This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Impermanence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know what's up with this: jjmh,ok;lg,lg j,l g ., One of the conditioned dharmas not associated with mind in Yogācāra theory. In this case the term means disappearance. The first of the trividyā; that all things are impermanent, their birth, existence, change, and death never resting for a moment.
(Skt. anityatā; adhruva, anityatva)
Reading this article as it stands at the moment, you would think that impermanence was a concept understood by Buddhists and by no one else. It needs a much broader treatment than it is getting here. The Buddhism stuff is a good start though. Ireneshusband 09:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC).
Can some one familiar with Buddhist texts more clearly identify the texts cited in the quotes section? Thanks! -- JosiahHenderson ( talk) 03:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not correct to say that 'everything is in flux' meaning that nothing is 'static'. There is static state = namely 'the static state of the lack of static state' KK ( 178.43.139.54 ( talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC))
The series on Buddhism box should be restored to parallel the treatment of dukkha and anatta. Teishin ( talk) 14:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The content of /info/en/?search=Change_(philosophy) seems largely duplicative of what is in this article. Should the change page be eliminated and its contents merged into impermanence? Teishin ( talk) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge effected. Teishin ( talk) 13:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings to all Wikipedia members and staff,
I would like to point out something regarding anicca and impermanence: the translation "impermanence" is merely a western interpretation and an analogous word using for the eastern concept of anicca. It is a rendition and interpretation of an eastern concept by western scholars aiming at a western audience whose cultural background had as its closest pair the concept of "impermanence", very much discussed by christian thinkers. Even though, these concepts, in all their semantic scopes, are not equivalents: neither equivalents, nor the same. According to most eastern views I am acquainted to, anicca goes way beyond than the western concept of impermanence: anicca is not something restricted to the earthly life, it goes beyond this life, in all possible future worlds that a living being may incarnate, even in the highest "heavenly" abode and even in the deepest form of "hell", anicca is one of the most fundamental realities of those planes of existence. Anicca seems to be inherent in any form of the manifested existence, regardless of what type and where it may happen; and this comprehension, I think, is missing in most of our western thinkers, since they don't conceive in general anything like samsara or the constant cycle of incarnations. And I don't know if you see it as strikingly different, but for me this is a capital difference between anicca and impermanence as thought by most western thinkers, since, as far as we talk about most of the Dharmic religions, anicca (pali) or anitya (sanskrit) posit the infinity of all possible manifestations within and beyond this world, with exception of what Hinduism calls Vaikuntha. So, I would ask the help of anyone more adept in this kind of knowledge, if they could solve this question that came to my mind regarding this article.
As far as I know about translation, all sorts of translation work mostly with analogy and interpretation: very frequently, there isn't anything as a pure and perfect term rendition from a language to another, because linguistic terms are products of quite different world views and histories. So, I believe that "impermanence" is comprehended in a significantly different way if compared to the eastern concept of "anicca", because, firstly, they both are products of quite different countries, territories, histories, cultures, etc, and secondly, western philosophy never had any concept like reincarnation - this one at least not as eastern thinkers had - and samsara, or such a scope of other worldly planes, worlds and forms of existence, and such a categorical and irreducible definition of any form of manifested life as defined in its most fundamental root as founded on anicca or anitya and - according to many other eastern philosophical schools - as also being illusory. It is also worth noting the interplay between anicca and kamma (pali) or karma (sanskrit), to the extent that these two concepts influence deeply each others' semantic values. The relationship between these two concepts in the Dharmic religions is really tight, to the extent that the idea of anicca does not work properly without the understanding of karma, and this later concept is completely missing in the western tradition of philosophy. Even though it might be agreed that some analogies are traced between kamma or karma and divine retribution, this kind of relationship is restricted to the field of analogy and can never go beyond it, and it can be considered a mistake to conceive these two ideas as the same. So, this is one more point against the equivalence between anicca and impermanence.
If you judge me right in my positions, wouldn't it be wise if two articles were created? One for anicca and another for impermanence?
I would be really thankful if you take my question into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.206.242.199 ( talk) 03:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user has flagged this article as follows, without raising a discussion here to substantiate why the flags have been inserted.
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (April 2022) This article possibly contains original research. (April 2022)
I propose that these be removed. Teishin ( talk) 21:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Gusfriend ( talk) 07:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Whilst there was an Original Research template at the top of the page I have removed it and I have added the Template:Original research section template to these two sections as there are no inline citations to support the text in either of these sections to specifically call out these specific sections as needing attention. I was torn between using the OR template and Citation needed but it is unclear to the casual reader is it is Original Research or just lacking citations to others who have published articles saying it. Gusfriend ( talk) 06:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering which script was used for anicca in the 'Translations of Impermanence' box; as I understand it there are lots of different scripts used depending on the region, I'm just curious, thanks for any help Alexanderkowal ( talk) 20:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Impermanence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know what's up with this: jjmh,ok;lg,lg j,l g ., One of the conditioned dharmas not associated with mind in Yogācāra theory. In this case the term means disappearance. The first of the trividyā; that all things are impermanent, their birth, existence, change, and death never resting for a moment.
