, everything and anything we cling to, if we saw it in its true nature (ti-lakkhana), we could immediately let go of and not be weighed down by or in bondage to it. Say, for example, we were eating rice in a dark cave and loving (and clinging to) it, and someone turned the light on. And we noticed that what we took to be white "rice" was maggots. Could we let go of our "rice" habit, our eating of it, of our clinging to it? Probably. Likely. Two, to what or to whom do we cling to the most in all the world, in all the universe, in all the multiverse? That's right, like it or not, it is to self that we cling. But what is "self" really? There is no self. But there is a persistent illusion of self (of identity, of continuity, even from life to life, transcending death). We don't notice it dying every moment. We don't believe it dies. It's right here. A moment later, it's right her, unchanged!
Unchanged?
Well, mostly unchanged.
That mostly is vital because "it" is a little changed. And like the cartoon frames mentioned above, this tiny change causes the illusion of movement, motion, that it's ANIMATED, alive, real, capable of willful motion. But that, we can now at least conceptually begin to see, is an illusion. "This" (this self) is not what it seems. It's not at all what it seems. Look:
Self (atta, atman, soul, ego, essence, personality, traits, karmic baggage, whatever) is real, conventionally speaking, and what anyone absentmindedly means by "self" was defined by the Buddha, whose purified mind and faculty of perception could directly perceive. What we mean when we say "myself," or when we speak of others and those "selves" is a tacit reference either to that body (form), these feelings (sensations), perceptions, mental formations (such as will, intention, motive), and/or this consciousness. (These five things -- these phenomena, phenomenal processes, one might even say epiphenomenal-, but why get all philosophical -- are called the khandha, or in Sanskrit skandha, the "Five Aggregates clung to as self").
But "I" am a "self" and "I" have them, right?
No. A triangle doesn't have lines. A triangle is the lines. But a line is not a triangle. And another line is not a triangle. And a third line is not a triangle. However, magically (illusorily) when the three lines ||| combine in that certain arrangement, shazam! There's the "triangle," utterly dependent on its causes and conditions. And let's say the "conditions" are the three equal-length lines, and the causes are pushing them into that arrangement. Bam! A "triangle" arose, came into existence, into being, became (always dynamically-becoming, never static-being), appeared out of nowhere. Just so, when these factors (elements, constituents, aggregates) are present, bam! There is what we call a "self."
It's not a theory; it's a practice
But consider what we think (or more correctly assume) what a "self" is and should be and how it should behave and what its nature is. It is something I (the self) control. I will it to be, and it obeys. But this is nonsense. The body (form) is and is of such a nature, "I" didn't make it. And even if I caused it to come into being (the "I" who did that having existed in the past in a past life during which karma was generated and this body just being the karmic resultant), I didn't know what I was doing or how and when it would come to be and in exactly what form or appearance. The body, being material, is of a material nature and follows the laws or regularities of material form. It doesn't listen me, doesn't heed when I bid it to be this way or that. I have almost no control of it. I can "will" to move, and sometimes (but not all the time), it moves; yet sometimes it moves all on its own when I didn't will it to. But I call it mine, say it's me, and really believe, "I" (it, this "self" here is) am the one in charge of it. Form, being material, is ultimately the Four Great Elements, which are not four things so much as they are four general characteristics with about a dozen expressions, so there's no sense in arguing against the old model of physics that we think in our modernity is archaic and silly. It is not silly. It is observably true, if we knew what it meant. See Four Elements Meditation by Pa Auk Sayadaw to find the elements and directly know-and-see them without arguing from a position of ignorance.
Four characteristics of matter
These four elements of form are only mentioned here because the Buddha simply lumped them all together and called them form, but he did not do that for "mind," which is much more understandably and deeply clung to as "self." The remaining four of the Five Aggregates are together called "mind." They go together. They, like the Four Great Elements, are not things so much as they are processes. The process of feeling (many constituent frames, one after another, never identical, in continuity, altered, different from moment to moment, one arising, turning, passing away before another arises, turns, and immediately passes away, like the frames of the cartoon), the process of perceiving, the process of mental-forming, the process of consciousness/knowing. The Buddha details them all to break the clinging to the illusion/delusion that any or all or anything else is "self." I am not my feelings, I am not my perceptions, I am not my mental formations. But you know what, I hot damn am sure MY consciousness! I am that I am, that consciousness itself that wills and knows, that watches and sees, that does and experiences!
