<p>After meditation on Dhamma (or law) of Anicca (or impermanence) , I had an enlightening moment.
Anicca or the impermanence is a sankhara. Nibbana is neither permanent nor impermanent.</p>
<p>There is a birth of change of sankhara. Therefore Dhamma of Dependent origination applies.</p>
<p>Who makes it Anicca or impermanence does not apply.</p>
<p>How does the birth of change of sankhara originates ? This can be answered as follows :</p>
<p>First there was ignorance, this led to the volitional formations, volitional formations led to consciousness, consciousness led to name and form , name and form led to six senses , six senses led to contact, contact led to feelings , feelings led to clinging, clinging led to cravings , cravings led to attachments , attachments led to becoming , becoming led to birth , ageing and death of the change of sankhara.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-30T02:14:22.853Z
Hello. This is an English language form. For Theravada, it is proper to use Romanized Pali, i.e., "sankhara". For Mahayana, Romanized Sanskrit, i.e., "saṃskāra".
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-30T03:28:02.270Z
@DhammaDhatu ok
Dheeraj Verma
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-28T10:45:32.843Z
2023-10-30T02:12:57.563Z
2023-10-30T02:12:57.563Z
Dheeraj Verma
<p>I think the doctrine is that a person could assume there is such a thing as &quot;me&quot; -- but that, if they do then that's not a useful/helpful theory, it's misleading.</p>
<p>Instead we're encouraged to see everything as not-self.</p>
<p>Things happen or don't happen because of conditions -- for example, greed, poverty, wisdom, anger, fear, skill, good or bad companions, and so on, or the brahmaviharas (e.g. metta), including also &quot;views&quot; i.e. assumptions about the way things are and function.</p>
<p>There's no use in saying, &quot;Oh it's because a god decided it would be that way&quot;. Instead we're encouraged to understand 'causes' -- i.e. &quot;what&quot;, and &quot;how&quot;, and &quot;why&quot;, and so on (but not really a &quot;who&quot;) -- and to understand that when a cause or condition changes, or ceases, or increases, then that affects or changes or determines a result or a new set of conditions.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-23T18:53:46.237Z
2023-10-23T18:53:46.237Z
ChrisW
<p>It's simply a universal law. No one designed it that way.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Monks, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, this aspect of the world
remains the same – this stable truth, this fixed truth: All
conditional things are impermanent. A Tathāgata awakens to that and
realizes that. Having awakened to it and realized it, he announces it,
teaches it, describes it, expresses it, reveals it, explains it, and
clarifies it: ‘All conditional things are impermanent.’<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/suddhaso?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=true" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3.136</a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-23T12:52:27.837Z
2023-10-23T12:52:27.837Z
ruben2020
<p>Sankhara is a compounded phenomenon. That is, it is a phenomenon which is composed of other things. It is a phenomenon which arises based on causes and conditions. It is not a thing- it is an appearance based on other appearances. It is the nature of all compounded phenomenon- to be impermanent. Being compounded- an aggregate- is a symptom of impermanent nature. Subject to change.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-31T23:02:20.667Z
to say 'it's not a thing' creates confusion, but that's ok
blue_ego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-31T23:07:54.567Z
"a thing" is a substance which is always there. Hence, I have emphasized that sankhara is not a thing (ontologically speaking). To help avoid such confusions, I have also written that it is a phenomenon. There is a difference between a thing and phenomenon - both philosophically and (especially) in Buddhist contexts.
HomagetoManjushri
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-22T19:31:49.567Z
2023-10-22T19:31:49.567Z
HomagetoManjushri
<p>Sabbe Sankhara Anicca. But it is not clear why all Sankhara are impermanent?</p>
<p>Can I ask ,who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent?
Are we responsible for making the Sankhara impermanent?
Is it some kind of God who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent? Or Does it happen on its own ?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-22T16:59:46.387Z
@blue_ego I asked this because I can change my sankhara… so I am speculating whether this is true for all Sankharas.
Dheeraj Verma
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-22T18:38:50.997Z
I don't understand what "my sankhara" means. Would you read [Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/12691/254) and then maybe specify more precisely which thing or meaning you're asking about?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-22T18:58:34.977Z
I'm not sure how to summarize this logically. You might read more on a closely-related subject if you read some of the essays which people have written about the "[Dhamma Eye](https://www.google.com/search?q=dhamma+eye)".
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-22T20:36:19.740Z
I’m voting to close this question because this question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-23T13:54:45.120Z
@ChrisW suppose I lie frequently. Then lying is my Sankhara and by practising honesty I can change it.  There is a choice and intention. Similarly there is a Sankhara of profit making in the modern world. Question is whose choice and intention is to make money ?
Dheeraj Verma
<impermanence><sankhara>
Who is responsible for making sankharas impermanent?
# Who is responsible for making sankharas impermanent?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-10-22)

Sabbe Sankhara Anicca. But it is not clear why all Sankhara are impermanent?