(Skt. anityatā; adhruva, anityatva)
Reading this article as it stands at the moment, you would think that impermanence was a concept understood by Buddhists and by no one else. It needs a much broader treatment than it is getting here. The Buddhism stuff is a good start though. Ireneshusband 09:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC).
Can some one familiar with Buddhist texts more clearly identify the texts cited in the quotes section? Thanks! -- JosiahHenderson ( talk) 03:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not correct to say that 'everything is in flux' meaning that nothing is 'static'. There is static state = namely 'the static state of the lack of static state' KK ( 178.43.139.54 ( talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC))
The series on Buddhism box should be restored to parallel the treatment of dukkha and anatta. Teishin ( talk) 14:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The content of /info/en/?search=Change_(philosophy) seems largely duplicative of what is in this article. Should the change page be eliminated and its contents merged into impermanence? Teishin ( talk) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Merge effected. Teishin ( talk) 13:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings to all Wikipedia members and staff,
I would like to point out something regarding anicca and impermanence: the translation "impermanence" is merely a western interpretation and an analogous word using for the eastern concept of anicca. It is a rendition and interpretation of an eastern concept by western scholars aiming at a western audience whose cultural background had as its closest pair the concept of "impermanence", very much discussed by christian thinkers. Even though, these concepts, in all their semantic scopes, are not equivalents: neither equivalents, nor the same. According to most eastern views I am acquainted to, anicca goes way beyond than the western concept of impermanence: anicca is not something restricted to the earthly life, it goes beyond this life, in all possible future worlds that a living being may incarnate, even in the highest "heavenly" abode and even in the deepest form of "hell", anicca is one of the most fundamental realities of those planes of existence. Anicca seems to be inherent in any form of the manifested existence, regardless of what type and where it may happen; and this comprehension, I think, is missing in most of our western thinkers, since they don't conceive in general anything like samsara or the constant cycle of incarnations. And I don't know if you see it as strikingly different, but for me this is a capital difference between anicca and impermanence as thought by most western thinkers, since, as far as we talk about most of the Dharmic religions, anicca (pali) or anitya (sanskrit) posit the infinity of all possible manifestations within and beyond this world, with exception of what Hinduism calls Vaikuntha. So, I would ask the help of anyone more adept in this kind of knowledge, if they could solve this question that came to my mind regarding this article.
As far as I know about translation, all sorts of translation work mostly with analogy and interpretation: very frequently, there isn't anything as a pure and perfect term rendition from a language to another, because linguistic terms are products of quite different world views and histories. So, I believe that "impermanence" is comprehended in a significantly different way if compared to the eastern concept of "anicca", because, firstly, they both are products of quite different countries, territories, histories, cultures, etc, and secondly, western philosophy never had any concept like reincarnation - this one at least not as eastern thinkers had - and samsara, or such a scope of other worldly planes, worlds and forms of existence, and such a categorical and irreducible definition of any form of manifested life as defined in its most fundamental root as founded on anicca or anitya and - according to many other eastern philosophical schools - as also being illusory. It is also worth noting the interplay between anicca and kamma (pali) or karma (sanskrit), to the extent that these two concepts influence deeply each others' semantic values. The relationship between these two concepts in the Dharmic religions is really tight, to the extent that the idea of anicca does not work properly without the understanding of karma, and this later concept is completely missing in the western tradition of philosophy. Even though it might be agreed that some analogies are traced between kamma or karma and divine retribution, this kind of relationship is restricted to the field of analogy and can never go beyond it, and it can be considered a mistake to conceive these two ideas as the same. So, this is one more point against the equivalence between anicca and impermanence.
If you judge me right in my positions, wouldn't it be wise if two articles were created? One for anicca and another for impermanence?
I would be really thankful if you take my question into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.206.242.199 ( talk) 03:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user has flagged this article as follows, without raising a discussion here to substantiate why the flags have been inserted.
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (April 2022) This article possibly contains original research. (April 2022)
I propose that these be removed. Teishin ( talk) 21:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Gusfriend ( talk) 07:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Whilst there was an Original Research template at the top of the page I have removed it and I have added the Template:Original research section template to these two sections as there are no inline citations to support the text in either of these sections to specifically call out these specific sections as needing attention. I was torn between using the OR template and Citation needed but it is unclear to the casual reader is it is Original Research or just lacking citations to others who have published articles saying it. Gusfriend ( talk) 06:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering which script was used for anicca in the 'Translations of Impermanence' box; as I understand it there are lots of different scripts used depending on the region, I'm just curious, thanks for any help Alexanderkowal ( talk) 20:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)