<p>the way in which the question is formulated is non-sense. concepts are mental constructs, <em>sankhara</em>. and all constructs, material and mental, are impermanent, <em>sabbe sankhara anicca</em>. from a buddhist perspective it is very straight forward and non debatable, actually.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-15T01:02:49.353Z
concepts are not independent, but their meaning persists. concepts are not living, why does their permanence matter?
blue_ego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-15T02:08:06.703Z
in case you find the original question irrelevant, you should take it up with the one asking it
john-doe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-14T23:19:08.467Z
2023-07-14T23:19:08.467Z
john-doe
<p>To my understanding, only two things are not impermanent.</p>
<p>The first is Nibbana, based on <a href="https://suttacentral.net/ud8.1/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ud 8.1</a> and <a href="https://suttacentral.net/ud8.3/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ud 8.3</a>.</p>
<p>The second is the three marks of existence, based on <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3.136</a>.</p>
<p>For other concepts - let's take the example of the concept of a chariot from <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 5.10</a>. If no one thought of it, would the concept of a chariot arise and exist on its own? I don't think so.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“There is, mendicants, that dimension where there is no earth, no
water, no fire, no wind; no dimension of infinite space, no dimension
of infinite consciousness, no dimension of nothingness, no dimension
of neither perception nor non-perception; no this world, no other
world, no moon or sun. There, mendicants, <strong>I say there is no coming or
going or remaining or passing away or reappearing. It is not
established, does not proceed, and has no support.</strong> Just this is the
end of suffering.”<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/ud8.1/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ud 8.1</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“There is, mendicants, <strong>an unborn, unproduced, unmade, and
unconditioned</strong>. If there were no unborn, unproduced, unmade, and
unconditioned, then you would find no escape here from the born,
produced, made, and conditioned. But since there is an unborn,
unproduced, unmade, and unconditioned, an escape is found from the
born, produced, made, and conditioned.”<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/ud8.3/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ud 8.3</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“Mendicants, <strong>whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
persists</strong>, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
conditions are impermanent.’</p>
<p><strong>Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists</strong>, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
suffering.’</p>
<p><strong>Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists</strong>, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3.136</a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-05T04:51:10.057Z
Would the "Concept of Chariot" arise and exist on its own, even when someone thought of it? (Theravada always considers the Concept as an Object.)
Blake
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-05T04:29:02.760Z
2022-10-05T04:29:02.760Z
ruben2020
<p>As Buddhists, we should not take seriously those who engage in unsubstantiated speech. Whether or not what the poster said is true according to his beloved <a href="https://www.saraniya.com/books/meditation/Bhikkhu_Bodhi-Comprehensive_Manual_of_Abhidhamma.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Abhidhamma Commentary</a> is irrelevant. The poster has not provided any links to relevant texts, which makes their speech unsubstantiated.</p>
<p>At the DhammaWheel links, in defense of this unsubstantiated speech, another poster of unsubstantiated speech said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What Eko Care has said is correct according to the Classical texts.
The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind. Pannatti is an object. This fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the Suttas, all conditioned things are impermanent, including objects perceived by the mind. There suttas explicitly on this subject, such as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If anyone says, ‘mind-objects are self’, that is not tenable.The
arising and vanishing of craving is evident...</p>
<p>MN 148</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Bhikkhus, Forms are impermanent... Sounds … Odours … Tastes … Tactile objects … Mind Objects are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself.</p>
<p>SN 35.4</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to
destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.</p>
<p>SN 12.20</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-10T04:26:52.763Z
2023-07-10T05:00:04.113Z
2023-07-10T05:00:04.113Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Why are Concepts not Impermanent? I found the below explanation in another forum. Are they Permanent? or not both?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Conventional reality (sammuti sacca/ pannatti) is just a concept and
not real. Non-real dhammas don’t exist and therefore cannot be anicca
or dukkha.</p>
<p>According to Abhdhamma:</p>
<ul>
<li>dhamma = paramata + pannatti</li>
<li>paramata = sankhata + asankhata</li>
<li>sankhata = citta + cetasika + rupa</li>
<li>asnkhata = nibbana</li>
<li>dhamma = citta + cetasika + rupa + nibbana + pannatti</li>
</ul>
<p>All the dhammas are anatta. Anatta means devoid of
essence/self/ownership/hegemony.</p>
<p>Only the sankhata (compounded) is anicca-dukkha. Nibbana and Pannatti
are anatta only.</p>
<p>Nibbana is real but not compounded. Therefore not anicca-dukkha.
Pannatti is non-real. Therefore not anicca-dukkha.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>In Theravada, Concept is an object (unreal object).</strong> It is not the
Concept-formation of our mind. Mind and mental factors that form a
concept do arise and cease, but not the Concept.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the
Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind. <strong>Pannatti is an object.</strong> This
fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The colors that the eye sees in a movie are real, but not the concept
of “movie”. What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of “movie”.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>What “Conceptualizing” points to, is the Concept.</strong> It is a fake object
that “Conceptualizing” points to.</p>
<p><strong>The pointer exists, but “what is pointed” doesn’t exist.</strong></p>
<p>So Concepts are not considered as anicca or dukkha.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://classicaltheravada.org/t/conventional-reality-is-not-impermanent/468" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Conventional Reality is not Impermanent!</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvLNcRHhGKI&amp;list=PLdluojKrWhDe6PRlcaHvxqvqKA5kwo1Dz&amp;index=2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Introduction to the Ultimacy (International Institute of Theravada)</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-05T02:47:50.207Z
Please be cautious for the source from where you read about Buddhism- whether it be online, books or people. Especially if one is new to it. "Conventional reality is impermanent" is something that is accepted by all schools of Buddhism.
HomagetoManjushri
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-05T04:41:27.767Z
The Theravada Abhidhamma, Vinaya Parivarapali and Commentary says that Concepts are not Anicca or Dukkha but only Anatta.
Blake
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-10T04:56:08.730Z
Please quote the actual source. Thank you
Dhamma Dhatu
<theravada><abhidhamma><impermanence><commentary><conventional-truth>
Why are Concepts not Impermanent?
# Why are Concepts not Impermanent?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-05)

