<s>[INST] The statement by Siddhartha Gautama that "reality is characterized by impermanence" is alternatively interpreted as "annica" or "anitya." Please help me explain the nuances of these two terms and why stressing the differentiation of the two terms is mistaken.

'Siddhartha Gautama' is more accurately known as 'Gotama' or 'the Buddha', and the translation "reality is characterized by impermanence" seems limiting to the meaning of "anicca" or "anitya".

The use of "anicca" in the words of the Buddha signifies a reality that is more nuanced than mere transience; rather, it indicates an essential ( core, intrinsic) inconstancy. Anicca thus signifies an inherently unreliable or fragile world that is partially apparent through the transparency of impermanence; itself formed through the insubstantiality, the instability and the incoherence of things.

In the contemporary appreciation of the Pali Canon, scholars increasingly hold that anicca should be considered an umbrella or a heuristic term that covers a range of related concepts including uncertainty, ambiguity, indeterminacy, incongruity.

Finally, Anicca and Anitya are variant forms of this term existing in different venues, -- Pali and Sanskrit, respectively.

**How would you respond to someone who questions whether "anicca" and "anitya" mean precisely the same thing?[/INST]