This is a powerful delusion, one that no other religion (doctrine or dharma or teaching) can break from. The Buddha can and did break from it. He saw through it, saw and taught others to directly see what "consciousness" is. It is just a stream (sota). A stream of what? A stream of ever-changing cittas (mind-moments) and cetasikas (mental-concomitants). They can be directly perceived by mental purification and mindfulness, as explained in the Four Foundations of Mindfulness Sutra. Then the illusion bursts. I am not consciousness. I can't control consciousness. I cannot say and get it to do what I want, stay awake, know this or that, and so on. I'm deluded to think "this I am." For it doesn't behave any of the way I will or wish to command.
Enough, I can't take it anymore!
That the totality of existence is impermanent is also often stated in terms of the Five Aggregates clung to as self (khandha), the 12 internal (personal) and external (belonging to others) sense bases (āyatana), and so on.
Only nirvana (Pali nibbāna), which is the sole "unconditioned element" and "not a formation" (asankhata), not a composite composed of constituents like everything else, is permanent (nicca, dhuva).
The insight leading to the first stage of enlightenment called stream-entry (sotāpatti), is often expressed in terms of impermanence:
"Whatever is subject to origination [arising] is subject to cessation" (see the Buddha's First Sermon called the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, S.46. 11).
In the Buddha's last exhortation, before his parinibbāna (his "final nirvana" without remainder), the Buddha reminded his disciples of the impermanence of all existence as a spur to diligent effort:
"Behold now, meditators, as I exhort: Formations are bound to vanish. Strive diligently!" (vayadhammā sankhārā, appamādena sampādetha, DN 16).
Without the deep insight into the impermanence (changing characteristic) and insubstantiality (impersonal characteristic) of ALL phenomena of existence (i.e., the Five Aggregates clung to as self) there is no attainment of enlightenment and liberation (bodhi and nirvana, awakening and freedom).
Therefore, comprehension of what radical "impermanence" really means, which is something only gained by direct personal meditative experience, heads two lists of insight knowledge.
Seeing things as they are, it's possible to let go
One, "contemplation of impermanence" (aniccānupassanā) is the first of the 18 chief kinds of insight (q.v.) and, two, the "contemplation of arising and vanishing [rise and fall]" (udayabbayānupassanā-ñāna) is the first of the nine kinds of knowledge that lead to the "purification by knowledge and vision [knowing-and-seeing] of the path-progress' (see "purification," visuddhi, VI).
Contemplation of impermanence leads to the "conditionless deliverance" ["signless release"] (animitta-vimokkha).
As herein the faculty of confidence (saddhindriya) is outstanding, one who attains in that way the path of stream-entry (the first stage of enlightenment) is called a "faith-devotee" (saddhānusārī as listed among the "noble ones" or ariya-puggala) and at the seven higher stages is called faith-liberated (saddhā-vimutta). See also "the perception of impermanence" [the direct perceiving of radical impermanence of cittas and kalapas] or anicca-saññā.
For more, see The Three Basic Facts of Existence I: Impermanence (BPS.lk, Wheel Nos. 186/187)
Buddha's Wisdom (video); text by Ven. Nyanatiloka; Autumn Kings; David Guetta; expanded by Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Ashley Wells (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
Irish American Charles Francis Feeney (April 23, 1931–October 9, 2023) was a businessman and philanthropist who made a massive fortune [from the U.S. military] as the co-founder of DFS Group (Duty Free Shoppers Group), the travel retailer of luxury products based in Hong Kong.
He was the founder of the Atlantic Philanthropies, one of the largest private charitable foundations in the world. Feeney gave away his fortune in secret for many years, wisely choosing to remain anonymous while doing it, donating more than $8 billion in his lifetime....
PERSONAL LIFE: Wise Saint Feeney was known for his frugality. According to a New York Times article in 2017, "Until he was 75, he traveled only in coach [the lowest class, discount seats], and [he] carried reading materials in a plastic bag."
He did not own a car or a house and wore a $10 Casio F-91W watch [41, 16]. As of 2016, he lived in a rented apartment in pricey San Francisco, California, with remaining assets of $2 million [1]. More
Dāna (sharing, generosity, liberality, giving, supporting, helping) as an internally-motivated spiritual act or a formal, externally-influenced religious act is directed by Buddhist laypersons first at monastics and spiritually-developed persons [37].
