This article explains Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta -- and in this question I'd like to ask about Anicca.
The article says that Anicca doesn't mean, or shouldn't be translated as, "impermanence":
- Impermanence is a fact; see, “Grand Unified Theory of Dhamma“. But impermanence is NOT the MEANING of anicca.
A Buddha is not needed to show that "impermanence" is an inherent characteristic of our universe. Scientists are well aware of that, but they have not attained Nibbāna. Anicca is a deep concept that can be described in many different ways, and they are all related. Here are three ways to look at it:
“Anicca – Inability to Keep What We Like”
“Anicca – Repeated Arising/Destruction“.
“Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things“.
Is that so -- is the article right about that?
It seems to me that this is more logical -- and it explains lots of points where we have doubt about.
As an example, when it says it's
dukkha when something is
Anicca -- how come loosing a tooth of a kid (to grow new one) makes no sorrow to his mum, but when some boy looses his tooth when he is 19 (adult tooth not kid) it makes the mother cry? it's not because of the impermanence but because the things didn't work out the way as expected.
So impermanence is not always cause to
Dukkha -- but when the expected result is not met, that is always
And understanding this deeper make you wise, Not to expect things but to accept the situations as it is. Because things happens not because whether we like it or not but it's the way things are supposed to be.
If I explain with another example:
a boy starts liking a girl, just because she has nice hair, nice eyes and nice voice (Attachment start with Avijja). And boy starts to date the girl and everything is going well . And they decided to marry, after the marriage, boy finds out that the girl can't be a mother, but boy wants to be a dad. Now there's a conflict and it normally result in sorrows (
If we think about this, no matter whether they grow older and look bad here nothing is related to impermanence but it's not getting what the boy wanted. So initially boy get attached to the girl base on outer appearance (what ever noticeable) thinking he can achieve what he wanted with girl. When getting attached boy didn't ask her whether she is capable of having a baby or not, but the picture / model / image which is created in boy's mind (by himself) is capable of any of those. In other words, in boy's mind the picture of the girl is perfect, he expects what ever he needs from her as his model in the mind is capable of anything he wants. And when the boy understand that she is not capable of making his expectations a reality, the image / model / picture in his mind get clashed with reality and that drives to sorrow,
Building these images/models/pictures is because of avijja -- we don't know how the world behaves, but we expect things from the attached world. What ever we are attached to, we build our own castles, on top of that in our mind because we don't understand the
Anicca nature of the world. That's what the Buddhist (who has the Samma Ditti = Sothapanna) understand the true nature of the world, which means everything is
Aniccha -- so don't expect to be happy by attaching to outside world things. Because what ever the joy you create are in your mind they are not because of the external world material. So attachment is dangerous as it creates
Karma which will cause you later.
Above is how I've realized this. I expect the comments answers on this. Whether someone rejecting this view if so why? I'm not sticking to any of view, I'm whether this view on
Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta is wrong?