Why are Concepts not Impermanent? I found the below explanation in another forum. Are they Permanent? or not both?

> Conventional reality (sammuti sacca/ pannatti) is just a concept and
> not real. Non-real dhammas don’t exist and therefore cannot be anicca
> or dukkha.
>
> According to Abhdhamma:
>
> * dhamma = paramata + pannatti
> * paramata = sankhata + asankhata
> * sankhata = citta + cetasika + rupa
> * asnkhata = nibbana
> * dhamma = citta + cetasika + rupa + nibbana + pannatti
>
> All the dhammas are anatta. Anatta means devoid of
> essence/self/ownership/hegemony.
>
> Only the sankhata (compounded) is anicca-dukkha. Nibbana and Pannatti
> are anatta only.
>
> Nibbana is real but not compounded. Therefore not anicca-dukkha.
> Pannatti is non-real. Therefore not anicca-dukkha.

> **In Theravada, Concept is an object (unreal object).** It is not the
> Concept-formation of our mind. Mind and mental factors that form a
> concept do arise and cease, but not the Concept.

> The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the
> Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind. **Pannatti is an object.** This
> fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind.

> The colors that the eye sees in a movie are real, but not the concept
> of “movie”. What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of “movie”.

> **What “Conceptualizing” points to, is the Concept.** It is a fake object
> that “Conceptualizing” points to.
>
> **The pointer exists, but “what is pointed” doesn’t exist.**
>
> So Concepts are not considered as anicca or dukkha.