In the Buddhist understanding, it has the effect of purifying and transforming the heart/mind of the giver [38], the one who lets go.
Generosity developed through unselfish sharing and generous giving leads to the experience of material wealth and the possibility of being reborn in happy states (defined as rebirth in the human world or the many superior planes of existence above it).
In the Pāli canon's Dighajanu Sutta, "generosity" (denoted there by the Pāli word cāga, which can be deemed synonymous with dāna) is identified as one of the four traits conditioning happiness and wealth in future lives (after this karma comes to fruition and ripens. Just as a seed sown does not immediately burst into a sprout or blossom into a flower or fruit, it is foolish to expect immediately obvious karmic resultants. And it is exactly for this same reason that unskillful misdeeds do not show the harm that comes from them immediately in what John Lennon foolishly popularized as "instant karma." There is nothing instant about most karma, and even to the extent that karma can produce immediate mental benefits, these are not always obvious).
Conversely, lack of letting go, sharing, providing for others, liberality, giving leads to woeful (unhappy) states in the future, after the ripening, as well as poverty.
Dāna (having done acts sharing and generosity) leads to one of the development of one of the "perfections" (paramis, pāramitās, known as dānapāramitā, the perfection of letting go, detachment, giving up, benefiting others).
This can be characterized by unattached and unconditional generosity, giving and letting go [39].
The Buddhist belief that actual letting go, actual giving, the kind without seeking anything in return, rather the transactional variety of this-for-that, leads to great spiritual wealth and immediate mental satisfaction and calm. Otherwise, we are subject to great disappointment.
Moreover, letting go reduces the acquisitive (greedy) impulses that ultimately lead to continued suffering [40] from egotism. More
Could good Saint Feeney (as we call him, when Chuck sought no such title in his life and the Catholic Church has yet to recognize him) have benefitted by living in liberal California, in the Bay Area of all places, surrounded by Asian and Buddhist influences, like so many of the Golden State's remaining inhabitants?
While sounding like a madman at first, the great Krishnamurti actually has a point to make about "efforting," muscling, struggling, and striving to gain or win enlightenment. Buddhist awakening (bodhi) is far more about letting go of delusion, confusion, and illusion and instead gently cultivating allowing, radical acceptance of what is, and dispassionate (disinterested, unbiased) viewing like some kind of Taoist, being the watcher rather than the striver or go-getter.
Of course, Krishnamurti was more a Hindu than a Buddhist, having escaped the clutches of the Western Theosophists who found him, saw his potential, raised and nurtured their new Messiah (Maitreya) in hopes that he would become a "Buddha" or "World Teacher" for our time (like the promised Buddha Boy decades later).
But he burned them and instead taught a whole kind of Zen nondoing, nothing special, there's nothing to achieve approach to spirituality and spiritual (un)accomplishments. The Theosophists were not happy, so Krishnamurti went off on his own, not aligning himself with any religion but sort of incorporating them all into a syncretism.
He's a subtle speaker and thinker, along the lines of Bhagwan Shree Rajnessh (Osho) and Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, both alleged to be frauds immersed in sex and money scandals. We would not want to misrepresent Krishnamurti's views, if he holds any, as he can quite well speak for himself. Like the great Mahavira (Vardhamāna, the founder of Jainism, called the NiganthaNattaputta in Buddhist texts), Krishnamurti must have some good qualities that he is still remembered and listened to.
Internationally recognized environmental activistJulia Butterfly Hill travels to Pasadena to headline a public fundraiser supporting community efforts to preserve 193 trees slated for destruction and removal by the PUSD (Pasadena Unified School District).
Her appearance comes as the school district's tree-removal plans have drawn widespread public condemnation, concern, legal action, peaceful protests and demonstrations, and extensive regional media coverage.
Despite weeks of advocacy, the school district has not yet committed to permanently preserving any of the remaining trees slated for destruction and removal.
Trees at San Rafael Elementary School, including mature and protected trees, were removed during bird nesting season without city tree permits or on-site biological monitoring.
Pasadena is honored to welcome Julia Butterfly Hill. She is traveling here to support efforts to preserve the trees of the Pasadena Unified School District.
She is an internationally-recognized environmental advocate best known for her historic 738-day treehouse sit to protect an ancient, giant California redwood, an act of peaceful civil disobedience that inspired people around the world.
Join us for an evening hosted by the youth working to protect the PUSD trees.
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
.jpg)
