|
Impermanence,
Suffering, and Procedural Incompleteness A Critical
Reconstruction of the Buddha’s Assertion “What Is Impermanent Is Suffering” By Bodhangkur Abstract The
Buddha’s often-repeated claim—yaṃ aniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ (“what is impermanent is
suffering”)—forms a foundational element of early Buddhist phenomenology. Yet
examined philosophically this proposition is incomplete, and thus false
in its absolutised formulation. It isolates one
consequence of change (vulnerability, instability, suffering) while omitting
the equally essential role of change in producing identity, coherence,
learning, adaptation, and pleasure. This paper reconstructs the Buddha’s
principle through the lens of Finn’s Procedure Monism, showing that impermanence
is the condition both of suffering and of all functional emergence. A
corrected formulation is proposed: impermanence generates suffering when
coherence collapses and generates pleasure when coherence is restored. This
bi-directional account renders the Buddha’s original half-statement intelligible
within a broader procedural ontology. 1. Introduction The early
Buddhist discourses repeatedly assert: “Yaṃ aniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ.” This
statement, crucial to the doctrine of anattā,
identifies impermanence (anicca) with
suffering (dukkha) and suffering with non-self (anattā).
The Buddha’s therapeutic framework then builds the structure of liberation
upon this diagnostic sequence. Yet this
formulation is not a neutral metaphysical claim; it is a pedagogical
reduction. What is offered as an exhaustive truth—“all
impermanence is suffering”—withstands empirical inspection only if one
accepts that (1) change is always destabilising, and (2) pleasure, coherence,
learning, and adaptation either do not arise from impermanence or must be
treated as exceptions. Both assumptions fail on procedural grounds. This
paper argues that the statement is incomplete, and therefore false
when taken universally. Impermanence generates suffering only under
specific conditions, namely when identity-coherence collapses.
Impermanence just as fundamentally produces pleasure, vitality, identity, and
function. The Buddha stated only the negative half and omitted the positive
counterpart that makes the ontology coherent. 2. The Buddha’s One-Directional Formula The
discourses repeatedly present a three-step derivation: 1. Impermanence
→ Suffering 2. Suffering
→ Not-Self 3. Not-Self
→ Dispassion and Release In the Anattā-Lakkhaṇa Sutta (SN
22.59), this is applied to each of the five aggregates: “Form is
impermanent. The same
chain appears in: ·
SN 22.45: “All phenomena are
not-self.” ·
MN 28: “Whatever is impermanent
is painful.” This is a
therapeutic derivation, not an ontological one. It functions within the
Buddha’s aim to extinguish clinging. But as a universal claim, its
one-sidedness becomes logically and phenomenologically problematic. 3. Finn’s Procedural Framework: Impermanence as
Function Finn’s Procedure
Monism defines any emergent identity as: ·
a temporary stability, ·
produced by continuous differentiation, ·
maintained through error-correction, ·
extinguished without remainder when the pattern
collapses. Identity
exists only as operation; operation necessarily implies change.
Thus: 1. Identity
appears because change occurs in structured form. 2. Learning
and adaptation require responsive change. 3. Pleasure
(ānanda) is the feedback signal of
successful correction, which presupposes change. 4. Suffering
is the feedback signal of destabilisation, which likewise presupposes
change. Impermanence
is therefore the condition of everything functional: ·
identity, ·
cognition, ·
agency, ·
problem-solving, ·
and all forms of pleasure. It also
produces instability and breakdown. The
Buddha mentions only the destabilising pole. 4. Why “What Is Impermanent Is Suffering” Is Incomplete 4.1 Impermanence as the condition of identity A
perfectly unchanging structure would be cognitively invisible. The
Buddha acknowledges this relationality in MN 38: “Consciousness
is reckoned by the condition dependent on which it arises.” Thus: ·
no change → no perception ·
no perception → no identity ·
no identity → no suffering, no joy, no
experience at all Impermanence
is a prerequisite for the appearance of self, not merely its threat. 4.2 Impermanence as the condition of coherence and
correction Every
emergent stabilises itself by responding to disturbances. In Finn’s
terms: ·
destabilisation = noise entering the loop ·
correction = reducing error ·
pleasure = the positive feedback of successful
correction Thus one must state: Impermanence
generates the possibility of stability. The
Buddha’s half-statement omits this. 4.3 Impermanence as the condition of pleasure Pleasure
is not a metaphysical quality; it is the signal of regained equilibrium. This
logic appears implicitly in SN 36.11, where the Buddha distinguishes
painful, pleasant, and neutral feelings: “Dependent
on contact, feeling arises—painful, pleasant, or neutral.” Pleasure
arises only because a disturbance was corrected. Thus: ·
no impermanence → no disturbance ·
no disturbance → no correction ·
no correction → no pleasure Therefore the Buddha’s principle
fails as an absolute. 4.4 Impermanence as the condition of all creativity and
function All
adaptation, growth, learning, and achievement require change. A static
universe would contain: ·
no agency ·
no desire ·
no action ·
no mastery ·
no evolution ·
no emergence The
Buddha’s claim is thus incomplete because it treats impermanence as purely
negative, whereas impermanence is the entire stage on which identity and
function play out. 5. Why the Buddha Omitted the Positive Half Two
explanations follow. (1) The Buddha’s
framework is therapeutic, not metaphysical. His aim
is not to describe reality’s structure but to extinguish dukkha. (2) The soteriological
context suppresses counter-examples. The
Buddha does not deny that joy exists, but he treats joy as dangerous
insofar as it fuels appropriation (upādāna). However,
when a negative therapeutic principle is elevated to a universal
metaphysics, the incompleteness becomes falsity. 6. Procedural Completion of the Buddha’s Principle Once
identity is understood as dynamic stability, and pleasure as the feedback
of corrected perturbation, impermanence must be reconstructed
bi-directionally: Impermanence
generates suffering when coherence breaks. Both are
equally grounded in the same procedural dynamics. Thus the corrected formula is: Impermanence is the condition of suffering and
the condition of all functional gains. Or more
succinctly, in Finn’s minim: Impermanence
is function. Suffering
is one branch of impermanence, not its essence. 7. Conclusion The
Buddha’s dictum yaṃ aniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ is not wrong as a therapeutic
instruction but is philosophically incomplete. Impermanence is not the
exclusive cause of suffering; it is the cause of all aspects of
emergent existence: identity, coherence, agency, adaptation, failure,
pleasure, and pain. As a universal metaphysical principle, the Buddha’s
formulation is therefore false by omission. A
procedurally complete reconstruction reads: Impermanence
creates instability; instability creates correction; This
captures both the negative and positive consequences of change, restoring
impermanence to its proper role as the engine of emergence rather than the
definition of suffering. |