[Conventional Reality is not Impermanent!](https://classicaltheravada.org/t/conventional-reality-is-not-impermanent/468)

[Introduction to the Ultimacy (International Institute of Theravada)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvLNcRHhGKI&list=PLdluojKrWhDe6PRlcaHvxqvqKA5kwo1Dz&index=2)

**Tags:** theravada, abhidhamma, impermanence, commentary, conventional-truth

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Please be cautious for the source from where you read about Buddhism- whether it be online, books or people. Especially if one is new to it. "Conventional reality is impermanent" is something that is accepted by all schools of Buddhism.  
> **username_0**: The Theravada Abhidhamma, Vinaya Parivarapali and Commentary says that Concepts are not Anicca or Dukkha but only Anatta.  
> **username_2**: Please quote the actual source. Thank you  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2023-07-14. Score: 2

the way in which the question is formulated is non-sense. concepts are mental constructs, *sankhara*. and all constructs, material and mental, are impermanent, *sabbe sankhara anicca*. from a buddhist perspective it is very straight forward and non debatable, actually.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: concepts are not independent, but their meaning persists. concepts are not living, why does their permanence matter?  
> **username_3**: in case you find the original question irrelevant, you should take it up with the one asking it  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2022-10-05. Score: 2

To my understanding, only two things are not impermanent.

The first is Nibbana, based on [Ud 8.1](https://suttacentral.net/ud8.1/en/sujato) and [Ud 8.3](https://suttacentral.net/ud8.3/en/sujato).

The second is the three marks of existence, based on [AN 3.136](https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato).

For other concepts - let's take the example of the concept of a chariot from [SN 5.10](https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato). If no one thought of it, would the concept of a chariot arise and exist on its own? I don't think so.

> “There is, mendicants, that dimension where there is no earth, no
> water, no fire, no wind; no dimension of infinite space, no dimension
> of infinite consciousness, no dimension of nothingness, no dimension
> of neither perception nor non-perception; no this world, no other
> world, no moon or sun. There, mendicants, **I say there is no coming or
> going or remaining or passing away or reappearing. It is not
> established, does not proceed, and has no support.** Just this is the
> end of suffering.”  
> [Ud 8.1](https://suttacentral.net/ud8.1/en/sujato)

> “There is, mendicants, **an unborn, unproduced, unmade, and
> unconditioned**. If there were no unborn, unproduced, unmade, and
> unconditioned, then you would find no escape here from the born,
> produced, made, and conditioned. But since there is an unborn,
> unproduced, unmade, and unconditioned, an escape is found from the
> born, produced, made, and conditioned.”  
> [Ud 8.3](https://suttacentral.net/ud8.3/en/sujato)

> “Mendicants, **whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature
> persists**, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
> natural principles: all conditions are impermanent. A Realized One
> understands this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches,
> asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All
> conditions are impermanent.’
>
> **Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists**, this
> regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
> principles: all conditions are suffering. A Realized One understands
> this and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts,
> establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All conditions are
> suffering.’
>
> **Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists**, this
> regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
> principles: all things are not-self. A Realized One understands this
> and comprehends it, then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes,
> clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it: ‘All things are not-self.’”  
> [AN 3.136](https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Would the "Concept of Chariot" arise and exist on its own, even when someone thought of it? (Theravada always considers the Concept as an Object.)  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2023-07-10. Score: 0

As Buddhists, we should not take seriously those who engage in unsubstantiated speech. Whether or not what the poster said is true according to his beloved [Abhidhamma Commentary](https://www.saraniya.com/books/meditation/Bhikkhu_Bodhi-Comprehensive_Manual_of_Abhidhamma.pdf) is irrelevant. The poster has not provided any links to relevant texts, which makes their speech unsubstantiated.

At the DhammaWheel links, in defense of this unsubstantiated speech, another poster of unsubstantiated speech said:

> What Eko Care has said is correct according to the Classical texts.
> The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind. Pannatti is an object. This fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind.

In the Suttas, all conditioned things are impermanent, including objects perceived by the mind. There suttas explicitly on this subject, such as:

> If anyone says, ‘mind-objects are self’, that is not tenable.The
> arising and vanishing of craving is evident...
>
> MN 148

> Bhikkhus, Forms are impermanent... Sounds … Odours … Tastes … Tactile objects … Mind Objects are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself.
>
> SN 35.4

> Ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to
> destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.
>
> SN 12.20


---