Can I ask ,who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent?
Are we responsible for making the Sankhara impermanent?
Is it some kind of God who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent? Or Does it happen on its own ?

**Tags:** impermanence, sankhara

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @username_5 I asked this because I can change my sankhara… so I am speculating whether this is true for all Sankharas.  
> **username_1**: I don't understand what "my sankhara" means. Would you read [Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/12691/254) and then maybe specify more precisely which thing or meaning you're asking about?  
> **username_1**: I'm not sure how to summarize this logically. You might read more on a closely-related subject if you read some of the essays which people have written about the "[Dhamma Eye](https://www.google.com/search?q=dhamma+eye)".  
> **username_2**: I’m voting to close this question because this question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice  
> **username_0**: @username_1 suppose I lie frequently. Then lying is my Sankhara and by practising honesty I can change it.  There is a choice and intention. Similarly there is a Sankhara of profit making in the modern world. Question is whose choice and intention is to make money ?  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2023-10-23. Score: 4

I think the doctrine is that a person could assume there is such a thing as "me" -- but that, if they do then that's not a useful/helpful theory, it's misleading.

Instead we're encouraged to see everything as not-self.

Things happen or don't happen because of conditions -- for example, greed, poverty, wisdom, anger, fear, skill, good or bad companions, and so on, or the brahmaviharas (e.g. metta), including also "views" i.e. assumptions about the way things are and function.

There's no use in saying, "Oh it's because a god decided it would be that way". Instead we're encouraged to understand 'causes' -- i.e. "what", and "how", and "why", and so on (but not really a "who") -- and to understand that when a cause or condition changes, or ceases, or increases, then that affects or changes or determines a result or a new set of conditions.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2023-10-23. Score: 3

It's simply a universal law. No one designed it that way.

> “Monks, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, this aspect of the world
> remains the same – this stable truth, this fixed truth: All
> conditional things are impermanent. A Tathāgata awakens to that and
> realizes that. Having awakened to it and realized it, he announces it,
> teaches it, describes it, expresses it, reveals it, explains it, and
> clarifies it: ‘All conditional things are impermanent.’  
> [AN 3.136](https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/suddhaso?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=true)


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2023-10-22. Score: 3

Sankhara is a compounded phenomenon. That is, it is a phenomenon which is composed of other things. It is a phenomenon which arises based on causes and conditions. It is not a thing- it is an appearance based on other appearances. It is the nature of all compounded phenomenon- to be impermanent. Being compounded- an aggregate- is a symptom of impermanent nature. Subject to change.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: to say 'it's not a thing' creates confusion, but that's ok  
> **username_4**: "a thing" is a substance which is always there. Hence, I have emphasized that sankhara is not a thing (ontologically speaking). To help avoid such confusions, I have also written that it is a phenomenon. There is a difference between a thing and phenomenon - both philosophically and (especially) in Buddhist contexts.  

---

### Answer by username_0 on 2023-10-28. Score: -1

After meditation on Dhamma (or law) of Anicca (or impermanence) , I had an enlightening moment.
Anicca or the impermanence is a sankhara. Nibbana is neither permanent nor impermanent.

There is a birth of change of sankhara. Therefore Dhamma of Dependent origination applies.

Who makes it Anicca or impermanence does not apply.

How does the birth of change of sankhara originates ? This can be answered as follows :

First there was ignorance, this led to the volitional formations, volitional formations led to consciousness, consciousness led to name and form , name and form led to six senses , six senses led to contact, contact led to feelings , feelings led to clinging, clinging led to cravings , cravings led to attachments , attachments led to becoming , becoming led to birth , ageing and death of the change of sankhara.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Hello. This is an English language form. For Theravada, it is proper to use Romanized Pali, i.e., "sankhara". For Mahayana, Romanized Sanskrit, i.e., "saṃskāra".  
> **username_0**: @DhammaDhatu ok  

---

