"Gone, Gone, Gone"
(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
- 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.
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.
Flip the pages, and the cartoon shark moves.
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.
Move hundreds of thousands of frames in a reel - 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.
- It's too intellectual! Can we just have a Zen cartoon? What did Bodhidharma say about Zen?
 |
| I can't live without you! I need you, must have! |
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).
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.
Wait, a "triangle" is just three lines? - 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."
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.
It's not a theory; it's a practice
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!
Four characteristics of matter - 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).
"Gone Gone Gone"
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 |
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
No comments:
Post a Comment