I think that many people have a hard time accepting impermanence because they feel that the oncoming change will prove worse than what they're letting go. Speaking from experience, I can see this is mistaken. Events or circumstances themselves are not intrinsically positive or negative; the mind judges them that way, and can easily make them appear worse than they really are. Yet for many people the fear of change remains. Also: if they have no attachment, they don't see how they could actually enjoy a given situation; to them it might seem like a form of zombification (if such a word exists). In other words, as unpleasant and painful as attachment is, attachment (to them) includes joy as well. Get rid of attachment and you get rid of both sorrow and joy. I'm not suggesting they're right, but I think it's the prevailing belief.
i think impermanence when applied to objects of sense pleasure like good food, a holiday etc is ver illuminating. How can something that ends like a meal or a holiday satisfy us forever? How can experiences that end keep us happy forever? All physical things are impermanent so the window within which they can satisfy us is limited. If we look down and are negative on sense pleasures we unnecesarrily sour the experience and dont see it as it is. Be carefree and embrace a pleasure but when it is over let it be.
The issue of impermanence is difficult to come to grips with. It's been suggested here that while accepting it intellectually is fairly easy and commonplace, going into it deeply and seeing the truth of it, with all one's being, is not. Speaking personally, what I find most challenging about "letting go", at least in some cases, is that the change may be far from a welcome one, involving as it sometimes does, extremely demanding, even painful, circumstances. Of course it may be difficult to let go when the past situation was so much happier and more pleasant. What can be said in favor of non-attachment is that the possible transition from pleasant to unpleasant circumstances can be made much easier. By the way, non-attachment implies a certain clarity of mind; there's no guarantee that we can even retain clarity of mind, given possible brain damage and illnesses which may impair mental clarity. It hasn't been proven, or sufficiently demonstrated, that the mind is independent of the brain. One's love may be destroyed if a certain part is damaged, resulting in paranoia and aggression. Another thing: while I have no doubt that our life situation is no accident, it hasn't been shown why ALL causes MUST have a moral or ethical dimension. I can see how intelligence, adaptability, and creativity, play a part in evolution (or subsequent rebirths, in Buddhist terminology), but I don't see ethics as a necessary aspect of those three things. In other words, a high intelligence may ensure a high rebirth, but why must we assume that a highly evolved creature must be kind and generous? I can at least imagine a highly intelligent mind-stream securing a high rebirth, not necessarily because it was extremely ethical in a previous life, but because it was intelligent and creative. Sometimes ethics plays an important role, sometimes not. Ethics, to me, seems more a social construct that facilitates cooperation and assistance from other people. Being ethical is generally helpful and conducive to social harmony; it applies to how we as human beings, at this time, work on this planet, if things are going well. But I don't see ethics as some intrinsic aspect of reality in the way that the law of gravity is (for example). The universe, for the most part, seems amoral, with some degree of randomness operating.
Although all things are changing and impermanent, what notices that? Is that also subject to change? The 'I" is said to be changing, but clearly something DOESN'T change, else how would I recognize change AS change in the first place? In order for things to register as changing, the unchanging must be present - to RECOGNIZE change.
Shadu Shadu Shadu Life is an agony of sweet and bitter at times. Enjoy is good and nothing. To know the inevitable hour and it's holy job is important.
![The Four Thoughts That Change the Mind: Cause & Karma [3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9IhBlUhPno/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Four Thoughts That Change the Mind: Cause & Karma [3]](/img/tr.png)
![The Four Thoughts That Change the Mind: Precious Human Life [1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BCGuzj-VjYk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Essence of Vajrasattva [2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IB5fd0QZNGI/mqdefault.jpg)
Khenpo is the best ❤. Impermanence is a tough pill to swallow
why? It is the best thing ever. .. it is a path to nirvana.
Thank you Rinpoche. These talks really help my practice.
I think that many people have a hard time accepting impermanence because they feel that the oncoming change will prove worse than what they're letting go. Speaking from experience, I can see this is mistaken. Events or circumstances themselves are not intrinsically positive or negative; the mind judges them that way, and can easily make them appear worse than they really are. Yet for many people the fear of change remains. Also: if they have no attachment, they don't see how they could actually enjoy a given situation; to them it might seem like a form of zombification (if such a word exists). In other words, as unpleasant and painful as attachment is, attachment (to them) includes joy as well. Get rid of attachment and you get rid of both sorrow and joy. I'm not suggesting they're right, but I think it's the prevailing belief.
Its a tough one too accept
i think impermanence when applied to objects of sense pleasure like good food, a holiday etc is ver illuminating. How can something that ends like a meal or a holiday satisfy us forever? How can experiences that end keep us happy forever?
All physical things are impermanent so the window within which they can satisfy us is limited. If we look down and are negative on sense pleasures we unnecesarrily sour the experience and dont see it as it is. Be carefree and embrace a pleasure but when it is over let it be.
The issue of impermanence is difficult to come to grips with. It's been suggested here that while accepting it intellectually is fairly easy and commonplace, going into it deeply and seeing the truth of it, with all one's being, is not. Speaking personally, what I find most challenging about "letting go", at least in some cases, is that the change may be far from a welcome one, involving as it sometimes does, extremely demanding, even painful, circumstances. Of course it may be difficult to let go when the past situation was so much happier and more pleasant. What can be said in favor of non-attachment is that the possible transition from pleasant to unpleasant circumstances can be made much easier.
By the way, non-attachment implies a certain clarity of mind; there's no guarantee that we can even retain clarity of mind, given possible brain damage and illnesses which may impair mental clarity. It hasn't been proven, or sufficiently demonstrated, that the mind is independent of the brain. One's love may be destroyed if a certain part is damaged, resulting in paranoia and aggression.
Another thing: while I have no doubt that our life situation is no accident, it hasn't been shown why ALL causes MUST have a moral or ethical dimension. I can see how intelligence, adaptability, and creativity, play a part in evolution (or subsequent rebirths, in Buddhist terminology), but I don't see ethics as a necessary aspect of those three things. In other words, a high intelligence may ensure a high rebirth, but why must we assume that a highly evolved creature must be kind and generous? I can at least imagine a highly intelligent mind-stream securing a high rebirth, not necessarily because it was extremely ethical in a previous life, but because it was intelligent and creative.
Sometimes ethics plays an important role, sometimes not. Ethics, to me, seems more a social construct that facilitates cooperation and assistance from other people. Being ethical is generally helpful and conducive to social harmony; it applies to how we as human beings, at this time, work on this planet, if things are going well. But I don't see ethics as some intrinsic aspect of reality in the way that the law of gravity is (for example). The universe, for the most part, seems amoral, with some degree of randomness operating.
Although all things are changing and impermanent, what notices that? Is that also subject to change? The 'I" is said to be changing, but clearly something DOESN'T change, else how would I recognize change AS change in the first place? In order for things to register as changing, the unchanging must be present - to RECOGNIZE change.
Shadu Shadu Shadu
Life is an agony of sweet and bitter at times. Enjoy is good and nothing. To know the inevitable hour and it's holy job is important.
_/|\_ thank you lama la