Impermanence as "Limited by Space"

Discussion
1

This is about Anicca Lakkhana - Impermanence.

Impermanence signifies the notion that all things are transient, with a beginning and an end. Essentially, it pertains to any phenomenon constrained by “time”.

I am curious whether anything restricted by space can be regarded as a characteristic of impermanence. For instance, the sensation in my toe is confined to that specific area. Is the limitation of feeling to a particular location a result of impermanence?

1 Like
2

It is perceived in that way. Wouldn’t it be?

However, an emotion for example, limited to your mind or heart, or body, is impermanent, yet you’re asking if it’s a result of impermanence. I think what you’re really trying to ask is if impermanence is permanent, looking for value in your temporary body you currently have.

All things are subject to some sort of change if they’re conditioned phenomena.

If you’re looking deeper, towards ideas of the Soul or God, as in Brahmanism the Soul is said to be eternally the same, and in Christianity it is said an aspect of God never changes. If you’re looking for God or being part of God spread out through the consciousness of your body, limited to your toe, and whether you want to know that your consciousness, which is a symptom of the Soul according to Vedanta, is permanent or not, the consciousness of your toe, I think you’re better off with a Buddhist perspective that tells you to find out for yourself, question the phenomena.

My personal Buddhist belief is that there is no Self, that we are all subject to change, and that the consciousness localized in a certain part of the body surely is a result of impermanence and subject to that change, as the Buddha taught. That is Buddhism, in a higher sense. It is what I’ve learned. All respect to other Spiritual Traditions though. Namaste.

1 Like
3

Maybe anicca can in this context be also conceptualised as “inconstant” instead of “changing”, what if a perception of time also changes? What if perception of time is inconstant? In “iti pi so” a common way that ‘akaliko’ is translated into English is ‘timeless’.

We’re familiar with time perception being anicca already - maybe a day seems to rush past like an hour, and other times can remember when a breath seems like a very large and long spacious time. Time perception might also disappear completely - anicca.

1 Like
4

I would say that such “limitation” or “location” makes any experience inevitably impermanent. Since whatever the experience is, in order to be experienced, it must arise in certain place and have a certain duration. And what is subject to arising, it is also subject to disappearing.

But do notice, that merely observing it, as it arises, continue and finally ceases, isn’t seeing impermanence on the higher ariyan level. To see at that level experience as impermanent means that you don’t identify yourself with it. “There is pain in the leg”, not “My leg is painful”.

And that’s why Sutta says that one who sees eye as impermanent has a right view. If you ask anyone about it, everyone agrees that eye is impermanent, so there would be no puthujjanas in the world.

To see eye as impermanent means that one doesn’t think: “I see something”, but rather “there is seeing”.

In the Buddha’s Teaching seeing impermanence and seeing anatta means the same thing.

Self, and every puthujjana is attavadin, is associated with perception of permanence, and as long puthujjana doesn’t see impermanence, so long he will insist that I see, I hear and so on.

1 Like